Nuclear power: Scotland's energy elephant

Scotland faces an energy paradox. Energy costs are high, but does ruling out new nuclear help - or hinder - the needs of the people of Scotland?

The construction of Torness, in the 1980s, sparked opposition to nuclear power in Scotland - and for the SNP in particular. Now, with Hunterston B decommissioned and Torness due to close in 2030, questions are being asked again about the power source.

First Minister John Swinney has said allowing nuclear would “muddy the waters” for investors working on renewable energy.

Scottish Energy Secretary Gillian Martin dismissed nuclear as “very expensive and [taking] decades to deliver”.

The resolutely pro-nuclear Labour Party have used the issue to score points.

Secretary of State Ed Miliband described the SNP’s opposition as “total dogma, total ignorance”.

Torness is in Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander’s constituency. Speaking in Westminster, he said new plans were stymied. “The EDF management there says that the opposition from the Scottish government is preventing equivalent investment of the kind that was recently announced for Torness’s sister plant in Hartlepool.”

In order to drive this point home, GB Energy’s nuclear arm is making a list of potential nuclear sites - including areas in Scotland. Results are expected in autumn 2026.

When YouGov asked people in Scotland about meeting future generation needs, nuclear came out top - moving ahead of wind for the first time in its sampling.

Despite this shifting public opinion, the SNP has doubled down on its opposition. The SNP energy campaign, launched in December, promised that energy storage would “completely destroy” the need for nuclear.

In 2024, Torness accounted for just under 20% of Scotland’s electricity generation, more than any other asset.

Local impact

Stepping back from the political noise, though, nuclear power plants are good at two things. They provide good, well paid jobs to communities and they provide baseload power.

When the Labour Party talks about the benefits of nuclear power, most of the focus is on jobs.

According to the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), there are around 5,000 workers in Scotland in the industry. Each worker generates £92,000 in GDP.

When the SNP talks the negatives of nuclear power, it notes the expense and Scotland’s growing renewable energy.

Scotland does have an increasing amount of power from wind. As critics of renewable energy are keen to point out, the wind does not blow all the time.

But when it does blow, wind volumes can overwhelm connections, leading to the necessary stupidity of paying generators to switch off this essentially free power. Curtailment costs for 2025 passed the £1 billion mark and this will get worse over the next few years.

Making decisions

NESO was meant to provide clarity with its strategic spatial energy plan (SSE) in 2026. Instead, it has pushed the deadline back to 2027, with Scotland-specific guidance not arriving until 2028.

The SNP’s position aims to accomplish something that has not yet been proven. By building out renewables and energy storage, the party believes it can avoid the nuclear investment pitfall.

Labour, and the Conservatives, backing nuclear see the technology as proven and delivering zero-carbon power.

The SNP promises to cut household bills by £12 annually through scrapping the nuclear levy. Meanwhile, wind curtailment - the cost of switching off renewable energy when supply exceeds demand - is about three times that.

Scotland's energy debate reveals a deeper truth about modern politics: voters are offered ideologically pure solutions to practical problems. The SNP's renewable purists and Labour's nuclear evangelists both promise certainty in an uncertain world.

The real question is not whether £12 per household is worth paying for nuclear insurance. It is whether Scotland can afford the luxury of a political certainty in an uncertain world.

By way of contrast, Wales’ Plaid Cymru has taken a more sober route. The party has said there would be no new nuclear sites, beyond the locations already in use: Wylfa and Trawsfynydd.

The next Scottish government should take the leap of allowing investors to decide whether nuclear is a step worth taking.

Ed Reed is a contributor to Energy Voice and the editor of E-FWD. He's been covering energy in various parts of the world for more than 20 years, joining Energy Voice in 2019. Previously, he's written on subjects ranging from shale in the US to Sakhalin in Russia, from geopolitics in West Africa to Adnoc’s AI moves. He's presented at many industry conferences across the globe.

This article is sponsored by Energy Voice. 

www.energyvoice.com