The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-5352, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on the need for nuclear power. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the intervention in the Dundee-based The Courier by Bailie George Regan, Chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, to the debate on the future of Scotland’s energy needs; considers that his opinion reflects the will of the people and the Parliament that Scotland’s future energy needs lie in renewables rather than nuclear power, and believes that the massive government subsidies that are earmarked for new nuclear power stations in the UK would be of greater benefit to the research and development of renewable technologies.
17:04
The debate provides an opportunity to make Scotland’s position on nuclear power clear. I acknowledge that the title of the motion might be a little ambiguous but, just in case there is any doubt, my argument is that Scotland has no need for new nuclear power. We do not need the expense or the risk associated with it and we certainly do not want to pass any more nuclear waste down to future generations. Given the abundance of renewable energy options that Scotland has at its disposal and the wealth of green energy on our doorstep, it would be unforgivable to pursue a new generation of nuclear power stations.
I was prompted to submit the motion for debate after the question whether Scotland should have a new generation of nuclear power stations was raised in my local paper, the Dundee Courier, by Bailie George Regan, a Dundee Labour councillor and chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities. He argued that we should not aim to build new nuclear power stations because, with the wealth of renewable options already in place, the country’s huge additional potential in that respect and the work being carried out by the Scottish Government and local councils on energy efficiency and microgeneration, Scotland simply has no need for new nuclear power generation.
The member’s motion refers to
“massive government subsidies that are earmarked for new nuclear power stations in the UK”.
What size are those subsidies?
I will talk about subsidies later and quote the United Kingdom minister with responsibility for the area.
At present, 11 Scottish local authorities, including Dundee City Council, are members of NFLA, which works with the councils to ensure that they meet their commitments to sustainable development and environmental protection. NFLA also campaigns against nuclear new-build and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
I am against new nuclear power for two reasons: first, we do not need it and secondly, we cannot afford it. On the first point, last year Scotland generated about 50,000 gigawatt hours of energy. As that far exceeded demand, just under 20 per cent of that energy was exported to England and Northern Ireland. At present, 24 per cent of the electricity consumed in Scotland comes from renewables. The figure is growing year on year and we are on track to hit the Scottish Government’s targets of 31 per cent by 2011 and 50 per cent by 2020.
Scotland’s two working nuclear power stations generate around 30 per cent of its total electricity production. The decommissioning dates for Hunterston B and Torness are expected to be around 2016 and 2023 by which time, the figures suggest, renewables will have not only filled the gap but ensured that Scotland continues to be a net exporter. For the record, I am not suggesting that existing nuclear power stations should be closed before their natural lifespan runs out.
The figures for Scotland’s renewable potential are truly staggering. For example, its potential to generate electricity from renewables has been estimated at 60GW. Given that that is more than 10 times what we need, there is huge potential to export green energy.
My second reason for not supporting new nuclear power is that we cannot afford it. We simply cannot afford to divert funds away from the progress that we are making in harnessing Scotland’s renewables potential. Scotland is leading the world on measures to tackle climate change and, with our natural resources, we can be at the forefront of renewable technology and reap the benefits of exporting our expertise to the world.
Will Mr FitzPatrick now answer Mr Brown’s very pertinent question about the Government subsidies that he appears to have identified?
I will come to the point when I come to the point.
The potential for green energy is huge, with 26,000 extra jobs expected to be created in Scotland over the next decade. In my Dundee West constituency, we can see both the potential of green jobs and the threat posed by investing in nuclear power rather than renewables. Dundee port is well placed as a hub for the construction and maintenance of offshore wind turbines and the investment that the Scottish Government is putting in to offshore renewables is providing a major opportunity for companies in the city. It is estimated that over the next 10 years more than £15 billion will be spent on offshore wind turbines and the potential for companies in Dundee and throughout Scotland to supply the European market is vast. To do that, however, we must continue to keep our global lead in new technology. A shift of money and focus away from renewables to nuclear would mean missing out on the opportunity to export skills and goods to Europe and the rest of the world. We cannot afford to waste billions on new nuclear, as we are already paying the price of a costly legacy.
Nuclear is the most expensive way in which to produce electricity. To respond to the point that members of pro-nuclear parties have made, I point out that, in 2008, the then UK business secretary, John Hutton, conceded that no nuclear plant had been built anywhere in the world without public money. We must consider the full costs of nuclear plants. The cost of decommissioning alone is more than the value of the electricity that plants generate over their lifetime. The cost of the Chapelcross clean-up is estimated at £1.4 billion and the site will not be available for re-use until 2128. The clean-up at Dounreay will cost more than £3 billion. So we do not need it and we cannot afford it.
It is clear that Scotland’s renewable potential, coupled with the Scottish people’s opposition to nuclear, provides a clear mandate against new nuclear energy. The Parliament needs control over our energy policy to make the most of the potential and to reap the benefits in jobs and tax revenue from a successful renewables industry. Any investment in new nuclear would be a step backwards and would be hugely damaging to Scottish jobs and our carbon footprint. We do not need new nuclear and we do not want it.
17:11
The hallmarks of a mature party in a mature democracy are that it can tolerate different views on important issues and recognise that colleagues who disagree with the party line are sincere and well informed, even though it thinks that they have reached the wrong conclusions. Mr FitzPatrick’s speech has reminded us that Scottish National Party policy on nuclear energy is misguided, but it is encouraging that a long-standing SNP member such as Jim Gray, a member of the Helensburgh branch of the SNP, can take a different view from the party.
Members might have seen Mr Gray’s critique of party policy under the title “Electric Power in the New Scotland”, which he offered alongside his evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s inquiry into the future of Scotland’s energy industries, the report of which was published last June. Mr Gray has extensive first-hand experience of the electricity generating industry. He is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, among other things. His commentary on nuclear power states that the SNP’s 2007 manifesto is
“marred by the inclusion of two self-contradictory and dangerous paragraphs.”
Those are paragraphs on climate change and electricity, which Mr Gray interprets as meaning that
“We will reduce carbon emissions and get rid of the biggest producer of carbon-free energy we have.”
That goes to the heart of the contradiction in the SNP’s policy position. It makes no sense to rule out nuclear power at the very time when we need more rather than less low-carbon electricity. It is good that at least some members of the SNP are prepared to stand up in public and point that out. It is no wonder that Mr Gray subtitles that part of his pamphlet with a quote that is borrowed from Oliver Cromwell to address the Scottish ministers. It reads:
“In the bowels of Christ I beseech you, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Electricity policy should be based on the imperatives of reducing carbon emissions and increasing security of supply while tackling fuel poverty and creating quality green jobs. Labour at Westminster has sought to deliver on those objectives by supporting renewable energy and new nuclear while putting up to £1 billion into work on carbon capture and storage and creating a green investment bank to support new jobs.
Mr Macdonald has given an eloquent demonstration of his commitment to new nuclear power. Will he say exactly where in Scotland he wants the new power stations to be? Can he assure us that he does not want them in his back yard up in the north-east?
That is an interesting proposition from Brian Adam, because the SNP’s position on the future of energy is much less clear than tonight’s motion suggests. It refers only to renewable technologies as the way forward, yet the national planning framework 2 says explicitly:
“There is a need for new baseload electricity generating capacity to replace the power stations programmed for closure over the next 20 years.”
The suggestion that nuclear power can provide a stable base-load is blown out of the water when we consider countries that are dependent on nuclear power, such as France, which frequently has to import electricity from other countries when its nuclear power stations are down because the reactors are overheating or threatening to overheat.
What a pity that Mr FitzPatrick did not make that point in his own speech.
