Submission to:

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, South Australia, Australia.

Response to: Issue 3: Electricity Generation from Nuclear Fuels.

Attachment A: Brief Resume.

Attachment B: Abstract of Thesis:

Radioactive Waste: Risk, Reward. Space and Time Dynamics.

Submitted by Jan J. Duncan FTSE

Attachment C: Excel Sheets transmitted separately

Sheet 1: Schedule for the development of nuclear power in South Australia and

its connection to NEM.

Sheet 2: Nuclear power program showing investment and employment

potentials.

Attachment D: Map of South Australia highlighting parts of the coastline

prospective for the siting of Nuclear Power Plants.

Due to his career in the resource industry and world nuclear fuel cycle the author is

qualified to discuss aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle from the e)(ploration for uranium;

recovery of uranium ore; conversion to UF~ enrichment; power generation and the

disposal of radioactive waste including spent nuclear fuel. This Submission #1 focuses on

the prospects for nuclear Electricity Generation sited in South Australia. It is intended that

two further Submissions will be made #2 Site Selection and #3 Radioactive Waste

Management and Disposal as each topic cover a great spread of data.

1

Nuclear power generation in South Australia as baseload electricity feed to the

National Electricity Market (NEM).

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction P3

2. Siting P4

3. Relationship to National Electricity Market (NEM) P7

4. Global warming and sea level rise P9

5. Construction Schedule and Employment P9

6. Nuclear Debate PlO

7. Establishment of Nuclear Plant Inspectorate PlO

8. Image of Australia's First Nuclear Power Plants Pll

9. Corporate entity to construct and operate the first NPPs P12

10. Radioactive Waste P12

11. Carbon avoidance attributed to Nuclear P13

12. Conclusion P17

13. Attachment A: Resume -I an J Duncan

14. Attachment B: Abstract of Thesis P22

Radioactive Waste: Risk, Reward, Space and Time Dynamics.

Submitted by lan J. Duncan FTSE

15. Attachment C: P24

Sheet 1: Possible Development of Nuclea~ Pow~ Plants in South Australia connected

to National Electricity Market (NEM) 'F2 .. J.t-i1 Sheet 2: Possible Development of Nuclear Power Plants in South Australia and direct

employment required f2..4-£:, 16. Map of South Australia highl~hting parts of the coastline prospective for the siting of

Nuclear Power Plants. - t\tlf\C-HfY1eN"T ~ P'2.5'

2

1. Introduction Nuclear power generation in South Australia as baseload electricity feed to the

National Electricity Market (NEM).

This Submission analyses the prospect of nuclear power generation for South

Australia and particularly its impact on employment, capital inflow and subsequent

revenue. It will also consider risks that might arise and any possible disabilities to

the public or regions. For estimates on future nuclear capacity the author has

selected the construction and commissioning of up to a total of 4 lOOOMWe Nuclear

Power Plants {NPPs) of today's modern Light Water (PWR & BWR) technology with

two NPPs on each of two possible sites. This submission clearly declines any

involvement in 'First of a Kind (FOAK)' concepts, such as Small Modular Reactors

{SMR) or High Temperature Gas Reactors (HTGR).

The introduction of nuclear power generation to South Australia will impact the

existing generation industry; grid distribution; land use; employment; capital

investment; and revenue. Any site must be obtained by a 'community up' process

and not a 'corporate or Government down' process. It is suggested that this

Commission does not name a preferred site but leaves site selection to a Voluntary

Choice Process. Strenuous Geo-technical analysis of any proposed area will be

required.

Perhaps the Achilles Heel of nuclear power in the minds of many is radioactive waste

management. Due to the significance of public perception of the management and

disposal of radioactive waste at all levels a further Submission #3 Radioactive

Waste Management and Disposal will be made by the Author.

The technology and sociology of site selection has advanced in many countries over

the last two decades. Submission #2 Site Selection will be made by the Author on

the specific topic of site selection from the community upwards as against top down

or authoritarian dictate.

Suitable sites will no-doubt fall within a Local Government Area and negotiation

between the parties could lead to some of the project value becoming part of the

rate base for that area. Capital programs of this magnitude engender a significant

multiplier effect (2- 2.5 fold) in additional local manufacturing, service industries,

education, health and housing and commercial building.

Costs and revenues stated are indicative only and expressed in Australian 2015

Dollars. More accurate values can only be provided at the completion of a strenuous

selection of sites and technology and feasibility studies prior to commitment to

construction. Expenditures up to $100million in the pre-commitment period will be

3

required. This project concept and timing is conditional to a positive outcome from

the Royal Commission. Logic suggests that from the outset the office and staff for

the nuclear project should be located in South Australia.

2. Siting A site for 2 lOOOMWe NPPs (MWe =the electrical output of the nuclear power plant,

not the thermal output of the reactor (MWt) and will henceforth be referred to as

MW) will require approximately 200 hectares of land in proximity to the sea.

Each 2 NPP site will require investment of about $16billion ($16,000,000,000), one

third of which would be spent locally over a preparatory period of 6 years and an 8

year construction period. Two thirds of the total expenditure will purchase major

components such as the reactor, steam turbines and generators from proven world

suppliers.

Allowing for a 90% capacity factor when operating (allows time out for re-fuell ing

and any other outages) and a price to the grid of say $0.10 per KWh each lOOOMW

NPP would have average daily revenue of about $2,400,000 ($876million per annum,

or $1.752billion paper site). Revenue over a lifespan of 60 years for each NPP will

be significant and due to the t ime span will defy the use of normal comparative

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis to reflect the true value to the State and community.

It is suggested that an acceptable site would be an area of about 2 square kilometres

(2km2, 200 hectares) and have proximity to the sea. During construction there will

be transport of heavy components by ship or barge to on-land motorised trailers for

the short journey to site. Local traffic will increase and there will be considerable

heavy haulage, freight and people movement in the area. This may require an

upgrading of existing roads and bridges. The nuclear fuel for each reactor will be

transported by road from its receiving port and those packages will be classified as

having Low Level radioactivity.

Additional areas may be required at the height of construction for a transport depot;

t he storage of cranes and other equipment; construction equipment; crushed rock

aggregate; cement storage; concrete hatching and fabrication. Temporary

accommodation (don gas, mess and relaxation areas) for up to 3000 workers will be

required. This site can be recovered and returned for other use such as agriculture

at the completion of construction.

All steam driven power plants running on the Rankine Cycle* require condensation

of the steam exiting the turbines for power efficiencies. [*The Rankine cycle is a model that

is used to predict the performance of steam turbine systems. The Rankine cycle is an idealized thermodynamic cycle or a heat engine that converts heat into mechanical work.]

4

Worldwide, NPPs use sea, river or lake water, at times aided by cooling towers, for

this purpose. South Australia does not have assured inland water resources of this

scale and so using the sea as a heat sink is the only option. It is therefore proposed

that a suitable site for each 2 NPP generating station be within 2km of the existing

coast. Condenser cooling water will be drawn from the sea and the warmed outflow

returned to the sea. There is a trade off between the use of cooling towers to cool

the out flow water or reduce the amount of primary cooling water required. There

would be capital and operating costs and visual pollution with cooling towers.

Warmed sea water being reintroduced to the ocean will have thermal impact within

a localised area but the heat will dissipate into the mass of moving ocean and be

partly lost to the atmosphere by conduction and evaporation. There are historic

examples of such discharges associated with power stations near Port Augusta and

Torrens Island. There are many precedents for ocean cooling in modern NPP

construction that could be cited.

A large coal fired power station on the same site would have a similar thermal

discharge. Modern NPPs in Korea and China have ocean cooling and at times

combined with cooling towers. Following the Fukushima incident all new NPP sites

are now protected from any possible tsunami threat.

The ground must meet specific geological requirements as to strength, water table

and be free from current tectonic action. The physical testing of a proposed site is

extensive.

The distance to the combined grid is a cost and environmental factor. Vision of large

overhead transmission lines can cause community resistance because of the visual

impairment. There is however means to bury high voltage lines (AC or DC) in

sensitive areas and to then connect to existing surface grids. There are technical

solutions to perceived visual impairment.

Safe agriculture can be pursued up to the boundary fence line of the site. There are

many examples of this in Europe and USA.

Nuclear power plants are not normally closer that say lOkm to existing significant

infrastructure such as a township. A site may require removal or relocation of lesser

infrastructure and diversion of roads. There is no doubt that the site during

construction must be regarded as a highly industrialised area and be fenced for

safety and security. There can be an over-looking visitor centre that will attract

visitors thus adding to the local economy. An operating NPP will be totally secure

but could also include a visitor and education centre.

5

Projects of this magnitude have a considerable impact on the nearest towns or

regional centres. The permanent population will start to increase during

construction as many workers will prefer to have their families close-by as opposed

to a Fly-In-Fly-Out (FIFO) sociology. Education and health facilities will expand to

meet a growing market and a greater diversity of service. Technical education

(TAFE) facilities will be needed. Medical services expand and often add specialists,

hospital and maternity facilities that were not previously justified in the area. The

permanent operators, many of whom will be tertiary educated, will prefer local

housing and a sense of community. They will engender demands for higher

education and permanent health facilities. Regionally a branch of a university could

be justified. Local sporting groups will flourish .

A map has been prepared to show the length of coast line that could be prospective

for siting. See Attachment 0: Map of South Australia highlighting parts of the coastline prospective for the siting of Nuclear Power Plants.

6

3. Relationship to National Electricity Market. The juxtaposition of nuclear power generation sited in South Australia is not one of

exclusive supply to South Australian utilities or large users but as a baseload feed

into both the South Australian system and National Electricity Market (NEM). NEM

connects the grids of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and

Tasmania. South Australia's relationship within NEM would be similar to France's

relationship to the European Grid. Perhaps half of the nuclear power would be

consumed within the State and half would be sold interstate. This Submission is

based on preparatory steps followed by feasibility studies then the construction of

2 1000MW NPPs on each of 2 sites over a period commencing in 2017 and

completed by 2040.

