Nuclear power in the United Kingdom
4144635
225629199
2008-07-14T17:09:31Z
Rwendland
134514
/* External links */ add another UK nuclear history paper
{{United Kingdom nuke plant map}}
[[As of 2006]], the [[United Kingdom]] operates 24 [[nuclear reactor]]s generating one-fifth of its electricity (19.26% in [[2004]]). The UK also has major [[nuclear reprocessing]] plants, including [[Sellafield]].
The UK's first commercial [[nuclear power]] reactor began operating in 1956 and, at its peak in 1997, 26% of the nation's electricity was generated from nuclear power. Since then a number of stations have been closed, and others are scheduled to follow. The two remaining [[Magnox]] nuclear stations and four of the seven [[Advanced gas-cooled reactor|AGR]] nuclear stations are currently planned to be closed by 2015. This is a cause behind the UK's forecast '[[Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom#The UK .27energy gap.27|energy gap]]', though secondary to the reduction in [[coal]] generating capacity. However the oldest AGR nuclear power station was recently life-extended by ten years, and it is likely many of the others can be life-extended, significantly reducing the energy gap.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/06/12/ccnuke12.xml]
All UK nuclear installations in the UK are overseen by the [[Nuclear Installations Inspectorate]].
Though the [[UK Government]] has recently given the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations to be built, the [[Scottish Government]], with the backing of the [[Scottish Parliament]], has made clear that [[Scotland]] will have no new nuclear power stations and is aiming instead for a [[non-nuclear future]].
==Economics of UK nuclear power==
{{UKEnergy}}
=== The basics ===
The history of nuclear energy economics in the UK is mixed. Early generation reactors ([[Magnox]]) were not built for sole commercial considerations while later reactors faced severe delays (culminating in the Sizewell B taking 7 years to build, after original consultations were in the early 1980s). Costs have also been made problematic by a lack of national strategy or policy for spent nuclear fuel, so that a mixed use of reprocessing and short-term storage have been employed, with little regard for long-term considerations (though a national depository has been proposed).
There is a lack of consensus in the UK about the cost/benefit nature of nuclear energy, as well as ideological influence (for instance, those favouring 'energy security' generally arguing pro, while those worried about the 'environmental impact' con). Because of this, and a lack of a consistent energy policy in the UK since the mid-1990s, no new reactors have been built since [[Sizewell B]] in 1995. Costs have been a major influence to this (with Sizewell B having run at a cost of 6p/kWh for its first five years of operation[http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/energy/TheEnergyReview.pdf#page=196]), while the long-lead time between proposal and operation (at ten years or more) has put off many investors, especially with long-term considerations such as energy market regulation and nuclear waste remaining unresolved.
It is important to note that any future project would be private, rather than public. This transfers the running and immediate concerns to the operator, while reducing (although not eliminating) government participation and long-term involvement/liability (nuclear waste, as involving government policy, will likely remain a liability, even if only a limited one). As of the 2007 energy white paper, the Government has endorsed a generally 'pro-nuclear' attitude, although many key details have been left out and any serious decision delayed until the end of 2007. However, in the wake of it, and stemming from the more favourable position already shown in the 2006 energy white paper, [[British Energy]] and [[Électricité de France| EDF]] have expressed interest in a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain.
=== A short history ===
When the rest of the UK generating industry was [[privatisation|privatised]], the Government introduced the [[Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation]], initially as means of supporting the nuclear generators, which remained under state ownership until the formation of [[British Energy]]. British Energy, the private sector company that now operates the UK's more modern nuclear plants, came close to bankruptcy and in 2004 was restructured with UK government investment of over £3 billion.
There are several reasons to expect significant improvement if new [[generation III reactor|third generation]] nuclear power stations are built:
* modern designs are simpler, use fewer materials and require less on-site fabrication
* the designs are internationally standardised, so reducing "first of a kind" costs
* big-project management techniques have improved over the last 15 years
* more competitive international process for letting a nuclear construction contract
* turnkey (fixed price) contracts rather than the cost-plus contracts that were characteristic of past UK nuclear construction [http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Nuclear-paper4-Economics.pdf#page=11]
* the most recently built nuclear stations elsewhere in the world (in China and South Korea) have already achieved lower build cost and quicker construction times
[[As of 2007]] no third generation power station has been completed in [[Europe]], confirming these improvements. The construction of the first such power station, a [[European Pressurized Reactor]] at [[Olkiluoto]] in [[Finland]], is running at least two years behind schedule,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFh1ySJ.lYQc|title=Nuclear Bid to Rival Coal Chilled by Flaws, Delay in Finland|author=Alan Katz|publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]]|date=September 5, 2007|accessdate=2008-06-17}}</ref> creating doubts that recent improvements sufficiently improve construction costs. However some observers suggest that such delays should be expected as this is the first reactor of its kind and the contractors are not used to working to the standards of the nuclear industry.[http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newNuclear/051206New_operation_date_for_Olkiluoto_3.shtml] The project is based on a "turnkey" contract which means the price to the customer is fixed regardless of the delays. Construction of a second reactor of the same design started in 2007 at Flamanville in France.
In January 2008, the [[UK government]] indicated that it will take steps to encourage private operators to build new nuclear power plants in the coming years to meet projected energy needs as [[fossil fuel]] prices climb, however there would be no subsidies from the UK government for nuclear power. The Government hopes that the first station will be operational before 2020.<ref name=bbc-20080110>{{cite news|title=New nuclear plants get go-ahead|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm|date=10 January 2008|publisher=[[BBC]]|accessdate=2008-01-10}}</ref> However, [[Scotland]] has decided against new nuclear power stations. (see below)
In May 2008, the head of the world's largest power company suggested that the Government has significantly underestimated the cost of building new nuclear power plants. [[The Times]] has reported that Wulf Bernotat, chairman and chief executive of E.ON, estimates that the cost could be as high as €6 billion (£4.8 billion) per plant, which is much higher than the Government's £2.8 billion estimate. The cost of replacing Britain's ten nuclear power stations could therefore reach £48 billion, excluding the cost of [[nuclear decommissioning|decommissioning ageing reactors]] or dealing with [[nuclear waste]].<ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article3872870.ece Nuclear reactors will cost twice estimate, says E.ON chief]</ref>
==Decommissioning==
The [[Nuclear Decommissioning Authority]] (NDA), formed in April 2005 under the [[Energy Act 2004]], oversees and manages the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's older [[Magnox]] power plants and the reprocessing facilities at [[Sellafield]], which were transferred to its ownership from [[BNFL]], and the former nuclear research and development facilities previously run by the [[UKAEA]].
===Rising costs===
Prior to the 2002 [[white paper]] ''Managing the Nuclear Legacy'', the cost of decommissioning these facilities had been estimated at around £42 billion.<!--£48 billion - £6 billion--><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/2091561.stm Nuclear clean-up costs soar], [[BBC]], published 2002-07-04, accessed 2008-01-30</ref> The white paper estimated the costs at £48 billion at March 2002 prices, an increase of £6bn, with the cost of decommissioning [[Sellafield]] accounting for over 65% of the total.<ref name="Legacy-p18">[http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/white_paper_managing_the_nuclear_legacy_a_strategy_for_action.pdf Managing the Nuclear Legacy], page 18, [[Department of Trade and Industry]], published 2002-07-04, accessed 2008-06-01</ref> This figure included a rise in [[BNFL|BNFL's]] estimated decommissioning liabilities from £35 billion to £40.5 billion,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/2095400.stm 'Murky finances' of nuclear legacy], [[BBC]], published 4 July, 2002-07-04, accessed 2008-01-30</ref> with an estimate of £7.4 billion for [[United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority|UKAEA]].<ref name="Legacy-p18" />
