Cheerleaders for new nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors (SMRs) such as Justin Bowden, trades union GMB’s national secretary for energy (“Millions on offer to develop small nuclear plants," 4 December; https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/mini-nuclear-power-stations-uk-government-funding ) are recklessly promoting this new version of an already failed technology, ignoring the very serious negative consequences of their nations wide deployment.
Aside from there being no plan to deal with the very extensive radioactive waste they would create ( it is like taking off in an aircraft without landing gear on board!), they would have to be located on multiple greenfield sites very close to dense urban areas and industrial parks - which is very unlikely to be popular with local communities - because the economics of SMRs only makes any semblance of sense if the excess heat they create can be piped into local heat grids, according to an analysis by the Energy Technology Institute‘s detailed report published in September last year (http://www.eti.co.uk/library/preparing-for-deployment-of-a-uk-small-modular-reactor-by-2030), updated by the institute’s energy programme manager Dr Mike Middleton, last month (http://www.eti.co.uk/library/etis-strategy-manager-mike-middleton-presents-the-role-for-small-modular-reactors-in-a-uk-low-carbon-economy).
But the most disturbing aspect of SMRs is the additional security threat they will create, not only by proliferating targets for the multiple terrorist groups who have already identified nuclear plants are prime targets, as the capture of documents and hard discs from terror groups demonstrate, but also they would multiply the number of nuclear transports by road and rail manifold, at a time when the national nuclear regulator (office for nuclear regulation, ONR) is under huge resource pressure, as the responsibility for nuclear ‘safeguards’ is being transferred to ONR under the nuclear safeguards bill, currently undergoing scrutiny in Parliament. (https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/nuclearsafeguards.html; https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmpublic/nuclear/memo/nsb06.htm)
But the most disturbing aspect of SMRs is the additional security threat they will create, not only by proliferating targets for the multiple terrorist groups who have already identified nuclear plants are prime targets, as the capture of documents and hard discs from terror groups demonstrate, but also they would multiply the number of nuclear transports by road and rail manifold, at a time when the national nuclear regulator (office for nuclear regulation, ONR) is under huge resource pressure, as the responsibility for nuclear ‘safeguards’ is being transferred to ONR under the nuclear safeguards bill, currently undergoing scrutiny in Parliament. (https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/nuclearsafeguards.html; https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmpublic/nuclear/memo/nsb06.htm)
When I met with the business and energy department (BEIS) officials at the department over a year ago to discuss the SMR programme, they alarmingly conceded they had not considered the additional security risks SMRs create; I hope they have done so now.
This SMR strategy is an expensive, dangerous and unnecessary atomic gimmick, alongside the environmental gimmicks of which your second leader warns. (“Environmental policy must be about more than gimmicks,” 5 December; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/the-guardian-view-on-green-toryism-it-must-go-beyond-gimmicks)
No comments:
Post a Comment