Nuclear
Cul-de-Sac

Nuclear power advocates are mistaken about its costs and benefits - particularly in Scotland. 

Leave aside for the moment that Scotland, like Norway, doesn’t need it. We are rich in renewables and, once independent, can sell oil on the international market to generate revenue to finance the green revolution that we will need if we are to survive as a species.

The economic case against nuclear is overwhelming. Nuclear plants are 2-3 times more expensive than solar, gas or wind, and are impossible to build without government subsidies. The nuclear industry is an open-ended liability. Each household in Scotland is being forced to pay £96 per year to subsidise the industry since private investment won’t touch it.[1] Case in point - Hinkley Point C is costing more than £33b and counting. 

Then there are the accidents – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And there’s no solution for nuclear waste. Sellafield is officially the “most hazardous industrial building in western Europe.”[2] 

And nuclear power won’t solve the climate crisis. Last year, former heads of nuclear regulatory bodies across Europe and the US voiced their opposition to nuclear as a climate solution.[3] The plants, already costing the earth, take years to come on stream. We need energy solutions now, not in twenty years. 

Once independent, Scotland will be entirely self-sufficient in renewable energy - with enough surplus to sell England the renewable energy it will sorely need. 

Leah Gunn Barrett
05/03/23

[1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/23071051.energy-bills-scotland-set-rise-finance-englands-nuclear-power-plants/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards

[3] https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/27/22904943/nuclear-power-climate-change-solution-gregory-jaczko