The legacy of a man named Burns still shapes Scotland today.
I am, of course, referring to Charles Montgomery Burns, antagonist extraordinaire in The Simpsons.
The Scottish Government’s dim view of nuclear power is perfectly calibrated for Mr Burns’ fictional Springfield facility, with its inept employees and leaking barrels of glowing green waste.
Responding to an updated case for new nuclear generation in Scotland this week, SNP MSP Karen Adam characterised the technology as “extortionate, wasteful and unnecessary.”
The industry has acknowledged The Simpsons’ ongoing effect on its reputation but, in an age of energy security challenges and significant job losses on the horizon, is it time for Scotland to think differently?
Torness, Scotland’s last operational nuclear power station, is set for closure in 2030, within the current parliamentary term, and just as other UK nations move in the opposite direction. Around 550 full-time employees and 180 contract partners currently work at the site in East Lothian.
When Grangemouth stopped refining oil and started importing finished fuels instead, more than 400 direct jobs were lost, prompting political pearl-clutching and recriminations galore, despite UK and Scottish government policies turning the country away from fossil fuels. There was enough latitude within this stance, however, for the SNP to blame the redundancies on Westminster.
If the Scottish Government’s ‘no nuclear’ policy holds, this blame vector will not exist for Torness. It will be a decision made by Holyrood. And – even more gallingly for those in the sector – it could come just as the first British-built small modular reactors (SMRs) rise out of the ground on Anglesey in Wales.
Adding injury to insult, it looks increasingly likely that the vast fleet of floating offshore windfarms that were promised to support hundreds of skilled Scottish jobs will not materialise. There are a range of reasons for this, but non-delivery will add to the political pressure to find alternative projects.
The public view on nuclear is mixed. YouGov polling in April found that nuclear is now the most popular form of energy generation in Scotland. When asked which energy source they support most, 29% of respondents chose nuclear, ahead of wind at 23%. Overall, a majority of Scots (54%) said they supported nuclear power, with 29% opposed. In the same month, Survation found that only 14% thought Scotland should rely on uranium used in nuclear reactors for its long-term energy security needs.
The arguments around nuclear safety should never stop being heard and debated, especially when founded in genuine concerns. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are visceral examples of what can go wrong. Context and perspective, however, are important. The death rate from accidents and air pollution associated with nuclear is lower than any major electricity generation technology, other than solar.
Cost is a major concern too and Hinkley Point C is eye-wateringly expensive. Small modular reactors are apparently much cheaper to build and operate by comparison, but it is novel technology. At the same time, nuclear waste remains a problem in search of a comprehensive solution.
However, the contention by some that Scotland has ‘enough’ electricity is less persuasive. Nuclear offers something we do not have in abundance – baseload generation. That is essential to keep our lights on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. This doesn’t mean nuclear should be pursued at the cost of other renewable projects, far from it, but the stark truth is that Torness provided nearly one-fifth of Scotland’s electricity in 2024.
Pumped storage hydro, batteries and tidal stream are renewable technologies that can shoulder some of this predictable power challenge, but arguably not on the required scale. This situation is exacerbated by the expected closure of Scotland’s other key source of baseload generation – Peterhead gas power station – in the mid 2030s. This all comes as the Scottish Government seeks to bring more perpetually power-hungry data centres onto our grid.
The debate about our future energy mix is emotionally loaded, and this is especially true when it comes to new nuclear. I’d like the Scottish Government to be more honest in acknowledging the role baseload power plays in our energy mix and to demonstrate how they are preparing to provide it, as milestone plant closures inch closer. Public opinion appears up for grabs but, notably, being pro-nuclear wasn’t enough of a differential to benefit Scottish Labour in the most recent Holyrood elections.
It is clear that new nuclear generation isn’t a perfect solution. However, a scenario where a nationalist minority run Wales experiences a nuclear jobs and economic upswing, just as Scotland is turning out the lights on a swathe of highly skilled workers, represents a serious political headache.
If this new generation of nuclear turns out to be less Mr Burns’ green goo and more Plaid Cymru-endorsed economic miracle, where does that leave the Scottish Government? Perhaps there’s an opportunity for it to fashion an SMR future for the Torness site, where funding and risk falls to Westminster and the upsides of job creation and economic growth can be claimed by Holyrood.
by Tom Gillingham, Partner