Nuclear Question
Nuclear Issues.
So far general support for the further development for nuclear power generation, as the only immediate low carbon option, is still low. A number of issues still cause some disquiet.
In the governments energy white paper there is still an incredible dearth of information on how to deal with the after life of the waste of nuclear production. There is much discussion to promote the building of nuclear power plants but very little coming from the CoRWM, on what to do with the residue. It is as if the intent is to press on with the development of generating facilities by the government no matter what the opposition is and then use a catch all argument to justify how and where waste treatment should be done and held afterwards; all in order not to hinder positive progression of a build program.
There is also a strong move towards facilitating a much easier legislative and planning easement for developing nuclear facilities (and major infrastructure projects) leaning much more toward the privatisation of building, ownership, operating and choice of generating locations. Although in principle the utilisation of existing sites may be preferred by authorities, this is by no means one that a private developer would want if it is cheaper for them to place facilities closer to the consumer – this is not going to be a popular idea.
The only advantage for the government in allowing the private sector to take control of the nuclear power generation is that the initial capital cost falls onto private providers thus saving pressure on the PSBR. This is not a cheap option. For the private sector the balance will be in extracting maximum profit, avoiding long term risk and having a guaranteed end user for the life of the facilities before handing them over to the state, just like some new NHS hospitals. The hand over of course will be just as the decommission and waste storage cost start to kick in. Given this strategy there has to be a lack of confidence in the private sectors ability to perform consistently in the public interest and absolutely no confidence in their managing waste for 10k or 1m years! There is far too much short termism in this process of the rush for nuclear.
The past generation of nuclear facilities have been built near the coastal areas for the supply of cooling water and minimising exposure risk to populations. If sea level raises 1mt in 100 years, (a not unreasonable assumption) the new generation plants will have to be built more inland, on higher ground, or there will be a requirement for major sea defences to be built to surround them. It is not clear how this issue will be surmounted or who pays for the solutions. It might be assumed that Environmental Agency will have to fund flood defences of nuke facilities; it does not do so for industry developments, why should it underwrite the cost for a ‘private’ nuclear programme?
So far as can be assessed just now, the cost of building a nuclear generating facility presuppose an instant capital cost of £1.2bn but this excludes interest & inflation cost over the build commission time, this might add another 1.5 -3% of the entire project however nothing is allowed for the cost of decommission or waste reception and forever storage or defensive ground works, all of which could easily exceed the initial build cost. The assumption in this cost structure is that the long term associated cost will not be written into the private sectors justification of cost configuration but will be charged later to the public purse long after the private providers have moved on or ceased to be. It could be argued that on a total written in overall cost basis, the (cradle to grave) financial burden would not be attractive for private providers unless the sale cost of energy provision is high enough and of a volume output that provides a short pay back remuneration time span that also allows for a set aside ‘bond’ to cover such after life expenditure. This is not going to happen.
It is clear that the all arguments will be manipulated to insure that future generation will have to pick up the cost associated with nuclear power for the sake of getting the facilities built now. It notionally takes 10 years to build a plant with a 60 year life span and 30 years decommissioning period but the after life can last 10,000 + years or if future technology allowed perhaps 250 years to dispose / neutralise externally. As the pressure of strategic issues increase with climate change etc there has to be a powerful argument for the government to hold ownership of all such facilities and not pursue another faulted PFI
The government is in a predicament in that the spread of new nuclear facilities has to be located in ‘safe’ environmental areas, on higher ground than in the past and placed in comparatively low density population areas close to cooling resources. This limits the location opportunities to selective geographic areas and with the devolvement of certain powers to both Scotland and Wales (and before long N Ireland); there will be more resistant than in the past in certain parts of UK to the placement of facilities in their patch. The SNP have already stated that it will not want anymore nuclear sites in Scotland. Some high stake deals will be in play with the SNP & the new GB Scottish PM, for there cannot be seen to be parsimonious support on a strategic energy requirement that will affect the whole of the UK. Pursuing a narrow ethnic nation faction to the exclusion of energy resources cannot survive alone; the cost of doing nothing is too great.
The new fast track planning process that aims to get around public resistance is a step to neuter the chattering unfriendly masses on infrastructure projects. Sweeteners, added values, independence and planning gains will all be on offer to push build programs forward but will it be enough to save the union over nuclear?
31.8.07
© Renot 2007
Today 10.01.08 the government has announced that it will be seeking to allow the private sector to build new nuclear generation facilities and that there will be no need for any government subsidies to aid them. The trough of profits is overflowing with snouts eager to feed on the subsidies free energy made possible and supported by the artificial carbon tax comparable. This is the only way that nuclear energy can be made viable and private sector developers have been given a unspecified unlimited golden share to cash in on at any stage in the future when things prove difficult.
So far general support for the further development for nuclear power generation, as the only immediate low carbon option, is still low. A number of issues still cause some disquiet.
In the governments energy white paper there is still an incredible dearth of information on how to deal with the after life of the waste of nuclear production. There is much discussion to promote the building of nuclear power plants but very little coming from the CoRWM, on what to do with the residue. It is as if the intent is to press on with the development of generating facilities by the government no matter what the opposition is and then use a catch all argument to justify how and where waste treatment should be done and held afterwards; all in order not to hinder positive progression of a build program.
There is also a strong move towards facilitating a much easier legislative and planning easement for developing nuclear facilities (and major infrastructure projects) leaning much more toward the privatisation of building, ownership, operating and choice of generating locations. Although in principle the utilisation of existing sites may be preferred by authorities, this is by no means one that a private developer would want if it is cheaper for them to place facilities closer to the consumer – this is not going to be a popular idea.
The only advantage for the government in allowing the private sector to take control of the nuclear power generation is that the initial capital cost falls onto private providers thus saving pressure on the PSBR. This is not a cheap option. For the private sector the balance will be in extracting maximum profit, avoiding long term risk and having a guaranteed end user for the life of the facilities before handing them over to the state, just like some new NHS hospitals. The hand over of course will be just as the decommission and waste storage cost start to kick in. Given this strategy there has to be a lack of confidence in the private sectors ability to perform consistently in the public interest and absolutely no confidence in their managing waste for 10k or 1m years! There is far too much short termism in this process of the rush for nuclear.
The past generation of nuclear facilities have been built near the coastal areas for the supply of cooling water and minimising exposure risk to populations. If sea level raises 1mt in 100 years, (a not unreasonable assumption) the new generation plants will have to be built more inland, on higher ground, or there will be a requirement for major sea defences to be built to surround them. It is not clear how this issue will be surmounted or who pays for the solutions. It might be assumed that Environmental Agency will have to fund flood defences of nuke facilities; it does not do so for industry developments, why should it underwrite the cost for a ‘private’ nuclear programme?
So far as can be assessed just now, the cost of building a nuclear generating facility presuppose an instant capital cost of £1.2bn but this excludes interest & inflation cost over the build commission time, this might add another 1.5 -3% of the entire project however nothing is allowed for the cost of decommission or waste reception and forever storage or defensive ground works, all of which could easily exceed the initial build cost. The assumption in this cost structure is that the long term associated cost will not be written into the private sectors justification of cost configuration but will be charged later to the public purse long after the private providers have moved on or ceased to be. It could be argued that on a total written in overall cost basis, the (cradle to grave) financial burden would not be attractive for private providers unless the sale cost of energy provision is high enough and of a volume output that provides a short pay back remuneration time span that also allows for a set aside ‘bond’ to cover such after life expenditure. This is not going to happen.
It is clear that the all arguments will be manipulated to insure that future generation will have to pick up the cost associated with nuclear power for the sake of getting the facilities built now. It notionally takes 10 years to build a plant with a 60 year life span and 30 years decommissioning period but the after life can last 10,000 + years or if future technology allowed perhaps 250 years to dispose / neutralise externally. As the pressure of strategic issues increase with climate change etc there has to be a powerful argument for the government to hold ownership of all such facilities and not pursue another faulted PFI
The government is in a predicament in that the spread of new nuclear facilities has to be located in ‘safe’ environmental areas, on higher ground than in the past and placed in comparatively low density population areas close to cooling resources. This limits the location opportunities to selective geographic areas and with the devolvement of certain powers to both Scotland and Wales (and before long N Ireland); there will be more resistant than in the past in certain parts of UK to the placement of facilities in their patch. The SNP have already stated that it will not want anymore nuclear sites in Scotland. Some high stake deals will be in play with the SNP & the new GB Scottish PM, for there cannot be seen to be parsimonious support on a strategic energy requirement that will affect the whole of the UK. Pursuing a narrow ethnic nation faction to the exclusion of energy resources cannot survive alone; the cost of doing nothing is too great.
The new fast track planning process that aims to get around public resistance is a step to neuter the chattering unfriendly masses on infrastructure projects. Sweeteners, added values, independence and planning gains will all be on offer to push build programs forward but will it be enough to save the union over nuclear?
31.8.07
© Renot 2007
Today 10.01.08 the government has announced that it will be seeking to allow the private sector to build new nuclear generation facilities and that there will be no need for any government subsidies to aid them. The trough of profits is overflowing with snouts eager to feed on the subsidies free energy made possible and supported by the artificial carbon tax comparable. This is the only way that nuclear energy can be made viable and private sector developers have been given a unspecified unlimited golden share to cash in on at any stage in the future when things prove difficult.
posted by Renot at 6:16 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home