Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Dounreay costs pass £1bn mark



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

THE cost of maintaining the Dounreay nuclear plant since 2000 has climbed above £1 billion.
Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, said the actual costs since then amounted to £1.145 billion and the bill last year was £137.5 million.

Mr Wicks told MPs there were no figures available before 2000 as the UK Atomic Energy Authority "did not record costs on a site basis and there are, therefore, no detailed figures on the historical cost of Dounreay".

In a Commons written answer he said the gross costs did not include income generated by the site.



The full article contains 101 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 July 2008 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy , Dounreay
 
1

Neil,

Glasgow 08/07/2008 01:13:24
TYhere is no limit to how much you can spend on ANYTHING with a blank cheque & enough encouragement. I could spend a £1 billion going to the shops if I hired 50 outriders & took the long route via Australia.

On a previous occasion somebody working on a decommissioning explained how they had to ship in limestone chips from England because granite chips were too radioactive. Any system that classifies Aberdeenshire as radioactive waste is rather silly.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 08/07/2008 01:16:56
If nothing else, it proves that building further nuclear power stations is a false economy.

In any event, it will cost in excess of £25 billion to clean up all the radioactive garbage still at Dounreay.
3

Raj Persaud's ghost writer,

08/07/2008 03:21:22
And Westminster wants to build more of these here! Aye right? What happens in 500 years when we can no longer afford these levels of upkeep and our society and government are different?

FFS
4

gus1940,

Edinburgh 08/07/2008 08:17:56
What do you have to say about this Mr. Campbell?
5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/07/2008 09:24:40
"THE cost of maintaining the Dounreay nuclear plant since 2000 has climbed above £1 billion."

Wait until you see how much the trams are going to cost. At least Dounreay is producing electricity and therefore contributing to the country. the trams will only contribute to congestion and inconvenience in Edinburgh.
6

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 09:42:27
Article: "THE cost of maintaining the Dounreay nuclear plant since 2000 has climbed above £1 billion."

It's expensive, certainly, but then Dounreay was an unusual prototype. The averaged cost is £125 million per year, which is 1% of the UK's incapacity benefit budget and 0.1% of the NHS budget: non-trivial, but not enormous.
7

M.Corleone,

2nd Vatican State...... Coatbridge 08/07/2008 11:55:00
Can anyone remember why it was built in the North of Scotland in the first place?
Wasn't anything to do with being as far away from London as possible was it?
Naw, obviously to stimulate the economy
8

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 13:11:16
5 High octane, it isn't producing electricity.

Nuclear is such a limited power generation technology, only capable of providing base load and thankfully in scotland we have enough generation to cover the nuclear stations' all too frequent outages.

That £1B has nothing to do with building an underground repository, that ain't going to be cheap either.

Inflexible, unreliable and expensive.
9

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 14:12:30
M. Corleone (7): "Can anyone remember why it was built in the North of Scotland in the first place?"

Caithness was chosen explicitly because it had the lowest population density in the UK. It was made clear from the beginning that Dounreay, as a prototype, was not safe.




10

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 14:15:48
Saoghal Beag (8): "Inflexible, unreliable and expensive."

It was certainly expensive when oil was $10 a barrel. At $140 per barrel and rising, the costs start looking reasonable.

As to reliability, it's certainly true that UK designs have had many failings, but other types have suffered less.
11

KampungHighlander,

08/07/2008 14:40:24
#9 Fairfax

"Caithness was chosen explicitly because it had the lowest population density in the UK. It was made clear from the beginning that Dounreay, as a prototype, was not safe."

I can just see the Cabinet Meeting.

PM: "We have before us a proposal to build a new Nuclear Plant, the design is experimental, so the whole thing could easily blow up. Also we have been advised that decommissioning costs may bring down the whole economy. Any suggestions on where we should put it?"

Cabinet in Unison "Scotland!"

#10 Fairfax

"It was certainly expensive when oil was $10 a barrel. At $140 per barrel and rising, the costs start looking reasonable."

Nobody uses Oil to generate electricity. So making the argument that it is a cheaper alternative is misleading. If you want to compare costs, compare it to Hydro, Coal, Natural Gas or Wind power.

I think if you include the costs of waste handling and decommissioning you will find that Nuclear is the most expensive.


12

Neil,

Glasgow 08/07/2008 14:46:35
"only capable of providing base load"

What a particularly stupid remark Seaghol. The alternative, from wind, is that it is incapable of supplying any baseload.

"Only" capable of supplying the power we want continuously & reliably when we want it is, I would suggest, ifinitely better than only being capable of not doing so.

I suppose it depends on what you want from an electricity system. My view is the traditional one but it seems the Luddites are actively looking for a system that provides blackouts.
13

M.Corleone,

2nd Vatican State....... Coatbridge 08/07/2008 16:44:18
#9
Fairfax, I was being slightly facetious in my comments and was well aware it was for that (and similiar) reason, and is hinted at in the "local economy" bit as well.
I'm not so sure about the not safe bit though ....that would leave the government or Nuclear Energy authorities open to compensation claims, but either way it and the other reactors were all built well away from the South of England.... obviously to do with the ground conditions and suchlike
14

Colin, Glasgow,

08/07/2008 17:02:26
KampungHighlander #11, the price of gas is directly related to the price of oil (hence our recent electricity price rises). The price of coal is also related to the price of gas.

“I think if you include the costs of waste handling and decommissioning you will find that Nuclear is the most expensive.”

Based on what? I think you have fallen for the persistent media line that nuclear costs billions therefore it must be more expensive than anything else. In fact all types of generation at that scale cost billions, and nuclear is nothing unusual. According to the International Energy Agency, the levelised cost of nuclear electricity per kWh is on average no more expensive than coal, cheaper than gas, and much cheaper than wind. (That includes waste and decommissioning of course.)

This is from before the oil price went through the roof:

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1472

Here is a summary of the levelised cost ($ per MWh) for the main sources of electricity:
Discount Rate 10%
Coal 35-60
Gas 47-63
Nuclear 30-50
Wind 45-140
Micro Hydro 65-100
Solar 200-300+

The cost of Dounreay, being a research establishment, is almost completely irrelevant to the cost of a commercial powerstation. It’s like saying “Universities are expensive so let’s not build any primary schools”.
15

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 18:19:11
12 Neil, why is a truthful statement stupid.

Well i suppose if you are French it could be. 85% of the generation from nuclear means they are almost continually generating excess which they have to sell at low cost to their continental neighbours. France has that market pretty well tied up so where is the excess uk generation going to be sold to? The French are finding it so expensive they are recomissioning their old oil stations, as you know.

What it highlights is that putting all your eggs in one basket is lunancy.
16

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 18:20:25
Kampung, sorry to contradict you there but the French are using oil, they can't afford not to with too much nuclear generation.
17

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 18:28:08
Inflexible, only capable of supplying baseload, can not meet surge demand. Can support national generation but clean coal is more responsive.

unreliable, Hunterston was the poorest performing generation plant in Scotland last year 13% of potential compared to wind's average 26%. (hey nelly, on that basis wind is more reliable for providing baseload than hunterston) Yes i know its old. The newest French reactor is struggling to get built because of the number of faults in its construction, whether this is poor design or poor construction this is one of the preferred models for the uk.

expensive, it's only affordable when you ignore the additional costs associated with the technology, security, waste management and disposal, decomissioning.

Fools gold.
18

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 18:32:34
then there is the issue of switching from one finite energy source to another. reliable uranium sources suggest another 25/30 years of supply, we have pretty well used up the nuclear weapon stocks and are now making greater in roads to the un-mined ore.

we are simply stalling a decision that a future generation will have to make and in the process leaving them with a legacy of spent fuel.

refining metal ores is a particularly energy intensive process, indications are that ultimately nuclear is actually in energy deficit.
19

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 18:34:42
It’s like saying “Universities are expensive so let’s not build any primary schools.

more closely it's like saying "invading iraq is expensive, so lets not teach our children to be soldiers"
20

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 19:39:07
KampungHighlander (11): "Nobody uses Oil to generate electricity. So making the argument that it is a cheaper alternative is misleading."

The prices of hydrocarbon fuels are highly correlated: when oil prices increase, other fossil fuels also tend to increase. Therefore using oil price as a general fossil fuel price index is highly useful, since the vast majority of world electricity generation is fossil-fuel powered. Further, your initial statement is false: oil is used for power generation, depending on local resources. If I recall correctly, roughly 10% of China's electricity was oil-generated (at least until recent price rises). To give an extreme example, more than half of Saudi Arabia's electricity is oil-generated.
21

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 19:48:25
M. Corleone (13): "I'm not so sure about the not safe bit though ....that would leave the government or Nuclear Energy authorities open to compensation claims"

It certainly would now. Attitudes were different then, which made such pioneering projects possible (although it also played a part in the poor safety record at Dounreay and Sellafield).

"but either way it and the other reactors were all built well away from the South of England...."

This is a Scottish myth: you really need to check the location of nuclear power stations. To give some examples, Dungeness is on the coast near the Kent-Sussex border; Sizewell is on the Suffolk coast; the Atomic Weapons Research Centre is at Aldermaston, in Berkshire; the Atomic Energy Research Establishment is some 15 miles south of Oxford; Imperial College, London, possess a small nuclear reactor just outside Windsor Great Park, so it's the Queen's friendly neighbourhood reactor!
22

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 20:00:25
Saoghal Beag (18): "reliable uranium sources suggest another 25/30 years of supply"

Only the most pessimistic estimates provide 25-30 years, and they are not widely accepted. However, even if such estimates were accurate they neglect the general inefficiency of current fission generation -- a "spent" fission core still contains U235 and Plutonium.

"we have pretty well used up the nuclear weapon stocks and are now making greater in roads to the un-mined ore."

This is false. A gigawatt power station produces some 100 Kg of Plutonium per year, roughly enough for some 60 fission bombs. One of the key disadvantages of nuclear power generation, which you have not mentioned, is the vast increase in Plutonium availability, with the obvious proliferation of nuclear weaponry.
23

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 20:20:03
fairfax, Uranium was the fuel in little boy that took so many japanese lifes. Uranium at that time and imeadiately thereafter was mined for bombs, creating a stock pile.

granted increased plutonium is a problem, i refered to it as waste product and pointed out that there are financial issues with its storage and ultimate disposal.

mining for uranium in the grand canyon has rightly been refused. granted the bulk of supplys is likely to be from autralia.

projected supplys against today's demand and against future demand vary widely, nevertheless it is a finite source and one that leaves future generations with a massive legacy because we did not have the courage to take alternative solutions.
24

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 20:42:45
Saoghal (23): "Uranium was the fuel in little boy"

Little Boy was indeed U235 based, but the US rapidly moved to Plutonium-implosion bombs, such as the Nagasaki weapon. To my knowledge, U235 bombs have been relatively rare in US and Soviet arsenals, except for earlier examples.


"Uranium at that time and imeadiately thereafter was mined for bombs, creating a stock pile."

That's correct. However, by the late 1950s, nuclear power generation produced vastly more than was required. As I pointed out in my earlier post, a 1 GW U235 fission reactor produces of the order of 100 Kg of Plutonium per year: the average Plutonium bomb in the US arsenal is some 3 Kg.

"granted increased plutonium is a problem, i refered to it as waste product"

It's not a waste product, but a possible fuel. The key problem here is that it's mostly in the form of Pu240, which is much less easy to work with than Pu239. It's also, of course, weapons material.

"nevertheless it is a finite source and one that leaves future generations with a massive legacy because we did not have the courage to take alternative solutions."

It's certainly finite, although the mass available is very large. There's also the possibility of Thorium based reactors, for which Thorium is first bombarded with protons from a massive particle accelerator to produce U233, which has many advantages. Still, that's another story. I'm more worried by Plutonium proliferation than waste -- after all, the original U235 was originally underground for billions of years.
25

ppink,

08/07/2008 20:53:09
Nuclear power is only good for one thing, and at that it excels.
26

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 21:24:34
fairfax, as the easily mineable uranium depletes and we look at lower concentrations of U235 to mine the cost of the fuel will increase. ALready from 200 $5 we are now at $130 and re-enrichment of what was considered depeleted Uranium is being ocnsidered. The mining, and extraction of U235 comes at a massive energy burden. part of the reason that nuclear ends up with an enrgy deficit in its life cycle.

I do not believe in a singel technology as the appropriate answer, but we certainly don't need to rely on nuclear, the cost, the fact that it is so unreliable and unresponsive are more than enough reasons to discount it as part of a generation portfolio.

Nuclear is an engineer's answer. we need to look at the problem more holistically.
27

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 21:25:17
that's year 2000, not 200.
28

Colin, Glasgow,

08/07/2008 21:29:31
Fairfax #24, my understanding is that the Pu240 is not fissile and therefore not effective in a weapon. Fissile Pu239 is the main isotope used for weapons. The longer the fuel elements stay in a reactor the higher the proportion of Pu240 to Pu239. So spent reactor fuel is not that useful for weapons unless it is deliberately removed prematurely (and it still needs reprocessing after that).

Some of the old Magnox reactors used to have their fuel swapped regularly to produce weapons grade plutonium. They were designed to be good Pu239 producers, but relatively poor at making electricity. Modern commercial reactors are the opposite.
29

Fairfax,

08/07/2008 21:41:19
Colin (28): "Fairfax #24, my understanding is that the Pu240 is not fissile and therefore not effective in a weapon."

That's incorrect. The main problem with Pu240 is that it's almost too eager to fission, which made it problematic in earlier weapons, hence the preference for Pu239. However it can now be used in bombs. There's an excellent account of this in the following anti-proliferation essay by nuclear pioneer Ted Taylor:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1996/07/00_taylor_nuclear-power.htm
30

Colin, Glasgow,

08/07/2008 21:41:38
SB #26 The spot price for Uranium is back down to about $60 per lb. There was a speculative peak last year but it sparked renewed interest in Uranium mining and the known reserve increased by a massive 17% in two years. There is plenty more Uranium if anybody wants to look for it.
http://89.151.116.69/ENF_Exploration_drives_uranium_resources_up_17_0206082.html

And if the price goes much above $120 per lb for a prolonged period it would make extraction from seawater economically viable. At which point the resource is virtually limitless. The Japanese are seriously developing this as they have no native reserves of Uranium.

Your statement that nuclear power has a nett energy deficit is anti-nuclear bunkum. It is obviously false.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
31

Colin, Glasgow,

08/07/2008 21:45:36
Saoghal Beag, regarding you earlier statements, nuclear plants generally deliver base load because that is what they are designed to do. Historically there has been little point in designing nuclear plants that adjust to demand because fossil and hydro plant can do that. However it is perfectly feasible to design a nuclear plant that adjusts output to follow demand.

Coal is more flexible but it is also more polluting (even the “clean” variety) and more hazardous to health. If it included carbon-capture or a carbon-tax then it would definitely be more expensive than nuclear. There is no point using coal with carbon capture for base load if you can use nuclear.

Wind isn’t flexible. It essentially delivers “variable base load” – it cannot adjust to demand and it only contributes to supply when the wind blows. But when the wind is blowing the electricity is cheap. The same goes for wave power, except it is not so cheap.

A sensible mix would include nuclear base-load and some wind along with coal (with carbon capture) for peak flexibility. Plus our existing hydro of course.

You’ve said nuclear is expensive because of the waste and decommissioning, but it isn’t. As the IEA report in #14 shows, it is about the cheapest source of electricity, even including waste and decommissioning. Admittedly this doesn’t include externalised security costs (although a lot of nuclear security is internalised in the cost of the plant construction and operations).

Various countries have thought of getting rid of nuclear power at different times, but none of them have given cost as a reason. In fact the reason for countries generally keeping it is because it is cheap.

As to reliability, again the IEA says nuclear has the same availability as fossil fuel plant – around 85%. Picking on Hunterston as your example of reliability is like picking on a solar powerstation at dusk.
32

Eve,

Scotland 08/07/2008 21:59:32
Down with Nuclear!!!!
33

Colin, Glasgow,

08/07/2008 22:18:36
Fairfax #29, I see the point, although I think your terminology is wrong: the Pu240 is not fissile as far as I’m aware. A pure Pu240 bomb would not work (though nobody would make pure Pu240 anyway). However Pu240 emits neutrons that can help Pu239 to fission – and with spent reactor fuel the proportion of Pu240 would make this happen faster than anyone would normally want in a weapon. However I take the point that it may be theoretically possible to get an explosion.
34

Saoghal Beag,

08/07/2008 22:30:04
Colin Torness isn't the most reliable plant either. But the pro-nukes repeatedly refer to the percentage of potential generation that wind achieves as being a problem.

both the scottish nuclear plants have been off line, frequently in the past 18 months and the lights haven't gone out. We don't NEED them. As a country we may choose to have them.

Can you tell me how much it costs to build an secure underground repository......? You know you can't they don't exist and you can only guess at the cost and that wont include the vitrification and transfer of existing waste.

Not sure how you define more hasardous to health, can you expand on that?

Your covered mix of generation options are very limited. They do not include generation at source, cutting out transmission losses of about 30%, it does not cover on site generation of heat, localised community heat systems, solar panels, improved insulation and improved building standards. All about a more holistic approach and we can get along without nuclear now.
35

Colin, Glasgow,

08/07/2008 23:50:06
SB #34, I concede we don’t need nuclear if we are prepared to burn fossil fuel with carbon capture. But that is going to be more expensive (it requires more fuel to be burnt for a start); it still produces a lot of CO2 (80% less than dirty coal, but ten times as much as wind or nuclear). And it might not work.

Regarding the hazard to health from coal – it produces air pollutants such as NOx and particulates. A study in the USA by Abt Associates showed pollution from coal powerstations causes about 30,000 premature deaths per year there. It works out at 15 deaths per TWh. Longannet generates about, what, 10TWh per year? Obviously “clean” coal is healthier but it is still deadly compared to the operation of a nuclear plant.

When Hunterston or Torness are down, the shortfall is picked up by burning fossil fuel. Not only does it push up our CO2 emissions, but it increases air pollution. I won’t do the body count but you get the idea.

I disagree about local generation. It won’t save 30% transmission loss. The transmission loss is unlikely to be more than 10%. Given that wind turbine performance is related to the cube of the windspeed it is always better to place turbines in distant windy places than in urban areas with low wind speed – despite the transmission loss.

I totally agree about insulation and building standards. Using CHP for heat/electricity is unecessary. For efficient home heating I like electric heat pumps. They can produce 3kW of heat for each kW of electricity.

36

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 09/07/2008 04:02:41
#14 Colin

"According to the International Energy Agency, the levelised cost of nuclear electricity per kWh is on average no more expensive than coal, cheaper than gas, and much cheaper than wind. (That includes waste and decommissioning of course.)"

How can it include the cost of waste and decommissioning when:

1. There is currently no effective means of waste handling, other than storage for thousands of years. Can anyone predict the cost of anything in 100 years let alone 1000 years?

2. No one has ever fully decommisioned a full scale commercial nuclear plant. Every time the UK Government comes out with new figures they seem to double.

"the price of gas is directly related to the price of oil (hence our recent electricity price rises). The price of coal is also related to the price of gas."

No they are not. I trade Oil, LNG and Coal for a living and I can tell you that the correlation is very limited. The are all effected by different things because even though they are all forms of energy they are utillised in very different ways. Oil is primarilly used for transpotation fuels. LNG is used for power generation and as a feed stock for the chemical industry. Coal is used for power generation and steel making. Different products, different markets, different performance.

37

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 09/07/2008 04:23:16
One of the great disadvantages to wind and solar has been that they cannot produce power on demand but only when the wind blows or the sun shines.

A study was recently done at Berkley University to see if the New Plug in Hybrid Cars could cost effectively be used to supply storge for the electricity grid. Since their storage batteries are capable of storing and discharging 98 KW hours of electricity.

The study found that in comparison to what power utilities pay in California to have Stand By generating capacity it would be more cost effective for the utility to provide free electricity to charge the cars batteries while parked and then draw power from the batteries to meet peak demand.
38

Fairfax,

09/07/2008 08:41:31
Colin (33): "Fairfax #29, I see the point, although I think your terminology is wrong: the Pu240 is not fissile as far as I’m aware."

I am being deliberately non-standard, so you're right to correct me. My main point was only to emphasize that Pu240 is far from useless in weapons: "not fissile" gives the wrong impression.
39

Fairfax,

09/07/2008 08:53:41
Kampung (36): 1. "There is currently no effective means of waste handling, other than storage for thousands of years."

Firstly, the Plutonium and "spent" Uranium is not necessarily waste: it will, at some point, become economic to reprocess. Secondly, why do you believe that storage is ineffective?
40

Colin, Glasgow,

09/07/2008 09:11:32
KampungHighlander #36 “How can it include the cost of waste and decommissioning”

They estimate the cost of waste and decommissioning and include it in the price of the electricity. It is based upon what the work would cost now, and adjusted for the future taking into account reasonable figures for inflation and discount rate. The money is paid into a fund now, and grows to cover the future cost. The exact method varies worldwide, but in general the rate per kWh is agreed with the govt regulators and adjusted over time if necessary. Obviously there is scope for error, but there is also plenty of opportunity to correct the error over time.

There has been quite a lot of decommissioning experience worldwide, including the decommissioning of complete powerstations in the US. e.g.:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/wasteRecycling/Connecticut_Yankee_decommissioning_complete_271107.shtml?terms=yankee+decommissioned

The more work is done, the more confidence there is in the cost estimate. If anything, commercial decommissioning costs have probably been overestimated. (I am not talking about the NDA’s estimates for the legacy nuclear decommissioning in the UK – most of that cost is not related to anything resembling commercial powerstations – see Dounreay above.)

#37 I certainly agree that electrification of vehicles is essential over the next few decades. As you say, apart from the oil saving, the massive distributed battery storage provides a useful sink to cope with the variation in demand and over-supply from both renewables and nuclear.
41

Fairfax,

09/07/2008 09:21:20
Kampung (36): "No they are not. I trade Oil, LNG and Coal for a living and I can tell you that the correlation is very limited. The are all effected by different things because even though they are all forms of energy they are utillised in very different ways."

I would say that you are both correct, the key point being the timescale under consideration: the correlation coefficient over long periods (i.e. decades) will be fairly high, because high prices in one hydrocarbon will affect fuel usage itself. To take an extreme example, oil and gas are reaching price levels at which expensive coal-conversion technologies begin to become economic, and I wouldn't be surprised if we begin to see the re-introduction of coal-gas power stations in Britain of the next two decades. Over the shorter-term of years, your point is, of course, correct.
42

M.Corleone,

2nd Vatican State...... Coatbridge 09/07/2008 09:38:56
#21 .Fairfax

I was meaning the first lot of reactors being built before UKAEA had any track record.
They were built far enough away in remote areas for political acceptance as well as safety reasons.

I don't agree that attitudes were different then; there were protests and a lot of concern about nuclear then as there is now and the only difference is the amount of reporting that there is about it.
43

Fairfax,

09/07/2008 09:50:54
M.Corleone (42): "I was meaning the first lot of reactors being built before UKAEA had any track record."

Many certainly were built in isolated areas, but there was no concentration on Scotland. One of Lord Penney's first reactors was at Harwell in Oxfordshire, where it was inside the mathematics building: it was interesting to walk past a small reactor (an enormous cube, in fact) when visiting mathematicians there!

"I don't agree that attitudes were different then; there were protests and a lot of concern about nuclear"

There were certainly protests against nuclear weapons. I don't recall any anti-nuclear power protests until the late-1970s. However, I was born in the mid-1960s, so perhaps you remember more.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Nuclear energy

More Nuclear energy >>

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.