South Australia should take the world's nuclear waste in exchange for billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs, the state's nuclear royal commission has found.
But it would not be viable for SA to host a nuclear power plant or to expand into fuel processing in the foreseeable future.
Former governor Kevin Scarce on Monday handed down the royal commission's initial findings after months of analysis and public consultation.
His inquiry has strongly backed SA taking nuclear waste, a position that is sure to attract fierce opposition from green groups.
Under the model proposed by the commission, an above-ground storage site would initially host nuclear waste in "casks" made of metal or concrete.
The waste would then be stored deep underground in purpose-built canisters.
A storage and disposal facility with a capacity of 138,000 tonnes - or about 13 per cent of the world's projected used fuel inventory - would generate more than $257 billion in revenue over its 120-year lifespan.
Total costs for the facility would reach $145 billion, including the construction of a dedicated port facility, airport and freight rail line, independent modelling shows.
The report assumes it would take 25 years to build the facility, with employment peaking at up to 5000 jobs before tailing off to 600 during operations.
A waste and storage facility could generate more than $5 billion in annual revenue before the yearly waste intake peaks after 30 years and concludes after 70 years.
The commission has also proposed the creation of a state wealth fund in which all profits and a portion of gross revenue would be invested.
Mr Scarce said waste storage presented significant opportunities for the SA economy.
"We have stable geology, relatively low levels of seismic activity across a large part of the state, we've got an arid environment, stable political and economic structures," he told reporters.
"Collectively, I think that enables us to put a convincing case to client nations that we could be part of a long-term solution."
Any move to embrace nuclear storage would require changes to state and federal legislation.
The commission found that it would not be commercially viable for SA to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant or develop uranium processing facilities.
But the state should still prepare for the possibility of sourcing nuclear power as the nation moves towards low-emission energy sources.
Mr Scarce, who visited the site of Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster during his assessment, said such incidents should not lead to nuclear power being ruled out as an option.
Related reading:
SA nuclear waste dump proposal contested by green groups
"These are significant failures of systems that were meant to manage the safety of nuclear reactors," he told reporters.
"We believe with appropriate regulatory oversight that nuclear power should not be automatically ignored as a future generation technology."
The royal commission will engage in a series of public meetings before handing down its final report on May 6.
The state government will formally respond before the end of the year.
