Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scotland may get six nuclear waste stores

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: 14 January 2008
UP TO six new nuclear waste stores could be built under proposals being considered by the Scottish Government, it was confirmed yesterday.
Under the plans, waste would be stored near Scotland's nuclear plants and no longer transported to a dump near Sellafield, in Cumbria, which takes waste from across the UK.

The UK government, which announced plans last week for a new generation o
f nuclear stations south of the Border, is opposed to the move.

However, new long-term storage facilities could be built near existing or former power plants at Hunterston, Ayrshire; Torness, East Lothian; Dounreay, Caithness; Chapelcross, Dumfriesshire; and at the naval bases at Rosyth, Fife, and Faslane, Dunbartonshire.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, insisted Scotland would not become a "dumping ground" for high-level waste from across the UK. He told BBC Scotland's Politics Show: "We are talking here about low-level and medium nuclear waste stored in the areas which generate that waste. This is the principle we are putting forward, that people and governments have to take responsibility for their actions, and that it is a responsible policy.

"It is one that is being pursued in Scotland at the present moment, of course, in the case of Dounreay, and it is entirely right that we store things safely in the place where they're generated, as opposed to digging some massive hole in the ground somewhere and hoping beyond hope that's going to be all right for future generations."

However, the plans were dismissed by British Energy, which runs Hunterston and Torness. It said: "We don't agree with the Scottish Government's proposals. We support the current UK framework."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 January 2008 10:25 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Senga Jean,

scotland 14/01/2008 01:05:51
Nuclear waste should be kept wind and watertight adjacent to its source. Security would be of a high order. Do not decommission nuclear power stations....simply remove fuel and keep the station wind and watertight and secure. Cutting up eg the concrete just spreads the danger.
2

nabodican,

Portree 14/01/2008 06:51:28
Senga Jean - How about all the isotopes used in hospitals etc ? Shall we stick them in the cellars of the Western General or York Hill !

Besides they do not even need planning permission to dump low level waste in concrete foundations etc.
Why do you think that when all these wind turbines that are spreading like a rash over Scotland and have 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete in each foundation are decommissioned that they do not intend to remove the foundations !!
3

donald,

glasgow 14/01/2008 07:59:51
Return to Sender!
4

Unimpressed one,

14/01/2008 08:59:41
I'll take the king's shilling!! How much is the compensation? Salmond should shut the fcuk up and allow local communities to decide for themselves if they want to act as nuclear dumps. But wait a minute that's democracy.....
5

Nikostratos,

14/01/2008 09:19:24
We could always bury them in the vast and limitlessness darkness of the First ministers underpants. Never to be seen by human kind again.

good idea....
6

Nikostratos,

14/01/2008 09:20:01
#5

well said excellent post
7

Teamdroid,

14/01/2008 09:44:57
#6 - forget to log out then back in as your other alias, then? ROFL
8

Senga Jean,

14/01/2008 10:03:07
#2 No! Store hospital waste in the retired power station. Regarding the concrete I did NOT mean any old concrete but only the concrete and other building materials contaminated by the nuclear activity. You cannot dump even low level nuclear waste without a licence but you would be surprised at how much is just under the cover soil of a local authority dump near you.
9

Steve,

Bo'ness 14/01/2008 10:09:07
Nikostratos, Unimpressed one, or who ever you want to call yourself... when are you going to grow up?
Your posts are pathetic.
10

Nikostratos,

14/01/2008 11:05:11
# 9 Steve,

well said..he..he..he
11

Gothic Rose,

14/01/2008 11:05:54
Hospital Radio Active Isotopes after use were deposited in lead containers,which were then, placed in a lift and despatched somewhere into the bowels of the hospital.Never did find out precisly where.
12

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 12:16:02
#4 Unimpressed one: Should the community's no have been ask before the nuclear power stations where built!!!

I heard that there is/was a radio active beach near one of the closed down nuclear power stations.

These area is all ready at risk because of the power station (once existed). The lands possibly already polluted, why pollute else where.

Unfortunately when it comes to the existing nuclear power plants it's to late to ask people what they think. Just time to stop more being built now and after the existing ones close.

No one was asked if they want nuclear waste being transported past their, towns, cities or villages on the roads and motor ways. Who knows what could happen if there was an accident.
13

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 12:23:59
#6 Nikostratos: Well done, that has to be a record only 37secs to agree with yer self (#5 Nikostratos). Unfortunately comment #5 is an irrational comment (with no logic in it what so every) made in haste and backed up in haste.
14

Neil,

Glasgow 14/01/2008 13:48:25
I'm not sure if Alex is saying this because he wants to keep nuclear waste firm;y in the public mind (the conspiratorial view), or because he is an idiot (the idealistic view) or because he realises "waste" is a valuable resource (the financial view).

It shows what a stupid, mutually contradictory & dishionest the nuclear "waste" arguments are & how devoid of actual facts. Burying it where it is inaccessible is easy & in any case it does not stay radioactive for long. We have been deliberately lied to by the eco-fascists for decades.
15

Highland Mighty,

14/01/2008 13:48:29
So the SNP was complaining about nuclear waste from unneccessary nuclear power stations yet then decides it will keep all the waste from existing Scottish stations instead of letting it go to England for treatment and storage.

Salmond is clearly so desperate to whine about Westminster that he even has to fight plans that are good for Scotland.

He preaches local accountability and local democracy yet here wants to turn six communities into nuclear waste dumps without even consulting them.
16

Highland Mighty,

14/01/2008 13:49:57
18. What a great comment. Well done.
17

Highland Mighty,

14/01/2008 13:52:58
19. I totally agree. Awesome.
18

Guga II,

Rockall 14/01/2008 13:53:11
What has wee Eck been smoking? If the English want to take all the nuclear waste and store it in England, he should be more than willing to let them have it.
19

Redfive,

Why is no-one afraid ? 14/01/2008 13:59:30
What I find most disconcerning is the fact that no-one here is questioning the viability of burying this waste. This nuclear waste will be fatal to all life for around 40,000 years yes 40,000 years. Just one question do you trust the government to design a manage s system that is capapble of storing the most dangerous susbstance on earth for 40.000 years. And would you trust them to tell you when they discover it has been leaking into the air and water of beutiful scotland and posioning the natives ?
20

bill-alba,

fife 14/01/2008 14:07:49
guga and high and mighty...of course we should look after our own nuclear waste...you would be the first people to say that nats are trying to get it both ways if we continued to send waste to cumbria...
and Westminster would say that if you are sending waste to cumbria it is only fair that we dump all our waste in a site in scotland..its Scotlands waste we will look after it..
21

Highland Mighty,

14/01/2008 14:23:42
With fossil fuels fast disappearing (ironically making the UK coal mines closed in the 80s financially viable again) and renewable energy technology very much in its infancy, our energy-hungry economy needs an energy source that is reliable, independent from volatile prices and from stable sources.

It would be fantastic if wind and waves could provide for even half the market's needs but the entire country would have to be covered in windmills and every beach covered in wave-farms (even the world's largest will only produce 3MW - based in Orkney? What happened to that? - a tiny bit short of the 2.8GW that nuclear curently produces) and even then a calm day would shut the country down.
22

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 15:08:53
For a start there is no such thing as nuclear waste. It is merely a different isotope of the material used in a reactor.

Secondly, this material emits a lot of heat. This is currently wasted but could equally as well be used to our benefit.

Thirdly, I'll give it about 10-15 years for someone to come up with a method of re-processing this material in order to reduce its half-life --- That is, provided the wolly jumper and sandals brigade don't throw their collective spanner in the works.
23

Horrible Cankers..dans le Cyber Shebeen,

14/01/2008 17:50:33
Tourist ad for Scotland of the future...

'Come to sunless Scotland, where sheep are green and so are people...return home with a neon glowing complexion and tell the world "Scotland..land of the green..and I took it back with me"....

Official disclaimer..

9 out of 10 Doctors recommend that you go to another country...
24

Neil,

Glasgow 14/01/2008 17:55:18
Quite right alternative. Tnat is why I suggested Eck could conceivably be making a financially prudent decision - not to let all this valuable "waste" go to England. On the other hand I am not convinced he is that smart or that well informed.

Redfive why are you not at least equally concerned that the existence of windmills will be instantly fatal to all birdlife & airplane passengers for the next 10,000 million years? there is, after all, an equal amount of accuracy to that claim as to your nonsense. Would you trust the government to let you know how many people have been killed by windmills?
25

Toots - Sheila,

Canada 14/01/2008 18:11:00
Due to Standard Life (my ain folk) and the finance industry stealing all of my savings / investments re my endowment mortages I hve mortgage repayments for 43 years. I'm willing to rent out my "site" in north west London for the storage of nuclear waste. Can't think of a better place for a site barring Lothian Road Edinburgh!
At least this way I can pay off the dam loans, get my life back and the banks will never be able to make money out of re-possesion and resale!!!!! WIN WIN WIN.
26

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

14/01/2008 19:37:25

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,
14/01/2008 19:27:51
I welcome the sensible policies of the SNP to reject nuclear new build. I also welcome the consensus of the LIBERALs and greens in also supporting green energy. This is the future,be clear G Brown has made a disasterous mistake in trying to reactivate a dying industry ie the nuclear industry. This year I will put a solar panel on my house in all likelyhood from www.solartwin.com. The cost is approx 2500£. Lets work this out.MY gas bill is about 400£ a year which I estimate 100£/year is from hot water ie I estimate a quarter; cooking a quarter; hot water heating and half cthg over the full year.I bath or someone else does nearly every day cook,most days but only use central hg about4 months of the year. So I think my estimate is reasonable.The solar twin panel which I can install myself and perhaps claim the VAT back on is 2200£ plus vat.This is something I will look into as a small business man it might be possible butWHY ARE THEY STILL CHARGING vat on renewables plus insulation? So at 100£ a year it would pay for itself in approx 22 years at current prices. I will cut this back to 20 years because the solar twin solar panel has an inbuilt photovoltaic pump ie a solar pump,hence no need for electrician to install it,good but also no need for electricity to pump bath water ie cheaper in electricity use. Here is the gold though.THE PRICE OF ENERGY IS GOING UP ABOVE INFLATION.AS AN NPOWER CUSTOMER I KNOW THIS. I am ON the juice option ie the green option,but I still believe the general energy prices will rise, whether or not NPOWER invest in renewables. So my guess is my solar powered bath will pay for itself in 8 years.This is going off the huge inflation we have seen in energy costs. After this is fitted this year by me I will look into a PV panel for my electricity needs. In 8 years time my solar panel will have paid for itself and the nuclear power stations will be unfinished and I doubt if they will have
27

Worried Scot,

14/01/2008 19:38:30
Bury it in my back garden for 40,000 years if you like. £10,000,000 a year fee for this service seems reasonable to me.
28

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta... captured Mexican territory 1845 14/01/2008 19:39:05
4
Unimpressed one,
14/01/2008 08:59:41

-----------

Hey Dude I like the way U got around the F word..(Fcuk)

In our pathetic societies of hypocrites, its OK to use words such as KILL, MURDER, RAPE, EXECUTION, STAB, STRANGLE, etc.

BUT to use the politically incorrect words which are non-fatal is a NO NO ,they are BANNED.
U know what I mean. And if I type them here, my post will be removed.

Its now 24°C where i live ..no clouds , just Blue Sky, and SUNSHINE.

Its known as Southern California...Dude.

PEACE

GC

29

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 14/01/2008 19:50:21
The SNP minority administration have made fools of themselves by vetoing new nuclear power stations. However, we can not allow them to keep the waste from existing stations. They may decide to sell it to Iran for nefarious purposes or threaten the good people of England once they realize that independence will never come.

No - it is much better that this waste is sent to England for reprocessing and storage. Scotland, given its present political climate, is just not safe. However, once the anomaly of a separatist administration has been rectified Scotland may, once again, earn the trust of our fellow citizens in England and be allowed to host high level nuclear waste.
30

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 20:05:08
#32 An Beal Bacht: Please tell me yer joking!!!
31

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 14/01/2008 20:10:33
Eve - did I say something funny?
32

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 20:52:58
#34 An Beal Bacht: Aye funny as in werid!!!!
33

An English Voice,

14/01/2008 21:10:37
Love it!

