Future power generation
The game is a bogey, and has been for some time.
The future of energy generation was deliberately and strategically screwed by Tony Blair when he delayed and decision over power generation sources until such time as there were no options.
It is a classic politicians trick to close off the options that you don't like, to favour the one you do like, by ensuring that circumstances are changed to meet your preferences.
The report by SCDI makes it clear that nuclear power must be considered if security of power generation is to be ensured. Much as I oppose nuclear power, I am pragmatic enough to know that the failure to address the security of energy supply early enough has resulted in this option coming very close to being essential.
Close to essential. We still have time to avoid having to resort to nuclear, but that window is closing rapidly, and action and decisions need to be taken quickly.
To bridge the gap, an 'unprecedented' investment in renewables - onshore wind - is required with 450mw of new wind power need every year.
The attempt to find viable alternative renewable sources - wave and tidal - seems half-hearted at best, leaving the Government with the choice of onshore wind or nuclear. And I am with them in saying that nuclear must not be an option, if at all possible.
The Government is faced with two difficult choices, being both anti-onshore-wind (exce
pt in some else's constituency) and anti-nuclear, so I see prevarication, warm words, and sweeping generalisations, followed by kicking the decisions into the long grass until after the next election.
We could, of course, all use less electricity but the chances of that happening are slim to negligible, meaning that without decisive action the power crunch is going to come in the next 20 years or so, leaving us with few options.
How long will a stockpile of peat last?
The future of energy generation was deliberately and strategically screwed by Tony Blair when he delayed and decision over power generation sources until such time as there were no options.
It is a classic politicians trick to close off the options that you don't like, to favour the one you do like, by ensuring that circumstances are changed to meet your preferences.
The report by SCDI makes it clear that nuclear power must be considered if security of power generation is to be ensured. Much as I oppose nuclear power, I am pragmatic enough to know that the failure to address the security of energy supply early enough has resulted in this option coming very close to being essential.
Close to essential. We still have time to avoid having to resort to nuclear, but that window is closing rapidly, and action and decisions need to be taken quickly.
To bridge the gap, an 'unprecedented' investment in renewables - onshore wind - is required with 450mw of new wind power need every year.
The attempt to find viable alternative renewable sources - wave and tidal - seems half-hearted at best, leaving the Government with the choice of onshore wind or nuclear. And I am with them in saying that nuclear must not be an option, if at all possible.
The Government is faced with two difficult choices, being both anti-onshore-wind (exce
pt in some else's constituency) and anti-nuclear, so I see prevarication, warm words, and sweeping generalisations, followed by kicking the decisions into the long grass until after the next election.We could, of course, all use less electricity but the chances of that happening are slim to negligible, meaning that without decisive action the power crunch is going to come in the next 20 years or so, leaving us with few options.
How long will a stockpile of peat last?
13 comments:
There's a quite elementary point about electricity demand. To meet it you have to have the amount of power instantly to run for as long as you need it when you need it. However you turn renewables round they don't do it and until we can find a way to store power - and don't say pumped storage stations since it takes more juice to pump the water up than they generate - neither wind nor tides are going to suffice. You also need a fair bit of running capacity in hand to allow for demand to grow and for eventualities like a fault on the system. As the use of gas for generation has been insane - tip the hat to milords Parkinson and Wakeham - because we're now exhausting the north sea fields, oil is too expensive (Inverkip anyone?) we're left with coal or nuclear. Both not very palatable in principle but as load is likely to grow tell me what is going to meet demand and doesn't go down the green authoritarian route of forcing folk to use less. Rant over.
Angus, As usual you are besotted by on-shore wind turbines and farms. Why cannot you accept that they are inefficient and disliked by those you would force the machines upon. You ignore off-shore which is the right place if turbines is an answer few object to that.
I would welcome a short term increase in nuclear until such time we have invented better carbon capture systems or safer technology for 'nucs'
The likes of Angus Petrol bang on about the failing island economy as if it was just us that are suffering. Well build a reactor at Arnish and an Inter-connector to suit there as well. Just look at the hundreds of jobs - full time and long term that would create rather than a few years on the moor with no job security.
