by ThatBritGuy
Wed May 28th, 2008 at 08:09:27 AM EST
According to the BBC:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Nuclear clean-up costs 'to soar'
The cost of cleaning up the UK's ageing nuclear facilities, including some described as "dangerous", looks set to rise above £73bn, the BBC has learned.
A senior official at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said the bill would rise by billions of pounds.
Nineteen sites across the country, some dating from the 1950s, are due to be dismantled in the coming decades.
A spokesman for the Department for Business said it was ready for an adjustment in the clean-up costs.
In January, the National Audit Office said that the cost of decommissioning ageing power sites had risen from £12bn to £73bn.
Can anyone think of any other industry where this would be acceptable?
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Nuclear clean-up costs 'to soar'
Speaking to the BBC, Jim Morse, a senior director at the authority, said of the projected cost: "I think it's a high probability that in the short term it will undoubtedly go up.
"We've still a lot to discover, we haven't started waste retrieval in those parts of the estate where the degradation and radioactive decay has been at its greatest."
When asked if the cost increases could run into billions of pounds, Mr Morse said: "I'm sure it'll be some billions, I really don't know."
Now - in the interests of fairness and full disclosure, it's worth noting that this is the cost to clean-up virtually all of the UK's fifty year old nuke program.
But even so - although it's nice that the Department for Business is 'ready for an adjustment' of >600%, this is a sizeable chunk of GDP which is being slipped past the public without investigation or oversight. (Snarky reporting from the BBC doesn't count as either, unfortunately.)
The best argument against nukes isn't about technology, efficiency or economics, or even that clean-up costs are reliably misunderestimated by large factors - it's that some governments, especially the UK's, lack the political or strategic skills to manage the technology effectively without turning it into a steaming mountain of faintly glowing pork.
The current estimate for the Severn Barrage tidal energy scheme is £23bn.
This assumes a privately funded and managed project, built with the UK's traditional vastly inflated construction costs - reliably between 25% and 50% higher than those on the mainland.
Public or semi-public funding, combined with aggressive construction cost management might be able to trim that by 25%.
With £73bn to spare, it would be possible to consider similar schemes for the Thames Estuary, the Wash, and the Solent, and perhaps add fill-in capacity with off-shore wind. Or indeed vice versa.
The Severn Barrage was considered economically viable back in the 80s, subject to some modest green tax breaks, but the Thatcher government chose not to support it. It's unlikely to be less viable now than it was then.
Perhaps the Department for Business could consider making an 'adjustment' to its politics instead of its budget, so that it's not making the same mistakes twenty years from now?
