nuclear-news

Anas Sarwar’s insistences on nuclear energy serves wrong people.

Last week, Anas Sarwar challenged John Swinney over his
determination to continue SNP policy that uses planning to veto new nuclear
power plants in Scotland. Sarwar announced at FMQs that 29% of the energy
mix that morning came from nuclear.

John Swinney pointed out 70% came from
renewables and suggested Labour would only muddy the water for investors in
Scotland if they focused unduly on the “junior partner” in the energy
mix.

Sarwar then pointed out China has built 29 nuclear power plants. Fine
– China has also built two-thirds of the world’s wind and solar
resource, yet its use of coal also makes it the world’s largest emitter.

Which tells us what precisely? Forget China – focus on Scotland. Scotland
backing nuclear is like geothermal and hydro-powered Iceland backing gas.
It makes no sense at all. Our destiny is to develop clean, green baseload
energy sources for ourselves and the rest of the world.

What’s so wrong with nuclear?

Jings, where to start? Nuclear costs more to produce, plants
take far longer to construct, leave behind radioactive waste and depend
largely on highly enriched uranium derived from Russia and workers forced
to risk radiation and exploitation.

Wind critics complain that
intermittency means baseload (flick of a switch) energy like gas must be
ready for wind-free days. But nuclear isn’t flick of a switch either –
it takes too long to power up and down so stays permanently on (apart from
planned maintenance) even when wind is high.

Last year, six international
academics were so worried about Labour’s new stance, they issued a joint
statement. Maybe it didn’t reach the new Prime Minister, but it was
published in The National. Professor Steve Thomas, Dr Paul Dorfman,
Professor MV Ramana, Professor Amory Lovins and Tetsunari Iida stated that
after 60 years of commercial history, “nuclear power is further from, not
nearer to, survival without massive public subsidies”, and contributes as
much electricity in one year as renewables add in three days.

Nuclear isn’t cheaper – anywhere. The German Institute for Economic Research
examined 674 nuclear power plants built across the world since 1951 and
found the average plant made a loss of €4.8 billion. It also isn’t
greener – the International Panel on Climate Change says renewables are
now 10 times more efficient than nuclear at CO2 mitigation.

And it certainly isn’t quicker. Professor Naomi Oreskes from Harvard University
wrote in Scientific American: “The most recent US nuclear power reactors
were started in 2013 and are still not finished. That’s the problem with
imagined ‘breakthrough’ technologies. The breakthrough can be sudden,
but implementation is slow.” [Sarwar] wrote a column for the Daily Record
which insisted: “John Swinney could end the SNP’s ideological
opposition to nuclear power, with the stroke of a pen.” Ah, Anas. The
boot’s on the other foot.

Opposition to nuclear in Scotland isn’t
ideological. But Labour’s deep attachment certainly is. Anas Sarwar also
contended that if Swinney backed nuclear, “he could unlock billions of
pounds of investment in Scotland and create spates of new quality jobs”.
Mmm. Spates. Maybe this was written in a hurry. Like the billions not
invested by the City of London in Sizewell or Hinkley C over the past
decade? Come on.

So, what’s Labour’s nuclear love-in really about? Some
think Starmer inherited “an absolute monster” after the Tories’ bad
decision to put billions of public cash into Sizewell. But others like
Professor Andrew Stirling and senior research fellow Philip Johnstone
advanced a different theory in the latest edition of the European:
“Nuclear affections are a military romance. Powerful defence interests
– with characteristic secrecy and highly active PR – are mostly driving
the dogged persistence.”

 The National 13th Feb 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24931561.anas-sarwars-insistences-nuclear-energy-serves-wrong-people/

February 15, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK