Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Salmond's own green guru warns him: Don't rule out nuclear power

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: 06 February 2009
THE head of a new climate-change body that will advise the Scottish Government has disagreed with Alex Salmond's decision not to build nuclear power stations.
Lord Adair Turner, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, said he thinks all options for providing electricity should be left open, including the creation of new nuclear power plants.

The First Minister is strongly opposed to new nuclear s
tations, and has ruled out any new plants.

Speaking to The Scotsman ahead of a visit to Scotland on Monday, when he will give a talk on climate change, Lord Turner said: "It is an emotive issue, but at the UK level, there will be a commitment to nuclear. We think it should not be ruled out.

"The Scottish Government has to make its own decisions, but we think the challenge of dealing with climate change is so big that we should be very wary of ruling out any option that is available."

The Scottish Government is aiming to rely on a mix of renewables and "clean" fossil fuel power stations – which use technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions – to provide the country's electricity.

However, Lord Turner warned that this approach was dependent on the carbon capture and storage technology actually working. It has not yet been proven on a commercial scale.

"What we simply don't know is how complicated it is and what the costs are at a large scale," he said. "That's why we believe it's important to keep all the options going.

"Certainly, if carbon capture and storage worked out much more costly than the best estimates now suggest, then it would be difficult to rule out new nuclear."

Lewis Macdonald, the Scottish Labour energy spokesman, agreed with Lord Turner, and called on the SNP government to rethink its position.

"If we are looking at the kind of low- carbon energy production that we need in future years, it makes absolutely no sense to rule out new nuclear. Carbon capture and storage might produce low-carbon electricity, but we don't know yet.

"What the SNP are at risk of doing is making us reliant on nuclear power from south of the Border, while maintaining a superficial stance of being free of it north of the Border."

However, Mr Salmond said yesterday that the UK government's "obsession" with nuclear power was taking billions of pounds away from clean energy sources.

"Anything you invest – and it will be billions – in nuclear power is billions taken away from clean technology and in renewable technology," Mr Salmond told First Minister's Questions.

Jim Mather, the energy minister, added that renewables backed up by "clean thermal baseload" could meet Scotland's energy needs many times over and create thousands of jobs.

"Scotland doesn't want or need dangerous and unnecessary new nuclear power stations, a view backed by parliament and Scots across the country," he said.

"The risks and soaring costs of decommissioning and the unresolved problem of storage of radioactive waste will burden future generations for thousands of years."

Swedes plan new age of atomic power

SWEDEN yesterday scrapped a 30-year ban on new nuclear power stations.

MPs decided new nuclear reactors were needed, reversing a pledge made in 1980 to phase out the country's existing stations.

Sweden has joined a growing list of countries reassessing nuclear power as source of energy.

The UK government, France and Poland are planning new reactors and Finland is building Europe's first new atomic plant in more than a decade.

Swedish public opinion polls have shown growing support for nuclear energy due to the lack of alternatives to replace the country's ten nuclear plants, that supply about 50 per cent of the country's electricity.

Maud Olofsson, leader of the Centre Party, said: "I'm doing this for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I can live with the fact that nuclear power will be part of our electricity supply system in the foreseeable future."

Lewis Macdonald, Scottish Labour energy spokesman, said Scotland should follow suit.

However, Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Other countries making decisions to pursue the nuclear chimera makes it all the more important that Scotland doesn't get caught up in that game."







Page 1 of 1

 
1

EPS,

Edinburgh 06/02/2009 00:14:47
Nuclear power has had a bad press over the last 20 years, but I believe that the main reason for that bad press is the unjustified association in many people's minds with nuclear arms. Nuclear power (by which I mean fission, not the cleaner fusion that may become possible in the distant future) has its drawbacks, notably the environmental effect of nuclear waste. But fossil fuel power has its drawbacks too, notably the environmental effect of the CO2 waste. We must compare the drawbacks, and the jury is still out on that. Meanwhile, rejecting nuclear power "on principle" is illogical dogma.
2

Wardog™,

06/02/2009 00:16:43


deja vu?
3

,

06/02/2009 00:20:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 06/02/2009 00:24:53


We must cover Scotland, in a Solar Panel Bubble!

Then no-one will hear us, and know what goes on, as we are becoming,..'Quite-the-mad-House' and not the Penthouse!

5

subrosa,

06/02/2009 01:21:10
Wonder if this is another stick to beat Alex Salmond so as Gordon Brown can place his nuclear stations in Scotland and thus avoid upsetting his friends in the south east?

I agree with # 6, if we need one then only one we should have, but as he says, most of what we already have goes our of our country. Great eh?
6

Sanny,

06/02/2009 01:26:45
1 EPS,Edinburgh 06/02/2009 00:14:47

Take it from someone who wasted 15 years as a young Engineer in the Nuclear Research business, Thermo- Nuclear Power is dangerous to humanity and must be avoided. When, or more correctly if, Nuclear Fusion can be safely contained and controlled we can think again but Fission absolutely no!

Apart for the horrendous results of a Chernobyl type accident, the likely hood of which increases with the number of units, there is still the unresolved problem of Active Waste. A problem that will be around for tens of thousands of years.

Finally there is the problem of the limited supply of fuel coupled with a growing demand. I believe their is a greater possibility that we will run out of Uranium long before we run out of oil.

Scotland has an ample source of potential energy in the sea that desperately needs to be developed and soon. Preferably by Scots and Scottish companies. Others, more up to date than I, have calculated that the Pentland Firth alone has potential to generate sufficient energy to supply the whole of the UK and still some to spare.

