Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Nuclear boss urges end to 'laborious' planning process

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
27 August 2006
BRITAIN'S planning system must be overhauled to speed up the construction of new nuclear plants to prevent the country running out of electricity, the boss of the country's biggest nuclear generator has warned.
Bill Coley, chief executive of British Energy, described the system currently in place - which would govern the construction of the next generation of nuclear power stations should the government decide this is the best way of meeting the country's f
uture energy needs - as "laborious".

He said energy companies are waiting until the system is modernised before agreeing to invest the billions of pounds required to overhaul the UK's fleet of ageing nuclear plants.

In an energy review, the government concluded last month that nuclear would have a major part to play meeting the country's future energy needs but stopped short of providing specific details.

But Coley said more had to be done to reduce the risk for the private sector before this happens. "If you are going to make an investment, you need a degree of certainty as to how long it will take to build [the nuclear plant]," he said. "The permitting and planning process is slow.

"I think you can have public input and certainly you should not be cavalier about public input and perception. By the same token, the country needs to do something quickly, because my concern is that we are not going to have the energy available that the country needs. Generation capacity is declining but demand continues to grow."

Coley said he was hopeful that the issue would be partially clarified when the government produces its next white paper on energy, due next year.

BE, which generates around one-fifth of the UK's electricity, operates eight nuclear power stations, including two in Scotland - Torness in East Lothian and Hunterston B in Ayrshire - and one coal-fired plant at Eggborough in Yorkshire.

The company's ageing fleet is gradually being decommissioned. Nuclear power accounts for almost a fifth of the UK's electricity but this is likely to drop to just 6% by 2020 as plants gradually go out of service.

Coley said planning systems governing new-build nuclear power stations used elsewhere in the world could be utilised in the UK. These include the government pre-licensing sites to be used for generation and giving fast-track planning permission for plants that meet generic, pre-agreed designs.

Coley said BE's Sizewell B station in Suffolk took seven years to build, and suggested that timescale could be reduced to around four-and-a-half years for the next generation of plants if changes were made.

A spokesperson for the Department of Trade and Industry said: "The UK needs a planning framework for energy projects that takes account of both local and national issues, reaches timely decisions and provides more certainty of the duration of the process, while allowing the public to participate properly in the system."

Coley also declined to rule out working with European power groups such as France's EDF and Germany's E.On in new-build nuclear power stations. Foreign operators are known to be interested in playing a part in the UK's new nuclear programme, which is expected be one of the biggest in the world.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Colin, Glasgow,

Glasgow 27/08/2006 19:55:19

He's absolutely right. But the white paper on reforming the planning process will be another chance for any political opportunists to gain populist support on an "anti-nuclear" ticket by opposing the changes. There appear to be plenty of politicians prepared to sacrifice our long term hopes for secure, low-carbon energy for a few well-intentioned (but poorly informed) green votes.

2

JOAN BROWN,

SOMERSET 28/08/2006 08:55:49

Of course the nuclear industry wants to override planning and public consultation processes. This is the public's only defence against another 40 years of nuclear power causing health damage to nearby communities. How many more children must die of leukaemia, how many more women from breast cancer, men from prostate cancer before something is done by the government departments which we are paying to protect us from industries operating in the UK as they have been doing overseas for decades. Haven't we left Victorian values behind?

3

Colin, Glasgow,

Glasgow 28/08/2006 11:22:59

Joan (#2) your concerns are a good example of what I referred to as well-intentioned but uninformed. From the knowledge that radiation causes cancer you leap to the assertion that radiation from nuclear power is a serious cancer risk. It isn’t.

The COMARE report studied the causes of leukaemia among the population, and after extensive and costly study it has concluded that there was no link between nuclear power stations and leukaemia. This is hardly surprising because the exposure to radiation from nuclear power stations is absolutely tiny – far smaller than the risk from background radiation.

The risk of cancer from any and all causes is about 1 in 4. The risk from cancer from smoking is about 1 in 100 per year. The risk of cancer death from natural background radiation in the UK is about 1 in 10,000 per year. The estimated risk to a member of public from a nuclear power station is somewhere between 1 in a million and 1 in 10 million per year. From a health and safety perspective these levels of risk equate to no danger.

For some perspective see:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/tolerability.pdf

The following describes how ionizing radiation causes cancer. Much of the evidence comes from people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki who have survived huge doses of radiation.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Radiat...

The risk of cancer is linearly related to the dose of radiation received. Nuclear bomb survivors have their risk of cancer multiplied, but the level of radiation they received was absolutely huge, and over a short period of time. They received a thousand times the amount you receive annually from background radiation, and the exposure was over a short period of days. In contrast, the limits for exposure f

4

billybob,

31/08/2006 19:56:26

That would be the planning process thats supposed to ensure that a Nuclear plant doesnt get built in an unsuitable place or in an unsuitable way that might lead to many thousands of civilian deaths in the future? Oh sure we should just scrap the whole thing. I mean what right do the public have to think they can have their say in the matter anyway?

5

Colin, Glasgow,

Glasgow 01/09/2006 08:31:16

Billybob (#4) historically it has tended the other way. Anti-nuclear pressure delays or prevents the building of nuclear stations. Power generators switch to the default option which is fossil fuel. So thousands of civillians continue to die from air pollution. The track record of the public's ability to assess the risks of nuclear power is woefully bad.

The ExternE project looked at the external costs (largely health and environmental) of different power sources. Take a look at the results:
http://www.externe.info/


Of course there would be public consultation in any planning process. The change would just mean that each argument is heard once, instead of the same arguments being dredged up time and again by different people as a delaying tactic.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.