Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

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.

Scotland 'will have to treble number of wind turbines'



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: 09 December 2008
A THREE-FOLD increase in the number of on-shore wind turbines will be needed over the next decade if Scotland is to meet its renewable targets,
according to a major energy report.

It predicts that by 2020, more than 2,000 new turbines will be required to meet the target of providing 50 per cent of electricity from clean, green, renewable sources. The study, commissioned by the Scotti
sh Council for Development and Industry (SCDI), forecasts that the current 1.3GW output from working wind farms in Scotland will have to increase five-fold to 6.6GW.

It is predicted the new, bigger turbines will take up five times as much space as the 900 now in place.

The report re-ignites the debate over nuclear power in Scotland. It suggests new nuclear power stations should be "considered as a potential part of the longer term generation base in Scotland", amid questions as to how to replace existing power plants with low-carbon alternatives beyond 2020.

The wind-farm predictions in the report, The Future of Electricity Generation in Scotland, mean Scotland would require about 450MW of new onshore wind power – more than twice the size of the country's biggest operational wind farm, with 90 turbines – every year until 2020.

Iain Duff, SCDI's chief economist, said: "This study shows that Scotland can hit its ambitious targets to produce 50 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, but only if we see investment in new generation on an unprecedented scale in recent times."

The report says the vast majority of electricity from renewables needed to meet the 2020 targets will be provided by onshore wind, with offshore wind, wave and tidal not likely to play a significant role until further into the future.

The predictions have been described as realistic by some experts, although others believe they are pessimistic about the likely development of other renewables, such as offshore wind, hydro, wave and tidal.

Anti-wind farm campaigners said they were "horrified" by the findings.

Jason Ormiston, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said: "I think the assumption of about 6GW of onshore wind is about right for 2020. I would like to see more, but I think that's about realistic."

However, he thinks the report is "pessimistic" about the likely mix of renewables, and says offshore wind and marine technologies are likely to be deployed by 2020. He described his view on nuclear as one of "agnosticism".

Lewis Macdonald, Scottish Labour's energy spokesman, thought the report was "fair and balanced". He said: "It's based on scientific evidence, which is that most of what needs to be built between now and 2020 to meet the targets will be onshore wind."

He added there were "larger issues at stake" than the views of anti-wind farm campaigners.

"I support the target of 50 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2020," he said. "It's simply a fact that if we do support that, we have to support a development in the wind sector.

"Obviously, we want good-quality applications coming forward and good-quality facilities being built in the right places, but the environmental impact of not having a lower-carbon economy would be far greater than the environmental impact of anything that will be built.

"There are larger issues at stake here, which are around climate change and how future generations will live."

On the issue of nuclear power, he agreed that it would be "a mistake to rule (it] out at this stage".

Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland, said he thought the report exaggerated the role of onshore wind. He envisaged more of a mix of renewables to meet the 2020 targets.

He questioned the stance of the SCDI, which he said was historically "very close to the nuclear industry", and suggested they were using "scare tactics" in their predictions of extra wind farms. "They seem to be raising the bogey man of lots more big wind farms when, in fact, it will be some onshore wind, some offshore, some wave and tidal," he said.

Bob Graham, an anti-wind farm campaigner, said he would be "absolutely horrified" if 2,000 extra wind turbines were even being considered for Scotland. "It's not economically viable," he said. "The subsidies required to support that industry are huge and the carbon savings would be negligible."

He agreed that nuclear must be considered. "It's the only way we can generate big amounts of electricity that we can use, because you can't guarantee the generation of electricity from renewables, and, in particular, wind," he said.

Gillian Bishop, the secretary of anti-wind farm group Views of Scotland, said she was "madder than hell" about the idea. She went on: "There just seem to be more and more and more, and where on earth are we going to put these things?"

Peter Osbaldstone, of Wood Mackenzie, a consultancy firm involved in the research, said: "There are signs of future development of biomass, wave and tidal technologies, but we really don't see a significant breakthrough in these fields at this time."

He said it was important to keep nuclear as an option in case carbon capture and storage technology did not work.

Jim Mather, the energy minister, is optimistic about the renewables targets being met, and thinks a mix of sources will be used. "There are a vast array of renewables at Scotland's disposal, with commercial interest – and investment – in new tidal, wood fuel and wave energy schemes," he said.

He added that he was against "dangerous and unnecessary" new nuclear power stations being considered.

Cutting 70 mph limit on M-ways would aid emissions bid

DRASTIC measures such as reducing the motorway speed limit to 60mph may be needed if efforts to cut damaging climate change emissions fail, according to the head of an influential committee.

David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, responsible for advising the governments in the UK on how to achieve their emissions targets, visited Edinburgh yesterday.

He told The Scotsman he hoped drastic measures would not be needed to meet the emissions targets of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.

However, he said one way of bringing down emissions could be to reduce the speed limit, or to enforce the 70mph speed limit more heavily.

"If we are really scratching around for ways to reduce emissions it is one thing that could be considered," he said.

"We are not recommending it, but it's an option that we would consider."

He said he was "optimistic" that the 2050 targets could be met. "All of these things are within our grasp," he added.

And he said although it would require fundamental shifts in areas such as use of insulation and electric cars, it "doesn't require radical changes in behaviour".

Mr Kennedy said he believed it would be possible in Scotland to meet the targets without building new nuclear power stations, a stance adopted by the Scottish Government.

"If the government is successful in significantly increasing the role of renewables then it wouldn't need nuclear to deliver the target."

He said Scotland would have a huge role to play in enabling the UK to meet its targets.

However, although he said it probably had a greater role to play than Northern Ireland, he did not think it was greater than Wales or England.

He said Scotland had an opportunity to benefit from its renewables resources.

"There are industries that can prosper. How much they can prosper is almost impossible to say."

Stevenson's grand plan to tackle climate change

A SCOTTISH minister told an international audience yesterday he had been busy developing the most ambitious climate change legislation in the world.

Stewart Stevenson was addressing a summit in Poznan, running alongside a key international UN climate change conference.

The minister told the climate group leaders' summit: "Over the last year we have been extremely busy developing what we believe to be the most ambitious climate change legislation anywhere in the world."

He described the draft Scottish Climate Change Bill, published on Friday. It set annual targets for emissions reduction, and, unlike any other government's climate change legislation, will include emissions from international aviation and shipping from the start.

"Some have called it the strongest climate change legislation in the world – it will set a target to reduce all Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 from a 1990 baseline," he said.

"The 80 per cent target will include emissions from international aviation and shipping – we believe we are the first country to do so within a legally binding emission reduction target."

And he described plans to assess the carbon impact of total Scottish Government expenditure.

"In Scotland, government spending accounts for around one third of Scottish GDP. This investment influences how we travel, how we live, what services we consume and, to some extent, what goods we consume – whether they originate in Scotland or not.

"So we need to understand the carbon impact of our investment and – more importantly – we need to use that information to help us reduce the carbon intensity of our spend over time.

"We know this is a complex task for which there are few parallels. We are not aware of any other government that assesses the carbon impact of its total expenditure as part of a Budget-setting process, nor of any equivalent approach in the private sector."

The UN conference in Poznan is aiming to come up with a route map as to how to move ahead with plans to set international emissions reductions targets in Copenhagen next December.





The full article contains 1610 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 December 2008 9:17 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Wind Power
 
1

Professor-Quincy-Adams-Wagstaff ,

08/12/2008 23:34:27
So whilst the world is on the brink of a significant return to nuclear power, scotland misses out because of Alex Salmonds blinkered political ideology.

Wind Turbine contributions to saving CO2 emissions is minimal when you consider that other sources of CO2 producing power generation are needed solely to back up the unpredictable wind turbines on days of too little or too much wind.

Salmond will not be happy until he has us all living in caves, using candles for lights.

2

PockSuppet,

09/12/2008 00:06:32
What have I stepped in?

It stinks!
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 00:15:42

re: post 1 The Professor,

Before I even read your post, my thoughts were similar to yours!

Firstly, would this power be hijacked by Number10, and like our oil, Scotland would never Benefit from it?

Secondly, Would our 'Scandelous' energy prices be cut, or would the same 'Greedy Energy Companies' own them and even charge us more?

It is our 'Scotland' but I fear we have 'NO-ONE' in "Power" strong enough to have out interests at Heart!

After all look at BOS or the now HBOS, tells us all,..

,...Scottish Mountains,....'Dont-It'??




4

,

09/12/2008 00:19:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Punta Prima,

BALERNO 09/12/2008 00:21:45
#1 or put another way Salmond won't be happy until he gives us and our children a safer, cleaner and nuclear free environment to live in.
6

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

09/12/2008 00:36:37
1&3 - 2 wrongs trying to make a right.

5 if you listened to rufus's singleton diatribe you will note he cares for no one but himself.He is allways at hand to do Scotland down at the first opportunity yet jokingly(I HOPE) calls himself a Scot.

The figure is for 50% wind generation. What about tidal, and hydro. Hydro can be used when needed and as we have over 3600 inland lochs etc I am sure we can generate more than enough!
7

,

09/12/2008 00:37:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Isonomia,

Lenzie 09/12/2008 00:41:47
2008 is the coldest year this century making it conclusive that this century the temperature trend has been cooling. Polar bears are thriving, the ice is expanding, the sea level is not rising, hurricanes have been at an all time low.

So why have we got to build more bird mincers?
9

Castaway™ ,

09/12/2008 00:46:26
09/12/2008-Scotland is exporting to England.
Scot-Eng: 1459MW 00:07:00 GMT
Scot-Eng: 1227MW 00:45:00 GMT
10

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 00:56:49

"Scotland 'will have to treble number of wind turbines'"

How ridiculous! Why?

I can tell you all something, we wont benefit from this atall!

Our 'landscape' will become decimated, Mr Tump's golf balls, will fly in the wrong direction, and for what I ask?
To feed and please 'Others' as our elderly cant afford their heating bills, and suffer hyperthermia!

What a Brilliant Idea,....NOT!!!

11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 00:59:52


Mind you the 'Energy Company' "Eon", is looking forward to making more 'bucks'!



12

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 01:01:05



Call it a new,...'Slot Machine' for some!
13

drunken proffet,

Tassy 09/12/2008 01:03:41
Look on the bright side, with the coming long term recession, a large portion of gas guzzling cars will be up on chocks in the garage. Cars will be so rare that kids will stop what they are doing and wave to them when they pass. Don't believe me, check the number of cars registered and on the road in the late fifties. So there you have it, you are at least 40% on your way to meet greenhouse gas emission targets without even trying. Add to that the efforts to control cattle flatulence and it is a win win situation.
14

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 01:08:03


In the very old days, YES you put coins into Electric Meters,..'A Slot Machine',.....Yes?

These Days one does not to have to 'Coin-Up' the Electric Meter!

Greedy Energy Companies,...'Coin-Up' Free off Charge, while Oil Prices Fall, we get 'Ripped'!

