Nuclear Energy (Germany)
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00155, in the name of Rob Gibson, on Germany exits nuclear energy. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the decision by the German Government to take its nuclear power plants offline by 2022, thus joining Switzerland, which recently announced its intention to be nuclear free by 2034; considers that this implies the provision of electricity from more renewable sources and compliments the German Government on its ambition, and considers that the Scottish Government target of 100% electricity produced from renewable sources is entirely achievable and can help reindustrialise many parts of Scotland, including renewable energy hubs in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross.
17:07
Germany has taken some bold, brave and important steps over the past year. In a world in which Governments such the United Kingdom and France continue to cling to nuclear as a fait accompli, Germany is taking steps from which we could all learn to build a cleaner and more sustainable energy market. I do not want to focus on the disaster at Fukushima or the tragedy at Chernobyl, but those incidents have encouraged German and Japanese voters to demand change. The grave dangers of nuclear energy are well known, and those who describe nuclear as safe would have a hard time making their case to a family affected by those disasters.
Some up-to-date news from Japan is pertinent. Last month, nuclear plant usage fell to a record low of 20.6 per cent, down from 66.7 per cent a year earlier, and 60 per cent of Japanese have little or no confidence in nuclear power. Radiation levels 20 times higher than normal have been found 60km from Fukushima, whose decommissioning could cost $15 billion, with a possible compensation bill of $59 billion. Energy-saving measures in Japan have led to a drop in electricity demand, and a new law has recently been passed to promote the use of renewable power in the Japanese grid.
Instead of looking backwards to those awful events, I would like members to think about our future and whether we are prepared to take bold and decisive action to power it in a clean, safe and sustainable way. Some may describe Germany’s move to phase out nuclear energy in 10 years as drastic, and some will cry, “How will they fill their energy gap?” and “How will they stay competitive in a European and global energy market?” The German federal Government is not daft, and it has outlined a three-pronged approach to maintain Germany’s status as an energy hub. It is important for members on all sides to hear exactly how a major world economy can still thrive without the crutch of nuclear power.
The first and most beautifully simple of those measures is to drive energy efficiency as never before. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party Government has worked to boost energy efficiency in our homes and workplaces, and it can do a lot more. Moving on from that big step, the second prong to Germany’s nuclear-free survival guide is to drive carbon-free energy across all sectors. The German Government will make a fast and early national transition from coal and gas to renewables and will require all sectors to follow suit. Last month, for the first time, renewable energy crossed the 20 per cent mark in Germany, according to the German Association of Energy and Water Industries. The figure is now 20 per cent in Germany, but it is 30 per cent in Scotland.
In the past, some people have argued that withdrawing from nuclear energy production will lead only to a heavier reliance on fossil fuels; others doubt the readiness of clean renewables to fill the energy gap. The German Government thinks that that is tosh and, thankfully, so does the Scottish Government. The buy-in to our renewables potential will boost economic growth and substantially reduce our carbon emissions. Some Labour members have described our renewals target as a fairy story, pie in the sky and unworkable. Well, the people of Germany think that those Labour members are talking tosh and, judging by the election result in May, I think that so do the people of Scotland.
In placing faith in renewables, the German Government is encouraging innovation as never before. It aims to produce and use 6 million electric cars by 2030, and it aims to lead the world in renewables research and development. In Scotland, the SNP has big plans for our research and development and manufacturing sectors to make the most of our world-class facilities and opportunities. German utilities companies such as Siemens, E.ON and npower can collaborate with Scottish know-how, as Mitsubishi, Gamesa and others are already doing, to perfect more efficient turbine blades. We expect large companies from Europe and other parts of the world to work with us here.
The third and final step that the Germans will take in preparing to move towards a nuclear-free system is to develop the infrastructure that is needed in the long term to maintain a renewables system. In Scotland, we have seen Scottish and Southern Energy pull out of a consortium to build a new nuclear power station in Cumbria. It, too, is taking the Scottish way. Ian Marchant, the SSE chief executive, says that SSE’s strategic objective is to have
“more than our fair share of renewables and less than our fair share of nuclear”.
He adds that SSE has
“no experience in running a nuclear plant, so we would inevitably be the junior partner of a consortium, whereas in renewables, we could be leading a consortium”—
and it is.
The new German planning process should also create the basis for regulators to license related investments and thus provide certainty around the future of the grid. Special efforts will be made to adjust and roll out the necessary infrastructure, including the transmission networks that will transport wind power from the northern parts of the country to the south; smart distribution networks that can manage large numbers of electric cars; and power production from decentralised sources as well as sufficient storage options to deal with large shares of variable power sources. However, in Scotland, access to the fossil fuel levy, the acceleration of the work of the green investment bank and the time that it will take for the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets to sort out the transmission charging regime in favour of the renewables sector all rely on a UK Government that shows far too much interest in nuclear power and too little interest in the potential of renewables to work in our favour.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Not at this moment.
In the time I have left, I will state the Scottish Government’s position, which Jim Mather gave to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in 2009, during its inquiry into determining Scotland’s energy future:
“While nuclear energy will continue to play a part meeting service demand for electricity for the lifetime of the current nuclear power stations, the Scottish Government is also very clear that Scotland neither needs nor wants new nuclear power generating capability in Scotland, and no replacement nuclear power capability will be developed in Scotland.”
That is smart thinking, creative thinking, world-changing thinking and thinking that some in the nuclear debate have proved themselves incapable of understanding. It is the thinking that the SNP Government is championing in Scotland.
17:15
I congratulate Rob Gibson on securing the debate, which is important because it highlights a fundamental energy policy decision by fellow European countries that sets a positive example for Scotland.
Although the decision to exit nuclear energy was made by a reluctant conservative-liberal democrat German Government, the true victors are the German people. The political foundations were laid in the late 1990s by the red-green coalition, which settled in 2002 on an exit in 2021, after a maximum reactor running time of 32 years. The current German Government tried to prolong running times for 12 additional years, but it had to bow to intense public opposition after the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan this March. In June 2011, an exit by 2022 was written into German law.
According to representative polls in June, 75 per cent of Germans support phasing out nuclear energy by 2022 and nearly half would prefer an earlier date. In Switzerland, 67 per cent support the exit and 65 per cent are prepared to pay more for an energy mix that relies heavily on renewable energy. We can conclude that the majority of Germans and Swiss have seen through the persistent myths that nuclear energy supporters trot out.
The first myth is that nuclear energy is cheap. If nuclear power seems comparatively cheap, that is because it is heavily subsidised. Despite the protestations of safety, no insurance company will cover the risks and costs that are associated with a potential major accident. The immense cost of decommissioning nuclear plants—it is £62 billion in the UK, with more to come—is also offloaded on the taxpayer. That does not yet include the cost of treating and disposing of nuclear waste.
The second myth is that nuclear energy is clean. On the surface, nuclear power stations seem relatively low carbon. However, if the carbon footprint of uranium mining, enrichment and transport is added, the situation looks different. Uranium mining is a massive environmental and health hazard to workers and local communities. If we include the unsolved problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste—some long-lived fission products have a half-life of several million years—“clean energy” is the least appropriate term to describe nuclear power. How responsible is any Government that is, as Westminster is, considering building more reactors without having a working policy, and even less a safe storage facility, for existing waste?
The third myth is that nuclear energy is safe. After Chernobyl in 1986, Fukushima in 2011 and a variety of lesser incidents at nuclear plants, such as Sellafield in 2005, it is clear that nuclear power is anything but safe. I do not suggest that Scotland’s reactors are likely to be hit by a tsunami any time soon, but no nuclear power station is immune from natural disasters or human error. No installation is immune from that, but a major disaster at a nuclear reactor has dire long-term consequences for human life and health and for the environment. As was evidenced by the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, radioactive contamination spreads across borders and leads to soaring cancer rates and environmental poisoning. Even in 2009, 369 sheep farms in upland areas in the UK were still under inspection for contamination that arose from the accident 23 years previously.
To sum up, nuclear power is unsustainable, dangerous, polluting and prohibitively expensive, and we do not need it. We do not need it because Scotland is well suited for a variety of green renewable energy supplies. In the Scottish Government’s debate on the low-carbon economy two weeks ago, I highlighted the advances that have been made in renewables technologies and the economic advantages that are being reaped even now in and around my Kirkcaldy constituency.
Scotland’s potential renewables resource amounts to 60GW, which is 10 times the current peak Scottish demand. The Scottish Government is pursuing energy conservation and has set out an energy efficiency plan.
I am greatly encouraged by the Scottish Government’s principled opposition to nuclear power and all the short-term and long-term risks and costs that it entails. I congratulate the Swiss and German people on making a far-sighted decision about their energy future.
17:19
I, too, congratulate Rob Gibson on securing this important debate, which we welcome, on the future of energy production in Scotland.
I reassure Rob Gibson that we share the Scottish Government’s enthusiasm for increasing renewable energy production in Scotland, and we welcome the ambition of its electricity target. We have made that clear in previous debates in the chamber; indeed, we have had quite convivial debates on the issue with the minister. We think that expanding our use and production of renewable energy in Scotland is an environmental necessity for our country if we want a sustainable energy policy for the future. There is also a huge economic opportunity for Scotland, particularly for the north—Rob Gibson highlighted that in his motion—but also for the north-east. There are many skills in our oil and gas sector that we hope will transfer into a growing renewable energy sector.
I quibble with parts of the motion. Germany’s energy policy is a matter for it. Our party’s position has not been to rule in new nuclear power for the future of Scotland’s energy production and consumption, but neither have we ruled it out. Our focus has been on ensuring that we have the base-load and security of supply that we need. The history of nuclear power in Scotland has been very different from its history in other countries—Mr Gibson described international incidents that have occurred.
However, we recognise that the Scottish Government’s focus is clearly on meeting the renewables target, and we hope that the goal of meeting 100 per cent of our electricity needs from renewables by 2020 is achievable and realised. We have made that clear but, as a constructive Opposition, we think that questions need to be asked about how the target will be achieved, how the policy can be properly scrutinised and how the Government is progressing to meeting the 2020 target. That is why we again call for the Government to set out clear interim targets on the way to achieving the 2020 target to allow us to monitor progress.
Rob Gibson rightly mentioned the issue of investing in infrastructure for renewable energy production. We have welcomed a £70 million fund in Scotland, but investment in infrastructure in Germany outstrips what we are putting in here. We understand that these are difficult times for public spending but, if we all agree that such infrastructure needs to be a priority, we need to prioritise investment in it.
Rob Gibson also mentioned the important issue of energy efficiency. We have previously expressed concern about reductions in the fuel poverty budget, which have been somewhat but not entirely redeemed in the budget and the spending review. We are all rightly concerned about the rising fuel costs, which threaten to increase fuel poverty. Renewable energy is welcome, but there are cost issues, and we must keep driving down fuel poverty. That means that we must address the issues of costs and consumption and tackle energy efficiency. We must ensure that homes are energy efficient and insulated. Reducing consumption is also crucial.
We welcome the Scottish Government’s ambition on renewables as outlined in the motion, but we look forward to the details about how its ambition will be achieved so that we can be confident that we have a sustainable energy policy that will meet Scotland’s needs.
17:23
I join David Torrance and Richard Baker in congratulating Rob Gibson on securing the debate, which is pertinent, given that we are constantly discussing the future of Scotland’s energy supply. It is clear that this discussion is an important part of that debate.
I welcome Germany’s decision to phase out its nuclear power plants by 2022. That decision was provoked or inspired by the tragedy at Fukushima in Japan not long ago, but the direction of travel in Germany somewhat predates that, of course. As David Torrance correctly pointed out, the former green-red coalition in Germany set Germany on that course. Its target was to shut down Germany’s nuclear power stations by 2021, but the Christian Democrats altered that decision. There has, of course, been a U-turn in light of Fukushima.
I welcome that U-turn. Richard Baker is correct to say that Germany’s energy policy is a matter for Germany. However, it is right that we should take an interest in the issue of nuclear energy in particular, given the ramifications across boundaries if a nuclear incident occurs.
There is, of course, a history of incidents at nuclear power stations, the most well known being Chernobyl in 1986. The massive impact of that incident on Ukraine, Belarus and the surrounding area cannot be denied. Huge numbers of individuals—up to 600,000—were involved in the clean-up operation. It has been reported that some 100,000 of them have since died or are badly affected by radiation poisoning. That is to say nothing of the evacuation and relocation of the people who lived in the area, and the stigmatisation and the infection that occurred.
As an aside, I commend my constituent Jim Gillies in the Abronhill area of Cumbernauld, who undertakes a vigil each year to commemorate the tragedy of Chernobyl and has raised money for many children affected by radiation poisoning in Ukraine.
Lest we fall back on the complacency that standards in the UK’s nuclear industry are much higher than they were in the former Soviet Union, which is undeniably true, and we believe that there is no danger in the perpetuation of the nuclear industry here in Scotland and the UK, I remind members that there have been incidents in more developed countries than the Soviet Union. Fukushima is a recent example. It was described by Arnold Gunderson, a former nuclear industry senior vice-president, as
“the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind”.
That is a rather stark warning from someone who was involved in the nuclear industry.
Lest we become complacent and say that Fukushima was a one-off because of a natural disaster that could never occur here in Scotland, we need only look at what happened more recently at Marcoule in France, where one person was killed and four injured in a blast at the Marcoule nuclear site. That demonstrates that we should not be complacent about the higher standards of safety here in the UK.
I want to deal with the myths of nuclear power. David Torrance made the point well that we are told that it is environmentally friendly, yet the mining of uranium scars the landscape and contaminates the area mined. Another myth is that it is safe. Uranium is mined from some unstable parts of the world, and there are health concerns for workers involved. There is the myth that uranium is sustainable, yet it is a finite resource.
We have to ditch the nuclear obsession and follow the German example. Let us have no nuclear power stations and let us invest in a renewable future.
17:28
Members new and old will be fully aware that I am an outspoken supporter of the nuclear energy industry in this country and have spoken on the subject many times. I hope that I can take that as read and talk about something else in relation to the motion.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I will carry on and finish what I was going to say.
Rob Gibson started by saying that Germany has taken some bold steps over the years and that this decision is another such step. If I were mischievous, I am sure that I could name a number of bold steps that Germany has taken. However, we need only look into the relatively recent history, and decisions that Germany has made with its currency, for example, to see that it is a country that is big and wealthy enough to make bold decisions. When the chickens come home to roost and neighbours such as Greece, Portugal and Ireland hit economic disaster, Germany has all the money and can continue to hold all the values while those around it experience the difficulties.
Germany is one of those European countries that has relied heavily on nuclear energy over a significant number of years. Its decision to phase out its nuclear plants by 2022, which is more than 10 years away, is radical and one that it is fully entitled to make. However, the truth is that its decision will be based largely on the fact that it is able to source nuclear-generated electricity from its neighbours in France indefinitely into the future.
We in Scotland are in exactly the same position. On our capacity to regenerate renewable energy, we need only look back as recently as the last six weeks of 2010 to realise that there can be a catastrophic failure of the elements on which we rely to generate that power. Recently published figures for total production of renewable energy from Scotland for the whole of 2010 indicate that, in spite of the fact that there were very large increases in capacity, the amount of electricity generated fell. That should be a lesson to us all.
The truth is that we here in Scotland can afford to make the commitments that this Government has made to the renewable energy industry and our dependence on it in the future only because we know that we have a near neighbour that can work as a partner by buying that energy when we have a surplus to sell and supplying us, through the grid, with nuclear-generated electricity on days when the wind does not blow. As we discovered last year, those days come and they come for long periods.
I will close by saying a few words about our nuclear industry. In Hunterston and Torness we have two of the most efficient nuclear plants in this country, which have been run safely and efficiently for a large number of years. The staff at those plants are extremely professional and we as an economy have been able to rely on them for a long time. The decision of this Government to rely on those plants and allow their management to seek extensions of their lifespan is commendable, but it could be said to be hypocritical.
We have an exceptionally high-quality nuclear industry in this country and our Scottish plants are an example of that. When they close, as unfortunately they will, Scotland will not be free of its reliance on nuclear energy—no more than Germany will be free of its in 2022. We will simply have exported our nuclear plants to a near neighbour and we will rely on their presence to ensure that we have continuity of supply.
