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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more