Energy-rich Scotland doesn’t need costly and dangerous nuclear power

Leah Gunn Barrett

Two recent letters responding to Tory nuclear energy minister, Andrew Bowie, and Paul Wilson in The Scotsman, who call for more nuclear power plants in Scotland. The first appeared in the Edinburgh Evening News on December 7th, but The Scotsman chose not to publish the second.

I wonder if Andrew Bowie, the clueless, youthful ministerial cheerleader for nuclear power, is concerned at all about leaks coming from a huge silo of radioactive waste at the crumbling Sellafield nuclear site. 

Norway, Ireland and the US certainly are. Norway is worried that an accident could lead to a radioactive plume that would contaminate food production and harm wildlife and is even considering providing funding to help manage the site. In 2006, Ireland, concerned about Sellafield’s environmental impact, referred it to a UN tribunal.  US diplomats have expressed alarm over its aging infrastructure and the UK’s lack of transparency over dangers at the site.  

Described as one of the “highest nuclear hazards in the UK,” Sellafield stores and treats nuclear waste from weapons manufacture and power generation. Formerly known as Windscale, the site of the UK’s worst nuclear accident in 1957, a 2001 EU report highlighted Sellafield’s problems, warning that another accident could be far worse than the 1986 Chernobyl disaster that spread radiation over northern Europe.

Sellafield is a perfect symbol for the failing UK. To avoid further contamination, Scotland must end this toxic union. 

Paul Wilson ignores the main reason nuclear power hasn’t ‘taken off’. It’s not economic. Nuclear costs 2.6 times more per unit than gas and 3.7 times more than wind.[1] Government subsidies and guarantees are needed because the nuclear industry is an open-ended liability. A nuclear plant has never been fully decommissioned and many believe it would cost more than the original construction.

Second, nuclear power has facilitated, not stopped, the proliferation of nuclear weapons. India produced its first plutonium in a Canadian supplied reactor, exploding its first nuclear bomb in 1974. Nations like Iran are following suit.

Third, accidents have dogged the industry from the beginning. In 1957 the Windscale reactor that produced plutonium and tritium for UK atomic and hydrogen bombs caught fire. The site, now known as Sellafield, is leaking radioactive waste from a huge silo, alarming Ireland, Norway and the US, and should alarm Scotland the most. 

Fourth, there’s no safe solution for nuclear waste. The UK has used Scotland as its dumping ground. The Solway Firth and Irish Sea are polluted with 60 years of Windscale discharges. The UK plans to bury waste from 27 nuclear submarines at Rosyth in nearby dumps at a cost of £3b, and is blasting the Irish seabed and Solway Firth in a damaging search for a place to store waste.  

Fifth, former heads of nuclear regulation in the US, Germany and France issued a 2022 joint statement that nuclear wasn’t the answer to climate change due to its high cost, accident risks and waste.

It doesn’t matter what Oliver Stone, Bono and Greta Thunberg think. What should matter is that the sovereign Scottish People remain implacably opposed to nuclear power and weapons. 

15 thoughts on “Energy-rich Scotland doesn’t need costly and dangerous nuclear power”

    1. “Ensure the long-term security of nuclear power, extending the lifetime of existing plants and backing new nuclear plants and Small Modular Reactors”

      Logging in is getting very tricky for me these days.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. Why not grant planning permission with a clean up clause, backed by a financial guarantee that includes insurance in case the company goes broke, the same as was (or should have been) done with open cast mining.
    Then it’s up to the nuclear industry to prove that it’s commercially viable.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The problem John is the Insurer would be a creation allowed (designed) to go bust with no recourse, thence falling back on the public purse to resolve.
      As Gordon Brown infamously opined over THE VOW – “look at the small print”

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  4. There is also the issue of water needed in copious amounts to cool the reactors. Given the state of England’s sewage laden rivers and increasingly frequent droughts in some areas where are they going to get the water required for the nuclear power plants they currently have in use or under construction?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I’d go further at the risk of repetition – HMG were warned in the 1980s that England was running out of water and would have to begin building reverse osmosis plants and power plants to run them along England’s abundant coastline on the South coast…
      They were also advised to begin a public information campaign on preserving water and begin charging customers for water consumed – Sunak 40 odd years later pays a flat fee to fill his swimming pools and SE England has the highest water consumption per capita in all of Europe… I kid you not.
      Essentially, England NEEDED to start building 20-40 nuclear power plants (they don’t have Scotland’s options) and 40+ RO plants over 40 years ago, started building two of the former and completed one of the latter.
      Solution, flog the problem off, the Conservative way,..

      SE England is in deep shit, in some cases literally – London is one of seven of the world capitals listed as unsustainable for water – HMG’s answer is to send out Disabled Seaman McSmirky to convince Scots it is their problem, because Londinium needs a dumpsite…

      As the infamous RN career review model demonstrates (not that Bowie had any career and was unceremoniously rejected) “his men would follow him anywhere if only out of curiosity”.

      Bowie only used K&D MP as means by which to get onto the Westminster gravy train, he knows there is no question ‘his’ electorate intend to repeat the error any more than any of his previous employers….’Batman’ is no more, except for ‘Misreporting Scotland’ where he is the man with his finger on the plus…

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  8. Westminster Gov spending £13Billion a year on nuclear decommissioning for 10 years. £130Billion. More after that. It could increase. UK Gov whole accounts 2020/21. Published June 2022. Last published accounts. A year behind to calculate information. Information on the internet. Google etc.

    Scotland is 25% in surplus in fuel and energy and nearer the source but pays more pro rata. No parity. Scotland is covered in coal. CCS in the North Sea. European countries are investing in CCS in the seabed. Scotland is the best place. Oil & Gas technology and innovation.

    Westminster reneged on a coal CCS project at Longannet in Fife. Edinburgh university project. Renege on £1Billion promised. Reneged and waste monies (oil company funded project). Gas CCS project at Peterhead. Private and public. Westminster reneged, wasted monies, and withdrew funding and support.
    More broken promises that could have brought dividends on the invested monies and funding.

    EU are better at funding and investing in renewable projects in Scotland and elsewhere. Now lost because of Brexit and damaging the Scottish economy. The usual poor hype from Westminster. No monies or funding for enlightened, innovative projects. Despite technological advances and knowledge which are tied up with the North Sea industry experience. Opportunities wasted by Westminster damaging the Scottish/UK economy. Pure ignorance and arrogance leading to a lose of opportunities.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Pingback: Scottish MP backs dangerous reduction in safety standards to expand UK nuclear power – Talking-up Scotland

Leave a reply to robertnugent82 Cancel reply

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