Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Minister provokes nuclear war over Scotland's energy future

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: 16 April 2009
THE UK government was accused last night of trying to frustrate Scotland's push for renewable energy by bullying the SNP into accepting new nuclear power stations.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband will arrive on Scottish soil today to warn First Minister Alex Salmond he is missing out on jobs and investment, the day after announcing 11 possible sites for new nuclear plants in England and Wales.

A spokeswoman for
the Department of Energy and Climate Change said Mr Miliband's visit to Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire was timed to show "how far we are moving and how far Scotland is being left behind".

The Miliband offensive comes as Jim Mather, Scotland's energy minister, visits the Isle of Lewis, where a controversial 53-turbine wind farm near the Callanish standing stones is expected to be given the go-ahead shortly.

A spokesman for Mr Salmond accused Mr Miliband of trying to "dictate" Scotland's energy policy and of "frustrating" its efforts towards renewables.

"We would never seek to interfere in the energy debate south of the Border," he said. "Similarly, it's not Ed Miliband's job to dictate an energy strategy north of the Border.

"Obviously, they are going down the nuclear road south of the Border in the teeth of very significant opposition, but that's an issue for them."

He said Scotland was trying to make the most of its natural advantages in green energy. "It's not really for Ed Miliband to try to frustrate that," he said. "He should be trying to facilitate that. It would actually help the UK meet its renewable targets."

The spokesman added: "He's cutting off his nose to spite his face."

He also called on Westminster to support renewables in Scotland by resolving an "unfair" system of charges that means companies generating electricity in Scotland have to pay far more for it to be transmitted than those in England.

The SNP administration has consistently ruled out any new nuclear power stations in Scotland after the closure of the existing two plants – Hunterston and Torness in East Lothian. Instead, it intends to focus on renewables.

However, pressure from south of the Border has escalated over recent months and today's attack on Scottish energy policy, as the UK Cabinet arrives in Scotland for a series of talks, will provoke renewed calls for the SNP to change its stance.

Ahead of his visit, Mr Miliband yesterday challenged the SNP to reverse its opposition to nuclear power "for the sake of the planet as well as jobs".

Mr Miliband said: "Credible solutions to the challenge of climate change require we use the full range of low-carbon fuels. Even previous opponents of nuclear power have accepted that it is wrong to rule out new nuclear in these circumstances."

He added: "Two new nuclear stations alongside existing ones in Hunterston and Torness would mean up to £5.6 billion investment and nearly 9,000 jobs created in building them.

"So, for the sake of the planet as well as jobs, I hope the SNP will reverse their opposition to new nuclear power."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change told The Scotsman that Mr Miliband's visit had been timed to coincide with the announcement on sites for new nuclear stations south of the Border. It was "to look at the power situation and to talk about the position of Scotland versus England and Wales on nuclear", she said.

She added that it was intended to "show how far we are moving and how far Scotland's being left behind".

Mr Mather was quick to emphasise yesterday that he was focusing on renewable sources of energy rather than nuclear power.

"Scotland simply doesn't want or need dangerous and unnecessary new nuclear power stations, with soaring decommissioning costs and the unresolved problem of storage of radioactive waste that burdens future generations for thousands of years," he said.

"Every pound invested in new nuclear power in other parts of the UK is a pound less on developing renewable and clean energy technology."

He added that the SNP administration was focusing on developing Scotland's "real strengths" – harnessing the country's vast renewable energy potential.

"With around a quarter of Europe's wave and tidal energy potential, as well as massive wind power opportunities, there are fantastic economic and employment opportunities, and the Scottish Government recently announced plans to create 16,000 green energy-related jobs in Scotland over the next decade," Mr Mather said.

"Renewable technologies, including wind, water, biomass, wave and tidal, backed up by clean thermal base-load, can meet our energy needs many times over."

Patrick Harvie, leader of the Scottish Greens, said: "It's clearly provocative for (Mr Miliband] to announce on one day this list of potential sites for England and Wales, and then on the following day to come up to Scotland and start posturing on matters that are for the devolved administration to decide on."

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "I think Ed Miliband and all the other British Cabinet ministers who are advocating nuclear power in Scotland should think carefully how they would like it if Jim Mather went to Westminster and said how wrong they were and how they should do much more to support renewable energy than they are doing.

"We think the Scottish Government is making exactly the right choice, and the Labour government is seeking to undermine them, in the misplaced belief that it will obtain political advantage."

In Mr McLaren's view, there is a "stark" choice between nuclear and renewables. "Across the energy system, we have limited grid capacity. We have limited time and effort in the planning system. We have limited trained engineers and we have limited money.

"We have seen it in the past: when nuclear power is prioritised, renewables and energy efficiency get downgraded, and these are the things we should be doing first," he said.

However, Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said a mix of energy options was necessary – and that must include nuclear.

He said: "Nuclear provides low-carbon, strategically secure, base-load electricity. It is the only low-carbon base-load option and provides 80 per cent of the UK's low-carbon electricity."

Two men, two very different views of future

THEIR diaries for today look very different.

One will spend the day exalting the potential of nuclear power in Ayrshire, while the other will be championing green energy in the Western Isles.

The actions of UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Scottish energy minister Jim Mather show the widening contrast between the policies of Westminster and Holyrood.

This morning, Mr Miliband will be at Hunterston B power station continuing Westminster's campaign against the SNP government's decision to ban any new nuclear plants in Scotland. Mr Mather will be on Lewis, trying to persuade the local community of the potential of renewable energy to transform their economy.

Mr Miliband believes nuclear must be used to provide clean base-load power, and he thinks it can provide a huge boost to the economy by creating many thousands of jobs.

However, the Scottish Government is convinced its key opportunities lie in focusing on renewables, alongside "clean" fossil-fuel power stations.

It thinks pumping resources into nuclear will detract from efforts to build up renewables in Scotland.

In an ideal world, this makes perfect sense: Scotland has some of the best conditions in the world for renewable energy. It could become an exporter of green electricity, meeting renewable targets and boosting the economy at the same time.

Renewables could be the North Sea oil of the future, but more of the benefits could come to Scotland.

However, there remain many question marks over the use of renewable energy in Scotland.

It is an intermittent source of power, providing an electricity supply only 30 per cent of the time.

And other than nuclear power, there is only one option for providing clean base-load power to back up renewables: carbon capture and storage.

The trouble is, this technology, to capture the carbon emissions from power stations, does not yet exist on a commercial scale.

Another huge problem is that wind farms – the most advanced type of green energy technology – are often hugely unpopular. And thousands more turbines will need to be built to meet renewable energy targets.

Often the most windy sites are also the most wild, beautiful and treasured in Scotland.

Parts of Lewis, where Mr Mather will be visiting today, are a perfect example. Attempts to build wind farms there in the past have sparked opposition from more than 10,000 people.

The lack of grid infrastructure and high transmission charges are just a few more of the issues facing the development of renewable energy.

So, whether Alex Salmond's resolve turns out to be good for Scotland remains to be seen. What is certain is the debate is unlikely to end any time soon.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 April 2009 12:45 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Andrew Horton,

16/04/2009 00:13:59
"However, Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said a mix of energy options was necessary – and that must include nuclear."

There's a surprise -- I thought the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association would have a whole different take on the subject.
2

The Strategist,

16/04/2009 00:24:21
I have never understood why Brown sold off the BNFL owned reactor builder Westinghouse to Panasonic less than a year before announcing his "build nuclear" policy.

Now, we're in the invidious position of being entirely dependent on either German or French reactor builders with all that means in terms of damage to our balance of trade.

Scotland is of course not missing out on jobs and investment by not accepting new nuclear builds. Any jobs created here would be temporary construction posts but even then, the high value added techy stuff will be done by French or German engineers. After that, ongoing operational posts including maintenance etc would be no greater in number than they are now given any new reactors would replace existing ones. There is also no guarantee some of those positions wouldn't be occupied by French or Germans either.


3

Brianwci,

16/04/2009 00:27:58
The SNP will stick to its non nuclear stance because it's the correct policy for Scotland and because it has the support of the majority of the people of Scotland.

Furthermore, thousands of Labour supporters in Scotland are leaving Labour because of their pro nuclear stance and essentially because they are more old SDP (sic) than old Labour.

Read this excellent article by Labour activist Bob Holmon from yesterdays Herald:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/otherfeatures/display.var.2501719.0.Bob_Holman_on_local_democracy.php

His final paragraph is:

"As for the Scottish Labour Party, it must cease to be the puppet of Gordon Brown and develop Labour policies in accord with its voters. Bowing the knee to Westminster is no longer democratic."
4

,

16/04/2009 00:28:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/04/2009 00:38:51
Does Milliband have any idea what causes climate change?

Does anyone?

Minister for Climate Change title is a hoot. Hope he noticed the change in the climate when he ventured furth of his normal fiefdom.

They say it all with a straight (po) face too.

The department of Energy and Climate Change.

Don't laugh now. CLIMATE CHANGE.

Thought it was time for a change.

6

Castaway™ ,

16/04/2009 00:43:00
Why not gas fired power station(s) for Scotland ? why has it got to be only new nuclear power stations when in addition to the proposed NPS's for England and Wales:-

England and Wales they are building 12 new gas fired power stations with a total capacity of approx 15,000MW including:-

5 February 2009 - The UK government has granted consent for three new gas fired power stations with a combined capacity of 3,900MW to be constructed at Pembroke, King's Lynn and Hatfield.

The the above 12 new gas fired power stations will also provide jobs and investment.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband Mr Miliband ........ missing out on jobs and investment, so this is the reason for building new nuclear power stations in Scotland - jobs and investment ?

We should remember the "The decision to build Torness was not based on a need for generating capacity. .. The decision to build Torness - and its sister station Heysham II in England - was taken in order to support the UK engineering industry through what was obviously going to be a lean period"

Torness was originally projected to cost £742 million with the final cost of £2.5 billion (to support the UK engineering industry through what was obviously going to be a lean period).
7

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/04/2009 00:46:49
Aye. They've outspun themselves this time.

Global Warming was scary while it was plausible but Climate Change is like a Carry On film.

We all know it's down to energy companies' vested interests.

Climate Change - nearly wet my pants.

8

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/04/2009 00:53:47
The Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Geez. I just had to see that again in print. Does it replace the Witchfinder General's department?
9

Julian.,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 00:54:19
#3 the strategist,

"Scotland is of course not missing out on jobs and investment by not accepting new nuclear builds"

It's going to take 9000 workers 10 years to build these nuclear power stations. Even allowing for some foreign workers that seems like quite a lot of jobs to me...which are badly needed in the current climate.
10

Julian.,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 00:56:34
#9,

Are you trying to say that climate change is as ficitious as witches?
11

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/04/2009 00:58:08
Department of Energy, Climate Change and Tide Turning springs to mind as something which might be more accurate.

But Carry On, Milliband.
12

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/04/2009 01:00:36
11, Julian. I am saying that solving the intangible climate change is as futile as drowning or burning witches.
13

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/04/2009 01:07:26
Minister for Climate Change. And we are meant to take this seriously.

There is a scientific reason for climate change which has been ignored by by the power merchants and the fawning minions.

Minister for Climate Change says it all.
14

,

16/04/2009 01:10:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Dark Lochnagar,

http://darklochnagar.blogspot.com 16/04/2009 01:13:52
Julian. You sound like a builder chappy. Can you carry a hod. Will you be applying for a job?
16

,

16/04/2009 01:19:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

,

16/04/2009 01:27:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/04/2009 01:29:29
Minister for Climate Change - and Energy comes with it.

Ladies, bin the diuretic tablets and keep reading that.

And this is coming here to tell us what to do?
19

Julian.,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 01:35:07
Jock,

Still not clear on what you're saying. Do you mean climate change doesn't exist or that solving it is futile?

Dark Lochanger,

No, you wouldn't catch me carrying a hod. Just thought that in the current climate investing in projects like this seems like a more useful idea than putting our grandchildren in debt by reducing VAT and giving people £2000 to buy a new car...the sort of irresponsible spending that got us into this mess in the first place.
20

Steve A.,

16/04/2009 01:41:29
19
Cyn
What will global Gordon's brother do when Scotland tells global to stick his nukes up his big fat @rse?
21

Edward,

16/04/2009 01:53:48
The fact remains that Scotland does not want Nuclear Power.
Scotland also does not need Nuclear Power
With recent developments with Wind, Wave and Hydro power, Scotland has the capacity of producing more Electricity than it actually needs WITHOUT Nuclear Power!
The only people that are peddling Nuclear Powere is Labour.Why? The Fact is Labour are so corrupt, with Scottish MP's on the Commons committefor Nuclear Energy being well looked after by EDF Energy and EON (dont take my word, check the Commons members interests)
I also dont suppose the fact that Browns, brother is a director for EDF Energy has any bearing either.
22

Edward,

16/04/2009 02:11:38
Quote from Milliband on the Scottish Labour website 'Unfortunately the SNP continue to oppose new nuclear, even though the Scottish people are supportive' Since when? Is this guy stupid or just badly breifed, or both? The Scottish People are against Nuclear Energy,in avote in the Scottish Parliament, the majority MSP's were against Nuclear Energy!
23

Mark Fife,

Taiwan 16/04/2009 02:47:44
If Scotland is to become truely green that means all transport whether public or private will have to run on some electrical system probably efficient rechargable batteries.There will have to be a change over from gas central heating and cooking to electric.
If we are serious about a carbon free future then we will have to greatly increase power generation to meet these needs. How can this be done? 8 new generation nuclear reactors at four sites would give us the required capacity to go totally green.Lets do it.
24

W Smith,

Middle East 16/04/2009 03:25:17
So the SNP are the voice of English communist Kate Hudson (CND).

Considering th SNP's Osama Saeed doesn't object to muslim nations like Iran and Pakistan having nuclear bombs I think the snivelling SNP supporters should just shut it.
25

Mallory,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 03:51:44
Events at Hunterston in the last century were proof beyond doubt that Scotland cannot handle nuclear power..
26

greenhill,

16/04/2009 04:41:00
RE Edward,16/04/2009 01:53:48 The fact remains that Scotland does not want Nuclear Power.
Scotland also does not need Nuclear Power
With recent developments with Wind, Wave and Hydro power, Scotland has the capacity of producing more Electricity than it actually needs WITHOUT Nuclear Power!
..................................................

Edward is representative of the many deluded Nats who reckon we can power our country with renewables in the near future. The truth is that the SNP plans to use dirty coal which pumps out more than 100 times more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear.

Salmond is a devious propagandist. He talks big on renewables but knows fine well that it is empty speech because the real SNP policy is to provide most of our energy from fossil fuels.

He does this because he is fully aware that SNP supporters "think" like members of a crowd and will buy into his rhetoric without checking the facts.
27

Castaway™ ,

16/04/2009 05:23:17
I do not agree with the adage that Scottish waste must stay in Scotland and Welsh waste must stay in Wales. It is British waste, and the United Kingdom Government must deal with it. That is the deal, that is how it is at the moment, that is how Parliament has set its store, and we must go along with it.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West, Labour) Chairman of the all-party group on nuclear energy.Westminster Hall debates 31 Mar 2009
28

,

16/04/2009 05:43:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Geoff,

sa 16/04/2009 06:19:39
32 and 33-good posts. As always this debate is not really about the merits/demerits of various sources of power generation, but is again another day of Nat vs. Uni punchups. Would not it be nice to debate the pluses and minuses of the energy question with open minds unsullied by our fierce tribal affiliations.
Lovely day here in SA-clear blue skies-midday temps in the mid twenties!
30

overton,

aberdeen 16/04/2009 06:19:55
Scotland needs nuclear power.
A couple of new stations would boost engineering and jobs up here as well as supplying clean energy.
Scotland doesn't need Alex Salmond and his ill thought out and blinkered nationalist propaganda.
31

steve 1511,

aberdeen 16/04/2009 06:23:58
why do we need nuclear power stations in scotland,place all of them in middle england and lay a long power line to scotland,the english can have the jobs and the nuclear waste,scotland does not want it

WE ARE DOOMED WITH BROON,DOOMED
32

Brahann,

Fife 16/04/2009 06:39:35
Just a question

If Scotland is energy rich and the south of England is energy deprived. then why doesn't Miliband and crew build a nice big reactor where it's needed? He'd save all that copper wiring that would be used to move the energy. I'm sure there are plenty of nice sites in the greater London area. Think of all the money he could save, think of all the jobs he would create for the poor Londoners!

THINK!!!!!!
33

Steve Phillips,

Perth 16/04/2009 06:40:05
Go Greenhill!
We have the same problem here in Australia.
A bunch of two-faced hypocrites that spout green nonsense about renewables that are somewhere on the broad horizon and then quietly build coalfired power stations (Labor Govts mostly, pandering to the unions).
We need clean reliable nuclear, the world if the climate change pundits are right needs nuclear power, end of story.
34

qohldr,

16/04/2009 06:50:42
If I recall and I may be wrong, but the SNP government held a survey along the lines of.
We need nuclear power along with other
forms of energy
53% agreed, 26% disagreed

Nuclear power stations are more
environmentally friendly than coal and gas
power stations
48% agreed, 21% disagreed

Scotland’s energy should only come from
renewable sources, not from nuclear power
stations or coal and gas
48% agreed, 26% disagreed.

It look that from the survey the Scottish people would rather have renwable energy but if other forms are required they would rather it be nuclear than coal or gas which the SNP are suggesting.
35

greenhill,

16/04/2009 06:57:00
RE qohldr,16/04/2009 06:50:42

The question:
........................................
Scotland’s energy should only come from
renewable sources, not from nuclear power
stations or coal and gas
48% agreed, 26% disagreed.
...............................
Implies that our energy needs can be met by renewables.The question is not honest.You may as well ask people if they would like a tree that grew money.

36

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 07:03:45
In a recent survey, 95% of Scots said they didn't want global warming.

Replace Hunterston with a coal-fired power station?
37

Charles MN,

16/04/2009 07:06:30
"A spokesman for Mr Salmond accused Mr Miliband of trying to "dictate" Scotland's energy policy and of "frustrating" its efforts towards renewables.

"We would never seek to interfere in the energy debate south of the Border," he said. "Similarly, it's not Ed Miliband's job to dictate an energy strategy north of the Border."

Energy is a reserved matter. It is Ed Milliband's job to dictate energy strategy in Scotland as well as elsewhere in the UK. If the SNP don't understand the terms of devolution what do they understand?
38

greenhill,

16/04/2009 07:15:42
Re Steve Phillips,Perth 16/04/2009 06:40:05

Thanks Steve.It is very worrying that such lumpen stupidity is taken advantage of by political chancers.

A prime example of such idiocy is:Brahann,Fife 16/04/2009 06:39:35 who seems to be unaware that the UK government has just published a list of 11 spots in England and Wales including close to London.

"Brahann" is also unaware that we are not "energy rich" and we need to plan new power stations to replace the ones which are due to close.

"Brahann" seems to be yet another Salmond puppet.

39

Geoff,

sa 16/04/2009 07:17:54
Some good posts above. The dangers associated with building new Nuclear power plants may give the lesser of two evils. Scotland has enormous potential for Wind ,hydro and wave power but these all have their problems environmental and otherwise. Climate change is an immediate crisis facing us.Nuclear Power compared with coal and oil fired power is a no contest in terms of planet warming emissions- the latter need to be reduced immediately. We can worry about the storage of relatively tiny amounts of nuclear waste later.
40

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 07:29:53
Where's Jack McConnell's plan to handle Nuclear waste?

The plan is to bury it in Scotland to protect Labour's middle England vote.
One of the key reasons for not voting Labour
41

greenhill,

16/04/2009 07:30:49
REGeoff,sa 16/04/2009 07:17:54 "We can worry about the storage of relatively tiny amounts of nuclear waste later."

That is a good point the fact is that the very latest nuclear power plants produce only a fraction of the waste of old. People like Salmond do not wish to acknowledge this. He prefers to manipulate mass ignorance for selfish political advantage.
42

John Cameron,

St Andrews 16/04/2009 07:35:14
Nuclear power is the only proven safe and cost-effective way to generate large amounts of electricity that won’t produce large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. There is more than enough uranium, thorium and plutonium to supply the entire world’s electricity for several hundred years. Anti-nuclear campaigners claim that nuclear power contains hidden emissions of GHGs from uranium mining and reactor construction, but so do wind turbines, built from huge amounts of concrete, steel and plastic. Nuclear-generated electricity is only marginally more expensive than gas and 20 times cheaper than onshore and offshore wind. With expected carbon-pricing penalties for gas and coal, nuclear power will be considerably cheaper than all the alternatives. Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, Britain has no radioactive waste problem and new nuclear build will not make any significant contribution to existing radioactive waste levels for 40 years. New reactors will be constructed from modular designs with the need for decommissioning built-in. The costs of decommissioning and waste management will be incorporated into the price of electricity to consumers. As regards construction schedules, the Canadian company AECL, has built new reactors in just over 4 years from the pouring of concrete to criticality. Looking at safety issues, terrorists have already demonstrated that they prefer large, high visibility, soft targets with maximum human casualties rather than well-guarded, isolated, low-population targets. Any new generation of nuclear reactors in the UK will be designed with even greater protection against attack than existing plants, and with ‘passive’ safety measures that work without human intervention or computer control.
43

spiderman,

argyll 16/04/2009 07:40:37
1) We need nuclear power for baseload and to restrict carbon dioxide emissions

2) We need to decide this within Scotland, not be dictated to by Westminster against the policies of Scotland's democratic government

44

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 07:48:00
No More Nuclear waste till the Plan is published. The plan is to bury it in Scotland, that's why it has not been published.
45

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 07:52:27
#350 Rules

What is more dangerous, nuclear waste, or greenhouse gases?

In case you are not aware, all high-level waste produced in Scotland goes to Sellafield for reprocessing, with residual waste stored at a facility in Cumbria.

"This document is the Royal Society response to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee inquiry that addressed nuclear power, renewable sources of energy and climate change.

Our response makes the following points:


Renewables and energy efficiency measures are not sufficiently developed to make up for the shortfall in energy generating capacity caused by the phase out of nuclear power stations and older coal plants.
The introduction of an appropriate economic instrument would encourage the development of cleaner technologies and a move away from carbon based fuels as well as promoting energy efficiency measures.
Low carbon electricity generation options such as nuclear new build and the employment of carbon capture and storage technologies need to be considered as they help to ensure diversity of supply whilst minimising carbon dioxide emissions.
The development, deployment and financing of these technologies are global issues, going far beyond the UK."
46

john z,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 07:54:26
I'm old enough to remember long island and chernobyl, and also some of the mis-haps at Windscale (now re-named as sellafield).

France uses nuclear power because it has no choice. Scotland was not only blessed with huge oil and gas deposits, it also has huge (and I do mean HUGE) natural energy sources, such as wind tide and wave power.

Scotland needs nuclear power like a hole in the head, and London Labour and Jim P(m)uppet Murphy needs to grasp the fact. Scotland has no need for Nuclear power, and has never had a need for nuclear submarines, carrying nuclear warheads that can wipe out entire countries at a stroke.

If the old colonials in England want to carry on with nuclear power - that's their choice, but Scotland does not want Nuclear.

Why does the english government in London, feel the need to constantly tell Scotland what to do?? Here's a thought, maybe we Scots should start dictating policy to the english parliament in London, and see how they like it.

As others above have pointed out, any supposed jobs will be limited, as the new reactors will be built and maintained by the French.


47

,

16/04/2009 07:57:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 08:01:07
53 The Tin Man
Nuclear waste is the most dangerous and we nearly finished it in the north of England in the 50s.
People who worked there called their families and told them to leave the area leaving Ghost towns; that' how close it came and it was people not technology that caused it
They will bury it in Scotland, that's why Slab MPs never came up with the promised Plan.
49

john z,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 08:03:47
I meant three mile island in the USA, of course, in my post above.
50

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 16/04/2009 08:05:56
It's taken nearly 100 years for Westminster to realise the Union is, this time, in real excrement! So they send up the biggest "talking head" and his asinine team to try and reassure us that "their way is the way forward". We've had the arch criminal Blair and now the arch turnip Brown, spreading their bile to the daft Scots who will support Labour/New Labour in any circumstances.Waken up, Scotland.The ninety minute Scots who represent you in London are nothing short of "Tartan Tories". How the worm has turned!
51

,

16/04/2009 08:06:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

Charles MN,

16/04/2009 08:09:39
#50
Yes but if we assume money invested now will return a 6% rate of return, after 150,000 years a penny invested now would be worth 10 to the power 3795. Vastly more than it would cost to supervise any waste. Or perhaps your whole argument is nonsense?

After 100-200 years the radiation from nuclear waste reduces to levels similar to the stuff that was dug up in the first place so it no more needs managed than the 100's of thousands of tones of uranium that occur naturally.

If we can't cope with looking after a few thousand tons of nuclear waste how are going to manage the 100's of thousand tons of CO2 per day produced by "clean" coal and gas stations?

53

john z,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 08:12:29
The fact is, that the SNP government is doing a much better job of running Scotland that Brown and his hired thugs ('special advisors') are doing down in London.

Now that McBride has gone, maybe Iain Gray will get to make some headway as Labour leader in Scotland and Browns p(m)uppet Jim Murphy will be silenced.

All my life, Labour have opposed Nuclear power, and now they come to Scotland to tell us all that we MUST have nuclear power, even though we don't need it in Scotland.

London Labour, a crooked bunch of liars and thugs the lot of them. Get out of Scotland and don't come back.
54

morris,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 08:12:46
51

You can put money on it!

That's exactly what we are going to be,UK's nuclear dump .
There are a number of criteria which any site must satisfy of course.
We are perfect ,we are remote, sparsely populated, and as far away from no 10 as you can get!
There is no such animal as a safe depository because of seismic activity.What part of its obvious some people do not grasp is beyond me.

This is and remains a sufficiently devolved matter and SCOTLAND neither needs nor wants any nuclear installations of any kind.Even Labour in Scotland were opposed to this(but have probably been told Noooooooooooooooooooooooo you are in favour of it ,Gordon said so)!
If London try to push this again(and that's what they are doing)then it can only reinforce the status afforded to Scotland as one of tartan colony and nuclear waste depository.
I have heard that one of the "safest" sites for depositing waste is in the Thames estuary !Even if that is correct it will never be used and we all know why!Wales and Northern Ireland and Northern England had better watch themselves because they are next on the shopping list!
Scotland's oil revenues becomes West minsters revenues but England's nuclear trash becomes Scotland's problem.
There is a Union dividend but we are the ones paying it!







55

,

16/04/2009 08:14:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
56

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 08:14:18
#60 funny

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=17860

"See, not everything that is written down is correct." Lol, hopefully, we are all astute enough to have figured that out.
57

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 08:20:28
61 Charles MN,
Where's the plan. If you went to a bank and asked for money that's the first thing they'd ask; and they have been found out to be very bad planners; so how bad are the Labour party who cannot supply a plan for Nuclear waste.
This is another example of Labour(Brown) misusing Scotland.
Fist Oil then Waste and when renewables appear the establishment will want to use the Natural resource but the Money men will control all the profit both Manufacturing and selling power.
It's Scotland 's Natural resource to be controlled from Holyrood, let's have Planning Licenses.
58

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 08:21:45
#57 Rules

"The choice you offer (nuclear or CO2) is a false one. I want neither as renewables are the answer."

I would like to see the back of nuclear power, as well. However, sometimes people have to make hard choices, based on reality.

The reality of the matter is that nuclear power is the cleanest available means of base-load generation (unless you want to flood Scotland by tripling the number of hydro-electric dams).
59

,

16/04/2009 08:22:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

john z,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 08:23:15
Oh, yes I must agree with posts above, regarding waste dumping.

The reason London Labour and its hired thugs ('special advisors') needs to get a new nuclear plant in Scotland, is EXACTLY because they want to dump ALL the nuclear waste in Scotland, and it's easier to justify if Scotland also has a new nuclear station.

Here's a suggestion, why not put all the nuclear waste in Downing street, London, if it's all so b***dy safe??

61

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 08:24:33
#68 funny

Carbon-capture schemes involve burying power-station exhaust gases, which don't have a half-life at all, and remain buried, and dangerous, for ever.
62

john z,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 08:25:05
The english take our oil and don't pay for it. Not a penny.

Then, they decide to give us their nuclear waste.

Is that what they call the union dividend??
63

,

16/04/2009 08:26:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

,

16/04/2009 08:28:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

greenhill,

16/04/2009 08:30:55

There is a marked contrast between the pro and anti posts in this thread.

The pro arguments are written in good English with clearly made rational points whereas contributions from those opposed to nuclear like that from: "funny_newspaper,16/04/2009 08:14:07" are just peevish ignorance propelled by poor communication.



66

,

16/04/2009 08:34:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 08:36:03
#71 johnz

Whatever... If you want to be nationalistic about it, in reality 'Scotland' is currently giving 'England' it's waste, and has been for a long time.

Soar Alba!
68

,

16/04/2009 08:36:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

greenhill,

16/04/2009 08:37:04
REfunny_newspaper,16/04/2009 08:34:25

Thank you for confirming my point.
70

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 08:37:07
74 greenhill,

Here are rational points; We do not need it; we do not want it; we were promised a waste disposal plan before any further Nuclear power discussion, by the Labour party; we do not have the promised plan.
The plan is to bury it in Scotland, Simple.

Remember Winscale?
71

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 08:38:49
#72 funny

Good greif.... Why don't you get off your bum and find out who wrote it, yourself, if you are really in the slightest bit interested?
72

,

16/04/2009 08:41:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

Andrah,

Embrugh 16/04/2009 08:42:12
Fact is the vast majority of the developed and developing world either has nuclear power stations already, or is planning to build them.
Nuclear is high tech, employing scientists and engineers, and is "safe" within the definition of the word as representing an extremely low risk of harm. Some of the emotional rants above would befit the Middle Ages.

Putting "safety" in context;

People killed annually in the UK;

at work, 200-300 (HSE)
on the roads, ca 3000
smoking related diseases, 150-200,000

Never mind we can always put up nice blue and green signs at the Border stating "You are now entering a Nuclear Free Zone" just like Hatton did in Liverpool when he led the city to bankruptcy.
74

DanB,

fife 16/04/2009 08:42:56
Just shows that energy should never have been made a devolved issue. We need a unified UK-wide energy policy (or better still, Europe-wide)... anything else is just p*ssing in the windfarm
75

,

16/04/2009 08:48:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

Edward,

16/04/2009 08:49:36
#84 DanB
You must be a Labourite smear artist!
Either that or you really dont have a clue of what happens in Scotland as regards renewable energy
Its not all about Wind Power. Wind is only part of the renewables. In Scotland we are developing wave power, which will provide all the power Scotland needs. In Scotland we also have Hydro as a renewable. In England you dnt have either Wav or Hydro, which is why the English are being conned into buying the Nuclear dream.
77

greenhill,

16/04/2009 08:52:13
RE TWC,exLabour 16/04/2009 08:37:07

That is just pitiable. Again we should compare and contrast the detail and articulacy of previous posts in favour with your sad little rant. You have not put forward anything to counter what has been said before and are therefor unfit to sit at the table of judicious debate.

