|
1.0 The Cost of New Nuclear Stations
1.1 A report by the David Hume Institute, an Edinburgh free-market
think tank, published on 22nd April, urges ministers to reconsider
the nuclear option and abandon plans to build wind farms. The
report, leaked to the Sunday Herald, (http://www.sundayherald.com/41411)
was unveiled at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Compiled by Professor
David Simpson, founding director of the Fraser of Allander Institute
in Glasgow and a former professor of economics at the University
of Strathclyde with help from Robin Jeffrey, former boss of British
Energy, it says nuclear power is half the price of wind power.
Simpson says he doesn't favour proceeding with new nuclear stations
until an acceptable waste management strategy is in place.
1.2 The report uses costs from a Royal Academy of Engineering
(RAE) report published in March (http://www.raeng.org.uk/ ). RAE's
figures are extremely biased. Their costs assume everything goes
well for nuclear and everything goes badly for renewables. Nobody
outside of the nuclear industry assumes such low costs for nuclear
power. RAE simply accepted the industry's costings without further
analysis. The Cabinet Office Policy and Innovation Unit (PIU)
has already examined the claim that new nuclear reactors could
generate electricity for 2.3 p/kWh, and found it to lack credibility.
PIU estimated that a cost of 3-4 p/kwh was much more likely. Electricity
from Sizewell B costs around 6p/kWh.
1.3 The industry's cost predictions are based on the BNFL/Westinghouse,
AP1000 design, which has not been built anywhere in the world,
so the costs are pure speculation. They assume extremely optimistic
construction times; a 60-year life; a very optimistic availability
of about 90%; and low construction costs.
1.4 For wind power, RAE uses reductions in costs due to learning
which are inconceivably low. There are already onshore wind-farms
generating power at less than 2p/kWh. Figures for the cost of
back-up power when the wind isn't blowing assume that all back-up
power stations would have to be built from scratch. RAE's figures
are frankly absurd. The figures given in the PIU report are much
more reliable. For ease of reference, Garrad Hassan in a report
for Greenpeace, on offshore wind gives the PIU costs and figures
from the International Energy Agency. (See page 36) http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?CFID=176556&CFTOKEN=66166138&ucidparam=20040228103306&MenuPoint=D-B-C
1.5 Energy Minister, Stephen Timms MP, told the Nuclear Industry
Association Annual Energy Choices Conference on December 4, 2003
that:-
"…economics makes the option of building new nuclear
capacity a rather unattractive one at the moment. And there are
important issues of nuclear waste to resolve … I agree with
those in the industry who have said to me that new nuclear build
is not today a realistic proposition … I haven't yet met
anyone who wants, in the near future, to build new nuclear capacity,
and I think it is right that it is not a decision for now".
But he also said the Government would review its position on building
new nuclear stations in 2006.
1.6 BNFL's subsidiary, Westinghouse, is part of a consortium which
hopes to apply for a licence to build a new nuclear reactor in
the United States in 2008. In Congress a tax credit for advanced
nuclear plants of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour tax has been proposed
as part of a bill on corporation tax after Bush's energy bill,
which would have subsidised new nuclear stations, failed to get
agreement before Christmas. Meanwhile, US Vice President, Dick
Cheney has reportedly been promoting the Westinghouse AP1000 on
his recent trip to China.
2.0 Technetium-99
2.1 BNFL, the Environment Agency (EA) and the Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate (NII) have announced that the process using Tetraphenylphosphonium
Bromide (TPP) to reduce discharges of technetium-99 (Tc-99) from
Sellafield into the Irish Sea has been successful. The EA and
NII have agreed that TPP can now be used routinely to reduce Tc-99
discharges. This means that the Environment Agency can now reduce
Sellafield's limit for technetium discharges from 90 Terabecquerels
per year (TBq/yr) down to 10TBq/yr immediately, rather than having
to wait until 2006.
3.0 The Energy Bill
3.1 The Scottish Parliament agreed an Executive (Sewel) motion
on 4th February to allow the provisions in the Energy Bill that
relate to devolved matters to be considered by the UK Parliament.
A motion from the Greens which opposed the Executive's motion,
highlighted the fact that the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency will
have no environmental objectives, and the current lack of Scottish
powers over stored radioactive waste was defeated.
3.2 Sarah Boyack, Labour MSP for Edinburgh Central, and former
Environment Minister, told the Parliament that "it is critical
… for the operation of the nuclear decommissioning agency
that environmental principles are written into the base of the
bill … Environmental principles must be right up there at
the front of the bill … I want the minister to state more
strongly that he will ensure that if we approve the Sewel motion,
he will put environmental principles on the UK ministers' agenda".
3.3 At the 6th Irish and UK Local Authorities Standing Conference
on Nuclear Hazards, former Director of the Liabilities Management
Unit talked of faster decommissioning times and the huge potential
cost savings available to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
He mentioned Rocky Flats in Colorado where he thought the decommissioning
program had gone well. Rocky Flats manufactured plutonium pits
for US nuclear weapons until 1989. In 2006 Rocky Flats is expected
to be the first major US nuclear weapons production facility to
be "cleaned" and closed. It will then be designated
a wildlife refuge. Unfortunately Rocky Flats does not set an exemplary
precedent, 'clean-up' is not an appropriate description for the
work being carried out there, and it should not be used as an
example of best international practise. The levels of plutonium
which will be left in the soil, for example, are far too high.
It is not a project we should be copying in the UK. Whilst faster
decommissioning may be a laudable aim, it must be carried out
according to a clear set of environmental principles which set
high standards using best international practise and the Best
Available Technology. According to The Times, accelerating decommissioning
timetables will help the industry make the case for building new
reactors .
3.4 Since February the Energy Bill has completed its Committee
Stage in the House of Lords, and its third reading, with very
few substantive amendments. A new part 1 was, however, inserted
into the Bill by opposition peers on Security of Supply, which
places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure integrity and
security of electricity and gas supplies. It also requires the
government to report annually on research, development and demonstration
of new energy sources. The Annual Report should also set out what
the government is doing to ensure that the UK retains and expands,
if necessary, the scientific and engineering expertise and resources
to develop effectively sources of energy, including nuclear, enabling
the UK to avoid undue reliance on imports. The Bill is now expected
to receive its first and second readings in the House of Commons
in the next few weeks, but time is getting very tight if it is
to receive Royal Assent in July.
3.5 Unfortunately, provisions in the Energy Bill allow the Government
to bailout out future private nuclear operators if they fail to
properly fund their liabilities. Knowing this, future operators
may not set aside enough money for liabilities (but at the same
time reap profits) in the knowledge that there is a mechanism
to allow the Government to bail them out. A recent report from
the National Audit Office (NAO) criticised the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) for its handling of the financial risks to
BE and for failing to guard against potential risks to the taxpayer
of having to fund the company's liabilities. The NAO found these
risks were not effectively monitored and managed by the DTI -
even though the Audit Office had 'flagged' the potential exposure
by the taxpayer to exposure from British Energy liabilities in.
3.6 In rejecting amendments on this issue in the House of Lords,
Government spokesperson, Lord Whitty, said on 15 January 2004
that in principle the Government supports the idea that future
nuclear operators should meet the costs of decommissioning, and
the 'polluter pays principle', but "there may again be circumstances
in which a private sector operator cannot meet its nuclear obligations
… we must retain the possibility of the Government meeting
such costs"
3.7 The danger now is that the Government's desire to keep the
Energy Bill 'flexible' to allow for any future British-Energy-type
crisis could also have implications for the potential viability
of building new nuclear power stations in the UK. Future Investors
(should a decision be taken to go-ahead with new nuclear construction)
could be more favourably disposed towards new build because, in
principle, the provisions would enable the owner of new nuclear
stations to reap profits for directors and pay out to shareholders
whilst under-providing for liabilities in the knowledge that there
exist mechanisms to allow the Government to bail the company out.
4.0 Dounreay
4.1 The 23rd Annual Report of the Radioactive Waste Management
Advisory Committee (RWMAC), called for a review of the principles
underlying the regulatory system, and criticised the fact that
decommissioning work is proceeding without proper policy guidance
from the Government. It says there is a danger of decommissioning
policy being driven by regulators and the DTI. The committee also
repeated its earlier criticism of the proposal to send some low
level wastes from Dounreay to the Drigg, and criticised Dounreay
for its slow progress in emptying the waste shaft and wet silos.
RWMAC was, however, very supportive of the UKAEA's stakeholder
involvement, but suggested this is widened to include stakeholders
at an earlier stage - for example when alternative options for
tackling decommissioning issues are being discussed.
4.2 Meanwhile Cumbria County Council has used emergency procedures
to agree a formal
objection to the UKAEA proposal to transport low-level waste from
Dounreay to Drigg - all three political parties on the council
supported the objection. The Council said nuclear waste should
be stored where it is created - Dounreay should look after its
own nuclear waste. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency
consultation on the proposal closed on 23rd February. Cumbria's
opposition was echoed by Copeland Borough Council.
4.3 A series of radioactive particle finds on Sandside Beach
this year have brought the total found up to 50. The UKAEA has
employed the nuclear industry consultants NNC to develop the stakeholder
consultation process for considering the Best Practicable Environmental
Option for dealing with the radioactive particles. The draft BPEO
should be completed by 2005 and the NNC and UKAEA have formed
a steering group of independent stakeholders to oversee the consultation
process. Meanwhile RWE Nukem, the company employed by the UKAEA
to monitor the Sandside beach, is to introduce a second vehicle
for the work. Philip Day, the scientific adviser to the beach
owners, said this should mean more of the beach is scanned for
contamination. However he still criticises the monitoring because
of the equipment and techniques used and the fact not all the
beach is monitored. Finally, Dipesh Shah, the new UKAEA chief
executive, and Norman Harrison the new Dounreay site director,
caused a storm of protests in January by describing the radioactive
particles as an "historical issue" which would not stop
them concentrating on the main job of decommissioning. They also
said they believed no new contamination was leaking from the complex.
Their failure to see the problem as part of the decommissioning
project, and the fact no-one is certain fresh contamination isn't
still leaking into the environment bought condemnation from Lorraine
Mann of Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping who complained of the
"extraordinary complacency" shown by the new management.
4.4 There are now more people working there than ever before.
The local liaison committee has been told that there are presently
nearly 1400 people employed by the UKAEA and a further 1700 employed
by decommissioning contractors.
4.5 The UKAEA announced that its Dounreay Site Restoration Plan
can be completed by 2047, rather than 2063 - 16 years faster than
previously thought. The changes and explanation of how they will
be achieved are contained in a Near Term Work Plan (NTWP) submitted
by the UKAEA to the Liabilities Management Unit at the DTI. Details
of the Near Term Work plan are available at www.ukaea.org.uk
4.6 The UKAEA will build a new incinerator at Dounreay to deal
with contaminated solvents and oils. The decision follows a public
consultation by the UKAEA held last year. In their submissions
the Nuclear Free Local Authorities and Shetland Islands Council,
both rejected incineration or transporting the wastes to Sellafield
or Fawley in Southampton. While the incinerator is expected to
have a 10-year life, the destruction of the existing oils and
solvents will take just a year. But the plant will need to remain
open for at least 10 years to deal with future arisings. This
obviously raises the possibility of other wastes being imported
by Dounreay to help justify the expense. The UKAEA will now complete
its Best Practicable Environment Option study and apply to the
regulators. A planning application for an incinerator will be
lodged with the Highland Council.
5.0 Sellafield
5.1 The European Commission has issued a Directive to force the
UK to submit by 1st June a comprehensive plan on how it plans
to retrieve waste from Building B30 at Sellafield. Known as Dirty
Thirty by the workforce, B30 is an open air Magnox spent fuel
storage pond. It contains waste which is partly of military origin
and was used from the 1950s to 1985. The UK will also have to
submit six monthly progress reports.
5.2 The problem is that Euratom inspectors do not have easy and
safe access to nuclear material in the pond to physically verify
the operator's accountancy declarations for plutonium, which could
be diverted for use in nuclear weapons. Pond visibility is restricted
by algae, and radiation doses are so high that anyone working
in the area is only allowed to stay for one hour per day. As a
result of the access problems Euratom is unable to confirm that
nuclear material has not been diverted from its declared use by
BNFL. Euratom describes this as a "clear infringement of
essential Euratom safeguards requirements". A European Commission
spokesperson said if we expect Iraq to declare its fissile materials,
we should be doing the same ourselves.
5.3 The European Commission complained that BNFL had been informed
after every inspection since 1986 that no satisfactory conclusions
could be drawn from the verification activities performed, and
the Company has presented various informal plans to deal with
the situation, but none have been implemented.
5.4 According to BNFL estimates, the material in the pond contains
about 1.3 tonnes of plutonium, about 400kg of which is contained
in corroded fuel located on the pond floor as sludge. This is
a significant amount of strategically important material not properly
accounted for.
5.5 The NII served an improvement notice on BNFL in 2001, to
force the company to produce a detailed programme of work for
emptying and decommissioning B30. The NII want 90 per cent of
the sludge taken out by 2009. The problem is that once the pond
water is disturbed by decommissioning it will spew out even more
radiation. The NII is also worried about the deterioration of
the building fabric which might lead the pond itself to start
leaking on to the site posing a major risk to workers and public
outside. NII is also concerned that seabirds landing on B30 and
other Sellafield open ponds could carry contamination into local
villages, and wants another building over it to stop radiation
getting out.
5.6 Sellafield's Magnox reprocessing plant reprocessed more than
1,000 tonnes of spent Magnox fuel in the financial year 2003/4.
This the first time it has achieved such a high throughput since
the mid-1990s. This means that, apart from Technetium-99, radioactive
discharges into the Irish Sea have increased, and the pressure
on BNFL to close its Magnox stations early will be reduced. The
THORP reprocessing plant has also exceeded its relatively low
target of reprocessing 670 tonnes. However, by December 2003,
the Sellafield MOX Plant had still not produced any MOX fuel assemblies.
