As the elections approach, Scotland is at an energy crossroads. Most Scottish people oppose new nuclear power. The Scottish National Party, Scottish Lib Dems and Scottish Greens all say no to new nuclear power. But Scottish Labour is toeing the Westminster line and refusing to rule out new nukes. Many in the party actively support nuclear plants in Scotland - with some suggesting that Scotland should be "pragmatic" about nuclear power because of climate change.
But now there's a new report out, which blows this assumption out of the water. The study compares a nuclear energy and a decentralised energy scenario for Scotland. The nuclear scenario, it finds, will create eight percent more carbon emissions than a decentralised one. It will lead to more reliance on foreign gas. It will be £1.8 billion more expensive (and that's ignoring the costs of dealing with nuclear waste). It will cost consumers more. And it will create fewer skilled jobs in communities throughout the country. Perhaps support for nuclear power isn't so pragmatic after all...
As well as the obvious environmental ramifications, the report is hugely important, politically. The energy choice Scotland makes will influence energy policy in the UK as a whole; Scotland plays a pivotal position in approving or vetoing a nuclear renaissance in the UK. Because there are only a few places in the UK where building new nuclear sites would be politically acceptable, Scottish sites like Hunterston and Torness will probably play a key part of Blair's proposed new nuclear reactors.
Scotland is also in an unparalleled position to influence energy policy Europe-wide. Its renewable energy potential - wind, wave and tidal - is the envy of the rest of the EU and the energy pathway it chooses will have a lasting impact on renewable technology development.
Scotland's current energy system - like the rest of the UK's - is "centralised"; it relies on a few large (nuclear, coal and gas) power stations creating electricity miles away from where it is used. This model, developed in the 1930s, is so inefficient that two-thirds of the energy in the fuel is wasted as discarded heat (through cooling towers, cooling water and transmission along the power lines) before it gets to homes and workplaces. Our short film, What are we waiting for?, explains:
In a decentralised system, any heat generated doesn't disappear up cooling towers; it's captured and piped around the local community to provide space and water heating. It can slash carbon emissions, increase energy security and, in today's climate, should be an essential part of any energy policy.
"This is the closest thing to an energy silver bullet for Scotland," says Robin Oakley, Greenpeace's energy expert. "Choosing to take the decentralised road will mean less reliance on gas, lower carbon emissions and lower costs.
"By contrast, if the government in Westminster succeeds in bullying the Scottish Executive to accept new nuclear power stations in Scotland, it will be more expensive, pump out more global warming gases and leave behind a dangerous legacy of hazardous radioactive waste."
Tell Jack McConnell to make a firm commitment not to build new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
Read the report, Decentralising Scottish energy.
