One of the more controversial ways to reduce our fossil fuel consumption would be to increase nuclear power capacity, something the Scottish Government has set its face firmly against.
Yesterday, Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, argued his case in our Agenda forum.
Read more: Time to end Scotland's isolation on nuclear energy
Today, however, a reader argues it would be wrong for us to impose more of the cost and risk of decommissioning on future generations.
Gregory Beecroft of Skelmorlie writes:
"It is not surprising that the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association advocates construction of more nuclear power stations, but Tom Greatrex fails to address the cost and morality of decommissioning.
"The Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Review by the UK Government, published last month, states that decommissioning has an expected duration of over 100 years.
"The estimated net present value of the cost of decommissioning current and closed civil nuclear sites and making the waste safe is £232 billion, but with the risk that it could be higher. The 2022/23 Annual Report of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority shows expenditure of £3.759bn in that year.
Subscribe to our Letter of the Day newsletter
"Nuclear power stations have a working life of just a few decades, a far shorter period than that during which their waste has to be stored safely. Hunterston A was in service from 1964 until 1990 and Hunterston B from 1976 until 2022.
"We have already imposed significant risk and cost on future generations who will have had no benefit from the power stations. It cannot be right to increase this further.
"The sun may not shine and the wind may not blow, but the tides unceasingly rise and fall. The sea is rarely still. There is significant scope in Scotland to generate electricity without nuclear power."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel