Paul Sweeney (Glasgow)
(Lab)
Would the cabinet secretary accept that, as I outlined in my
speech, the transformational effects of such technologies as
molten salt can introduce passive safety, so it is actually a
revolutionary change in how the nuclear industry would operate,
massively reducing the capital cost of stations? Even for the
supply chain, Rolls-Royce
is interested in building a heavy pressure vessel factory in the
UK, with £200 million of investment. The cabinet secretary’s
colleague the member for Glasgow Provan says that he has not even
met representatives of the company to discuss the prospects of
that factory being located in Scotland. That is a supply chain
opportunity for heavy engineering and advanced manufacturing.
Would the cabinet secretary at least consider taking that up
proactively with Rolls-Royce?
The Cabinet Secretary for
Net Zero, Energy and Transport ()
I am sure that will respond to the particular
point about pursuing anything with Rolls-Royce
through inward investment but, given the position of the Scottish
Government regarding the existing available technologies for
fission nuclear energy, that is not consistent with our energy
policy, and that will not change under the review of our existing
energy strategy. That includes the small reactors to which the
member has referred.
made an interesting point in
relation to the costs associated with decommissioning nuclear
energy. He referred to the significant amount of money that EDF
has set aside to cover nuclear decommissioning. Who does he think
has provided that money? It is us—customers. We have provided
that money through our bills. The cost of decommissioning is not
something that is picked up by the companies under some
philanthropic approach; it is based into the costs and is added
on to our bills as a result. To try and give the impression that
decommissioning is something that is picked up by the commercial
companies alone is factually incorrect; it is met by the
additional costs that are put on to customers’ bills. That is why
it is a poor deal for the taxpayer. Even Hunterston A, for
example, which stopped producing electricity back in 1990, is
still going through its decommissioning process, and the cost of
that is fixed into people’s household bills. That is why the
costs of nuclear energy are well recognised as not being good
value for customers.
That is why the Scottish Government’s focus is on investing in
renewable energy, making the best use of Scotland’s natural
assets and doing so in a way that is consistent with Scotland
reaching net zero by 2045.
For context, CLICK HERE
