Dounreay & Scottish Nuclear Policy
Allan Dorans , SNP MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock:
Workers at the Dounreay nuclear power complex on Scotland’s north coast plan strike action
next month which will further delay the decommissioning of a plant which
started operating in 1955.
The Prospect, Unite and GMB unions are all
involved. The GMB, the main union for nuclear energy workers, champions
alongside Scottish Labour proposals for new nuclear power stations in
Scotland, despite widespread public opposition to them. The union also
helps to fund Labour candidates.
While it is always disturbing to hear of
industrial conflict at a nuclear plant, these strikes will in reality,
relatively speaking, make little difference to the decommissioning process.
Why? Decommissioning began in 2019 and the plan envisages taking 50-60
years to complete.
But “complete” doesn’t mean the same to the company
responsible for the clean-up and demolition of Dounreay, Magnox Ltd, what
it means to most of us, and the site will be under surveillance – ie, not
usable – for at least 300 years. Leaving aside for the moment the appalling
financial costs of nuclear decommissioning, rarely mentioned in Scottish
Labour’s campaign material, what about the costs for the local people and
the environment over the last nearly 70 years?
There have been three
significant accidents and countless smaller ones. On May 10, 1977, a
65-metre (213ft) deep shaft at the plant was packed with radioactive waste
with at least 2 kg of sodium and potassium. Seawater flooded in and
reacted violently with the sodium and potassium, blowing the huge steel and
concrete lids off the shaft. The explosion littered the area with
radioactive particles, with around 150 of these being found on the beach in
the following 20 years.
This was, according to the New Statesman in 1995,
the worst nuclear accident ever in the UK. Dounreay was never prosecuted.
Researchers based at Oxford University, reporting – conveniently for some
political forces – in July 2014 revisited earlier studies of the incidence
of leukaemia around Sellafield and Dounreay and concluded that children,
teenagers and young adults currently living close to the facilities were
not at an increased risk of developing cancers.
The researchers, who were
dependent upon UK Government grants for their survival, downplayed two
earlier studies that found a raised risk of leukaemia among 0 to
14-year-olds and 15- to 24-year-olds living within 12.5km of Dounreay
during the period 1979-84. A subsequent study in 1996 reported an excess of
childhood leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) within 25 km of
Dounreay for the period 1968-93. The researchers do not tell us just how
many cases, how many more children and young adults than expected, had
developed these often-deadly cancers, but 1287 cases near seven nuclear
sites in Scotland were looked at in the second study.
Around Dounreay,
almost twice as many cases as expected were found. The difference was
greatest around Dounreay. If we share the 1287 cases among the seven sites,
we get around 180 cases near Dounreay, of which half or might not have
occurred if the plant had never been built. To, me that’s “significant”
and I feel sure it was for those young people and their families. With
every passing month, it becomes clearer that Scottish Labour must
reconsider their plans for a nuclear Scotland.
The National 29th April 2024
EDF wants public views on plans for Hinkley Point B decommissioning
By John Thorne Wednesday 17th April 2024
ENERGY firm EDF is carrying out a public consultation on its plans for the
decommissioning of Hinkley Point B nuclear power station, a process which
will continue into the 22nd century. The two Hinkley B reactors were shut
down in August, 2022, after 46 years of electricity generation, but will
not be able to be removed until about 2107. EDF has since been removing the
used fuel from the reactors in preparation for the station’s
decommissioning phase, which will involve dismantling and demolishing plant
and buildings on the site. More than half of the spent fuel stringers have
been removed from the first reactor and sent on in flasks for storage in
Sellafield, Cumbria.
West Somerset Free Press 17th April 2024
How much will extra decades of nuclear decommissioning work at Dounreay cost?
By Gordon Calder gordon.calder@hnmedia.co.uk, 28 March 2024
The cost of extending the decommissioning work at Dounreay is expected to
be published in the summer, according to a spokeswoman at the site.
She was responding to questions from the John O’ Groat Journal, following last
week’s announcement that the clean up-operation at the nuclear plant will
continue until the 2070s – almost 40 years longer than the previous date of
2033. The cost of the programme was previously said to be about £2.9
billion.
Asked about the estimated cost of extending the decommissioning,
the spokeswoman said: ” The estimate for delivering the revised lifetime
plan to take the Dounreay site to its interim end point, will form part of
the Nuclear Provision, and be published in the NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority) 2023/24 annual report in the summer. We are committed to
delivering the Dounreay mission as effectively and efficiently as
possible.”
John O’Groat Journal 28th March 2024
Dounreay decommissioning date ‘never achievable’ says Caithness councillor
CAITHNESS has been misled for the past 20 years over the
timescale for the decommissioning of Dounreay. The work was due to be
completed by 2033 but that target was “never technically practicable” and
“never achievable”, according to Struan Mackie, the chairman of the
Dounreay Stakeholder Group (DSG).
Mr Mackie, a Thurso and Northwest
Caithness Highland councillor, said: “We all know that the publicised
dates, the milestones communicated to our community, to our politicians and
to our supply chain for the last two decades have not been founded in
reality.
John O’Groat Journal 28th March 2024
The San Onofre Briefing: The Latest on SoCal’s Shut Down Nuclear Power Plant
5 Feb 2024
What does it mean for a nuclear plant to be decommissioned? What’s the status of the nuclear waste currently stored on-site at San Onofre? What concerns does the public need to be aware of? Is San Onofre safe? As advocates for a safe and sustainable future for Southern California, SLF is thrilled to present the next edition of our First Fridays Series, “The San Onofre Briefing: The Latest on SoCal’s Shut Down Nuclear Power Plant.” This edition is a comprehensive exploration of the recent developments surrounding the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Our expert panel – including a retired Admiral of the US Navy and the Former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission – delves into the current status, environmental impact, and public health implications of the shut-down nuclear site.
Devonport Dockyard nuclear sub dismantling will be hit by delays, new report predicts
Nuclear Information Service expects no quick fix for removal of 15 decommissioned submarines laid up at Devonport
William Telford, Business Editor, 15 Feb 24 Plymouth Live
The dismantling of 15 decommissioned nuclear subs at Devonport Royal Dockyard is likely to hit delays, according to a new report. The briefing document published by the independent Nuclear Information Service says a history of infrastructure work at the Plymouth facility means “delays are more likely to materialise than not”.
The report said upgrades to 14 and 15 Docks and the Submarine Refit Complex at Devonport are overdue and progress on submarine dismantling is “on hold” while the Government focuses on its £298m “demonstrator” project to fully dismantle HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth, forecast to be complete at the end of 2026.
The Ministry of Defence told Plymouth Live it aims to dismantle the nuclear submarines at Devonport “as soon as practicably possible”. It said the Swiftsure project will “inform and refine” the dismantling process for subsequent submarines and provide more certainty on the dismantling schedule for future submarines and remains on schedule for completion by the original target date of 2026.
The Nuclear Information Service’s briefing report on Devonport Royal Dockyard gives an overview of the facility and its role in servicing the UK’s submarine fleet, including its nuclear-armed submarines. The report said: “The 15 out-of-service nuclear submarines stored at Devonport, and a further seven that are at Rosyth, together comprise every nuclear submarine the Navy has ever fielded.
“Aside from the long-overdue upgrades to 14 and 15 Docks, and the Submarine Refit Complex, progress on submarine dismantling is on hold while the Government focuses on its ‘demonstrator’ project to fully dismantle HMS Swiftsure. This work is being undertaken at Rosyth and is currently forecast to be complete at the end of 2026 at a cost of £298m.
“Three more submarines at Rosyth have had low-level waste removed from them, but it is not clear if work to defuel the nine submarines at Devonport that are still carrying nuclear fuel will begin before completion of the demonstrator project.
In 2016 the MoD estimated that fully dismantling 27 submarines would cost £2.4bn. Although the risk to in-service submarine availability from delays to submarine dismantling and defuelling is lower than from delays to the maintenance schedule, the history of problems with the project and with infrastructure work at Devonport suggests that delays are more likely to materialise than not.”…………………………..more https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/devonport-dockyard-nuclear-sub-dismantling-9098888—
Still no end in sight for Fukushima nuke plant decommissioning work
January 27, 2024 (Mainichi Japan), https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240127/p2a/00m/0na/003000c
OKUMA, Fukushima — Nearly 13 years since the triple-meltdown following the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, it is still unclear when decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station’s reactors will be completed.
Operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Holdings Inc. showed the power plant to Mainichi Shimbun reporters on Jan. 26 ahead of the 13th anniversary of the nuclear accident. Radiation levels in many areas are almost normal, and people can move in ordinary work clothes. However, the most difficult part of the work, retrieving melted nuclear fuel, has been a challenge. The management of solid waste, which is increasing daily, also remains an issue. The decommissioning of the reactors, which is estimated to take up to 40 years, is still far from complete.
Meltdowns occurred in reactor Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The start of nuclear fuel debris removal at reactor No. 2, which had been scheduled to begin by the end of fiscal 2023, has just been postponed for the third time. Reactor buildings are still inaccessible due to high radiation, meaning the work has to be done remotely.
More than 1,000 tanks for storing treated wastewater are lined up next to reactor Nos. 1 through 4, and new facilities to stably store and process approximately 520,000 cubic meters of existing solid waste are being built by reactor Nos. 5 and 6.
Treated wastewater began being discharged into the ocean in 2023, and the tanks are gradually being removed, but there is no timetable for the disposal of the solid waste. A TEPCO representative said, “The final issue that remains is how to deal with the radioactive waste that continues to be produced even as the decommissioning of the plant progresses.”
Japanese original by Yui Takahashi, Lifestyle, Science & Environment News Department)
Shuttering the Nuclear Weapons Sites: There’s Gold in Those Warheads but the Scrap Metal is Radioactive
by Robert Alvarez, Dec 18, 2023, https://washingtonspectator.org/shuttering-the-nuclear-weapons-sites-theres-gold-in-those-warheads-but-the-scrap-metal-is-radioactive/
As one of my first tasks early in the first Clinton Administration as the newly appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, I conducted the first (and only) asset inventory of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In carrying it out, we departed from the usual reliance on DOE contractors, and established a team of federal employees throughout the DOE complex to scour the system for data. In doing this we saved a lot of money and time that would otherwise be consumed by DOE contractors that had perfected the art of cost maximization.
After six months we briefed Energy Secretary O’Leary on what we found. With real estate holdings of more than 2.4 million acres–an area larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined–the DOE was the largest government-owned industrial energy supply and research enterprise in the country, responsible for:
- More than 20,700 specialized facilities and buildings, including 5,000 warehouses, 7,000 administrative buildings, 1,600 laboratories, 89 nuclear reactors, 208 particle accelerators, and 665 production and manufacturing facilities.
- More than 130,000 metric tons of chemicals, a quantity roughly equivalent to the annual output of a large chemical manufacturer.
- More than 270,000 metric tons of scrap metal—equivalent to more than two modern aircraft carriers in weight. (The dismantlement of three gaseous diffusion plants will generate about 1.4 million metric tons of additional scrap.)
- More than 17,000 pieces of large industrial equipment.
- More than 40,000 metric tons of base metals and more than 10,000 pounds of precious metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum.
- About 700,000 metric tons of nuclear materials, mostly depleted uranium but also including weapons-grade and fuel-grade plutonium, thorium, and natural and enriched uranium.
- About 320,000 metric tons of stockpiled fuel oil and coal for 67 power plants.
- About 600 million barrels of crude oil stored at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
- Electrical distribution systems for the Bonneville, Western Area, Southwestern, Southeastern, and Alaska power administrations.
If the Energy Department were a private concern with more than 100,000 employees, it would be one of the nation’s largest and most powerful corporations. And, we determined, if it were privately held, it would be filing for bankruptcy.
Major elements of Energy’s complex were closing down, leaving a huge unfunded and dangerous mess. After more than a half century of making nuclear weapons, the DOE possessed one of the world’s largest inventories of dangerous nuclear materials and it has created several of the most contaminated areas in the Western hemisphere.
We discovered that a significant percentage of overhead expenses at several shuttered sites were from hoarding fungible assets that were no longer needed. The challenge was to empty these warehouses and to generate an income for the U.S. government by selling off valuable excess materials.
Our first effort was aimed at the large amount of uncontaminated precious metals contained in nuclear weapons that would generate millions-of-dollars in revenue from warheads scheduled for dismantlement under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). For the first time, nuclear disarmament would actually make money for the taxpayer.
We were astounded to find that for decades intact weapons components containing large amounts of precious metals were being disposed at great expense in a classified landfill under heavy guard. It took a direct order from the Secretary for DOE’s PANTEX weapons assembly and dismantlement facility near Amarillo, TX to obtain an industrial scale hydraulic hammer to smash non-nuclear components into little pieces so that the gold and other metals can be recovered without revealing design secrets.
