Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scotland left off new nuclear map

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
20 May 2007
THE building of new nuclear power plants in Scotland has been effectively ruled out by one of the UK's leading electricity providers.
British Energy has described Scotland as "the least attractive part of the UK" to base a new station following the election victory of the anti-nuclear power SNP.

The firm is the UK's biggest provider of nuclear power and its statement makes it almost certain no new plants will be built north of the Border.

The move comes as a new white paper on energy, which is expected to lay the foundations for more UK nuclear power, is to be published by ministers in Westminster this week.

Trade and Industry Minister Alistair Darling warned yesterday about "the lights going out" if energy plants in the UK were not renewed.

However, the SNP government has said it is committed to blocking any new nuclear stations in Scotland. Under the terms of devolution, it has the power to withhold planning permission for new stations, even though energy policy is reserved by Westminster.

Currently, Scotland has two working nuclear power stations: Torness in East Lothian, and Hunterston in Ayrshire. They are expected to close in 2010 and 2023 respectively.

A decision must be made soon on replacements, but it is clear that the main producers who will decide where to build have now put Scotland at the bottom of their list.

A spokeswoman for British Energy said: "When we get to the point of deciding, Scotland is the least attractive part of the UK to have a nuclear power station now."

The high costs of transmitting energy from Scotland to England are said to be one factor, but the fact that the new Scottish Executive is opposed to nuclear power has now practically ruled out the plans altogether.

The move comes as the cooling towers at the old Chapelcross nuclear power station, near Annan, are due to be demolished today.

While ministers north of the Border insist Hunterston and Torness will follow, Labour chiefs at Westminster insist nuclear power must be an option.

The SNP's opposition to nuclear power prompted warnings from Labour MPs last night that Scotland would struggle to power homes and businesses.

Currently, 38% of the country's electricity is nuclear.

Scots Labour MP Michael Connarty said: "One expert I listened to profiled the longest period that they could foresee Scotland surviving, even with the growth of wind power, without having to cut off the electricity or switch off the lights. It would be 16 years without nuclear."

In an indication of the ill-feeling that could follow if Scotland refused to play a full role in a nationwide energy strategy, a spokesman for the Department of Trade & Industry said: "Scotland and the rest of the UK are on one electricity network now. Issues of climate change and security of supply apply to Scottish people as much as the rest of the UK."

However, First Minister Alex Salmond is insistent that Scotland can meet carbon reduction targets by greatly expanding its renewable sector and by pioneering techniques such as clean coal technology and carbon capture.

Last week he visited Scotland's two coal-fired power stations to investigate proposals that they could be converted to clean coal technology under £1.5bn plans by ScottishPower.

Industry experts said that market forces would probably stop nuclear energy coming to Scotland, regardless of the political situation.

Simon James, of the Nuclear Industry Association, the trade group for the nuclear industry, said firms were "relaxed" about the implications of Scottish hostility towards their business.

He said: "The likelihood is that the demand for new nuclear power will be much more in the southeast of England than anywhere else."

He added: "There is space to build, there is a great connection to the network - and the political conditions are much more favourable than in Scotland."

Chapelcross demolition pulls the plug
The demolition of Chapelcross nuclear station this morning will bring to an end 48 years of power generation at the huge plant.

Built on a former Second World War airfield, the station has dominated the skyline around the Dumfriesshire town of Annan since 1959, when it began operating as Scotland's first nuclear power station.

The station's four 300ft-high cooling towers are visible from three counties: Dumfriesshire, Cumbria and Northumberland.

The plant also produces weapons-grade plutonium for the UK's nuclear weapons programme. But its main purpose has been to generate electricity for the National Grid.

The station has sustained the local economy over the years, offering well-paid jobs to hundreds of workers.

It has largely escaped the notoriety of other nuclear centres such as Sellafield and Dounreay. Only one serious accident took place, in 1967, when a partial meltdown knocked out one of the reactors for two years.

