Ten years late and four times the budget in France – another reason why Sunak should understand that Scotland needs no nuclear power

The current PM has accused the long-standing FM:

This ‘energy crisis‘ in Scotland with four times more gas than we use and having to transfer huge amounts of electricity to rUK?

An unholy alliance of the Scottish Cons and the GMB are with the PM on this daft notion.

I’m grateful to Frances McKie for alerting me to this evidence that it’s dafter than I had known:

Two weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, President Emmanuel Macron announced a 52-billion euro ($54 billion) plan for EDF to build at least six new EPR reactors, placing nuclear power at the heart of France’s drive for carbon neutrality while also boosting its energy security. France derived 69% of its electricity output from atomic power last year.

The Flamanville plant – which once fully operational will be producing enough power to keep a city like Paris going for a year – was originally expected to cost 3.3 billion euros and start operations in 2012.

It is now due to start loading fuel – one of the final stages before the start up of a plant – in the second quarter of 2023, and at the latest count the estimated cost had risen to 12.7 billion euros.


Frances, now our Nuclear Correspondent unpaid, had already alerted to me to the fact that up to 50% of France’s nuclear power stations are commonly offline due to rust!

See: https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2022/11/19/50-of-french-nuclear-reactors-off-line-as-a-result-of-corrosion-scotlands-renewables-are-cleaner-safer-and-more-reliable/


25 thoughts on “Ten years late and four times the budget in France – another reason why Sunak should understand that Scotland needs no nuclear power

  1. France’s problems with their off-line nuclear plants will not be costing the French taxpayer as much in the future as EDF will be subsidised by the UK taxpayer as it builds our nuclear stations , with profits going into the French Treasury !
    Another Brexit benefit ! Taking back Control , eh !

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Far as I know EDF already profits off of the people of the UK. Energy in France is not in private hands like it is here, where the disaster capitalists in London have sold off the UK’s energy industry, lock stock and barrel(s)!

      Liked by 2 people

  2. If France is seemingly so desperate for additonal energy capacity and IF it has been said Scotland is disadvantaged by the cost of connecting to the national grid then it begs the question why WE are not exporting our excess capacity to France instead of England. Then when the lights go out in Manchester they might just start to recognise their reliance on us and level the playing field.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. If they can get away with it, the British nationalists will take over Scotland’s planning laws and they will build more of their disgusting nuke stations in Scotland. The costs of nuclear including building the damn things is an abomination, and it’s unimaginable in terms of the legacy that future generations will have to deal with.
    There must be big money behind Sunaks backward stance on green or clean energy. It’s clear he is saying, let’s allow planet wrecking Richi rich folk to make a mint out of dirty and destructive energy, especially in Scotland, lolz.
    No thanks!
    So much Scotland needs to say ‘NO’ to.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. In Scotland, wind generation is accelerating far beyond Scotland’s requirements, tidal stream generation is finally seeing a chink of progress beyond being the awkward (and deliberately ignored) child in the corner purely because of HMG’s obsession over nuclear.

    It is beyond ludicrous that the most expensive form of electricity generation of any is still being promoted by HMG particularly in Scotland (anyone else remember “so cheap to produce it isn’t worth billing for ?) because Tory voters in Suffolk etc. are offended by the ” sight of “windmills” whilst making a small fortune from investment in acres of solar farms as it is more profitable than vegetables, aka MPs.

    Scotland much as Ireland never in it’s history had a problem over energy or providing light, there was always coal or logs or peat for fire, paraffin lamps for light.

    It took many long years before the hydro (to solve England’s energy problems) provided an alternative to paraffin light, and to this day there are communities who have never seen electric beyond a generator. In this day and age that is frankly ridiculous.

    That is our reality as a nation within the United Queendom now Kingdom, pressed to resolve a problem entirely of England’s, or more accurately, London’s making.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Or perhaps they want to be able to ask: where/how would Scotland deal with its nuclear waste post-independence? How could Scotland afford to replicate the industrial/security complex at Sellafield? And if it can’t, how would it manage its nuclear waste if access to Sellafield was to be refused or made prohibitively expensive? Yet another Union benefit to be lost?

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I’ve posted before btl the following description from an official UK Government web page and written by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in 2018:

          – ‘home to 4 of the BIGGEST RISKS AND HAZARDS IN EUROPE’ (my emphasis)
          – spends £2 BILLION EVERY YEAR
          – ‘encircled by MILES OF FENCING’
          – ‘ARMED GUARDS at its gates’
          – ‘a footprint of 2 square miles’
          – consisting of ‘hundreds of buildings’
          – requiring ‘thousands of people’
          – ‘needs some of the same infrastructures as a small town’
          – requires an ARMED POLICE FORCE
          – requires a CIVILIAN GUARD FORCE.

          I would not want to see even more of this type of industrial/security requirement bequeathed to future generations of Scotland’s citizens – and unnecessarily so!

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Shortly after the New Scientist article was published there was a Scottish TV programme about Sellafield which glossed over some of its worst features. Then the BBC(?) if I remember correctly, did a longer programme that covered some of what was mentioned in the NS article but nothing about security as described by stewartb.

            It is also worth pointing out that the New Scientist was taken over by the Daily Mail General Trust in March 2021. There has been a marked change in the New Scientist since then and not for the better in my opinion and I have been a subscriber since the 1970s.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. The BBC reported this (with my emphasis) on the BBC News website: ‘Inside the ‘town’ behind Sellafield’s security fence’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-62980827 )

              Extracts from the article include: ‘Sellafield is one of the largest nuclear sites in Europe and with 11,000 people working in 1,300 buildings connected by 25 miles (40km) of roads across 700 acres (283 hectares), is comparable in size to a small town. The BBC spoke to four people who help keep the £2bn-a-year operation going.’

              ‘The Sellafield compound stands on the shore of the Irish Sea and in the shadow of the Lake District, BEHIND MILE UPON MILE OF IMPENETRABLE FENCING.’

              On site are: ‘… four dormant reactor buildings and turbine halls of Calder Hall nuclear power station, LONG STRANDS OF FOLIAGE SPROUTING FROM THE ROOFS.’

              And: ‘… the “golf ball”, a giant orb that housed an experimental gas-cooled reactor, and, SLOWLY BEING DISMANTLED, the last of the two concrete towers of the Windscale Piles where plutonium was first PRODUCED IN THE 1950S.’

              ‘In between are hundreds of buildings, anonymous, windowless warehouses, ENORMOUS PONDS OF VIVID BLUE WATER CONTAINING SUBMERGED NUCLEAR WASTE, brick office blocks and temporary cabins used for THE NEVER-ENDING CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH-SECURITY STORAGE FACILITIES.’

              ‘Sellafield has its own transport system of shuttle buses, canteens, laundries, SECURITY STAFF, ARMED POLICE, firefighters and a medical centre.’

              ‘As director of environment, safety and security, Mr Neate is responsible for keeping it all safe. “Our dominant mission is high-hazard risk reduction,” the former soldier says, adding IT IS A MISSION THAT WILL OUTLIVE HIM AND CONTINUE FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 100 YEARS. Most activity here is dealing with the legacy of the site – CLEANING UP, REPACKAGING AND STORING THE NUCLEAR WASTE GENERATED OVER PREVIOUS DECADES.’

              ‘The ponds and silos where nuclear materials were stored are classed as FOUR OF THE MOST HIGH RISK NUCLEAR SITES IN EUROPE, so security is naturally very tight.’

              ‘Security teams guard the gates, checking passes and vetting vehicles before they can enter the compound, while THE ARMED CIVIL NUCLEAR CONSTABULARY PATROL WITHIN THE FENCES. Protection is further layered, with access to certain buildings only authorised to those with the highest level of clearance.’

              ‘.. regular site-wide drills based on VARIOUS SCENARIOS INCLUDING TERRORISM ARE carried out.’


              Why would Scotland need or want to be involved in the above in future when alternatives are feasible and sufficient the long term?

              And the alternatives to the dirty, dangerous, expensive and almost endless legacy of dealing with the waste from nuclear energy generation – investment (i) in even more energy generation from wind; (ii) in tidal energy; (iii) in more pump storage hydro schemes; (iv) in battery technology; (v) in local energy generation schemes; (vi) in energy efficiency/reduction; (vii) in responsible (transitional) use of our remaining indigenous oil & gas resources coupled with (viii) accelerated investment in carbon capture & storage, and more generally (ix) investment in the transition to a hydrogen economy. You may know of still more, better, cleaner, safer investments than nuclear for Scotland’s energy future.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. They are also doing this: https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/22/the-uk-is-searching-the-sea-for-a-nuclear-dump-site-and-the-risks-to-marine-life-are-huge

            Independence would mean we could surely object because some of the Irish Sea and Solway Firth would be Scottish Territorial Waters? This seismic testing is about Westminster getting round London Dumping Convention- banning dumping in international waters. They also thought about dumping nuclear submarines in Scottish Waters.


            Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows

            Liked by 2 people

          2. I am forwarding news from Radiation Free Lakeland.

            Westminster is pressing ahead with this awful gambit- trying to keep it from national press and public awareness. They are desperate to claim there is a “solution”.

            Digging holes for nuclear waste – especially High level Nuclear Waste -is not a solution. Blasting the Irish Sea bed- trying to look as if there is some science involved- as opposed to getting away with it in an economically blackmailed community, with apparently illegal council behaviour- is cynical and destructive.

            It is also another criminally irresponsible attempt to evade the London Dumping Convention’s ban on dumping in international waters: https://theferret.scot/nuclear-submarines-dump-scotland/

            If Scotland was independent- we could surely protect the Irish Sea and Solway Firth against this danger.

            Best Wishes

            Frances McKie

            Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Finland nuclear plant 7 years late and £Billions over budget. Reconciliation.

    Scotlandis the best place in the world for renewables. The highestwind speedrecorded on Lewis.

    France has tidal. Less wind. They could invest in solar.

    Nuclear waste beingflown around the world. Nuclear dumpedin Scotland.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The London establishment cannot have people in England querying why Scotland has so much cheaply available energy and they don’t.
    That is why they are trying to fabricate a narrative that there is a need in Scotland for completely unnecessary nuclear power stations as well as rigging the “market” against renewables.
    Scotland will not be allowed to deviate from Westminster energy policies since it partly undermines their Ein Reich,Ein Volk mantra.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. OT John, I note James Cook has penned a piece “NHS chiefs in Scotland discuss having wealthy pay for treatment” with the usual “Analysis by Lisa Summers” headlining on the UK, Scotland, and Scotland/Politics web-pages published after midnight https://archive.ph/iKcgU
    Quite how at the tail end of November they got hold of DRAFT minutes of meeting in September is not explained, but I’d bet some will be very busy first thing trying to find out how.


    1. Hello Bob,
      What makes you think that this EBC report is any more valid than any of the rest of the propaganda drivel that they push at us.
      My first question would be ‘if these are the DRAFT minutes’ where are the actual minutes of the meeting.
      Second, why would anybody write draft minutes, is this a play being written for public performance.
      Who is writing it,EBC, or Tory head office (who want to lay the ground for privatising / selling of the SNHS), A small group of Tory / unionist supporters within the SNHS who see an operchancity for deflection, or stirring the pot for BT.

      Asking for an unemployed, pensioner, fiend(sic) who has complex medical and mental health issues…………………..shhhh
      the voices are discussing the wastemonster and I’m trying to listen.
      But I weekly like all of U.


      1. John had picked up on the subject in the following article –
        I’m under no illusions whatever this is a propaganda piece from HMS James Cook when most eyes are on the outcome of the SC Wednesday.

        DRAFT minutes of a meeting are usually emailed to attendees in advance of being adopted as FORMAL minutes at the next meeting – That’s what baffled me about the article, since it blatantly points to one of the attendees on what is a restricted distribution list.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.