Announcing the accelerated development of 10 new nuclear power stations in England and Wales, Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Secretary, deepened one of the clearest policy divides between the Labour
government at Westminster and the SNP government at Holyrood, which has ruled out further development of nuclear power once existing stations reach the end of their lives. Hunterston is due to close in 2016 and Torness in 2023.
Yet both see the need to reduce carbon emissions as one of the most urgent political and technical challenges of our age.
The arguments in favour of new-generation nuclear power stations is that they will provide the secure energy Britain needs round the clock in an acceptably low-carbon way.
The arguments against are that the attraction of apparently clean energy is balanced by the problem of the disposal and storage of radioactive waste, the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations when they reach the end of their lives and concern that people living close to them may be more likely to suffer from cancer.
Along with the announcement of new nuclear plants, Mr Miliband said four new carbon capture and storage plants for coal-fired stations would be funded, with the demonstration plants in use by 2025. By 2020, 30% of electricity would be
generated from renewable sources to meet climate change targets.
The SNP government’s opposition to nuclear power is backed by Scotland’s undoubted potential for wind, wave and tidal power, and it has signalled an intention to capitalise on these renewable resources by setting the world’s most ambitious greenhouse-gas reduction targets.
Scotland already has a significant advantage in generating a large amount of electricity by hydro provision. We are harnessing increasing amounts of wind power, but the supply fluctuates and we have yet to resolve the issue of how to connect it to the national grid. Wave and tidal power, despite their potential, are still in their infancy.
The prospect of clean coal technology being added to Longannet power station is, as yet, however, no more than an ambition. This raises the spectre of an energy gap in 15 years and the prospect of importing nuclear-generated electricity across the border.
Is it time to reconsider the alternative of retaining some nuclear generation to provide a secure, low-carbon future?
