Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2022

Official Report 1048KB pdf

---

Torness Nuclear Power Station

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-02776, in the name of Craig Hoy, on the decommissioning of Torness nuclear power station. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, please.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes that the decision has been taken to bring forward the decommissioning date of Torness Nuclear Power Station from 2030 to 2028; further notes EDF Energy’s assessment that the station is one of the most productive in its fleet of nuclear power stations; recognises that, since the station first started generating electricity in 1988, EDF Energy reports that the plant has produced nearly 280 TWh of zero-carbon electricity, which is understood to be sufficient to power every home in Scotland for 28 years; understands that Torness employs around 500 staff and 250 contractors, with a salary bill of around £40 million annually, which, it considers, boosts the Dunbar and East Lothian economy; notes that Hunterston B power station, in North Ayrshire, has recently shut down for the last time, after what it considers to have been 46 years of reliable energy generation and job creation, and further notes calls urging the Scottish Government to review its decision to use the Scottish planning system to block the development of any future civilian nuclear energy projects in order that nuclear power continues to play a central part in the provision of zero-carbon electricity in Scotland.

12:56  

I welcome colleagues from across the Parliament and across the country to the debate. Although the motion centres on the future of Torness nuclear power station in Dunbar, the benefits of Torness are felt right across Scotland and beyond.

Torness started operating in 1988 and EDF Energy has recognised it as one of the most productive power stations in its fleet. Since it started generating safe and clean power, Torness has produced nearly 280TWh of zero-carbon electricity. That is enough to power every home in Scotland for 28 years. The station has provided many stable high-skilled and high-paid jobs since construction began in 1980, and today Torness is one of East Lothian’s largest employers, with 500 staff, 250 contractors and a salary bill that totals £40 million per year. That is £40 million—and more, through supply-chain jobs—that benefits families and the local and national economies.

Torness has also provided much-needed apprenticeships in an area where too many young people must travel outwith the region for training or skilled careers. Take the five new EDF apprentices, who started last September: they will learn basic engineering skills in their first year, before specialising in their trade in the second year. They will also get opportunities to gain life skills as part of the apprenticeship programme, before completing the final two years back in Dunbar. That is just one of the many positive benefits that Torness power station brings to the South Scotland region.

As members will know, Torness is set to be decommissioned in 2028—two years ahead of the original schedule. The decision to bring forward decommissioning is the result of analysis of other sites, which provided EDF with a clearer picture of lifetime expectations as the station ages. The station is operating normally and safely, but it is coming towards the end of its natural operational lifespan. I thank EDF for the undertaking that, wherever possible, early and advanced employee engagement will provide career development and reskilling opportunities for the people who work at Torness.

There will be no hard cliff edge of job losses in 2028, although redundancies and redeployment are still likely to lie ahead. As happened at Hunterston B, jobs will taper off as the defuelling process takes place, before EDF hands over to Magnox Ltd to manage the full decommissioning process.

Does Craig Hoy agree that, although the jobs in Torness will be safe beyond the closure date, the chance for future apprenticeships and the skills that young people could have learned will be lost, because new apprenticeships will not be available after the closure?

There is a significant opportunity cost as the nuclear industry leaves the region that I represent.

The opportunity for future skilled jobs will be undermined by the closure of Torness and the wider removal of the nuclear energy sector from Scotland. As Mr Whitfield said, East Lothian residents will also lose the opportunity to get skilled jobs in the nuclear energy sector. If Paul McLennan speaks in the debate, I am sure that he will rightly ask, “What about renewables?” That is what Friends of the Earth asked in a briefing, yesterday. However, why cannot we have a future that includes both nuclear and renewable energy? That future would make East Lothian the jewel in Scotland’s energy crown, by offering skilled and renewable energy jobs now and into the future.

I accept that the eventual closure of the reactors at Torness is inevitable, but I do not accept that the end of the nuclear energy sector in Scotland is inevitable. I do not accept that the loss of the clean and stable energy supply that nuclear power provides is inevitable. I do not accept that loss of the skilled jobs in the sector is inevitable. I do not accept that the loss of the economic benefits that nuclear energy brings to East Lothian and Scotland is inevitable. That is all the direct result of the SNP’s and Green Party’s irrational hostility towards nuclear energy. The coalition of chaos have got it wrong—and they have not even done the modelling to assess the economic impact of their actions.

If we want to meet and exceed Scotland’s net-zero ambitions, nuclear power must have a role to play. I welcome the fact that East Lothian is now at the forefront of a significant renewables push, but renewables alone will not meet our requirements for stable and affordable energy supplies through the transition period. The Scottish Government is driving North Sea oil and gas into the ground, so it is madness to turn our backs on nuclear energy at the same time.

Energy is reserved, but the planning system is not. The Scottish Government is using the planning system to scrap nuclear power by the back door. In doing so, it is setting itself on a mission to fail to meet its target of net-zero emissions by 2045. I have yet to hear a well-reasoned argument for Scotland rejecting nuclear energy.

Let us be in no doubt—the SNP Government’s opposition to nuclear energy is playground politics at its worst. It is more about playing to the prejudices of the Greens than it is about achieving a safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy supply. The opposition of the SNP and the Greens to nuclear power is the politics of the student union.

The SNP has mistakenly conflated its misplaced attitude to nuclear energy with its misplaced attitude to nuclear defence—the tired old mantras, “Ban Trident” and “Bairns not bombs”, are now influencing its views on energy. For reasons that are known only to itself, the SNP Government has sought to demonise the word “nuclear”, despite the safety and security that nuclear power provides to Scotland and the UK. Today, of all days, where would we be if the SNP and the Greens had their way on energy—or, indeed, defence policy?

The Scottish Government should reverse its short-sighted opposition to nuclear energy. My party will stand up for the nuclear energy industry. We will stand up for the jobs of the people who work at Torness and for the contribution that Torness makes to the local economy. I hope that fellow members, including the member for East Lothian and his SNP colleagues, will rethink their position. I hope that they will stand up for local jobs, promote sustainable energy and drop their opposition to next-generation nuclear energy in Scotland.

Before I call the next member, I remind all members who wish to speak in the debate that they need to press their request-to-speak buttons. I am not looking at anyone in particular.

13:03  

I thank Craig Hoy for bringing the debate to Parliament. I agree with much of what he said. I will touch on points that I do not disagree with.

Torness has been one of the most productive stations in EDF’s nuclear fleet and it has contributed to the local economy. There is no doubt about that. I visited Torness after I was elected in May, and I visited it previously when I was the leader of East Lothian Council. I have also had two meetings with the previous and new station managers. I know many people who have worked at the station and people who work there now. I commend Torness’s contribution to electricity generation and to the local economy.

Now, we need to ask what the best solution is for electricity generation and for contributing to net zero and employability. Renewables—mostly wind power—produced the equivalent of 98.6 per cent of Scotland’s electricity consumption in 2020.

The Scottish Government will bring forward an updated energy strategy in the spring—I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport will touch on that. It will be no surprise to hear that the strategy will not include a change in position on nuclear power. That has been made clear by the cabinet secretary and the First Minister. The strategy will come alongside a just transition plan.

I am aware of the increasing interest in the development of new nuclear technologies—for example, small modular reactors, which have been mentioned in the chamber before. The Scottish Government will, of course, be duty bound to assess new technologies and low-carbon energy solutions, and it will continue to do so based on their safety case, their value for consumers and their contribution to Scotland’s low-carbon economy and energy future.

I am encouraged, because I think that I have just heard Paul McLennan say that there is a possibility that he and his party will support deployment of small modular reactors. Does he agree that, on this day of all days, it is wrong to continue with the demonisation of “nuclear” as a word and of nuclear power as a source of clean energy?

I do not agree that I said that I would support SMRs. That is not what I said. I said that the Scottish Government is duty bound to assess them. I think that the cabinet secretary and the First Minister have said that, as well. They remain doubtful, but they will look at the matter, and are duty bound to do so.

In 2016, Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant received a contract for difference strike price of £92.50 per megawatt hour, which has increased by some 25 per cent since then. In January this year, the project was pushed back by another six months, and its estimated cost has increased by another £500 million. Recent power price spikes underline the need to create better outcomes from energy investments, particularly for people who are struggling with household finances.

Analysis has identified that, in 2030 alone, Hinkley could add almost £40 a year to consumers’ bills, whereas equivalent offshore wind could reduce them by £8. Significant growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture is the best way to secure Scotland’s future energy needs and meet our net zero objectives.

We heard at First Minister’s question time that the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee has recommended that renewables-based energy is the best way of reducing exposure to volatile price rises. That was announced today.

I might be pre-empting Paul McLennan, but he has not mentioned jobs yet. Has he grasped, yet, that it is the job of members of Parliament to come to Parliament and defend jobs in their constituencies and not to throw them under a bus?

Of course I have. I will come on to that.

The recent ScotWind leasing announcement about 17 new projects is, of course, extremely welcome. A total of just under £700 million will be paid by successful applicants in option fees, to be passed to the Scottish Government for public spending.

There will also be multibillion-pound supply chain investment in Scotland—I will touch on that later. The power that will potentially be generated will provide for expanding electrification of the Scottish economy, as we move to net zero. Of course, once the leasing agreements are officially signed, the details of the supply chain commitments by the applicants, as part of their supply chain development statements, will be published. I have already met the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council and Scottish Renewables on the issues. I will touch on that matter again.

The recent Scottish Renewables statement, “Scotland’s Offshore Wind Sector: Supply Chain Impact 2020”, revealed that wind-energy capacity could increase by 231 per cent in the next eight years. The report also found that the sector could triple in size by 2030. The sector already employs 23,000 people. The long-established offshore wind and hydro power industries were worth £2.4 billion and £915 million respectively in 2019.

What can we do locally? On 18 March I will convene a meeting of energy companies to look at the future of employment in the sector in East Lothian. The meeting will focus on skills and labour, supply chain development, manufacturing opportunities and community benefits. The following organisations, all of which I have met individually, will attend the meeting on 18 March: Inch Cape Offshore, Seagreen Wind Energy—which includes SSE and TotalEnergies—EDF Renewables, Scottish Power, EDF Energy nuclear, the Scottish Gas Network, Community Windpower, Viridor, Skills Development Scotland, the Department for Work and Pensions, Scottish Enterprise, East Lothian Council, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh College, Scottish Engineering, Scottish Renewables, the Scottish Government and Unite the union. .

Mr McLennan, I have been generous. I know that you have taken interventions, but other members need to speak.

I have taken a few interventions.

I know, but time is moving on. I have given you some latitude because of that. Please now bring your remarks to a close.

A series of meetings will look at the opportunities that renewables will bring directly to East Lothian.

Every worker who wished to stay with EDF at Hunterston remained with the company.

In conclusion, I say that the position on renewables offers East Lothian many opportunities. It offers opportunities in increased employment, supply-side development, manufacturing and community benefits. As the East Lothian constituency MSP, I am clear that the transition needs to be managed well and that it requires constant engagement with all. We are already doing that, and we will continue to do so.

13:09  

I thank Craig Hoy for this debate, which allows members who have hosted nuclear energy facilities in their regions to participate. That applies not only to East Lothian but to my West of Scotland region and the Hunterston B power station.

We should be honest in saying that Hunterston B was not entirely uncontroversial in its origin, but over the years it has grown to be a great source of both debate and pride—in equal measure—for the people of North Ayrshire. Whatever our personal or political views, it has undoubtedly led the charge in delivering reliable, low-carbon and cost-effective power to homes across Scotland and beyond.

The plant first opened in 1976 and has provided 46 years of energy generation and hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs directly and indirectly, as well as important apprenticeships. We owe every worker there a huge debt of gratitude. They and their families were welcome and have become part of the fabric of the community and of society in my region.