In early 2003 BNFL admitted that because of commissioning delays,
SMP would be a year late in delivering its first contract to a
Swiss customer. This had originally been scheduled for 'Spring
2003'. Any further delays in commissioning may mean that delivery
to Switzerland is delayed yet again.
5.7 British Nuclear Fuels denied reports in the Sunday Express
that an RAF jet fighter came
within 100 feet of the Calder Hall reactor cooling towers at Sellafield
in December, despite the newspaper receiving confirmation of the
incident from a "senior source". The denial may have
something to do with the fact that the type of plane reported
by the Express was wrong.
6.0 Nuclear Waste Management
6.1 The new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has started
holding its meetings in public. The public can listen to the Committee's
deliberations but not take part. However, there is usually an
opportunity for the public to comment or pose questions at the
end. The next meeting will be on Thursday 6th & Friday 7th
May in Glasgow at the Glasgow Moat House, Congress Road. Minutes,
details of future meetings and other information can be found
at www.corwm.org
6.2 Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and DEFRA
are reported to be locked in disagreement over the future of the
nuclear waste agency Nirex, which is jointly owned by the UKAEA,
British Nuclear fuels and British Energy. Margaret Beckett had
said Nirex would be made independent of the industry, but apparently
the DTI is floating the idea that agency is disbanded with its
work on 'Letters of Comfort' for waste packaging being given to
the environment agencies and the new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
being given responsibility for long-term waste management.
7.0 Submarine Decommissioning
7.1 The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that an ex-RAF base
at Machrihanish on the Mull of Kintyre is included in a list of
sites where reactor compartments from decommissioned nuclear submarines
might be stored. Argyll and Bute Council are seeking a meeting
with defence minister Geoffrey Hoon to try and stop the Machrihanish
being considered.
7.2 The report on the second stage of consultation on Project
ISOLUS, which ran from 12th September 2003 to 24th December 2003,
is expected at the end of April.
8.0 Radiation and Health
8.1 Greatly increased levels of childhood cancers has been found
in north west Wales, along the Menai Straights, by a television
company, HTV. The study concludes that there is an eight-fold
increase in leukaemia over the whole study area, and a 28-fold
increase in childhood leukaemia in Caernarfon as well as an 18-fold
increase in brain and spinal tumours.
Local Authorities and Micro-Renewables.
Merton London Borough Council has become the first local authority
in the UK to adopt a pro-renewable planning policy in its Unitary
Development Plan. Merton now expects all new non-residential buildings
larger that 1000 square metres to source at least 10% of predicted
energy requirements from on-site renewables such as solar PV and
solar thermal. Despite objections from the London Office for Government,
the Deputy Prime Minister has approved the plan, and now several
other local authorities are expected to follow suit. There is
a strong case for the Government to take urgent steps to stimulate
the market for micro-renewables, but local authorities have an
important role too.
Micro-renewables include solar photovoltaics, solar thermal,
and small wind-turbines. Micro-Combined Heat and Power, although
not strictly renewable, is also often included, [a household-sized
system that can replace a central heating boiler and generate
electricity].
Legislation is needed to force electricity suppliers to provide
'net metering' at no extra cost to the consumer and buy electricity
from them at the price they charge for supply. There is also a
need for the Government to increase its financial support. The
£20m three year Major Demonstration Programme for solar
PV is welcome, but it is not enough for the UK to keep up with
our competitors in Europe and Japan.
There is also a very significant role to be played by positive
planning measures. The Government has recently consulted on a
new Planning Policy Statement (PPS22) for England and Wales. The
Scottish equivalents (PPG 6 and PAN 45) need to give clearer guidance
so that local authorities are required to deal with planning for
small-scale renewables separately in their structural and local
plans.
Building Regulations could also do more to support small-scale
renewables. On 24th February 2003, in a debate in the House of
Commons on the Energy White Paper, Patricia Hewitt said she was
considering how a review of building regulations could be used
to ensure "much higher energy efficiency standards for new
build and such things as the refurbishment of roofs, [and] massively
increase investment in solar energy and similarly energy efficient
systems". The next Building Regulations Review will be in
2005 in both England and Wales and Scotland. The Solar industry
is concerned that changes now look as though they might need to
wait until the following review in 2010. But Scotland has an opportunity
to lead the UK by making necessary changes in 2005.
With many local authorities in Scotland planning new PFI schools
over the next few years, there is an opportunity to follow the
example set by Dundee City Council's Morgan School, which was
recently awarded a £116,000 grant under the DTI's Major
Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme. Napier University in Edinburgh
is also planning the largest PV installation in Scotland, and
Scottish Power has launched a project to install PVs on 60 houses
in Troon, Berwickshire and Glasgow.
|