Chamber and committees

Does the member recognise that a reactor pressure vessel for an SMR could be built at, for example, Rosyth and then taken by barge to Torness and connected to the existing turbine hall there, which would be a fairly easy job, in relative terms?

I share the aspirations that have been expressed across the chamber and agree that Scotland has huge potential to lead the way on the renewable future. It is unfortunate that we have been such a laggard up to this point, and it is frustrating that we have missed huge opportunities over the generations.

I look, for example, at the contrast in the fortunes of Denmark’s Vestas and Scotland’s Howden. I will take that as one case study. Thirty-five years ago, in 1989—the very year that I was born—Scotland exited the manufacturing of wind turbines, and the works that built those pioneering wind turbines now lie derelict on the south side of Glasgow. That could have been a huge opportunity if we had persevered with more state investment in wind turbines at the early stage. We now see the huge advantage that other countries have in stitching up the global supply chain for wind turbines.

Our particularly harsh weather, extensive coastline and thousands of lochs mean that Scotland boasts a unique environment that is well suited to the installation of wind, hydroelectric and tidal power. I just wish that we were making more of the infrastructure that is required.

That said, it is also irresponsible of the Government here in Scotland not to support a new generation of nuclear energy as part of the mix. Britain and Scotland were the world’s first civil generator of nuclear power, with Calder Hall and Chapelcross in the 1950s. Unfortunately, that industrial leadership was lost through a lack of planning and the break-up of our vertically integrated electricity generation and transmission system in the 1990s.

The Government’s ideological opposition to new nuclear power stations is holding Scotland back from billions of pounds of potential investment and thousands of highly skilled jobs. It does not have to be an either/or—it is a false dichotomy. We can be a clean energy superpower through renewable technologies and new civil nuclear power working in concert.

It is, after all, clear that intermittency is the fundamental challenge, particularly with wind turbine installations. Wind power technology is available only 25 per cent to 45 per cent of the time, while nuclear energy provides a 90 per cent stable base-load supply, which means that we are able to augment intermittency with a stable baseline. That is the fundamental reconciliation that is needed.

When we discuss nuclear power, we are often haunted by past generations of nuclear reactor technologies. Even the Hinkley Point C technology is not appropriate for Scotland. The European pressurised water reactor technology was described by Cambridge Professor Roulstone as a “cathedral within a cathedral”, or an overengineered system that is already obsolete. Technology has already evolved. New, cleaner and neater options are available today, which could be used to help to repower existing nuclear sites in Scotland, such as Torness and Hunterston.

Will the member give way?

The First Minister rightly recognised the contribution that Scottish industry has made to the defence of Ukraine. To further bolster that effort, will he consider reconvening the aerospace, defence, marine and security industry leadership group, which has been dormant for some years, and appointing a ministerial co-chair?

The member highlights the fallacy and logical inconsistency that lie at the heart of the Government’s position. It is largely a sunk-cost fallacy—the Government has been so wedded to that position for so long that it is hard for it to walk back from it.

Rolls-Royce has developed new small modular reactor technology, which is around a third of the size of second-generation nuclear plant, such as the existing advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet in Scotland. That would give us the ability to use the existing turbine plant at the sites that I mentioned and to repower them at a fraction of the capital cost of building a new nuclear power station from scratch.

SMRs are also well suited to replacing fossil-fuel fired plants. For example, Longannet had the same generator plant as Hunterston and Torness. It was a shame that it was dynamited and cleared when it could have been repowered using SMRs. We can utilise more of those sites and, in doing so, generate power more efficiently.

It was also really disappointing to learn that, in 2022, the Scottish Government fundamentally rejected any proposal from Ineos and Rolls-Royce to power the Grangemouth refinery using a small modular reactor. We know that the reason why petrochemicals in this country are quickly becoming uncompetitive is the throttling of competitive manufacturing due to high gas prices, which drive our electricity costs. We must avoid missing other opportunities like that and move to a more pragmatic approach whereby nuclear energy is part of the mix. Mr Simpson mentioned what has happened in Germany, which is a warning sign for what could happen in the UK—indeed, it is happening, with the high industrial energy costs that we have here.

We must also take cognisance of what one of our best-ever engineers, the late Sir Donald Miller, told us more than a decade ago. He mentioned that, when he retired from the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the early 1990s, he could take a great deal of satisfaction from the fact that Scotland had

“one of the most secure and cost effective systems”

of electricity generation worldwide. He said:

“Some 60% of our energy was from nuclear and with the hydro we could, incidentally, also claim to be one of the greenest systems with the lowest carbon emissions.”

He added that

“The coal fired station at Longannet”—

which was recently decommissioned but was groundbreaking when it was built—

“was used mainly for back up and profitable exports to England for the benefit of Scottish consumers.”

However, he said:

“Today we see a very different picture. The decommissioning of our conventional generation is fast approaching”—

since then, it has approached—

“and yet there are no plans to replace the generating capacity at Longannet or the nuclear. Even more incomprehensible is that we shall, in a few years, be importing power for much of the time from the new nuclear station to be built just over the border in England”.

As he said, we may wonder

“just why Scotland (birthplace of so much engineering)”—

and a pioneer of nuclear energy—

“should be importing power we could well generate here, exporting highly skilled jobs in the process. And moreover ending up with the least reliable and insecure electricity supply that we have seen for a hundred years. And this at a time when electricity has never been more important in the lifeblood of modern society.”

The words of the late Donald Miller ring very true today. It was rather prophetic of him to say that 10 years ago. I wish that the Government would take more cognisance of the expertise in this country and harness it to deliver a true industrial renaissance.

The member will be as familiar as I am with the Queens Quay district heat network. The scaling of that Glasgow-built technology has been undermined because of the addiction to gas pricing, which is driving electricity costs, which in turn makes it uncompetitive relative to gas for heating.

Will the minister give way?

Is not the point that the minister has just made precisely why Ineos decided not to invest in SMR development at Grangemouth and, similarly, why Rolls-Royce ruled out Scotland as a location for the heavy-pressure vessel manufacturing facility that it had planned for SMRs?

My friend is making an excellent speech. Does she share my admiration for the work that is done by organisations such as Penumbra, which has a centre for ARBD in Possilpark in my area, and does she note the significance of social inequality in the incidence of ARBD? Substance use and misuse can often be a factor in self-medicating for bigger traumas, and in particular poverty-related traumas.

Will the member take an intervention?