The national planning framework identifies Hunterston as having the capacity to accommodate a major new clean coal-fired power station, and it identifies that as a priority national development. However, again, it appears that not everyone in the SNP agrees. There was a vote here last month on an amendment to oppose unabated new coal-powered capacity and to reject plans to build a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston. Mr Gibson was one of several members of the SNP who voted for that amendment; Mr FitzPatrick was one of several who voted against it. Some might say that SNP members believe that it is all right to have new coal-fired power stations as long as they are not in their own backyards. A more generous interpretation might be that that split was a sign of a new culture of tolerance and informed dissent within the SNP. Time will tell which of those is true.
If Scotland is to meet its carbon reduction targets, there will have to be a change of Scottish Government policy sooner or later. In spite of the dissenting voices within the SNP, I fear that that will not come before the election next week. Indeed, I fear that it will not come as a change of Scottish Government policy until after the election next year.
17:16
Dearie me.
I congratulate my colleague, Joe FitzPatrick, on securing the debate on an issue that is of great importance to the people of Scotland and to the people in my constituency. Although the Scottish Government is committed to the running of our existing nuclear power stations, such as Hunterston, and is aware of the energy that they provide to the national grid, we see no need for any future nuclear facilities. Indeed, in the context of jobs, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is of the view that decommissioning Hunterston will take anything from 25 to 125 years—70 years is about the best bet—and that decommissioning will provide more jobs than the plant currently provides. Incidentally, Hunterston A, which closed in 1989 after 25 years of operation, is still being decommissioned—at a cost last year of approximately £49 million.
Will the member give way?
I will let Lewis Macdonald in in a wee second.
The key to the debate is the word “need”, in the context of nuclear power. I met Muir Miller, the project director of Ayrshire Power Ltd, which proposes the coal-fired power station that Mr Macdonald spoke about a few moments ago. He accepts that Scotland has no need of the energy for its own use, but his company is progressing with the project in order that energy can be exported. That company appreciates the fact that there will be an energy surplus in Scotland in the future. Even in the past year, we have learned that Cockenzie power station, which was going to close, is likely to be reconfigured as a 1.5GW gas turbine plant, and that Longannet will be completely renewed as a 2.4GW coal-fired power station. That would provide about three times the current energy output of Hunterston.
If Mr Gibson accepts the view that the power that would be generated at Hunterston would be surplus to requirements, does he also believe that the national planning framework has got it wrong?
If Mr Macdonald looks at the plans for Ayrshire Power Ltd, he will see that they are not being applied for under the national planning framework, but under industrial policy 4. He may want to look at the matter in a bit more detail.
Any argument about nuclear power stations being somehow more efficient and safer must surely be dispelled by recent experiences in France and Finland. French company Areva is currently constructing two identical power stations at Olkiluoto—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—in Finland, and at Flamanville, in France. Billed as the models of a “nuclear renaissance”, those plants were meant to be cheaper, more powerful, safer and more efficient than previous generations of nuclear power stations. However, their construction has been hit with a plethora of problems. First, both projects are massively over budget. In Finland, the plant’s estimated cost was €2 billion, but the cost is now more than double that. Secondly, both plants were supposed to be built within four years, but are currently going to take six years.
Will the member give way?
I would really like to give way, but I have only a minute left and I am not even halfway through my speech.
Perhaps most worrying is that there has been genuine concern about the safety of the plants. The Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority identified 700 non-conformances during investigation of the project, and the director-general of that authority condemned Areva’s
“attitude and lack of professional knowledge”
in failing to correct problems more than a year after they had been identified. He also slammed the design of the plant as failing to meet
“the basic principles of nuclear safety”.
It is, therefore, extremely concerning to note that the proposed fleet of new nuclear power stations to which the UK Labour Government has recently given the green light are likely to be built by Areva and will be, in the words of the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy, standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper.”
Nuclear energy is costly and potentially dangerous, and the Scottish Government’s stance on the issue is widely applauded by environmentalists. I agree with my colleague Joe FitzPatrick that the money that is to be spent on new nuclear power would be more effectively spent on enhancing the renewable energy sector in Scotland and other parts of the UK.
Scotland has already been identified as a world leader in renewable energy technologies and has huge offshore renewables potential. Failure to invest in the skills and resources would be a massive opportunity missed as the world races to create viable and efficient renewable technologies.
Admittedly, only a small percentage of Scotland’s energy requirement is produced at the moment by, for example, the Siadar wave energy project, which will nevertheless create energy for 2,000 homes and 70 jobs, but more is in the pipeline from a new hydro project in the Great Glen and from offshore wind—of course, 6.4GW of capacity was leased by the Crown Estate only recently.
Scotland has unique offshore potential, for which many countries would give their eye teeth. Continued investment in research and development and pilot projects could lead to Scotland providing up to a quarter of the European Union’s energy needs.
There is no need for nuclear power. We should go ahead with other forms of energy production.
17:20
I take issue with the wording of the motion, as I alluded to in an intervention, and with the substance of it. My issue with the wording of the motion was emphasised by the question that I put to Mr FitzPatrick, which I would have put to Mr Gibson if he had accepted my intervention. The motion uses clearly the phrase:
“believes that the massive government subsidies that are earmarked for new nuclear power stations in the UK would be of greater benefit to the research and development of renewable technologies.”
The questions that I put, which I do not think were answered, were these: What are those subsidies? Where have they been earmarked and what is their total value? I did a lot of research today to try to establish where the subsidies are. As far as I could establish, they do not exist, although I am happy to be proved wrong. Perhaps the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism could explain to us where the subsidies are and for what they have been earmarked. I could not find them. The Labour Party seems to suggest in its manifesto that it supports nuclear power, but thinks that it should be without subsidy. I can certainly confirm that the Conservative manifesto is supportive of nuclear power, but that it also says that it should be without subsidy.
Can the member point to an example anywhere in the world of a nuclear power station being built without the injection of public finance?
The member rests his claims pretty much on first and second-generation nuclear power stations and seems to ignore the third-generation nuclear power stations that are being built around the world. I put the question to him, because the matter is in his motion. He wrote it personally, lodged it and demanded that it be debated in the Parliament. The Parliament deserves to know where are the subsidies that he refers to as having been earmarked for new nuclear power stations.
I do not accept the other argument that we simply cannot afford nuclear power because any money that goes into new nuclear from a private source is, by definition, money that is taken away from renewable technology. That simply is not correct. The two nuclear power stations in Scotland are, of course, owned by EDF Energy plc, which bought out British Energy plc. If there is to be no nuclear power in Scotland, I do not think that EDF would suddenly decide to convert to wave or tidal power. What will happen is that EDF will take its investment elsewhere; it will take its investment south of the border and it will invest more in France. It will take its investment to any other European country, a growing number of which are investing in new nuclear technology.
Those countries are investing in nuclear power because although it is not carbon free, it is a low-carbon source of electricity. That is an uncomfortable truth for members of the SNP and other parties that are against nuclear power, but that is the reality. It is a very uncomfortable truth for the SNP to face. By getting rid of nuclear power and replacing it with renewables, we do pretty much zero to the overall effect of our carbon emissions. The big danger is that Scotland will end up being a net importer of electricity from south of the border and that that electricity will be from nuclear power from south of the border.
17:25
It strikes me that the theme and the motion for the debate stray somewhat from the approach that is generally taken to members’ business. That is no bad thing and I congratulate Joe FitzPatrick on securing the debate, notwithstanding the slight ambiguity in the motion’s title.
British politics is said to be in flux, but the speeches this evening confirm that a game-changing movement towards a cross-party consensus on nuclear power is unlikely. However, I acknowledge Lewis Macdonald’s point about the healthy debate that has happened in all our parties on the issue.
