97% of all nuclear waste is harmless (mainly the transport materials etc)
0.2% of all nuclear waste is radio active and it is this that is stored for centuries
0.6% of all nuclear waste is mid level radio activity and has to be stored with care
2.2% of all nuclear waste is of low level radio activity - gloves, suits etc - and can be burnt.
It is not generally recognised that art present in the UK there are 7000 premises licensed to handle Waste, with Sellafield, of course, being the only Nuclear Reprocessing plant. Despite our speakers 'healthy questioning attitude' towards nuclear power, here was the one area in which he had complete confidence: the long-term storage of radio active waste.
Future of British Nuclear Power
There is no doubt, so we were told, that much concerning the nuclear power industry in general and BNFL in particular is good: Performance Improvement; Equipment Reliability; Human Performance; Works Management and Operational Focus. BNFL is safe, profitable and proud.
Perhaps want is not so good is the lack of investment in training - training for the remaining years of the industry (until 2030 if present Government policy persists) and for what must follow - the re-training needs of people needed who have only known the work and work practices of one industry. Here was indeed an example of 'critical friendship'!
Our speaker argued quite forcibly for a balanced mix for our future needs: 40% gas, 25% nuclear; 15% coal and 20% renewable (though with an healthy scepticism if this can ever be achieved). But even this mix will require a re-thinking by HMG of the policy whereby all but one of the present 8 nuclear power stations will be closed by 2023.
Heysham 1
The presentation ended with a highly personal view of his own power station - Heysham (which is due to close in 2014, with the potential loss of 450 jobs). The station has an unenviable record of lost production (Unit 2 108 days in 2004 and Unit 1 80 days and still counting!). But yet, with the new enthusiasm of the work-force the station can and will play its part in Britain’s nuclear future.
Perhaps our speaker's treatment of his own station was a paradigm for the industry: there are faults that have to be acknowledged and progress has been hard to see and sometimes even more difficult to measure (The 'Fluctuating Fortunes'), but yet, with the skill and enthusiasm of the work-force, continued investment by industry and HMG and, more importantly, a partnership committed to the well-being of locality, nation and world (The 'Divine Intervention') the industry can respond to the power needs of our nation and be Safe, Predictable and Reliable.
The view from the manager of a Nuclear Power Station
Does a fishmonger ever cry 'Stinking Fish'? Well, the answer might be 'Sometimes'. When we met to hear Paul Newman, manager of Heysham 1 Nuclear Power Station talk to the Chaplains, even with a title as absorbing as Fluctuating Fortunes or Divine Intervention, we expected a presentation that was very 'pro nuclear'. (So writes Derek Overfield as he starts to tells us what he heard Paul Newman say.)
What we had was a presentation from someone who, in his own words, 'has an healthy questioning attitude towards nuclear power'. Mr Newman is a friend of his own industry, then he is, at least, a very critical friend.
The presentation was divided into 4 distinct parts:
A History of Nuclear Generation since Privatisation in 1996
We were left in no doubt that for our speaker Privatisation was not a good move! Whatever the arguments politically, the facts about costs, generating output, the problems associated with NETA (New Electricity Trading Arrangements) all meant that their industry, in any one of its several guises and names, suffered.
The industry has 3 basic expectations: Safety; Reliability and Predictability. Never has Safety been compromised; but Predictability with the projected output in 2002 being 63.8 Terrawatt hours against a predicted 67.5, and Reliability, with failures at Torness, Heysham 2 and Dunganess, had both, by any assessment, achieved less than satisfactory grades.
Making quite critical comments on the political decision-making process, particularly the Energy Review of 2001 (reviewing energy demands and supply trends until 2050) and the resultant White Paper '(a bit of a fudge)', our guest speaker made it clear that the present policy would mean that by around 2025 we will be reliant for perhaps as much as 70% of our energy-producing resources on gas and oil imported from Russia and Iran ('hardly first choices for security and reliability').
Although nuclear power has had problems - almost all associated with Privatisation and the policies of successive Governments - Safety, Reliability and Predictability can be all achieved but only if a radical re-think of nuclear provision is carried out.
The first part of the address ended with a rather chilling choice: Poverty (associated with continual power cuts), Global Warming (associated with the extended use of fossil fuels) or Nuclear Power
Waste
Our speaker acknowledged that here was the issue that caused most concern, was probably least understood by the general public and need the best public relations in order to allay fears.
Given the honesty of the first (and longest) part of the presentation, the audience certainly seemed inclined to accept the facts as they were now stated:
