World Nuclear Association Blog

Risk Management and New Nuclear Build

(Publications, World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Energy) Permanent link   All Posts

The Guardian newspaper weighs into the debate on new nuclear build today with an article examining whether the cost of managing nuclear risk slows the construction of new nuclear power stations. It conclusion is that, even if it were ascertained that current regulations are too tough this would be unlikely to lead to any great cost-reduction for new build.

WNA's Jeremy Gordon points out that the impact comes in lost opportunity, because overly strict regulations can be a barrier to entry in using nuclear power. A drive for ever lower dose constraints goes beyond the point that any benefits can be measured. Beyond even the point that any benefit exists. If this continues it could represent a barrier to entry so high that some countries without nuclear power may never begin to use it. This would close off one of the significant technologies that can generate low-carbon power with low environmental impact. A failure to develop new nuclear generation will lead to real health effects arising from the predominantlyfossil fuel electricity generation  likely to be deployed in its place - from increased air pollution, fuel poverty and climate change.


What percentage of the cost of a new power reactor is due to compliance with radiation standards? It can't be as much as, say, the cost of the reactor vessel or other large forgings. Can you cite even one example of a power reactor project that was scotched because rad protection proved too costly?
Posted by: Justin Passing at 11/01/2010 20:03


Well, as mentioned the article itself concludes that there is unlikely to be any great cost reductions if the current regulations were judged to be too tough.

The point Jeremy Gordon is making is the need to avoid a creeping momentum for even lower dose constraints beyond the very strict standards already in place at increasingly higher cost without demonstrating that to do so would bring any tangible benefits and without reflecting on the much higher doses permitted in other fields and the potential for an overall negative impact on health through a delay in new nuclear build with a corresponding increased reliance in more polluting and harmful energy sources.
Posted by: Jonathan Cobb( Visit ) at 13/01/2010 09:35


Why can't we dispose of nuclear waste, lowered gently and well containerized, into the deepest parts (7 miles underwater) of the Mariana Trench and let the earth's crust consume it toward the center of the earth?
Posted by: Roger Scharf at 02/02/2010 23:02


Leave a comment
Name *
Email *
Homepage
Comment

 

Blog  | FacebookTwitterNuclear PortalGlossary  |  eShop Picture Library  |  Jobs 

© World Nuclear Association. All Rights Reserved
'Promoting the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear power as a sustainable energy resource'