Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

1,000 new hydro schemes to power Scottish homes



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: 02 September 2008
SCOTLAND is set to enter a new era of hydro power after an influential report revealed untapped potential for more than 1,000 new schemes across the country, The Scotsman can reveal.
The study, commissioned by the Scottish Government, reveals enough extra hydro potential to power a quarter of the nation's homes.

It shows there are still 657 megawatts of financially viable hydro electricity schemes to exploit, which would power about 600,000 homes.

This is about half as much as the 1,379 megawatts of installed hydro capacity that already exists in Scotland.

The Scottish Government, which aims to provide 50 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2050 and has rejected the use of nuclear power, said hydro would play a crucial part in meeting the target.

Hydro already provides about 6 per cent of Scotland's electricity – more than any other renewable source – and will be crucial in the Scottish Government's aims to make us the leading green energy country in Europe.

However, there is concern among salmon anglers about the impact on rivers, and environmental groups have urged caution when developing new schemes, especially in beauty spots.

A Scottish Government spokesman said hydro power had a growing role to play in how Scotland would meet its energy needs.

"We have ambitions to make Scotland the green energy capital of Europe and hydro is a huge part of our diverse renewables potential," he said.

"New hydro power can reduce emissions, tackle climate change and contribute to sustainable economic growth."

Scotland was one of the first countries in the world where electricity was harnessed from water, and huge hydro schemes were built in the middle of the 20th century.

However, it had been assumed the limit had been reached, with industry leaders saying there were few sites left for major projects.

Now, the new report by the Forum for Renewable Energy Development in Scotland suggests there is considerable untapped potential, using schemes smaller than 10 megawatts in size. These could be developed on a community basis by farmers or small landowners.

The report shows the potential for new hydro schemes in each area of Scotland.

Whereas Edinburgh would not be able to support any financially viable schemes, the north-west Highlands has potential for up to 64, it says.

Rob Forrest, of the green trade body Scottish Renewables, said hurdles had to be overcome before the potential could be delivered.

"This study reveals a new chapter waiting to unfold for hydro power in Scotland. However, there are considerable challenges being faced that rival those felt by hydro developers from the last century," he said.

He said these included strict EU regulations and costly access to the transmission grid.

"Crucial to delivery of this hydro vision will be the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, who hold the key to redesigning regulations to help deliver sustainable hydro power developments rather than blocking them," he said.

Nick Forrest, director of Nick Forrest Associates, the consultancy behind the report, agreed there were several barriers to the potential 657 megawatts of hydro power being achieved.

One was the planning system, which he thought should be altered so local planning authorities could deal with more applications.

If a project is larger than one megawatt, it has to be considered by the Scottish Government rather than the local authority.

"That has a huge time implication and would usually involve a lot more work," he said. "If they raised the threshold so it was only above 10 megawatts, it could be a lot more attractive to developers."

And he said there needed to be greater capacity in the national grid. Currently, 33 per cent of the new schemes would not be able to be built because of lack of capacity.

"If we ever want to see this potential realised, there's going to have to be a change in the way the grid is upgraded," he said.

"At the moment, there's no extra capacity being built into the grid. There are areas in the Highlands where there's all the mountains and the rainfall you need but the grid is full."

But Dan Barlow, head of policy at WWF Scotland, said there must not be any move to try to weaken EU regulations, such as the Water Framework Directive, which protects rivers.

"We support the role that hydro plays in meeting renewable energy targets and tackling climate change.

"However, it's important that any proposals that come forward are compatible with European obligations to meet ecological aims in terms of our water environment."

Helen McDade, policy officer from the John Muir Trust, said planning laws must not be relaxed. "Environmental protection has been put in place for a reason. It would be very unwise to suggest that could be relaxed."

Ten sites now seeking permission

Allt Fionn, Glen Falloch, Loch Lomond, 2.1 MW. Applicant: Glen Falloch Estate. At consultation.

Allt Hallater, between Loch Awe and Loch Etive, 1.9MW. Applicant: Npower. Suspended.

Black Rock Gorge, on edge of Evanton Wood, Ross-shire, 3MW. Applicant: Npower. Recently submitted.

Chaoroch, by Loch Lomond, 2.5MW. Applicant: SSE. At consultation.

Chonais, Wester Ross, 3.5MW. Applicant: SSE. At consultation.

Invervar, Glen Lyon, Perthshire, 1.2MW. Applicant: Shawater. At consultation.

Keltneyburn, Coshieville, near Aberfeldy, Perthshire, 2.2MW. Applicant: Keltneyburn Hydro Ltd. At consultation.

Loch Eilde, above Kinlochleven, Lochaber, 7MW. Applicant: Hydroplan. Suspended.

Rannoch, 1.5MW. Applicant: Hydroplan. At consultation.

River Braan, near Dunkeld, Perthshire, 2.9MW. Applicant: NPower. Suspended.

Q & A

What is a hydro scheme?

A system for extracting energy from water as it moves. This usually involves the water dropping from one elevation to another.

An underground sloping pipe is often used, so that water is restricted and builds up in pressure. This can be used to drive a turbine wheel.

In flatter areas, where there is less pressure build-up or no pipe at all, much larger flows are required, and so larger turbines are used.

What are the benefits of hydro power?

It is a form of green energy that can complement other renewables, such as onshore wind, by providing backup when needed.

It can be stored and then drawn upon when there is a need for more electricity, such as in winter.

It does not provide a constant supply, as the system's efficiency will fluctuate throughout the year with the flow of the water.

Would all the new schemes involve dams?

No, only 128 of the 1,019 potential new schemes would be expected to involve the use of a dam. Most would use a weir – which slightly raises the level of the river and creates a small, waterfall-type effect. It would channel some of the water into an underground pipe, which would build up to power a small turbine.

How does the electricity get to my house?

The hydro scheme has to be connected to the national grid. Distance from the grid may be the deciding factor of whether a scheme is viable. And there must be enough capacity in the grid for a new scheme to connect.

What happens next?

The Scottish Government is expected to examine the findings of the report as it forms its energy strategy.

Anglers' concern over impact on salmon

THE strongest opposition to the new development of hydro projects is likely to come from the salmon-fishing sector.

Ron Woods, from the Scottish Federation of Coarse Anglers, said there would be a "great deal of concern" among salmon anglers to the idea that more than 1,000 new hydro schemes could be built.

He said this was due to the behaviour of salmon. "The life cycle of salmon involves them ascending the river from the mouth to quite high up in the river to spawn," he said. "Anything that blocks the flow of water and the migration has a big impact for salmon.

"There's a legal requirement that if anyone builds a barricade across a river by which salmon migrate to spawn, they need to provide a passage for them to ascend the river."

He said there were other aspects of hydro schemes that concerned salmon anglers.

"If you put a dam on a river, then the area immediately above it becomes effectively still water," he said.

"That's not a habitat where salmon are comfortable. They like a high oxygen content in the river, which means it needs to be flowing."

Nick Forrest, the report's author, agreed there was likely to be opposition from members of the fishing industry, but he said he thought they could be brought onside.

"They might want salmon to reach a new part of the river," he said. "A salmon ladder can be built into a weir, so they can get to a part that wasn't previously possible.

"There's no reason why hydro shouldn't be safe for fish."

Anglers' concern over impact on salmon

THE strongest opposition to the new development of hydro projects is likely to come from the salmon-fishing sector.

Ron Woods, from the Scottish Federation of Coarse Anglers, said there would be a "great deal of concern" among salmon anglers to the idea that more than 1,000 new hydro schemes could be built.

He said this was due to the behaviour of salmon. "The life cycle of salmon involves them ascending the river from the mouth to quite high up in the river to spawn," he said. "Anything that blocks the flow of water and the migration has a big impact for salmon.

"There's a legal requirement that if anyone builds a barricade across a river by which salmon migrate to spawn, they need to provide a passage for them to ascend the river."

He said there were other aspects of hydro schemes that concerned salmon anglers.

"If you put a dam on a river, then the area immediately above it becomes effectively still water," he said.

"That's not a habitat where salmon are comfortable. They like a high oxygen content in the river, which means it needs to be flowing."

Nick Forrest, the report's author, agreed there was likely to be opposition from members of the fishing industry, but he said he thought they could be brought onside.

"They might want salmon to reach a new part of the river," he said. "A salmon ladder can be built into a weir, so they can get to a part that wasn't previously possible.

"There's no reason why hydro shouldn't be safe for fish."





The full article contains 1742 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Soosider,

Glasgow 02/09/2008 01:21:36
Clever Government. Very interesting outcome, Hydro still has the potential to play an important role in renewable energy. I think many people suspected this for some time, the real question is why was this not looked at sooner. Pardon the pun but the concerns of the Salmon fishers is a bit of a Red herring, these can be over come by ensuring that proper Salmon Ladders are built in to the design. The real risk to developing the idea into action is correctly identified as Planning and the National grid capacity.
2

,

02/09/2008 03:46:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Jeeemy,

St Andrews 02/09/2008 04:09:49
The biggest fly in this ointment is the Westminster Government, as usual.
Remember that to connect to the National grid from a generation unit in Scotland you will be charged up to £80.00 per unit, this because you are not near London.
4

Pender Paul,

Pender Island 02/09/2008 06:13:33
Am I correct in my reading of the applicants that they are all private firms? This would be a disaster--energy is too important to be left to fleece enterprise. We are facing the same rape of our rivers by private interests here in BC--and for what? Not so that BC will be the greenest place on earth but to provide a surplus for sale to the Yanks. Careful where your power might be headed--might the clever hand of the English be manipulating the situation?
5

Boy Wonder,

02/09/2008 07:18:36
I'm rather we went about energy creation this way than sodding great big windmills littering and scarring the countryside. But I still believe the only renewable nomn-nuclear energy will be harnessed from the wave power of the sea! We're perfectly situated for it!
6

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 02/09/2008 07:19:22
Do we really need these schemes when we have Alex Salmond to produce all the hot air that we need?
7

Greenheatman,

TAIN 02/09/2008 07:26:30
Hydro is a stupid idea for Scotland - no glacial ice melt = low capacity factors, but hey, fossil fuels will make up the difference!
8

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 02/09/2008 07:32:03
Run-of-the-river schemes require no dams - just bankside pipes which return the water after the turbine. Waters can be re used as many times as the drop in height permits. These are usually small schemes and enable local villages to be self reliant. The potential is awesome.

However submarine turbines are the real answer. The reliable tidal stream through the channel between Luing and Seil would power the former, and possibly the latter, too.

A similar flow through a Forth tidal barrage (in lieu of the new Forth bridge) would replace one small coal fired station.

Down with wind turbines!
9

Louis Catorze,

02/09/2008 07:51:20
"..environmental groups have urged caution..."

Never happy....I suppose when the lights go out we can all pop out to the country for a brisk walk.
10

Paul Spencer,

glasgow 02/09/2008 07:54:26
Im amazed that wave power is not being looked at even more seriously, what is more the power generated can be moved via underground cables, which means that unsightly pylons dont blot the landscape and I daresay the generating capacity is such that these small schemes outlined above (whose viability I doubt) could then be put on the back burner
11

Phil C,

02/09/2008 08:00:59
Excellent progress.
12

Doh,

02/09/2008 08:46:35
Very good news, I hope the Snits have the bottle to follow through.

Hydro, tidal, wind and biomass - all should be developed in preference to nuclear power as called for the by the Snit's council of economic experts.
13

daviddoyle@thebrain.fsnet.co.uk,

Bearsden 02/09/2008 08:58:34
This is really bad news. There has been no assessment of the damage done to the environment and ecology by the latest hydro scheme at Glendoe - Loch Ness. This was nodded through at the planning stage by SNH and where was RSPB? A vast area of absolutely virgin moorland is now irretrievably under water and the farms and estates below the dam have lost most of the flow in their rivers and streams.
At the time the consultation was going on and for some time afterwards, I tried to find out from the Scottish Government and from the electrisity companies, what the output capacity was of the existing hydro schemes. The answer was that they did not know. There was no information about the reserve in the system or of what proportion of the maximum capacity was being used.
After years of waiting for replies, I asked my new MP to explore the absence of replies. I was told that replies would be forthcoming but there have been none.

It would be quite absurd if we were to lose countryside to schemes that would become redundant when other generating methods come on stream.
14

Joe,

Jane Street 02/09/2008 09:26:41
How come customers of Hydro Electric suppliers are paying the inflated prices of those supplying gas/oil
derived power?
15

Peter A,

London 02/09/2008 09:39:35
#4 and others

I'm afraid you don’t understand how the electricity system works. Only large power stations (usually above 200MW) connect to the National Grid and incur transmission charges. The proposals here are for tiny stations of no more than 1 to 2 MW in size. They would connect into the local distribution network. The local distribution company, presumably Scottish Hydro Electric, would charge the schemes to connect to the distribution network. The cost of connection is likely to be high given that most of these schemes are likely to be remote from the existing infrastructure. Although connection charges for small generators are effectively subsidised, as the generator only directly pays for the works at its site rather than the full cost, they can nevertheless be high relative to the value a such small projects.

Another issue for such small projects is that the energy produced would need to be consumed locally as it is not practical to move such small amounts of energy over any distance. This can be a problem if there not sufficient demand load locally to absorb the energy produced.

Hydro on such a small scale is technically difficult and usually very expensive. The Renewable Obligation Certificate scheme provides considerable support for hydro and is funded by all UK electricity consumers. Even so, the economics of such small scale schemes may be marginal.
16

11+failed,

the pans 02/09/2008 09:51:18
18 Joe,
"How come customers of Hydro Electric suppliers are paying the inflated prices of those supplying gas/oil
derived power?"
Simple, because every electricity consumer is subsidising the renewables to the tune of £47.
17

Langenburger,

02/09/2008 09:56:00
Green energy will always come with an environmental cost and Glendoe may just be acceptable but we as a nation should not be suckered and don't believe the hype from the energy companies.
Mr Mather and Salmond -now is the time to revisit the earlier schemes and look at the bigger picture for the economic benefit of the nation.
HIstory shows that salmon ladders don't really work for a whole combination of inter-related reasons.
History also sadly shows that some of Scotlands hitherto most prolific river systems like The Ness, Beauly, Connon and Awe never regained or sustained their previous runs after the schemes were introduced in the 40s and 50s(yes and they have ladders or cages or whatever the scientists said would work). Aigas is probably the most lamentable!
Even as I write Scottish and Southern the "Green" energy compnay in the Glendoe project is "Stealing" the water from the River Garry near Dalnaspidal in Perthshire on a daily basis despite growing awareness and criticism. And thus the erstwhile beautiful river Garry that was an important springer nursery area lies barren and empty most of the year with no local value!
We also know the tourist value and sustainable multiplier effects of healthy inland salmon fisheries like the Tweed (non hydro), The Findhorn (non hydro) the Spey (non hydro) or the Tay (mostly non hydro)
If only our politicians had a wholistic view of our country.
We also know how rare springers are and when hydo vandalism happens in the top of river systems it is the rare springer runs that are most affected.
Messrs Mather and Salmond, we owe it to our grandchildren to watch over the environment and to right the wrongs of previous generations.


18

Highland Mighty©,

02/09/2008 09:59:31
15. So in addition to covering a vast number of our beautifully isolated hilltops with giant grey wind turbines and transmission pylons, the SNP are now fully in favour of flooding countless valleys for these hydro schemes and more transmission pylons?

All this to avoid building ONE nuclear/fossil fuel power staion.

Makes sense.

