Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scientist attacks SNP nuclear power block

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: 13 January 2008
ONE of Scotland's leading scientists has attacked SNP plans to block any new nuclear power stations north of the border, warning that the country could face a crippling "energy gap".
Professor Wilson Sibbett, who was Scotland's first chief adviser on science, spoke out after First Minister Alex Salmond declared last week that the country could cope without its two current nuclear stations.

The decorated scientist warned that t
he SNP had now left itself open to "horrendous" political flak if, within a few years, it was no longer able to produce enough electricity to sustain itself.

His comments come after Sir David King, the UK Government's former chief scientist, said that any policy that failed to use technology to address climate change – including nuclear power – was one of "utter hopelessness".

Gordon Brown announced last week that the UK would press ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations, claiming that the carbon-free energy they produced would help Britain to meet its targets to cut its reliance on fossil fuels.

But environmental campaigners and the SNP condemned the move. Ministers in Scotland say they will use their planning powers to block any new developments north of the border, claiming that a revolution in wind, wave and tidal power will ensure the country can cope.

Professor Sibbett recently retired from heading the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, created in 2002, which advises Scottish Executive ministers on scientific issues of strategic importance. He said: "While renewables have potential, it is mostly just potential at the moment that they offer. The SNP view is all very well in theory but in reality it doesn't work. Our established nuclear technology has a lot of things going for it."

Asked whether Scotland would still be self-sufficient in electricity production, Professor Sibbett said: "There could well be an energy gap. Even the most avid anti-nuclear SNP person will not like it if the lights are switched off."

Roger Crofts, who led an inquiry into nuclear energy by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, agreed yesterday, saying that the claim by Salmond that Scotland could generate all the power it needed from non-nuclear sources was "disingenuous".

A Scottish Government source said: "Given our huge green energy advantages, it would be madness to go down the road of new nuclear power stations. Scotland's energy future is bright."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 January 2008 9:35 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 13/01/2008 00:29:36
Could this be Alex Salmond's "unpardonable folly".
2

Rosie,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 00:51:02
#1 This is SNP policy... not just Alex Salmond's. This is indeed why so many of us voted for them
3

Conan the Librarian™,

13/01/2008 01:14:11
2
So AM2.

I know you have children.

Nuclear power is NOT an option,literally storing up problems for future generations...
4

Conan the Librarian™,

13/01/2008 01:16:23
Oh, by the way,am I a cyber-activist for the SNP?
5

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 01:21:27
#2 AM2,Glasgow,UK, European Union 13/01/2008 00:47:33

As you know full well from yesterday's Scotsman, Peter MacMahon presented Prof Crofts as an expert on nuclear power generation. He is not.

I remind you of our exchange yesterday:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
61 NHS 24,Carstairs 12/01/2008 12:07:03

#54 AM2, Glasgow, UK ,European Union 12/01/2008 11:29:53

"Mention his directorship of an agricultural college; ridicule accordingly (#11)
• ...but don’t mention that he’s a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
• ...or that he was Secretary of the RSE’s inquiry into Scotland’s energy supply."

Before you post criticism, please read what you seek to criticise. In case you did not understand my post, the RSE is the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and I did not mention Prof Croft's directorship of the SAC.

It appears from the SAC link I posted that Prof Croft's professional expertise is in the geomorphology of coastal and mountain systems.

You have posted untruth for all to see. Please acknowledge and withdraw it, if you wish to have credibility for anything you say.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
your apology:

68 AM2,Glasgow,UK 12/01/2008 12:16:37
#61 NHS 24

Apologies; you did indeed mention the RSE. After observing the nature of post #1 I quickly scanned the thread for other examples. Too quickly, it seems.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Humility sustained for longer than a day can be a wonderful quality.

SAC link to Prof Crofts' short biography: http://www.sac.ac.uk/aboutsac/sacboard/rogercrofts/
6

The Strategist,

13/01/2008 01:31:07
Just because these guys are scientists doesn't mean they're right.. Remember Thalidomide? Scientists like anyone else aren't infallible.

7

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 01:34:02
#7 Wardog

Further thoughts on this from Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald.

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1961797.0.0.php
8

langtonian,

scotus 13/01/2008 01:35:12
#3Rosie
"Beware of a man with fixed ideas" is relevant to First Minister Alex Salmond.
As a personal view he is perfectly entitled to be anti-nuclear, however when his "fixed Ideas" endanger the continuity of power supplies, in the imminent future, for all in Scotland.Against al available scientific advice, he is being "pig headed" and further exposing his total commitment to Seperatism at any price,a UK. national grid system represents the best option in maintaining continuity in the years ahead.
9

Conan the Librarian™,

13/01/2008 01:47:54
HELLO...AM2
Your thoughts on the consequences of Nuclear power?
10

,

13/01/2008 01:49:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

druidh,

edinburgh 13/01/2008 01:49:59
"From the Sunday Herald (using UK Govt figures)

There are complex technical issues about whether renewables like wind and tidal can be developed fast enough to meet the "energy gap". But there is no doubt about Scotland's potential. The government's own figures show we have 60 gigawatts of sustainable energy - 10 times the peak demand and equivalent to three-quarters of the UK's entire electricity generating capacity. We have 25% of Europe's wind and tidal energy reserves."
12

,

13/01/2008 01:54:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

FrancesP,

13/01/2008 01:57:25
#9. "Just because these guys are scientists doesn't mean they're right.. Remember Thalidomide?" Quite. And I seem to remember being told in 1988 that British beef was 'perfectly safe to eat'. As advice goes, that was at least marginally wide of the mark.

There's only one thing worse than an anti-science culture, and that's a culture than uncritically accepts every utterance an eminent scientist makes.
14

The Strategist,

13/01/2008 01:58:44
#15

Yes - we may have 25% of Europe's wind and tidal enery reserves. Tidal in particular has huge potential.

Unfortunately, Scottish Power is having to do a deal with a Norwegian company which has already developed a tidal turbine because it has been given the funding - public and private sector - to do it and it's been heavily tested over quite a few years.

Like wind technology which had it's funding withdrawn twenty years ago others are already ahead in exploiting tidal technologies.

So my question is where do you expect the funding to come from to create the companies that will develop this technology in Scotland so that we can not just use it to benefit this country but develop export markets?

I'm all for it but I'm not at all convinced it will happen. The financial institutions aren't interested.
15

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 02:01:54
#8 AM2,Glasgow,UK, European Union 13/01/2008 01:30:16

"AM2,Glasgow,UK 13/01/2008 00:47:33
Prof Roger Crofts' similar comments were reported in yesterday's edition of the Scotsman. The response of quite a few of the SNP cyber-activists was to question his expertise, concoct claims of political partisanship and attack the Scotsman for even giving such an “idiot” a platform. I wonder if we'll see the same distasteful tactics on this thread."

AM2, you brought up yesterday's article on this thread, and repeated your sweeping accusation against those who challenge Prof Crofts' expertise on nuclear power generation. In short, you made the connection to this story with your post.

Neither did I try to discredit Prof Crofts by pointing out he is not an expert in nuclear power generation.

As for challenging you on it in overwrought, pompous terms - an apology was quite enough, I really did not expect ‘compliments’ from you as well.
16

Senga Jean,

Scotland 13/01/2008 02:15:37
AM2 I disagree with all your points of view viscerally. Is that acceptable to you and your NI unionist heritage?
17

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 02:17:12
#12 AM2,Glasgow,UK 13/01/2008 01:37:40

Thanks for the RSE link, but I have to ask - do you contend that Prof Crofts is EXPERT in nuclear power generation, simply because he was secretary to the RSE inquiry?

The crux of this is that MacMahon's article presented the views of Prof Crofts as EXPERT opinion, and many of us challenged that status - not the right of the good Prof to hold opinions and express his views as a non-expert.
18

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 13/01/2008 02:32:43
-- a UK national grid system

We used to have a GB grid to distribute power more efficiently to manufacuring industry (which we used to have) and the domestic household. The first atomic plants were for weapons; electicity was a bonus for the grid and for supporting an aluminium smelting and processing industry which was considered strategic at the time.

England is now connected to the European Grid which is to efficiently move power West to East or East to West via high voltage lines according to demand. (Or cheap labour?)

The planned huge offshore wind stations need French Nuclear to be effective until English Nuclear comes on stream which will not be until 2024.

19

Cincinnatus,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 02:46:05
Oh for a centre right alternative to the hand wringing, left of centre moaners party.
20

FrancesP,

13/01/2008 03:16:17
#23. The three centre-right opposition parties at Holyrood do nothing but moan.

You seem to have missed the point of what's happening here - as the government the SNP don't have to 'moan' about nuclear power any more, instead they're taking active steps to replace it.
21

langtonian,

scotus 13/01/2008 04:44:11
#16 a proud doonhammer.
"There are nane sae blint as dinnie wish to see" resonates as suitable opening gambit with regard to the subject under discussion,namely First Minister Alex Salmond.
My comment's relative to the particular subject matter of continuety of power supply are as stated,by his ongoing "pig headedness" leading to the epetaph "beware of a man with fixed ideas"still stands.

Two points in further clarification to enable you to get at least the drift of my comment.

(1)The factual part is that Alex Salmond has made it perfectly clear that nuclear power in any shape or form is not on his agenda, he is quite positvely against, when it comes to projecting the future needs for power generation: his "fixed idea" is no no no not while i have anything to do with it.Come what may Scotland is to be nuclear free,in years to come, should he get his own "pig headed" way future generations of Scots will "thank" the memory of Alex Salmond when they start buying candles and wood burning stoves are the in thing for Scots.

I am confident in suggesting you are aware many of his current Seperatist tactics are to annoy Westminster while drawing even more attention away from a failing 9month pregnant manifesto which is to end in abortion.

22

Jimmy the Pie,

Having a day off from hunting for Wendy 13/01/2008 06:06:01
AM2 - various rambling posts

Have you any information re the whereabouts of Scotland's #1 fugative - oor Wendy???
23

nabodican,

Portree 13/01/2008 07:57:42
Unfortunately due to the head in the sand attitude that the likes of wind power will keep the lights on, there is now no choice but to replace our nuclear power stations and our coal power stations.
Anyone with the slightest technical knowledge knows this.
The argument regarding storing problems for the future are irrelevant as these problems are already with us and the odd hundred years here and there is of no consequence.
24

gus1940,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 08:39:30
It would be interesting if somebody could calculate the volume of water which flows in and out of Scotland's sea lochs and estuaries in each tidal cycle and from that figure establish the enrgy which could be tapped by building tidal barrages with embedded reversible turbines.

The barrages could be constructed with roaads on top and locks to allow passage of shipping.

Some people will say these would be eyesores but would they be any more intrusive on the scenery than the likes of the Skye Bridge or for that matter nuclear powwer stations.

Two possible sites that immediately come to mind are The Rhu Narrows and Loch Fyne.

One only has to look at the tide line on the rocks at the edge of Loch Fyne when the tide is out to see the potential of the untapped energy in the tidal flow.

The only time such tidal turbines would not be generating would be the periods of slack water at high and low tide.

As the tides flow in a wave round the coastline and high and low tide times therefore vary there would be no interruption to power generation which is the argument always put forward by critics of wind turbines.
25

Unimpressed one,

13/01/2008 09:13:47
#9, the Strategist, "Just because these guys are scientists doesn't mean they're right.. Remember Thalidomide? Scientists like anyone else aren't infallible." Do you apply this logic to the IPCC crowd as well? Refreshing attitude if you do!
26

Unimpressed one,

13/01/2008 09:15:05
#15, Druidh, So what. And when the wind doesn't blow???
27

Unimpressed one,

13/01/2008 09:17:39
There is no doubt SNP will have to make a U-turn regarding power generation. Question is how will they manage to save face after digging themselves into the "no coal, no nuclear" hole?
28

The Strategist,

13/01/2008 09:51:41
#30

Good morning... Re the IPCC ... Yes - I apply the same logic to them as well.

29

Pilrig,

Livingston 13/01/2008 09:58:36
Why the need for nuclear stations there's mega amount of coal under Scotland ?
Course Maggie & minions closed doon the pits out of political spite, and her ( & Major's & Bambi's & Broon's) government was top heavy with the pro-nuclear mob.
30

glassbenmhor,

13/01/2008 10:02:29
The Government of Scotland would wish to inform me that there is no need for Nuclear Power in the future.
THATS GOOD FOR ME
31

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 10:06:12
This more political fakery dressed up as Fact. Both sides are being disingenuous but Nuclear is simply not needed.

IF there is going to be a crisis in the next 'few' years how the fcuk is Nuclear going to help! All scenarios need to use 2020 as a base line - UK wide.

IF nuclear had been agreed in Scotland it would have been after the EDF run plants in the SE, (a done deal since they were on the consultation) so approx 2022-2025 at best.

The 2006 Royal Society Report actually said that Nuclear in Scotland would be uneconomic.

The 2006 report also said that the government needs to have a full waste disposal plan in place (Method, location, costings) BEFORE building new Nuclear in the UK, never mind Scotland. They havent.

The 2006 report also agreement needed to be reached between Westminster and Scotland - they havent.

The 2006 report did not take into account CO2 lifecycle.

The 2006 report (as I discovered yesterday thnks to some good posts) could not add the impacts of radiation effects due to a government gagging order and threat of prosecution to the scientists involved. Great grounds for a public consultation.

The 2006 report shows that Scotland at 1 third of UK landmass produces 8% of UK CO2. Pro rata it is high, certainly bit its pretty much peanuts.

Yesterday Mr Crofts was prented as an 'Expert' today he supposodly 'led' the inquiry. Give us a break - he is a Scientist who was secretary on the committee.

Scientisrs are being wheeled out in POLITICAL articles not FACTUAL technology/science/health articles.

Finally, Salmond is just as Bad. Scotland will not be 100% self reliant which is the picture he paints. He should be open and tell the truth that Scotland will be overprodung more than today by 2020, but not 100% of the time. However it will be for MOST of the time.

32

Pilrig,

Livingston 13/01/2008 10:12:18
23; there is - it's call New Labour
33

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 10:20:41
FACT - Public Record
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/09/09144010/40120

Item 35
Plans are progressing to upgrade the capacity of the Scotland-England interconnector from the current capacity of 2.2
GW to 2.8 GW (refer to paragraph 16). * However, Ofgem has specified that funding of this upgrade is dependent on the Beauly to Denny upgrade receiving planning consent.

*Scottish Goverment announced this week that it will be funding this whether Denny goes ahead or Not.

ALSO A THIRD EXPORT LINE IS BEING KEPT AS AN OPTION
"For example, the 275kV overhead line proposed by
SPTL in South West Scotland could be upgraded to 400kV and extended into the North of England enabling the connection of additional generation and increasing the export capability."

All the bumbling idiots sating the lights will go out are scaremongering, pure and simple.
- The Scare stories discuss closures BEFOFE NUclear ciomes online in England.
- The scare stories completely ignore how the UK grid works and the current planning.

This proves they bunch of politically motivated cowards - Salmond included,as he does not paint the full picture. However, he and the SNP are at least pushing the factually supported course of action.
34

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 10:34:31
The Faults in the Pro and con Nuclear positions:

Pro lobby Faults:
Ignores findings of several different reports.
Uk Gov. Gaggs scientific evidence on radiation concerns.
No long term storage locations, costs, final method.
Increasing costs of existing decomissioning.
No Nuclear in Scotland until at least 2022 anyway - so closures circa 2015 etc have no bearing.
Speculates that Scotland may have to have the lights out / power rationing, without Nuclear - total nonsense. Scaremongering.
State Nuclear is Low CO2 - It is today, it wont be 2025 onwards.

Against lobby Faults:
Give impression Scotland can be totally 100% self sufficient on 40% renewables - total nonsense.
Talk always of Installed capacity which is completely misleading.

Neither side has anything to be proud about, but the Pro Lobby are distorting the truth to a criminal extent imo.
35

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/01/2008 10:36:36
#2 AM2

My problem with Prof Crofts et al is that they fail to present any data to back up their claims. I have yet to see any sound basis for projecting a generating capacity shortfall in Scotland over the foreseeable future. Also, they continue to present this as a nuclear -v- renewables debate which is disingenuous.

There are other technologies such as clean-coal, gas-fired, CHP, district heating etc which are all in the frame.

