Letter: Risks and rewards of nuclear power
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: You suggest (29 June) that BNFL's German and Japanese customers would be 'furious if the Thorp programme were to be shelved at this late date'. Not true. While there are a few diehards in Germany who remain keen on using the plutonium separated by reprocessing, most German industrialists would shed no tears over the abandonment of Thorp.
The situation in Japan is more complicated. No one in Japan looks forward with pleasure to the return of the plutonium and nuclear wastes extracted by Thorp. The Japanese government would be especially relieved to escape the political troubles that the transport and stockpiling of plutonium are bringing it. There are nevertheless worries in some quarters that the cancellation of Thorp could spell trouble for Japan's plans to build its own reprocessing plant at Rokkasho-mura.
However, the German and Japanese customers would indeed be furious if Thorp was cancelled and the British government insisted on the immediate return of the spent fuel already delivered to Sellafield. There is a deal to be done: Germany and Japan would not press their claims for repayment of the money they have invested in Thorp, while Britain would continue storing the spent fuels at Sellafield for at least 10 years subject to its eventual return.
Yours sincerely,
WILLIAM WALKER
Senior Fellow
Science Policy Research Unit
Falmer, Brighton
29 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments