Why Ministers say no to nuclear power
10/10/2007
The UK Government is 'consulting' on the future of nuclear power, despite already making up its mind to allow development of new nuclear power stations. Such developments would be costly, harmful to the environment, and ultimately unnecessary. Here's why.
We have a wealth of clean electricity generation opportunities. The Scottish Government is encouraging the development of low carbon technologies such as renewable energy, micro-generation, combined heat and power and carbon capture and storage while pursuing greater energy efficiency savings.
Scotland is already a world leader in the energy and engineering sectors and is known for its innovation and talent. Harnessing this talent to develop low carbon energy, including renewable energy will give us a vibrant and growing energy sector that makes a significant contribution to Scotland's future wealth and prosperity.
I hear talk of an energy gap without new nuclear power. This is an unlikely scenario for Scotland. Scotland has an estimated 60 Gigawatts of potential renewable energy resource - 10 times the current peak Scottish demand. There are already five Gigawatts of renewable energy projects in Scotland either seeking consent or being planned. Scotland's geography offers us a vast opportunity for clean renewable energy supplies.
New nuclear build is being sold as a means to address climate change. But the full carbon costs of nuclear power, including mining, processing, transportation and decommissioning, need to be taken into account. The Scottish Government believes that renewable energy generation produces less carbon than nuclear power.
We recognise the imperative of tackling climate change through our commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. The development of clean technology will play a vital part in moving us down the track to that target.
With new nuclear power comes harmful radioactive waste, which cannot simply be ignored and will leave a legacy lasting for thousands of years. I believe the risks and uncertainties of nuclear power, in terms of waste disposal, decommissioning, security and health concerns, or cost, are far too great.
Look at the cost of decommissioning the UK's existing nuclear facilities - it's already a staggering £62 billion.
Constructing new nuclear facilities would add further billions of pounds to the costs, which are likely to be even higher than the UK Government estimates. Uranium prices are soaring and will continue to rise.
The sums of money involved are astounding - and these costs will inevitably be passed on to the taxpayer or the consumer somewhere down the line.
So what would our money buy? It would buy public concern about potential new nuclear power stations being built close to their communities; concern over radiation leaks and health impacts; a legacy of radioactive waste; potential targets for terrorists.
What it won't buy is the answer to long term energy security - it will simply lock the Government into reliance on other countries for a supply of uranium. Nuclear is the wrong answer to the energy challenges we face.
I propose a simple solution to the UK Government. Take just a small proportion of the cost of developing new nuclear facilities and invest this in research and development of long-term clean energy alternatives.
A small investment by comparison, that would assure our place in the future as a world energy leader in green energy. It is these opportunities that will meet future demands, help tackle climate change, and ensure energy security.
I oppose the development of new nuclear power stations. I hope the UK Government now comes to its senses and accepts the folly of embarking on a programme that will cost future generations dearly.