Never Mind the "turbines Blades" Ripping the clothes off you!,

Our Energy Companies will see to that!!

15

Shamus,

Glasgow 09/12/2008 01:23:44
We already have Salmund , Swinney and Sturgeon. How much more wind can we harness.
16

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 01:27:04


I will make it Simple, Soo you all Understand!

1: Salmond lets the Energy Companies, Build these Turbines, destroying our Land

2: Our all English Energy Companies, now own and have foothold!

3: 87year Old always a 'True Scott' and Proud of it!, dies from hyperthermia, because they were 'Ripped' for Electricity Charges!

4: Would Salmond Act? I doubt it very much!

17

Shamus,

Glasgow 09/12/2008 01:32:24
16# Salmond is an ex Socialist you know a Capitalist. Why should he act.
18

Guga II,

Rockall 09/12/2008 01:39:21
So Scotland is expected to ruin its environment and destroy its scenery so that we can continue exporting our surplus energy to England.

Maybe the English should be forced to build all these wind turbines in England, preferably where they need the energy the most. Every vacant spot in and around London should have hundreds of them to supply their energy needs. We subsidise the English enough as it is, without destroying our countryside for them.

19

Guga II,

Rockall 09/12/2008 01:44:42
Mr. Hootsmon Editor,

Who is the Unionist troll that normally goes by the name of Roofarse Blowfly, or by today's name of Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff? He either works for the Hootsmon or has a Unionist fifth columnist working for them. It is the only possible reason that he can comment on articles anything up to four hours or more before the site is placed on the Internet.

Do you not think that you are doing enough damage to your reputation with your blatant Unionist/New Labour Sleaze and Corruption party bias without allowing such trolls a free hand?

20

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 01:48:01


Guga II ~19,

Gosh Guga! That was a strong one!, you must be very angry thismorning!
21

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 01:49:05



Every time that I get "Angry" the 'red-pen' comes and gets me :((

:))
22

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 01:52:00



Now what colour of flag does "red" represent?

D'oh I must get my 'Encyclopedia' oot! :)
23

Shamus,

Glasgow 09/12/2008 02:16:53
22# It means firing is not about to commence.
24

Edward,

09/12/2008 02:17:56
Just another Scotsman, Labour induced story
Scotland does NOT need Nuclear power, Scotland ctually produces sufficient that it EXPORTS power to England
If I didnt know better I would think that Labour want to encourage the thinking that Scotland SHOULD have Nuclear power, so it can EXPORT even more to England
But then again Gordon Browns brother is a director of Nuclear power company EDF responsible for PR.
Why does this paper focus in on wind, isnt the paper aware that Scotland also produces HYDRO and is commissioning more Hydro power stations, also on the verge of a massive Wave power setup in the north. But then again that would be just a tad inconvenient for Scotsman/Labour arguement
25

Shamus,

Glasgow 09/12/2008 02:27:11
24# Scotland requires all energy sources including nuclear. Retire to your nuclear bunker caravan Edward.
26

Dark Lochnagar,

Symington 09/12/2008 02:31:13
Once the power companies build the turbines we have them by the short and curlies. If we tax them too much or insist that power supplied to Scotland is cheaper, are they going to knock them down? I think not. Now Charles go to sleep, you have school in the morning and take horse cleg with you.
27

Edward,

09/12/2008 02:43:12
#25 Shamus
Say's who??
Its a very assumptious statement to make that Scotland requires ALL energy sources.
What exactly is that based on?
Is this the case for ALL countris, or just Scotland?
If your goingto contest an arguement at least mke it coherant instead of rushing off a quick and stupid knock back, or are you more stupid that you appear to be?
28

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 03:00:30


Soo! The conscientious up to now is,

'WE DON'T WANT THESE DARNED TURBINES',....

.... Cluttering up our landscapes!, for others to profit from!

'Join the Revolution'!

Join Linskaill's Army!




29

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 03:08:29

Oops! re: #28,

"the **consensus** is up to now
30

W Smith,

Middle East 09/12/2008 03:18:56
"The New Left call themselves 'green' because they are too yellow to call themselves reds"

- reader's on line comment to The Times.

This is all about the Left destroying our modern economy and associated lifestyle using the environment as an excuse.

The aim is to keep working class Scots poor, stupid and dependent on the state where they can be easily controlled and, hopefully, 're-educated'.

As lifestyles have gone up many working class Scots have become more right wing in terms of their goals in life and what they want for their kids.

WE CAN'T HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE?

BTW
With the job losses coming Scotland's way it looks like the greens will get their way.

Fewer Scots able to afford flights, cars, consumer goods, etc - yep, Scotland's carbon footprint is falling as factories close.

Before the Industrial Revolution Scotland was 'green' but people lived in hovels and you were lucky to live past 40 years of age.

WELCOME TO 'GREEN' SCOTLAND, LAND OF THE ECO-NUTTERS!
31

Professor-Quincy-Adams-Wagstaff ,

09/12/2008 04:02:44
#19 Oh dear. Gugu has gone Gaga. Such fury from one so small minded.

