PowerSwitch

British government officials approached nuclear companies to draw up a co-ordinated public relations strategy to play down the Fukushima nuclear accident just two days after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and before the extent of the radiation leak was known.

Internal emails seen by the Guardian show how the business and energy departments worked closely behind the scenes with the multinational companies EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse to try to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation of nuclear stations in the UK.

"This has the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally," wrote one official at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose name has been redacted. "We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this. We need to occupy the territory and hold it. We really need to show the safety of nuclear."

Officials stressed the importance of preventing the incident from undermining public support for nuclear power.

The Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, who sits on the Commons environmental audit committee, condemned the extent of co-ordination between the government and nuclear companies that the emails appear to reveal.

"The government has no business doing PR for the industry and it would be appalling if its departments have played down the impact of Fukushima," he said.

Re. the Guardian report on the collusion between civil servants and nuclear companies to play down the effects of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... CMP=twt_gu). I am concerned that the industry is not taking sufficient note of the problems raised in Japan. The main problem seems to have been underestimating possible natural adverse effects on the operation of the plants in order to save on building costs. This led to an underestimation of the strength of local earthquakes and a consequent lack of structural protection from those earthquakes, There was also an underestimation of the height of any tsunamis that might result.

While we do not have earthquakes of a similar magnitude to those suffered in Japan we do have the occasional tsunami with one in eastern Scotland reaching a height of 21m (Google "uk tsunami"). There are known risks, such as La Palma and also mud slides off the continental shelf which would affect the west coast and similar mud slides off the Norwegian coast, which would affect the east coast, which although small are still significant. We know that sea level will rise with global warming and, as that is likely to accelerate with growth in the world economy and its associated rise in fuel use, there will be an acceleration in the rate of that rise. I was informed after the HSE consultation on new nuclear plants that the designers were working on a sea level rise of 580mm by 2100.

This is the minimum to be expected and clearly shows the same syndrome as that suffered by the designers of the plants which have blown up with catastrophic results in Japan, Ostrich Syndrome; believing that what has happened in living memory will be what will happen in the future. As these plants will be around for well over 100 years, when taking account of decommissioning and cooling off, we should allow for the most extreme conditions contemplated and then some, by a large margin. Hanson has predicted sea level rises of 5m, not 500mm, by 2100 and we are exceeding the IPCC worst case scenario for global warming at the moment. Combine that with a tsunami risk and there is no doubt that the proposed nuclear power stations for the UK will need a major redesign as most of them are on the coast and at risk of inundation, especially if the worst case scenario of a tsunami on top of a 5m sea level rise is taken into account.

Fanciful? Well so was a Magnitude 9 earthquake and a 14m tsunami in Japan. What would be the cost of a 30km exclusion zone, such as the still existing one around Chernobyl, around Oldbury or Hinckley Point compared with the additional cost of a redesign and hardening of the defences for the new nuclear stations. The power companies might bleat about their costs but they won't pay for the costs of a disaster. That will fall on the government, and therefore me and other taxpayers, as in happening in Japan. The collusion mentioned in the Guardian article shows the same level of irresponsibility in the industry and among those who are supposed to regulate it as has been shown in Japan. Unless Ostrich Syndrome can be wiped out in the Nuclear Industry in this country can we risk a nuclear revival.

kenneal wrote: I was informed after the HSE consultation on new nuclear plants that the designers were working on a sea level rise of 580mm by 2100.

the_lyniezian wrote:are we really going to be able to manage on renewables alone?

caspian wrote:I don't think there's the remotest likelihood of that happening at current demand, let alone projected future demand. Huge investment in renewables plus massive demand destruction might work. Can't see that being a vote-winner though.

caspian wrote:Cancelling nuclear in countries like the UK on the basis of earthquake/tsunami risk would be irrational.