South Australia's nuclear royal commission is set to release its tentative findings this morning, with experts from both sides of the debate predicting an outcome in favour of a nuclear dump.

Key points: Royal commission received more than 250 submissions

Royal commission received more than 250 submissions Industry would provide economic opportunities, SA Premier says

Industry would provide economic opportunities, SA Premier says Report expected to be in favour of a nuclear dump

The Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle received more than 250 submissions since forming in March.

Commissioner Kevin Scarce will this week discuss the findings at a series of public meetings across the state ahead of the final report's release in May.

The issue has long stirred emotions in South Australia, with former premier Mike Rann and former prime minister John Howard at odds over a nuclear waste dump at Woomera for six years before the proposal was ultimately scrapped in 2004.

Current Premier Jay Weatherill is more receptive to the idea and set up the royal commission, saying there were economic opportunities in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases of the fuel cycle.

Flinders University associate professor of politics Haydon Manning said the Premier was looking for political gains as the state struggled with unemployment.

"If you understand the mood of South Australia, there is a degree of desperation," Mr Manning said.

"The highest unemployment in the nation, a premier looking for a fifth term. Let's remember that, that's a hard ask.

"I think that's why he started this whole royal commission.

"I think the belief is that this will produce an opportunity to say, 'we actually know where the money's coming from if you in South Australia, you people, you voters, accept the risks involved but also look at the benefits that may flow'."

'Australia needs nuclear technology'

Friends of the Earth anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green said the contents of today's findings were a "foregone conclusion", accusing the commission of bias.

"We expect that [the findings] will be mostly interested in the idea of making money out of importing high-level nuclear waste," he said.

"There are other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle which will probably be knocked off, namely uranium enrichment and nuclear re-processing. They're economic non-starters, so that leaves waste importation and possibly nuclear power.

"The issue of nuclear power, there will be something for everyone. There will be some positive comments but also some qualifications and also a lot of meaningless comments."

Dr Green said one point he would be looking out for was whether the findings recommended repealing federal laws banning nuclear power in Australia.

Pro-nuclear climate scientist professor Tom Wigley said he believed nuclear energy should be part of Australia's future, but said whatever was recommended would take time.

"Even if the royal commission comes down and says Australia needs nuclear technology as part of the technology mix ... it's not going to happen overnight," he said.

"It might be five to 10 years before we can get around to building nuclear power stations, and Australia only has 20 million people. We don't need all that many nuclear power stations really."

One of the royal commission's expert advisors, Professor Ian Lowe, said he did not know what the findings would be, and would be awaiting their release at 11:00am.

"I'm not apprehensive because if the royal commission sticks to the facts and what's proven, I think they'll inevitably conclude there's not a strong case for South Australia getting heavily involved in the nuclear industry," he said.