- Email: [email protected]
UK policy for nuclear decommissioning
II~UTTERWORTH II~IE I N E M
EnergyPofiQ,.Vol. 23. A
N
No. 7, p. 577. 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain 0301-4215/95 $ I0.00 + 0.00
N
Forum UK policy for nuclear decommissioning
John Surrey (Viewpoint, 1994 22 (9)) summarized the Science Policy Research Unit report on decommissioning. While agreeing with the thrust of the article insofar as regards the value of a segregated decommissioning fund for a private sector nuclear operator, I cannot let the article pass without correcting two serious misconceptions. First, the nuclear industry does not use decommissioning provisions as a fr.ee source of capital. As our accounts clearly show we treat the provision as a loan and
record interest charges at 2% above the rate of inflation. Second, it is not difficult to envisage Sizewell B obtaining a positive return without assistance from the fossil fuel levy. On the contrary there is every reason to believe that it will make a strong contribution to our improving profit trend.
Stephen Ogle Nuclear Electric Gloucester, UK
Reply to Stephen Ogle There is no substantive difference between Stephen Ogle and myself, except that I would regard paying an interest rate of only 2% above inflation as a nice gift if ! could have it. As to Sizewell B, the economics depend crucially on its future performance and we will therefore just have to wait and see. John Surrey SPRU, Falmer Brighton, UK
Energy Polic3, 1995 Volume 23 Number 7 5'77
EnergyPofiQ,.Vol. 23. A
N
No. 7, p. 577. 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain 0301-4215/95 $ I0.00 + 0.00
N
Forum UK policy for nuclear decommissioning
John Surrey (Viewpoint, 1994 22 (9)) summarized the Science Policy Research Unit report on decommissioning. While agreeing with the thrust of the article insofar as regards the value of a segregated decommissioning fund for a private sector nuclear operator, I cannot let the article pass without correcting two serious misconceptions. First, the nuclear industry does not use decommissioning provisions as a fr.ee source of capital. As our accounts clearly show we treat the provision as a loan and
record interest charges at 2% above the rate of inflation. Second, it is not difficult to envisage Sizewell B obtaining a positive return without assistance from the fossil fuel levy. On the contrary there is every reason to believe that it will make a strong contribution to our improving profit trend.
Stephen Ogle Nuclear Electric Gloucester, UK
Reply to Stephen Ogle There is no substantive difference between Stephen Ogle and myself, except that I would regard paying an interest rate of only 2% above inflation as a nice gift if ! could have it. As to Sizewell B, the economics depend crucially on its future performance and we will therefore just have to wait and see. John Surrey SPRU, Falmer Brighton, UK
Energy Polic3, 1995 Volume 23 Number 7 5'77