All the dirt on Nuclear...

Is nuclear fission going to make a comeback and plug the gap in our energy needs? Will nuclear fusion ever become energetically viable?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12680
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: York

All the dirt on Nuclear...

Post by RenewableCandy »

...is being collected in this one handy site for your edification and delight.
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

A bit more dirt - seems the bill for Sellafield just went by £5 Billion.
A five-year extension to the Sellafield nuclear decommissioning contract worth £5bn was handed to a private consortium even though its performance had been fiercely criticised by accountants.

KPMG, working for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, accused the clean-up group of overspending, failure to reach operational targets and weak leadership at the atomic complex in Cumbria, according to documents seen by the Guardian.

Margaret Hodge, who chairs the parliament's public accounts committee, said that in the light of the critical review it was "inexplicable" that the NDA was prepared to reward the Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) consortium for spending cash "like confetti".

She also complained the critical KPMG report was not shown to her committee or the National Audit Office until the last minute. It had only been sent to the spending watchdogs via a member of the public who conducted a freedom of information request. "But having looked at the report it is inexplicable that the NDA would continue with this consortium after such a hugely critical assessment," she added.

The NMP decommissioning consortium comprises Areva, the French engineering firm that is also working on the new Hinkley Point power station, in Somerset, which also includes URS of the US and Amec of Britain.

KPMG says it went through 28 out of 154 "bid commitments" at Sellafield and found 30% were deemed fully achieved and 4% partially achieved. KPMG added: "There is still considerable uncertainty in schedules and costs of the projects that account for 26% of annual spending" while the site manager "does not bear risks for delays and cost increases".
There's more:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... erspending
snow hope
Posts: 4101
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

Post by snow hope »

This is a rather worrying read (understatement). What do others think of this information about Fukushima?

http://www.crsrisk.com/blog/2014/01/und ... newsletter
Real money is gold and silver
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Some things just sound dodgy.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 9086
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

There are a couple of points I think are relevant to the discussion about nuclear power.

Firstly, nuclear is/has been expensive. Therefore electricity has been, over the last few decades, more expensive, on average, than it would have been had nuclear never been used. Secondly, nuclear is low carbon. No matter hard folk try and twist the figures, I'm confident nuclear is significantly lower carbon than gas, and in the same ball park as wind.

Combine these points and we have a historic with nuclear world of marginally more expensive (therefore lower consumption), marginally lower carbon electricity. Had we not used nuclear, electricity would have been both cheaper and higher carbon.

I'm of the opinion that civil nuclear power has pushed back the CO2 concentration trajectory by several years.

One could argue that without nuclear power, we might have recognised and reacted more swiftly to the CO2 problem - but without evidence that's wishful thinking IMO.
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12680
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

I don't think it's fair to comment on the Carbon intensity of nuclear power 'til we know for sure exactly how decommissioning and waste disposal are going to be done. For all we know, these might cause so much Carbon as to tip up the entire set of figures.
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 9086
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

RenewableCandy wrote:I don't think it's fair to comment on the Carbon intensity of nuclear power 'til we know for sure exactly how decommissioning and waste disposal are going to be done. For all we know, these might cause so much Carbon as to tip up the entire set of figures.
I see this as special pleading. Yeah, sure, there might end up being a high ongoing carbon cost... but I'm happy with the idea that carbon costs of future decommission and waste management won't elevate nuclear's CO2/kWh anywhere close to simply burning fossil fuels.
Tarrel
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Tarrel »

An alternative view on the "Nuclear Explosions" story:

http://blog.safecast.org/2014/01/the-fu ... ions-hoax/
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
snow hope
Posts: 4101
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

Post by snow hope »

Thanks Tarrel :arrow:
Real money is gold and silver
Tarrel
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Tarrel »

Doesn't mean it's wrong of course. What's the expression; "Plausible denial"?
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12680
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

From a recently received email: the guys who collect the dirt are in need of some help!
As UK Nuclear News is about to enter its 9th year we believe it is now an important part of the energy political landscape. It is delivered almost every day of the year, to journalists, academics, campaigners and energy professionals.

We are pleased to say that thanks to the generosity of some of our readers we have managed to maintain UK Nuclear News as a free daily news service. We now need you to be generous once again, and for those who haven’t contributed yet to consider doing so. You will know the service is saving you time and probably money searching for the news yourself. At this crucial time in the nuclear debate we would like to keep this going as a free service funded by voluntary donations, because it makes it cheaper for everyone.

It costs us around £7,500 every year to produce UK Daily Nuclear News, and manage the news pages and searchable archive on the website. We are very grateful to Greenpeace for the assistance they give, but unfortunately this is not enough to cover our costs. Last year we raised almost half of our target altogether, so we are currently running at a loss.

PLEASE HELP by donating what you can. If half of our subscribers were able to donate £30 every year (less than 10p per issue), that would help to keep our heads above water.

You can send cheques, made payable to "no2nuclearpower", to Pete Roche c/o Friends of the Earth Scotland, Thorn House, 5 Rose Street, Edinburgh EH2 2PR.

Or you can donate by PayPal. For details see here! : www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/help/donations.php

If you want to donate via internet banking, send me an e-mail to pete@no2nuclearpower.org.uk and I’ll send you the bank details.

Thanks in anticipation.
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
Post Reply