Frances McKie
Today in The Scotsman, Mr Tom Greatrex, whose position as Chief Executive for the Nuclear Industry Association was preceded by a varied career within the Labour Party, has objected to the Scottish Governments criticism and rejection of nuclear power as unsafe and uneconomic.
Mr Greatrex must be hoping that no-one has noticed the latest news from the UK Government’s “Great British Nuclear ” project at Hinkley Point . On Wednesday this week, the China Nuclear Power Group withdrew from funding the building and operation of this EPR so that EDF, the only other major participant, must now obtain massive alternative financial backing for what seems more and more like another HS2 , white elephant, economic disaster . Hinkley Point is now years behind schedule and almost double the original estimated costs. All UK taxpayers have already been committed to paying huge subsidies for this plant for decades, double anything given to wind, wave or tidal power. We will also pay for the vast unquantifiable costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. If the costs at Dounreay and Sellafield are any indication of what’s coming, we should all be very critical and worried indeed.
EDF itself is already in so much trouble over breakdowns and repairs to its existing nuclear plants, associated, as always, with corrosion, not to mention the untold costs of decommissioning and waste management, that it has been nationalised by the French Government. Meanwhile, Hinkley Point, only the 5th EPR ever to be built, running true to form with predecessors is an unreliable prospect: three of the other four already broken down within a year of being commissioned while the only one in France, at Flamanville, not yet completed, has been ordered to shut down almost immediately after being commissioned, in order to replace a faulty reactor cover.
We have yet to find out how Westminster’s “Great British Nuclear ” policy will replace the billions now withdrawn by China from Hinkley and Sizewell. Private investors as a rule don’t want anything to do with nuclear power; money, as they say, speaks volumes.
Meanwhile, Mr Greatrex’s Labour and GMB colleagues would do well to ask themselves why one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, Germany, has, like Scotland, rejected nuclear power as too dangerous and too expensive while global engineering and oil companies are investing heavily in many types of hydrogen, as the most likely future prospect for world energy source and storage.
Talking-up Scotland 
Take ALL NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS TO ENGLAND
THEY NEED ALL THE POWER
SCOTLAND HAS MORE THAN ENOUGH POWER ASSETS
ITS ONLY ENGLAND THAT HAS VERY VERY LITTLE
HENCE TAKING FROM SCOTS
LikeLike
Delayed Ferries in Scotland Versus Delayed Nuclear Power Station in England :
The delayed ferries are likely to cost around £360 million ( 3x original estimates ) and have been a front page story for the Unionist media for over two years .
Hinkley Point costs now projected to be around £33 Billion ( and counting ) from an original estimate of £13 Billion and is now more than three years late . Headlines in the media for this costly project have been few and far between .
The Ferguson built ferries WILL be in service in the near future – can the same be said of the Hinkley Point fiasco ? Will it go the way of HS2 ?
PS . At least Baroness Mone has not made any money from this Westminster debacle !
LikeLike
As far as you know
LikeLike
Small modular reactors (SMRs i.e. nuclear reactors that produce <300 MW electricity) have been getting a lot of attention because of claims of inherent safety features and reduced cost. It is possible that it will be SMRs that the UK government pushes towards Scotland. Adversely critical or sceptical voices on SMRs don't get much coverage by the media.
The peer reviewed academic paper on SMRs referenced below notes that ‘remarkably few studies have analyzed the management and disposal of their nuclear waste streams.’ Comparing three distinct SMR designs to a conventional 1,100-MW elec pressurized water reactor the authors conclude that water-, molten salt–, and sodium-cooled SMR DESIGNS WILL INCREASE THE VOLUME OF NUCLEAR WASTE IN NEED OF MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL BY FACTORS OF 2 TO 30. (my emphasis)
The authors argue that: ‘Although the costs and time line for SMR deployment are discussed in many reports, THE IMPACT THAT THESE FUEL CYCLES WILL HAVE ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL IS GENERALLY NEGLECTED.'
And to this concern the authors from their analysis of the SMRs' waster products add this: ‘SMRS WILL EXACERBATE THE CHALLENGES OF NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL.’
The authors conclude: ‘we find that, compared with existing PWRs (pressurised water reactors), SMRs will increase the volume and complexity of LILW (low- and intermediate-level waste) and SNF (spent nuclear fuel i.e. high-level waste). This increase of volume and chemical complexity will be AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON WASTE STORAGE, PACKAGING, AND GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL. Also, SMRs offer no apparent benefit in the development of a safety case for a well-functioning geological repository.'
Source: Krall et al (2022) Nuclear waste from small modular reactors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119 , No. 23 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 )
Now it's only one paper, albeit by researchers from a top US university, Stanford in a top international journal, commented upon here by a non-expert in inorganic chemistry! But it's focusing on a topic – the impact long term of waste from nuclear power plants – that seems so often to be downplayed by enthusiasts for building new nuclear power plants. So it's worth keeping in mind.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) is currently reporting c.80 different SMR designs under development world-wide, including several designs in operation as demonstrators. Given the immature state of the technology and the locations of its development beyond Scotland, it's hard see any reason why Scotland would benefit from being an early adopter of SMRs – even before we take account of associated, longer term environmental and cost legacies.
Why is nuclear generation needed here anyway given Scotland's yet to be fully exploited, huge potential for generating electricity from wind and tides; its pumped hydro potential, its CC&S potential which may enable environmentally acceptable use of oil and gas for industrial purposes for longer during the transition to net zero, and with scope for hydrogen generation/use, future access to improved battery technologies plus potential for enhancing efficiencies in energy use?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Tories are spending £13Billion a year for 10 years decommissioning nuclear. £130Billion. More in the future. Yet want to build more facilities. The most, expensive wasteful and dangerous. Hundreds of years to contain the waste. Trident. Redundant contaminated subs at Rosyth. Total pollution.
Renewables are much cheaper and viable. Scotland is the best country in the world for renewables. Wind, sea and solar. Heat pumps, solar panels and turbines. Scotland 25% in surplus in fuel and energy pays more because of Westminster policy.
LikeLike
Germany uses coal. The US/UK/Ukraine cut the Russian pipeline supplying gas to Germany. The US wants to flood the world with US fracked gas.
Scotland is the best place for CCS. Oil pipe lines and technology could be used to return the emissions waste. Westminster reneged on the promised funding. Peterhead and Longannet, Fife. Scotland is covered in coal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nuclear power is dangerous and expensive. renewable technology, like wind and solar, is much cheaper and much more reliable.
LikeLike