Nuclear exchange
Stands Scottish Labour where it did on nuclear power? I ask because of some intriguing exchanges at first minister's questions.
Well, I found them intriguing. To be frank, the previous position of Scottish Labour was pretty opaque on the atomic question.
Formally, it hadn't closed the door on new nuclear generation. But Labour ministers said they wouldn't sanction new plants unless and until they were convinced that the resultant waste could be handled.
Up to the point of demitting office, they were not sufficiently convinced.
Plus the Lib Dem component of the coalition was resolutely against nuclear. Plus Jack McConnell, personally, seemed notably keener on renewables - while, of course, advancing the formal line.
As a reminder, energy policy is reserved to Westminster - but the deployment of individual nuclear stations would fall to Holyrood under devolved powers.
The issue arose today because Labour's Iain Gray was questioning the first minister about the take over of the nuclear company British Energy by the French firm EDF.
'SNP dogma'
Mr Gray is the MSP for East Lothian, home to Torness.
British Energy's HQ is in East Kilbride. Mr Gray suggested Alex Salmond was being either "ironic" or "hypocritical" or "bonkers" in seeking to retain those Scottish jobs - while simultaneously rejecting new nuclear generation.
To be precise, Mr Gray was quoting newspaper commentators in chucking those epithets in the direction of the FM. These were not, you understand, to be taken as the direct opinions of Scottish Labour.
Perhaps just as well. Because, in response, Mr Salmond was able to quote Sarah Boyack - Mr Gray's spokeswoman on the environment - as saying that she felt the case for new nuclear in Scotland had not been made.
Then arose Andy Kerr, Labour frontbencher and MSP for East Kilbride, to accuse Mr Salmond of displaying a closed mind on the issue. He said the FM was "offering the cold shoulder of SNP dogma".
Not much opaque about that, is there? But consider. If the SNP stance on new nuclear is a bad thing, if it is to be condemned by all right-thinking people, then what - precisely - is Labour's stand?
Are they still opposed to new nuclear, pending resolution of the waste issue? Are they still unconvinced?
Alternatively, are they more inclined to endorse new nuclear in Scotland in keeping with the view, for example, of key figures in the trades union movement?
I believe it to be the latter. I believe Scottish Labour's core leadership would now be, intuitively and politically, more sympathetic to the case for new nuclear.
Merely intriguing
I believe they are heeding the view that the waste issue is less germane with the new generation of reactors. I believe that, liberated if you like from their LibDem colleagues, they are more attuned to the nuclear case.
To be fair, the door was never actually closed on new nuclear by Scottish Labour. I believe, however, that it is now more open than previously.
Doesn't mean there is a majority at Holyrood for new nuclear. SNP plus LibDem plus Green adds up to majority opposition to such a prospect.
Doesn't mean either that Labour's altered stance is either intrinsically wrong or right. Or indeed, at this stage, finally and absolutely clear. Merely intriguing.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~29~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
We don't know where the Labour Party in Scotland stands on many issues , and personally I am past caring !
Complain about this comment
Gray is Brown's creature, he will say what ever Brown tells him to say, Brian, we are not fooled by this or anything else this glove puppet says. Labour in Scotland has no brain, it is not allowed to think for itself, it is Brown's mouthpiece.
If nuclear is such a smart move why did Gordon sell off British Nuclear Fuels to the French Government?
One reason could be to show us stupid Scots who really owns us - Westminster - and what happens if we are naughty and vote SNP.
Excessive? Maybe; but Brown will now clutch at any straw to save himself. Like Ruth Kelly he could end up find himself fighting a Labour marginal seat at the next election as the last Labour MP left in the Kingdom of Fife.
Complain about this comment
Look Brian, it's simple, Labour are trying to employ the Good Cop (Iain Gray) and Bad Cop (Andy Kerr) routine at Holyrood in dealing with SNP; but as you saw over the questions on nuclear power it was more like Keystone Cops.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
You confuse the position of the previous Labour-Lib Dem coalition Scottish Executive with the consistent Labour Party position in favour of new nuclear build.
All that has changed is that the Labour policy is now freed from the shackles of Lib Dem dogma and is rightly starting to plan for a secure, reliable source of carbon-free electricity.
If only the SNP had the sense to do the same.
Complain about this comment
I don't think this heralds a revisiting by 'Scottish Labour' of their nuclear policy - rather it would appear to be a lack of foresight on the part of Mr Gray. To attempt to decry Mr Salmond for endangering jobs by rejecting nuclear when unable to point to a strong statement made by himself in support of retaining nuclear is unfortunate; but to do it and allow Mr Salmond to quote back his own spokesperson as supporting the SNP's stance seems like carelessness! In all seriousness though, such an easy rebuttal for Salmond must lead to questions regarding the competence of Gray, and whether he can indeed go toe to toe with Salmond. I'm not judging either way, but the above exchange certainly seems to indicate that Gray could find the PMQs very difficult indeed.
Further, to have the leader say that he is unconvinced of the case for nuclear to be followed by a front bencher accusing the government of having a closed mind on the issue when in fact they have made a decision (as governments are required to do!) reeks of confusion within the labour ranks.
To be fair, I have not seen the FMQs, I'm just going on what I have read above. Perhaps Mr Gray performed very well aside from this - but I doubt it.
Complain about this comment
Ach, we're gonna waft oor kilts at thae big windmills. Micht as weel direct oor wind somewhere useful.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
The acquisition of British Nuclear by EDF is in one way sad...i.e. The British Government has lacked the foresight to retain nuclear skills in the UK to the extent all our engineers are approaching retirement. On the other hand, at least something might now be done in terms of renewing generation capacity. The UK faces a near term collapse in generating capacity and reserve margins are at their lowest in a generation.
With gas from Russia (or a tartan flag-waving independent Scotland) becoming potentially unreliable, the UK will depend upon imports from Norway and the Netherlands, which are not inexhaustible. Coal-fired plant is approaching the end its design life with new "clean-coal" plant as yet promising but highly expensive. Renewables can provide a very valuable input and the island as a whole is almost uniquely blessed in renewable potential from wind, wave and tide. The very large footprint of renewables however, combined with their inherent dispatching problems (i.e. unpredicatable generating profile) means that the idea of them providing more than 30% of demand is ill-informed tosh!
This leaves an urgent need for a predictable, low carbon baseload generator and, like it or loathe it this can only come from nuclear power given current technology. This is yet another "inconvenient truth" that has been ducked by the government for 20 years as various short term (e.g. the "dash for gas") fixes have been papered over the cracks. I hope that the EDF and Centrica takeover will finally get the ball rolling before the lights start to go out, which is quite likely given how long we have waited.
If the SNP plus others wish to make Scotland nuclear free??? Well that's fine because it will hopefully mean that there is more investment in the rest of the UK and our power supply will be assured. Of course there is always the unlikely but tantalisingly plausible notion that Alec Salmond as Scotland's first President for Life (President Tartaninajad anyone?) will wish to acquire nuclear weapons in which case he will need a reactor if Dounray is out of action...don't forget where you read it first.
Seriously however, if someone also had the political will to tackle the biggest problem of all, that of demand-side management, much of the looming power crisis would be averted. This would however involve either draconian regulation or sky-high prices (I mean really sky-high as opposed to the still relatively cheap power prices today...form a queue to complain). Given that most of us believe that lifestyle affecting economies are everyone elses' responsibility, this subject is politically radioactive which leads us in a neat circle.
Complain about this comment
Where does the Scottish Labour Party stand on nuclear energy? Ask Gordon Brown - that's what they do.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Spot on!
"...what - precisely - is Labour's stand?".
Perhaps we simply need to wait for Gray et al to be instrcuted by London what to say?
Complain about this comment
#2
"If nuclear is such a smart move why did Gordon sell off British Nuclear Fuels to the French Government?"
In 1994, EDF employed the services of one Andrew Brown as their Head of Press. Andrew Brown has a brother called Gordon, who is in a very powerful position in British politics. Can you guess what it is yet?
Complain about this comment
Slaintemeh, you disappeared from the previous thread without answering:
You stated that "?20 billion was the actual cost of PFI / PPP to Scotland over the amount Labour said it would cost (NAO figures)"
Please could you provide a link to this as I can't find it anywhere.
All I could find was this:
Scottish PFI/PPP contracts could be costing around ?2.1 billion more than conventional funding. That is nearly 10% of the total cost of all Scottish PFI/PPP contracts.
Note the amounts.
Also from the same report:
Oh, and this was from a UNISON report, not one from the 'independent' NAO.
Where did you get your figure of ?20bn from?
Complain about this comment
11. And we have another new nationalist conspiracy theory.
That's six now.
Complain about this comment
Anyone else think Gray was pretty rubbish? The nuclear slap down (delivered in such a way as to maximise audio and visual media potential) from Salmond was well executed to get him out of what is quite a difficult spot for the SNP.
Complain about this comment
I suspect that the energy needs of an Independent Scotland could easily be met by renewable sources but only because there will be such an efflux of population and reduction of activity following the crowning of Alexander IV.
Complain about this comment
Look, we hear a lot of nonsense about the need for new nuclear in Scotland. But the truth is Scotland is already exporting electricity to both England and Northern Ireland to the limit of the respective interconnectors' capacity. Scotland - with Hunterston off line - still has far more generating capacity than Scotland can use.
That's why the new Robin Rigg wind farm is being connected to the grid south of the Solway rather than north, although it is in Scottish waters - the cross-border interconnector is already at capacity.
Over the UK as a whole there is a serious need for new generating capacity, but not in Scotland. And if we built new nuclear here, we'd have to build new transmission infrastructure to get rid of the electricity. It makes no sense.
Furthermore, we are bringing new green energy on-stream in Scotland every month, so we're going to have to build more interconnectors anyway to export that, or else shut down Torness.
We don't need it and we don't want is and we couldn't even use it if we had it... so why?
Complain about this comment
#13
What theory? I'm merely presenting a fact that the BBC has so far forgotten to mention. I make no accusation in my post. Not only that, but I make absolutely no reference to my own political persuasion in that post - any implied criticism could be made by supporters of all parties, including old Labour.
Anyway, Private Eye has been mentioning this fact for months, and Private Eye couldn't give a toss about Scottish politics. Get your facts straight.
Complain about this comment
#8, Anglophone, you may not have heard of them but there are these things called 'tides'. Reliable, regular, consistent, do your baseload cheaper than nuclear. no waste. So if we didn't have enough conventional hydro-power to handle Scotland's baseload, we still wouldn't need new nuclear.
Complain about this comment
16. Do you have anything to back these claims up? Very interesting.
Complain about this comment
Even if nuclear was a good idea (Which it isn't), even the unionists agree that they would not consider nuclear alone. If this is the case and renewables are to make up a % of the energy mix, then with Scotlands vastly more abundant natural resources, then Scotland should be used to generate the renewable portion of the electricity and Nuclear should be located near to the large population centres in England. This would minimise transition losses through the national grid.
In conclusion, there is not an argument for retaining Nuclear power in Scotland.
Full Stop.
The real story here is that just as this Labour government courted big business via the financial sector (and look what's happening there?), they are also courting the big business Nuclear lobby.
It has nothing to do with serving the people.
Complain about this comment
#17 StroszekBassist
I'm stuck in Western North Carolina, since the US built its main refineries in Hurricane alley, and its distributive system is so poor that we have had minimal petrol for the last 10 days, and that's likely to continue for another 10 days.
Consequently, I've had so much time on my hands that I checked back on each of Expat's posts.
From that tedious reading, I noted that he has only ever been positive about two things - PFI/PPP and the nuclear "deterrent". Every other posting has been negative and/or sneering about others. His #13 to you was simply par for the course.
There are a number of Unionist posters making valid points worthy of debate. Unfortunately, Expat isn't one of them.
Complain about this comment
I think one or two nuclear stations are required to even out the baseload electricity supply in Scotland.
We shouldn't focus on nuclear until we have used the available renewable capacity effectively; we owe this to our inheritors. However, as a process engineer I view it is as much better alternative to clean coal or gas.
What do you think we should do about nuclear Reluctant-expat? Yes or No or Maybe?
Complain about this comment
My prediction: Scotland will end up importing nuclear power from England to fill the gaps in our expensive renewable supply.
Complain about this comment
11. At 2:45pm on 25 Sep 2008, StroszekBassist.
he has sold off British Nuclear Fuels because he is desperate for funds to waste.
where have all the previous funds raised from selling public industries dissappeared to, into a big black hole called westminster.
they have been wasted on prudence browns ego as chancellor.
when the family silver runs out, what will he do then.
has ex-pat caught conspiracyitis, the man who runs and does not answer himself.
as for his federal autonomy for councils, i cannot stop laughing.
Complain about this comment
I cannot be fun being a Labour MSP right now when you have a leader who is simply unable to deliver a forceful performance at FMQs. He simply lacks the ability to convey authority or to improvise away from his preprepared script. Unluckily for them (and conversely for him) is that they simply don't have the time to change leader again before the next elections.
Andy Kerr is now reaching Des Browne levels of hate-ability. If they had any sense they'd hide him well out of the road and get Jamieson down on the front bench again.
Complain about this comment
Until we know the limit of tidal , wind and wave energy I think we should make no decision on nuclear.
If the forth really is the saudia arabia of tidal energy lets give it a chance to show us what it can do. If it works great if it doesnt we have lost 10 - 15 years. We can then resort to nuclear.
The problem with nuclear is that it allows the gov to stop trying to find alternative solutions and all that happens is investment dries up in renewables. Not allowing us to take the easy road out forces us to keep striving to find a renewable solution to the problem of consumption.
Complain about this comment
21. People are obviously free to click on my username and read my posts for themselves.
Afterwards, they should avail themselves of the following contributors' efforts:
Oldnat
vote_nat
Thomas_Porter
Simon_Brooke
slaintemha
Bighullabaloo (and whatever name he uses now)
Please note the numerous nationalist claims and the scarce proof.
(Slaintemha, have you found a source for your ?20bn PFI/PPP claim yet?)
24. To a system of government used in dozens of countries around the world, your response is "i cannot stop laughing"?
Mmm.
Complain about this comment
The YouGov/Sun poll suggests a much larger bounce for Brown in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Headline voting intentions from the (tiny) Scottish sample of 138 are
Con, 18%
Green, 2%
Lab, 42%
LD, 5%
SNP, 33%
All polls during Conference season are erratic due to the broadcasting rules, and the high level of publicity that one party gets during their conference. With the Tory and SNP conferences still to come, things will change.
However, it seems reasonably clear that there is a significant % of the Scottish vote that is floating between the SNP and Labour, so it's all to play for.
Complain about this comment
If the French take over all of the nuclear stations and build replacements, who is going to foot the bill for decommissioning the old one? Not the French I suspect, so if in fact they are not allowed to build in Scotland, they will walk away and we will have to foot the decommissioning bill. I suspect that all of Scotland's budget will not be enough to cover the cost of this.
Complain about this comment
#29 kaybraes
My understanding is that for the next generation of nuclear power stations, the power companies will require to meet the decommissioning costs (any bets on whether the company will suddenly go "bankrupt" when the bill comes due?).
The existing ones will be decommissioned at Government expense.
Complain about this comment
Exlax - try the National Audit Office, then have a look at Professor Allyson's paper on the Unison site, after that pop over to the BMA site and you will see what a total rip off tax payers money PFI / PPP is.
Minimum cost escalation between initial business case and final business case 33%. Minimum cost escalation between final business case and completion 33%. Though the independent study for Unison did identify PFI / PPP projects where the cost escalation between initial business case and final business case was as much as 240%. So the least over run on a PFI / PPP project on which the contract was signed for £1 million is £1.7 million.
Labour has been representing the initial business case figures as the actual cost, now go figure why the National Audit Office spokesman stated that most initial business case calculations for PFI / PPP were no better than a back of an envelope guestimate.
You can't have looked very hard, if you looked at all. I've worked within NHS PFI to try and solve problems caused by the leeching of money from care to fund the PFI costs. So have hands on experience of the damage PFI /PPP is causing to public service provision - look at the mess North Lanarkshire Trust, because of PFI / PPP payout, is in and across the UK it is not the worst by any means.
Complain about this comment
#26
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that nuclear is just as unsustainable as oil, gas and coal - nuclear fission requires nuclear fuel, after all. Somewhere down the line, we're going to have to work out how to use renewable energy to provide all our needs, so the sooner the better.
The nuclear question should be above partisan politics - I can only assume that people who back nuclear generators do not fully understand the concepts of nuclear waste and the half-lives of radioactive material. Wind, tidal and wave power do not produce carcinogenic waste material, where the "best" current solution seems to be to put it in a lead box and drop it in a big hole like a time capsule, only to be opened in several centuries' time.
Complain about this comment
the logical way to look at the yes - no to nuclear energy - is can scotland produce enough electricity via renewables to replace all other sources of energy through time, gas included, only the experts can say.
if we can, then go for it, all though it is possible that we may have to have clean coal backup, but thats for the experts to work out.
scotland is exceptional lucky with its possible renewable sources, which at this moment are under utilised, but will they be enough to satisfy future demand without us having to import gas and oil for power stations.
also, is there going to be sufficient fuel for nuclear reactors in 20 years time, as i read somewhere that the conventional uranium was going to run out in 20 years at the present rate of worldwide use and there was only going to be a not so efficcient subsitute. perhaps someone who is more in the know, can tell me if what i read is true or not.
Complain about this comment
31. I didn't ask for another few paragraphs of huff and bluster.
I asked for a link to back up your claim that:
"?20 billion was the actual cost of PFI / PPP to Scotland over the amount Labour said it would cost (NAO figures)".
An bizarre claim considering there is only ?20bn being spent on such schemes in total.
I do notice that the difference between the figures you initially claimed (?20bn) and the figures I quote (?2bn) is no longer as extreme. We have some progress.
So, at the third time of asking, can you provide a link?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat, on several occasions you have lied, misled the group, openly admitted to being against one group of individuals (BNP style) and of course changed the wording of information to gain political points off the regulars on these blogs.
Now you insist that my name is brought up and accuse me of 'numerous nationalist claims and the scarce proof.' You ignored the questions I asked you on an earlier blog, you insisted that I believed the conspircies you created. You are a complete joke. You do not answer questions, you insist you must be right all the time despite on several occasions that you have been proven to lie and you actually have went as far as to change the wording of statements to 'win the arguement'.
