Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


SNP under fire for 'flip-flop' on nuclear as plant retained

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:
12 December 2007
THE SNP-led Scottish Government came under attack on two fronts over nuclear power yesterday, following the announcement that the reactor at Hunterston is to carry on operating for a further five years.
British Energy, which is based in Livingston, said the working lives of Hunterston B in Ayrshire and Hinkley Point B in Somerset would be extended by five years to 2016, and claimed this would help to fill a potential shortfall in electricity supplies and trumpeting its green credentials.

While the SNP welcomed the news, the Liberal Democrats accused the Scottish Government of "flip-flopping" over the morality of nuclear power, while the Scottish Greens said the move was "dangerous, unsustainable and uneconomic".

The Labour-controlled Scotland Office used the situation to attack the SNP over its opposition to new nuclear power stations being built, saying it now had to explain how Scotland could live without this "reliable, low-carbon energy source".

British Energy said it would spend £90 million on the two power stations, which opened in 1976, to extend their lifespan, and would also look at operating them beyond 2016.

Hunterston, which has been cleared by safety inspectors to run until 2017, was hit by technical problems last year and, as a result, is producing about 60 per cent of the power it is capable of delivering. Work will be carried out to raise this to 70 per cent.

Bill Coley, chief executive of British Energy, said: "This decision is important in supporting the UK's goals for the reduction of emissions. Life extension helps provide support as the country considers energy conservation, efficiency and investment in new generating plant of all types, to serve the needs of the UK into the next century."

British Energy said Hunterston employs around 520 full-time staff and 150 contractors, contributes £55 million a year to the local economy and had offset 140 million tonnes of carbon dioxide during its working life.

The extra five years of operation would save a total of 20 million tonnes of compared to producing the same amount of electricity using coal, the company claimed.

David Cairns, the Scotland Office minister, said the move "underlines the vital role of nuclear power", adding: "The challenge the [Scottish Government] faces is explaining how we keep the lights on without this reliable, low-carbon energy source."

Jim Mather, the energy minister, said:

"[British Energy] will have to invest significantly at Hunterston to ensure it is safe and reliable, and that has to be in Scotland's interests.

"There is more than enough green and renewable potential in Scotland to provide a low- carbon electricity supply, so the argument that we need nuclear is totally redundant. It [was] always understood that existing nuclear power stations continue until the end of their lifecycle."

Liam McArthur, the Scottish Lib Dems' energy spokesman, said: "Mike Weir, the SNP's [Westminster] energy spokesman, said opposition to nuclear power was a 'question of morality'. In opposition, the SNP were crystal clear. In government, they flip-flopped on the 'morality' and whether it is in Scotland's interests."

Patrick Harvie, of the Scottish Green Party, added: "Spending millions more to patch up decrepit nuclear power stations is just throwing good money after bad.

Nuclear power remains dangerous, unsustainable, and uneconomic."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 December 2007 12:13 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

druidh,

12/12/2007 00:44:19

What flip-flop? The option to retain existing nuclear was never discounted by the SNP prior to the election.

2

 Ayrshire Scot™,

12/12/2007 00:46:09

1 Exactly. The SNP said they would not endorse new nuclear power plants, but did not say they would immediately close existing ones before alternate capacity is online.

3

Lianachan,

Highlands 12/12/2007 00:56:08

In my experience, people who oppose nuclear power the most tend to be those who fear it the most, which stems from understanding it the least.

In terms of an SNP flip-flop - I endorse the first two comments above.

4

S'me,

12/12/2007 00:57:34

Funny how the first 2 comments know exactly the SNP manifesto..bring on the rest...

5

Senga Jean,

Scotland 12/12/2007 01:40:22

They could not make it up? They just did so. The SNP policy is unchanged. They have never said they would hasten closure only that they would not support NEW stations.

6

The Daleks,

12/12/2007 01:57:12

Perhaps the person who suggested boycotting the Scotsman was right.

More groundless anti-SNP drivel.

7

somerferg,

oz 12/12/2007 01:58:04

#4 - and you know what exactly? - oh yes how to make comments which add nothing to the debate. Go on surprise us with some more of your well thought out biting satire.

8

,

12/12/2007 02:04:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Guga II,

Rockall 12/12/2007 02:35:53

Yet another attempt at bad-mouthing the SNP. They have no control over existing nuclear power stations in Scotland, including extending their operations. That is down to Westminster.

Why are the Whigs coming out with their lies again? Do they really think they can fool the Scottish people witn such garbage? The Whigs are going down the tubes, along with their sleazy, corrupt partners in New Labour.

10

Mercutio,

Falkirk 12/12/2007 02:42:04

#9 you old tory Jacobite. This is another non story.

11

LETS DISCUSS WENDYGATE....,

Because the Scotsman wants it buried 12/12/2007 02:44:50

The SNP has never said it would close existing nuclear stations.... only that it opposed new ones.

HOWEVER........

This "report" is about one thing.... and one thing only....... deflecting attention from WENDYGATE.

Crude tabloid stuff..... but it's a good measure of how low The Scotsman has sunk.

Dont let the Labourman suppress Wendygate.
Keep the fire burning here on their boards.

Poetic justice.

12

LETS DISCUSS WENDYGATE....,

Because the Scotsman wants it buried 12/12/2007 02:51:42

#10

Correct...... A whole newspaper full of non-stories, trying desperately to get some mud to stick on the SNP.....

........... and all to provide "covering-fire" for Wendy Alexander and Scottish Labour.

Deflect attention from Wendygate at all costs.... support the unionists at all costs (even when they break the law).... dish the Nationalist at all costs...

Unionist propaganda rag.

13

,

12/12/2007 03:05:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1222817, Article id was mapped to record!
14

aberdeenshire teuchter,

perth, wa 12/12/2007 03:50:36

"There is more than enough green and renewable potential in Scotland to provide a low- carbon electricity supply" why, in that case, is there going to be a shortfall in energy production from 2011-2016?? If it's so good, why hasn't it been fast tracked, why don't we have a Scotland run from renewable sources. The answers obvious, it's not all rosy for the renewable energy production. It's hellish expensive, can be unreliable (people will be moaning when they can't heat their home in winter)

Humans have become energy monsters, grazing on vast sources of energy to live their happy wee lives of TV's, cars, central heating, electricity. In all honesty, how the hell can we keep doing it without utilising nuclear energy? Besides the waste issues, the nuclear industry has been successful in scotland, and the UK. People need to realise that nuclear, for the medium term, is the way forward.

One thing is for sure, there is no way in hell that the UK can continue to rely on coal, which is undoubtedly the filthiest method of generating electricity around. For the UK having this as their mainstay of electrictiy production is embarrassing enough, but for nothing to be getting done about is criminal. The government needs to act now, commit to a nuclear future supplemented by renewable sources.

15

Auckland Arab2,

12/12/2007 03:54:36

Tragic non story. Scotsman you are a pathetic rag, not fit to use as emergency toilet paper. I'd rather use my hands!

16

Navvy,

12/12/2007 04:16:15

That a ruling party should be pragmatic rather than dogmatic can only be a good thing

17

fred bloggs,

12/12/2007 07:35:04

15. Arab - as you're communicating via electronic media I suggest you use virtual toilet paper.

18

davieboy144,

12/12/2007 08:08:21

I wonder what the Green party has to say about this as I am pretty sure that they said after the May election that they would not work political partys who wanted to use Nuclear energy.

It was a red line issue was it not?

19

McMillar,

Fife 12/12/2007 08:08:45

SNP base decisions on real data and demonstrate clear leadership. Hasn't got quite the same ring to it as a headline has it. ZZZzzz

20

AJ of Fife,

12/12/2007 09:40:10

When the place does eventually close down, I bags the nice garden ornament in the photie!

21

Boy Wonder,

12/12/2007 09:42:57

Another pathetically bad assassination job on the SNP. You're getting worse, Hootsmon!

22

Boy Wonder,

12/12/2007 09:43:33

#22. Aye right .... I'll fight you for it!!!

23

AJ of Fife,

12/12/2007 09:51:29

#24,

Naw naw naw, A bags'd it first....you can hae the giant fitba fae Dounreay!

24

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 12/12/2007 09:59:31

It took the citing of the FoI Act to drag out a statement from the HSE on the problems with disintegrating graphite moderator blocks. If the friability of the graphite worsens then safety is compromised because it may not be possible to drop the control rods in an emergency. This is described in the HSE papers. This all happens in the inaccessible core of the reactor and can only be monitored by lowering cameras in one of the channels in the blocks.

A leak of steam from the corroded steam pipes into the hot CO2 gas stream could lead to the formation of H2 and CO, capable of exploding.

Further questions need a statement from BE and HSE.

Why are the stations operating at only 60%? What will they do to raise this to 70%? What caused the temperature trips which led to the current outage of so many AGR's?

