nuclear-news

Dangerous and expensive, nuclear power is a dead end for Scotland

By George Baxter

 I’ve been through every argument that the nuclear industry
makes promoting new nuclear power stations – but scratch the surface and
they just melt through the floor. New nuclear is fundamentally not needed –
numerous studies, including by Stanford University and renowned energy
modellers at LUT show that the UK, and indeed most, if not all, other
countries can meet their energy needs with 100% renewables.

Politicians’ fears about the wind and sun and the rain and the waves and tides being
unable to meet all our needs are misplaced. Renewables, energy storage,
energy efficiency and flexible power with a modern upgraded grid can do it
all – cheaper, quicker, safer and a hell of a lot cleaner, and create many
more thousands of jobs.

The cost of nuclear power is eye-watering. Look at
Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – nearly £100bn to build them both with
massive delays and cost -over-runs. That is enough to install a 5kWh
battery in every one of the 28 million homes in Britain, and leave £44bn
for other things. Combine that with solar and every home becomes a power
station with its own ‘baseload’.

Alternatively, £100bn could fund planned
upgrades to the grid needed to facilitate large and small renewables, twice
over. The Coire Glas pumped hydro storage project in the Highlands could be
built 50 times over. £100bn spent on a nuclear-free transition could be
revolutionary.

What a renewables-based system needs is flexible power,
energy storage and a smart, modern grid. Surplus renewable electricity
could also be used to generate ”green hydrogen” to generate electricity
on calm, dull days. It could also be used to power heavy transport and
industry.

Battery systems, including compressed air and pumped storage
hydro, alongside vehicle-to-grid technology, can all be parts of the
bedrock of energy security and an energy system that would be cooking with
green power 24/7.

Nuclear does nothing to help any of this. Indeed, it is
worse, it directly causes wind and solar plants to be switched off when
green power is plentiful, because nuclear is so inflexible. Not only does
nuclear cost an arm and a leg, it adds cost to the consumer for renewables

We only have to look at the recent history of nuclear power to see how
dangerous and polluting it is. Fukushima remains a slow motion disaster for
Japan as they scramble to deal with millions of gallons of radioactive
water and melted reactor cores. Chernobyl’s 40-year anniversary this week
is another timely reminder, that when things go wrong, they can go very
wrong.

At least when a wind turbine breaks down you don’t need an exclusion
zone for decades and mass public health measures – you just get some
engineers with a crane and some spanners to go fix it.

And despite what the
‘nuke, baby, nuke’ lobby says, there is no solution for the waste yet,
other than to store and guard the most highly radioactive cores for
hundreds of years to cool down out of the way somewhere. That’s the
solution!

The hype about Small Modular Reactors is just that, hype. In
fact, the only two operational SMRs are in China and Russia, and both have
been beset by delays and cost increases. The economies of scale are lost,
and studies have shown that they produce more highly radioactive waste for
the same generating capacity than their slightly larger cousins.

These projects are pure spin, a clever wheeze by industry lobbyists intended to
promote nuclear acceptability – small, click and collect, a kind of
middle-aisle at LIDL feel to it. In the words of energy expert Amory Lovins
on SMRs: “This illusion neatly fits the industry’s business-model shift
from selling products to harvesting subsidies.”

The Rolls Royce SMR –
chosen by Great British Energy-Nuclear to be built at Wylfa in North Wales
– is a 470MW reactor, not much smaller than the two Torness reactors, which
are about 600MW each. And then there is the fuel – uranium ore is needed
and we don’t have any, (and the mining of it is handily missed out in
nuclear promotional graphics comparing its land use to renewables, which
also fail to point out that the land around solar arrays and turbines can
still be used for traditional purposes).

Mind you, there is some
recoverable uranium ore on the Orkney mainland – and when it was proposed
to dig it up to use it at Dounreay last century, all hell broke loose and
Orcadians stopped it by popular protest. So we would have to rely on
imports of this global commodity – a market that is dominated by Russia and
associates.

Pete Roche of SCRAM put this well when commenting on a recent
poll indicating only 14% of Scots thought we should focus on uranium
fuelled nuclear reactors for our long term energy security needs:
“Relying on a uranium-fuelled nuclear future is like jumping out of the
oil and gas frying pan and into a nuclear fire – it makes no sense and
Scots seem to get that.”

We should just get on with building a country
that is a renewable energy powerhouse so that future generations can look
back and thank us for choosing a green, clean and sustainable energy route.
Nuclear is NOT a natural partner with renewables, indeed, it is a delaying
tactic, holding back rapid decarbonisation, and adds extra and unnecessary
cost to a renewables-based energy system.

Herald 29th April 2026, https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/26064131.dangerous-expensive-nuclear-power-dead-end-scotland/

May 2, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK