A new Survation poll has shown a “miserable” level of support for nuclear power in Scotland while more than half believe the main focus should be on renewables. The polling makes grim reading for Scottish Labour and the LibDems who are both promoting new nuclear. The study carried out by Survation showed just 14% thought Scotland should rely on uranium used in nuclear reactors for its long-term energy security needs.
Only Reform UK and Conservative voters appear to prefer a focus on nuclear power. People who voted SNP and Green in 2024 appear overwhelmingly (over two thirds) in support of renewables.
In regions where nuclear facilities exist around Hunterston, Torness and Dounreay, a preference for renewables was in the clear majority over nuclear. When asked which energy sector could be trusted most to ‘tell the truth’ about their costs, pollutants and safety record, nuclear scored last at 12%, just behind the oil and gas industry at 13%.
This despite the fact that, as we exposed here the nuclear lobby group Britain Remade are run by PR/lobbying firm Stonehaven who donated £7,200 to the Scottish Labour Party.
*
Read our previous investigation here: Who are Britain Remade? – Bella Caledonia
Read The Ferret investigation here: This pro-nuclear group claims to be ‘grassroots’. So why are its directors industry lobbyists?
George Baxter, from Green Power said:
*
“New nuclear power is a costly distraction for Scotland. Between eye-watering costs, huge public subsidies, decades-long delivery timelines and leaving a toxic legacy for future generations, it cannot compete with the immediate, affordable potential of our renewable resources. With the technology already available, a 100% renewables-led system is the only logical path to a secure and sustainable economy.”
*
“A renewables-based energy system needs flexible power, a modern upgraded grid and energy storage, these should be the priority. That is what will provide lower cost energy, power industry and keep the lights on. Moreover, because nuclear is so inflexible it blocks renewables off the grid, forcing green energy generators to be turned off. Nuclear is no friend of sustainable energy.”
*
Nuclear Free Scotland
*
This is a major blow to the dark money, the front-groups, and the media campaigns that have been desperately promoting new nuclear for the past year.
*
*
“How many former Labour politicians have been lobbyists for the nuclear industry, and who is the current CEO of the Nuclear Industry Association, which is behind all of this lobbying?”
*
The answer is:
*
Tom Greatrex, a former Labour MP and energy spokesperson, is the current CEO of the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), representing the industry. While the specific number of former Labour politicians acting as nuclear lobbyists varies over time, key figures like Brian Wilson and Tom Greatrex have bridged the Labour Party and the nuclear industry.
Brian Wilson is of course is a devout nuclear enthusiast. In 2013 he decried Scotland’s energy policy as “Salmond’s nuclear fatwa”. In October 2005, he was appointed non-executive director of
AMEC Nuclear Holdings Ltd, the nuclear services arm of
AMEC plc. The announcement boasted that the firm is the UK’s largest private nuclear services business. In 2021 it was announced that he would lead a commission into new nuclear power [see
Labour Go Nuclear – Bella Caledonia].
*
The extent to which new nuclear is a major focus for Scottish Labour is demonstrated in their manifesto, in which their ‘top priorities’ are listed as ‘Improve the NHS’, Top up tax-free childcare’ and ‘Back nuclear energy.’ In their
Economy section the first two actions listed are ‘Create a Scottish Treasury’ and second ‘Remove the Scottish government’s block on nuclear energy.’ See:
Scottish Labour’s 2026 election manifesto at-a-glance – BBC News*
This is a major blow to the Labour Party and the nuclear lobby, showing once again that the Scottish people are resolutely opposed to nuclear power.
Looks like the half-life of Labour is about the same as spent fuel rods, with the colonial media determined we “need” both.
Sir Keir is a dead man walking, with the “grey suits” waiting for the election guillotine to finish him off. He should spend his remaining days stocking up on freebies.
Anas will claim “I was first” but as he will find out, no one likes disloyalty, and as the man with the knife, he is also politically dead.
I am not opposed to nuclear power per say but on a UK level there are several problems with it:
1)It is very expensive from a capital investment perspective.
2)Nuclear energy is more expensive to generate than renewable sources.
3)It takes at least a decade from planning to actually generate any electricity. (The much vaunted Small Modular Nuclear Reactor which the government has proposed for Anglesey is not expected to generate any electricity until mid 2030’s).
From a Scottish perspective nuclear power makes even less sense as we produce >100% of our electricity needs from renewables and export a net 19 TWatts to rest of UK annually.
There is however a need for electricity sources to support demand when wind doesn’t blow. This can be achieved by improving storage capacity and developing other more reliable renewable sources such as wave power. Scotland and UK are surrounded by tidal water. The technology needs to be developed in these areas but surely great developments could be made in next 10 years especially if proposed investment in nuclear energy were redirected to this need.
The other problem is the grid and its capacity and its capacity to handle the much increased renewable electricity generation.
Lastly there is great need to improve insulation in a lot of the housing stock. Concentrating on this would both reduce energy requirements and costs for many of the lower income households.
My father worked most of his life working for NFL constructing nuclear power stations. He was good at his job and a good worker. He talked very little about his job. As I got older I became more sceptical about his work and he defensive. He maintained it was safe. I have, especially since Chernobyl and Fukushima, decided despite all protestations that this industry is not safe . Having lived in Scotland most of my life I cannot see what is wrong with Hydro Power. While in Orkney on holiday I watched projects for wave energy. Especially as Trump hates them I love windmills. I vote we surround his golf courses in Turnberry and Mestrie the bigger the better. In my life time Scotland has lost its coal mining, ship building and steel industry all dangerous work so why not add the nuclear industry to the list? My parents in their later life returned to Cumbria and dad finished his career at Sellafield. Sellafield is probably the main work place in the area with a huge workforce but it is a HUGE BLOT IN THE LANDSCAPE.
Some of the new Gen 4 small reactors look brilliant–impervious to meltdowns, flexible output, cheaper, quick to build, air-cooled, etc. It’s like in one stage, going from Gen 3 to Gen 4, they solve all the worst longstanding problems nuclear power has had. But these reactors won’t start reaching the market until the early ’30s. And if Scotland doesn’t block nuclear power now, the UK will forge ahead with a bunch of old Hinkley-tech which will have to run for many decades to even approach break-even. The result will be that most of the Gen 4 opportunities will be crowded out by the time they are ready–which might actually be before any of the old tech plants can be completed. Saying no to more from the nuclear past maximizes the potential to take advantage of the best from the nuclear future.
Nicholas – your gushing review of SMNR’s reads more like a glossy advertising brochure. SMNR’s may well have some potential advantages over conventional nuclear power and some of the safety concerns re waste and security may be reduced but they cannot be eliminated.
You claim that the energy produced will be cheaper than large scale nuclear power production. How will it compare with renewable energy production?
It will be nearly a decade before any SMNR produces any electricity. The need to reduce carbon emissions and the cost of energy cannot wait 10 years.
We need to prioritise improving renewable technology that we know is safe and can provide energy at a lower cost by end of decade. We also need to improve storage technology and capacity, upgrade the grid and invest in insulation in the housing stock. These are areas where investment should be prioritised in Scotland and UK rather than spending billions of pounds on nuclear technology which will not have any positive impact for a decade.
The mere fact that a thing can be advertised does not establish that it is not brilliant. Regarding cost, I’m expecting the highest costs will be at first, with that cost coming down over time–as was the case for wind and solar PV. One company is pursuing a very low-cost reactor vessel combined with the most expensive fuel ever for the nuclear power industry–with an initial target of around a quarter-million dollars per burnable kg. But each kg burned will produce around 22 million kWh of heat (1.2 cents per kWh) or around 8.4 million kWh of electricity (3.5 cents per kWh)–plus whatever revenue can be obtained for the secondary heat. And since the fuel will have ongoing mass production, the prospects for long-term cost reduction appear favorable. Last I saw, CO2 from Scotland’s electricity sector is under 1.5 million tonnes per year. Against global emissions of 38,000 million tonnes (which will undoubtedly continue to increase), any further reduction in Scotland small electricity CO2 will have an utterly negligible effect. But nuclear heat could help reduce emissions in other areas. I agree it will probably be a decade before any of the new reactors could be set up in Scotland, and there should be a market track record on cost by that time. It isn’t certain they will be attractive by then, but if Scotland wants to preserve even the option of deciding at that time whether they want any, they should block the UK from building any more old-tech reactors in Scotland now.
Nicholas – the use of the word brilliant for a proposed technology that will not be up and running in UK for a decade is hyperbole. I would say the statement – SMNR’s shows a lot of promise is more appropriate.
I agree that new big nuclear facilities are not what is required due to enormous capital cost, the cost of electricity generated and the length of time required to bring this power on stream.
SMNR’s may be a longer term option for UK once we have seen how effective and safe this technology is elsewhere. Scotland has an abundance of renewable resources including wind, hydro, tidal and developing these along with storage capacity, grid connectivity and improved insulation would be most effective use of resources in my opinion.
The other big issue that needs to be addressed is reducing energy bills for users across Scotland. My concern is that the energy sector is more attracted to future, capital intensive developments, which will be funded by you and me and benefit shareholders rather than concentrating on solving the real problems that customers are facing on a day to day basis. I am sorry to say that the concentration on nuclear power (including SMNR’s) strikes me as the solution that suits the energy companies requirements rather than the customers needs.
What I said was that some of them *look* brilliant. As in, creative, ingenious, and well-thought-out. Does brilliant mean something different there? Or were you under the impression that we cannot evaluate the merits of engineering concepts before we build them? I also think some of the new designs do not look brilliant. Indeed, one of them looks like a huge proliferation hazard. I have no idea whether Scotland will ever have a use for any nuclear plants. I expect some places never will. (like Iceland) But while it is unsurprising that nuclear power opponents might oppose removing the Scottish government’s block on nuclear energy, I wanted to highlight that even someone who has a favorable view of nuclear’s future potential might still feel that the government has good reason to leave the block in place at this time.
Nicholas – thanks for that explanation much appreciated.
From my perspective I come from a medical science background. The only people that used the term brilliant to describe any treatment etc were very inexperienced reps trying to flog something hence my critical response to you using that term.
In addition I read a lot of articles and comments about energy and I come across an extremely high number of comments promoting SMNR’s. I am aware that this a developing technology showing a lot of promise but I am also aware of how much investment the energy sector put into promotion of nuclear energy (as described in this and previous columns).
I agree with your conclusion that large nuclear facilities are no longer the way forward. I am personally sceptical about the need for any future nuclear energy development in Scotland when you consider the abundance of potential renewable energy resources and the public resistance to nuclear energy.
I am also therefore very sceptical about the motives of political parties trying to push for nuclear developments in Scotland in 2026.
Many Thanks
John
100% support for lithium fires that burn down buildings and close Glasgow Central for a week ’cause you’ve got a battery in your hand and you don’t care that they occasionally explode. The Israeli’s can make dumbphones explode at will. If you live in central Scotland it’s probably being charged by a nuclear reactor.