Green Living

11° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Exclusive

A £1bn nuclear white elephant

Exclusive: Call for public inquiry as Sellafield recycling plant is costing taxpayer millions every year

By Michael Savage

The Government had tried to keep details of the plant's losses private

PA

The Government had tried to keep details of the plant's losses private

A controversial nuclear recycling plant, approved by the Government despite warnings over its economic viability and reliance on unproven technology, has racked up costs of more than £1bn and is still not working properly.

Backers of the plant at Sellafield, which promised to turn toxic waste into a useable fuel that could be sold worldwide, had claimed the plant would make a profit of more than £200m in its lifetime, producing 120 tonnes of recycled fuel a year. But after an investigation by The Independent, the Government admitted technical problems and a dearth in orders has meant it has produced just 6.3 tonnes of fuel since opening in 2001.

With construction and commissioning costs of more than £600m, the facility, known as the Mox plant because of the mixed oxides (Mox) fuel it is designed to produce, has cost more than £1.2bn, confirming its status as the nuclear industry's most embarrassing white elephant and one of the greatest failures in British industrial history, losing the taxpayer £90m a year. Green campaigners and opposition MPs are now calling for the plant to be closed immediately, and a minister who fought its construction at the time has called for a public inquiry into how the plant was ever given the go-ahead.

The revelations are a blow to the Government as it plans to lead Britain into a "nuclear renaissance", pinning its hopes on nuclear technology to help meet its ambitious targets on reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said the performance of the plant was "clearly disappointing".

The Government had tried to keep details of the plant's losses private. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the publicly funded body which owns the plant, initally refused to release details of the losses, citing confidentiality agreements in commercial contracts. But in a table published by the Government on the day of the G20 summit, the embarrassing extent of the plant's losses was finally disclosed.

Michael Meacher, who tried to block approval for the plant as Environment minister, said: "This waste of taxpayer's money is unforgivable. The construction of the plant was resisted for years. But that was overridden by Tony Blair on the basis of assurances from the nuclear industry that the Mox plant would be cost-effective and a market for its fuel would develop.

"These claims have proved illusory. But even the most pessimistic judgement never predicted that the first decade of its operations would fritter away two-thirds of a billion pounds on generating no more than 4 per cent of its target production. There should be a public inquiry into this scandal and those responsible should be held to account."

Speculation has now grown that Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, is preparing to bite the bullet and close the plant, which has faced five public consultations, legal challenges and safety concerns. The NDA admits the future of the plant is "under review".

Opposition MPs slammed the performance of the facility. "The Mox plant at Sellafield has proved to be a costly white elephant and a black hole for taxpayers' money," said Simon Hughes, the climate change spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. "This is a prime example of Labour's misguided and hugely expensive continuing love affair with nuclear power. Building a new generation of nuclear power stations is throwing billions of pounds of good money after bad. They are never built on time or on budget and they will not solve the UK's energy needs."

The plant has had an unhappy history. As soon as it was proposed in the 1990s, Greenpeace raised concerns about the safety of reprocessing used uranium and plutonium, and then transporting the weapons-grade material to customers around the world. Scientists, economists and MPs also questioned the financial viability of the project. Though the Government approved the plant on the basis that it would return a profit of about £216m over its lifetime, that figure did not take into account the £500m construction costs.

The plant was dealt a further blow in 1999, when The Independent revealed that workers at Sellafield had falsified quality-control data on Mox fuel. Unsurprisingly, customers in Japan, the country that the Government believed would provide the bulk of orders for the fuel produced by its new plant, lost confidence. It left a gaping hole in the Mox plant's order book which has never been filled.

Since it opened in 2001, the plant's complex recycling procedure has also been dogged by breakdowns and on-going difficulties. At present, production problems are being experienced in making "fuel assemblies", the final stage of production in making the fuel. Despite the problems, the Government refused to acknowledge difficulties at the plant. Even after serious issues had emerged by 2004, it still argued that the economic and environmental case for the plant was as "strong as ever". Campaigners believe the final bill for the plant will be even higher by the time it is closed, because decommissioning the facility will also cost millions. "This is a staggering waste of taxpayers' money, and we doubt that these will be the full costs of this sorry saga," said Nathan Argent, head of Greenpeace's energy solutions unit.

"Just imagine what the renewable sector could have done with a subsidy like that. The spectacular failure of the Mox plant is just another reminder of why the nuclear industry has become notorious for making wildly misleading financial claims.

"For years, we urged the Government to treat the industry's predictions with the scepticism they deserved, but our pleas fell on deaf ears. Once again the same tired old lines about sparkling new equipment are wrapped in make-believe financial forecasts, and ministers are swallowing it hook, line and sinker."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

MOX Sellafield
[info]sixupman wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 06:50 am (UTC)
This was projected years ago, even before the plant was anywhere near commissioning.
Re: MOX Sellafield
[info]drahcir38 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 08:04 am (UTC)
It makes you wonder how many hands were in the till in some pretty high places for this to have gone ahead despite warnings. For the projection and the reality to be this far apart it seems that either a bunch of complete idiots agreed that it should go ahead, or there was a great deal of money which lined a few pockets, take your pick.
Ummm
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
GBP 216m profit not tking into account the GBP 500m contruction costs?? Yeah, good one.
Those voices again.........
[info]dydor wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)
Should Tony have been listening to a broader range of voices through those years? Or maybe ones with specialist expertise in whatever area of policy he was concerned with at the time? We should use any sources critically, but voices in your head? Can't argue with their infallible sagacity! Or maybe he missed their call and winged it on his own?
Re: Those voices again.........
[info]geo32 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
May I ask for a recar on how many millions tony b liar spent onm knowledgable consultancy fees?
Re: Those voices again.........
[info]dydor wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 07:24 pm (UTC)
The voices in his head he didn't like to talk about at the time were free, and were were apparently about as authoritative as the ones he spent millions on.
Nuclear White Elephant
[info]colinru wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
Simon Hughes is not correct. Building new Nuclear Stations is one way of reducing CO2 emissions dramatically and there is no reason why they cannot be built on budget providing that a standard design is chosen (as in France) and then stuck to!

As for not solving the UK energy needs - they will do a damn site better than a coast-load of Windmills which seems to be the LIbDem solution. I know that there are not many Engineers or Scientists amongst MPs but they could ask for info before making stupid statements like this!
Re: Nuclear White Elephant
[info]kathyharry wrote:
Wednesday, 8 April 2009 at 07:39 pm (UTC)
bllrrggghh! WAKE UP!
Re: Nuclear White Elephant
[info]colinru wrote:
Thursday, 9 April 2009 at 10:07 am (UTC)
I do not understand what this comment means, kathyharry. Would you like to expand it?
MOX why worry ?.
[info]achmelchett wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 09:50 am (UTC)
do we really know enough about the impact on the planet this industry has or will have ?
Is it a case of in rod we trust ?
I really do not wish to be awkward but with a straight face they said this would work & it has not.
Re: Nuclear White Elephant
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:03 am (UTC)
Have to agree. Muddled Government thinking and the Green lobby savaged our chances of having an efficient nuclear industry. One-off projects, not properly planned and integratged, are a recipe for failure. The French know how to do it (Grrrr!) and they will get the contracts for any new nuclear build. Taking the example of the Channel tunnel - would we have come up with an alternative to the TGV? -no way. If you can't, you can't, so let the `Frenchies` do it for us. Works bloody well for them...and works out well for us.
Re: Nuclear White Elephant
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:19 am (UTC)
I also have to agree. When I hear titles like Climate Change Secretary, or Opposition Climate Change spokesman I cringe. Forget all this carbon dioxide business, we need to produce nuclear power stations because fossil fuel supplies are finite and will run out at some time. Furthermore, we need to be as self contained as possible with regard to energy. Miliband should throw his climate change hat in the bin and concentrate on his energy job as there is increasing evidence that we are entering a decadal cooling phase.
Windscale
[info]trojan_horace wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
On 10 October, 1957, the graphite core of the British nuclear reactor at Windscale, Cumberland, (Now Sellafield) caught fire, releasing substantial amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area including radiation falling on Newcastle Upon Tyne. One isotope, caesium-137, from the Windscale fire can still be detected in a few areas of Cumbria. The reactors at Three Mile Island, unlike those at Windscale and Chernobyl, were in buildings designed to contain radioactive materials released by a reactor accident. Cumberland caught a second dose from Chernoble. The Irish Sea is also cooked to a higher degree than the North Sea as a result. Seems the re-branding of Windscale with its new name Sellafield, has done nothing to improve its reputation as a place to be avoided if you don't want to be harvesting tumours from yourself or your loved ones. Those who see no statistical correlation in the fact that Leukemia rates in the village in Seascale (where Windscale was built) are twelve times national average will probably also dismiss this story of financial folly.. but really, who is going to believe them?


