Renew On Line (UK) 53 |
Extracts from NATTA's journal |
||
Welcome Archives Bulletin |
|
10. Nuclear News Chernobyl is still with us Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine, which led to 31 deaths amongst staff and firefighters, and around 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer amongst children in the areas downwind. Reports of other longer term effects have continued to emerge, and the problems the accident created have not gone away even in the UK. For example, figures released last year in response to Parliamentary questions by Labour MP Llew Smith, showed that the persistent damage to sheep farming in the UK following the fallout from Chernobyl- some 2,500 km away- mainly caesium-137, still being “re-suspended” in upland soils in parts of the UK. In North Wales there are still restrictions at 359 farms covering 53 000 hectares (source:Hansard, 10 May, column 98); in west Cumbria in England- ironically near Sellafield- there are 9 farms still affected covering 12,100 ha (Hansard 11 May, col. 208); in N. Ireland, at Co. Antrim and Co. Londonderry, 153 farms covering 8,752 ha are still affected (Hansard, 4 May, col 1410); and in SW and central Scotland, 14 farms covering 16,300 ha remain affected (Hansard, 13 May, col 488). ...but BNFL’s MOX isn’t yet
Meanwhile the EU is taking legal action since it claims that BNFL has not provided the necessary information about the wastes it stores. ...and Japan has more problems Kansai Electric Power, Japan’s second largest power company, closed all its 11 nuclear plants last year so that it could carry out urgent safety checks after a steam escape accident at one of its plants in August- which had killed four workers and injured 7 others. The company had to restart two aging oil-fired plants to make up the shortfall in electricity generation. The accident did not involve nuclear materials or radioactive releases, but even so it added further to the uncertainty about the future of nuclear power in Japan, given concerns about the reliability of its increasingly elderly plants. The company admitted that the burst pipe had not been properly inspected for 28 years. In 2003 Tokyo Electric Power was forced to close all 17 of its reactors after it admitted it had tried to conceal reports of cracks for 15 years. It had to use fossil plants instead. 10 new nukes? Last Nov. the Independent (7/11) ran an article claiming that the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), a body set up by Margaret Beckett, had raised the prospect that 10 new nuclear stations could be built in Britain over the next 20 years. In fact this was just one scenario that the Committee felt it had to explore, to see what the waste implictions would be- it was not proposing this policy. But even the mention of the idea was seen as unwise. Pete Roche from Greenpeace said: “the committee is in danger of giving it the justification to order new reactors, when in reality we are still years from a safe solution for the waste we already have”. Speaking earlier on ITV (19/09) Margaret Beckett had said “it is really hard to argue- when sustainable development means not leaving legacies for future generations to deal with- that nuclear power is a sustainable form of energy use”. A better idea?
It noted that while the Chapelcross closure meant the loss of over 400 jobs, the proposed new biomass plant would ‘create hundreds of construction jobs and about 70 full-time posts when operational’- although part of the site would have to be cordoned off while it was made safe, as part of the decomissioning process, which, from April, is the responsibility of the new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. New Nuclear? Not yet ! “Nuclear is irrelevant to our carbon reduction target in 2010,” Mike O'Brien UK Energy minister, Observer, Sunday 7 November 2004. The prospects for a new UK nuclear programme were assessed in the New Nuclear Monitor, a briefing note (Number 7, June 2004) produced by the Nuclear Free Local Authorities. The NFLA notes that on 4th Dec 2003, Energy Minister Stephen Timms told the UK Nuclear Industry Association Annual Energy Choices Conference in London that the Government would review its position on nuclear new build in 2006, but that the Energy White Paper had promised that ‘before any decision to proceed with building new nuclear power stations, there would be a public consultation and the publication of a White Paper setting out the Government’s proposals’. Either way, after the general election. Whenever/if it happens, economics are likely to be a major issue. Stephen Timms told the House of Commons Standing Committee looking into the Energy Bill on 25th May 2004 that “…at present the economics are very unattractive”.
On the crucial issue of waste, the NFLA noted that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management ‘envisages making recommendation on options in Nov. 2006. It is, therefore, far too early to start planning the construction of new nuclear power stations now.’ However, the NFLA recommends that the UKERC establish a stakeholder review panel that can monitor and report regularly and openly upon the prospects for new nuclear build in the UK. The ‘Nuclear or Not?’ conference on March 15 at the OU will hopefully help set the scene. For more on the nuclear issue see the Forum and pack page of Renew 153. |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||