Reports, Nuclear Power and Scare Mongering

The Story

This is the kind of story that gets the media dancing round the room in glee. They can scare everybody into thinking they will be glowing in the dark shortly. More about that later, firstly what are the facts behind the story.

According to the BBC article as part of the continuing begrudging acceptance that nuclear power will continue to have a place in electricity generation at least until renewable or other energy sources can take over a list has been drawn up of potentially suitable sites.

All of the sites are at existing nuclear generation sites to take advantage of existing infrastructure.

Now in my opinion it looks like nuclear will continue to be an important electricity source for the next 50-100 years so utilising existing sites seems like the best way forward.

The media view

For the media the story just isn't scary enough. Replace existing nuclear stations with nuclear stations. A report that lists 14 sites but freely admits that it will be up to the nuclear industry to build them and they may actually build none.

There has to be something we can scare people with in this report.

The Result

The Oxford mail kicks off with one of the worst examples of scaremongering:

County could get nuclear station (Oxford Mail)

(For those who like a bit of background the Oxford Mail is a red top local paper who are anti everything and allegedly pro-consumer)

Myth Busting

Myth: "Didcot area emerged as likely site"

Truth: It does not appear on the top 14 sites list.

The fact is Didcot appears once in the whole report to illustrate a power station with cooling towers. It was probably chosen as they are very visible to the general population or anyone that has ever travelled through Didcot.

The actual quote from the report is:

"It would be possible to site reactors inland and construct cooling towers as used by conventional coal and gas fired generating stations such as Didcot-A and Didcot-B in Oxfordshire, although cooling towers are very large structures which substantially damage the local amenity value from visual intrusion, causing significant difficulties with local public acceptance and obtaining planning consents, as well as adding to the cost of construction of the nuclear power station and reducing the station's power output by around 3-5%36."
Footnote 36 just refers to a foot note on the 5% energy loss.

The report does suggest a hierarchy of sites for further use which starts with nuclear facilities at the top, going to other nuclear facilities such as Harwell, then to conventional power stations site like Didcot (still not specifically mentioned and would be one of 60 sites identified) and then finally greenfield sites.

The report only considers existing nuclear power stations and their suitability for development, no development considerations are made for existing non nuclear power station sites or other nuclear sites such as Harwell.

It would be a tenuous link indeed to suggest that at this stage anyone in Didcot should be concerned. The quote above would suggest that an inland power station is infeasible due to the power loss and especially one sited in an area which suffers from drought.


Myth: "Harwell "a key opportunity for nuclear development""
"Harwell best available location"

Truth: Still not on the top 14 sites list but is in the second rank of the hierarchy of potential sites but again this site is probably even behind Didcot which has better infrastructure.

The report only considers existing nuclear power generation sites for future development, Harwell is mentioned as being an other nuclear site, it is included in some of the statistics or figures but no serious discussion of the sites suitability takes place.

It should be noted that perhaps the best location quote actually refers to it being the best location in the 1940's or that it has the best grid connection given its location in the south-east.

The reason the Oxford mail can include it is because the report mentions that it is an existing nuclear site which is already licensed and government owned. The report itself has included it in calculations as an other nuclear site.

The Summary

So comparing the two articles, the BBC wins with responsible reporting where the Oxford mail goes for a sensationalist story and then loosely arranges the facts around the angle.

What I also like about the Oxford Mail is they then door step local people to gather opinions. The questions are always clearly loaded and the responses predictable but the editors feel the need to get people to add support to their tall tales.

Special mention should go to Craig Simmonds, leader of the green party who clearly has not read the report and is quoted as saying.

"This suggests that Oxfordshire is the most likely inland site for a nuclear power station."

-Craig Simmonds, Leader of the Green Party,
Oxfordshire County Council.

There is nothing in the report to substantiate that fact. Yes, Didcot would be a suitable site but it is inland, Harwell is an other nuclear suitable site with good grid connectivity and is also inland, but importantly no sites in the UK are mentioned as being a suitable inland site for a new power station. The report only considers existing nuclear power generating sites, only the 14 sites are listed by suitability and Didcot and Harwell are not on the list.

Special mention also to Ed Vaizey who needs to read the report:

"It does not surprise me that Didcot and Harwell have been put in the frame for the next generation of nuclear power stations."

-Ed Vaizey, Conservative MP for Didcot and Wantage.

The report does not mention Didcot or Harwell as a potential development site. It only considers the 14 sites where nuclear energy is already used to generate electricity. Harwell falls into one of five secondary sites and Didcot falls into one of 60 tertiary sites. Harwell is also one of the least suitable secondary sites.

The report also specifically states there are large infrastructure and economic barriers to building an inland nuclear power station.

Sources: Jackson consulting report