SA's Royal Commission Into Nuclear Energy Making Progress

Wednesday 15 July 2015 @ 10.38 a.m. | Legal Research | Trade & Commerce

In recent times, there has been much debate in the press about "clean energy targets" and just where taxpayer money should be invested to develop future energy resources. However, the debate has tended to focus on wind farms and solar energy development, largely overlooking one other established sources of energy, which many would call a clean energy source; namely, nuclear energy. That is, an energy source overlooked by all but South Australia (SA) Premier Jay Weatherill who, as we have previously reported in February 2015, announced a formal inquiry into the future role of SA in the nuclear fuel cycle, an inquiry tasked with considering options across the full gamut of mining, enrichment, energy generation and storage (see SA Establishes Royal Commission for Nuclear Power).

Now several months on and with the energy debate still a hot topic, it seems valuable to take another look at the Commission's progress - a Commission which the Premier then said would be the "first of its kind in Australia" because it would be looking forwards and not "backwards at things that had gone wrong'.

Why the Commission Was Established

For starters SA has one of the worst unemployment rates in Australia reaching 7.6 percent in May 2015, a figure reported as the highest since 2001. This had grown to 8.2 percent in June 2015. Polling reported in a February poll for The Advertiser indicated that 58.3 percent of its readers supported building a nuclear power plant in SA. No doubt the Premier, who is reported as previously acknowledging that SA is in transition with some industries in decline, took this type of information on board as part of his decision to form a Royal Commission to look into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.

Also influencing the decision would be the fact that SA is home to BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam Mine, reported as being one of the world's biggest uranium mines, with another three smaller mines also operating in SA. This gives SA the lead with the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory being the only other uranium mine currently operating in Australia (note: more are planned in WA but are not currently operating).

How the Royal Commission is to Operate?

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, as it is formally named, was established by the SA Government on 19 March 2015.

The Commission is ". . . to undertake an independent and comprehensive investigation into SA’s participation in four areas of activity that form part of the nuclear fuel cycle".

The four areas of activity are:

Mining (exploration and extraction);
Processing and manufacture of materials containing radioactive substances;
Energy generation and storage; and
Nuclear waste disposal.

Consideration is required by the Commission of:

Feasibility and viability; and
Risks and opportunities;

associated with the four areas of activity.

Consideration of the four areas' future impact on the SA economy, environment and community, as well as the measures needed to be taken to facilitate and regulate those activities are also part of the brief.

Finally, the Commission is to provide information to the community to foster public debate.

The Commission Staff

The Commission is headed by former SA Governor Mr Kevin Scarce. Mr Scarce is reported to have appointed an expert advisory panel made up of:

Visiting professor at University College London, Dr Timothy Stone;
Professor of Environmental Sustainability, Barry Brook from Tasmania;
past president of the Australian Conservation Foundation and Emeritus Professor of Science at Griffith University, Ian Lowe;
South Australia's chief scientist, Dr Leanna Read; and
Mr John Carlson, a former director general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO).

Mr Scarce is reported as saying that his intent was to have a balanced panel reflecting both those for and against development - "the right balance of people who were both 'for' and 'against' the industry".

The Commissions Timetable and Issue Papers

Recently, the AFR reported that the the Commission's deadline had been accelerated to May 2016:

"Five experts who are a mixture of 'for and against' the nuclear industry have been appointed to an expert panel as South Australia accelerates its royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle with a deadline for a final report now set for May, 2016."

The Commissioner's reasoning for setting the May 2016 deadline is reported as being that, the issues were ". . . so complex with so many emotional viewpoints from all sides" it could go on forever.

The broad timetable for the Commission as set out on its website is:

Commencement of Royal Commission - 19 March 2015;
Closing date for submissions on only Issues Papers 1 (Extraction) and 4 (Storage and Disposal of Waste) - 24 July 2015;
Closing date for submissions on Issues Papers 2 (Further Processing) and 3 (Electricity Generation) - 3 August 2015; and
Closing date for consolidated submissions on all Issues Papers - 3 August 2015.

The commission's first preliminary findings are to be released publicly by February 2016, as a prelude to the final report.

(More detail on Issue Papers )

To Date

To date, Mr Scarce is reported to have visited Finland, France, Austria, the United Kingdom, Taiwan and Japan in a comprehensive tour in late May and early June 2015. He is reported as saying he was surprised at the size and frequency of cost over-runs in countries where nuclear reactors had been built. So far he is reported as being impressed by The United Arab Emirates for ". . . setting the best benchmarks for being able to deliver reactors on-time and on-budget, in a nation with a limited nuclear history".

Next, Mr Scarce is to visit Washington DC and Pittsburgh and he is also reported to be looking at the economics and assumptions behind the expected future usage of the battery storage technologies such as those being promoted by the Tesla company.

Some Early Observations

Some early views of the Commissioner reported by the AFR are:

A long term view is needed:

"Australia must look beyond the current downturn in uranium prices and take a 30 to 40-year view about the economics of a nuclear industry, . . ."

It would take 10 to 15 years to establish the regulatory framework:

"We've got to have a 30 or 40-year vision, . . . even if his final report recommended a nuclear industry be established, it would take between 10 to 15 years to set up the necessary regulatory framework in Australia'.

Establishing an industry would require bipartisan political support:

". . . [E]stablishment of a nuclear industry in South Australia would need bipartisan support at a federal level because of the likelihood of changes in future federal governments in an industry which had very long lead times. . . . It's a long-term industry, . . . None of this stuff will start overnight."

Why the Commission is Not Just Important for SA

If anything should be clear by now, the term "alternative energy sources", as referring to means of energy production other than that generated by coal, is not going to be accurate for very much longer. Given that the other mineral that Australia has in abundance apart from coal is uranium, it seems more than wise to look to what might replace coal, in a serious and considered way (as the Commission is seeking to do), both as a generator of work and income into the future, and possibly even as an alternative to wind and solar derived energy. This is especially so in a State like SA where the viability of coal is receding and, as the AFR said in one report:

"The shut-down of two coal-fired power stations by Alinta at Port August in South Australia's north showed just how fast the energy sector was changing, because that closure would have been unthinkable when the National Electricity Market was first established."

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.