To suggest that the nuclear meltdown in Japan is a reason for Scotland to review its mix of energy generation is, on the face of it, opportunistic nonsense. The likelihood of a tsunami or a size 8.9 earthquake hammering our east coast is practically zero.
However, it would be foolish and complacently negligent to dismiss any link between the mounting tragedy in Japan and the case for nuclear power in Scotland. We may not be prone to a tsunami (though with a coastline longer than most other nations’ around the world and a hefty 60%+ of China’s, I wouldn’t entrely rule it out) but a terrorist attack on one of our two nuclear plants, an aircraft crashing in the worst possible location nor human error cannot be dismissed as huge risks to Scotland’s safety and wellbeing. It was only last year that a train carrying toxic waste had a bump on the tracks, nothing to worry about we were told….
The arguments against nuclear stack up pretty quickly…
First point – there’s some nasty chemicals that go into these plants and while there is excellent safety surrounding the handling of them, the closer you bring a poison to your door, the more likely it is going to cause problems for you.
Second point – nuclear power simply isn’t necessary in Scotland. We can power ourselves many times over with the right renewables investment. For every pound we spend on nuclear (power, or weapons) we are spending a pound less on ensuring Scotland is amongst the world leaders for wave, wind and other renewables sources of power generation.
Third point – The expense. I appreciate that many are under the misconception that nuclear power is cheap, which it is strictly in terms of base load, but to exclude the obscene decommissioning costs is like saying using a credit card is cheap when you throw the unopened bills in the trash.
Business is chomping at the bit to get lucrative nuclear stations up and running, far from incentivised by the harder path that renewable generation offers.
This is where people power and political parties have to step in. It really is up to us. While I do think the SNP ‘gets it’ but is seduced by the convenience of coal too often, it is only the Greens that have taken a consistently steadfast stance against the dirtiest and most dangerous forms of energy production available.
The probability that Scotland will see the world’s next Fukushima is practically zero. Let’s reduce that risk all the way to nought by casting off the bowlines, seizing our opportunity and making sure we return parties to Government that are only intent on taking the longer, harder but ultimatately more rewarding long-term path towards a country powered 100% by renewables.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on March 15, 2011 - 9:58 am
The problem is that there is an epic level of nimby-ism. For Scotland to meet its energy needs through renewables there needs to be a both a mix of potential sources and new methods of transmission.
The grief that the nimbys created over the Beauly-Denny powerline or even a local scheme to me – Auchencorth Wind Farm – or the Leith Biomass plant means that we need to really think about how we power our country.
We have the anti-nuclear lobby, we have the anti-windfarm anywhere near me lobby, the anti recycling plants (Leith or the Westfield Opencast site) anywhere near me lobby, the anti-coal *and associated industries) lobby.
We cannot build renewable energy sites online because everywhere windy in Scotland is suddenly an area of outstanding natural beauty. We cannot build recycling plants because the ‘greeness’ of them is suspect. We cannot use costal power because transmission lines are the most evil visual impact features potentially known to Scotland. Coal & Oil are not environmental and nuclear power is very expensive to clean up.
As a nation we need to decide how we want our energy created and supplied and then go with it.
Oh, and a tsunami is possible based on the fact that the next volcanic eruption on one of the Canary Islands could drop half the island into the sea in a few seconds. This would be a very big splash and even places like London would get very very wet.
#2 by Paul on March 15, 2011 - 10:24 am
Whilst there is a problem with NIMBYism, I don’t think that is the problem with the Leith Biomass – it is a fundamentally flawed project. You’ve probably read http://www.greenerleith.org/greener-leith-news/2011/3/3/objection-objection-objection.html though.
How many of the people who are anti-windfarms would change their mind if we said “look it is a windfarm or a nuclear power plant or we turn off your electricity, you choose”?
#3 by Jeff on March 15, 2011 - 1:04 pm
Good point Paul, I never thought of it that way. I don’t know about the ins and outs of the Leith Biomass project (despite it being right on my doorstep when I move back to Edinburgh!) but I had trusted in Greener Leith’s decision on the matter.
As you say though, we currently have coal and nuclear so if this biomass is better than those then maybe it’s an unavoidable next step if ‘nuclear or biomass’ are the options. I like to hope that’s not the case though….
#4 by Douglas McLellan on March 15, 2011 - 1:18 pm
There is no renewables panacea. No technology, first time out, works as it was supposed to. Why is that bar in place for renewables? And often, why is it one or more of the many ‘environmental’ groups shouting against a proposal the loudest.
My definition of environmental is fairly broad. Basically any group that likes the natural environment and spends a lot of time there.