Further complicating the process for dismantling weapons, the DOE had failed to properly maintain its system for assessing and evaluating each nuclear weapon for reliability, aging problems, and safe dismantlement. Known as configuration management (CM), this system is a fundamental element in the control of the nuclear stockpile and is based on careful documentation of “as built” drawings and product definitions made during the design, manufacture, assembly, and deployment of a nuclear weapons.
My staff discovered that DOE could not find nearly 60 percent of the “as built” drawings that document all changes made to active weapons selected for dismantlement. I threw a fit and reported it to the front office, which promptly took action.
Over the ensuing decade, we wound up sending about $50 million from the sale of precious metals extracted from dismantled weapons back to the treasury. As a side benefit, we also set up the DOE’s first electronic recycling center to recover fungible materials from DOE’s huge inventory of excess computers.
After receiving a Secretarial Gold Medal for our asset management program, I became increasingly isolated from the DOE front office, and spent most of my time involved with environment, safety and health problems afflicting the DOE nuclear weapons complex. As soon as Secretary O’Leary departed in late 1996, our asset inventory was buried and barred from public disclosure.
However, I drew the line when it came to the disposition of radiologically contaminated materials, such as the vast amount of scrap metal resulting from the decommissioning of nuclear weapons facilities.
In 1994, I blocked a deal that would have allowed some 10,000 tons of radiation-contaminated nickel from nuclear weapons operations to be recycled into the civilian metal supply, where some percentage of it would inevitably wind up in stainless steel items such as intrauterine devices, surgical tools, children’s orthodontic braces, kitchen sinks, zippers, and flatware. However, that confrontation was not to be the end of the scrap metal gambit.
The pressures to recycle 1.7 million metric tons of contaminated metal scrap (equivalent to 17 U.S. aircraft carriers in weight) at nuclear weapons facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio were enormous.
I dug in my heels and opposed an effort, supported by Vice President Gore’s office, to release tens of thousands of tons of radiologically contaminated metals into commerce. By claiming cost savings associated with foregoing landfill disposal, DOE contractors would be able to pocket the profits from the sale of scrap. Going forward however, I was seen as obstructionist and was effectively shunned from decision-making circles.
After Hazel O’Leary left as Energy Secretary in late 1996, I lost my political “air cover” and was perceived in the words of a colleague by the incoming leadership of the agency (Secretary Frederico Pena’s team) as “too radioactive.”
Even though I was being excluded from policy decisions, I still persisted.
As a former environmental activist, I had no compunctions about going outside of the Department to convince an old friend at the Natural Defense Resource Council to file a lawsuit to block the free release of the contaminated metal.
I knew that if DOE and its contractors got their way, this practice would lead to a major public backlash. Not to mention the market impacts the contaminated material would create for the U.S. steel industry, which was almost totally dependent on recycled metal for its feedstock. Steel makers had been burned before by errant radiation sources and the last thing they wanted was for the public to realize that the stainless-steel fork on the dinner table had some plutonium in it from a nuclear weapons plant. But consideration of these consequences could easily get overlooked in the DOE, where decisions were made in isolation and secrecy.
The lawsuit stopped the train temporarily. Judge Gladys Kessler, in a strongly worded opinion, stated: “It is . . . startling and worrisome that from an early point on, there has been no opportunity at all for public scrutiny or input in a matter of such grave importance.” Calling the recycling effort “entirely experimental at this stage,” she concluded, “The potential for environmental harm is great, especially given the unprecedented amount of hazardous materials which the defendants seek to recycle.”
In the summer of 1998, I received a call from the White House indicating that I was being fired within the next 30 days. This was the third time my detractors sought to end my tenure as a senior political appointee in DOE’s Policy office. This time, it seemed to be final.
A week before my departure, I was summoned to meet with Bill Richarson – the newly installed Secretary of Energy. He was slouched on the sofa and disheveled after a long day. “I don’t know why you got on the list. You must have pissed-off quite a few people,” he said with a devilish smile. “But you have a lot of folks that want to keep you around. When I visited DOE sites, members of Congress, union officials, Indian tribes, and environmental activists, would ask me about this Alvarez guy.”