Do we have the right to put future generations at risk because the Prime Ministers family has a large interest in the Nuclear business?
7

,

06/02/2009 01:27:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

FerryPort,

06/02/2009 03:55:32
"The Scottish Government has to make its own decisions"

That's what the boyo said not me
9

Pilrig,

Livingston 06/02/2009 05:33:30
"don't rule nuclear power"

England may need it !
10

W Smith,

Middle East 06/02/2009 06:29:20
Looks like good news for that 'green' nation Denmark.

"Sweden yesterday scrapped a 30 year ban on new nuclear power stations".

Alex Salmond and the eco-nutters forgot to mention Denmark's national grid is connected to Sweden's nuclear power stations.

If wind power is so reliable Mr Salmond how come the Danes have a back up plan.

Pity we couldn't run the Michelon factory in Dundee only on its wind turbines for a year, Mr Salmond, to test your little wacko nutcase theory.
11

donald,

glasgow 06/02/2009 06:40:01
Scotland does not need nuclear power, nor any Lords.
12

UK007,

06/02/2009 07:08:39
#12 W Smith - Green light for three new (gas fired) power stations to power 4 million homes. The new gas fired power stations will produce around 4 gigawatts of power and will help to secure the future supply of energy for British households.
The new gas-fired sites will be built at Pembroke, West Wales, King's Lynn in Norfolk and Hatfield in Yorkshire.5 February 2009

3 January 2008 Councillors in Kent have voted in favour of building a coal-fired power station, the UK's first for 24 years.(1600MW)
21 December 2008 Britain will not ban the construction of coal-fired power stations while new technology is being developed to cut their carbon emissions........will decide next year on Eon’s application to build a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, Kent.
13

Unimpressed one,

06/02/2009 07:54:11
#15, think you've got your history ar*se about face. Wind power was old technology by the 15th century. Nuclear is definately 20th century technology.

Still no beardie has addressed the problem of how to safely store billions of tons of CO2 for the rest of time. Typical ill-thought out ranting.
14

gus1940,

Edinburgh 06/02/2009 08:09:07
Could the writer explain how Turner can be described as 'Salmond's Own Green Guru'.
15

fred bear,

06/02/2009 09:59:45
"However, Lord Turner warned that this approach was dependent on the carbon capture and storage technology actually working. It has not yet been proven on a commercial scale.

"What we simply don't know is how complicated it is and what the costs are at a large scale," he said. "That's why we believe it's important to keep all the options going.

"Certainly, if carbon capture and storage worked out much more costly than the best estimates now suggest, then it would be difficult to rule out new nuclear.""

I have lost count of the number of times I have made this point on these boards. If CCS does not work, or is massively costly, and if renewables are not capable of providing steady multi GW output (and they aren't unless some silver bullet power storage and release tchnology becomes available), people are going to look very silly if there is no Plan B.
16

carrottop,

Dumfries 06/02/2009 10:05:26

Research began years ago into technology to make safe radio active particles and was making inroads to the extent it was possible to safely hold a treated item but was not able yet to cope with any large scale deactivation. This research should be publicised and funded. Warning have been made that if power costs remain high TB and its like will make a comeback in a big way among the least well off. Strangely most of the anti nuclear brigade seem to come from the comfortably well off.
17

fred bear,

06/02/2009 10:06:46
#1

"But fossil fuel power has its drawbacks too, notably the environmental effect of the CO2 waste."

Not to mention the radoilogical discharge from coal fired stations due to the naturally occurring thorium and uranium in the coal. This discharge exceeds the operational radiological discharge from a similarly sized nuclear plant.
18

The west awake,

Argyll 06/02/2009 10:06:56
There is absolutely nothing "crackpot" about Carbon Capture and Storage.
Carbon capture has been pioneered by Scottish based Doosan Babcock, it is a technology ready to implement right now.
The storage element is the one which has not been fully tested as yet, although there have been a few successful trials in other countries. The delay in implementing a full trial in the UK is the fault of the UK Govt. Why they have delayed this in my view is not a technical decision but a political one. I refuse to believe any reasonable, unbiased engineering expert would tell them it is not viable now.
The oil industry already pumps other substances back into emptying oil reservoirs, it is not difficult for them to do this. Pumping carbon into empty oil reservoirs may hold challenges, but essentially there is no reason to assume it will not work.
19

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 10:10:01
#1 EPS

"Meanwhile, rejecting nuclear power "on principle" is illogical dogma."

Unless, as is normally the case, there is logic behind the principle.

We do not have the means to dispose of nuclear waste, not now, and due to the nature of timescales invovled, not ever.

The arguments for nuclear power, are based upon an attitude of sticking our heads in the sand to leave the problem for future generations.

To oppose this is not illogical; it is responsible.
20

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 10:10:51
Central Scrutinizer (18): "FACT: Britain's nuclear power industry was invoked specifically for the production of nuclear weapons."

That was certainly true initially, but it's important to remember that a 1 GW fission power station produces roughly 200 kg of Plutonium per year. In other words, military needs were satisfied very quickly, probably by the mid-1950s. It's precisely this reason that fission core waste is a problem: we wouldn't need to store the Plutonium produced by Uranium fission if there were a military need.

21

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 10:26:31
#12 W Smith

"Alex Salmond and the eco-nutters forgot to mention Denmark's national grid is connected to Sweden's nuclear power stations.

If wind power is so reliable Mr Salmond how come the Danes have a back up plan."


Perhaps you should do some more research.

Denmark is currently being hailed by the US as a model of energy independence that it should follow.

The thing about a multi-national energy grid is that some countries can import energy from others. However, this kind of system can only work if other countries are exporting.

This is the case with Denmark. In 2006, while Europe's overall energy imports rose 2.4%, Denmark's energy imports fell to -8%. In other words it exported 8% of its overall energy.

