YOUR front page story today about nuclear power, and the impending complete lack of it in Scotland (“SNP failed to study impact of nuclear plant closures on bills”, The Herald, February 17), is long overdue. Failure to build nuclear power stations has been the greatest strategic failure in terms of energy by Scottish and UK governments of all stripes for the past 40 years. So it’s no surprise that we now find ourselves in an energy crisis, with thousands of families faced with the choice of heating or eating.
You write that “concerns have persisted over the safety of nuclear power and the environmental impact of disposing of harmful waste”. Nuclear power is incredibly safe. How many people have died as a result of nuclear power plants being built? And how many have died during the production of fossil fuels; how many will die as the climate changes and great areas of our planet become uninhabitable or unproductive as we burn those fuels?
I’ve never understood the safety concerns about nuclear power and wonder if they come from confusion between civil nuclear power generation and the spectacular and terrifying power of nuclear weapons. Same basic science, very different technologies. The Japanese nuclear plant at Fukushima was destroyed by a huge earthquake and a tsunami; it didn’t explode.
As for fears about radiation from spent nuclear fuel, they too have been exaggerated. Small amounts of radiation are a normal part of our environment and, if you live in the likes of Aberdeen with chunks of granite around, you’re likely to get more than the UK average dose. But I don’t hear anyone calling for the evacuation of Aberdeen; not yet, anyway.
You report that the Scottish Government’s vision statement refers to “increasing interest in the development of new nuclear technologies”. I assume it means nuclear fusion, which involves bringing together atoms of isotopes of hydrogen, rather than fission, which involves splitting large atoms, usually uranium. Nuclear fusion produces less radiation than fission but, if the Government thinks it’s going to ride over the horizon and solve our energy crisis, I suggest it thinks again: the technology was just over the horizon when I was at university, and that was 50 years ago.
It’s time for Holyrood to stop issuing vacuous vision statements and get on with resolving the current problems with our energy supply, problems that are at least in part of its own making.
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
* ONCE again we learn of the lack of foresight shown by the Scottish Government. With the closure of Hunterston B, it is likely that Scotland will have to import more energy from elsewhere in the UK when adequate supply from wind power is not available. Scotland now has only one nuclear power station at Torness, which is understood to be closing in 2028. Questions are being asked about the capability of Scotland to attain its targets for reduction in emissions when the time comes when there is no nuclear power available here. Moreover, as matters stand, there must be concern for the security of supply in Scotland when Torness comes to the end of its operational life.
The Westminster Government and Rolls-Royce are investing in research into small modular reactors. The Scottish Government is currently awaiting developments with regard to “new nuclear technologies” and remains resistant to any new nuclear stations applying current technologies being considered. Let us hope that in its updated energy strategy soon to be published, the Scottish Government will make clear its position with regard to the situation after the closure of Torness and the effects of that both on security of supply in Scotland and on the estimated costs of supply to customers.
Ian W Thomson, Lenzie
0 Comments