He then pulled out a news clipping from the Seattle Times about a walk-out staged by the members of a DOE advisory panel at the Hanford facility in protest to my sacking. “You must be a fighter, I like fighters,” he said approvingly. Richardson reversed the White House decision and appointed me as his Senior Policy Advisor, where I was tasked among other things to end the “hot scrap” recycling scam.
A senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, Robert Alvarez served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department’s secretary and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment from 1993 to 1999.
Nuclear Power: UK’s Financial Challenge Unveiled
the actual cost might reach as high as £10 billion per reactor, resulting in an astonishing cumulative expense for the decommissioning process. …
this substantial cost could ultimately fall on taxpayers, raising concerns about the financial burden on the public.
Dev X Noah Nguyen, November 21, 2023
The UK’s Commitment to Nuclear Power and Financial Challenges
The United Kingdom’s dedication to nuclear power is becoming a financially challenging commitment as the dismantling expenses for its nuclear generating facilities continue to escalate. These costs have been advantageous for businesses involved in the dismantling process but a noteworthy expenditure for UK taxpayers
Regardless of the substantial costs associated with the new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Site C and the rising price of clean-up initiatives, the nation’s government remains committed to nuclear technology. This unwavering commitment is driven by the belief that nuclear power is crucial for achieving the UK’s long-term energy security and climate change goals. However, critics argue that increased investment in renewable energy sources could provide similar benefits, without the high financial burden and safety concerns associated with nuclear power……………………………………………………
Concerns Regarding Decommissioning Costs and Life Expectancy of Reactors
Nearly all of the remaining functional reactors are scheduled for closure by 2028, except Sizewell B, anticipated to stay in operation until 2035. With a life expectancy of roughly 40 years—considerably shorter than the 60 to 80 years frequently claimed by the sector—questions emerge about the demolition costs for the existing 23 reactors and the two under construction at Hinkley Point C.
As these reactors reach the end of their life cycle, it is crucial to plan and allocate resources effectively for their dismantling and waste disposal. The cost of decommissioning and managing nuclear facilities can significantly impact the overall economic feasibility of the energy generated, emphasizing the need for accurate cost estimations and environmentally responsible strategies.
Projected Costs of Dismantling and Importance of Effective Management
By the end of 2022, the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) projected a total dismantling cost of £149 billion. If this figure encompasses Hinkley Site C, it would equate to about £6 billion per reactor. This substantial financial investment highlights the importance of thoroughly managing the decommissioning process to ensure effective resource allocation. With the growing push towards renewable energy sources, proper management and safe dismantling of nuclear reactors have become increasingly significant for the country’s transition towards sustainable energy.
Higher Potential Costs and the Financial Burden on Taxpayers
However, Professor Stephen Thomas from the University of Greenwich’s energy policy department posits that the actual cost might reach as high as £10 billion per reactor, resulting in an astonishing cumulative expense for the decommissioning process. He further elaborates that this substantial cost could ultimately fall on taxpayers, raising concerns about the financial burden on the public. To mitigate such consequences, proper planning and establishing an adequate funding source must be undertaken for a feasible and efficient decommissioning process…………………………………………………………………………………….
What are the concerns regarding the decommissioning costs and life expectancy of nuclear reactors in the UK?
With functional reactors scheduled for closure and shorter life expectancies than often claimed, there are concerns about the demolition costs for the existing reactors and effective management of resources for dismantling and waste disposal. The cost of decommissioning can significantly impact the overall economic feasibility of nuclear-generated energy and necessitates accurate cost estimations and environmentally responsible strategies………….. https://www.devx.com/news/nuclear-power-uks-financial-challenge-unveiled/
UK Has £10 Billion Per Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning Bottomless Pit
estimate in late 2022 was that the program was likely to cost £260 billion given the cost trends. That’s £10.4 billion per reactor, an order of magnitude higher than the industry average of three years ago.
Whether £6 billion or £10 billion, these numbers should be giving national energy policy makers pause. After all, those costs are going to be paid in the future in future value dollars that will be inflated. They won’t be getting magically smaller due to discounting, but should be included in cost cases with the discounting rates built in.
Clean Technica, , Michael Barnard
The decommissioning costs for the UK’s nuclear generation are coming home to roost, and they are laying golden eggs for the firms that won the business. For UK citizens, not so much. Despite the very high costs of both the new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Site C, the rapidly rising costs of clean up and the much cheaper alternatives available, the country’s current administration remains committed to the technology. Something is likely to give.
The UK is like the USA and France, a western nuclear military power. They built and operated four nuclear powered submarines with nuclear missiles and two nuclear powered aircraft carriers. That gave them one of the preconditions for success for commercial nuclear electricity generation.
They built all of the 14 shut down and 9 currently operating nuclear generation plants between 1957 and 1995, satisfying the conditions of success of a three to four decade build out to maintain master builders, creation of a nuclear construction industry with skilled, certified and security validated resources, and building a couple of dozen reactors to amortize the national program across.
They built all reactors with a very narrow set of designs, first the Magnox which also created weapons grade plutonium and then the AGR which was a modified Magnox optimized for electricity generation, not plutonium manufacturing. The high similarity and only two designs across all 23 reactors satisfied another criterion for success of a nuclear program…………….
Naturally, the nuclear program was a national strategic priority for the UK with bi-partisan support between the Conservatives and Labour, satisfying another condition of success.
This was a blueprint for a successful nuclear electrical generation program, and why nuclear generation is a poor fit for free market economics.
Despite no longer having the obvious conditions for success for a new nuclear program, the British government got behind the Hinkley Point C construction of two new EPR reactors with their unproven design. That program is years late and 50% over budget as a result. The reactors are GW scale, with 3.2 GW between the two reactors so have one condition for success out of six. The UK government also have planned two EPRs at the Sizewell site, with one of the innumerable Conservative Prime Ministers of the past decade committing £100 million of governmental money in a vain attempt to get any private investors interested. No schedule has been set for construction of those reactors.
But now the reactors are shut down or about to be shut down. Most of the remaining operating reactors will be off the grid by 2028, with only Sizewell B hanging on until 2035. All reactors had roughly a 40 year lifespan, not the 60 to 80 years often claimed by the industry, including the 60 year claim for Hinkley Point C.
How much will it cost to decommission those 23 reactors and the two Hinkley Point C reactors still under construction? The last time I looked at nuclear decommissioning costs and duration was three years ago. At the time, the average was roughly a billion US dollars and a century of duration per site.
Well, the UK’s nuclear program is definitely exceeding that. As of late 2022, the official estimate of the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was £149 billion. Assuming Hinkley Site C was rolled into that number, that would be a cost of £6 billion per reactor, or more than many nuclear advocates claim new nuclear can be built for.
However, Stephen Thomas, a professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich and a regular analyst of the nuclear industry with a publication history on energy and nuclear programs with a global reach stretching back to 2004, has a slightly different expectation. He first published on the UK’s NDA in 2005 and has been tracking costs closely since, including with freedom of information requests to get accurate numbers.
His estimate in late 2022 was that the program was likely to cost £260 billion given the cost trends. That’s £10.4 billion per reactor, an order of magnitude higher than the industry average of three years ago.
Whether £6 billion or £10 billion, these numbers should be giving national energy policy makers pause. After all, those costs are going to be paid in the future in future value dollars that will be inflated. They won’t be getting magically smaller due to discounting, but should be included in cost cases with the discounting rates built in.
Given the magnitude of the costs, effectively every MWh generated by the UK fleet of reactors cost substantially more than its official stated cost. The price will be paid, after all.
If there were no alternatives to nuclear generation, then this wouldn’t be a problem compared to global warming. But, of course, this is 2023 and there are proven, effective, efficient and reliable forms of low-carbon electrical generation that do compete with nuclear energy, wind and solar. ……………………………………
The full lifecycle costs of nuclear energy are fairly well established now, and they are much higher than for renewables, transmission and storage. The conditions for success for nuclear programs are well established as well, and there isn’t a single country in the world that has fulfilled them in the 21st Century. Even China has failed, in my assessment as their industrial policy of exporting nuclear reactors of any type foreign buyers might want overrode energy policy requirements to build only a single design.
It’s unclear to me what blend of ideology, tribalism and magical thinking are combining to make countries think that their nuclear programs are unique, and that they will succeed at them when there are clear alternatives. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/19/uk-has-e10-billion-per-nuclear-reactor-decommissioning-bottomless-pit/
Uncharted waters: Navy navigating first-ever dismantling of nuclear-powered carrier
The challenges for the Navy to dispose of the former USS Enterprise have driven the service to stand up a new office to deal both with “The Big E” and the pipeline of Nimitz-class carriers to come.
Breaking Defense, By JUSTIN KATZon November 15, 2023
WASHINGTON — For more than a decade, the US Navy has considered the former Enterprise (CVN-65) no longer operational. In fact, since 2018, the 1,101-foot behemoth has been mostly floating pier side in Newport News, Va., awaiting final dismantlement and disposal.
Ships come and go in the Navy, but their disposal is not usually such a prolonged and complicated affair. They can be used as target practice for what the Navy calls a “SINKEX” or handed over to scrapping and salvaging companies, among other options.
But for a host of reasons, those routes are non-starters for the service’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Instead, after studying the problem for years, the service has finally settled on a path forward: enlisting commercial industry for a job it has historically done itself, and likely creating a new norm for how all nuclear-powered carriers will be disposed of going forward.
To lead that charge, Breaking Defense has learned the Navy has set up a new office just to focus on the inactivation and disposal of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers…….
Whatever the service ends up doing, both analysts and the Navy have said it will likely set precedents for future carriers facing disposal, and the clock is ticking. The longer it takes, the more likely it is the Pentagon will risk a buildup of older carriers taking up various private and public ports around the country.
Even if everything goes according to the Navy’s preliminary plans, time is not on the service’s side. Public Navy documents show that Enterprise will not begin dismantlement until 2025, and the work will continue through 2029 — meaning even if everything stays on track, the work will be ongoing when the second nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz (CVN-68), is scheduled to leave the operational fleet in 2026. The USS Eisenhower (CVN-69) will follow suit not long after.
“The Navy has really had a tough time figuring out … what’s the process we’d go about dismantling this thing,” said Bryan Clark, a fellow at the Hudson Institute and retired submariner. “That’s why the Enterprise in particular has been sitting around waiting to be dismantled. And we’re going to have the same problem with the Nimitz.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/uncharted-waters-navy-navigating-first-ever-dismantling-of-nuclear-powered-carrier/
Magnox rebrands to Nuclear Restoration Services as its decommissioning portfolio expands
Magnox has become Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS) ahead of taking
ownership of closing EDF nuclear sites. NRS, part of the UK’s Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA) group, is responsible for safely
decommissioning first generation nuclear reactor and research sites across
the UK and restoring them for future use.
As Magnox, the company was
responsible for safe and secure cleanup of 12 nuclear sites. In April, it
additionally took on the decommissioning of the Dounreay nuclear site in
Scotland when it merged with Dounreay Site Restoration (DSR).
The site is owned by NDA, but DSR was contracted to deliver its decommissioning
programme. Two years ago, it was agreed that NDA would become responsible
for decommissioning EDF’s seven advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs), once
power generation had ended and defueling had been completed. Hunterston B
was the first AGR to come offline in January last year, followed by Hinkley
Point B in August 2022. EDF expects all the sites will stop operating by
2028. Ownership of Hunterston B is expected to transfer in 2026, with the
others to follow on a rolling basis over the next decade.
The Chemical Engineer 2nd Nov 2023
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/magnox-rebrands-to-nuclear-restoration-services-as-its-decommissioning-portfolio-expands/ #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNuke
What happens after a nuclear power station is closed?
When Hinkley Point B. opened in 1976, its two advanced gas-cooled reactors
(AGRs) were state of the art. But over nearly half a century of generation,
cracks developed in their graphite cores, creating potential safety
concerns, and they were shut down for good last year.
Yet inside the
cavernous main hall, little seems to have changed. Freshly painted
machinery gleams under bright lights, as teams of workers in blue boiler
suits scurry around above the reactors themselves. The main activity at the
moment is defueling: removing hundreds of fuel assemblies from deep within
the reactor cores, stripping them down, and sending the wastes away for
storage at Sellafield. As we watch, a large steel tower is being positioned
over the reactor.
This is the charging machine. It looks rather like an
old-fashioned helter-skelter, but in fact it is a heavily-shielded crane.
The fuel assemblies, having been in the reactor for years, are highly
radioactive and need to be handled with extreme care.
Once defueling is
complete, EDF will hand over the site to the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA). To find out what happens then, it is worth going next door
– to another power station, Hinkley Point A. This was one of the UK’s
first-generation nuclear sites. Its two reactors were brought online in
1965 – and shut down for good in 2000. Nearly a quarter of a century later,
its two box-like reactor buildings still stand tall against the skyline.
But other buildings, including the huge turbine hall, have been removed –
leaving just a deep, weed-strewn hole in the ground. Old fuel storage ponds
have been drained, cleaned and painted to reduce radiation risks, although
we are warned not to linger around them. But elsewhere a water-filled vault
remains half-full of radioactive scrap, which is being painstakingly
removed.
BBC 27th Oct 2023
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67087673 #nuclear #antinuclear #NoNukes
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant teardown ahead of schedule, but removal of the spent fuel is a problem.
By CHRIS LARABEE, Staff Writer, 10/15/2023
VERNON, Vt. — With the reactor building serving as one of the final structures standing, the decommissioning of the former Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has been progressing steadily with a potential finish date four years ahead of its 2030 deadline.
Amid a teardown of the former turbine building’s foundation one day last week, officials from NorthStar, the company undertaking the $600 million decommissioning project, shared their planned decommissioning timeline of the controversial power plant…………………………………
Entergy, the former owner and operator of the plant, closed the facility in 2014, citing the lack of profitability of Vermont Yankee in the energy economy. The plant began operation in November 1972 and faced decades of scrutiny from anti-nuclear activists. Decades later, Entergy, which purchased the facility for $180 million in 2002, also faced several lawsuits over the final decade of Vermont Yankee’s lifetime……………………………………………………
Removing waste
As of Aug. 31, NorthStar had sent a total of 685 shipments of waste by rail to a storage facility in Texas, amounting to approximately 39,188 tons of material, according to Corey Daniels, senior manager for the spent fuel storage installation for NorthStar…………….
Removing waste
As of Aug. 31, NorthStar had sent a total of 685 shipments of waste by rail to a storage facility in Texas, amounting to approximately 39,188 tons of material, according to Daniels.
While the site is expected to be cleared in just a few years, there is a potential snag.
NorthStar is able to transport “low-level radioactive” materials, such as metal waste, for disposal, but the nuclear fuel that powered the reactor currently remains on the site because a license to an interim Texas storage facility was vacated.
The license was vacated after the Texas state government challenged the facility and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority to grant a permit for an interim waste facility, according to The Brattleboro Reformer.
State added that it is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s legal fight and there is the possibility the case could be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the meantime, State said the spent fuel will remain on the parcel until the federal and various state governments can find a solution. ……………………. https://www.gazettenet.com/Vermont-Yankee-nuclear-plant-teardown-ahead-of-schedule-52630716 #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants
UK’s old nuclear submarines, dead for over 40 years, and a new plan for turning them into “tin cans and razor blades”.
BABCOCK International want to build a new industrial building at Rosyth
Dockyard for the dismantling of old nuclear submarines. If approved, and a
planning application has gone into Fife Council, the metal waste disposal
facility will go up at the corner of Wood Road and Caledonia Road.
Seven old nuclear subs have been laid up at the yard for decades, Dreadnought has
been there since 1980, longer than it was in service, and last year
councillors were told of a UK Government pledge to “de-nuclearise Rosyth”
by 2035. They were also informed of a world first in removing the most
radioactive waste and the overall aim of cutting up the vessels and turning
them into “tin cans and razor blades”.
Blyth and Blyth, of Edinburgh, have
been appointed by Babcock as civil and structural engineering consultants
for the Rosyth Submarine Dismantling Project and are agents for the
application. The plans say the building would be around 200 square metres
in size and the council are expected to make a decision next month.
Dunfermline Press 16th Oct 2023
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/23853192.rosyth-babcock-plans-new-metal-waste-disposal-building/ #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants
1.This Month
Small Nuclear Reactors Education Task Force: https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins.ht
24 May. The Vow from Hiroshima film is coming on PBS, this month https://www.thevowfromhiroshima.com/
6-7 July A summit and a rally in Washington D.C. https://nonatoyespeace.org/
-
Archives
- May 2024 (156)
- April 2024 (367)
- March 2024 (335)
- February 2024 (345)
- January 2024 (375)
- December 2023 (333)
- November 2023 (342)
- October 2023 (366)
- September 2023 (353)
- August 2023 (356)
- July 2023 (362)
- June 2023 (324)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 