BE needs to answer the above in a transparent manner, hopefully not in the obscuranticism of politics. HSE needs to show that it can guarantee safe operation for a further five years, given that irradiation and temperature stress progressively destroy the reactor components and the operational life will be beyond that considered in the original designs.

25

Ivan Taklu,

12/12/2007 10:00:32

There isn't a flipflop because the decision is consistent with SNPs policy. But it's a bit odd to decide that old, not very efficient, operating with a limp-type reactors are fine, but modern, updated safety systems, less waste, better performance 2007 factory fresh reactors are bad.

26

morris,

embra 12/12/2007 10:06:47

3

Understanding nuclear energy is not what concerns us,nor should it be .

Our concern is where do we bury the waste for thousands of years ,(by which time we have accumulated even more of it).

Seismic activity says THERE ARE NO SAFE SITES anywhere on the planet. Nuclear is a time bomb, guaranteed to go off,(but God knows when).

Why do we go down this road ? Because the UK has made it so .

We will indeed not get anymore Nuclear power stations North of the Border.The SNP will never agree to them .
Whats the bet we are being lined up for something far worse. WE ARE THE UK's NUCLEAR DUMP!
The SNP will need to be just as strong on that one !

Its just not been announced yet.

27

morris,

embra 12/12/2007 10:17:45

21

The Hootsmon to merge with the Daily Retard .
Interesting thought! We should think of a suitable name for it !
I like the "WESTMONSTER "

Seriously ,one wonders what could possibly be the reason why a paper would commit suicide like this one does?

There must be money going into this papers coffers from somewhere!

At 60,000 circulation ,this paper is approaching the danger zone fast I would have thought.

28

n/,

perth 12/12/2007 10:20:46

Well done the SNP. Isn't it amazing how being in Govenrment tends to bring in a dose of reality and changes one's perspective.

If those that aren't, such as the GREENS and the now drubbed out of power Lib/Dems want to continue with there snipe snip snipping from the wings....... let them.
This was the correct and very brave decision.

As for the suggested inefficiency of Hunterston.....maybe a few of the above should away and do their sums. They may well find that this old lady on her own, even at 60%, can produce far more of worth than all the UK windfarms put together. Nop? Go and do the sums! When re furbished to 70%...... even more so.

29

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/12/2007 10:56:46

And what exactly is wrong with a government changing its mind if it realises that it's got something wrong?

The SNP realised that taking an anti-nuclear stance was the wrong thing to do, so they changed their minds. Good. Now they are doing the right thing.

The only people moaning about it are those who don't understand nucelar power and feel it necessary to moan about it. They should be ignored. As an aside, how come it is those who know the least who always seem to get the platform?

Anyway, just because the SNP changed their mind on one issue does not automatically mean that we are going back to the days of 1970s labour when they changed their minds more frequently than the wind, thereby causing everyone not to know where they were. This in turn prompted Maggie Thatcher's "Lady's not for turning" speech which labour then took literally for the last 10 years---pushing blindly ahead with failed and stupid policies regardless of public opinion and the fact that they were clearly wrong.

It is a good thing that a government can adapt and change to suit reality. It is very rare that anyone will get everything 100% right first time.

30

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 12/12/2007 10:58:22

"it now had to explain how Scotland could live without this "reliable, low-carbon energy source".
We have to live without it on a regular basis as it has proved to be rather unreliable and breakdowns have usually taken it out of service for quite long spells.
The one sure thing is that we will have to live with and look after its residue for period of time several orders of magnitude longer than its productive life.

31

kimba,

12/12/2007 11:06:40

They don't need nuclear power,salmond blows enough hot air to heat every home in Scotland.

32

Alex Salmond, C U Next Tuesday,

12/12/2007 11:46:07
33

Lianachan,

Northern Highlands 12/12/2007 11:56:19

#28

I'm sure the SNP will be strong on opposing any plans to dump nuclear waste in Scotland. To be honest, although several sites up here have been considered I can't see the waste repository being sited in Scotland anyway. The only real problem with fission based power is, as you say, the problem of what to do with the waste. What we really need to do is increase funding on fusion power research. ITER represents a significant development in that respect.

34

Charles MN,

12/12/2007 13:12:26

#26 John

Could you explain what reaction causes H2O and CO2 to change to H2 and CO?

I have heard of the water shift reaction where
CO and H20 <=> CO2 and H2

this makes sense as the number of C,H and O molecules on each side add up but obviously with
CO2 and H20 > CO and H2
we have an imbalance.