Finally, don't you think it a little odd that the UK Government tells us that nuclear is the right choice environmentally but the environmentalists are dead against it?
36

,

13/01/2008 10:43:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

,

13/01/2008 10:45:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/01/2008 10:46:19
#25 Are you seriously suggesting that Salmond is against projecting for Scotland's future energy needs?

Don't be silly !
39

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 10:55:24
#41 NHS 24, Carstairs. Exactly.

Their findings have also been updated since with more specifics.
Known Rich uranium ore deposists used up by 2016.
CO Cliff for Nuclear reached well before 2050 (while most of these new plants will still be running).

Exact impact is unclear, depends on How much enriched uranium UK has currently stored verses what needs to be imported.

Method, location, geology and back fill materials of proposed long term sites all have CO2 impact. Government doesnt know any single one of the criterion!
40

Publius,

Girvan 13/01/2008 11:09:05
#29 Freedom for Scotland
There are at least two operational nuclear power stations - Dungeness, Sizewell - in south east England. It is almost certain that the first four new nuclear power stations will be built in the south east too. London would certainly be affected by a major accident at one of these. Attacking Westminster may be fun but you are wrong on this one.
#40 Connaught Boy.
Clean coal sounds like one of these modern oxymorons like military intelligence, business ethics, rap music or civic nationalism.
41

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 11:18:36
"41 ,13/01/2008 10:43:33
Comment Removed By AdministratorReason:"

Clearly, someone at this paper will not permit inconvenient truth about nucler power generation, even if it is posted extracts from an article in the Times, by Magnus Linklater.

The editorial policy of Pravda and Isvestia is clearly alive and well at the Scotsman.
42

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/01/2008 11:18:37
#45 I always thought that Sizewell was in Suffolk and not as you say the south east of England. That was one of the major controversies during the planning phase ie why build power a nuclear power station in rural East Anglia in order to provide power for the greater London population.

As for clean coal technology, I will make allowances for your comment on the assumption that it was borne out of ignorance.
43

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/01/2008 11:19:28
#46 Well, post it again and see what happens!
44

,

13/01/2008 11:20:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

,

13/01/2008 11:21:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 11:23:08
#48

Was going to do that anyway ...
47

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 13/01/2008 11:26:13
All this talk of wave energy reminds me that England doesn't have much of a West Coast to take advantage of the Atlantic rollers, perhaps that's the reason why the UK government are keen on Nuclear...
48

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/01/2008 11:26:20
One of the saddest things about this article is that there is no attempt at being balanced. There are many experts who disagree with the pro-nuclear lobby. Did we hear from them? Poor journalism!
49

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/01/2008 11:27:54
Dear Administrator, what was you reason for removing #41?
50

Windchilled,

Undersea 13/01/2008 11:31:43
Just so everyone is fully aware of what's involved here:

The 2 nuclear power stations currently generate around 18000 GWh. Non-hydro renewables generate about 2000 GWh. (Hydro generates over 5000 GWh, but, due to environmental concerns, this is unlikely to ever increase much beyond the extra 500 MWh being added by the new Loch Ness scheme).

We know the implications of going down the nuclear route, and are right to resist it. But let's not kid ourselves about the implications of replacing that 18000 GWh with renewables - Scotland and its' coastline will have to be covered in windmills.
51

MtnKat,

13/01/2008 11:36:48
Anyone who has ever been to the Trotternish pennisula of Skye and seen how the trees have been sculpted by the wind would be in no doubt of the harnessable power at our disposal.
52

NHS 24,

13/01/2008 12:00:56
#54

"42 ,13/01/2008 10:45:06
Comment Removed By AdministratorReason:"

When opposing views are suppressed like this, anyone with doubts knows which side is telling the truth.
53

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 12:10:01
#55 Windchilled,
Certainly there are no ideal alternatives. Every option has its downsides.

The UK.Gov though has just thrown a major gamble hoping against hope with France that Fusion can plug the gap by 2070. I really hope ITER can be successful by 2050, though the clever money is that it wont be in public use/scaleable by then. What a huge risk to take. France and Japan are stuck, the UK is not.

I can see the arguments for some UK reactors in the SE to plug the gap, run by one company EG EDF, all using the same design for economiies of scale and single responsibility from a French Government backed company further backed by various ongoing guarantees and clear disposal plans.

Where is the supporting evidence for 10 plants to be open to different bidders?, using what designs? having different contracts?, putting the waste where exactly?, at what cost?

That is what is on the table for England. Prudent? No. Sheer Lunacy? Yes, Probably it is.
54

frank mcbride,

lusitania 13/01/2008 12:20:17
If Nuclear power is so safe, why are the "Democracies" so keen to prevent is development by 95% of the world's countries?
55

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 12:20:41
#58 Wardog, Buckie
Cameron can spin what he wants but actions speak louder than words and they (the Tories)supported Labours announcement as long as public money is not wasted.

Given that the LIB Dems were against, they have been very quiet in supporting the SNPs position in Scotland...
56

David MacVicar,

13/01/2008 12:22:53
#60 Dave from Barra
Which is precisely why spreading such one sided baseless assertions in the media that contradicts the official findings are such a disgrace.
57

 Ayrshire Scot™,

13/01/2008 12:42:26
61 Frank

exactly.

And if nuclear power is so cost effective, perhaps some pro nuclear chap or chappess will point to a single nuclear power station in the entire world that has been built without state subisidy, and for which disposal/storage of the waste has been or will be funded without state subisiy.
58

The Strategist,

13/01/2008 13:25:43
#59

David - Here's another anomaly.. You're right to point out that EDF is a French and mainly Govt owned company. It seems strange that whilst the UK Govt is opposed to subsidising any new nuclear power stations and indeed state owned companies full stop, EDF benefits - perhaps indirectly - through its association with the French Govt. This seems very hyprocritical.
59

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 13:43:09
#64 Dave from Barra

Until recently I thought the SNP policy was the riskier one and that it contradicted the Royal Society 2006 report. However my opinion was foolishly based on trust of the overall weight of the public message.

I decided to look at the various public sources from independent or publicly accountable sources. I refused to even look at Greenpeaces arguments or any pro Nuclear Lobby sites or SNPs arguments against etc.

To arrive at my current opinion sites I have looked at include:
The Royal Society Edinburgh
Church of Scotland.
NDA and other UK Nuclear bodies.
Various UK Government websites
Scottish Government websites - Specifically studies done during the LABOUR EXECUTIVE in studies from 2002 - 2006 - None commissioned by the SNP.
Hansard (Primarily looked at waste management proposals and reasons for not trusting the public).
FREDS and Scottish planning sites.

Conclusion - The SNP stance is the correct one, ironically drawn up from Labour commissioned studies!

Salmonds only crime is being disinegenuous about installed capacity and how the Grid works.

I Dont expect you to take my opinion or anyone elses spin especially politicians, but if you do your homework, keep an open mind, you will probably reach the same conclusions as I have. If not I would like to see references to support some other conclusion, I could then alter my position.
60

Publius,

Girvan 13/01/2008 13:45:51
#47 Connaughtboy
Sizewell is about 80 miles from London as the crow flies - and as the fallout blows. I reckon that counts as south east.
Incidentally in north east England two windmills were blown over by the wind last week! Also the entire wind farm produced nearly nothing on the coldest day because there wasn't any wind.
61

Generalissimo Hernandez,

13/01/2008 13:51:24
Can anyone tell me where in Scotland the uranium mines are?
62

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 13:51:50
#68 The Strategist.

It is hypocritical but at least EDF has little chance of going belly up any time soon.

What concerned me more was learning that EDF, a French Energy company with an obvious conflict of interest, was a major player in the decision making process (aka sham) that was the UK Governments so called Public Consultation.
63

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 14:03:02
#68 The Strategist.

Also, if you look at the public consultation website.
Many of the arguments against Nuclear have been classified as confidential. I see that the arguments have been noted but thats it.

Since they are confidential they are not in the public domain and the the arguments against have not been refuted in the public domain either. All this in the context of a 'public consultation'!

Should this not be worrying for an impartial observer and of great concern to the wider public?

I am a nationalist but realise Scotland and England depend much on each other regarding Energy. The UK Governments announcement is imo bad for England. Does this make me happy? No, it saddens me and it is especially risky for England long term with consequences for Scotland future also.
64

,

13/01/2008 14:11:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

,

13/01/2008 14:11:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 14:14:16

"49 ,13/01/2008 11:20:35
Comment Removed By AdministratorReason:

50 ,13/01/2008 11:21:35
Comment Removed By AdministratorReason:"

Dear Administrator - why are you removing these posts?
67

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 14:16:26
Dear Administrator - why did you remove these earlier posts?