While it did import energy from Sweden, this was then exported to Germany.

Denmark are not involved in this grid as a "back up", as you say, but to generate income.

Such would be the case with Scotland once the North Sea grid is operational.
22

fred bear,

06/02/2009 10:26:34
#22
"I refuse to believe any reasonable, unbiased engineering expert would tell them it is not viable now."

In that case, inform us of how much it will cost! Show your workings, do not provide a finger in the air guess.

"The storage element is the one which has not been fully tested as yet..."

How can it be viable if a key component of the proposal has not been fully tested? How do you test that the CO2 stays where you put it?
23

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 10:29:36
16 Unimpressed one

"#15, think you've got your history ar*se about face. Wind power was old technology by the 15th century. Nuclear is definately 20th century technology."

You have more or less confirmed the point that Rulesbutnotrulers was making.

This is now the 21st century, and we now have the technology to adandon the nuclear folly.
24

fred bear,

06/02/2009 10:35:13
#25
"This is the case with Denmark. In 2006, while Europe's overall energy imports rose 2.4%, Denmark's energy imports fell to -8%. In other words it exported 8% of its overall energy."

Maybe you should do some more research. Because Denmark exports more power than it uses doesn't mean that it is energy independent. Denmark could not run with the proportion of wind power that they do if they were not linked to massive hydro over capacity in Norway, available at the flick of a switch. Even then, much of the wind output has to be dumped on the German gird at a loss.
25

Colin, Glasgow,

06/02/2009 11:06:50
Talorthane #27,”This is now the 21st century, and we now have the technology to abandon the nuclear folly.”

Did you read the second part of the article about Sweden?

Sweden is one of the greenest states in Europe, with one of the lowest carbon footprints per capita. They also have some the cheapest electricity rates. They have been trying to find replacements for nuclear for the past quarter of a century. But now have concluded that their most environmentally benign option is to keep nuclear power. It produces about half their electricity, with hydro producing the other half. They could expand hydro but that would destroy their remaining undeveloped river valleys.

As long as nuclear waste is managed responsibly, and kept away from the biosphere for as long as it takes to decay, it causes no significant environmental harm at all.

Not only is nuclear power significantly less harmful than fossil fuel (whether using carbon capture or not) it is also less harmful than renewable biomass. Its overall impact is comparable to hydro and not much worse than wind power.

http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf

The Scottish Government position is roughly where the Swedes were in 1980. Fortunately there is some time for the SNP to change its mind.

If Sweden cannot find a better alternative than nuclear power, I doubt that Scotland can. The only reason to avoid nuclear is the vested interest to keep over-using fossil fuel.

While marine renewables and wind in Scotland might be able to perform the role of hydro in Sweden (though they are less flexible and largely untested) there is still a significant need for clean, cheap baseload. If we are to move away from petrol to electric transport; and away from gas to electric heating, we will need yet more eletricity.

There is little doubt that carbon capture will make coal power more expensive than nuclear, given that it requires significantly more coal to be burned and has extra capital cost.

I am certain that t
26

Rufus-T-Firefly,

06/02/2009 11:07:37
It looks like Sweden is going Nuclear............

"Nuclear reactors are to be built in Sweden for the first time in nearly 30 years after the Government decided to abandon a decades-old commitment to phase out the power source.

Sweden joins a list of EU countries that have chosen nuclear energy under pressure to diversify from fossil fuels and meet tough climate-change targets for cutting CO2 emissions.

The dramatic policy switch showed that even in a country where popular opinion has been against nuclear power previously — and one with extensive hydroelectric resources — atomic generation is seen as part of an emissions-free energy strategy."

Read it and weep NatZ..........

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5671753.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093
27

Colin, Glasgow,

06/02/2009 11:09:57
[continued...]

I am certain that the anti-nuclear agenda of the SNP is little to do with the environment and more to do with securing uninformed votes and income from fossil fuel.
28

Rufus-T-Firefly,

06/02/2009 11:13:49
32 Colin, Glasgow,

It is more than that.............

If the UK Government said it was scrapping Nuclear Power and going down the renewables route, the SNP would start extolling its virtues and would be telling us all how wonderful it was that it reduced CO2 emissions.
29

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 06/02/2009 11:15:15
1 EPS

"But fossil fuel power has its drawbacks too, notably the environmental effect of the CO2 waste."

That argument only works if you believe that man-made CO2 emissions are important. There is no hard evidence to support that theory so let's not let it get in the way of things like clean coal technology.

Incidently, to decribe CO2 as "waste" is quite wrong.
30

The west awake,

Argyll 06/02/2009 11:16:32
fred bear - I was talking technically about CCS, I don't know how much it will cost, just like you don't know the true cost of Nuclear if you include all elements.
How much will it cost to decommission a nuclear plant? See the 2008 BBC article below;
"The cost of decommissioning nuclear power sites could rise "significantly" above the £73bn already estimated, an MPs' committee has said.
The Public Accounts Committee said the costs for work over the next five years had already risen "steeply".
It added that the "uncertainty" over costs far in the future was understandable, but was "difficult to justify" for imminent work.
The government said it had warned that short-term estimates would rise."
- Personally I'm even skeptical about those figures, given the UK Govt. are biased toward the nuclear industry. I'm sure there plenty more estimates far in excess of these.
Regarding the viability of carbon storage, I accept your point that it has not been FULLY tested and therefore cannot be describes as fully viable as yet, however I repeat that it has been tested in principle successfully in other countries and that most relevant engineers would agree that there is no reason to assume it will not work in the environment we need. The SNP want to proceed to full test, however they have faced procrastination and prevarication from the UK Govt. in this respect.
Oil, gas and other substances have remained sealed, under pressure, in reservoirs for millions of years, although I am not belittling the challenges in reservoir management, carbon, once put in and then sealed, should stay in.
31

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 11:23:48
#30 Colin

"As long as nuclear waste is managed responsibly, and kept away from the biosphere for as long as it takes to decay, it causes no significant environmental harm at all."

As you agree, the nuclear fuel argument is all dependent on the safe storage of the waste, for tousands and thousands of years.

There are currently relatively few countries with nuclear power stations, so relatively few countries have the responsibility of finding sites that will hopefully provide this safe storage for the thousands of years that are required.

If the developed nations do not take the lead by switching from nuclear power to the development of renewables now, there will be a growing number of nations trying to find safe sites for more and more waste.

Where will these new, safe sites be found in 50 years time?...and 50 years after that?...and every year for thousands of years to come?
32

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 11:25:22
The west awake (35): `"The cost of decommissioning nuclear power sites could rise "significantly" above the £73bn already estimated, an MPs' committee has said.'

That figure is an estimate attempting to price decommissioning work over several decades, in which case the cost to the UK taxpayer will be less than the current cost of RBS and HBOS. To give another comparison, the UK cost of incapacity benefit is roughly £12 billion per year. There's also interesting fact that the cost per site is much higher than estimated by the US, who usually estimate $300 million per site.
33

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 11:27:00
#36 continued

Sweden has made a choice, based on its own political perception of its needs. It is not a sign of what every other nation should do.

Some countries may explore all options, and find that abandoning nuclear power would be too difficult to sell to their public.

But not all countries are in that position. And these countries need to take the responsibility for the development of renewable energy for the future.

Scotland is in that fortunate position where it does not need to rely on nuclear power.
34

Rufus-T-Firefly,

06/02/2009 11:34:11
38 Talorthane,06/02/2009 11:27:00
Sweden has made a choice, based on its own political perception of its needs. It is not a sign of what every other nation should do.
==================================================

Good point.

We should only follow the Scandanavian countries when it suits the SNP Agenda.
35

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 11:39:59
#39 Rufus

Scotland, or any other country, should only follow the example of other nations when the comparison is relevent and it is appropriate to do so.

In many cases, a comparison with Norway or Denmark or Sweden, may be perfectly legitimate.

In the case of nuclear power, Norway, Denmark and Sweden have completely different approaches.

Why do you seem to suggest that Scotland should ignore Norway and Denmark, but adopt Sweden as an example?
36

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 11:40:06
Talorthane (36): "If the developed nations do not take the lead by switching from nuclear power to the development of renewables now, there will be a growing number of nations trying to find safe sites for more and more waste."

It's interesting to estimate how much high-level waste is produced, and it's fairly small. A group of nuclear engineers at the University of Michigan estimate it here:

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html

The key statistic is that, if the US generated all of its electricity via fission, then the waste generated would be 40g per person per year. The mathematical details are provided, and seem to be correct. It's an interesting site.
37

John S,

06/02/2009 11:45:16
A forgotten problem with nuclear generation power stations is they are base load,they cannot follow the grid demand and rely on some form of back up in Scotland this is comes from our fossil fuel power stations and to a lesser extent our Hydro generation.

Quote: During inevitable low wind periods, the National Grid would do what it did this Christmas when half the nuclear power stations in this country were out of action - they would simply start up existing coal or gas stations (already built and paid for or their replacements), which are held in readiness for this very purpose to back up nuclear. Nuclear simply is not base load - these nuclear power stations must stop both in an emergency and for regularly planned reasons and therefore themselves need back up.Unquote.January 19,2008

Does this mean that if Scotland has another nuclear power station we would rely on our present fossil fuel generators for back up or built some form of back up generation (fossil fuel ?) or import electricity which England does at the moment ?
We would still need fossil fuel generation or some type of generation as back up for the nuclear power stations plus to follow the grid demand which varies during any 24 hour period, this cannot be nuclear because they will be running at base load.
38

Rufus-T-Firefly,

06/02/2009 11:45:50
40 Talorthane

I am not saying we should follow any countries (full stop).
39

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 06/02/2009 11:49:48
#41 Do you think 40g per person per year is insignificant? Remember that stuff remains deadly for tens of thousands of years. How much waste is actually produced overall?
40

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 11:51:20
John S (42): "A forgotten problem with nuclear generation power stations is they are base load"

It's certainly true that nuclear electricity generation is not usually designed to adjust output, but France copes quite well with 70% of its electricity generation via fission. Still, it's an important point, which is discussed in more detail here:

http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=45
41

The west awake,

Argyll 06/02/2009 12:01:52
Fairfax - The whole cost estimate issue is extremely complex, unlike the technical issue of CCS which is comparatively simple.
I think Scotland can have a non-nuclear future if we can get rid of UK interference in our energy choices. The UK Govt. has stalled CCS and offshore wind and wave and tidal power (the Crown Estate has only now sparked itself into life to allow marine energy to proceed). This has allowed, for example, the Portuguese to be the first to install Scotland's Pelamis wave energy generator!
As far as renewable energy in Scotland is concerned the UK Govt has acted/is acting as a brake on development, due, for me, to political reasons rather than technical. Left to them we could potentially be looking at another wind turbine fiasco, where Scotland lost out to Denmark, which is now making sheds of money from turbine manufacture.
42

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 12:07:50
Luigiana (44): "Do you think 40g per person per year is insignificant?"

No, but I do think it's perfectly possible to manage.

"Remember that stuff remains deadly for tens of thousands of years. How much waste is actually produced overall?"

