Regular readers will know that nuclear power is an occasional ‘soapbox climber’ for me; today the BBC news website presents a few articles that give some interesting insight into the country’s current set of nuclear power challenges. These are articles that everyone should read and contemplate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117
First up, the recognition that the costs of cleaning up the nuclear waste disposal site at Sellafield are spiralling out of control! £67.5 billion spent so far and no end to this huge expenditure in sight. Bearing in mind the fragile economic state of this country, and the austerity cuts having such an impact in the daily lives of everyone; the costs associated with decommissioning the Sellafield site are staggering, and more than a little offensive!
The fact is that the costs are unavoidable because corners just can’t be cut – belt and braces are necessary for public safety. If there is anywhere where risk aversion is to be applauded, it is in Cumbria. This does mean that there is very little that the politicians are going to be able to do to save money or influence timescales - action will probably be limited to moaning and groaning and attempting to apportion blame away from them!
Perhaps it is no wonder that the plan for burying yet more nuclear waste (in a not yet specially constructed underground vault deep in the Cumbrian hills) was recently voted against by Cumbria Council. Handling the existing haul is problematical enough without compounding the issue another 100,000 years into the future. No other authority in the country is prepared to entertain such a scheme either and who could blame them?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21161367
The nuclear problem is a hot potato that the government is ill-equipped to deal with. In fact this problem shows the limitations of our political system as a whole. Political short-termism and coherent, long-term nuclear strategy are completely at odds. How can you have a government with a five year life expectancy making appropriate provision for a timescale up to 20,000 times its tenure?
If the preceding paragraphs were about the nuclear legacy, what about the nuclear power of the future!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21319031
Unsurprisingly, there are problems with sliding timescales and increasing costs in this sphere as well! Today sees the news that Centrica has withdrawn from the UK's nuclear re-building programme. EDF will now have to find new financial backing in order to fund the construction of new reactors at Hinkley Point, in Somerset, and Sizewell, in Suffolk. In my opinion, this is good news because it may delay new investment for years to come (although the Chinese may now get involved, which though slightly worrying, would at least be preferable to the North Koreans).
Nuclear power generation should not sit in the hands of private companies (that are answerable to shareholders and in it to make money) because it’s too risky and too expensive. Arguably it should sit in the hands of the government; but successive UK governments have proved inept at managing the responsibility. The other option, preferable to me, would be ‘stop’. The position being - don’t invest in the new when you can’t manage the old! What do you think?
My questions for Mr Cameron are these:
If the bill for decommissioning Sellafield is already £67.5 billion – what will it rise to before the task is finished?
There are eight other shut down sites in the UK; will these cost a similar sum to decommission? Is this at least another £540 billion?
There are nine functioning reactors in the country – in due course, will these cost at least £607.5 billion to decommission?
There are eight new sites confirmed for the UK – what on earth will it cost to build those? What is the value to the UK tax payer of the investment?
How much value for the UK (stated in UK pounds) did Sellafield create in its entire functioning existence? Does that value cover the £67.5 billion being spent to take it apart (let alone what it cost to build in the first place)?
I am going to send this piece and my questions to my local MP and I’ll ask for some comment. I’ll share with you any response that I get. In the meantime, if you are uncomfortable with what you read – not just here but in the media more widely – raise the issue with your MP too! Alternatively think about joining CND and let the movement represent your voice in its lobbying!
19/02/2013 UPDATE TO POST - I am pleased to report that Chris Heaton-Harris the Daventry member of parliament has responded, or at least acknowledged, my approach to him. Read all about it here!
If this subject area interests you, here are some of my earlier posts:
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/a-cumbrian-earthquake-why-a-21-score-should-still-bother-you.html
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/post-purchase-satisfaction-and-sellafield-dissatisfaction.html
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/10/more-nuclear-nonsense.html
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/joining-cnd.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117
First up, the recognition that the costs of cleaning up the nuclear waste disposal site at Sellafield are spiralling out of control! £67.5 billion spent so far and no end to this huge expenditure in sight. Bearing in mind the fragile economic state of this country, and the austerity cuts having such an impact in the daily lives of everyone; the costs associated with decommissioning the Sellafield site are staggering, and more than a little offensive!
The fact is that the costs are unavoidable because corners just can’t be cut – belt and braces are necessary for public safety. If there is anywhere where risk aversion is to be applauded, it is in Cumbria. This does mean that there is very little that the politicians are going to be able to do to save money or influence timescales - action will probably be limited to moaning and groaning and attempting to apportion blame away from them!
Perhaps it is no wonder that the plan for burying yet more nuclear waste (in a not yet specially constructed underground vault deep in the Cumbrian hills) was recently voted against by Cumbria Council. Handling the existing haul is problematical enough without compounding the issue another 100,000 years into the future. No other authority in the country is prepared to entertain such a scheme either and who could blame them?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21161367
The nuclear problem is a hot potato that the government is ill-equipped to deal with. In fact this problem shows the limitations of our political system as a whole. Political short-termism and coherent, long-term nuclear strategy are completely at odds. How can you have a government with a five year life expectancy making appropriate provision for a timescale up to 20,000 times its tenure?
If the preceding paragraphs were about the nuclear legacy, what about the nuclear power of the future!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21319031
Unsurprisingly, there are problems with sliding timescales and increasing costs in this sphere as well! Today sees the news that Centrica has withdrawn from the UK's nuclear re-building programme. EDF will now have to find new financial backing in order to fund the construction of new reactors at Hinkley Point, in Somerset, and Sizewell, in Suffolk. In my opinion, this is good news because it may delay new investment for years to come (although the Chinese may now get involved, which though slightly worrying, would at least be preferable to the North Koreans).
Nuclear power generation should not sit in the hands of private companies (that are answerable to shareholders and in it to make money) because it’s too risky and too expensive. Arguably it should sit in the hands of the government; but successive UK governments have proved inept at managing the responsibility. The other option, preferable to me, would be ‘stop’. The position being - don’t invest in the new when you can’t manage the old! What do you think?
My questions for Mr Cameron are these:
If the bill for decommissioning Sellafield is already £67.5 billion – what will it rise to before the task is finished?
There are eight other shut down sites in the UK; will these cost a similar sum to decommission? Is this at least another £540 billion?
There are nine functioning reactors in the country – in due course, will these cost at least £607.5 billion to decommission?
There are eight new sites confirmed for the UK – what on earth will it cost to build those? What is the value to the UK tax payer of the investment?
How much value for the UK (stated in UK pounds) did Sellafield create in its entire functioning existence? Does that value cover the £67.5 billion being spent to take it apart (let alone what it cost to build in the first place)?
I am going to send this piece and my questions to my local MP and I’ll ask for some comment. I’ll share with you any response that I get. In the meantime, if you are uncomfortable with what you read – not just here but in the media more widely – raise the issue with your MP too! Alternatively think about joining CND and let the movement represent your voice in its lobbying!
19/02/2013 UPDATE TO POST - I am pleased to report that Chris Heaton-Harris the Daventry member of parliament has responded, or at least acknowledged, my approach to him. Read all about it here!
If this subject area interests you, here are some of my earlier posts:
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/a-cumbrian-earthquake-why-a-21-score-should-still-bother-you.html
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/post-purchase-satisfaction-and-sellafield-dissatisfaction.html
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/10/more-nuclear-nonsense.html
http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/joining-cnd.html
RSS Feed
