Comment Re:The UK did too (Score 3, Insightful) 72
Sellafield was initially set up as a plutonium production facility for nuclear weapons, similar to the US Hanford Reservation operation which is also a disaster in terms of hazardous materials and pollution control (saying that, a lot of the worst pollution in such sites is from toxic chemicals rather than radioisotopes and nuclear material). I understand the locations of the early Soviet nuclear weapons plutonium production facilities are in a similar mess.
I find the "forty year lifespan" and "70% annual operation" figures mentioned in the linked article a little puzzling. Some operating PWRs (including Japanese ones) are being licenced for 60 and even 80 years of operation and new-builds today are expected to be operable for a century. Annual uptimes for modern PWRs and BWRs are typically 80% and higher according to IAEA records.
The price per kWh mentioned will include end-of-life decommissioning and insurance since that's factored into the cost of all nuclear generation in the Western world. Over sixty and more years a nuclear power reactor will produce a lot of electricity and so it's easy to pay for the decommissioning operation from ongoing receipts and compound interest of the accumulated funds.
UK decommissioning of nuclear reactors is done by SafStor (sic), a process where the radioactive parts of the plant are "stored" for about eighty years to let most of the radioactivity decay to the point where final dismantling can be undertaken more easily. The cost savings supposedly make up for the extended supervision of the site during this period.