3 ms·

The extreme cost of Sellafield is due to waste and accidents from the UK's nuclear weapons program, not its commercial power generation program. The vast, over

The extreme cost of Sellafield is due to waste and accidents from the UK's nuclear weapons program, not its commercial power generation program. The vast, overwhelming, majority of waste was created by processing nuclear fuel into plutonium (and other radioactive elements) for bombs. The UK was under enormous pressure in the 50s and 60s to keep up with both the US and USSR so they cut tons of corners to have a domestic bomb. The article "for some reason" conflates the two: the waste from their nuclear weapons research and development and (extremely minimal) environmental impact of commercial power generation.

trebligdivad 3y ago
I think to be fair some of it was also due to stuff done in the early days of figuring commercial power out; but that was a long time ago. Sellafield has taught a lot of people what's needed to do it properly.
- u320 3y ago
  Even that was using technology which haven't seen much use outside the UK. They were never truly commercial, supporting the nuclear weapons program was a requirement from day 1 and was the reason for some design choices that was suboptimal for power generation.
whatshisface 3y ago
Why did the UK want to keep up with the US?
- saulrh 3y ago
  Because if you try to depend on the US's nuclear umbrella you end up like Ukraine.
  - avar 3y ago
    No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons in could have easily convinced the Americans to give them nukes for deterrence purposes, as the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy etc. did. The real reason is that the UK (and France) wanted and still want a seat an the big boy's table. I.e. the UN security council etc.
    - jopsen 3y ago
      > No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons... Maybe, maybe not? Until tested it's hard to know if a nuclear umbrella is more than bluff. That said, with US indifference from 1939 fresh in the memory I can see how they wanted the bomb. Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US.
      - avar 3y ago
        > Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US. They really weren't, the nominal US control over them was always a figleaf to appease the requirements of Congress. If you look into the history of US nuclear sharing you'll find that what these NATO countries wanted was independent nuclear capabilities in the event of an emergency. That's what they got in every way except formally on paper. A relevant excerpt from "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser: > [...] Congressman Chet Holifield, the chairman of the joint committee, was amazed to find three ballistic missiles, carrying thermonuclear weapons, in the custody of a single American officer with a handgun. “All [the Italians] have to do is hit him on the head with a blackjack, and they have got his key,” Holifield said, during a closed-door committee hearing after the trip. The Jupiters were located near a forest, without any protective covering, and brightly illuminated at night. They would be sitting ducks for a sniper. “There were three Jupiters setting there in the open—all pointed toward the sky,” Holifield told the committee. “Over $300 million has been spent to set up that little show and it can be knocked out with 3 rifle bullets.” Foreign personnel weren’t supposed to enter the nuclear weapon igloos at NATO bases. But little had been done to stop them. A lone American soldier manned the entrance to the igloos, serving as a custodian of the weapons, not as an armed guard. Once again, security was provided by troops from the host nation, who also moved weapons in and out of the storage facilities. Senator Albert A. Gore, Sr., could hardly believe the arrangement: “Non-Americans with non-American vehicles are transporting nuclear weapons from place to place in foreign countries.”
teamonkey 3y ago
And next time we know it will definitely be different. There won’t be any ulterior motives, there won’t be any corners cut or compromises due to cost. We can totally make nuclear generators that don’t have any value to the defense industry - we won’t even take any of their money to build them this time. We’ll make stronger standards and put in political safeguards so the cleanup problem can’t be kicked down the road to future governments. We’ve learned from experience so this can never happen again.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Nice shifting of goal posts. First it was cost now it’s that defense industry has an interest in commercial power generation. Like maybe. But also countries have no problem creating nukes without commercial reactors so maybe that doesn’t matter so much? There are also reactor designs that result in fuel that can’t be reprocessed into plutonium / weaponry. Not sure the state of that research / if it’s even worth bothering to do so because generating plutonium isn’t that hard in the grand scheme of things and if the defense industry wants to do it they’ll build a reactor anyway, it’ll just maybe cost more. Not to mention that the US has all sorts of nuclear reactors already and they don’t need to rely on commercial ones so much.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  > We’ve learned from experience so this can never happen again. Yes. That statement is correct. Literally, actually, and factually the techniques and technologies used in the 1940s and 1950s that led to the Windscale fire at Sellafield, which is the root of most of the cost are gone. Dead. The bulk of the cost are the remains of the Windscale Piles (1950/1951) and the Legacy Ponds (1960). Little that people did 70 years ago when it comes to nuclear waste storage and disposal is acceptable or legal today. What you yourself wrote is true.

trebligdivad 3y ago

I think to be fair some of it was also due to stuff done in the early days of figuring commercial power out; but that was a long time ago. Sellafield has taught a lot of people what's needed to do it properly.

u320 3y ago
Even that was using technology which haven't seen much use outside the UK. They were never truly commercial, supporting the nuclear weapons program was a requirement from day 1 and was the reason for some design choices that was suboptimal for power generation.

whatshisface 3y ago

Why did the UK want to keep up with the US?

saulrh 3y ago
Because if you try to depend on the US's nuclear umbrella you end up like Ukraine.
- avar 3y ago
  No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons in could have easily convinced the Americans to give them nukes for deterrence purposes, as the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy etc. did. The real reason is that the UK (and France) wanted and still want a seat an the big boy's table. I.e. the UN security council etc.
  - jopsen 3y ago
    > No, the UK was in NATO, and if it didn't develop its own nuclear weapons... Maybe, maybe not? Until tested it's hard to know if a nuclear umbrella is more than bluff. That said, with US indifference from 1939 fresh in the memory I can see how they wanted the bomb. Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US.
    - avar 3y ago
      > Nuclear bombs from the US were always under US control, even if positioned outside the US. They really weren't, the nominal US control over them was always a figleaf to appease the requirements of Congress. If you look into the history of US nuclear sharing you'll find that what these NATO countries wanted was independent nuclear capabilities in the event of an emergency. That's what they got in every way except formally on paper. A relevant excerpt from "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser: > [...] Congressman Chet Holifield, the chairman of the joint committee, was amazed to find three ballistic missiles, carrying thermonuclear weapons, in the custody of a single American officer with a handgun. “All [the Italians] have to do is hit him on the head with a blackjack, and they have got his key,” Holifield said, during a closed-door committee hearing after the trip. The Jupiters were located near a forest, without any protective covering, and brightly illuminated at night. They would be sitting ducks for a sniper. “There were three Jupiters setting there in the open—all pointed toward the sky,” Holifield told the committee. “Over $300 million has been spent to set up that little show and it can be knocked out with 3 rifle bullets.” Foreign personnel weren’t supposed to enter the nuclear weapon igloos at NATO bases. But little had been done to stop them. A lone American soldier manned the entrance to the igloos, serving as a custodian of the weapons, not as an armed guard. Once again, security was provided by troops from the host nation, who also moved weapons in and out of the storage facilities. Senator Albert A. Gore, Sr., could hardly believe the arrangement: “Non-Americans with non-American vehicles are transporting nuclear weapons from place to place in foreign countries.”

teamonkey 3y ago

And next time we know it will definitely be different. There won’t be any ulterior motives, there won’t be any corners cut or compromises due to cost. We can totally make nuclear generators that don’t have any value to the defense industry - we won’t even take any of their money to build them this time. We’ll make stronger standards and put in political safeguards so the cleanup problem can’t be kicked down the road to future governments. We’ve learned from experience so this can never happen again.

vlovich123 3y ago
Nice shifting of goal posts. First it was cost now it’s that defense industry has an interest in commercial power generation. Like maybe. But also countries have no problem creating nukes without commercial reactors so maybe that doesn’t matter so much? There are also reactor designs that result in fuel that can’t be reprocessed into plutonium / weaponry. Not sure the state of that research / if it’s even worth bothering to do so because generating plutonium isn’t that hard in the grand scheme of things and if the defense industry wants to do it they’ll build a reactor anyway, it’ll just maybe cost more. Not to mention that the US has all sorts of nuclear reactors already and they don’t need to rely on commercial ones so much.
snakeyjake 3y ago
> We’ve learned from experience so this can never happen again. Yes. That statement is correct. Literally, actually, and factually the techniques and technologies used in the 1940s and 1950s that led to the Windscale fire at Sellafield, which is the root of most of the cost are gone. Dead. The bulk of the cost are the remains of the Windscale Piles (1950/1951) and the Legacy Ponds (1960). Little that people did 70 years ago when it comes to nuclear waste storage and disposal is acceptable or legal today. What you yourself wrote is true.