Latest news with #PeteRoche
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- General
- The Herald Scotland
Why Torness nuclear power plant is not all it's cracked up to be
The risk of a nuclear accident is thought to be relatively high in new reactors as they are broken in. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both in their break-in phase when accidents occurred. Then the risk lowers in mid-life. But as reactors become older, as with any other sort of equipment, there is an increased risk of age-related failures. The Fukushima reactors began commercial operation between 1971 and 1975, so were over 40 years old when the meltdowns occurred. Torness and Hunterston B are both Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) which opened in 1976 and 1989 respectively. There were an estimated 586 cracks across the two Hunterston B reactors when it was eventually forced to close in January 2022. There are a similar number of cracks in just one of the two reactors at Torness, with cracks also starting to appear in the other reactor. Cracking in the graphite core of these reactors is a problem because graphite debris could build up in the fuel channels comprising the operator's ability to keep the fuel cool and misshapen bricks could make inserting the control rods difficult. In a worst-case either of these could lead to a meltdown. The late John Large, a nuclear engineering consultant, explained that cracks also cast doubt on the safety of these reactors in the event of an emergency like an earthquake. A cracked and deteriorating core has lost its residual strength. If the core is wobbled by a small earthquake the core could become misaligned, and the fuel modules could get stuck in the core. Then the fuel temperature would get raised and could undergo a melt. If the radioactivity gets into the gas stream and the reactor is venting because it's over pressurised then you have a release the radioactive gas into the atmosphere and you have dispersion and a contamination problem. Pete Roche (Image: NQ) Clearly, it's time for the ageing Torness reactors to be closed. Keeping them open any longer would be gambling with public safety. We also have to bear in mind that there is a significant design difference at Torness, compared with Hunterston, which could make the cracking problem worse. The Torness reactors have seal rings between the graphite bricks that make up the reactor core. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) says there could be 'a systematic failure' of the seal rings after cracking. In January 2020, ONR brought forward the date when it expected to start seeing cracks appearing at Torness by six years but the closure date was only brought forward by two years from 2030 to 2028. Logically, we might have expected Torness to close in 2024. Then, in January 2024, in a bizarre switch, EDF changed its mind, and reverted to a 2030 closure date 'subject to plant inspections and regulatory approvals'. READ MORE on the Future of Torness series: Torness was only ever expected to operate for 30 or at most 35 years, so it is now past its sell by date. With cracks appearing in both reactors the precautionary principle dictates that it is time to shut up shop. Jobs at Torness won't disappear immediately when the station closes. It took over three years to empty Hunterston B of fuel. After that it will take almost a century to dismantle the buildings, decommission the reactors and eradicate the radiation from the land and buildings, in fact, when Hunterston B transfers its ownership from EDF to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) next April, the Scottish Parliament has been told the NDA will probably need to recruit more staff to help with the decommissioning work. As far as building new reactors at Torness, or anywhere else in Scotland, whether large or small, is concerned, that would be the last thing Scotland needs. It is perfectly feasible to supply 100% of Scotland's energy (not just electricity) from renewable sources. Future of Torness logo (Image: NQ) In fact, a recent study by renowned energy modelling academics at the LUT University in Finland, showed that not only is a 100% renewable energy mix feasible for the whole UK but it would save well over £100 billion in achieving net zero by 2050, compared to the UK Government's current strategy. What we need to balance variable renewables and reduce payments for turning off renewables is not always on 24/7 nuclear reactors, but more energy storage and flexibility in electricity demand. Nuclear power is too slow, too inflexible and too expensive to play a role in cutting carbon emissions.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- General
- The Herald Scotland
Inside the Torness nuclear power protests, 50 years later
Yet, the plant, first mooted in the early 1970s by the South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB), has long been a lightning rod of controversy. Anti-nuclear activists waged a futile battle to prevent the station from being built, with thousands of campaigners famously occupying the site in May 1978. Pete Roche is one of the founders of the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace, or SCRAM, a radical group who fought against the construction of Torness. 'I came to Edinburgh from Birmingham in 1974 to study ecology,' he tells me. 'I started going to Friends of the Earth meetings. That's when I first heard about the plans to build a nuclear power station. 'The public inquiry lasted seven days, and in the wake of that, a group of us decided to form SCRAM in 1975." Police remove a protester from a bulldozer in November 1978. (Image: Newsquest) 'I was supposed to go to the inaugural meeting but ended up in a car crash. Perhaps it was divine intervention…' Roche laughs. 'I'm only partly serious', he quips. 'We decided to camp for a weekend on the site in April 1976 - the campaign was still quite small. Then, we returned to the same field in 1978 and had a much bigger protest. More than 5000 people attended. 'We wrote to every organisation listed in the back of Peace News, slowly building up the anti-nuclear movement in Scotland,' Roche recalls. 'SCRAM had quite a sympathetic hearing in East Lothian. I would routinely cycle out from Edinburgh and help facilitate community meetings in all the small villages.' In 1978, a group of campaigners occupied 'Half Moon Cottage', a 'ramshackle and bleaky exposed' building on the site of the proposed station. Roche tells me: 'I stayed for around two weeks, but others stayed on longer. When the board wanted to start construction, they got harassed by the cottage people so they went down to demolish the cottage and arrested the activists.' Activists vowed to do everything in their power to stop the plant from being built, and would regularly throw themselves in front of bulldozers to prevent construction. A strong police presence stopped 200 Scottish students entering the Torness site. May 1980 (Image: Newsquest/Duncan Dingsdale) A November 1978 report, published in The Scotsman, states: 'The power game took a nasty turn when anti-nuclear protestors packed into pits, threw themselves in between the tracks of huge bulldozers and scrambled into mechanical shovels at Torness.' Roche looks back on those heady days with fondness. He remarks: 'We had a very active phone tree at the time. I remember we got 400 people there to block JCBs from digging sewage pipes. 'They started work at four in the morning but we were there to stop them.' A 1983 pamphlet entitled 'From Folly to Fiasco' illustrates the strength of feeling among campaigners. One excerpt reads: 'Controversy surrounds the Torness nuclear power station being built, just 30 miles from Edinburgh. Scene of numerous direct actions, Torness is a monumental example of corporate obstinacy. 'At every stage, independent voices have spoken out against the reactor on the grounds of excessive cost, surplus generating capacity, job losses in the coal mining industry, and the unsolved problem of radioactive wastes. 'Conventional protest, sound argument, and majority public opinion have, so far, proved fruitless.' Read more from Josh Pizzuto-Pomaco: 8,000 jobs boost in Peterhead after £1bn energy transition investment Edinburgh University staff to strike today as 1800 job losses threatened Glasgow 'tourist tax' approved as visitors face 5% tariff from 2027 Dr Ewan Gibbs, who lectures on energy politics at Glasgow University, says the protests were a 'significant moment' in Scottish energy history. He tells me: 'At the time, the prevailing distinction between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy was being challenged. There was a growing environmental movement against the nuclear industry throughout the 1970s. 'The SNP were anti-nuclear power while Labour and the trade union movement was divided. They were able to draw on a cohort of young people, mainly university graduates, who had increasing suspicion about nuclear power.' 'Their opposition was partly apocalyptic but also more practical, as fears over the impacts of nuclear waste and radiation grew. 'Of course, it's interesting to see how much the environmental movement has changed since Torness. Right now, it is driven by carbon. But this was not always the case. In the 1970s, coal miners and anti-nuclear campaigners were allies.' Demonstration at Torness. May 1980. (Image: Newsquest/Duncan Dingsdale) Gibbs argues that the relationship between Scottish nationalism and nuclear energy 'flows through Torness'. He notes: 'Torness shapes the energy policy of modern Scotland. We've had a nuclear moratorium for years now, which is very much seen as an SNP policy, but was actually shaped by Jack McConnell's Labour government.' Asked why he joined SCRAM, Roche, who would go on to work for Greenpeace, says: 'My reasons have probably changed over the years. I was motivated by fears of radiation at first, but then I started to engage with all these groups and I began to realise how autocratic the nuclear process was. It wasn't the sort of government I wanted.' Ultimately, the campaign could be dismissed as a Quixotic remnant of a bygone era. Activists didn't stop the bulldozers. Torness was built, and still stands today. Since 1988, the plant has produced 290 TWh of zero carbon electricity. Station owners EDF Energy proudly state this is enough energy to power every home in Scotland for 29 years, and that the use of the plant has avoided 101m tonnes of carbon emissions. Torness rises over the East Lothian coast. (Image: EDF) Yet, the 'Torness Alliance' casts a shadow of radicalism which remains relevant today, as Just Stop Oil and pro Palestine activists block roads, throw paint, and march in the streets. SCRAM will celebrate the 50th anniversary of its founding this autumn, at an event in Edinburgh. I'm told an archival film will be shown. Greying activists in the twilight of life will come together to remember a time when the world seemed on the brink of collapse, and all that stood between nuclear armageddon was a group of radicals camping in a field near Dunbar. Indeed, the legacy of these men and women will live on, long after the reactors of Torness power down for the last time.
Daily Record
15-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Record
Labour's £14bn 'fixation' with new nuclear power 'won't cut bills or help climate'
The UK Government last week announced a new 'golden age' of nuclear but academics and campaigners warn it will be a costly energy fail. Labour's £14billion 'fixation' with new nuclear power will be a costly flop and do nothing to lower Scots' bills or hit climate targets, experts have warned. It comes after Keir Starmer's goverment last week announced a 'golden age' of nuclear energy with a £14.2billion investment to finally build the delayed Sizewell C plant in Suffolk which it claimed will create 10,000 jobs. Ministers say the move is vital to prevent future blackouts and to help the shift to a low carbon economy. Now campaigners and academics warned nuclear energy is too expensive and plants take too long to build to make any dent in net zero efforts or prevent future blackouts. And they said the result of 'inevitable' cost overruns on nuclear projects would lead to a 'nuclear tax' on consumer bills. It follows pressure on the SNP to end its block on nuclear projects, with Labour saying it could open Scotland up to small modular reactors (SMR) if it wins at Holyrood next year. But Pete Roche, an Edinburgh energy consultant and anti-nuclear campaigner, said: "It's too late for nuclear. It takes too long to build. "We're trying to tackle a climate crisis here, we need to be fast - the faster, the better. "You can insulate people's homes and put up wind farms quite quickly in comparison to how long it takes to build a nuclear power station. "And the worry is when you're putting all your eggs in the nuclear basket, the money is getting diverted, civil servants' attention is getting diverted. "We're not focused enough on getting the energy transition based on renewables off the ground. "It's a fixation and the UK is not on its own. There's all sorts of talk in other countries of building nuclear power stations again. "It's almost like a mass psychosis because if they really investigated properly what the best use of public funds would be, nuclear wouldn't get a look-in." Dr Paul Dorfman, of the Bennett Institute at the University of Sussex, said more than £20billion had now been committed to Sizewell C but the final bill could easily be double that and likely more. He told the Sunday Mail: 'The vast majority of that money comes from public subsidy - in other words, the public will have to pay for all the inevitable over-costs and overruns, which is basically a nuclear tax.' Dr Dorfman continued: 'In Scotland, given the country's vast renewable power capacity, one wonders what would be the reason to burden Scotland with new nuclear. 'New nuclear builds, wherever they're built, are always vastly over cost and over time. 'Hinkley Point C [in Somerset] is already 90 per cent over budget and seven years late, with at least seven years of construction remaining. 'And the form of reactor that is doomed to be constructed at Sizewell C is the same reactor being built at Hinkley C.' He added: 'It is possible to sustain a reliable power system by expanding r enewables on all levels, whether that's solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, storage and all the rest of it… 'But nuclear risks eating all of the cake. 'The time lost may prove catastrophic, because according to the UK Government, it takes up to 17 years to build just one nuclear power plant. 'Meanwhile all SMRs are in the design phase. 'In terms of the climate, we are running out of time now.' And because of the time it takes to build a nuclear station, he declared: 'Nuclear cannot keep the lights on.' Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Tor Justad, chair of Highlands Against Nuclear Power (HANP), highlighted the continuing issues related to the old Dounreay plant which shut down in 1985 around radioactive waste. He said: 'For me, investing in nuclear makes no sense, whether economically or in terms of safety or benefit to the wider community. 'We don't need these massive white elephants which always end up costing twice what they started with and take twice the length of time to build than they predicted. 'And this argument about base load doesn't take into account the storage possibilities for renewables that we're developing at a rapid pace, including here in the Highlands. 'We can store electricity now in ways that we never could do ten years ago, and that will continue to improve.' He added Labour's pro-nuclear stance is 'a real danger' in Scotland. The UK Government's Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: 'We reject these views." Noting the £14.2billion investment and jobs boost, it added: 'We are ending the no-nuclear status quo as part of our Plan for Change and are entering a golden age of nuclear with the biggest building programme in a generation... "This is the government's clean energy mission in action – investing in lower bills and good jobs for energy security.'