"41 ,13/01/2008 10:43:33
Comment Removed By AdministratorReason:

42 ,13/01/2008 10:45:06
Comment Removed By AdministratorReason:"
68

,

13/01/2008 14:24:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

Neil,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 14:24:57
David in all your screeds about how you have impartially examined both sides & impartially come down against nuclear (a tactic commonly used by Luddites trying to give a spurious impression of reasonableness) the only actual pointer of a factual nature you madee is to say;

"Uk Gov. Gaggs scientific evidence on radiation concerns.
No long term storage locations, costs, final method.
Increasing costs of existing decomissioning.
No Nuclear in Scotland until at least 2022 anyway - so closures circa 2015 etc have no bearing.
Speculates that Scotland may have to have the lights out / power rationing, without Nuclear - total nonsense. Scaremongering.
State Nuclear is Low CO2 - It is today, it wont be 2025 onwards.

Against lobby Faults:
Give impression Scotland can be totally 100% self sufficient on 40% renewables - total nonsense.
Talk always of Installed capacity which is completely misleading"

The only gagging of radiation evidence is the overwhelming evidence that the hormesis theory, that it does not cause harm at low levels, is correct.

Storage is merely a "political" problem not an engineering one. Storage is perfectly feasible.

It only takes 4 years to build a reactor. Again this is purely a "political" matter & certainly not an argument for siding with those who wish to stop or slow reactor building.

It is not "nonsense" to say that if we lose 50% of our power we will have blackouts. In fact it is quite obviously true.

Nuclear is inherently low in CO2 for the obvious reason that it doesn't burn carbon. In fact it is considerably lower than windmills. The laws of physics will not change in 2025.
70

,

13/01/2008 14:26:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

,

13/01/2008 14:27:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
72

Generalissimo Hernandez,

13/01/2008 14:30:37
"The laws of physics will not change in 2025."

They will once I'm in charge.
73

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 14:33:31
#79 Neil,Glasgow 13/01/2008 14:24:57

Before they are removed by the Scotsman censor, read #74,75,78,80,81.

Suppressing information does not inform debate, but the proponents of nuclear power seem to see it as the only way to make their case - I wonder why?
74

 Ayrshire Scot™,

13/01/2008 14:52:57
83 NHS 24

sad indeed that your posts, which contained informed opinion relevant to the thread and contained no profanity or abuse, are complained about by pro nuclear types. Not a good reflection on their preferred methods of "debate"
75

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 14:53:44
#79 Neil, Glasgow

Lets deal with the reality of what is proposed/planned on both sides, not what 'might be'.

"overwhelming evidence that the hormesis theory...",
That may be so, however gagging, law suits and a resignation points to an issue worth exploring in a public consultation.

"Storage is merely a "political" problem not an engineering one. Storage is perfectly feasible."
No - storage has been made a political problem. It is feasable yes and decisions should have been made years ago. The reality is the Gov: ignored the advice to establish firm methods and sites PRIOR to new builds.
The have NOT done so.

"It only takes 4 years to build a reactor..."
Who cares, it does not mater if it can take 4 or 40 years. The announced plans are Nuclear production live by 2020, (unlikely but maybe 2017 earliest in SE England)

"It is not "nonsense" to say that if we lose 50% of our power we will have blackouts. In fact it is quite obviously true."

It is not nonsense to say that if I lose 50% of my legs I can no longer run. That does not make it fact. It is worse when they compare imaginary impacts in a timeline before any New Nuclear plant is even installed. I believe it is called Misinformation, n'est-ce-pas?

"Nuclear is inherently low in CO2...the laws of physics will not change in 2025.
Indeed not, however the richness of available Uraniam ore will have, with the first major milestone circa 2016 - no more rich ore unless new sources are found. If you don't understand the consequences of this vis-a-vis CO2 (though I assume you do), then there is no point even debating it.

How about trying to refute anything I have posted in its full context instead of the usual half-truths, hmm?

76

NHS 24,

Carstairs 13/01/2008 14:59:05
#84 Ayrshire Scot™,13/01/2008 14:52:57

Thanks Ayrshire Scot™, as I said before, when opposing views are suppressed like this, anyone with doubts knows which side is telling the truth.
77

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 15:01:38
#79 Neil.
P.S.

CO2 Nuclear lifecycle output is very difficult to estimate. I admit that much depends on how much uranium the UK has stockpiled...except that is not completelly in the public domain.

If its not on the public domain any conclusions we take can only be made on other public sources.

Otherwise, Please prove that these 10 new plants will remain low in CO2 overall during their lifecycle.
78

John S,

13/01/2008 15:14:50
The total generating capacity from all sources within the whole of Scotland was over 10,300MW in 2006.
For the past 10 years on one day a year (winter) the max demand in the SP area was around 4,300MW and one day a year (summer) the min demand was 1,600MW.
The power required on that one day of max demand was between 2,700MW to 4,300MW and on the min demand day 1,600MW to 2,800MW.
79

Neil,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 15:50:33
David you have accepted, as I stated, that disposal is not a real problem but only a political one & that it is perfectly possible to build a reactor in 4 years. Clearlyb you know nothing whatsoever about the hormesis question which proves on which side the censoring has been done, for decades.

Nuclear is low carbon for the simple & obvious fact that it doesn't burn millions of tons of carbon to produce power. If you are not aware of this you know abslutely nothing of what you are talking about. Nobody who knows this could hoestly say that the reverse need "refuting". The amount of carbon produced by building a nuclear reactor or by employees breathing is orders of magnitude lower than conventional burning & fully justifies the term "low". In fact nuclear is lower than windmills or indeed anything else & if you are being remotely honest in attacking nuclear on this grousn you must have already made stronger attacks on windmills etc. I would be interested to see them.

Otherwise please prove that, though you have demonstrated the same total contempt for honesty so common among Ludites, there is anything in what you have said, that is more truthful.

I will now post a long copyright article on the pro-nuclear side. If the paper deletes it you can read it on http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/
as well as all the posts from NHS s& pals saying that the pro-nuclear ccase must be good because it is being censored :-)
80

Neil,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 15:51:14
These are some of the myths we are likely to hear from greens debating nuclear power over the next few weeks:

1) Uranium is running out

According to Greenpeace, uranium reserves are ‘relatively limited’ (1) and last week the Nuclear Consultation Working Group claimed that a significant increase in nuclear generating capacity would reduce reliable supplies from 50 to 12 years (2).

In fact, there is 600 times more uranium in the ground than gold and there is as much uranium as tin. There has been no major new uranium exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years. Geological estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years’ supply at current demand (3). Modern reactors can use thorium as a fuel and convert it into uranium – and there is three times more thorium in the ground than uranium (4).

Uranium is the only fuel which, when burnt, generates more fuel. Not only existing nuclear warheads, but also the uranium and plutonium in radioactive waste can be reprocessed into new fuel, which former UK chief scientist Sir David King estimates could supply 60 per cent of Britain’s electricity to 2060 (5).

In short, there is more than enough uranium, thorium and plutonium to supply the entire world’s electricity for several hundred years.

2) Nuclear is not a low-carbon option

Anti-nuclear campaigners claim that nuclear power contains ‘hidden emissions’ of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from uranium mining and reactor construction. But so do wind turbines, built from huge amounts of concrete, steel and plastic.

The OECD analysed the total lifetime releases of GHG from energy technologies and concluded that, taking into account mining of building materials, construction and energy production, nuclear is still a ‘lower carbon’
81

Neil,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 15:52:21
3) Nuclear power is expensive

With all power generation technology, the cost of electricity depends upon the investment in construction (including interest on capital loans), fuel, management and operation. Like wind, solar and hydroelectric dams, the principal costs of nuclear lie in construction. Acquisition of uranium accounts for only about 10 per cent of the price of total costs, so nuclear power is not as vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of fuel as gas and oil generation.

Unlike the UK’s existing stations, any new designs will be pre-approved for operational safety, modular to lower construction costs, produce 90 per cent less volume of waste and incorporate decommissioning and waste management costs.



A worst-case analysis conducted for the UK Department of Trade and Industry (now the Department of Business and Enterprise), which was accepted by Greenpeace, shows nuclear-generated electricity to be only marginally more expensive than gas (before the late-2007 hike in gas prices), and 10 to 20 times cheaper than onshore and offshore wind. With expected carbon-pricing penalties for gas and coal, nuclear power will be considerably cheaper than all the alternatives (8).

4) Reactors produce too much waste

Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, Britain is not overwhelmed with radioactive waste and has no radioactive waste ‘problem’.

By 2040 there will be a total of 2,000 cubic metres of the most radioactive high-level waste (9), which would fit in a 13 x 13 x 13 metre hole – about the size of the foundations for one small wind turbine. Much of this high-level waste is actually a leftover from Britain’s atomic weapons programme. All of the UK’s intermediate and high-level radioactive waste for the past 50 years and the next 30 years would fit in just one Royal Albert Hall, an entertainment venue in London that holds 6,000 people (and which seems, for some reason, to have become the standard unit of measurement in debates about any k
82

Neil,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 15:53:24
5) Decommissioning is too expensive

Existing UK reactors were built with no regard for future demolition. New reactors will be constructed from modular designs with the need for decommissioning built-in. The costs of decommissioning and waste management will be incorporated into the price of electricity to consumers (13).

New nuclear plants are expected to have a working life of 40 years so the cost of decommissioning is spread over a longer period. Current government subsidy of decommissioning costs is approximately £1 billion annually (for 20 per cent of Britain’s electrical supply) – half the subsidy to ‘sustainable’ energy (two per cent of Britain’s electrical supply).

6) Building reactors takes too long

This is perhaps the most ironic of the anti-nuclear arguments, since the legal manoeuvrings of Greenpeace delayed the UK government’s nuclear decision by a year and it is the very opposition of greens that will cause most of the future delays.

The best construction schedules are achieved by the Canadian company AECL, which has built six new reactors since 1991; from the pouring of concrete to criticality (when the reactors come on-line), the longest build took six-and-a-half years and the shortest just over four years (14).

The UK government expects pre-licensing of standard designs and modular construction to reduce construction times significantly – to about 6 years (15). New nuclear build could certainly start making significant contributions to UK carbon reduction targets by 2020.

7) Leukaemia rates are higher near reactors

Childhood leukaemia rates are no higher near nuclear power plants than they are near organic farms. ‘Leukaemia clusters’ are geographic areas where the rates of childhood leukaemia appear to be higher than normal, but the definition is controversial because it ignores the fact that leukaemia is actually several very different (and unrelated) diseases with different causes (16).

The major increase in UK
83

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 13/01/2008 16:07:26
Gosh, Neil with all those facts and figures I'm surprised EDF and EON-Kernkraft aren't tripping over themselves, in the rush to get into Scotland and start building shiny new reactors. I'm sure they've got plenty of lobby cash to throw around.
84

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 13/01/2008 16:10:01
Got to say I'm disappointed in the range on display at the World Nuclear associations on-line shop. Not one t-shirt.

http://online-shop.world-nuclear.org/books--reports-1-c.asp
85

democracy,

Scottish Borders 13/01/2008 16:29:14
Well, Scotland on Sunday, dont just sit on the fence, why dont you find experts to go against what the majority of Scots AND the majority of the Scottish Government want!!
Just to set the record straight, there are a number of science profs.who you could have spoken to with an opposite view to your one, but as usual ,being anti-Scottish for the sake of volume sales, ie; self-serving greed at the expense of the people of Scotland, you choose the capitalist approach.
Let us get this clear,nuclear is financially and economically the LEAST viable for a country of 5M. people with the resources for ALL the alternatives,
END OF STORY!!!!
86

The Strategist,

13/01/2008 16:38:24
In Scotland one of the biggest obstacles to the expansion of alternative energy is ownership of the electricity grid. Scottish and Southern and Scottish Power control all the supply systems within their franchise areas. In effect this means a large chunk of the Scottish grid is now controlled from Spain.

A lot then depends on their view of nuclear power. They could if so minded just decide not to expand the grid to allow for say, wave and tidal power on the W Coast.

It strikes me therefore that nationalising the Scottish Grid or turning it into a Scottish Water type organisation would be a sensible idea if the Scottish Govt is intent on growing the alternative energy sector.
87

Sanny,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 17:38:09
The Headline is “Scientist attacks SNP nuclear power block”. Note Scientist plural. The article begins “ONE of Scotlands leading scientists” singular. This guy was once a government advisor later he is a decorated scientist. Sounds more and more like a labour placeman.
As a retired Engineer who worked in this industry for about twelve years I know its dangers. Today we have excellent and safe operating procedures and have taken sensible steps to try to avoid a terrorist attack. Nonetheless accidents do happen and determined people will eventually break through any security system. It only require one accident or one successful terrorist attack on one station at anytime to produce catastrophic consequences to the entire country and even further afield. How far did Chernobyl spread?
Now consider the view of a real working scientist Prof Salter and his assessment of the potential of the Pentland Firth to supply all Scotlands Energy needs and more. A renewable and reliable resource with no long term problem of waste management. Note there are also other areas around Scotland where we can tap the awesome power of the sea.
We do not need and do not want Nuclear power or its potential for total disaster.
88

Unimpressed one,

13/01/2008 17:49:49
#66, Wardog, "where has Nichol with his 100% Renewables Message gone?" Perhaps he sobered up and thought the better of his remark.
89

David MacVicar,

Web 13/01/2008 18:05:28
~90 Neil.
You have not refuted my own statements and instead go on a tirade of half truths while completely ignoring what I posted before you. Is that what you class as debate?

Again, you dwell on fantasy nevermind myths.
NO Reactors will be built in 4 years so it is not an argument for Scotland nevermind the UK. Or are you too frightened to deal with reality?

Correct I know very little about hormesis, only what I have read in the last 2 days. It does not provide a case for Nuclear no matter how you look at it.

1) Uranium is Running out.
This is certainly not an argument from me but you carefully avoided discussing the quality of available known ore. New rich deposits may be discovered... until then only a TOTAL MORON would rely on it in a low CO2 argument. What is the UK stockpile of Uranium and how long will it last - something that will have a huge impact on end CO2 impact?

2)Nuclear is not a low carbon option.
Correct it is not when the full lifecycle of current and future processes are taken into account. You talk of fuel burning and look at the strengths but ignore the weaknesses.

3)Expense.
In a UK context. Hard to qualify given that the full lifecycle isnt even considered in the costs but the SE has strong arguments. However the Royal society did conclude that in a Scottish context Nuclear is Uneconomic. Not my words.

4)You are being disingenuous again. Volume depends on the containers the waste is put in. Tell us please: Where is this hole located, how will the waste be buried, what containers will be used, what percentage of the containers will be the actual waste, if the waste is vitrified what is the volume of the vitrified waste? How big will the hole(s) really be? You cant tell us since sweet F A has been decided yet. You can even come up with a half truth!

5)Correct me if wrong but existing costs keep having to be revised...err UPWARDS by BILLIONS by the NDA almost annually. Oops...your argument is somewhat flawed.

90

langtonian,

scotus 13/01/2008 18:05:52
Administrator-While in agreement with the purpose behind checking comments for over the top excessive, foul and abusive comments,there have to be limits on such strictures, for example -"blank a snook at" was included in a comment of mine, the complete comment was unacceptable because of the word blanked, being deemed to be abusive,there fore does the same stricture apply when using any of the following,these all can be found when perusing the Oxford Dictionary& Thesarus .
1-blank- a male bird,
2-slang for a friend
3-tap or valve controlling flow
4-blank-a- hoop-exultant
5-blank-a-leekie soup(scotus fav.)
6-blank- eyed-= the stricture on my expression "blank a snook"
7-blank-noun conical heap of hay or straw.
8- all in all a "blank up was perpetrated in adviing the word "penis"" was persona non grata.
91

JR Ewing,

Aberdeen 13/01/2008 18:07:33
#94


No Scotsman Mugs or London Labour Flags ? - disappointing
92

langtonian,

scotus 13/01/2008 18:08:21
Administrator-While in agreement with the purpose behind checking comments for over the top excessive, foul and abusive comments,there have to be limits on such strictures, for example -"blank a snook at" was included in a comment of mine, the complete comment was unacceptable because of the word blanked, being deemed to be abusive,there fore does the same stricture apply when using any of the following,these all can be found when perusing the Oxford Dictionary& Thesarus .
1-blank- a male bird,
2-slang for a friend
3-tap or valve controlling flow
4-blank-a- hoop-exultant
5-blank-a-leekie soup(scotus fav.)
6-blank- eyed-= the stricture on my expression "blank a snook"
7-blank-noun conical heap of hay or straw.
8- all in all a "blank up was perpetrated in adviing the word "penis"" was persona non grata.
93

frank mcbride,

lusitania 13/01/2008 18:16:01
#89-92, Neil.

Neil of 9% fame.

You are the gentleman who is liberal with the accusation of "eco-fascists/nazis" against those who disagree with your views. Now we have accusations of "Luddtites" against those who dare to give alternative knowledge.

As has been said, you are economical - very selective, with your information.

The Nuclear accidents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Murarua, Nevada, 3 Mile Is. and Chernobyl you choose not to answer - all of these are ongoing problems.
Neither do you choose to answer the question of the extraordinary cancer illness/death rate of those working in Nuclear related work nor, the rate of cancer clusters related to the waste produced/leaked by Nuclear facilities - a number of these distant from, but related to these establishments.

We may not be Nuclear scientist but, being sentient beings we are capable of interprating the information which is made available to us.

Your attitude is very much that of the unfettered capitalist; all that matters is today: tomorrow is someone else's problem.
94

langtonian,

scotus 13/01/2008 19:07:35
#34 Pilrig- There are still many still around who subscribe to the theory that Arthur Scargill was the "blank in the woodpile" (revisionist checking, ergo, will offer "white man in the woodpile" as choice of expression)either way it was he, aided and abetted his "comrades"and led the charge of miners to committ industrial "Hari Kari".
A self inflicted death wish that ultimately achieved the total destruction of UK deep mine coal industry.
95

Neil,

Glasgow 13/01/2008 19:15:29
David, anybody reading here can see that it is a lie by you to say that I have been "completely ignoring what I posted" while, of course I recognise it as representing the very highest standard of honesty of which you are capable.

1) Uranium is not running out - as I have already explained to you it is as common an element of tin. You obviously could not have made that claim if you possessed the most miniscule trace of integrity.
2) Nuclear is quite obviously a low carbon option. You obviously could not have made that claim if you possessed the most miniscule trace of integrity.
3) Nuclear can be half the price of current power if allowed to be. You obviously could not have made that claim if you possessed the most miniscule trace of integrity.
4) The volume of something is its volume. I ask you to apologise for saying it is disingenouus to say otherwise. You obviously could not have made that claim if you possessed the most miniscule trace of integrity.
5) You are wrong. Again.

Frank it is a lie to say I am liberal with accusations of eco-fascism/nazism. I limit to wholly dishonest eco-nazis like yourself.

I await you apology.

I have answered all the points you have made, often repeatedly. You merely continue to repeat them knowing that you are lying.
The radiation level at Chenobyl is now down to near background as you well know because I have explained it to you. In fact it is much lower than the background in amny places arouind the world. it is thererofre a deliberate lie to say it is still a "problem".

The extraordinary thing about the cancer rates of nuclear workers is that it is below national averages. Assuming you know anything at all about what you are pontificating about you know this to be true & are merely, yet again, proving that you will tell absolutely any lie to promote your genocidal nazi cause.

It must be apparent that any sembalnce of honesty has long since disappeared from the the arguments of the murdering Nazi savages
96

Eve,

Scotland 13/01/2008 19:37:10
This reminds me of a stament I once read which is completly right: Science doesn't progress because theirs a want or need for it, it does because it can.


No more Nuclear!!!
97

Greenheatman,

TAIN 13/01/2008 19:43:10
Alex is acting on pretty dodgy advice from the likes of the British Wind Energy Association and its ill-informed cohorts.

There is no "Saudi Arabia" in renewables! For example the power available during the Nadir of Neaps is approximately 1/8 of what is available during the zenith of Springs. So we have a "saudi effect" during the New and Full moon and next to nothing during the Moon's 1st and 3rd quarters!

So do we keep shovelling coal and splitting those lovely little ol' atoms to raise steam or use renewable energy to do it instead?

Clearly, 'lunacy' on a grand scale!


98

Greenheatman,

TAIN 13/01/2008 19:46:29
Alex is acting on pretty dodgy advice from the likes of the British Wind Energy Association and its ill-informed cohorts.

There is no "Saudi Arabia" in renewables! For example the power available from tidal stream during the Nadir of Neaps is approximately 1/8 of what is available during the Zenith of Springs. So we have a "saudi effect" during the New and Full moon and next to nothing during the Moon's 1st and 3rd quarters!

So do we keep shovelling coal and splitting those lovely little ol' atoms to raise steam or use renewable energy to do it instead?

Clearly, 'lunacy' on a grand scale!


99

David MacVicar,

web 13/01/2008 19:56:15
105 Neil,Glasgow

Is this some kind of wind up or can you not interpret the written word?

1) Uranium is not running out.
I did not at any time say that it is running out. Only in your irradiated imagination maybe . The point about ore quality still stands.
2) idem.
3) Again, coulda, woulda, shoulda. All Energy options could be ideal given the correct circumstances. Again you ignore current reality and the 2020 time-scale. Fusion blows away all the Fission arguments but its not available in 4 years either. You have what amounts to a pathetic, non relevant point.
4) I stand by my comments and your avoidance of addressing my concerns
5)Thats some rebuke, I guess you persuaded me to change my position given the weight and strength of your argument - LOL.

"I have answered all the points you have made" - You have provided some responses, not the same thing as countering my arguments.

Conclusion - You are a Fake, or a Troll, or needing psychological help or similmar. So sad, but common on these types of forums.
100

frank mcbride,

lusitania 13/01/2008 20:14:26
#105, Neil.

The problems originating from, my mentioned Nuclear "accidents", are, indeed ongoing: Deformities, cancers, deaths, unusable land.

Proof of costings with regard to Nuclear power would be helpful to your case but, unfortunately you will not be able to produce them.

Your humiliation, at the 2007 election, seems to have made you a bit unstable - like fisionable material, maybe?
101

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 13/01/2008 20:52:02
The purpose of generating electricity is to do something useful with it. The benefit of a nation is people having some national assets.

~ 300 years ago the Bank of England connived a monopoly of "creating money out of nothing". This last decade of demented casino-economics doesn't seen the sensible way to ensure a reliable energy supply.
102

Eve,

Scotland 13/01/2008 22:10:50
#108 Greenheatman: Wanting New Nuclear power plants is Clearly, 'lunacy' on a grand scale!!!!

Why do people like you fail to see the dangers in Nuclear and it's radioactive waste.

You do realise they bury it!! There for it cause ground pollution!!!

Are you old or just old fashion in the sense that you appear to think that modern luxuries and science developments are more important than the environment and potential nuclear disasters (including nuclear waste leakage, which according to McWhiter in the Sunday Herald a company has been charged for realise radio active fumes)!
103

Colin, Glasgow,

13/01/2008 23:20:12
David, if nuclear power is not low in CO2 why does the IPCC endorse it as one of the technologies to combat climate change? Why does the Sustainable Development Commission agree that it is low-carbon (even though the SD commission is nominally anti-nuclear at the moment)? In fact they say that emissions from nuclear are likely to reduce further due to a) impoved plant and fuel-cycle efficiency and b) reduction in overall reliance on fossil fuel (for enrichment, transport, mining, etc).

There have been a huge number of studies on the lifecycle emissions of CO2 from nuclear power and all but one of them (Storm Van Leeuwen) indicate that the lifecycle emissions are as low as renewables. (Coincidentally the Storm Van Leeuwen study is the main one cited in the SNP's "Scottish Energy Review").
104

frank mcbride,

lusitania 13/01/2008 23:49:33
#113, Colin.

Wouldn't it be good to have "a huge number of studies" on the lifecycle of toxic emissions of Nuclear installations (preferably, independent)?

This is only asked, to inform the argument.
105

Joe M.,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 00:07:35
The SNP are doing what they were elected to do, represent Scottish interests. If England wants new nuclear power stations and their elected Government (they have most of the British MP's after all) believes in it then that's fine but we don't and we don't want unusable nuclear weapons either.

