Share |
The truths they don't want you to read....

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Nuclear power stations

I'm delighted to see the Scottish Government putting it's foot down against the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland. It has my total support for it's stance.

However, the Scottish Government also needs to take early decisions on how it is to ensure continuity of power supplies by making decisions on the applications for renewable energy developments, and also to take other concomitant decisions on other sources.

The prevarication and delay in London - and hence the paralysis in the previous Scottish administration - means that the options are becoming time limited, and that difficult decisions are now becoming urgent, very urgent, or long overdue.

It is likely that we will have to have a mix of old and new technology, with an emphasis on testing and developing new renewable sources, as well as relying on some imports, but this is not the time for delay.


Anonymous said...

First it's no! to more nuclear power stations in Scotland and then hopefully it will then be no! to having nuclear weapons on the Clyde.

I'm sure even the SNP can't believe what's possible with just a one seat majority.

All political parties bang on about wanting to bring about 'change' if they are voted into power but in Scotland at present you can feel it in the air.

Anonymous said...

Yes, even Gordon Brown (the England football teams's biggest supporter - Beckham was at No.10 yesterday) is still saying he's going to introduce big changes now that he's PM.

Any changes he makes will be changes to what he and Tony have come up with over the past 10 years. What's all that about?

It's simply an admission they've got it wrong for the past 10 years.

Anonymous said...

If Labour had won in Scotland with a decent majority it would have been a different story.
Lose your post offices but win half a dozen nuclear reactors.
Wonder how it will go in England when they wake up to the fact that the Scot in Downing Street is giving them more nukes but wouldn't get away with trying it north of the border?

Anonymous said...

You hit it on the head 'delighted'.

All I can say is Vive la difference!

I hope that's spelt correctly bye the way - I didn't even get an 'O' level in French....

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when you get technological illiterates in power, and an entire nation of folk whose technological literacy extends no further than using the remote for their telly. Of course, the defective and frankly corrupt course of planning approval for 'windfarms' surely contributes to this evil public policy.

Scotland WILL end up using electricity produced from nuclear stations, whether you wish to or not. If Scotland 'refuses' to allow nuclear plant, then you'll just end up buying such electricity from England--hopefully at an enormous markup, too, since you won't have contributed one pence to the construction effort.

What can one expect of poltroons who think that 'renewables' will ever--ever--supply baseload? One can present the simple facts over and over; one can show that Denmark and Germany's 'renewables' efforts have completely, totally failed to provide any baseload whatever. And yet--and yet--the delusional fantasy lives on that 'renewables' will somehow be the answer.

And in pursuit of that delusion, its advocates are willing to tear up the countryside, throw taxpayer pounds out the window, and emit CO2in enormous quantities, for...nothing.

When you lot can prove that windmills and other renewables 'replace' baseload capacity (and if you make that claim, you are either lying or ignorant) then you might have a case. Until then, you are merely superstition-ridden, fearful Luddites unwilling to face up to realities.

I really hope English power companies make you pay through the nose; meantime, let's see what we can do to hold you clowns up to public ridicule.

Hard to believe that in the early 21st century so many people are still so dreadfully superstitious and so uneducated. Illiterate peasants, in fact.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:35; what qualifications do you hold to back up your arrogant tirade, other than the ability to read reports that reinforce your views? A big fat zero, I'll bet.

For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8.35
Your view is also a fairly individual view of the facts, energy supply in it's current format, profit based, is unsustainable in the long term.

Previous postings would seem to indicate that it is the SNP alone who oppose nuclear power in Scotland, the fact is that the previous 2 administrations also opposed new nuclear development in Scotland and whatever the outcome of last May's election new nuclear development would still have been opposed in Scotland.
The SNP have done the easy things so far and there has been a breath of fresh air, hovever the long line of broken manifesto promises could turn it stale fairly quickly.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:35, I bet there are a lot of mirrors in your house...

Anonymous said...

Anon 8.27
Looks like you didn't get any O'levels.

Anonymous said...

Well well our MSP is against Nuclear power and against wind power. I hear he goint to start a candle factory to supply all the houses from the Butt to Barra sponsored by Bryant and May matches.
What a ribbing he got on RNG yesterday about wanting a wind farm but not in his own back yard.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:59
Hear, hear, our MSP doesn't have a clue what he wants, he is being told what he wants by his sidekicks in MWT. It is certainly looking as if they have got their way.

