Sir, The Government repeatedly asserts that the taxpayer will never be asked to subsidise “new nuclear” (“Taxpayer liable for nuclear clean-up”, Jan 28).
Who can have any confidence in this, however, when the Government has no firm idea of where or how nuclear waste will be stored, and inevitably even less idea of the precise costs entailed? If there is no reliable figure for a nuclear operator to factor into his budgeting before committing to build a plant, the lesson of history is clear: overly optimistic assumptions will be made, in the certainty that if and when these are proved wrong those responsible for the original estimates will have long gone, and the extra burdens will be visited on future generations of taxpayers. If the true costs only emerge after a plant is up and running, it’s too late. Hence current claims that nuclear operators will be forced to set aside the full costs of dealing with radioactive waste are simply not credible.
The Government’s behaviour on radioactive contaminated land is equally discreditable. European Union directives neither require nor justify the sweeping changes that the Regulations on Radioactive Contaminated Land 2007 seek to make, whereby the Secretary of State becomes exclusively liable for cleaning up such land. It is of course right that if public safety is jeopardised by radioactive contamination, and those directly responsible will not or cannot remedy this, for whatever reason, the Government must be prepared to step in, if necessary incurring public costs. However, to balance this, there must be a condition in all nuclear site licences that sufficient insurance cover is maintained at all times, which the Government can, if need be, draw on to reimburse all clean-up costs it may have to incur. Unless that insurance can be guaranteed to be available, at a cost nuclear operators can afford, then, as with any other activity, the risk must not be incurred in the first place, and no nuclear site licence should be granted. Any other outcome would make a mockery of the Government’s assertions that the taxpayer will never be burdened.
Advertisement
Richard Burnett-Hall
Stockbridge, Hants
Advertisement
Sire, Two of the greatest threats the UK faces are climate change and energy security, and yet a government spokesperson says it is “for energy companies to make a judgment about the economics of nuclear power”. This is an abdication of responsibility on an astonishing scale — what happens with nuclear is bound to have an impact on other forms of energy generation. The UK cannot continue to pretend that a lightly guided market will create a low-carbon economy. The Government must recognise that its “non-interventionist” approach necessarily undermines any hope of a coherent strategy to deal with climate change.
Colin Challen, MP
London SW1