You, too, must close now please.
We should be more honest about that and we should accept that these decisions influence our neighbours and are being made on a very one-sided and selfish basis.
17:32
I thank Rob Gibson for bringing this very important debate to the chamber.
We know the havoc that was wreaked by the tragic events in Japan with the earthquake and tsunami and their effect on the nuclear plant there, which prompted several countries to review their position. Indeed, the European Union declared that plants should be examined under stress tests to ensure their safety.
We have heard about the positions of the Swiss Government and the German Government. The significant thing about the German Government’s plans to abandon any use of nuclear power by 2022 was the political decision of the Christian Democratic Union and the position of Angela Merkel.
It is important to note that Italy had a referendum in June on whether to continue with nuclear power plants. There was a turnout of 57 per cent, with an overwhelming 94 per cent rejecting plans for the continued use of nuclear power in Italy.
All of Germany’s 17 nuclear plants were built by Siemens, which, as members will know, announced on 18 September that it would no longer be involved in nuclear plant projects. Indeed, its chief executive, Peter Löscher said that the move was an answer to
“the clear positioning of German society and politics for a pull-out from nuclear energy.”
He added:
“The chapter for us is closed.”
Shortly after that announcement, as Rob Gibson said, Scottish and Southern Energy announced that it was selling its 25 per cent stake in the nuclear conglomerate NuGeneration. Regrettably, however, it did not say that it would rule out a return to nuclear energy provision. Significantly—this refers to something in the motion—it also said that its
“core investment in generation should be in renewable energy.”
The position in Belgium and Austria follows that line.
Regrettably, the UK Government’s position has always been one of strong support for nuclear energy, albeit that the industry relies on a heavy public subsidy, as David Torrance said.
I turn to one of many magazines that arrived today: Insight into nuclear decommissioning from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. That organisation has a budget of £12 million and responsibility for
“decommissioning and cleaning up ... civil nuclear facilities ... ensuring that all the waste products, both radioactive and non-radioactive, are safely managed”
and
“implementing Government policy on the long-term management of nuclear waste”.
The situation at Dounreay in the north of Scotland is highlighted in the magazine, with the site engineer saying:
“radiation levels are still very high”
with
“residual traces of liquid metal coolant”.
Decommissioning started in 1983 and stalled for 30 years, but we are told that the reactor has been
“declared ... a major environmental hazard”.
Although £12 billion may go some way towards addressing that, it will not be sufficient.
I agree that
“the Scottish Government target of 100% electricity produced from renewable sources”
is not only achievable but vital, as is reindustrialisation, particularly in the north of Scotland to replace the big part that Dounreay played in the economy there.
It is important that the Scottish Government has invested in Scrabster harbour. There is potential connected to Nigg. Renewable energy should deliver something for the people of Caithness, Sutherland and Ross because of the contribution that they have made to getting us this far.
Germany has taken a great decision for the planet.
17:36
Rob Gibson raises important issues in this members’ business debate, and I thank him for bringing it to the chamber.
The Lothians, too, are well placed to contribute to, and benefit from, a real commitment to renewably produced electricity. Here in Edinburgh, we have world-leading educational establishments and local community groups such as PEDAL—Portobello Transition Town, which is highlighting the practical benefits with a proposal for a community wind turbine.
We all welcome the progress that is being made on renewable energy production. We can and must complement that with an increase in renewable heat and by growing the community-owned and small-scale renewables sector. Of course, such technologies will bring optimal benefit only when they are located within well-insulated buildings.
The Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism told Parliament that there was a rational case for extending the life of Scotland’s two nuclear power plants and that the SNP was “perfectly open” to the continued use of the Hunterston and Torness power stations. I am sure that the minister realises that new nuclear is an unnecessary choice and that, instead of dangerous and expensive energy production being given yet more time in Scotland, the time is now right for the Government to commit to producing a nuclear shutdown timeline.
Germany has shown us all the way. We have also heard that Switzerland intends to be offline by 2034 and that Italy has cancelled all new nuclear plants in a legally binding referendum. Some of the reactors that those countries are shutting down are younger than Hunterston B, but we are extending its life. The lifetime extension of old plants carries greater safety concerns. That is part of the concern that I raise. The events at Fukushima should be taken as a warning about keeping crumbling plants with patchy safety records going.
I will not go over all the points that members have made and with which I agree entirely. I ask the minister to write to the UK Government opposing any lifespan extension at Hunterston on the ground of safety concerns. I also ask him to commit to producing a timeline for nuclear shutdown in Scotland.
17:39
I congratulate Rob Gibson on securing the debate.
It is a sure sign of the changing world view on nuclear energy that Germany—a manufacturing giant with a population of 81 million—has turned its back on nuclear energy as a viable source of new generating power. Its decision to build no more nuclear power stations is a landmark moment and, I hope, points to an eventually nuclear-free world.
Once upon a time, nuclear power was viewed as the answer to all the world’s problems, with many people predicting that it would result in world peace and electricity that would be “too cheap to meter.” That period of nuclear naivety did not last long. Following accidents and disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the late 1970s and 1980s, public opinion shifted away from nuclear power. Unfortunately, it has taken the incident at Fukushima to galvanise opposition and—I hope—to put to rest future developments.
I will take issue with a couple of points that Alex Johnstone made. Unfortunately, he did not allow me to intervene. If he had, I would have pointed out that nuclear power is not always reliable. In 2006-07, Hunterston B shut down for 10 months. Reactor 3 at Hunterston B came back online only yesterday after having been shut down last week following a leak. Nuclear power is not as reliable as he suggested. Alex Johnstone also referred to buying electricity from England. In fact, England plans to produce a maximum of only 8 per cent of its energy supply from nuclear power. Of course, England gets the benefits of our oil and gas.
Although widespread trepidation is an integral part of Germany’s decision, it has been influenced by numerous other factors, including finance. During this economically challenging time, it would be reckless to sign away billions of euros of taxpayers’ money to fund the construction, maintenance and decommissioning of new plant. It must be remembered that there has never been a nuclear power station built without massive subsidy; I believe that there never will be. That is why the USA has not built a new nuclear power station since 1972. Other forms of energy are simply more cost-effective.
The UK Government has proposed that a new fleet of nuclear stations be built by Areva Group. The company has already attempted to build a plant in Finland. Its estimated cost was £2.5 billion, but there it is now expected that there will be a 100 per cent overrun, and the project is three years late after 1,500 safety flaws were identified. Unfortunately, after a series of costly subsidies and tax breaks, the fun is just beginning. As colleagues have indicated, the real monetary cost of nuclear power is in decommissioning. It is pretty shocking that Sellafield will now cost £1.5 billion to decommission and will not be cleaned up for three centuries.
In my constituency, Hunterston A was open from 1964 to 1989, so there were 25 years of electricity production, but the site will not be cleared until 2080. That process will be paid for by the grandchildren of those who benefited from the electricity. The cost will be at least £671 million; it cost £41.8 million this year, 22 years after the plant’s closure.
The only truly sustainable and environmentally friendly method of producing energy is to embrace the sun, wind, tides and waves. Whether it is nuclear or fossil fuel, ultimately all those sources of energy are finite. If we do not want our descendants centuries from now to live as if they were in the middle ages, we have to develop renewable technologies. If Scotland wants not to be surpassed by China, South Korea and the United States in developing those technologies, we have to be at the forefront in their development. Scotland is well placed to become completely energy self-sufficient in the coming decades and I believe that we can certainly enjoy the benefits of renewable energy.
I want to highlight something that everyone in the chamber and everyone in Scotland knows, which is that the waste issue is still unresolved.
I thank the member for that helpful intervention.
It will take 91 years for Hunterston A to be cleaned up and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority tells me that it will take anything between 25 and 125 years to clean up Hunterston B.
I do not agree with what Alison Johnstone said about closing the plants now: we have to wait until new sources of energy come on stream. The plants will close when they have fulfilled their useful life expectancy and I believe that they will never be replaced.
17:44
It is right that, in this Parliament, we turn our eyes furth of Scotland. I was therefore not disappointed by Rob Gibson’s comments in that regard, as he is a true internationalist. I thank him for securing the debate, for raising this important issue and for allowing all members to have the opportunity to take part.
