Responding to the White Paper on nuclear waste, Nathan Argent, Greenpeace's nuclear campaigner, said: "No company would invest in nuclear if they were left to pay the full costs of nuclear waste. That's why the Government is fixing it so the financial risks fall on the taxpayer. The costs will massively over-run, as they have consistently done so far.

"No-one knows how much the Government's shoddy plans would cost. Even Hilary Benn, the minister responsible, admitted as much in Parliament this afternoon.

"Nuclear waste is a financial and geological nightmare. There is no plausible solution for our existing legacy waste, let alone the waste from new reactors, which will be at least three times more radioactive.

"This White Paper is not about finding a solution for nuclear waste. It's about bribing a community with £1bn of taxpayers' money to bury waste in their back garden. But there's no guarantee a willing community will come forward or that they'll be able to find a geologically suitable site anywhere in this country.

"The Government cannot press on with its plans for new nuclear power when its strategy for dealing with radioactive waste is shambolic."

• The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the body in charge of dealing with the UK's radioactive waste, admitted recently that the costs of cleaning up existing nuclear waste, estimated to already be £73bn, were likely to spiral by billions. When pressed on how much it might increase an NDA spokesman claimed "I'm sure it'll be some billions, I really don't know." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7421879.stm

• Yesterday, the government's former advisor on nuclear waste disposal, said that energy companies are being a hidden subsidy to build new nuclear power stations through the proposed funding of waste disposal. (‘Subsidy' for nuclear power attacked, Financial Times, 11 June) 

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255.

The government's strategy for dealing with nuclear waste was labeled a "shambles" today, ahead of an expected White Paper tomorrow.

Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said:

"Nuclear waste is a financial and geological nightmare. These proposals do not provide a plausible solution for our existing legacy waste, let alone the waste from new reactors, which will be at least three times more radioactive.

"This White Paper is not about finding a solution for nuclear waste. It's about bribing a community with £1bn of taxpayers' money to bury waste in their back garden. But there's no guarantee a willing community will come forward or that they'll be able to find a geologically suitable site anywhere in this country.

"The government cannot press on with its plans for new nuclear power when its strategy for dealing with radioactive waste is such a shambles."

• The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the body in charge of dealing with the UK's radioactive waste, admitted recently that the costs of cleaning up existing nuclear waste, estimated to already be £73bn, were likely to spiral by billions. When pressed on how much it might increase an NDA spokesman claimed "I'm sure it'll be some billions, I really don't know." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7421879.stm

• In May, the UK's "world class" reactor at Sizewell B shut down unexpectedly, causing massive black outs across the UK. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/...)

• At the same time, British Energy, the UK's biggest nuclear operator, announced that its annual profits had slumped by a third. BE blamed falling electricity prices and unplanned reactor shutdowns. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?...)

• This week British Energy turned down a £10bn takeover bid from EdF, saying that its bid "does not represent value for shareholders." BE added that talks were ongoing, but that "there can be no certainty that any of the discussions will lead to an offer being made for the company". (http://www.british-energy.com/article.php?article=243)

• The French Nuclear Safety Authority has now ordered all construction work to stop on the site of the supposedly state-of-the-art European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) in Flamanville, Normandy, because of on-going safety problems. The EPR is the reactor design that the Government is keen to see built here in the UK. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2873968-2c4f-11dd-9861...l)

• A new report in the USA suggests that construction costs for new nuclear reactors have more than doubled since 2000, meaning that nuclear is becoming more expensive more quickly than any other form of energy (http://online.wsj.com/article/...). Elsewhere, Florida Light and Power have estimated the cost of building 1 new reactor would be a staggering $12bn. (http://a4nr.org/library/economics/may.june-energybiz)

Greenpeace press office: 020 7865 8255.