Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sellafield Clean-Up Cost Reaches £67.5Bn, Says Report


interestrateripoff

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117

The cost of cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear waste site has reached £67.5bn with no sign of when the cost will stop rising, according to a report.

The Public Accounts Committee's report said deadlines to clean the Cumbria site had been missed, leaving crucial decommissioning projects over budget.

It suggested successive governments have failed to "get to grips" with the hoards of waste stored at the site.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said it is facing up to the challenges.

Why is it going to stop raising, the cost is perpetual.

It's great news for GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

A big problem always overlooked by the pro-nuclear lobby. The budget for decommissioning the few old nuclear power stations in the UK over the next 100 years is just horrendous. If someone thinks wind subsidies are high, just see what decommissioning is planned to cost, and as this article shows, the cost just keeps rising.

Whatever people claim - Nuclear power is NOT cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444

A big problem always overlooked by the pro-nuclear lobby. The budget for decommissioning the few old nuclear power stations in the UK over the next 100 years is just horrendous. If someone thinks wind subsidies are high, just see what decommissioning is planned to cost, and as this article shows, the cost just keeps rising.

Whatever people claim - Nuclear power is NOT cheap.

IIRC the big estimates often include cleaning up the weapons programs.

If you start looking at the per-kWh cost of the genuine civilian plants it looks a bit better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447
7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449
Why is it going to stop raising, the cost is perpetual.

It's great news for GDP.

I've been mentioning this on here for years when people talk about our national debt.
A big problem always overlooked by the pro-nuclear lobby. The budget for decommissioning the few old nuclear power stations in the UK over the next 100 years is just horrendous. If someone thinks wind subsidies are high, just see what decommissioning is planned to cost, and as this article shows, the cost just keeps rising.
How many wind turbines can you build for 65 billion quid ?

Oh for the love of god.

Look, it's very simple, the high costs are for cleaning up the OLD sites, the first generations of nuclear reactor, from when everything was experimental, before it was perfected. The current reactor designs create a tiny FRACTION of the clean-up issues the early ones did.

Once we had the nuclear reactors perfected, the Boomers went all hippy and started to block them being built. This meant they got to benefit from cheap electricity from the early reactors, however their grand kids wont, and will just pick up the bill for cleaning up the mess made providing the Boomers with near-free electricity.

Using the clean-up costs as an excuse for blocking future nuclear power stations or trying to push windmills onto people is just retarded. For a start, if you want to build f**king windmills you need to build a Nuclear Power Station AS WELL and leave it idling when it's windy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

The current reactor designs create a tiny FRACTION of the clean-up issues the early ones did.

That's the only decent response i've heard to the nuclear waste problem and frankly it's not very reassuring.

I'm pretty pro-nuclear but my support as mostly ebbed away now. Not just the ever increasing costs of decommissioning, but the ever increasing costs of construction, the ever increasing subsidy (sorry i meant "CFD" strike price), the inability to find a long term solution to waste storage...

I'm with Centrica:

Centrica has withdrawn from the UK's nuclear re-building programme because of increasing costs and delays.

Seems our only hope is Hitachi manage to make Horizon work at a more reasonable price than EDF and Areva seem to be managing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412

Enough for you to really be wishing you'd spent the money on new nuclear power stations when the wind isn't blowing.

There are many technical solutions for storing energy around the corner. Storing energy at the moment is not a priority, as the power generated by our wind turbines can be managed by adjusting the output of other power stations.

Germany who are much further ahead in adopting renewable energy are proposing to generate e-gas, hydrogen etc, with surplus power that can be used later when the wind is not blowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

The usual misinformation about the cost of cleaning up Sellafield ...

The total figure of £67.5Bn is un-discounted. The government 'spends' £1.5Bn each year on Sellafield from one department but the 'income' from commercial activities at Sellafield goes to a different department. There is indeed an annual deficit which is born by the taxpayer but the annual shortfall is why BNFL was wound up.

A large chunk of the overall clean up cost is military in origin. Another chunk is due to the ponds that were heavily contaminated in the 1970s and 1980s during successive miner's strikes. The UK's nuclear reactors were being run flat out to keep the lights on and the fuel could not be reprocessed at Sellafield fast enough. Some Magnox fuel was left too long in the ponds.

What happened to BNFL's 12.5bn decommissioning fund and its offshore funds?

What happened to the CEGB's decommissioning fund?

What happened to the decommissioning money paid by Nuclear Electric and Magnox Electric to the government?

What happened to the money from the sale of the Magnox reactor design to two countries and of excess Pu to the Americans in the 1960s?

What happened to the profits from Urenco over the years or the cash released from selling off the nuclear industry's land?

Oh yeah ... I forgot the Government of the day spent all the money and left the future to look after itself (just like they always do !).

Nobody is saying nuclear power is cheap. However, uranium is the most concentrated source of energy on the planet so it could be cheap. We simply choose as a society to regulate nuclear heavily and require a risk premium. I agree with these extra costs given the nature of the hazard. I would rather have slightly more expensive electricity and a secure supply than have rolling blackouts (which is where we are heading).

Decommissioning is expensive since money is not a good store of value over time due to accelerating devaluation of fiat (i.e. the same reason that people cannot save enough for their pensions). In theory, decommissioning represents only around 10% of the cost of operating a reactor but somehow there is never enough money.

I am beginning to think it is not economic to build anything at the moment (not just nuclear) due to the money situation. No private company could afford to risk the capital expenditure for any high cost capital intensive project.

Also, the failure of the UK to build an underground repository means the cost of surface storage of radioactive waste at Sellafield for an indefinite time has to be met by the UK taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

...

Oh yeah ... I forgot the Government of the day spent all the money and left the future to look after itself (just like they always do !).

...

Just kept the moneyshot from your post. Even if nuclear is attractive from an engineering and technical viewpoint, the realpolitik aspect is a nightmare. People just don't vote to put money away because it will be needed in 20 years time. Sellafield is a good example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
Germany who are much further ahead in adopting renewable energy are proposing to generate e-gas, hydrogen etc, with surplus power that can be used later when the wind is not blowing.
Yes and Germany have been screwing up the energy markets in Europe dumping surplus electricity on the market.

If you keep adding wind power, the cost of the electricity from the backup sources is going to have to rise until it covers the cost of running the backup plant.

Or we need to sort out some storage, however building storage facilities, which bar pumped hydro are largely theoretical is going to be expensive and take time. Also many of the proposed storage solutions are pretty high risk. (I can't see many people wanting a hydrogen generation and storage plant near them, you certainly couldn't put one anywhere near a residential area.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417

Yes and Germany have been screwing up the energy markets in Europe dumping surplus electricity on the market.

If you keep adding wind power, the cost of the electricity from the backup sources is going to have to rise until it covers the cost of running the backup plant.

Or we need to sort out some storage, however building storage facilities, which bar pumped hydro are largely theoretical is going to be expensive and take time. Also many of the proposed storage solutions are pretty high risk. (I can't see many people wanting a hydrogen generation and storage plant near them, you certainly couldn't put one anywhere near a residential area.)

You build out enough wind across Europe and build sufficient interconnects and an increasing percentage of that wind capacity can be counted as baseload. Conservatively the UK with the amount of offshore it now has could book 5% of its wind capacity (400MW) as baseload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

(I can't see many people wanting a hydrogen generation and storage plant near them, you certainly couldn't put one anywhere near a residential area.)

A hydrogen storage plant would still be much safer than a nuclear reactor in the event of an explosion. A nuclear reactor would also not be built in a residential area. At least with a hydrogen explosion, there are no long term radiation effects. Hydrogen is also not that volatile in liquid form. We have no problems storing liquefied natural gas, so I don't assume the issues of storing large quantities of liquid hydrogen are insurmountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

You build out enough wind across Europe and build sufficient interconnects and an increasing percentage of that wind capacity can be counted as baseload. Conservatively the UK with the amount of offshore it now has could book 5% of its wind capacity (400MW) as baseload.

Absolutely. I believe the Germans and a few other countries are already looking to do this. The Germans are also looking at doing something similar with solar power in Southern Europe and North Africa and bringing it North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Absolutely. I believe the Germans and a few other countries are already looking to do this. The Germans are also looking at doing something similar with solar power in Southern Europe and North Africa and bringing it North.

Germans are mainly looking at French, why is the German electricity double the price of the French nuclear one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/medium-sized-german-companies-criticize-energy-tax-breaks-for-industry-a-863430.html

Now Götz is taking his case to the regional court in Chemnitz and a hearing is expected to take place this year. The businessman will present a simple case to the judge in Chemnitz: "My competitor in France pays as much for a kilowatt hour as I pay for the EEG contribution," he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Germans are mainly looking at French, why is the German electricity double the price of the French nuclear one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/medium-sized-german-companies-criticize-energy-tax-breaks-for-industry-a-863430.html

Now Götz is taking his case to the regional court in Chemnitz and a hearing is expected to take place this year. The businessman will present a simple case to the judge in Chemnitz: "My competitor in France pays as much for a kilowatt hour as I pay for the EEG contribution," he says.

I doubt the French power prices will remain as low as they are when EDF need to build a new fleet of power stations and pay to decommission the old ones. No doubt the French Government will be asked to pay for it - but they will not have the money either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Germans are mainly looking at French, why is the German electricity double the price of the French nuclear one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/medium-sized-german-companies-criticize-energy-tax-breaks-for-industry-a-863430.html

Now Götz is taking his case to the regional court in Chemnitz and a hearing is expected to take place this year. The businessman will present a simple case to the judge in Chemnitz: "My competitor in France pays as much for a kilowatt hour as I pay for the EEG contribution," he says.

Because it's the most subsidized form of electricity on the planet as you full well know. I've already explained this to you in detail in previous threads. So why are you continuing to post this crap when you know its a load of 100% crap?

http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons

About the cost advantage of nuclear energy

Electricity from nuclear energy is considered to be economical and very cost effective, in particular compared to electricity from renewable energy sources like wind, water, sun, biomass or geothermal energy.

There are two main reasons for the relative low cost of nuclear power:

Research and development for nuclear applications has been financed by the government, therefore these costs don't get transferred to the cost of electricity produced from nuclear power. However the cost of R&D for renewable energy sources is mostly financed privately and therefore added to the production cost. It is therefore included in the cost of renewable electricity.

Nuclear power plants are underinsured for legal liability. The risk for nuclear catastrophes is not carried by the owner of the nuclear power plant, it is carried by the whole nation. Electricity from nuclear power would cost at least twice as much than today if operator companies of nuclear power plants were to insure the plants for the real risks.

Nuclear power plants are generally underinsured

In Switzerland, the department of civil guard estimated the material cost of a catastrophic failure in one of the Swiss nuclear energy plants to be in the order of 2'600 billion Euro (about 3'400 billion USD). However the Swiss nuclear power plants are insured for only 190 million Euro (240 million USD). This means they are insured for legal liability for just 0.007% of the expected material damage if a major crash happened. Practically all these costs needed to be carried by the State of Switzerland.

Internationally, the situation is quite similar: The world-wide standard for nuclear power plants is a legal insurance for liability in the order of 1.4 billion Euro (1.8 billion USD). Most likely the expected material damage of a reactor crash in Switzerland would be similar for any industrialised country. This means that most nuclear power plants are only insured for about 0.05% of the expected material damage. Or to put it the other way round: 99.95% of the cost of a nuclear reactor crash would have to be paid by the respective nation.

Why are nuclear power plants underinsured?

It is difficult to understand why nuclear power in contrast to electricity produced by any other process does not have to bear the cost of its own risks and assign it to the product costs. Why is there no transparency of costs in this particular case?

If for example nuclear power plants were to be insured for 300 billions Euro (400 billions USD), the cost of nuclear electricity would be increased by 0.031 to 0.063 Euro (by 4 to 8 US-cents) per kWh. This would increase the current production cost by more than 100% and therefore make nuclear power economically much less attractive compared to electricity from renewable sources. The committee for energy from the National Council of Switzerland concluded „...increasing the legal liability to 300 billions Euro (400 billions USD) ... would basically make it impossible to implement new nuclear power plants."

It is very surprising to see that the nation carries the risks for the operators of nuclear power plants while operators of other technologies to generate electricity have to carry the risks themselves. The cost for electricity from non-nuclear sources does of course include the respective costs for the liability insurance. This is not the case for nuclear power, however. Apparently, nuclear power can only be competitive if the cost of the risks involved are paid by someone else.

Edited by alexw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

You build out enough wind across Europe and build sufficient interconnects and an increasing percentage of that wind capacity can be counted as baseload. Conservatively the UK with the amount of offshore it now has could book 5% of its wind capacity (400MW) as baseload.

I know we go round in circles on this on a regular basis, but if you have tidal, wind, solar, pump storage, the smart grid to exchange that with europe, plus shale gas and a big pile of coal, does that add up to enough contingency to rule out nuclear ?

In the past I haven't been particularly negative on nuclear because I believe in energy diversification, but 65 billion quid is a lot of money by anyones standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

I know we go round in circles on this on a regular basis, but if you have tidal, wind, solar, pump storage, the smart grid to exchange that with europe, plus shale gas and a big pile of coal, does that add up to enough contingency to rule out nuclear ?

In the past I haven't been particularly negative on nuclear because I believe in energy diversification, but 65 billion quid is a lot of money by anyones standards.

Have a listen to CIBSE Annual Lecture 2012: How secure is Great Britain’s electricity and gas supply over the next decade?

It's an hour + long, but very informative,

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
I know we go round in circles on this on a regular basis, but if you have tidal, wind, solar, pump storage, the smart grid to exchange that with europe, plus shale gas and a big pile of coal, does that add up to enough contingency to rule out nuclear ?

In the past I haven't been particularly negative on nuclear because I believe in energy diversification, but 65 billion quid is a lot of money by anyones standards.

The UK could certainly run everything on tidal+pumped if we told the green campaigners to go f*ck themselves and just built what we needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information