nuclear waste

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
But surely the government can't just go around asking local authorities 'would you mind terribly if we dumped the nations' nuclear waste in your back garden? It's all very safe you know" - why would anyone say 'yes'? Surely the government must have absolute powers to make such decisions. With proper planning and consultations, yes, and local authorities should be allowed to make representations, but the government must have the last say - or we risk ending-up with nuclear waste that we can't bury anywhere?

Why would anyone say yes? I would, as it already stored within a couple of miles of my home, above ground in concrete silos at Sellafield. That is a short term, hideously expensive - £3BN p/a, and potentially risky method, but quick and cheap in the short term.

Putting it properly underground, in the right geology is the correct long term solution, together with recycling* the highest level waste.

Sellafield employs a large percentage of people who live locally, so the understanding of nuclear hazards is well understood, both the risks and benefits.

*Highest level waste is the leftovers from nuclear weapons, principally plutonium, an extremely contaminating, long half life, toxic and energy dense element. We wait for HMG to classify this as waste to be disposed of, or asset to be reused in enhanced output nuclear reactor fuel (MOX).
 
My 'go to' question for MPs when they're trying to persuade us that the new prisons/bail hostels/nuclear dumps/airports aren't unpleasant or dangerous is, "Would you call for one in your constituency?"

That notwithstanding, I'm in favour of more nuclear power and feel the waste should be disposed of in the 'best' place for it. Tough luck on those in such places, but we all have to make sacrifices.
 
The whole UK Nuclear industry is huge mishmash of government and private companies to the extent that its difficult to pin down who is responsible for what. Just have a look at the history of BNFL here which was originally set up after the break up of the wholly government run UKAEA United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1971. :eek: BNFL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrast this to the French situation where control of the nuclear industry remained mainly in government hands in the form of EDF Électricité de France Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This does not bode well for how the UK will formulate any cohesive long term strategy to deal with its nuclear waste.:(
 
It's interesting how journalists express these things.
one caption under an image says this:-

Taxpayers are now spending £1.5bn per year on Sellafield, the authority said.

Now anyone reading that line might think that lots of shoppers who happen to pay tax are hurrying down to a new shopping centre to spend money recklessly on stuff they don't need. Seems trivial but it sets a " tone" that somehow shifts responsibility for this state of affairs to universal whipping boy the mythical "public sector"

But the reality is that the British Nuclear industry has essentially been privatised. Sellafield has been owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)since 1 April 2005 and is now operated by Sellafield Ltd.
In 2008 the NDA contracted the management of Sellafield Ltd to Nuclear Management Partners, a consortium of US company URS, British company AMEC, and AREVA of France. The initial contract is for five years, with extension options to 17 years. These are private companies [ complete with demanding shareholders and high power executives] and are the people in receipt of the annual £1.5bn a year from the so called "arm's length" NDA . I think what the The Public Accounts Committee report following the criticisms by the National Audit Office (NAO) in November is saying is what exactly are these private companies giving the nation in return for trousering £1.5 billion a year? Sellafield has a huge legacy from era when Britain felt the necessity to develop nuclear weapons. In the aftermath of the Second world war with the memory of large cities bombed from the air , the development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons still foremost in the mind of the nation you can see why it was decided it was a national priority to produce nuclear material whatever the cost. We are now having to pay for it. The question is-- are we getting value for money in dealing with its disposal or is this just another "awkward area" nobody in government of any political hue likes to deal with where private enterprise can sink its teeth into the rich jugular of tax revenue and " name their price" :dk:
 
Simply mentioning a cost is cheap journalism. We know we need energy, but the price of generating it is only relevant in relation to cost-per-megawatt of other viable alternatives (and even then the cost is only one parameter in the equation).
 
The worry with nuclear is the real long term cost as the half life of the waste will most probably be longer than what passes for human civilisation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom