Module B1 Study Book - the Graduate School of the Environment

The evidence of the British Nuclear Industry Forum to the House of Commons
Select Committee on Trade and Industry in 2002 indicates that, even with the
anticipated lower costs of foreseeable new technology, a subsidy of 1p per
kWh would continue to be required.
£42,000,000,000 [42 billion] of liabilities were built up over the years of the
UK state-owned nuclear industry, for waste clean-up and decommissioning,
and it is assumed that much of this burden will continue to be borne by the
public finances. With continuing production subsidies at several hundreds
of millions per year, and exemption from unlimited liability in the event of
accidents, the industry continues to be well protected.
The argument is, of course, that the benefits brought by nuclear are
substantial, and justify the expense, and it is hard for environmentalists
honestly to sustain arguments deriving from the contingencies of the current,
deregulated energy industry, when most alternatives require heavy subsidies
too.
So, the economics seem not to be about to change radically, but can that be
the killer argument against nuclear?
See re Steve Thomas’ review, below
Some brief items to update us . . .
• The Guardian, Monday January 23, 2006 “A new generation of
nuclear power station is to be considered as part of a review of energy
policy, the government announced today.
The energy consultation paper comes three years after officials
concluded that replacing nuclear plants would be too expensive.
In today's review, the government cited recent rises in energy prices
as justification for the renewed interest in nuclear power. "The review
will look again at the role of nuclear electricity generation," a statement
said.”
See the consultation paper at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/energy_
review_consultation.pdf
• The Independent, 03 January 2006: “The projected cost of cleaning
up the sites of Britain's old nuclear power stations is likely to leap to
more than £70bn when new figures are published early this year.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), set up last April to
supervise state-owned nuclear plants, said it was "almost certain"
that its initial estimate of £56bn - itself the equivalent of a charge
of £800 for every adult and child in the country - would have to be
revised upwards.”
• The Observer 05 February 2006: “Finland goes back to the future . .
Europe’s first new reactor for over 10 years . . . 'In the end, nuclear
power was our only realistic option,' said Landtman.. . . . . if you
are going to have a nuclear programme - and Britain is seriously
considering launching a new one - Olkiluoto 3 shows how it should
be done.”
• Mirage and Oasis: Energy choices in an age of global warming, from
the New Economics Foundation, at http://www.neweconomics.org/
gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?PID=209
Lecture: Nuclear Power 59