The establishment of a nuclear waste storage and disposal sector in Australia could create a $5 billion-a-year industry for the country, a landmark inquiry has found.
The preliminary findings from the South Australian government's royal commission into nuclear opportunities released on Monday found that a purpose-built facility to deal with nuclear fuel rods and other waste could bring substantial benefits, particularly to that state, but would require bipartisan support at federal and state level.
Kevin Scarce, a former South Australian governor who spent almost 12 months taking evidence from 128 witnesses, found that a sophisticated storage and waste disposal facility could deliver $5 billion in revenue annually for the first 30 years, and would be "highly profitable" because of strong demand from other countries. 
The finding was immediately blasted by environmentalists. The inquiry found more than 390,000 tonnes of spent rods and nuclear waste is stored temporarily worldwide and is looking for a permanent home.
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill said there were some "exciting possibilities" for his state in the report, but there would be a methodical process during the next few months, including a final report to be handed down on   May 6, before any decisions about which path to head down would be made.
"The costs and benefits will be weighed up," Mr Weatherill said.
Mr Scarce said he had been conservative in his assumptions.
"I want to under-promise and over-deliver," he said.
Costs had been modelled at $145 billion for a 120-year project life. The extra $5 billion in annual revenue equates to almost a 20th of South Australia's gross state product of $97 billion.
An integrated storage and nuclear waste disposal facility could be operational by the late 2020s and could meet a global need, beginning with an interim storage facility above-ground to bring in early revenues, before the construction of a large underground storage facility.
Mr Scarce said it was up to the community to decide if the state should proceed, but cautioned that if it was too slow the benefits may be lost to another state or country.
"There's always an opportunity if we dawdle that someone would take the competitive advantage away from us," he said.
Federal Minister for Resources and Energy Josh Frydenberg said on Monday that he welcomed the constructive community participation the royal commission had enabled.
He said the expansion of Australia's nuclear industry would "require significant legislative and regulatory change".
The federal government will wait until the final report is handed down by the royal commissioner on   May 6, examine it carefully and consult with the South Australian government before responding.
The proposal for a large-scale storage facility is separate to a process already under way where six potential sites in Australia were chosen late last year by the federal government for a national low-level radioactive waste management facility. Mr Weatherill said both could potentially operate in the state.
He said on Monday that his government would be "deliberate and methodical" in assessing further into the process whether the benefits would outweigh the negatives, and if the public ultimately didn't want it, then it wouldn't proceed.
The preliminary report recommended a sovereign wealth fund be set up to invest the proceeds, and if 50 per cent of the interest from the fund could be retained then $445 billion would accumulate during the life of the project.
State Liberal leader Steven Marshall said any decision to expand into a nuclear industry needed to be backed by the community and this was "not going to be the silver bullet" for the high unemployment in the state.
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said on Monday the large-scale storage facility plan was "desperate, dangerous and in direct conflict with Australia's national interest".
The Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, headed by Mr Scarce, found there would be substantial economic benefits from a waste storage facility.
It is the project that would deliver South Australia the biggest economic benefit of all nuclear-related proposals, the Scarce report found.
The royal commissioner found that setting up a nuclear power plant now in the state wouldn't be commercially viable under the national electricity market amid projections of "flat future demand" in South Australia, as more people used solar and exited the national grid. Nuclear power should be part of the national discussion for future energy needs, his report says.
About 1500 jobs would initially be created, and this would rise to 4500 jobs during a construction period of 25 years. The $145 billion in costs included a $32 billion reserve fund to cover whole-of-life maintenance and eventual closure costs.
There are significant quantities of used fuel from nuclear reactors in temporary storage in the Asia-Pacific region and these quantities will grow, the report found.
But Mr Scarce said the timeframes were long. In Finland and Sweden, successful projects have taken more than 30 years to develop
"These are long-term projects."
He said during the life of a nuclear storage facility, a net present value of profits of more than $51 billion had been calculated.
He recommended that such a facility be government owned and noted that it would require bipartisan support at a state and federal level to proceed.
Mr Scarce said the facility would require a dedicated port facility, airport and rail freight line.
"This would be world-class infrastructure," he said.