See Attachment c Sheet 1: Schedule for the development of nuclear power

in South Australia and its connection to NEM.

Commencement of the schedule for this concept is dependent on the timely findings

of the Royal commission. It is also presented on a 'critical path' basis. That is, each

step is dependent on the timely resolution of preceding contingent issues. Any delay

of an item on the critical path causes a delay in the overall schedule. If the work

schedule commences in 2017, as per the chart then the first NPP can be online by

2034, second 2036, third 2039 and fourth 2041.

It is difficult for any party to calculate the future demand for baseload* electricity

within NEM for the long term (say 2030-2100) due to increasing efficiency in use;

increase in renewable sources; possible changes to storage technologies; load

levelling; growth in population and growth in electrification, particularly of transport.

The 'rule of thumb' for the maximum size of any one generator in a grid is that it

should not exceed one sixth of the baseload capacity. As today's baseload within

NEM exceeds 20,000MW it follows that each lOOOMW NPP easily fits within the

'rule'. *Base load power sources are power production plants which can consistently generate the power needed to satisfy minimum demand. That demand is called the base load requirement, it is the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24 hours. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Base _load _power _plant

4 lOOOMW NPPs brought online over a decade (Sheet 1 suggests 2034- 2040) is

technically feasible but other States may also adopt a nuclear program following SA's

lead. Decisions will be made along the path to 2100 but by calling this Royal

Commission South Australia currently has the lead and potentially has a prospective

coastline. The overall demand for future baseload power will be dependent on

7

growth of NEM and the timely retirement of superannuated coal (particularly brown

coal) plants. Total NEM generation will incorporate i) renewables (increasing as a

percentage of the total), ii) fossil fuels (declining as a percentage but not eliminated)

and iii) nuclear (increasing in percentage but probably not greater than 30% of total

grid capacity) . Over the horizon technology could include large scale efficient

batteries to store and release on demand the variable inputs of wind, wave and

photo voltaic generation. Hydro electric pumped storage could be further exploited

to store surplus power and to feed into daily peaks.

Today's daily and seasonal demand variation comprises of high demand during

daylight (work) and hot weather (air conditioning). Attempts to level the load

pattern by smart metering, punitive pricing, intelligent grids and general education

should beneficially flatten the demand profiles to show a greater percentage of

baseload. It is into that base load that nuclear fits and must compete. Hydro power

and fossil fuel gas should be the dominant sources of power to meet peaks. The yet

to be realized large scale batteries that could store and release variable generation

would, if perfected, assist in aiding load-levelling and lifting the percentage of base­

load. Not only could these absorb variable renewable source power that is greater

that demand at that time but they could also be used to absorb power from

conventional generators during off-peak periods. Again this raises the ratio of base­

load to total daily load. Perhaps the Commission could add its weight to support the

industrial development of large batteries and encourage Governments to fund

'pumped storage' as an additive to hydro power.

8

4. Global warming and sea-level rise It is not only growth of demand that justifies the introduction of nuclear power but

also the timely replacement of coal burning generators that will carry increasing

burdens due to carbon and other emissions. These burdens could be in the form of

tax on carbon, carbon trading or enforced carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

It is not intended to express a view on Green House Gas Emissions and Climate

Change but sufficient to note that society in general and elements of specialist

institutions continue to press strenuously for a reduction in GHG as a counter to

prospective global warming and sea level rise. The following quotation from lEA

supports the introduction of rapid growth in Nuclear Power.

lEA calls for clean-energy inno\-ation

OS May 2015 "A concerted push for clean-energy innovation is the only way the world can meet its climate goals," according to the International Energy Agency (lEA) . The organization said governments should help boost or accelerate this transformation .... Under the 205 scenario, some 22 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity must be added annually by 2050.

p://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-IEA-calls-for-clean-energy-innovation-

0505155.html

If CCS becomes obligatory for coal and gas burning generators there will be

increasing financial pressure against both and particularly against brown coal.

Replacement of aged brown coal generators equipped with CCS will no longer be

financially viable. Gas fuel generates perhaps half the carbon emission compared to

coal per unit of electricity but that carbon emission should also be captured and

sequestrated. Gas is subject to rising prices, particularly in Asia and this will continue

to impact the Australian domestic market. The role for gas fuel is surely to address

local peak demands and not baseload generation.

5. Construction Schedule and Employment During the construction period for 4 nuclear power plants about 3000 people will be

employed for a 16 year period. See Attachment C Sheet 2. The construction

schedule would allow for local teams to be trained by experienced teams and for

them to train others and provide a local turnover of personnel. The overall program

is staged so that specialist teams can progressively move from site to site. At the

completion of the schedule these people would be regarded as experts in their field

and be required in other Australian and foreign critical plant construction.

