CONTROVERSES NUCLEAIRES !
ACTUALITE INTERNATIONALE
2008
janvier
Grande-Bretagne: le démantèlement des futurs réacteurs fait l'objet d'intenses négociations
Source ADIT
 (http://www.lemonde.fr - en anglais)
     Il ne s'agit nullement de "corruption", tient à préciser Bill Hamilton; le porte-parole de l'Autorité de démantèlement nucléaire (NDA) britannique préfère parler de "gain planifié".
     La NDA vient en effet, au nom du gouvernement, de trouver un accord financier avec la circonscription de Copeland, près du centre nucléaire de Sellafield (ouest), afin que le petit village de Drigg accueille une extension de son centre d'entreposage de déchets faiblement radioactifs. En échange, cet arrondissement va recevoir 13,3 millions €, qui alimenteront un fonds auquel s'ajouteront 2millions € par année d'exploitation de cette installation. Une aubaine pour Drigg et ses 300 habitants, qui ne seront probablement pas les seuls à bénéficier d'une telle manne.
     Le Times, qui a révélé l'affaire, estime en effet que la Grande-Bretagne pourrait distribuer dans les prochaines années plus de 1 milliard € aux collectivités qui accepteront d'accueillir l'héritage encombrant du nucléaire britannique.
     Sa gestion a été confiée à la NDA, responsable de 20 sites comprenant 39 réacteurs et diverses installations de traitement des combustibles nucléaires. Créée en 2005, elle s'est substituée à l'agence UK Nirex Ltd, au statut semi-public. Londres répondait ainsi à l'échec cuisant rencontré par Nirex en 1997 dans son projet de créer sur le site de Sellafield un centre de stockage pour les déchets les plus nocifs, à la durée de vie la plus longue.
     En octobre 2006, la Grande-Bretagne a officiellement opté pour le stockage en profondeur de ces déchets, qui à ce jour représentent un volume d'environ 1400 m3. Pour trouver le site susceptible de les accueillir, le maître mot est désormais "consultation". Et celle-ci s'annonce onéreuse.		 MOYENS "CONSIDÉRABLES"
     "Ces projets britanniques de stockage sont nettement moins avancés qu'en France", constate Gérald Ouzounian, responsable international de l'Agence de gestion des déchets radioactifs française (Andra). Mais, note-t-il aussi, la NDA dispose de moyens financiers "considérables". Son budget sera de 11,3 milliards € sur la période 2008-2011, alimenté à parts égales par des fonds publics et privés. Ces dépenses ne sont qu'un début.
     C'est pourquoi la relance du nucléaire en Grande-Bretagne s'accompagne d'intenses tractations de la part des opérateurs pressentis. Ils souhaitent que le prix du démantèlement des futurs réacteurs et de la gestion des déchets soit pris en compte dans la facture présentée aux consommateurs. Le coût du wattheure nucléaire doit en effet intégrer, outre des investissements initiaux très lourds, la charge ultérieure de la gestion d'installations en fin de vie et des rebuts ultimes.
     En France, le niveau des provisions constituées par les opérateurs à cette fin (répercutées sur la facture) a fait l'objet d'intenses débats, avant qu'une loi n'institue en 2006 un système d'évaluation de ces montants, sécurisés par les opérateurs eux-mêmes. 
en anglais:
Pledge to cap costs of decommissioning
http://www.ft.com
By Ed Crooks, Energy Editor
Published: January 10

     Companies operating new nuclear power stations will have their costs for decommissioning and waste disposal capped, the government said on Thursday as it gave the long-awaited go-ahead for a fresh wave of investment in nuclear energy.
     The commitment will reassure investors in new reactors that they will not face an unlimited liability if those costs soar far beyond levels currently expected.
EDITOR'S CHOICE
Hutton admits public has real safety concerns - Jan-11
Search for somewhere to bury nuclear waste - Jan-11
Greenpeace sees case for legal challenge - Jan-11
Editorial Comment: The nuclear button - Jan-10
French consensus on energy independence - Jan-10
UK gives go-ahead to nuclear energy - Jan-10
     John Hutton, business secretary, said Thursday the challenges of climate change and energy security made the case for new investment in nuclear power stations "compelling" and promised the government would "take the active steps necessary to facilitate" it.
     He hoped the first new reactor would be in service "well before 2020" although he suggested the target of 2017 set by EDF Energy, the strongest supporter of nuclear power among electricity suppliers, was "brave".
     Energy companies welcomed Mr Hutton's statement. Paul Golby, chief executive of Eon UK, said: "New nuclear power stations can make a very real impact in the battle against global warming and ensure that we as a country are less reliant on imported gas, particularly as world oil and gas prices continue to increase relentlessly."

Strategies to sway investors
    ·  Set out a plan for new funding arrangements to make sure companies operating new nuclear power stations pay the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs
    ·  Set up independent advisory body to give public advice to the government on operators' plans to pay for waste management and decommissioning
    ·  Strengthen the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate watchdog so it can cope with a growing workload, and improve the regulatory regime covering new plants
    ·  Use planning bill to ensure nuclear projects are treated like other critical infrastructure developments, speeding up the planning system

     ·  Start complying with EU rules which require that new nuclear processes should demonstrate that their benefits outweigh any possible effects on health
    ·  Set out draft criteria for the Strategic Siting Assessment that will identify suitable sites for new reactors
    ·  Take forward process of approving reactor designs, following initial work already under way
    ·  Strengthen the EU emissions trading scheme, "so that investors have confidence in a meaningful, long-term carbon price when making decisions"
     Tim Stone, the government's adviser on the nuclear industry, said the significance of the statement and the white paper on nuclear power published yesterday was that they took away the political risk from investment in nuclear projects. "Up until today, you could not have gone to a credit committee and said, ‘Can we put money into this?' in a million years."
     Companies such as EDF and British Energy insist investment in nuclear power can be commercially attractive without subsidies.
     The concessions to industry on decommissioning and waste costs represent modest financial support. But Tony Ward, utilities director at Ernst & Young, the professional services group, said they would not make much difference to the economics of the industry.
     "Only about 3% of the lifetime cost of nuclear power goes for waste and decommissioning," he said. "The costs happen at the back end of the reactor's life and the new reactors probably now have a life of 60 years."
     The biggest item is the capital cost of building the reactors, which the government has estimated at about £2.8bn for a new 1,600 megawatt power station.
     Mr Ward said the government's model for the costs of nuclear power showed it could be competitive with other forms of generation, especially gas and renewables – particularly if gas prices were expected to stay high.
     However, several important issues remain unresolved. The government will not make its selection of suitable sites for reactors until the end of next year, and has still not made a decision – more than three decades after the plan was first raised – on the location of its proposed national nuclear waste repository.
     Energy companies are also concerned the government's planning reforms may run into political difficulties and may not have enough certainty about the future price of carbon dioxide emissions in the European Union's emissions trading scheme.
     EDF Energy has suggested the government should make a commitment to a high price of carbon in the ETS to ease the risk of volatility in emissions prices jeopardising investment in nuclear power.
     Mr Hutton said he agreed that there should be "a much stronger price for carbon", and the government had not ruled out taking further measures to support the price of emissions. But any decision would have to wait for discussions now under way in the EU over the future of the emissions trading scheme after 2012.
SUITE !