The reactors were closed down in 2004, beginning the decades-long process of clearing the site. Radioactive material will be taken to Sellafield for reprocessing. By 2030, it is hoped the area will become a greenfield site, leaving little memory of its industrial past.

An exclusion zone has been erected today for the demolition, which is expected to last just 10 seconds. It will be shown live at www.chapelcrosscoolingtowers.com

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 May 2007 10:04 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

robbie runciman,

Lydd 20/05/2007 00:00:20

if this is true, can the SNP put a candidate up in Kent:I live near Dungeness, in fact I can see it as I type, we are likley to get a new one - dungeness C.

Although it puzzles me why, the site is 0 metres above sea level and if the reason for building it is climate change which is going to push sea level up by 2080, its a big risk?
Maybe climate change is only politically true when its useful to business and the politiariat?

2

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 20/05/2007 00:36:40

A bit of relief for Scotland then, and I hope all those under-the-table talks between Scottish local authorities & bnfl & Westminster over grants to site nuclear waste dumps get the kick out of the box too ... http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/10/25143454
.. the red text may be the dead giveaway the SNP won't agree to this one !

#1. robbie the lydder, Lydd

Your wish is our command ! . SNP to rescue England from the clutches of New Labour Nuclear ?

3

Guga II,

Rockall 20/05/2007 01:57:12

Excellent.

4

Calgacus,

20/05/2007 02:17:58

Good, that was easy! Next?

5

Wisnaeme,

20/05/2007 02:19:09

'
I'm surprised that himself,the lobbyist of the glow in the dark persuasion and ex something or other of the electricity has not put his tuppence worth in.No doubt that the four eyed, wee weasel, Mr Brian Wilson will be having his say shortly.

By the way, is that so called "left wing" rag of a newspaper, locally called the Beano having some problems at the moment, Brian? Financial ones perhaps, not inferring; just asking.
.

6

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 20/05/2007 02:35:21

-- And we can get rid of the old Nuclear Submarines
berthed at Rosyth as well.

The Backyard Boatyard is busy with team OK racing at present, but yes, we could charter an ocean going tug and take them somewhere ...

7

matthew in davao,

philippines 20/05/2007 02:43:11

wonderful

8

www.scottwebb.co.uk..,

20/05/2007 03:27:24

Comment@2 Hi Peter, totally agreed :)

9

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 20/05/2007 03:54:17

#9. www.scottwebb.co.uk..

now, since we have a new Executive, time for the newspapers to do an FOI to see which Councils sent in a few queries ... unless they went up in smoke last week of course !

10

Bill, Dunblane,

20/05/2007 04:52:34

I understood that Scotland produces FAR more energy than we use, even without nuclear.

Figures anyone?

11

fred bloggs,

planet earth 20/05/2007 05:16:31

Coal fired power stations emit more radioactvity than nuclear ones.

12

Bill, Dunblane,

20/05/2007 05:19:27

12 - Fred

Does that mean that bings are deadly for 250,000 years?

13

lush,

uk 20/05/2007 06:13:07

Is there anywhere where "www.scottwebb.co.uk"; hasn't made a comment!!!!!!!!...

14

fred bloggs,

20/05/2007 06:25:21

13. The contamination comes out of the smoke stacks. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium.

15

Keke,

Aberdeenshire 20/05/2007 06:54:09

Hang on a minute ... exactly how are we going to fill the looming energy gap without nuclear power, and if we don't have our own power stations we'll have to buy the stuff from those that do. It's all very well being pleased that these things aren't on our own doorstep, but if there's ever a nuclear accident in England the fallout won't stop when it sees Hadrians wall. A southerly breeze will kill as many up here in Scotland as in England. Chenobyl posioned most of Europe, including the north of England. The so called 'green revolution' isn't happening fast enough to do the job despite recent advances, we will find imported power very expensive and we share the risk in the case of an accident. It might be an unpopular thing to say but the labour governments policy of doing nothing in the hope the problem will go away has left us needing nuclear power, in fact it's too late already to start building them, we already import power from France. Do we really want to have to import and pay for power from a new generation of power stations in England in the future? so much for being an independent nation.
I'm not, despite the above, in favour of nuclear power, but I'm not in favour of sitting in the dark and cold either. Of course we 're not stupid, we'd all go out and buy generators to cover the blackouts ... so much for cutting down emissions. This is a problem that will effect all of us soon, and jumping up and down with glee because one of the solutions isn't coming here doesn't help.

16

fred bloggs,

20/05/2007 07:23:47

Why can't they simply refurbish Torness?

17

Phil C,

20/05/2007 07:37:44

To me nuclear power stations are not a clearcut problem. Now if they were to clear Scotland of Trident and it's trappings, then that would be worth celebrating.

18

Jeeemy,

20/05/2007 07:42:27

Bill Dunblane,
try this Currently, 38% of the country's electricity is nuclear.
the coal fired Cockenzie and Longanet provide 30%
the remainder come from Hydro and Hydro pump storage with 0.5% from wind.

19

ddmc,

20/05/2007 08:25:24

Ah but wind energy is more PC & Nouvelle Green.
But IMHO we should be pursuing wave energy technology & being an Island ......Also no big turbines to scar the landscape.

20

Boy Wonder,

20/05/2007 08:42:50

NO to Windpower and massive turbines scarring the landscape, YES to wavepower and harvesting the sea.

We still need to work on Nuclear Fusion though. Once that's conquered, then we can bring back the reactors.

21

Keke,

Aberdeenshire 20/05/2007 08:52:02

#23 Boy Wonder,

Mr. Burns harvested the sea, with his patented 'Burns Omni Net', quite successfully too .... until that eco-idiot Lisa ruined it all .... oh sorry, that wasn't real ... was it?

22

The Strategist,

20/05/2007 08:54:08

#17. danielrober

I see you live in London. Anywhere near the City perhaps? If so pop round and ask them why US VCs and others can put over $3bn into new clean energy start-ups but we can't even manage a few tens of millions.

And while you're there ask them why it is that Norway now has companies building tidal current systems, hydrogen electrolysers, solar power systems and even electric cars..

The future is nuclear free.... But it's probably Norwegian, German or American... again !

23

Andra, Dundee,

20/05/2007 09:02:32

#5 Calgacus

Cool - see if you can fix global warming now. Maybe your plan is to switch the lights out - even rationed power - that would help. A bit of economic recession caused by no electric that would reduce out carbon emissions. The SNP will have all our problems fixed in a flash.

24

Goat Boy,

20/05/2007 09:06:47

16 and 17: I hope this is another example of the Scotsman getting it all wrong! The SNP want economic expansion then it says no to nuclear power. How are we going to fill the 38% short fall when the nuclear stations shut down?

I guess we could buy power from England when we run short. That should make them smile.

But there's always Ikea - it sells a good range of candles. I suggest you start stocking up, before the SNP plunges Scotland into a new dark age.

26

fimo,

20/05/2007 09:50:32

#26 and 30: Both very good points.

Nuclear is providing a great deal of the nation’s power and we will need this contribution if we are to support this rapid rate of growth. For example, how much power is required just to run all the computers that we didn't have ten years ago? Now consider all the new homes and the new electrical appliances that are used in these homes. Now add the offices, industry, retail parks, the lighting systems that keep our cities illuminated all night, the leisure centres. We use a ridiculous amount of energy and the demand is going to grow. The coal fired stations are old technology and are nearing the end of their operational lives.

As a nation, we need to start looking towards the future and we need to make some decisions very soon.

27

John S,

20/05/2007 10:20:05

#11 (Bill, Dunblane ) - I remember reading somewhere that the total power that Scotland can produce as 9,000MW and this may include Hunterston B which is due to get decommissioned in 2011 ? with Torness in 2023.

And I think on the coldest day in winter the maximum demand within Scotland was 4400MW and during the summer 2300MW or less.

