Government's nuclear ambitions suffer another body blow

It looks like the government's nuclear ambitions have been dealt yet another major body blow. This time it's all about the thorny, intractable issue of nuclear waste.

Just as yet another nuclear-related consultation comes to an end, this time on where to store the UK's highly toxic atomic legacy, the government has been warned that it would be "wrong", and possibly even illegal, to use Sellafield in West Cumbria as a site for long term nuclear waste disposal. David Smythe, emeritus professor of geophysics at the University of Glasgow and a nuclear waste expert, said ministers should have ruled out Sellafield - home to the nation's most enthusiastic nuclear partisans and the long-assumed front runner in the race to house a waste dump – years ago after spending hundreds of millions of pounds on research that proved the area was geologically unsuitable to be a store for radioactive waste. Professor Smythe said, "there is clear evidence, after the expenditure of some £400m, mostly directed to the Sellafield area, that West Cumbria possesses no suitable rocks in which to site such a repository".

Why is this such dynamite? Because the clear front runner in the race to house the UK’s nuclear dump is Copeland Borough Council, of West Cumbria, and home to the Sellafield nuclear site.

In this latest consultation, the government has asked communities and organisations around the country to make their opinions known on how implementation of "geological disposal" of radioactive waste could be taken forward. In response, the good burghers at Copeland have gone one step further by expressing a willingness to hold further talks with the government to discuss building the dump on their manor.

All well and good, were it not that Copeland might not have the right rock formations to stop nuclear waste from seeping into groundwater supplies. And what’s worse is that this waste consultation puts more emphasis on finding volunteers to house a dump rather than finding areas with the right geology. This means that communities who hold their hands up and say "yes please, we want a waste dump built in our back garden. Hell, we need one" could get more credence than scientific considerations on the suitability of potential sites. In other words, the government wants to decide where to build a waste dump based primarily on which communities are desperate enough to house one, rather than finding places that are most geologically suitable. This could be a recipe for disaster, and a hugely expensive one at that.

Let's not forget that there is no solution to dealing with radioactive waste or operating facility for high level waste and spent fuel anywhere in the world. But once again ministers are desperately seeking the first quick-fix "solution" to dealing with nuclear waste that they can get their hands on. Because without one, they cannot credibly press ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations. And Gordon doesn't want that, does he?