Latest news with #Torness
The Herald Scotland
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
ScotGov warned nuclear stance is costing jobs and economic growth
And he says it could create thousands of new, highly-skilled jobs in Scotland while also delivering clean, secure and more affordable energy for working people. It comes as the MP visits Torness Nuclear Power Station in East Lothian and he wants Scotland to follow countries such as Denmark, Italy and Belgium in changing their views on nuclear energy. Mr Murray said: 'In other parts of the UK, the UK Government is driving forward nuclear power, as are countries across Europe and indeed the world. But in Scotland the Scottish Government clings to its ideological objection to new nuclear sites. Read More 'That means that Scotland is being left behind, missing out on thousands of skilled jobs and economic growth, as well as clean affordable energy. I urge the Scottish Government to put Scotland's interests first.' Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association said: "Nuclear in Scotland will bring jobs and growth as well as a constant supply of secure, reliable and clean electricity that complements other low carbon sources. 'As countries around the world are increasingly embracing nuclear as an integral part of achieving energy security, decarbonisation and minimising the exposure to the volatility of fossil fuel prices. The Scottish Government's refusal to countenance replacing Torness when it retires in a few years is indicative of a fundamental lack of seriousness of policy." Sam Richards, CEO of pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade, said: 'Scotland is being left behind. While countries like Sweden and Finland embrace clean, reliable nuclear energy - the Scottish Government clings to its outdated ban on new nuclear. If nuclear industry jobs and investment are banned from coming to Scotland, they will go to these places instead. 'Torness has powered homes and supported jobs for decades, but a lack of certainty over its future puts this in jeopardy. Renewables are vital, but wind and solar can't do it all. Scotland needs nuclear to provide jobs and investment, deliver secure domestic energy, and cut emissions. Most Scots and even most SNP voters back it. It's time for ministers in Edinburgh to stop saying no and start saying yes to new nuclear.' Torness is due to stop generating by March 2030, having been up and running since 1988. The power station currently employs around 550 full-time EDF employees plus more than 180 full-time contract partners. Staff are to be given an opportunity to retrain ahead of its closure in 2030 with the power station among the largest employers in the south-east of Scotland.
The Herald Scotland
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Will the SNP apologise when it realises it got it wrong on nuclear?
At the present time it is estimated that by 2050 the electricity demand will require an average of 80GW per hour. Without nuclear energy increasing substantially to replace gas-fired plants there is no possibility of the energy sector achieving net zero. Without nuclear plants in Scotland there is no way net zero can be achieved. I suppose we shall have to hold on for a few years before we get an apology from the SNP Government (if it is still in office) that it should have changed its view on nuclear energy in the interests of the Scottish people. Charles Scott, Edinburgh. Read more letters Look at the German warning The Scottish Government's reluctance to recognise nuclear power's value in reducing carbon emissions is perplexing. Our electricity grid cannot operate solely on renewables without sufficient storage and balancing capacity to provide stability, neither of which we currently have, nor a clear strategy to provide. Germany offers a clear warning of the potential consequences. Their heavy reliance on renewables without adequate balancing power has led to creative accounting by paying Poland to take their excess electricity as it's cheaper than paying renewables operators to switch off their surplus destabilising capacity. Their decision to close down nuclear power plants has worsened the situation, increasing carbon emissions due to greater reliance on fossil fuels to preserve grid stability. It would be a great shame for Scotland to reject the benefits of high-energy-density nuclear power like that provided safely and reliably by Torness for the past 37 years, especially given the nation's past history of innovation in electricity production by creative Scots pioneers like James Watt, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin and Tom Johnston. These giants helped establish the reliable electricity systems we often take for granted today. Our current policy makers should do some homework. Keith Burns, East Linton. EU return is just a dream Alex Orr (Letters, June 25) tells us that the forecast that leaving the European Union would be economically damaging has proved to be correct. This will come as no surprise to those of us who voted to remain. Ian McConnell tells us in the same issue that the majority of the population is now in favour of rejoining ('Are Brexit revelations a mandate for Labour to take UK back into the EU?', The Herald, June 25). The case for this is therefore overwhelming. I do not think it is likely to happen, however. The