Skip to main content

Treehugger Kicks Up Some FUD Over U.K. Decommissioning

By Eric McErlain
The big news out of Britain this week was an announcement that the government would have to pay over $120 billion (70 billion pounds) to clean up their national nuclear program. This led the folks at Treehugger to write:
We thought this news item adds needed perspective to the notion that mitigating climate change with nuclear energy will be cost effective over the full life cycle. New sites will at some future point again have to be made "safe." Much of a wind turbine will have positive scrap value at the end of it's design life; while much of a nuclear generation station, and all of its uranium series waste will have a negative value.
Putting aside for a moment the long-term potential of recycling used nuclear fuel, what John Laumer at Treehugger neglected to mention is that most of the funds dedicated are going to be used to address the legacy of Britain's military nuclear programs, not commercial nuclear energy production. Here's former U.K. Energy Minister Brian Wilson:
To make any parallels between last week's announcement and the current debate about nuclear new-build is, however, illogical, and no more than a propaganda point. The civil nuclear industry did not create Sellafield or most of the other sites. The enormous pressure which existed for rapid solutions and the cutting of corners did not come from the demands of power stations, but from generals and politicians. The extraordinarily cavalier approach which existed towards the treatment of deadly materials in the early decades is utterly incompatible with the stringencies of the highly regulated civil nuclear industry.
That's something to keep in mind when you run into claims like this from Treehugger.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
I would also point out that in the UK, until recent years, electricity production and distribution was a government owned monopoly. Successive governments chose not to set up decommissioning funds because they wanted to keep electricity prices artificially low - after all a price hike will directly affect a politician's reelection prospects. It would be better all around if all countries required all industrial facilities to establish decommissioning funds. Nuclear plants are not the only industrial sites that are expensive to return to greenfields.
April 5, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Anonymous said…
Another thing is that the British reactors are gas cooled and use graphite as moderator. This means you get very large amounts of radioactive graphite to deal with when you tear the plant down. The radioactive demolition waste volumes are realtively immense and decommissioning cost are at least five times as high as for LWR plants.

Not good.

Note to self: don't build graphite reactors.
April 5, 2006 at 7:18 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more