Everyone: Don't feed the Troll.
Complain about this comment
35. Well, that's put me right in my place.
It's like being savaged by a goldfish.
Complain about this comment
Nuclear power is dangerous. Scotland should not use nuclear power unless we exhausted our renewable capabilities. Plus where would we store our nuclear waste? One or two years ago it was proven that Britain had enough nuclear waste to create 17,000 nuclear bombs. Also consider the security risk. There are people out there who want to slaughter as many innocents as possible, the nuclear waste provides that person with the ability to create a 'dirty bomb'. Then nuclear does not last forever, unlike renewable energy. The wind may not blow 24 hours per day but it will blow. We may end up importing nuclear fuel from abroad then we will be at their mercy for electricity.
Complain about this comment
18 Simon Brooke
Very aggressive but missingthe point. Given your very great knowledge of reneable energy how do you propose to make up the generation gap at slack water on the key tidal sites in Scotland like the Pentland Firth. How do you propose to make up the generating deficit between Neap and Spring tides. How do propose to make up for the fact that tidal power (of which I am a supporter) can only provide around 10% at best of UK needs and that's including the grandaddy on the Severn Estuary (that's in England if you were wondering).
You clearly also know absolutely nothing about power generation as the hydro-power you talk about is not used as baseload, rather it tends to be a peak shaver to meet peak demand. Use it as baseload generation and you will have lots of empty lochs.
This blog really should come with a health warning..."Think before you rant!"
Complain about this comment
The one main policy that I strongly disagree with is the SNP's policy against nuclear power. As an engineer I feel it is important we have a diverse energy mix and nuclear is a reliable part of that.
I support the SNP but I strongly disagree with their no nuclear stance - although I remain strongly against nuclear weapons.
Complain about this comment
How many valleys will have to be partially flooded, how many windfarms on how many hilltops, how many wave-generators on how many beaches and how many tidal barrages in how many inlets and estuaries working at what capacity for what % of the time....
....would be needed to replace one 1-2GW conventional power station operating 24hrs a day?
Complain about this comment
I'm oft amazed by the moronity of the posters here who seem to think 'centralize everything!' is the answer to the worlds problems.
The Severn estuary is actually inefficient due to its size; If wind starts-stops blowing in one location then you have an on-off effect. If you distribute then you can greatly increase the efficiency of both distribution and generation.
There is potential for renewable recovery in Scotland three or four times that of the Severn from very small scale tidal renewable sources; never mind the wind component.
Its incredible to hear the doom and gloomites of the forum leap for nuclear under the condition that it is efficient.
They certainly don't think twice when they fill their cars with petrol; the efficiency of most internal combustion engines in practice is 18-20%. Its a crime that we burn petrol considering its truely enormous energy potential.
So why do I bring this up? Because Nuclear power stations are built so far away from major population centres that they have huge transfer inefficiencies. Looks good on paper, not good in practice.
Unsurprisingly, you never answered my question Reluctant-expat, are you in favour, against or neutral at the prospect of Nuclear? Furthermore, would you allow a nuclear power station to be built in your town?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat.
i think that you will find that in the main, goverments that use the that system are a lot bigger in size and population than scotland.
i can just see the regions fighting over where a factory is going to be sighted as they want it in their region, more income to them.
30 odd regions fighting over one factory.
who would want to live in a regional area where the local tax is high when the region next door has a low tax.
it would create large anormalities between regions.
Complain about this comment
#36
"Its like being savaged by a goldfish"
Well to keep the aquatic theme I would assume a goldfish could do a lot of damage to a tadpole like yourself.
Complain about this comment
Dear Diary,
What a day it has been. Fell flat on my face at FMQs today, as Eck somehow managed to wrong-foot me.
There I was giveing the FM a good going over for condemning short-selling speculation in the great HBOS heist when all of a sudden it was brought home to me that I had done the same myself last week. What a prat I am. They "should go to the fire", I said of spivs and speculators. You would have thought I would have remembered that glorious turn of phrase without having to be reminded of it by Eck. What a dog's breakfast. Needless to say, Eck rubbed my face in it.
Can somebody tell me what this word 'consensus' means, by the way? I seem to be confused.
Complain about this comment
41. Missed your question. Like most people, I'm in favour of a mixed supply. Nuclear is cheap, plentiful and waste-storage, is well under control (contrary to the picture painted by some).
Renewables are notoriously unreliable and all it takes is a calm day and the entire windfarm/wave-gen product will be close to zero. And when in between tides.....
42. So now 'centralisation' is good? Why does Scotland need to break away from the UK again?
Complain about this comment
42. There's too many other points to make about your post. Too many.
I think you should read up on federalism.
Also read up on some of the other government structures in the democratic and developed world as there are many other types in between the full federalism of Germany/USA and the unitary systems of France, UK and others.
Complain about this comment
#45. Nuclear is not cheap in the long run. Cheap today but not cheap in the lifetime of the reactor once you take in storage decontamination and security.
Nuclear is typical of recent governments. No forward thinking. Nuclear will be back on the agenda in 50 years as it doesnt solve any problem just gives us a poor substitution for a solution
Complain about this comment
#45.
Reluctant-Expat.
"Like most people, I'm in favour of a mixed supply. Nuclear is cheap, plentiful and waste-storage, is well under control (contrary to the picture painted by some)."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7006056.stm
"...And it warns that nothing has been done and that the size of the UK plutonium stockpile has doubled in that time."
"Just over 6kg of plutonium was used in the bomb which devastated Nagasaki and the UK has many thousands of times that amount."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm
"The UK's nuclear waste clean-up programme could cost more than £70bn, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)."
Of course you are always right, everyone else is wrong. Lets just ignore the facts above...
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat.
you appear to forget that scotland is not a region.
i am not going to say that scotland will not have inter border problems to be sorted out.
but your suggestion of 30+ regions, population 5 million - ave. 167 thousand.
then againyou have the super region of strathclyde.
would lothian still want to be attatched to the borders or vice versa.
you point to the usa - germany - france and the uk.
usa - population 250 million, 50+ states = 5 million per state ave. - about the same scotland. how many rich states, how many poor states.
germany - population 60 million.
france - population 55 million.
i do not think its feasable for scotlands size, allthough it is feasable for the whole of the uk.
in my post i only quoted a couple of examples, so how is that to many to reply to,but then again from you i never expect answers only reasons not to give answers.
please supply LINKS to your reading material suggested.
Complain about this comment
Ignoring Iain Gray's sad attempt at FMQs today......
However, one point to note. One thing people need is energy. Basically most people don't give a toss where it comes from if they are freezing cold. Alex Salmond understands this.
Renewables are great, but there simply isn't enough out there yet, so we need an alternative.
Alex Salmond is not going to put energy needs in peril because of an SNP policy, since he knows that is akin to political suicide.
The question is what is the long term option? Labour seem to change their ideas depending on the SNP, Lib Dems waste energy on phone calls, and the Greens talk mince (soya?) most of the time.
Complain about this comment
#4 simon7-0
"All that has changed is that the Labour policy is now freed from the shackles of Lib Dem dogma and is rightly starting to plan for a secure, reliable source of carbon-free electricity."
Bean reading all the nuclear industry spin then!
"The true cost of nuclear energy"
http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts-photography/nuclear_cost_3481.jsp
"The True Price of Nuclear Power"
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/PeterBossew.html
"The Oxford Group"
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/secureenergy.pdf
"Nuclear power – the energy balance"
http://www.stormsmith.nl/
A lot of reading but shows the futility of even contemplating a revival in this retrograde industry.
Every nuclear reactor built in the world has been susidised by their respective governments, no exceptions anywhere.
The Irish Sea is getting more radioactive by the year from the constant cooling waters from "Sellafield" which is annoying the Irish and the fishermen who have to throw back an ever increasing number of deformed fish.
Complain about this comment
im sorry but ex-pat has other things to do in a hurry and cannot answer our questions, but he will return later so by then he hopes that you have forgotten about them.
how convenient is his excuses again and again.
Complain about this comment
#28 oldnat
"However, it seems reasonably clear that there is a significant % of the Scottish vote that is floating between the SNP and Labour, so it's all to play for."
Thanks for the reference, oldnat, and certainly a possible spin. OTOH, I'm more inclined to the Grauniad's view in their Lib Dem figure may explain Labour poll bounce, with the 5% indicating that neither their new federal nor Scottish leaders have exactly set the heather alight yet.
Let's see what happens to the polls after the Tory and SNP bunfights.
For the moment, I'm more interested in figures specifically for Glenrothes and especially by the Grauniad's Labour activists told to prepare for November 6 byelection, which tantalisingly says: "The Independent reported today [Tuesday or Wednesday?] that a poll had put support for the Scottish nationalists in the constituency at 50%, compared to 34% for Labour." There are similar snippets in the Scotsman and the Herald, but I can find no mention of it all on the Indy's own website. If anyone finds it, I'd greatly appreciate a link. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything yet on any of the pollsters' websites, although that does often take a few days.
Those of a betting disposition may care to note that Paddypower's Who will win the Glenrothes by-election? is still offering the same odds as in mid-August, viz: SNP 2/9; NuLab 11/4; LibDems 40/1; Tories 66/1.
Anyone interested in the full detail of the poll referred to in #28 can download the summary PDF from YouGov's Political Archive and follow the "click here" link near the top of the 1st page for the full PDF.
Complain about this comment
Nuclear is inefficient, expensive and DANGEROUS plus there is no safe way to deal with the radioactive waste hazardous to life for tens of thousands of years.
A range of renewables along with Clean coal with CCS is the way forward.
Scotland does not want nuclear stations. Even New Labour MP's + MSP's, with the exception of those with an "interest", don't want them.
Complain about this comment
48. You clearly never learned about the difference between nuclear fuel and weapons-grade nuclear material. Didn't they teach you that during your 4 weeks in the Army?
Plus I am not surprised that you only quoted one paragraph (and then out of context, I might add) but not:
The government said stocks were protected against the risk of attack.
(Of course, terrorists/hostile nations have to actually get at the heavily-guarded fuel stores before they go through the lengthy process of removing/storing/transporting it - all without any interference)
and
"And the second thing you can do, and this might seem rather strange - you make it more radioactive," he added.
"More radioactive so that it's simply more difficult to handle and the ideal way to do that is of course to burn it."
The pellets could be used to power nuclear reactors, particularly if the government decided to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, he said.
and
The report added that, in the long term, the best way to dispose of the stockpile was to bury it deep underground once it had been burned as fuel.
However, don't let the facts get in the way of a good pro-SNP rant.
Complain about this comment
Just a quick look through Google exlax and the problem with your allegation is that is not taking in the whole picture.
One calculation is that PFI / PPP is already costing 5 billion more on just 20 projects www.wiserearth.org.
The Unison calculation was just for the projects they looked at not the total number.
Rack up the total number of PFI PPP projects finished nearing completion or in the pipeline and the National Audit Offices estimate of £20 billion.
Next you will be proposing that Scotland should build its nuclear plants using this dogs breakfast way of public finance. It does not matter where you look the Labour government and the Union is letting Scotland down. Maybe it would take some nutters to blow all the high tension lines between Scotland and England to bring the Union to its senses. Shutting Torness in December would demonstrate who is exactly dependant on who.
Now maybe you, exlax, are happy to live off Westminster's pocket money, sit on their coat-tails and be dragged through what ever cack Westminster dreams up for Scotland but I would rather my country stood on its own two feet and went its own way how ever that turns out. We are two prisoners all you can see is bars and that is what limits your thinking - just like Ian Gray.
Your only possible reason for the pap you are posting is you know the battle for the Union is lost and its now a matter of how long. Denial is a painful place to be.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Scottish Labour = toeing the line for whatever is required for Britain - NOT Scotland. This is adequately demonstrated by their stance on energy.
Why the question marks, the drama behind the 'Labour path' here?? It has been, and always shall be whatever is required for the British state.
Scotland DOES NOT require nuclear.
Nuclear IS NOT safe and reliable.
Scotland CAN NOT afford the lotteryesque nature of nuclear.
However;
Scotland DOES however lend itself, in a very unique manner, to the impending energy revolution THAT WILL BE very much the focus throughout the next 40-years - for all countries.
What is required to keep the home fires burning for 55-million people IS NOT the same as that required to keep 5-million hearths warm. Crude, but true, I can assure you.
Now - you want drama?
Tell me, with a straight face, that Brown and co. will not try and 'change the goalposts' post-Calman?
Mr.Brown needs Calman to do three things:
- appease the English and be seen to be ‘knocking the Scots down’
- convince the Scots that the devolution settlement is delivering more power through ‘new’ powers
- remove the ‘real’ power the Scottish First Minister has with respect planning and the UK's ability to dump nuclear power stations in Scotland
A clean, green and mean Scotland thanks very much. Why? Because we can.
Brighter, better horizons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7634792.stm
And the biggest coast in Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/7633597.stm
Mr.Brown and his pro-British meanderings are, quite simply, disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
Now if we could only capture all the hot air generated in here our energy strategy would be solved.
Complain about this comment
#38 Anglaphone
"You clearly also know absolutely nothing about power generation as the hydro-power you talk about is not used as baseload, rather it tends to be a peak shaver to meet peak demand. Use it as baseload generation and you will have lots of empty lochs.
This blog really should come with a health warning..."Think before you rant!"
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseload_electricity
"Among the renewable energy sources, hydroelectric, geothermal[3] and OTEC can provide baseload power."
Don't forget a nuclear power station needs an outside fossil fuel power source to keep it running and "safe". They also can only run at about 80-85% capacity above this and they can become unstable. Has the storage of waste been solved? NO and it never will be.
Complain about this comment
#55.
Reluctant-Expat.
"You clearly never learned about the difference between nuclear fuel and weapons-grade nuclear material. Didn't they teach you that during your 4 weeks in the Army?"
I called the weapon a 'dirty bomb', you should learn what that is before you think you know best.
You are suppose to show that nuclear is good value for money. By spending huge amounts on security? Then allow the stockpile to grow which would also mean more security? Followed by the actual costs of disposing the waste? Then of course your best idea is to put the nuclear waste in a hole... The waste could be dangerous for hundreds of years and land is not exactly limitless or cheap to use either.
It does not matter that I am an SNP supporter. I am against nuclear, thats a personal choice. If it could be proven that nuclear material could be changed to become harmless after its use and the power stations cheap to knock down and rebuild then I would happily support nuclear.
Complain about this comment
No matter what I will always vote against Nuclear energy. I know it is supposed to be safe etc. and im sure normally it is.
However I know it is rare but accidents do happen, I dont need to site examples we have all seen them. Even if the energy was free I cant moraly agree to it on the ground that if it all goes wrong there will be nobody in Scotland left to blog on this site (except mayby for Reluctant-Expat, his planet is safe im sure).
Aside from that any new facility costs a fortune, energy wont be free we are still using a finite resource and handing a legacy of nuclear waste to future generations to deal with. To me this is all a total waste of time even to argue about it its the wrong answer.
The money for a new facility could be used to get our long term energy requirements sorted out. Hydrogen fuel cell's are my favoured future bet but wave tech, Geothermal, Hydro, are all winners in my view as they are consistent. As they say and I agree Solar and Wind are too unreliable.
Complain about this comment
55
"However, don't let the facts get in the way of a good pro-SNP rant."
Are these the facts you are looking for:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-waste-containers-likely-to-fail-warns-devastating-report-907200.html
Can you suggest what the solution is to all the tailings from uranium extraction is, or since they are not produced on these shores is not that your concern.
http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/problems.html
It takes 440,000 tonnes of ore to produce 33,000 tonnes of uranium to keep one reactor going for one year.
Complain about this comment
does anyone know if the goverment has looked into river power as another addition to renewables.
as maybe there is a lot of potential there as the main rivers in scotland never stop, go up and down during the seasons but never stop.
Complain about this comment
#62 cynicalHighlander:
Glad to see somebody realises the nuclear option is not low carbon - all that uranium has to be dug up, processed and transported folks! Thorium-based reactors might be a more palatable alternative, but they are by no means in routine use yet.
#53 Brownedov:
There's a discussion of the weighting used in the ICM/Mail on Sunday Glenrothes poll here plus a link to the poll pdf. No idea if this is where the 50% reports have come from, I couldn't find anything about this on the Indy site either. The Press and Journal mentioned this elusive poll too, though without attributing it to anyone.
#60 Thomas_Porter:
Take your own advice - do not feed the troll! The comments of many people on here should leave you in no doubt as to the general opinion of Expectant-Ultra. He condemns himself further with each post, just rise above it.
Complain about this comment
#62
Wow, that is a lot of Uranium! I thought total Uranium production was only about 50,000 tonnes per annum for the entire world! I'm not convinced that your numbers add up. I can't say i have noticed the infrastructure to transport that amount of radioactive material to a nuclear powerstation i know quite well! If you wouldn't mind placing a source for your info i'd be grateful.
Anyhow, i believe technology has advanced enough to make it worthwhile. The plants now have very good safety procedures as well, from what i can gather, i don't claim to be a nuclear plant operative.
We do need to find a long term alternative to our power supply, we don't seem to be able to get the economies of scale for some of the more eco friendly methods. Technological advancements take a while and no one source is the answer. We need an energy mix if we are to maintain a base load and not damage the enviroment beyond repair.
x
Complain about this comment
54. At 7:04pm on 25 Sep 2008, jam804 wrote:
Nuclear is inefficient, expensive and DANGEROUS plus there is no safe way to deal with the radioactive waste hazardous to life for tens of thousands of years.
A range of renewables along with Clean coal with CCS is the way forward.
Scotland does not want nuclear stations. Even New Labour MP's + MSP's, with the exception of those with an "interest", don't want them.
Problem is, SNP are against coal fired power stations as well.
Bottom line for ALL parties is until we have a reliable source of renewable energy - which I am in favour of - we need something to keep us warm and provide light.
Also, do not forget that manufacturing industries require energy, so there is an economic aspect to the problem as well.
And just to go off-topic for a moment. Can I just give a big thanks to the unions for yet another strike, which means yet another day's schooling lost for my kids. Really appreciate it guys. Glad to see that you have looked at the wider implications of a strike.
Complain about this comment
#53 Brownedov and #64 forfar-loon
The elusive poll may well be the Politics Home marginals poll. Details by constituency were on sale from Politics Home, and I suspect that all the parties, and media bought the Glenrothes data.