Fantastic to watch all the same.
32

Castaway™ ,

09/12/2008 06:37:13
09/12/2008-Scotland is exporting to England.
Scot-Eng:1676MW 06:36:00 GMT
33

The west awake,

Argyll 09/12/2008 06:51:25
The SCDI seem to have missed the fact that the Scottish Governments focus on wind power will be directed toward OFFSHORE rather than onshore. Offshore has difficulties, but is being favoured because; it is almost twice as productive as onshore, the turbines can be as big as required, the experiences and infrastructure of the North Sea oil and gas industry can be utilised AND, it obviates the objections around scenery blight.
My question is not whether the SCDI are wrong, they are, but why they are ignoring what is clear from govt. policy? Is it as simple and cynical as a bais toward the Nuclear Industry, or is there a Labour inclination here also?
34

Rodster,

Glasgow 09/12/2008 07:18:26
when someone can find a way to store nuclear waste safely then I will be all for nuclear .
however at present it is unsafe , it needs massive subsidy to operate.
There is not 1 nuclear power station in the world that operates in profit.
so for the meantime no to nuclear power , no to nuclear weapons on Scottish soil.
As to blotting the landscape ,what utter piffle better to have wind turbines than no planet
35

Alan Reid,

Viborg 09/12/2008 07:23:01
I see f@kwit W Smith has been let out for the day.
36

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 07:27:34
#3
Excellent post Charles!

I particularly enjoyed your liberal use, for no apparent reason, of upper case letters and your inventive approach towards spelling.

Your modern approach to grammar is illuminating, and your final statement, “,...Scottish Mountains,....'Dont-It'??” is very profound.

Have you ever considered a career in journalism?
37

Organic peasant,

N E Scotland 09/12/2008 07:40:01
A few facts about turbines most of the new ones are built by local farmers. The Mackies of ice cream fame are a good example but there are hundreds more and thousands to come. The money is raised locally to build them and stays local to be spent. Nuclear is great for wind energy producers it keeps the price of power so high profit is easy to make. We have just started to build a new Scotland free from dependence on foreign oil and coal. We can do more and sell our power to the rest of Europe. Scotland really is the new Kuwait of renewables. All we need is a new super grid of undersea cables to move our power to the central European market. No doubt the Scottish cringer's who want to keep us poor and dependent will complain but they complain about everything good for Scotland.
38

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/12/2008 07:41:38
Trebling onshore wind power is another fine way to break up the not so popular Union. It was foreseen in a minor H G Wells dystopian novel called "Propellor Island".

Trebles all round I say.
39

John Cameron,

St Andrews 09/12/2008 08:02:43
The problem with counter-intuitive ideas such as Global Warming is that, once they took root in the public mind, they are very difficult to criticise. In effect they become spiritualised and lifted out of the sphere of rational debate. The Global Warming Obsession has clearly become a secular fundamentalist religion. To doubt it is any way is now a sin. The great benefit about supporting something completely crazy is that the disciples can continue to come up with ever more crazy additions. And they can always count on the support of all the bien pensant in the chattering classes, such as the Church of Scotland, the Monster Raving Green Loonies, and all the other usual suspects. So welcome to the parallel universe. It can only get worse.
40

David MacVicar,

Web 09/12/2008 08:04:36
Why discuss facts when rhetoric is available ?

The Scottish Parliament under Labour rejected ANY new nuclear build until:
a) Waste disposal sites are found and agreed.
b) Method of disposal agreed and full costs identified.

Failure to adhere to this is both undemocratic (no surprise there) and complete folly (no surprise there either). Basically Nuclear is NOT an option till these points are resolved. Labour knows this – they voted for it in the SP! Private industry doesn’t want to build any New Nuclear in Scotland anyway so it’s all about whats right for the South verses the North – Déjà vu anyone?


Second, Nuclear is not the only alternative and NOWHERE does any scientific analysis state we must have Nuclear generation in Scotland. All state we must have a mix, with reliable supply while changing the mix to meet new targets, of hhich Nuclear is an option. An option. Gas powered stations are the least dirty fossil fuel stations it is also ‘an option’. Together with Carbon capture it would be a very worthwhile investment. However with Energy policy reserved and unfair, increased, Grid supply costs in Scotland there is little room to manoeuvre in Scotland, Nuclear included: remember Peterhead!
Scotland exports 6 times the Gas we use to the South, we are loaded in it, full to the brim for decades to come. Clean(er) Coal also has its place. Although still high in CO2 production this is largely offset by the large shift to renewables.

Last but not least. Scotland is INCREASING the capacity of the 2 electricity interconnects to England. Think about it. We are increasing our export capacity without Nuclear- why could that be? Of course its not all exports, we are increasing the capacity to allow importing more as well. Overall however, Scotland will be exporting even more to the Energy poor South than ever. This is as all already in progress or in planning – nothing to debate. However is this good or bad? For me it is good as it is one industry where
41

Unimpressed one,

09/12/2008 08:04:45
You can just imagine the bleating from the eco-nuts if oil and gas companies were proposing to build pipelines or other such associated infrastructure all over the place tearing up the countryside in the process. There'd be a swampy on every tree! But because it's in the name of their god (Gaia) they speak on behalf of us all for the greater good. When the hell is the sane majority going to say "enough is enough of this insanity" and get back to allowing those that are qualified to speak on technical matters to have their say?
42

David MacVicar,

contd. 09/12/2008 08:05:35
...However is this good or bad? For me it is good as it is one industry where we can take a lead. However the rhetoric by the Pro Nuclear mob is blown away by the slightest glance at the available facts.
43

n/,

Perth 09/12/2008 08:07:34
#37 All we need is wind generation and that whole range of other basket case renewables yet to be proven of any worth,............ and a new super grid of under sea cables''....to send all the massive amount of intermittent and wholly unreliable power generation that will be produced, to the rest of Europe, ......... and oh yes,........... ''free ourselves from dependence on oil and coal''..............and then Scotland and all who live here will be rich beyond their wildest dreams!.

If anyone believes this nonsense they really are away with the organic peasants!

44

TREV,

Poland 09/12/2008 08:14:36
I smell a seperatist agenda here! Maybe the plan is to have so many propellers in Scotland that it just rises up and flies away from England (to a warmer climate).
45

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 09/12/2008 08:17:09
The simplist solution would be to take a half mile strip of land on either side of the Scot/Eng border out of current production and build as many turbines as possible.

That way, we'd meet quota for both countries and since it's porportional (i.e. same number of turbines on both sides of the border but less peoiple in Scotland to utilise the energy) Scotland can still maintain her standing as an exporter of energy to England and England can continue sponging off the Scots.

There. Fair, simple and hassle free.
46

TWC,

09/12/2008 08:40:46
The report did say if we wish to continue exporting at todays level. We should not take any risk on Nuclear till it is unavoidable or made safe.

We still await Jack McConnell's promised solution of a few years ago and when pressed he said it would probably be buried in England. Well if I was in England I'd tell him where to stick it.
47

Nebulous,

Aberdeen 09/12/2008 08:43:54
Meeting the targets using renewables will be challenging, but possible - if people and electric companies spent half the time trying to develop the technology, that they do campaigning against the targets, then we would be home and dry.

Nukular is the selfish option - just as much of our borrowing, be it personal or public, has been the selfish option. Are we really prepared to sell our children and descendents future for a 20 year energy fix?

48

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 09/12/2008 08:51:35
Nuclear remains an absolute NO NO.
1 . It is NOT economical (especially when the costs of security; and waste management(waste cannot be disposed of).
2. Its fuel is finite and the more power stations there are the sooner fuels wil run out.
3. It is not reliable. At any one time any where over 15% of such power stations are out of action.
4. It is a terrorist target.

Green energies share only the third vice, but can compensate through sheer numbers.
49

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/12/2008 08:53:56
.. those that are qualified to speak on technical matters to have their say?

London has its think tanks and Royal Societies, though if you want something done, it helps to make party, donations, oil the levers and operate behind the scenes like British Nuclear. In the interests of effective and open government Scotland needs a National Board of Engineers to give us some expert advice.

I attended the first international conference on marine renewables at Newcastle University in 2001. It's spawned many more conferences but few projects are getting built. This seems to be the way of things. £10M is not what it used to be, but I've a surface tidal generator concept that could be dusted down.
50

Boy Wonder,

09/12/2008 08:56:58
I can see sales of semtex rising if these turbines go ahead.

First ... to blow up 95 year old Chuckles Linskaill ... THEN the turbines!!!
51

TWC,

09/12/2008 09:15:10
51 sm753,
sell to Norway
52

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 09:24:07
This story is total bullsh.t it presumes idiotically that all renewable energy will be in the form of wind turbines and completly ignores the other renewable resourses and their contributions ot the overall resource.
But saying that CL makes an interesting point in post 3 about who will benefit. Will this energy be taken under the UK wing or will it be controlled by the Scottish Parliament? damn good question.
53

Number 6,

germany 09/12/2008 09:25:24
#1 Reducing people to using candles is a LIEBOUR tactic. Where were you in the 70's . Typical unionista,
full to the brim with laughable garbage, spoon-fed to them by their London based handlers.

Your pathetic, the lot of you.
54

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 09:26:22
51

Having paying customers in England would certainly benefit Scotland more under Independence than it would just giving it to them within the union though eh?
55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 09:26:42
45. 'Donnie Murdo'

I see you've stopped calling yourself 'Dave from Barra' now that the island is getting its own wind turbine!

56

Ewan Oosami,

09/12/2008 09:30:59
#48
Have to disagree - The production of electricity is cheaper once the capital costs are removed, the fuel supply is not as finite as coal and oil, in fact the breeder reactor produces more fuel.It is as reliable as any other source and more so than windpower. All power stations are terrorist targets.
I'd prefer nuclear to this ridiculous rape of the landscape by thousands of turbines which only give prief periods of generation and still need backing up by conventional/nuclear stations. Maybe the answer is in wavepower for renewable energy, but we need more experimentation and research. The north of Scotland is the ideal place for this fairly unobtrusive form of generation and it will be economically rewarding.
57

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 09:33:49
57

Is there any particular reason why Nuclear power stations are kept as far away as possible from large populated areas? was there any motivation to sighting the UKs first Nuclear power station as far North of the UK mainland as possible?
58

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 09:37:22
Either that or two nuclear power stations---which will work when it's not windy---and when it's too windy.
59

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 09:37:23
So what if we pay subsidies? We've been bailing out the Nuclear have we not?
60

capy,

embra 09/12/2008 09:38:16
Bob Graham, an anti-wind farm campaigner, said he would be "absolutely horrified" if 2,000 extra wind turbines were even being considered for Scotland. "It's not economically viable," he said. "The subsidies required to support that industry are huge and the carbon savings would be negligible."

Well Mr Graham,have you ever given any thought to the massive ammounts of subsidy given to the nuclear industry? Or is that an inconvenient truth?
61

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 09:48:28
59

When is it ever not windy? and how much indisposable waste will we get from 2 nuclear power stations and where are we going to put the waste? dump it in the Thames perhaps? How much does Uranium cost these days?
62

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 09:54:31
#58:

Interesting question...