9

A South Korean consortium has contracted to supply and construct nuclear power

plants for the United Arab Emirates. This provides a precedent for similar

requirements for South Australia. Construction times and general skills are

advancing rapidly in both Korea and China and need to be examined before the

establishment of an Australian program. This article is recommended:

http:Uwww.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Arab­

Emirates/

China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) is currently negotiating with Argentina to supply

and build two NPPs and again this provides South Australia with a precedent for what might

be achieved. http:Uwww.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Argentina-China-talks-on-new­

nuclear-plants-08051501.html

The data base and library of the World Nuclear Association is commended for factual

information on all aspects of the nuclear power industry. WNA is represented by

Mr lan Here-Lacy in Australia and he can be contacted on hore-lacy@world­

nuclear.org WNA's website: http:ljwww.world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/

2 operating NPPs on each of 2 sites will employ full time operating staff of 800 for at

least the envisaged NPP life of 60 years. At the completion of operating life each

reactor would be decommissioned, defueled and in time deconstructed. Each may

be replaced by further nuclear plants or whatever is the preferred technology of the

day.

6. Nuclear Debate

This topic invariably attracts an active societal debate. Elements of the debate

mechanism are now better understood than back in the 1970/SOs. The Thesis by the

Author traces some of the causes of the debate and these elements should be

discussed at the appropriate time. It is now possible for a democratic majority to

be in favour of the adoption of nuclear power as one option for the energy mix of

the future. Attitudes in other countries can be quoted. The Fukushima setback has

practically run its course and the Commission should see the restart of some

Japanese reactors during its term. The technical failures of Three Mile Island,

Chernobyl and Fukushima have been addressed and the nuclear option has never

been safer that it is today.

7. Establish a Nuclear Plant Inspectorate

A Governmental Nuclear Inspectorate needs to be formed in addition to the existing

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)

10

and Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office CASNO). An Inspectorate can be created or added to the responsibilities of existing agencies, particularly ARPANSA. Separately I will send the Commission a copy of my address to the

ATSE NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2013---NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR AUSTRALIA?

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS REGULATOR for AUSTRALIA

Dr lan J Duncan FTSE 26July 2013

8. Image of Australia's First Nuclear Power Plant This fabricated image of what Australia's first nuclear power plants could look like

suggests two light water reactors on a site close to t he sea somewhere in the

southern parts of Australia.

Composite photo based on Ringhals AB, a subsidiary of Vattenfall AB, Sweden.

Australia's first 2 lOOOMW NPP with direct ocean cooling and buried high voltage

distribution to the national grid could appear like this. Copyright lan J Duncan.

Artwork DesignControl.

11

9. Corporate entity to construct and operate the first NPPs. It is suggested that there is no single corporate entity currently positioned that

could take on the establishment of Australia's first nuclear power plants. Work

done so far in this area now leads towards a combined utility and large users

composite company formed for this purpose. Perhaps there could be both

Government (State) and public company ownership. The entity formed could be

seen to be South Australian with some other large users in the NEM network.

Further material could be offered in confidence. There will need to be

expenditures of up to $100million in the initial 6 year period leading up to

commitment to build the first unit. This period includes the establishment of the

'corporation'; strenuous feasibility studies; establishment of a source of funds for

construction; selection of technology; siting establishment and evaluation;

participation in the nuclear debate and construction team training. Many

specialist consultants will be required; some domestic but most should be

experienced western world operators. See Attachment C Sheets 1 & 2.

The 'corporation' should be South Australia based and will employ initially up to

100 people plus many consultants and contractors. In fact management of such

corporations have difficulty in holding down the number of consultants and

contractors in the formative period.

10. Radioactive Waste

The Author has had considerable experience in the handling of Low Level Wastes;

study of wastes arising from the nuclear fuel cycle; the SYNROC project and more

currently the Australian Government Department of Industry & Science National

Radioactive Waste Management Facility. As a member of the Independent

Advisory Panel associated with the NRWMF I am covered by a strict confidentiality

agreement. Perhaps a course could be pursued that allows material to be made

available to the Commission. As NRWMF passes certain stages it is believed that

some of its material could, at the discretion of the Minister for Industry and

Science, be placed in to the public realm.

To address this topic as it relates to nuclear power generation it is intended that a

further Submission #3 Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal be

made. I hold a great amount of data on this topic and my Oxford research

identified the social science and technical steps necessary to achieve a publically

accepted management and disposal process. Such a Submission will be lengthy

and will require a further 2 months for preparation- some of that time will be

interrupted by NRWMF work.

12

If the Commission requests a loan of the University of Oxford Thesis then this can

be arranged. It is in the library of ANSTO and by agreement can be loaned to

specific persons.