I'm sure Jack McConnell would have rolled over for his London masters but luckily he's gone. It's a shame Labour don't seem to realise that they lost the last election, they'll lose the next one in Scotland as well if they don't wake up to the fact that they are now perceived as transparently anti-Scottish.
106

scotsdoc,

NANAIMO 14/01/2008 01:55:37
I feel Prof Sibbett is looking at things in the short term! Sure now, 60 years ago, I believed in Atomic Power with it's promise of unlimited cheap electricity!

Now after viewing the failings of human beings through negligence, bloody mindedness, religious fanaticism, mental pathlogy,boredom or just sleepiness I am certain that there will be a HUMAN INDUCED CATASTROPHE, sooner or later, that will release radioactivity that will kill all life, Human or other, on Planet earth.

Until that eventuality, I forecast that expense due to cost over-runs will gradually strangle the entire atomic power generation business.
107

Neil,

Glasgow 14/01/2008 15:23:08
David I have addressed all your "points" including your general refusal to make points preferring ad hominum attacks. Yet again you have done the same. Frank you perfectly well that i have given evidence on previous posts which yopu read. If you were in the remotest degree honest you would admit this. Nothing else yyou have said seems to be closer to honest than you & your murdering fascist friends aspire to.
108

Fairfax,

15/01/2008 12:47:11
Freedom for Scotland (29): "Maybe, just maybe I'll accept nuclear power stations if Westminster builds one in Windsor Great Park"

Imperial College, London, has a reactor on its Silwood Park campus, just outside Windsor Great Park:

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/silwoodparkcampus

The Atomic Weapons Research Centre, which constructs the nuclear warheads for Trident, is at Aldermaston, a fairly short drive from Windsor Great Park for several decades.

109

Fairfax,

15/01/2008 13:00:54
Neil (90): "Modern reactors can use thorium as a fuel and convert it into uranium – and there is three times more thorium in the ground than uranium (4)."

It's also important to mention that thorium can be used essentially "as is", without the tedious and expensive removal of small quantities of U235 from uranium ore.

However, although I agree that there's great potential in thorium as a nuclear fuel, it is still at an early stage of development.
110

NHS 24,

Carstairs 15/01/2008 18:46:26
From The Sunday Times, August 1, 2004

Government gags experts over nuclear plant risks

Mark Gould and Jonathan Leake

A BITTER row has broken out inside a government safety committee after two of its experts were barred from voicing fears that radiation from nuclear installations poses a greater threat than previously thought.

Government lawyers have blocked a minority finding written by the two from being included in the committee’s final report — which follows a three-year investigation into the effects of low-level radiation.

Dr Chris Busby and Richard Bramhall, members of the committee examining radiation risks from internal emitters, believe that the risk of cancer from low-level radiation dangers is greater than realised.

They claim that previous methods of calculating the effects of emissions on people living near nuclear installations have underestimated the risk by a factor of up to 300.

If correct, the study could explain the clusters of cancer and leukaemia cases found close to nuclear installations in north Wales and Essex and near Sellafield in Cumbria. But the claims have divided members of the committee, with some supporting the gagging while others have accused civil servants of censorship.

A senior radiation scientist has already resigned in protest and the last meeting of the committee became a shouting match that members feared was going to degenerate into a fist fight.

The committee’s official report — which has majority support — will be published this autumn and says the risk is greater than previously thought, but only by a factor of 10.
111

NHS 24,

Carstairs 15/01/2008 18:47:16
Lawyers at Defra, the environment ministry, have sent letters to all 12 members of the committee warning them that they could be sued for defamation if they include Bramhall and Busby’s minority report.

Michael Meacher, who set up the committee while he was environment minister in 2001, is furious that not all the experts’ views will be represented. “I have written to Elliot Morley, the current environment minister, asking for an explanation,” he said.

The committee was created to examine concern that the government’s method of estimating the risk of cancer to people living near nuclear installations was inadequate. Such calculations were based on the radiation doses received by casualties from the Hiroshima bomb used against Japan in 1945.

There have long been doubts about such data, partly because they are so old and partly because Hiroshima victims were exposed to a short and very intensive dose of external radiation. By contrast, people living near nuclear sites tend to experience a different form of radiation — suffering small doses over a long period of time from eating or breathing contaminated particles.

Such radiation is thought to do proportionately more harm because it is inhaled or ingested and so can directly attack the body’s most delicate organs.

Recognising the complexity of the science, Meacher set up the committee with representatives of the nuclear industry, green groups and independent scientists and asked them to include a range of views in their findings, including any minority reports.

Busby and Bramhall say that since Meacher was sacked the committee has been taken over by people with pro-nuclear views who have done their best to suppress opposing opinions.

“The basis of these calculations is completely wrong and as a consequence people living near Sellafield and other installations have been suffering elevated rates of cancers and all sorts of other diseases,” Busby said.
112

NHS 24,

Carstairs 15/01/2008 18:47:59
“The other members of the committee and Defra may not agree with our report, but they should still be publishing it.”

Some other committee members disagree. They point out that both men are ardent anti- nuclear campaigners and claim that their report was riddled with inaccuracies.

“The extreme views held by these two meant that the committee became completely polarised with members shouting at each other in anger and exasperation,” one said. “In the end we could not be associated with a minority report that was factually wrong, so it was referred to the lawyers.”

Fears that the committee is being gagged are echoed by Marion Hill, a senior scientist with 30 years’ expertise in radiation safety.

Hill, who emphasises that she is not a member of the green lobby, resigned from the committee in February.

In her letter of resignation she accused the committee chairman, Professor Dudley Goodhead, and Ian Fairlie, another member of the secretariat, of biasing the report process so that Busby and Bramhall’s views were marginalised.

She said yesterday: “It’s a complete failure when you have a scientific committee that is not allowed to write anything about disagreements over science.”
113

NHS 24,

Carstairs 15/01/2008 18:50:06
From The Times, November 23, 2005

Who says nuclear power is clean?

Optimistic analysis of future energy policy is based on hopelessly misleading claims

Magnus Linklater

“Three massive claims are being made for Britain building a new generation of nuclear stations: first, it is the only way that Britain can meet its ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions; secondly, it is the only reliable option available if we are to fill the “energy gap” left by declining sources of fossil fuels; thirdly, it is the best way of ensuring that our energy comes from “secure” sources, rather than unstable oil-rich oligarchies.

These claims are at best specious, at worst untrue. Take carbon emission. There is a blithe notion that nuclear power is “clean” — it emits no CO² and therefore does not contribute to global warming. This argument has been systematically taken apart over the past five years by two independent experts, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Bartlett Smith, one a chemist and energy specialist, the other a nuclear physicist, who between them have a lifetime ’s experience in the nuclear industry. What they have done is look at the entire life cycle of a nuclear power station, from the mining of the uranium to the storage of the resulting nuclear waste. Their conclusions make grim reading for any nuclear advocate.“
114

NHS 24,

Carstairs 15/01/2008 18:51:22
“They say that at the present rate of use, worldwide supplies of rich uranium ore will soon become exhausted, perhaps within the next decade. Nuclear power stations of the future will have to reply on second-grade ore, which requires huge amounts of conventional energy to refine it. For each tonne of poor-quality uranium, some 5,000 tonnes of granite that contains it will have to be mined, milled and then disposed of. This could rise to 10,000 tonnes if the quality deteriorates further. At some point, and it could happen soon, the nuclear industry will be emitting as much carbon dioxide from mining and treating its ore as it saves from the “clean” power it produces thanks to nuclear fission.

Worse, the number of nuclear plants needed to meet the world’s needs would be colossal. At present, about 440 nuclear reactors supply about 2 per cent of demand. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates that 1,000 more would be needed to raise this even to 10 per cent of need. At this point, the search for new sources of ore would become critical. Where would they come from? Not friendly Canada, which produces most of it at present, but places like Kazakhstan, hardly the most stable of democracies. So much for “secure” sources of energy. We would find ourselves out of the oil-producing frying pan, right in the middle of the ore-manufacturing fire.”
115

NHS 24,

Carstairs 15/01/2008 18:59:12
"83 NHS 24,Carstairs 13/01/2008 14:33:31

#79 Neil,Glasgow 13/01/2008 14:24:57

Before they are removed by the Scotsman censor, read #74,75,78,80,81.

Suppressing information does not inform debate, but the proponents of nuclear power seem to see it as the only way to make their case - I wonder why?"
116

Fairfax,

15/01/2008 20:50:10
NHS24 (123): "What they have done is look at the entire life cycle of a nuclear power station, from the mining of the uranium to the storage of the resulting nuclear waste. Their conclusions make grim reading for any nuclear advocate."

Disquiet that high-grade uranium ore might be expensive to process and politically difficult to obtain is much older than this estimate. There are, however, several points to consider: (i) some 40% of currently known useful uranium reserves are in Australia, Canada and the USA (see, for instance, http://www.uic.com.au/ozuran.htm); (ii) that uranium/plutonium fission power stations will continue to use fuel with reprocessing.

The second point is a key one and resulted in the Sellafield/Dounreay research here in Britain. The key point is that, as uranium nuclei break up to form daughter product atoms, the neutron flow is itself disrupted: an analogous phenomenon is combustion would be the formation of ash in a woodfire, impeding efficient combustion. Thus the fissile material ceases to form a critical mass, despite the fact that there is still a fairly large mass of potentially fissile material present. The remedy is to chemically separate the daughter products from the remainder, but this is not simple given the ambient radiation -- hence the reprocessing procedure. Such difficult procedures became uneconomic during the 1980s and 1990s, when nuclear power itself was more expensive than oil/gas. However, given higher oil prices and uranium demand, this research gives Britain a valuable technological lead.

As for the first point, you might consider the possibilities of thorium based fission: this is still in its early stages, but has many advantages, not least of which is the easy availibility of thorium and the absence of the expensive isotope separation required for uranium; see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

Thus the estimate you've quoted is a spur to return to reprocessing, t
117

Fairfax,

15/01/2008 20:52:02
Thus the estimate you've quoted is a spur to return to reprocessing, to continue searching for new uranium ore deposits, and to research thorium fission further.
118

Antony,

Riva del Garda 16/01/2008 12:14:22
No one has yet come up with a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. The principal cost of nuclear generation is not construction but clearing up afterwards. Much better, in my view, to spend the money on helping Iceland to harvest its abundant geothermal power and to build the neccessary cable to conect Iceland to Scotland and the rest of Europe. There is enough potential power to provide all the power needed by western Europe. And no nasty aftermath.
119

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 19/01/2008 17:12:02
Why can't people realise that extracting power from waves, tides, sea currents, and the wind is direct interference with the environment? The transport of sea sediments, of plankton, of smelt, of the larvae of many sea creatures, the migration of insects, the distribution of pollen and seeds, the distribution of wind-resistant and non-wind resistant plant species, the distribution of frost, ice and snow, etc is effected. Furthermore offshore wind farms constitute an obstacle course of scything blades in the paths of exhausted birds making landfall after long oversea flights. The noise interferes with birdsong during the breeding season, forcing birds to sing more loudly and waste more energy patrolling territories - so decreasing breeding success. The use of renewables on a scale that will replace the nuclear power stations will destroy the enviornment directly. But if this is what the greens really want...
120

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 19/01/2008 17:31:23
Yes, Chernobyl took place. The Titanic also sank. Should we ban all ships because the Titanic sank uner particular circumstances? The damage inflicted by nuclear power per GWh of power generated is minuscule compared with most other forms of power generation, even if you include Chernobyl, and the Three Mile Island and Sellafield leaks. If you exclude these as freak incidents and include the full environmental costs of other forms of power generation, then nuclear power is excellent. And the latest nuclear power stations are built with modern technology and a huge amount of knowledge gained from the first generation of reactors. Of course the SNP et al. will applaud when Scotland has to go without power when a huge storm wrecks the wave generators and wind farms. No doubt Alec Salmond would love fixing wind turbines in midwinter with a gale blowing! And I'm NOT against renewables: it's just that we need to have a range of different power sources, and not rely too much on any one of them. The opposition of the SNP to nuclear power earns it a dunce's cap. If there's one reason the SNP will never get my vote as an engineer and medical physicist, it's because it's too stupid to accept the need for a new nuclear power station.
121

chicmac,

Greenock 19/01/2008 17:48:49
To try to address some of the ignorance which is clearly manifest here:

1) Tidal power:
Scotland is I believe unique in the World in that it is possible for us to supply all, or nearly all of our electricity generating requirement from this resource. The most conservative estimates from turbine fields laid in the Pentland Firth and at other points down through the Western Isles is that they would generate at least half our electricity generating requirement, but other estimates are that
it could do the lot.


One important point to realise about tidal power is that it is NOT weather dependent like wind say or to a much lesser extent HE. The tides are due to the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon and
therefore go through an ever repeating cycle, so technically tidal power is not a renewable but an inexhaustable.


The tidal turn around is problematic as flow falls below usable rates at that time. This is obviated to some extent by the geographical spread of turbine fields as tidal times vary significantly over the
area. Unfortunately the bulk of tidal power generation available is at the one location in the Pentland Firth.


However, by using new pump storage facilities, like Cruachan, the power source dip can be compensated for. Therefore the resource becomes effectively a base load resource (barring no rain for a couple of years which is never going to happen in Scotland).


There is of course, a significant amount of HE in Scotland already.
So 100% between this and HE is even more likely.


For safety a few oil-fired mothballed stations like Inverkip would be prudent as a contingency.


Scotland (and possibly Norway) are unique in having this energy source to such an extent. You need islands or funnel shaped inlets to concentrate the tidal flow to the point where it is powerful enough to drive
underwater turbines.


Most other areas of the World with suitable land topograpy tend to be either in regular tsu
122

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 24/01/2008 20:15:19
Clearly the leader of the SNP is a nitwit who loathes Scotland/Alba. We should be drawing power from a variety of sources, including all types of 'renewables' AND nuclear power. Why? Nuclear power will provide a good steady base load and allow us to export a significant amount of power under normal conditions. We have little enough to export as it is! When there is a major crisis such as a freak midwinter storm with extremely cold conditions that puts many wind & tidal turbines, wave machines etc out of use, then the nuclear power will come into its own. What is more, is that a new nuclear power station can be built within the existing Dounreay site, so helping to keep small villages in Sutherland alive. Local schools, post office and shops will stay open. Saying "no" to a new nuclear power station puts Mr Alex Salmond in the bottom rank of Scottish dumbos.
123

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 24/01/2008 20:24:59
I am tired of jumped-up politicians who are self-appointed experts in many professional fields. What does Mr Salmond actually KNOW about the latest types of nuclear power stations that are being marketed by the world's leading nuclear power companies? I strongly doubt that he can even state what types are on offer and their operating principles. He should admit his ignorance in those matters he has not studied and defer to a committee of professional experts. In this case an advisory board comprising professional engineers who have been in the game of power generation and distribution should study Scotland's power requirements, bearing in mind the possibility of export, and decide whether and what type of new nuclear power station is best suited to our needs. Mr Salmond should then heed their advice, rather than mulishly braying a half-baked opinion.
124

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 24/01/2008 20:40:14
#15 Druid: Quote from you: "The government's own figures show we have 60 gigawatts of sustainable energy - 10 times the peak demand and equivalent to three-quarters of the UK's entire electricity generating capacity. We have 25% of Europe's wind and tidal energy reserves."

You should know that if we went ahead and developed all this "sustainable" energy, we would utterly destroy the environment. Simultaneously reducing tides, slowing sea currents, killing the wind over large areas, and reducing waves will have major effects. For example: certain plant species are adapted to sea salt spray, certain plant species are adapted to high winds, certain plant species require windborne pollination, certain sea-dwelling species rely on currents to travel along routes associated with their breeding cycle, certain sea-dwelling species require sediment to be deposited in certain areas, etc. I guarantee that the extraction of enough energy from natural systems to satisfy all our needs would destroy nature more rapidly and surely than almost anything else we might do. There is actually very little energy in the mechanical movement of waves, tides, currents and wind: we would have to extract the energy over vast areas and from huge volumes of air and water to satisfy all our needs. But we CAN safely extract a fraction of the energy we need. Right now it is thought that we can extract about 10% of the energy in natural systems without causing unacceptable damage. But remember this: The winds and ocean currents are nature's way of equalising temperatures. We interfere at our peril.

 

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.