Not going nuclear
It is now received wisdom that the first big clash between Holyrood and Westminster will centre upon nuclear power. As so often, the received wisdom is wrong.
Firstly, there is already something approaching a deal on the table 鈥 or, more accurately, lurking beneath it.
This was struck - if one can use such a vigorous word for such a nebulous concept - between Jack McConnell and the UK government.
The deal was this. Holyrood wouldn鈥檛 rule out nuclear power as a quintessentially bad thing - but in practice Scotland鈥檚 contribution to the new energy map would be a vast increase in renewable supply. Not new nuclear.
That handed goodies to both sides. For the UK government, there was no awkward statement of ideological opposition to new nuclear; for Holyrood, there was an understanding that, in reality, new nuclear is not going to happen in Scotland.
It is now said that Wednesday's Commons statement by Alistair Darling will prompt conflict with the resolutely anti-nuclear SNP administration in Holyrood. Again, I think not.
Firstly, the nuclear companies are not necessarily going to want to build in Scotland. Too far from their big customer base. Too difficult politically. Why not just lodge planning applications in the south-east of England - where there are customers and compliant politicians? The Scottish issue may not arise at all.
Secondly, conflict only genuinely occurs - and lasts - where there is a dispute over powers. In this case, there is no dispute.
True, Westminster has reserved control over energy strategy. But Holyrood has control over individual projects under planning legislation and the Electricity Act. Westminster can say: 鈥淏ritain must have new nuclear power stations.鈥 Holyrood can say: 鈥淔ine. Build them where you fancy 鈥 but not in Scotland. We say no.鈥 That is where the 鈥渃onflict鈥 ends.
Think seriously for a moment. If Holyrood says no - and it will - how is a nuclear station to be built in Scotland? By the army? The UK government knows this fine and well. It knew it fine and well when Jack McConnell was in power and 鈥渦nconvinced鈥 by the case for new nuclear. That is why I believe the McConnell 鈥渄eal鈥 will persist.
New nuclear will not be proposed for Scotland in practice - whatever the interim rhetoric. Scotland鈥檚 contribution to the UK鈥檚 future energy needs will be a massive increase in renewable provision.
You think that鈥檚 a cop-out? You think that鈥檚 a soft option? Windfarms, anyone? Beauly-Denny?
PS: Apologies for the brief interruption in bloggery. The above meanderings were scripted at home where I am recovering from a bout of dysentery (well, it felt like that.) Come the revolution, we shall abolish digestive systems.
I'm 
Comments
I'm not inspired by the SNP position on nuclear. In fact it depresses me that we are going to have another government jumping on bandwagons set up by zealous minorities. I want to live in a country which can provide its own energy; the opposition to nuclear is preposterous. Let the greens live in the middle ages if they want but the rest of us should be able to benefit from the advances of science.
You are right the received wisdom is often wrong and it will continue to be wrong until people are told forcefully and realistically the implications of relying on wind farms and wave machines.
What a tricky question, Scotland needs new energy sources, building Nuclear Power stations is one answer, obviously the SNP and many other Scottish MP's feel that they do not wish to go down this specific route.
This means that England will have to build the Power stations to satisfy the energy demands of Scotland, this will not be allowed to happen as no-one in England will want a Nuclear facility on their doorsteps, nor one that is primary built for Scottish energy requirements.
So where does that leave everyone?, and where does that leave Mr Brown?, I cannot see Gordon allowing more Nuclear Facilities to be built in England knowing that the majority of newspapers are waiting for him to do something that will benefit Scotland to the detriment of England, the only result if Gordon did agree would be to further polarise him and his party amongst the English voters.
Mr Salmond would be wise to keep pushing this topic to force the British Government to make a firm commitment about how it will address this problem, it would also further serve his Independent Scotland agenda if he could further alienate English views of continuing the unbalanced Union with Scotland.
I await the next chapter in this story with interest!.
I think your analysis is spot on Brian. Apart from the political reality that Holyrood has powers under the electricity act why on earth would it be in a unionist government's interest to pick a fight on this one?
BIG FISH Salmond was simply getting stuck in early. He wins either way. If there is no nuclear development in Scotland then he gets to look as though he stood up for Scotland early on and won. If they are foolish enough to try to press the matter then the SNP get to lead the revolt and use their powers and they win again.
However all will not remain sweet for the BIG FISH. If there is to be major renewable development, which is then the only alternative, this will mean massive development of tidal and wind power. These are rural technologies and many of the developments will be fiercely opposed. The process of securing planning consent for wind and tidal power I think will open up divisions within the SNP themselves and with the greens.
The greens will of course try to press for reduced consumption but thats a non starter given that the SNP campaign was built in good measure on saying that Scotland lags behind tehrest of the UK in economic activity. They are hardly goiing to agree to handicap Scotland by restraining development are they.
If they were sensible maybe they would push for massive investment in small scale renewables and home energy efficiency. This could open up massive economic activity for small business development. It may cause less nimbyism. It could save consumers money on bills. It would diversify supply. I am no tree hugger - but maybe that's the way to go?
I don't think a Scottish nuclear program could be considered self sufficient unless there are Uranium mines somewhere in Scotland, although I believe our good friends in Malawi do have the potential to mine Uranium.
It also seems extremely unlikely that Nuclear power generated electricity from the English South coast would power anything in Scotland, they will need the energy there.
I have stated before that this is an area of policy weakness within the SNP, Liberal and Green parties; I can understand why there is an anti nuclear attitude, Scotland was always the place to put things that could either cause environmental problems or be 鈥榗old war targets鈥 (Dounreay and Faslane)
That said we are now in the position where we can say yea or nay to planning proposals; we should ensure that the only criteria to be applied should be how it affects Scotland.
How can we refuse the building of nuclear power stations in Scotland when the reality would mean Scotland would be an net importer of electricity; what if generators in England said we have no conventionally generated electricity available to export to Scotland would our Parliament be willing to accept nuclear generated electricity from English based stations?
Duplicity me thinks.
We need a electricity generating policy that is not reliant on a single source, wind, water, solar, fossil fuel, (gas, oil and coal) or nuclear.
Let's look at this issue strategically. Gordon Brown recently sold off the only UK owned nuclear reactor builder - Westinghouse - to Panasonic the Japanese company. So whoever builds any new UK nuclear power stations it won't be a UK company. So now value adding there then thanks to Gordo's stupidity..
On the renewables side UK investment in new technology is verging on the pathetic. Already we are seeing companies being bought up by overseas companies (e.g. Wavegen by Siemens) and as it happens the bigger investors in both UK and Scottish renewable tech tend not to be Scottish or British..
The problem being that you could get funding for a windfarm tomorrow but finding funding to develop a wind technology company would be immensely difficult.. That's the UK way..
Already the Spanish owned Scottish Power has done a deal with a Norwegian owned tidal current technology to bring it's technology to Scotland.. A win/win for someone else but not for Scotland.
In reality the UK Govt and the UK financial institutions won't back renewables sufficiently well for us to develop the Scottish global industry we'd all like.. Depressing isn't it.
I agree with Bunc in the fact that small scale grants / investments and selling back to the grid is the way to go. I'm no tree hugger either (well there's no trees in Shetland anyway), but giving people who want to generate their own power is the way forward for SNP. Those who want to will jump at the chance and those are are against simply won't. There could therefroe be less need for huge windfarms which can split communities. OK there would still be demand for larger windfarms but that exists at the moment and the SNP are not going to miss the chance to reduce where they can the need for such large windfarms...they can say it was "much less than Labour were planning to introduce" and of course there will be no nuclear plants in Scotland. I doubt there would have been even if Labour were in power here....it would have been suicide, but they were killed off before they needed to make that decision.
Brian is correct, to a point.
Sadly Scotland needs nuclear power, partly for our own energy diversity and security; partly to retain design skills, employment for the construction teams and for the plant operators; but, more importantly, to export to the South for money.
The design will not be English 鈥 they have none - they will be German or French (auld alliance any one?)
The design studies for the infrastructure for the 3 sites (Chapel cross, Hunterston and Torness) will take about 5 years, then after the next Holyrood election, the decision can be announced by Westminster. Who knows, at that time the Tories may be in government in both houses.
One technical solution being developed by the Russians is to build the power plants on rafts, which are then towed to the preferred connection point. This could present the Scottish construction industry with a unique production facility if the political will could accept the financial and employment benefits.
The issue of waste is often raised as the major concern 鈥 yet 90% appears to come from medical use, to which no one objects, and not power generation. Again, Scotland is in a unique position to develop a storage facility in a remote areas if the political will could accept the financial and employment benefits.
Or, we could all put wind generators and solar panels on every house, and hope that it provides sufficient power鈥.
Brian, there is no going underground on this issue,it's not so much the building of new plant's (that's nu-clear) as the dumping of the waste;a 40% change from nuclear energy to renewable energy will take a vast amount of money and a least two decades to complete;it's simply to big a issues for A.Salmond to close the doors on?we are hardly 20 day's in to Alex Salmonds first 100 and already the ground beneath us is shaking,as the wiseman says rule nothing in or nothing out at this stage.
Personally, I think that there are more disadvantages to nuclear power than there are advantages. How can it possily be argued that nuclear power is more environmentally friendly when we are going to have to encase the whole reactor building in concrete for at least 250 years, if not for another millenium. Also, Chernobyl has shown us what can happen if it all goes spectacularly wrong. Scotland has lots of wind and waves. Let's be creative and harness that energy. It might appear to be more expensive than nuclear power, but has a nuclear power station ever been built on cost?
I am not against Nuclear Power in priciple, but I feel that with Scotland's almost unique endowment of likely renewable sources,the capital costs of construction of Nuclear power and the concomitant decommissioning process make them unsustainable in a Scottish context. As regards renewables, wind farms and waves are not the only option what about further Hydro and Tidal power projects, surely it is not beyond the industrial capacity of Scotland to utilise these sources. I can think of at least one small strait where the tidal current flows of giga tons of sea water could be relatively easily harnessed.
Joseph - you facts are wrong, Scotland already exports 25% of the electricity it produces to England! The next big clash may be on the transmission charges put on Scottish electricity being transfered south.
Simply put, Scotland overproduces electricity at the minute. One could describe Hunterston (now it is finally working again) or Torness as supplying English homes primarily - as they represent less than Scotland's overproduction of electricity.
However, as you say, this will be a difficult issue for team GB (for GB). Complaints will primarily come from those in the South East objecting to have a nuclear plant built near them - for their own electrical needs. The continued tansmission (and associated wastage) of electricity from Scotland and the North of England is no-longer sustainable. Especially if climate change is to be treated seriously.
John in Paisley, comment one, is wrong to speak of "zealous minorities"; two-thirds of Scots are opposed to building new nuclear power stations, even when the question posed includes reference to global warming.
Scotland CAN meet its energy needs through renewables, and is a unique position to do so. And until the problem of nuclear waste is solved then we should be focussing our R&D on wave and tidal power, and on getting that electricity to our homes, offices and factores.
Very insightful Brian. I fear, though, that whatever the McConnell deal was, it is Salmond who will come out looking like a winner having done precisely nothing.
Hope you get well soon!
An enlightening post, thanks Brian.
I wholeheartedly support the SNP's stance on both nuclear and renewable energy.
To suggest, as some have done, that they are jumping on the bandwagon of a few zealots is interesting. The SNP have been opposed to nuclear power for some time. In fact, I would suggest that the Labour party (in Westminster at least) has jumped on the bandwagon with their championing of nuclear power considering their starting point!
Apart from that, surely it is only right that when the majority of a nation oppose new nuclear power (as in Scotland) and the majority of politicians oppose new nuclear power (as in Scotland) that this is reflected in the energy policies of that nation. Perhaps, if any conflict were to occur, it might act as fuel for independence.
One might say that the independence movement will be powered by nuclear energy.
-Jonathan
To PMK #5,
Thank you for your response, I apologise for my incorrect understanding of who has the energy surplus, I must say that I was totally unaware of this and cannot remember any English newspaper pointing this out!.
Of course as Scotland is producing more than it needs, why should it not charge it's neighbour to gain access to this energy source?.
I don't subscribe to the notion that we must share everything (especially certain politicians!), if the English energy market needs to pay for the transmission costs, rather we pay Scotland than leave ourselves at the mercy of Russia and it's political whims.
Finally, as we both agree, I think that GB & CO will have huge issues whatever they do about gaining renewable energy, I also think that this will be the first of many, many topics which will start to arise now that Scotland seems to have found it's voice expressing it's displeasure at decisions made in Westminster which impact Scotland but without giving Scotland the chance for full consultation.
This does not mean that I support the break-up of the Union, however, the terms of the Union need to be revisited in an equitable way which suits both Scots and English alike.
Bunc (3),
Your analysis is interesting. Speaking as a rural, There is much resentment of the impact of windfarms and the prospect of tidal barrages, both visual and ecological. Consider the impact of a barrage on the extremely diverse estuarine environment of the Solway Firth, an international biosphere reserve with many 'designations', including scenic ones.
Actually, on examination, our scenic area's boundary lies at the low-water mark, allowing the intrusion of a 60 turbine windfarm which, from the shoreline, will seem taller than the Cumbrian mountains on the other side.
The windfarm will supply English customers. The very few long-term jobs will be on the English side, but the windfarm has been carefully placed on the Scottish side. The only British money in the project is a 拢10,000,000 grant from UK taxpayers. I wonder how long it will take for the seabed rental to break even, and that goes straight to central funds, not to our local coffers.
This rural area is a net exporter of electricity. If the Central Belt has perceived energy needs, let them invest in clean technology and build medium sized (or larger) power stations closer in and utilise the two/thirds of energy presently thrown away up cooling towers. Domestic heating is one of the largest energy consumption sectors, and Combined Heat and Power is one of the greatest potential energy savings we could make. Of course, nobody wants a nuke in the neighbourhood, and thus the big cooling-tower energy-dustbins.
Your other observation, that smaller, home-sized energy sources - distributed generation - may be one of the best solutions is welcome, and I AM a tree-hugger. Every home a generating station with a two way connection to the grid. Every village with a couple of wind turbines and a solar powered village hall and perhaps even a renewable pub.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh have recently published a comprehensive report of their inquiry into Scottish energy issues. It's well worth a read.
Full report:
and a summary:
As to living in the "middle-ages", Paisley John, remember that we have lived this hypermobile, energy hungry lifestyle for less than 300 years out of the 10,000 since we began farming and the million or so we lived as foragers. A mere .025% as . Our desperate seeking for any way to feed our increasing addiction to extrametabolic energy is exactly like an ordinary behaviour.
ed
22/05/2007 at 15:19:05 GMT
ed
I'm not so sure, I grew up 3 miles from Hunterston and I know the local difficulties involved building nuclear power stations - even when Hunterston A was there - Hunterston B was difficult to get in place. And the chance of foistering nuclear stations on currently "virgin" lands in england could provoke a huge backlash to Brown - especially if he says scotland can just have nice bunny friendly windmills :)
I'm currently living in Australia and the Howard government is currently trying to push the plan of upto 25 new nuclear power stations in australia over the next 20 years as a desperate attempt to prove themselves even vaguely green. The thing is, nearly every member of his government is for the policy and against it happening in their constituancy - they are in a real bind - and this more than anything could be the killer to the policy - ie local politics.
Personally i think Alex is onto a winner here. Sure there may have been a deal done under the table done before, but the whole point is now the deal will be above the table and out in the open. Cosy deals between Jack and Blair may have found succor in the westminster lobby - but its exactly the point why so many turned to the SNP only weeks ago...
People in favour of nuclear power forget to mention how subsidized it has been in the past. Also, when you add on the cost of decommissioning to then it's cheap energy is the opposite of the truth.
The UK governments' decision is a strategic one in that they do'nt want to rely on foreign supplies of energy. They are currently using the guise of reduced carbon emissions to force through it's nuclear policy.
Carbon capture is just one of the new developing technologies which may make future coal fired power generation a viable option. Pity the UK government decided in their wisdom that UK coal production was'nt worth holding on to.
Re : Ed Iglehart at 3.14pm
Take your point about having power stations nearer to the towns and cities that need them. I agree however part of the reason new nuclear stations are in remote shore-lines is that the sea-water is used for cooling.
Waste heat from these stations is also pumped out to sea making the need for cooling towers redundant.
Either way I agree with you this waste heat should be harnessed. In Denmark heat produced by local waste incinerators have a connection to some towns via an underground hot water ring main supplying heating to housing schemes. There is no reason why it can't be done in Scotland or the UK.
Unfortunately, I was faced with an awkward choice in the recent elections. Being pro-nuclear I was not able to allow this to influence my vote. Why? Because I couldn't find a party that would say that it is pro-nuclear. Unfortauntely, I do not believe that Scotland can survive on renewables alone. There have been issues in Denmark and Ireland with grid instability as more and more windfarms are connected to the grid as the power output from these varies so much. We need a base load of electricity supply, and we need surplus capacity in that. Nuclear, gas, coal and oil all supply base load and a mix would be the most beneficial for the country. If Scotland is too far from the population centres, why do we have Hunterston and Torness Nuclear Power Stations operating here just now?
Duncan H, Glasgow
Those who think renewables are too expensive should consider computers. Fifteen years ago a 386 with 4MB of RAM and a 200MB hard drive would cost you about 拢1.000. Take that grand into a PC shop today and see what you get.
However, I just can't see the nimby brigade allowing nuclear power in the south east, just as I can't see Scottish politicians of any persuasion hanging onto their principles, especially if a nuclear power station comes with a package of schools, hospitals and other vote-winners.
#16 Joseph, thanks for the reply!
Gordon has a very difficult time ahead, as you say. Personally I hope it will lead to Scottish independence (and English and Welsh independence come to that!), but it is good to hear another perspective.
In terms of oil and gas (since you mention Russia) Scotland produces some 6 times what it needs a year - previous figure was purely electrical.
Unless I have read wrongly, you are joining the discussion from south of the border? If so it is a particularly welcome development. I am afraid too often the English (London) press you mentioned gives the impression that GB is somehow universally loved north of Berwick. He is deeply unpopular with many here, as elsewhere. This was demonstrated by May 3rd - a campaign he effectively ran, and featured heavily in. Just to make clear, I am not saying he is loathed by all; merely that the picture often presented is inaccurate. Sorry if my tone was overly stringent in the earlier post, I am so used to challenging such assertions it becomes harder and harder to do so in a friendly manner.
Incidentally, there was another piece released confirming the figures in the 大象传媒 Scotland Politics section two days ago, but naturally I cannot find it now!
Norway provides all of its electricity through renewable means. There is abolutly no reason why Scotland, with 25% of renewable energy source in all of europe, could not do the same and have enough left over to sell to energy-poor central europe.
Spot on Brian. This "new nuclear" arguement was a red herring from the start. We still have some time to go before the current nuclear power stations have to be de-commissioned so lets use this time wisely to come up with an energy policy that is both viable and acceptable. I don't think that new nuclear power stations should be built as the issue of what to do with the waste is still nowhere near being resolved and the cost of decommissioning is astronomical. Scotland can be a world leader in developing more efficient renewable sources but much more support is needed from the government. There have been several reports lately commenting on Scotland's potential to be a world leader in this field, especially tidal generation, but these seem to be poo-pood by the old administration at every turn. Also, we can't have it both ways. If we don't want any new nuclear power stations then there will be more windfarms but we have to accept that this is the cost we will have to pay. And before anyone says that maybe I should try living next to a windfarm, I did for 4 years in Ayrshire and must say that it didn't bother me in the slightest. No noise, no pollution and it ended up that you hardly even noticed that it was there. What did make me laugh at the time was the people from West Kilbride/Seamill who campaigned quite vigorously against it even though they didn't seem to mind the fact that there were 2 massive nuclear reactors (Hunterston) about 500 yards from their homes.
Firstly, I just want to say how refreshing this is compared to some other sites I've looked at recently with a good range of views raised in civilised debate..
Bunc (3) made the comment that consumption reduction would be a non-starter as the SNP would not wish to adversely affect Scotland's economic growth. My response would be to ask why should it have to affect our growth? Can't we have growth in the companies which provide insulation and energy-efficient devices for work and home? Shouldn't we look at this as an opportunity rather than a problem?
Furthermore, windfarm development is of too industrial a scale in Scotland.
I feel we are being conned into accepting large developments simply because the energy suppliers convince us of the scheme when there are other ways of doing this- just that it would cost them more money. If you visit Denmark (highest proportion of wind supplying energy needs in Europe) a lot of the development is of a small scale. A farmer with a turbine in two in a field; brownfield sites in and around the waterfront of Copenhagen. Yes, they have one of the largest windfarms in Europe but it sits offshore from Esbjerg and isn't easliy seen from land.
We can do the same..
And although it may sound like it, I wish to point out that I have never hugged a tree in my life.
Im not against replacing existing nuclear statrions in Scotland but we need to be setting ambitious targets for renewables and ensuring that the need for nuclear is zero.
We need joined up thinking - how feasible is it for example to build a fixed link across the Sound of Harris with wave generating turbines built into it?
And on the politics, let London bully as much as it wants. I think that its time for a Holyrood which will speak for Scotland, irrespective of whether or not there is ever an independence referendum in this parliament. Labour in Scotland has a coice to make - support the new Government in Scotland or forever more try and score cheap political points.
Surely it is a bit illogical to be against building nuclear power stations in Scotland, but to be perfectly happy to import electricity generated from nuclear power stations in England, France etc.
I think that it is vitally important that we have a base supply of electricty from Nuclear power in Scotland, but that we also invest in new tidal and wave power, microgeneration, and energy efficiency. Generation III+ nuclear power stations produce much more electricity per reactor (1600MW) and will be easier to decommission than Gen 2. The cost of building and decommissioning new nuclear power stations is also to be born by the energy providers and not the government. If consumers in Scotland don't want to buy electricity from them they don't have to, but they will buy it down South, and so we will be creating / maintaining jobs and special skills in the South East and South West of the country.
Stephen (18),
And the chance of foistering nuclear stations on currently "virgin" lands in england could provoke a huge backlash to Brown - especially if he says scotland can just have nice bunny friendly windmills :)
Brown has nothing to say on what Scotland may or may not have.
;-)
ed
I was favourable to the SNP in the last election, although that was despite of, rather than because of, their policy on nuclear energy. When even 'The Economist' magazine thinks that separation is the best option for Scotland (some issue of the correspondant's diary; can't remember which), the case begins to look absolutely compelling.
Nuclear energy is not the most important issue on the agenda. Having said that, I do not understand why people have a particular problem with nuclear power, rather than any other souce. Surely the argument is whether we should consume the amounts of energy we do, or not. If we need energy, then surely nuclear is a good option. Torness seems to be much cleaner, even in terms of radioactive discharge, than Cochenzie, which is coal fired.
Generating power is always going to produce ugliness, but there is nothing more ugly than an enormous dam put up to produce hydro electricity, or these horrible wind farms. For equal amounts of energy produced, the 'green' sources cause ugliness and environmental pollution on a much larger scale than the nuclear facilities.
Norway is not a good example; the country is so vast, with huge tracts of uninhabited area, that it is very, very easy to devote large tracts of it to the ugliness of 'green' energy and nobody will be any the wiser.
Donald #4 makes a good point; there is no source of Uranium in Scotland.
But are there not other ways of obtaining nuclear power that haven't yet been investigated? After all, Hitler was exploring the possibility of constructing a nuclear device based on heavy water. Does one really need uranium to produce nuclear power? Investigating other possible sources would reinvigorate the subjects of theoretical and applied physics, much to the benefit of our universities.
If my understanding of the working of the National Grid is correct, all electricity from what ever source from which ever part of the country is feed into that grid. Anyone using electricity from that grid will be using electricity from a variety of sources which will include nuclear energy from the south. If this correct it would be a fair comment on the relevance of concept of a completely independent Scotland to the modern world.
Whatever source of power we use in the future the only guarantee is that people will object to it being generated near them.
next-gen nuclear power stations are not going to be the unstable behemoths that coughed their lungs up over the north of england and the ussr. New designs are safer in that they constantly need to be active to keep a chain reaction going rather than to stop it spiralling out of control. Next generation Thorium-fuelled designs also do not produce plutonium, often a reason given for opposing nuclear. However the main reason for opposing nuclear just seems to be a gut feeling that something that can't be understood simply can't be trusted, images of mushroom clouds and mutated monsters springing to mind every time the word is used. Well if scotland wants to be totally nuclear-free, then no more NMR or medical use of isotopes in hospitals, no more smoke alarms, and see how many people that saves!
Alan (28),
See comments #12 & 17. Scotland EXPORTS electricity.
As to Uranium, it's estimated that the recoverable reserves at PRESENT use levels will be exhausted in 25 to 75 years, depending upon cost, but the 75 year estimate is cut off at the level of net energy return, i.e. when it costs more energy to get it than it yields.
Nuke is no more an answer than Hydrogen is a fuel source. Hydrogen costs slightly more energy to produce than it gives back, and that energy has to come from somewhere.
There is no (or dinner).
厂濒谩颈苍迟别
ed
Dick (6),
Welcome to the !
;-)
ed
Hello.
Nice use of the word "bloggery" Brian.
No, dear reader, I am not The Man for No 10, only a namesake.
So many replies and yet only a few mentions of the magic words in my opinion: clean coal.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ed (#17). Well said.
We should be looking outward for best of breed examples of non-nucleur energy production on a global scale, and learning from those ideas and results from proof in practice.
Scandanvia - district heating, CHP?
States - clean coal?
We should be having more of an informed debate involving scientists and engineers. When will this nation as a whole give them the professional respect and status they deserve?
I can see the irony now - Maggie shuts the mines, Alex opens them back up again, but the only folks we can find to work there are Eastern European immigrants who are willing to work hard without complaining... Meanwhile, a whole new generation of welfare consumers takes advantage of more widespread talking therapy available on the NHS.
Sorry, going a bit off-topic there, but you get the gist.
I'm all for bi-directional, independent, domestic energy production and consumption. This has to be a definite part of the future, surely.
Rgds,
gxb
Thanks Gordo! ;-)
energy? I can't find the catch. It looks like a true situation, and it does something to renew soils depleted by a century or more of fossil fertilised abuse.
厂濒谩颈苍迟别
ed
Not going nuclear.......jings crivvens, left to London Labour we're not going green either. Well done Alistair Darling, instead of making a great leap forward in the fight to reduce carbon emissions by funding the Peterhead power plant, Mr Darling manages to trip over his own red tape and falls flat on his face. Yes Mr Darling you followed your rules to the letter, all the i's dotted and t's crossed, maybe you should have taken a look at the BIGGER picture in the world for a change. Leave climate change decisions to London Labour, you're having a laugh.....I think Mr Darling's failure to act demonstrates quite adequately why the Scottish Parliament needs more powers.
In some ways there's too much panic about energy, and in other ways not nearly enough. There are two distinct, if closely related problems. One is the depletion of fossil sources, the other is climate change. We could encounter a crisis of global energy supply before we get hit by the effects of global warming - arguably we already have: the US/UK attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were symptoms of energy supply anxiety (didn't believe that stuff about WMDs, did you?).
The appeal of nuclear power to its proponents is that it is a proven baseload supplier - it can provide an almost uninterrupted supply (but it isn't a renewable - uranium is a finite resource). Wind is unpredictable and while it might be useful, it can never be a baseload supplier. The key question for the future is not what power generation can we use, but the more specific: what baseline power generators are available? I think the answer is tidal, but confess that the technology is only beginning to emerge.
This is where we need less panic: we can clean up existing technologies and extend their use, perhaps even retaining a nuclear plant, until we have proven baseline supply from a clean and renewable source.
What we will end up with on some timescale is energy from ambient sources like wind and water, and none from stored sources like oil and gas. Energy from ambient sources is orders of magnitude less than that from stored sources, so whatever path is taken our consumption must be reduced, or at least prevented from growing.
The Scotland/England thing is a red herring, by the way. Electricity must be traded because it cannot be stored. If Scotland has a surplus it must sell it to England, someone, anyone at any price that will get rid of it - and vice versa.
Oh, and those posters claiming that Scotland has no uranium might want to research the provenance of a piano piece by Peter Maxwell-Davies called 'Farewell to Stromness'.
The real conundrum for the SNP (and everyone else) is how to reconcile economic plans based on growth with a static or declining energy supply. Never mind the voodoo arts of politics and economics - chaste mathematics says that that is impossible. Ever look at your grandchildren and worry?
the argument about nuclear waste is easily reconciled
A miniscule amount of land is wasted to store the waste in comparison to the worldwide land lost if fossil fuels are used and carbon omissions and global warming remain unchecked, resulting in famine and extreme weather conditions
Squin dubh 501
Hi Brian, re the row about tramcars and the a9 I REfer you to page124 of the Scottish councils report A FUTURE FOR SCOTLAND PARA B ROADS SECTION []]
RE THE A9 WE DID THINK ABOUT DUEL EVEN IN1973 BUT WE ALL AGREED THAT PLAN FOR DUELLING but concentrate on getting the m8 LONDON WANTED THE AI
OR THE M6 AND UP SHAP whilst the rubber coys preferred to have tyres on roads not trams as in AMSTERDAM
manchester thougt different be cause f
B/HAM HENCE SPAGETTI JUNCTION jackie stewart did suggest a FI CIRCUIT AROUND THE NEW TOWNS AREA however
SIVERSTONE WAS NEAARER TO LONDON
we SUGGESTED ACENTRAL SCOTTISH AIRPORT THAT CAUSED APANIC THE SOS SAID HE WOULD HAVE TO RESIGN IF THE COUNCIL DID NOT SHUT UP THENTHE OIL
CAME AND BENN BUILLT THE POOR STEEL RIGS NEAR NIGG ?? i think figures for the new plan for trams and rail airport haveto be looked at with afine toothcomb in the meantime en courage bike riding in and around EDINBURGH
SLAINTE
KEN
Its rediculous to conceive of building more of these monsters in Scotland. I grew up near one on the north coast, and between radiation leaks, childhood leukemia clusters and radioactive beaches, im not sure whats worse. Scotland should be leading the world in renewables, doing things like the danes are, by placing large windfarms offshore. Scotland is a small country with a low energy demand compared to England. Lets use our great Scottish inventiveness and innovation to find solutions for our own country. Between hydro, wind and wave it can be done.
Finland has gone about 90% nuclear we should learn from them. We need at least one large modern station to keep an adequate mix of energy supply.
Graham (43)
While I don't wish to compromise safety, why is it that we believe we can keep the waste safe for thousands of years, but we can't build a generating station which can last more than half a century?
Isn't Torness an adequately "large modern station" to fulfil your requirement?
厂濒谩颈苍迟别
ed