11. Carbon avoidance attributed to Nuclear

Clearly the fission of uranium in a NPP does not release any carbon to the

atmosphere. However the mining of uranium ores, electrical energy for

conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication and fuels for transport can include a

fossil fuel component and therefore the total nuclear fuel cycle is not carbon

free. When a unit of electricity generation from nuclear is compared with the

same unit from other sources it is apparent though that the nuclear source is

significantly lower and thereby avoids further atmospheric carbon.

The exact calculation of the amount avoided is subject to many elements such as fuel type, thermal efficiency and carbon capture and sequestration or not. Taking as many of these elements into focus as possible over a wide range of studies the World Nuclear Association has published a comparison as shown in the following figure GHG Emissions (Tonnes C02

e/GWh).

The comparison between the amount of GHG emitted for each fuel type is very apparent with nuclear, hydroelectric and wind having little effect on global carbon accumulation when compared to the same quantity of electricity generated by fossil fuels including gas.

WNA also published the following articles on Material balance in the nuclear fuel cycle and "', I o ~ c E uc e r ne gy which may be of use in the Commission's library.

13

WQIIU) I«<CUAAI Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1600

~ 1400 T I

Q I

Ql 1200 0 () Ill 1000 I Ql I c: I .... c: I • ~ 800 I • ...

~

til I

::: I

0 600 I

~ ..! Ill

E 400 w (J ::c 200 (!)

Material balance in the nuclear fuel cycle

T

l RAnr,e BAtween Stucltes

T I I I I

T I

The following figures may be regarded as typical for the annual operation of a 1 000 MWe nuclear power reactor

such as many operating today:b

Anything from 20,000 to 400,000 tonnes of uranium ore

230 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (which contains 195 tonnes of uranium) 288 tonnes uranium hexafluoride, UF6 (with 195 tU) 35 tonnes enriched UF6 (containing 24 t enriched U) - balance is 'tails'

27 tonnes U02 (with 24 t enriched U)

8760 million kWh (8.76 TWh) of electricity at full output, hence 22.3 tonnes of natural U per TWh 27 tonnes containing 240 kg transuranics (mainly plutonium), 23 t uranium (0.8% U-235), 1100 kg fission products.

The following figures assume the annual operation of 1000 MWe of nuclear power reactor capacity such as in the

new EPR, with 5% enriched fuel and higher (65 GWd/t) bum-up:

Mining -------~

Milling Conversion - - -

Enrichment

Anything from 20,000 to 400,000 tonnes of uranium ore 171 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (which contains 145 tonnes of uranium) 214 tonnes uranium hexafluoride, UF6 (with 145 tU) 23 tonnes enriched UF6 (containing 15.6 t enriched U)- balance is 'tails' (0.20%)

14

Fuel fabrication - - --- - - - -Reactor operation ---- -----Used fuel

17.5 tonnes U02 (with 15.6 t enriched U) 8760 million kWh (8.76 TWh) of electricity at full output, hence 16.5 tonnes of natural U per TWh 17.5 tonnes containing 14.5 t uranium (0.8% U-235).

Between the above figures, Uranium 2014: Resou~es, Production and Demand CRed Book'), from the OECD NEA & IAEA said that efficiencies on power plant operation and lower enrichment tails assays meant that

uranium dema'nd per unit capacity was falling, and the report's generic reactor fuel consumption was redu~ed from 175 tU per GWe per year at 0.30% tails assay (2011 report) to 163 tU per GWe per year at 0.25% ta1ls assay. The corresponding U3Q8 figures are 206 tonnes and 192 tonnes per GWe per year. World Nuclear

Association 30 April 2015. c 2015 World Nuclear Association, registered in England and Wales, number 01215741 .

Registered office: Tower House, 10 Southampton Street, London, WC2E 7HA, United Kingdom

Greenhouse gas emissions avoided through use of nuclear energy

There are many different electrical generation methods, each having advantages and disadvantages with respect

to operational cost, environmental impact, and other factors.

In relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, each generation method produces GHGs in varying quantities

through construction, operation (including fuel supply activities), and decommissioning. Some generation

methods such as coal fired power plants release the majority of GHGs when their carbon-containing fossil fuels

are burnt, producing carbon dioxide (C~). Others, such as wind power and nuclear power, give rise to much less

emissions, these being during construction and decommissioning, or mining and fuel preparation in the case of

nuclear.

Accounting for emissions from all phases of the project (construction, operation, and decommissioning) is called

a lifecycle approach. Comparing the lifecycle emissions of electrical generation allows for a fair comparison of the

different generation methods on a per kilowatt-hour basis. The lower the value, the fewer GHG emissions are

released.

WNA has carried out a e • of over twenty studies assessing the greenhouse gas emission produced by

different fom1s of electricity generation. The results summarised in the chart below show that generating

electricity from fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions far higher than when using nuclear or renewable

generation.

In 2011 the world's nuclear power plants supplied 2518 TWh (billion kWh) of electricity. The following table shows

the additional emissions that would have been produced if fossil fuels had been used to generate the same

amount of electricity.