I was just waiting for the SNP mob to turn from baying about the nasty old union wanting to put nuclear power stations in Scotland to applauding Salmond for keeping the waste despite suitable facilities existing in England!
34

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 14/01/2008 21:10:52
Eve, you are obviously an SNP supporter and therefore blind to the dangers of their seditionist agenda. However, it will not be long before Scotland tosses out that band of brigands and elects a leader with integrity and vision like Wendy Alexander.
35

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 14/01/2008 21:16:52
Quite right English Voice - we must ensure that no radioactive waste remains in Scotland lest the seditionists get ideas above their station. I'm sure our PM will insist on this as it is, after all, a security matter and outwith Holyroods authority.
36

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 21:34:09
#37 An Beal Bacht: NOW you really are joking Wendy few people believe she will be a successful leader of Scottish Labour, look at the link below. http://www.stv.tv/content/news/Politics_NEW/

"leader with integrity and vision like Wendy Alexander" ha ha ha, and finds it difficult to tell the truth and then does a Cathy Jamieson!!! She may have vision BUT how far does it go for and what limitations does she or someone (mm Gordon!!!)else have on her.

I'm no a see no flaws supporter, BUT I do appreciate that they are NOT perfect BUT do a much better job and make politics a bit less comical. (Something wee Jack brought in!!!!)
37

Eve,

Scotand 14/01/2008 21:51:26
#36 An English Voice: The areas proposed will already have some radio active pollution in the ground, why take extra risks moving it about!!!
Though this should just be Nuclear waste that has come from Scotland and nowhere else!!!

The processing plant in England is almost full and use are going to need all the space you can get in the future for your 10 brand new Nuclear power stations (of which NOT one of them will be in Scotland). That's the kind of giving nations us Scots are!!! Save you of the burden of nuclear waste which came from Scottish plants so you have enough room for yer own.

Even allow we all Know we that the only genuine reason Scotland need the Nuclear power stations in the first place was because we need to generate more electricity to pipe down to England. Aren't the Scots a giving nation to the English, is it really so difficult for us to have a few gifts back i.e. no more nuclear, removing the WoMD from our land and giving us back our independence to be the nation we truly deserve to be.

We may NOT want Nuclear BUT the most important thing is we keep the areas that had nuclear power plants the only areas that have nuclear waste, seem apparate it's no like we'll be able to do anything with the land the nuclear plants have been on after they have closed. It wouldn't be right to built houses, business, Schools, hospitals etc. on the old sites. At best it would be to plant tree and other plantation which might help with some of the pollution that's in the air.


No more Nuclear!!!!
38

An English Voice,

14/01/2008 22:08:59
40. "No more Nuclear!!!!"*

(*Except what Salmond makes us keep.)

Christ, you talk utter tosh, Eve!

Bearing in mind this little quote:
NEW long-term storage facilities could be built near existing or former power plants at Hunterston, Ayrshire; Torness, East Lothian; Dounreay, Caithness; Chapelcross, Dumfriesshire; and at the naval bases at Rosyth, Fife, and Faslane, Dunbartonshire.

Does he have any intention of asking these communities whether they WANT to be permanent nuclear waste dumps ? No?
39

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 22:22:05
#41 An English Voice: I never insulted what you wrote, so it's unfare to swear at me and rubbish my opinion which is very valid.

"Hunterston, Ayrshire; Torness, East Lothian; Dounreay, Caithness; Chapelcross, Dumfriesshire; and at the naval bases at Rosyth, Fife, and Faslane, Dunbartonshire" Where these communities asked if they wanted a Nuclear power station so near to them?

I very much dought it!!!!

The thing is they are already living near were the radio active waste is being made and there has been at lest one radio active beach which neighbours a Nuclear power station. So containing the radio ation to the smallest areas as possible is whats best for every one.

When I say No more Nuclear. I mean no more new stations and no more WoMD.

I accept that we have to live with the old nuclear power stations until they close and then some. Even allow it was only the minority of Scots wanted this kind of electricity power (which was forced apon us form Westminster).
40

morris,

edinburgh 14/01/2008 22:29:14
40

Eve There is a serious issue here. Whilst I acknowledge that moving waste is hardly to be recommended,and can follow the argument that waste already here should stay here on saftey grounds,the precedent would then exist that if the UK proposes nuclear dumping in Scotland ,we have a much less robust case of opposition when Salmond is openly storing and in my opinion courting nuclear waste !
I agree with GUGA Get the waste out of Scotland.

I am an SNP member but I will be monitoring developments here VERY CLOSELY INDEED.I dont like this one tiny bit.
41

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 14/01/2008 22:30:19
Eve:

I'm glad you object to my posts.

EV:

You must admire A.S. for having the courage to keep the stuff. It would be easy and popular to load it on a lorry and send it to your homeland - which is, BTW, my preferred solution.
42

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 22:52:35
#43 morris: I don't really like the idea of parts of Scotland being used as a dumping ground for Nuclear, I do worry that if this goes a head the Westminster might force us to take the English waste too.

BUT sometimes I feel you just have to accept whats done is done and concentrate in working with what you have and concentrating on whats best for the country's future.

This opinion of putting Nuclear waste were the power stations are, is away of minimising damage to the environment and the environmental groups seem to agree that this is what is best.

I'm NOT a member of the SNP or any other political party.

I believe in Scottish independence BUT I believe that looses should be cut and NOT have time waste fighting over them (The things that were lost decades or centuries ago) and concentrate in what we do have and Making Scotland a successful nuclear free as possible independent country.

43

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 14/01/2008 23:08:58
can i suggest that the best place for Nuclear waste are in towns and countryside areas where there has been successful opposition to wind turbines?
44

brian mcc,

the arctic 15/01/2008 00:10:34
This is like a toilet that has backed-up. What the -ell, been flushing it for years, out of site and out of mind, at the worst possible time as carpets and floors are ruined. Call the pump-lorry...he'll take it away. Just paid him, didn't ask where he dumps it at, I just assume it's a massive hole. Out of site, out of mind, something for the next generation...

Bout time London dealt with their own waste.
45

livilion,

livingston 15/01/2008 00:14:24
#41 An English Voice,14/01/2008 22:08:59

As things stand we don't have much option but to keep nuclear materials where they are.

Hunterston A for example, how long have those nuclear reactors been standing there, too radioactive to dismantle?

It shut down in 1989 after only 25 years production but its going to take at least 85 years to clean up.
Electricity too cheap to meter...

Every single UK nuclear clean-up site is behind schedule, Rosyth included.

Windscale eg after its wee 'overheating incident' still has molten uranium inside the burnt out pile No1 that after 50 years they've still not got round to removing and no plans to do so for another twenty years yet, never mind burying deep underground.

At Dounrae who can forget the high drama of the explosion at the hole in the ground where they'd been dumping their nuclear rubbish? So far so good, out of sight...

If we don't keep this rubbish where it was produced how can we refuse to take other folk's contaminated nuclear rubbish ourselves?

btw Hospital radioactive waste can also be lethal.

Aye, shame we got rid of poor Jack McConnell, he promised all our old radioactive material would be sent to Cumbria if only we'd voted for him.
And all our new radioactive material too, if we were lucky.

Think Malawe might be interested in a job lot, there must be some ex-empire third world country that'd take it off us?
46

Colin, Glasgow,

15/01/2008 19:23:40
This is a reminder of how the sorry tale began:
http://business.scotsman.com/nuclearenergy/Bury-your-own-nuclear-waste.3302300.jp
The Scottish govt said they wouldn't take part in discussions regarding how decisions on the disposal of nuclear waste should be made. So the Cumbrian authorities threatened to bar nuclear waste coming from Scotland.

Hence Alex Salmond now says that Scotland will keep the waste in temporary storage. It's cheaper in the short term, and if he can hold out long enough the rest of the UK will build a repository outside Scotland. It wouldn't make sense to have more than one repository in the UK, so the Scottish waste will probably end up in there too eventually. Hence Alex avoids the vote-losing risk of constructing a permanent repository in Scotland.

It is the same logic that says it is better to extend the life of old failing nuclear plants rather than building new, reliable, replacement nuclear plants which would produce less waste.

 

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.