Martyn Lowe

I’ve been hearing of late about the whole process of just what
goes on when nukiller waste is put in to storage.

Now we all know that the nukiller industry produces a lot of
very radioactive waste,
but it should also be remembered that what is left behind is a
very toxic chemical mixture which could become very volatile
if it is handled in the wrong way.

Many of these chemicals are also very corrosive,
which makes for some very difficult storage problems,
particularly given that this material is going to present a
radioactive danger for many centuries in to the future.

Thus Windscale,
which was rebranded as Sellefield,
should be regarded as being:-

– a Nukiller Reactor plant,

– a storage facility for highly radioactive waste,

– a facility in which Plutonium is extracted from Highly
Radioactive waste,

&

– Very large chemical conversion factory.

All of which means that what goes on in the plant presents
some very challenging safety problems for us all.

Even if all of the nukiller plants throughout the globe were
to close down right now,
and no more plutonium were to be extracted from the
resulting waste,
then there will still be an ongoing problem which we will have
to be faced up to.

It is not just a problem of safeguarding the waste,
as there will also be a financial burden which will last for
centuries to come.

Meanwhile back at Windscale: –
there have been so many reports of chemical & radioactive
leaks over the years,
that it all makes for such a very very very long list.

That’s why I’m not even going try to mention just 0.1% of what
has gone on within or around the plant over the years.

Never mind the growing list of criticisms about just how the
plant operates,
which might be best summed up as a chemical incompetence.

For while there has been a lot of effort put in to reducing the
quantity of waste,
very little thought about just how to deal with the resulting
highly radioactive chemical gunk.

This is not to say that there have not been various proposals
as to how this waste might be stored.

For example:
There have been efforts to store this waste deep
underground,
such as happened in Germany.

The trouble is that none of these supposed ‘solutions’ will
ever work.

Just storing the waste while it is still undergoing a chemical
reaction is not the brightest idea as to what might be done
with it in the short to medium term.

Never mind the long lived radioactivity which is just another
problem which future generations are going to have to deal
with  !!!

So some of the recent developments within Cumbria should be
regarded with alarm.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is looking to axe
jobs.

As with all the various UK government agencies financial cuts
are on the way.

This means job losses.

Depending upon which reports you read,
both within the NDA and at Windscale this will effect between
90 and 1,200 workers.  *

Continue reading Cuts In Cumbria – A Chemical Story

Anyone who has ever had anything to do with Insurance will
tell you that it is all to do with assessing risks,
and measuring the amount of damage which  might or may of
occurred.

It may all look like a form of gambling on disasters not taking
place,
but it is all based upon a formular of tried and tested
statistical tables.

That’s why insurance policies are so complex,
and include so many exclusion clauses.

Break just one of those clauses,
or do something silly,
and your insurance claim becomes invalid.

Sometimes natural diasters occur.
In the old days they were refereed to as ‘Acts of God’.

Nature is unpredictable,
and you can never front see everything which might go wrong.

Even with the best insurance in the world,
all you will get is a ‘Replacing like for like’.

Yet you can’t replace human life.

Which brings me on to the question of nukiller power.

The construction and running of nukiller reactors involves
spending heap loads of money,
and still there is no way in which you can guarantee this will
make you a profit.

If they go wrong,
then it will cost even more money to clean up the resulting
ecological mess.

This is why most of the building of nukiller power reactors
has been underwritten by the state.

Now in these difficult economic times more and more
governments are becoming very reluctant to underpin the
finances of the nukiller industry.

While the industry is still pushing for more government
subsidies before committing themselves to building new
reactors.

They just don’t want to pay for the long term costs of
dismantling  the reactors,
or safely storing all of the radioactive waste.

Longer term the insure costs involved in the safe storage of
nukiller waste are also very unpredictable indeed.

It will take just one so called ‘accident’ to occur at a nukiller
waste storage plant for the insurance premium of all the rest
of these plants to become so very unrealistic high,
that most companies would not be able to pay for it all.

That in turn might mean that a lot of the Lloyds underwriters
may also become very reluctant to take on such high risks.

That is why just in insurance costs alone it would be
inadvisable for any one ,or any company, to put money in to
nukiller power industry.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking of late about the many
arguments against nukiller power,
and just how they need to be presented to people.

Of course the most persuasive argument against nukes is that
of a radioactive future,
and just how much nukiller power equates to the building of
nukiller weapons.

Yet there are a couple of other arguments which do need to be
stated.

For example:

– Nukiller power is very far from being carbon neutral.
This being a result of the way that uranium is mined, processed,
and transported.

– Nukiller power can never provide any country fuel security.
It can only continue as part of global industry.

&

– That there is no economic justification for building nukes.
Investing in nukes means taking a lot of long term economic
risks, which both governments and the insurance industry are
starting to become very concerned about.

While the economic investment returns upon building wind
turbines are much greater.

Ditto from making fiscal savings from home insulation,
and energy saving technologies.

While I’ll be helping to encourage more Nonviolent direct
action against ( NVDA ) nukiller power over the next few
years,
I’ll also be showing to potential investors that there is a lot
more money to be made & saved by investing in the alternatives.

There are some arguments for doing the right thing which
sound almost counter intuitive.

For example:

If one were to establish a Ron & Reggie Kray memorial institute
for the victims of knife crimes.

or

By promoting the ‘Greed is Good’ argument against nukiller
power.

Yet this is not a counter intuitive argument in economic terms.

Given all the hidden costs of nukiller power,
plus all of the long term costs of storing and safeguarding the
radioactive waste,
then it is very hard to see how anyone could ever make a profit
without the tax payer shoulder the long term costs.

No wonder the companies involved in the industry are arguing
so strongly that we poor tax payers should pay for all the
unprofitable parts of the industry.

Just look at the insurance rates for each reactor.

At a time when there is going to be so much social harm as a
result of cuts in government spending,
is it really reasonable to keep subsidising the nukiller power
industry ?

Last year George Soros pledged to put his money into helping to
stop global warming from carbon emissions.

Just keep in mind that the nukiller power industry also
generates a lot of carbon emissions,

Whether the Soros fund will also be used to help campaign against
the building of new nukiller reactors remains to be seen?

We still have to find out.

What we really need is more people like Soros coming out
against the building of nukiller reactors.

There is a lot of money at stake in terms of the nukiller power
industry,
but better returns are to be made by the alternatives.