Features editor
The history of nuclear technologies in Scotland has left a valuable repository of unique skills, which the independence debate has not touched upon. This expertise should not be allowed to fade away
Energy has been at the forefront of the debate over Scottish independence, and no wonder. The oil and gas reserves of the North Sea make it one of Scotland’s — and the UK’s — most important industries, and Scotland also has the greatest potential for renewables in Britain, with its windswept expanses, mountain hydroelectric schemes and the hurtling tidal races of the Islands. But one part of the energy spectrum has been absent from the debate — nuclear.
This is completely understandable. There are only two operational nuclear power stations in Scotland: Hunterston B and Torness, which has two reactors. And the Scottish Government’s policy is to shut these down and not commission replacements, making Scotland entirely nuclear-free. This policy, which has strong public support, is intended to increase the focus on developing and commercialising renewables technologies.
”Scotland is the only place in the world where there are people with experience of building, operating and decommissioning fast-breeder reactors.
But that’s not the whole story. Scotland is an important repository of valuable nuclear know-how, which should not be neglected. The presence of the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine fleet in Faslane has led to a concentration of expertise in testing and maintenance of nuclear reactors — smaller than, but very similar to, the Pressurised Water Reactors that are set to be built for the UK’s new nuclear power stations. This expertise is located next to another important nuclear site, Dounreay, set in splendid isolation on the North coast facing the Orkneys.
The home of the UK’s fast-breeder reactor programme, Dounreay was established in the 1950s to develop and test liquid metal-cooled reactors that could generate plutonium from uranium; three of these reactors were built, with at least one in operation from 1958 to 1994 and supplying energy to the grid. This relatively short lifespan (which was curtailed by economics, not because of shortcomings in the technology — the price of uranium fell following the collapse of the Soviet Union, making it unnecessary to breed plutonium for nuclear fuel) means that Scotland is the only place in the world where there are people with experience of building, operating and decommissioning fast-breeder reactors.
And this is important. The generation of reactors being developed to supercede PWRs depends heavily on fast-breeder technology, because this type of reactor has the ability to use material classed as nuclear waste as fuel, reducing its risk profile; they also generally use fuel more efficiently than PWRs. It would be a great shame if this expertise were lost, especially as a Scottish university with a strong STEM background — Strathclyde, say — could help pass on the knowledge through dedicated courses.
’The current policy of wiping all trace of Dounreay from the face of the Earth risks losing its valuable expertise and the chance of redeeming some of its bad associations
Dounreay has been an emotive subject, with accidental releases of radioactive material into the North Sea continuing to blight areas of coastline and an explosion in a (then)-poorly maintained waste facility causing much alarm. The industry’s response to these events exemplified many of the worst aspects of the paranoia, secrecy and lack of care which characterised the nuclear industry in the 1970s and 80s, and the undeniable link between the breeder programme and the military (plutonium being the vital ingredient of nuclear weapons) makes the whole place unpalatable for some. But the current policy of wiping all trace of Dounreay from the face of the Earth risks losing its valuable expertise and the chance of redeeming some of the bad associations by using the lessons learned there for the benefit of mankind.
Make no mistake: the ambition to develop renewables is a good one. But whether or not Scotland votes for independence tomorrow, its nuclear history contains elements that should be safeguarded, not discarded.
An interesting article, but it reads as though Scottish scientists & engineers do not have the ability to travel, emigrate or simply jaunt down the M6. Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow’s referrendum, Scotland will still have a very strong connection with England, the rest of the UK and the EU; expertise is a valuable export.
You fail to mention that 200 local authorities in the UK are ‘nuclear free’ and that Wales has been nuclear free since the 80’s. Scotland would follow in the footsteps of other small countries like NZ, Italy and Austria.
Nonetheless, nuclear technologies (related to science and particle physics) should be OK.
PS. Have you lot decided where you are going to stick Trident yet? Otherwise, we will put it on FreeCycle.
The article certainly touched on the positives of Scotland nuclear heritage.
But there are downsides, such as who will be required to pay for the decommissioning/clean up etc. – Hopefully not the UK (remaining part).
Presume the nuclear submarine fleet will be moved out of Scotland and back into the UK. Its likely those with knowledge will move with it. Same applies to other navy work – Should be good news for workers in Portsmouth who have lost their jobs to Scotland.
Can’t imagine any of the Royal Navy facilities being left in Scotland either – doubt if the UK voters would stand for it.
Just hope the Scottish voters don’t get fooled by the upbeat tones of Salmond. He just reminds me of Robert Mugabe where everything is perfect and anyone who disagrees with him is a liar or scaremonger.
Good luck Scotland if you vote Yes – you will need it!
I imagine the folk in Plymouth will be rubbing their hands in glee. 5,000 jobs at the expense of the near sighted jocks? Yes please!
@Jeff B
I hear if its a YES vote, the M6 lanes are going to reconfigured to:
1 lane North
3 lanes South
Not sure that Jeff B’s comments about ‘nuclear free’ are correct. Wylfa on Anglesey?
as for 200 councils declaring themselves nuclear free then I assume the sun doesn’t shine…….
I am sure the brilliant Mr Salmon has everything under control.
Do you think they will take their share of the used rods. Sitting in the cooling ponds in Cumbria.?
I believe the current reactors in Scotland provide us with about 40% of the base-load demand, something that has no planned replacement within Scotland, and worse when Longannet is closed, and the unpredictability of most renewable energy deployed or planned.
It is unfortunate for our future that the SNP in particular are so anti-nuclear in any form. It might make sense for a country that has no history of it, but we already have to deal with the waste products one way or another, so adding the smaller amount that modern reactors would create is not going to change the need to do something.
It is more than a touch hypocritical that there plans for lots of ‘green’ renewable energy will negatively impact tourism and be funded by selling the (polluting) North Sea reserves to others to burn instead.
An interesting article unfortunately it does contain errors e.g. Although there were 3 reactors built and operated at Dounreay, only two were liquid metal cooled fast reactors. The other was a heavy water moderated research reactor.
Another error is the editors comment that the SNP has approved life extensions for both Scotland’s nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy and electricity generation are both ‘reserved’ matter I.e. The decisions can only be made at Westminster.
Mr. Salmond won’t want nuclear,whilst it’s efficient, it’s another cliched example of bourgeois Westminster opportunism over the cowed Scots.
He prefers Oil, which will continue to pollute the planet, but turn Scotland into the Northern Dubai.
I just cant figure out why those pesky English haven’t raided the North Sea in the last 40 years and turned England into Las Vegas?
Personally, on the outcome of a Yes vote, I’m hoping the subsequent relocation of Trident will be economically unfeasible and the whole thing de-commissioned. I don’t think you will find any town or coastal population in England clapping their hands at the prospect of having nuclear weapons on their doorstep.
Indeed, I am an expatriate Scot, but I live in the ‘cultured’ South West (M4 west), not ‘proper’ ooh arr South West (M5 Southwest). I’m sure the UKIP baby boomer electorate down those parts will be supportive of having Nukes to create “the least efficient job creation scheme you can imagine”-Partick Harvie, Scottish Greens.
As for ‘nuke-free’, it was hard to distinguish countries, counties and cities which are ‘nuclear-power free’, ‘nuclear weapon free’ or both. Sorry if I got my facts wrong on Wales, but it’s likely they don’t want to be anywhere near Trident either…