Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Dave Maddox: SNP's aversion to nuclear at heart of dilemma

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: 31 January 2009
THE energy policy pursued by the SNP in government has been perceived by opponents as potentially its biggest Achilles' heel.
Above everything else, the policy has two aims – to build up renewable energy capacity so that it is the dominant supplier, and to end the use of nuclear power in Scotland when the current power stations come to the end of their lifespans.

Alread
y, there has been severe criticism from the business community and political opponents – principally the UK government, supported by Scottish Labour and the Tories – that this is a strategy that will mean the lights go out across Scotland.

The argument has always been that while nuclear waste is toxic, this form of generating power has no carbon emissions. Last year, both Labour's Holyrood spokesman on energy Lewis Macdonald and the Tories' spokesman Gavin Brown were publicly critical of the SNP official priorities, saying they did not state the three essential elements of cost, security of supply and reduction in carbon emissions.

They said that there was a danger the SNP were forgetting the need to have a base supply of energy, rather than one dependent on whether the wind was blowing.

So, as a result of their ideological opposition to nuclear power, the Nationalists have had to turn to continuing coal power for a base supply.

But this has left the SNP increasingly facing questions over the fact that coal power stations pump huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and are not the best way to tackle climate change.

It seems to be the wrong way to meet the ambitious 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 set in the Climate Change Bill that will go through parliament this year.

However, a pet project of First Minister Alex Salmond's has appeared to come to the rescue. He has been a great supporter of carbon capture, a process by which former energy supply fields, such oilfields out at sea or coalmines, can be reused to create almost carbon-free sources of supply.

Mr Salmond always wanted carbon capture to be tested off the Peterhead coast in the former Miller oilfield, and leading energy companies were ready to start work.

However, thanks to UK government delay and a decision that carbon capture in Britain should be tried out on former coalmines, this fell through.

After the initial disappointment, it occurred to the SNP that using the former coalmines in Fife and elsewhere for carbon capture could get them out of a hole on justifying their policy on base supply.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

 sm753,

30/01/2009 22:37:25
Um.

A few corrections for this.

The Peterhead project fell through because the UK government felt unable to provide *subsidies* to the likes of *BP* (please check their latest profits) to develop the project.

Now, as I've said many times previously, Scotland is fortunate in inheriting a huge surplus of generation capacity (and power exports) from the past.

Therefore we can afford to stand aside from the debate about new, large-scale thermal power generation for about 10 years, relative to down south. And by reason of the same capacity surplus, nobody is proposing to build any new nuclear stations in Scotland right now.

We can afford to wait and see whether the renewables programmes deliver.

But by 2020 we will have lost Hunterston (1200 MW nuclear) and Cockenzie (1200 MW coal).

If the renewables do not deliver, there will be a tough decision to make.
2

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 00:37:02


Smee ate my nuclear hamster
3

ochone,

Sauchie, clacks 31/01/2009 00:53:11
It must be a great comfort to unionists everywhere to know that after a truly trumatic week where there doings have ranged from the down right dubious in the House of Lords to the down right daft and dangerous in Holyrood that they can count on Dave Maddox to come riding to their rescue.............then again it could also be a case of just when they thought things couldn't get any worse!

Yet another article by 'Deadly Dave' filled with so much erroe and supposition that thankfully it only serves to show just how bad a week their having.

4

subrosa,

31/01/2009 01:18:53
Good morning David. I see you have provided your usual anti-SNP propaganda this morning. You know David, I'd miss you if you stopped. You go down so well with my cocoa.
5

,

31/01/2009 01:19:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

31/01/2009 01:20:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Dark Lochnagar,

Symington 31/01/2009 01:26:51
Smee, are you feeling alright?
8

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 01:28:48


Isn't about time Maddox investigated Labour and the Tories 'ideological' marriage to Nuclear and BIG Business.

9

Billiam Wallace,

31/01/2009 02:27:15
Hmm. Nuclear power stations don't produce greenhouse gases. That may be true but the process of extracting uranium ore, refining it, making it into fuel rods and then transporting it around the world certainly does. Then of course we have the delights of toxic waste for the next umpteen thousand years. What a lovely legacy for our children. Perhaps by the time we need a new power station science will have created an improved renewable energy source.
10

donald,

glasgow 31/01/2009 07:48:50
Labour love of Nuclear industry causes crises.

Labour smashed the CND by giving "support" in opposition.
11

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 31/01/2009 08:07:02
Half of the US nuclear stations are kept going by importing fuel from Russian diluted ex-weapons highly enriched uranium, but the deal ends in 2013 and the replacement agreement is not of the same ilk.

Meanwhile Canadian and Australian primary uranium production is declining and the replacement projects are in trouble. Cigar Lake new mine in Canada is flooded and may never open, while in Australia BHP Billiton has fired staff working on its Olympic Dam expansion and delayed its start.

So the Scottish Government is quite right to refuse to allow nuclear power in Scotland as the plans to build four or more in England are bound to stall.

France is overdependent on nuclear power (77%) and with coming fuel supply problems and the need to repalce half of their own nuclear power plants in the next ten years or so, the lights may be going out in France first.

The UK imports all of its uranium, 75% of its coal and is now a net importer of oil and gas instead of an exporter. So it is critical that the development of renewable energy remains Scotland's predominant strategy.
12

gus1940,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 09:09:27
It is my understanding that more than 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster restrictions are still in force applying to sheep farms in SW Scotland and Cumbria.

It is alleged by the authorities that this is necessary due to pollution caused by the fallout plume from Chernobyl and has nothing to do with a certain nuclear establishment not a million miles from Cumbria which is according to the authorities totally safe.

Apart from the problem of safely storing the waste and the cost thereof from new nuclear power stations are we really daft enough to risk the prospect of a homegrown Chernobyl disaster which if it happened could make the whole country uninhabitable for thousands of years and cause a large number of deaths.

A question I have never had a satisfactory answer to is how the pollution from Chernobyl reached SW Scotland and Cumbria but managed to avoid everywhere else other than N. Ukraine and Belorussia, It must have headed north from Ukraine over N. Russia or Scandinavia turned left, then left again through the Iceland Faroes Gap, half left then aqueezed through The North Channel avoiding N.Ireland and Argyllshire turned left again and then stopped and deposited its fallout without reaching Northumbria. All in all a good trick.
13

 sm753,

31/01/2009 09:29:17
9

"Nuclear power stations don't produce greenhouse gases. That may be true but the process of extracting uranium ore, refining it, making it into fuel rods and then transporting it around the world certainly does."

And so does the process of fabricating, constructing and transporting steel wind or tidal turbines, pouring concrete to hold them in place, laying transmission lines to their remote locations, and so on.

Especially when one recalls it takes a THOUSAND wind or tidal turbines to replace the output of one thermal (nuclear, coal or gas) power plant.

These life-cycle emission calcs have been done and the results are about the same for renewables and nuclear.

(By the way, "Billiam", I noticed you left an approving comment on the "Free Thinker" blog. Not good for your credibility. Are you a believer in David Icke-style conspiracy theories too?)
14

Finnzz,

31/01/2009 10:04:41
#13

"These life-cycle emission calcs have been done and the results are about the same for renewables and nuclear."

Quite right SM, but then what are we going to do with all that radioactive waste that has to be dealt with for the next 10,000 years.
At least the renewable source materials can be constantly recycled.


15

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 10:08:42


13. Smee

"...By the way, "Billiam", I noticed you left an approving comment on the "Free Thinker" blog. Not good for your credibility. Are you a believer in David Icke-style conspiracy theories too?..."


Your quite creepy Smee aren't you.

16

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 10:09:38


14. Agreed

The simple fact is that Wind,Wave and Solar are RENEWABLE

Nuclear is not.