The first UK nuclear power station was Calder Hall at Sellafield, which is hardly as far north as possible! Seeing as they built it in the 1950s, there was still a little bit of trepidation regarding the safety aspect, so they built it "in the middle of nowhere". Remember that this was still the era of "Protect and Survive" when public information films told you that you could survive a nuclear holocaust by sellotaping newspaper to your windows and hiding under the table!

Nuclear safety is far more advanced nowadays, bearing in mind that nuclear submarines and in the case of the USA, aircraft carriers are common. Many have been running for years with no problems.

The only possible motivation for building these things in the middle of nowhere now is the on-going perceived terrorist threat. Also, being in the middle of nowhere tends to make life far more uncomfortable for any mis-guided morons who might wish to hold an on-going demonstration about them.
63

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 09/12/2008 09:57:41
wind and solar energy are free and abundant and no government or greedy corporation can take ownership however hard they try. The technology is becoming good and powerful enough that we can take control of our own energy requirements by installing our own turbines and solar panels. I would love to see scotland take the lead in cutting out the energy companies altogether. let's do it folks and watch them squirm when nobody needs their smelly nuclear power anymore. there must be a way...
64

David MacVicar,

Energy rich North 09/12/2008 10:02:24
51 sm753,

Firstly , the article is about whether or not Scotland needs Nuclear generation, so thanks for indirectly agreeing that Scotland as a Country does not.

Secondly the interconnect upgrades are done through Planning policy in place by the Scottish Government, so it is a Scottish policy decision and the decision to upgrade the interconnects has been made because increased power will be supplied – QED. It is 100% a Scottish planning decision regardless of who is doing the upgrade. So, In your words, have you ‘got it’?

The current economics of it is however UK controlled, Scotland run as a region can only react to UK lead policy.

”But the Scottish power market is already over-supplied, so if these marvellous wind farms are to sell any product, they need customers in England.”

True, and a friend in need is a friend indeed. And they are ever increasing in number with ever decreasing % native supply. The Energy need in England is going up not down and it is going up massively. So much so that, for example, gas is being piped directly from Norway at huge cost. The cost of which is being passed to Scottish consumers that don’t use the imported gas. AKA Union dividend = Union dead end.
Currently the North ‘region’ that is already not seeing any benefit of any exports South accrued to London, however the Scottish consumer is paying for the additional imports of the South and will not see any benefit for the electricity exports in the short term either. Longer term it’s a whole other ball game.

With a Scottish based Energy policy. Scotland supplies the Grid and exports fossil fuels at market prices, Scottish lead and not UK controlled. We can also export to Europe and are not tied to English exports only though they would obviously remain a ‘needy’ key customer base.

Englands alternative to imports? Full endemic production, massive Nuclear build and massive renewable build from limited resources at huge cost. Except for the planned Nuclear
65

David MacVicar,

Energy zone 09/12/2008 10:03:00
contd.

Except for the planned Nuclear build (that is not massive as %age), this is just not going to happen. England will continue to import as much as it can get from all its neighbours. Scotlands future is bright, the future is accountable Fiscal and Energy devolution and control, anathema to the Westminster careerists.
66

wilfredthehairy,

A warm office, somewhere in Edinburgh 09/12/2008 10:05:55
...and when the wind stops, we light candles and put on jumpers?
67

wilfredthehairy,

Bombing over the Forth Bridge at 20mph 09/12/2008 10:07:45
Only 35% of CO2 is produced by transport. Most of that is due to lorries and busses, none of which travel at speeds of 70mph or more. So, just another spoil-sport, knee-jerk reaction?
68

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 10:08:28
#62:

It's often not windy. It's often too windy. These turbines have a specific operating range of wind speed. When the wind speed is out of this range, the turbine might as well not be there as it is disabled and removed from the grid.

Regarding the price of uranium, I have no idea, but you could probably find out after a bit of trawling the web.

Regarding nuclear waste---yeah, a bit more of a problem. Currently we reprocess spent nuclear fuel so that it can be re-used but this has the side effect of creating high-level waste. Given time we may be able to deal with this in a better way, but however, the waste we are talking about actually gives off a lot of heat. Why don't we use this heat?

Given time, maybe scientists will find a way to solve the problems of nuclear waste.
69

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 10:08:32
"Solar and even wind need large subsidies to be competitive, except in specialist applications."

and Nuclear doesn't?
70

David MacVicar,

Energy Zone 09/12/2008 10:13:54
P.S. Anyone with one iota of common sense knows that UK Energy policy is 100% driven by the needs of the South. If that policy so happens to have a negative impact on the regional North (from about Leeds upwards) then tough.

We have seen this time and time again and it will never change in our lifetimes unless we get control. This is what it is all about and what Westminster is desperatly keen to keep hold of, or as Calman says: it will endanger the Union. The genie is out of the bottle.
71

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 10:17:02
Cutting the motorway speed limit is brain-dead stupidity and would only be suggested by someone with no knowledge of automotive engineering whatsoever. Which in turn begs the question as to why they are in a position where they are permitted to comment on it in this way.

To be frank, I am sick to death of hearing all this bunkum about "carbon emissions". The climate is driven by WATER, not CO2 or anything else.

I actually thought that this might be a sensible article on the energy of the future but it turns out that once again, the bottom line is this ridiculous "carbon emissions" rubbish. How the hell did we get to the stage where it seems the entire world is basing their political strategy on the witterings of ignorant morons? It is about time we all grew up and relegated these idiots to the butt of jokes once again.
72

Farmer,

09/12/2008 10:17:25
When the wind's not blowing,
the light's not glowing.
73

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 10:20:42
David,

In the current political climate, with the current excuse for a government in charge, getting independance would quickly return Scotland to the dark ages (literally in the case of energy) and would remove all our freedoms.