Nuclear whopper
[info]pecplc wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
Tony Blair may be the most highly paid public speaker in the world but he made a bad mistake with MOX - a real whopper. The greens, who object to anything to do with nuclear, probably muddied the waters a bit and the advisers to Tony Blair should take some of the blame too. They must go. It is hard to see what to do without knowing a lot more. I just thank our lucky stars for the French who are so competent in all things nuclear.
Nuclear white elephants
[info]bonny_quine wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:53 am (UTC)
Dounreay, Sellafield - do I detect a pattern?
Time to revise the business model
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC)
Iran will happily drop some serious coin to get hold of their product. North Korea too if they didn't have such poor asses... This could quite easily be a profitable business with the right customers though the dictatorships of China and Russia tend to produce in house... How about giving the Bin Ladens a call?
GreenPease expressing SCEPTICISM??????
[info]calum100 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 11:07 am (UTC)
...........who would have thought that!

Now, lets return to SCEPTICISM over man-made global warming........................
Nuclear facts
[info]climatewarrior wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 11:17 am (UTC)
"Forget all this carbon dioxide business, we need to produce nuclear power stations because fossil fuel supplies are finite and will run out at some time."

I'll bite and not disagree with your first six words for the sake of argument.

Nuclear fuel supplies are finite and will run out at some time. The time nuclear fuel supplies will run out is measured in decades. The time coal supplies will run out is measured in centuries, if not thousands of years.

"Furthermore, we need to be as self contained as possible with regard to energy."

Agreed. There are no uranium mines in the UK. If we are to be as self contained as possible that means not using things bought from elsewhere.

This is all elementary stuff.
Re: Nuclear facts
[info]colinru wrote:
Saturday, 11 April 2009 at 01:12 pm (UTC)
There is enough U3O8 to last for present, planned & proposed Nuclear Plant for 50 to 300 years (depending on who you believe). If AGW is true (and I give it, at least, some credence) then Nuclear would be a better stopgap than Coal - until Fusion & other renewables can, hopefully, be improved and scaled-up to Industrial size.

Security of supply would be improved for Britain by going Nuclear as most of our Oil & Gas imports are from less stable areas whereas U3O8 (in future) would be mainly from USA, Canada, Australia.
Re: GreenPease expressing SCEPTICISM??????
[info]climatewarrior wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC)
Who to believe? Calum100, a poster on the Independent, is sceptical about man-made global warming.

On the other hand the Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html and the Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761 are not sceptical.

Hmmmm, difficult decision? I think not.
Re: GreenPease expressing SCEPTICISM??????
[info]colinru wrote:
Saturday, 11 April 2009 at 01:04 pm (UTC)
Ahh. The "appeal to authority" again. Science does not work by consensus - I can quote lots of examples where the consensus has been wrong in the past. Some of the links provided by calum100 do make valid points about the IPCC Model veracity.

Whilst I now think that there is a link between climate change and CO2 emissions (since WW2, at least), the Met Office site is more like a "warmist" propaganda site than an impartial source. Some of their "Janet & John" summary points are appalling and make me think that I am being lied to!

As for The Royal Society, I heard their President on the TV stating that (from memory) the debate was over, CC was real, we are responsible. This man is a disgrace to Science! The debate is never over and even the IPCC Model seems to show that CC was due to outside sources (Solar Output, Celestial Mechanics etc.) until mid-C20.

That is the problem with AGW - far too many of its proponents use hysteria & exaggeration instead of being honest about the uncertainties in the Models. This also occurs with some of the "denialists" as well, of course. In fact the whole thing resembles a medieaval religious debate, at times.
Re: GreenPease expressing SCEPTICISM??????
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 11:23 am (UTC)
oh don't poke that bear it's worse than( whisper it) god v darwin
British Nuclear Fools
[info]alexweir1949 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 11:25 am (UTC)
British Nuclear Fools

In the Civil Engineering Industry, British Nuclear Fuels are commonly referred to as British Nuclear Fools. Possibly we should use similar appelations with UK Gov Ministry of Energy and indeed all Ministries and especially with Number 10?... And while we are discussing incompetence, why are MI6 and French Intelligence apparently incapable of successfully assassinating native British Citizens whom they are (illegally) instructed to terminate? - incompetence seems to be a common occurrence with the British Civil Service - more Johnny English than James Bond... Mr Alex Weir, Gaborone and Harare
Re: British Nuclear Fools
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 12:19 pm (UTC)
Maybe they're not 'incapable' but just don't want to carry out illegal orders.
Approved by the Government DESPITE WARNINGS..."
[info]ionieskye wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC)
"A controversial nuclear recycling plant, approved by the Government DESPITE WARNINGS..."
APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT DESPITE WARNINGS - these six words are used far too ofton, which is a true reflection of inpurity within the heart of everything the Government stand for! It's so true when Madonna said " our Government isn't looking after us!"
Terrorists Nuclear Threat
[info]copycat7 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC)
"We are facing an unprecedented threat from terrorists who want to nuke us all, so we have decided to build many new nuclear power stations for them to target"

The genius of our leaders never fails to amaze me.
Lies, dammned lies and the nuclear industry
[info]skyemartyn wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC)
Shock! Horror! Nuclear project over time and over budget!

If only the nuclear industry was as efficient at telling the truth as it is at burning money.



Error
[info]fredbauder wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 01:09 pm (UTC)
You say, "As soon as it was proposed in the 1990s, Greenpeace raised concerns about the safety of reprocessing used uranium and plutonium, and then transporting the weapons-grade material to customers around the world." The product is not weapons grade.
MOX Why We Need it
[info]innuckshuck wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 01:46 pm (UTC)
The real reason for having a MOX plant is not just simply to use Plutonium for fuel, but to put plutonium beyond tactical use.

The world has too much of this stuff, and it was the prime nuclear fissile material to have before the invention of the thermo-nuclear warhead.

Leaving plutonium in storage produces a high risk of terrorist attack. Once you have plutonium the rest of a nuclear weapon is not that difficult to produce. Obtaining plutonium from Uranium requires a large reactor and a reprocessing plant. Not the sort of thing that terrorist states could afford or hide.

Having worked on the MOX plant for a number of years in the past, I do believe that we need the facility, not just to use plutonium for fuel (natural Uranium is running out) but to enhance the security of this country.

Once the plutonium has been mixed with uranium along with various other non fissile compounds into fuel pellets (which are inserted into the rods), the plutonium is useless as a weapon.

There have been technical difficulties with the plant, this is quite normal in the Nuclear Industry, some of these issues are related to equipment that was current at the time of design becoming obsolete. Such issues are a problem faced by many industries as a result of the ever-advancing speed of technological change.

Because the Nuclear Industry is so tightly regulated, any change of technology has to be fully investigated and tested, unfortunately adding cost and delays. Put it this way I would rather live next door to Sellafield than any petrochemical plant.

I hope they don't close the plant, and that they throw a huge bunch of resources at it to resolve obsolescence issues in one hit and stop it haemorrhaging money.
A £1bn nuclear white elephant add more to this ===
[info]famulla wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 03:17 pm (UTC)
A £1bn nuclear white elephant
Exclusive: Call for public inquiry as Sellafield recycling plant is costing taxpayer millions every year
Michael. We have yet to come from the very thin wallets that have gone as small as the envelope
I have no idea who can be blamed on the wars that was agreed by the previous regime of two powerful states, now would bring a hole in one and there is no one to answer. I would therefore suggest we dig deep into this issue and take those responsible to the courts if we can. It may be fruitless I understand but no harm we in trying. I await comment on any on this. I am positive we will have many responses and you may get tired from these. By the way I have some more on the UK in the other papers
Labour is unchanged compared with a month ago on 30 per cent, while the Tories are one point up at 43 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are one point down at 18 per cent. Other parties are unchanged on 9 per cent.
Labour is unchanged compared with a month ago on 30 per cent, while the Tories are one point up at 43 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are one point down at 18 per cent. Other parties are unchanged on 9 per cent.
British Airways has proposed a shake-up of employee pay and conditions in a move that could lead to substantial cuts in remuneration and holidays for its 13,500 cabin crew.
Add this to the hidden prison costs.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
BNFL MOX ET AL
[info]sixupman wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 05:03 pm (UTC)
See: http://www..aabaglobal.org and search for BNFL Sellafield or whatever and read critique of BNFL Accoun ting fiddles; MOX Plant warning and THORP.
Recycling Waste
[info]nucleartourist wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 06:08 pm (UTC)
Though I believe nuclear power should remain part of the energy mix, I seriously question the viability of current recycling technology as environmentally acceptable. Experience at Sellafield, Hanford, Idaho Chemical Processing Plants has shown large quantities of highly radioactive liquid waste must be contained to prevent release to the environment. Hanford is still trying to get rid of the millions of gallons of waste. Recycling should not be considered until a more acceptable process gets developed that does not generate the huge amounts of liquid waste.
[info]bob_irving99 wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:26 pm (UTC)
@innuckshuck
"I hope they don't close the plant, and that they throw a huge bunch of resources at it to resolve obsolescence issues in one hit and stop it haemorrhaging money."

Nice touch - throw even more money at it to stop it wasting even more money - of course, go for it, you know it makes sense!
Nuclear costs
[info]sensetosustain wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:46 am (UTC)
It seems that the only people buying nuclear are governments or companies directed /owned by government. It really isn't a market worthy approach to generation (or reprocessing!) as the private sector are rightly wary that the nuclear business comes in overbudget whatever it does.
Green Living
[info]catfishspy wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
Reusable Office furniture is the way forward.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date