I imagine (to protect their profits) purchasers were limited as to what they could publish.
If so, the 50% SNP : 34% Labour figures represent the late July /early August numbers.
If there is a meaningful conference bounce, then the SNP conference in mid-October might make the figures even better for the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#65 SKaufman:
Anyhow, i believe technology has advanced enough to make it worthwhile. The plants now have very good safety procedures as well, from what i can gather, i don't claim to be a nuclear plant operative.
You might be interested in this story from July (Concern over French nuclear leaks - see also the link on the right hand side to a report on the earlier leak). No prizes for guessing which company is involved!
PS You're right about the quantities of uranium being extracted! Unless cynicalHighlander knows something the World Nuclear Association doesn't...?
Complain about this comment
Ther are the usual rants of the pro-nuclear lobby in c opious nnumber here.
Here are the facts
Labour in Scotland iswobbling on itd previous principled anti nuclear stance because London is leaning on them.
Nuclear power is about the most expensive way to generate electricity and only operates with huge ,often hidden, government subsidy.
It is attractive to some of today's politicians because the next generation will face most of the costs.
Decades of incompetent mismanagement by Labour and Tory Governments have left ENGLAND (particularly the southern half) with an imminent power crisis which is what this is all about.
Uranium is the ultimate non renewable fuel and we're running out of good grade uranium at an alarming rate. Poor grade uranium uses as much power to prepare as it realises in power generation. Alternatives like thorium are hugely expensive to extract and use and use a huge amount of power to make viable as a fuel.
Nuclear functions by simply boiling lots of water. It is inflexible and dangerous. It produces waste which remains lethal for up to a quarter of a million years and the notion that we can go on burying this stuff in complete safety is absurd.
All that is required for us to supply all our power needs from renewable sources is political will and huge amounts of cash up front to build the various schemes.
Wave, wind, tidal, hydro, biomass and clean coal could have Scotland exporting vast amounts of power if we had the political power to do it.
Tidal is most interesting as the tidal times vary all round the coasts so there need never be a slack period on a grid. A Pentland Firth barrage could power most of Europe and the potential to link this production up across the North sea with Norwegian hydro power is the most exciting idea I have heard recently.
Complain about this comment
#65 SKaufman
Have you checked out all my links #51?
Could I ask whose environment you don't wish to damage the one where you live or the one in distant lands. To me they are one and the same.
Complain about this comment
Darwinsmonkey well said sir
The question is does the UK need nuclear, the answer is yes, does it have to be French owned sadly yes as Gordon and co are broke and need the cash and we have been so off the nuclear boil all the experience is either retiring or working elsewhere. We also need renewable energy as a region of the UK Scotland plays its part granted the infrastructure has issues transferring the power. We can't ignore the need for self reliance on power all regions must play their part despite the low level of current political competence across the country, I just hope a decision is taken and stuck to.
Complain about this comment
At last a party for the anti-devolutionist socially conservative, economically social democrats among you! -
the British People’s Alliance
Any takers?
Complain about this comment
I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed reading this blog more than many others. The subject is something I didn't know much detail about and I must admit that the links given by a number of posters have been very useful.
However, I wasn't sure that a condition of posting on this blog was to have peer reviewed, published, double blinded trial research paper quotes. So, expatwat has actually performed a useful purpose this time! Even although he never references anything he ever says.
He reminds me of John Rafferty, Donald Dewars old CoS, likes to demand answers but never gives evidence for his own views. Where did he go again?.....oh didn't he have to leave the country 'cos he was caught lying? Now a reluctant expat...
Complain about this comment
Struggling for an excuse to post in this particular thread, but anyone for November 06 as 'Labour Meltdown' day? Glenrothes byelection bad news 'buried' under US Presidential election result...
Complain about this comment
#63 ... power from rivers . Up near Laggan in the Highlands there is 2 canals that take water from going down the Spey and put them into Loch Laggan. This does 2 things ....1 It helps the Spey from flooding and 2 puts the water into Loch Laggan which has a dam that used to or still does power the aluminium smelter at Fort William. Now the water that comes through both these canals is quite forcefull so im sure this could be utilised to generate power. Ok they are only gonna generate maybe 700 megawatts ... but that is constant ...how much more of those could be put in place around the country.
Nuclear is a quick fix nothing more .
Reluctant Expat is a labour activist going by all the keech he speaks.
Complain about this comment
#71
Good point.
As a region of Europe, the UK needs to get its act together.
Complain about this comment
I have seldom read so much twaddle as I have read on this post tonight. It frankly beggars belief that some of you are actually allowed to vote. Here is my third list of Awkward Facts which being awkward will again be ignored because you don't like the sound of them. On this occasion they come with a very big sting in the tail which you would do well to consider.
AF No.1 The most dangerous form of energy is fire. More people are killed by it than all others combined. So 'keeping the homes fire burning' demonstrates a preference for an energy supply that will very likely kill you.
AF No.2 Clean coal is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as clean coal, there never will be, there never can be. A working knowledge of 1st year organic chemistry would tell you that.
AF No. 3 More than 50 per cent of Scotland's energy is supplied by 2 nuclear power stations, both of which are reaching the end of their working life. Wind farms, tidal power, biofuels or whatever will not make up the shortfall. That means blackouts, a lot of blackouts.
AF No. 4 One of the largest producers of nuclear waste in Britain is the National Health Service. So those of you who are morally opposed the nuclear remember that the next time you go for an X-Ray. Feel free to refuse it.
AF No. 5 There are 3 ways of disposing of nuclear waste. You can fire it into space which is unbelievably expensive and not without risk - rockets do crash. You can bury it - Finland does it and the Finns don't worry about it or you can leave it lying on the ground. Britain leaves it lying on the ground and it doesn't appear to worry us.
AF No.6 Scotland is currently a net supplier of electricity but, as previously stated that's because of nuclear energy. In November 2007, both nuclear stations were off-line for essential maintenance. At one point, Scotland was three days from blackouts.
AF No.7 The interconnector from Scotland to England is currently running at over-capacity and more juice will be required in the future. This will lead to blackouts.
AF No.8 Tidal power is in its infancy and is, at present, notoriously unreliable. An Irish company is currently experimenting with sea bed tidal power units, but best estimates suggest reliable tidal power is 20 years away. Our nuclear stations will not last that long.
AF No.9 This is the one with the sting. The largest user of electricity in Scotland by some distance is Scottish Water. Lengthy blackouts will adversely affect sewage plants. So as well as sitting round a candle during a blackout and listening to a batterry-powered radio, you can watch brown, evil-smelling sludge coming up your drains and down your taps as the system backs up. On the plus side, it will also be filling the First Minister's bath as his energy policy goes south for the winter and doesn't come back.
Complain about this comment
377 Dick
The last time you quoted some "AFs" I eventually checked them out and, if memory serves, they were all distortions or misrepresentations of reality.
I'll assume the same for all your current "Asinine Fantasies", unless you quote the sources for what you say.
Complain about this comment
77. Dick-Whittington
Yep Dick, let's have a verifiable reference for each of your "facts". I suspect you'll have difficulty with that e.g. (5) storing nuclear waste....worries the hell out of me.
Complain about this comment
Dick ... fire is only dangerous if your careless ... much the same as driving a car .... better get used to fire unless you have some other form of candles to sit round.
your fact number 7 is easy ....lets stop giving away our electric.
by the way i have a coal/wood fire that burns waste wood from the local sawmill and im used to sitting with the lights out cuddled up to the wife on the rug in front of the fire .... so blackouts are nothing to me.....
Hi Oldnat ... still in the US i see ..... keep off the doughnuts !!!
Complain about this comment
77 Dick
a couple pf clicks on the bbc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5363184.stm
The article was 2006 and said we were 12 years away from 10% of energy being tidal....
whaur's yer evidence Dick?
Complain about this comment
well Dick, another rebuttal:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/01/26143524
"Nuclear 36 per cent ", I'd be interested to note where your evidence for over 50% nuclear comes from?
Reference Dick, reference!
Complain about this comment
Oh Dear Dick, oh dear...regarding your fact (5) that nuclear waste disposal doesn't worry us. Please see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_03_06_energy_final.pdf
ICM opinion poll in Scotland 2006 says that 88% of people in Scotland are worried or very worried about "The safety of nuclear waste disposal".
Where's your refernces Dick?
Complain about this comment
#80 rabbie
The nearest donut (NB my americanised spelling) store is half an hour's walk away (no petrol) - so no chance of that!
I'm keeping my weight down through watching Sarah Palin's attempts to meet the Press.
I like this country, but their politics is weird - Expat and Dick would fit in beautifully here.
One thing I do like is that the Council Meetings are streamed live here, so for difficult issues like the gas crisis, both elected members and officials have to appear directly to any members of the community who choose to watch (quite a lot at the moment) how they are responding.
Worth introducing to Scotland I think.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov (and other poll addicts)
Came across this on a US political blog -
"Polls are like crack, political activists know they're bad for them but they read them anyways."
Complain about this comment
84 Aye that sounds like a good one the council leaders being on the box. Would make you feel that they are actually doing something to earn the vast amounts of wages they earn.
Keeping the weight down watching Sarah Palin ... i thought you were gonna say watching Sarah Palins weightloss video untill i read the rest.
Strange to hear that there is not much petrol ... such a big country and gas guzzling cars dont help ... i can see the states going into meltdown in the next ten years ...
Complain about this comment
AF No.5 is common sense, it may be asinine common sense, but it's still common sense. If we're not firing it into space, and I think we would have heard if we were and we're not burying it, because they've been arguing about where to bury it for years, then by simple process of elimination it must still be lying on the ground, probably in containers, probably surounded by a fence, probably guarded and probably in or near a nuclear facility - but, nevertheless, still lying on the ground and whilst this might scare you, it doesn't scare too many other people. I have not, as yet, heard any protests about what are we going to do about the nuclear waste that's just sitting there - because that's what it's doing.
Complain about this comment
#64 forfar-loon
Thanks for the link. ICM Polls are never easy reading, but generally targeted to their purchasers by giving a choice of numbers to use. The unionist Mail on Sunday obviously decided to present the most favourable unionist figures and so pounced on the unexplained "Percentages derived" figures on Page 4 of the PDF with NuLab & SNP tied on 43%. Much less coverage was given to the analysed figures on Page 4 of NuLab 42% & SNP 45% and hardly any at all to Page 11's NuLab 40% & SNP 46%. The analysis on the Adam Smith blog you link to explains it pretty well. I suppose it's just possible that the Indy reference was based on their analysis of the same results, but if they did they must have disguised the source in prompting the references we have both seen.
#67 oldnat
The Politics Home marginals poll is certainly a possible source, as there is little hard detail of it published as yet and none at all by YouGov themselves. In any event, I'm a little suspicious that this information has been sat on for six or seven weeks as crunching the numbers is pretty straightforward. But again, it seems odd for the Grauniad and others to be quoting the source as the Indy if they already have the Glenrothes details from Politics Home.
#72 oldnat
Somehow I can't see the BPA becoming a threat to the existing parties in Scotland, but I was certainly intrigued by the link you provide. When they say that "New Labour [was created] by utterly unrepentant old Communists, Trotskyists and fellow-travellers", I wonder which categories Brown and Blair fit?
#73 irnbru_addict
LOL - good sleuthing
#74 mekquarrie
Yup - they'll probably still be counting the "hanging chads". All the more reason to get Ashfield (Hoon) & Bolton West (Kelly) over with at the same time.
#85 oldnat
Nice quote and true.
Complain about this comment
#38, Anglophone, the tide follows a regular pattern round Britain's coasts, so that high tide is earliest on Atlantic facing coasts, and latest on north sea facing coasts. So there's never a time when the tide around Scotland isn't flowing. When it isn't flowing at Corryvrechan it's flowing in the Pentland Firth - and vice versa.
#40, ExPat, the answer as you probably well know is 'none'. Torness at peak load generates 1.3Gw, as compared to typical hydro electric schemes at only 100Mw, so you could claim that we'd need to flood 13 valleys to replace Torness. Hunterston B (when it works, which is not often) has similar output. But in August 2006 both were offline, and Scotland was still exporting electricity. So we don't actually need them at all. So we don't need to flood any more valleys.
For the same reason, of course, we also don't need tidal - but we it's there if we did, which comfortably takes care of the baseload argument.
Complain about this comment
#77, Dick Whittington, you are of course right that half of Scotland's generating capacity is nuclear. But Scotland hasn't the demand for that much power, and the cross border interconnectors can take only so much of it away. So not all Scotland's generating capacity can be run at the same time - we simply can't dump that much power.
When both Hunterston and Torness were offline together in 2006, Scotland was still exporting power to England - not as much as usual, granted, but not none.
So the awkwardest fact of all is that none of your other awkward facts make a blind bit of difference - nuclear, in Scotland, is redundant. We simply don't need it.
Complain about this comment
Mekquarrie, there is talk in the US of postponing the Presidential Election because of the terminal decline in the economy there.
Now , here the 6th has been announced as a day to hide bad news would,nt it be funny if there was nowhere to hide it?
Complain about this comment
#87, Dick Whittington, if you don't actually know where it's sitting, what are you doing pontificating?
For your information most of it is at Sellafield in Cumbria (although quarter of a ton of plutonium has leaked into the sea from there over the past fifty years - you'll remember that one kilogram of plutonium is sufficient for a nuclear weapon); some of it is stored at a reprocessing plant at Springfield near Preston in Lancashire.
There are small amounts at other current and former nuclear power stations but that is mainly in the process of being cleared back to Sellafield.
Complain about this comment
You are correct Brian, the waste issue is less germane and in reality never was, but was manipulated to restrict our nuclear generation program; this industry was held up as the monster under the bed or in the cupboard by those who do not fully understand the nuclear industries and its processes or chose intentionally to misrepresent the nuclear 'elements' playing as they do on the public's lack of information on this issue.
Do those same individuals who attempt to instantly gain green or my preference of hippy credentials because they seem convinced by vast numerical values of half-lives of the heavy elements, many of which are naturally occurring, or is it more a case of we do not understand therefore 'we' oppose?
The human race do have a track record of persecution through ignorance.
The reality is that nuclear power offers the only realistic green option for acceptable levels of electricity generation to meet consumer demands.
The Scottish Nuclear Dimension:
I have always been against Scotland being used as an area far enough away from London to become acceptable to locate nuclear generation sites, underground nuclear waste storage and nuclear weapon delivery systems without Scotland fully benefitting from the other side of the coin.
I equally find the SNP's attitude to the EDF buyout as duplicitous; in my view you are either for or against nuclear generation of electricity, not as it appears based on a French versus Westminster preference.
Complain about this comment
75. At 00:55am on 26 Sep 2008, rabbiehippo.
thanks for that info., and to a lot of other posters who gave links to articles, as its opened my eyes more to the dangers of nuclear power and the extraction and use of uranium.
a good artical below from THE POWER OF SCOTLAND at www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/electricity_supply_web.pdf
setting out current and future plans ect.
Complain about this comment
59 Cynical Highlander
Wooo, the vitriol you guys can generate. It could light up millions of homes.
Sorry I was just going on my own knowledge and experience from working in the energy sector. As ever you should be very careful about anything you read in Wikipedia...a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and all that. Hydro can be used to generate baseload power but it requires a huge flow of water. This is why you see it on huge rivers like the Indus or Colorado or Yangste for instance (where it is causing a different sort of environmental disaster all of its own.
There are simply no rivers of that size anywhere in the UK that could provide constant baseload power at the scale required. UK hydro is based around storing potential energy behind small dams and generating at moments of peak demand to supplement the coal, gas and nuclear plant.
You are of course welcome to try once you become independent. The proof will be if anyone is willing to invest in your solution.
To give an idea of the footprint issue. I have recently completed work on a US windfarm that involves a 16 mile frontage of 164 turbines along a ridge in Virginia. This will generate 264MW at peak output ("if the wind is blowing", to the layman). This is a good output but a drop in the ocean compared to demand and the comparable footprint of an efficient combined cycle gas plant that can dispatch 2000MW from a space the size of 3 football pitches. Are you really prepared to see upland areas with that many turbines?
I am strongly in favour of renewables but they simply won't meet our current demand whether you are talking about the UK or the truculent North Britain.
Remember that this rant-fest is maintained not just by the amount of power available but also by "power quality" i.e. minimal voltage fluctuation. This would be extremely difficult to maintain from an all-renewables generating base given the variability and unpredictability of generation (location diversity will help but will not solve this). Imagine you PC falling over every time you commit your deep knowledge to cyberspace. At a more important level, imagine the impact on a high-tech IT based economy?
Complain about this comment
90. Mmm. Any chance you can back any of that up?
This seems very familiar to slaintemha's claim that Scotland's PFI/PPP overspend was #20bn as confirmed by the NAO....only for me to find it that it was actually UNISON who only estimated that the overspend might be #2.1bn.
Despite asking three times for evidence of his claim, he still hasn't managed to provide anything but anything by several paragraphs of inaccurate guff and tosh.
For example: He did give this gem:
One calculation is that PFI / PPP is already costing 5 billion more on just 20 projects www.wiserearth.org
However, as soon as I look that link up, it turns out to be a high-end estimate (based on a series of assumptions!) for 60 projects, not the 20 he said.
I quote:
On similar assumptions, the profit from more than 60 completed PFI projects in Scotland alone could rise to more than £5bn.
Honestly, it's just one ridiculous lie after another from some of these nats!
Complain about this comment
75. Yet more nationalist nonsense.
rabbiehippo claims the Loch Laggan hydro scheme is "only gonna generate maybe 700 megawatts."
Whereas the truth is the system the Laggan dam is only part of, has a capacity of only 65MW.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/features/featurefirst10538.html
I think today is going to be fun!
Complain about this comment
Anglophone you seem to know what you are talking about. I, on the other hand, no nothing about this, save what I'm learning here.
What are your thoughts on Simon's point about both nuclear stations being off line at the same time and Scotland still exporting power?
Complain about this comment
#95 Anglophone
You have pointed out the biggest problem with renewable energy. Even as a supporter I suggest power quality of renewables is very, very bad. There is the simple problem of, wind blows, power, wind blows too fast, no power, wind doesn't blow, no power.
Probably tidal is the most promising of the energy technologies but it requires substantial technical development.
We could infact require huge energy batteries to level out such a system which could be more polluting, and expensive than other generation technologies all together.
I think the problem we have now is pretty simple. There is no golden bullet to the power problem.
Nuclear - Surprisingly limited fuel supply, too dangerous to place in cities
Coal/Clean Coal - Still too polluting
Gas/Oil - Too expensive and polluting
Renewables - Power quality too low.
Hydrogen - Impossible to move in required quantities
Hydro - Rivers not big enough
Tidal - Promising but underdeveloped
Bring on Fusion power! (okay I'm getting ahead of myself here...)
Complain about this comment
69. And there's more.
Sneckedagain claims "A Pentland Firth barrage could power most of Europe."
Whereas people who know what they are talking about say "It is estimated that around 8 TWh could be generated by tidal power in the Pentland Firth".
EU consumption is approx 3,200 TWh.
You do the maths.
Complain about this comment
75. At 00:55am on 26 Sep 2008, rabbiehippo.
re. river power.
i read an article that a fife farmer was using a river - burn on his land to produce electricity to run his farm and was selling the surplus to the national grid. is it cost effective, dont know.
for the main rivers i was thinking along the lines of water wheels to drive generators.
it may be that it would not be cost effective or efficient and they would have to take into account migrating fish, but the way i see it, as long as you have water movement you have a power source.
i am not thinking along the lines of damming the rivers, but restricting them in a way that during the summer you create temperary (variable dependent on the water flow)narrower gaps at points for the water to flow through and the water wheels could be on floats so that they settle to the water level and never go under a predetermined level for the fish to go through.
many of these could be set along a rivers course, but as i pointed out it may not be cost effective.
in the end, any thing that helps towards the required total of renewables is helpful.
Complain about this comment
98. I can help.
Hunterston average production = 9GWh
Torness average production = 10GWh
Average annual electricity transfers (aka 'exports') to England = 9GWh
So, it looks like Simon_Brooke is yet another nat talking from the wrong place.
Actually, the website that gave me this info - -http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/interesting.htm - claims that it would take 15,000 wind turbines just to replace the three nuclear power stations, require areas of ridgelines and hilltops totalling 8 times the size of Glasgow.
How many ridgelines and hilltops would that be?...
Another interesting comment re.renewables:
Due to the intermittent nature of some renewables they cannot be relied upon to generate electricity. Most electricity distributors need to be guaranteed the capacity that they can supply. This is not as easy to estimate with renewables due to the intermittent nature of the source of electricity - we do not always know when the wind is going to blow, or if the sun is going to shine.
Maybe those who claim renewables can provide baseload electricity would like to comment?
Complain about this comment
77
Whit-Dickington
Nothing like shouting about "facts" which are, in fact, untrue to completely destroy your argument.
1 "3 More than 50 per cent of Scotland's energy is supplied by 2 nuclear power stations"
Actually the figure is well below 40% at best and is presently just above 30%.
At the moment Scotland actually exports considerable surplus electricity to the South (mainly because of the nuclear generation)so we are a lot nearer to generating enough electricity for our own use without nuclear than most people imagine, a fact which the Scottish Government is very well aware of. Couple this to the fact that we have surplus generation capacity lying idle much of the time across Scotland (there is a hydro dam four miles from me which is rarely put into operation) and I think the Scottish Government are aware that they will fairly easily suceed in their aim to have us on renewable energy fairly quickly and on to be exporting energy in huge amounts once we have the political power to use the funds needed to make this happen.
Now England - that's a different case altogether and obviously such is the resistance to setting up nuclear power stations in heavily populated areas it would suit London to be able to locate nuclear generation in Scotland. Sad to say it appears they will be able to rely on a large section of the "Scottish" Labour Party in their campaign to undermine the will of the Scottish people.
Could we digress slightly and talk about the persistent high incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphona, leukaemia and throat and gullet cancers around nuclear power stations and nuclear arms bases. This is an area where determined investigation would throw up hugely alarming information.
Complain about this comment
Expat
Most of us have lost count of the number of outright lies you have tried to flog - to the extent that they’ve more than become your personal hallmark.
Are we supposed to have forgotten the juvenile triumphalism of your crass and failed disparaging of the successful National Conversation?
Or your peddling of the generally upbeat GERS report as a "failed SNP budget", predictably followed by a distinctly frenzied form of mud-slinging against the Scottish government, its supporters, or anyone with an open mind towards independence?
Expat, far more original cynics have been attempting to smear, discredit and demonise the democratic Scottish independence movement since time immemorial.
At a time when the SNP is showing unprecedented popularity, and is empowering and fighting to further empower the Scottish people with real national accountability - what makes you think your particular brand of cheap and twisted misrepresentation is going to damage that cause?
As we have already seen, in fact, your modus-operandi is more than likely to blow right up in your face - and I for one will be joining the Glenrothes campaign to ensure that it does!
;-)
Complain about this comment
Simon Brooke
Actually I do know where it is sitting, I'm surprised you do.
Oldnat.
Citations as requested:- A Professor specialising in energy interviewed on BBC Radio Scotland 4pm to 6pm news on Wednesday of this week stated '53 per cent of Scotland's energy comes from 2 nuclear reactors.' He was not challenged on this statement. Please do check.
NHS PR Dept will be happy to confirm that they are one of the largest producers of nuclear waste, low yield admittedly, but still nuclear waste. I'm sure Scottish Water PR Dept. will also be happy to confirm that they are the largest user of electricity in Scotland.
sneckedagain
Please take the same advice as oldnat and spare me the witless drivel which you culled from websites whose accuracy could best be described as utter tosh.
Complain about this comment
104. The successful National Conversation?
Two comments a day is "successful"?!
What does that make this board then? 'Historic', 'triumphant', 'groundbreaking'....'a fantabulous, legendary earthquake of eternal proportions'?
And I see post 75 on the Nat Con is even more nationalist rubbish. I was actually in the Gulf War (unlike the author of that post) and his claim that "Scottish troops were 40% of the UK operation" is a bad joke.
Nonetheless, feel free to remind us all of my "lies", much as I've done for all your lies in posts 96, 97, 100 and 102 above.
Oh, post 75 in the Nat Con is an outright nat lie too, of course.
Hang on.....are you accusing me of lying in an attempt to cover up all the lies of your fellow nats?
Are you?
Well, shame on you if you are!
Complain about this comment
Further to the side-discussion about micro-generation form rivers, I recently had the pleasure of staying in a house powered exclusively by just such a scheme in the highlands. The house in question was very remote and powered by a mini turbine driven by a local burn. The system worked very well, until you turned on too many things and the whole system shut down. I must say though, that the thought of using a 100% green source of power far outweighed the minor annoyance, and one soon became used to regulating just how much power one was using. This scheme was not connected to the grid, so the unused power was simply 'dumped' to heaters in an outbuilding, which was open to any needy passers-by.
This type of scheme would work well for many remote highland homes, but unfortunately would not be suitable for the vast majority of the Scottish population as it requires a good head of water and a reasonable amount of flow. Basically, every home would have to have its own fast flowing burn.
As for nuclear, I think it should be an option of last resort. There are too many hidden costs and we really haven't any answer to the waste problem. It would be good if we could concentrate on using LESS power, for instance by building all new housing stock to Passive House standards.
Complain about this comment
ex.pat.
did you actualy read post 75, because you cerainly did not understand what he sayed,
he did not give the output generated by the laggan dam, but that there was maybe potential to utilise the water flow in the canals to produce a possible 700mw.
you are so quick to jump in with your two feet to state nat lies, that you have no credibility left.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Sigh, an important issue clouded by the usual points scoring from the usual suspects. A couple of stories from this morning's papers point to the possibility of power cuts this winter if one of the stations supplying the National Grid goes off-line. Scary stuff to those of us who remember the rota power cuts during the Miners Strike of the 1970's (yes sadly I am that old).
We ae beginning to hear more of the looming 'energy gap' the question is how we close it. There are three options: nuclear, increased use of fossil fuel, renewables. Of these, at present only nuclear and fossil fuels can provide reliable base-load.
Personally, I have no objection to nuclear power and think that the SNP's and Lib-Dem refusal to consider the possibility of new nuclear plants a mistake. Labour's 11th hour conversion is welcome, if way too late. If it means the lights stay on, let's go ahead. Do we have to wait till they start going out before we act?
Best Wishes,
William1957.
Complain about this comment
If energy could be recycled as efficiently as some of the timeworn fears, myths and political rhetoric now powering this blog, Scotland could light up the world.
If people are opposed to nuclear energy, that's fine with me. But it's clear that the majority here has no technical expertise, but is still happy to select opportune polls and surveys and opinion which support their prejudices.
I'm a "don't know" on this issue, and quite comfortable admitting it. I just don't see how all the contradictory, and even self-contradictory stuff here can advance the debate or our knowledge.
I believe the scientific evidence points very firmly in the direction of nuclear power for the future. But I'm not a scientist.
The cynic in me, however, suggests to me that SNP opposition to nuclear has more to do with its attitude to weapons (perfectly fair position) and the difficulty of explaining how we can have one without the other. But I really don't know.
Anyway, I'm off to burn some carbon.
Complain about this comment
108. 700MW from water flow in canals?
Complain about this comment
The problem is, as a process engineer, I know the waste from nuclear power stations is in essence an effective weapon before you turn it into a bomb. Seems a big risk for a little convenience.
Complain about this comment
#95 Anglaphone
I don't think that there is a simple solution baseload generation but nuclear is not part of it, if the money invested by government into nuclear was diverted elsewhere a far better and cheaper solution could be found. All of the insurance for nuclear is underwritten by the government as the industry could not afford the premium because of the risks.
Recoverable uranium will only last for another c20yrs at the present worldwide planned newbuild and so your back to square one.
Waste is a problem and will continue to be problem forever.
"
Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns 'devastating' report"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-waste-containers-likely-to-fail-warns-devastating-report-907200.html
Clean coal although not ideal would be one solution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7633938.stm
Complain about this comment
107. At 11:54am on 26 Sep 2008, Richard_the_Rogue.
very interesting about the remote highland house.
i suppose that their problem is that they do not have automatic controls to regulate the usage so that it does not shut down and as you say you have to do it yourself.
also do they only use it at one point of the burn, and is it cost effective as opposed to being an only source of electricity for them.
i must admit that i was thinking along the lines of the larger rivers ( tay , dee, don, clyde and forth ect.) although the smaller rivers - burns could possibly contribute as well, but in all cases it would depend on the economic - envioroment viability of them.
i like your suggestion that all houses should have their own burn - we should write to alex for that to be a manifesto pledge.
Complain about this comment
62. CynicalHighlander, "It takes 440,000 tonnes of ore to produce 33,000 tonnes of uranium to keep one reactor going for one year"
I think you got a bit carried away with the zeroes again.
It clearly does not take 33,000 tonnes of fuel to keep one reactor going for one year.
I suspect you meant 33 tonnes.
Complain about this comment
Nuclear power is extremely expensive, and therefore should be considered as a technology of last resort. It is expensive to build (see the current project in Finland and its huge cost over-run). It is expensive to run (almost all fixed cost; remember British Energy got a £3billion bail out from the taxpayer only a few yeas ago as the electricity price couldn't cover its costs). And handling the waste safely for centuries or millennia is the most expensive thing of all - a liability which will finally be taken by the taxpayer and not the generating company.
Norway generates 99% of its electricity supply from renewables (hydro), so that '30% limit' claimed for renewables has just been plucked out of the air. I don't reckon that Scotland should be aiming for 99%, but since our country has plenty rain. wind, hills, tides, waves, coal, gas and oil (everything except uranium and all-year sunshine) the choice of nuclear for baseload generation is pretty much inexplicable execept in terms of politics.
Scotland has had a huge surplus of generating capacity for decades. Inverkip power station was only run for a few weeks of its long ugly life. Longannet normally exports all its output to England and Northern Ireland. Cockenzie has been much underutilised. Why? Because the unneccessary nuclear stations, once built, have to be run flat out for cost reasons.
William1957, don't mix up Scotland and England here. Scotland's only connection to what is generally referred to as the 'national grid' is through the interconnector. England, subject of your scare story, is short of generating capacity and imports electricity from France and Scotland as standard procedure. When both Hunterston and Torness went down at the same time because of technical problems a couple of years ago I imagine you didn't notice. This is because the spare capacity in Scotland was directed to domestic demand.
London and the south east of England do need new power stations, and sooner than Scotland does. Nuclear is their only realistic low carbon option. Bad luck for them, as they will have to handle all the cost and waste issues. (Unless you think that somehow they will try to get Scotland to pay some of it regardless...surely that could never happen?)
The only reason that it is even on the agenda for Scotland is because of the tie-in between the nuclear lobby and factions of the Labour party (not just Gordon Brown's brother who works for EdF. Check out what Brian Wilson does for a living these days.) Politics caused the first two nuclear stations to be built unneccessarily, and I hope that scenario will not repeat itself.
Complain about this comment
109. At 12:14pm on 26 Sep 2008, william1957.
whereas england does require nuclear power energy, and even that may be limited due to a world shortage of high grade uranium and a future run out of it as well. but does scotland require to have nuclear power stations.
can scotland in time produce enough reliable renewables and still be an exporter of electricity. its a certainly a possibility with the proper investment.
yes, why is new labour in scotland changing its tune. could it be that new labour in westminster has changed its tune and iain has been given his orders.
Complain about this comment
#105 Dick
Of your 9 AFs you give some evidence for 3.
The output from Torness and Hunterston has been dealt with elsewhere.
That leaves 2
NHS production of radioactivewaste, as you admit, is low grade. Having been brought up in granite houses, I can't say I'm worried about that.
Scottish Water may well use most electricity - so? An energy shortfall will have wider implications.
On this thread in general, I share the brigadier's position.
The argument is, of course, not a Nationalist/Unionist one, but a Green/non-Green one. Expat seems incapable of seeing anything except through his visceral dislike of the SNP.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the arguments, this is too important a global issue to be determined by narrow views.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the shake-up of French investment in UK power generation will bring Holyrood musings on the topic back down into the real world and its real economics. I doubt though that they will find it easy to recognise.
Complain about this comment
#102, Reluctant ExPat...
When you don't know what you're talking about, it's useful to listen.
In fact, the peak production for which Hunterston B was designed is about 1.2GW, and, because it's leaky and unsafe, it isn't actually allowed to be run above 70% capacity - when it's running at all (the core is currently cracked).
So if Hunterston's 'average production' is 9GWh, that implies it runs for less than eleven hours in the period over which the average is taken. In what unit of time? A day? A month? A year? The figure is meaningless.
According to British Energy who actually run the thing and therefore presumably know, it generated 4.0 TWh in 2007. Which is to say, 4000MWh, which is to say it ran for about 11 hours per day through the period. In the same period Torness is stated to have generated 8TWh, which implies given its 1.3GW working output that it ran about sixteen hours a day.
So we have these two plants, and one's idle half the time, and one's idle a third of the time, and meantime we're exporting (on your own figures) the entire output capacity of one of them, and we need them?
I think not.
Complain about this comment
116. "Norway generates 99% of its electricity supply from renewables (hydro)"
Really? Are you sure about that?
"When both Hunterston and Torness went down at the same time because of technical problems a couple of years ago I imagine you didn't notice. This is because the spare capacity in Scotland was directed to domestic demand."
It has already been established that with both Hunterston and Torness offline, Scotland would and could not still be exporting energy.
Hunterston produces 9GWh, Torness produces 10GWh....yet transfers to England only total around 9GWh.
Show your maths.
Complain about this comment
110. At 12:27pm on 26 Sep 2008, brigadierjohn.
there was a sudden power surge with your post. only joking.
so your to blame for the global warming with your smelly old pipe. ha ha.
looking at some of the links supplied by posters has certainly made me aware of the problems associated with nuclear power which i never knew about and whereas i was not against it i am now.
over the past few years i had notice the growing call for nuclear energy by scientists and the nuclear industry + the goverment, so how much is down to vested interests.
it is also interesting to read that the number of various cancers cases in areas surrounding a nuclear plant is higher than other areas of the country, but there may be other logical reasons for this.
how to convince the public that nuclear is good for GB is to mount a publicity campain over time, and do so by using scientific evidence that does not give all the facts.
i am quite sure that in scotland there are many new labour, conservatives, lib-dems and snp that are against nuclear and many for nuclear, so it should not be broken down to which party you support.
Complain about this comment
49. Just noticed this puzzling post from vote_nat.
Where did I say Scotland was a region?
Where did I suggest 30 regions within Scotland?
Where did I say I was talking about a federal Scotland?
Complain about this comment
Brians post is a little irrelevant if I may be so bold.
No party will have to make this decision in Scotland for quite a few years. Torness and Hunterston have a considerable opertaing life ahead.
If the SNP deliver on the promise to sort out the planning system then based on experience in the rest of the world one can be built in less than 5 years.
So the question is at least 5 years away. However at least the labour position leaves the door open for a new nuclear power station.
At least the construction of a large base load power generating station is an option open to Mr Gray.
The real question should be If nuclear power generation is not to be renewed in Scotland as Mr Salmond has said, he has said no coal, unless it is clean coal and carbon capture doesn't work yet. Gas is no longer an option, precisely how are we to keep the lights on?
Experience in Denmark, the only country to have large scale wind generation ( still just under 20% of total) shows it doesn't really work on a large scale. Anyway at the currnt rate of planning approval we will never get wind energy in the quantity required.
The tidal power development is not being helped by the SNP administration, all the red tape is still strangling this industry.
the latest consultation on protecting birds is likely to further damage the prospects and do nothing for birds.
So really Mr Gray is not the issue, the question is does the SNP have an energy policy at all?
Complain about this comment
114 vote_nat,
The problem is the burn flows all the time, so the turbine turns all the time. Electricity is therefore generated all the time and must be disposed of somehow. The same problem occurs with small scale wind turbines. The common solution is to feed the unused electricity back in to the grid. the house in question was nowhere near the grid and so was forced to dump the unused electricity.
This particular house had one turbine and a small dam to ensure a constant supply in times of low rainfall. The burn would have been capable of powering another one or two turbines, but as it was an isolated house, there was no need. I believe that these turbines are quite cost-effective, and may even be the most cost-effective form of micro generation. The reason they are not widely used is because not many people have a steep hillside with a stream in their back gardens.
