Nuclear power stations are at risk from significant sea-level rises and storm surges in the future. Many existing and proposed sites are not suitable locations for new nuclear reactors, according to a report by flood experts.

Scientists from the Flood Hazard Research Centre, based at Middlesex University, examined four existing nuclear sites that are considered likely to be earmarked as possible locations for new nuclear power reactors. The four reactors sites were Bradwell, Dungeness, Hinkley Point and Sizewell.

The four sites are, like all the UK's nuclear power stations, located on the coast because of the need for both an isolated position and a plentiful supply of cooling water. However, their location also puts them at a very real risk of flooding.

The report concludes that defending the sites from sea water will mean they are "likely to become economically unsustainable" and they "cannot be considered as suitable locations for new reactors".

Flooding of the area around Bradwell will "not only become likelier, but will potentially be more severe" in one scenario, says the report, while in another the "power station site could potentially become an island in the longer term". It also concluded that "it may become unsustainable to maintain the current power station site" while a large increase in sea levels "would result in total inundation of the nuclear site and the surrounding area".

At Dungeness, sea level rise could, says the report, "have a devastating impact on the nuclear site, with potential total loss not only of the power station site but a significant portion of the surrounding area through erosion and flooding".

Hinkley Point, where the reactors are already defended by a sea wall, it is already being breached during some storm conditions. A rise in sea levels may, according to the scientists, "add significant additional stress to the power station's defence structures". They also concluded that a new power station to the east of the present location "would not be advisable or indeed feasible under current conditions, let alone with the predicted impacts of climate change". The impacts at Sizewell, are however less clear. The coastline is considered to be vulnerable to change in the long term, with extensive coastline retreat a possibility, which would have high significance for the siting of any new nuclear reactor. Moreover, with extreme sea level rise, "there would be significant erosion and flooding across the region".

Nathan Argent, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, said: ""This report is yet another nail in the coffin for Blair's deluded nuclear policy. With the catastrophic effect that sea level rise will wreak upon nuclear sites - not least economically - it now looks more likely that the industry faces a burial at sea. There's a real risk that any financial investment in new nuclear plants will sink without trace".

"Nuclear power is completely unnecessary and is a dangerous distraction from implementing real solutions to climate change. There are much safer, more reliable and significantly cheaper approaches such as increased energy efficiency, renewable power technologies and the decentralising of our electricity and energy systems".

Dr Loraine McFadden from Middlesex Flood Hazard Research Centre said, "having undertaken this review of existing data, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the most sensible approach would be to reject all nuclear new-build within the dynamic coastal environment".

She added, "if a decision on new nuclear build hangs on the ability to predict the future relatively accurately and reliably for the next 200 years, we need to adopt a radical approach to the decision-making process".

ENDS

For more information, or for a copy of the report, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.