At its peak, the power station could provide enough energy to power 1.7 million homes. Over its lifespan, Hunterston B has saved 224 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions when compared to emissions from traditional, carbon-based methods of energy creation.

Members will know that cracks in the reactor began to appear in recent years, which rightly caused concern. I was the first to hold regular meetings and calls with civic agencies, the plant, its owners and local community interest groups that had concerns. The plant’s doors have now closed and the de-fuelling process will commence, at which point it will be handed to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Although we are losing that facility, there is exciting potential on the horizon, on which I will focus my brief comments. North Ayrshire Council, along with partners from the University of Glasgow and the private sector and others, is currently bidding to host the UK’s first nuclear fusion facility, in Ardeer, near Ardrossan, through the UK spherical tokamak for energy production programme. That is a bid that I will support, and I hope that members in my own and other parties will support it, too.

I am sure that we all received briefings before the debate that slightly downplayed the importance of modern nuclear technology in our efforts to move towards net zero. I respect other people’s views on that, but what makes the Ardeer bid so different is that it will operate by using nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission. That is the key.

Fission creates energy by splitting nuclei into smaller particles; fusion does exactly the opposite. Hundreds of millions of tiny reactions every second can provide a massive amount of energy by using very small amounts of fuel. That sounds technical, but it is important. Fusion is efficient, it is safer and cleaner—and it is cheaper. One kg of fusion fuel could provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kg of fossil fuel.

Let us think about that for a second. By 2050, the world will be using twice as much electricity as it does today. As populations grow and living standards rise, the amount of energy that we use rises. We must ask ourselves a simple question: how on earth will we provide for those energy needs?

Current events in Ukraine remind us of the fragility of the supply of gas in particular. Prices were on the rise, and I have no doubt that they will rise further. Members extol sanctions for energy companies in one debate in this Parliament but then bemoan the energy crisis and the cost of living in another. That is all very well—both arguments are viable, but viable solutions must also be found.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am short on time. I apologise—I wish I had more time.

I am not advocating nuclear power as the only source of energy. No one doubts the importance of renewables in Scotland. Renewable energy is one of our environment’s great assets, but the reality is that we are simply not there yet. Renewables alone cannot and will not fulfil all our energy needs. They may provide our electricity in the future, but not our gas. We still need it and we still use it, so we either extract it or buy it.

There is a lack of interest and enthusiasm from SNP members, not only in North Ayrshire but across Scotland. There is a lack of a strategy for creating so-called green jobs on the ground. Where are the jobs that will replace those at Hunterston? I want to cement Scotland’s reputation as being at the forefront of scientific excellence. Let us make progress towards net zero and rejuvenating our economy.

Mr Greene, please bring your remarks to a close.

Let us secure our energy supply. First and foremost, let us not look back on this as a missed opportunity. I ask the cabinet secretary to listen to our requests.

13:14  

I thank Craig Hoy for bringing to the chamber this members’ business debate on such an important issue for East Lothian and South Scotland, and for energy provision across Scotland.

As we heard, the building of Torness began in 1980, and it first started generating power only eight years later, in 1988. It has been one of the most productive plants in the fleet, generating enough zero-carbon electricity—the zero carbon for which we are all now striving—to power every house in Scotland for 28 years.

However, Torness is now working beyond its original expected 25 to 30-year design life. The design is from the 1970s—it is like going on holiday and hoping that you do not get an old-fashioned Boeing 747 that has been riveted together. Its continued operation is a tribute not only to the 550 EDF staff on site, plus the 180 full-time additional staff, but to the skills and knowledge of those who are in charge at EDF and those above who enforce the regulations for our civil nuclear fleet.

Electricity production at Torness will end in 2028, following inspection, modelling and operational experience gained from across the United Kingdom and further afield. The decisions that are being taken are based on evidence and knowledge, and are founded on the requirement for safety.

Jamie Greene, in his tribute to Hunterston B, referred to the information that was learned during that cycle of the fleet. Safety lies at the heart of the nuclear power industry, and it has done from day 1. That is why to conflate the use of nuclear power in the production of electricity—safe, zero-carbon electricity—with that of nuclear weapons is to do a disservice to a highly skilled industry.

Talking of the skills in the industry, I congratulate Lisa Hilferty, who, at 26, was named the station’s apprentice of the year last year, after four years of skilled training. Murray Gilvray, Connel McNeill, Thomas Summerfield and Paige Gould all qualified as apprentices along with Lisa, and they are now able to take those skills and their trade around the world.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will, if it is short.

I thank the member for giving way, as I know that he does not have much time.

The problem is what will replace those apprenticeships. If the Government’s policy is no to nuclear per se, it must have something else to offer those young people, and at present a replacement simply does not exist.

Absolutely—that is why I took the opportunity to pay tribute to those apprentices, who have been through a highly skilled course, with placements around the whole UK. They have not been supported by the apprenticeship fund because they travelled to England for part of their training. Nevertheless, the apprenticeship scheme shows EDF’s commitment to young people and to moving forward.

The closure of Torness will mean a shortfall in capacity, and that gap has to be filled. In part, in all probability, it will be filled by gas from the global open market, from places such as Russia. That will prevent more ambitious emissions reductions, which will threaten the energy security of Scotland and the UK in the future.

I know that time is short, but I quickly pay tribute to those in the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, who have protected our nuclear fleet in some of the worst conditions that the weather can throw at them. They do so to keep us, our plants and the fleet safe but—most important—to retain energy security in the UK.

Nuclear power needs to play a part in our zero-carbon future.

13:18  

I rise to make a small contribution regarding the final part of Craig Hoy’s motion, in which he calls on the Scottish Government to review its blocking of any future civilian nuclear energy projects in Scotland.

Last week, Maree Todd set out the Scottish Government’s position in the John O’Groat Journal. She rejected nuclear power as, she said, it has a “high cost” to consumers over other options; it is “high risk” in terms of safety; and it is not “sustainable”. She said:

“We must focus on reliable energy sources that ... align with our net-zero ambitions ... I believe that the renewables plan, as set out in the Scottish Energy Strategy, offers just that.”

Not unusually, Maree Todd’s arguments, when they are stress tested, lack foundation. She is apparently unaware that the Scottish Government confirmed to me earlier this month that it has no strategic plan to transition from Scottish-generated nuclear energy to renewables. I do not know how she knows that nuclear does not

“align with our net zero ambitions”.

That is extraordinary, given that the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport told me that,

“it is not currently possible to distinguish between types of generation or fuels”—[Written Answers, 21 January 2022; S6W-05511.]

in order to break down CO₂ emissions data from energy generation sources in Scotland.

As Craig Hoy flagged, the Scottish Government will not replace Torness and Hunterston, but has done no modelling of the impact on energy bills and the cost of living crisis, so Maree Todd’s cost claims are spurious at best.

Maree Todd justified her position by stating:

“I believe the vast majority of the public back my position.”

I respectfully suggest that she reviews some YouGov research that was published in the run-up to the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—which shows that, in Scotland, 65 per cent are in favour of a role for nuclear in the energy mix, 13 per cent are against and 20 per cent do not know.

Maree Todd also said that nuclear was “high risk” in terms of safety, but there have been no major nuclear safety incidents in the UK industry’s 46 years. Anyone who has done their homework knows that all current operating stations have extraordinary levels of built-in redundancy and that new reactors are designed with even higher levels of safety built in, with further enhancements being made as the technology moves on, all while being subject to one of the most robust regulatory regimes in the world.

I turn to the economics of nuclear over other options. The price of power from Hunterston B until it was retired and from Torness is about £45 per MWh. Wind contracts for difference historically average around £90 to £100 per MWh and have only recently reduced to levels similar to those of Torness. In terms of build cost, the UK Government’s proposed regulated asset base model will lower the cost of financing. As Paul McLennan will be delighted to hear, the National Audit Office says that that would have reduced Hinkley’s costs by 40 per cent. In addition, wind turbines operate only 25 to 40 per cent of the time. Without nuclear power, when wind turbines are not operating, the grid would have to use expensive gas to fill the void. Nuclear stations operate more than 90 per cent of the time, which means that they require far less back-up.

On waste, members should bear in mind the fact that the nuclear industry is the only one to pay for and clean up its own waste. EDF and the UK Government have already set aside £14.8 billion to decommission the existing power stations and dispose of waste from them. An increasing fund, equivalent to about £2 per MWh, has been created to cover the cost. The amount of waste that is produced by nuclear is also very small. Almost all the radioactivity is found a tiny fraction of the waste, which is called high-level waste. Over the lifetime of a station, there is one dishwasher tablet-worth of such waste for every person in the UK.

That was a short contribution to the debate, but one that was necessary, if only to add some scientific and data-driven fortitude to a Scottish Government position that is anything but scientific and data driven.

13:23  

Members have illustrated the challenge that Scotland faces with energy in future. With Scotland having used more nuclear power than any other UK nation in 2020—26 per cent of its electricity generation was from nuclear—the forthcoming end of generation at Torness and the cessation this year of generation at Hunterston B present a significant challenge to the resilience of Scotland’s electricity grid.

According to the Climate Change Committee, the country will need four times as much clean power by 2050 to hit net zero and 38 per cent of that clean power will need to be from firm, reliable, always-on power sources regardless of weather conditions, so we are faced with a stark choice: reliance on gas or the utilisation of new-generation nuclear stations. Whether in Scotland or other parts of the United Kingdom, it is as simple as that.

We are presented with a choice. That choice is not simply the non sequitur presented by other members, such as Hinkley Point C. I am not a fan of the European pressurised water reactor technology. It is a dog of a design and deeply problematic. It is a symptom of the domination of the British nuclear industry by the French state. Other opportunities are presented to us not only to consider new technologies but to build an industrial renaissance in Scotland by being at the forefront of the energy industry.

In 1933, the father of nuclear physics, Sir Ernest Rutherford, said:

“Energy produced by ... breaking down ... the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine ... We hope in the next few years to get some idea of what these atoms are, how they are made, and the way they are worked.”

That statement by Rutherford illustrates how great minds can fail to anticipate the evolutionary direction of their own discoveries. Like all scientific discoveries, the conversion of matter into energy can be used for good or ill, and it is for us to make the right choices.

New types of nuclear reactors have significant potential to counter the three principal threats to public acceptance of nuclear power generation by improving safety, reducing waste and reducing cost. That opens up the prospect of their making an important contribution to any future emissions reduction strategy, and Scotland should support the development of such nuclear power technology.

Nuclear generation has a very small CO₂ footprint, but most existing nuclear plants are not suitable for coping with variations in grid demand and cannot contribute to restarting the system after a grid failure, because the presence of the grid is required as a prerequisite for the reactor to start up. As a result, we should seek to design nuclear plants that are more commercially competitive, reliable and flexible and which exploit inherently passive safety features that can contribute very significantly to capital cost reduction. Such ambitions might seem like a tall order, but new fourth-generation reactor technology should be able to deliver such a vision.

For example, designs for molten salt reactors are showing great promise in a number of countries, and they have the potential to achieve large cost savings by removing the hazards that could lead to the explosive release of dangerous fission products into the atmosphere. In the hierarchy of approaches to safety engineering, hazard elimination, harm reduction and managing the likelihood or mitigation of consequences of the hazard itself normally prove to be the most cost-effective strategy, and that is where technologies such as molten salt come into their own.

Other favourable features of molten salt reactors include the elimination of salt and steel corrosion problems through chemical-reducing properties in the coolant formulation and the ability to carry out refuelling on load and unpressurised, further reducing capital costs. Moreover, the maintenance of long-lived radioactive waste is much easier and cheaper, because radioactive waste with a fairly long half-life is converted into much shorter half-life isotopes. A range of fuel types can also be used; for example, thorium fuel has the potential to be used when uranium reserves begin to run out, and the UK legacy stock of plutonium can be used for new fuel production. Indeed, the reuse of plutonium as fuel would have immense strategic value in removing or reducing the proliferation of potential weapons material. Finally, molten salt reactors can also be produced as road-transportable modules.

We have the potential to utilise such new technologies to build a supply chain in Scotland that can crowd in wealth and opportunity. If the nuclear industry had not evolved from military imperatives and had developed independently, the molten salt technology that is now under development would probably be regarded as a dream contribution to the challenges of reliability and carbon reduction in the electricity system. That is the opportunity that we could have if we fundamentally reassessed what nuclear energy could present the country with, and I urge the cabinet secretary to broaden his horizons and consider these emerging fourth-generation technologies. Scotland could be leading on this globally, and we should seize that opportunity.

13:28  

I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing time for this important debate on Torness, which is an important facility for Scotland. It has provided power for more than 30 years and will continue to do so for the next couple. I recognise the valuable role that the workforce has played over many decades and, indeed, the important role that the facility itself plays in the East Lothian community. Indeed, those very points were highlighted by Craig Hoy, Paul McLennan and Martin Whitfield.

A timeframe has been set for the facility to come offline and move into the decommissioning phase, and as a key part of that, Scottish Government agencies will work in partnership with the National Decommissioning Authority to see what support and assistance can be provided to the workforce as the facility transitions away from being a nuclear power station to other opportunities. Of course, with the facility planning to come offline in 2028, we need to consider whether Scotland’s electricity supply will remain secure with that loss of output. That is why National Grid conducted a detailed study into the effects of the earlier decision to end production at Torness.

The study from National Grid, which is responsible for ensuring security of supply, says that, as a result of the closure of that facility, Scotland’s system remains secure, with some mitigations needing to be put in place, a key part of which is to increase our own capacity.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I ask the member to let me make a bit of progress first.

Our energy sector has been in transition for some time now. We are very clear as a Government that our priorities are renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. We believe that they provide the best pathway to Scotland reaching its net zero target by 2045, and we have been making very good progress in taking that forward over recent years, particularly with the expansion of renewable capacity. We now have the equivalent of around 98 per cent of our electricity coming from renewable sources, and we want to build on that and develop it further as we progress.

I am not entirely convinced by some of the statistics that we have just heard. However, going back to the point about National Grid, does the cabinet secretary not recognise that all of National Grid’s future energy scenarios include nuclear?

In relation to the UK, yes, they do, but not here in Scotland in terms of security of supply, which is what the study specifically addressed. [Interruption.]

I hear Mr Kerr questioning—from a sedentary position, as ever—details of these matters. In relation to the 98 per cent, where exactly does he think that that figure comes from? It comes from the assessment through National Grid. Let me give some of the details. Scotland is currently a net electricity exporter. In 2020, Scotland exported 20.4TWh of electricity, which is the equivalent of powering every household in Scotland for 26 months. Scotland imported a little over 1TWh, and the net export of electricity from Scotland was 19.3TWh in 2020 alone, which was a record high level. That is a reflection of the investment that has been made in our renewable energy sector, and that is why it is a priority for us going forward.

We are very fortunate as a country to be in a position where we have such extensive potential to develop our renewables sector. It is important that we build on that and make progress, because it will help to decarbonise not only Scotland but the UK and beyond.

For clarity, and to address the point that Maree Todd made, does the cabinet secretary believe that nuclear power, and particularly the station at Torness, is safe?

Yes, I do accept that it is a safe facility, and there is a very strict regime around that. However, I think that it is wrong to try to give the impression that there is no risk associated with nuclear power. The events at Fukushima took place in 2011, which is not that long ago. [Interruption.] We need to be mindful of the risks that are also associated with it. It is not risk free, but it is a very safe—[Interruption.]

Excuse me, cabinet secretary. Will you resume your seat for a second? Far too much is being said from a sedentary position. Mr Hoy, you intervened on the cabinet secretary and he gave you an answer, but you continued to speak from a sedentary position. That is not the way to do it. You should seek another intervention or listen to what the cabinet secretary says. Thank you.

I hope that I have answered the member’s point.

Let me also point to the outcome of the first phase of ScotWind. The approach that Crown Estate Scotland has taken has demonstrated an ambition from the sector to deliver some 25GW of offshore wind across Scottish waters. That is testament to its confidence in the approach that the Scottish Government is taking in investing in and supporting our renewables sector, and we are making sure that we also secure the jobs and other benefits that can come from that.

I turn to the point about the cost impact of the nuclear sector. Even if we set aside the waste and the environmental concerns, nuclear power is well recognised as representing poor value for customers. It is an expensive form of electricity to produce. The evidence that was provided by the contract that the UK Government awarded for Hinkley Point C, which Paul McLennan mentioned, is that the price for generating is £92.50 per megawatt hour.

Compare that with electricity generated from offshore wind: that is currently at £39.65 per megawatt hour.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

The assessment is that, under the UK’s forward look at future generation, the costs as a result of Hinkley Point are potentially £40 for each household bill in 2030, in addition to the costs resulting from that programme alone, whereas the equivalent for offshore wind would be £8 less per year. [Interruption.]

I will give way to Mr Kerr, who can now stand on his feet and ask a question.

I am very pleased to take this opportunity to stand on my feet and ask a question.

Paul McLennan raised the prospect that, with his responsibility for energy, the cabinet secretary would consider with an open mind the possibility of small modular reactors. Some of the issues that he has been discussing are addressed through the deployment of small modular reactors. We have heard some excellent speeches on the engineering and science behind it all. There is a real potential benefit in SMR. Will the cabinet secretary consider that with an open mind as a benefit for Scotland?

The reality is that, although small modular reactors represent a change in construction type, the technology is the same, by and large, on a smaller scale. As we have set out in our energy strategy, under existing technologies, we do not support new nuclear energy provision. That is the difference. Although there is a change in terms of scale and in the nature of its construction, in terms of the principle of the nuclear process, it remains the same, and it is not a new technology in that sense.

Would the cabinet secretary accept that, as I outlined in my speech, the transformational effects of such technologies as molten salt can introduce passive safety, so it is actually a revolutionary change in how the nuclear industry would operate, massively reducing the capital cost of stations? Even for the supply chain, Rolls-Royce is interested in building a heavy pressure vessel factory in the UK, with £200 million of investment. The cabinet secretary’s colleague the member for Glasgow Provan says that he has not even met representatives of the company to discuss the prospects of that factory being located in Scotland. That is a supply chain opportunity for heavy engineering and advanced manufacturing. Would the cabinet secretary at least consider taking that up proactively with Rolls-Royce?

I am sure that Ivan McKee will respond to the particular point about pursuing anything with Rolls-Royce through inward investment but, given the position of the Scottish Government regarding the existing available technologies for fission nuclear energy, that is not consistent with our energy policy, and that will not change under the review of our existing energy strategy. That includes the small reactors to which the member has referred.

Liam Kerr made an interesting point in relation to the costs associated with decommissioning nuclear energy. He referred to the significant amount of money that EDF has set aside to cover nuclear decommissioning. Who does he think has provided that money? It is us—customers. We have provided that money through our bills. The cost of decommissioning is not something that is picked up by the companies under some philanthropic approach; it is based into the costs and is added on to our bills as a result. To try and give the impression that decommissioning is something that is picked up by the commercial companies alone is factually incorrect; it is met by the additional costs that are put on to customers’ bills. That is why it is a poor deal for the taxpayer. Even Hunterston A, for example, which stopped producing electricity back in 1990, is still going through its decommissioning process, and the cost of that is fixed into people’s household bills. That is why the costs of nuclear energy are well recognised as not being good value for customers.

That is why the Scottish Government’s focus is on investing in renewable energy, making the best use of Scotland’s natural assets and doing so in a way that is consistent with Scotland reaching net zero by 2045.

13:39 Meeting suspended.  

14:30 On resuming—