Like others, I will start by reiterating my party’s position. The Scottish Liberal Democrats oppose the development of new nuclear power stations. That position is reflected throughout the UK and does not apply solely in Scotland.
Mr FitzPatrick’s motion refers to
“the will of the people”.
That factor is important and is not simply a gut reaction to an abstract proposition. It is worth reflecting that the nuclear aspect of the wider energy debate is perhaps given more prominence than any other aspect. To some, that is a source of frustration and complaint. I understand that frustration to a degree. Nevertheless, it means that public views are shaped by greater exposure to the arguments for and against new nuclear power stations, which is significant.
It is generally accepted that there are no easy or inexpensive solutions to decarbonising our economy and meeting our future energy demands—to reducing harmful emissions, safeguarding security of supply and eradicating the scourge of fuel poverty. However, that does not mean that no options exist.
The options are well set out in the report by Garrad Hassan and Partners, “The Power of Scotland Renewed”, which was published last year. It suggests that renewable energy can meet between 60 and 143 per cent of Scotland’s projected annual electricity demand by 2030—that depends on the levels of energy saving and of new renewables. The base scenarios that were used assume increased energy consumption and stable peak demand but, as the report’s authors made clear, that is a worst-case scenario, as one hopes that current and future efforts to reduce consumption and manage peak demand will bear fruit over time.
An increased commitment to widespread and significant energy efficiency measures is essential, as is investment in grid upgrades—including subsea cables—and in interconnectors and storage options, to reflect the changing nature of energy generation. That was a central theme in last week’s excellent debate on transmission charging. I reiterate the need for the charging structure to underpin the renewables revolution that we all want and certainly not to work against it, as at present.
I do not dispute that all that comes at a significant up-front cost, but the benefits in the longer term for emissions reductions and security of supply and for more managed and affordable energy costs more than justify the investment. When we add the opportunities for job and wealth creation—not just in Dundee but in remoter parts of the country, such as the islands that I represent—it is self-evident that we should strain every sinew to deliver those aspirations.
The risk is that new nuclear build diverts investment—including vital research and development funding—from genuine renewables. It is worth reflecting on the Scottish Government’s record. The importance of the saltire prize—Mr Salmond’s vanity project that will pay out nothing until 2017 at the earliest and might pay out later—has constantly been elevated above the need for more immediate and targeted R and D funding for the marine sector. The point about R and D in Mr FitzPatrick’s motion is well made. Another risk is that the picture is distorted for decisions about grid, other infrastructure and supply-chain development.
New nuclear is touted as a cheaper solution in the short to medium term, but such an approach to policy making has landed us with the problems that we now face. Given that we still have no acceptable solution for waste disposal—perhaps the minister will say whether his Government is considering disposal options for nuclear waste—and given the longer-term issues with sourcing uranium and the serious concerns about the impact on the development of genuine renewables, the case for new nuclear is at best superficial.
I congratulate Joe FitzPatrick again on securing the debate, although I fear that his hope that it will allow the Parliament to speak with a clear voice on the issue was a little overoptimistic.
17:29
I thank Joe FitzPatrick for lodging the motion and other members for their contributions this evening. The Scottish Government welcomes the debate and supports the motion. It is the will of the people of Scotland and of the Parliament that Scotland’s future energy needs should be met from renewable rather than nuclear power. The Scottish Government has consistently argued that new nuclear power stations are neither wanted nor necessary in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has consistently backed it on that.
With our huge renewable energy resources and massive carbon storage potential, Scotland is embracing the energy future and positioning itself to be Europe’s low-carbon hub. We are achieving that without the huge inefficiency, dangerous safety record, wasteful cost overruns and appalling toxic legacy of the UK’s nuclear programme, which is not the right choice for Scotland. There is a balance of payments argument, a comparative advantage argument and the sheer evidence of utility companies investing in line with our plans.
We genuinely want a nuclear-free future for Scotland. How can we have a nuclear programme when safety concerns are so widespread that, as recently as 27 November 2009, The Guardian reported that the Health and Safety Executive cannot recommend acceptance of reactor designs? I put it to my colleagues in the Labour and Conservative parties that nuclear power is an unacceptable risk that we do not have to take. The people of Scotland should not be expected to bear an even greater cost burden than our share of the £44.5 billion that is needed to clean up our existing nuclear plants.
I recognise the point that the minister makes about nuclear waste and the long period during which it must be kept safely. Does he accept that the alternative base-load strategy of carbon capture and storage that he has pursued will require the safe storage of captured carbon for a very long time?
I do, but it offers us an internal balance of supply in Scotland, the ability to develop technologies and expertise that we can sell elsewhere and the ability to make Scotland and its North Sea the carbon capture and storage location of choice for Europe. There is a big prize to be won.
With nuclear, there is a risk of new costs for us to shoulder in the long term. Mr Brown made a point about subsidies. In my view, it is inconceivable that the decommissioning charge will not come back to the taxpayer. We are already bearing heavy cost. The experience in Finland is of cost overruns and delays in the project coming on stream. There is also a possibility that the Finnish environmental protection agency will not allow it to open.
The motion states clearly that
“massive ... subsidies ... are earmarked for new nuclear power stations”.
In his capacity as energy minister, is Jim Mather aware of any earmarked subsidies?
I suspect that the earmarked subsidies to which the motion refers relate to decommissioning and its track record. Even with the new technology that is coming through, we have unknown unknowns. When we look at what is happening in Finland at this time, the track record is deeply worrying.
We should compare and contrast that uncertainty and track record of cost with our ability to have a sustained increase in renewables deployment in Scotland. The level of consents here is monumental. Since we came into government, we have consented to 33 renewables and two non-renewables applications under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. We have a streamlined process that is boosting investor confidence and are well on track to deliver our ambitious renewable targets.
People are responding to the signals. We are better placed to capture a healthy share of the supply chain with renewables and CCS than in any nuclear scenario.
The Scottish Government has a clear and consistent energy policy and a track record of delivery. We are going to meet our renewable energy targets, exceeding the UK’s share of the EU 2020 target. We are continuing to speed up the planning process. We are reducing the amount of energy that is used by households and businesses, through our energy efficiency action plan. We are securing record levels of investment in energy, both onshore and offshore. We have opened up the world’s largest commercial-scale marine energy zone. We have clearly stated that there will be no new coal power stations in Scotland without CCS in place from day one. Our electricity-generating sector needs to be completely decarbonised by 2030, in line with our world-leading climate change legislation.
The energy policy is backed up by robust data, which will ensure security of energy supplies and will allow Scotland to export clean energy across the UK. The trends in the generation mix in Scotland have changed over the past decade. There is also a considerable difference between the Scottish generation mix and the wider UK generation mix, which must be carefully considered. The higher levels of renewable energy capacity, coupled with our ambitious renewables targets and our intelligent approach to grid issues, negate the need for new investment in nuclear energy. The future investment conditions to attract what we need to move forward are being created here in Scotland.
Before I close, I will refer to the arguments that Joe FitzPatrick made. Joe FitzPatrick is entirely in accord with me. He argues that there is no need for nuclear energy, and that it is not affordable, particularly from a balance of payments standpoint. He argues for a legacy that could be positive, not negative; for a balance of payments that is positive, not negative; and for avoiding the diversion of funds that could be invested here in Scotland—in Scottish projects, in Scottish jobs, delivering Scottish energy. We should learn from the negative experiences in Finland and France, and we should instead create opportunities for Scottish communities and for Scottish ports. We can play to our material comparative advantage, which the Garrad Hassan report identified.
We are in a substantially better position than we were before. We have created clarity in the market, and the market is responding.
Meeting closed at 17:36.Previous
Decision Time