To generate electricity from lowland slow-flowing rivers, you need to get a reliable head of water. This means a dam and some turbines, basically a standard hydro scheme. The down side to this of course means you'd flood large areas of good agricultural and urban land, so it isn't really feasable.
Complain about this comment
Simon_Brooke
It would be useful to follow your own advice , when you don't know something you should listen.
Hunterston and Torness are not and have never been unsafe and leaky. Your lack of understanding is considerable.
These plants are regulated beyond any other form of generation. Quite rightly. Nuclear power has by far and away the best safety record of any power source in the world.
All over the planet these reactors work safely and efficiently. the figures quoted above are for years when the two scottish ones had major outages for repair, similar to other large power plants.
There is an extremely highly skilled set of Scottish workers at both plants that ensure that the plants are safe. they are good at their jobs and you should think a little before decrying their efforts in such a cak-handed way.
Complain about this comment
98 Snowthistle
I suspect the answer to that is fairly simple. I'm just going off native cunning here rather than presenting acres of evidence and links to suit the pedants...but the period when the power stations were offline "yet there was still a net export to England over the interconnectors" apparantly took place in August, according to a previous poster.
August is the point of lowest energy consumption in the year i.e. it's warm(ish), long hours of daylight, many workplaces shut for the holidays etc. Many gensets will be offline at this time of year for maintenance so it's not surprising that some power was drawn down over the interconnectors.
Had the same thing happened in February it might well have been a different story. Just guessing of course!
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-expat, facts are chiels that winna ding.
Yes, Norway does generate 99% of its total power demand from hydro electricity in a year with normal precipitation. See www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/oed/Subject/Energy-in-Norway/Electricity-generation.html? They back this up with power imports in a dry year, and are currently having a green-tinged political controversy over putting in a gas turbine plant to provide their own backup capacity.
Re your query on Scottish generation figures, it is the interconnector capacity that is the constraint, not generating capacity. With more interconnector capacity, Scotland could certainly generate and export more electricity. That's why they built one to Northern Ireland...
And whereas nuclear plants are generally operated as close to their capacity and for as much of the time as possible (because of their fixed cost structure), coal plants can be switched off to save the cost of their fuel, which is a major slice of their operating cost. So nuclear plants are always run hardest once they are built, taking the baseload, while coal plants are left to idle.
I don't think any of the above is even slightly controversial.
Complain about this comment
123. At 2:59pm on 26 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat
--------------------------------------------------
THE REAL GORDON
127. At 2:47pm on 25 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
126. People shouldn't knock Brownedov's federalist ideas.
The more I look into federalism, the more I like it. However, I'm not arguing just for four equal national parliaments and one UK federal parliament, I want to see as many responsibilities as possible handed down to council level, including fiscal autonomy (separated totally from Holyrood as well as Westminster) and full, unfettered responsibility for local services, planning, development, licensing and law. EARL and the trams, for example, should be the concern of Edinburgh city council and its people. No-one else. It will be the communities that set their own priorities, strategies and direction, not someone in Edinburgh or London.
Holyrood should be trimmed right down to only managing inter-council services such as major roads and rail, environment, higher education and some public health matters (councils could quite easily take over running their respective NHS Trusts). Holyrood to have fiscal autonomy but with a far smaller budget, my guesstimate would be about #10-12bn instead of today's #30bn.
Westminster would also be trimmed right down to only manage UK-wide matters such as foreign affairs, defence and the macro-economy. Overall budget down to #200bn compared to #550bn today.
-----------------------------------------------------
THE REAL GORDON
130. At 7:20pm on 25 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
128. Unitary councils already exist. Just start giving them more of their own tax-raising powers and end this system where all is collected in the centre, and then distributed to national level and then distributed to local level.
Imagine the community spirit that would arise from giving locals their own right to decide if they build a new school, a tram network, a by-pass or even their own airport.
All this heated debate about giving more powers to Holyrood so 'Scots will make their own decisions'.
It should be give powers to councils and the people of Glasgow/Edinburgh/Shetlands etc. so they can make their own decisions.
Result: No more Glasgow/Edinburgh resentment, no more Highlands/Central Belt resentment and no more Scotland/England resentment.
----------------------------------------------------
you understood at
46. At 5:29pm on 25 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat.
and now you suddenly do not undertand.
Complain about this comment
100 expat
I think that you may over-hyped the Pentland Firth. It does have amazing tides like Corryvrecken, Calf of Man, Portland Bill etc, but 8 TWh is a pretty output by any standards.
It might just be down to the measures. I think that 8TWh must be the total annual output, which divided by the number of hours in a year comes out at a little over 900MW. Assume a power conversion factor of about 35% and its just over 300 MW. On paper that is still a very meaty output but you have to remember that it would only be online for a maximum of 12 hours per day (half of the time at night). I would imagine that the capital costs would be eye-watering in terms of $/MWh.
This type of power potential is tantalising but not currently economically feasible.
Complain about this comment
105
Whit-Dickington
Your response to my mildly reasoned demolition of the nonsense you write tells me all I need to know about the value of your posts. I am unlikely to waste any time in the future constesting any of the "facts" you hurl about as I know, and you know, and all sensible persons reading this site know, are mince. I recommend you read post 116.
The only reason SCOTTISH Labour is wobbling on nuclear power is that ENGLAND faces a power crisis and London calls the shots for Scottish Labour.
What was that figure you claimed again of over 50% of Scotland's power coming from nuclear power stations? Proof, please or belt up.
Complain about this comment
125. At 3:16pm on 26 Sep 2008, Richard_the_Rogue'
it certainly sounds the right idea for its situation and i am glad to hear that it is cost effective.
Complain about this comment
So we've reached the point when the bile starts to come out. These's a looming generation shortfall in England and that's a "good thing" because...."they'll suffer"(pause to wipe lips/heavilly accented cackling...delete as applicable).
A point that seems to recur is that Scotland can be green and morally pure by developing a total renewables policy, whilst exporting nuclear generated power to the morally ambivalent English to power their shallow, grasping lives. This might just seem a tiny bit hypocritical.
One thing that shines through above all else in these blogs is the limitless capacity to trawl reports, cherry pick a few "facts" and quote away to whatever purpose. The amount of the purest nonsense quoted on electricity here has been staggering and points to the triumph of woolly social science and media studies degrees. If this matched by the depth of understanding on other subjects then I suspect that Scotland will be exporting nothing but hot air in a few years.
Complain about this comment
Post 107 has the key. In progressive countries efforts are made to locate power generation nearest to its required use. There is a national grid which operates in reverse - individuals and communities generate their own or parts of their consumption and any excess goes onto a national grid (who buy it). In some countries bio-mass generating stations for instance provide all the electricity for heating whole towns and and so on. These are sometimes community owned plants. The more of this stuff we can do the better and Finland was one of the best proponents of these sort of schemes until it bizarrely decided to build a nuclear power plant (just as Germany was starting to run down theirs). Thankfully Finland's nuclear power programme has turned into an escalating disaster which should make others think twice.
Let's get this straight. ENGLAND'S looming power crisis is the reason for this huge pro-nuclear lobby. They are looking for a dangerous quick fix which future generations will pay for. And they would like to site the stations in Scotland.
And now the $64,000 dollar question which everybody is avoiding answering. WHAT WILL THEY DO WHEN THE URANIUM RUNS OUT. IT WILL RUN OUT UNDER PROJECTED LEVELS OF USAGE BEFORE OIL, GAS OR COAL DOES.
OVER TO YOU ,WHIT
(Hint - thorium is not the answer)
Complain about this comment
#134, sneckedagain,
Thank you, I'm glad somebody is listening!
Complain about this comment
I support the SNP. However I think their stand on nuclear power is unfortunate. It removes from the debate a source of power generation that we probably need. I do not believe, even in Scotland, we can create enough renwable sources quick enough. Until the energy issues are clearer it seems foolish to discard a green option. If we end in energy surplus , what a marvellous position to be in. Exporting energy (probably south) and exporting oil whilst living off renewables would provide the window and the wealth to build the fairer society that GB aspires too but is unlikely to have the same opportunity to implement as the SNP.
Of coursewhen GB is no longer at Westmonster he may aspire to lead labour at Holyrood
Complain about this comment
136 portcharlotte,
I might well agree with you if I thought for one moment that nuclear power was truly green. A quick look at some of the links above and a quick Google, and you might just change your mind. For example,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php
Complain about this comment
#115 expat
Yes thank you I posted that from memory as I couldn't get into the site due due problems at this end. Apologies to all for the confusion.
"[I]n order to run this reactor for one year, in order to generate power, one begins with the mining of 440,000 tons of rock. After the various steps, 33 tons of uranium fuel remain in the end. So, of 440,000 tons of rock, 33 tons of fuel is left-over. . . "
Thats still an awful lot mining for 1 years electricity!
"Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7371645.stm
Complain about this comment
134 Snecked Again
What you are talking about is called "distributed generation" in which we move away from huge power plants exploiting traditional scale-economies into a model where smaller scale gensets are located further downstream on the grid. Micro-generation on rivers is a strong possibility, but I have a river by my house and I've been struggling for ages to find the right type of "hydrokinetic" turbine so don't hold your breath.
The type of micro-generation that stands the best chance is to use modified gas central heating boilers to generate power constantly. You use the power in your house and export the rest to the grid. Superficially OK but the amount generated is not that great, the gas pipeline network has to be reinforced and, because you can no longer easily isolate sections of the distribution grid maintenance becomes dangerous. Try explaining all those fried wiremen in the new world.
Distributed generation has a big future but needs to overcome a number of inescapable drawbacks and cultural opposition.
Countries like Finland do have big biomass plants that are effective, using the waste from the big forestry industry. Regardless of the technical difficulties on the project however, you have to ask why the Finnish Government felt compelled to go nuclear. It's just possible that they understand their country's energy requirements better than you. Possibly something to do with cold winters, dark nights and their biggest neighbour I suspect.
But it happens here too. Just two miles from me a private company is building a pyrolysis plant involving the high temperature incineration of domestic waste to generate power for the whole town (admitedly the smallest city in England), creating a largely carbon neutral energy source and doing away with the need for landfill. Given you zeal I'm surprised that you aren't years ahead of this modest effort in your drizzly Cuba.
Anyway, by the time the uranium runs out (sounds a bit like one of those predictions in the 70s about copper being exhausted by 1985). Chances are it will be so warm here by then that heating will have become irrelevant. As for Scotland...buy beach-front property! That Trump guy knows what he's doing.
Complain about this comment
#133 So the English are too cheap to pay for the power to fuel your hollow lives? Well, makes sense since you've been grabbing everything you can from here for 50 plus years!
Complain about this comment
87. At 07:53am on 26 Sep 2008, Dick-Whittington
Dick, look back to your original post, you said that no-one was worried about nuclear waste disposal. In your post 77 you said
"Britain leaves it lying on the ground and it doesn't appear to worry us." (nuclear waste).
In my subsequent post 83, I pointed out to you an ICM poll which said that 88% of Scots were worried or very worried about the storage of nuclear waste. I refernced the data for the poll.
Please give me your reference that the storage of nuclear waste doesn't worry us.
Complain about this comment
125. At 3:16pm on 26 Sep 2008, Richard_the_Rogue'.
i personaly would not advocate damming the major rivers of scotland and flooding areas, but more along the lines of my post 75.
i dont know if you have been to inverness during the winter, when the river is in full flow, there is a lot of power there which it may possible to use for elect. generation.
no turbines. but waterwheel driven generators.
the problem is the summer when the water level is low and this could be overcome by closing gates as required to build up the flow of water through the gaps left open but it would never exceed the winter levels, hence no flooding.
it would mean that you produce more electricity in the winter than summer when it is mostly required.
as i said, i dont know if it would be economicaly viable, but it may be a useful in addition to other renewables.
i still like the idea of alex. giving us our own burn each, but he will now have to add a hill to that as well.
Complain about this comment
#122 vote_nat: Funny how an ambiguous comment can lead to misunderstanding, resulting in a bizarre image of me as a pipe-smoker. By "burn carbon," I meant drive the car. (Probably technically the wrong description). Smokers will be appalled to learn that I quit the weed when the price of 20 No.6 went up to 32p. (Christmas 1975).
It would be great if people could give us their scientific and economic qualifications here. Their views would carry greater weight, and it would remove the suspicion that they are simply choosing sources and references which support their prejudices.
For every theory there is a counter theory, for every "shock report" there is a "don't panic" antidote. For every pro-Labour expert (eg Midwinter, allegedly) there is a Nat expert waiting with the counter argument.
Unless you really are a qualified expert, there is no point in just picking someone's view and posting it here. You simply don't know if it's right. Remember, even Newton, Darwin and Einstein are still rubbished by some.
For the record, I have no scientific or economic qualifications beyond the schooldays basics.
Complain about this comment
I seem to remember in the 60s, Friends of Loch Lomond became very agitated about a proposed hydro scheme on the east bank opposite the Loch Sloy set-up. The idea was called pumped storage. Basically water was pumped from the loch, up the very steep hillside, to a small loch in the hills.
The pumping was to be done overnight, when demand was low, and during the day the water was to be released down the hill at great force to power turbines.
I don't know if it was ever built or what the economics might be today. Perhaps an engineer could comment?
Complain about this comment
143. At 5:28pm on 26 Sep 2008, brigadierjohn.
hi brig.
no i did not missunderstand you as it could have been lots of reasons re. burn carbon, it was just a play on your user name - brigadier - smoking a pipe - visual image.
glad you were able to give up the evil weed, wish i could.
Complain about this comment
#139 Anglophone
'...drizzly Cuba.'
It's that very drizzle in all its varied and manifold forms that provide us with about 10% of our generating capacity, and all green too. Besides, we like it this way, our gills dry out otherwise.
"England, thy beauties are tame and domestic
To one who has roamed over mountains afar
O! for the crags that are wild and majestic,
The steep frowning glories of dark Lochnagar."
#142 vote_nat,
you may have a point. It was, after all, water power driving water wheels that started the industrial revolution. At the end of the day, it all boils down to the cost of electricity at any given time, thus deciding the economic viability of such solutions.
Complain about this comment
144. At 5:49pm on 26 Sep 2008, brigadierjohn.
i believe that idea is used quite a lot in many countries, inc. scotland.
though dont ask me to quote where, allthough i believe that norway uses this method extensivly.
i take it that the economics is that if you are producing base level spare capacity then you use it to build up your water levels to reuse later to generate at peak times.
Complain about this comment
#143/144 brigadierjohn,
I am familiar with much of the Scottish highlands, being a frequenter of the hills, and am not aware of any hydro scheme on the east side of Loch Lomond. Loch Arklet is dammed to provide water for Glasgow, but I don't think it has any generating capacity. Ben Cruachan, however is a long established pump-storage scheme. It doesn't really generate any net energy, but it is used rather like an enormous rechargeable battery.
As for my qualifications, I am a science graduate, the University of St. Andrews being my Alma Mater. Whilst there and elsewhere I have studied physics, chemistry, psychology, geology, logic and philosophy of science. I work in the oil and gas industry and have an IQ in the 150s. Most importantly, I have been a careful observer of the world around me for over 40 years.
I am well aware that this does not guarantee that I talk sense!
Complain about this comment
#146 Richard: Away, ye gay landscapes.....
I love that song. Have you heard it sung by Peter Mallan, a big Scot Nat, I believe.
Most people are amazed, however, by who it was that wrote the words, and in what circumstances.
Complain about this comment
What is the BBC up to?
I looked at the HYS site a couple of days ago on G Browns speech.
There were many and various comments but mostly non too complimentary.
HYS now has glowing reports with pretty pictures of those making the reports.
Impartiality clause?
I think the BBC has broken faith with the people of Scotland, England ,Northern Ireland and Wee Wales.
The revolution will happen.
Complain about this comment
#143 Brigadier
"Unless you really are a qualified expert, there is no point in just picking someone's view and posting it here."
Do you honestly believe that someone involved in the nuclear industry is going to give you an unbiased view of the industry, come on now.
The best definition of an expert that I have read goes like this "A drip from a tap under pressure"
You have to use your own reasoning and logic coupled with an inquisitive mind to come to your own conclusions.
I keep asking myself what are the reasons the pro nuclear lobby believe are the benefits of expensive nuclear energy over other forms. Maybe someone could list them?
Complain about this comment
144. At 5:49pm on 26 Sep 2008, brigadierjohn wrote:
I seem to remember in the 60s, Friends of Loch Lomond became very agitated about a proposed hydro scheme on the east bank
I think you have highlighted a problem that is present within the various environmentalist groups.
On one hand, one group may, for example, propose a tidal barrier. But then along comes another group concerned about the impact on wildlife.
Both have valid points, but it shows that ALL groups need to compromise on a solution. If that means a coal-fired power station for ten years until a renewable source is available, then so be it.
I'm not saying go out and build ten nuclear power stations, but if it is not feasible to have a reliable renewable source in place then you need to have something.
If people are left without energy or suffer continuous disruptions then the Government in place will soon find itself out of a job.
Complain about this comment
#148 Richard: Respect! (So why are you a Nationalist? Only joking!) Here's me thinking 127 was not bad. Wow!
Anyway, thanks for the info. It was a lady called Hannah Stirling, from the Tarbert area I think, who led the opposition. Must have been successful, or the economics didn't add up. Is Loch Arklet the one above Brig o' Turk. I was on the famous Glasgow Corporation annual water trip (the biggest free booze-up in the world and me a teetotaller then) on the day it opened, as a young reporter. Fabulous sight when they opened the gates.
I spent many a miserable day at Cruachan during construction, waiting for info about accidents, or progress with blasting out the interior of the mountain. I didn't know, or didn't remember, that it was pumped storage.
Complain about this comment
#151 cynicalHighlander: I think a real expert, as opposed to a "pet" expert, will always give an honest opinion, conceding the possibility of doubt where it may exist.
You may as well ask if an SNP member will give you an unbiased view of our country's future. Some drip, some tap!
At some point we simply have to trust the science. But we should never trust politicians.
For clarity, I am not pro-nuclear, although I believe - using my own (limited) reasoning and logic, of course - that we are heading in the same general direction as the rest of the world, again broadly speaking.
Complain about this comment
#149 brigadier,
Yes, it is one of my favourite songs too, though for my part I am quite fond of the Corries version, and haven't heard the Peter Mallan version. I'm not familiar with the circumstances under which it was written, though I think it was written whilst he was at university. Is that right? I'd be grateful if you could enlighten me further.
#153, The loch above Brig o' Turk is the Glen Finglas Reservoir. Again, I don't think it has generating capacity. Loch Arklet lies between Inversnaid and Stronachlachar.
Like you, I am much more likely to believe experts over politicians (of any flavour) but I'm sure I don't need to remind you to pay close attention to who pays the experts' wages.
Complain about this comment
#154 Brigadier
An expert Prof Ian Fells. Strong supporter of nuclear energy!
"The Place of Nuclear Power in an Energy Portfolio"
http://fellsassociates.awardspace.com/site/LinkedDocuments/Nuclear%20Power%20in%20an%20Energy%20Portfolio.22-7-01.pdf
extract from 3rd paragraph.
"Security of supply is good and, a further bonus, nuclear power puts
almost no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere(1kWh of nuclear electricity puts
5g of CO2 into the atmosphere, about the same as wind power; 1kWh of coalfired
electricity emits 1000g of CO2)."
Total piffle. It is why I made further enquiries as it is totally illogical.
Complain about this comment
#154 Brigadier
An expert Prof Ian Fells. Strong supporter of nuclear energy!
"The Place of Nuclear Power in an Energy Portfolio"
http://fellsassociates.awardspace.com/site/LinkedDocuments/Nuclear%20Power%20in%20an%20Energy%20Portfolio.22-7-01.pdf
extract from 3rd paragraph.
"Security of supply is good and, a further bonus, nuclear power puts
almost no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere(1kWh of nuclear electricity puts
5g of CO2 into the atmosphere, about the same as wind power; 1kWh of coalfired
electricity emits 1000g of CO2)."
Total piffle. It is why I made further enquiries as it is totally illogical.
"Nuclear Spin"
http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Ian_Fells
Complain about this comment
144
What you describe happens on Loch Awe at which water is pumped up to high level lochans behind Cruachan and runs down when needed to provide power. You can visit this establishment which has gift shops,cafes and a visitor gallery about half a mile underground.
Complain about this comment
#155 Richard: Dark Lochnagar, or Lochain na Gairre, as he called it, was written by Lord Byron. Having inherited his father's title, Byron - the illegitimate, but fully recognised, son of Lord Byron and an Aberdeenshire woman - travelled south to claim his estate and a place in the House of Lords. The English peers, and no doubt the gentrified Scots peers, mocked him mercilessly for his very countrified Aberdeenshire accent. The poem was a lament for his boyhood written at a low time.
The rest, as they say.....
Try to get Mallan's recording. You can hear the wind in the corries.
Eoin-og will correct the Gaelic as necessary!
Of course it was Glen Finglas I visited for the opening. I remember now. It must be 45 years since I took my girlfriend, now my wife, to see what I rememebered as a romantic spot. She said: It's a dam.
Complain about this comment
150 Disgusted Dorothy
G. Brown is going to get good publicity right up to the Glenrothes by-election to make sure he does not lose that one and as a result get removed as PM. It is essential from the powers that be's perspective that G Brown stays in place.
This is to make sure the next general election is fought between the Tories and a lame duck PM to ensure a Tory victory.
The Labour Party is recovering in the polls at the moment and a raft of by elections in England last night showed Labour holding up or improving its position.
The assault on G Brown will intensify again in the new Year.
I will be very difficult for the SNP to win Glenrothes as the powers that helped them win Glasgow East to damge Brown have the opposite objective this time. We live in hope however.
I fear we will have to pull something very big out of the bag and, of course,as we are installed as bookies' favourite, even although we are over 10,00 votes behind, if we don't win it will be seen as a great victory for Labour .
Do not underestimate the subtlety and total lack of scruple of those who are our enemies and who presume to rule the world.
We will not waltz to Independence. There will be pitfalls and traps all along the way.
Complain about this comment
#156 cynicalHighlander: I can't argue. I'm just not qualified to comment. I have no reason to doubt you, however.
It just seems to me to be entirely illogical, just damned crazy, for an academic to put his hard-earned reputation on the line by asserting something that he must know can be, and will be, proved wrong. He would be finished, and no temporary political plaudits (assuming his comments were made in support of a political argument) could ever outweigh that, surely?
I can only speak personally. You could not pay me enough money to induce me to tell lies in support of something dubious. I was occasionally offered bribes. My (joking) reply was always: Okay, so long as its enough to keep myself and my family for the rest of my days, because I'll never get a job again.
Complain about this comment
#150 DisgustedDorothy
Excellent points. Comparing the "pictorial" Brown's world: Your reaction to Gordon Brown's speech that's given prominence on the HYS home page with the "real" public HYS forum: Gordon Brown speech: Your views one could be forgiven for thinking the comments referred to different events.
The following post probably best expresses the latter
That got 96 recommendations compared to 428 for the "top" anti-Brown post, while no "pro" Brown post appears until the 4th page of READERS RECOMMENDED comments or received as many as 70 recommendations.
I hope that the revolution doesn't happen and that NuLab can eventually be persuaded to cede power peacefully, but the BBC are certainly doing themselves no favour by showing such blatant bias.
Complain about this comment
#159 brigadier,
'She said: It's a dam.'
I got a laugh at that one. I fear we will all have reached agreement on every question on these blogs before we ever fathom out these mysterious creatures that are the fairer sex.
Complain about this comment
#151 cynicalHighlander
He wasn't often wrong."The best definition of an expert that I have read goes like this "A drip from a tap under pressure""
My late father always claimed it was the Farnborough definition dating from the days of N.S. Norway (aka Nevil Shute):
Complain about this comment
#160 sneckedagain
Interesting post, and you may be right, but if you've seen any pro-Tory bias on Auntie in the past year or so I'd be very interested in the URL.
It's certainly a shame that Auntie gives so little coverage to the local by-elections that occur so regularly, but if they did people would have woken up to why the "minor" (ie not NuLab or Tory) parties often do well.
Complain about this comment
Could be an interesting debate this.
The SNP could say that Gordon Brown is pro-nuclear, pro coal and damaging the environment etc etc
Labour on the other hand could say that the SNP are anti-nuclear and anti-coal, but there is not enough alternative renewables sources in place yet etc etc
I am no expert on hydro power, but (and correct me if I am wrong, but only if you are a civil engineer) building dams is not as simple as it may seem. Nor are they quick to build. We've certainly got the mountains and rainfall.
Energy is almost certainly going to have a major impact on the next general and scottish elections. Both Labour and the SNP are in a position of power, which makes things uncomfortable if prices continue to rocket.
My big worry with EDF is that prices are going to take off again. And at some point we are going to have a crisis. Not due to lack of energy but lack of affordable energy. In an energy rich nation that is unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
Questions to be asked about going nuclear (in no particular order).
1) How many new stations need to be built?
2) Where exactly will they be built?
3) How long will it take to build them?
4) How long will it take to comission them?
5) How much will they cost to build?
6) How much will they cost to run?
7) How much will the electricty they produce cost for the consumer?
8) How much waste will they produce?
9) How will the waste be treated?
10) How will the waste be stored?
11) Where will the waste be treated?
12) Where will the waste be stored?
13) How long will the waste remain radioactive?
14) How much will it cost to treat the waste?
15) How much will it cost to store the waste?
16) What will be the life expectancy of these new stations?
17) In the 'unlikely' event of an accident what plans are in place to deal effectively with it?
I won't bother to ask about the decommisioning costs of these new stations, just take a big number and multiply it by another big number should give a reasonable estimate, and sadly that will be a problem for the next generation.
New nuclear power stations can't be thrown up overnight, they take years to build and commision. New stations should have been started 10 to 15 years ago, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but some foresight regarding energy security from previous Governments would have been nice, liberalisation of the energy markets really was a short term tactic, thanks Maggie T for that one.
Does Scotland need to go nuclear? not necessarily.
Does England need to go nuclear? almost certainly.
Am I against nuclear? not in principle not even in practise, I quite like having the lights on....and the telly...and the dish washer......washing machine....etc, but can we and future generations really afford the overall cost of nuclear ownership, financial and environmental?
Oh by the way I am a Scot Nat (and proud) which will no doubt cause the Four Unionists of the Apocalypse who patrol these blogs to be sharpening their swords if not their wit (ok maybe only half their wit) with a suitably indignant reply.
Complain about this comment
#166 Neil_Small147
The latest major hydro project in Scotland, Glendoe, will have taken approximately seven and a half years from the start of planning to the first production of electricity. Most of the suitable locations for large scale hydro schemes in Scotland have now already been developed, and the few remaining are in environmentally sensitive areas and so are very unlikely to be developed. Glendoe is therefore most likely to be the last such development. It will produce some 100MW of electricity, enough to power every home in Glasgow, apparently.
Complain about this comment
#167 InMyKip,
'...the Four Unionists of the Apocalypse...'
Thank you for my second laugh of the evening. I like that one :)
Complain about this comment
#161 Brigadier
Your last sentence is the way that most folk look at life which could be argued is why the world is in predicament that it presently finds itself. My personal concerns go much further as without a healthy and diverse environment mankind is digging itself deeper into the liability of self destruction.
#164 Brownedov
A much better description, thanks I'll try and remember it that way.
#166 Neil_Small147
No I am not a civil engineer but the Glendoe project which will come onstream early next year has taken about 3 years from start of clearing the site. If you search you can find all of the hydro dams in Scotland and the oldest one still producing power at no cost other than routine maintenance has been running for 5-6 decades. We would have had many more but various interest bodies have made objections for various reasons some of which might be valid and others not in my back garden.
Energy prices have only one way to go in an upward spiral.
Complain about this comment
#161 brigadier - if you read Prof Fells assertion again, he isn't actually asserting something that can be proven wrong except on a pedantic level. At the point of electricity production, it is true that nuclear plants produce very low levels of CO2 per kWh produced. It's only when you factor in all the additional processes that take us to the point of actual electricity production that the true carbon cost becomes apparent.
Complain about this comment
Labour dont have any policies full stop, so why should it be surprising they dont have one on nuclear. Simply said they will say and do anything they can to try and get back into 'their' ministerial mondeos.
Complain about this comment
#171 ForteanJo: This thread seems to have ended, but I'll reply anyway. I never read these links offered to me, because they are probably too difficult for my little mind, which struggles with maths, science and numbers. However, I did suspect that there might be another interpretation. There always is.
I compensate for my deficiencies in these areas by deploying my talents. If I say so myself, and I do, I am an excellent judge of character. I don't need to understand fully all the technicalities spouted by experts, but I can tell - and my instincts are very rarely wrong - if the speaker is trustworthy. It's a big claim, but I have used the method successfully in everything from voting to buying cars to vetting my daughter's boyfiriends when she was young.
Now, when a politically active person offers me a link.... my antennae twitch furiously.
Complain about this comment
What we need is all generating capacity in Scotland to be owned by the people of Scotland. I'm no socialist just an ordinary punter who is sick of high prices and foreign ownership. We could then set sensible prices, allow profits to be re-invested and export any excess at what ever market price. We need to grasp this for all our sakes.
Complain about this comment
#167 InMyKip: Tough questions, all of them.
I'm not particularly pro-nuclear, but if I was I might ask you the cost of NOT going nuclear.
Where will we "store" wind and wave power in readiness for calm days?
Environmental impact?
I'm sure the pro-nuclear people could devise another dozen questions. I'm not that clever. I'm just a wee man in the street who asks about things he doesn't understand. Like, what has it to do with Independence or Unionism? Do the facts change, like so many other magical things, on political expediency grounds?
Indignant? About inconsequential theorising? Give me a break!
Complain about this comment
175 Brigadier
The pumped storage stations you referred to earlier are located at Ben Cruachan (400Mw) near Oban and Foyers (300Mw) above Loch Ness. The whole idea of PS is storage, not of electricity, but of water. When there is surplus power on the grid the turbines can be reversed (in under a minute from stasis or “feathered”) to pump water into the upper reservoir. When power is required the turbines become conventional generators. The gap between Scottish peak demand (about 6Gw i.e. 6000Mw) and minimum demand is approximately 1.2Gw so these two combined can meet the bulk of the periodic variation.
Additionally, there is a small wind farm being built in Ayrshire, I think it was reported about two months ago, where the surplus energy from the turbines will electrolyse water, allowing the storage of hydrogen, which can then be burnt in a small gas turbine when demand peaks. This is the first such I have heard of but one uniquely suitable to Scotland with its abundance of wind and water. The electrolysis of water and the subsequent burning of the resultant hydrogen, is almost as efficient as Pumped Storage. The existence of the grid also means the electrolysis plants do not necessarily need to be close to the turbines.
The production in both the above cases is virtually carbon neutral, though the initial construction of the capital projects will have a significant one-off carbon footprint.
Complain about this comment
As to why this is a political football for Unionists and Nationalists, the reason is clear,
Scotland currently produces between 120-125% of its energy needs (when the temperamental nuclear plants are working), exports the surplus, and is well on its way to meeting renewable targets that England (not Wales – they have abundance too) can only dream of.
England with a 50-55 million population to service has a big energy problem, which is why Westminster is, quite rightly, so concerned to secure new nuclear generation.
The short time horizon that politicians generally have allows them to forget the issues of decom and waste, which if put into a whole life cost would make nuclear completely uneconomic.
Complain about this comment
Yes The new plant is at Kilbirnie and is being built by Wind Hydrogen Ltd an Australian Company.
Complain about this comment
173. At 11:47am on 27 Sep 2008, brigadierjohn
"Now, when a politically active person offers me a link.... my antennae twitch furiously."
Your not insinuating that Scottish Nationalists are opposed to Nuclear energy for political reasons! It wouldn't matter what party I supported I am against nuclear because it doesn't do what it says on the tin. Just because ones views support one thing or another that person has belong to a certain political leaning. Please give your fellow Scots a bit more credibility. Most of us search to look for the truth rather than sit on the fence and wait to be fed the information.
Complain about this comment
The massive canvass that is going on to produce political support for new nuclear power stations is fundamentally dishonest. The impression is being given, mainly but not exclusively in the tabloid press, that the lights are going to go out soon, yet it will take 10 to 20 years to technically develop viable renewable sources of power generation and so we urgently need new nuclear power stations interim to fill the gap.
Big lie!
It will take 15 to 20 years to commission, build and have functioning new nuclear power stations.
(By which time we will be almost out of decent grade uranium).
End of bullsh*t.
Why don't the tame UK press report the present Finnish nuclear power scheme disaster
Complain about this comment
178. At 3:17pm on 27 Sep 2008, impeachblair
Found this link
"Company censured for unproven claims in leaflet about controversial wind farm"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article4061597.ece
Apparently there is another one on Unst.
How it works.
http://whlenergy.com/index.php?id=106
Complain about this comment
#179 cynicalHighlander: No offence intended. Lots of people are opposed to nuclear for lots of reasons. My point was that most people, like me, don't fully understand the technicalities and economics of it. I try to ask questions (which unaccountably infuriates some people) while some, repeat some, of the SNP posters - probably no brighter than me - simply say: The party's agin it, so so am I.
This would be fair enough if they didn't go on to quote sources and references that they have been told make the case, as if they understood perfectly.
We end up with possibly tens of thousands of people blindly voting for (or against) something they don't understand. It can hardly be called winning the political argument, however.
I don't think it can be "won." Some Government, some day, will make a decision which we must hope they honestly believe in, and we will get the energy source(s) they choose. And therefore what we deserve.
I don't mind being "fed" information.... so long as I know who's holding the spoon, and whether he's trustworthy-!
Complain about this comment
#176 and #181: I broke my own rule and looked at the link on the Ayrshire windfarm. My suspicions were confirmed: the science is too much for me, and I couldn't decide whether this was a test of a theory or an actual porducing set-up - or even what's upsetting the locals. Instinct tells me it's not the "missing link" in the great energy debate, but of course I can't substantiate that.
Anyway, I'm off. Thanks to all who tried to straighten me out.
Complain about this comment
181 Cynical Highlander
Thanks, I was aware of the issue, but the censure related to the timing of government funding and a rather futile technicality that the hydrogen plant and the turbines were physically separate, and so the one is not powered by the other, only indirectly by the grid.
The technical feasibility of electrolysis and storage of hydrogen is not in doubt.
Complain about this comment
Brigadier
The following quote from your 182 is disappointingly patronising. I had come to think better of you. Technicalities are not so great as to not be susceptible to careful research and a bit of commonsense -
I have read the same comments you have and I have not noted people blindly throwing facts they do not understand.
"This would be fair enough if they didn't go on to quote sources and references that they have been told make the case, as if they understood perfectly.
We end up with possibly tens of thousands of people blindly voting for (or against) something they don't understand. It can hardly be called winning the political argument, however."
Stating that you will not follow links is a ridiculous response - are you unable to see them, research other sites, and then draw your own conclusions?
I graduated in Maths and Physics but that isn't proximal to the understanding of this issue it only helps.
Complain about this comment
There is a patronising tendency on this blog for the blinkered unionist posters to act as if the rest of us are simpletons.
The worst kind of fools are the ones who are seriously uninformed or underinformed but don't know this and sit complacently in the false security of being oblivious to their own ignorance. They pontificate with a confidence which is unmerited and bluster when found out. There's a lots of them about.
Complain about this comment
180. At 4:15pm on 27 Sep 2008, sneckedagain
The only paper that seems to report on environmental issues.
An interesting article by an unlikely author.
"Bad reactions"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/07/nuclearpower.energy
"So, a nuclear renaissance? Forget it."
A well written piece by Polly Toynbee
"Presenting nuclear as the grown-up option is deceptive and delaying"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/11/uk.comment
Complain about this comment
#185 impeachblair: Your disappointment in me is more painful than personal abuse. It must be difficult for you to debate with someone who is not really your opponent, who wants to reach an agreement.
I am neither pro-Union nor anti-SNP, the two main accusations thrown at me here. I take part as a classic floating voter, who is being asked, on this blog at least, to step away from the flawed comfort of the Union to invest my hopes in the promised superiority of Independence.
Your average voter is not a trawler of websites, a researcher, a statistician, an economist or a scientist. He reads the paper, watches TV and visits blogs. I try to speak for him/myself, with all the prejudices and misinformation in the public domain expressed as questions to people, like yourself, who do study the chickens' entrails.
There is no point in being tetchy because I choose not to, or cannot, enter the debate at your level. If you wish to win the argument with me you must evangelise more and criticise less, always remembering that lack of expertise in some narrow areas has not robbed me of critical faculties or average intelligence.
