The Hunterston dilemma

British Energy, the producer of the bulk of the UK's electricity, yesterday announced that Hunterston B in Ayrshire, along with Hinkley Point B in Somerset, would continue for an additional five years to 2016 at a cost of £90m.

It is also casting the net globally in a bid to develop plans for new-build nuclear projects, should such expansion be permitted by the government.

Hunterston, which is running at around just 60% of apacity because of boiler problems, will be subjected to a further study by 2013 when the decision could be taken to extend its life further still.

Scotland's other active nuclear power station, Torness in East Lothian, will not have a decision taken on its future until three years before its lifespan is due to expire in 2023.

Both stations together meet 40% of Scotland's electricity needs but with the country's usage expected to soar by 50% by 2050 doubts have been cast as to the reliability of renewable energy to fill the void, even in the short to medium term.

Besides, nuclear supporters claim power plants give off less C02 emissions than the often heralded panacea to Scotland's energy problems, the wind farm.

British Energy claims a nuclear plant produces five grammes of C02 per kilowatt hour of electricity generated, compared to 900/kWh from a coal plant and 400/kWh from a gas-powered station.

It has been claimed that new nuclear plants would need to use lower ore uranium which requires more energy to extract but further British Energy studies show that emissions would then be 6.85g/kWh.

The company says Hunterston alone has also offset around 140 million tonnes of C02 during its working life. That would go some way to meeting the UK government's target of reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050.

There is also the fragile nature of energy diplomacy to consider and the threats to the UK's oil and gas supplies by the international situation.

Finland has become a recent convert to nuclear energy largely as a result of its 20th century history. Nuclear power plants mean it is to a large degree energy self-sufficient and not dependent on oil and gas from Russia or any of the former Soviet states.

As well as the nuclear support lobby there is another constituency delighted with the decision: the Hunterston workforce. The station employs around 520 full-time staff, as well as 150 employees from contract partners. It is estimated that the plant contributes £55m a year to the local economy.

John Quigley, regional secretary of trade union Unite, which represents much of the workforce at Hunterston, said: "People need to disconnect the nuclear arms race from nuclear energy. It's cleaner than wind power, helps reduce the carbon footprint and we can't be relying on renewables at this stage.

"The only sad thing is we're not looking to build new stations in Scotland."

But even those who do not see nuclear power as being inextricably linked with the Cold War are at best lukewarm over the extension of Hunterston's lifespan.

Despite the difficulties of Hunterston and Hinkley operating at around 60% capacity, with work being undertaken over the next year to increase this to 70%, British Energy has just recorded a 6% rise in core profit for the first half of the financial year.

Pre-interest taxes, depreciation and other costs went from £481m to £511m and there will be a view that British Energy will not want a major revenue generator out of operation within three years.

Experts also claim that the biggest problem at Hunterston is the cracked graphite bricks, as opposed to the boiler tube cracks which caused its closure last winter and its low power operation this winter.

They claim no technique is known that can eliminate the cracks but the Nuclear Safety Directorate has required British Energy to carry out more frequent inspections of the bricks.

The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) claims there is an expectation that most of the graphite bricks in the core of Hunterston could crack in the near future, jeopardising the safe running of the reactors.

In the light of such difficulties, some nuclear engineers are questioning whether the plants can be used for much longer.

Peter Roche, an Edinburgh-based independent energy and nuclear consultant, said British Energy was "playing with fire trying to keep these decrepit old reactors open for longer".

He added: "The Scottish Government must not rely on extending the life of Hunterston.

"The NII has raised serious questions over its safety in the past and documents obtained through Freedom of Information reveal that British Energy does not know the extent of the cracks, cannot monitor their deterioration and does not fully understand why cracking has occurred.

"Scotland could cope without extending the life of these dangerous reactors."

Euan McLeod, Scottish convener of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, said: "The only good news from the announcement of Hunterston's five-year extension is that it gives more time for the issue of waste storage to be debated."

There is also the spectre of an energy collision course between Holyrood and Westminster, with Alex Salmond insisting that there was "no chance" of new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland, the Scottish Government pointing out nuclear had a patchy safety record at best.

Last night, British Energy chief executive Bill Coley said the decision to extend Hunterston B's life was based on "a comprehensive technical and economic evaluation" and would support the UK's climate change goals.

He added: "Life extension helps provide support as the country considers energy conservation, efficiency and investment in new generating plant of all types, to serve the needs of the UK into the next century."

Tom Ungi, station director at Hunterston B, said: "The decision means we can continue to provide highly skilled jobs and bring major investment to the area."

Attempting the balancing act between jobs in a Nationalist constituency with his party's stance on new power stations, enterprise minister Jim Mather said the Scottish Government was not opposed to extending existing nuclear power stations until the end of their natural life.

The SNP MSP said: "The fact is this decision means the company will have to invest significantly more at Hunterston to ensure that it is safe and reliable and that has to be in Scotland's interests."

Stirring the political agenda further, Scotland Office minister David Cairns said: "The challenge the Scottish Government faces is explaining exactly how we keep the lights on in the future without this reliable, low-carbon energy source."

Pros and cons of nuclear power

Advantages

• Nuclear power emits very low amounts of carbon dioxide and no carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, contributing little to global warming, with only small amounts of other waste generated.

• Fuel costs are low despite large amounts of power generated and it is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in a single plant.

• The technology is readily available and does not have to be developed first.

• It is reliable and not weather-dependent.

Disadvantages

• Nuclear waste is dangerous for thousands of years and the problem of safely disposing of the radioactive material is still unsolved.

• Accidents can be disastrous and despite a generally high security standard can still happen.

• Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks.

• High building, maintenance and decommissioning costs, with the planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant considered to be in the range of 20 to 30 years.