(Hey, at least we'll make a little money out of this!)
19

Venachar,

02/09/2008 10:06:07
I'd prefer Hydro to nuclear and I hope that the Scottish Goverment give the advantage to Scottish power companies that have offices in Scotland. Npower and Eon shouldn't be allowed to operate in this country when we have two main operators of our own.
If the generating possiblities are there then the Scottish Government should build their own facilities and sell any excess to Npower or Eon.
20

danielrober,

02/09/2008 10:15:53
Excellent.
21

gus1940,

Edinburgh 02/09/2008 10:19:35
Do Scotsman journalists really think that readers of the paper are so ignorant as to require an explanation of what hydro-electric power is?

Maybe this explains why they seem to think that the readers will actually give any credence to the political lies and distortions served up on a daily basis.
22

G,

dundy 02/09/2008 10:24:56
What is so "green" about flooding upland areas as comapred to building wind turbines on peat land....I would have thought that the environmental damage due to flodding is pretty permenant whereas wind turbines can be removed.....Hydro is a good idea but the logic and evidence seems to get bent to suit political needs
23

Colin, Glasgow,

02/09/2008 10:27:41
Sm753 #15, I couldn’t agree more. Hydro can make a worthy small-scale contribution, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to our current energy needs.

To supply Scotland’s energy consumption solely from renewables would require development on a colossal scale. Thousands of square km of wind turbines; plus thousands of square km of energy crops; plus massive tidal development ten times bigger than our hydro schemes; plus wave generators covering a large proportion of the west coast; plus conversion of all lochs to pumped hydro; plus the incineration of all waste for energy.

This shows what would be needed in a carbon-free Scotland if nuclear power is not used:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/presentations/SEWTHA7/mgp00211.html

This book covers the numbers for the whole UK.
http://www.withouthotair.com/

Needless to say the most viable solutions involve a contribution from nuclear and/or coal with carbon-capture along with renewables. The cheapest option is to use a large proportion of nuclear (though judging from his performance on Newsnight last night, Salmond is woefully misinformed about this.)

This hydro announcement distracts from the fact that the entire Scottish economy is dependent on fossil fuel and its associated tax revenue. Clearly Alex Salmond plans to keep burning gas and oil for as long as it is available. These planned renewables developments won’t even replace the output of the nuclear stations that we will lose.
24

Andra, Dundee,

02/09/2008 10:43:49
#4 Jeeemy
This connection fee is a red herring since Scottish suppliers get charged this amount but Scottish demanders get it refunded. It is only relevant if the Electricity actually goes to London in which case the fee is reasonable.
25

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 02/09/2008 10:59:49
# Pender Paul

It's more like "the clever hand of the EU speculators" behind it! After we had our power generation privatised the EU speculators moved in and took over ownership. Who would believe that 'Scottish Power' is now owned by a Spanish company! No doubt if 'Scottish Water' is privatised it will be owned by the French very quickly.

Just imagine, French owned water producing Spanish owned electricity which is being sold to the Scottish 'independent' population! And all on Scottish soil!

Rulesbutnorulers has the right idea, the tidal stream is just waiting to be tapped. But on-shore wind-farms are easier to erect and just as lucrative for hidden subsidies (ROCs). Judging from the Producers Lobby comments, this is just another lever to weaken the planning system and get some really lucrative contracts to put up more turbines, pylons and cables across our lovely countryside!
26

John S,

02/09/2008 11:14:37
Scotlands energy demand - The power required on that one day (usually the coldest day of the year) of max demand is between 2,200MW to 5,500MW and on the min demand day (usually the warmest day of the year) 1,800MW to 3,000MW.
Load demand varies on a hourly/daily/seasonal basis.
Scotland has about 11,000MW plus of electricity generation capacity.
Our present generation of nuclear power stations and wind generators are not flexiable enough because they cannot follow the fluctuations in demand they have to be base load,this is were our fossil fuel power stations and to a lesser extent our hydro power stations are very useful ie flexibility.
At this moment of time (11:09)Scotland is exporting to England 2277MW
27

Navvy,

02/09/2008 11:38:14
#9 is close to the mark

A friend lives in a converted late 19thC waterpowered sawmill which sadly was beyond repair at that time. The overshot iron wheel with steel buckets had been smashed and largely removed. We are looking at using the watersource though but they will not be able to sell to the grid because the area is only 2 phase. This lack of three phases will hamper many in remote areas wishing to sell to the grid.