1054 2654 million tonnes 2581 million

C02 tonnes C02

888 2236 million tonnes 2163 million

C02 tonnes C02

733 1846 million tonnes 1773 million

c~ tonnes C02

499 1256 million tonnes 1183 million

c~ tonnes c~

29 73 million tonnes

c~

Comparison of emissions from nuclear and renewable generation

The WNA review of lifecycle emissions from nuclear and renewable generation showed that lifecycle emissions

from all the major forms of renewables (solar, wind, biomass, hydroelectric) and nuclear were similiar. Replacing

generation from nuclear or renewables with fossil fuels would lead to similar rises in greenhouse gas emissions.

Sou rei WNA Report: mpar.son { urecyc .. Greenhouse Gas Em!SSIOOS of Vanous Electncrty GeneratiOn SoOJrce

IAEA PRIS database o "Www PRIS!WorldStat st :s ortdTrend•nEiectncaiProduchon spx

CIA The World Factbook lS www go bra!'Y p cheat ons the-wor d-factboo geos xx htm .

16

12.Conclusion

This submission makes the case for South Australia to adopt a nuclear power

component to its electricity generation. This is based on the siting; construction

and operation of 4 lOOOMW light water NPPs.

The demand for low carbon base-load generation of this scale is based upon the

existing tie to the National Electricity Market. Power generated will not only

serve a section of South Australia's demand but looks to export power to other

members of NEM.

If the Commission finds that the initial steps for the full assessment of nuclear

power should be encouraged then real work could commence in South Australia

by 2017. Attachment C, Sheet 1 shows the chart of events that would be

necessary for the first NPP to be online by 2034. A second NPP could be online

2036 followed by units #3 and #4 in 2039 and 2041.

The amount and depth of study to be undertaken by the project in the formative

years will be immense. Site selection with community support; technology

selection; choice of contractors to build and commission each NPP and contracts

with each party will be a large corporate commitment.

Site preparation and plant construction will require specialist teams from current

nuclear countries. These teams will live and work in South Australia and

contribute to the State's economy. In parallel to foreign teams Australian

people will be trained in each of the specialties and when into the program most

operators will be Australian based citizens.

It is submitted that the establishment of this nuclear power plant scheme is a

valid option for South Australia.

17

Attachment A

Resume -- /an J Duncan lan J Duncan, DPhii(Oxon), FTSE, FIEAust

EDUCATION

1962 Diploma of Mechanical Engineering- Perth Technical College

1984 Advanced Management Program- Harvard Business School

1997-2001 University of Oxford, School of Geography, DPhil (Oxon)

WORK HISTORY

1962-1971 Dunlop Australia Ltd, engineer/manager.

1971-1974 Western Mining Corporation Limited, Exploration Division,

Operations Manager for Australian mineral exploration.

1975-1976 Western Mining Corporation (North America) Pty Ltd,

Vice President, Pittsburgh PA, USA. Involvement in metallurgical industries

and elements of the nuclear fuel cycle.

1976-1988 Western Mining Corporation Limited, Corporate Business Manager, Melbourne.

1984 Harvard Business School, Advanced Management Program.

1986-1995 General Manager and Managing Director (WMC) Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd.

Commissioning and operation of world's largest copper/uranium deposit- a complex mine and

metallurgical process. Managing Director (WMC) Olympic Dam Marketing Pty Ltd. Worldwide

marketing of copper, uranium, gold and silver.

1995-1996 President (WMC) Olympic Dam Marketing Pty Ltd.

1997-2001 Postgraduate studies University of Oxford, School of Geography,

Graduating Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) July 2001.

18

1996-current Consulting in the field of 'the interface between society and the disposal of

radioactive waste' . Consulting on nuclear fuel cycle issues, uranium exploration and promoting

nuclear power for baseload electricity generation for the larger grids in Australia.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (FELLOW OF) Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) Fellowship (FTSE) awarded

1994, Chair WA Division 2008-11.

Member ATSE Energy and Resource Forums.

The Institution of Engineers, Australia, awarded 1992 (FIEAust)

Australian Institute of Energy (FAIE)

OTHER POSITIONS HELD INCLUDE 1988-1989

and research.

1993-1997

Member of the SYNROC Steering Committee based on ANSTO and ANU invention

Vice Chairman and Chairman of the London based Uranium Institute (now World

Nuclear Association).

1990-1996 Various board appointments to subsidiaries of the Government of South Australia

including the Electricity Trust of South Australia, Development Board of South Australia and

originator and Chairman of the Business Advisory Panel of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, South

Australia.

AWARDS Centenary Medal, Commonwealth of Australia, 2002, For Service to Australian Society in

Technological Industries.

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Duncan's association with mineral exploration commenced in 1971 when he joined WMC

Exploration Division. 1971-1974 he was Operations Manager for metals and oil and gas exploration

including extensive drilling programs, analysis of geological samples, observation of trial mining and

metallurgical test work. WMC Discovered the Yeelirrie Uranium Deposit in WA and other mineral

deposits during this period. In the period 1975-1976, while situated in the USA marketing WMC's

metals and minerals he gathered information on elements of the nuclear fuel cycle, such as utility

profiles, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication technologies, waste management and

transport.