The main producers in Scotland are:-

Torness 1200MW
Cockenzie 1200MW
(Hunterson B - 1200MW)
Peterhead 1550MW (2391MW)
Longannet 2400MW

The installed capacity of Peterhead stands at 2391MW, the transmission system at Peterhead however, limits production to 1550MW.

There is also hydro and pump storage generation and the Peterhead power station planned by BP in co-operation with Scottish & Southern Power would produce 475 megawatts and cost over £500m. This has been delayed.

Scottish Power and Norwegian oil giants Statoil aim to build a device on the bed of the Pentland Firth to (produce 1000 megawatts of power) - as much as all Scotland's windfarms - through wave movement.

Plus wind generation.

All these figures are approx and maybe someone will add/contradict what I have written.

28

historypeople,

edinburgh 20/05/2007 10:56:15

IF this article is true - and it comes from Eddie Barnes, so must have a health warning in that respect - it validates the Scottish electorate's decision to remove Labour from office. This is a tremendous early success.

29

boudica,

Glasgow 20/05/2007 11:41:57

I am not a Nuclear Scientist nor an Engineer and am blinded by all the facts and figures here , I prefer the simple explanations . Dont the various forms of power need to be controlled as In wind turbines , I take when there is no wind then there is no power and as for wave power when the sea is calm the same no power , coal power I take can be controlled as with water power stations as in dams and such , same with nuclear power stations . but as climate change is supposed to be increasing at a rate faster than we first thought does that not sort of throw the wave thing out the window as we cannot control the sea...( King Canut comes to mind..sorry for spelling it is Sunday hehe).. as I said I am ignorant of these things but would appreciate a simple explaination ..and for others to control our Energy supplies does concern remembering what Russia did to the Ukraine ...

30

CEBR,

20/05/2007 11:43:05

False dawn, as there is going to be no public money for said new nuclear power plants, scotsland would be the last place any investment would of been made...

31

fimo,

20/05/2007 11:52:20

#36 Boudica:

You are quite right - it is one of the downfalls of sustainable technologies such as wind and wave energy. A study commissioned by the Scottish Executive has highlighted this.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/24110728/14

I also found this summary of how electricity is generated in Scotland on the Executive's website.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Envir...

Enjoy

32

CB,

Edinburgh 20/05/2007 12:07:13

We are producing far more electricity than Scotland actually needs. We are exporting over 50% to England.

So we can close down the nuke plants and still have more than enough electricity for Scotland's requirements. If England needs more, she can host the new nukes herself.

If Salmond follows through on plans for an energy 'super-grid' with Norway then our excess electricity production will have more options for export, thereby reducing dependence on the English market and their rigged charging system.

Good news all round!

33

Heilan Jessie,

20/05/2007 12:44:28

Okay so its less visible and more productive but what about the waste? where does it all end up and will we suffer in the long run?

34

Peajay,

Herts 20/05/2007 14:09:15

Chef #29
You're doing great work, keep it up and the righteous will be vindicated.

35

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 20/05/2007 14:59:35

Sir:
Just send this to me. I am a gick at the Vista and morphing. I will put the matter straight. How much do I get more then the World Bank Manager who had /s a friend and pays her more then Rice. What is Rice eating then with little salary. Bad
Send the map to me. No one is doing anything. Tony goes, he erases Scotland. I did not know he was that bad.

36

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 20/05/2007 15:01:07

NO 35
It is true You doubt the paper???? I dont see Scotland in my Atlas today...........Where is it..?///

37

fred bloggs,

20/05/2007 15:28:12

According to the Royal Society of Edinburgh Report the margin in installed capacity relative to peak demand has reduced to about 20% and is predicted to vanish within 10 years, i.e. there will be electricity rationing by 2015 unless significant new generating capacity is installed.

38

fred bloggs,

20/05/2007 15:38:08

44. Further, from the same report:

'the Scottish Executive should keep open the nuclear generation option in the interests of diversity and security of supply and suppression of greenhouse gas emissions.'