Decisions about the energy mix and the pressing need to deliver a low-carbon, secure and sustainable energy future are obviously among the most important decisions that we take at this time. As many members have said, Scotland is extremely well placed to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, and that is because we are blessed with a large quantity of extremely bad weather. We have one quarter of Europe’s offshore wind and tidal energy and 10 per cent of its wave power. It is perhaps only recently that we have become aware of the huge potential of natural phenomena that were previously regarded with gloom all round. We have among the best energy resources in Europe. All members would give credit—to varying degrees, I suspect—to the First Minister for galvanising the mood of the nation to do what we can to take advantage of the natural elements with which our country has been blessed.
In the spirit of cross-party solidarity in the debate, I highlight the fact that it was the Scottish Labour Executive that brought in the first renewables target.
I am happy to accept that point of information. We are working together with the Labour Party on achieving the objectives and I fully understand Mr Baker’s remarks about the duty of the Opposition to challenge and probe; he is perfectly correct to do so.
The leadership that we have provided was recognised at the conference last week that was sponsored by the Scottish Government, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and Scottish Enterprise. Al Gore spoke for two hours, without notes. I would happily do that this evening if I could get away with it.
No!
His speech was inspirational. The former US vice president said:
“I admire and applaud the First Minister’s leadership in promoting the development of renewable energy, efficiency and sharp reductions in CO2 emissions. His government and private companies based in Scotland are providing inspiration to others in many parts of the world.”
We are on a journey—one on which we are travelling together with various degrees of enthusiasm. Rob Gibson highlighted Germany’s decisions to turn away from nuclear power, which it is phasing out by 2022, to massively increase use of renewable energy by doubling it, and to make the 10 per cent energy efficiency cut to which many members have quite rightly alluded. I agree with most of the comments on that that have been made by most members in the debate.
It would be correct for me to point out that Scotland might face some problems arising from Germany’s decision to expand drastically its renewable generation. It will now resolutely dedicate itself to that task, and it will continue to seek with great determination to lead—or perhaps even to dominate—the supply chain for turbines, high-voltage direct-current cables and vessel leasings. Germany’s drive must be seen as a challenge to Scotland, which makes it all the more important that Ofgem and the UK Government quickly end regulatory uncertainty and deliver an effective framework of support for renewables. Whether it is oil and gas or renewables, the one thing in which we need investment on a substantial scale is certainty. Uncertainty and the hiatus that has been caused by matters that are under discussion, and which members have rightly highlighted, is the enemy of investment.
I therefore make a simple plea to the UK Government. We need to make rapid progress with the difficult decision that we face on electricity market reform, with project transmit, with location of the green investment bank in Edinburgh—the case for that is unanswerable—and with the return of the fossil fuel levy, which has been languishing in an Ofgem account for far too long.
I pay tribute to decisions that have been taken elsewhere. It is, as has been pointed out, for other countries to make their own decisions, but is it not interesting that the three countries in the world that are moving in that direction along with Scotland—Germany, Japan and Switzerland—are associated with being the foremost countries in the world in giving a lead to technology? That seems to me to be neither accident nor coincidence.
Of course we accept the need for a balance in meeting our energy needs so I am grateful for this opportunity to reiterate that, alongside meeting our renewables targets, we will continue to produce the necessary conventional energy. That is why in the past day or so I was pleased to announce that I have approved the application for Cockenzie power station to move from coal to gas. In that respect, our policy is realistic. We will continue to need conventional thermal generation during the transition to a low-carbon economy for the reasons that Alex Johnstone—and, in a different vein, Alison Johnstone—outlined, and we will consider applications to extend the lives of existing nuclear stations based on their merits and on safety, economic and environmental grounds, in respect of the matters that fall to us for decision making.
Although we are proud that our vision of a low-carbon economy for Scotland has made a mark throughout the world, we should in the transition to achieving that objective recognise, value and praise those who work in the world’s conventional power stations. I thank Rob Gibson for securing this interesting debate, and all those who have participated in it.
Meeting closed at 17:51.