Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Stop ducking nuclear issue, Salmond told

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: 23 November 2008
AN INDEPENDENT Scotland without nuclear power would be forced to rely on England to "keep the lights on", the UK's energy minister warned last night.
Mike O'Brien accused the First Minister, Alex Salmond, of "ducking" the nuclear issue and taking a "punt" on hopes that renewable energy would meet Scotland's future energy needs.

The row centres on the SNP Government's decision to block any new n
uclear power stations north of the border. The country's two stations, at Hunterston and Torness, which supply up to 40% of Scotland's electricity, are due to close within the next 15 years

O'Brien, who took over the post last month, said that Salmond was betting too much on hopes that new renewable sources of energy – such as tidal – will start producing electricity over the next 20 years.

He said without nuclear, the country's energy independence was at risk. He told Scotland on Sunday: "It would be very difficult to see how Alex can seriously give the guarantees he would need about keeping the lights on in an independent Scotland without accepting that it would to some extent be dependent on its relationship with England.

"The lights won't go out but Alex is just not facing the political issues, he's ducking them."

The minister also warned that an over-reliance on renewables would push up electricity bills by as much as 40% because of the high costs of generation.

He added: "Alex wants to pursue – for completely ideological reasons – a separate energy policy and just say this is a big difference between us and them.

Just saying Scotland doesn't need nuclear is not a serious policy. It's saying we will take a punt that these things will all be ready and deployable."

A spokesman for Salmond said: "These remarks are economically illiterate. Mike O'Brien obviously has no idea of what is happening in Scotland, or indeed England. He is out of touch and out of date.

"Mike O'Brien is the energy minister facing the biggest energy gap in Europe spouting nonsense about the country with the biggest potential surplus. But he needn't worry: Scotland will always sell electricity into England as part of our good neighbour policy.

"Scotland has the capacity to generate 60GW of power from renewable energy alone – 10 times Scotland's peak demand. Far from any energy gap, the challenge is building the infrastructure to export Scotland's electricity surplus."

A new paper by the Royal Society of Edinburgh for the Scottish Parliament appears to back O'Brien's case. In a submission to Holyrood's economy committee, the society declares: "We encourage both the UK Government and the Scottish Executive to keep open the nuclear electricity generating option in the interests of diversity and security of supply and suppression of greenhouse gas emissions."

Scotland and England now appear to be going in separate directions on energy generation after Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that a new generation of nuclear stations will be built south of the border.

In Scotland ministers believe that half of all electricity needed north of the border can be supplied using renewable energy by 2020.

O'Brien was also backed recently by Professor Wilson Sibbett, the former head of the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, the body which advises Scottish ministers on scientific issues of strategic importance.

Earlier he said: "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."

Scottish ministers can prevent new nuclear stations being built because they have control over planning in Scotland.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 November 2008 9:16 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 01:01:41
Alex rely's on wind and the sea well he has shown his wind and Alex has never earned his corn at sea .
2

Castaway™ ,

23/11/2008 01:09:07
Mike O'Brien-nuclear which supply up to 40% of Scotland's electricity but:-
in 2006 nuclear's share of electricity output in Scotland fell to 26 per cent.
Mike O'Brien-Torness to close within the next 15 years but:-
Torness - The life cycle of Torness will be extended by five years to 2028 and are hoping to extend that by a further five years to 2033.
Despite the problems with nuclear power, the total amount of electricity generated in Scotland increased by 9-per cent between 2005 and 2006. Electricity from renewable sources such as wind power increased by 46-per cent, while electricity from coal, gas and oil plants rose by 34-per cent.
Possible new 1,600MW coal fired power station next to Hunterston B would probably be ready by 2018 with the potential to produce two fifths of the country's electricity needs.
Scot-Eng National Grid-System Transfers-examples
24 Sep 2008 1828MW 07:58
16 Oct 2008 1582MW 06:14
13 Nov 2008 1532MW 09:37
23 Nov 2008 701MW 00:58
3

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 01:09:07
Scotland exports power.All of a sudden under an independant government we will have to import it?

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43902.pdf

"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."

Tell that to our greatgrandchildren who will be trying to find another nook or cranny to sweep the waste under.
4

subrosa,

23/11/2008 01:17:03
Very unbalanced article. Why no quotes from the anti-nuclear folks? There are plenty experts who think no nuclear in Scotland.
5

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 01:19:56
#4

yeah but they all live in caves and vote snp...
6

subrosa,

23/11/2008 01:20:38
# 5

Cold in your cave tonight is it?
7

Fifi la Bonbon,

23/11/2008 01:22:13
I don't see any problem with this. Scotland and England are all part of the United Kingdom, and it is clear that that's not going to change, so it doesn't really matter.
8

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 01:34:56
5
“Most dictators were short, fat, middle-aged and hairless. Besides Danny Devito, there's only me to play them.”

Good Morning Niko.
9

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 01:41:48
#9 Conan


buy yourself a new jumper have a shave few smellys and u will be surprised
10

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 01:45:52
9
Niko

"Shave few smellys?"

What are you drinking? Can I have some?
11

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 01:48:57
#10

Stella and fosters
12

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 01:49:53
#10

15 cans and still going
13

Willie Macleod,

Wick 23/11/2008 01:53:57
#8 Good morning Conan with the extra , Bob Hoskins could play the part.
14

,

23/11/2008 02:00:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 02:01:59
12
Niko
Ah, the old wifebeater.Where are you going, apart from the toilet?