In June 2003 the [[Department of Trade and Industry]] estimated that decommissioning costs, including the cost of running the facilities still in operation for their remaining life, were approximately £56 billion at 2003 prices, although the figure was 'almost certainly' expected to rise.<ref name=NAO-Jan08-p18>[http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/0708238.pdf The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Taking forward decommissioning], page 18, [[National Audit Office]], published 2008-01-30, accessed 2008-06-01</ref> This estimate was revised in subsequent years; to £57 billion in September 2004; £63 billion in September 2005; £65 billion in March 2006; and to £73 million in March 2007.<ref name=NAO-Jan08>[http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/0708238.pdf The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Taking forward decommissioning], [[National Audit Office]], published 2008-01-30, accessed 2008-06-01</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/30/nuclearpower.energy £73bn to take nuclear plants out of service], [[The Guardian]], 2008-01-30</ref> Around £46 billion of the £73 billion is for the decommissioning and clean-up of the Sellafield site.<ref name=NAO-Jan08-p38>[http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/0708238.pdf The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Taking forward decommissioning], page 38, [[National Audit Office]], published 2008-01-30, accessed 2008-06-01</ref>
In May 2008 a senior director at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority indicated that the figure of £73 billion might increase by several billion pounds.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/7421879.stm Nuclear clean-up costs 'to soar'], [[BBC]], May 27, 2008</ref>
===British Energy===
In addition to the The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's costs, [[British Energy|British Energy's]] liabilities in relation to spent nuclear fuels have risen. In February 2006 it was reported that these had increased to £5.3 billion, an increase of almost £1 billion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1717543,00.html Bill to clean up nuclear sites rises by nearly £1bn], [[The Guardian]], published 2006-02-25, accessed 2008-06-01</ref> The costs of handling these is to be met by the [[Nuclear Liabilities Fund]] (NLF), the successor to the [[Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund]]. Although British Energy contributes to the NLF, the fund is underwritten by the Government. The [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] [[Public Accounts Committee (United Kingdom)|Public Accounts Committee]] noted in 2007 that British Energy may lack an incentive to reduce the eventual liabilities falling to the Nuclear Liabilities Fund.<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/892/892.pdf The Restructuring of British Energy], 19 July 2007, [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] [[Public Accounts Committee (United Kingdom)|Public Accounts Committee]]</ref>
==Waste management and disposal==
The UK has a large variety of different intermediate- and high-level radioactive wastes, coming from national programs to develop [[nuclear weapons]] and nuclear power. It is a national responsibility to pay for the management of these. In addition, new nuclear power stations could be built, the waste management from which would be the private sector's financial responsibility, although all would be stored in a single facility.<ref> http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html</ref> Most of the UK's higher-activity [[radioactive waste]] is currently held in temporary storage at [[Sellafield]].
On July 31, 2006, the latest body to consider the issue of long-term waste management - the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) - published its final report [ref http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/310706_corwmfullreport.pdf]. Its main recommendation was that [[Deep geological repository|geological disposal]] should be adopted. This would involve burial at a depth between 200 – 1000m deep in a purpose-built facility with no intention to retrieve the waste in the future. It was concluded that this could not be implemented for several decades, and that there were ''social and ethical concerns within UK society about the disposal option that would need to be resolved as part of the implementation process''. Such a repository should start to be closed as soon as practicable rather than being left open for future generations. 14 additional recommendations were also made.
The report was criticised by David Ball, professor of [[risk management]] at [[Middlesex University]] who resigned from CoRWM in 2005, who said that it was
based on opinions rather than sound science[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5231416.stm].
