Article 1C0B2 Non-nuclear options for constant energy | Letters

Non-nuclear options for constant energy | Letters

by
Letters
from on (#1C0B2)
Story Image

Energy secretary Amber Rudd (Letters, 21 April) clearly has the gift of clairvoyance. She says that no liabilities would fall to the UK taxpayer or consumer should Hinkley Point C be cancelled. Who, pray, would foot the bill to complete the project should EDF withdraw after a few years of construction when cost and time overruns became apparent, as they have with other projects in France and Finland?

And assuming the plant ever began generating its costly electricity, who would be responsible for the waste management costs, the size of which can only be estimated since the location, depth, technical details about cladding, inventory, or even if there will ever be a repository, remain stubbornly vague and could yet result in indefinite storage on site? Spent nuclear fuel from Hinkley C or Sizewell C would be on their respective sites for an estimated 160 years. Who will take title to hundreds of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel if, as is likely, within that time period, EDF disappears?

Continue reading...
External Content
Source RSS or Atom Feed
Feed Location http://feeds.theguardian.com/theguardian/environment/rss
Feed Title
Feed Link http://feeds.theguardian.com/
Reply 0 comments