Drinking Chimay myself.
16

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 02:02:45
Sleep that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care,
The death of each day's life, sore labor's bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course
Chief nourisher in life's feast


To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,


“Sleep -- the most beautiful experience in life -- except drink.”

W. C. Fields quote
17

Peter Curran,

Kirkliston 23/11/2008 02:04:10
We do not have the political maturity and fundamental morality as a species, never mind as a nation, to manage this technology. The record of the industry is one of repeated mistakes, accidents and cover-ups, and its insidious links to nuclear weapons and to the military/industrial complex is ever present. No one can objectively scrutinise the history of nuclear power and fail to recognise this.

Whatever the technical excellence of high-level scientists, the industry will always be vulnerable to the incompetence of lower level managers and technicians, the venality of contractors, and political interference. We may tolerate these things as inevitable in any other industry, but the risk/consequences matrix for nuclear power is measured in tens of thousands of years of pollution. We cannot just chalk up Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as learning experiences - there are no second chances in this appalling game.

We quite simply have no right to expose future generations to such potentially catastrophic consequences.
18

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 02:04:10
A very Good Morning to yourself Willie.
19

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 02:04:11
#15
cocnan

never ever beat the wife ...leave that to the nationalists
20

Fifi la Bonbon,

23/11/2008 02:05:39
If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the lack of sleep. ~Dale Carnegie

No day is so bad it can't be fixed with a nap. ~Carrie Snow

There is more refreshment and stimulation in a nap, even of the briefest, than in all the alcohol ever distilled. ~Edward Lucas

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. ~Leo J. Burke

Life is something that happens when you can't get to sleep. ~Fran Lebowitz

It's a cruel season that makes you get ready for bed while it's light out. ~Bill Watterson

The bed is a bundle of paradoxes: we go to it with reluctance, yet we quit it with regret; we make up our minds every night to leave it early, but we make up our bodies every morning to keep it late. ~Charles Caleb Colton

A good laugh and a long sleep are the best cures in the doctor's book. ~Irish Proverb
21

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 02:06:55
17
Good morning Peter.Agreed.

Ever drink in the Newliston Arms?
22

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 02:08:06
#20

u gonna paint me living room tomorrow ..philosophy that nob
23

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 02:10:00
19
Cocnan?

Fifteen cans and counting.
24

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 02:11:10
22
Sixteen cans and counting...
25

Nikostratos,,

23/11/2008 02:14:54
#24 Conan

nah! running out..


anyway off to bed for a few hours before me son turns up to lecture me on being a good person.BAH ! humbug!
26

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 02:20:25
Night Niko.

Mind and drink a pint of water afore ye go tae bed.
27

W Smith,

Middle East 23/11/2008 02:32:58
The SNP communists, Bill Wilson and the rest, don't have a problem with Chavez getting a nuclear power station built by the Russians.

Our Bill just doesn't like democractic nations like Britain getting nuclear energy.

BTW
Alex Salmond's definition of 'peace' (absence of nuclear weapons) is childish and simplistic.

The worsed atrocities carried out in the last 20 years happened in countries that didn't have nuclear weapons.

He really needs to get out more often.
28

subrosa,

23/11/2008 02:37:20
Another article from the Sunday Times about ex labour ministers and their greed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5213604.ece
29

Guga II,

Rockall 23/11/2008 03:24:43
More lies and propaganda from the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party (North British Branch) via their press release branch at the Hootsmon.
30

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 23/11/2008 03:28:48
The usual rubbish from the Nuclear Lobby.

Scotland is a net energy exporter.

England imports its energy.

The English want to build loads of Nuclear Plants all over Scotland so that when we leave the Union we will be stuck with the costs of decommissioning and storing nuclear waste for thousands of years.

Scotland does not need Nuclear Power any more than Saudi Arabia or Iran do.

If England want nuclear power, build them in England.
31

democracy,

Scottish Borders 23/11/2008 03:59:06
Nikostratos, Conan the Librarian.

Depart from this site as it is only for people to discuss the issue at hand and not for use by infantile gigglers and numbskulls like yourselves, so go back to the stupid Unionist rock you crawled from under, go on, pi** off!
32

democracy,

Scottish Borders 23/11/2008 04:24:25
What a load of utter piffle this article is.
The same old unionist mantra time and time again and trying to con people with alleged reports from university professors who are also Unionists or are bought and paid for by the Unionist party concerned!

Even if any of it were true, all one has to do is ask oneself if all other independent countries have their own supply of nuclear energy and the answer is a resounding NO. So that knocks THAT theory on the head, doesn't it?

But don't let that put the Unionist Scotsman rag off, from trying time and time and time and time again to sell the people of Scotland short with constant untruths and vacuous mantras!!!
33

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 23/11/2008 05:55:26
''Depart from this site as it is only for people to discuss the issue at hand and not for use by infantile gigglers''

Who gets to decide who's an infantile giggler then number 31 ?

Perhaps you should consider your own position.

On the story, we all know it's rubbish - Scotland has a choice in how it generates power, a fortunate position to be in.
34

drunken proffet,

Tassy 23/11/2008 06:03:28
I didn't think Mr Salmond was ducking the nuclear issue. He is against it and is concentrating on alternative energy sources. Not too difficult to understand even for your average Professor. As a matter of interest for the nuclear lobby, recent developments suggest that a quantum leap is on the cards for the nuclear industry. The use of Thorium as a fuel reduces the radioactivity and risk. Mind you they require an uranium core to trigger it off but the benefits look substantial. The half life can now be measured in hundreds of years instead of hundreds of thousands. This is definitely a have a nice day, day.
35

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/11/2008 06:49:28
I suspect that the pro nuclear lobby are in a small minority, whether that be politicians or the electorate.

