Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Nuclear waste cost warning

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: 08 January 2008
ENERGY companies would be expected to pay "their full share" of the cost of long-term management of nuclear waste if Britain's next generation of such plants gets the go-ahead, the UK government signalled yesterday.
A decision on whether to approve more nuclear power stations is expected to be announced on Thursday.

But a spokesman for the Prime Minister said firms building new nuclear stations – if given the go-ahead – would be expected to fully fund decommissioning.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 January 2008 10:06 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

frank mcbride,

lusitania 08/01/2008 03:33:31
Anyone who believes this is mad.

Any government who would leave such toxic sites, uncleaned by "shell" companies would be signing its own death warrant.

Remember, also, Britain is the most "company" friendly country in Europe.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 08/01/2008 06:55:48
And if the firm goes bust at the end of the life of the nuclear power stations it has built, who pays for the clean up of all the toxic waste as well as the decommissiong costs? Oh, that's right, the taxpayer, again.
3

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 08/01/2008 08:30:44
Let's return to analogy of Hadrian's Wall, had it been a nuclear power station the Romans would still be paying for its upkeep.
There is absolutely no way that power station operators will ever pay for decommissioning nuclear power plant.
4

Neil,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 11:28:50
The strange thing is that all those Luddites who insist nuclear waste is a problem also insit that any disposal should ensure that the waste remains accessible because it is likely to turn out that these rare isotopes are valuable. In fact they are correct that the "waste" may well indeed be valuable & it would be churlish to suggest that the Luddites are merely saying this because they want to keep the waste "problem" expensive & in the public eye.

There is absolutely no problem with burying the waste deep or even sending it to Australia for them to bury it if that is what we want.

Like all the other non-problems the Luddites have claimed to be worried about, burying a cubic meter of relatively short term reactor waste thousnads of feet underground is neither a serious nor particularly expensive issue.
5

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 08/01/2008 11:40:58
Neil, how short term is this reactor waste that you plan on burying?
6

Neil,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 16:36:24
"The major constituent of the spent fuel consists of fission products. These are elements of middling atomic mass and many of them are still very radioactive and will remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years. The elements that are most radioactive decay the fastest, so the amount of radioactivity is constantly reduced. Still it takes about 500 years for the overall level of radioactivity to be less than that of the original uranium ore.

The 500 years is mainly a talking point. No-one would want to live in a uranium mine, but at least it enables one to distinguish reasonable concern from unreasonable panic."
From Prof John McCarthy's site
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/anti-nuke.html
7

,

08/01/2008 19:58:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

08/01/2008 19:59:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Colin, Glasgow,

09/01/2008 18:57:12
#2 The operator has to pay into a fund during the life of the plant for every kWh generated. The fund is not accessible by the operator. Whether the operator goes bust or not, the fund is available to pay for waste and decommissioning costs.

#3 Nuclear operators can and do pay for decomissioning in the US.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/wasteRecycling/Connecticut_Yankee_decommissioning_complete_271107.shtml

(In the UK the taxpayer only pays to decommission the plant that was owned by and run for benefit of the taxpayer.)
10

Hugo of Garven,

23/03/2009 09:36:09
#6 Neil,Glasgow
I have just had a quick look at the site you quoted. Very readable but he seems to dismiss the storage of high level waste (HLW). It is not clear if the site has been updated since 1995.

I think I am correct in saying there is still no HLW sites in operation, and that all HLW is currently being held in intermediate storage sites.

#9 Colin, Glasgow
Is your site reference corect? I cannot access it


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More UK

More UK >>

More Nuclear energy

More Nuclear energy >>

Features

Online Supplements
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today


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.