The Scottish Government's independent advisory body on sustainable development
Nuclear is not the answer
 | Commissioner Hugh Raven speaks out in response to an editoral in The Scotsman |
Two years ago, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), reporting directly to the Prime Minister, published eight volumes of scientific analysis and its own carefully argued position paper, the Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy.
The report accepted that replacing all the existing nuclear capacity with new nuclear plants might save 7m tonnes of carbon by the late 2020s - equivalent to around 4% of total UK emissions. It is a measurable, though not decisive, contribution.
However, the SDC identified a range of concerns. Foremost was the problem of high-level radioactive wastes and the role of the private sector in managing these. Nuclear power is particularly prone to the problem of "moral hazard" - the routine under-insurance of public risk. In the long run, society simply cannot allow such costs to go unpaid. Commercial failure to cover nuclear liabilities inevitably falls on the public purse.
The report also discussed the uncertain economics and the danger of distracting attention from the essential task of reducing energy demand and implementing renewable energy. It concluded that "there is no justification for a new nuclear programme at this time, and that any such proposal would be incompatible with the government's own sustainable development strategy".
Two years is an eternity in politics. But what exactly has changed to justify business secretary John Hutton's statements on Thursday? Do we see a safer nuclear world? Are the economics of nuclear power now more favourable? Have we made substantive progress towards demand reduction? No, no and no again.
Government's recognition that global renewable capacity will have to increase is welcome and is shared by the SDC. But we see that there are better solutions than nuclear power which are closer at hand to solve the problems of energy security and rising energy costs.
The huge cost of nuclear power would create an inflexible supply - nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for micro-generation and local distribution network are stronger than ever. In the UK we waste one third of all the electricity we generate, therefore much more investment in energy efficiency would lead to less demand, whereas investing in a huge nuclear programme undermines this.
Funding available from Government should be prioritising bringing forward more efficient technologies, and in encouraging individuals and communities to make changes in our behaviour. Yesterday Stirling set itself the challenge of going carbon neutral by cutting its emissions from 12 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year to 1 tonne by 2035. If communities across Scotland and the UK all do likewise then worries about increasing energy costs, climate change and being held to ransom by unstable countries sitting atop their gas reserves will all but disappear.
Finally, it is also clear that Government cannot not act without proper public consultation, but we know there is no mandate for development of nuclear power in Scotland. The public are well aware of the evidence, laid out in our report, which clearly shows there are huge unresolved issues, particularly regarding long term responsibilities and consequences for future generations.
Scotland does have natural resources in abundance, ones which will not run out, and will enable us to have a secure energy supply in the future. Everyone, from government to the public, should support the development of forms of energy that harness these natural resources.
Read more about the SDC's work on nuclear power
- Change text size