..................................................
In addition RE funny_newspaper,16/04/2009 08:41:06 "I see your points on this board are about the posters not the subject."
.................................................

Well the fact is that I have made a number of substantial posts which have not been countered at all.
You should look over this thread again.Many of the anti posts are bordering on the insane.
78

,

16/04/2009 08:52:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

Brideun,

Culloden 16/04/2009 08:52:56
Would the more knowledgeable who write to this site explain why it is that wind power being an unreliable and dubious source of energy is readily promoted at every opportunity by press and media. I suspect that there are many hidden agendas, the not least being financial gain to the few usual suspects. It is time that an investigative journalist worth his salt takes a long hard look into the political background of this affair. Quio bono!!
80

Charles MN,

16/04/2009 08:53:15
#73
Go away and do a little reading on nuclear waste before commenting. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and you don't even seem to have that.

Waste from nuclear plants basically divides into two: a) short lived highly radioactive elements such as iodine 131 (with a half life of 8 days) caused by the fission of uranium and plutonium.
b) long lived elements such as uranium and plutonium.

The faster a radioisotope decays, the more radioactive it will be. Or putting it another way the longer half life an isotope has the less radoactive it is.

When waste first comes out of a reactor it is very radioactive to the extent that it needs to be cooled in water. After a couple of decades the radiation has declined so that cooling is no longer needed. After a few centuries the short lived radiation has ( by definition ) decayed and you are left with the long lived isotopes. The level of radiation at this point not significantly greater than many natural sources.
The risk from poisoning is probably greater.

Anyone suggesting that nuclear waste needs supervised for 100's of thousands of years just doesn't know what they are talking about.

All this is standard knowledge, have a read at wikipedia.

81

,

16/04/2009 08:54:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
82

Peeablo,

Back to the 70's 16/04/2009 08:55:24
#83 Andrah

There is little doubt over safety. The problem with nuclear power is what to do with the waste? Do you want a nuclear waste dump on your doorstep? I think not.

Just watch the Labour anti-renewable lobby start to spin it's lies about Scotland's renewable programme grow and grow. Why? Because nuclear power stations are unpopular and voters in England and Wales with start to ask the Labour govt. why Scotland is not sharing it's part in the nuclear 'risk'.
83

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 08:56:16
#4:

"The SNP will stick to its non nuclear stance because it's the correct policy for Scotland and because it has the support of the majority of the people of Scotland."

Rubbish. They will stick to their non-nuclear policy because they are stupid. Seems that they are even worse than stupid labour in that respect.

Prove that it has the support of the majority of people in Scotland---or is that just another one of those wild assumptions that we are all expected to just accept? Anyone with any brains knows that nuclear is the way ahead.
84

Phil C,

16/04/2009 08:58:14
I am pro the SNP in most things they have said and done.

Three areas I disagree with their policies are
*Hiking the price of bevvy
*PPP
*Nuclear power stations

While Scotland is in an enviable position vis a vis natural resources, we are not in a position to dismiss clean and safe nuclear energy so readily. Neutral studies show that we will in all probability need the nuclear back-up. If only we could find a way of disposing of nuclear waste, it would be the best form of power generation.

What we really need is independence. We could then set up our own energy policy, reinvest proceeds from our own resources and sell any surplus. The Westminster energy thieves could take a hike!
85

,

16/04/2009 08:59:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
86

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 09:02:58
#94:

"If only we could find a way of disposing of nuclear waste, it would be the best form of power generation."

Read Charles MN at #90;

By the way, what is PPP? I don't do acronyms.
87

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 09:04:05
With a little care, nucleur power is a tremendous solution to our power requirements without depleting earths natural resources which you think would please some of the luddites against it.

With this technology available are we as a nation seriously going to allow ourselves to blot our landscapes by looking to wind generators that will give us some small power (when the wind blows) and tide machines as a solution? Other advanced nations must be laughing at us at our inability to accept technology.
88

Brideun,

Culloden 16/04/2009 09:04:31
Noocleer energee, whits rang wi peat, ma granny cut it an used t'ilt an lived til fifty five an spoke gaelic all her life. Mind you we couldn't unerstan her.
89

greenhill,

16/04/2009 09:08:11
RE Charles MN,16/04/2009 08:53:15

You make cogent points but "funny newspaper" is no more than a child in an adult’s body. It is not possible to have a reasoned debate with someone like that.

90

Phil C,

16/04/2009 09:08:15
#96

That disposal takes too long.

PPP=Scottish Futures Trust! (wrong letters, same policy)
91

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 09:11:31
#85 funny

I see you weren't really that intrested?

"The warning came in a joint statement from the Royal Society's president, Lord May of Oxford, and vice-presidents Professors David Wallace, Patrick Bateson, John Enderby, and Julia Higgins.

"In the short to medium term, it is difficult to see how we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without the help of nuclear power," they said."

Now you can look up Lord May of Oxford, Professors David Wallace, Patrick Bateson, John Enderby, and Julia Higgins, and say bad things about them, if you like.

92

,

16/04/2009 09:12:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
93

Unimpressed one,

16/04/2009 09:16:46
"Scotland simply doesn't want or need dangerous and unnecessary new nuclear power stations, with soaring decommissioning costs and the unresolved problem of storage of radioactive waste that burdens future generations for thousands of years," he said.

But according to the skewed greenie/SNP logic, burying billions of tonnes of 'lethal' climate changing CO2 underground for the rest of time, is acceptable. By 2020 we WILL be importing most of our power from England and that will be something future generations will fail to understand. The SNP are on course to take us back to 18th century living standards.
94

,

16/04/2009 09:18:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
95

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 09:19:37
Civil nuclear power has military spin-offs of nuclear weapons and depleted uranium. The UK's nuclear weapons are in Scotland. Live firing of depleted uranium shells takes place in Scotland. There is also the issue of long-term disposal of nuclear waste. The waste is being stored in England at the moment but the long-term 'final soluton' is to store it in Scotland. London needs civil nuclear power in Scotland to justify all of that. The stumbling block is the Scottish Government's planning powers. Handing these powers back is the purpose of the Calman Commission.
96

greenhill,

16/04/2009 09:20:07
I quote from the fool Edward:"Wind is only part of the renewables. In Scotland we are developing wave power, which will provide all the power Scotland needs."
.................................................................

I have no doubt this nutbaggery is inspired by the rhetoric of Alex Salmond who intentionally inculcates such delusions.

The fact is that wave power is being pursued worldwide but it will be at least 20 years before it can make a significant contribution.

Shame on the Salmond and the SNP.
97

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 09:22:35
#104 funny

You appear to be a mentalist. The previous Labour / Lib Dem exec (ie. 'unionist' team) effectively banned any new nuclear reactors in Scotland.
98

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 16/04/2009 09:25:46
We need a lot more nuclear power and we need it now. The waste can simply be stuck into old space shuttles (coming to the end of their life) and other rockets and fired at the sun where it will burn up harmlessly.
99

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 09:25:51
Shame on the Salmond and the SNP. (Greensleeve)

Tough.

After due consultation and electoral support the Scottish Government made its decision.

It's called democracy.

Bullying by another government on behalf of the nuclear industry is rejected.

Go away.


100

,

16/04/2009 09:27:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

,

16/04/2009 09:29:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
102

Number 6,

Germany 16/04/2009 09:30:21
The boy Milliband is just the latest in a long line of Labour wretches incapable of influcing policy in Scotland.

Their ignorance in ignoring the "No Nukes" vote taken in the Scottish Parliment will once again result in them being left marganilised, consigned to the sidelines were they can do no damage .

If there was thousands of jobs and Billions in investment up for grabs, then the Labour party would be implementing Nuc power stations in England.

Thankfully, he will be ignored and we can get on with advancing our alternative energy sources.England needs to stand on its own 2 feet for once and sort out it's own energy requirements.

Anyone know where they finally are dumping their Toxic waste? Remember, if Labour were in charge in Scotland, it would have been dumped in Falkirk.

Labour, dead in the water.
103

Liz,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 09:30:50
This is so short sighted it is alomst unbelievable. Nuclear is the most viable and neccesary source of our future energy needs. Of course we should have renewable too but as far as a consistant and sufficient source of the fuel for the future Scotland is going to be left so far behind it is unreal.

Reading some of the comments here you would think that the only nuclear power stations the UK government are planning are in Scotland. This is an incorrect fallacy designed to think that yet again poor Scotland is being badly done to. Like it or not we urgently need power and as we are not all sensible enough to cut back on our needs we need to invest money now in both Nuclear to ensure that our base needs are met in the future. Renewables are all well and good but you must be seriously naive if you think they are going to be reliable and powerful enough to fulfil Scotlands requirements.
104

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 09:31:21
#110 funny

"But you and greenhill go on insulting people with other opinions."

If you think I am insulting anyone, you have a very thin skin. I apologise for calling you a 'mentalist', but I though your comment was a bit off-topic.
105

Liz,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 09:34:57
For those who have missed them here are the sites for new stations in England:
Sellafield in Cumbria
Braystones in Cumbria
Kirksanton in Cumbria
Hartlepool in Cleveland
Heysham in Lancashire
Dungeness in Kent
Oldbury in Gloucestershire
Hinkley Point in Somerset
Bradwell in Essex
Sizewell in Suffolk
106

greenhill,

16/04/2009 09:36:37
RE Los Angeles,16/04/2009 09:25:51 "After due consultation and electoral support the Scottish Government made its decision."

Oh I see if the SNP "decides" that Wave power will provide power then it will happen just like that and the timescale of 20 years is wrong?

Let's face it you are stupid.

107

Number 6,

Germany 16/04/2009 09:37:19
115# LIZ, we do NOT "Urgently need fuel". Scotland produces a surplus of energy. Did you not know that ?
108

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 09:41:03
#117 Number 6

And, unless we start doing something about it right now, Scotland will have a deficit of power generation in 20 years time when Hunterston and Torness are shut-down, and will probably have to rely on base-load generation from coal, gas, and nuclear plants outwith Scotland.
109

Liz,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 09:41:53
#117
The issue is not right now but we need to be prepared for 15/20 years time. Our demand for electricity is only going to increase in this time.
110

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 09:43:20
#118

It is a bit like having an energy / climate change policy based on 'we cannae dae it, wul get somebuddy else tae dae it for us cus were too scared, like'.
111

Peeablo,

Back to the 70's 16/04/2009 09:43:59
# 115 Liz

Not sure which comments you've been reading?
The comments all look fairly balanced to me with both sides of the argument cast.

So not sure what point you're trying to make other than to force the argument into a English v Scottish debate.

You need to accept that Scotland, and N. Ireland have separate policies to that of Westminster. The Hollyrood administration decided no new nuclear power stations, in fact this was the policy of the last Hollyrood administration too.




112

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 09:44:08

Let's face it you are stupid. (Greensleeves)

You didn't hear me:

No amount of abuse and bullying will alter a democratic decision. Go away.



113

greenhill,

16/04/2009 09:46:01
RE Number 6,Germany 16/04/2009 09:37:19
115# LIZ, we do NOT "Urgently need fuel". Scotland produces a surplus of energy. Did you not know that ?
............................................

That is another load of nutbaggery subscribed to by SNP dimwits on these threads.

The fact is that Scotland’s power is provided by 5 main plants: nuclear at Hunterston and Torness, coal at Cockenzie and Longannet, gas from Peterhead .We also have important power from hydro and some from wind. For various reasons most of these plants will need to close in the near future.

Decisions need to be taken now about what we do next. It must also be taken into account that we are expected to develop to be using 50% more energy by 2050.

The planning and building of major engineering projects can take many years and are usually subject to delays and cost overruns. It is not appropriate to dither.

114

AJ Fife,

16/04/2009 09:47:55
It's good to know that Scotland's future is in safe hands with Mr Salmond fighting off the Westminster 'brownshirts'.

Mr Salmond's statesman-like quality shines through everytime.

Posh boy Milliband can GTF!
115

greenhill,

16/04/2009 09:49:30
Re Los Angeles,16/04/2009 09:44:08

The particular topic was wave power.You have avoided commenting because you are an abject ignoramus.
116

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 09:49:39
#119 Liz

A good point. If we took major steps to reduce our energy demand, then we wouldn't need nuclear power at all. However, it looks like the political will for such steps is a bit lacking.
117

Liz,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 09:50:00
#121
I am not going to trawl through them again to give you numbers but there are comments above which imply that Westminster would never think of putting Nuclear power anywhere near the South East of England, I pasted the list to provide evidence that is not the case.

118

Jock E,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 09:50:04
God help us if some of the rabid NATS contributing to the anti nuclear debate get power in a (if ever) separate Scotland.

What right have these people to state the Scotland doesn't want nuclear? Well they don't speak for me. I walked under the Torness reactor on a visit many years ago and no bits have dropped off me yet! What a fantastic place, something we should be proud of.

I certainly do not want our beautiful hills swamped with turbines or harbours blocked with nodding donkeys or turbine barriers.
119

Mcsnagpile,

16/04/2009 09:51:15
If a new nuclear plant was for the Scottish people, a Scottish investment, built and run by Scottish people and companies, protection and security by Scots, I might be tempted to join the argument.
120

wilfredthehairy,

Misty, cold Edinburgh. Thank goodness for coal and 16/04/2009 09:53:17
I must say that the political heat (SNP v. Labour)in the comments today could be harnessed usefully if the writers were all put in one room. Most of the debate, as usual, is uninformed when politics is concerned and I wish the SNP would stop playing the 'Labour baddy' card and stick to the arguments. Vague statements like 'playing to our strengths' simply disguise the fundamental truth that we will not have sufficient baseload capacity in Scotland for the forseeable future unless we upgrade nuclear and/or coal-fired power stations. The renewables debate is separate from this. So, let's discuss the real issue. Personally, I have a stake in coal, so I'm biased. But renewables will only be peripheral to the debate in our lifetimes.
Note: I'm fairly (party) apolitical, I find it helps clear my thinking. The Labour party is just as bad here. The debate isn't about jobs, either. Maybe Milliband should be throwing cod to the French instead of red herring to the Scots.
121

westcider,

Isle of Lewis 16/04/2009 09:54:53
#83 Andrah
You fall into the trap of giving only the figures for running/building the nuclear power plants.
In fact the mining of uranium is the most dangerous mining of all, and requires huge amounts of CO2 to get the product to market. Of course it too is a finite resource and there isn't that much of it around anyway.
Underwater turbines as quoted earlier could be designed by almost anyone posting here, all we need is the political will to get on with it.
122

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 09:55:04
#125 greenhill

If we really are going to build any significant wave or tidal power stations, they will have to be built using government cash, as commercial companys will naturally go for more profitable ventures.
123

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 09:59:31

I repeat - the debate is artificial.

Remove your hatred of the SNP from your argument, if that's possible. The decision was made by and for the people of Scotland.

The rest anger, an attack on a legitimate democratic decision taken, driven by blatant lobbying from the nuclear industry.

The people of Scotland are more than capable of living by their decisions.

Allow Scotland to abide the decisions of its Devolved Parliament or drive us to full independence.

Which do Unionists prefer?




