Regular visitors will know that one of my soapbox whinging topics is nuclear power – there are a number of articles published on this site on the subject (see list at the end of this post).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31725365
Today's news on the BBC website that the clean-up costs at Sellafield have risen still further and that the project is still well adrift of its timing plan bothers me a lot, though I am not surprised. I last wrote about Sellafield’s project woes in 2013. Two years later, this news piece bears some striking similarities (aside from the numbers) to the earlier BBC coverage.
Rather than me repeat the content of previous posts, please have a read of them. There is even dialogue with my local MP, Chris Heaton-Harris and Baroness Verma the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
From a budgeting perspective, the clean-up project at Sellafield is simply out of control and no one appears to have the skill set to contain the costs. To be frank, I don’t really understand the figures – in 2013 the BBC coverage detailed £67.5 billion, now today's suggests £53 billion; an overspend of £5 Billion; a total predicted clean up cost of £70 billion. Clearly the BBC didn't review its previous article before publishing the latest one.
To clear matters up, I reviewed The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA) accounts from 2013-14 – you can download them from www.nda.gov.uk as I did.
The accounts contain the following extract - NDA has reviewed the methodologies used in the calculation of the ranges of the nuclear provision and has recognised that removal of optimism bias, application of the HMT Green Book estimating uncertainty principles and early sight of the Sellafield future costs means that it is appropriate to significantly increase the potential undiscounted range. The NDA has reviewed a number of scenarios with a range of possible outcomes, the estimated cost could have a potential range from £88 billion to £218 billion.
I am not an accountant and the term optimism bias was new to me – I looked it up – here’s what I found:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191507/Optimism_bias.pdf
The document starts with the following text:"There is a demonstrated, systematic, tendency for project appraisers to be overly optimistic. To redress this tendency appraisers should make explicit, empirically based adjustments to the estimates of a project’s costs, benefits, and duration."
Clearly the 2011-12 NDA accounts were created without accounting for optimism bias because the scenarios for the Sellafield clean up were £48.9 billion to £59.6 billion.
The way I see it, when it comes to Sellafield – there is no reason to feel optimistic at all. £88 - £218 billion is shocking and that’s just for Sellafield – in the UK there are eight shut down sites and nine in operation.
Perhaps it’s no surprise that all those in charge are going to get hauled across the coals in March by a parliamentary committee.
In the midst of this expected cost, the Government still plans to invest in the Trident nuclear weapon programme – CND reports that investment value equates to about £100 billion - http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-trident.
I am a UK tax payer and I am horrified at the scale of public money allocated to these projects. I really struggle to see the ongoing viability of nuclear power and I am not alone.
Another recent piece on the BBC News website presented a debate about the future of nuclear power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30919045
In Western Europe, the US and Japan there is no public confidence in nuclear power and it’s a hot voting topic. The only places where nuclear power is still supported is in places with authoritarian regimes or Eastern Europe (where of course the Russians are agitating).
Some Middle-Eastern countries are planning reactors and that is deeply concerning – with IS operating in the region, the implications of terrorists getting hold of nuclear matter should terrify anyone.
In the UK, with the May elections approaching, any political party that was prepared to scrap/curtail Trident and park all plans for new reactors at Sizewell and Hinckley Point would get my vote. Will any of our political parties meet my requirements? I am not optimistic.
1 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/blog/nuclear-power-questions-answered-well-sort-of
2 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/blog/nuclear-power-qa-and-decc-update
3 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/blog/nuclear-profligacy
4 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/a-cumbrian-earthquake-why-a-21-score-should-still-bother-you.html
5 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/post-purchase-satisfaction-and-sellafield-dissatisfaction.html
6 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/10/more-nuclear-nonsense.html
7 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/joining-cnd.html
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31725365
Today's news on the BBC website that the clean-up costs at Sellafield have risen still further and that the project is still well adrift of its timing plan bothers me a lot, though I am not surprised. I last wrote about Sellafield’s project woes in 2013. Two years later, this news piece bears some striking similarities (aside from the numbers) to the earlier BBC coverage.
Rather than me repeat the content of previous posts, please have a read of them. There is even dialogue with my local MP, Chris Heaton-Harris and Baroness Verma the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
From a budgeting perspective, the clean-up project at Sellafield is simply out of control and no one appears to have the skill set to contain the costs. To be frank, I don’t really understand the figures – in 2013 the BBC coverage detailed £67.5 billion, now today's suggests £53 billion; an overspend of £5 Billion; a total predicted clean up cost of £70 billion. Clearly the BBC didn't review its previous article before publishing the latest one.
To clear matters up, I reviewed The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA) accounts from 2013-14 – you can download them from www.nda.gov.uk as I did.
The accounts contain the following extract - NDA has reviewed the methodologies used in the calculation of the ranges of the nuclear provision and has recognised that removal of optimism bias, application of the HMT Green Book estimating uncertainty principles and early sight of the Sellafield future costs means that it is appropriate to significantly increase the potential undiscounted range. The NDA has reviewed a number of scenarios with a range of possible outcomes, the estimated cost could have a potential range from £88 billion to £218 billion.
I am not an accountant and the term optimism bias was new to me – I looked it up – here’s what I found:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191507/Optimism_bias.pdf
The document starts with the following text:"There is a demonstrated, systematic, tendency for project appraisers to be overly optimistic. To redress this tendency appraisers should make explicit, empirically based adjustments to the estimates of a project’s costs, benefits, and duration."
Clearly the 2011-12 NDA accounts were created without accounting for optimism bias because the scenarios for the Sellafield clean up were £48.9 billion to £59.6 billion.
The way I see it, when it comes to Sellafield – there is no reason to feel optimistic at all. £88 - £218 billion is shocking and that’s just for Sellafield – in the UK there are eight shut down sites and nine in operation.
Perhaps it’s no surprise that all those in charge are going to get hauled across the coals in March by a parliamentary committee.
In the midst of this expected cost, the Government still plans to invest in the Trident nuclear weapon programme – CND reports that investment value equates to about £100 billion - http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-trident.
I am a UK tax payer and I am horrified at the scale of public money allocated to these projects. I really struggle to see the ongoing viability of nuclear power and I am not alone.
Another recent piece on the BBC News website presented a debate about the future of nuclear power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30919045
In Western Europe, the US and Japan there is no public confidence in nuclear power and it’s a hot voting topic. The only places where nuclear power is still supported is in places with authoritarian regimes or Eastern Europe (where of course the Russians are agitating).
Some Middle-Eastern countries are planning reactors and that is deeply concerning – with IS operating in the region, the implications of terrorists getting hold of nuclear matter should terrify anyone.
In the UK, with the May elections approaching, any political party that was prepared to scrap/curtail Trident and park all plans for new reactors at Sizewell and Hinckley Point would get my vote. Will any of our political parties meet my requirements? I am not optimistic.
1 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/blog/nuclear-power-questions-answered-well-sort-of
2 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/blog/nuclear-power-qa-and-decc-update
3 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/blog/nuclear-profligacy
4 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/a-cumbrian-earthquake-why-a-21-score-should-still-bother-you.html
5 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/11/post-purchase-satisfaction-and-sellafield-dissatisfaction.html
6 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/1/post/2012/10/more-nuclear-nonsense.html
7 - http://www.adrianbaldwin.net/joining-cnd.html
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
RSS Feed