If we use the 40g figure for the UK, assuming that all electricity was via nuclear generation, then we would
produce some 2400 tonnes per year. Since it's more than 90% Uranium, that's roughly 125 cubic metres per year. At present, we produce only 15% of our electricity via fission, so that's less than 20 cubic metres of waste per year -- the volume of a small room.

It's also worth remembering that we don't have to simply store it as waste: we can recycle some for use as fuel, in which Britain had some earlier expertise.
43

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 12:08:01
#41 Fairfax

"It's interesting to estimate how much high-level waste is produced, and it's fairly small."

"The key statistic is that, if the US generated all of its electricity via fission, then the waste generated would be 40g per person per year."

It doesn't sound alot when they present it that way.

However, with a US population of 300 million, that works out at about at 12,000 metric tonnes of nuclear waste every year, in the US alone.
44

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 12:11:21
The west awake (46): "Fairfax - The whole cost estimate issue is extremely complex, unlike the technical issue of CCS which is comparatively simple."

That's certainly true. Still, it's probably fair to say that it's roughly the cost of 2-3 Scottish banks over 50 years.

"I think Scotland can have a non-nuclear future if we can get rid of UK interference in our energy choices. "

As an English academic, with friends and family in Scotland, I agree. More to the point, if Scotland assumes the cost of RBS and HBOS, then England should certainly be able to afford its nuclear generation more easily.
45

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 12:16:42
Talorthane (48): "However, with a US population of 300 million, that works out at about at 12,000 metric tonnes of nuclear waste every year, in the US alone."

That's correct. At a density of roughly 19 tonnes per cubic metre (it's 90% Uranium), that's a volume of some 630 cubic metres. A 100 sq metre house has a volume of 240 cubic metres (2.4m ceiling height), so the waste production for the US would be roughly 3 houses per year. There is also the possibility of nuclear reprocessing, since much of that material is potentially useful for further generation.
46

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 12:24:06
#50 Fairfax

Do you believe that all of these yearly three-house-size quantities should be stored in the same central location, or spread out in different locations?

DO you think that each country should have their own storage sites, or work together towards a international storage site?

Should nations be obliged by international law to be responsible for their own nulear waste, or be able to pay other countries to take over this responsibility?
47

John S,

06/02/2009 12:26:44
#45 Fairfax, I am writing as far as Scotland is concerned and its internal load demand and capacity.
Let us build another nuclear power station we will then have 2400MW capacity incl Torness, we still need back up for these nuclear power stations generation plus generation flexibility to follow the grid varying grid demand or import ?
......but France copes quite well with 70% of its electricity. It depends who one quotes:- What he also failed to say is that nuclear is so inflexible that at night the French reactors, which can't be readily switched off, must export surplus power to neighbouring European countries like UK, Germany and Belgium to keep the lights on. He also failed to mention the 3000 x 1.6 MW emergency diesel generators in private hands in France that operate alongside the special EJP tariff that encourages consumers to switch off their demand from the French grid when it's nuclear power stations are unavailable. Even the Giant CERN nuclear particle accelerator is influenced to do this. ::::http://tinyurl.com/658ylz

Luckily we had spare fossil fuel generation for the time Hunterston 'B' nuclear power station was out of commission for nearly a year. May 21, 2007

A problem also is if/when Scotlands demand falls to say 2000MW during the summer and we are running 2 x nuclear power stations at 2400MW and also during the night when demand falls export the surplus and we still need flexible generation.
The question is does Scotland need another nuclear PS or fossil fuel PS ?
48

Arfur,

06/02/2009 12:31:22
Not needed and not wanted by the vast majority of Scots.
49

LEAL,

06/02/2009 12:34:15
46 the west awake,
I think you'll find that Denmark has a population similair to Scotlands and thus is to small and pathetic to have any energy policy at all.Its part of Sweden.
50

Colin, Glasgow,

06/02/2009 12:34:40
Talorthane #36

Locations for the safe disposal of nuclear waste may be fairly commonplace. I looked into this a while ago when there was talk of allowing communities to choose whether they host disposal sites. Instinctively I was opposed to this because I though the choice of site should be made on scientific grounds rather than politics. But it turns out that the hydrological and geological criteria are probably fairly common in the UK.

Furthermore, the quantity of waste is relatively (and absolutely) small as Fairfax #41 points out. Globally speaking, a few million cubic yards is not a lot of space.

Consider in December a single coal plant in Tennessee leaked 2.6 _billion_ cubic yards of unregulated toxic residue.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/tennessee-coal-ash-slurry-spill-48-times-bigger-than-exxon-valdez-spill.php

In comparison to amount of hazardous chemical waste which industry produces on our behalf (which never disappears), the problem of nuclear waste is small and manageable. The hazard from nuclear waste reduces quite rapidly over time as the most radioactive isotopes decay in the shortest time.

The philosophy of keeping the hazardous nuclear material away from the biosphere until it decays is considerably more responsible than other industries.
51

The west awake,

Garelochhead 06/02/2009 12:35:23
fairfax - "if Scotland assumes the cost of RBS and HBOS, then England should certainly be able to afford its nuclear generation more easily."

- Bit of a cheap shot F. I could easily retort that England has been more than accommodating about taking its share of Scotland's oil since the early 70s. So accommodating in fact that it seems extremely reluctant to give it up!
Why don't we agree that a velvet divorce is the best option all round?
52

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 12:35:30
Talorthane (51): "Do you believe that all of these yearly three-house-size quantities should be stored in the same central location, or spread out in different locations?"

In different locations. If they were actually stored together, in a big cube say, then meltdown would occur. I emphasize that the reason for the 3 house image is to provide visual clarity, not a suggestion for storage!

