The preliminary findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in South Australia debunks the rainbow warrior mythologies of the hard left about anything nuclear. It sets the scene for Australia becoming involved in all aspects of the nuclear industry if projects can be developed that make commercial sense.
Headed by Kevin Scarce, a former South Australian governor, the commission points to a market niche for a waste disposal facility. The state could sell uranium to other countries for processing and, as part of the deal, take the waste back for long term storage. Domestic nuclear power is a different proposition given the existing over-supply of electricity markets. But our options can be kept open in those areas, particularly as nuclear energy is free of carbon emissions. 
The Turnbull government has declared it will wait for the final report, due in   May, before responding but Minister for Minerals and Energy Josh Frydenberg has proved to be a strong advocate of the nuclear industry. However, he also pointed out on Monday that expansion of Australia's nuclear industry would "require significant legislative and regulatory change".
Such change will no doubt be resisted by the Greens and some on Labor's left even after Mr Scarce's conscientious conclusion: that South Australia has a lot of arid territory with low levels of seismic activity, and has a geological structure that would suit a deep waste repository. SA's Labor Premier Jay Weatherill is to be commended for his independent-mindedness in taking on elements of the Labor Party which, quite out of step with many other industrialised countries, have made nuclear power a taboo in Australia since the 1970s.
Before that time, Labor figures such as Gough Whitlam's minister for resources Rex Connor looked at projects such as a nuclear reprocessing plant that could have created new jobs. The rise of the modern environmental movement out of the peace movement, which associated nuclear power with military nuclear technology, caused endless trouble for Labor in developing a consistent policy on uranium mining.
The eventual pragmatic compromise of the three mines policy was worked out by Labor's Bob Hawke, who remains a proponent of nuclear storage projects. That became four mines when Kevin Rudd took power. The left's opposition to uranium mining was undermined further by Julia Gillard arguing that Australia should sell uranium to India, even though New Delhi had not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Mr Weatherill's support for an investigation into the nuclear industry, as well as his contribution to genuine tax reform by refusing to go along with blanket opposition to higher GST, marks him as part of an older Labor Party interested in reform and development rather than Midnight Oil-style gesture politics.
The commission projects revenue for a waste facility of $257 billion, with costs of $145 billion, over 120 years, or the equivalent of net present value of $51 billion. That makes a useful addition to a state economy in trouble from the end of car manufacturing in 2017 and left with an unhealthy dependence on naval shipbuilding as a result.
The commission report will only be the beginning of the story. It has taken federal governments 20 years, and counting, to find a site to store low and intermediate waste generated in Australia - a tiny project compared to the one being proposed by the commission. In contrast, nations such as France and the UK have operated nuclear reactors safely for many years. Nuclear emergencies in Japan, at Fukushima and at Three Mile Island in the US did not cause any deaths, and each had their own circumstances. The opposition to a storage site for nuclear waste in South Australia should countered with rational argument and community consultation. Once it is part of our industrial landscape it will be forgotten about, and Australia will be better off.