Will the last one left please turn out the lights, oh don't bother because no-one will be able to afford to turn them on in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8.42:

What qualifications do I hold? Well, I'm an engineer for a start; conversant with the output profile of various renewables, and with that of nuclear. I'm technically and scientifically literate--and in simple fact, ANYONE who is either technically or scientifically literate would recognize that 'nuclear' is the only option for baseload. Unless, of course, you prefer coal. But then, folk like 'Greenpeace' want neither coal nor nuclear.

Someone has to be adult, and to act responsibly. In this case, though I think Brown's government is often cretinous, they are at least being prudent.

The current Executive, on the other hand, is showing its utter fatuousness ever more clearly.

I stand by my earlier comment: if you refuse to build nuclear stations, you'll end up buying nuclear-generated electricity from England. As is, some 40% of Scotland's current electrical needs are supplied by two local nuke plants. I rather doubt any number of windmills or tidal generators will make up for their absence.

I guess this is what ignorance and superstition do to a country.

Anonymous said...

anon 3.35 - well it is better than the other way round that it was for many years. SNP don't change your mind, ACNE

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:17pm

My sister is a GP. Should you ever require keyhole surgery or a hip replacement would you like me to send her along?

You may know a fair bit about both of these technologies, but I'm not sure that you are a world authority on either and there are thousands who know a lot more about both, some of whom would agree and some of whom would disagree with you. A bit of humility would be nice rather than adopting the "stand aside, I'm an engineer and you are all technically illiterate Luddites" tone.

But I’ll bow to your superior knowledge if you can answer me some of these questions:

1) Given that we’ve no known significant domestic uranium deposits, wouldn’t we just be painting ourselves into another corner by relying on supplies from other countries, even though they may appear stable now, who’s to say where they will be in 30 years?

2) What was the net energy gain associated with extracting uranium for use as fuel stock when they first began mining it, what is it now and looking into your crystal ball, what will it be 30 years from now when lots of other countries have leapt aboard the nuclear lifeboat?

3) If you answer “very high 30 years from now” (data and source please) to 2), using current technology, how abundant are concentrated economically recoverable uranium deposits in the earth's crust, and how will this change in years to come given that in all likelihood cheap oil is a thing of the past and they don’t yet have mining machinery that you can plug in?

4) If you answer “extremely abundant” (data and source please) to 3), does the law of diminishing returns apply to uranium mining? If so, does this not mean that just like any non-renewable resource, the price is bound to go up significantly in the future as the law of diminishing returns takes hold?

5) If you answer “we’ll use breeder reactors and breed plutonium to run them” to 4), can you name me one operational breeder reactor that has ever bred successfully? Remember, you have to look at current technology as you don’t seem to hold much hope for development of means of storing excess electricity from renewables, so no crystal ball on the future breakthroughs with breeders here please.

6) If you can name a few examples of successful breeder reactors, what is the effect of other greenhouse gases - which you never hear mentioned - such as freon-114 (10 000 times the global warming potential of the same mass of CO2 I’m told) which are emitted during the nuclear fuel lifecycle on climate change?

7) If your answer to 6) is “negligible” (data and source please), then can you tell me how sensible it is to site reactors close to coasts near existing reactors which appears to be the preferred option in a few cases given the fact that sea levels are predicted to rise significantly and storm surges will become more frequent over the coming years?

8) How much energy is required to dismantle a nuclear power plant once it has served its useful life and how does this compare with the energy it produces (data and source please)?

9) Finally if you manage to provide me with satisfactory answers to any or all of the above, here’s one I’m fairly sure you won’t get round me on: how many industries still exist from the days when woolly mammoths, no, when dinosaurs roamed the earth that are no longer economically productive yet we have to keep people trained and working in said industries simply to control and contain the waste products?



Anonymous said...

anon 5.13

You are against windfarms and nuclear...... care to tell us how you want us to power our homes in the future?

Also there is something in the air or the gazzette editorial team are all on a bender.Anyone read Eilidh Whiteford's article, re windfarms?

Anonymous said...

We will all need to get real when the time comes for power cuts around 2015. To preserve the Barvas moor as a desolate wilderness, I think the best compromise is to build just one nuclear reactor plant in the middle of the moor. The benefits of this would include maintaining the landscape, leaving clear flying space for the eagles, not a tower in site and the Barvas road would probably be kept ice-free in winter. Complicated problems always have a simple solution!

Anonymous said...

anon-engineer - TIMBER! (no offence to your arguement)

Anonymous said...

Sorry anon 3.46pm. Once I get going...

I notice no answers have been posted yet.


Anonymous said...

timber was the answer....

Anonymous said...

I see anon 1:11 PM. Apologies for being obtuse. I of course assumed that you meant that my mighty oak of a comment was at risk of collapsing under the weight of its implications for the nuclear lobby.