I’m grateful for John Busby clarifying his original comments.

On the issue of CO2 emissions from Nuclear Energy, I for one am content to stick with the figures produced by the UK Sustainability Development Commission. An independent group, who have no links to either pro or anti-nuclear groups, who have confirmed that Nuclear Power has low carbon emissions despite recommending that the UK doesn’t build any more. See:

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf

I agree with John that it’s difficult to get accurate unbiased opinion, and so try and select sources that have ‘no axe to grind’.

If John had read carefully the National Audit Office report he cited, he would have seen that the £5 billion was the total liabilities of the company. Only £2,364 Billion (as I mentioned previously) is for decommissioning. The remaining £2,923 is not for decommissioning but is the ongoing operational cost of processing the used fuel. See footnote 5 to the table on Page 11. Should all the British Energy (BE) stations close tomorrow this figure would reduce considerably because lots of fuel would not be used and require reprocessing. BE has passed these values to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for validation. Hopefully we will soon see whether the estimate of £2,364 billion is valid.

John’s original statement implied that most of Sellafield’s fuel storage ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls. The report he cites makes it clear that this only applies to the Pile Fuel Storage Pond built between 1948 and 1952. The use of these ponds changed in 1962 to the ad hoc storage of waste, with operations ceasing in the early 1970s. The report states that “the Pile Fuel Storage Pond sludge differs from other LP & LS sludge in that it is not principally derived from the corrosion of fuel, and contains a significant proportion of biologically derived material such as guano, algae and wind blown debris.” So, although the problem does exist it is limited to the very first ponds built, which ceased operation 30 years ago, doesn’t affect subsequent facilities and doesn’t reflect situation in the current ponds.

I am sure that the Hanford site must contain some of Bruce Busbys “70 stirred ponds” that are located in the USA. Ponds where nuclear fuel “languishes.” I wonder if he would be interested in a paper in Health Physics. The health records of four counties with population exposed to the highest exposure to I-131 concentration were compared to five comparison regions. Release of I-131 at Hanford occurred between 1944 and 1957. The cancers surveyed included thyroid and childhood leukaemia. Like the 1990 Jablon study results did not show an excess of any cancers in the exposed regions. Bruce, given that this has the limitations of any ecological study, do you not find the results reassuring? One other point in their discussion Boice et al provide an excellent summary of the <reassuring> literature about I-131 exposure, (including medical exposure).

Boice JD et al . Health Physics 2006; 90: 431-445
Jablon S et al. JAMA 1991; 265:1403-1408.

Its curious to see northern man speaking easily of spending trillions on decommissioning nuclear plants and associated facilities, and we might as well speak loosely as the cost goes up a dozen notches fairly regularly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm
"Only £2,364 Billion" sounds curiously cheap for the whole lot though, when Sizewell alone is £870 million.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED27%20May%202006%2000%3A04%3A19%3A310

Northern man's single positive report on GHGs omits to consder the emissions from unearthing, transporting crushing, purifying, shipping, processing, and enriching fuel and associated inputs.

But its just 'good economics' to externalise your costs, eh NM?

I thought Northern Man's reference to the fuel cycle dealt with the process of getting the fuel, processing it and using it. And it still gave it the go-ahead. Thanks, Northern Man, for providing another side to the debate.

There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theorists here who see all the problems with nuclear energy but produce no evidence of the efficiency or reliability of their 'alternative sources'.