Let's build a bright future NOW, no more short term fixes.

17

Niall,

Cairnbulg Aberdeenshire 31/01/2009 10:17:25
#12 Gus1940 [quote]A question I have never had a satisfactory answer to is how the pollution from Chernobyl reached SW Scotland and Cumbria but managed to avoid everywhere else other than N. Ukraine and Belorussia, It must have headed north from Ukraine over N. Russia or Scandinavia turned left, then left again through the Iceland Faroes Gap, half left then aqueezed through The North Channel avoiding N.Ireland and Argyllshire turned left again and then stopped and deposited its fallout without reaching Northumbria. All in all a good trick.[/quote]

I have seen a swedish scientific paper which plotted the plume of fallout and the localized hotspots. It passed over the pripyet marshes, Kaliningrad Northern Poland, parts of lthuania, Latvia, The Aland isles, Bornholm, Southern Sweden, borthern Jutland, Grampian, Argyle, The Rotheram are of the Pennines, N Wales and parts of southern Ireland. It brougt in its wake an epidemic of Childhood leukemia, Thyroid cancer and myeloma of which I am now receiving treatment to alleviate the worst effects. This is something our Government do not want us to know otherwise the population as a whole would completely reject Nuclear Power as an option.

'S Mise le meas
Niall Ban.
18

gus1940,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 10:33:46
#17

Interesting information from the Swedish paper you refer to.

It does, however, raise the question of why we don't hear of continuing sheep movement restrictions in Grampian, Argyll, Rotherham area, N. Wales, S.Ireland and the continental areas you refer to. which brings us back to Sellafield as the source for SW Scotland and Cumbria.
19

Queen D,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 13:54:32
John In bury st.Edmonds, thanks for that.I had never really thought about it until now.
I should have because I have a great interest in a small Clyde island ,Arran , and there were sheep on one side if the island which could not be moved due to caesium fallout.Contaminated milk as well.I believe there was livestock movement on the other side but I can't swear to that.
Now ,if that were true on such a small island( that one half can move and the other can't) I suddenly realise just how suspect that would be.
It would, as someone else ,suggests be more likely to have leaked from Sellafield.
20

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 31/01/2009 15:59:11
I was a regular visitor to Kiev just after the Chernobyl incident. The Ukraine lost ten percent of its agriculture as a result. The sand at the bottom of the Dnieper is contaminated and when I was there it was blowing over the road as it was being deposited under buildings to sequester it. Agricultural land down stream from the Dnieper is irrigated by contaminated river water and there is a risk that over the years there will be a build up of radioactivity on the land.

However, most of the radioactive cloud went over the neighbouring Belorus (White Russia) where most of the disease has occurred. The nuclear lobby has tried to play down the severity of the Chernobyl health problem, but the economic loss cannot be gainsayed.

The Dnieper flows into the Black Sea and thence to the Mediterranean, where if Chernobyl had really melted down it could have damaged the entire tourist industry. Brave lives were lost in dealing with this catastrophy. We should salute them by avoiding another event.

The monetary loss was so great that it is impossible to insure against the ultimate incident and the government has had to indemnify the nuclear industry from the costs of a melt down.

If a spent fuel pond is forgotten around 2080 when generation from a claimed 60 year fuel cycle ends, it dries up and the fuel melts down and catches fire, who will clean up the mess then? In the US there are around 70 ponds filled to capacity, some of it now in dry casks, but no ultimate repository for the contents.

Any one pond losing its electrical supply and cooling water circulation could produce another Chernobyl, sterilising the surrounding land. Is not a decision for the nuclear renaissance the ultimate short-term policy?
21

Seannair,

31/01/2009 19:28:00
Who is Dave Maddox?
22

Eve,

Scotland 01/02/2009 17:49:20
This is lies, pure fiction stories. We've heard stories like this before they weren't true. This is not true. Scotland produces a surplace of energy it's highly unlikely that we'll need import energy in the future. Renewables are the future of energy once we've profected the technolgy we'll be producing more than enoth.

No more nueclear!

It's no safe!

Theres technology failures and theirs human errors that will happen no matter how good technology becomes.

I've been in an office where the lights have gone out the cumputers have swiched themslef off and their was no shortage of power then. What would happen if this happen in a nueclear power station. I wouldn't want to find out.

Radio active waste anyone!!! No one knows how to make unradio active. Burrying it seems to be the only opion. Ground polution is what we'll have.

Oh and Nueclear powers stations are expencive to build.
23

Colin, Glasgow,

02/02/2009 16:32:03
It’s about time the SNP were called out on their anti-nuclear/pro-fossil energy policy.

Renewable resources are being wasted trying to build capacity to replace nuclear stations. This won’t save any CO2 emissions. Renewables should be used to displace fossil fuel, and old nuclear plant should be replaced with new nuclear plant.

The International Energy Agency confirms that nuclear electricity is cheap: competitive with fossil fuel electricity, and cheaper than renewables in most cases. This includes the cost of waste and decommissioning.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1472

Here is a summary of the IEA's levelised cost ($ per MWh) for the main sources of electricity using a 5% discount rate:
Coal 25-50
Gas 37-60
Nuclear 21-31
Wind 35-95
Micro Hydro 40-80
Solar 150

Furthermore the EU’s ExternE study looked at the health and environmental impact of all the main sources of electricity in Europe and concluded that nuclear was essentially as harmless as the cleanest renewables. More to the point it showed that electricity from fossil fuel (or biomass) causes an order of magnitude more deaths than either nuclear or renewables.

http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf

Each coal powerstation causes 200 deaths per year. Between them, the coal powerstations in Scotland will over 40 years cause as many deaths in Scotland as Chernobyl will in the Ukraine and Belarus.

Even the cleanest IGCC coal powerstation causes an order of magnitude more damage to health than nuclear or clean renewables. Even with carbon capture, coal produces 5 to 20 times as much CO2 as nuclear or clean renewables over their lifecycle.

There are two main reasons for the SNP policy as far as I can see: short-term populist votes; and fossil fuel revenue.
24

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 03/02/2009 00:47:22
I think David Maddox is missing the main point here. Whether Scotland has Nuclear or not should be decided perhaps by the SNP or perhaps not. However the decision will be made in an Independent Scotland in Edinburgh
25

Colin, Glasgow,

05/02/2009 20:05:53
Almost 30 years ago Sweden decided to phase out nuclear power, with a target date of 2010.

Today they changed their mind.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=24606

It's time for SNP policy to move beyond the 1970s too.
26

Sanny,

10/02/2009 01:19:18
I am now long retired but, as a young Engineer, I spent the first fifteen years of my career working for the UKAEA - Dounreay, Harwell and Winfrith. Let me just comment as follows: -

There is no such thing a a safe nuclear reactor.

No one yet has the remotest idea on how to deal with the nuclear waste that will be around for tens of thousands of years.

There is no way we can 100% guarantee we can protect nuclear facilities from attacks by sucidal terrorists.

The Holyrood decision to oppose Nuclear was correct. Scotland doesn't need it and certainly doesn't want it. England does not have the legal or moral right to overule the Scottish people in this matter.

If, in the remote future, science learns to control and tap Fusion energy, then and only then should we consider a nuclear future.

Incidentally there is a finite amount of material suitable for use as nuclear fuel, none of which is available in the UK. Have we not learned anything about being dependent for strategic materials on potential unfriendly nations?
27

Sanny,

10/02/2009 01:23:54
24 Colin, Glasgow,02/02/2009 16:32:03
From your comments I can only assume you have no knowledge of the hazards of the nuclear option.

The much vaunted problem with CO2 levels is a hypothesis of very doubtful validity!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

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

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.