Member News
Labour MP Gordon Banks writes for ePolitix.com on the issues raised in his Westminster Hall debate on electricity generation and consumption.
Energy security, along with climate change and the fight against terrorism would be at the top of any list of top political issues in the world today.
We must have energy that is affordable, secure and sustainable and to do this we need to encourage investment in a diverse range of low carbon energy sources – nuclear, renewables and cleaner fossil fuels.
Oil and gas will still remain an important contributor to our energy mix in the UK for years to come but it is only right that we have the debate in Scotland, and the wider UK, about our future energy requirements.
In some political circles, nuclear is seen as a dirty word and I will be the first to admit that I was once a sceptic of nuclear power. However when faced with a situation where 'the lights may go off', I think we need to re-open the debate about whether nuclear power can play a part in out wider energy strategy.
To remove nuclear from the mix altogether, as the Scottish Nationalist Party proposes, would seriously threaten the UK's ability to deal with the threat of climate change as well as causing untold damage to our economy. The economic damage would be devastating and Scotland would lose the investment (in the region of £3bn) that comes with each reactor.
One of the questions that my debate seeks to address is whether it is right that the Scottish Government use the planning process to further their narrow anti-nuclear stance and thus restrict the wider UK's energy options.
As the chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce has already said: "We cannot afford for the Scottish Government to play fast and loose with the security and reliability of our future electricity supplies and run the risk of the lights going out in Scotland."
Nuclear power is already responsible for 38 per cent of Scotland's energy mix and it is disingenuous for the SNP to claim that renewables (currently responsible for 14 per cent) will be able to fill the void left if we promote a nuclear free Scotland.
The SNP would be happy to sit back and consume nuclear energy from English or Welsh reactors but not carry some of the burden that comes with siting and running nuclear reactors in Scotland. It is the typical 'have your cake and eat it' approach from Alex Salmond.
The limitations of renewables such as wind power are well known and we do require back up capacity when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
There will be days when no wind blows or the clouds obscure the sun so there needs to be sufficient dispatchable power from gas, coal and indeed nuclear power stations to meet the demands.
The government's recent Budget provided additional measures worth £1.4bn which included investment in renewables, so we are serious about improving renewables technology to ensure we can produce more energy in this way.
The chancellor also announced a new funding mechanism to support up to four carbon capture and storage demonstration projects and £90m for detailed preparatory studies in places such as Longannet, Fife.
Scotland's energy future requires a diverse and low energy mix and it is not about ill-thought out proposals and statements from the SNP which will put at risk our energy security in Scotland.
Whilst much of the debate will inevitably focus on the nuclear issue, the government recognises, as do I, that we need a low carbon diverse mix that includes nuclear, clean fossil fuel and renewables and that the latter two have a very significant role to play in Scotland.
The debate takes place in Westminster Hall on Tuesday April 28th at 9.30am.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.