Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Nuclear Scotland is not ruled out by EDF



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 November 2008
FRENCH utility giant EDF has revealed that it has not given up hope of building a second nuclear reactor at Torness within the next 20 years, despite the Scottish Government's fierce opposition to nuclear power.
Bernard Dupraz , director general of production and engineering at EDF – which recently bought nuclear operator British Energy in a £12 billion deal – said that he believed the current anti-nuclear political stance north of the Border could have chan
ged dramatically by 2030.

He told The Scotsman: "Energy is a business and nuclear energy is a political business. We respect different governments's views on nuclear energy.

"However, we believe that to have Torness as part of British Energy is something which could create a great opportunity for us in 20 years time or so in terms of building a new plant."

Dupraz added: "In the short-term, we are giving priority to England, where we can build immediately. However, long-term in Scotland, we don't know what's going to happen as far as the government is concerned. Things could change."

Torness, in East Lothian, is due to be decommissioned in 2023.

The Scottish Government's anti-nuclear stance has sparked fears that the jobs of some of British Energy's 1,400 Scottish staff may be in jeopardy following the acquisition by EDF.

EDF refused to comment on whether any of the 10,000 jobs created around the construction of four new power plants in England will be based at the firm's East Kilbride headquarters.

Dupraz said: "We have no plans to move British Energy's headquarters away from East Kilbride. It is not any more difficult for us to have British Energy's headquarters in a place where the government is opposed to nuclear power than it was for British Energy."

EDF plans to build a total of four new nuclear plants in England over the next decade, creating thousands of new jobs.

It also wants to create a centre of excellence somewhere in the UK to train British engineers to work on new nuclear reactors.

Dupraz said: "It is too early to say where all of these jobs will be or whether any of them will be in East Kilbride.

"Some of them will have to be at the power station sites, but we have not yet decided where the others will be located."

A spokesman for finance minister John Swinney said: "Scotland has a wealth and array of renewable options.

"We believe that nuclear power is dangerous and very costly to run and decommission. Given the plethora of renewable options in Scotland, we feel there simply isn't any need to go down the nuclear route."

He added that the government was on track to meet its renewables targets.


Power plant sites put up for sale

LAND next to three nuclear power sites is being put up for sale, raising the prospect of new operators entering the energy market by building new stations.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority yesterday said four separate lots will be disposed of, at Wylfa in North Wales and Oldbury in Gloucestershire, next to operating Magnox stations, and at Bradwell in Essex, next to a Magnox power station currently being decommissioned.

Two plots of land are up for sale at Wylfa, including one owned by EDF.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We want to see more than one new nuclear operator in the UK and this sale has the potential to make that a reality.

"The land on offer will be highly attractive to power companies interested in new build, alongside separate plans from EDF for four reactors on British Energy sites."

EDF said it supported the UK government's objective to have more than one participant in new nuclear build in the UK.

It added that the announcement marked the start of the disposal process and

said that the commencement of the auction process was conditional upon EDF's offer for British Energy becoming "unconditional in all respects".

The statement continued: "The offers are subject to final regulatory approval and sufficient British Energy shareholders accepting the offers."



The full article contains 685 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 November 2008 8:25 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Colin, Glasgow,

27/11/2008 15:40:26
Swinney doesn’t know what he is talking about. Nuclear is neither costly nor dangerous.

According to International Energy Agency figures, nuclear is amongst the cheapest forms of electricity available, comparable with the cheapest fossil fuel options, and far cheaper than renewables.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1472

Neither is it “dangerous” compared to coal (which is the default alternative, given the new coal plant planned for Cockenzie, Longannet and now near Hunterson). According to EU figures, coal pollution causes a hundred times as many deaths as either nuclear or renewables.

http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf

The Scottish Government’s policy of avoiding nuclear in preference to coal is a recipe for tens of thousands of unnecessary cases of cancer and fatal respiratory illness.

If renewables can fill the gap why are there plans to expand coal-fired generation?
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Old-king-coals-controversial-comeback.4717582.jp

EDF are right to be patient. It is only a matter of time before the Scottish government realises what a huge mistake it has made in opposing new nuclear build.
2

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 28/11/2008 10:13:23
Pronouncements about EdF's purchase of British Energy are a little premature. The EC Commission is expected to rule on the takeover on 8 December. Although 85% state-owned, EdF needs to borrow the money to fund the takeover. In the current credit crunch this means the money is expensive. Meanwhile the value of BE has fallen with the failures of the AGRs. Having raised the acquisition funds, EdF will then have to raise an as yet uncertain amount of cash to fund the building of the four EPRs they intend to build in England. Areva will need to recover its 2 billion Euro losses in Finland and ensure that its new business is profitable.

So with falling BE revenues, to the cost of the new reactors has to be added the £12.5 billion "opportunity" cost of acquiring BE plus maybe another £16-20 billion for the new fleet. If the boric acid moderator does not eat into the reactor vessels, the EPRs may be safe, but certainly they will be costly.
3

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 28/11/2008 18:00:31
In The Times today EdF's Bernard Dupraz admitted that "there was not the engineering and construction capacity to build nuclear plant at sufficient speed to fill the gap left in Britain by the closure of elderly and obsolete power stations." One wonders why he wants to buy a clutch of them!

So if EdF takes over BE it will initially build gas-fired stations. He is quoted as saying "The problem will be solved with gas".

The five-year licensing GDA process is expected to end in 2012, which is when the Olkiluoto EPR may be ready to be commissioned - and the Flamanville plant is expected to be ready, if it catches up with Olkiluoto.

If the prototype EPRs are then dogged with commissioning problems it looks as if we will be stuck with gas or coal for some time - until the gas and coal run out!

It seems that the Scottish government has got it right.

4

Colin, Glasgow,

29/11/2008 17:18:37
John, procrastinating over new nuclear build for twenty years and then ending up having to burn fossil fuel by default because there is no time to do anything else is not “getting it right”.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.