Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Miliband to attack SNP over anti-nuclear power policy

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: 12 April 2009
By Tom Peterkin
LABOUR will mount a fierce attack on the SNP's anti-nuclear power policy this week.
Westminster ministers will claim that Scotland will lose out on thousands of jobs and billions of pounds worth of investment as a result of Alex Salmond's refusal to embrace a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will visit Hunterston nuclear power station in North Ayrshire on Thursday to make a speech calling for nuclear power to be adopted in Scotland.

The SNP has always indicated it will use devolved planning law to block proposals for new nuclear power stations. This week, Miliband will say: "When the Scottish Nationalists turn their backs on nuclear power they are turning away thousands of jobs and billions of pounds worth of investment."

A spokesman for Salmond said: "Scotland needs to capitalise on its vast renewable energy potential, as the SNP Government is doing, instead of following London Labour's blind faith in costly, dirty, dangerous and unreliable nuclear power."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 April 2009 7:28 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

webwise,

Scotland 11/04/2009 20:54:28
So what, Scotland doesn't need it and a majority of Scots don't want it. We know however that it will be given the 'Front Page Headline' treatment - par for the course.

The biggest story of course is the revelation that a smear campaign against Labour opponents was being planned by a person or persons at 10 Downing street.

This involved spreading lies, invented by Labour advisors. Anything that Labour say these days should be treated with suspicion - Nuclear is no different.
2

Hugh Roscombe,

11/04/2009 21:08:16
Will we be able to comment on the smear campaign?
3

webwise,

Scotland 11/04/2009 21:37:48
Looks like 'email-gate' is about to get bigger as Tom Watson, the Cabinet Office minister, is implicated in the emails.

One Sunday newspaper is believed to be considering publishing the emails and a female Conservative MP is considering legal action.

The Conservatives are demanding a public apology from Gordon Brown.

What anti SNP story will the 'Scottish' media contrive to come up with in order to balance this very real scandal?
4

,

12/04/2009 00:09:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Los Angeles,

12/04/2009 00:14:42
No-one is applying to build any new nuclear capacity in Scotland right now, as we have a surplus. Miliband best leave that one till after the election. (SMurf)

Is that official Unionist policy?

6

,

12/04/2009 00:17:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

12/04/2009 00:20:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

12/04/2009 00:21:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Astonished,

12/04/2009 00:28:52
sm753@4 ; The reason labour aren't applying for new nuclear plants in Scotland is that they would be rejected by the Scottish Government. But you already knew that.


A labour executive would have rubber stamped anything emanating from westminster - even a sleazy, dishonest, underhand smear campaign. That is another reason why labour are out.

As I have said many times before : Labour : no lie too small.
10

ratzo,

12/04/2009 00:41:57
#1 & 3 you're right, this looks like a a turning point in the annals of NuLab sleaze. They've tried to kill off the impact on Brown by getting a quick resignation in but it's not going to work, it'll drag out for ages. Brown is locked right in to the heart of it, and much of the southern press are claiming it derives from the everyday smearing, knifing, lying, thug culture of scottish labour politics.
11

,

12/04/2009 00:42:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Brian Hill,

12/04/2009 00:50:07
#9 Union is Better says: "Similarly, RBS only grew because it was British in the Union, but failed because it was Scottish and outwith the Union."

This is a new take on the old axiom:

Scottish assets = British assets
Scottish problems = Scottish problems
English assets = English assets
English problems = British problems

Now that includes:

Scottish successes are because of the Union
Scottish failures are because of Scottish incompetence.

Is it me or do the English always win at this game with these rules?
13

Edward,

12/04/2009 01:03:37
More sleaze from Labour
Fact - The Commons comitee on Nuclear Energy, which is prominent with Scottish Labour MP's is in the back pocket of the Nuclear Energy Industry, with regular junkets bought and paid for by the likes of EDF and EON
(Just look it up in members interests)
Fact - Gordon Brown's brother is a Director of EDF Energy. Ok maybe the brothers dont talk to each other who knows?
Fact - Yvette Cooper aka Mrs Ed Balls , her father is very much involved in the Nuclear Energy industry
All coincidence?
14

Brian Hill,

12/04/2009 01:07:43
#15 Edward, what can you be inferring?
15

,

12/04/2009 01:20:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

,

12/04/2009 01:27:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

donald,

glasgow 12/04/2009 04:04:50
Why doesn't the Northbritishperson publish photies of Labourites campaigning against Tory Nuclear power - in opposition?
18

Castaway™ ,

12/04/2009 04:18:44
#19 - 24: Traquir , Alba - Again interesting postings.
19

Helix,

12/04/2009 04:32:53
Salmond is stupid and Miliband is stupid.

Nuclear fission is pretty dirty.

But if we can master Nuclear fusion then you can literally just power the waste down the drain.

Perhaps Salmond would be wiser to oppose fission only, it amounts to the same in the short term but leaves him looking less like a closed minded luddite.
20

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 12/04/2009 05:44:41
A selection of recent Hootsmon/Labour articles concerning nuclear power stations.

Did Damian McBride write them all?


• Miliband to attack SNP over anti-nuclear power policy
• SNP nuclear policy 'will cost thousands of jobs'
• John Hutton: what effects will the SNP government's opposition to new nuclear plants have in Scotland?
• Nationalist nuclear policy 'a disaster'
• Brown urged to claw back devolved powers from Holyrood
• Scientist attacks SNP nuclear power block
• Coley warns Salmond: We need nuclear to meet green targets
• Bury your own nuclear waste, Executive told
• Scotland left off new nuclear map
• Nuclear-free Scotland 'will hurt UK'
21

John S,

12/04/2009 07:12:11
Why does it always have to be a new nuclear power station(s) for Scotland and why not a new gas fired power station(s) ?

"When the Scottish Nationalists turn their backs on nuclear power they are turning away thousands of jobs and billions of pounds worth of investment." Surely a new gas fired power station will also create jobs and require investment ?

Westminster ministers ......... embrace a new generation of nuclear power stations, does this mean the UK Government proposing to build more than one new nuclear power station in Scotland ?

System Transfers
Scot - Eng: 2807MW
15/03/2009 08:39:00 GMT

Scot - Eng: 158MW
12/04/2009 05:35:00 GMT

It looks as if Scotland has at least 2807MW of spare capacity and maybe the limiting factor with the 2807MW was the Scot - Eng interconnector so we may even have more than tbe 2807MW of spare capacity ?
22

gus1940,

Edinburgh 12/04/2009 08:00:44
So SoS is now reduced to printing Labour Press Releases about further press releases which will be issued and faithfully plugged in JP rags later in the week.

Hold the front page you pathetic Labour propaganda rag.
23

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 08:10:16
#24 Traquir

I hope Salmond has read the report the exec commissioned into renewable energy:

"Concerns exist over the potentially high level of skills imported from overseas, both through manufactured goods and through the services required for installation and operations. Without positive support to establish a Scottish supply chain it is feasible that the bulk of equipment and services could be provided from outside Scotland, severely limiting job opportunities."
24

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 08:16:25
The last wind-turbine maintanance team I met consisted of two Germans, who had driven all the way from Germany to work on a Danish turbine.
25

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 12/04/2009 08:29:29
34 The Tin Man

You will no doubt be heartened therefore by this report from “The Scotsman”

Published Date: 25 March 2009
By MOIRA KERR
WIND turbine workers in the west of Scotland are expecting an announcement this week securing 98 jobs and possibly creating hundreds more.
Ministers are understood to be preparing a statement on the Vestas wind turbine factory in Kintyre.

There have been unconfirmed reports that the Danish company Welcon and investment fund Evo Energy are to take over the plant at Machrihanish, nea


It is believed that Alex Salmond, the First Minister, may make a flying visit to the plant tomorrow to join invited guests as the announcement is made.

A source said yesterday: "They are making the official announcement on Thursday about the new company taking over from Vestas. I know someone who has been invited.

"Vestas have 90 staff but I understand the new company may have 300-400 eventually."

Another source in Campbeltown, who did not want to be named, said: "I have heard Alex Salmond is coming on Thursday for the announcement about Vestas."

A Scottish Government spokesman refused to confirm or deny the announcement, or if Mr Salmond would be visiting Campbeltown.

He said: "All we can really say is that we are optimistic, given the amount of work that Scottish Development International and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the local council and ministers have put into it, that there is a bright future for the plant, but there are no other details."

Argyll Lib Dem MP Alan Reid said: "I am delighted at the Scottish Government's comments.

"It now looks certain the factory has been saved. This will secure a large number of jobs in Machrihanish for many years to come and will be of great benefit to the environment because of the renewable energy the wind turbines will generate."

26

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 08:37:59
#36 Bully

Hopefully the Danes will stay at Machrihanish. The 98 jobs will be needed when Hunterston closes.
27

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 12/04/2009 08:50:21
37 The Tin Man,


“Hopefully the Danes will stay at Machrihanish. The 98 jobs will be needed when Hunterston closes”

Perhaps when Hunterston B eventually closes, the workers there can be accommodated here:

STUC welcomes proposal for new Hunterston Power Station
20th November 2008
Reacting to the announcement of a proposed new power station in North Ayrshire utilising both clean coal and biomass Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) General Secretary, Grahame Smith, said:
"This proposal is in line with the STUC's strategy of a balanced energy policy with generation from clean coal, nuclear, gas and renewables. It would consolidate Scotland's position at the forefront of carbon capture and storage technology.
"I welcome the assurance that Scottish coal and biomass producers could help to supply the station. Equally, the huge boost that this would give to the North Ayrshire economy over the next decade, and beyond, is of particular importance at a time when other economic sectors are facing difficulty.


28

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 09:00:25
#38 bully

While the Gulf Stream starts to stutter, we plan to build a coal-fired power station? Hopefully, carbon capture is developed, and the storage system is as successful as for nuclear waste.
29

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 09:20:09
"Unchecked climate change will have serious direct consequences not just for Scotland's environment, including its biodiversity, but for our economy and our people."

Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment
June 2007

Scottish gov:

"Scotland is already feeling the effects of climate change.

Winter storms have doubled in frequency in the UK over the last 50 years. Recently temperatures in Scotland have risen and rainfall has increased dramatically in the winter months.

The UK Climate Impacts Programme scenarios forecast that Scotland in 2080's will be, on average, 3.5 degrees celsius warmer in the summer and 2.5 degrees celsius warmer in the winter. In the future Scotland is expected to have more extreme weather with warmer, wetter winters, up to 90 per cent less snowfall, sea levels rises of up to 600mm threatening coastal areas and an increased risk of flooding."
30

TWC,

ex Labour 12/04/2009 09:23:12
Milliband should start with a detailed plan for waste disposal. A definition of where it will be buried would be a start.
31

Ken Mac,

Glasgow 12/04/2009 09:24:12
This week, Miliband will say: "When the Scottish Nationalists turn their backs on nuclear power they are turning away thousands of jobs and billions of pounds worth of investment."

New Labour spinning stupidity. Is that the story? the big fright? if you don't build nuclear power stations you'll turn away thousands of jobs? So we should just build anything, invest in anything, so long as there are jobs in it? Numpties. Of course there are no jobs in leading the world in renewable energy. No potential export earnings. Better to import French nuclear technology.
32

Il Penseroso,

12/04/2009 09:42:58
#Tin Man Remind me please! The carbon capture scheme researched at Peterhead was scrubbed because Westminster pulled the fiscal plug? The project, I believe, was purchased by a Portuguese company and is now working well in that country.Perhaps, with Milliband's directive from No 10, this scheme was destined for oblivion because of Milliband'd nuclear agenda. Just a thought.After all, Westminster has Scotland's interests close to its heart!
33

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 09:53:16
#43

I believe the plug was pulled on the study by the DTI & by BP.

Greenpeace:
"The energy sector is responsible for some two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, including upwards of 60% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Coal is the largest single source of CO2 emissions and the most carbon intensive of all fossil fuels. Yet world governments are planning to build hundreds of coal power plants in the next decade. If such plans go ahead it will be impossible for governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to seriously tackle climate change. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been proposed as way to prevent carbon dioxide released from power stations from contributing to climate change by dumping it underground. At present, there are no large-scale coal-fired power plants in the world capturing carbon, let alone any that are integrated with storage operations. CCS simply can’t deliver in time."
34

TWC,

ex Labour 12/04/2009 09:54:49
The Civil Service have a decision to make; they either get rid of New Labour or they lose Scotland. Labour are incompetent and they are being found out at every turn.
The establishment is always in control except when the electorate makes it's own decisions.
Right now we are thinking for ourselves and it shows in the postings.
35

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 12/04/2009 10:08:18
39 tinman

"while the gulf stream starts to stutter".

You talk the biggest amount of garbage. idiot!
36

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 10:35:08
"The Atlantic Ocean overturning that maintains Europe's moderate climate has slowed by 30 per cent according to scientists from the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton in research published today in Nature (Thursday, 1 December 2005)."

Garbage? Only if you are Dubbya & Cheyney.

Researchers are not sure yet what to make of the 10-day hiatus. "We'd never seen anything like that before and we don't understand it. We didn't know it could happen," said Harry Bryden, at the National Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, who presented the findings to a conference in Birmingham on rapid climate change.

Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, in the US, described the temporary shutdown as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record".

He added: "It only lasted 10 days. But suppose it lasted 30 or 60 days, when do you ring up the prime minister and say let's start stockpiling fuel? How can we rule out a longer one next year?"

Prof Bryden's group stunned climate researchers last year with data suggesting that the flow rate of the Atlantic circulation had dropped by about 6m tonnes of water a second from 1957 to 1998. If the current remained that weak, he predicted, it would lead to a 1C drop in the UK in the next decade. A complete shutdown would lead to a 4C-6C cooling over 20 years



37

,

12/04/2009 10:45:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

,

12/04/2009 10:47:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 10:55:00
I believe Guido Fawkes deserves a good bit of praise for enlightening the nation of further Lie-bour smear tactics from the very top.

NUMBER 10.

Hamish MacDonell how about a wee bit of journalism regards the smear tactics by Lie-bour in Scotland...
In depth reporting should be quite easy by reading your internal inbox.
40

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 11:00:21
Nuclear not needed unless .......

Any Joe public interested in creating salaries and pension funds for Gordon Browns sleaze driven Lie-bour Party's friends like in EDF. Gordon Brown's brother as an example..

41

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 11:08:17
Anyone notice the reporting calming down of the smear tactics employed by No10.. BBC, STV, SKY..

The Lie-bour spin machine on this occasion will spin into oblivion before the next GE...Then these distasteful pigs with it..
They have absolutely no chance whenever the Broon man decides.... Maybe a government of national unity with tanks in the streets are options.
42

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 11:28:57
Well I take it the Moderator has gone in the huff.

ARE yi thir Hamish..
43

The Master,

12/04/2009 11:29:21
The nuclear issue is where the Nats can really be hit where it hurts.

There’s the point about jobs (if it’s an argument in favour of Trump’s eco vandalism, then why’s it not an argument in favour of a cost effective and competitive waste disposal policy?)

There’s also the point that this can play an important role in addressing the threat of climate change: it’s safe and clean and can only become even more so as technology advances.

The Nats are on to a loser with this one, but then again, this is the party that has as yet refused to ditch the separation policy, even in the face of the lessons to the financial sector in Scotland which have been brought home in recent times.
44

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 11:37:41
Hi master, The scull and crossbone mean anything.
45

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 11:41:05
Master, nuclear is not safe and clean..

Spent fuel in itself would be with further generations for 1,000 years or more.. Dangerous therefore unsafe?

The truth is out their I'm sure you are capable of finding facts and figures on the internet.
46

The Master,

12/04/2009 11:43:33
#56 puskas: I'm a Dr Who themed moniker; nothing more sinister to it than that.

Some of the more snobby types on here sometimes imagine that I'm referring to an MA Degree, but that's not the case.
47

redcliffe62,

12/04/2009 11:46:05
the link between gordon brown's brother and the company miliband is touting for to try to explain why scotland needs a nuclear power station is a conflict of interest. perhaps this paper would wish to investigate the link?
turn battersea poewer staion in london into a nuclear power staion, only 3 miles from westmonster so if it blows up in an accident at least there are minor benefits.
48

The Master,

12/04/2009 11:46:21
#57 puskas: even the ultimate eco warrior Bob Geldof now backs my line.

You Nats are p*ssing into the wind on this one (but then that's what your sweet little movement's all about, is it not!)
49

The west awake,

Argyll 12/04/2009 12:18:08
Whay are Labour so persistent and adamant that Scotland must have nuclear power?
It is because they genuinely have Scotlands best interests at heart?

- I think we are all realising the answer to that one, and who actually does put Scotland first.

Why then?

Could it be because they intend to dump nuclear waste up here (far away from the leafy glades of the home counties) and know they won't be able to do so as long as we're busy chucking out our existing nuclear?

Labour must be fizzing at the SNP scuppering their plans to "look after Scotlands best interests". As Salmond said after May 07; "Scotland has changed, for good and forever".

50

TWC,

ex Labour 12/04/2009 13:16:02
#61 you are right they want to dump it in Scotland, that is the only plan they have hence Jack McConnell's failure to publish a plan before allowing any more nuclear build.
The Labour party in Scotland have abandoned all their Scottish policies to support the English Labour objectives Trident, Nuclear waste, fiscal autonomy etc.
51

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 13:49:18
#62 TWC

It was the Scottish Labour party that effectively banned building new reactors in Scotland, so I am not too sure what you are on about.

Replacing the reactors with fossil-fuel burning carbon-capture stations would mean the exhaust emmissions (which do not have a half-life at all), would remain buried, and dangerous, for ever.

Remember that CO2 emissions are the problem, here, not radioactive waste.
52

TWC,

ex Labour 12/04/2009 14:05:11
#63 Tin Man, I was happy when Labour were ante Nuclear but they are doing a U turn. Jack said no Nuclear stations till we publish a plan for the waste. they used to be ante Trident, they used to be procontinued devolution up to Fiscal Autonomy. They have U turned on all these.
The plan is to bury the waste in Scotland. That's what I'm on about.
53

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 14:14:13
#64 TWC

"The plan is to bury the waste in Scotland. That's what I'm on about." (I am guessing that you mean particulary dangerous English-type waste?)

Oh well, if that is really the case, then replacing the Hunterston and Torness reactors won't make much difference, then.
54

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 14:21:53
#64 TWC

By the way, I don't think that radioactive waste is currently 'buried' anywhere in the UK. AS far as I am aware, the only investigation of the method was performed at Sellafield. However, the Finns do bury their waste.
55

TWC,

Ex labour 12/04/2009 14:25:28
65 The Tin Man,
We will have to bury our own waste but we don't need any more thanks. I await the Promised Labour plan to hold the waste
I live near hunterson you should have a look at even the Cooling waste water coming out that's scary enough.
56

The Tin Man,

12/04/2009 14:36:03
#67 TWC

Strangely enough, radioactice waste from Scottish reactors is currently sent to Sellafield for re-processing, with remaining waste disposed-of at Drigg near Sellafield in Cumbria, England.
57

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 14:44:49
#40 The Tin Man 09:20:09

"................Scotland in 2080's will be, on average, 3.5 degrees celsius warmer in the summer and 2.5 degrees celsius warmer in the winter. In the future Scotland is expected to have more extreme weather with warmer, wetter winters..............."

#47 The Tin Man 10:35:08

"Prof Bryden's group stunned climate researchers last year with data suggesting that the flow rate of the Atlantic circulation had dropped by about 6m tonnes of water a second from 1957 to 1998. If the current remained that weak, he predicted, it would lead to a 1C drop in the UK in the next decade. A complete shutdown would lead to a 4C-6C cooling over 20 years"


So if its not going to be warmer its going to be cooler?

58

TWC,

Ex Labour 12/04/2009 14:46:28
69 The Tin Man

I thought it was being held at the Power Stations. Still the Plan is to bury the uk waste in Scotland
59

greenhill,

12/04/2009 15:30:11
This thread is full of gross stupidity. There is no technical problem with "waste" disposal. The problem is political with anti nuclear nutbags who would cause no end of trouble by stirring up Luddite paranoia over any proposed site.

However I am not too troubled over that as I do not want to see "waste” totally disposed of."Waste" is potentially very useful and any nation serious about energy security is going to store the stuff in a place where it can be retrieved easily.

Those who advocate coal burning are absolute scumbags who care more about mass opinion than informed judgment. Labour may wish to talk nuclear but it does coal burning. The SNP will not even talk nuclear but fully advocates coal burning.

If you took a Geiger counter around the vicinity of a coal power station you would find far more radiation because conventional power spews out up to 200 times more radiation than nuclear. However the "green" lobby is not as paranoid about conventional power so do not demand the same stringent scrutiny or whip up as much fear. The focus of attention, up till recent times has been on Nuclear and the slightest thing is taken out of all proportion due to public fear.

New nuclear power stations do not produce the same amount of waste that old nuclear did. We could easily cope with the small addition. A new fleet of modern reactors for the whole of the UK would only produce 10% of the current waste we have already got. It's a marginal additional waste burden added to what have already got and can deal with, however we are guaranteed 60 years of cheap clean electricity.

The SNP stands for pumping out masses of radiation into Scotland’s atmosphere, therefore causing many deaths, because political opportunism thrives off mass ignorance and fear.

60

TWC,

ex Labour 12/04/2009 16:15:29
72 greenhill
This is easy to solve, get Slab to publish the promised plan for dealing with Nuclear waste. They won't
61

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 12/04/2009 16:20:24
why were there test borings done on the seabed off fife,?,rumour has it ,the gov was looking to see if the waste could be buried there
if the waste is so damn safe ,then bury it in hyde park,under the house of ill repute westminster?
why it may even make the rose grow better at buck hoose
62

David MacVicar,

FACT LAND 12/04/2009 16:32:16
There is no blatant 'official' UK waste dumping policy in Scotland because they STILL do not know where to put it, however 5 out of 12 sites shortlisted for nuclear waste disposal are in Scotland, + 2 on border. (Newscientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7504)

The Scottish parliament voted UNDER LABOUR NOT to build new Nuclear in Scotland till sites and disposal methods were agreed. Where do 'scottish' Labour now stand on this?

Scotland: Waste policy is devolved to the Scottish Government. Current policy is Near site, near surface for existing waste on Scottish territory.

England:Waste policy is determined by DEFRA and recommendations from CoRWM. Currently: Deep underground burial id the recommendation. Where, when, how, how much?

Greens (North and South) back Scottish policy and reject UK policy calling it 'arrant nonsense'.

There is currently no commercial interest to build any new Nuclear in Scotland and IF there was it would not be online till circa 2025. What jobs? There are None.

Minister of State, Department for Energy "We believe that the interests of Scotland are best served by being part of a UK-wide energy policy." ROFL. The UK GOV NEVER does anything that interests Scotland ONLY the contrary. When they state it is in our interests, history shows it is typically against our interests. QED.

Labour are so confident in Nuclear and it is so vital to Scottish and UK Energy Security, that they sold British Energy to EDF.

Miliband must think we are total FCUKWITS.
63

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 16:34:19
#72 greenhill

"This thread is full of gross stupidity. There is no technical problem with "waste" disposal."

tinyurl.com/NoTechnicalProblem

"If you took a Geiger counter around the vicinity of a coal power station you would find far more radiation because conventional power spews out up to 200 times more radiation than nuclear."

tinyurl.com/AntiNuclearNutbags

Nutbags of the world unite.
64

greenhill,

12/04/2009 16:51:45
Attention Idiots, read again:

"There is no technical problem with "waste" disposal. The problem is political with anti nuclear nutbags who would cause no end of trouble by stirring up Luddite paranoia over any proposed site." The problem is political.

In addition read this again:

."Waste" is potentially very useful and any nation serious about energy security is going to store the stuff in a place where it can be retrieved easily.

and this:

A new fleet of modern reactors for the whole of the UK would only produce 10% of the current waste we have already got. It's a marginal additional waste burden added to what have already got and can deal with, however we are guaranteed 60 years of cheap clean electricity.

What part of that do you half wits not understand?


.................................................
RE:David MacVicar,FACT LAND 12/04/2009 16:32:16 "Labour are so confident in Nuclear and it is so vital to Scottish and UK Energy Security, that they sold British Energy to EDF."



The fact is the French always stayed confident in Nuclear and continued to develop it.They are the experts. We should be grateful to the French and ashamed of our popular Luddism.We need the French.

However we live under the consequences of a World that went anti nuclear and went for fossil fuel burning instead: look at the results. It is mass opinion that led us to fall behind and it is mass opinion that threatens to destroy our planet.


David you do not reside in "fact land”. You and the other thickies on this thread see the World through the prism of SNP v Labour. This issue goes well beyond opportunist political parties who only care about votes.



65

greenhill,

12/04/2009 17:00:34
RE ExpatNL,glasgow 12/04/2009 16:34:19

That is not a problem with high level waste. It is typical of the anti nuclear scare stories generated to whip up fear.

In addition I was talking about "deep storage" as a technical problem not onsite at Sellafield.You are being evasive and obfuscatory.

Coal pumps our far more nuclear waste right into the atmosphere ansd nothing can be done about it.You do not care about that.The SNP are quite happy about the fact as well.
66

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 17:13:03
No59.... Masterdebater,

Nice words you have used.. LOL.

Bob Geldof... Christ thats what I would call p*ssing in the wind..

I never eve thought you were referring to an MA degree ..

Yur hivin a laff..

Nuclear is not safe and the Sellafield reprocessing plant is potentially deadly.
I have said this before and I have no intention of printing it out again.. Now 10 deaths of my friends and workmates from an office of 22 who have died of cancer related deaths. Myself, I get checked out yearly...
Cancers all Bowel, Bladder, Prostrate with one young lad skin cancer. Thats all the evidence I need.
Others survived but are aware they live with a timebomb.

Scotland has no need for nuclear to produce power and certainly not as a dumping ground..

The Thames next door to Westminster is the rightful spot.. Well as you have said its safe.....I'm sure you would agree then London would be a perfect spot ...




67

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 17:14:05

#77 greenhill

"Speculation has now grown that Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, is preparing to bite the bullet and close the plant, which has faced five public consultations, legal challenges and safety concerns. The NDA admits the future of the plant is "under review".

http://tinyurl.com/MoxPlant

68

greenhill,

12/04/2009 17:23:02
RE ExpatNL,glasgow 12/04/2009 17:14:05



Oh dear "Speculation" in addition the report comes from "The Independant" A publication which is not independent from Greenpeace.

"Independent":HA! HA! HA!

You are just another tinyurl bore. You cannot formulate a rational argument from your own "mind".
69

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 17:32:03
Greenhill,

Long and winded....

Simple answer to your submissions.... You are wrong..

Read my previous post....
70

Number 6,

Germany 12/04/2009 17:32:19
Can someone tell this silly little twerp that the Scottish Parliment has already voted AGAINST more nuclear power stations.

We don't want them, we don't need them. Now go away and work on your expenses claim.
71

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 17:35:28
#78 greenhill

It seems quite obvious from your post that you did not even look at the report that I linked to.

"is not a problem with high level waste. It is typical of the anti nuclear scare stories generated to whip up fear."
.............................


"The waste vitrification plant (WVP) is designed to deal with the "most highly radioactive and dangerous waste" and yet you claim that there is "no problem with high level waste" well how do you explain the following quotes.

"BNFL claims its research into the vitrification process proves that the plant is safe and will allow the foreign waste to be returned to its country of origin. Yet BNFL's own research papers and audits show these claims are false."

It adds: "The scientific basis for control of the plant relies at best on interpretation and at worst on guesswork" and that "reports from employees on the site reveal a catalogue of dubious practices".

It goes on: "The low morale is endemic ... Control cables to vital robotic arms in the WVP have been cut, waste drums that should hold solid glass have been accidentally filled with highly active liquid waste, faults in safety mechanisms are not reported properly, the plant has become driven by production targets so much that it is becoming difficult to operate properly."

tinyurl.com/NoTechnicalProblem

72

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 17:44:47
Thorpe have security system that was never installed properly... Fact... The cabling throughout Thorpe was installed by 2 seperate companies and many corners were cut by each contractor..
The routing of the cabling had to be installed in a certain manner that was never fully addered to.
To rectify this it would have cost millions .
Fact...

73

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 17:50:16
Miliband ... Now wi ur havin a laff. Never had a decent job in his life along with his brother..


Both a waste of space...
74

greenhill,

12/04/2009 18:00:34
RE Traquir , Alba,(AKA TINYURL IDIOT)12/04/2009 17:38:19

You are the ultimate tinyurl bore. You have no ability to formulate a rational argument.

New nuclear is just not the same as the old. Go back and check out my previous posts.French nuclear plants run at a profit because they did not stand still. We should look forward to the future and thank the French.

Do you deny that nuclear has moved on because of French tenacity?

Do you deny that modern French nuclear power stations only produce a fraction of the waste of old British plants and run at a profit ?

Do you deny that coal (SNP's choice for baseload)pumps out far more radiation than nuclear?

Do you deny that technology moves on?

Go and try to make a fresh post without any tinyurl's.



75

Eve,

Scotland 12/04/2009 18:01:56
"Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will visit Hunterston nuclear power station in North Ayrshire on Thursday to make a speech calling for nuclear power to be adopted in Scotland."

Ed Miliband if you really care, why don't you go and vist a wind farm instead!!!!

No more Nuclear in Scotland!!!
76

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 18:04:35

#81 greenhill

Any relation?

"This move was initiated by a strategic review performed by the UK Atomic Energy Authority following passage of the Energy Act 2004, and is the culmination of a process to develop a commercially viable nuclear decommissioning business. UKAEA Limited has now reached a scale where it can operate and expand independently from Government. The sale process is being managed by Greenhill & Co ("Greenhill"). It is expected to complete towards the end of this year."

http://tinyurl.com/tinyurlbored


77

greenhill,

12/04/2009 18:24:20
RE Eve,Scotland 12/04/2009 18:01:56


You are an idiot. Windfarms provide only a fraction of our energy.They cannot provide base load.The choice for base load is between fossil fuels and nuclear.

Too many SNP simpletons think that renewables can provide baseload.That belief proves that you are idiots.
78

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 18:49:35


Just one of the many incidents in the French nuclear industry:


"Despite ASN's assurances, local authorities have now banned the use of well water from three nearby towns as well as using water from the contaminated rivers to irrigate crops. Residents have also been banned from swimming, doing water sports and fishing in the contaminated waters"


http://tinyurl.com/FrenchLeak


79

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

12/04/2009 18:54:54
I do no understand why if Nuclear Power is so safe we do not have scientist being quoted in the articles. We always have MP's telling us it is safe when tey are just reading what they are told.

I want to hear from the real experts, no the people in the Nuclear industry nor the people who are in the pockets of the Nuclear industry.

What are other countries doing?

If we have so much clear renewable potential why are we not investing heavily in this. Why the focus on potentially dangerous Nuclear energy and expensive waste.

I do not know enough about the science of the nuclear industry but I know alot of friends and family of the Labour government are benefiting financially.

We all know labour will do anything to stay in power and money.
80

greenhill,

12/04/2009 18:57:58
RE ExpatNL,glasgow 12/04/2009 18:49:35

You are a tinyurl bore.

I wish such stringency was focused in the vicinity of fossil fuel plants. Then the public would be in touch with reality.

Base load is a choice between fossil or nuclear so put up or shut up.

What is your choice fossil (the SNP's choice for base load) or nuclear.

Once again I say put up or shut up.
81

greenhill,

12/04/2009 19:07:19
REAlasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,12/04/2009 18:54:54 "If we have so much clear renewable potential why are we not investing heavily in this. Why the focus on potentially dangerous Nuclear energy and expensive waste."



We do not have clear renewable potential in the near or middle term future. The big lie trumpeted by Salmond is that it is just around the corner. The reality is he plans for fossil to provide base load. That is an indisputable fact.

Forget about Salmonds disingenuous bark on renewables (for the consumption of fools) and check out the reality of his factual plans.

82

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 19:10:30




#94 greenhill

"But in recent days there have been other, lesser incidents at nuclear sites. In Romans-sur-Isère, north of Tricastin, at another site run by an Areva subsidiary, officials discovered a burst underground pipe which had been broken for years and did not meet safety standards."


http://tinyurl.com/Romans-sur-Isere


83

greenhill,

12/04/2009 19:19:52
RE ExpatNL,glasgow 12/04/2009 19:10:

You are a relentless bore.Your tinyurl links prove nothing.Low level waste leakage is no big deal and can be fixed.Massive fossil fuel radiation pollution goes right into the atsmophere and cannot be stopped.

Can you put together a rational argument without tiny urls that actually confronts the points I have made?

No you cannot because you are just another tinyurl Muppet.
84

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 19:20:02
44, tin man, I believe the decision by BP to move the carbon capture plant from Peterhead was due to the Labour government humming and hawing about whether or not to provide funding. Alastair Darling, was it not?

greenhill, various, you spout a lot of bile towards other posters who can at least provide links to published material relevant to their own theories.

You, on the other hand, spout like a juvenile astroturfer.
85

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 12/04/2009 19:24:12
Milliband? who he?
86

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 19:27:20
Climate change is climate change is climate change.

No link to global warming and carbon.
87

Marga,

Edinburgh 12/04/2009 19:35:53
Another example of UK government attitudes to Scotland:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7995664.stm

Salmond call for joint cabinet

A spokesman for the Scotland Office said the proposal was not necessary.
......
Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy said he believed he could have "a good discussion" with Mr Salmond over dinner
88

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 19:41:55
If my memory serves me there was something about the Earth's magnetic field or shield reversing about 20 odd years ago. It was reported in every quality newspaper at the time.

Migrating birds were disorientated (they have a lodestone kind of bank of cells in their brains).

The scientists said this was a normal occurrence every few millennia. To me, it would seem perfectly normal to have climate change after that.

Personal interest in types of power generation and the linking of scaremongering to natural phenomena can only be described as marketing in the present climate (so to speak).
89

greenhill,

12/04/2009 19:42:07
RE :Jock Tamson,Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 19:20:

Oh yeah you call yourself "Jock Tamson" "Scotland" and if that was not enough "Caledonia" then "Alba"

HA! Well I can see where you are coming from. Do you vote SNP? No sorry that was a rhetorical question: I know the answer.

Carbon capture does not work. It is a holy grail that is pursued worldwide.

Capture is not enough because then we need sequestration. However you are such a "Scotland “Caledonia""Alba" fanatic you seek to blame Alastair Darling for the fact that the technology is pie in the sky.

What a subjective idiot you are.

I would never publish tinyurl links to outside articles by pro nuclear sources. Those who rely on biased anti links display the weakness of their "minds” and an inability to debate.

We need less links and more real comment.
90

greenhill,

12/04/2009 19:45:05
"RE Jock Tamson,Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 19:41:55 If my memory serves me there was something about the Earth's magnetic field or shield reversing about 20 odd years ago. It was reported in every quality newspaper at the time."


Oh dear you are a looney.There is no point in debating with such stupidity.

Get real you muppet.
91

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 19:52:22
Looks like I was right.

"There is a green hill far away"

Suppose a long term visit there is out of the question?

You are such a plaything.

92

David MacVicar,

FACT LAND 12/04/2009 19:54:05
Greenhill, fyi the idea that insulting anyone who disagrees with you is not a rational argument it is a diatribe.

December 2008, AEA report to British Energy.
Scottish Generation Study - Phase 2 Technical Report

Criteria:
1. Projections of electricity demand.
2. Assessment of renewable energy generation growth.
3. Evaluation of security of supply requirements.
4. Assessment of the conventional generation needed for secure electricity supply.
5. Elaboration of scenario details: capacity, output, carbon emissions

Summary
No New Scottish Nuclear possible till 2025.
In all scenarios, generation exceeds demand, Scotland is Net exporter.

Predictions till 2020, Scenario1 (s1) based on Government forcecast (optomistic) + Scenario2 (s2) Limited Delivery scenario (pessimistic)

2020:
S1 = 53% renewable generation, 46K GWh production (overall)
s2 = 43% renewable generation, 48K GWh production (overall)

"In Policy Delivery the targets are met in both years, with the 2020 target comfortably exceeded.
In Limited Delivery growth of renewable generation is rapid but is insufficient to meet the targets
in 2011 or 2020. In both cases growth of renewable generation continues after 2020 – so even
in Limited Delivery the target level of renewable generation is met – but several years later."

This is in 2020. No Nuclear will come on line till >2025.

Even British Energy doesn't say current Renewable policy will not meet our energy needs, even in the pessimistic scenario!

Base load is an old school argument as it is based on the fact that Nuclear and coal take a long time to start and need to run at a pretty constant level. Renewables and load balancing the grid changes the whole model changes including the base load required. Renewables are not base load but the calculation and scenarios for secure energy supply changes completely.
93

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 19:56:52
Scotland. So good they renamed it twice.
94

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

12/04/2009 19:56:54
Greenhill,

I notice how passionate you are about this subject. A wee bit self interest is there?

I disagree with your suggestion we stop using multiple research studies to base our scientific decisions about nuclear power. Surely the more you know the better informed you are. If as you say it is such a clear cut issue then people who understand the scientific arguement and agree with you?

I suppose their is no need to guess which party you support either.
95

,

12/04/2009 19:59:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
96

The Answer,

Glasgow 12/04/2009 19:59:34
Scotland 8% of the UK population, produced only 7% of the UK new undergraduates 2008.

Scotland exports energy is a true statement, but only because the surplus would go to waste.. at the time the British taxpayer invested money in nuclear builds in scotland , it was thought the scotch might manufacure something and thus use and need said energy.

Alas the scotch decided life was more cushy in the public sector and manufacturing was for men..

The next generation of nuclear power will be using private finance, nobody with an brain would want to invest in scotland without a handout from the English taxpayers..
97

greenhill,

12/04/2009 20:04:59
Re David MacVicar,FACT LAND 12/04/2009 19:54:05

What a load of obscurantist guff. There is no way of making any sense of your post because of the poor standard of communication. It is just a load of incomprehensible,illiterate, gobbledegook.

Shame on you.
98

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 20:05:59



#110 The Answer

And the question was?
99

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 20:06:34
You can tell the JP is struggling for comments. Must be the Scotsman night staff in for Monday's edition.
100

The Answer,

Glasgow 12/04/2009 20:07:53
Wonder how much sh#t will hit the fan when it's discovered study in scotland only easy visa with a two year workpermit , and anybody with a simple diploma study in scotland only visa with a two year workpermit , has been exploited to enable lots of muslims to gain entry to England via scotland..

Scots a fifth column on the English's doorstep.. bin laden must be proud of you...
101

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 20:07:54
Special mention to greenhill the jannie.
102

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 20:16:43
To greenhill and The Answer, may you never get haemorrhoids to mar your online personas.
103

greenhill,

12/04/2009 20:17:36
RE Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ

I am a Green supporter but I do not agree with the party line on nuclear. However it is clear to me that the SNP supporters on these forums are automatons incapable of disagreeing with their own party.

You people are mindless sycophants who would fit right into 1930's Germany such is your inability to think independently.
104

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 20:33:32
greenhill, please stop your ranting .

You do yourself no favours in debate. You've lost.

Oh! and btw your last paragraph made me think of the Lie-bour Government.. Have you changed from green to blue..(black)

105

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 20:34:49
What other alias has greenhill used?
106

Don Roberto,

12/04/2009 20:34:51
#117 We're all individuals...
107

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 20:38:47
No114 The Answer.

Blank..... A Lie-bour Westminster problem my friend.


Blank... Where the h*ll do we get them from.
108

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 20:39:31
think Charie Whelan is lying low...
109

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 20:40:29
I know Charlie Whelan is in hiding.....
110

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 20:42:49
I hope the Tory lady goes for damages and it all comes out through the courts.... LOL Gordy being called to give evidence... Mandelson et al
111

puskas,

East kilbride 12/04/2009 20:45:10
Maybe Hamish as well LOL Should be televised live for transparancy... Gordy promised..
112

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 20:59:30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

there you go. and no mention of a tiny url apart from this link

http://tinyurl.com/
113

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 21:09:25
"Effects on biosphere and human society


Because the magnetic field has never been observed to reverse by humans with instrumentation, and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal. Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, H o m o erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions. A possible explanation is that the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles even in the absence of the Earth's normal magnetic field.[7]

Although the inspection of past reversals does not indicate biological extinctions, present society with its reliance on electricity and electromagnetic effects (e.g. radio, satellite communications) may be vulnerable to technological disruptions in the event of a full field reversal.[citation needed]"

Fancy giving a citation then, greenfield?

Would you all believe that h o m o was not acceptable to big Sister?

114

David MacVicar,

FACT LAND 12/04/2009 21:17:28
Grenhill, minds are like parachutes they only function when open. Nuclear is the best and only option in some cricumstances and for some countries. France is one, I agree. Scotland, based on available evidence, is not.

Just try a google on 'AEA report to British Energy' and look for British Energy - Electricity generation in Scotland.

You can take a horse to water... and all manner of cliches.

The UK Gov is trying to force an Energy policed based on English needs on the UK as a whole forgetting that Scotland is a country not just a region. Whats best for England is not always what is best for Scotland. What UK policy gets chosen? It is a no brainer. Deja vu.
115

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 21:36:43



#110 The Answer

"Scotland exports energy is a true statement, but only because the surplus would go to waste.. "

Just like our whisky (scotch) surplus would go to waste if it wasn't exported. I think that is the whole idea about exports that they should be surplus to demand in the home country.

116

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 21:58:53
Looks like their is a green hill far away.

Spurious justification for spurious people to spout spurious claims for power generation methods they support.

All debunked by one snapshot at the big picture.
117

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 22:05:12
Oh. And by the way, these guys are looking at the Earth from a real global view, not a partisan one.

So, come on Scotland, Caledonia, Alba.

Stick it up Westminster where it counts.
118

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 22:06:46
And wear French Ticklers when you do.
119

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 22:14:41


#72 greenhill



"However I am not too troubled over that as I do not want to see "waste” totally disposed of."Waste" is potentially very useful and any nation serious about energy security is going to store the stuff in a place where it can be retrieved easily."
(How original, read on)

French love affair with nuclear energy expained:

"How was France able to get its people to accept nuclear power? What is about French culture and politics that allowed them to succeed where most other countries have failed?

Claude Mandil, the General Director for Energy and Raw Materials at the Ministry of Industry, cites at least three reasons. First, he says, the French are an independent people. The thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the Middle East disturbed many French people. Citizens quickly accepted that nuclear might be a necessity. A popular French riposte to the question of why they have so much nuclear energy is "no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice."

Second, Mandil cites cultural factors. France has a tradition of large, centrally managed technological projects. And, he says, they are popular. "French people like large projects. They like nuclear for the same reasons they like high speed trains and supersonic jets."


Thirdly, he says, the French authorities have worked hard to get people to think of the benefits of nuclear energy as well as the risks. Glossy television advertising campaigns reinforce the link between nuclear power and the electricity that makes modern life possible. Nuclear plants solicit people to take tours--an offer that six million French people have taken up. Today, nuclear energy is an everyday thing in France."


"Things were going very well until the late 80s when another nuclear issue surfaced that threatened to derail their very successful program: nuclear waste.

French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be much of a problem. From the beginning the F
120

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 22:16:45
#72 greenhill



"However I am not too troubled over that as I do not want to see "waste” totally disposed of."Waste" is potentially very useful and any nation serious about energy security is going to store the stuff in a place where it can be retrieved easily."
(How original, read on)

French love affair with nuclear energy expained:

Continued

French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be much of a problem. From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter. It was assumed that this high-level waste would be buried in underground geological storage and in the 80s French engineers began digging exploratory holes in France's rural regions.

To the astonishment of France's technocrats, the populations in these regions were extremely unhappy. There were riots. The same rural regions that had actively lobbied to become nuclear power plant sites were openly hostile to the idea of being selected as France's nuclear waste dump. In retrospect, Mandil says, it's not surprising. It's not the risk of a waste site, so much as the lack of any perceived benefit. "People in France can be proud of their nuclear plants, but nobody wants to be proud of having a nuclear dustbin under its feet." In 1990, all activity was stopped and the matter was turned over to the French parliament, who appointed a politician, Monsieur Bataille, to look into the matter.

Christian Bataille resembles the French comedian Jacques Tati. His face breaks into a broad grin when asked why he was appointed to this task. "They were desperate," he says. "In France, executive power dominates much more th
121

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 22:17:59
#72 greenhill



"However I am not too troubled over that as I do not want to see "waste” totally disposed of."Waste" is potentially very useful and any nation serious about energy security is going to store the stuff in a place where it can be retrieved easily."
(How original, read on)

French love affair with nuclear energy expained:

Continued 2

Christian Bataille resembles the French comedian Jacques Tati. His face breaks into a broad grin when asked why he was appointed to this task. "They were desperate," he says. "In France, executive power dominates much more than in Anglo-Saxon countries. So that if the Executive asks parliament to do something it means they are really at the end of their ideas."

Bataille discovered that the rural populations had an idea of "Parisians, the consumers of electricity, coming to the countryside, going to the bottom of your garden with a spade, digging a hole and burying nuclear waste, permanently." *Using the word permanently was especially clumsy says Bataille because it left the impression that the authorities were abandoning the waste forever and would never come back to take care of it.*

Fighting the objections of technical experts who argued it would increase costs, Bataille introduced the notions of reversibility and stocking. Waste should not be buried permanently but rather stocked in a way that made it accessible at some time in the future. People felt much happier with the idea of a "stocking center" than a "nuclear graveyard". Was this just a semantic difference? No, says Bataille. Stocking waste and watching it involves a commitment to the future. It implies that the waste will not be forgotten. It implies that the authorities will continue to be responsible. And, says Bataille, it offers some possibility of future advances. "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."

"Nucle
122

ExpatNL,

glasgow 12/04/2009 22:18:53
#72 greenhill



"However I am not too troubled over that as I do not want to see "waste” totally disposed of."Waste" is potentially very useful and any nation serious about energy security is going to store the stuff in a place where it can be retrieved easily."
(How original, read on)

French love affair with nuclear energy expained:

Continued 3

"Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France's uniquely successful nuclear program? France's politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then "I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program."


http://tinyurl.com/no-choice

123

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 22:30:14
bon nuit, jeder(mann)
124

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 12/04/2009 22:51:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr-hqAjdNrU
125

Unimpressed one,

13/04/2009 08:34:57

Scotland has had the benefit of "unreliable and dangerous" nuclear power for almost 40 years. No modern industrial economy can function at a reduction of 80% 'carbon emissions' and total reliance on power generated from wind and tide. Anyone who believes this to be the case is an idiot.
126

elhobster,

13/04/2009 18:49:13
Stick their nuclear power-Scotland can produce enough energy for our five million and a large surplus that we can flog to the highest bidder.

We already produce more than our energy needs and we must invest in renewable energy, not this clownish Nuke energy (heavily subsidised) that actually may suit the needs of England.

No sense in tacking on some pseudo attachment to Scotland based on what suits the energy lacking needs of England, is there?

if we had a proper representative uk government, they woujld realise this, but really the union is an afterthought type of system that addresses the needs of whatever farcical government (currenlt labour) believes it needs to get a vote.

labour are out in the next election, and if you think about the fact they have absolutely naffall to offer Scotland or England, then that is right and fitting.

 

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:



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.