Salmond is clearly representing the majority view and is sticking to his principles.

Why did Tony Blair suddenly change his mind on nuclear power? I suspect there is a hidden agenda here.
36

Rufus T. Firefly,

23/11/2008 07:30:18
Wind power cannot be relied upon as a stable energy source. A lot of the time its too windy or not windy enough.

A few places in Scotland could be improved by the building of nuclear reactors.

Greenock, Falkirk, livingston, just 3 places that would benefit.
37

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 23/11/2008 07:45:04
It is not often that I agree with Mike O'Brienbut I agree on this one.
Alex Salmond is simply living in a dreamworld when it comes to electricity generation and transmission.
If we do not replace our ageing nukes with new nukes or coal fired power stations, we will certainly be relying on nuclear power from England when the wind is not blowing.
The man is clearly technically challenged in his ongoing powder puff war with Westminster.
38

Fred Quimby,

23/11/2008 07:53:26
#19
Nikostratos,,
23/11/2008 02:04:11
#15
cocnan

never ever beat the wife ...leave that to the nationalists

Does she like it, really like ot?

Suits you sir
39

John Cameron,

St Andrews 23/11/2008 08:17:48
Surely we do not need any energy at all. St Al Gore and the Environmental Fundamentalists have assured us that that it will be 80'F all year round - so why all the fuss? We woke up this morning to everything covered in white in St Andrews. My wife says it is snow and that Al Gore is an idiot. I think it must have been the students last night with aerosol cans of paint. We cannot have the word of the saintly Al Gore doubted by an unbeliever.
40

gus1940,

Edinburgh 23/11/2008 08:55:17
How can clear opposition to something be regarded as ducking the issue?
41

john z,

edinburgh 23/11/2008 08:55:30
Piffle and lies from a silly wee nobody in London. I mean, be honest, does anybody know who this 'mike o Brien' actually is??

England NEEDS nuclear power, but Scotland most certainly does not. It is not needed. The Scottish government are quite right to move forward on clean renewable energy like tidal wave and wind. Oh, and just for the record, there are many,many countries around Europe, that have NO nuclear, and are investing heavily in wind and tidal power. The SNP and those other European countries can see the way forward, but London Labour liars just won't.

I have to say, in my lifetime, I never, ever expected to see a Labour administration in London trying to increase the use of nuclear power, and also willing to spend billions on new nuclear submarines.

Time for Scotland to be independent, we just don't need these out of touch London Labour clowns anymore.

Scotland needs more nuclear like a hole in the head.

Oh, and next time Scotsman, could we have facts rather than Labour spin please?
42

Castaway™ ,

23/11/2008 08:56:11
System Transfers
N.Ireland to Great Britain: 15MW
France to Great Britain : 1656MW
North-South: 6053MW
Scot - Eng: 1300MW
23/11/2008 08:57
43

john z,

edinburgh 23/11/2008 08:56:47
If nuclear power is soooooo safe, who don't we build a nuclear plant in London???
44

,

23/11/2008 08:56:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

john z,

edinburgh 23/11/2008 09:01:23
Scotland is very lucky, in that it is bestowed with a wide choice of NATURAL power sources. England has a lot more people and higher energy needs, yet not so much natural power sources.

The fact is, Alex Salmond is well ahead of bumbling brown on energy, with inwards investment on renewable energy sources. It is the dawning of a new age for Scotland, and in just a few years, almost all energy will come from renewables - JUST LIKE IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.

The current Scottish Government have made all the right decisions. The fact that England cannot generate enough electricity for its bloated population is not a problem of Alex Salmonds making.
46

john z,

edinburgh 23/11/2008 09:08:05
44 Castaway,

Good post. Its hard to argue with the plain facts. The London Labour administration just don't get it. The decision is clear, Scotland wants clean renewable energy without Nuclear.

Oh and we could do with getting rid of (and stop paying for) Nuclear intercontinental missiles based on the river Clyde.

Scotland has no need for nuclear power OR Nuclear missiles - yet the London Labour administration wants to force both on to Scotland - another english union 'benefit'.
47

John S,

23/11/2008 09:14:59
Nuclear v Fossil Fuel (Coal) within Scotland.
Nuclear has to run at base load 24/7 this requires some spare generation to be available which can be used as a back-up for the time when there is no output from nuclear due to suddenly shutting down while on load, maintenance problems or planned outages.
Nuclear cannot follow the variations in grid demand it is take all the output ie 1200MW or 600MW or nothing.

A coal fired power station can run at base load 24/7, come on load within hours, vary the output from min load to max load and in between to follow the grid demands and we also have hydro generation.
A coal fired power station can be run as a 'marginal station', guaranteeing seasonal and peak supply.

With wind generation I don't think it is envisaged that there will be no output at anyone time thus the wind generation output will vary this can be covered by flexible power stations/generators/hydro so this rules out nuclear.

To sum up within Scotland (in my opinion) we need power generation which can be used as base load and also flexible enough to follow the grid demands due to consumer demand and the fluctutions from renewables.
Makes no sense in building a nuclear power station when we can have this flexibility using fossil fuel generation.
Environmental, building and decommissioning costs etc are another matter.
48

Pilrig.,

Livingston 23/11/2008 09:19:06
37 - howzaboot building one in yer neighbourhood, dude ?
49

Pilrig.,

Livingston 23/11/2008 09:20:00
46 - No it wasn't, it was a daft post.
50

Warden An' All, Reborn,

23/11/2008 09:29:56
Alex Salmond has no problem prolonging the nuclear power stations already in Scotland. He knows we don’t have enough power without them. Yet building nuclear power plants while better means can be found is thought to be unthinkable. Isn’t it a little strange and just a bit two faced. What happens when the old nuclear power stations can no longer be kept going. Will he import power produced from nuclear power stations else where, including new power plants.
51

JG,

Fife 23/11/2008 09:35:24
I'm not keen on nuclear power either but would a sensible person not have the alternatives in place first? Salmond talks of wind power but there aren't enough windmills to provide that. And places where these farms are proposed meet with objections from the locals. We invented wave power ourselves but where are all of the machines to generate such power? Oh! We haven't got them yet. Does nobody actually think things through before spouting forth?
52

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 23/11/2008 09:39:18
A recent BBC Scotland report from Dounreay stated that it had taken 6 years to dismantle a very small part of the facility!

It was explained that it will take another 26 years to fully decontaminate the site which will still be unusable for many decades afterwards!

The cost is being covered by the UK Government and not British Energy?

Who cares if a selfish legacy of the storage of toxic waste and the astronomical decommissioning costs will be passed on to future generations?
53

,

23/11/2008 09:42:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

We are responsible for ourselves.,

23/11/2008 09:43:41
"This is total garbage and the height of hypocrisy from the Labour Party."
55

Warden An' All, Reborn,

23/11/2008 09:57:15
55-Union is ¬Best-If there were better means available why would you continue with nuclear power stations. I am saying we have little choice but to follow the nuclear road if we wish to guarantee our power supply. If you don’t aim for better how do you go forward?

56

,

23/11/2008 10:00:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
57

brownlie,

23/11/2008 10:04:01
59 UiB

I think you missed out "hot air".
58

,

23/11/2008 10:18:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 23/11/2008 10:20:24
Nuclear is not the answer as its short term investment with whole life costs that minimise the return on the investment with some unwelcome side effects.

Proper and sustained investment into renewables plus energy saving measures are the genuine long term solutions to our energy demands but the SNP are still trapped into an unwilling position where hard decisions must be taken - the likes of the Lewis wind farm is a classic example of them running scared on taking the tough decisions of a government that must rule for the long term benefit of the majority of the people.
60

calum,

23/11/2008 10:21:37
#48 - a meaningless anti-English rant. The fact that Labour are in power at all in Westminster is down to the fact that they rely on the voters in Scottish constituencies keeping them there.
61

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 23/11/2008 10:55:21
i think the problem is dumping the waste. The ideal place for DECC to do this is Scotland (low population stable geology etc). Politically and practically this would be a problem if the region was non nuclear. As #1 says the exports go the other way and with the potential from renewables and more economic sources - Salmond has this one right.
62

sigholm,

ayr 23/11/2008 10:57:19
Mick, Mick, Mick, move on. Scotland shall not embrace the dangers of nuclear energy, saying nothing about putting our energy requirements into the hands of foreigners.
Paw Broon and his gaggle of goons want to DUMP their waste in Scotland, develope a backbone and admit it.
An independent Scotland will not be a dumping ground for Nuclear muck, nor failed new labour politicians.
63

chico y,

23/11/2008 11:15:45
Usual biased drivel. Why doesn't everyone club together to buy Johnston press and get some honest reporting. The share price is so low it couldn't be hard.

Why have some toxic nuclear energy ahead of renewables ? A no brainer unless you are a liebore propagandist.
64

Ewan M,

23/11/2008 11:22:06
Usual abuse from the SNP supporters if you dare disgree with the Furher Salmond. What an embarresment some of them are to the SNP and Scotland.
65

Fifi la Bonbon,

23/11/2008 11:24:57
Well, as I said earlier, I don't see any problem with this. Scotland and England are all part of the United Kingdom, and it is clear that that's not going to change, so it doesn't really matter. Mr O'Brien is raising an irrelevancy. Nr Salmond should just ignore him, as should the nationalists. but they can't!

66

cataibh,

Over the Struie 23/11/2008 11:27:45
After reading this rubbish I am so pleased that I cancelled my order some time ago for the scotland on sunday and the scotsman,the money saved each year not buying these rags is now paying for the insurance,license,and break down insurance for my car.
67

,

23/11/2008 11:27:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

Conan the Librarian™,

23/11/2008 12:12:28
31
democracy

I may have been indulging in infantile giggling, but I have never committed the sin of Unionism...

Teeheeheee.
69

Nevsky,

Moscow 23/11/2008 12:17:21
70 union#

The only thing that is an embarassement to Scotland are the unionists, the ones that actually think that the majority of English people could care less about the union or Scotland.

The Scottish unionists are not far fron the N/Irish bunch of AM2's ilk, they are all an emarassement as far as i am concerned.
70

Nevsky,

Moscow 23/11/2008 12:40:39
Here is a link for all the unionists..only the BNP can stop the uk breaking up..think they should all flock to joing a party that campaigns on it's Britishness so much:

http://scotland.bnp.org.uk/
71

Warden An' All, Reborn,

23/11/2008 12:43:05
59-Union is ¬Best-I take it you are being ironic and not just moronic. If there had been better means to produce power right now we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It then would be obvious to any sentient being that if this were the case in the future we would still go for the better option. The better option, I would think, being sustainable power for the whole of Scotland.
“You sound like a ludicrous Nat!” –You are joking aren’t you?




72

GerryWolff,

Wales 23/11/2008 12:57:31
Mike O'Brien is quite wrong to suggest that Scotland needs nuclear power ("Stop ducking nuclear issue, Salmond told", Scotland on Sunday, 2008-11-23). There are more than enough alternatives that are cheaper, quicker to build and altogether more attractive (see http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/scenarios.htm and http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/energy.htm). When environmental and hidden costs are factored in, nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity (see http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/no_nukes.htm#subsidies). Scotland has huge potential to generate power from the wind, from waves, and from tidal streams, and could export large amounts of that power to the rest of the UK and Europe.
73

Charles MN,

23/11/2008 13:05:08
#49
"Nuclear cannot follow the variations in grid demand it is take all the output ie 1200MW or 600MW or nothing."

Where did you get this rubbish from? All nukes used in the west can vary their power output.

"With wind generation I don't think it is envisaged that there will be no output at anyone time"

At the moment windfarms are likely to be producing very little power. Certainly this one:
http://www.middelgrund.com/ is producing none.
74

Jimmy Le Pie,

23/11/2008 13:12:49
Lets give London all planning powers and let's cover the whole countryside with wind farms and nuclear power stations. After all if Engerland needs power who better to supply it than Spanish, French, German and Italian state owned generators.

I see one of the benefits of Comrade Broon's tax give-away is the sale of the Forestry Commission.
This will end up in German/French hands.
Might as well sell the whole of Scotland as well, there's not much left.
75

John S,

23/11/2008 13:18:24
#77 I will give you my source(s)when you show that nuclear power stations can follow the varying grid demands. I stand by my statement.

76

Charles MN,

23/11/2008 13:45:17
#80
Hunterston B has been running at 70% power for the last 9 months or so. To say that it is all or nothing is nonsense.

77

Charles MN,

23/11/2008 13:51:44
#80
The other example is France where 85% of power comes from nuclear. If you say that nuclear can't follow baseload you are saying that the baseload in France never varies by more than 15%.
78

Dunfesterin,

Your mum's 23/11/2008 14:07:48
Oh here we go... become independent and we'll all freeze to death... yet more Labour scaremongering.

For God's sake roll on 2010 and independence. That is unless we've all frozen to death.

79

John S,

23/11/2008 14:08:47
#81/82: Not well documented sources showing that nuclear can follow the varying grid demands. Hunterston B has a problem and runs at a reduced power but still cannot follow the grid demand it is either all its 840MW or nothing.
Quotes:-
French nuclear is so inflexible that at night the French reactors, which can't be readily switched off, must export surplus power to neighbouring European countries like UK, Germany and Belgium to keep the lights on.
3000 x 1.6 MW emergency diesel generators in private hands in France that operate alongside the special EJP tariff that encourages consumers to switch off their demand from the French grid when it's nuclear power stations are unavailable.January 19,2008

Thirdly, a nuclear plant runs flat out, it does not follow load up or down. 22 May 2008

But they are extremely inflexible in operation. Although it is possible in some cases to vary their output slightly, it is technically and economically ...

Nuclear power plants are base load stations, which work best when the power output is constant

In its 2006 Energy Review, the UK government noted: “[Nuclear power] has the disadvantage that it cannot easily follow the peaks and troughs in energy demand”. This statement implies; that nuclear power is used as a baseload source of electricity production. July 1st, 2007

Thirdly, nuclear power is a relatively inflexible energy source – only able to supply electricity and not well suited to meeting variations in load on the grid.10th April, 2006

80

,

23/11/2008 14:13:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
81

Charles MN,

23/11/2008 14:16:40
#84
http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=45

"Why is nuclear power baseload?
July 1st, 2007 by William Nuttall, University of Cambridge

If there is nuclear power in the generation mix, whether in liberalised electricity markets or in vertically integrated monopoly electricity systems, one tends to always find it playing a baseload role. The only examples where nuclear power output is adjusted to follow changes in demand are in those countries, such as France, where nuclear power is the technology used for the vast majority of electricity production and there is insufficient other scope for flexibility.

In its 2006 Energy Review, the UK government noted: “[Nuclear power] has the disadvantage that it cannot easily follow the peaks and troughs in energy demand”. This statement implies; that nuclear power is used as a baseload source of electricity production simply for technical engineering reasons. In recent months my former student Laurent Pouret and I have been considering to what extent technical factors force nuclear power to be used as a baseload technology. We note that for the UK the first and second generation (graphite-moderated and gas cooled) reactor types were either never designed or never licensed for load following operations. As such those technologies do indeed have engineering and regulatory obstacles blocking any role beyond baseload operation.

One purpose of the 2006 UK Energy Review, and the subsequent 2007 Energy and Planning White Papers, has be to renew UK debate concerning the possibility of new nuclear power plants. For new designs it is for the most part not the case that they “cannot easily follow the peaks and troughs and energy demand”. In that context there is the possibility of UK policy being developed based upon flawed information. Britain’s modern nuclear power plant Sizewell B in Suffolk was built in the 1990s. It, and any new build nuclear power plants, will be capable of flexible operations and perhaps even load followi
82

Charles MN,

23/11/2008 14:18:22
#84
"I accept that in the future nuclear generation will continue to be operated as baseload power, but I question the assumption that this is for simply technical reasons.

In our recent working paper , we consider factors affecting choices for next generation nuclear power-plants and we conclude that they will indeed continue to operated as baseload generators. The reason for this will not be technical, rather it will be economic. The extremely low marginal costs of operation of a nuclear power plant conventionally favour maximal operations at all times. Our paper discusses the technical aspects mentioned above in greater depth than is possible here, and it also explains the relationship between nuclear power plant operations and the economics of electricity systems.

We would welcome comments from all readers of www.energypolicyblog.com on the role of nuclear power in both liberalised electricity markets and its place in the merit orders of vertically integrated monopoly systems. It seems likely that in the decades to come nuclear power will be deployed in ever more flexible modes and our work aims at broadening understanding of the issues involved and seeks to challenge some common misconceptions. "
83

John S,

23/11/2008 14:39:19
#86/87 Charles MN, I didn't like your posts and what you inferred was my lack of knowledge on this subject.
#77 Where did you get this rubbish from ?
#81 To say that it is all or nothing is nonsense.
So am I writing rubbish and writing nonsense.
I did work for the SSEB/Scottish Power for 25 years so unless you are more knowledgeable ???

Quite frankly I am getting bored with your lack of knowledge on this subject.

P.S.You still haven't shown documented proof that nuclear power plants can follow the grid demand after saying I wrote rubbish and nonsense.
84

Charles MN,

23/11/2008 14:41:01
#84
This paper give more details.
http://www.cessa.eu.com/sd_papers/wp/wp2/0203_Pouret_Nuttall.pdf

To summarise, the AGR and magnox reactors were never designed or approved for load following but that doesn't mean that nuclear plant can't be designed for that purpose. Whether it is economically sensible is another matter.

Figure 5 is quite interesting as it shows the cost of CO2 capture on coal electricity prices.
85

Hamish Scott,

23/11/2008 14:42:46
#63
"#48 - a meaningless anti-English rant. The fact that Labour are in power at all in Westminster is down to the fact that they rely on the voters in Scottish constituencies keeping them there."

Calum - English Labour MPs form an absolute majority at Westminster.
86

John S,

23/11/2008 14:59:36
#89 Charles MN: Stop it. Your getting boring and I was correct when I said nuclear cannot follow the variations in grid demand and it is take all the output or no output nothing you have waffled about has contradicted my statement and you still haven't proved otherwise and I did not like your silly remarks.
#77 Where did you get this rubbish from ?
#81 To say that it is all or nothing is nonsense.
I did work at a power station for 25 years and it wasn't in the canteen.
87

The Strategist,

23/11/2008 15:06:49
Because of Govt cutbacks in both nuclear R&D and engineering training, Gordon's sale of Westinghouse to the Japanese and of course Gordon's failure to properly control/monitor the activities of the banks which has resulted in a massive cut back in the availability of funding, the UK will have to rely on the French state owned company EDF to build and operate and take the profit from any future nuclear new builds..

Makes you really proud eh..
88

Bele's bane,

Scotland 23/11/2008 15:07:55
Nuclear Power in the long run is necessary to our existance, it will also help us to finally be free from the tyranny of England's rule!

Freedom for Scotland!
89

subrosa,

23/11/2008 15:18:32
# 79

Jimmy could you give the link to that information please. Thanks.
90

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 23/11/2008 15:45:00
As the chances of any new nuclear build in the UK fade, scolding Scotland for not wanting replacements of its failing reactors is somewhat pointless. Following the collapse of the capital markets, EdF, British Energy's would-be purchaser is finding it difficult to fund its takeover and will probably welcome an EC Competition Commissioner's refusal to allow it to go ahead.

Without exernal investment, BE has no chance of funding a replacement programme as it has lost the revenue from the shut-down AGRs and will continue to do so as they are withdrawn from service.

The prototype EPR under construction in Finland is 3 years late and at least 50% over budget, while the second in France is a year late after a year's work on site. Negotiations are underway as to which will pick up the tab for the additional costs. The viability of nuclear power needs to be checked out against the increased capital costs now evident. As a new design there will be some problems on its commissioning, so it would be foolhardy to order more until its operational success can be demonstrated.

Also Mike O'Brien's new department is probably not au fait with the running down of uranium supplies as its erstwhile DBERR ministers may not have warned him that primary mining production has stagnated and the secondary supplies which keep half of the US nukes going are coming to an end.

Declining fossil fuel supplies will relieve climate change, but empty the roads and skies, so Scotland's policy of concentrating on its natural renewable resources for survival are so evidently correct. Like the smile on the Cheshire cat, the nuclear "option" will slowly fade away, but that on Alec Salmond's will stay!
91

Jimmy Le Pie,

23/11/2008 15:51:23
94 Subrosa

From the Times,

"Asset sales Treasury examining sale of Met Office, Ordnance Survey and Forestry Commission".


http://tinyurl.com/64am3e
92

ExpatBackinScotland,

Carnoustie 23/11/2008 16:01:51
Why on earth would you want Scotland to have more neuclear power? The consequences of accidents or even decommisioning are far too high a price for our future generations to pay.

And as for the "lights go off without England" rubbish in this article, why is it that in a nation that has more natural resources than Sweden or Switzerland, more wind or tidal capacity than anyone in europe, 30+ years of oil reserves, an educated population, pioneering Universities, a history of creativity and invention, a thriving tourist industry, world wide brands etc, is it the case that THE SKY WILL FALL IN WITHOUT ENGLAND OR THE LIGHTS WILL GO OFF!!

Does anyone seriously believe Scotland is incapable of breathing without Support from England?

We had better have this referendum in 2010 because I for one cant wait to put a "YES" in that box and see independence roll in. We need Independence if for nothing else than to prove, we as a people, are capable running OUR country without the help of England. Guess what? When that day comes the sky wont fall in, the lights will stay on, the four horsemen of the apocalypse mwont turn up in Edinburgh, we wont starve and we WONT LOOK BACK.

grrrrr this Unionist scare stuff annoys me.
93

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 23/11/2008 16:16:29
I see the ultra pro London Labour Party SOS has found a couple of organisations backing the UKs Energy Minister but amazingly can't seem to find any backing the SNP's position.

This is SOS's idea of balanced journalism.

I wonder how many buyers are waiting in the wings for the Scotsman group's shares to fall to a suitable level where they will buy the company and then insist on balanced journalism before the papers sink without trace?

I do hope all the journalists survive the changeover!

94

Millerman1,

23/11/2008 16:51:35
35#

GOTCHA!

You will not be going for a ploughmans lunch.lol.
95

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/11/2008 17:56:18
Like many others I do not know enough about the relative merits, cost efficiencies, feasibility etc. of nuclear power as opposed to renewable energy to be able to make a detailed judgement on this issue.

However, I suspect that many others are in the same position but still feel that they can comment with authority (one can only wonder why)

However what I feel I can comment on is that decades of employment and dealing with others has taught me to be very wary and sceptical of those who take a fundamentalist, inflexible approach to matters and say that we must do it this way or not do it this way for idealogical rather than pragmatic reasons.

This is what worries me about the SNP's stance on nuclear power. It appears that they have ruled it out for idealogical reasons and seek to assure us that we do not need it and can manage with renewables with technology which appears to be unproven.

Is this the case or is it an optimistic gamble on something which may or not work. The depressing thing is that it appears that because Alex Salmond says that it must be so, many sympathisers automatically seem to assume it must be so and resort to insults and abuse to anybody who doubts it. Hardly the basis for proper discussion.
96

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 23/11/2008 18:16:56
Alex Salmond should be the next Doctor Who. Indicate your support at www.fat.eck.who?.org

With your support, we can ensure that Alex gets the job he deserves.
97

,

23/11/2008 18:25:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
98

,

23/11/2008 18:26:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
99

We are responsible for ourselves.,

23/11/2008 18:45:00
No you were right first time WU is an old ho.
100

,

23/11/2008 18:46:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

,

23/11/2008 18:52:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
102

,

23/11/2008 18:53:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
103

,

23/11/2008 19:00:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
104

BIG EYE,

Paisley 23/11/2008 19:01:51
Simple Question!

How can telling the nuclear lobby to get stuffed be ducking the issue?

That is what Alex Salmond has done and well done from me for doing so!
105

,

23/11/2008 19:03:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
106

Son of one of Stirlings finest,

Weston S Mare 23/11/2008 19:06:45

Where are you Mr Salmond, let us know you are well. I could not bear to think you might be in a darkened room, with a glass of Irn Bru and a loaded revolver, as you survey the wreckage of your political dreams. How tragic for you to have to accept that Edinburgh will never be renamed Salmongrad. Still the slings and arrows, I wanted to have it of with Kirsty Wark but life can fall short of expectation. Some say you shone like a star in the political firnament, but I think if you had to do a days work you would cack yourself.
107

,

23/11/2008 19:06:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
108

,

23/11/2008 19:07:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
109

,

23/11/2008 19:09:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
110

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 23/11/2008 19:13:50
Salmond is not 'dodging' the nuclear issue, he has said no to nuclear and made his reasons very clear. What's more he has widespread support throughout Scotland.

111

The Strategist,

23/11/2008 19:18:56
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7733487.stm
112

Son of one of Stirlings finest,

Weston S Mare 23/11/2008 19:23:09
118# sm753 well done, a well researched comment, something like I was about to say.
113

,

23/11/2008 19:28:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
114

,

23/11/2008 19:28:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
115

Son of one of Stirlings finest,

Weston S Mare 23/11/2008 19:32:38
120# Mr Hugh Roscombe, there,s no fooling you, how you doing ?I was getting a bit bored, I miss Rufus, but see you have been prolific today.
116

,

23/11/2008 19:34:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
117

Son of one of Stirlings finest,

Weston S Mare 23/11/2008 20:07:10
124# Danielrober. Well said ,
yours is the first comment to brave the charge of heresy and suggest that that Conservative policy could be a benefit to Scotland.
118

We are responsible for ourselves.,

23/11/2008 20:35:47
daniel, would that be the high speed rail link to Leeds?
119

Satire above all,

23/11/2008 20:38:42
So, Unionist Labour MP's are warning Scots that we need nuclear power. What they really mean is that they need nuclear power stations in Scotland to provide energy for the growing English population. Scotland has ample resources and is well capable of providing the energy needs for its population of a mere 5 million.

We hear of there being a requirement to build 2 nuclear power stations in Scotland. his being the case would suggest that Lould require at least 2 also :-) So, let them build a couple of power stations in the ehart of London then get back to us :-) In the meantime, concentrate on how we can get rid the weapons of mass destruction from Scotland's precious soil.
120

Satire above all,

23/11/2008 20:52:55
Thinking about this article again, I think maybe Labour are trying to build a case to remove some powers from Holyrood! Didn't their reply to the Calma report threaten as much?
121

Alan Reid,

Skive 23/11/2008 22:09:45
Tell them where to go Alex! We don't need, nor want nuclear power.
122

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 23/11/2008 23:49:13
#95 and #100

The problems of the EPR at Olkiluoto Finland are engineering, mainly to do with quality control. Much of the reinforced concreting had to be re-done, but more concerning on safety has been the internal stainless steel cladding of the reactor vessel shell, which has had to be remedied.

Instead of the graphite moderator cracking up as in the AGRs, the EPR uses boric acid in the pressurised water. But this can cause stress corrosion cracking in the vessel liner and in the welds around the pipe connections (called penetrations), calling into question the 60 year reactor life claimed. Around 30 vessel tops of the 58 French reactors have been changed, due to internal corrosion. It is impossible to simulate the 60 year life circumstances in short-term laboratory tests. There have been arguments over documentation which any project manager will testify is the most difficult aspect of the job, but an essential component. The engineering is difficult and costly when it goes wrong. Whether the EPR is reliable or not will not be known until 2080!

There are many other aspects of the new EPR which are under scrutiny by the Generic Design Assessment team, such as the higher enriched uranium employed in the core (4.9%?).

It is however somewhat comforting to know that the so-called "renaissance" will most likely stall for lack of uranium! This is why the main concerns are lack of fuel and return on capital.
123

Alan Reid,

Skive 24/11/2008 07:49:52
Focus on nuclear plant's future

Wylfa power station will cease electricity production in 2010
It will take over a century and cost £850m, now the public is being asked what it thinks of clean-up plans for Anglesey's nuclear plant.

The Wylfa power station is due to halt electricity production in 2010, after nearly 40 years in operation.

It has taken three years for specialists to pull together detailed plans for decommissioning the site.

Those proposals are being put out for public consultation, starting with an open day at Wylfa on Friday.

"Once we have completed generation and de-fuelled the reactors, we can't just start dismantling equipment and knock buildings down," said Janet Milburn, the decommissioning strategy manager.

We are working hard with our colleagues...to see how we can maximise opportunities for local companies

John Idris Jones, Magnox North

As well as considering how to handle radioactive waste at the site, the environmental study being considered also looks at the cultural and archaeological impacts of decommissioning the station.

"When Wylfa stops generating there will be period of four to five years when there will be very little difference in the visual impact of Wylfa on the skyline," explained Ms Milburn.

"When we get to about 2015, we will begin to see the skyline changing. The smaller building will disappear over a period of 10 years."

But the large reactor building that dominates the station's site will remain in place for another hundred years, before the "final site clearance" stage is reached.


It will be 100 years before the main reactor building is ready for removal

However, very early on in the process, the highly radioactive fuel cells - all 98,000 of them - will be removed and taken to Sellafield in Cumbria for reprocessing.

"That removes 99.9% of the radioactive inventory on the site," said the decommissioning manager.

The report puts forward plans to build a new
124

Alan Reid,

Skive 24/11/2008 07:51:32
2

The report puts forward plans to build a new storage building on the site to hold the remaining intermediate radioactive waste, which will include plant structures that have been contaminated during the stations operating life.

Other low-level waste material is likely to be taken to Drigg in Cumbria.

One of the major considerations in the report is the economic impact Wylfa's closure will have on Anglesey.

It estimates that wage levels on the island will fall by around 2.1% as a direct result of loosing 750 jobs at the plant, and an estimated 100 others in the local area.

Bleakly, the report states: "The ability of Magnox Electric to directly avoid or reduce the significant adverse employment impacts during decommissioning is limited."

'Opportunities'

However, John Idris Jones, from Wylfa's owners, Magnox North, said all was being done to ensure that when decommissioning gets underway, as many local people are employed as possible.

"What we are seeking to do is to put in to the big framework agreements clauses that require those companies to look towards taking on sub-contract work with local companies and to look towards employing local people," said Mr Jones.

"We are working hard with our colleagues within the Welsh Assembly Government and within Ynys Mon (Anglesey) to see how we can maximise opportunities for local companies."


125

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 24/11/2008 10:28:45
#134

Primary uranium mining is stagnant at around 40,000 tonnes a year, while the secondary sources, of diluted ex-weapons highly enriched uranium from Russia, of re-worked mine tailings, a modicum of mixed-oxide fuel ~(MOX) and which supply 40% of the 66,000 tonnes per year reactor fuel demand are ending in 5 years time.

Of the two major replacement mines, needed to replace those closing, Cigar Lake is flooded and likely to be abandoned, while Olympic Dam plans to send uranium to China as a contaminant in unsmelted copper concentrate.

The French mines are exhausted, so as the lights in France are 77% dependent on nuclear generation, security of supply for the French nuclear hegemony is in doubt.

There is no way that the nuclear aspirations of so many countries can be supplied with fuel or with the capital needed for new mines, power plants or waste handling measures.

The "renaissance" will be "aborted" or still-born.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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