Nuclear is not the answer
craigwatch
Among his many daft views, Craig Mackinlay supports the building of new nuclear power stations (“we must dash to new nuclear”) as a solution to our high energy costs and energy security. However nuclear is not the right answer. It is phenominally expensive, unreliable, and saddles our descendents with astronomical cleanup costs and .highly radioactive waste which will remain dangerous for many tens of thousands of years (plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,000 years).
Recent research by the University of Grenwich Business School shows that Sizewell C could cost more than twice the current government estimates and take an extra five years to build. The project had been expected to cost £20bn and take 10-12 years to build. Craig worries about the ‘Green Tax’ but completely ignores the massive cost and time of building new nuclear plants.
In addition, the cost of decommissioning our retiring nuclear power stations continues to head north, with the costs for the UK's seven Advanced Gas cooled Reactors (AGRs) now nearly doubling to £23.5bn with no end in sight to further increases. The cost of decommissioning is paid for by UK taxpayers, and the Public Accounts Committee has raised concerns about ever-spiralling costs.
It will cost the UK taxpayer £132bn to decommission all the UK’s civil nuclear sites and the work will not be completed for another 120 years, according to latest estimates.
Meanwhile in France at the end of April half of the country's nuclear power stations (28 of 56) were shut down due to routine maintenance or defects. Five reactors were shut down after the discovery of cracking caused by corrosion in pipework, and at least 6 more are suspected to have the same problem, at least 3 will be shut down for testing.
In the UK 456 security incident notifications were submitted in 2021, 30% more than 2020 and more than double the number in 2018, with many fewer investigators to examine them. Dr Paul Dorfman, the chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, said “The higher number of security issues that we are seeing documented at nuclear facilities is extremely concerning...These figures seem to show a relaxation in security standards when it comes to the operation and regulation of sites that have the potential to cause great human and environmental harm.”
Craig calls for the use of Britain's natural resources to supply our energy needs. We agree! Britain should be fully utilizing its natural resources of wind and sun to provide safe, affordable power. Oil and gas must stay in the ground, and nuclear must be shut down.
Follow me!
Hi,
Generally in support of the blog however please keep in mind that just because Craig is “pro nuclear” (not sure if he is saying that just to distract from oil and gas interests…) doesn’t mean we automatically should pivot against nuclear 😊 some positive facts on nuclear.
Low carbon and high capacity factor and all IPCC scenarios say we need more nuclear - UN references available
Civil nuclear power stations do not use plutonium and the waste produced is managed safely. Future waste options for safe storage are available and countries have solutions coming online. Waste is produced at different levels of activity and only high activity waste is stored long terms and it’s actually pretty safe once stored. The amount of waste produced to cover the energy required by one person for a lifetime is the equivalent of one can of coke! Facts available on NetZeroNeedsNuclear.com which references external sites so is fact checked.
Cost of SZC should be compared on what’s the bang for your buck - that 20bn produces energy for 80 years (up to 100 years potentially) and because it isn’t weather dependent, it reduces overall system costs because we don’t need expensive gas stations to switch on when renewable output varies. The 20bn includes decommissioning costs as it has been factored now while other sources of energy do not include decommissioning costs like CCUS.
You mention France, those issues are down to a lack of infrastructure investment and previously France has had lower prices and greener energy for the last 20 years because of nuclear. One bad year shouldn’t tarnish France as one of the leaders of net zero.
Nuclear has a proven track record of safe operation in the UK which again there are external references too.
Just to add, nuclear has provided steady power in the UK for years and without it, our carbon emissions would be much higher - it’s prevented climate change from happening sooner! The future system will be one of nuclear and renewables working together 😊
I suggest quoting independent analysis such as IPCC, UN etc rather than known anti nuclear groups like Nuclear Consulting Group. Keep up the good work and let’s use science, facts and open discussions to get to the best net zero solution.