124

greenhill,

16/04/2009 10:01:20
RE The Tin Man,16/04/2009 09:55:04

Wave power is not in the equation right now to quote Neil Kerdmore who runs the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney :

"these technologies are unlikely to reach any significant commercial scale until the 2030s or the 2040s at the earliest. It's hard, it's very hard stuff,"
125

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 10:02:54

God help us if some of the rabid NATS contributing to the anti nuclear debate get power in a (if ever) separate Scotland. (Jock the Joke)

The SNP govern Scotland Now.

The policy to do without nuclear power was taken by other political parties, continued by the SNP.

Now stop shouting, and run along, you silly little man.



126

,

16/04/2009 10:05:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
127

morris,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 10:05:28
115 Nobody disputes that England is building nuclear power stations. That does not mean that we also musy do this!

What is releveant here is that SCOTLAND has already declared that she opposes any nuclear installations here, and even the LABOUR party agreed with this.THEY WILL LOOK EXTREMELY FOOLISH IF THEY DO A U TURN ON THIS NOW!

When Scotlands two major parties agree then that overrides any support for nuclear.ITS CALLED DEMOCRACY.
Any change can only be seen as imposed against the will of the people who have already made it crystal clear WE DONT WANT ANY NUCLEAR ESTABLISHMENTS HERE under any circumstances because we have the potential to generate way above our needs from renewables.

Labour at Westminster have a simple choice. Recognise that even Labour (Scotland) are opposed ,or you are seen unambiguously to dictate to Scotland.
If Labour are that suicidal fair enough. It will only hasten independence.
Millipede can crawl back under the rock he came from.
128

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 10:06:14
The particular topic was wave power.You have avoided commenting because you are an abject ignoramus. (Greensleeve)

And you reduced the debate to one of nuclear power only by dint of your foul mouth and detestation of Scotland's independent attitude.

Go away.




129

,

16/04/2009 10:08:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
130

greenhill,

16/04/2009 10:09:51
To quote Mather:

"Renewable technologies, including wind, water, biomass, wave and tidal, backed up by clean thermal base-load, can meet our energy needs many times over."

Notice he omits any timescales but he must know the reality of the coming situation and he omits to mention coal.

Coal is how the SNP will provide base load and that makes Mather a liar.The SNP trumpets renewables but says little about coal.
131

greenhill,

16/04/2009 10:14:23
RE Bogeyman 2,16/04/2009 10:08:32

Your contribution is pathetic so I quote from my previous post which you obviously failed to read:
...........................................

"The fact is that Scotland’s power is provided by 5 main plants: nuclear at Hunterston and Torness, coal at Cockenzie and Longannet, gas from Peterhead .We also have important power from hydro and some from wind. For various reasons most of these plants will need to close in the near future.

Decisions need to be taken now about what we do next. It must also be taken into account that we are expected to develop to be using 50% more energy by 2050."

...............................................

We will not be able to export unless we plan for the future. Current and past exports are not relevant.
132

wilfredthehairy,

Warm flat. Heating on. 16/04/2009 10:14:45
I'm keeping an eye open for Tricky Dickie Dixon in case he tries to criminalise me.

Los Angeles. The politics of energy in the UK devolution set-up are complex. But it's not the point.
#136 (spagan) Labour are coverted because they're in power. It's easy to be anti-anything. But once a party has responsibility for government, they usually have to change their stance. As would SNP if they had full control over Energy. The alternative to building new nuclear power stations is building new coal-fired power stations. Now, both of you. Which is it to be. Let's see if you can contribute positively!
133

cabbage on tayside,

16/04/2009 10:14:45
Why is it that the green way forward , not just for Scotland but the world , continues to be negated by scaremongering from the people clinging to the old ways of producing energy ? Our childrens children will look back at this time in history and wonder why it took so long to grasp the nettle of renewable energy. At best they will have a quite laugh at the oldies and their quaint way of thinking. At worst they will despise our generation for our myopic outlook on the planet and its deminishing resources.
134

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 10:15:00
The SNP trumpets renewables but says little about coal. (Greensleeve)

Are you here to demonise the SNP, or to put forward alternatives to nuclear power, nuclear power having been taken off the list of choices by successive Scottish governments?


135

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 10:17:01
Los Angeles. The politics of energy in the UK devolution set-up are complex. (WtH)

No, it is not.

And I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously anybody calling themselves Wilfred the Hairy. Life is too bloody short.


136

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 10:19:00
Some people above that are so convinced of the need for nuclear power may not be aware of how antagonistic the nuclear industry is toward renewable energies. Before 1990 all research cash for renewable energy had to go through the fees and grants section of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. They were not keen of course and this was proven by a parliamentary committee, The May report of 1990, Advisory Committee on Research and Development.

Also nuclear power is capital intensive and not labour intensive, the costs of decommissioning are unpredictable too. It was once said that nuclear electricity would be so cheap as to be unmeterable. Now that wassn't true was it?

More jobs and newer innovations could come from renewables with research funding on a level playing field.
137

Liz,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 10:19:39
#137
"Any change can only be seen as imposed against the will of the people who have already made it crystal clear WE DONT WANT ANY NUCLEAR ESTABLISHMENTS HERE "

Says who exactly?! I dont remember ever being asked my opinion. Most of the people I know here in Scotland are supportive of new nuclear power stations. They also support investment in renewables but are educated and realitic enough to realise that a good energy policy explores all the options.
138

Darien,

Panama 16/04/2009 10:20:01
"THE UK government was accused last night of trying to frustrate Scotland's push for renewable energy"

Scotland - so long as the 'nation' is no more than an internal colony - will continue to be on the receiving end of this kind of intimidation and provocation from Westminster. As long as Westminster pulls the purse and the ultimate legislative strings. Scots people need to get a grip.
139

greenhill,

16/04/2009 10:20:28
Re Los Angeles,16/04/2009 10:15:00

Coal is the alternative for base load and that is what the SNP plan to do. However they trumpet renewables.
140

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 10:20:59
I have just done a typo, wassn't should read wasn't, just so nobody has the trouble of pointing it out to me, sometimes, sadly, they do.
141

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 10:26:07


What the SNP plan (Greensleeve)

SNP? SNP? SNP? SN bloody Pee!!!

Have you anything else to contribute?

Off with you, turgid troll!


142

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 10:26:32
87 greenhill,
Yet again the arguement is that Nuclear waste is not clean so any arguement should be to justify it. Labour said they would give us the plan and process to handle Nuclear waste before any new station proposal.
The Plan comes first then we may listento pro Labour Pro Nuclear people like you.
It is not a sad little rant it is a statement madeby the Government of the time.
I feel no need to discuss your opinion untill the facts are determined as promised by the elected :Labour Government
143

greenhill,

16/04/2009 10:26:54
RE IndependentlyInclined,Edinburgh 16/04/2009 10:19:47

Most of what you say is dishonest and innacurate especially this:

"As far as your claim that the existing spent Nuclear Materials are minimal"...

I did not say that. You are an abject liar.
144

New Town Resident,

16/04/2009 10:30:24
Note one of the very first acts of the Labour devolved administration was to refuse planning permission for a low emmission super efficient CCGT at the Gartcosh site.

At that time their thinking was to protect the independence of Scottish Power and Scottish coal. This was prior to the England and Wales and Scottish power electricity systems being unified, Scottish power being taken over by the Spannish and the CO2 agenda.

How shortsighted this decision now seems. The Gartcosh site is still struggling and the CCGT would have been a basis for CHP industrial development.

Note the main reason why the two electricity systems were unified was to enable subsidies to Scottish renewables from England and Wales electricity customers. There is no way Scotland can afford these subsidies on its own, and is the reason why I believe the SNP say they favour continuation of a unified GB power system post independence.

However if you have a unified power system you have to have a common rule on cost reflecrtive connections under EU law, which is why the SNP claim for special treatment for Scottish renewables is illegal (and therefore simple grandstanding to the ignorant).

Also if you have a unified system you have to have unified planning - hence the reason why this area is a Calman issue.

Scotland simply can't have "renewable independence" on the back of English subsidies. If renewables were economic then the logic would be fine, but they aren't.

145

Pilrig,

Livingston 16/04/2009 10:30:26
128 - Midlothian collieries were shut as a result of Torness.
The coastal area south of Dunbar will look a lot pleasanter once the ugly block of Torness is no more.
146

Pilrig,

Livingston 16/04/2009 10:34:08
147 - they're in favour of nuclear stations as long as they're not in their neighbourhood !

147

greenhill,

16/04/2009 10:40:07
RE New Town Resident,16/04/2009 10:30:24

Gas will not be enough to meet our needs.What about long term reliability of supply?
148

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 10:40:24
147- That is not true it was always a policy of the Nats, Greens & Libdems and at the last vote at Holyrood Labour also voted against Nuclear power. It was from this point that the proposal from Wee ack was forthcoming that Labour would give us a plan for Waste Disposal before any new Nuclear Power. Still no Plan

They want to bury it in Scotland!!!
149

European Scot,

16/04/2009 10:48:27
Gas fired power stations would provide Scotland with more than enough power for its needs.
A 'dirty' coal fired power station with carbon capture technology, is preferable to a 'clean' nuclear one with its lethal end product of highly radio active material, and a half life measured in thousands of years. You can guess exactly where they would like to store all that 'safe clean' radioactive waste for generations.
Scotland doesn't want, and doesn't need nuclear, its Parliament are united as a majority against it.
So this isn't a question about Nuclear, that's already been answered, and it's No !
It's more about do you accept the rule of democracy ? I doubt Miliband, being a part of Brown's New Labour, would be qualified to answer that one.
150

New Town Resident,

16/04/2009 10:48:28
~158

Eventually you are right, but not for another 50 years or so if you look at world gas supply/demand projections.

There is then no alternative to nuclear unless we get a grip on world population and/or accept a much lower energy intensive life style. I suspect this is the real reason why politicians are playing ball with the CO2 exaggerations - they need to find a way to force nuclear against understandable popular concerns.

See Dieter Helm's article in today's Times about the incompatability betwen nuclear and wind.
151

Florence,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 10:48:35
Never thought I'd see the day when Labour would promote nuclear and Scottish Labour too! Why am I surprised - they've abandoned every principle they ever had.
Stick to your guns Sir Eck!
152

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 10:48:54
#159 TWC

The only existing plans are to bury waste (including 'Scottish' waste) at a location in Cumbria. However, you say that there is no plan, but without a plan, what are you basing your 'Scottish waste burial' statement on, out of intrest?
153

DMK,

Livingston 16/04/2009 10:49:21
So, leaving the SNP vs Labour argument to one side, after all the previous Labour administration were hardly rushing to Nuclear.

The argument against renewables is the issue of intermittence? That and the issue of transmission charges from the outer Isles etc?

I know of several small, Scottish companies with components of the answer, one that would cost less than the £5.4bn Mr Milliband seems to think it'll cost to build new Nuclear in Scotland.

You simply move the load balancing provision from large, energy inefficient power-stations to the individual user. Let me explain for the hard of thinking:
Each home and office building etc has an increasingly smart electricity meter. That can be replaced by a smarter energy management system that has an element of storage capability, say 48 hours at normal domestic loads? If the overall generation for the nation drops locally or across the whole country (unusual though not impossible) then each home will have energy stored for use.

These same management systems can control local & domestic power generation, such as domestic Photo-Voltaics, allowing excess power to go back into the grid as well as maintaining the energy level in the storage unit.

As an added bonus, if the electric car takes off the car's batteries can be an additional load balancer, managed by the domestic unit.

Equipping every premises with such a management system, linking them to the power utilities (upgrading the domestic insulation etc at the same time) would be far cheaper than £5 billion pounds. A one off prototype costs £30k right now, mass production would cut that by a factor of 10.

The LiFePO battery (storage unit) manufacturer and the control system developers (could be the two companies I'm thinking of) would be based in Scotland, manufacturing in Scotland and installing in Scotland. Many more skilled electronics industry jobs than simple hod carriers on a Nuclear build site. With the same technology exportable globally, t
154

greenhill,

16/04/2009 10:51:50
RE European Scot,16/04/2009 10:48:27
"Gas fired power stations would provide Scotland with more than enough power for its needs.
A 'dirty' coal fired power station with carbon capture technology, is preferable to a 'clean' nuclear one with its lethal end product of highly radio active material, and a half life measured in thousands of years.

If you go back through the thread you will find all your points have already been refuted.
155

GlenB,

16/04/2009 10:52:13
Currently Scotland produces more electricity than it consumes annually, the amount exported is approximately equivalent to the output of its last operating nuclear plant.

When this closes and the proportion of renewables, principally wind, has increased according to Salmond's desire then Scotland will need to import the nuclear generated power from England when the wind isn't blowing during those extremely cold high pressure systems we sometimes get.

So that's why Salmond likes the unified system - all the benefits and none of the responsibility.
156

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 10:52:21
#160 European

The half-life of the huge volume of highly dangerous gasses buried in a cabon capture scheme is infinity.
157

New Town Resident,

16/04/2009 10:57:38
#159. Why do you say they want to bury it in Scotland?
158

New Town Resident,

16/04/2009 11:00:48
~166. Yes but Cockenzie which generates three times Scottish renewables has to shut down in 2015 under EU directive, and then Hunsterton and Torness have to shut down in the early 2020s.

Hence the proposal for a new coal power station at Hunsterton, but Scotland will need at least two more coal or gas stations if there is no nuclear build.
159

fritigern,

16/04/2009 11:01:24
Pilrig #156

Just how many turbines would be necessary to replace Torness nuclear power station? I am sure the number required would end up blighting vast areas of Scotland, in particualer those which now attract tourists. Scotland under the Salmond regime seems to have absolutely no pride in itself, it is perfectly prepared to destroy its scenic heritage to provide a few very wealthy landowners with huge subsidies to bulid, otherwise uneconomic and inefficient, wind turbines. Interestingly, two years ago whilst touring Austria and Bavaria I did not see a single wind turbine in hilly areas. The Germans and Swedes only build turbines on relatively flat areas, of little scenic interest. But then Salmond is quite prepared to destroy sites of scientific interest to please an American tycoon even if it means breaking European law.
160

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 11:02:12
#168

Perhaps it is information received via the 'lunar telephone line'?
161

greenhill,

16/04/2009 11:04:58
REfritigern,16/04/2009 11:01:24

In addition windmills do not provide base load.
162

Nikostratos,,

16/04/2009 11:06:25
I understand there is an email on the Red Rag Blog saying the nuclear industry is responsible for spreading STDs.


But then again it could be just another smear
163

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:08:08
For decades we've been told, usually at election time, that Scoland's tremendous resources of North Sea oil was about to run out. Now it appears we have tremendous resources in renewable energy, as Alex Salmond puts it: we could be the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. Even Labour wouldn't try to convince us that our renewable energy wealth is about to run out! They are left with punting nuclear power instead, in part to obstruct and obfuscate our renewable energy potential. Scotland can be more than self-sufficient in energy, water and food, in a world where these resources are being squeezed. That forms the basis of a prosperous country. London cannot allow that, it wants and needs Scotland for itself.
164

dude,

wishaw 16/04/2009 11:11:32
Some of the above comments must come from Broons lie/spin doctors because of the sheer stupidity of them.

I mean how can anyone state that nuclear waste is safe after 100-200 years what utter rubbish, you need to remember its not thick labour voters you are talking to. The truth is the waste is hazardous to humans and all living life for 100s of thousands even millions of years so stop talking rubbish and lets have the facts acording to the truth and not acording to Labour.

Also why do we have to subsidise English energy users with this tax on producing in Scotland, come on the SNP lets get this dealt with pronto.

165

greenhill,

16/04/2009 11:11:59
Re Hamish Scott,16/04/2009 11:08:08

What timescale ? You conspiracy theory lunatic.
166

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 16/04/2009 11:12:14
Greenhill - Please come clean - you must be a paid up lobbist for the Nuclear Industry. You are here every time. So I am, but I'm just a punter with a boring job.

167

,

16/04/2009 11:12:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
168

El Franko,

16/04/2009 11:13:01
The AGW hysteria is based on a false premise - that human-generated CO2 has an appreciable impact on the climate. Those who base their careers, their propaganda, and even their policies upon a false premise are very dangerous people, immune to reason. But all their decisions and viewpoints are not necessarily wrong. Miliband may be hopelessly inadequate in many ways, but it does not follow that nuclear power is to be condemned for that reason.
169

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 11:13:12
#174 Hamish

Utter drivel. The only reason that wind-turbines etc are built in Scotland is because they are subsidised through the electricity bills of everyone in the entire UK. They are built due to the UK's energy policy.

Saying that Scotland can be 'self sufficient in food' brings back memories of boiled beef & carrots (eeek! :-)
170

dude,

wishaw 16/04/2009 11:14:36
Windmills will produce Hydrogen in future plus there are numerous other ways to generate electricity, if we go down the nuclear route all investment stops it goes on building nuclear plants, wasted opportunity, stick with it Scotland for all our futures show these bought and paid for trough swillers the way forward
171

Uistman,

Scotland 16/04/2009 11:14:46
the problem with the discussion here is that it is divided into two camps Labour ,Unioinsts V Nationalists.
problem is ,as with every thread the Unionists on here will rubbish any SNP stance,will blindly follow the London Labour story.
This means their argument loses credibility immediately.
What has not been discussed on here is the carbon footprint used building the Nuclear power stations.
The waste is a problem whether or not the unionists on here accept it.
The most important factor, the people of Scotland do not want nuclear power stations ,or nuclear weapons.
the jobs involved is a red herring just like the same lie spouted about removing WMD .
Jackie Baillie and every other Vichy Scot Westminster apologist says removing WMD would cost Scotland 11,000 jobs.
In a written commons reply it was revealed that 890 jobs are at risk.
a small price to pay fro getting rid of these obscene weapons.
Unionists if you want taken seriously on here stop lying and denying on every other thread.
A bit like Peter and the wolf.

Saor alba

172

dude,

wishaw 16/04/2009 11:16:46
the tin man

How much rubbish do you have to spout before you realise you talk utter mince.

Are you not the man who said nuclear waste is safe after 100-200 years, if you talk so much rubbish as that then no one will take you serious just laugh at you and nod to each other how much of a Broon lie doctor you are
173

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 11:17:56
the problem with the discussion here is that it is divided into two camps: pro and anti nuclear. Then, of course, there are a few of the usual party-political robots.
174

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:19:03
#176

What timescale are you referring to you lovely, cuddly unionist?
175

dude,

wishaw 16/04/2009 11:19:18
Uistman

The problem with this discussion is the amount of disinformation being spouted, ie. the tin man and his idiotic rubbish about waste being safe after a coupole of hundred years, typical of labour lie doctors, the truth does not matter only our re-election and wallets
176

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 11:19:31
#183 dude

"Are you not the man who said nuclear waste is safe after 100-200 years"?

Er... no I wasn't, but I would imagine an apology is out of the question? :-)
177

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 11:21:18
.....
178

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 11:21:38
...........
179

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 16/04/2009 11:22:02
#179 - "The AGW hysteria is based on a false premise - that human-generated CO2 has an appreciable impact on the climate."

OK, so now the climate change deniers have changed tactic, faced with overwhelming evidence that something is not right with the climate (after years of stating nothing is wrong with it) now they say its not to do with human activity. It must be aliens or something.

Reminds me of the US creationists having to face up to the overwheming evidence for evolution now come up with "intelligent design" concept to get round it.

So we, if you are to be believed, the 95% of climate change experts are all trying to con us? (The other 5% are in the pay of the oil companies).


180

Edward,

16/04/2009 11:23:44
LABOUR TOLL ALERT!
Greenhill is a Labour placeman, probably working under the Red Rag ops to spread garbage and smear
181

European Scot,

16/04/2009 11:24:19
The Tin Man

" The half-life of the huge volume of highly dangerous gasses buried in a cabon capture scheme is infinity."

That would make North Sea Gas a potential hazard then.
I would prefer to take my chances with gas escaping, to that of radioactivity.

I would suggest you take a look at this BBC report from 2006.
There is one plant in the mountains of Snowdonia, which cost 45 million pounds of taxpayer's money in just one year, yet it hasn't produced any electricity for 15 years, and will take nearly another century to complete the decommissioning process.
The Trawsfynydd power station, read more about it, and what's involved in having nuclear here :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4700106.stm
182

dude,

wishaw 16/04/2009 11:24:30
The people running Scotland are doing the right thing, we are in surplus at the moment and for the foreseeable future, Nuclear is but a very small part of our generating capacity. Also what about the reports that nuclear fuel is running out, the more plants that are built the quicker it goes and the higher the price. Obviously England will try and rely on the Scottish people again, but what do they do in return make us pay for being furthest away from London, generators get paid for doing it in England but we have to pay them for giving them electricity
183

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:25:45
#180

Wind turbines yes. London has international obligations to provide some renewable energy. But as has been pointed out by others, wind turbines don't provide base load. Tidal and hydro generally can though, making nuclear redundant. London promotes wind but not tidal, etc. There is a certain amount of subtlety to the policy.
184

dude,

wishaw 16/04/2009 11:28:51
yes the tin man you did say that in an earlier post so stop lying, tell it like it is not what you lie master tells you, or is this rubbish all off your own back.

185

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:29:14
#18 cont.

As for food, the policy of flying vegetables in from Africa, etc is simply not sustainable. Reducing agricultural subsidies in the EU will also favour 'home' production. We will increasingly turn to our own resources, which even with regard to fruit are plentiful.
186

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 16/04/2009 11:30:35
#194 - The base load agrument is bogus. A fully diverse energy portfolio negates the need for baseload at the levels the nuclear lobby claim.

The pro-nukers claim Torness and Hunterston produce 70% of Scotland electricty requirement (when they are working which is only for 30% of the time since opening). I am sure I heard the gas plant at Peterhead can on its own.



187

greenhill,

16/04/2009 11:30:39
RE dude,wishaw 16/04/2009 11:24:30
The people running Scotland are doing the right thing, we are in surplus at the moment and for the foreseeable future,

That is hilarious. We will not be in surplus for the forseeable future.

REHamish Scott,16/04/2009 11:25:45

You are mad. Tidal and wave do not provide base load.They are a long way off being fully developed.
188

steve52,

Kinfauns 16/04/2009 11:31:18
Keep England clean, dump your waste in Scotland.
189

greenhill,

16/04/2009 11:31:57
RENittonLover,Newtongrange 16/04/2009 11:30:35

Again you are just plain mad.
190

Fairfax,

16/04/2009 11:32:06
Uistman (182): "What has not been discussed on here is the carbon footprint used building the Nuclear power stations."

All commercial power generation requires large amounts of energy for its construction, whether nuclear, fossil fuel or renewable. The carbon footprint of a nuclear power station's construction would not be significantly different to that of any other large engineering project costing billions of pounds, such as the Forth Bridge.

"The waste is a problem whether or not the unionists on here accept it."

I'm not a Unionist, but I wonder how many posters are aware of the mass, and corresponding volume, of waste produced by nuclear generation. A 1 GW nuclear power plant produces roughly 24 tonnes of waste per year, the vast majority of which is Uranium and Plutonium. Given their densities, that's roughly a cubic metre per GW per year. The UK generates some 11 GW via nuclear, so its annual waste generation is approximately the volume of a small room, say 3 m x 3 m x 2.4m.

"The most important factor, the people of Scotland do not want nuclear power stations ,or nuclear weapons."

That's certainly clear.
191

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 11:36:10
163 The Tin Man
THe plan promised by Labour in Scotland is not forthcoming, therefore if Ed Milliband says that they will bury the waste, all they need to do is say where.

They want to bury it in Scotland , so they need us to have nuclear.

If they have a plan spell it out if they don't; don't build Nuclear in Scotland.

192

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:36:41
#198
'You are mad. Tidal and wave do not provide base load.They are a long way off being fully developed.'

Thanks for another delightful compliment. I'm also glad that you mke my point.

I look forward to your reply, curious to see if you actually understand what I'm saying.

Kind regards and deepest sympathy.
193

New Town Resident,

16/04/2009 11:37:26
~193. "Scotland is in surplus for the foreseeable future"

I'm glad you are not in charge of Grid planning. fyi The professionals forsee Cockenzie closing in 2015 and Hunteston and Torness by 2021/22.

-195. Wind is about 3 times as expensive as conventional power whereas tidal is about 7 times. This is why "london" prioritises wind. Nor is tidal baseload. Unlike wind its predictable, but still periodic. Google the web for information about the Severn barrage project, which is by far the cheapest UK tidal prospect if you are actually interested in facts?


Hydro economics are excellent and you are right its baseload. Unfortunately there are no more possible sites for significant new hydro anywhere in the UK including Scotland.

194

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:37:42
#202

Anyone remember SAND and the big protest march through Ayr?
195

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 16/04/2009 11:39:15
#200 - Oh nice one, and why am I mad?
196

Liz,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 11:41:38
#199
The plan is for the waste to be stored at Sellafield and last time I checked that is in England. But dont let facts get in the way of a good rant.
197

European Scot,

16/04/2009 11:44:57
201 Fairfax

" The UK generates some 11 GW via nuclear, so its annual waste generation is approximately the volume of a small room, say 3 m x 3 m x 2.4m."

In answer to your comment above, the following is from a BBC item about the decommissioning of a Nuclear Power station in Snowdonia:-

" The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM), after an exhaustive public consultation exercise, will soon publish draft recommendations on what should be done with some 470,000 cubic metres of waste - enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over."

Rather a large room !
Finally from the same item written in 2006, a comment still relevant today.

" is it right to commit the UK to creating more radioactive waste while society has yet to find an acceptable long-term option for handling the material already in existence?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4700106.stm
198

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 16/04/2009 11:45:32
#207 - What "plan"? Its all at Sellafiend only because thats where the repocessing plant is. They can't ship it anywhere because of all the fuss it will cause.
199

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:46:02
#196

Like greenhill you are following things in the wrong order. Let's use an analogy (oh please, let's). Mr. A and Mr. B are both developing an engine and seek govt.funding. Mr.B's engine is better but has undesirable political consequences for the govt. so the govt. backs Mr. A's engine. Mr. A's engine gets developed. Mr. B's doesn't. Does that mean Mr. A's engine is now better?
200

greenhill,

16/04/2009 11:52:49
RE Hamish Scott,16/04/2009 11:36:41 "wind turbines don't provide base load. Tidal and hydro generally can though, making nuclear redundant."

What piffle.


201

The west awake,

Argyll 16/04/2009 11:54:37
"And other than nuclear power, there is only one option for providing clean base-load power to back up renewables: carbon capture and storage.
The trouble is, this technology, to capture the carbon emissions from power stations, does not yet exist on a commercial scale."

- Absolute rubbish! Wave and Tidal can be baseload, and as for the UK's unaccountable prevarication and procrastination regarding CCS, see this recent article in the Guardian;

"The world's first retrofit of a power plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology will begin operating this month in the south of France.
At a power plant at Lacq, energy company Total has upgraded an existing gas-fired boiler with CCS technology – a crucial step towards reducing carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power plants worldwide.
With renewable energy sources a long way from covering the world's increasing demand for energy, many experts believe that developing reliable technology to allow countries to burn fossil fuels without releasing dangerous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is essential to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Experts welcomed Total's achievement but added that it highlighted how Britain was being left behind in the development of an important technology to head off climate change.
"CCS remains the most important initiative that needs to be implemented both here and around the world in reducing emissions from coal, gas and oil-fired power stations," said Environment Agency chairman Chris Smith.
"[But this project] re-emphasises the importance of making sure that Britain takes an early opportunity to put itself in the lead worldwide in taking the technology forward."
Stuart Haszeldine, professor of geology and an expert in CCS at the University of Edinburgh, was more scathing. "The UK has been first to stoke up interest in CCS, in the 1990s. But since then, CCS has not received any significant government support to make any real projects happen."
He said the technol
202

greenhill,

16/04/2009 11:55:47
Lewis Draughts Man,Africa 16/04/2009 11:45:57 "For our size we are fabulously rich in oil, gas, coal, hydro, wind, wave, tide and probably other types of energy that I can't think of at the moment."
............................................

If that is the case then why does the SNP plan to rely on fossil fuels including building new coal plants?

You Idiot.
203

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 11:56:54
207 Liz,Edinburgh

Let us see the formal plan from Labour. THey promised it, nobody forced them. The Holyrood paliament or executive (whatever at the time) and Jack McConnell then profferred the commitment that Labour would bring forward a detailed plan to hold and handle Nuclear waste and would define where it will be held.

An alternative would be to put this on the Manifesto of your party and call a General election in 3 months.

I bet they won't.
204

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 11:58:43
#212

Stop it, please, your sweet and gemerous words are too much.
How did you cope with the analogy? Any progress or do I have to spell it out for you?
205

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 11:58:50
dude

Just for your benefit:

"Charles MN,16/04/2009 08:09:39
#50
Yes but if we assume money invested now will return a 6% rate of return, after 150,000 years a penny invested now would be worth 10 to the power 3795. Vastly more than it would cost to supervise any waste. Or perhaps your whole argument is nonsense?

After 100-200 years the radiation from nuclear waste reduces to levels similar to the stuff that was dug up in the first place so it no more needs managed than the 100's of thousands of tones of uranium that occur naturally.

If we can't cope with looking after a few thousand tons of nuclear waste how are going to manage the 100's of thousand tons of CO2 per day produced by "clean" coal and gas stations?"

Even Brown apologised, the question is, can you even raise yourself to Brown's level of morality?

206

Fairfax,

16/04/2009 12:00:41
European Scot (202): "In answer to your comment above, the following is from a BBC item about the decommissioning of a Nuclear Power station in Snowdonia:-"

Here's the link to the article you have quoted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4407421.stm

The figures given there list the total volume of all waste produced, whilst I've given the volume of high-level waste produced. At our current generation rate, we would produce some 1000 cubic metres in 50 years of generation. At the higher levels generated in the past, we have generated some 1500 cubic metres, to my knowledge, which they seem to have rounded up to 2000 cubic metres. That corresponds to roughly 800 square metres of storage, at a ceiling height of 2.4m, or approximately the volume of (say) 10 houses.
207

greenhill,

16/04/2009 12:02:26
Re The west awake,Argyll 16/04/2009 11:54:37


You have done an edit>Copy>edit>paste job on a boosterist puff piece from the Guardian about unproven technology.

Very sad.
208

greenhill,

16/04/2009 12:10:03
REThe Tin Man,16/04/2009 11:58:50
................................................
Charles MN,16/04/2009 08:09:39 said:

"After 100-200 years the radiation from nuclear waste reduces to levels similar to the stuff that was dug up in the first place so it no more needs managed than the 100's of thousands of tones of uranium that occur naturally."

However dude portrayed this as:
...................................................
"I mean how can anyone state that nuclear waste is safe after 100-200 years what utter rubbish, you need to remember its not thick labour voters you are talking to. The truth is the waste is hazardous to humans and all living life for 100s of thousands even millions of years so stop talking rubbish and lets have the facts acording to the truth and not acording to Labour."
............................................

Dude is disingenuous and incompetent .Like other anti nuclear nutbags he likes to stir up fear and ignorance.
209

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 12:10:19
Let's not ta;lk about the size of the Waste stock pile since we don't know yet where it will be piled.

Step 1 Where will it be piled; how will it be handled.
Are we Assuming Scotland keeps what it has at the moment and Everybody else keeps their own and their future waste??
Will holyrood have the power to approve reject Nuclear waste from elsewhere?

The failure to publish suggests that is not the plan.

I still say they want to hold it all in Scotland.
210

wilfredthehairy,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 12:10:23
#197, NittonLover
'A proper mix of renewables' replacing the basload is a myth perpetuated by the green lobbyists (who have no responsibility for government). In midwinter, when the tide is slack, the wind has dropped, so the turbines don't turn and the waves don't run, and the sunshine is negligible, exactly what 'proper combination' did you have in mind? There are no scientific publications showing how this would operate. We have a stark choice. Nuclear or coal. Get used to it!


211

Jimmy Le Pie,

16/04/2009 12:13:16
222

The tide is never slack.

You should think before spouting drivel.
212

greenhill,

16/04/2009 12:16:29
I repeat:

................................................

Wave power is not in the equation right now to quote Neil Kerdmore who runs the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney :

"these technologies are unlikely to reach any significant commercial scale until the 2030s or the 2040s at the earliest. It's hard, it's very hard stuff,"
.................................................
213

ecosseman,

FACTS NOT PROPAGANDA 16/04/2009 12:16:40

LONDON DECLARED WAR ON HOLYROOD THE MINUTE THE SNP TOOK CONTROL.

LONDON HAS PROVED TO HOLYROOD THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL THEMSELVES NEVER MIND ANYWHERE ELSE.

THE PROPAGANDA FROM LONDON HAS NOW REACHED PANIC STATIONS,THE SCUM KNOW THEY ARE LOSING THE WAR AS THE PEOPLES OF SCOTLAND HAVE GROWN IN CONFIDENCE.

WE DO NOT NEED THEM TO TELL US WHAT WE NEED OR TO DO.

YOU SCUM HAVE LOST ALL TRUST IN SCOTLAND.BYE BYE SCUM.

ROLL ON THE ELECTION!
214

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 12:19:50
#223 Jimmy

Slack tide is a period of an hour, or two, when the tide turns, and there is very little current. It's a good time to do underwater stuff.

215

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 12:22:22
225 greenhill,
Nuclear is not in the equation since it was rejected by Holyrood and there is a caveate to it's return as committed by the Scottish Labour party.
Or are they going to be told that is not acceptable.

Are they really such wimps??
216

greenhill,

16/04/2009 12:23:53
RE Lewis Draughts Man,Africa 16/04/2009 12:15:25


The truth is that modern nuclear power stations run at a profit (including decommissioning costs) and provide the lowest price power to the consumer.

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.

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. Each coal plant causes about 200 deaths per year from air pollution whereas each nuclear plant causes less than 1 death.Those who advocate coal burning are absolute scumbags who care more about mass opinion than informed judgment.


217

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 12:24:05
#223

However, the gulf stream is currently still running most of the time, and would provide a mostly reliable current, if anyone has the money to plonk a current-generation station in 1.5 km of water off the West coast.
218

Jimmy Le Pie,

16/04/2009 12:24:32
227

But slack water around the Scottish coast is NOT at the same time.

Turbines placed around the coast would stop turning at different times.

Easy if you think about it!!
219

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 12:31:39
people above seem to think that renewables are uncommercial, they are now maybe, but had they not suffered such neglect and under investment earlier we would not now be in this position with them.

The Salter's duck, oscillating water column, the russell lock and so on, no-one remembers them because they were powerfully conspired against by the united kingdom atomic energy authority, proven in 1990 by a parliamentary committee.
220

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 12:34:37
Will people also stop referring to windmills, these modern machines don't grind wheat any more, perhaps one could be made that did, with all the modern materials and less friction there'd be no fires and fine quality breads that could be toasted on site. I am off to see my small business advisor with my idea for windtoast cafe.
221

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 12:34:42
#231 Jimmy

That might work. If memory serves me right I think there is a fair difference between the North Sea and the Atlantic coast.
222

,

16/04/2009 12:34:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
223

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 16/04/2009 12:39:11
The Tin Man,16/04/2009 11:58:50

States:-

"how are going to manage the 100's of thousand tons of CO2 per day produced by "clean" coal and gas stations?"

how are those quantities of CO2 managed now?
224

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 12:39:17
Would you really like to know? Might not suit an entrenched political opinion of yours, no-one really knows what exponential developments can occur through proper research into newer less expensive and risky technologies. The nuclear dream has dissolved.
225

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 12:41:01
Sir Frances Drake,

Dead isn't he, from the neck upwards at least, are you afraid to own your own name, are you really knighted?
226

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 12:41:11
#235 Francis

Sounds like we are going to surround our coastline with a tidal bodice. Keep your fingers crossed.
227

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 12:41:48
Whoops sorry Francis, unintentional typo, no offence mate
228

,

16/04/2009 12:44:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
229

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 12:44:54
#236 Jo'burg

I didn't write your quote, but never mind...

They tend to be spewed out into the atmosphere, causing global warming, at the mo, if you can describe that as 'managed'.
230

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 16/04/2009 12:45:43
Sorry Tin

Should have been

Charles MN,16/04/2009 08:09:39

states:-

"how are going to manage the 100's of thousand tons of CO2 per day produced by "clean" coal and gas stations?"

how are those quantities of CO2 managed now?
231

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 12:46:09
Do not make Scotland the Nuclear Dump.

That is Labour's plan.
232

European Scot,

16/04/2009 12:48:43
218 Fairfax

There are questions here about what levels of radio active waste are considered to be 'dangerous', and what might be considered as 'safe'.
If the volumes to be disposed of are as manageable as you are suggesting, then surely it wouldn't require a large expanse of land with so many buildings to contain it all. Also why does it cost so much money and time to decommission these plants when they have reached the end of their life ?
The plant referred to in the BBC article mentions a period of one hundred years.
There are materials to be disposed of, which have to be handled with great care, the cooling liquids and even drainage fluids.
A glance at Sellafield suggests the volume of material that has to be 'contained', and that's just the above ground, lower risk part of the storage facility that is visible.
The World wide accumulation of highly radioactive material over the next hundred years is quite frightening to contemplate. Add in the risk of accident or terrorist attack, and it becomes very difficult to believe that supporting nuclear is investing in a safe future.
233

Son of Justice,

16/04/2009 12:48:44
How many CyberGnats per hour do we need to incinerate to generate the same amount of power as Hunterston B or Torness? Quite a lot, I hope.

I am sure that the Isle of Lewis will look lovely covered in a forest of wind turbines all producing about enough electricity to power a 60 watt bulb.

SNP - making Scotland a Brigadoon for the Third Millennium.

On the other had, why don't we just fuel our power stations with spare copies of the Gnats' Manifesto? Not as if it means anything, after all.
234

,

16/04/2009 12:52:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
235

TWC,

16/04/2009 12:55:03
246 Son of Justice,

I'm no Nat I just want to see the plan for the waste our Government voted against Nuclear power and MCConnell promised the plan of method and laction for current & future nuclear waste.
Why don't you demand that too. It sisn't difficlt provided there is no risk, just publish the plan.

Every arguement above could be over nothing unless the plan is to bury it in Scotland.
236

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 12:57:04
We could cut-down CO2 emissions by incinerating the population of Scotland in wind-powered ovens. I am surprised the government haven't though of that, yet.
237

bluehead,

edinburgh 16/04/2009 12:58:03
what else do you expect from brown and his mob,this goverment is no longer a political party, they have become a national disease.
elections should be brought forward,although it is probably too late to repair all the horrendous damage that has been done by the labour lot,
the labour lot are a disgrace,they have even stolen the british people's freedom,by allowing the us to be ordered around by foreigners,how much lower will this pile sink
238

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 12:58:15
Those turbines are usually over 100kw at least for a 30 metre tower, not 60 watts, the one at burgar hill on orkney was I believe a multi megawatt affair, who are you son of justice? Is that the name with which you were christened, I'd love to meet Mr Of Justice, or would that be Mr O'Justice
239

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 12:59:21
Mr O' Justice Once?
240

greenhill,

16/04/2009 13:00:35
RE Lewis Draughts Man,Africa 16/04/2009 12:56:27


Scotland needs nuclear as much as England.The SNP does not plan to be independant from the national grid.
241

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 13:02:42
should be independent
242

,

16/04/2009 13:02:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
243

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 13:04:20
#248 TWC

Would you be happy if they buried it in England, Wales, and N. Ireland, rather than Scotland?
244

Ewan M,

16/04/2009 13:06:53
Seems to be me that Alex Salmond and the SNP are once again using Scotland to further their own political aspirations.........................
245

,

16/04/2009 13:07:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
246

Hamish Scott,

16/04/2009 13:07:44
#256

A picture book, how sweet.
247

Fairfax,

16/04/2009 13:09:11
European Scot (245): "If the volumes to be disposed of are as manageable as you are suggesting, then surely it wouldn't require a large expanse of land with so many buildings to contain it all."

The volumes, whilst relatively small by industrial standards, cannot be held in one mass -- such a mass would be near-critical, or critical. Thus the volume has to be spread out somewhat.

"Also why does it cost so much money and time to decommission these plants when they have reached the end of their life ?"

The total estimated cost is indeed high -- I'm certainly not arguing that it's a trivial undertaking. As for whether the cost is too high, I would suggest it's important to recall that it's of the order of £100 billion over the next 50 years. For comparison, the UK spends some £12 billion annually on incapacity benefit, £100 billion per year on the NHS, and certain Scottish financial institutions are beginning to cost tens of billions of pounds. Still, the cost is obviously an important point.
248

W Smith,

Middle East 16/04/2009 13:10:02
It takes more energy to pump water than it does to pump air.

Reverse the process, and more energy is produced by water mills per m3 of water than windmills produce per m3 of air.

I doubt if Salmond and his supporters have studied fluid mechanics at degree level so Mr Salmonds claim to be some sort of expert is bogus.

NB
The SNP and the Greens went all quiet concerning the small wind turbines that were going to be attached to every roof in the country and channel the 'surplus' power into the national grid.

It turns out that these turbines were struggling to power the kettle.

Brigadoon fantasy land right enough (comment #246).

249

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 13:10:08
I think the pro nuclear folks are having difficulty understanding the difference between tidal and wave power. This is then compounded by their apparent failure to grasp that our tides are predictable and pretty much continuous (bar the short period around the turn). The Pentland firth alone has the potential to power the whole of Scotland and unlike some of our European neighbours, we (Scotland) simply do not need nuclear energy. England probably does given their need is ten times our but let's not be sucked into this just so that we can be used as the dumping ground.

Can any of the pro nuclear posters tell us what Scotland's base load requirement is?
250

Ewan M,

16/04/2009 13:10:09
226 ecosseman - you epitomise the ridicoulous parnoid SNP supporter proclaiming to be partiotic by spouting hate.
251

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 13:20:18
Scottish Gov publication:

"As the day of maximum demand can coincide with freezing weather and no wind throughout the UK the thousands of wind turbines planned for the future could remain motionless. Consequently the whole existing fleet of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and hydro powered generators must be retained running and ready to meet the instantaneous maximum national electricity demand in MW. Sixty per cent (MW) of the this plant must be completely controllable in output at any time order to follow the changing demand."

There is no plan to build any significant tidal power stations, so people have to figure-out the most environmentally friendly method of replacing Scotland's aging power stations.
252

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 13:20:56
257 The Tin Man,

Buried what their own waste? yes Show us the plan for waste disposal. We should deal with Scottish waste so far similarly with other countries.
However the key is the plan, method and location. Then we can discuss all the other points.
We start however from the position that Holyrood (not the SNP) have rejected Nuclear power and await a plan from Labour, thereafter Labour can raise it again at Holyrood and force another vote. Remember Labour rejected Nuclear power too at Holyrood.
This is the way it works and Westminster should not even be involved at the moment.
253

,

16/04/2009 13:23:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
254

,

16/04/2009 13:24:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
255

Eve,

Scotland 16/04/2009 13:25:13
The renewables will create new jobs too and without the radio active waste bonus.

Some people visit other countries with messages of peace and the prospects of co-operations, Others like Ed Milligan come to warn us of not complying with the rules of their country.
256

wilfredthehairy,

16/04/2009 13:26:47
#227 You didn't provide evidence that renewables could do it. (Surprise, surprise.) Yes. I KNOW it's not all at the same time!!! But it isn't well enough spread out wothout us having to use a continuous girdle of turbines. And we're not even near installing the first decent-sized one. And you want to build Scotland's energy future on this? Oh, and by the way, climate forecasts predict the gulf stream/north atlantic drift will be stopping soon, so we can't rely on that.

For those who can handle numbers, all of the wind energy generated last year in the WHOLE of the UK amounted to about 4 billion kWh. Scotland alone consumed 35 billion kWh. We're a long way off from being able to rely on consumables. So, come on guys: numbers or references to justify arguments, or accept reality and choose between nuclear and coal.
257

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 13:28:30
#266 TWC

I would say that it needs to be buried at the safest place, possible, wherever that may be. But as all high-level waste goes to Sellafield for reprocessing, and residual high-level waste is stored nearby, I would imaging that it would be sensible to bury it somewhere in Cumbria.
258

greenhill,

16/04/2009 13:31:08
Re Alasdair Mac Alasdair Mor Mac An Righ,16/04/2009 13:23:14

You have got to think about timescales.Renewables will improve eventually but we have to live in the here and now.

This reminds me of Ronald Reagan and his "Star Wars" initiative.Salmond understands that it is not informed opinion that wins votes. Just con the lumpen fools with fantasy science and they will support you.
259

wilfredthehairy,

16/04/2009 13:32:43
#263 (displaced Glaswegian) I just did. And as I said, I have a vested interest in coal, so I'm not pro-nuclear.

#265 Tin-man: Thank you for a reasoned quote. Can any of the pro-renewables guys maybe come up with actual figures?

ps for what it's worth, to be clear, I'm not ani-renewables, but we need a mixed energy economy for the rest of this century at least.
260

Power for the people,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 13:33:24
And who says the SNP represents the views of the Scottish public? Are they a majority government? Elected by more than 50% of the voting population?

It appears to be accepted that renewables cannot guarantee base load. The alternatives are fossil fuels (Coal, oil & gas) or nuclear. In order to make fossil fuels "clean" carbon capture will be required - this is unproven on the scale required. The only proven "clean" source of base load is nuclear, so lets cut the debate and get on with it whilst we still have some of the engineering skills in Scotland.

Alternative might be to harness the hot air issuing from Salmonds gob!
261

greenhill,

16/04/2009 13:33:58
REwilfredthehairy,16/04/2009 13:26:47

The SNP have chosen coal but like to talk big about renewables.They are despicable hucksters.
262

wilfredthehairy,

16/04/2009 13:35:05
Source of energy stats
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/source/renewables/page18513.html
263

European Scot,

16/04/2009 13:36:22
261 Fairfax

The gas or coal fired power station with carbon capture, does seem the best bet.
Decommissioning a coal fired or gas fired facility would be peanuts compared with the figures you furnished for nuclear.
There are huge deposits of coal in Scotland and that would mean not being reliant on fuel being imported.
If natural gas supplies have sufficient life then so much the better.
Nuclear for Scotland would be an unnecessary expense, a real risk to its environment, and practically speaking it simply isn't needed.
Scotland has its own resources in coal and gas, it doesn't need a legacy of long term radioactivity stored under its mountains, needing to be monitored by generations to come.
264

AJ Fife,

16/04/2009 13:42:51
The constant meddling in Scottish affairs by the hated Westminster mob is a joy to behold.

Let's hope the next Westminster govt are just as determind to undermine the Scottish Govt. The happy prospect of Scottish independence will be brought forward by years.

265

David55,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 13:53:38
From memory Labour used to be against nuclear power. Was that just weapons or all nuclear systems?
266

greenhill,

16/04/2009 13:54:40
RECharybdis,16/04/2009 13:42:34

Your post is pure obfuscation.Energy is reserved to Westminster and the SNP seek to use planning law to block nuclear.

In addition there is a narrow majority in favour for nuclear in Scotland.

Most people in Scotland do not want independance and do not vote for the SNP.
267

Liz,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 13:58:00
#280
But more people either voted for other parties or didnt even bother voting at all. So you could say the majority of the Scottish public do not support the SNP.
268

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 13:58:35
#278 Chabrybdis

The issue at stake here is global warming.

It is UK energy policy that subsidises the construction of wind turbines in Scotland through everyone's electricity bills. The only plan I have heard about is the replacement of Hunterston with a Danish-built coal-fired power station.

The UK national grid would remain the UK national grid whether or not Scotland seperates politically. Basically, you are happy using nucear-generated power from England and Wales, as long as no new reactors are built in Scotland?
269

Jimmy Le Pie,

16/04/2009 13:59:29
#282 greenhill

Planning is devolved to Scotland.

No planning permission will be granted for nuclear power.

End of discussion.

VOTE SNP, the ONLY party for ALL the people of Scotland.
270

greenhill,

16/04/2009 14:01:15
Re Liz,Edinburgh 16/04/2009 13:58:00

"Charybdis" is a fakester this issue is all about the merits and demerits of nuclear and other methods of generating power.
271

wilfredthehairy,

16/04/2009 14:01:59
#278 Charybdis

The issue is not about nuclear v. renewables. It's about nuclear v. coal. The green lobby (and some politicians) pretend it's about renewables. The pro-nuclear lobby also likes this argument because they know the renewables can't do baseload. So we end up with an uninformed, meaningless discussion because it suits both sides. Meantime, some of us have to get on with making sure the lights don't go off.

On the political front, Wesminster does have the right to decide the energy mix, because energy is reserved under devoultion. I voted SNP, along with others, to govern us in a parliament with no power (no pun intended) over energy. Therefore they do not have a Scottish mandate to decide our energy mix.

And Tin Man, sorry, I agreed with you earlier, but have to disagree now. It's not really about global warming. I still see no concrete evidence (there's that word again) that climate change, such as it is, has anything to do with human activity.
272

greenhill,

16/04/2009 14:03:26
RE Jimmy Le Pie,16/04/2009 13:59:29


"End of discussion" I do not think so.You can go away if you want though.

273

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 14:09:09
A station generating 1.2MW is enough to power 1,000 homes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/17/waveandtidalpower.renewableenergy)

Scotland's TIDAL potential is 7.5GW(http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/03-04/marine/index2.htm) i.e. enough to power 6,250,000 homes.

My point does not in any way address our industrial needs but you can see that this one source can provide far more than double our domestic needs. Couple that with wind, wave, solar and hydro and we've more than enough on our own doorstep. The barrier is investment and the UK governemnt would do better to give Scotland the equivalent capital to invest in tidal.

Back to nuclear, a big issue surrounding our energy needs is security - traditional power stations are easy to secure whilst turbines harvesting natural and renewable energies are not. That is the only case I can see for nuclear power but until it is proven that Scotland can't do without it, I am never going to agree to burden our future generations with thousands of years of cost and risk. Can we even guarantee supply of fuel for these nuclear power stations?
274

The Tin Man,

16/04/2009 14:10:13
#287 wilfred

What are we doing generating expensive power with those multitudes of windmills, then?
275

greenhill,

16/04/2009 14:16:03
RE TheDisplacedGlaswegian,Edinburgh 16/04/2009 14:09:09

So you know better than Neil Kerdmore who runs the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney, speaking on wave and tidal:

"these technologies are unlikely to reach any significant commercial scale until the 2030s or the 2040s at the earliest. "It's hard, it's very hard stuff,"

You clown.

In addition there are unlimited supplies of Uranium because it can be extracted from sea water.That is not necessary right now because there is an oversupply of the stuff.

All of this has been gone over before.You Chump.


276

pwd,

Borders 16/04/2009 14:19:14
# 23 Edward

"The fact remains that Scotland does not want Nuclear Power."

Please refer me to the source which proves that claim? Was there a vote showing a clear majority? I do mean a real majority, not the 17% the SNP got in the 2007. election.
277

wilfredthehairy,

16/04/2009 14:23:46
#290 Tin Man
I have often wondered this myself. I'm not up-to-date on the figures, but capital costs for a large wind installation are recovered over a 15-year period. This is not unreasonable for a large power company. After that,we can regard the energy as 'free'. But cleary it depends on markets. A the moment I don't believe anyone would be building 'windmills' if they weren't subsidised.

The global-warming/nuclear fear is essentailly a form of scare-mongering. More important is that we develop technologies for when the oil/gas/coal does run out (about 300 years) and make ourselves less dependent on imports.
278

wilfredthehairy,

16/04/2009 14:25:43
#290 Tin Man
I almst forgot. The other reason is that they are'cuddly' and 'nice' and make us feel good.
279

bluepict,

16/04/2009 14:28:17
I'm not a scientist in any way nor do I have any knowledge of the 'workings' of the various methods of energy production.However I do know that Nuclear waste is deadly and disasters have been known to happen.Chances are in time, it will happen again, one way or another, simply because nothing is a hundred percent proof. Further more, when a newer,cleaner method is discovered, in the, I hope, very near future,all that waste has to be disposed of somewhere.So as far as I am concerned, it doesn't get my vote.

The other reason is this,now is the time when the whole world needs new discoveries and inventions in this field.The country that pulls that one off is going to benefit greatly.That is why I am all for moving forward and using the funds towards this goal rather than spend it on building new neuclear plants in Scotland.

I would love to see the day when the tide is used to produce the energy needed, the wind too but without the unsightly 'Windmills' dotted all over the country side.This is one reason why the SNP get my vote for trying and for their forward thinking.

The other thing I would like to comment on is, I am fed up with the Westminster government treating the Scottish people like political pawns, they just do and say whatever they want without regard just to score political points.Demoracy has become a joke with them,what they fail to understand is that it was the PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND that voted in the SNP and when they diss the SNP they are also dissing the PEOPLE.
What part of that don't they understand? It seems like it will only take a major uprising to gave them the wake up call they so need.

Roll on Independence.
280

Rab haw,

16/04/2009 14:31:02
As usual the lets insult wee Alex mob are about with their gob schitte smears and insults . Me I think the wind farms are of their time and a thing of beauty. As for the nuclear debate if you omit those who have some personal financial motive to go down that road then you will not find many in favour. Just another pigs trough!.
281

Rab haw,

16/04/2009 14:34:33
Greenhill welocome home you have obviously been in another universe for the past 5 years.
282

,

16/04/2009 14:41:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
283

greenhill,

16/04/2009 14:45:16
RE Charybdis"We have alternative technologies at our disposal, including cleaner uses of coal"
.............................................

You are another looney.The fact is as I said before that :

"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.

Each coal plant causes about 200 deaths per year from air pollution whereas each nuclear plant causes less than 1 death.Those who advocate coal burning are absolute scumbags who care more about mass opinion than informed judgment."
284

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 14:46:37
wilfredthehairy - you've made some good points. Although, my understanding of base load is that it is the minimum continuous supply required to meet our critical and industrial needs. (I'm hoping to find some time to have look at the energy stats from the BERR link you provided.)

If we need nuclear then we've no real choice. I would agree that the UK needs nuclear energy but looking at Scotland as a single entity outwith the UK (as nationalists like I do), I am totally unconvinced that we need it.

Liz #283; the majority of our elected MSPs and Scottish MPs reject nuclear power. It is not just the SNP - it is right across the board. (In saying that, it's not bee really tested by the media yet, but I suspect Brown has since told his Scottish drones what opinion they must have).

(Wean, you are tiresome. One day you will grow up and will look back at your attitude to others in embarrassment.)
285

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 14:51:51
Greenhill you are little bit abusive aren't you? Only trying to help improve your spelling and it was wrong wasn't it? Not just a mere typographical error?

Anyone who disagrees with you is just a looney aren't they? Do you really hope to persuade anyone with your abuse?
286

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 14:54:25
Greenhill, would you be quite so abusive if you met me in person?
287

Columba doing the Rumba,

16/04/2009 14:54:57
#103

hahahahahaha

It really makes me laugh when I hear hysterical pro-nukers talking describing the life-giving gas CO2 as being "lethal".

Hmmm ... there'd be no life on earth without CO2, but there certainly wouldn't be any life with nuclear waste blowing in the wind.
288

greenhill,

16/04/2009 15:00:57
REnick prince,warrington 16/04/2009 14:51:51

Ha you are a spelling pedant and Lewis Draughts Man has a nutbag theory about 9/11.

Actually I feel sorry for "Lewis Draughts Man" he is obviously some sort of special needs case and should be commended for learning to use a computer.Though I reckon he should be carefully supervised .

289

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 15:02:33
More abuse is it, would you say it to my face?
290

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 15:03:48
Also are you a trained psychiatrist? Are your diagnoses at all reliable, why do you make jokes about mental illness, do you think that they are funny?

Once again, unless you feel you could abuse me to my face please stop this.
291

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 15:04:59
Not your real anme is it greenhill, no location either? Good reason for that isn't there?
292

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 15:05:46
ah look now you can criticise my spelling, mind you it was just a typo I can actually spell name
293

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 15:06:35
go on be a spelling pedant yourself if you like, you might even enjoy it.
294

wilfredthehairy,

Off now 16/04/2009 15:12:10
Thanks for the useful discussion guys. For once informed opinion seems to have triumphed over dogma.

Just a wee note for LewisDraftsMan. 'Star Wars' was the generic name for laser destruction of satellites and nuclear warheads. It was proposed decades (if not centuries) before it will be feasible. You're not seriously suggesting lasers or space rockets took out the twin towers?
Not sure why I bothered with that last point, really.
295

,

16/04/2009 15:14:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
296

,

16/04/2009 15:17:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
297

Yank of South Texas,

San Antonio 16/04/2009 15:19:01
France is 95% nuke. Japan is 95% nuke. The U.S. is only about 22% nuke. Where are the outraged French and Japanese anti-nuke citizens? Who understands the threat of unleashed nuclear power like Japan?

Fusion will release us from all fossil fuels and even gravity itself (the energy source for the Sun). On that day, there will be nothing we cannot do as a civilization for want of energy. However, until thermonuclear fusion becomes a household commodity, nuclear fission is the cleanest energy source.

Don't get lost in the vernacular. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is still NUCLEAR magnetic resonance imaging. The microwave oven is still a tuned microwave radiation cavity, despite the marketing language that makes these products household commodities.

Maybe it's time for new marketing language for nuclear power.

It's not going to stop old ladies from sticking Fifi in the microwave "oven" (would you put Fifi in a "radiation cavity"?) but maybe opinions will shift more toward fact than hyperbole.
298

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 15:27:46
microwave radiation is 3mm wavelength, infra red is radiation, it is just heat, nuclear radiation is much higher energy and has a much higher biological effectiveness, radio waves are radiation too. The word radiation is an extremely broad definition, some of it is benign and some of it is very deadly. Marketing language will not fool anyone.
299

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 16/04/2009 15:33:22
Yank of South Texas,San Antonio 16/04/2009 15:19:01

States "Japan is 95% nuke"

According to "The International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA)

A report dated - 23 October 2007 says :-

"Japan had 55 reactors in operation, one under construction, and plans to increase nuclear power´s share of electricity from 30 percent in 2006 to more than 40 percent within the next decade."
300

greenhill,

16/04/2009 15:33:53
Well if we are worried about radiation then I repeat:
..............................................
"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.

Each coal plant causes about 200 deaths per year from air pollution whereas each nuclear plant causes less than 1 death.Those who advocate coal burning are absolute scumbags who care more about mass opinion than informed judgment."

...................................................
301

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 16/04/2009 15:43:09
According to a BBC report:-
09:41 GMT, Friday, 11 April 2008 10:41 UK

"Scotland's fast reactor research site, Dounreay in Caithness"

"The decommissioning project will take decades to complete at an estimated cost of £2.9bn."

"Some time between the years 2050 and 2078 the waste and spent nuclear fuel will be transported off site to an as-yet unbuilt UK repository, or dump"

"the eventual end point for the whole site will not be reached until almost 300 years into the future."
302

John S,

16/04/2009 15:53:44
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 which equals Torness (1200MW) plus Hunterston (reduced to 840MW) plus other generation 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 ?
303

G,

dundy 16/04/2009 15:54:13
I note that few SNPites are accusing the Hootsmon of poor journalism or bias for this piece of political hot air???
BUT the main question is...
Is the SNP's stance the right thing for Scotland???

We don't know and neither do they BUT it makes for some exciting "us against them" headlines and the SNP can look "tough", pure and determined while the lights go out and we depend on English power.....
304

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:05:41
REJo'Burg Jock,South Africa 16/04/2009 15:43:09
Scotland's fast reactor research site, Dounreay in Caithness"

You are being disingenuous.Dounray was a nuclear research facility from a different era and not a power station.It gave nothing to the national grid.

Dounray has nothing to do with modern nuclear power stations which are not fast breeders.As I said before:
............................................

"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.

Modern nuclear power stations run at a profit (including decommissioning costs) and provide the lowest price power to the consumer."
..................................................

Once again we have an anti post which obfuscates and seeks to mislead.


305

Marga,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 16:11:25
Charybdis -

US thinking out of the box - nuclear fans take note:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/16/solar-energy-farms-space

US power company to tap solar energy in space

Orbiting solar farms will be commercially viable within next seven years, says group

And thank you for your insight - this whole sad micro-managed cabinet "virtual invasion" exercise makes it obvious that it's not nuclear energy that's at stake here anyway, it's "find a wedge to distance the Scottish government from the electorate".
306

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:13:11
RE John S,16/04/2009 15:53:44

You are another obfuscator.I repeat:
.................................................

"The fact is that Scotland’s power is provided by 5 main plants: nuclear at Hunterston and Torness, coal at Cockenzie and Longannet, gas from Peterhead .We also have important power from hydro and some from wind. For various reasons most of these plants will need to close in the near future.

Decisions need to be taken now about what we do next. It must also be taken into account that we are expected to develop to be using 50% more energy by 2050.

The planning and building of major engineering projects can take many years and are usually subject to delays and cost overruns. It is not appropriate to dither."

...............................................

So your point is invalid and does not address reality.
......................................................

Now lets spell out the important part in case it did not penetrate:

"For various reasons most of these plants will need to close in the near future."

What part of that do you not understand?

Idiot.

307

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:15:19
RE Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 16:12:54

Oh no It's Traquir with his tinyurl's and tiny mind.

What a walloper.
308

SkeptikScot,

16/04/2009 16:17:10
Ed Miliband 'Minister for Energy, Climate Change and Witch Burning'.
309

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:22:33
RE Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 16:12:54


When someone says "as i said before", then puts the comments in quotation marks then it is clear he is quoting a previous comment. I even put the extract in between lines just to make sure that was clear.

You really are as thick as two planks.
310

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:26:22
Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 16:19:38

It has already been pointed out ad infinitum that wave and tidal will not make an effective contribution for a long time.No end of tinyurls will change that fact.

What a fool you are.
311

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 16:38:51
#317 Yank of South Texas,

There's a big difference between ionising and non ionising radiation.

Ionising radiation has enough energy to detach electrons from atoms or molecules thus altering their original structure. Ionising radiation can cause genetic mutation.

Non ionising radiation (waves that are part of the electro magnetic spectrum - including microwaves) do not have the ability to alter atomic makeup.

Microwaves essentially vibrate water molecules and hence heat through friction.

A light bulb radiates visible light.

Clumping all types of radiation together as one entity like you've done is a tad simplistic.

I do agree that nuclear technology is one of the safest and environmentally way of producing electricity but it leaves a massive radioactive waste management problem that will consume the resources of our future generations for thousands of years. If we don't fully need it, then we shouldn't create this burden.
312

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 16/04/2009 16:41:14
greenhill,16/04/2009 16:05:41

From "Greenpeace"

"Nuclear power and radioactive waste
Media briefing November 2001"

"Reprocessing is recognised by the government as the largest source of radioactive pollution in the UK. The plant at Sellafield discharges millions of litres of radioactive water into the Irish Sea. It also discharges radioactive gases into the air. And this pollution is detected as far away as the waters of Norway and Greenland."

"Sellafield is also known to contribute 87% of the collective radiation dose to EC member states, from discharges into north European waters. It poses a global health risk and it is estimated that around 200 people will die for every year that it operates."

I think I will go along with Greenpeace on this one. I do not think I want to accept your assurance (no matter how sincere you may be) that:-

"Each coal plant causes about 200 deaths per year from air pollution whereas each nuclear plant causes less than 1 death."
313

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:41:43
RE Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 16:30:37

There is no "bluster". I was honest and made it overtly clear.I made no attempt to hide the fact.

You often make links to material which is not your own. Those words were my own and I made that very clear.You have not made an effective point other than to make a fool of yourself once again.

314

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:44:52
RE Jo'Burg Jock,South Africa 16/04/2009 16:41:14

From "Greenpeace" An totally nutbag organisation.
315

,

16/04/2009 16:47:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
316

David55,

Edinburgh 16/04/2009 16:50:56
Nuclear. Renewables. I'll leave that to the useless politicans that we elect.

My question is this, 'What are you guys employed as? Some people appear to be on The Scotsman comments pages all day, every day?'

I want a job?
317

Return the Gael,

16/04/2009 16:51:01
Nuclear power is bad. Even although Scotland has the fastest electrons in the UK.

I voted for the SNP because they know stuff like it is dangerous to cut an atom in half. You know they are clever like that and don't pollute Scottish beeches.

I am against trident because it is bad too.
318

Return the Gael,

16/04/2009 16:52:28
I used to vote BNP but then I realised Britain was bad so now I vote for the SNP. They are like the BNP except that the BNP hate muslims whereas the SNP only hate English muslims.
319

greenhill,

16/04/2009 16:54:25
Re Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 16:36:26 Re wave and tidal.

The facts were already spelled out but you seem to think that repeating the same information is a sin. Make your mind up.

I now realise that you are under the impression that your tedious tinyurls are impressive.That is unreal.
320

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 17:05:00
271 The Tin Man,(sorry I've been away)

I would say that it needs to be buried at the safest place, possible,
-------------------------------------------------------
Much as I respect what you say, that is not what matters. What matters is that the Government says what will happen that id the Plan we await.
That plan is then put to the Scottish Parliament who vote on the proposal as they did last time.

All the rest is froth and bubble. Westminster did not even have to get involved if the plan were acceptable.

It is just Westminster Labour picking a fight with the Nats rather than answering the question what are you proposing for Scotland.
It is really quite childish but they are struggling badly.

All the Nats, Libs and Greens out there why do Westminster need to get involved here are SLAB incapable of puting a bill before the Scottish parliament with a plan to handle nuclear waste???
321

Return the Gael,

16/04/2009 17:07:31
348

Nice hate filled post about the English. Keep them coming.

I'm going 'round to an Englishman's house tonight to "send them a message".


AL'BA JIHADDY
322

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 16/04/2009 17:07:34
greenhill,16/04/2009 13:54:40

States:-

"In addition there is a narrow majority in favour for nuclear in Scotland."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:-

"The Scottish Government's stance has been backed by the Scottish Parliament that voted 63-58 to support the Scottish Government's policy of opposing new nuclear power stations."

I am beginning to distrust your information. Come on now, be truthful -

Are you making it up as you go along?
323

,

16/04/2009 17:10:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
324

greenhill,

16/04/2009 17:17:27
RE Jo'Burg Jock,South Africa 16/04/2009 17:07:34

You are totally disingenuous

The SNP represent a minority of the Scottish people but have the most seats in the devolved Parliament.

I was refering to a recent opinion poll of the public on this specific issue which was discussed at length on these Scotsman forums.
325

TWC,

16/04/2009 17:18:48
354 greenhill,

Put the Bill to the Scottish Parliament in the old democratic way then you'll have the answer
326

Jimmy Le Pie,

16/04/2009 17:20:37
Could any of the pro nuclear lobby tell me who employs Our Dear Leader, Comrade Broon's brother???
327

greenhill,

16/04/2009 17:23:14
Re Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 17:12:15

I see you reckon it is more credible to use other peoples work and material rather than your own words.

It is ok to quote from other sources but you do little else.You are not fit to sit at the table of rational debate.
328

greenhill,

16/04/2009 17:29:12
Re TWC,16/04/2009 17:18:48

This is a Westminster issue and Scotland is not independant nor do the people of Scotland desire independance.

At the moment the SNP can use the planning system to hold things up.We have to wait on Calman.Then the $ will hit the fan one way or the other.
329

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 16/04/2009 17:31:12
greenhill,16/04/2009 17:17:27

States:-

"The SNP represent a minority of the Scottish people but have the most seats in the devolved Parliament."


The SNP have 47 of the 129 seats in parliament.

63 members voted to oppose new nuclear power stations.


You go on:-

"I was refering to a recent opinion poll of the public on this specific issue which was discussed at length on these Scotsman forums."

What opinion poll was that then?
330

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 17:33:32
I know someone else who is not fit to sit in rational debate, no-one on question time calls people assmunch, lunatic, idiot, thick as two short planks etc,

what is your real name greenhill and where do you live? would you say these things in a bar? No you would not. So don't do it here, you are completely offensive and you do your arguments no service at all, they would be better off without you.
331

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 17:34:54
Once again I ask you, would you repeat your remarks in my presence?
332

Geomac 1,

Scotland 16/04/2009 17:41:24
Readng a selection of posts on this article, it seems that there are a mixture of scientific and engineering illiterates, SNP dogmatists, and ecomaniacs (hell bent on regressing to the Stone Age.
Perhaps those who advocate a total renewable future should be cut off from the electricity grid and given a windmill each and told to get on with it!!
Who in their right mind would advocate a near future electricity generation strategy consisting of wind (which has a 30% capacity factor plus wave and tidal (not yet commercialised) plus clean coal (sequestration of CO2 not yet developed)?
This is a lights out strategy for sure - our large coal fired stations will have to be shut down relatively soon (EU regulations) base load nuclear plants (2) are reaching the end of their design life. Gas is only available from unreliable sources.
It's time that Jim Mather and his puppeteer (Salmond) got real and stopped mouthing platitudes and basing our future electricity supply on a wing and a prayer policy!!
333

European Scot,

16/04/2009 17:41:34
356 Jimmy Le Pie

" Could any of the pro nuclear lobby tell me who employs Our Dear Leader, Comrade Broon's brother???"

Talking of said Dear Leader, his apology for Smeargate doesn't appear to have had anything like the prominence in this 'Newspaper', that it has enjoyed in the English Press.
It seems as if 'the Scotsman' might be rather anti-nuclear in its stance, very keen to avoid any fallout.
334

,

16/04/2009 17:43:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
335

TWC,

16/04/2009 17:44:13
359 greenhill, Nope its a Holyrood issue voted down by Labour, Greens, Libdems and SNP. The issue is planning.
The work item was a Plan for Nuclear waste from the Labour party promised by McConnell.
Iain Gray as his replacement should bring that plan before parliament with a new Bill.
They are afraid todo it so Westminster are stirring it up rather than pursue the Policies it proposes for Scotland -- Cause they don't have any.

It is becoming so obvious now that they are lost in Scotland.
336

greenhill,

16/04/2009 17:45:27
RE Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 17:36:33 :"More people said they preferred renewables to nuclear by a margin of two to one, but the survey also concluded that most Scots are unwilling to see their bills going up in order to pay for it."
.............................................

I prefer renewables, I would answer yes to such a question.However I would also like a tree that grows money. The question assumes that renewables can provide base load.

If renewables can provide base load then why does the SNP intend to rely on fossil fuels and build new coal power stations? You should turn against the SNP for doing this if you have so much faith in renewables.

We have a choice for base load of fossil or nuclear.If you think otherwise then you should condemn the SNP.
337

,

16/04/2009 17:48:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
338

nick prince,

warrington 16/04/2009 17:49:14
Hooray, a whole post from Greenhill with no abuse?

Wonders never cease!

There is a green hill far away,

but is it worth visiting?

answers on a post card
339

Geomac 1,

Scotland 16/04/2009 17:49:38
This issue is much much more important than petty politics and party dogma. As an engineer, I cannot understand why more people don't realise this.
Posts above which slag off others of different political persuasions are totally pointless and downright petty.
340

greenhill,

16/04/2009 17:50:39
Union is ­Better,16/04/2009 17:48:17
369. Greenhill

well done, I don't think anyone noticed your little blunder re MSP support for nuclear/ polls.

Please clarify
341

greenhill,

16/04/2009 17:52:03
Re nick prince,warrington 16/04/2009 17:49:14

Oh no it's the spelling pedant.
342

,

16/04/2009 17:52:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
343

,

16/04/2009 17:54:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
344

European Scot,

16/04/2009 17:59:51
365 Geomac

" .. it seems that there are a mixture of scientific and engineering illiterates, SNP dogmatists, and ecomaniacs (hell bent on regressing to the Stone Age."

" It's time that Jim Mather and his puppeteer (Salmond) got real and stopped mouthing platitudes and basing our future electricity supply on a wing and a prayer policy!! "

373 Geomac

" Posts above which slag off others of different political persuasions are totally pointless and downright petty."

Discuss.
345

,

16/04/2009 18:02:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
346

greenhill,

16/04/2009 18:03:14
RE Traquir , Alba,16/04/2009 17:55:42


Carbon capture and sequestration is unproven. In addition it does not remove the massive amounts of radiation thrown out by coal.

When you say:
.........................................
"Westminster deliberate scuppering of the half billion
Carbon Capture project (with 1000 jobs) is just
one example of that there is no level playing field
here and Westminster will try and manipulate
and bully Scotland in following the same
path is needed by England. Scotland is not
England are needs and circumstances are different,
perhaps one day you will see that."
........................................

You show yourself to have a poor command of the English language and a nutbag mind.
347

TWC,

16/04/2009 18:04:02
373 Geomac 1,
Iam an electrical Eng as well but I haven't even decided about Nuclear power because we await a plan for the waste from the Scottish Labour Party. When tey have satisfied that work item the planning issue can go to the Scottish Parliamenyt again. Based on that outcome, the next topic is New Stations.
Our Parliament decided no ne Stations till that plan was completed. So Westminster are not involved at this stage.
Labour at Holyrood are afraid to take a position on this issue, that is tha crux of the matter and every engineer should expect the Spec to be complete before we approve any further progress. The waste disposal should be part of the design process.
348

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 18:04:40

Note the adoption of "green" and "hill" as a comforting moniker by our belligerent, vexatious "you're all idiots" - nuclear drummer, Greenhill, words meant to conjure a sylvian setting, verdant pastures, Fallow deer grazing slopes, and skylark ascending to a wedgewood blue sky.

I'm not sure which is more toxic, nuclear power or Greensnot's propaganda.

LA



349

greenhill,

16/04/2009 18:08:11
RE Los Angeles,16/04/2009 18:04:40

And your points on the substantial issues are..............................................Yes indeed a reflection of your empty "mind".
350

,

16/04/2009 18:08:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
351

Los Angeles,

16/04/2009 18:11:36

And your points on the substantial issues are? (Greensnot)

In order to make a considered, informed decision, I need to know whether you are nuclear based, wind driven, or battery powered.


352

westview,

airing a point 16/04/2009 18:13:12
Why no headlines shouting out for the use of compressed air storage to drive the electrical generators instead of steam? The technology exists and is in use in the USA and in Europe. Surplus electricity from any sourse ,windmills, water turbines , etc. is used to compress air ,which is then stored in underground reserviours. No massive unsightly power stations, just holes in the ground, which are filled with clean compressed air and this in turn is realeased on demand to make electricity. This covers the main argument against renewables--- the lack of power storage. System does not require any new technology, nor expensive waste storage or unreliable fuel imports.
353

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 18:14:28
In the Final Analysis Holyrood will decide, in which case Labour will have to come up with teir answer and since they don't have one to offer they will lose.
354

,

16/04/2009 18:14:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
355

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 18:18:01
390 Return the Gael

Behave yourself or use only the Gaelic so that you don't offend people for where they are born.
356

,

16/04/2009 18:19:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
357

,

16/04/2009 18:20:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
358

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 18:23:43
The evidence Jan 16 2006
JACK McConnell has promised that any decision to build nuclear power plants will be taken on Scottish terms without influence from Westminster.

The first minister has clearly warned that London colleagues will not be allowed to pressure Scottish Labour into such a controversial move.

His comments come as Labour opens up an internal debate about Scotland's future energy mix, brought on by power plants ageing, and oil and gas becoming more expensive and dependent on imports.

Although some in Labour want a new generation of reactors, the first minister is thought to take a more sceptical stance over the technology's safety. Meanwhile, it has been suggested by a former senior Labour minister, Sam Galbraith, that Holyrood should lose its nuclear power veto.

With LibDems hostile to nuclear power, the coalition position is that there will be no new plants until the nuclear waste issue is resolved. But that position only lasts until the election in May next year and Holyrood may soon thereafter have the option of blocking a new plant on planning or regulatory grounds.

"Without influence from Westminster" ..Makes you laugh doesn't it -- more brown dirty tricks

The article below.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/358593/mcconnell_holyrood_will_decide_nuclear_question/index.html

359

TWC,

exLabour 16/04/2009 18:27:28
Cont'd
Mr McConnell insisted his party's decision on an application will be made purely in Scotland, saying: "We'll make a reasoned judgment on the waste issue, but we will make a Scottish Labour party and Scottish parliamentary Labour group decision on this. If our ministers have to make a decision, we will make that decision on our own terms.

Why is milliband getting involved??
360

Jimmy Le Pie,

16/04/2009 18:33:08
Will Mr and Mrs Jacqui Smith be getting a nuclear powered patio heater (on expenses of course!)??