19

From 1976 he was located in Melbourne and worked on the Yeelirrie Uranium Project and then

Olympic Dam, a large copper, uranium, gold and silver project in South Australia discovered by WMC

in 1976. Work commenced on its development in 1985. This project was government approved

under the Three Mine Policy. Duncan was appointed General Manager, Olympic Dam Marketing. In

the period 1987-1988 future production of the initial plant was covered by long term contracts and

provided security for the financing arrangements. The uranium contracts were with IAEA fully

safeguarded civil utilities initially in Sweden, Belgium, United Kingdom, Japan and Korea. Copper

production was contracted to buyers in Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom and Australia . Precious

metals were marketed in Australia.

In 1988 Duncan was appointed General Manager and Managing Director of (WMC) Olympic Dam Pty

Ltd and retained the management of the marketing company. This coincided with the

commissioning of the mine and metallurgical plant, commencement of production and the first

deliveries of each product. He oversaw the ore body assessment, mining operations, metallurgical

works and marketing of all products. The operation employed about 1000 people. He also

participated in the building and management of the Roxby Downs Township for 4000 people and

construction camps.

The Olympic Dam mineralisation is extensive, capped with 420m of competent sedimentary rock.

Below this cover the mineralisation is 200-400m thick and the mining at that time was in the top

200m of the ore body. 600m vertical shafts and a 10km-declining roadway provided access to the

workings.

In the 1990's the project continued to be expanded as were the markets for its products. Since BHP

Billiton acquired WMC, Olympic Dam is again being assessed for significant expansion.

Duncan has been associated with The Uranium Institute (now World Nuclear Association, WNA)

since early 1980's and held executive positions from 1993 (including Chairman and Vice Chairman).

The Association is London based and holds an Annual Symposium in London and meetings in other

member countries. He participated in many of the committees over the period including the Waste

Management and Decommissioning Working Groups. He was involved in the establishment of

World Nuclear University, a spin off from WNA.

His doctoral studies in the School of Geography, University of Oxford, addressed the relationship

between society and the disposal of radioactive waste. The thesis (Radioactive Waste: Risk, Reward,

Space and Time Dynamics, graduated 28 July 2001 (an Abstract of the Thesis is Attachment B), is

based on technology and sociology. His experiences in exploration, mining, metallurgical production

and marketing of uranium and other metals provided a unique background for such a study. The

20

study defined original work in public attitudes to siting, NIMBYism, fears of radiation, waste

management and forward time. The study was underwritten by nuclear organisations in UK,

Sweden, Switzerland and Japan.

In this phase he published relevant articles and made a submission to The House of Lords Select

Committee on Science and Technology Inquiry into Management of Nuclear Waste {Session 1997-98,

Written Evidence, p118-121).

He continues to present the case for nuclear powered baseload electricity generation in Australia,

observes elements of the climate change debate and considers the thermodynamics of proposed

renewable alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear power generation. In 2008 he travelled to the

Arctic Ice Sheet (Nares Strait off NNW Greenland 79deg 23m N) to observe recent changes to land

and sea ice cover in that area.

Feb 2015, appointed to Independent Advisory Panel, National Radioactive Waste Management

Project, Australian Government, Department of Industry and Science. A further project is to consider

the management and disposal of the radioactive wastes that would arise if nuclear power is adopted

in Australia.

lan J Duncan DPhil (Oxon), FfSE, FIEAust

21

Attachment B

Abstract of Thesis:

Radioactive Waste: Risk, Reward, Space and Time Dynamics.

Submitted by lan J. Duncan FTSE

School of Geography, University of Oxford and Linacre College

In fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

Hilary Term, 2001

This study considers, in a geographical context, issues ansmg from the disposal of radioactive waste with particular emphasis on societal perceptions of Risk, Trust, NIMBY and Time. It establishes that the wider community now accepts the concepts of 'user pays' and offsetting compensation to any community that accepts a risk, such risk to be minimised and interruptible as necessary.

The underlying causes of NIMBYism have been misjudged by industry and this work establishes that these are as much due to exclusion of the community from the decision making process as they are to direct concerns about the social impact, health and environment. The principal cause of NIMBYism is discussed and a procedure to assist siting approval is suggested.

This study establishes that industry; government authorities or specialists working alone in this field engender less trust by society than composite bodies including government departments, industry, environmentalist, health, science and society.

The dimensions of an individual's perception of forward time has been quantified and found to be much shorter than the time required for the isolation of radioactive waste. This research highlights the dynamic nature of all waste isolation processes and proposes a procedure that could render the concept of long-term geological disposal more acceptable to the public.

