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.

New nuclear power stations will not be built unless the government fixes the market price for dealing with waste, according to a nuclear industry expert today.

And rigging the price will, say Greenpeace, mean that taxpayers will have to subsidise new nuclear power stations.

The revelation comes as Gordon Brown is due to meet President Sarkozy of France to discuss nuclear power.

Writing in Nuclear Engineering International, Ian Jackson, who has worked in the industry for over 20 years, says that a “fully commercial price would make disposal far too expensive, killing the prospects of any new nuclear build programme in Britain”.

The government has said that decisions on building new nuclear reactors will be entirely up to the market, and that there will be no public hand-outs.

If companies building nuclear plants in the UK were charged the same rate for waste disposal as overseas utilities – which, commercially speaking, they should be – the costs would come to £201,000 per cubic metre of waste. This would amount to £8.2 billion for ten new reactors, or £820 million each. These costs - 40 per cent of the total construction costs – would scupper any plans for new nuclear reactors.

Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: “If nuclear power had to stand on its own two feet in a truly liberalised energy market, there’s no way anyone would be talking about building new reactors.

"Despite telling anyone who’d care to listen that new nuclear would be paid for by the industry and without subsidy, behind closed doors the government has cooked up a way to make nuclear liabilities artificially palatable. Ultimately, this means that the taxpayer is going to have to subsidise new nuclear power stations.

"The estimated costs of dealing with nuclear waste increase every single year. Including a so-called 'significant risk premium' is going to do next to nothing to cover these costs in the long-term. The risk here isn't being borne by the nuclear industry, it's being borne by the taxpayer.

“And while Gordon Brown is bending over backwards to foist new French nuclear power stations across the planet, he’s simultaneously stabbing renewable energy in the back. It’s political contortionism of the highest order.”

Ian Jackson joined the nuclear industry in 1986, working initially at the Atomic Energy research Establishment then later as a nuclear regulator. He is the author of Siting New Nuclear Power Stations: Availability and Options for Government published alongside the 2007 Energy White Paper.

Download Ian Jackson’s article in Nuclear Engineering International.