So far, I have not been convinced at all by the SNP political case, and only partially by the anti-nuclear case. Perhaps you think this makes me an idiot?
If not, you must consider why a reasonably intelligent person has not accepted your argument. And whether that is my fault, or yours.
Complain about this comment
There was a truly unusual occurrence on Radio 4's Beyond Westminster this morning: A "national" BBC political programme that actually discussed the possibility of NuLab losing Glenrothes and the next general election in realistic terms. As a politics junkie, I subscribe to the podcast, but am often disappointed. Today, though, those us of not enamoured with the prospect of "Duff" Gordon going on and on were in for a treat. Well worth a "listen again".
Complain about this comment
188. At 7:42pm on 27 Sep 2008, brigadierjohn
I believe that your academic qualifications are out of my reach but that does not stop me from gleaning outside information to increase my knowledge base. Learn something new everyday and that won't be found on the box or in newsprint.
Do you believe that there is enough recoverable uranium ore to satisfy a nuclear future for the planet's needs? How are you going to find that out unless one searches to resolve that issue in ones own mind.
You don't believe politicians, any SNP poster here or search for the info. yourself how on earth can you make an informed decision on any topic and where to put that cross every 4 years! Did you not say in your past life journalism was your bread and butter.
Complain about this comment
#190 cynicalHighlander: I do learn something new every day, about gardening, cooking, photography - so you can see political research is not my main interest in life. Barely an interest at all - I have a full real-life existence. I'm a casual observer with no commitment, other than to ask about claims that seem to be intellectually unsustainable. I'm a broad brush person.
Should I be ashamed to leave research about uranium to people who do know all about it?
I have no academic qualifications, save three SCE Highers and two O-levels. I have a diploma from Henley Business College, and multiple course participation certificates in employment law, equal opportunities, recruitment and discipline, coaching and motivation, etc., etc. In short, a background resource of no great distinction.
As I say above, I'd prefer to be treated just as a punter who has wandered in and started asking daft questions. I'm not here to educate anyone, or deny them their right to their views.
As a journalist, I sent others to do the work, certainly in the last 20-odd years!
Complain about this comment
191. At 8:38pm on 27 Sep 2008, brigadierjohn
"Should I be ashamed to leave research about uranium to people who do know all about it?"
I think that depends on whether one is concerned that the lights will go out unless the UK goes down the route of nuclear energy with its chequered history, financial and safety costs, sustainability or is there a cheaper alternative and is it fair to saddle the next few generations to continued costs just to satisfy ones inaction.
One way to look at nuclear is buy now and pay later only its worse than the present financial crisis, as it can't be written off, one is passing that debt onto the shoulders of as yet unborn generations.
Just 1 'O' level here and an HNC and an IQ low 130's. That has never stopped me questioning and asking questions.
Complain about this comment
#189 Brownedov
Thanks for the Radio 4 link. Interesting to get confirmation from Glenrothes that Labouir seem to have no chance of holding the seat.
They were also talking about SNP gains at the General Election and what that means for Labour. What they didn't talk about was what SNP gains could mean for the future of the UK. It used to be generally accepted throughout the political community that if the SNP got a majority of Scottish seats they could proceed towards Independence, possibly via a referendum. Notwithstanding a 2010 referendum which we can't be sure will happen because the SNP need support at Holyrood, what does happen if the SNP win the majority of seats at the GE?
Freedom
Complain about this comment
#193 hadrianswall
An interesting question!
Post war, my parents were among the 2 million(?) Scots who signed the Scottish Covenant demanding Home Rule within the UK.
Atlee refused even to meet with the Covenant leaders, who were told by Arthur Woodburn (Scottish Secretary) that signing a petition wasn't enough, and Scots would have to vote for it at a GE.
Thereafter, SNP policy was that if they got a majority of Scottish MPs, they would withdraw from Westminster, invite MPs from other parties to join them, and declare independence.
Since devolution, the assumption has been that any move to independence would be via Holyrood.
While I don't see the SNP getting more than 40% of the Scottish MPs at the GE, I wonder if the SNP have worked out what they would do if they did get 30+.
I imagine they would stick by the current plan for a referendum, but does anyone know the answer?
Complain about this comment
#193 hadrianswall
You're welcome, and I agree 100% that it didn't go nearly far enough in considering the potential impact on the union.
It will be interesting to see whether the unionist parties start taking the loss of NuLab's fiefdoms on the celtic and gaelic fringes seriously but I shan't be holding my breath before the general election results are in.
What astonished me was that Auntie shows a glimmer of taking seriously on "national" radio something that virtually never gets a mention outside the pages of this blog.
Could they be waking up at last to the fact that we really are living in interesting times?
Complain about this comment
Hello Brian,
An interesting article in the Sunday Herald by Ian MacWhirter describing in detail about Brown discussions and deal with Lloyds Chairman.
Surely the actions of the Lunatic Brown are tantamount to treason if, and I dont doubt the fact, that it is truthfull.
I certainly hope that ALL SCOTS no matter what political persuasion they are, show their absolute disgust for this so called son of the manse. He has betrayed millions of Scots and other Nationalities throughout the World.
He is the shame of honest Scottish People throughout the Nation.
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2453789.0.0.php
Complain about this comment
#194 oldnat
Great question, but almost as relevant is:
What will the unionist parties and the supposedly federalist LibDems will do about the 2010 referendum?
For all my dislike of Bendy Wendy, her "bring it on" approach seems their only sensible option, possibly with a multi-choice option that the LibDems would find very hard not to go far.
Wouldn't anything else play right into the hand of the SNP at the 2011 elections?
Complain about this comment
Hadrianswall and oldnat, as someone who remembers the historic 60's and 70's. I recall that the terms then were that a majority of SNP MP's in Westminster was the accepted bar to be reached. Automatic referendum was what we were told at the time.
It would be nigh impossible for any Scottish MP or MSP to even raise an objection if and when the magic number was chosen by the people of Scotland. Lets not forget the recognition of the UN and European Commission, that Scotland was and still is a Nation in its own right. Calling on the European Commission would be an automatic action by Prime Minister Salmond, I believe.
Complain about this comment
Old Nat, I havent asked my 80 years young mother if she and my Dad signed that petition. I say that because my grandfather, who served in the first and second World War, was a fervount Nat. My mother and father were also, and subsequentially brought their family accordingly. There wouldnt be one unionist in an extended family of over forty odd people. They did well teaching their own, the facts about our countries rights to determine their own future their own way.
Complain about this comment
186. At 6:17pm on 27 Sep 2008, sneckedagain wrote:
There is a patronising tendency on this blog for the blinkered unionist posters to act as if the rest of us are simpletons.
The worst kind of fools are the ones who are seriously uninformed or underinformed but don't know this and sit complacently in the false security of being oblivious to their own ignorance. They pontificate with a confidence which is unmerited and bluster when found out. There's a lots of them about.
---------------------
There are also nationalist posters here as well who fit into your description.
I sit in the middle between independence and remaining in the UK, since neither side can produce an acceptable solution either way to date.
The problem is that while people have passionate views, they have to listen and accept other arguments and admit when they are wrong.
An interesting point in recent posts regarding a "majority" of SNP MPs in Westminster. If they - as mentioned - pulled out of Westminster would that actually have any legal standing? I'm thinking of Gerry Adams when he refused to take his seat as he would have had to sworn loyalty to the Queen. Is this what the SNP would propose?
Or will they swear loyalty but then refuse to take their seats?
If so, then they would be doing their constituents a disservice, as they would not be represented in Parliament.
As for the next Scottish election, will the ballot papers list the correct name for the party, rather than a personality - ie Alex Salmond for First Minister. If he was my MSP I would consider voting for him. But I have a certain Linda Fabiani who is a poor constituency MSP. Anyone who fails to respond to two letters - which even the Lib Dem answered - over 8 years deserves to not be voted for.
Labour may be unpopular - I am no fan - but you also have to consider that many local MPs/MSPs are very popular in their area.
Complain about this comment
What is shocking in the Herald's Macwhirter article is the glee that he describes among Labour conference attendees at the demise of HBOS; the expectation that it will drive the nascent self confidence out and make the Scottish people feart of considering the SNP and independence, because we would be too small to deal with this crisis. Macwhirter is no nationalist but you can read his distaste.
The gleefulness is despite the undoubted damage to Scotland’s best interest and the real risk of thousands of jobs losses here.
Fortunately, the counter argument that the small countries around us, whist hurting, are not in melt down is relatively easy to put.
Complain about this comment
We seem to have skirted, yet again, around all the usual contentions about energy, economics, systems of government, and we are back at The Big One: What if.........?
Wouldn't it be nice if the parties told us their plans, supposing a variety of election/referendum outcomes? Pigs might fly! None of them is prepared to concede the possibility of anything other than an advantageous outcome for themselves. Even then, they're not saying.
So the poor, exploited, necessarily ignorant voters have to guess and second-guess, getting themselves into a lather about things that may never happen.
But just for fun.... Much will depend on the performance of parties and leaders in the run-up. But, assuming near-parity of Westminster MPs, or even a small SNP majority: In Scotland we will see a hardening of attitudes. The minds of the complacent majority will be concentrated, and who knows how the 50 per cent that don't normally vote will react. The anti-Independence faction will begin campaigning, instead of just patronising the SNP.
I suppose the question is: would a major SNP success provoke fear or celebration. We may have opinions, but we don't know.
As for a referendum outcome, the questions will be more important than the answers. If people don't accept the questions, any outcome is likely to produce a rammy of some sort. Any vote will promote division rather than unity, I fear.
My own view is that there must be a clear majority of the electorate in favour, as opposed to a simple majority of votes cast, for anything so fundamental and life-changing to be considered.
As the party promoting change, it is the SNP who will have most to consider. Their decisions will cause a reaction, out of which may come compromise.
I think it would be a bad time for the SNP to indulge their tendency to pull stunts.
Complain about this comment
#201 impeachblair
Well put. It's hard to know what NuLab believe in nowadays, apart from clinging on to power, of course.
Complain about this comment
#202 brigadierjohn
"Wouldn't it be nice if the parties told us their plans, supposing a variety of election/referendum outcomes? Pigs might fly! None of them is prepared to concede the possibility of anything other than an advantageous outcome for themselves. Even then, they're not saying."
True, and probably very sensible of the Tories for now. For the LibDems with declining popularity I think it's a bit different, and even before the Calman Commission reports they surely have nothing to lose by stating they want a multi-choice referendum and starting to offer public negotiations with the SNP. After all, they were very instrumental in bringing in the beginnings of STV and actually believe the people are bright enough to cope with ranking their choices.
I can't pretend to understand the mindset of NuLab supporters or whether they actually believe in anything other than power for themselves. If, as they seem to, they like the status quo, surely the sooner the referendum occurs the better their chance of being on the winning side.
Complain about this comment
#200 Neil
"I sit in the middle between independence and remaining in the UK"
That puts you in the same spectrum of opinion as most of us!
My own preference is to have Scotland as an "independent" country within a Confederal Europe, where Europe handles Defence, Foreign affairs, macroeconomic policy and has a redistributive mechanism between the richer and poorer parts of the confederation (and stops trying to micromanage anything with a "trade" implication like Health and Safety). Scotland would handle everything else.
Currently, the EU is wrongly configured, and can't even get its budget audited, so that's a long term goal. What to do in the meantime?
No party is offering exactly what I (or others with varying aspirations) would like. The reality of politics is that you have to go with the best that's on offer.
Once establish the principle of Scottish sovereignty into a revised UK structure, and I'll happily remain part of a Confederal UK - with the UK performing the Confederal functions until Europe is fit to take them over.
So I currently support the SNP (without large scale SNP support, the UK based parties will make no further changes). I want to have a vote in a multi-option referendum where I can rank my preferences. If a sufficiently decentralised Confederal structure was on offer, that would be my first choice.
Parties like to put things in black and white, because it strengthens them. As individuals we should be trying to assert our own preferences.
Where do you lie on the spectrum of constitutional change?
Complain about this comment
#205 oldnat
Good morning oldnat - a good post.
We're currently in pretty much the same state - at least so long as the LibDems seem determined to seek their own piece of wilderness.
Off out now but may catch up with you later if you're still non-mobile thanks to the "gas" shortage.
Complain about this comment
The EU will simply cease to function if you add members without any increase in population or power. Like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It's already struggling with the Balkans.
Complain about this comment
back on the subject of energy supplies.
one of the biggest mistakes in my opinion was for the UK goverment to de-national the the supply companies. these are a requirement of a modern society
what we are left with now is companies trying to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible and are giving no indication of caring about the poorer members of society.
if the power companies were still nationalised, the pricing of elect - gas could be set to cover the industries running costs and a percentage added to cover future development of renewables.
my own view on nuclear before brian blog, was that if i did not mind it if it was needed, but now learning more about it, i am against it and realise that in the national interest more funds must be given to renewable projects.
in respect of scotland, it most certainly has more options for renewables than england.
and could eventually play a part in helping solve englands energy problems with the right investment.
personally, i would like to know more about Wind Hydrogen projects, which is in effect, electricity hydrogen, but the whole idea of the fact that it can be stored and used when required sounds exciting, including usage in transport.
but i suppose the oil companies would do their utmost to oppose the technology as we would not be dependent on oil.
Complain about this comment
#97 duh ... you miss the point .. that amount of power is generated from just the dam ... what i was implying was that the 2 sources that also feed the loch could be generating power as they have force before they enter the loch.
#101 Aye i think the whole idea is to get smaller generating schemes on the go rather than a couple of large dams. Remember gravity cost nowt !!!!
Complain about this comment
#207 Anaxim
I'm not convinced that the collapse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 18th century is the best analogy for the EU.
Its failure to introduce internal reforms to deal with the conflict between the burghers and the aristocracy certainly weakened it sufficiently that Prussia, Russia and the Habsburg Empire were able to partition it.
Or were you referring to its inability to cater for its national minorities such as the Cossacks?
Complain about this comment
#125 Ardverikie house has its own power supply which has 2 generators a 50 kw and a 250 kw . It too exports to the national grid which makes the estate around 100,000 a year. I know all this because my father used to run the generator. The only problem with these things is that the capture point for the water has to be cleaned of debree every day, but other than that it works fine. To prove my earlier point Ardverikie house sits on the shores of Loch Laggan so Reluctant Expat get stuffed !!!
Complain about this comment
100. At 10:22am on 26 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
"EU consumption is approx 3,200 TWh."
Er, just done some simple calculations.....
Were you not being rather rude to some of your fellow posters about adding too many zero's?
I think you have three surplus ones above, but I am willing to be persuaded.
Complain about this comment
#205
I too favour a federal set up for the time being, simply because it allows a safety net which would probably not be there with full independence.
The SNP are doing pretty well in Government, but they have not yet been there long enough to convince me. The recent matter with parliamentary time being wasted with Wendy Alexander (I am no supporter) is a prime example. Instead of perhaps a small committee making a decision, we had a full blown debate wasting precious time. Many of the SNP MSPs saw this - in my opinion - as an opportunity to destroy someone. That is a childish and politically immature approach. Yes, she hadn't declared a donation but it wasn't exactly Watergate.
At other times we get the "well if Scotland was independent [insert crisis here] then this would not happen etc etc" other "Scotland wants this and wants it now" comments from the First Minister.
He would do better to keep showing that he can run an effective Government, THEN he asks for something.
On the Labour side, we have ineffective opposition, partly due to the fact the they are in power in Westminster. If Gordon Brown had any sense he would allow Labour in Scotland to deviate a little.
Instead we get this "independence is bad" message. Well, how do they know? No one knows for sure if it is bad or good.
As for the Lib Dems? Time to shut up shop I'm afraid.
With regards to the forthcoming General Election, sometime between next week and 2010....... I forsee SNP and Labour fairly equal in Scotland, with the Tories and Lib Dems sharing a handful of seats; England will be dominated by Conservatives, with Lib Dems still in third place. The UK might be forced into a federal situation, something I would imagine Alex Salmond has seriously considered as possibly a better option than full independence.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat:
The problem I'm referring to with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the right of veto exercised by its nobles. It made it a simple matter for outside forces or conservative factions to prevent change.
The idiotic ancestor worship of the Polish nobles didn't help things either. As the world changed around them, they fancied themselves as the timeless warrior sons of the steppe, concocting fantastical 'authentic' costumes.
Complain about this comment
208. At 5:20pm on 28 Sep 2008, vote_nat
"my own view on nuclear before brian blog, was that if i did not mind it if it was needed, but now learning more about it, i am against it and realise that in the national interest more funds must be given to renewable projects."
I think that most people just accept that because they don't see black smoke coming out of the cooling towers then they think oh it must be clean then I'll go for that. Others can't be bothered to investigate for themselves and when other alternatives are offered they assume that it politically motived, sad really maybe that is why Scotland has accepted the Union without question.
As climate change is happening then nuclear power is far from being the least harmful.
"Nuclear power: False climate change prophet?"
http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/07/Nuclear-power-False-climate-change-prophet/
"Put simply, investments in nuclear power are much worse at fighting climate change than pursuing wind, solar, and other small-scale power generators. Policymakers would be wise to embrace these more environmentally friendly technologies if they are serious about producing electricity and mitigating climate change."
Complain about this comment
#214 Anaxim
I didn't know of the "ancestor worship" - thanks for that.
"the right of veto exercised by its nobles" was part of what I was referring to. Maybe it does make a better analogy than I thought to the EU with national demands to keep vetoes rather than moving to qualified majority voting.
In the longer term, Europe needs to move towards a proper Confederal structure which removes things like the Council of Ministers, and the primacy of European over domestic law in non-Confederal areas, combined with the Parliament choosing the Government of Europe for Confederal purposes - can't see that happening in my lifetime though.
Complain about this comment
One thing to consider:
At what stage does the huge hikes in energy costs hit a critical level?
Regardless of the source of energy, I have a - perhaps cynical - feeling that prices are going to rocket again come Jan 2009. Recent adverts for fixed price deals by Scottish Gas confirm this.
Something needs to be done, because we are going to have a situation where even those earning above-average salaries are going to be classed as in fuel poverty.
I fear that prices are totally out of control now.
Windfall taxes will not work, and neither will renewable energy solutions - they simply are not there in sufficient volume.
Why won't Westminster just try and buy out the power companies - if that is possible under EU law - and take the hit on the cost?
Yes, the Tories screwed up by selling them off, but Labour missed the chance to return them to public ownership.
Complain about this comment
Neil Small
Correctons
1. The SNP has no problem with an oath to the Queen as the SNP policy is to retain the Queen as Head of State. Perhaps you hadn't noticed. There are, of course, a number of republicans in the SNP (including myself) as there are in other parties who may personally be not in agreement with that but I believe an independent Scotland will be the appropriate forum for debates on the retention or otherwise of the royalty.
2. Linda Fabiani is not a constituency MSP but nevertheless she should reply to letters. Did she by any chance pass them over to the constituency MSP which is very often the protocol?
Complain about this comment
217. At 9:26pm on 28 Sep 2008, Neil_Small147
"At what stage does the huge hikes in energy costs hit a critical level?"
In the the not to distant future if my take on it goes.
We require energy in various forms and they have a common base fossil fuels to
keep the wheels turning. We can not influence these costs even if the energy
companies are re-nationalised it would just mean that your taxes would be raised
to compensate for any shortfall in extra costs. Fossil fuels are a finite
resource which we eat, run our homes etc etc. cost of these fuels is linked to
demand and supply and since the former outstrips the latter then the owner of
these resources are only doing what is best for themselves, its called global
capitalisation.
We have to wean ourselves of these fuels and that can only be done by improving
our efficient use of them and using them to build an infrastructure were the
energy to turn the wheels comes naturally ie wind, sun and water.
Complain about this comment
#216 oldnat
Having no detailed knowledge of C18 Poland, I can't comment on that bit of your post but your thoughts on the evolution of EU polity to be desired concur almost entirely with my own. As you say, that isn't going to happen any time soon, but the EU is very young - not yet 60 years since the ECSC got the whole thing going - and may mellow somewhat in our kids' lifetimes.
Complain about this comment
Just noticed post 100
Reluctant Expat is probably making reference to the proposals for TSR horizontal turbine generation in the Pentland firth which is presently in the early development stages. If put into operation such a scheme could provide virtually all of Scotland's power needs. It will be hugely expensive up front. I referred however to a Pentland barrage - a completley different concept, in the trillions of pounds category - which could power all of Europe but probably would only be practical if all of Europe paid for it - and why not?
As a matter of interest the mich likelier in the short term Severn barrage will produce as much power as between 5 and 8 nuclear power stations
Complain about this comment
#220 Brownedov
Among the more urgent decisions for the EU concern existing state borders
1. What are they going to do about Belgium
2. Are they going to insist on defending the existing borders of the eastern borders of Europe. These were created by Stalin in the normal Imperialist pattern of dividing up or subsuming troublesome minorities - c/f Ossetia. (it was the Cossack's preferring to be under Russian rather than Polish rule which was the first major problem for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
Complain about this comment
#222. At 11:39pm on 28 Sep 2008, oldnat wrote:
"1. What are they going to do about Belgium"
If I were a Belgian, I think I would try to rub along in the existing structure for the time being in the hope that the Basques and Catalans will weaken the French unitary state to the point where meaningful Flemish and Wallonian states can be created soonish, with Belgian Luxemburg probably then joining "real" Luxemburg along with the "orphan" German bits around Spa, Eupen and Malmedy.
Failing that, perhaps a confederal BeNeLux is possible, with the 3 monarchies taking annual turns at being head of state. I don't think religion would bother the Flemish Belgians too much nowadays, and the Germans have had nearly a century of practice in being a minority but the Francophones might feel a little lonely.
Whatever happens, there will probably be some rather messy borders, but that's nothing new to Belgium. Baarle-Hertog has a particularly complicated set of borders with the Netherlands already. All successor states will be in the EU and Schengen anyway.
"2. Are they going to insist on defending the existing borders of the eastern borders of Europe."
I don't know, but I hope not. I think it's crazy to start worrying about the far side of the Black Sea until the Balkans are assimilated and a firm decision is made on Turkey.
Anyway, its late here in the CET zone of the EEA so that's it for tonight.
Complain about this comment
Vote_nat ..... more river turbine info if you havent seen it already ...
http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.jsp?fr_story=a16561a2d9322a0e5953813fd7c930aa6fd8e41e
Complain about this comment
#221
You mean the story about the Spanish company Scottish Power doing a deal with the Norwegian company Hammerfest Strom to build Hammerfest Strom's turbines.
This is just another example of a couple of foreign owned companies exploiting Scotland's natural resources.
Complain about this comment
Brian, you need to stop giving Scottish Labour more coverage than the current Scottish Government.
This is equivalent to a Labour reporter down south giving more coverage to David Cameron than Gordon Brown. You wouldn't do that at Westminster, would you, so why do the equivalent thing in Scotland.
Let's discuss what the Scottish government is doing, rather than what Labour doesn't want us to do.
Come on, let's get some balanced reporting.
Stop running to the defence of Labour all the time by expanding statements to help them propagate their view of the world.
Complain about this comment
I see our beloved Leader is up to his usual exaggerations:
Mr Salmond said the Firth could be seen as the "Saudi Arabia of marine energy"...."The potential of the Pentland Firth is quite staggering."
The Scottish and Irish sites would host up to 60 of the turbines - 20 at each site - generating 60 megawatts of power for up to 40,000 homes.
Mmm. I believe Saudi Arabia provides a just a teeny-weeny bit more energy than that.
And as for that organisation that claimed the Firth could produce 8TWh......are they on the same planet as Salmond?
Complain about this comment
221. Where on earth are you getting this ridiculous nonsense that a Pentland Barrage could "power all of Europe", 3,200TWh?
Even the huge Severn Barrage proposal could only muster 17TWh.
Complain about this comment
227. Ahem...got my units of measurements all confused. Ignore that last paragraph.
Hey, look at that behind you!
Complain about this comment
#227 Reluctant, your getting your knickers in a twist again by moving your lips but not using your ears.
Alex Salmond pointed out that the Pentland Firth could be like the Saudi Arabia of Tidal power as it could supply 25% of Europes Tidal Power with further development.
The current planned development only powers up to 40000 homes.
Complain about this comment
Re pentland Firth
As usual with Mr Salmond everything he says needs to be carefully looked at.
Yes the SNP are hugley in favour of Tidal power development. No brainer, everyone is.
But......
He has also asked SNH to consult on increasing Bird Protection Zones all around the coast of Scotland. For most of Scotland that is irrelevant, for the north coast a sizable chunk of the area suited for development of tidal power will be zoned as a protection Zone making development a lot more difficult.
At a recent Public meeting SNH and a expert taken along by SNH were asked what scientific evidence supported this new protection zone and what difference it would make to the birds.
The answer? eh... well.. actually no scientific evidence and no it wouldn't actually help the birds.
Now everyone is in favour of a balanced approach to development, it is the way we do things in the Highlands. We don't want an environmental disaster. But equally why do we need these zones which will make development more difficult and expensive if we don't actually have a threat? We don't need or want continual interference from Edinburgh.
Typical SNP, say one thing for a cheap soundbite and in reality do another. try to be all things to all people.
We need a coherant energy policy that goes through all parts of government.
Complain about this comment
224. At 08:26am on 29 Sep 2008, rabbiehippo.
thanks for that link, its good to actualy see the turbine being sited and what some of them look like.
--------------------------------------------------
211. At 6:16pm on 28 Sep 2008, rabbiehippo wrote:
#125 Ardverikie house has its own power supply which has 2 generators a 50 kw and a 250 kw . It too exports to the national grid which makes the estate around 100,000 a year. I know all this because my father used to run the generator. The only problem with these things is that the capture point for the water has to be cleaned of debree every day, but other than that it works fine. To prove my earlier point Ardverikie house sits on the shores of Loch Laggan
--------------
there must be numerous sites around the country that the above types of generators could be sited to add to the total renewables availiable.
thanks for the info.
Complain about this comment
227. At 10:37am on 29 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
I see our beloved Leader is up to his usual exaggerations:
228. At 11:06am on 29 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
221. Where on earth are you getting this ridiculous nonsense that a Pentland Barrage could "power all of Europe", 3,200TWh?
I have already suggested to you that 3200TWh is out by a factor of 1000, with no response - see my 212.
I suggest it is you that should stop exaggerating.
Complain about this comment
233. Sigh.
So, you are seriously claiming that Europe's entire energy consumption is only 32TWh?
I look forward to seeing your working on your calculations!
Complain about this comment
233. At 1:13pm on 29 Sep 2008, impeachblair.
ALLTHOUGH I HATE TO PROVE RE-PAT CORRECT. IF YOU GOOGLE THE POWER OF SCOTLAND YOU WILL SEE THAT SCOTLANDS ENERGY NEED IS APPROX. 40TWh.
GBs REQUIREMENT IS APPROX. 400TWh, SO IT WOULD BE PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT TO SAY THAT EUROPES REQUIREMENT IS 3,200TWh.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
Complain about this comment
229. Reluctant-Expat wrote:
"227. Ahem...got my units of measurements all confused. Ignore that last paragraph.
Hey, look at that behind you!"
lol, very funny expat, perhaps you have a sense of humour to compensate for crappy politics..kudos!
Complain about this comment
#219.
Yes, we have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. However, there is n't much choice at the moment.
I replace my boiler last year, but fortunately I was able to afford this. I have a 1 litre car and use public transport. I've insulated my loft etc etc
But I cannot install solar cells in my roof - not very practical in East Kilbride. Nor can I fit a wind turbine. We've got the wind but not the space nor the money.
Governments are happy with high energy prices due to increased VAT returns. Don't tell me that the SNP would remove all VAT if we went independent.
We need Government action to implement renewable schemes at a realistic level. The planning and conservation laws in some areas are actually the main obstacle to newable schemes.
Complain about this comment
I note that the tories have announced they are jumping onto the SNP bandwagon by freezing council tax for two years and pretending no-one else is doing it.
No longer are SNP the tartan tories.
The Tories are SNP-England branch.
Westminister dancing to a Scottish Jig.
Complain about this comment
235. You ruined my fun. I had quotes and links all ready.
impeachblair really is one my favourite nats.
Apparently he 'graduated' in maths and physics, don't you know! LOL!
Complain about this comment
Somebody out there is probably rewriting "My Ain Folk" with a couple of new lines:
"The windmill by the chimney
and the barrage by the burn."
It seems to be either that, some unproven new technology (that will be ripped away by natural forces), or nuclear.
If only we could attach a turbine to harness the speed of claim and counter-claim, and the rapidity of the changing figures.
Complain about this comment
238. Not really.
The Tories froze the poll tax for a few years when many councils started to greatly increase their rates.
If anything, the SNP copied the Tories.
We've seen it elsewhere though when the SNP trumpeted that lame duck, the National Conversation, as a 'historic first in political parties engaging directly with the electorate' (although they probably had more groundbreaking superlatives in their announcement).....even though the Nat Con was a straight rip-off of the 'Big Conversation' run by Labour a few years back.
Complain about this comment
That reminds me.....time for a Nat Con update.
In the past 72 hours, there have been zero comments added to the National Conversation.
That is all.
Complain about this comment
#226 HughEdinburgh
"This is equivalent to a Labour reporter down south giving more coverage to David Cameron than Gordon Brown."
I think he listened you, Hugh - the new thread's about the Tories.
Complain about this comment
#235 vote_nat
Brave post but as you see from R-E's subsequent posts it does little good. Probably best just to ignore him/her as the troll s/he is.
Complain about this comment
Re: Pentland Firth
I wrote a huge bit on this on Friday only to have it blocked for no discernable reason. I haven't the energy (geddit?) to repeat it but by converting the estimated 18TWh into an hourly equivalent, applying a conversion factor of 30% to account for the natural energy loss in converting the lateral motion into rotary motion plus normal generating efficiencies...and you get about 300 MWh. Meaty stuff for renewables but doubtlessly massively expensive.
People seem to get confused on these things between gross annual figures and the actual hourly consumption/production of electrical power. The rule of thumb that I use for judging just how attractive generating projects are is to assume that average consumption in a normal house is about 2KWh i.e. 500 houses per MWh and so on.
It is, of course much more complicated than that but as a "direction of magnitude" it shows that renewables have a very long way to go in providing the scale and power quality required. I'm convinced that the renewables challenge will be won, but it will come from demand side economies and thouands of micro-projects building up over decades. Giant renewable white-elephants are not likely to succeed...the politicians and the big construction companies won't like that but there it is!
Complain about this comment
Expat
Contrary to your desperate spin, the topic set by the National Conversation - that of our country's constitution - is no more limited to a single SNP web thread than the process of devolution has remained defined by the YES/YES sticker campaign!
In fact - as already spelled out in simple terms for your benefit - it has evidently become the dominant background to many online political blogs - including this one, of course - and has informed many comments - yours being an isolated and particularly sad exception.
Expat, you certainy produce a lot of bluster for someone so bitterly opposed to constructive (or informed) conversation.
Your attitude and grasp of figures, of course, speak for themselves in that regard.
Complain about this comment
235. At 1:49pm on 29 Sep 2008, vote_nat wrote:
234. At 1:47pm on 29 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
I am sorry gentlemen, but Scotland’s current peak demand is about 6Gw (6,000,000kw) ie about 1.2kw per person, note there is no "h" at the end indicating this is instant demand, the "h" indicates the watts x hour - 6Gwh would be 1.2Kw for each Scot for one hour. check out University of Strathclyde report on Renewable potential - find it for yourselves.
3200 TWh = 3200,000,000,000,000 Wh that is approximately 1000Kwh per person in the EU- all the time, or do you mean peak????
PS. I find your attitude, Expat, quite offensive. I was prepared for a discussion and I did not attempt to rub your nose in it, your response has put you beyond the pale, and all you have done is demonstrate you are a fool.
Complain about this comment
impeachblair ..... also you have to remember ..we dont all make tea when the adverts are on during coronation street !!!
Regarding previous posts...what about small water turbines on the Spey ... it certainly has enough water and speed to provide power for all the houses in the Spey valley . Turbines installed on the St Lawrence river in Canada and New York are generating power as we speak
Complain about this comment
Right let us go back to the quote ‘unattributed’ by our resident fool Expat that the Pentland Firth would deliver “8Twh” in his/her post 100.
The analysis of the hydrodynamic energy in the Firth is a specialist field, but experts appear to agree that the potential is around 8Tw instant. Not too surprising given the huge forces at play. Of course, the problem is to capture it in its entirety, which is very difficult. Let us assume half could be captured = 4Tw, and that this is something that happens all the time (assuming fully efficient reversing turbines) this equates to, IN A YEAR, 4 Twyears, or in excess of total European usage of electricity in one year.
It holds out the prospect, if achievable, of phasing out, most of the other direct energy sources, like oil or natural and propane gas heating.
Now remember Expat that 1Kw = 1000w, 1Mw = 1000,000w, 1Gw = 1000,000,000w and 1Tw = 1000,000,000,000w
and that 1Kwh is 1000watt for an hour.
Complain about this comment
Impeachblair ..... is there not a slack tide which means these barages would not be generating all the time.....by the way im on your side ... but just thought id ask :o)}
Complain about this comment
Rabbie
One of the reasons I assumed only half could be captured - big assumption I know, but there is increasing evident of the robustness of the technology. There are a whole range of other inponderables too of course.
Complain about this comment
247. At 7:26pm on 29 Sep 2008, impeachblair.
what you are quoting is the peak consumption which is probably quite correct, where as the 3,200TWh is the total yearly requirement of kilo watt hours for europe.
if you take the population of europe and divide it into the 3,200TWh then you will get the average usage per person per year which will come to roughly your 1000kwh.
hope this clears up any missunderstanding.
Complain about this comment
249. At 11:01pm on 29 Sep 2008, impeachblair.
i should point out that TWh is not a trillion watts but an energy measurement derived from giga watts.
hence i believe that 35GWh is roughly 40TWh.
Complain about this comment
253 I'm sorry but that is nonsense, please do a bit more research.
a Kwh is a Kilowatthour what you pay your bills on
a Kw is a Kilo watt
a Gw is a gigawatt
a GWh is a Giga watt hour, check it out
a Twh is a tera watt hour
If you want to talk about annual consumption you would be better not to use the standard rating form of Kwh or Gwh or Twh
Complain about this comment
253 I have just taken the time to type the following entry from my Chambers Science and Technolocy Dictionary:
tera- prefix symbol T denoting 10 (to the power 12) times e.g a terawatt-hour is 10 to the 12 watt hours
the giga definition is virtual verbatim but it is 10 to the nine
though it uses the usual superscript for the power.
As other posters have pointed out you and Expat are confusing standard rating with descriptions for annual consumption.
Complain about this comment
254. At 08:00am on 30 Sep 2008, impeachblair.
yes, your quite right, ignore 253.
did you google THE POWER OF SCOTLAND it gives you the scotland energy use as TWh per year and on page 4 it gives the standard conversion table for GW to TWh
Complain about this comment
One thing that is never discussed is our antiquated electricity generation 240v 50Hz which is highly inefficient.
http://users.telenet.be/worldstandards/electricity.htm#voltage
"Not only is 50 Hz 20% less effective in generation, it is 10-15% less efficient in transmission, it requires up to 30% larger windings and magnetic core materials in transformer construction. Electric motors are much less efficient at the lower frequency, and must also be made more robust to handle the electrical losses and the extra heat generated. Today, only a handful of countries (Antigua, Guyana, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea and the Leeward Islands) follow Tesla’s advice and use the 60 Hz frequency together with a voltage of 220-240 V.
Complain about this comment
256. At 11:02am on 30 Sep 2008, vote_nat
Thanks
Yes I have had a look, very lucid, I will study further when I have more time.
Using their convention of using Twh to measure annual performance, the Pentland Firth potential is, using the hydrodynamic prediction of 8Tw instant, 70080Twh in a year, quite staggering if even one tenth can be achieved.
Complain about this comment
258. At 7:27pm on 30 Sep 2008, impeachblair.
as you say if its 8Tw instant then the total is fantastic, seems unbelievable.
Complain about this comment
Stores should be made to identify their produce with their name and license number and the customer made to sign for his/her purchase. This way drink found on a person, no matter what age, could be traced. This is just an idea thought of as I read these comments and hasn't been thought through. Any other ideas? It seems the people in responsible places are devoid of possible ways forward.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS