Nuclear power is controversial. Although it uses metallic elements such as uranium 235 and plutonium which are non-renewable resources, at current usage levels there is enough of these minerals to comfortably support generation for the next 250 years, and if more reserves are located the lifespan could be much longer. In terms of the energy to fuel ratio, nuclear power produces by far the most energy for the amount of fuel used. Nuclear power stations can generate 3 million times more energy when 1kg of uranium fuel and 1kg of coal are compared.

Supporters of nuclear power also argue that generating electricity from nuclear power significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and reduces dependence on foreign oil from the volatile Middle East region. Proponents also argue that the risks to humans are minimal and that the safety records of most western power plants is first class. The risks of storing waste are very small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors to reduce the amount of radioactive waste produced. Nuclear power could make a valuable contribution to a country’s energy supplies for the foreseeable future any many countries France (77% of its electricity), Belgium (54%) and Sweden (46%) rely on it heavily.

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source. Accidents such as at Three Mile Island in the USA (1979) and Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) highlighted safety concerns and the risk with this type of energy production. In 2011 the Fukushima plant in Japan was crippled by a tsunami which disabled the emergency shutdown procedures which in turn to Japan abandoning its nuclear power program.

Critics of nuclear power also argue that no real solution has been achieved for dealing with radioactive waste products and dispute the fact that new reactor technology can lead to safer electricity production. Decay products, including spent nuclear fuel rods, are very hazardous and can cause cancers and mutations in humans with inappropriate exposure. The half-life of radioactive products means that waste products will still be radioactive in thousands of years, and much of this waste is surrounded by concrete and buried deep underground.

Nuclear power stations also only have a life span of 30 to 40 years. Construction of these plants is slow, but the decommissioning process is even slower and extremely costly and it can take between 80 and 100 years to dismantle the plant and ensure there are no radioactive risks to the general public. These costs mean that the nuclear industry often requires public subsidies to make it a viable energy source, which can mean higher bills for consumers.

The Scottish Government has made it clear that Scotland will have no new nuclear power stations and is aiming instead for a non-nuclear future, with a focus on renewables. It will use its devolved planning laws to block these applications north of the border if necessary. It is confident that the 25% of Scotland’s energy currently supplied from the two remaining power stations, Hunterston and Torness, can be successfully replaced by renewable energy when they close over the next decade.