Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Coley warns Salmond: We need nuclear to meet green targets

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

Published Date:
16 September 2007
BILL Coley, the chief executive of British Energy, has cranked up the pressure on First Minister Alex Salmond to reverse the SNP's anti-nuclear policy.
Speaking out for the first time since the First Minister announced Scotland's first Green Energy Day, Coley insisted there was no way the country could meet its commitment to slash carbon emissions without replacing nuclear power stations.

He sai
d: "I do not know how you can meet your climate change objectives without nuclear at the price that people would be able to pay. As an engineer I do not know how you would do that."

And he stressed the contribution BE makes to the Scottish economy through its 1,400 staff and £90m annual wage bill. The group will move to a new head office in East Kilbride shortly, taking staff there from its administration centre in Livingston and engineering base in Renfrew.

Coley said he was willing to discuss energy policy with Salmond and his team, including Enterprise and Energy Minister Jim Mather, but he had not received an invitation to do so.

His comments followed Salmond's designation of September 7 as Green Energy Day on the basis that Scotland's renewable power capacity had overtaken its nuclear capacity. The First Minister said: "Scotland neither wants nor needs new nuclear power stations... we can have secure energy supplies without landing future generations of Scots with the burden of toxic radioactive waste."

But Coley said the SNP's use of a statistic for renewable capacity, rather than actual energy generated, exaggerated the significance of wind farms and hydroelectric power stations: "It is a bit like having a car with a 200 horsepower engine. If you can only run it at 100 horsepower, then that is all you get," he said.

Climate change experts point out that coal- and gas-fired power stations, rather than nuclear plants, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.

Not all SNP politicians appear to support the drive for greener energy. British Energy is behind an application to build Europe's biggest wind farm on Lewis, but has run into opposition from the local SNP member at Holyrood, Alasdair Allan.

Coley believes a new generation of nuclear power stations can be built close to existing sites, including Hunterston and Torness, by 2018. That assumes five years to draw up plans and get planning permission, and five years to build the stations. But he conceded that might not be possible in Scotland: "If the political climate is such that new nuclear build investment is not wanted then of course we will focus that new build investment elsewhere."

BE is talking to more than 10 potential partners who could get involved in building nuclear power stations. Coley said any station was certain to follow one of four designs which had been tried and tested elsewhere in the world.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Scotindy,

USA 16/09/2007 05:27:05

Being Scottish, I,ve noticed that it rains there now and again. Just concentrate on HYDRO POWER.British Energy are looking at the Dis United Kingdom in general and not looking at the SCOTTISH requirement for power.Coley is thinking about the GREEN BACK (Dollar) and not about the GREEN ISSUES.

2

Scotindy,

USA 16/09/2007 05:38:27

Being SCOTTISH I,ve noticed that it Rains there just now and again.Develop HYDRO POWER to it's Full Potential and not leave something dispicable for our children to clean up after us.Coley is looking at the GREEN BACK (Dollar) and not the GREEN ISSUE, clean air for all.

3

Greenheatman,

16/09/2007 07:58:01

Hydro in Scotland is pathetic because we do not have any glacier ice melt like Norway has.

Why not use renewables like wave and tidal to raise steam instead of splitting the atom?

4

Greenheatman,

16/09/2007 08:05:13

The original plan was to build a nuclear power station near Ullapool after Labour won the Scottish Election - but the best laid plans.......

The power line from Ullapool to Denny is being built to carry nuclear derived electricity. The renewable energy story is just that, a story for the gullible.

5

49th State,

Alaska, We have lots of Glaciers 16/09/2007 08:35:37

Nuke Power doesn't wash with me - it so dirty, even if the Scots make it. Are there no rivers there for hydro. You don't need glaciers, just a water supply. Also, what about wind turbines; how is the wind in Scotland? And why do the Scots always wait for the English to decide what to do? Scots have been corraled by the English since the Clearances.

6

Colin, Glasgow,

16/09/2007 08:51:12

Most of the good hydro sites have been used. At best, hydro can provide 10% of Scotland's electricity. Nuclear provides 40% (and could theoretically provide a lot more). Wave power is not a mature technology and is basically a gamble. It might work very well eventually, but it would be high-risk to pin any hopes on it for large scale generation. Tidal stream is in a similar position. PV Solar would be an expensive niche market in Scotland given our latitude. The only mature renewable technology apart from hydro is wind. Wind on its own could provide 20% of our electricity before it becomes problematic for the grid.
In contrast we know that nuclear will work, we know it can scale up to any size, and we know it has low CO2 emissions. It is the low risk option. It is certainly _possible_ to imagine a scenario where nuclear is not used, if we make optimistic assumptions about renewables. But these conjectures are higher risk.
The fact is, if we don't replace the nuclear power stations we will end up having to burn more fossil fuel. There is an option here to use coal or gas with carbon-capture & storage, which would reduce the emissions significantly (though they would still be 5-10 times higher than nuclear or wind power). But carbon capture & storage is also an untested technology and we don't know if it will work on the scale that we need and at a price that is affordable. We won't know for 10 or 15 years.

7

Ted,

16/09/2007 08:56:35

Great headline. See also "We need massive greasy burgers to tackle obesity" and "We need a hole in the head".

8

Marian,

16/09/2007 09:10:29

The commonplace claim from the pro-nuclear lobby is that nuclear stations generate half of all Scotland's electricity.

This is nonsense, and so it can be proven. According to their own Scottish Executive/DTI figures, Scotland's total electricity output is 45,517 GWh. Of this, nuclear accounts for 15,863 GWh, or just under 35% of total output. A lot, but nothing like half of Scottish output. It's not even half of Scotland's requirements, as you find if you delve further into the figures.

Of Scotland's total electricity output, just 32,068 GWh is consumed in Scotland. Some 5,208 GWh is lost (mostly in transmission); while 8,034 GWh is exported to England and Northern Ireland through the interconnectors.

Hunterston 'B' itself produces something like 7900 GWh, or just under 50% of Scotland's total nuclear output (the remainder coming from Torness in East Lothian). In other words, when Hunterston recently shut down, it would have been enough to reduce exports to almost zero, unless the 'slack' was taken up by excess capacity elsewhere. Scotland’s needs would still have been met quite comfortably from our other power stations.

But common sense should tell us that if nuclear accounts for half our requirements, and Hunterston accounts for half of our nuclear output (which it does), then Hunterston alone would be responsible for meeting some 25% of our needs. Therefore, the outage would have reduced Scotland's capacity to just 75% of normal levels, which would have meant the nightmare of the lights going out becoming a reality.

Did you notice that happening last year? Me neither. This 50% from nuclear figure only holds if you assume that unlike every other form of generation in Scotland, nothing is lost in transmission, and further that it's only coal, hydro and wind power etc which we export.

Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?

9

Colin, Glasgow,

16/09/2007 10:12:39

Marian, when nuclear output is reduced the shortfall is filled by burning more fossil fuel and creating more CO2 emissions. Of course the loss of one, or even two nuclear stations does not make the lights go out. But in Scotland it effectively doubles the carbon emissions of our electricity.
The fact that our 25 year old plants are beginning to get unreliable is a sign that they should be replaced (in fact any responsible country would already be building replacements).

10

robbie runciman,

lydd 16/09/2007 11:05:59

Colin,

these plants have been unreliable for years and have consistently performed 10 to 20% below expectations. Only one plant (sizewell) produces anything near its designed output (even though its about 2%) less than expected. The average output for all nuclear plants is 50% of their expected output. Oh, and the output from a wind turbine is 80 times the investment whilst for a nuclear plant it is only 16 times. The latter of course is squillions more investment and waste ... better not mention that ... distorts the economics!

If you include the nuclear supply chain and life time costs, the Co2 emissions are very high.

The point Marion was making is very clear, for a country with scotlands resources they are unnecessary.

The coming technology is 'clean coal' and it is this technology that will replace nuclear to produce the back up to conventional renewable sources. this is low Co2

11

williamx,

delta,Canada 16/09/2007 11:26:04

China,Indiaand the USA have no intention of reducing carbon emissions. Even if all Scottish electricity was generated by burning natural gas/turbines ( the cheapest and fastest generators to build ) the Scottish contribution to current carbon dioxide emissions would be less that 0.2% of the emissions from the above three states. So to reduce energy costs you go gas turbine. There is no point in crippling yourself with high energy costs and losing exports just to satisfy the Green Party dogma, nice though it may be.
However, if Scotland votes for independence then Scotland cannot export enough goods to cover its energy imports of say natural gas or oil. Under these circumstances nuclear is the only option as the cost of importing Uranium or Thorium would be negligible.The same ultimately applies to the UK when the current profits to the UK Government from oil sales cease.
I would recommend the Canadian CANDU reactor which uses un enriched Uranium to avoid coming under the control of an enrichment cartel which will be controlled by a foreign government to your detriment. Un enriched Uranium can be bought world wide and is a fraction of the cost of enriched Uranium. The other component- duterium or heavy water can be destilled from fresh water available in Scotland thus permitting home employement opportunities. One other point, a CANDU reactor does not replicate Horishima if a religiuos nut case flies a 747 into it. The reactor will not develop into a nuclear bomb under such circumstances

12

bus user,

edinburgh 16/09/2007 12:34:58

The usually sure-footed Nats are just plain wrong in sucking up to the green lobby on this.
Hydro - yes, it is greener and cleaner. Wait for the environmental objections from Nimbys who don't want there valley dammed and flooded. Windmills - the supporters don't seem to know the diffference between installed capacity and delivered power. They can only work in a limited range of wind and cannot produce baseload power. Wave power - nowhere near ready to deliver electricity on any useful scale.
I rather like the light coming on when I flick the switch and I do like hot water for the shower. I'm not fond of the idea of nuclear waste being around forever, but in the daily grind of getting thorough life, I guess I just don't care enough. Neither do most people, which is why the politicians should stop paying so much attention to activists and start thinking about how to reduce the amount of electricity we seem to need.
And, Marian at 8, get better data - without nuclear there would be no baseload supply at all, so forget about what the percentages are. No nuclear, no electricity, end of story. You may not like that, but it doesn't make it untrue.

13

Igor2,

Back to reality 16/09/2007 16:00:59

Nuclear power is just like the occupation of Iraq, it is driven by the military industrial complex (MIC). Trouble is the MIC is a dinosaur, and its placeman, George W, is playing the end-game - the only way the USA can cancel its debts is by wiping out its major creditors, or being subsumed by them (i.e. by wealth and stealth). Going for renewables is not so much about climate change or carbon-proofing (a daft term anyway), but about proofing against any need for external energy supplies. Scotland has plenty of water, and land.

But Scotland needs a reliable energy supply. However, if the same resources that were poured into nuclear power, had, for example, been applied to solar (e.g. by developing inexpensive photovoltaic roof tiles), tidal barrages, or buildings insulation and efficient transport infrastructure, then we would not require nuclear at all! Some people are very slow learners, and it is essential to closely examine the motives of all proponents of centrailised power generation - this is all about control, and vested interests. About retaining power, you could say!

14

Colin, Glasgow,

16/09/2007 16:41:20

#13 Igor2, nice theory, but it doesn't bear analysis. Consider Sweden, which is one of the biggest users of nuclear electricity in Europe. Sweden gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear and most of the rest from hydro, and they have done for decades. Sweden doesn't have nuclear weapons and has no plans for any. They are generally considered to be very environmentally conscious. About 25 years ago they had a referendum and decided to phase-out nuclear power and replace it with renewable alternatives. 25 years later, after considerable effort to find alternatives, they still get nearly half their electricity from nuclear and there is no indication that this is going to change soon.

Incidentally, they have amongst the cheapest electricity in Europe; amongst the highest energy consumption per capita; and yet they have amongst the lowest CO2 emissions per capita in Europe because nuclear + hydro has such low emissions. (The complete lifecycle emissions for nuclear, including mining, fuel cycle, decommissioning and waste are less than 1% of the equivalent coal plant.)

Countries invest in nuclear power because, in general, it is the next cheapest alternative to using native fossil fuel or hydro sites. The idea that the same money spent on renewables (other than hydro) would have produced an equivalent result is simply not true.

15

Porty Nat,

16/09/2007 21:13:31

#12 Bus User:

Looks to me like Marian is using DTI/Scottish Exec figures. Where do you suggest she could get better ones from?

Baseload comes from a range of sources in Scotland other than nuclear. As for your comment "No nuclear, no electricity, end of story", it so nonsensical it's not even worth debating!

16

robbie runciman,

Lydd 16/09/2007 23:40:51

colin,

nice figures. I think you must share with the world your solution to the waste dilemma.

The stockmarket will not support nuclear power because these costs are un-knowable. they want the GOV, ie you and me to take on those risks.

Again the mining cost figures are debateable. There is a lot of preparation in the making of yellow cake. The ore comes from some very big holes in the ground to extract some very low grade material. There is no energy security unless the ore comes from a source the UK controls.

The nuclear future was supposed to be the new plant in Finland. Now sadly over budget and delayed.

Sweden still has nuclear power but it has worked out how to cut its losses and is not throwing more money at the Monster. The Squilions are going into the alternatives and, for example, they are ahead of the UK on biogas and energy efficient buildings.

Large scale hydro is probably not going to happen in the UK. There is a lot more potential for 'in line' generation from Rivers - the Queen powers Windsor castle from a small facility built into one of the weirs on the River Thames.

Tidal power is the future for the UK and unless the moon stops orbiting the earth, its good for millenia.

17

scotsdoc,

nanaimo bc canada 17/09/2007 00:00:36

All I can say is never never never rely on Nuclear Energy.

Just too D@MNED DANGEROUS AND EXPENSIVE!!

Sixty years ago Canada was all 'abuzz' about the magnificent future atomic energy was to provide!

Power so cheap we would not even require meters on our houses!! Our various hydro electric developments were predicated on this too!
Newfoundland's Churchill falls production was to fall to 1/12cent /kwh on the year 2000. In British Columbia the power from the ARROW LAKES project was to be FREE after 40 years.

Such were the expectations and promises!!
Now Canada is short of power as nuclear plants are superannuated. A few have been 'renovated' at QUITE ENORMOUS EXPENSE, one failing again after $1,400,000,000 of work in New Brunswick.

We have had a few CLOSE CALLS too The first many years ago where the Chalk River Installation leaked radioactivity into the air and Ottawa's water supply, but others leaks have occurred more recently!!

BUILT THE PLANT JUST UPWIND OF BILL COLEY'S RESIDENCE, IF HE IS SO KEEN ON ATOMIC POWER, AND SEE IF HE MOVES!!

Better stick with big coal fired power stations using clean coal technology with the stack gas CO2 being sequestered in abandoned oil or coal measures.(or dumped in the sea off ROCKALL as solid carbonic hydrate where it will lie completely inert for centuries.)

18

Colin, Glasgow,

17/09/2007 18:27:20

#16 Robbie, Sweden has not found any alternative to nuclear power after 25 years of trying. That is the point.

They are still investing in nuclear. Despite the fact that they have not built any new reactors recently (and in fact they have shut down one nuclear station) they still get more electricity from nuclear than ever. This is because they invest in their existing nuclear plant and uprate its output capacity fairly regularly. I'll wager that they will announce new reactor build within the decade.

From the WNA:
"In October 2004 Forsmarks Kraftgrupp announced a 410 MWe (13%) uprate of the three reactors at Forsmark, costing SEK 2 billion (EUR 225 million) to be carried out over 2008-10. The plant will then provide and extra 3.3 billion kWh/yr. In 2004 low pressure turbines were replaced in unit 3, giving a 30 MWe uprate, and it the same is being done for units 1 & 2. This was approved by SKI in May 2006."
etc..

They invest because it makes money. The Swedish government imposes a special windfall tax on nuclear power because it is so profitable. The tax brings in about Euro 0.6c per kWh, or nearly 500 million Euros per year.

In addition, the operators pay into a waste and decommissioning fund at a rate of Euro 2.2c per kWh amassing 1.6 billion per year, which will pay for all future waste and decommissioning costs.

Still, after all this, the electricity is profitable for the operators, and it is almost the cheapest electricity in Europe for consumers. Add to this the fact that the CO2 emissions per capita are nearly 40% lower than the UK and you begin to understand why they have not got rid of nuclear power yet.

Regarding the waste issue, I think we have covered this before. The safest, most ethical option is to use a deep geological repository. The waste is vitrified (turned into glass), encased in steel and copper, embedded in saturated clay, and buried under 500m of solid rock. Considering the slo

19

Unimpressed one,

16/12/2007 16:08:30
Go nuclear, scrap the wind tripe. So say the engineers, the people who know what the hell they're talking about!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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