Business told to make economic case for new nuclear reactors
Independent on Sunday 05 December 2004

The Government has challenged the nuclear industry to come up with economically viable proposals for building new power stations. Mike O'Brien, the energy minister, said that it was up to the private sector to prove that nuclear power was economic.
The Government would look at "commercially serious propositions", whether they were from UK or foreign nuclear companies, but nuclear generation must be proved to be economic before it can return to the policy agenda.

British Energy, the privatised nuclear generator, was rescued from administration by the Government two years ago. Sellafield operator BNFL is still loss-making.
"There has been much debate about whether the Government is keeping the nuclear option open," said Mr O'Brien. "But at the moment there is no commercial proposition on the table. If we thought that a project was a commercially serious proposition, we would look at it."

He said that the issue of how to store existing nuclear waste safely would have to be resolved before new nuclear build becomes realistic.

Nuclear energy prepares for a second chance

The Government's energy White Paper last year - which was supposed to frame policy for the next 25 years - favoured renewable forms of energy, such as wind, over nuclear. But Tony Blair told MPs in the summer that "you cannot remove [nuclear power] from the agenda if you are serious about the issue of climate change".

Digby Jones, the head of the Confederation of British Industry, then suggested that six reactors should be built over the next decade. This year, soaring gas, coal and oil prices have raised the cost of fossil fuel generation. Next year, Britain will become a net importer of gas for the first time since the North Sea bonanza began. The UK will have to rely on importing gas, making gas-fired generation less attractive.

On Dec 2nd Mike O'Brien said the market, not the Government, must decide whether we need more generation capacity, and what kind. "There's a lot of passion for nuclear, but passion on its own isn't enough. At the moment, business people are coming up with gas and coal." Clearly, the Government will not get out its cheque book to bankroll another generation of nuclear power stations.
So if new nuclear is to be built, the private sector must come up with the cash (over £1bn for each reactor). As things stand, this is unlikely to be forthcoming. To date, all the UK's reactors have been built with government money, while no bank will touch the sector without decommissioning costs being capped. Keith Parker, the chief executive of the NIA, admits: "The industry is working hard to produce economic justification for new build.

Part of the problem is that people look at [the industry's] past performance." He points to last year's approval for a private sector initiative to build a new reactor in Finland, the first new one ordered in the European Union for over a decade - and without government financing.

Crucially, its decommissioning liabilities will be covered, a commitment the Government has yet to make.

To make nuclear power economic, the Government might not need to make this commitment. The carbon emissions trading scheme, which will be introduced across the EU next month, could prove to be the nuclear industry's Trojan horse, letting it sneak back into the market to provide new generation. By penalising suppliers which emit carbon, the system will give nuclear power stations a huge financial advantage; fossil-fuel generators will be forced to buy carbon certificates from them to comply with the scheme.

Energy consultancy Wood MacKenzie estimates that from 2015, it could be cheaper to build new nuclear power stations than coal or gas, even with decommissioning costs.

There are many caveats: the estimate assumes (a) further rises in gas prices, (b) a high cost of carbon under the carbon trading scheme, (c)
optimistic estimates for nuclear costs, and that (d) uneconomic reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is discontinued.

Stewart Gray, the vice-president of gas and power at Wood MacKenzie, says "The key problem nuclear has in the UK is that the market is particularly unfavourable for such a capital-intensive, front-loaded technology like nuclear because it is fragmented and competitive. We also have a poor track record for cost and construction time overruns."

Mr O'Brien concedes no decision will be made on nuclear until after the general election. It would have to be proposed by another energy White Paper. But he's looking further ahead than that. He has a vision; in 2024, each house would have solar panels on the roof, with a micro-generator inside and a mini wind turbine in the garden. "I really believe this is possible," he says. Whether a nuclear reactor will feature in the background is another question.

WANA Comment

For the last 10 years there has been no moratorium on new reactors but the nuclear industry has squandered its opportunities. They could have built and operated newer designs, to prove that they work. Instead they have stripped out safety related components to massage the costs and still failed to attract investment.

In 2002 the Energy Review concluded that in the face of uncertainty, Britain should maintain flexibility and avoid locking prematurely into options that may prove costly. Any nuclear stations planned in the private sector should be made to foot the whole bill for new-build stations, including the cost of decommissioning stations and storing and disposal of spent fuel.

The AP1000 design that the UK nuclear industry wants to build has only one (untested) last-ditch way of shutting down the reactor in the event of a 'loss of coolant' accident, supplemented (if this doesn't work) by a tank of water on the roof to cool down the whole reactor containment, and stop radioactivity escaping. This design violates the 'safety assessment principles' of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate which is why the nuclear industry won't put its money where its mouth is and apply for a license.

It is time to stop pretending that nuclear energy is the answer to greenhouse gas reductions. The AP1000 is an untried and unproven reactor that omits the safety systems regarded as essential for Sizewell B. Its economics were rightly rejected by the Energy Review, and no amount of cooking the books will attract private investment. Through its poor performance, its ruinous economics, and its unwillingness to clear up its own mess, nuclear power has made itself irrelevant.
The Energy Minister Mike O'Brien's vision of a future with houses having solar panels on the roofs, micro-generators inside and a mini wind turbine in the garden deserves our support. Contrast that with the chart tracking the ups and downs of MP's attitudes to nuclear energy. It is time we asked our MP's some straight questions on nuclear power.
Write to your MP c/o House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Ask what their attitude is to the building of new nuclear reactors, and whatever their views, will they ensure that there is no political interference with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate?
that there is no public subsidy of reactor decommissioning and waste storage?
that there is no public subsidy of such projects before, during or after their construction, or abandonment?
that there is no public subsidy of the security arrangements required to prevent a terrorist attack?

CoRWM

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has published an 'inventory' of radioactive waste, and a 'long list' of options for its management. The 'consultation period' on these early items lasts until mid January.

On Nov 24th WANA joined Greenpeace, CORE and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities in a meeting with three members of CoRWM. (the notes of the meeting will be put on the CoRWM website). http://www.corwm.org.uk The main assumption in the CoRWM inventory that "There is deferral of final stage decommissioning for up to 100 years after shutdown for all UK power stations" was criticised as inconsistent with current Government and regulatory policy and prejudged the strategic policy consultation to be undertaken by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority during its first 12 months. CoRWM said that they had simply recorded the statement of 'a stakeholder', and wanted to hear about the case for earlier reactor dismantling.

It is important to remind CoRWM that there should be no more radioactive waste created through building new reactors. Public goodwill towards efforts to manage radioactive waste will be forfeited if new reactors are proposed.

Bishop's incredible leap of faith

On Radio 4 'You and Yours' [Nov 11th], the Archbishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore spoke movingly of his conversion to nuclear power as the only way to meet the Government's carbon dioxide reduction targets.

"Modern reactors are a vastly improved design, approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The permissible dose to reactor operatives is less than the natural radiation in Cornwall. There are now safe ways of disposing of nuclear waste as the House of Lords select committee has agreed.

The Government says nuclear is expensive but think of what London Olympics would cost. The real reason the Government is not taking the nuclear option is because it lacks acceptance due to scare stories in the media and the stonewalling opposition of powerful environmental lobbies. But to avoid global catastrophe nuclear energy is essential. In my view there is no other way."

AGR's May Have to Close

The news that British Energy could be forced to close some of its AGR's due to graphite cracking inside the reactor cores comes as no surprise to readers of WANA news.

The problems cover all seven of the AGR stations and centre on the splitting of graphite bricks. This has lead British Energy to warn "The potential impact of the risk is that currently assumed nuclear power station lifetime may not be achieved, particularly at Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and Torness, and extensions to station lifetimes at those stations may not be possible,"

"Our plants may require more frequent inspection to support our safety cases which could result in prolonged statutory or unplanned outages or a refusal by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate [NII] to permit us to operate a particular reactor."
AGR's were built with an assumed operational life of 25 years but Hinkley B and Hunterston B have been in service for nearly 30 years while Heysham 2 and Torness have been operating for about 20 years.

But Wylfa can keep going

In 1991 a secret document predicted failures of graphite components called keyways 'before 35 operating Years' (in 2006). [1] Yet the recently announced result of Wylfa's Periodic Safety Review was that subject to 'an annual review of graphite safety' Wylfa can operate until it is 39 years old in 2010.

A characteristic that Wylfa shares with the AGR's is that physical access to the reactor core is possible for inspection and maintenance. But working in such a fiercely radioactive environment will directly increase the radiation exposure of station staff.

The NII require the net benefit of longer term plant operations to take this additional dose into account and show that it is justified.
[1] Metcalfe M.P. "Assessment of Graphite Brick Integrity in the Wylfa Core"
Nuclear Electric, 1991.

ICRP to ease Radiation Protection The International Commission on Radiological Protection proposes, (in ICRP-2005)

(1) to increase radically the allowable doses during and after radiological accidents or attacks; (2) not to improve nuclear worker doses; & (3) not to incorporate vital recent research on low-level radiation health effects.

By "excluding" and "exempting" low-level radioactive materials and wastes from control, ICRP is supporting deregulation of radioactive wastes. This is a major step backward from ICRP's 1990 conclusion that the amount of natural radiation we receive "provides no justification for reducing the attention paid to smaller, but more readily controlled, exposures to artificial sources."
WANA urges the ICRP to:
Reject any increases in allowable doses to workers or public; instead, lower permissible doses.
Prohibit deregulation of nuclear materials, wastes and activities. Reject "exclusions" and "exemptions" for manmade radioactive materials and practices. Reject use of a "safe threshold" to deregulate nuclear materials or wastes.
Take into account increased risks found in recent research on low-level radiation impacts, including bystander effect and genomic instability.
Recognize the greater damage associated with internal emitters. Account fully for organ impacts from inhalation & ingestion.
Base calculations and regulations on the "most vulnerable members" of potentially exposed populations rather than the "Most Exposed Individual".
Expand consideration of radiation impacts to include all deleterious effects, not just fatal cancers and gross genetic effects.
In calculating doses and risks to individuals, include all sources of exposure.
Send your views by Dec 31st (email only) to http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/remissvar    ASAP

EVENTS Jan 15th, 11am WANA Meeting - Cardiff County Hall Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff Feb 19th, 10.30am Global warming - sustainable solutions. Hen Goleg, Aberystwyth.
Contact PAWB - Linda Rogers 01248 490715

Published by WANA PO Box 1 Llandrindod Wells LD1 5AA Tel: 01982
570362 Email: hughrichards@gn.apc.org

Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance