Nuclear leaks bill will be paid by taxpayer

[kristopher]

Nuclear leaks bill will be paid by taxpayer
Private contractors not liable for accidents during decommissioning
Jamie Doward The Observer, Saturday 22 February 2014


Dungeness nuclear power station in Kent, one of the reactors that will be decommissioned. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian


The private consortium that will manage the decommissioning of Britain's ageing Magnox nuclear reactors will not be held financially liable if they suffer a major radioactive incident – even if it costs billions of pounds to clear up, it has emerged.

The government will indemnify the private contractors, which means the taxpayer will be left to foot the bill for any leak, a similar arrangement to how things stand now. Critics complain that granting the multimillion-pound contract to a private consortium while freeing it of liability for a nuclear incident is such a poor deal for the taxpayer that it will render its new management unaccountable. The government has rejected this claim.

Confirmation of the indemnity was made at the start of this month, when the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) slipped out a departmental minute relating to the Magnox reactors. Built in the 1960s, originally to produce plutonium to make nuclear weapons, the reactors include those at Sizewell, Hinkley and Dungeness.

They are now at the end of their lives and the government is preparing to fully decommission them, something that has never been done with such a reactor anywhere in the world. The minute reveals that private companies would refuse to bid for the decommissioning contract if they had to face paying out billions of pounds over a radioactive incident.

The minute explains that the firms "are not prepared to accept liability" and states that "because of the nature of nuclear activities, the maximum figure for the potential liability is impossible to accurately quantify".....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/23/nuclear-leaks-bill-paid-taxpayer


Obviously some nuclear programs were rooted in making plutonium for weapons.

[madokie]

1. If nuclear had to play on a level playing field

and if it wasn't for nuclear weapons procurement there wouldn't be any today
We all were sold a pig in a poke, while being lied to the whole way

Which comes first, nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs?

[kristopher]

2. I owe DUer 'awake' at least 1/2 an apology

awake, what you wrote might not have been particularly true for the US, but it certainly looks to have been the case for the UK. My bad.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112764646#post2

[Altair_IV]

3. The owner should be responsible...

kristopher,

In a case like this with a reactor being decommission, the reactor's owner should be responsible for any radioactive leaks. In the case of the British Magnox reactors, the owner is the British government. So the reason the taxpayers are the ones responsible is because the taxpayers are the owners of the plants. That's different from the USA where most nuclear reactors are owned privately. The nuclear reactors like Watts-Bar and Browns-Ferry are owned by the TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority, and hence by the US taxpayer.

Who paid for the decommissioning of the Plutonium production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River? The answer is the US taxpayer, because the taxpayers were the ones that owned those reactors. They were constructed and operated at the behest of the US Congress and Presidents for the purpose of making nuclear weapons owned by the US Government and hence the taxpayers.

With regard to the plutonium issue, the British Magnox reactors were built for the primary purpose of making Plutonium for nuclear weapons, and a secondary purpose of generating electric power. The USA did the same with the Hanford N Reactor. Unlike the other reactors at Hanford; B Reactor, D Reactor, KW and KE reactors...in which the energy generated by the operation of the reactor was just dumped as heat into the Columbia River; the N Reactor had a Rankine steam cycle power plant attached so it could also generate electricity.

However, you have to understand some elementary logic. For example, it is a true statement that "All Greeks are humans". However, it is *not* logical to turn that around and from it conclude that "All humans are Greeks".

All production reactors that are designed to make Plutonium also make heat; and therefore one can turn that heat into electricity by adding the Rankine steam cycle plant. However, the converse is *not* true. Power reactors that are designed for producing electricity don't necessarily make weapons usable Plutonium. In fact, for some designs, it has been certified by US nuclear weapons designers that it is *impossible* to make weapons usable Plutonium from them.

So to parallel:

"All Greeks are humans" does *not* imply "All humans are Greeks".

Likewise:

"All production reactors that make weapons usable Plutonium, have the potential to make electricity" does *not* imply "All reactors that make electricity have the potential to make weapons usable Plutonium"

Just because two things are "related" doesn't mean that one of necessity causes the other. A "link" or "relationship" is *insufficient* to establish cause or enabling ability.