Another person I know inherited a castle with a prewar hydro scheme delivering DC power typical of thise which my grandfather installed though we have yet to prove the link. He demolished the Victorian part of the castle and restored the much smaller keep. Part of the works were 3 Night storage circuits using conventional parts. Depending on the state of the river/burn he gets power into one or more circuit and if the river dries up or freezes he just switches over to the AC grid supply. If all this fails then is is back to the wood burning stove. All this helps him but does not help the grid and clearly if the river freezes there is likely to be little wind - this continuing question has yet to be answered by wind power fans.

Base load from run of tide schemes is a real possibility. Heavy marine civil engineering but independent of the vagaries of the weather and given the power available largely independent of the moon too. To Luing add the Pentland Firth, perhaps Stroma which has a small modern harbour as a starting point. The last of the population left in the 1960s
28

Matt there,

Somewhere 02/09/2008 11:43:20
Ah! Hear the Liebour drones bleat!

Funny how they act like greens to attract the support of credulous Green Party members, yet when the SNP government proposes real green measures, Liebour goes all anti-environmental!
29

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/09/2008 12:46:41
This is insane. All we need in Scotland is two or three decent nuclear power stations - which are CO2 free. What we don't need is concrete nightmares springing up all over our environment to make expensive hydro and wind power.
30

Coutts,

Ayrshire 02/09/2008 12:54:30
Preferable to wind turbines...Wave and tidal too.....Power cables under the ground in scenic areas. Turbines out to sea. Renewables are not as green as the developers and government tells us....but probably an inevitable part of the mix.
31

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 02/09/2008 12:56:16
Might as well kiss Scotland's salmon angling industry goodbye. Salmon can go up fish ladders but smolts have a problem passing through turbines.
The Kyoto Kult strikes again. This madcap scheme is an environmental horrorshow.
The Greenies who are promoting this scam should hang their heads in shame.
32

Harbinger,

02/09/2008 13:03:51
Rob Forrest, of the green trade body Scottish Renewables, said hurdles had to be overcome before the potential could be delivered.

"This study reveals a new chapter waiting to unfold for hydro power in Scotland. However, there are considerable challenges being faced that rival those felt by hydro developers from the last century," he said.

He said these included strict EU regulations and costly access to the transmission grid.

"Crucial to delivery of this hydro vision will be the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, who hold the key to redesigning regulations to help deliver sustainable hydro power developments rather than blocking them," he said.

Nick Forrest, director of Nick Forrest Associates, the consultancy behind the report, agreed there were several barriers to the potential 657 megawatts of hydro power being achieved.

They couldn't be related could they?
33

Greenheatman,

TAIN 02/09/2008 13:38:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoZb3ffz05Q

There is no need to dam rivers at all. Placing hundreds of Gentec venturi power barges line astern in the middle of our larger rivers will generate all the power Scotland needs - and then some!
34

beckypumps1,

Fife 02/09/2008 13:50:06
This is far better then building nuk plants. also can we make it law that all new build houses and flats come with pv systems and grid tie inverters it all helps.
35

Shave,

Edinburgh 02/09/2008 13:57:45
#33 It's life but not as we know it

Nuclear power is NOT CO2 free, not even nearly. In fact the amount of CO2 released by nuclear power stations is set to increase as the quality of the ore used decreases.

http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/index.php?does_nuclear_energy_produce_no_co2.htm
36

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 02/09/2008 14:18:09
Hydro,Wave,Wind,Solar,we have it all to harness. Nuclear power,no thanks !
37

Armstrong Cowan Again,

Germany 97% oil dependent 02/09/2008 14:31:02
People in Europe always moan that it is always raining in Scotland. This is of course not quite true but the fact is that our water is a tremendous national resource. The environmental implications would I imagine be vetted on a case by case basis by the relevant local authority. Every step away from Russian and Arab oil and gas dependency has to be good news.
38

Ozone,

ST THOMAS 02/09/2008 14:48:34
Whatever happened to the sea current power in the north of Scotland which could power the British Isles 10 times over. And get rid of the pirates in your midst!
39

Saoghal Beag,

02/09/2008 16:06:58
41 Shave you beat to flagging a lie pedaled by the nuc-lobby. The other is cost which is crippling. If nuclear was such a great investment where are the investors rushing to support a new build?

Great way forward and part of a diverse and dispersed generation portfolio, what we need.

Re fuel prices, the UK market is tied to the oild and gas prices regardless of source
40

Colin, Glasgow,

02/09/2008 16:08:05
Shave #41, the CO2 emissions from the nuclear power lifecycle are at least as low as those from the cleanest renewables, including wind and hydro. So says none other than the Sustainable Development Commission.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=337

The SD commission are still against nuclear power, but they admit the CO2 emissions from nuclear are low and likely to get lower as we rely less on fossil fuel for energy. The IPCC also advocates nuclear power as a low carbon option. In fact nobody seriously argues that nuclear power produces too much CO2.

The Storm van Leeuwen and Smith article that you linked to (regarding increasing CO2 emissions due to poorer ore grades) has been soundly debunked. See the end of the following:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
41

Colin, Glasgow,

02/09/2008 16:22:01
Saoghal Beag #45, “If nuclear was such a great investment where are the investors rushing to support a new build?”

Hmm. It seems the investors are in Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, India, Iran, Israel, Indonesia, Lithuania, North Korea, Romania, Russia, Pakistan, Japan, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, the U.S, and Vietnam. All these countries are building or planning to build new nuclear powerstations.

In fact the vast majority of the developed and developing world either has nuclear power stations already or is planning to build some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy

The only country that ever successfully phased out operating nuclear powerstations was Italy, and they have recently decided to build more.
42

Hugh,

Edinburgh 02/09/2008 16:56:22
No account has been made of the unsightliness of a hydro loch at this time of the year with low water in it, nor the land that has been flooded to create the scheme. Also hydro schemes are generally a long way from their loads, with high transmission losses, or more unsightly pylons.
Hydro works best for peak loads, and even better as pumped storage in conjunction with nuclear. Loch Sloy/Lomond would be an ideal candidate for pumped storage.
Unfortunately UK politicians don't appear to understand some of the realities of life.
43

Yada,

02/09/2008 17:24:42
Typical reaction from the eco-luddites. If it's not ugly sodding wind farms they don't want it.
Backwards, march, lads! 18th century, here we come.
44

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/09/2008 18:27:24
#41 LOL! So cement production and "big horrible diesel lorries" are not involved in wind and hydro schemes but only nuclear ones?

What a strawberry fields all you so-called greenies live in.

Nuclear power is the way forward and when the fuel is spent, blast the rubbish into outer space. Simple.

Job done.
45

Waspy100,

02/09/2008 18:35:10
#21 Maybe its because its owned by the Spanish company Iberdrola
46

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/09/2008 18:35:19
#41 and I just read your green bilge through. Quote, "And a nuclear power station uses lots of concrete, which is made from cement. Cement is made by crushing limestone and roasting it, using fossil fuels, to drive off Carbon dioxide. So cement is particularly CO2-intensive. "

Hmmmm, interesting. Last time I looked at a wind farm it was all built with concrete and cement.
47

GlenB,

02/09/2008 18:38:22
Maybe its worth pointing out that the hydro electricity produced in Scotland using storage reservoirs cannot run at full capacity 24 hours a day.
Most are used to supply peak demand for relatively short periods because there is not enough storage capacity and the rainfall insufficient to replenish the reservoirs quick enough.
So base load must come from fossil fuels or nuclear - take your choice.
48

Shave,

Edinburgh 02/09/2008 18:49:38
#46 Colin, Glasgow

"Soundly debunked"??!? It is no surprise that the World Nuclear Association disagrees. It is disappointing that you so readily buy into that.
49

Shave,

Edinburgh 02/09/2008 19:04:34
#52 It's life but not as we know it

The article clearly disproves the nonsense you were spouting about nuclear being free from CO2 emissions.
50

Willie Macleod,

Wick 02/09/2008 20:26:27
There is someone missing and has not been mentioned in this article and discussion.

Tom Johnston MP and Secretary of State for Scotland.

He set up the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board in 1943. Without his vision, hard work and determination we would not be where we are with Hydro power now.
51

The Strategist,

02/09/2008 21:48:31
Yes this is wonderful idea... Pity really we don't have the engineering companies that build the hardware.
52

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 02/09/2008 22:12:45
Fossil fuels will make up the difference?

Open cast mining has been taking place throughout Scotland, and elswhere in the UK, since the closure of NUM pits.

The longest coal conveyor belt in Europe, some 13 kilometeres(8 miles) in length operates between an open cast site near Kirconnel to a railhead at New Cumnock.
It saves 50,000 HGV journeys a year. It will soon be extended to another open cast site in South Ayrshire.
A US company has also been trying to obtain planning permission to open a new deep coal mine in Dunfries and Galloway with a view to opening more!

53

Saoghal Beag,

02/09/2008 22:21:22
48 Hugh this is about small scale hydro not massive dams.

47 Colin, Finland where the state has underwritten the laons to ensure a interest rate so far below the norm that it is virtually non-existent in order to try and make this look like an attractive investment. Despite that this capital intense investment is at least two years behind schedule and unlikley to offer any returns for the immmeadiate future. Of course if they had invested in wind it would have been built and heading for breaking even by now.

49 Yada like it or no you are going to have to have some ugly sodding thing to generate the power you use.
54

Sedov,

Scotland 03/09/2008 13:10:11
This is the way forward, lets have more of these.
55

Colin, Glasgow,

03/09/2008 16:46:10
Saoghal Beag #59, the customers in Finland chose a nuclear powerstation specifically because it offered the cheapest sources of base load electricity. They are industrial customers with large base-load requirements. Nuclear power was shown to be the cheapest option even compared to coal or gas (and this was over five years ago before the price of these fuels rocketed). Wind power, even if it had been cheaper per kWh (which is doubtful without subsidy), would have been useless because the customers specifically wanted continuous base-load power.

The loan guarantees for the project have been provided by the _French_ government as a normal part of their support for export deals. The EU investigated this support in 2006 and confirmed that it did _not_ constitute state aid. Specifically they said that the total cost of the loan, including the insurance premium for the guarantee, was no better than the market rate available to competitors. It is not a subsidy.

The current project overrun (which is to be expected for a first-of-a-kind reactor) does not affect the cost to the customer, because it is a fixed-cost “turnkey” contract. The additional overrun costs are borne by the reactor manufacturer, Areva, who can expect to recover these costs as it intends to build dozens of similar reactors all over the world. The first two or three are always more expensive; once the lessons are learned the rest are cheaper.

Picking on a first-of-a-kind project as an example of “expensive nuclear” is as desperate as your habit of picking on the aged Hunterston reactor as an example of “nuclear unreliability”.

As the International Energy Agency will tell you, on average nuclear power has a track record of providing cheap and reliable electricity. That is why so many countries are currently looking to develop new nuclear powerstations.

By all means develop all the hydro sites that are feasible – but don’t expect it to replace the output of a nuclear powerstation, because ther
56

Colin, Glasgow,

03/09/2008 16:49:28
[continued..]
there simply aren’t enough sites. Nevertheless nuclear and hydro together complement each other perfectly, to provide reliable low-carbon electricity (see Sweden).

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.