nuclear-news

A Nuclear Renaissance for Scotland?

By Mike Small, 5th February 2026, https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2026/02/05/a-nuclear-renaissance-for-scotland/

At an exciting launch in Glasgow tonight where Sam Richards (CEO Britain Remade. Ex No10) will lay out his plans for new nuclear power in  Scotland:

“Looking forward to speaking at the launch of this later. A nuclear renaissance is taking place across the world and Scotland shouldn’t be left behind.”

Tonight will see the launch of something called ‘Scotland for Nuclear Energy’ with support from groups like ‘Nuclear for Scotland‘, which has no information about itself on its own website, and Home | Minerva Health Physics Ltd which ‘are a dedicated team of experts in radiation protection and radioactive waste management’, and the North Highland Chamber of Commerce. Home – Caithness Chamber of Commerce

The launch was nicely timed in the week when it was revealed that the UK Govt has buried “almost 200 containers” of radioactive material underground in Scotland.
*
Today Britain Remade announced: “Today we’re part of the launch of Scotland For Nuclear Energy – a coalition of communities, businesses and campaigners calling on the Scottish Government to lift the ban on new nuclear power in Scotland.”

It’s not clear exactly who the ‘communities’ are, but maybe that will become clearer at the launch.

According to ‘Britain Remade’: “We are not affiliated with, or part of, any political party.”

But Sam Richards is the Director of the network of conservative environmentalists and caucus of green Conservative MPs, and was the Special Advisor to the PM on Energy & Environment (2019-2022). He’s a Boris SPAD. And Jeremy Driver (Head of Campaigns), is a former Lloyds Banker and Parliamentary Assistant to Ann Soubry. Sam Dumitriu is Head of Policy at Britain Remade who formerly worked at the Adam Smith Institute. Jason Brown is Head of Communications for Britain Remade, a former No. 10 media Special Adviser and Ben Houchen’s comms Adviser.

These are Tory SPADS working on their own campaign to support new nuclear in Scotland: Lift The Ban On New Scottish Nuclear Power.

Jeremy and Sam are a bit shy about the costs of nuclear power, and so they should be. Anas Sarwar and Labour energy minister Michael Shanks are enthusiastic. But, as John Proctor has pointed out, they too aren’t very up front about costs.

Proctor writes [I spent decades in energy. Here are the problems with UK nuclear plans]:

“They of course don’t want to talk about the European Power Reactor (EPR) configuration being installed at astronomical cost at Hinkley C. This project is forecast to cost around £45 billion when it finally comes online sometime next decade.”

“It is not easy to get a proper sense of this sum, but it might surprise people to realise that this is the equivalent of paying £1 million every single day for 120 years – and this is just the construction cost. We have not even started talking about operational costs, asset management and asset decommissioning.”

Remake Britain, or Scotland for Nuclear Energy (it’s not entirely clear if they are one and the same thing) are great at PR, managing to create this fantastic puff piece by Paris Gourtsoyannis on the BBC ‘News’ channel: The nuclear power station at the centre of the political divide in Scotland.

They’ve also managed to somehow try and re-create the ‘Nuclear Power No Thanks’ badge from the 1970s with a super-cringey ‘Nuclear Power Aye Cheers’ slogan.

SCRAM (Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace) have issued a rebuttal to all this astroturfing.

Pete Roche, spokesperson for SCRAM said: “As renewable energy-rich Scotland heads towards an election, it is all too predictable that nuclear lobbyists are again arguing that Scotland needs new nuclear power stations. They misleadingly present them as cheap, clean and ‘green’ – yet this is as far from the truth as it was 70 years ago when it was promised that nuclear energy would be ‘too cheap to meter’

“An energy system built around renewables is already happening. Meeting all our needs this way is not just possible, but it’s quicker and cheaper without the costly distraction of new nuclear. Low-cost renewable energy combined with storage, flexible power to balance the grid and smart local energy systems will make the best use of our incredible renewable resources and engineering know-how. Why dilute that by backing eye-wateringly expensive nuclear power stations?”

“The highly skilled nuclear workforce will be kept busy for decades in decommissioning the sites at Torness, Hunterston, Chapelcross and Dounreay – and completing a sustainable renewable energy system is already bringing huge demand for skilled energy professionals. The renewables sector is the future, and where the focus for skills must remain.”

”A 100% renewable-based energy system will be cheaper, better for jobs and energy security, and be truly green and sustainable. We hope the information we have provided will be useful to all political parties and voters, and help to balance out the misleading propaganda of the nuclear PR machine.”

One of the other myths that SCRAM is keen to dispel is the notion that new nuclear power is a solution to climate change. They state:

“Nuclear power stations are not resilient to climate change. They are usually on the coast where sea levels are rising and storm surges could threaten installations. They require large quantities of water to keep cool and avert meltdowns. [see Nuclear Energy isn’t a Safe Bet in a Warming World – Here’s Why, by Paul Dorfman, The Conversation https://theconversation.com/nuclear-energy-isnt-a-safe-bet-in-a-warming-world-heres-why-163371 ]

“Using nuclear plants to address climate change involves unacceptable risks. Risks include the possibility of serious accidents; an unsolved radioactive waste problem; the environmental damage caused by uranium mining, yet another nuclear target for terrorists or in armed conflict and increased nuclear weapons proliferation. Renewable energy risks none of these.”

“Tackling climate change is urgent, so requires the fastest and cheapest solutions. We must spend our limited resources as effectively, quickly and fairly as possible. Amory B. Lovins, adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, explains that saving the most carbon per pound, as quickly as possible, requires not just energy generation that doesn’t burn fossil fuels, but also generation that is deployable with the least cost and time. That rules out nuclear energy as an answer to climate change. In fact, nuclear worsens climate change by spending valuable resources on a solution which is much too slow and too costly.” [see Why Nuclear Power Is Bad for Your Wallet and the Climate].

There is no case for new nuclear in Scotland.

These front groups and astroturf projects are attempting to paper over the cracks about Britain’s ageing and decrepit nuclear programme [Revealed: 585 cracks in Torness nuclear reactor ]. They are a costly clandestine distraction which threatens to undermine the urgent need to shift to clean energy and decarbonise the economy.

February 8, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK