The unimportance of being right

Misplaced Trust

‘If they had had listened to us, the country would have saved £100s of millions.’ That was the entirely fair comment by nuclear expert and star parliamentary researcher David Lowry when I saw him today.

In 2000 there was an impassioned campaign by, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to expose the idiocy of spending on Mox. That argument was won. No rational case was presented by Government. Out of loyalty, inertia, ignorance and misplaced trust in Government, MPs refused to act to stop the madness.

The past public debate was muted in spite of imaginative stunts by FOE, and repeated parliamentary questions. There is no public interest now even though the Government has confessed that the project failed utterly.

I am grateful to ‘Rwendland’ for pointing out in a comment today that there is an additional problem.

“And because of the MOX plant failure we have to ship Plutonium to complete the orders BNFL took! Presumably sub-contracting to another country is a cost beyond the £473m plant cost write-off.

Also it seems the transport used will be an ordinary single-hulled ro-ro ferry, without armed escort, to transport the Plutonium!

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/dirty-bomb-threat-as-uk-ships-plutonium-to-france-793488.html

Seems the "War on Terror" is very selectively applied when it comes to nuclear industry interests.

I'm amazed that little serious thought (in public) is given to what a commando-type-squad armed with modern man-portable anti-tank weapons could do to one of the new nuclear power stations the government desires.”

Was there any point is all our science and reason based arguments eight years ago? It changed nothing. The only justification would be if there was recognition now that a dreadful mistake has been made.

Sadly, not much chance of that.

Fair comment

As far as I know, I have never met my constituent Mr Keith Griffiths of the lighthouse park. But I was proud of his comment today on national TV.

Last night, he was asked to evacuate his mobile residential home in case the storm and tidal surge flooded the site. Many did not budge. The police suggested that someone might have to risk their lives rescuing those that stayed.

Many left the site. Some stayed. It would have been easy for Mr Griffiths to crow this morning about baseless scare mongering. He did not. Fairly he said.  ‘It’s one of these situations. The authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.’

Precisely Mr Griffiths.

MPs for moonlighting

A cruel putdown by Labour MP Iain Davidson of former cabinet Minister Patricia Hewitt. She had intervened on his speech with a waspish comment. He answered ‘I am pleased to answer my friend the member for Boots....’

There was an audible hiss of ‘unforgivable’. Iain’s barb was aimed at Patricia consultant jobs she has taken with Boots following her long spell as Health Secretary.

There is growing anger on the backbenches against former ministers rush to riches within a few weeks of leaving office. They are all still MPs which most of find to be more than full time jobs. The question being asked is what these commercial firms are buying with their £100,000 plus salaries on offer. It is contacts, influence, access?

Ian McCartney was criticised for taking a £115,000 a year job with Fluor, a company with an interest in nuclear contracts. Iain has sent a document to my select committee saying that he does not profit from the cash. It is used to employ additional people to work for his constituents.

Can any of the others claim that?

Comments

[rwendland]

An interesting impact of the MOX plant failure is the necessary NDA re-evaluation of if the civil Plutonium stock (105 tonnes) should still be regarded as a zero-value strategic asset, or as a nuclear waste. This could have a very significant impact on NDA budgets and HLW disposal programme.

The 2006 NDA Strategic Plan says for this eventuality:

"If SMP [MOX plant] is unable to meet its expected operational targets, we will need to consider alternative arrangements for
dealing with plutonium... If a decision were made to close SMP (which is a matter for the Government) we would need to review our options for the return of overseas-owned plutonium and the long-term management of the UK's plutonium stock.

As a contingency, we are already engaged in a plutonium
R&D programme with Nexia Solutions Ltd. The objective
of the initial studies is to assess the technical
feasibility of plutonium treatment technologies."

The NDA claims that declaring the plutonium "as waste would add several £billion to the cost of dealing with the nuclear legacy." I'm rather dubious about this, as the current costs of storing plutonium are extremely high; the NDA Strategic Plan notes as part of this cost "the first £200m phase of the new store currently being built at Sellafield".

Given we have known mineable Uranium reserves for about 80 years, there doesn't look any possibility of economic use for civil plutonium for around 80 years at least. If proper discount-rate accounting was applied it is hard to see that an economic case could be made for storing this plutonium that long, compared to disposing (assuming we have a realistic HLW disposal strategy soon).

I think there might be a case for independent cost evaluation by Parliament of how to best handle the civil Plutonium stock. The NDA investigation of "plutonium treatment technologies" sounds a bit like the typical UK nuclear industry approach that might create years more work for Sellafield. This might be the starting point of decades more costs in looking after this civil plutonium "just in case it becomes useful".

Given that the original rationale for spent fuel reprocessing, creating fuel for fast breeder reactors, failed around 1994, there is no way THORP should have been started-up. Well done for trying to make that case Paul. All it has done is create at vast cost near-valueless materials that are now horrendously expensive to store or dispose of. The traditional UK nuclear industry funding/politics is such a shambles - easily in the scandal of the century league.

[paulflynn]

Many thanks again.

I put down a new EDM today. I have been re-reading the reports of the campaign in 2000-2001. It's infuriating that there was no rational case put up against the campaign.

Yet the loss of all the money is still not making the headlines. Why?

[rwendland]

Have MPs generally twigged that nuclear industry cost predictions are generally hopeless? Sounds like the Public Accounts Committee gave the NDA chief executive a serious grilling, according to a seemingly leaked uncorrected transcript:

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2049012

He didn't put up much defence on new build decommissioning, saying "there was “absolutely no assurance whatsoever”, given the NDA cost rises, that new build decommissioning costs would be met by private firms."

And you get the feeling he hasn't much confidence in his staff in general: “As you bring in this world-class management I am satisfied that the numbers will first stabilise and, secondly, they will start to come down. I am quite convinced of that.”

Hopefully this might attract some media attention.

[rwendland]

Interesting looking at recent top NDA staff resignations etc in the light of the NDA chief executive's "As you bring in this world-class management ..." statement above. Looks like a changing of the guard is taking place at the NDA. One can only hope for improvement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/09/utilities1

"But the spate of NDA departures has come at a critical juncture. Fiona Hammond, legal director, left at the end of the last year. No replacement has been appointed. Commercial chief Mark Leggett resigned in January for 'personal reasons'. Executive directors Lawrence Williams, Terry Selby and David Hayes are all leaving at the end of this month, following a management restructure.

Mark Dickson, who is not a director but has the key role as programme manager for the Sellafield site, is also leaving at the end of the month, after receiving another job offer.

Mike Graham, from the Prospect union, said: 'The NDA is losing valuable, highly skilled people. It could potentially slow down the process for Sellafield.'

But an NDA spokesman said: 'The changes have strengthened our long-term position, in terms of being able to think strategically.'"