Subscribe to daily environment news





 

Click for news Click for pictures
National Tree Day

Planet Ark Home


UK to Bury Old Nuclear Plants, Looks to New Ones
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version

UK: May 24, 2007


OLDBURY POWER STATION, England - Warm pipes in the reactor building and the quiet hum of a turbine are signs of the powerful chain reaction taking place at Oldbury nuclear power station, but it will not be operating much longer.


All but one of Britain's nuclear power stations will be shut by 2023, and the government insists it must make a decision this year on whether to build new nuclear power plants.

Publishing an energy policy document on Wednesday, Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the government had reached a "preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power."

Decommissioning ageing nuclear plants, like 40-year-old Oldbury in western England, and storing their toxic waste will cost around 70 billion pounds (US$138.3 billion), according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

"It will be sad, this will all be buried underground," said Robin Beeby, defuelling manager, looking out over hundreds of cooling pipes criss-crossing Oldbury's turbine hall.

Workers not involved in the shutdown will hang up their yellow protective bodysuits and walk through the digital contamination detector for the last time in December 2008 when the plant stops pumping power to the national grid.

The complete Oldbury shutdown will cost around 1 billion pounds and could take 110 years, nearly three times longer than the plant has been in operation.

Site Director Joe Lamonby said many people living in the area would like the site eventually covered by green fields to blend into the surrounding area, even if it is not within their lifetime.

"We could return it to a green field site but that would be more expensive than using it for another industry or indeed another nuclear site," he said.

Darling said on Wednesday it would make sense for any new nuclear plants to be built alongside existing ones, because all the necessary infrastructure and links to the National Grid were already there.

Deep inside Oldbury's two concrete reactors, the remote controlled refuelling machine, the size of a small industrial crane, will work around the clock to remove the 53,000 radioactive fuel rods from the 360 degrees Celsius core.

By 2109, only the empty reactor shells will mark the skyline over the banks of the River Severn and nine years later, all will be gone, unless another company decides to build a new plant in its place.

Lamonby said some local residents will regret the closure.

"A lot of them are supportive because they have lived with the site for the best part of 40 years. They like us being here because we are quite a good neighbour -- we bring a lot of income into the area."


NEW POWER

The River Severn estuary has the second highest tides in the world and is often proposed as a potential energy source. But the nuclear industry says power generated from renewable sources, such as wave power, cannot alone satisfy growing energy demand.

"Wave power can provide a degree of (power) but it hasn't really been built on a scale to replace a modern 1,000 megawatt or 2,000 megawatt plant," Lamonby said.

When working at full capacity, even the dated Oldbury site can produce up to 435 megawatts of electricity, enough to power two medium-size cities.

While nuclear plants now supply about 20 percent of Britain's electricity, environmental groups oppose plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations.

"The necessary cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved without resorting to the nuclear option," environmental group WWF said in a report last week.

The government, which aims to cut Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 percent by 2050, has emphasised the environmental benefits of nuclear power, which produces far fewer harmful emissions than plants fired by coal and gas.

However, environmentalists highlight the expense of new nuclear power stations and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. They say coastal nuclear plants could be at risk of flooding from rising sea levels.

Greenpeace said on Wednesday that Prime Minister Tony Blair was "dangerously wrong" to think nuclear po


Story by Sylvia Westall


REUTERS NEWS SERVICE



© 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
top

 
24 MAY 2007
ENVIRONMENT
NEWS

BELGIUM:
EU Targets Empty Trucks to Cut Road Emissions

CAMEROON:
Lightning Bolt Kills Five Children in Cameroon

CHINA:
China's 2006 Natural Disasters Killed Over 3,000

CHINA:
China's Yangtze at Risk of Major Flooding - Report

COSTA RICA:
Global Warming Blamed for Costa Rica Frog Die-Offs

INDIA:
India Tiger Numbers Far Lower Than Thought - Experts

INDONESIA:
Southeast Asia Seeks to Crack Down on Animal Trade

ITALY:
Garbage Piles Burn Around Naples, Schools Shut

MALAYSIA:
Malaysia on PR Campaign Over Rainforests, Wildlife

MALI:
Malian Weed Brings Light to Mud-Hut Villages

NETHERLANDS:
Dutch to Invest US$1 Bln to Shore Up Sea Defences

PHILIPPINES:
Philippines in US$1.3 Billion Biofuels Project

SPAIN:
Trains Stopped, Highway Flooded by Madrid Rain

TURKEY:
Noah's Ark Rebuilt to Show Climate Change Threat

UK:
Waste Plan to Target Household Recycling

UK:
UK to Bury Old Nuclear Plants, Looks to New Ones

UK:
State of Play in World Nuclear Power Plants

UK:
Rain Seen Helping EU Crops, But Still Dry in East

UK:
Britain Maps Out Clean, Secure Energy Future

UK:
BP Abandons Plans to Build UK Carbon Capture Plant

US:
Killer Hurricanes Thrived In Cool Seas - Study

US:
Solar Power Heads Mainstream as Costs Drop - Report

US:
Hammerhead Shark Gives "Virgin" Birth



previous day
today's news
next day


This site developed by Frontline, and managed by Planet Ark using RPM-NT.

Site designed by Jon Dee @ Planet Ark.

Radiant