When we first built nuclear power plants we all thought that the energy provided might be too cheap to meter. Now many think that the energy is too expensive to use. Nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom are close to the end of their useful lives. Mr Hutton, the Secretary of State responsible for them, wants a new nuclear renaissance. Most people would be glad if there is a nuclear dark age.
As part of the attempt to push public opinion into accepting new nuclear plants some sections of the press have been briefed on the present project for cleaning, decontaminating and demolishing the nuclear plant at Dounreay, in Caithness. This is in the extreme North Eastern part of mainland Scotland, about as far away from London as you can get.
I expect that the nuclear power plant was located in a remote region because of safety fears, but Dounreay has never blown up. Having provided lots of electricity (a fair proportion of which was wasted in transmitting it from a location so far from the urban conurbations of mass population), it must now be pulled down. It will take some time; the operators think decades but former employees think it will take much longer.
The plant at Dounreay was the first British operational nuclear power station. The de-commissioning company must store the masses of radioactive waste that the plant has generated. It cannot be thrown away and it is indestructible. The BBC reports that the waste has been sealed in containers designed to withstand the grinding of a possible ice age 10,000 years from now.
Of course we can be sure that both the plant de-commissioners and the BBC know that these containers will withstand the forces and aging effects over the next ten thousand years to which the containers may be subject, including the forces generated by another ice age. I am impressed at their knowledge.
The nuclear waste will be stored on the site for about 100 years (but may be only sixty years), the BBC reports, until a nuclear waste repository has been organised, established and then the waste will be moved there.
The present cost estimate for doing all this is £2.9 billion, but do not be too surprised if the costs end up ten or twenty times higher than that. After all, we have been promised that the storage containers will withstand an ice age in 10,000 years time. If they don’t then Can someone from the BBC or the de-commissioning company confirm that we will get a 10,000 year guarantee in writing for the future generations?
Filed under: climate change, electricity | Tagged: 000 year guarantee, 10, BBC, Caithness, Dounreay, ice age, nuclear powe plant de-commissioning
Yes peter, they are looking for quick solutions, and there aren’t any, unfortunately.
Robert
Wow it amazing how they can accurately predict the lifespan of the nuclear containment flasks to 10000 years, (so I guess its not their problem after then?) however they cannot seem to realise that the cost of the nuclear power generation outweighs its benefits, it is much more expensive to build and maintain a nuclear power plant than conventional, the fuel for Nuclear power stations , is getting more difficult to obtain and therefore more expensive, the de-comisioning cost of a nuclear power station and storage costs of the waste are greater than all of the cost s I previously mentioned. Now add to that the risk that someone makes one mistake, Chernobyl is a good example and that city and a large radius around it is un-inhabitabal, we in the UK were affected by the nuclear polution, many crops and animals in the UK were destroyed not fit for human consumption at that time, it is possible even now to measure the radiation from the fallout in surounding countries. In addition, Nuclear power staions are a potential target for terrorism so require lots of police and private security as well. Is it easy to build a nuclear power station without demonstrations and protests, and who wants a nuclear power station in their town?
Now compare that to renewable micro-generation, I agree with your logical process of taking up renewable energy, it really does fit with pareto, however I think it would be wise to take up solar voltaic, which when we start to have electricity shortages will be very usefull. I of course am the awquard one haveing a large solar voltaic and not yet a solar thermal.
solar thermal does a good job reducing demand for hydrocarbon energy and hydrocarbon derived energy (electricity) localised wind turbines and solar voltaics assist in reducing load specifally to the electricity distribution system and excess can be sold back to the grid at a time of peak demand (during the day) further reducing the costs of fuel.
Maybe they should get a decent accountant and even ask you to evaluate the problems that would be caused by building new nuclear power stations, they seem to have spent lots of money on Statisticians!
So the government has decided that renewables are not the answer and we still need Nuclear power generation, maybe they should re-consider?