On June 12, 2008, a white paper, [i]Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal[i] was published confirming CoRWM's conclusion of geologic disposal of higher-activity wastes. The policy announcement confirmed that there would be one geologic disposal site, for both national legacy waste as well as potential wastes from future programs. It announced that a process of volunteerism would be used in selecting a suitable site and invited communities from the UK to express interest. They would be rewarded by the infratructure investment for the facility, jobs for the long term and a tailored package of benefits. <ref>http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Waste_plan_revealed-1206082.html</ref>
== Policy of the Labour Government ==
===2002 energy review===
In relation to nuclear power, the conclusion of the Government's 2002 energy review [http://web.archive.org/web/20030224215647/www.piu.gov.uk/2002/energy/report/3.html], carried out by the Performance and Innovation Unit, was that:
:''The immediate priorities of energy policy are likely to be most cost-effectively served by promoting [[Energy conservation|energy efficiency]] and expanding the role of [[Renewable energy|renewables]]. However, the options of new investment in nuclear power and in clean coal (through [[carbon sequestration]]) need to be kept open, and practical measures taken to do this''.
The practical measures identified were:
* Continuing to participate in international research.
* Ensuring that the nuclear skill-base is maintained, and that the regulators are adequately staffed to assess any new investment proposals.
* Shortening the lead-time to commissioning, should new nuclear power be chosen in future.
* Permitting nuclear power to benefit from the development of carbon taxes and similar market mechanisms.
* Addressing the problems of long-term nuclear waste disposal.
It went on to state that ''Because nuclear is a mature technology within a well established global industry, there is no current case for further government support'' and that ''the decision whether to bring forward proposals for new nuclear build is a matter for the private sector''.
=== 2003 Energy White Paper ===
The Government's Energy White Paper, published in 2003 and titled "Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy" [http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/policy-strategy/energy-white-paper/page21223.html] concluded that:
:''Nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity. However, its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity and there are also important issues of [[Radioactive waste|nuclear waste]] to be resolved. These issues include our legacy waste and continued waste arising from other sources. This white paper does not contain specific proposals for building new nuclear power stations. However we do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets''.
===2006 energy review===
In April 2005, advisers to [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]] were suggesting that constructing new nuclear power stations would be the best way to meet the country's targets on reducing emissions of gases responsible for [[global warming]]. The [[energy policy of the United Kingdom]] has a near-term target of cutting emissions below 1997 levels by 20%, and a more ambitious target of a 60% cut by 2050.
In November 2005 the Government announced an energy review [http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page8606.asp], subsequently launched in January 2006, to "review the UK's progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals and the options for further steps to achieve them" [http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=184911&NewsAreaID=2].
Critics of nuclear power have suggested that the main reason behind the review is to provide a justification for the building of a new generation of nuclear reactors. They also say that doing so will not be able to help meet the 2010 target due to the length of time needed to plan, construct and commission such power plants, and will be too late to fill the 'Energy Gap' predicted to result from the closure of existing nuclear and coal fired power stations. However backers say nuclear power will help meet the longer term target of a 60% cut by 2050. ([[wikinews:British government considering new nuclear power stations|wikinews]]) The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, expressed reservations about the 2006 Energy Review, its dependence upon nuclear power and its likely impact upon London and Londoners.[http://www.largeassociates.com/clientzone/CZ3156/R3156-2%20final.pdf]
==== 2007 High Court ruling ====
On February 15, [[2007]], environmental group [[Greenpeace]] won a [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] ruling that threw out the government's 2006 Energy Review. Mr [[Jeremy Sullivan|Justice Sullivan]] presiding held that the government's review was 'seriously flawed', in particular in that key details of the economics of the argument were only published after the review was completed.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,2013618,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6364281.stm] Justice Sullivan held that the review's wording on nuclear waste disposal was "not merely inadequate but also misleading", and held the decision to proceed to be "unlawful". [[Judicial review]] proceedings were instigated by Greenpeace in October 2006 [http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/media/pressrelease.cfm?ucidparam=20061005114704].
Responding to the news, Trade and Industry Secretary [[Alistair Darling]] said that there would be a fresh consultation, but that a decision was required before the end of 2007. He stated that the government remains convinced that new nuclear power plants are needed to help combat [[global warming|climate change]] and over-reliance on imported [[petroleum|oil]] and [[natural gas|gas]].[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6365099.stm]
Greenpeace hold the view that carbon emissions can be cut more cost-effectively by investment in a [[Distributed generation|decentralised energy system]] that makes maximum use of [[Cogeneration|combined heat and power]] and [[renewable energy]] sources. [http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/climate.cfm?ucidparam=20070215133454]
Attention was drawn in the media to numerous connections to nuclear industry lobbyists within the Labour Party <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5149676.stm Labour and the nuclear lobby], Analysis, Brian Wheeler, [[BBC News]], [[May 23]], [[2007]]</ref>.
=== 2007 consultation ===
The 2007 Energy White Paper: ''Meeting the Energy Challenge''<ref name="2007EWP">[http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=286525&NewsAreaID=2 2007 Energy White Paper: Meeting the Energy Challenge], ''[[Department of Trade and Industry]]'', published 2007-05-23, accessed 2007-05-23</ref> was published on May 23, 2007. It contained a 'preliminary view is that it is in the public interest to give the private sector the option of investing in new [[nuclear power in the United Kingdom|nuclear power]] stations'. Alongside the White Paper the Government published a consultation document, ''The Future of Nuclear Power''<ref name="FutureNP">[http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/mediaDetail.asp?MediaDetailsID=203241&NewsAreaID=2 The Future of Nuclear Power: Consultation Document], ''[[Department of Trade and Industry]]'', published 2007-05-23, accessed 2007-05-24</ref> together with a number of supporting documents.<ref>[http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fulldetail.asp?NewsAreaID=360&ReleaseID=286370 Energy White Paper Supporting Documents], ''[[Department of Trade and Industry]]'', published 2007-05-23, accessed 2007-05-24</ref> One of these, a report by Jackson Consulting, suggests that it would be preferable to site new power stations on existing nuclear power stations sites that are owned by the [[Nuclear Decommissioning Authority]] or [[British Energy]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/mediaDetail.asp?MediaDetailsID=203181&NewsAreaID=360&ClientID=201&LocaleID=2 Siting New Nuclear Power Stations: Availability and Options for Government], page 24, ''Jackson Consulting'', published 2007-05-23, accessed 2007-05-24</ref>
Greenpeace responded to the release of the consultation document by repeating its position that by replacing the nuclear fleet rather than decommissioning would only reduce the UK's total carbon emissions by four percent<ref>[http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/why-tony-blair-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power-20070523 Why Tony Blair is wrong about nuclear power], accessed 2007-05-24</ref>.
On September 7 2007 several anti-nuclear groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, CND and the WWF announced that they had pulled out of the consultation process. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/07/nuclearpower.nuclearindustry] They stated that it appeared as if the Government had already made up its mind regarding the future of nuclear power. The business and enterprise secretary, John Hutton, responded in a Radio 4 interview "It is not the government that has got a closed view on these issues, I think it is organisations like Greenpeace that have got a closed mind. There is only one outcome that Greenpeace and other organisations want from this consultation."
=== 2008 go-ahead given ===
In January 2008, the [[UK government]] gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations to be built. However, the [[Scottish National Party]] (SNP)-led [[Scottish Government]] has made clear that it opposes new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland and has the final say on planning matters in Scotland.<ref name=bbc-20080110 />
== Public opinion ==
In the early 1990s concern was raised in the United Kingdom about the effect of [[nuclear power plant]]s on unborn children, when clusters of [[leukemia|leukaemia]] cases were discovered nearby to some of these plants. The effect was speculative because clusters were also found where no nuclear plants were present, and not all plants had clusters around them. The latest studies carried by [[COMARE]], Compete on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, in 2003 found no evidence between nuclear power and childhood leukaemia.<sup>[http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm]</sup><sup>[http://www.bnfl.co.uk/index.aspx?page=717]</sup>
An opinion poll in Britain in 2002 by MORI on behalf of [[Greenpeace]] showed large support for wind energy and a majority for putting an end to nuclear energy if the costs were the same.<sup>[http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/greenpeace-energy.shtml]</sup> In November 2005 a [[YouGov]] poll conducted by business advisory firm [[Deloitte]] found that 36% of the UK population supported the use of nuclear power, though 62% would support an energy policy that combines nuclear along with renewable technologies.<sup>[http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,1014,sid=2834&cid=102273,00.html]</sup> The same survey also revealed an unrealistic public expectation for the future rate of renewables development - with 35% expecting the majority of electricity to come from renewables in only 15 years, which is more than double the government's expectation.
In the early 2000s there was a heated discussion about [[nuclear waste]], <sup>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4141738.stm BBC News]</sup> leading to the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (see above).
==Opposition political parties' policies==
===Conservative Party===
The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]] do not rule out the use of nuclear power. On 10th January 2008, [[Alan Duncan]] MP issued a response to the Government's announcement on nuclear power, welcoming it and suggesting that the Conservatives supported a level economic playing field for different types of energy generation rather than a preference for one over another [http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=141600].
In a speech to [[Greenpeace]] on 6 December 2007 about energy generation, [[David Cameron]] offered a slightly different emphasis, talking of replacing large scale generation by government and big energy companies with "decentralised energy" such as [[Cogeneration|CHP]] [http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=webcameron.story.page&obj_id=141055&speeches=1]. The speech did not mention nuclear power.
Also on 6 December 2007 the Conservative Party released a green paper entitled "Power to the People: The Decentralised Energy Revolution" [http://www.conservatives.com/getfile.cfm?file=powertothepeopleenergy&ref=GENERALFILE/3585&type=pdf]. In a similar vein to [[David Cameron]]'s speech, this paper makes no mention of nuclear energy other than to note that it currently accounts for 18% of the UK's energy generation.
===Liberal Democrats===
The [[Liberal Democrats]] are critical of the Government's support for nuclear power and believe that no new nuclear power plants should be built in the UK. [http://ourcampaign.org.uk/no2nuclear].
Liberal Democrat spokesman [[Steve Webb]] MP said on 9 January 2008 "There is a real risk that focusing on new nuclear plants will undermine attempts to find a cleaner, greener, more sustainable and secure solution. We should be concentrating our efforts on renewables and greater energy conservation."[http://www.libdems.org.uk/environment/nuclear-decision-seriously-flawed-webb.13701.html]
==Scotland and nuclear power==
''see main article'' [[Nuclear power in Scotland]]
Though the [[UK Government]] has recently given the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations to be built, the [[Scottish Government]] has made clear that no new nuclear power stations will be built in [[Scotland]] and is aiming instead for a non-nuclear future. This was made clear when, [[First Minister of Scotland|First Minister]] [[Alex Salmond]] said there was 'no chance' of any new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.<ref name=bbc-20080110 /> The Government's stance has been backed by the [[Scottish Parliament]] that voted 63-58 to support the Scottish Government's policy of opposing new nuclear power stations.<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/nuclearenergy/MSPs-vote-No-to-new.3686900.jp MSPs vote No to new nuclear stations] ''[[The Scotsman]]'' [[January 18]] [[2008]]</ref>
About half of Scotland's electricity comes from the Hunterston B and Torness nuclear power plants. Scottish leaders hope to replace these with renewables when they close in 2016 and 2023 respectively.<ref>http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/nuclearPolicies/Second_reading_of_energy_bill_240108.shtml</ref>
== History ==
The [[United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority]] (UKAEA) was established in 1954 as a statutory corporation to oversee and pioneer the development of nuclear energy within the United Kingdom.
The first station to be connected to the grid, on [[27 August]] [[1956]], was [[Sellafield#Calder_Hall_nuclear_power_station|Calder Hall]], although the production of [[weapons-grade]] [[plutonium]] was the main reason behind this [[power station]].
== See also ==
{{Portal|Energy}}
* [[Nuclear power in Scotland]]
* [[List of nuclear reactors#United Kingdom|List of nuclear reactors in the United Kingdom]]
* [[Energy policy of the United Kingdom]]
* [[Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom]]
* [[Politics of the United Kingdom]]
* [[Civil Nuclear Constabulary]]
;Nuclear power related
* [[Nuclear power]]
* [[Nuclear energy policy]]
* [[Economics of new nuclear power plants]]
* [[Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom]]
* [[Nuclear or Not?]]
== In the media ==
*[[June 21]] [[2006]], ''ePolitix.com'', [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9078-2235388,00.html British Energy: Nuclear power stations need no guarantee or subsidy]
*[[June 20]] [[2006]], ''ePolitix.com'', [http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200606/22acb554-4d48-4acf-a492-194f91d23da4.htm Campbell: Nuclear power stations will only be possible with vast subsidies]
*[[June 12]] [[2006]], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/06/12/ccnuke12.xml Nuclear stations may stay on line to bridge the gap]
*[[May 14]] [[2006]], ''[[The Times]]'', [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2180107,00.html Minister's links to nuclear lobby]
*[[February 13]] [[2006]], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/nuke13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/13/ixhome.html Tories could drop nuclear energy option and go green]
*[[November 24]] [[2005]], ''The Times'', [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-1887734,00.html Let's stop tilting at windmills]
*[[November 23]] [[2005]], ''The Times'', [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1062-1884441,00.html Who says nuclear power is clean?]
*[[May 9]] [[2005]], [[:wikinews:A leak at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility on Cumbrian coast, England]]
==External links==
* [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/50224w04.htm#wa_st_52 Estimated closure dates of the existing nuclear power stations], [[House of Lords]] [[Hansard]] column WA232, 24 Feb 2005
* [http://www.british-energy.com/article.php?article=99 10-year life extension at Dungeness B nuclear power station], [[British Energy]], 15 September 2005
* [http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/28047.html bellona.no]
* [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html World Nuclear Association - Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom]
* [http://www.uic.com.au/nip84.htm Uranium Information Center: Nuclear energy in the United Kingdom]
* [http://www.corwm.org.uk/ Committee on Radioactive Waste Management]
* [http://www.british-energy.com/ British Energy]
* [http://www.britishnucleargroup.com British Nuclear Group]
* [http://www.bnfl.com BNFL]
* [http://nonewnukes.ukrivers.net/index.html No New Nukes - Anti Nuclear Power Campaign Group]
* [http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?SitekeyParam=D-E Greenpeace UK - Anti Nuclear Power]
* [http://www.sone.org.uk/ Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE) - Pro Nuclear Power]
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2005/nuclear/default.stm BBC News Special - Nuclear Power in the UK]
* [http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2006/restore/haw-rest.htm Nuclear Power in the UK - Past, Present & Future], Robert Hawley - former CEO of Nuclear Electric and British Energy, [[World Nuclear Association]] Annual Symosium 2006
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20061110082546/http://www.bnes.com/News/NuclearENCApr02.pdf#page=26 Histories and memories], Ray Hall - former CEO of Magnox Electric, Nuclear Energy, April 2002, pages 107–120
* [http://www.waltpatterson.org/goingcritical.pdf Going Critical: An Unofficial History of British Nuclear Power], [[Walter C. Patterson]], Paladin, 1985, ISBN 0-586-08516-5
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aAxjVNQrbb8g&refer=uk U.K. Government Nuclear-Power Inquiry `Failed,' Academics Say]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3261479.ece Taxpayer liable for nuclear clean-up]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/23/nuclear.greenpolitics/print Lack of engineers puts government's nuclear power ambitions at risk]
== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{British nuclear power plants}}
{{Nuclear power by country}}
{{Scottish energy}}
[[Category:Politics of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:National electric power policy]]
[[Category:Nuclear energy in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Radioactive waste]]
[[fr:Liste des réacteurs nucléaires du Royaume-Uni]]