admin /8 March, 2006
No long-term solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste, such as the
spent fuel from atomic power stations, were available, let alone
acceptable to the public, Britain’s Sustainable Development Commission
concluded in a report to the Government.
Dangerous, hard to manage and long lasting: The report said
nuclear waste was dangerous, hard to manage, and long-lasting in its
effects, reported Michael Harrison and Michael McCarthy in The Independent Online Edition (Tuesday, 7 March).
Half life of plutonium 24,000 years: For example, the half-life
of plutonium was 24,000 years. The pressure group Friends of the Earth
once produced a poster showing a Roman centurion with the caption: “If
the Romans had had nuclear power, we’d still be guarding their waste.”
Uncertain economics: The waste problem was one of the
Commission’s five key objections to the use of nuclear power stations.
On cost, another objection, the report said the economics of building
new nuclear power stations were highly uncertain.
Little justification for public subsidy: It said there was
little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if costs
escalated there was a clear risk that the taxpayer would have to pick
up the tab.
Capital costs could swing wildly: The
capital costs of building stations were colossal and could swing wildly
with project overruns and increases in interest rates.
Enormous cost of decommissioning power stations: Another cost
issue was whether to factor in the enormous costs of decommissioning
nuclear power stations at the end of their lives.
