The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

UK’s nuclear plans mean taxpayers take on unlimited costs for any accidents, and for longterm wastes

Politics Home 24th July 2018 , Alan Brown MP: Government mustn’t sign up to ‘crazy proposals’ leaving the
taxpayer facing unlimited risk over nuclear incidents. Shadow SNP
Spokesperson for Energy, Alan Brown MP, writes ahead of his Westminster
Hall debate on ‘Taxpayer liability for safety at the Wylfa Nuclear power
project’. The nuclear industry in the UK, whilst keeping the lights on for
decades has come at a price.

The legacy of contamination and clean-up is
estimated by the National Audit Office to come in at £121bn by completion
in 2020. The Magnox swarf storage silo contains waste sludge which is
corrosive and radioactive and deemed a hazard until 2050 and there are a
number of existing nuclear power stations still to be decommissioned.

Yet we are told by the UK Government that we need more nuclear as a low carbon
means of energy generation. While the process may indeed be low carbon, it
is anything but green given the toxic legacy.

Why do we want to commission more at exorbitant costs?

With regards the cliché “we need the baseload,” as far back as 2015, the chief executive of National Grid
argued that the baseload concept was outdated. The only other reasoning I
can see is the equally outdated concept of the UK being a world leader in a
particular sector.

I have my own bias of course, but I would suggest the UK
may be the world leader in bad nuclear deals. A 35 year agreement for
Hinkley Point C at £92.50/MWh, when offshore wind recently came in at
£57.50 for a 15 year tenure. The Hinkley deal so bad it was criticised by
the NAO as bad value for money.

Part of the problem with Hinkley was the
risk and the financial exposure to private investors. A risk allayed with
the fact the technology for the European Pressure Reactor (EPR) has still
to be proven, with all existing EPR projects under construction facing

As investment in nuclear around the world falls, the UK has ten
stations on the go in terms of planning. Yet, the National Infrastructure
Commission’s latest report states that they believe there should be a
maximum of just one new nuclear contract signed before 2025. This is
because of the reduced costs of renewables and the other emerging
technologies including the massive decrease in cost of batteries.

Their report also illustrates that over the years the cost of nuclear has not
decreased, debunking another UK Government aspiration. This backdrop brings
us directly to Wylfa. Direct information from the Government remains
difficult due to the claims of “commercial confidentiality”. However,
again it is clear that the private developer, Hitachi, has had difficulties
with the costs and risks associated with the project. This has led to the
suggestion of the Government taking a £5bn direct stake in the project. In
principle for key infrastructure projects, a direct Government stake makes
sense as it can borrow cheaper than the private sector.

However, this seems to be part of another wider blank cheque type agreement for a Government
desperate to get the project over the finishing line. When strike rate
figures of £77.50/MWh are quoted for Wyfla, then this stake is one reason
for the reduction. Under the Paris and Brussels conventions, a nuclear
operator has the liability for any nuclear incidents. Even so, there is a
cap ay £1.2bn euros, so way below the true cost of a catastrophic
incident. Hitachi has already had two serious safety breaches in other
nuclear developments, and for one was fined $2.7bn from the US Government.

Apparently learning from this, Hitachi are resisting taking on liability
for nuclear incidents. We do not know exactly what they are proposing, but
it marks a departure from current agreements and the “polluter pays”
principle. It is critical that the UK Government does not sign up to any
such crazy proposals. The cost legacy is bad enough; we still don’t have
a solution to long term disposal of nuclear waste and it is folly to sign a
deal for the taxpayer to take unlimited risk on a nuclear incident. This
could prove to be the worst deal yet unless the Government changes tact


July 25, 2018 - Posted by | politics, UK

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: