Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Nuclear faults cause 24% drop in electricity output

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
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: 06 January 2008
By Jenny Percival
ELECTRICITY generated by nuclear power has fallen by a quarter in Scotland because of poor reliability, figures have revealed.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform found that electricity generated from nuclear power in Scotland decreased by 24%, mainly due to "unplanned outages". The figures came as the UK Government prepares to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Jim Mather, Holyrood's Energy Minister, said the problems at Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian proved that nuclear power was unreliable and unnecessary, and reinforced the SNP's policy of concentrating on green and renewable sources of energy.

But Labour peer and nuclear expert Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan said Scotland should keep nuclear energy.

"There is no renewable form of energy which is not interrupted, affordable and can sustain the needs of mass consumption 24/7," he said.



The full article contains 155 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 January 2008 9:07 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Hugo of Garven,

06/01/2008 09:19:16
Obviously wave/tidal power generators are required to provide back-up for any future nuclear power station.
2

Unimpressed one,

06/01/2008 10:58:49
"There is no renewable form of energy which is not interrupted, affordable and can sustain the needs of mass consumption 24/7," he said. Rare but sensible comment from a politician.
3

druidh,

edinburgh 06/01/2008 11:42:53
If we managed with 24% less nuclear power generation, can't we just close on full time? Or are they all need as "back-up" to each other?
4

Colin, Glasgow,

06/01/2008 13:38:54
If you don't mind picking up the shortfall by burning fossil fuel and importing electricity from across the border then yes we could shut down the nuclear power stations. The gap here is being filled by fossil fuel and consequently everybody's carbon footprint has increased significantly over the period. And, with the current price of gas it also means our electricity price has also increased. For some reason Jim Mather failed to point this out.

If nuclear is truly "unecessary", why doesn't Jim shut them down now?
5

Neil,

Glasgow 06/01/2008 14:05:40
"Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian proved that nuclear power was unreliable and unnecessary, and reinforced the SNP's policy of concentrating on green and renewable sources of energy."

Alternately it proves that Hunterston is reaching the end of its design life - something we already knew.

Surely there is some conflict between saying that elderly nuclear is unreliable (unlike wind ;-) ) & that it is better to keep "unsafe" elderly generators rather than build state of the art new ones. I wonder how many ministers are running around in 40 year old cars (actually no I don't ;-) )
6

Buteman,

Newton Stewart 08/01/2008 21:30:53
Just have to keep saying it, I guess, eventually it might sink in: if we invest in a mix of renewables, including hydro, marine, biomass and wind, and at the same time make sensible reductions in our energy consumption we get sustainable, reliable power which will meet our requirements not just this decade but permanently. Furthermore we sustain our engineering industry and gain a range of exportable technologies.
If on the other hand we build new nuclear generators we wait 12 years for them to come on-stream, they run maybe 40 years and then we decommission them, at a total cost far higher than we would have invested in renewables. We could have begun this strategy decades ago, but we didn't. Let's not miss the bus again!
7

Colin, Glasgow,

09/01/2008 19:29:42
#6 Sweden has been trying what you suggest for over quarter of a century (since they voted to phase out nuclear power) and they still get half of their electricity from nuclear.

By all means invest in renewables, but don't expect to cut carbon emissions if you phase out nuclear power. You can do one or the other but not both.

A sensible strategy would include nuclear and renewables, while cutting production and consumption of fossil fuel. Sweden is more or less half hydro and half nuclear. They have about the lowest emissions per head in Europe (40% less than UK, while using 60% more energy per capita).
8

scoobie,

edinburgh 10/01/2008 00:52:42
nuclear power stations are always a danger. Chernobyl long island i think also in us and i believe there has been near disasters here on a smaller scale in the uk including scotland. most near disasters or miniature disasters will always be suppressed by government and the main players in the power industries. scotland has hydro power and for many generations it will always be so save the unexpected. all you have to do is lose natural habitat by building a dam and flooding some more land to create a reservoir. modern reservoirs are better managed these days so the size does not have to compare to any other great engineering achievements abroad. people would say it is unacceptable and wave power is far more eco friendly well that is a lie it is more esthetically pleasing but equally as intrusive and polluting as a reservoir it is only that it does not cost habitat for land dwellers. wind turbines are far better so long as they are not too many and evenly distributed. you can buy your own out of B&Q as well as solar panel which i believe both are priced for the rich eccentric sections of society and not the poorer folks who would and could do with some money saving technology . if you look up the turbine and generators of that sort you will see even scavenging from spare components or buying affordable components new you can achieve the same, obviously simply it is what fellow next door can do well you can the same and do not worry about copy rights as the technology is an amalgamation of many components from many different machines.
9

scoobie,

edinburgh 10/01/2008 01:36:51
cold war technologies in war machines always seem similar take the American and Russian fighters and other inventions they all look like either the Americans have been stealing from the Russians or via versa. the truth is most of the smart technologies that the Americans have today were more likely developed by the Russians but not advanced to implementation on a scale that the mighty buck has achieved. the smart technologies of the gulf wars was in use by Russia in Afghanistan and before that. so if you can get your hands on the plans for a wind or hydro turbine or solar panels you can invent your own versions or just put them together for your own needs. a windmill + gears a water wheel and gears, just add the dynamo similar to that which is used to power old push bike lights that looks like a little metal milk bottle with a wheel at the top. obviously you will need more energy for your home, a larger dynamo and more kinetic energy in the form of natures forces which is never too difficult. you will have to do study on voltage watts current and other measurements in electricity but you can get all that on a pc software program or like the building you get calculators and slide rules that do calculations and are simple to use.
10

projoule,

Dundee 10/01/2008 11:29:53
If only it were as simple as scoobie makes it sound I wonder why I had so much difficulty becoming an engineer it only seems to be a matter of windmills, water and gears. Unfortunately it just isn't that simple and the only real route for sustainable energy has to be nuclear and let's get rid of one hoary old argument at the outset comparing yesterday's nuclear technology with today's is a bit like comparing a model T-Ford with a Porsche yes they both work on the principle of combustion but that's where the similarity ends.
I normally refrain from commenting on matters like this since logic often seems to depart the scene and be replaced by an off-shoot of the brown rice and sandals brigade with some dreamy romantic notion of the noble savage living in perfect equity with the environment or mother earth. The truth of the matter is somewhat different; Germany, probably the world’s leading builder and exponent of wind turbines is now and has been building nuclear generating stations, a government representative from that country is on record as having said of wind generation it has been an extremely damaging and costly mistake France is currently in the middle of a major nuclear generating station building programme to name but two. Have these countries possibly noticed something? Possibly the volatility of the middle-east oils supplies and the recognition of the importance of domestic and industrial supply continuity?
Next to nourishment and shelter society’s most important need is energy and in using it no matter how efficient we are we waste it be it in transmission cables or lighting up buildings, deserted roads and streets the list is endless. Without societal revolution homo sapiens will not change. If a coal/oil-fired boiler has to be on constant standby to back up weather unpredictability for “green energy” is that acceptable? When we find ourselves running short of energy do we simply keep our hands green by buying from a foreign nuclear provider?
The s
11

projoule,

dundee 10/01/2008 12:11:01
Continued:-
The snake-oil salespeople who, like their counterparts in the cosmetic industry have been busy weaving their deceitful webs whether it’s to a gullible public - You can have your own personal energy source think how the neighbours will envy you - even if it will take decades to pay back, if ever, the initial cost of your installation or a government so lobbied by representatives they to begin to believe or more cynically because they think it’s what the voters want to hear. And who stands to gain from this propaganda? Well if you are having difficulty reaching a conclusion perhaps energy use isn’t your biggest challenge.
Taking one example, forgetting for a moment the unpredictability of wind generation, the mountains in Scotland and I’m often there, are too small (compared say with Norway) to provide the water storage as potential energy for society-sustaining needs. A letter in the Scotsman yesterday (9/01/08) by Professor David MacKay Dept. of Physics Unv. Cambridge pointed this out with his comments regarding the journalistic take on the description of electricity produced from Glendoe meeting the electrical consumption of all of Glasgow. The truth of the matter would seem to be a little different the energy output in reality would barely light one 40watt bulb per resident in that city.
The brutal truth of the matter is where ignorance prevails opinions multiply most of which are fatally flawed.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Nuclear energy

More Nuclear energy >>

Today's Vote

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

Web Links:

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.