One key reason for different locations is the risk of nuclear proliferation. To my mind, this is far more worrying than waste, as it was to nuclear pioneer Ted Taylor:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1996/07/00_taylor_nuclear-power.htm

His key estimate is that some 200 kg of Plutonium are produced per gigawatt power generation per year; for comparison, 4 kg is suitable for a weapon, so this corresponds to 50 bombs per GW capacity per year. The UK currently produces some 11 GW via fission, which corresponds to some 500 bombs per year. For this reason, diffusing storage is better.

"Should nations be obliged by international law to be responsible for their own nulear waste, or be able to pay other countries to take over this responsibility?"

The waste is potentially fuel to any nation with reprocessing capability, so I would say the latter is acceptable, although law is not my field.
53

The west awake,

Argyll 06/02/2009 12:41:20
Leal - Given that Denmark is "small and pathetic" (also much better off than us incidentally) it follows it must be desperate to join up with some "big" country? Maybe England perhaps?
Why do you reckon there are so many "small and pathetic" nations, like Ireland, for example, who have given up their "big" status and seem far from keen and getting it back?
54

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 12:43:08
The west awake (56): "- Bit of a cheap shot F."

Agreed. I'm too grumpy before lunch.

"I could easily retort that England has been more than accommodating about taking its share of Scotland's oil since the early 70s."

It's technically UK oil, not Scottish oil, although it would become Scottish on independence obviously. There's also the uncomfortable estimate that Treasury income due to oil has roughly been balanced by higher public expenditure in Scotland. Still, that's another debate.

"So accommodating in fact that it seems extremely reluctant to give it up!"

The Labour Party doesn't want to give up Scotland, but I think that's the sadly renewable resource of Scottish Labour voters rather than oil. I would say that the general English view is that, if Scotland wishes to secede from the UK, then it should vote decisively and do so. I certainly support Scottish secession, provided debt is suitable arranged.
55

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 12:58:41
Colin

"Instinctively I was opposed to this because I though the choice of site should be made on scientific grounds rather than politics. But it turns out that the hydrological and geological criteria are probably fairly common in the UK."

Fairfax

"In different locations. If they were actually stored together, in a big cube say, then meltdown would occur."

This is the biggest issue for me.

OK, maybe we can find enough safe storage sites at present to store this waste as safely as possible.

But every year, each country that is producing nuclear waste will have to identify new locations for this safe storage, and to maintain this safe storage.

With the continual increase in the number of storage sites, this will also increase the security risk, not only of accident but of sabotage by one country or terrorist group within another country.

This continual need for new sites will also, at some stage, compromise the decision making over where these sites should be. It may be that there are plenty suitable sites at present, in the UK, if this is true. But that may not be the case in other coutries where the geology is very different. It may also not always be the case in the future for the UK as more and more suitable sites have already been used.

This continual need for new sites will also increase the costs of the management of nuclear waste. With more and more sites, more and more people will have to be employed solely in maintaining this security. At some point the cost will become unjustifiable, but by then it will be too late to change our minds because we will be stuck with what is already there.
56

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 13:01:09
John S (52): "Let us build another nuclear power station we will then have 2400MW capacity incl Torness, we still need back up for these nuclear power stations generation plus generation flexibility to follow the grid varying grid demand or import ?"

That's true, although some load following is apparently now possible, depending on design. I agree that some fossil fuel backup is also necessary.

"The question is does Scotland need another nuclear PS or fossil fuel PS ?"

I suppose the answer is neither, so long as Scotland is willing to import power from elsewhere if needed. To my mind, another coal plant would make sense for Scotland, particularly since Scotland has large coal reserves.

57

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 13:04:46
Talorthane (60): "With the continual increase in the number of storage sites, this will also increase the security risk, not only of accident but of sabotage by one country or terrorist group within another country."

That's certainly true, and worries me also. As I mentioned above, the risks of proliferation are frightening.
58

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 06/02/2009 13:04:54
Any engineer with half a brain cell working already knows that if we wish to keep the lights on we need nuclear generation.
Salmond and Mather have shown time and again that they know nothing about energy or what the Scottish people think.
Waste storgae is easily handled with the "Geomelt system" whereas carbon, which can be captured ok can't as yet be stored in underground formations ok. The offshore industry have used water injection for many years to make marginal reservoirs viable. If the water disperses through the formation no harm is done. We simply don't know what will happen to carbon or what effect it will have.
Regarding base load, coal power stations are also used for this as their output can only be ramped up and down a little as the boilers need to be kept hot.
Excess steam is simply vented off the same as nuclear power staions do.
The eejits that think wind power can do the trick also think that "The pigs are fed and ready to fly"
59

Scottish 'N British,

06/02/2009 13:48:17
Time is running out for Salmon. He needs to take a step back and a reality check.

Glib put-downs in Parliament and to the media aren't good enough anymore.

The Committee on Climate Change, a body set up to advise him on green matters, tell him he shouldn't exclude nuclear.

This follows similar advice from his Council of Econonic Advisers, another influential group with Salmon's backing.

It's Time, first minister, to shut up and start listening to the experts.


60

Colin, Glasgow,

06/02/2009 14:07:19
Talorthane #60 “But every year, each country that is producing nuclear waste will have to identify new locations for this safe storage, and to maintain this safe storage.”

The likelihood is that there would be only one deep geological repository for the UK. (I suppose possibly two, if Scotland was independent.) The waste flasks would be spaced so there would be no possibility of overheating.

The typical proposal involves vitrifying the waste (turning it into solid glass) encasing it in steel and copper flasks and embedding it in clay within a rock repository a few hundred metres below ground. The purpose of the clay is to inhibit the passage of water. Water permeates through saturated clay at a rate of about 1 metre per million years, so the theory is that no matter what happens to the flask, the waste won’t go anywhere fast, and by the time it does it will have decayed.

The design of the site is such that it would not need active management after it is sealed. It would be used for perhaps 50-100 years and then sealed indefinitely. In theory somebody could attempt to dig up the waste to extract materials from it, but this would be difficult, dangerous for the intruders, and could not really be accomplished covertly.
61

The west awake,

Argyll 06/02/2009 14:43:56
Scottish and Brit = Ach, lets face it buddy, if Salmond said black was black, you'd check a colour chart.
I dread to think that the day will come when I, even as a die-hard Nationalist and SNP supporter, support EVERYTHING the SNP does and deride EVERYTHING Labour or the other Unionists do. I support the SNP because I am agreement with the majority of their policies, not them all.
The SNP is not perfect and Labour do (very) rarely come up with a good idea or 2.
Try it.
62

salmondella,

Uk 06/02/2009 14:44:27
There's an old saying in politics - never say never.
Who knows, one day nuclear power may be made safe and to oppose outright is just tilting at windmills.
63

Colin, Glasgow,

06/02/2009 14:45:20
#64 “It's Time, first minister, to shut up and start listening to the experts.”

Indeed. It is clear that Salmond was being badly advised at least as far back as 2006 when the SNP published their “Scottish Energy Review”. This document largely sought opinion from anti-nuclear sources and was manifestly biased against nuclear power. It made no attempt to present a balanced account of the options.

It was clear that this would come back to bite them.

64

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 14:49:25
67 salmondella

"There's an old saying in politics - never say never.
Who knows, one day nuclear power may be made safe and to oppose outright is just tilting at windmills."

But, of course, you are advocating that we NEVER remove nuclear from our range of options.
65

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 15:03:15
#68 Colin

Is it not true to say that most of the evidence that suggests there is a need for nuclear power, is from a UK perspective.

The UK, or more presicely England, is in greater need of nuclear power than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

From a purely Scottish perspective, there is clearly much less of a need for nuclear power than there is for England.

From this perspective, it is not a question of whether we can or cannot achieve energy dependence, but how much do we need to generate to get to that position.

The myth that is continually put forward is that if Scotland is unable to generate its full need for electricity, all of the time, then "the lights will go out".

But this is, of course, simple scare-mongering. All that would happen is that we will have to import power for those times, like most other countries in Europe already do.

With the development of the North Sea grid, and improved, multiple connections between Scotland and other parts of the UK, Scotland will be able to co-operate with other countries to ensure a constant supply.

But many believe that that will not be necessary as Scotland will eventually be in position to take care of its own needs all of the time, while exporting the surplus.
66

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 15:04:35
the above should read..

"From this perspective, it is not a question of whether we can or cannot achieve energy independence, but how much do we need to generate to get to that position."
67

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 06/02/2009 15:28:33
Talorthane seems to have a short and selective memory.
It is only a couple of years since Europe had massive power cuts due to grid instability which originated in Germany because of their belief in windpower.
The truth is that the lights will go out unless we replace our old coal and nuclear power stations with new ones.
From an engineering point of view we should try to have four major sources of generation in order to ensure security of supply, therefore as well as coal we need nuclear. Nuclear is certainly the safer option.
How many people have died as a result of the British nuclear industry over the last 50 years as against the coal industry ?
Does Talorthane really believe that it is ok for us to import nuclear generated electricity from elsewhere !!!
68

John S,

06/02/2009 15:31:07
#61 Fairfax. I agree given a choice Scotland would be better with another coal plant or gas fired power station.
I think the UK politicians have to distinguish between Scotland and England's electricity needs.
For England with its larger min base load nuclear would be more useful.

The decision to build Torness was not based on a need for generating capacity and Hunterston 'B' was built partly to provide cheap electricity for the aluminium smelter at Invergordon

#63 nabodican,
Lights going out in Scotland ? when ? I don't think so.
Scot-Eng Grid Transfer:- example
23 Jan 2009 2859MW 07:03:00 GMT
1 Feb 2009 777MW 23:00:00 GMT
3 Feb 2009 2735MW 09:22:00 GMT
3 Feb 2009 636MW 22:49:00 GMT

Which shows we have spare capacity to provide for the increase in demand from England. We export daily.
69

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 06/02/2009 15:31:11
# 72 - You really are very stupid as well as ill informed and illiterate.
70

Talorthane,

06/02/2009 15:40:43
73 nabodican

"It is only a couple of years since Europe had massive power cuts due to grid instability which originated in Germany because of their belief in windpower"

There are very few peopl who are suggesting that Scotland should rely on one source of energy.

The current plan is to have a wide range of different energy sources, and a large number of smaller scale production points.


As for importing foreign nuclear energy, that may not be necessary, but even if it is I see nothing wrong in doing so.

The issue is not about those plants that already exist, as they are already in operation.

I don't want to see any more plants constructed, but if they're there they may as well be used.
71

Colin, Glasgow,

06/02/2009 15:41:43
Talorthane #70,

“Is it not true to say that most of the evidence that suggests there is a need for nuclear power, is from a UK perspective.”

The immediate case for nuclear is stronger in the UK as a whole than in Scotland, that is true. This is mainly because Torness will run until 2023. All the other nuclear plant in the UK apart from Sizewell B will have closed by then. So Scotland has time on its side.

Also Scotland is better served by renewables than the UK as a whole.

However there is no possibility that Scotland will derive all of its energy from renewables before Torness closes. In fact, it is fairly implausible that Scotland would generate all its energy from renewables in less than 50 years. And it may never at all.

So the question is whether you want to burn fossil fuel or use nuclear power. It seems you think implicitly that nuclear power is less preferable than fossil fuel. But I would look at it the other way. Nuclear power is preferable to fossil fuel. It causes less damage to health and the environment. It is as cheap, and getting relatively cheaper while the cost of fossil fuel increases.

As I pointed out in another thread, the International Energy Agency confirms that nuclear electricity is cheap: competitive with fossil fuel electricity, and cheaper than renewables in most cases. This is based on current powerstations and includes the cost of waste and decommissioning. New powerstations should be cheaper.

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

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

Given
72

Colin, Glasgow,

06/02/2009 15:42:37
[continued]

Given that nuclear power is cheaper and safer than fossil fuel what sort of government would prefer fossil fuel?


Note, all of the above information (#77) was available at the time of the SNP’s Scottish Energy Review, yet it was ignored. The SNP chose overtly biased anti-nuclear sources to justify their position.
73

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 06/02/2009 15:44:15
#74 - MW is a capacity, you would need MWh over a given period to be useful. You seem to be missing the point however, we are talking about what will happen if we don't replace our old nukes.
Also you will find it interesting to look back the records over the last 10 years to see how close we were on several occasions to having major power cuts.
74

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 06/02/2009 15:54:35
#74 You are talking about current figures -everybody else above is talking about the future. The flow of electricity will reverse in about 2013 and after that the need will be so great for imports to Scotland that the connector will not be able to cope and the lights will start going out north of the border but not in England.

At that point we will all look bloody fools for having electing a government who put its pathetic "greenness" above the needs of the country.
75

Scottish 'N British,

06/02/2009 16:26:27
68

Colin, good point.

Nuclear has to be in the mix. Salmon is only putting off the inevitable, surely? We're in a right mess if he does, More importantly, the clock is ticking.

He has advisers, appointed by HIM, yet he won't take their advice.

Good managers lead by taking responsibility by making decisions. They do so after collecting all the facts and instinctively know when to bite the bullet and accept the advice.

I suggest that even a mediocre manager wouldn't ignore people who are, after all, "experts".

So what does that say about the man supposedly in charge of our country's future energy strategy?



76

Scottish 'N British,

06/02/2009 16:28:17
72

"Experts"

...as in the ones selected PERSONALLY by Salmon to advise him....?

Thud.
77

Fairfax,

06/02/2009 16:46:27
nabodican (79): "#74 - MW is a capacity, you would need MWh over a given period to be useful. "

Both power ratings and energy production figures are useful. There is really no need to avoid them, so long as their definitions are understood. In any case, from the physics perspective, it's often more useful to have the power output (in W) to hand, since it's then easy to multiply by 3 x 10^7 to get the annual energy production (in J).
78

Scottish 'N British,

06/02/2009 16:50:07
72

I'm still laughing. Talk aboot own goals.

The weekend has come just in time for you.

Hopefully Salmon's appointes are still hard at work, lookling oot for the country, as the FM's priority is scoffing on scotch pies and watching the Hearts.

Embarrassing that ANYONE, especially peeps who purport to be Scots, could ever defend such nonsense.

lol
79

fred bear,

06/02/2009 17:06:33
#35

As I thought. You have no idea how much it will cost, so you don't know if it is economically viable. The storage end of it has not yet been demonstrated, so you don't know if it is technically viable. Being able to extract the CO2 from the end of the boiler and liquify it is very far from showing it is technically viable.
80

fred bear,

06/02/2009 17:30:08
I am astonished that so many people are willing to move forward with a plan which includes no proven source of base load power generation in the multi GW range.
81

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/02/2009 17:42:35
"Lord Adair Turner, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, said he thinks all options for providing electricity should be left open, including the creation of new nuclear power plants..."

MY GOD!!!!

A greenie who realises that there is more to the equation than simply refraining from using energy---and further, one who's willing to accept that if we get rid of coal and gas fired power stations, we are going to need something to put in it's place and that a bunch of windmills in a remote place in the Highlands simply will not do!

Maybe he's found a razor and had a shave!
82

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 06/02/2009 19:47:48
This is what we need. Lots of CO2 free nuclear power now and the waste can be put on rockets and fired at the sun (the sun won't even blink). If the rockets are launched from un-inhabited areas then one or two accidents on take off is no big problem.
83

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 06/02/2009 19:50:24
Since the shuttle program is now at the end of its life, instead of selling them off to eccentric millionairres or night club owners, load them up with as much nuclear waste as they can carry and blast them off into the sun.
84

John S,

06/02/2009 22:39:53
#80 Miss H I disagree, Scotland has a total of 7200MW of base load plus Hydro and renewables for a total of 10.5GW and in 2015 we will loose Hunterston (reduced to 840MW) and in 2016 maybe Cockenzie (1200MW)lowering the base load total to 5200MW plus Hydro etc.Peterhead can produce 2400MW but is limited to 1,550MW due to tranmission line.In 2011 we should have 5GW of renewables plus base load and in 2020 8GW of renewables plus base load.
If the new proposed coal fired PS goes ahead at Hunterston(1600MW) and on load in 2016 the base load capacity will go upto to 6800MW plus 880MW from Peterhead ? plus Hydro etc

At the moment we have 7200MW base load and still can export almost 3000MW at any time during the winter as the figures in #74 show.
Nuclear for England has its advantages due to the much larger base load.Torness may run until 2028/2033.
85

james 1st,

hamilton nz 08/02/2009 09:18:53
if i still lived in scotland i would vote snp, but i still think that a new nuclear power station is a good idea

 

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.