3 thoughts on “The Final Word on Labour’s Flawed and Dangerous Nuclear Energy Plans”

  2. ‘drop ‘ideological’ opposition to nuclear power’ – this seems like a repeated attempt to discredit and delegitimise any opposition to new nuclear power plants in Scotland by implying that ‘ideological’ is a negative. Which specific underlying ideas, beliefs or principles that constitute an ‘ideology’ are being referred to here? Ideological opposition or is it in reality reasoned opposition?

    There are many reasons to oppose or at the very least be very wary, very sceptical as already set out in TuS. Here let’s consider where the push for new nuclear power plants in Scotland is coming from. It’s from Unionist political parties in Westminster that have long had power over Scotland passed between them. What is their track record of governance of Scotland’s energy assets?

    • historically, no ‘just transition’ from Westminster for communities in Scotland once dependent on coal mining nor for those involved in energy-intensive industries like steel making
    • Westminster responsible for a legacy from the exploitation of Scotland’s offshore oil & gas assets that is very much inferior to that now enjoyed by Norway
    • Westminster overseeing the ongoing exploitation of wind energy offshore Scotland which is prioritising the delivery of cheaper electricity than otherwise available to England whilst ensuring that Scotland gains no competitive advantage from cheaper electricity for its own industrial development
    • Westminster giving lower priority to the only carbon capture project in Scotland relative to those located elsewhere in the UK
    • its acceptance of the closure of Scotland’s only oil refinery
    • electricity interconnectors between the UK and mainland Europe – for trading, resilience, security purposes – all with landfalls in England
    • its imposition of a higher, longer lasting ‘windfall tax’ on offshore oil & gas companies than the industry can cope with whilst sustaining viability during the energy transition
      • indeed, on oil & gas assets offshore Scotland, one industry source claims ‘Successive UK governments have provided a “masterclass in how to entrench uncertainty, sow speculation and create an un-investible environment” (WoodMac December 11, 2025) whilst another (in Energy Voice, December 12, 2025) argues: “Right now there is no just transition”.

    For these and other reasons given in TuS, when Westminster parties and their allies press nuclear power on Scotland – uncertain in costs, uncertain in timeframe to operation, technologically uncertain in the case of Small Modular Reactors, and involving many, many decades of expense and risk to store and make safe legacy toxic waste – it is far from unreasoning to oppose or at least to be very sceptical. After all, what in all the above gives confidence that Scotland’s energy (and economic) future is best decided in Westminster?

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  3. Came across this today:

    Arnie Gundersen (June 20, 2025) The Nuclear Mirage: Why Small Modular Reactors Won’t Save Nuclear Power https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/the-nuclear-mirage-why-small-modular-reactors-wont-save-nuclear-power/

    In the context of what he refers to as the ‘nuclear industry’s hype machine .. in overdrive’, Gundersen writes on SMRs largely from a US perspective: ‘The “small” label is relative only to the behemoths of the last century. In practice, a “small” reactor brings all the big problems of a conventional reactor: dangerous radioactive fuel, complex safety systems, and the risk of catastrophic failure or sabotage. The only thing that’s truly small about SMRs is their inability to benefit from the economies of scale that, in theory, were supposed to make large reactors affordable—but never actually did.’

    ‘… while Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and Amazon herald SMRs as the solution to everything from AI’s energy hunger to coal’s decline, the nuclear vendors themselves won’t promise atomic power will be cheaper than renewables. Perhaps they recall the Westinghouse executives who were imprisoned for defrauding the public on atomic project costs. They know what I know: it is pure fantasy to think smaller, less powerful SMRs will magically generate cheap power. Power generation doesn’t work that way.’

    And on the track record of nuclear power generation in the USA: ‘For almost 75 years, the American public has been the “buyer of last resort” for hundreds of loss-making nuclear power plants first developed during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower. No reactor has ever been built in the United States on time or on budget. Another 130 nuclear power plants were cancelled before they ever produced a single watt of electricity. None were financially viable without massive taxpayer subsidies.

    ‘In the early 2000s, the industry attempted a comeback, promising a “Nuclear Renaissance.” Two dozen reactors announced, all but two cancelled. The only survivors—Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia—deliver the most expensive electricity in the country, at twice the projected cost and years behind schedule.’

    And on technology innovations required for SMRs: ‘Each of these changes introduces new opportunities for failure—none of them well understood, all of them expensive to fix. SMRs introduce a host of untested problems, including using higher-enriched uranium, close to weapons-grade, raising proliferation and safety concerns.

    ‘If anything, their smaller size exacerbates some problems. Because of their compact cores, SMRs can leak more neutrons than conventional reactors, leading to more complex damage to the nuclear reactor itself and different radioactive waste streams—waste that is harder and more expensive to manage and dispose of.

    ‘So, despite the “modular” promise, each SMR is still a massive piece of radioactive infrastructure, requiring the same level of security, emergency planning, and long-term waste management as any other nuclear reactor.’

    ‘What better example of failed promises than the much-hyped NuScale SMR project in Utah that was set to be the first SMR built in the U.S.? In November 2023, citing soaring costs, the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) cancelled the project. Announced in 2015, the UAMPS project envisioned building 12 reactors by 2023 for a cost of $3 billion. By the time it was canceled in November, cost estimates had tripled.’

    The author argues: ‘The climate crisis demands solutions that are proven, scalable, and affordable—qualities that nuclear power, in any form, has never delivered.’

    Profile of Arnie Gundersen – ‘has more than 50 years of nuclear power oversight and engineering experience. He has two nuclear engineering degrees, a Reactor Operator’s license, was a corporate Senior Vice President for an atomic licensee, has a nuclear safety patent, three peer-reviewed papers on radiation, and authored a best-selling book in Japanese about the Fukushima meltdown in Japan. In addition to teaching reactor physics to graduate students and undergrads, Mr. Gundersen has given presentations at universities and government agencies and testified as an expert witness worldwide. He is also a founding director of the board of Fairewinds Energy Education Nonprofit’.

    I quote extensively above as I don’t have the technological knowledge to review/interpret/validate the content of the article. However, such criticisms are NOT uncommon in the literature. Politicians seeking to discredit/delegitimise reasoned opposition to new nuclear power plants in Scotland – as is the favoured tactic of British Labour Party politicians – do all in Scotland a disservice.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

Leave a comment

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