35

Walter Ego,

Durness 12/12/2007 14:25:32

Will there be a Council Tax freeze flip flop?

36

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

12/12/2007 14:54:26

Part of the reason that the SNP have been criticised is that they often play the green card when it comes to nuclear power - implying that they are against nuclear power (especially on the doorstep) but never explicitly saying so in their manifesto. It's the old tell people what the want to hear syndrome.

37

FrancesP,

12/12/2007 14:59:14

#39. As I recall, the SNP's policy was crystal clear in their manifesto and in all their public pronouncements, and the Hunterston decision does not contradict it in any way. "No new nuclear power stations" - that was what was said again and again.

38

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

12/12/2007 15:10:02

#40 Which is why I said it was not said explicitly in their manifesto.

What happens - and it's not just the SNP that are guilty of it (remember Labour's deliberately ambiguous £5,000 tax attacks?) - is that a policy that is clear in writing is deliberately ambiguified in its promotion.

39

Phyl,

Edinburgh 12/12/2007 15:11:44

#3 - I hold a join honours degree in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, and a degree in Applied Physics. I've taken a particular interest in looking at the science and engineering behind nuclear power plants, I read articles on the subject regularly, and therefore, realistically, know far more on the subject than the vast majority of the public (which, I'll agree with you on that point to an extent, isn't hard).

Nuclear Power of the sort we have right now is walking dead technology, and was a dead-end almost from the beginning. The Labour line that is is 'low carbon' is truly nonsense. They are being deliberately misleading in only looking at the one single part of the process of generating power from nuclear fission that is carbon neutral - the fission reaction itself. They conveniently ignore:
- The massive energy input required to work the increasingly uneconomical and depleted uranium mines - nearly all of which comes from fossil fuel sources
- The huge energy input needed to refine the ore, enrich it, purify it, and mill it to the point where it can be used as fuel rods
- The comparatively gigantic energy input needed to construct a 'safe' nuclear power plant - again all using carbon-expensive fossil fuels
- The massive cost in both time, resources, and yes, power to safely store spent fuel rods
- The exorbitant cost of decommissioning the plant afterwards and cleaning up the mess - again using fossil fuel powered methods.

Yes, 'zero carbon' indeed. Some studies estimate that we have already passed the point where available (and economically obtainable) supplies of nuclear fuel can no longer possibly generate enough electricity to actually cover the energy that will need to be used to build and maintain existing and future plants - AND deal with the storage and clean-up of all previous, existing and future plants.

In otherwords - they will cost more energy than they produce - meaning that for every 1MW of 'clean

40

Phyl,

Edinburgh 12/12/2007 15:17:49

#14 - you are right on the fact that the government needs to pull the finger out on utilising renewables - but for the reasons above, not on the nuclear. Oh and by the way, funy how pro-nuclear are fond of saying renewables are no good becuase 'what if there is no wind/rain/sunshine? Nuclear is dependable and constant!' - Oh really?? How many times have we read recently about Nuclear plants having to be shut down, or operate on reduced power due to safety breaches or 'technical problems'?

#19 - Yes it was a 'red line issue' for the Greens for the May elections - that meant that the Greens would not enter into any discussion of coalition or a looser co-operation agreement with a party which had new nuclear (power or weapons) in its plans. The SNP met that criteria at the time - and so far they still do (so far) - but in anycase you seem to be making an incorrect assumption that the Green party has some sort of agreement to support the SNP - no such agreement exists, as Patrick Harvie's comment in this article shows. There is a big difference between 'work with' and 'always support'.

41

Teamdroid,

12/12/2007 16:27:07

#29 - morris, the circulation is nearer 50,000 going by the most recent figures I found. 52,997 in this story from November: way behind the Herald's 67,481.
http://www.allmediascotland.com/articles/2001/12112007/na...

These figures also include free giveaways, which must amount for a fair few in hotels, airports etc. for the Scotsman.

42

Charles MN,

12/12/2007 17:07:57

#42 Phyl

How can the energy produced by a nuclear plant be more than it's input? This is just nonsense. From a financial point of view the only way that could make sense is if you could sell the resulting energy for substantially more than you bought the energy. Which you can't.

Even George Monbiot in an article in the Guardian attacking nuclear power ridiculed arguments such as you put forward.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/07/11/thanks-but-we-...

The UK's Sustainable Development Commission in another paper against nuclear power said:

"Our evidence shows that taking into account the emissions associated with plant construction and the fuel cycle, the emissions associated with nuclear power production are relatively low, with an average value of 4.4tC/GWh, compared to 243tC/GWh for coal and 97tC/GWh for gas."

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SD...


I haven't even bothered quoting any evidence from nuclear suporters as there is enough from opponents to prove you wrong.

43

Kranal,

Oxon. 12/12/2007 17:24:11

It it were not so serious, you SNP numpties would make me laugh. Any comment that is not fawning to Alex Trump Wilson is derided. I ask again; why do you people read the Scotsman if it is such a dreadful paper?

44

n/,

12/12/2007 18:06:35

#45 Charles MN...........................
You are being very choosy as to what you wish to quote from the UK's Sustainable development commission report of May 2005 are you not?

Hows about p 35?

"it would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,and it is very unlikely that it will replace even coal in the short to medium term".

45

n/,

Perth 12/12/2007 18:15:46

#43 Ah so it is not true then that Robin Harper is content to support the extension of the existing nuclear power plants if all goes pear shaped and there is an "unavoidable energy gap"?"("Scotsman" report,22 May) Or are we all supposed to wait and see until that is ,the lights go out .before anything gets done.
Thank the Lordie the Greens aint in government.

46

Charles MN,

12/12/2007 18:29:54

#47 How am I being choosy? The point I was trying to make is that even anti-nuclear scientists agree that nuclear is low-carbon.

47

n/,

perth 12/12/2007 19:06:59

Apologies Charles MN. Having arrived in the middle of so much mish mash from the anti nuk brigade ....I had misunderstood.
Nuclear is indeed, LOW CARBON.

48

connaughtboy,

12/12/2007 20:06:01

Another non-story.

Have the cops collared Wendy Alexander yet?

49

aberdeenshire teuchter,

perth, wa 12/12/2007 21:53:24

#42 Fair enough and thanks for the response, but are the breakdowns due to aging equipment or crap technology (or both). What about the new generation nuclear power plants that Areva build......surely the technological advances seen over the last 50 years would have improved somewhat.

Also, I'm an evaluation geologist who works in the mining industry. I reckon you're right about the fossil fuel dependancy of the industry - it's pretty awful, particuarly when you see whole mining operations living off diesel. The sad thing is that it's an industry which generates enormous profits, and as far as I can see very little is getting invested in energy alternatives. this is the one factor which will cripple the industry I work in.

However, i think that you have to draw a line somewhere in the sand as to what is 'Carbon Neutral'. Realistically nothing is truly 'Carbon Neutral' in todays world, renewables are not without their very carbon price.

50

Strathturret,

Montrose 12/12/2007 22:24:53

Yet another non story with a misleading headline. Tells us about Wengygate.

51

GP,

12/12/2007 22:29:59

Another waste of paper story.
forget this nonsense.

52

Paula,

12/12/2007 22:48:59

While they try and hide the big story everyone wants to read about the Scotsman should be careful.

For every piece of imagined, non-substantiated accusation agains the SNP you can easily find that Labour has already not only done it, but bigger and better.

Nuclear, weren't Labour, especially Blair, extremely vocal in their opposition about it before they were handed the reigns of government. Then, all of a sudden it is this wonderful thing, no mention of why the change of heart. Or indeed the flip flop.

53

bus user,

edinburgh 13/12/2007 00:21:11

Obviously another quiet news day...

54

aberdeenshire teuchter,

perth, wa 13/12/2007 02:18:57

#57 I agree that in the long term renewables in whatever shape or form must be developed. What I'm stressing is that in the MEDIUM term what are we going to do. We have to be realistic about what we can achieve. Coal has to go, and, over the next 50 years or so the pressure is on because of the greenhouse emmisions constraints being applied to each country. It's over this period that nuclear may be needed to fill the energy requirements of a transitional period to a renewable world.

By the way, I'm not a supporter of Mr Salmond/SNP. Quite frankly I can't believe he's still around.

55

S'me,

13/12/2007 03:58:15

As I said.. lots of people who know detailed SNP policies on here.... Mmmmm

56

The Daleks,

13/12/2007 05:37:00

#61

The policies aren't exactly state secrets.

57

Richard M,

Scottish Raj 11/01/2008 21:08:42
'The Scottish Greens said the move was "dangerous, unsustainable and uneconomic".'

What a load of rubbish. It's already there, it's got an excellent safety record, it's only until 2016, and the marginal cost of keeping it going is relatively small

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.