39

Geoff,

South Africa 20/05/2007 15:49:34

Nationalist Dividend?

40

fred bloggs,

20/05/2007 15:54:29

23 & 24: Wave power has not yet been demonstrated commercially; wind power could supply up to 20% if the nimbys get over their aversion to it; nuclear fusion is probably 50 years away.

41

Lauwrie,

England 20/05/2007 18:06:05

Excellent news. Regardless of the pros and cons of nuclear England needs to concern herself with England's energy supply and not a British dimension.

That means English jobs and firms of course.

Anyway , involving Scotland just too much of a pain in the neck .

42

fred bloggs,

20/05/2007 18:06:27

49. Computers already existed in the 1980s. Even a prototype nuclear fusion power generator has yet to be built. 50 years ago they said it would be 50 years. Remember Zeta at Harwell?

43

IWright,

20/05/2007 18:13:04

"A spokeswoman for British Energy said: "When we get to the point of deciding, Scotland is the least attractive part of the UK to have a nuclear power station now."
The high costs of transmitting energy from Scotland to England are said to be one factor"

Putting aside the now mandatory 'blame the SNP' spin from this newspaper and this journalist the above quotation points out Torness is largely used for export.
BTW Mr. Barnes - Any chance of a reply to my question to you - what was the basis for the claim by you that the train crash in Cumbria was caused by the SNLA - and when are you going to apologise for that smear?

44

IWright,

20/05/2007 18:17:00

#52
Not that I'm against replacing Torness. If we don't then the English may just build one in Northumberland instead. In safety distance terms not much difference but if it's on our side of the border:
a. it's an export;
b. it's safety would be under our control;
c. we keep the jobs and skills/knowledge base.

45

Indespair,

20/05/2007 18:19:06

At least we won't have to worry about electronic vote counting in the future. It will all have to be done in the dark by candlelight, unless they can organise the election for a windy day.

46

fred bloggs,

20/05/2007 18:42:00

55.
There are companies who have designed and are testing wave-power generators, including one in Leith employing presumably local engineers. Test sites are being set up in Cornwall, Portugal and Oregon, where prototype devices from several different companies will be compared. It is too early to say when a viable commercial system will come into being.

47

The Strategist,

20/05/2007 20:14:33

Tidal current power has been demonstrated in Englandshire and in Norway.

www.marineturbines.com

http://www.e-tidevannsenergi.com/

Spanish power company Scottish Power has done a deal with the latter to install systems in Scotland. The technology devt was supported by Statoil, the Norske Govt and Norske venture capital.

The MCT system is being installed in Northern Ireland. That technology devt was supported by a Danish bank....

48

GD,

Glasgow 20/05/2007 21:48:26

Perfect, just hope it's not a red herring.

49

Herr General,

Edinburgh 20/05/2007 21:53:18

For those that believe that wave turbines cannot possibly be the way ahead because of "quiet days at sea", there is answer and that is Tidal Steam Turbines.

These turbines rely on the "always on" tidal movement which is particularly powerful in the Pentland Firth. For those who thought the renewables argument was a dead end because they couldn't see beyond the limitations wave turbines, think on, Scotland's engineers have the answer.

For those who think that Scotland's engineers need to rely on work from nuclear industry, think on, please! There is more than enough work in renewables if only we had a government willing to pay for it. Scotland has proven itself a world leader in renewable energy technology yet we have never had the backing of a government (our own) to help expand that industry. Now we do and I say bring on the explosives, Tornobyl and Hunterston have had their day.

50

The Strategist,

20/05/2007 22:24:32

#63 Herr General

Only one problem.. The financial services outfits won't invest in it either. We have the worst investment record on the planet for renewables technology. The banks and VCs simply hope someone else will pay for all the development but then again so does Gordon Brown's lousy Treasury.

51

robbie runciman,

lydd 20/05/2007 22:52:00

On the Greenest Power, the Germans have just crunched the number - so its reliable. Coal fired powerstations linked to schemes that use the hot water emit less carbon than any modern nuclear power station (whose carbon footprint is hefty if you include, digging it, cleaning it up, transporting it, dumping and building the stations)

52

Alex.,

21/05/2007 08:37:01

...but is Scotland still their favourite place to bury nuclear waste......

53

Homer,

21/05/2007 08:42:46

From the article: "Currently, Scotland has two working nuclear power stations: Torness in East Lothian, and Hunterston in Ayrshire. They are expected to close in 2010 and 2023 respectively."

Wrong - Torness is scheduled to close in 2023, and Hunterston in 2011 (though it's possible both could be reconditioned).
http://www.british-energy.co.uk/pagetemplate.php?pid=95
http://www.british-energy.co.uk/pagetemplate.php?pid=90

For detailed energy generation and demand statistics, the Scottish Energy Study is pretty good, though a couple of years out of date (2002).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19092748/6

For example, in 2002:

"... less than 70% of the generated electricity is consumed by a Scottish end-user. Some 13% is lost through self-consumption at [power stations], distribution and transmission losses, or storage losses. In addition, nearly 20% is exported to England and NI."

----- Details for 2002 -----

Generated: 45,517 GWh
- Coal 14,776 GWh (32%)
- Nuclear 15,863 GWh (35%)
- Gas 8,847 GWh (19%)
- Hydro 3,693 GWh (8%)
- Other renewable 1,405 GWh (3%)
- Other non-renewables 933 GWh (2%)

Consumed in Scotland: 32,068 GWh (70%)
Exported: 8.034 GWh (18%)
Losses etc. 5,415 GWh (12%)

54

Colin, Glasgow,

21/05/2007 13:41:07

#65 It sounds pretty unlikely that coal would provide a lower carbon solution than nuclear under any circumstance. Old-fashioned "dirty" coal produces about 900g CO2/kwh. The new allegedly "clean" IGCC plants still produce about 700g. The best clean-coal with carbon capture is estimated to make 100-150g, though no actual plant has been built (they call this "zero carbon").
Nuclear on the other hand produces about 10-20g CO2/kwh through its whole lifecycle. This can be reduced further as fossil fuel reliance is removed from the mining & fuel cycles. Some Swedish nuclear plants are less than 3g, which is lower than any renewable.

55

Colin, Glasgow,

21/05/2007 13:49:04

The rather sad irony in all this is that Scotland's renewable resources are now almost certainly going to be squandered on the task of replacing nuclear stations. This results in no carbon saving at all, and will make us all the more reliant on England for base load.

56

WHISTLEBLOWER,

21/05/2007 16:27:32

"The Backyard Boatyard is busy with team OK racing at present, but yes, we could charter an ocean going tug and take them somewhere ..."

Can someone translate this please? Something to do with Rosyth.

57

fred bloggs,

21/05/2007 19:17:27

70. Could it be old radioactively contaminated submarines in the dockyard?

58

Patsy,

Manynukes U.S;A. 22/05/2007 03:24:14

Please send some folk here to disarm us!Lawrence Livermore Labs ,in Livermore,Ca,have been massively funded for new weapons development to add to the hundreds of thousands already in existance.AND AMERICA PLANS TO NUCLEAR WEAPONIZE S P A C E Help world!

59

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 22/05/2007 19:51:29

The graphite moderating blocks in the AGR's are crumbling as they do when irradiated. The debris may block the channels into which the control rods, which shut the reactor down, drop. If they fail to drop the reactor may not be shut down completely. It is unlikely that 2,000 tonnes of graphite, turning to powder can be removed and replaced so that reconditioning AGR's is an unlikely prospect. HSE are monitoring the situation and could cancel the licenses at any time.

60

Bruce Wayne,

Gotham Ciy 25/05/2007 13:47:23

Survive without nuclear? No problem, if we get independence. The recession that follows will see a huge slump in demand, and then we can close down the nuclear power stations.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.