Should we build new nuclear power stations?

• Have your say: email [email protected]

YES: Brian Wilson

Former Labour energy minister

YES: Those who see global warming as our great challenge can’t duck the nuclear option

JUST a few years ago, there were two imperatives driving energy policy - affordability and security of supply. There is now a third right up there in lights alongside them. It is the need to stop poisoning our atmosphere with carbon emissions and other harmful gases and thereby contributing to the rise of global warming.

Either you think global warming is the great challenge of the 21st century or you don’t. If the latter, then all this stuff about renewables and carbon reduction is bunkum. That seems an increasingly eccentric position, but at least it has the merit of consistency. If, on the other hand, you do accept the global warming thesis then all previous bets should be off - including entrenched hostility to nuclear power.

That is a nettle which thinking environmentalists such as James Lovelock have been able to grasp. Whatever the problems associated with nuclear power, and they are significant, they are as nothing compared to the threat of global warming. Ergo, if nuclear power is part of the solution to the greater problem, then being against it without regard to the transformed context of the debate is not only inconsistent but irresponsible.

At present, Britain gets about 24 per cent of electricity from nuclear power. The figure in Scotland is, of course, double that. Any debate about whether such reliance was desirable is pass. The fact is that it exists and will shortly go into decline. In other words, at the very moment when there is an historic emphasis on increasing the supply of carbon-free electricity, we may be about to countenance the steady erosion of the one significant source of the stuff that we’ve actually got. To put it another way, everything we do on renewables for at least the next 20 years is - in carbon-reduction terms - only going to replace the nuclear power we are wishing away.

But what are we doing on renewables? I think I have a reasonable record of matching words with actions. But I am weary of constant battles to build even the smallest hydro station, or the best-located wind farm, or even the most technically innovative biomass plant. And I have nothing but contempt for those who talk big on renewables targets as a conscience-salving therapy, the function of which is to wish away more difficult decisions but do nothing to actually stand up for the projects which would bring such targets into even remote proximity to reality.

What leadership for instance has Charles Kennedy ever shown over the case for the Highlands and Islands becoming a major location for renewable energy? Not an iota. Being anti-nuclear is the easy bit. But what are they actually in favour of? When I challenged the Lib Dem spokesman recently on what energy mix they favour for Britain, he replied that they did not have a policy but "a direction" on the matter. Or maybe two directions - or, more probably, one for each constituency.

In fact, the direction will determine itself unless there is some serious political intervention. Nuclear will run down. Coal will decline. Renewables will increase but not on anything like the scale required to fill the gap - bear in mind the two longer-established imperatives of affordability and security of supply as well as project-failure. So what’s left but gas in ever-increasing proportions? Government projections envisage 70 per cent of our electricity coming from gas by 2020. The problem is that, with the North Sea in decline, 90 per cent of that gas would be imported.

That is the other major contextual shift that has to be considered before nuclear is ruled out. The market will undoubtedly supply us with a great deal of gas - from Algeria and Azerbaijan, Qatar and Trinidad. But we will not be the only buyers in the market and experience shows, even in present-day circumstances, gas is peculiarly volatile to massive price spikes, particularly once the word inter-connector enters the equation.

The case for nuclear is not yet conclusive - though 28 countries in the world have decided differently and are going ahead with new-build. I recognise that progress will have to be demonstrated on the disposal of waste, though this is by no means a technological show-stopper. Someone will also have to want to build them, so the economics (based on consistency of reactor design and a sensible price for electricity) will have to stack up.

But Scotland would be inordinately foolish to opt out of that necessary debate, given our current nuclear dependence, the jobs and skills that depend on it, and the world-wide movement towards nuclear power being driven by the global warming agenda. Renewables, gas, clean coal and nuclear all have their part to play in an energy mix that can satisfy the three classic criteria - security of supply, affordability and the drive against global warming.

Brian Wilson is Labour MP for Cunninghame North and was minister for energy from 2002-3.

NO: Alistair Carmichael

LibDem MP for Orkney and Shetland

NO: Don’t accept the myth - nuclear power isn’t a clean and carbon-free energy source

THE publication by the Scottish affairs select committee of its report on meeting Scotland’s future energy needs last week brought a timely reminder of the power of spin. At one stage, I re-read the report to check I had not missed something. The committee called for "an audit of energy resources that are currently available, and then to use that as the basis to work out the energy requirements that will be needed in the future". Not quite as catchy as "MPs to urge Scots nuclear option". The nuclear lobby had clearly done a great job in spinning the report ahead of publication.

Scotland’s future energy mix is a vitally important issue. It is a complex debate where some myths are repeated so frequently they are often accepted as facts. The most frequently pedalled myth goes something like this; climate change is the biggest threat facing this world and nuclear power offers a clean source of energy which will help cut carbon emissions.

It is difficult to challenge the premise - climate change is indeed the biggest threat facing the world. My problem is with the conclusion - that nuclear power is a clean power. The generation of nuclear waste materials, the disposal of which remains an unresolved problem, should give the lie to that.

In fact, nuclear power is not a carbon-free source of energy. If you take the whole life-cycle of nuclear power, emissions from uranium mining and constructing and decommissioning sites must be taken into account.

Of course climate change requires international action. If the pro-nuclear argument is taken to its logical conclusion then to tackle climate change we should promote nuclear technologies to developing nations. This would aid any nuclear arms programmes these countries may have and result in thousands of nuclear power stations across the globe each producing highly dangerous waste. A recipe for a cleaner and safer world? I think not.

The defence of nuclear power on environmental grounds would be laughable were it not for the fact that some take it so seriously. Reliance on nuclear power for non-carbon energy is lazy, sloppy thinking. In environmental terms it is a jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

The crux of the problem for the nuclear industry is that it has simply failed to explain how it will deal with nuclear waste. Safely decommissioning existing nuclear power stations will cost an estimated 48 billion. If the government in Westminster is serious about the development of non-carbon energy sources, then instead of throwing money at nuclear power stations, it should put more money into the development of renewable sources such as wind, wave and tidal power and the promotion of energy efficiency.

The second myth is that unless we have more nuclear power stations in Scotland, the lights will start going out. Why couldn’t we build combined gas cycle power stations instead? The answer from the nuclear lobby is that it is too dangerous to depend on imported gas.

Never mind the fact the rest of Europe has done so for years or that the entire US economy depends on imported oil. Scotland apparently is different. At the drop of a hat, those pesky Russians will cut off our gas supply. Scottish-Russian animosity stretches back a long way and at long last they will be able to exact revenge for... answers on a postcard please.

Gas need not only come from Russia. I was present at the ONS Exhibition in Stavanger in 2002 when Brian Wilson, then energy minister, signed an accord with his Norwegian opposite number agreeing in principle the importation into the UK of Norwegian gas. Why has the government not concluded that deal? Even the nuclear spin-meisters would be pushed to portray Norway as an unstable or hostile nation.

From this month, the UK will for the first time be a single electricity network. Scotland already generates more electricity than it requires so the question really ought to be: do we want more nuclear power stations in Scotland so there is less pressure in England to generate electricity?

In Scotland of course Lib Dems are part of the Executive. While energy policy is a reserved matter, planning is devolved. Let there be no doubt: Scottish Liberal Democrats oppose the development of more nuclear power stations in Scotland. The partnership agreement states: "We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."

When I hear Labour politicians extolling the virtues of nuclear power I often think the lights are on but no-one is home. Fortunately, with investment by the Executive in a range of renewable energy sources, the lights will be staying on in all of Scotland’s homes, even those occupied by Labour MPs.

Alistair Carmichael, MP for Orkney and Shetland, is the Scottish Liberal Democrat energy spokesman.

Your views

The nuclear cost

We can’t afford to support another nuclear plant. Torness is losing millions every quarter as it struggles to buy itself out of a deep hole. Wind turbines on their own are not the answer. One of the best ways to lessen the need for these is to ensure all buildings have some capacity to generate their own energy through renewables - solar, heat pumps, wind, hydro - and let’s also make sure all new buildings are well insulated.

RON MOULD

Fife

Wind can't go alone

Britain needs a safe and reliable mix of base load power generation and this must be continued into our future. Nuclear energy has a good safety record in the UK and is free from carbon emissions. Volumes of spent fuel are relatively small in size and methods of safe storage and reprocessing have and will be secured. A large part of Scotland’s electricity is already nuclear-generated. Wind generators only have a very limited contribution to make to electricity generation. They take up large areas of land for minor amounts of electricity generated, in areas scenically important, require expensive and unsightly transmission towers to centres of population and are an unreliable source of continuous generation. Decisions on building and replacement of nuclear power plants need to be taken in the near future.

DONALD MATHESON

Only real option

Half Scotland’s electricity is currently generated by Hunterston and Torness nuclear stations. Within about ten years, both will have reached the end of their economic lives and will be shut down. Where then will our electricity supplies come from?

1 Gas: We are now a net importer and much of our future supply must come from volatile countries. Prices are sure to escalate.

