Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'Scotland must keep nuclear in mind'

British Energy chief says writing it off is a mistake

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: 14 February 2008
BILL Coley, the head of nuclear operator British Energy, yesterday warned that it would be imprudent for Scotland to turn its back on the possibility of more nuclear power stations but conceded there was currently no need for them.
British Energy, which is headquartered in Livingston and has power stations in Ayrshire and East Lothian, said it expected to outline plans for four new nuclear plants when it announced its full year results later this year. The company has said
these will all be in England, where demand for electricity is greatest. The Scottish Government has also said it is opposed to new nuclear power stations being built north of the Border.

While British Energy conceded Scotland, which exports electricity, did not figure in the "first wave" of new stations, Coley warned against writing off the source for the future.

"At some point electricity will be needed," Coley said yesterday. "You have ageing units, some of which will be taken out of service, of all generating types.

"If you want a good example (of what can go wrong], look at South Africa. That country is going through a very stressful time, from a lack of generating capacity.

"Once you're in that position, it takes a long time to recover from it, because you can't build new capacity overnight, and it can have huge consequences for quality of life and the economy."

South Africa, after decades of under- investment in infrastructure and generation, has suffered major power cuts, which have hit its huge mining sector.

Coley added "planning early" was essential. "To take comfort and say we don't need planning for Scotland will not be prudent," he said.

The comments came as British Energy reported a 4 per cent fall in earnings for the nine months to 31 March to £745 million. But the figures were well ahead of many analyst forecasts, and a 14.5p a share special dividend was in line with market expectations. British Energy shares rose 9 per cent to 533p.

Despite output being only marginally ahead of the same period a year earlier at 45.7 terawatthours, Coley was "very pleased" with the operating performance, with only 2.8TWh of unplanned losses. "That's the lowest in the company's history and we've been seeing a tremendous number of metrics for 'best evers' in performance."

Analysts welcomed the figures and progress on new build, but said detail was needed on the plans before value could be attributed to them.

Coley added that he believed British Energy and joint venture partners Amec had "provided all the information we could have provided" to support the application for a 181 turbine wind farm on Lewis. The partners have until Friday formally to respond to a Scottish Government request for further information. Ministers have indicated they are minded to reject the application.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 February 2008 9:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 14/02/2008 02:21:02
BILL Coley, the head of nuclear operator British Energy makes some very porly thought out comparisons to try and bolster support for Nuclear Energy. To compare the demand curve in Scotland, a post industrial developed economy, to South Africa, an industrializing developing economy, is at best stupid and at worst deceptive. Scotland with its rapid growth in renewables has absolutely no need for Nuclear Power. Scotland will have no difficulty providing enough energy for domestic needs as well as the ability to export electricity even if the 2 current Nuclear plants are permanently shutdown when they reach the end of their useful life. Why British Energy would like to site future Reactors in Scotland is the low population density coupled with low land prices and cheap a labour market which makes Scotland attractive for siting plants that will export all their output.
2

Greenheatman,

TAIN 14/02/2008 07:07:03
Bill Coley is right - and the above comment is just plain daft. Modern society need secure capacity generation not aggregated MWh at differing capacities from wind turbines!

Nuclear is just an stupid and dangerous way of generating heat - then from that heat electricity is generated.

Use renewable energy to generate heat and Bob's your uncle!
3

Mcsnagpile,

14/02/2008 11:13:47
Nuclear has some sort of argument for the UK scenario. The problem in a peak Oil World is, the price of uranium will also rise and is a limited resource. Prices have already risen in recent times. Mining and refining uranium to U235 is highly polluting and costly, although somebody else’s problem (who will tell us the carbon footprint??). Due to quality control etc it will take at least 10 years to get anything commissioned.

(Saying that Nuclear produces no CO2 is incorrect when building plant, mining of ore, making fuel rods, and end of life demolition, is taken into consideration.) Remember a plant has only 25 years life design.

Renewables would be ideal but at present has much impracticality both in availability and power grid control.
Not so long ago all gas used for lighting, cooking, and heating was from coal gas. Like the return of the trains some development might be considered. Not any worse than the major petrochemical plants already in existence. Petrol from coal is cleaner burning than conventional fuel. Gas Combined Cycle Turbines can be built quickly and cheaply (18 months) have modern efficiencies of up to 57% and are clean burning. This is superior to our only CCPP, in Peterhead with 50% efficiency. Other plants (coal etc) run at below 30%. One coal fired turbine plant I saw recently turned out 57 tons of ash per hour. How much does Longannet and cockenzie produce. Of course Cockenzie is due for demolition in 2015, again. Cost of ownership for CCPP is greatly lower than alternatives.
4

Colin, Glasgow,

14/02/2008 19:18:38
The CO2 emissions from nuclear are low even when the full lifecycle of building, mining, fuel-cycle, decommissioning and waste management are included. They are at least as low as the equivalent from wind or hydro. And they are about 1% of the equivalent coal plant, and likely to fall further as we become less dependent on fossil fuel for mining etc. Even "clean coal" with carbon capture would produce at least ten times as much CO2 per kWh as the nuclear lifecycle.

And the design life of new nuclear plant is 40 years (in some cases 60 years).

There is no way that Scotland can produce enough electricity from renewables _and_ continue to export electricity while phasing out nuclear power. Similarly there is no way that Scotland can cut carbon emissions from electricity _and_ phase out nuclear at the same time. If there is no new nuclear build then all the new renewable development for the next 20 years will be squandered on displacing the 40% generating capacity that our nuclear stations provide; thus resulting in no carbon savings.

Then when we consider the fact that demand for electricity will _increase_ as we move away from fossil fuel for transport (and towards more electric and/or hydrogen vehicles), it is clear that nuclear is an essential component in any sensible Scottish energy strategy.
5

democracy,

Scottish Borders 02/08/2008 16:44:28
I bet #4 Colin, Glasgow voted New Labour at Glasgow East by-election!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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