Some ex-staff from the Dounreay Lab have however set up renewable projects in the area - e.g. last year Mike Davies established NGT Scotland, and is developing a 10MW wind farm, initiated by the AEA, nearby. the ART Osprey wavepower project also has links with Dounreay. Dounreay told Safe Energy (100) that they would continue to do consultancy work on renewable but that it was "not part of their mission to engage in renewable energy research or any other form of diversification'"
This, in part, was based on a SPRU report which recommended that a specific decommissioning trust should be set up - so as to keep money designated for decommissioning work separate from other nuclear activities, with the Government playing a major role. Provision should be made to meet the full cost of decommissioning as soon as possible after plant closure - rather than, as the nuclear lobby would like, deferring it in a far off cost discounted future. (see below).
This issue seems likely to be central to the main DTI review (of nuclear power in general) as well as the separate Department of Environment review of waste management and decommissioning. The basic terms of reference for the DTI review were spelt out as "to focus on the future prospects for nuclear power including, without commitment, its privatisation' and to 'examine the economic and commercial viability of new nuclear power stations in the UK'.
Evidence is being submitted by a large number of organisations - with a 30th September deadline. After that the DTI will presumably start its internal process of assessment, with a report no doubt emerging subsequently. The key submissions will be made public: we'll be reviewing any relevant ones.Nuclear Electric has already published its evidence (see box). We will be reviewing it in detail in Renew 92. Opposition The Shut Down Sizewell Campaign wrote in recently, reporting on their activities, and on the opposition to the proposed new Sizewell 'C' twin PWR reactor emerging from Suffolk County Council. Stop Hinkley Expansion is also actively engaged in campaigning work - and will no doubt submit evidence to the review, along, presumably with Friends of the Earth, and COLA, the local authority coalition. The Shut Down Sizewell campaign are at Tudor House, St James Street, Dunwich, Saxmundham, Suffolk, IP17 3DU. 1072-873-300. SHE are at Hockpitt Farm, Nether Stowey, Bridgewater, Somerset, TA5 1EX, 10278-732921.
The proviso of course is that there would be a need for a £1bn lift off subsidy (see FT 27/694) for Sizewell C, its flagship. In addition the idea seems to be that the uneconomic bits should be left to 'Go Co' i.e. the Government, which would look after the old plants (MAGNOX etc.) and, presumably, be responsible for waste and decommissioning.
Although some of the nuclear construction companies are still not so convinced (see FT 27/7/94), arguing for more market guarantees to reduce risk, Scottish Nuclear joined in, despite its earlier resistance to the idea of privatisation. Possibly this change had something to do with Scottish Nuclear being refused permission to 'dry store' spent fuel on site at nuclear plants as opposed to reprocessing it at Sellafield - the latter being seen, at least by Scottish Nuclear, as an expensive option. Evidence The Nuclear Review itself seems ever more exotic. Why are we 'reviewing' the nuclear options after we've started up THORP and when Sizewell 'B' is just about complete? Surely it should have been done before? That said, it's good to see lots of useful evidence being submitted. COLA, the Coalition of Opposing Local Authorities, have submitted 6 volumes, arguing amongst other things that Sizewell C would cost between £4-4.6 bn or more not £3.6 bn as Nuclear Electric claim, with generation costs coming out ar 5.6-6.3p/kWh. SHE, the Stop Hinkley Expansion campaign, argue that Sizewell C would not save 5 million tonnes of carbon as Nuclear Electric claim, since it would be displacing gas as well as coal plants. We mentioned the AIEPs evidence earlier. Like the CBI they are saying, essentially, leave it up to the market to decide. The Combined Heat and Power Associations evidence is discussed in our Technology section- and the evidence from Cambridge Econometrics, produced for the Nuclear Free Local Authorities network will be discussed in Renew 93. Its pretty neutral on renewables - unlike the OU Technology Policy Group which takes them seriously.
In the past the nuclear lobby has sometimes treated renewables as 'allies' in the fight against coal, oil and gas, but they seem now to have reverted to the more traditional dismissive line, portraying renewables as marginal, intermittent, and expensive: see our Reviews section. The counter argument ought to be boringly familiar. First off, intermittency doesn't matter when the various sources are fed into the grid, at least up to a 30-40% contribution. Secondly costs are likely to fall as these new technologies develop and as mass production gets underway. And in the case of windpower, we've yet to start using the best resources - in Scotland. Thirdly the energy potential is vast - as you only have to look at the DTI's Energy Paper 62 to see. That also suggests that renewables would help avoid the emission of between 3-15 million tonnes of carbon (mtc) pa by 2005, depending on how successful the renewable expansion programme was. Even by 2000, assuming the current 1.5Gw target, the saving would be 2mtc pa. And by 2025 it could be up to 38 mtc pa. The UK is currently committed to saving 10mtc by 2000, and renewables look like they could play a significant role - with more to follow. Can the same be said of nuclear? Currently Nuclear Electric offers a 17 mtc saving, but this will fall as MAGNOX and AGR's are retired, with only Sizewell 'B' being left - unless Sizewell C' can get a subsidy to support its private funding. Even then Sizewell C would only produce a 5mtC saving. See Renew 92 for a detailed review of the evidence..
EERU Home page