My engagement with my local MP, Chris Heaton-Harris has produced a ‘substantive’ response to my nuclear energy questions from the illustriously sounding, Baroness Verma of Leicester, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
I have attached the correspondence for your reference.
The response over two pages doesn’t exactly answer my earlier questions, requires me to read a 140 page report to find some of my own answers, and presents something of a nuclear energy sales pitch as well; but it is good to get a personalised response from an MP and then a senior Whitehall figure too.
The report from the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, referenced by the Baroness, can be found here; https://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/annual-report-and-accounts-2011-2012.pdf
My observations are these:
As far as I can tell my question about the overall cost of Sellafield decommissioning, current expenditure £67.5 billion, is not addressed in the report (that is older than the article that I based my original article on). The NDA report and accounts from 2011/2012 references the following on page 31.
Given the extended timescale over which decommissioning will take place, and the uncertainty over how challenges will be overcome, the NDA considers that there are a range of possible outcomes for the Provision, these show a potential range from £48.9 billion to £59.6 billion.
Hmmmm! We are already £8 billion adrift of the higher estimate and my question about how much it will eventually cost is not answered. Maybe the 2012/13 annual report and accounts will help. The thing is though that they probably won’t be audited or published for a while yet.
My question about the future decommissioning of existing UK sites has been answered with a reference to the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) meeting future costs. I am no accountant but £8.7 billion pounds of assets (£5.1 billion existing liabilities) doesn’t sound nearly enough when Sellafield is already at £67.5 billion! There are eight shut down sites and nine in operation.
In answer to my question about the costs of building new nuclear power stations, the Baroness makes it clear that is a private sector investment opportunity and by implication not a burden on the UK tax payer. My follow-up question here is that if companies like EDF can fund the building, will those companies also be required to fully fund the decommissioning (and make funds like the NLF unnecessary)?
In terms of the sales pitch, the Baroness points out that nuclear energy is low cost in terms of cost per megawatt hour (MWh) and has a low carbon impact. I get the economics but what I don’t appreciate is if the decommissioning costs are factored into the cost per MWh or if these costs are separate. A low carbon output is desirable but does this offset the risk posed by a 100,000 year toxic legacy. Are the negative effects of long term radiation risk better than the negative effects of higher carbon production? I don’t know; I am sure it’s a delicate equation that takes into account sea level rise, the potential loss of East Anglia to water ingress and a complete disregard for the massive and increasing carbon output of China.
Interestingly even as I write this piece, Ed Davey is expected to give planning permission to EDF to build a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley. The power company may still decide not to bother if it can’t agree with the government that it can charge whatever it likes to UK consumers for the electricity generated. So Baroness, correct me if I am wrong - even if the MWh generation costs are low, the MWh charge out to consumers may be a lot higher.
I am a bit disappointed to get no answer to my question about the value for the UK economy created by Sellafield across its operating life but I am not surprised! Whilst the Baroness can’t answer, and it’s not her fault that she can’t, it’s the kind of question that should have an answer and it’s poor that the insight is not available. My view, the energy companies building new stations should be required to keep this detail into perpetuity – not just seven years.
I have to state that whilst the exchange of notes with the politicians has been fun, it has not really resulted in illumination. The answers only raise more questions.
So Chris, if you read this note, and I hope you do, would you pass my supplementary questions/observations on to the Baroness for further comment? Thanks for your help. Adrian
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
I have attached the correspondence for your reference.
The response over two pages doesn’t exactly answer my earlier questions, requires me to read a 140 page report to find some of my own answers, and presents something of a nuclear energy sales pitch as well; but it is good to get a personalised response from an MP and then a senior Whitehall figure too.
The report from the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, referenced by the Baroness, can be found here; https://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/annual-report-and-accounts-2011-2012.pdf
My observations are these:
As far as I can tell my question about the overall cost of Sellafield decommissioning, current expenditure £67.5 billion, is not addressed in the report (that is older than the article that I based my original article on). The NDA report and accounts from 2011/2012 references the following on page 31.
Given the extended timescale over which decommissioning will take place, and the uncertainty over how challenges will be overcome, the NDA considers that there are a range of possible outcomes for the Provision, these show a potential range from £48.9 billion to £59.6 billion.
Hmmmm! We are already £8 billion adrift of the higher estimate and my question about how much it will eventually cost is not answered. Maybe the 2012/13 annual report and accounts will help. The thing is though that they probably won’t be audited or published for a while yet.
My question about the future decommissioning of existing UK sites has been answered with a reference to the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) meeting future costs. I am no accountant but £8.7 billion pounds of assets (£5.1 billion existing liabilities) doesn’t sound nearly enough when Sellafield is already at £67.5 billion! There are eight shut down sites and nine in operation.
In answer to my question about the costs of building new nuclear power stations, the Baroness makes it clear that is a private sector investment opportunity and by implication not a burden on the UK tax payer. My follow-up question here is that if companies like EDF can fund the building, will those companies also be required to fully fund the decommissioning (and make funds like the NLF unnecessary)?
In terms of the sales pitch, the Baroness points out that nuclear energy is low cost in terms of cost per megawatt hour (MWh) and has a low carbon impact. I get the economics but what I don’t appreciate is if the decommissioning costs are factored into the cost per MWh or if these costs are separate. A low carbon output is desirable but does this offset the risk posed by a 100,000 year toxic legacy. Are the negative effects of long term radiation risk better than the negative effects of higher carbon production? I don’t know; I am sure it’s a delicate equation that takes into account sea level rise, the potential loss of East Anglia to water ingress and a complete disregard for the massive and increasing carbon output of China.
Interestingly even as I write this piece, Ed Davey is expected to give planning permission to EDF to build a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley. The power company may still decide not to bother if it can’t agree with the government that it can charge whatever it likes to UK consumers for the electricity generated. So Baroness, correct me if I am wrong - even if the MWh generation costs are low, the MWh charge out to consumers may be a lot higher.
I am a bit disappointed to get no answer to my question about the value for the UK economy created by Sellafield across its operating life but I am not surprised! Whilst the Baroness can’t answer, and it’s not her fault that she can’t, it’s the kind of question that should have an answer and it’s poor that the insight is not available. My view, the energy companies building new stations should be required to keep this detail into perpetuity – not just seven years.
I have to state that whilst the exchange of notes with the politicians has been fun, it has not really resulted in illumination. The answers only raise more questions.
So Chris, if you read this note, and I hope you do, would you pass my supplementary questions/observations on to the Baroness for further comment? Thanks for your help. Adrian
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
 |  |
RSS Feed