The author finds that in most countri.es, typified by the United Kingdom, little progress bas been made for the disposal of higher levels of long-lived wastes. Countries that have any nuclear programme accumulate quantities of radioactive waste. At the lower levels this is usually dispersed into the biosphere or interred in shallow earth burial. However at the higher levels, which require isolation from the biosphere for up to 100 000 years, disposal bas not progressed beyond the concept of deep geological disposal. The technologies for the disposal of such waste are well advanced and the relevant technical community is more at

22

ease with the concept of geological placement than are members of a public who ultimately must approve of any disposal scheme.

The phenomena known as ' Locally unwanted land use' (LULU) and ' not in my back yard ' (NIMBY) developed and became some of the tools used to achieve the democratic rights of communities when they were confronted with unacceptable requirements. Governments and large industrial concerns bad traditionally achieved siting for critical industries on the basis of 'Decide, Announce and Defend (DAD). As community resistance to siting increased, proponents often responded to questions of health and environment in like tenns, failing to recognise the community' s democratic rights, which went unsatisfied until the development of the Voluntary-Choice Process.

Based on the author' s industrial experience and the views of experts in the field of nuclear technology, an overview of the current status of radioactive waste disposal was developed and this led to four propositions, viz. ; a) the public holds the view that users of a service or good, should pay for the disposal of

waste generated in its production and sale; b) the community trusts composite bodies more than they trust single government or

industry bodies working alone; c) communities accepting waste disposal facilities should be compensated for risk and loss

of amenity; d) when thinking forward for the welfare of one's family and community there is generally a

shorter time horizon than that required for the isolation of hazardous waste.

These propositions were supported by the research, and further a Gender Effect was detected in the responses to some questions on risk and time.

The study accepts that nuclear waste does exist and will continue to accumulate, irrespective of the continuance of nuclear power. It evolved that the disposal of all waste is a dynamic process, the management of which must provide the time necessary for physical and chemical change and to ensure isolation from the biosphere while it remains hazardous. The outcome of this research is applicable to the disposal of all solid hazardous waste.

23

Attachment C: Sheets 1 & 2

In Excel format and inserted on Pages 24A and 24B.

Attachment C: P24

Sheet 1: Possible Development of Nuclear Power Plants in South Australia connected

to National Electricity Market (NEM) P24A

Sheet 2: Possible Development of Nuclear Power Plants in South Australia and direct

employment required P24B

24

Attachment C Sheet 1 Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, South Australia May 2015- Dr lan J Duncan

Possible Development of Nuclear Power Plants in South Australia connected to National Electricity Market (NEM) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Royal Commission Findings

Action by SA and Commonwealth Governments Establish Regulator/Inspectorate

Establish Corporate Entity

First Fleet--- Prefeasibility/Bankable feasibility

Source of Funds

Siting selection and testing

Commit

NPP#1/1 All contracts let

Construction commences Criticality Online -7-7

NPP#1/2 All contracts let

Construction commences Criticality Online -7-7 Second Fleet ----- Prefeasibility/Bankable feasibility

Source of Funds

Siting selection and testing

Commit

NPP#2/1 All contracts let Construction commences Criticality Online -7-7

NPP#2/2 All contracts let Construction commences Criticality Online -7-7

Nuclear Powerplants in service 1 2 3 4

Employment generated in South Australia -see sheet 2 for detail

Annual Expenditure for plant, goods and services during construction in South Australia

$m 25 25 25 25 50 so 100 400 400 800 800 800 800 1.2b 1.2b 1.4b 1.2b 800 800 800 400 400

Annual operating direct cost of labour $m 20 30 40 40 60 70 80 80 80 80 80 80 -7-7

G..4 f\ .

Attachment C Sheet 2 Sumission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, South Australia May 2015- Dr lan J Duncan.

Possible Development of Nuclear Power Plants in South Australia and direct employment required 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

Interface between the devlopment of nuclear power in South Australia and generation of investment and employment.

Government Employment; including State and Commonwealth, Inspectorate 20 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 -7-7

Project consultants, licensing, engineering, environmental, health, safety, community relations, corporate 40 60 80 80 80 80 100 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 -7-7

Construction teams - number of people 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-i ('t') ("'') ("'') ("'') ("'') ("'') ("'') ("'') ("'') ('t') ("'') ("'') ('t') ("'') ("'') ("'')

Commissioning teams - number of people 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Operating teams - number of permanent people 200 300 400 400 400 600 700 800 800 800 800 800 -7-7

TOTAL DIRECT EMPLOYMENT in South Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ qo qo ¢ qo ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 ¢ qo -7-7 \D 0\ N N N N ¢

N N N N N N N \D ..... 00 00 0 .-i N N ...-1 qo qo

...-1 ...-1 ...-1 ...-1 " .-4 M M M M M M M M M M M ¢ qo ¢ qo qo 0\ 0\

Attachment D: Map of South Australia highlighting parts of the coastline

prospective for the siting of Nuclear Power Plants.

Port Augusta

; Port Pirie

Port Uncoln

Mount lilmbllr

25