Altair_IV

[kristopher]

6. You raise two issues

First you say that owners should be responsible for any radioactive leaks. Yes, they should - while they are in control of the facility.

However the issue being raised is that the owners are not performing the decommissioning work and that normal standards of accountability that apply to contractors isn't Possible to enforce because no one will do the work if they have to absorb what they MUST perceive as the extremely high risk of extremely high consequence leaks.

This should be seen in the light of recent events at the Sellafield facility where contractor performance has been abysmal.

The bottom line lesson is that if you can't clean it up, you probably shouldn't build it.

Your second point is also off target. You wrote on another thread that awake's comment about reactors being dual purposed was, and this is a quote, "Not true in the slightest."

You then wrote about the US program.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112764646#post3

The program in the UK substantiates awake's opinion and absolute refutes your claim that it is "Not true in the slightest."

Given your history if being unable to admit you're wrong even when confronted with absolute, irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I await you squirming screed.

[FBaggins]

4. Was that supposed to be a surprise?

Of course some nuclear programs included production of plutonium for weapons (was this ever denied?). The fatal flows of the Chernobyl RBMK reactors was that they were dual-purpose designs that were intended to produce plutonium.

There's a clear design difference between a reactor that's intended to produce plutonium for weapons. They might also produce electricity, but you can spot the ones that were intended for weapons materiel. One obvious one is the ability to replace fuel rods while the reactor is operating.

Equally clear is that US civilian power reactors were never designed for such production (and history has shows that they were never used for it). Just the opposite is true... they have been used for many years to reduce the amount of weapons-grade material.

[hunter]

5. Unocal to Tear Down Toxic Town -- and Rebuild It. 1998-06-18 04:00

AVILA -- In one of the biggest environmental settlements in California history, Unocal has agreed to pay up to $200 million to remove a massive oil spill beneath the Central Coast tourist town of Avila Beach.

Under terms of the pact announced yesterday, Unocal will literally destroy the San Luis Obispo County hamlet in order to save it.

The streets will be dug up to get at the 400,000-gallon petrochemical reservoir, a potent brew of gasoline, crude oil, diesel fuel and other noxious substances. The entire business district and about six square blocks of private dwellings will be demolished and rebuilt. Excavation is expected to start by the end of the year, and nobody knows when residents will be able to move back in.

Environmentalists call the deal unprecedented because it resulted from a unique application of Proposition 65, the 1986 toxic substances initiative, paving the way for similar legal actions in the future.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Unocal-to-Tear-Down-Toxic-Town-and-Rebuild-It-3003759.php

That was an ugly business, and in the end the town ended up "gentrified."

You must remember most fossil fuel wastes have a "half life" of forever.

Tritium and that sort OMG!!! nuclear pollution seem a quite bit trivial in comparison.

Once again, no, I am not advocating for nuclear power. I simply hate fossil fuels and most of our modern industrial society much much more than that.

Do you walk to work, Kristopher?

Mostly, I do. Without showering or putting on pants if it's that kind of day.

My wife's "commute" is less than a mile. We can see her workplace from our house.

We haven't been commuters since the mid 'eighties, when we escaped from Los Angeles. We were both Los Angeles commuters then. Some days it took me a long, long, time to drive home on 15 mile-per-hour freeways. I resent every fucking minute of my life thus wasted. I hate my fucking cars and I hate your fucking cars.

My fucking cars live forever just to spite me. Every time I start up my mid 'eighties 300,000+ mile car (that still passes smog test...) I say "Fuck you car, why am I here?" and it says "Fuck you, Hunter, let's burn some gasoline!"

Everyone should have the sort of opportunity my wife and I grabbed, the golden ring, or maybe something with clean public transportation. You can always catch up on your reading on a bus, streetcar, or train.

The lowliest of low, the undocumented farmworkers in our community, family of U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. immigrants, they walk to the parking lot of the local supermarkets and board the bus, to pick your strawberries, lettuce, broccoli, whatever.

Let's get real.

[kristopher]

7. Got it. Two wrongs make a right.

18 April 2009

Environment >Nuclear power > Sellafield: the most hazardous place in Europe
Last week the government announced plans for a new generation of nuclear plants. But Britain is still dealing with the legacy of its first atomic installation at Sellafield - a toxic waste dump in one of the most contaminated buildings in Europe. As a multi-billion-pound clean-up is planned, can we avoid making the same mistakes again?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards

20 Jun 2013

Sellafield clean-up could be taken into state hands as £22bn contract up for review
Nuclear waste clean-up operations at Sellafield could be taken back into state hands after a series of failings by private companies managing the site, as their £22bn contract comes up for review.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10133528/Sellafield-clean-up-could-be-taken-into-state-hands-as-22bn-contract-up-for-review.html

It isn't as if we lack alternatives.

Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy
Feb 15, 2014

Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues recently developed detailed plans to transform the energy infrastructure of New York, California and Washington states from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable resources by 2050. On Feb. 15, Jacobson will present a new roadmap to renewable energy for all 50 states at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.

The online interactive roadmap is tailored to maximize the resource potential of each state. Hovering a cursor over California, for example, reveals that the Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.

"The new roadmap is designed to provide each state a first step toward a renewable future," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. "It provides all of the basic information, such as how many wind turbines and solar panels would be needed to power each state, how much land area would be required, what would be the cost and cost savings, how many jobs would be created, how much pollution-related mortality and global-warming emissions would be avoided."

The 50-state roadmap will be launched this week on the website of The Solutions Project, a national outreach effort led by Jacobson, actor Mark Ruffalo (co-star of The Avengers), film director Josh Fox and others to raise public awareness about switching to clean energy produced entirely by wind, water and sunlight. Also on Feb. 15, Solutions Project member Leilani Munter, a professional racecar driver, will publicize the 50-state plan at a Daytona National Speedway racing event in Daytona, Fla., in which she will be participating.

"Global warming, air pollution and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today, said Jacobson...

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-stanford-scientist-unveil-state-renewable.html


The Solutions Project"
http://thesolutionsproject.org

Groundbreaking analysis shows China's renewable energy future within reach

Feb 19, 2014

Wind and solar preferable and cheaper than coal for China Credit: © WWF - Canon


By embracing conservation measures and renewable energy, China can transition to an 80 percent renewable electric power system by 2050 at far less cost than continuing to rely on coal, according to a new report from WWF-US.

As a result, China's carbon emissions from power generation could be 90 percent less than currently projected levels in 2050 without compromising the reliability of the electric grid or slowing economic growth.

The China's Future Generation report was prepared by the Energy Transition Research Institute (Entri) for WWF and uses robust computer modeling to simulate four scenarios based on today's proven technology: a Baseline, High Efficiency, High Renewables, and Low-Carbon Mix scenario. To develop its findings, Entri examines China's electricity supply and demand on an hour-by-hour basis through 2050 using its advanced China Grid Model.

"By fully embracing energy conservation, efficiency and renewables, China has the potential to demonstrate to the world that economic growth is possible while sharply reducing the emissions that drive unhealthy air pollution and climate change," said WWF's China Climate and Energy Program Director Lunyan Lu. "This research shows that with strong political will, China can prosper while eliminating coal from its power mix within the next 30 years."

In addition to ramping up development of renewable power sources, the world's most populous and energy-hungry nation will need ...

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-groundbreaking-analysis-china-renewable-energy.html

You can download copy of report with this link:
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/chinas_future_generation_report_final__1_.pdf

[hunter]

8. Wait? What?

"Natural" gas will have expensive clean up costs too, providing this civilization survives...

It's all bad.

[kristopher]

9. Wait? What?

Another non-comedic non sequitur from our local "anti-technology" renewable rejecting, internet-addicted nuclear lover.

Thanks for the laugh; as always, it's a hoot.

[hunter]

10. Much of my life is the internet, kristopher.

I logged on in 1979 and never left.

If you find naked pics of me, that's cool, post them here.

I'm still looking for those pics when I was young and hot, but no way in hell am I going to talk to them who might still have them. Not yet. Maybe when we are all wrinkly old retired eccentric people who don't give a shit about nothing anymore.

But I'm free now, just as they are not.

Are you free?

Nuclear leaks, fossil fuel leaks? Those are all bad.

Me naked? Nothing new.

I'm at liberty now to write most everything I think. And I do.