What is wrong with nuclear?
Look at the jobs it has created in Caithness (Dounreay), West Cumbria (Sellafield), Somerset (Hinkley), Lothian (Torness), Suffolk (Sizewell). All near areas of poplation and the locals don't whinge about nuclear - in fact they want it.
There is much scaremongering about nuclear but it is the only real solution. You can harp on about cost - but if what they bang on about carbon is true - surely the cost of saving the planet by having a low carbon nuclear solution is ok.
Slightly off topic how about CNES being a bit visionary and removing every other street light in the islands. 'Street lights are 40% of a cities electric spending (Philips per the net)'
It would save us taxpayers some cash and be green. I reckon that would remove 900 bulbs - which by the way locally are the old style inefficent ones, not the newer ones quoted in the report below
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7764911.stm
Then maybe, just maybe, Toad Campbell might be able to honestly put on of his sweaty paws on his award and think, yup - I deserve that.
On top of other issues there is a major and inescapable problem which is the timescale for obtaining turbines. This is an international issue, and Arnish does not figure in anyway. The problem is global, and unlikely to be resolved.
"I would welcome a short term increase in nuclear"
Yes I heard that you can just build a short term nuclear plant and then just turn the off switch which shuts all the lights and the power down when you decided you didn't want it anymore.
This is the typical short termist view of someone who hasn't got a clue what they are talking about and are just trying to protect their little bit of scenery out on the baron moor.
How would you feel if the government decided that they would build your "short term increase in nuclear plant" on your doorstep.
Windfarms anybody??
Living in Reality - er...windfarms don't keep the lights on, or hospitals working or allow manufacturing and a lot of other things that really are pretty essential. Although the eco-facists would like to see us all back in mud huts - unfortunately it ain't gonna happen.
Windfarms are going to do bugger all about emissions in the short to medium term, and given that we are facing a climate catastrophe I really don't think we have any choice but to face up to the fact that new nuclear is an essential part of the energy mix.
Windfarms are fiddling with deck chairs while the planet burns.
Why not a nuclear facility here?
Think of all the jobs. That is the most important thing is it not ;-)
"Windfarms are fiddling with deck chairs"
Is that a sexual misdemeanour?
Living in Reality you miss the point Anon 10:57 is correct in pulling you up. Wind farms are erected for the gain of local landowners and London financial investors and supported by local enthusiasts who see brown envelopes, the creation of electricity is second fold. You are presumably one of the Angus Petrol supporters who think you will make a few bucks out of it. There are no long term local jobs just a few hand outs to communities who will just bicker over where it goes.
I said I would welcome a reactor on Lewis so yet again you are wrong. The kids on this Island who do not leave for the bigger world need a vagary of jobs to suit a vagary of talent/skills. A couple of years in the moor at Pairc or Eishken for a few sturdy souls is nothing compared to the hundreds of jobs a reactor would create. Live in the Real World a world that is f****ed unless we get on with major/massive generation of carbon free power. - a source that highly inifficient turbines cannot and will not produce.
And what is wrong with not wanting ones view disturbed - if you like heavy industry so much sod off to Glasgow, East Kilbride or the Alba colonies of southern England.
Living in the Pairc is getting a bit grumpy. Take a chill pill dude.
Did anyone else see Channel 5 last night and the film about erecting turbines. One thing is for sure there will be no local jobs if we get turbines, only flying in contactors filling up seats on Flybe
@ Living in the Pairc:
vagary, n., pl. va·ga·ries
An extravagant or erratic notion or action
There are plenty of vagaries here but I think you mean variety.
10.57: this is because wind farm plants have never been given the chance!
Anon 1.30 said "10.57: this is because wind farm plants have never been given the chance!"
They have actually - everywhere. And they don't work. You still need back up. Note today the Arnish turbines are moving but we all have our heating on cause its nippy and the Battery Point stationh is going full tilt.
So ya-bo sucks.
Post a Comment