Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Fast Dounreay 'clean-up' on film



View Video
Download Video

Video

Gone in 60 seconds: A look at the change in the Dounreay nuclear plant from 2008 - 2032.
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 February 2008
GONE in 90 seconds. The Dounreay nuclear plant all but disappears from the north coast in a minute and a half in a new animation showing how the plant will be dismantled over the next 25 years.
The animated flyover shows how the Caithness complex will change from an industrialised landscape to a near greenfield site with just a few scattered buildings by 2032 when decommissioning is complete.

The timescale for cleaning up and knocking down the landmark site, which has been built up over more than 50 years, has been cut from 100 years to the present quarter of a century. The cost will be about £2.9 billion.

Demolition of the site's fuel fabrication plant last month took the number of facilities to have been cleared so far to 100.

An intensive phase of work over the next decade will see reactor buildings and reprocessing plants also disappear.

By the time the clean-up is complete, all that is likely to remain are secure stores for up to 15,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste and fuels.

Up to 175,000 cubic metres of low-level waste from the clean-up is earmarked for disposal in adjacent vaults now the subject of a planning application.

Alistair Macdonald, site programme manager for the UK Atomic Energy Authority, said: "There are overwhelming safety, security and environmental reasons for decommissioning Dounreay as quickly as it is safe to do so.

"We've shown several times we can complete the clean-up on an earlier timescale and we're confident we can improve our planning estimates even further to bring in the completion date from the current 2032.

"I don't think we will ever reduce it to 90 seconds but the video does give the public a good impression of our focus on accelerating the clean-up and managing the wastes in a way that makes them safe and secure."


The full article contains 323 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 February 2008 9:34 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

,

19/02/2008 00:28:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 19/02/2008 02:27:37
Here n the US we demolish buildings in under 15 seconds ..Dudes.

get real

GC
3

Brendan the Scozzie,

Far far away.............. 19/02/2008 02:54:43
Noticed that the 'golf ball' and the reactor halls are still there in 2032 - no doubt too dirty to get rid of them!
4

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 19/02/2008 07:10:29
Cellarfield will not be cleaned up, (and the work has started already), within the life time of anyone alive on the planet today. Add those costs to the electricty bill and you'll see why nuclear is nonsense.
5

Iain fae Elgin,

London 19/02/2008 07:59:14
Luminous greenfield more like.
6

David MacVicar,

web 19/02/2008 08:41:00
Year 2032? NO its actually year 2333.

What a load of Spin this pathetic excuse for journalism is. For goodness sake Scotsman, tell the full story not just a PR exercise from the NDA!! Have you even heard of Google and Government public records?

The National Audit office published its findings on the state of UK decommisioning January 30th ,2008:
"The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Taking forward decommissioning"

Hardly a peep in the press. NDA has again widely underestimated the costs for current sites. Each estimate going up by about 10% each year and cointinuing increases due to inflation costing the taxpayer an extra 2 Billion a year.

Scotsman fantasy costs : "The cost will be about £2.9 billion."
Reality Audit Office : "Chart 3. Dounreay 3.7 Billion"
Where did the 2.9 figure come from Scotmsan?


Overall the Audit Office found that the NDA has again underestmated the costs by a large amount but that they now have a much clearer picture of the timescales and costs. They stated:

"the 2007 estimate of remaining
costs representing an increase of almost £17 billion
(30 per cent) over the first lifetime plan"

Dounreay is right in the middle here:
Appendix 2, chart 18, Dounreay: COST INCREASE ~27%

"For Dounreay, it is planned that all facilities and waste will be removed by 2032 with the exception of waste awaiting for an intermediate waste repository.
From this interim end point, it is assumed that it will be another 300 years before the site is closed in 2333."

2333, a full 200 years after even Sellafield is forecast to finally be cleaned up!

The report is not all bad and indeed it seems good progress is being made across the board. However this article from the Scotsman is utter, amateur crap!

source:http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/0708238.pdf
7

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 19/02/2008 10:26:01
More societal conditioning.

No it's not O.K. guys it's going to take a lot longer to rid our selves of the pandoras box which was used solely to enforce the war machine.

A set figure !!!!!!!!!!!! That can only be open ended and cost 20 times their figure.

The only way this radio-active waste will become inert is via some new technology not yet utilised or known.
8

Lianachan,

Highlands 19/02/2008 12:17:52
#7 Can you please explain why Dounreay was "used soley to enforce the war machine"?
9

Neil,

Glasgow 19/02/2008 13:16:03
The sensible way to decommision is to lockm it up for 50 years till the highly radioactive particles (which are highly radioactive because they have short half lives) are no longer seriously radioactive. Then you knock it down. Of course this would not be acceptable to the eco-fascists because if they didn't enforce decommissioning in the most expensive way possible they wouldn't be able to complain about the cost.
10

Saoghal Beag,

19/02/2008 21:58:25
Neil and meanwhile as we do nothing for 50 years the cost increases by a minimum 10% pa. that means that in 50 years time the 1M would be £117,400,000. That's conservative. After 50 years there will still be radioactivity and simply knocking it down will not be an option.

Now how many wind turbines can you decommision for that?

Nuclear, is failed technology, it is unaffordable, unreliable and in carbion deficit. Only the nuclear fascists and labour lackies with pals in the US coulds possibly support such a white elephant.
11

Saoghal Beag,

19/02/2008 23:13:42
being highly radioactive and half lifes are not the same thing. highly radioactive elements exist with long half lifes. big difference between an awful lot of gamma and quite a bit of alpha.

oh and before you rant, the £1M was just a nice round number not inidicative of any realistic decommisioning cost which is obivously several magnitudes greater but never mind the stand alone nuclear industry won't ask or expect a single penny from teh government.
12

Colin, Glasgow,

20/02/2008 18:32:57
#10 Why should the cost increase by 10% per year? The cost would increase by something similar to inflation. As long as the decommissioning fund grows faster than inflation (as funds tend to) then it gets cheaper the longer it is delayed.

It's not exactly fair to compare dounreay's decommissioning with wind turbines because dounreay was not a commercial powerstation - it was a research facility. One day we might be glad of the work done there on fast breeder reactors.

But in terms of general comparisons of nuclear power with wind, the cost of decommissioning new nuclear plant would be about 0.15p per kWh. The ROC subsidy for renewables currently cost about 4p per kWh. The headline figure for decommissioning seems high, but compared to the amount of electricity produced it is peanuts. Consumers will soon be paying £1 billion _per_year_ in ROC subsidy for renewables which in total produce electricity the equivalent of less than one nuclear plant.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.