DECOMMISSIONING the UK’s nuclear sites will take another 120 years and cost more than £130 billion, according to an official report.
The UK Government Public Accounts Committee said the situation had arisen from a “sorry saga” of failed contracts, “weak” oversight and “perpetual” lack of knowledge of the state of the sites.
The authors added that retiring civil nuclear sites was simply an “afterthought” when the industry was first established.
Poor record-keeping about the state and location of materials mean the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) know too little about the sites it looks after, the report says.
More than a century of work is now needed and will have a significant impact on the people who live close to the sites, it adds.
Torness Power Station in East Lothian and Hunterston B Power Station in Ayrshire are included in the list of the UK’s civil nuclear sites to be decommissioned.
Responding to the new £132bn decommissioning price tag, the SNP’s energy spokesperson Alan Brown (below) said this is “yet more evidence that the UK Government should cease its obsession with nuclear power and commit to scrapping any new nuclear power projects”.
The MP said ministers should scrap recently announced nuclear plans set to cost an extra £50bn, adding: “This is money that could be spent on sustainable renewable energy projects.”
Brown went on: "It also shines a light on the Tories' incompetence that these costs had not been considered when they were falling over their feet to jump on the nuclear bandwagon.
“Nuclear energy simply cannot be delivered - and then decommissioned - without eye-wateringly high cost. We have already seen decommissioning costs spiral out of control.
“In these difficult economic times, the last thing people need is to see their money wasted on nuclear white elephants that are significantly more expensive than renewable options.”
Meanwhile, the NDA welcomed the report. They said they were “pleased” that the Public Accounts Committee recognised the “inherent uncertainties and challenges” in the effort to clean up 17 of the UK’s oldest nuclear sites.
A spokesman went on: “Safety is our priority and we do not accept the committee's suggestions that we may not understand the safety of our sites. Our work is tightly and independently regulated to ensure we uphold the highest standards of safety.
“Our focus remains on ensuring that we deliver this work of national strategic importance safely, effectively and efficiently. We will be looking carefully at the PAC's recommendations.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel