Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Q&A: Dr Richard Dixon on nuclear energy

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: 18 February 2009
The director of WWF Scotland gives his views on comments made by Jim Murphy, secretary of state for Scotland. He said the Scottish Government lacked common sense in banning new nuclear power plants in Scotland.
Why is a dispute going on between the UK and Scottish governments about the future of nuclear power in Scotland?

This is much more a political dispute than a technical one. Labour have decided that the SNP's opposition to nuclear
is something they can try to ridicule. At the same time the SNP are making great progress on renewable energy to demonstrate the alternatives are real.

What did you think of Jim Murphy's comments on Monday?

Jim Murphy used the same old misleading arguments to talk up nuclear, including suggesting that Torness will shut in 2023 when even the Labour-led last government of Scotland put this at 2028. It was ironic that Jim Murphy made his nuclear rallying call on the same day that 10 offshore wind power sites were announced – at peak output they will produce three times the capacity of Scotland's nuclear stations, enough to meet all of Scotland's electricity demand.

Do you think there is a future for nuclear power in Scotland?

Scotland has the best renewable energy potential of any country in Europe. Even if nuclear were not the ultimate unsustainable form of energy, it would be the wrong choice. Arguing about and wasting money on nuclear is a distraction from the real task of harnessing Scotland's huge renewable energy resources.

Don't we need nuclear to provide a baseload electricity supply?

We need a transformation of our energy supply system, making more energy locally and transporting energy from wind and wave power to where it is needed. The combination of a mix of renewables, new storage capacity, gas power stations and, in the future, coal power using carbon-capture and storage will ensure we have more then enough electricity.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Unimpressed one,

18/02/2009 08:10:56
Engineering science according to Dixon of WWF:

"The combination of a mix of renewables, new storage capacity, gas power stations and, in the future, coal power using carbon-capture and storage will ensure we have more then enough electricity."

If anyone needed proof that the greens should be ignored totally. Gas?? Carbon neutral?? As for carbon capture, according to beardie logic, since CO2 is the most "dangerous" substance on the planet, what sort of legacy would we be leaving future generations with billions of tonnes of the stuff which needs to guarded for ever?

If these idiots are allowed to dictate public policy we really are doomed. Oh wait, we have a climate Change bill.....
2

greenhill,

18/02/2009 08:28:46
What an evasive nutbag. When asked about baseload he waffles away and favours power generation methods that spew out radiation amongst all sorts of other nasties.
Effective carbon capture is pie in the sky.

The SNP's energy policy is insane
3

Colin, Glasgow,

18/02/2009 10:18:16
"...It was ironic that Jim Murphy made his nuclear rallying call on the same day that 10 offshore wind power sites were announced – at peak output they will produce three times the capacity of Scotland's nuclear stations"

And at _average_ output they will just about equal the output of Scotland’s nuclear stations. Meaning that they will save no CO2 emissions.

It is a futile waste of resources to use renewables to displace nuclear. The renewables should be used to displace fossil fuel use.

When and why did the WWF become anti-nuclear? I can just about understand FOE and Greenpeace needing to defend their bad decisions of the past 3 decades by continuing to promote fossil fuel in preference to nuclear power (which is what they are doing). But when did the WWF start pontificating about energy policy?
4

person who's right,

Edinburgh 18/02/2009 11:35:15
The WWF man makes a lot of sense to me.

Nuclear has its advantages, but also the major problem of storing waste that will remain dangerous for thousands of years. Now that's litter on a grand scale...

Given Scotland's near unique advantages in terms of renewables, it makes sense (both moral and economic) for us to pursue them. Instead of ploughing billions into subsidising nuclear (as we have done for decades), we should be investing in making Scotland the 'Saudi Arabia of renewables'.
5

greenhill,

18/02/2009 15:24:49
Re "person who is obviously wrong".

Waste is not the problem it is made out to be.In fact it is mainly a political problem created by luddite nutbags.

However things have changed and new nuclear only leaves a fraction of the "waste" of the past.

This "Saudi Arabia of renewables" is deluded hyperbole.Pure wishfull thinking from incredibly stupid politicians.
6

Colin, Glasgow,

18/02/2009 16:47:02
#4 "person who's right" says: "Given Scotland's near unique advantages in terms of renewables, it makes sense (both moral and economic) for us to pursue them. Instead of ploughing billions into subsidising nuclear"

Nuclear does not need subsidy. It is competitive with fossil fuel, including waste management and decommissioning. It is renewables that need subsidy.

Look at the cost of eletricity generation as assessed by the International Energy Agency:

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1472

The waste harms nobody, and is no threat to the environment, when it is sequestered in a deep geological repository. It is certainly less harmful per TWh than using any fossil fuel or biomass.

The choice between renewables and nuclear is a false dichotomy. Renewables cannot provide a complete solution in the next 50 years. Either nuclear or fossil fuel is needed along with renewables. The simple fact is if you oppose nuclear then you are promoting fossil fuel. This is clear from the policies of Greenpeace, FOE and now WWF, who would rather promote gas-fired energy rather than nuclear, in spite of the fact that gas-fired electricity causes more harm to health and the environment.

http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf
7

Miss H,

18/02/2009 17:57:12
6 Let's look at the actual decommissioning costs so far. £73 billion.

How much of that is subsidised by the taxpayer?

Would it be correct to say all £73 billion?
8

Menie,

Scotland 18/02/2009 18:42:00
In the UK it will cost £70bn to clean up Sellafield - much of which will ultimately be footed by taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I'm pretty upset about that and I'm certainly not happy to foist a similar cost onto the next generation by choice, they will have enough with paying off the mountain of dept left to them courtesy of Brown and Darling.
Another thing to consider is - New nuclear plants will take at least 10-15 years to come online - that's just too long. By the time they do come online, Renewables will be cheaper.
So I would far rather funding is focused on developing the renewable industry.
_______________________________________________________



Govt's nuclear programme will be a 'financial disaster'

The government's nuclear programme will be a financial disaster according to a new report published today.
It found UK taxpayers have lost £72 billion over the last 50 years to the country's failing nuclear industry.
The report into the nuclear energy industry, published by Friends of the Earth, pours scorn on government claims about the potential of nuclear energy.
It points to the government's own figures which show nuclear programmes accounting for only a seven per cent cut in gas imports and a four per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
The research could not come at a worse time for the government, with Gordon Brown staking his environmental credentials on an enlargement of Britain's nuclear programme in response to protests from road users about the unprecedented price of oil.
But Paul Brown, the reports author, said the government's track record on nuclear power was disastrous.
"Even after years of reporting this industry I was shocked when doing this research at the scale of the technical failures and financial disasters facing the current nuclear industry - the costs of which will all fall on the taxpayer," he said.
"Nuclear power has always been the most expensive way of producing electricity and ha
9

Menie,

Scotland 18/02/2009 18:43:25
Cont.
"Even after years of reporting this industry I was shocked when doing this research at the scale of the technical failures and financial disasters facing the current nuclear industry - the costs of which will all fall on the taxpayer," he said.
"Nuclear power has always been the most expensive way of producing electricity and has been given massive public subsidy.
"The government is trying to dupe the public into believing this won’t happen next time, although all the evidence is to the contrary."
The reports found that any new generation of nuclear power stations would require extensive funding from the taxpayer and unlimited guarantees to underwrite the debts of the existing and future nuclear industry.
British Energy has already had all its debts and liabilities underwritten by the taxpayer, a commitment which dwarfs the risks involved in Northern Rock, the report warns.
The spotlight is also placed on the UK's existing nuclear complex in Sellafield where costs have reached £100 for every taxpayer a year.
Friends of the Earth nuclear campaigner, Neil Crumpton, said: "After 50 years of nuclear power the industry is in crisis, with the taxpayer picking up a clean-up bill that has already reached £72 billion.
"Rather than trying to breathe fresh life into this dangerous and expensive white elephant, the government should investing in far safer and cleaner solutions such as energy efficiency, clean renewable energy, combined heat and power, and potentially carbon capture and storage."
Green party principal speak Caroline Lucas said Gordon Brown was "guilty of the most staggering failure of political vision".
10

Menie,

Scotland 18/02/2009 18:50:01
Sorry,forgot to link to the article -

http://tiny.cc/iBsxG
11

Farmer77,

18/02/2009 20:05:43
Re Menie,Scotland 18/02/2009 18:42:00

You talk of the past. The technology has changed but you confuse the past with the present. It is like comparing biplanes with jumbo jets.
Modern nuclear pays for itself.You are stuck in the past.
12

Farmer77,

18/02/2009 20:06:45
P.S. Caroline Lucas is a liar .
13

Menie,

Scotland 18/02/2009 21:28:02
Re: Farmer77 18/02/2009 20:05:43


Living in the past? I don’t think so. The huge cost of decommissioning is staggering and the problem with what do with the waste has not been resolved, in fact, in all probability the next generation of nuclear waste will be even more toxic.
It’s curious how Jack McConnell while in office refused to sanction any new nuclear build in Scotland until the problem with the waste was resolved, now we hear not a word of criticism from him.


So Caroline Lucas is a liar? Why is that then?
Personally I think she is spot on. Gordon Brown is a reactionary politician, he has no political vision whatsoever.
14

Colin, Glasgow,

18/02/2009 22:43:28
#7 Miss H
If plant was built and operated by the state for the benefit of the taxpayer then obviously the taxpayer should rightly pick up the decommissioning cost. Hence the bill for decommissioning government research & military sites, plus the old state-built magnox powerstations.

Private operators would pay the cost of decommissioning new privately funded plant, as happens in other countries. It does not need subsidy.

It is not a difficult concept.
15

Colin, Glasgow,

18/02/2009 22:53:45
#8 mennie

The author Paul Brown was working in a post sponsored by BP when he wrote that report that you quoted.

That's the same BP who supply gas for fossil fuel powerstations...

As Farmer77 says, the content of the report is irrelevant to new commercially operated nuclear powerstations. They are designed to make money.
16

person who's right,

Edinburgh 19/02/2009 09:42:34
14/15 Colin -

Sorry but the notion that private companies can be relied upon to pick up the tab for nuclear decommissioning is simply nonsense.

The fact is that the cost of nuclear clean up has been many multiples more than the nuclear industry claimed it would be. And who's paid for it? Taxpayers.

In terms of new nuclear, there's this argument that we could establish contracts whereby private companies are liable. But the problem is that the sums of money involved are so big that if nuclear companies go bust (and look at what happened to British Energy a few years ago), there's no way they could cope with such liabilities. And it's not as if we could just let nuclear waste disposal/decommissioning not happen.

In other words, who would retain ultimate liability for sorting out the mess? That's right - the taxpayer again.

Why are we even having this debate? Scotland is perfectly placed for renewables... let's make the most of that.
17

Colin, Glasgow,

19/02/2009 15:00:01
#16 “person who is right”

Private decommissioning arrangements work fine in other countries. The US for example has a decommissioning fund which operators pay into for each unit of electricity generated. It more than covers the cost of decommissioning. In fact most sensible countries have some sort of arrangement like this.

If the company goes bust it is likely that its assets would cover the cost – in fact it is most likely that the business would be bought by another operator.

The question of ultimate liability applies equally to the decommissioning of any large energy plant. The cost of decommissioning offshore wind is £150k per MW.

http://www.owen.eru.rl.ac.uk/documents/UK%20Offshore%20Wind%202003/Culley63.pps#449,13,Offshore Wind

The cost of decommissioning a PWR nuclear powerstation tops out at about £400k per MW. But note, the capacity factor means that 1MW of wind power provides less than half the electricity of 1MW of nuclear, and it only lasts half the lifespan. So you need 4 times as much wind power. Hence the decommissioning cost of offshore wind will probably end up similar to nuclear.

Obviously these issues need to be dealt with, and there are suitable approaches available to ensure that the decommissioning costs are covered, regardless of the method of generation.

The history in the UK is that the taxpayer has picked nuclear decommissioning cost _only_because_ the taxpayer owned and operated the plant and got the benefits. This is not going to be the case with privately run plant. The operator will pay for decommissioning.

Scotland is indeed well placed for renewables, but we still clearly need thermal plant. According to the SNP Cockenzie and Longannet are going to be burning coal for another generation, and the current plan seems to be to replace Hunterston with coal too. That would be a huge step backwards. This is not much of an indication of commitment to renewables.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Nuclear energy

More Nuclear energy >>

More Alternative energy sources

More Alternative energy sources >>

Today's Vote

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

Web Links:

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.