'Never a better time to bring more nuclear power to Scotland' says UK government

The Scottish Government rejected the minister’s call, saying a "significant growth in renewables storage, hydrogen and carbon capture" would help Scotland meet its energy needs.

The SNP’s partners in government, the Scottish Greens, were scathing of the call, saying nuclear was “neither safe nor reliable” and would “cost hundreds of millions of pounds while leaving a toxic legacy for centuries.”

The row comes as Boris Johnson meets with bosses from the UK’s nuclear industry, as he looks to wean the country off of Russian oil and gas.  

Mr Hands said there were “very good reasons” for the Scottish Government to think again about their opposition to nuclear power. 

He said: “Nuclear is going to be a big part of our energy future to provide that baseload. But I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine should hopefully have given them a pretext to have a rethink. I would welcome the Scottish Government now having a rethink on nuclear. There is never a better time to bring more nuclear power to Scotland.”

When it was put to him that ministers in Edinburgh had concerns over safety and the cost, Mr Hands said those were not reasonable reasons. 

“We have a really strong safety regime in this country,” he said. “The Office of Nuclear Regulation, the ONR, is one of the best nuclear regulators in the world. When it comes to cost, we're introducing legislation, passing legislation through Parliament at the moment, the UK Parliament, which will reduce the cost using a regulated asset based model, which I would like to see the SNP supporting. That legislation actually reduces the cost of new nuclear.”

The Scottish Government said the benefits of new nuclear simply didn’t exist. 

"New nuclear power will take years, if not decades to become operational and will also be expensive, pushing up household bills. 

“The Scottish Government is absolutely clear in our opposition to the building of new traditional nuclear fission energy plants in Scotland under current technologies. 

“We believe that significant growth in renewables storage, hydrogen and carbon capture provides the best pathway to net zero by 2045 and will deliver the decarbonisation we need to see across industry, heat and transport.”

Meanwhile, Scottish Greens economy spokesperson Maggie Chapman called it a “backwards step”. 

She said: “There is nothing secure about Nuclear power. It is neither safe nor reliable, and, as Hinkley point shows, it is very expensive - customers will have to pay for it on top of the current cost of living crisis.

"Especially now, the last thing we need is a backwards step towards the nuclear industry, which would cost hundreds of millions of pounds while leaving a toxic legacy for centuries. And, it will take years to get on stream.”

Ms Chapman added: “Proper investment in renewables will help us to tackle the climate emergency, drive down energy prices, and ensure we never have to rely on the nuclear industry or human rights abusing regimes like Russia or Saudi Arabia for our energy security."

In January, the Hunterston B nuclear plant in North Ayrshire ceased production, leaving the EDF-run Torness site in East Lothian as the only remaining nuclear power site in Scotland. It's due to close in 2028.

While energy is largely reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government effectively has a veto on new nuclear power developments through planning regulations.

There have been calls in recent years for the SNP administration to look at small modular reactors, manufactured by Rolls-Royce.