2 Oil: North Sea and world supplies are past their peak and prices can be expected to continue their upward trend.

3 Coal: We have reserves but extraction will become more unpopular as most will be by opencast methods.

4 All these fossil fuels produce greenhouse gas emissions and will cause problems with global warming and Kyoto.

5 Hydro: Scotland has exploited most of the economic sites and, in any case, this can only meet around 10 per cent of our needs.

6 Wind: This subsidised, expensive form of generation is environmentally damaging and unreliable.

7 Wave and tide: Probably has a limited contribution to make but considerable research and development needed.

8 Nuclear: Replacing existing nuclear generation capacity is necessary for us to maintain the status quo. For us to meet Kyoto requirements means a programme of nuclear power station construction to give Scotland even greater capacity. The conclusions are unavoidable; we must go for significant new nuclear construction - soon.

DAVID REEKS

Cedar Place, Strathaven

Makes no sense

Arguments against nuclear power are probably the same as they have been for years. I’m no economist but I can see there is absolutely no point replacing old decrepit stations, which have cracked and leaking reactors, with newer ones. Surely the same could happen?

Scotland has a responsibility to protect ourselves and our beautiful countryside/wildlife. The only realistic way to do this is to throw out those lame, archaic, filthy ideas and maintain our resolve. I’d accept the potential "eyesore" of wind/wave power. At least that way we will still have a countryside/country, instead of an accidentally radiated, dead, poisonous environment.

I cannot see any pros in building a new reactor, we’d still have to get rid of waste (which no-one wants) and pay through the nose to buy in the uranium. It doesn’t make sense.

NICO TOOZE

ScottishPower silent

I know when nuclear stations are due to close, but does anyone know when Cockenzie and Longannet will be shut down? If they were still in the public sector, I suspect their replacements would have been built by now. The silence from ScottishPower is deafening; unless it involves new wind projects, are they happy to let nuclear stations do the "base load" work while they reap the rewards from the "peak time" gravy train?

DUNCAN BRYCELAND

Too expensive

I find it quite shocking how the nuclear industry is manipulating the climate debate in an attempt to resurrect itself. Nuclear power is a phenomenally expensive way of generating electricity, even more so once the (still unresolved) costs of waste disposal are factored in. In addition, the risks of nuclear power are many orders of magnitude greater than for other technologies.

The current level of energy wastage is amazing - even the most basic energy efficiency measures are ignored and there is huge potential to achieve substantial reductions in energy consumption. If a fraction of the money which has gone into nuclear power research was directed into energy efficiency diverse range of alternative technologies, we would really be on our way to a more sustainable future.

MICHAEL WARHURST

Boston, US (former resident of Glasgow and Edinburgh)

Look to alternatives

The problems with nuclear power stations using current technology are that they are:

expensive to build

cannot be built quickly enough to fill the projected shortages in our energy needs

come with risks of explosion, meltdown and contamination

produce waste products that have to be stored for hundreds of years before they are safe.

Rather than start building nuclear power stations again, we have to look for alternative, clean sources of power AND take some serious steps to reduce energy consumption.

KATHARINE TAYLOR

Plants are safe

Modern nuclear power plants are absolutely safe and cannot melt down. To restrict the nuclear debate to Scottish power generation is selfishness; nuclear desalination plants could solve water shortage problems in many parts of the world and help cure drought and disease. Let’s start nuclear development now.

ALAN CLAYTON

Strachur, Argyll

Dirty and ineffective

As a Green, I am against the idea of building new nuclear power stations. It is a thoughtless, ineffective, dirty way of producing energy with nuclear waste lying around for hundreds of thousands of years AND nobody knows how to seriously dispose of it. Renewables and energy efficiency has to be the only way forward. The Scottish Executive’s own figures (2001) show that Scotland’s renewable capacity is around six times Scotland’s annual electricity requirement, leaving enough spare capacity to power most of England as well.

So on behalf of myself and my family, both old and young, I say NO to building more nuclear power stations.

HEATHER JAMESON

Newton Stewart

Long-term questions

No! We have no idea of the long-term implications of the waste created by nuclear power. Why not have an energy supply based on renewable resources, wind, wave, solar and biomass?

RACHEL AVERY

Nuclear lie

It is a lie to say the nuclear power industry generates no climate-changing emissions. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is produced by uranium mining, milling and enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction, spent fuel and waste storage and disposal. Most nuclear supporters conveniently forget these facts when promoting nuclear as a solution to climate change. Research on the impact of building and operating reactors concluded they would produce around 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than wind power.

VIKKI CHAD

Craigmillar, Edinburgh