#5 by Douglas McLellan on March 15, 2011 - 10:39 am
I have no doubt that the Leith Biomass was not all it was cut up to be. But then neither were any of the 1st generation power stations of any time in mankinds history. It is only through full-scale sites that efficiencies and new ideas will be developed. My problem is that, no matter where a biomass plant is built, the objections raised about the Leith plant will probably be just as applicable. So where will any test site be built that can demonstrate its potential?
“How many of the people who are anti-windfarms would change their mind if we said “look it is a windfarm or a nuclear power plant or we turn off your electricity, you chooseâ€?”
That works for me but, personally speaking, that argument is just as valid for the Leith Biomass plant.
#6 by Richard Thomson on March 15, 2011 - 10:41 am
“to exclude the obscene decommissioning costs is like saying using a credit card is cheap when you throw the unopened bills in the trash.”
The construction costs are pretty hefty too, and can dwarf the actual running costs over the lifetime of the plant. You need a very high reliability rate – much higher than UK stations have ever managed – to make it work commercially. And that’s before you consider the financial guarantees the state needs to offer during constructon and decomissioning before any of our brave, swashbuckling capitalists will take on what amounts to a 60 year plus commitment.
The UK has had 2 generations of nuclear power, neither of which have washed their face commercially, far less had sufficient resource set aside throughout their lifetime to pay for decommissioning at the back end. If you’ve limited alternative resources and a big population, then you can probably make a case for nuclear. If, on the other hand, you live in Scotland, it makes no sense whatsoever to do anything other than allow existing stations to see out their lifetime and use the time to put in place some of the many alternatives we have the potential to exploit.
If anyone’s interested, I took a walk through British Energy’s Annual Report and Accounts a wee while back, at the time they were taken over by EDF. They didn’t make for pretty reading!
http://scotsandindependent.blogspot.com/2009/02/expensive-way-to-boil-water.html
#7 by KBW on March 15, 2011 - 11:38 am
If Nuclear is so cuddly and safe and wonderful why will they not show us how much they believe that by rebuilding Battersea as a nice green goo goo ga ga oochy coo power generator right in the heart of where they need all this electricity, and right opposite the people who are advocating it?
What a shot in the arm that would be for the Nukes. MPs putting their money where their mouth is, instead of into their mouths.
We were told in the fifties that Nuclear power would be to cheap to meter…..LIES
We are being told that Windscale and Dundrennan and child leukaemia cluster around the Galloway area, are not connected, but hey we will keep the data secret anyway, to protect the innocent……LIES
We are told that the increase in cancer rates in the Western isles just after the Chernobyl cloud past over in heavy rain, is not abnormal….LIES
The nuclear industry track record of lies, secrecy and disregard for public health and safety is appalling, just look at the history of Dounreay. So safe it was ‘given’ to Caithness, the most remote and sparsely populated area of the UK. Dounreays legacy will be there forever as long as we have tenancy of this planet.
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mutually Assured Destruction, all inextricably linked to nuclear power it is time to stop this madness before it stops us all for good.
#8 by Indy on March 15, 2011 - 12:12 pm
I don’t think there is really a problem with nimbys. I seem to remember reading that public opinion was quite strongly in favour of renewables projects. That is certainly my impression. Yes the nimbys have loud voices but they don’t speak for the majority.
My aunt for example lives near the Whitelees wind farm. At the time it was first planned there was a bit of a local campaign against which she supported but she now thinks it’s fantastic – and it is an amazing place. There are cycle paths and walking paths, there is even a visitor centre and a cafe. They get loads of people coming.
So I do feel that once things are up and running a lot of the opposition dies out. I find them to be quite beautiful – probably the least visually intrusive form of infrastructure in any landscape. I know people who are against them are really against them. But they are the minority.
#9 by Doug Daniel on March 15, 2011 - 12:51 pm
Iain MacWhirter’s blog is predicting the demise of nuclear power completely. I hope he’s right since there is no place for nuclear power in Scotland, but I suspect the nuclear lobby is well in there with the Labour and Tory parties. While it would be pretty crude to use this as an outright election issue, it would perhaps be pertinent for SNP and Green activists to highlight their parties’ stances on nuclear power, just to remind people.
What would be really welcome is a serious debate on the costs – financial, ecological and human – of each type of energy, so the public can decide for themselves. That would include construction and decommissioning costs, so the “nuclear power is cheap” mantra would be exposed for the untruth that it is.
#10 by Paul on March 15, 2011 - 1:55 pm
On this specific issue which is getting a little bit off topic the direct reasoning against the biomass is :-
Your example of 1st gen power stations doesn’t quite match the biomass because a) there was mountainloads of coal to use for years and years until it got it right and b) biomass fuel (timber mainly) actually seems to be a scarce resource and will have to be be shipped in from elsewhere as there simply isn’t enough land to grow it all in Scotland. Not exactly environmentally friendly. And we’ve already seen that biofuels compete for land with food and drive the price of land/food up.
Final point, there is a limited amount of money available to “renewables” and I think it would be better spend on other sources of energy. Maybe if all the money from nuclear could come to green technologies instead …
#11 by Danny1995 on March 15, 2011 - 4:14 pm
Very good post Jeff I agree completely. I’m against nuclear power and also against nuclear weapons, having said that, I do think Trident should be replaced with a nuclear defence system that will stop us being nuked. So yeah, no to nuclear power/defence and yes to renewables and defence mechanism.
#12 by Sean on March 15, 2011 - 5:20 pm
Douglas is right – the premise of your second sentence is wrong. But for the wrong reasons – it’s not the Canaries we should be worried about, it’s the Norwegian coastal shelf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
#13 by John Ruddy on March 15, 2011 - 5:54 pm
I will raise my head above the parapet here and say tha we need nuclear as much as we need renewables – to secure our energy supply and de-carbonise our electricity.
As it happens, the plant in Japan was deisgned in the 1960’s to withstand a magnitude 8.2 quake, and it actually withstood a magnitude 9 quake – much more powerful by a factor of almost 10. Many of the issues now causing concern (cooling systems etc) are addressed in recent designs. What really did for the reactors was not the quake, nor the backup system, but the backup system’s backup system failing. And most of the radiation that has been released is low and level iodine and caesium with half-lifes measured in the seconds – some of the isotopes decayed before they had a chance to cross the street.
It shouldnt be difficult to design a power station (of whatever fuel type) to withstand an aircraft crashing into it – and it would probably be a good thing if they were – again whatever the fuel type.
An interesting statistic I read the other day – more people died in coal mining last year than have died as a result of nuclear power since it was invented.
#14 by Bill Pickford on March 15, 2011 - 8:47 pm
Jeff, you said:
‘The likelihood of a tsunami or a size 8.9 earthquake hammering our east coast is practically zero.’
Once upon a time the Tories were going to dump nuclear waste in Scotland. They chose the Mullwarcher Hills as the strata was so dense and stable – unfortunately, at about 5.30 one morning the whole area was shaken by an earthquake. No more was mentioned about waste…
I was 18 and working down the Killoch Colliery at the time and the noise in the roadways was deafening – I’ve never been as shit-scared in my life.
So, earthquakes happen – and they do happen here.
#15 by John Ruddy on March 16, 2011 - 4:50 pm
I dont think anyone has said that no earthquakes happen here – just that we are not going to get one that size. Bear in mind that the Japan earthquake is something like the 3rd most powerful in the last 100 years – in the world. The design withstood the earthquake, but highlighted some of the backup processes which could be improved.
Bear in mind this reactor was designed in the 1960’s, and virtually all of the design “faults” are not part of existing designs.
#16 by Nconway on March 15, 2011 - 8:59 pm
So far in Scotland the SNP government has stopped the building of new nuclear power plants and have invested in renewables so Scots have the choice of voting Green,Tory,Lib dems and getting a pro nuclear Labour government or voting SNP and having an anti nuclear SNP government with a Green input .
#17 by Indy on March 16, 2011 - 9:23 am
I wonder if there is any research on gender differences in attitudes to nuclear power. I say that because all of the people who argue that nuclear power can be made safe seem to be men, while most of the women I know take the Sod’s Law approach. If a thing can go wrong it will go wrong. I am with the women on this one. We have to assume that any nuclear power plant can go wrong and take our decisions on that basis, judging what level of risk is acceptable in view of the alternatives available to us.
We are all crossing our fingers and hoping for the best in Japan but what about those poor men fighting on site to cool the reactors and stop the worst happening. What kind of life expectancy do we think they now have?
It’s just horrendous and I think an emotional response and reaction against nuclear power is quite justified.
#18 by mav on March 21, 2011 - 10:29 pm
So why is it that a succession of UK energy ministers have gone into the role (Milliband, D; Huhne being two) against nuclear, and quickly changed their minds? Is it because they have to keep the lights on?
And before you point out that the SNP haven’t changed their minds, they know how to too keep the lights on:
http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&cat=Campaigning&nid=JMT-N10555
Sorry, but if the plan is renewables combined with importing electricity from English nuclear, then thats hypocritical. And despite the denials, I can’t see any other way.