The ALARP principle runs through conventional H&S as well as nuclear safety, so your critique isn't quite correct. Its integral to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. See https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/expert/alarpglance.htm
The difference between conventional and nuclear safety lies in what is deemed reasonably practicable; risks to the public in a nuclear context are generally far higher so more stringent measures are required.
I agree entirely with your assessement on nuclear.
However gas and coal are worthy ways of generation and are neither expensive nor 'dirty'.
Indeed should the unlikely happen and the U.K. both dumps renewables and goes for a large scale nuclear plan, gas and coal can be built quickly and provide cheap reliable electrcity as an interim.
Thank you for providing this information. It is vital that people better understand why UK infrastructure costs are the highest in the world and why and how this cost can be reduced.
Politicians, senior civil servants and regulators are usually the ones who put safety way above costs. It is their low appetite for risk that adds to the cost of gaining planning permission and delays construction. It is also why we fall behind other similar nations, with a different approach to risk, in terms of growth and wealth.
However, it is difficult to achieve the right balance. We are now very concerned about global warming and the negative effect of our use of fossil fuels. Yet 40 years ago some of our then leaders were aware of the dangers but took the decision to ignore the warnings. Are we in danger of repeating this?
Nuclear power may be part of the answer to our need for more energy and electricity but it is not without concerns. Who is to say, after the next 40 years, this is the right thing to do. We do not currently deal very well or effectively with the cost of nuclear waste. A report this week from the NAO says costs of safely controlling and disposing of nuclear waste have been massively under estimated. Might the lack of safe control and the growing costs of Nuclear Power and its waste be an even greater danger to mankind.
Most of the safety measures also triple the costs of the tunnel under the Thames downriver from the Dartford tunnel, which has apparently cost over £290 million before a single spade is sunk into the ground. If you read fiction there is a book in the series of Patrick O’Briens Maturin series dealing with Prize Money when an enemy ship is captured. Poison Harbour or something similar is the title. Now, as a normal mortal, such duplication of effort applies only when we produce something which is successful. Then the number of people, especially ambitious executives, emerge from the woodwork. The British and Americans are world beaters at this. I am disappointed that Ed Miliband failed to take a chance to reduce such bureaucracy when he had the chance. Perhaps the golden duo of Starmer and Reeve’s will apply their political skills to this problem. I personally see the extended use of SMR nuclear power as the easiest solution to most energy problems and wonder why the British Tech industry is so slow off the mark.
Great note, thanks. Shouldnt a government think more radically than this though? Sorting out the regulatory framework could take years. But in the meantime, there is nothing to stop parliament bypassing it altogether by legislating directly for build, cutting out the nuclear regulator, public enquiries etc etc. Do that while reforming regulation in parallel?
How will the UK store the waste from its nuclear reactors for the thousands of years until it is safe?
The ALARP principle runs through conventional H&S as well as nuclear safety, so your critique isn't quite correct. Its integral to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. See https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/expert/alarpglance.htm
The difference between conventional and nuclear safety lies in what is deemed reasonably practicable; risks to the public in a nuclear context are generally far higher so more stringent measures are required.
So, who's lobbying Steve Reed? Anyone know what kind of concert tickets would work best for him? Or is he a football fan instead?
"...any practice that may expose the public to ionising regulation must be ‘justified’."
Yup, hard to justify that ionising regulation!
Now, about that ionising radiation . . .
Sam,
I agree entirely with your assessement on nuclear.
However gas and coal are worthy ways of generation and are neither expensive nor 'dirty'.
Indeed should the unlikely happen and the U.K. both dumps renewables and goes for a large scale nuclear plan, gas and coal can be built quickly and provide cheap reliable electrcity as an interim.
Thank you for providing this information. It is vital that people better understand why UK infrastructure costs are the highest in the world and why and how this cost can be reduced.
Politicians, senior civil servants and regulators are usually the ones who put safety way above costs. It is their low appetite for risk that adds to the cost of gaining planning permission and delays construction. It is also why we fall behind other similar nations, with a different approach to risk, in terms of growth and wealth.
However, it is difficult to achieve the right balance. We are now very concerned about global warming and the negative effect of our use of fossil fuels. Yet 40 years ago some of our then leaders were aware of the dangers but took the decision to ignore the warnings. Are we in danger of repeating this?
Nuclear power may be part of the answer to our need for more energy and electricity but it is not without concerns. Who is to say, after the next 40 years, this is the right thing to do. We do not currently deal very well or effectively with the cost of nuclear waste. A report this week from the NAO says costs of safely controlling and disposing of nuclear waste have been massively under estimated. Might the lack of safe control and the growing costs of Nuclear Power and its waste be an even greater danger to mankind.
Most of the safety measures also triple the costs of the tunnel under the Thames downriver from the Dartford tunnel, which has apparently cost over £290 million before a single spade is sunk into the ground. If you read fiction there is a book in the series of Patrick O’Briens Maturin series dealing with Prize Money when an enemy ship is captured. Poison Harbour or something similar is the title. Now, as a normal mortal, such duplication of effort applies only when we produce something which is successful. Then the number of people, especially ambitious executives, emerge from the woodwork. The British and Americans are world beaters at this. I am disappointed that Ed Miliband failed to take a chance to reduce such bureaucracy when he had the chance. Perhaps the golden duo of Starmer and Reeve’s will apply their political skills to this problem. I personally see the extended use of SMR nuclear power as the easiest solution to most energy problems and wonder why the British Tech industry is so slow off the mark.
Great note, thanks. Shouldnt a government think more radically than this though? Sorting out the regulatory framework could take years. But in the meantime, there is nothing to stop parliament bypassing it altogether by legislating directly for build, cutting out the nuclear regulator, public enquiries etc etc. Do that while reforming regulation in parallel?
If French nuclear power stations are safe - we don't need to check them.
If they are not safe - we have a big problem - France is not that far from the UK.