economic argument in favour of remaining was equally strong at the time of the referendum, but those who campaigned for Brexit dismissed it ("f*** business," said a former prime minister; "we've had enough of experts," said one of his cronies). Those who voted Leave were, I believe, uninterested in economics. For them it was about "sovereignty": they loathed the EU and felt membership diminished their country. This view seems to have been particularly strong among English Leave voters. This group of people is not open to the pragmatic arguments in favour of rejoining. Their view is essentially visceral and cannot be changed. They may now be a minority (though large) but they have substantial backing in the media. It would be a brave politician who took them on. There is also the question of whether the European Union would want the UK back, knowing that a large segment of the population remained opposed. For these reasons, I think the UK rejoining is not on the horizon. An independent Scotland, however, would probably be a different story. Those of us in favour of both membership of the European Union and an independent Scotland can only dream, unfortunately. Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Alex Orr writes a very informative letter regarding the current state of the UK economy, relating it to the effects of Brexit. It is refreshing to read a letter regarding the economy which does not end with the opinion that independence is the answer. Closer union with the EU might help, but the mess that has been brought about by the Brexiters will probably be impossible to repair. It is wishful thinking that an independent Scotland would make any difference. Malcolm Rankin, Seamill. Double standards A report from the Scottish Funding Council attributes the University of Dundee's financial crisis to poor financial judgment and weak governance. The Scottish Government has now provided a total of £62 million to bail the university out ("Ministers use powers to grant new cash bailout to university", The Herald, June 25). As a result a significant number of senior managers have been held accountable and have left the organisation through dismissal or resignation The cost of procuring the two ferries, MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa, has increased from £97m to more than £460m. That increase has resulted in an injection of public funds six-fold greater than that provided to the University of Dundee. There is also the significant indirect economic impact on island communities caused by years of delay. Yet nobody has been held accountable and there have been no resignations or dismissals from the management at either the Scottish Government (at political or directorate level) or at its agencies, Transport Scotland and CMAL. Why is such a different approach to mismanagement of public funds considered acceptable? George Rennie, Inverness. Dame Jackie Baillie has criticised Scotland's cancer treatment waiting times (Image: PA) In defence of NHS Scotland It appears, disappointingly, that Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, June 26) has been swayed by political sound bites instead of factual data when claiming that 'cancer patients in Scotland are not being treated promptly'. The median wait time from decision to treat to first treatment is three days. According to that self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, Dame Jackie Baillie, the latest figures on NHS Scotland cancer waiting times are 'disastrous and an indication of the SNP's mismanagement of the NHS' ("Scotland's cancer waiting times rise to their highest level since records began", The Herald, June 25). If that is indeed the case, and not just another disingenuous Dame Jackie anti-SNP sound-bite, then how would she describe the situation in Wales: perhaps 'catastrophic'? In Wales the devolved Labour Government has not only given up (since 2019) on reporting the 31-day target for the start of treatment, which NHS Scotland is achieving in 94.1% cases and NHS England in 91.3% of cases, NHS Wales is only achieving the 62-day target for initial referral to start of treatment in 60.5% of cases. On the 62-day target, NHS Scotland at 68.9% is performing 13.9% better than Wales and NHS England at 69.9% is performing 15.5% better. Of course the broader picture is that across the UK the NHS is struggling as cancers are increasingly suspected earlier and people are living longer (NHS Scotland has seen 17.5% and 6.3% increases in 62-day and 31-day referrals since the pandemic) while staffing levels continue to suffer as a result of Brexit and hostile UK Government immigration policies. If the SNP Scottish Government stands accused of mismanagement then presumably the Labour Welsh Government stands accused of gross negligence? Despite her patronising rhetoric, don't expect broad assessment and honest objectivity from Dame Jackie and the Labour Party on Scotland's NHS within the confines of UK Government policies any time soon. Besides more deceptive sound bites one should expect more desperate references in the Scottish Parliament to relatively few poor experiences plucked from the hundreds of thousands of daily interactions with patients who are generally appreciative of the high quality of overall service delivered by NHS Scotland. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.
The Herald Scotland
26-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Paul McLennan: 'Future for Torness is one that embraces renewables'
My aim has been to harness the skills and knowledge of the hundreds of people employed at Torness to supercharge Scotland's journey to net zero. The future of energy in Scotland is undoubtedly in renewables. Our renewable energy industry and its supply chain now support more than 47,000 jobs and supported £15.5 billion of output in 2022. Offshore wind also powered the most activity across the Scottish economy, generating more than £6.8 billion of output, followed by onshore wind with £6.4bn and hydropower with £1.4bn. New nuclear plants in the UK have been subject to significant delays and huge cost hikes, none of which actually benefit ordinary people. Read more: The UK Labour Government's obsession with new nuclear is absurd – it's expensive and would take decades to build, far less see any impact on bills. At a time when household bills are soaring, politicians have a duty to think very carefully about what will deliver on increasing demand – while also thinking about our environment and the impact on the pockets of constituents like mine in Dunbar. The cost of new nuclear plants is also very unpredictable. In its latest estimate, EDF says its Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could be delayed to as late as 2031, with costs rising to £46bn. Let's not forget, the project was initially expected to cost £18bn when it was first agreed in 2016. EDF has also experienced delays building the same reactors in Finland and France. Paul McLennan, East Lothian MSP (Image: Newsquest) Looking forward, my focus is clear: it's on clean, green renewable energy, which Scotland has in abundance. Torness can be a beacon of how decomissioning can deliver opportunities for the workforce and deliver lower bills too. Scotland already produces more renewable electricity than we need. We also have hydro power stations – just one way of filling in any gaps in the generation of power. At the heart of any energy policy must be the public – constituents like mine in East Lothian and across Scotland, who have seen their energy bills soar in recent years. Now a year into government at Westminster, Labour has so far failed to deliver on its promises to cut household energy bills by £300. The key to lower bills is meaningful investment in areas of renewable energy, which is cheaper to produce and is also cheaper for consumers. Torness has a wealth of skills and experience to deliver on that goal. I meet with station manager Paul Forrest on a regular basis to discuss the decommissioning as we move towards 2030. Paul managed the process of closing Hunterston, which I think was managed very well. We discuss the role of EDF, Enterprise Agencies and Scottish Government in that process. But what of the future of Torness? I back the Scottish Government's focus on renewable energy. Scotland's Energy Secretary Gillian Martin recently stated that the Scottish Government will "capitalise on renewable energy capacity" rather than "expensive new nuclear". My vision for Torness is one that embraces the capabilities of renewables such as hydrogen power. Read more: Scotland has, in abundance, all the raw ingredients necessary for the production of low-cost hydrogen. We also boast some of the largest concentrations of energy engineering expertise in the world – including many at Torness – who can harness Scotland's renewable energy potential in technologies like wind, wave and tidal power, to produce green hydrogen. Low-carbon hydrogen can unlock thousands more jobs in our energy sector and can deliver clean, green energy as our demand is only set to increase. I've been engaged with EDF's renewables division to scope out opportunities in this space and I'll continue to work with a range of stakeholders to deliver a just transition for my constituents, and all of Scotland. Paul McLennan is the East Lothian MSP.
The Herald Scotland
26-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
'Why discard 40 years of nuclear expertise?'
The 500-plus workforce at Torness clearly demonstrate the commitment of those working in the industry to delivering clean energy to millions of homes and businesses while maintaining the highest possible safety levels. We cannot thank them enough for the vital contribution they have made to our energy needs and to the local economy over the last 37 years. However, as the plant nears the end of its generating lifetime, it is essential that the industry, decision-makers and local communities consider carefully what will come next for the site, and the jobs and apprenticeships it has provided for so long. Read more: With demand for electricity set to at least double by 2050, we must explore all options for utilising low-carbon, homegrown power sources. The reliable, baseload power produced by nuclear makes it an essential part of that homegrown, clean energy mix. However, as things stand, we have a Scottish Government that is committed to using its planning powers to block any new nuclear projects in Scotland. I do not believe this outdated SNP policy has ever made sense. It has held Scotland back and cost communities the jobs and investment they need. Indeed, a recent poll demonstrated that the SNP is even out of step with most of its own supporters on this issue. According to the polling, more than half (52%) of those who voted SNP in 2021 believe nuclear power should be part of the energy mix to support the Scottish Government to reach its 2045 net-zero target. But the SNP's opposition means Scotland is also now at risk of missing out on its share of the billions of pounds of investment and thousands of new jobs that are set to be created by the UK Government's commitment to a new era of nuclear power. Douglas Alexander, Lothian East MP That UK Government investment, which includes backing plans for developing small modular reactors with Rolls-Royce SMR, will help deliver the clean-energy future that our country needs, as well as supporting growth and high-skilled jobs for the next generation. Across the UK, the nuclear workforce has already grown 35% since 2021 to a record 87,000. It contributes £20 billion to the economy and pays £9.1 bn in tax. The new investment programme is set to accelerate this growth and create even more jobs and opportunities. A recent report from Oxford Economics showed the civil nuclear sector added £1.5bn to Scotland's economy in 2024 – a rise of 32 per cent compared to 2021. More than 150 Scottish firms have won contracts for Hinkley Point C, worth £280 million. £14.2bn has now been allocated to building Sizewell C, creating more opportunities for Scottish businesses. Just imagine what could be achieved in Scotland with a Scottish Government that actively supports a new generation of nuclear power projects. Here in East Lothian, we have the potential to benefit from the existing skills and knowledge of those working at Torness by exploring options for continuing to generate nuclear power on the site. Why would we simply discard over 40 years of nuclear expertise and experience when there is the potential to build on that legacy? Read more: Anas Sarwar has already been clear that a Scottish government led by him will reverse the SNP's block on new nuclear projects in Scotland. That could help unlock opportunities at Torness and allow the site to continue contributing to a clean power system that will deliver energy security, good jobs and growth, and support efforts to tackle the climate crisis. As the local MP, I am committed to working with the industry, trade unions, both of Scotland's governments and the local community to pursue this option in the years ahead. If there is any possibility of continuing to generate clean nuclear power, provide skilled jobs and boost the local economy, we should do everything we can to make sure it happens. To do otherwise would be to fail local workers, the local economy, and households and businesses across Scotland that need the reliable, clean electricity nuclear can provide. Douglas Alexander is the Lothian East MP. He is also Minister of State for Trade Policy and Economic Security, and Minister of State in the Cabinet Office in the UK Government.
The National
30-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Why nuclear power isn't the green energy solution you've been told
Instead, energy policy has become a political football with outrageous dishonesty about the real environmental consequences and financial costs of nuclear power. Nigel Farage, Tony Blair and, sadly, some Scottish political representatives are contributing to the false narratives that only building nuclear power stations will save us from future energy crises and that nuclear power is 'green' or carbon neutral. Encouraged by persistent, well-funded charm offensives by the nuclear industry, pro-nuclear narratives are repeated with vehement conviction, ignoring counter-evidence. Pro-nuclear political leaders may also be motivated by their wish to support Britain's capacity to build nuclear bombs. Even setting aside this deadly link, however, there are injustices, harms and risks that contradict the supposed attractiveness of nuclear. READ MORE: £150m renewable energy site proposed for former coal terminal The mining and milling of uranium, the main nuclear fuel, leaves contaminated water and soil, and ill health, historically often without buy-in from or benefit to local people. Hence, the many indigenous campaigns against uranium mining in Africa, Australia, Canada and the USA. The green claim ignores the carbon footprint of this mining, and the milling and construction that involves extraordinary amounts of concrete, the manufacture of which significantly contributes to climate change. Moreover, the nuclear cycle ends with various levels of radioactive nuclear waste that must be kept secure for the decades, hundreds and even thousands of years it remains hazardous to health. There are also ignored everyday harms in their operation. Nuclear plants are by the sea or rivers because their reactors are cooled by water as well as gas. When sucking up water can kill millions of living creatures. They also routinely emit small amounts of ionising radiation within supposedly 'safe' levels. However, scientists agree any additional ionising radiation causes harm in some circumstances. For example, X-rays are avoided in pregnancy because ionising radiation risks harm to the foetus. Women, girls and all infants are more susceptible to ionising radiation than adult males. Spikes of ionising radiation are produced when fuel rods are removed and cooling gas released into the atmosphere (as happens, for example, when sucked-up jellyfish force Torness to make an unplanned shut-down). Such peaks in radiation are concealed in the annual statistics but any pregnant woman or infant who happens to be locally downwind at the time is at heightened risk of harm. Then there is the downplayed risk of accidents. This may be a tiny risk, but the consequences of a Chernobyl or Fukushima-type accident are catastrophic. Similarly, war or a terrorist attack could lead to a disaster enormously more serious than the loss of electricity. READ MORE: Scottish Government scraps plans for national park in Galloway None of this is resolved with smaller and purportedly cheaper modular nuclear reactors – which create the same pollution, waste and risk. Generating electricity from renewables is a cheaper and faster way to make the necessary switch from fossil fuels than nuclear. There are political decisions regarding electricity costs, which include a government levy to pay for the infrastructure required by new renewables. Meanwhile, the large contributions the Government pays towards the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations come from our pocket through taxes rather than our electricity bills. In the UK, the price of electricity also diverges from the cost of its generation because the Government tolerates a market system of trading, called 'marginal pricing' which sets the overall cost by the most expensive method in the mix. In the last quarter of 2024, the mix was about half renewables: wind 31%, biomass 14%, solar and hydro power 4%; about 30% from burning gas, and about 10% nuclear. Despite this balance, the wholesale cost of gas has typically set the overall price since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are more flexible alternatives to nuclear when wind and sun are unavailable. Nuclear power plants cannot be switched off when demand for electricity drops because it takes days to safely power down a nuclear power station. Currently, when electricity generation risks exceeding demand, wind farms have to be switched off to allow nuclear power plants to keep running. All forms of energy generation involve environmental impact in their materials, construction, operation and decommissioning and some risks to human health. Nuclear power is particularly harmful, as well as historically linked to injustice and interconnected with weapons of mass destruction. Your voice and pen are needed to tell your political representatives, whatever party you support, 'nuclear power, no thanks' – go back to the evidence and seek a just energy policy for people and planet. Lynn Jamieson is chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