We should think ourselves lucky that at present, many of the stupid ideas being peddled by the SNP have no chance of making it to the statute books because they are reserved matters.

I never in my wildest dreams thought that I'd be looking to stupid labour to protect us from the wildest excess of a Scottish government, but incredibly, that is the state we now find ourselves in.
74

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 09/12/2008 10:23:50
#69 ur rubbish!
full of negativity and flawed logic. It is possible and the cup is half full. By smelly I don't literally mean smelly I mean smelly as in bad (it's an Ayrshire thing). but ur still rubbish...I think it's only a matter of time before huge power companies become obsolete...
75

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 10:25:45
69

What a moronic post and yet unsurprisingly one of your very best. I bet there must be somewhere in the world where your posts would be relevant and welcome perhaps in a non English speaking library for the blind and terminally mentally challenged?
76

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 10:29:10
79
"Sorry, the companies doing the exporting are getting the revenue. If you want to benefit, go buy shares in SSE or Iberdrola"

Ah yes one of the many benefits of privatisation supported and encouraged by the UK government and yourself funnily enough. Of course an Independent Scotland can always choose to nationalise the power industries if it thought it would benefit. Not possible within the union of course not while under the dictorial leadership of Zanu Liebour or the English/British nationalist conservative party.
77

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 10:31:15
sm753 answering *Firstly , the article is about whether or not Scotland needs Nuclear generation* says

"No it is not. It's mostly about wind farms."

But it says in the article, "The report re-ignites the debate over nuclear power in Scotland."
78

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 09/12/2008 10:34:41
#81 sometimes moronic , pedantic and /or illogical get the point across more elegant and unpretentious manner. I like to do this to appeal to a wider audience and not just to pander to the pseudo intellectuals who frequent this board. I quite enjoy adding a touch of stupidity to these discussions and very often contradictions are thrown in just to get the discussion moving in a different direction. I find it helps me relax especially when I upset people like yourself. :)
79

Ewan Oosami,

09/12/2008 10:37:51
#58 The first nuclear power station was at Calder Hall (Windscale) not the far north of Scotland.
80

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 10:39:34
sm753

Resorting to name-calling again? It appears to be your good self who is trusting the journos.

Anyway - Wind farms list - http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/offshore.asp

Or the google map http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/google.asp
81

The Tin Man,

09/12/2008 10:40:19
#82 A. T. Scot

You have failed to notice the recent nationalisation of several banks by our Westminster gov.
82

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 10:45:18
87

Nope Calderhill was the first "industrial scale" nuclear power station and it opened in 1956.

The Dounreay site was opened in 1955 to develop fast reactors. Three reactors were built on the site, the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR), Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) and the Dounreay Materials Test Reactor (DMTR). All three are now closed.

And it was chosen because it was as far away from London as possible within the mainland of the UK.
83

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 10:46:19
89

Have I? I hadnt noticed.
84

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 10:47:09
84

How much is Uranium these days?
85

The Tin Man,

09/12/2008 10:50:28
#91 A. T. Scot

Sizewell nuclear power station was built in Suffolk in 1961, possibly "because it was as far away from London as possible within the mainland of the UK", as you say.

Or maybe not...
86

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 10:53:01
95

Well they had already established with the Dounreay experiment that Nuclear power stations wouldnt blow up on opening day so they felt it safe enough to build them closer to home.
87

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 10:54:38
94

"Anyway - Wind farms list - http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/offshore.asp" Relevance please?"

Should there be? You normally post irrelevant p¡sh.
I just thought the link was rather interesting.
88

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 10:59:05
Maybe this would help:-

tinyurl.com/5fdqj7
89

David MacVicar,

web 09/12/2008 11:04:54
sm753,

You are twisting my words, the article does talk about the nuclear debate and OBVIOUSLY this is what my original post was about - stop deflecting and trying to be a smart @rse.

You then go on about Energy companies that exist to make profit and market prices. Sorry, I wasn't posting about the bleeding obvious. Energy policy and who has control is what I was referring to. You replied to my post not the other way round. I am not talking about the SNP either, I am talking about Scottish government and polict and control whomever they may be.

Certainly International Gas price is linked to Oil. However Price of international rates + endemic supply is not the same as international rates + import cost eg Gas imported from Norway compared to Gas sourced in the English sector of the North sea does not cost the same regrdless of international market. This additional cost is passed to the consumer - all of us in a single UK energy market.

If everyone paid international rates consumer price would be similar for everyone. Yet price in Russia, Norway, France, UK are all very different. Also France has no gas yet their gas bill is still lower due to UK verses France policy not because of company/competition prices.
90

Hiatus,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 11:06:15
Oh dear, the lunatics are flexing their eco muscles again. Lets look at the facts. Man produces 6% of so
called "harmful gases". The planet itself creates the vast majority of them and it has not been doing too badly for the last few million years.

There is no concrete scientific proof that these "harmful gases" have any effect.
What is being proposed is that we make the world a poorer place by ensuring that 80% of energy supplies come from a very costly and unpredictable source. So that is 80% of 6%. And remember, these are politicians proclaiming what has to happen yet in reality very little will happen thankfully.

Why are we hammering ourselves when 18% of "harmful emmisions" come from farmed livestock? Solve that problem and the enviromental lunatics will have achieved far more then their uncosted idealistic nonsense.

PS. Remember in the early 1970's when the same nutters were prediciting an ice age by the year 2000?
The Stern report, case dismissed, next!
91

Ewan Oosami,

09/12/2008 11:10:27
#91
Dounray reactors were not powerstations, they were experimental reactors.
Calder Hall (not Calderhill) construction started in 1953 and it came on line (officially) when opened by the Queen in 1956.
92

Alan B,

09/12/2008 11:10:47
I do not think the discussion should be renewables or nuclear but whether nuclear should compliment renewable power generation.

The other question in scotland is who chooses whether scotland should have nuclear and our energy mix in general. The uk as a whole which in effect could mean england pushing a policy on scotland against the will of scotland. Or the scottish parliament.

For me the decision about our energy mix must be taken by the scottish parliament. That then gives democractic accountability to any decision taken. It is also consistent with devolution and the concept and drivers behind devolution.

Part of the reason for the immaturity of the current debate is Brown trying to retake power over nuclear so he can make the decision over scotland energy mix and future. The last thing scotland needs is westminster deciding it does not like the decision by the scottish parliament and will then change the rules so that it can make the decision. Off course a lot of apologists for labour will disagree.
93

john z,

edinburgh 09/12/2008 11:12:26
Has anyone seen the EXTREMELY one sided and heavily biased coverage of this report on the BBC website.

If you read it, you might end up thinking that Nuclear power in Scotland had just been commanded by god.

Recently, the BBC have become very, very pro labour. Such a pity.
94

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 11:14:39
The https were for petrolhead. It's not just the SNP pushing for renewables.
95

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 11:16:34
98 Moron

91

The Dounreay site was opened in 1955 to develop fast reactors.

98

Dounreay did not open as a site until 1955, and its first reactor did not commission until 1958.

91

"Nope Calderhill was the first "industrial scale" nuclear power station and it opened in 1956.

98

Calder Hall started construction in 1953, and connected to the Grid in 1956.

And in the 40s Sellafield or Windscale as it was known was not opened as a Nuclear power station it was a nuclear grade weapons development site idiot boy.

Obviously not a serious post at all just another one of your provocative sh.t stirring efforts.
You dont have the intellectual capacity to come on here and debate normally without making a complete ar.e of yourself so you resort to this cr.p.
What a sad deranged little git you are.




96

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 11:16:48
Nuclear is dirty.
97

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 11:18:50
102

Exactly the point Dounreay was the experimental site for commercial nuclear energy and it was based as far from London as possible just in case.
98

The Tin Man,

09/12/2008 11:22:15
#108 A. T. Scot

It should have been built in Shetland, then.
99

Alan B,

09/12/2008 11:24:05
#john z

Unfortunately labour have politicised the BBC and even organisations like the police. Labour have unfortunately been completely corrupt in their lust for power and it has been detrimental to our democracy.
100

Ewan Oosami,

09/12/2008 11:24:37
I'd love to know when it changed it's name to Calderhill. BTW I used to work at Sellafield.
For all you uninformed (and those who think they know whet they are talking about)read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Calder_Hall_nuclear_power_station
101

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 11:30:51
#105:

Hugh,

I SUPPORT "renewables". They are a good idea but as with everything else, some common sense and specialist knowledge needs to be applied to their implimentation.

It is abundantly clear that nuclear power generation is the way to go as far as the main UK infrastructure is concerned. By all means have wind-farms, wave farms and hydro-electric power stations (don't hear much about them nowadays do we) but these must be seen as SUPPLIMENTARY factilites, not the mainstay.

At the end of the day, unlike the green meanies, I don't pretend that using windmills (which is what they are. Calling them turbines is misleading) is somehow going to save the planet.

The planet will save itself. It has done so for the past christ knows how many millions of years and it will continue to do so until it is either hit by a massive asteroid or the sun runs out of fuel, expands and engulfs it. Neither of those things are within man's control.

People who are categorically against nuclear power know nothing and simply do not understand it. Why should the UK be made to suffer in the future because of a fear of the unknown on the part of the ignorant? It just doesn't make sense. Get building the nuclear power stations now, before it is too late.
102

badger464,

09/12/2008 11:30:53
i think some people have forgotten what environment actually is, and just a thought, has there ever been a scientific study of the damage thay could be caused to the planet by too many wind sapping devices, there's bound to be a critical point
103

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 11:35:15
113

To post idiotically once is bad enough but to repost it and highlight the fact is simply insane.
Get help.
104

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 11:38:33
Alternative (ex petrolhead)

I've nothing against nuclear. I don't like the lies that are spouted regarding "nuclear is cheap/clean/etc."

I also have nothing against renewables. There should be a balance. The whole world is looking at alternatives, but somehow this site attracts staring-eyed mentalists who decry anything Scotland does simply because the SNP happens to be the main party in Holyrood.

Go back to when labour controlled Holyrood. What did Jack McConnel say?

"First Minister Jack McConnell has signalled a "massive expansion" of renewable energy use.

He said that wind and marine power were "Scotland's great asset" in the UK energy review."
105

New Town Resident,

09/12/2008 11:39:46
#103. Alan B. I think the problem with your logic is that we currently have a GB (not UK) power system and I believe actually it is SNP policy to leave this in place in the event of independence? This matters because the cost of running this GB power system is spread accross all GB consumers, 90% of which are south of the border. Whatever the lobbyists may claim, it is a fact that renewables are much more expensive than any other form of power and so need a very large subsidy. They are also very expensive to connect to the grid system because they tend to be muliple, small and remote. There is no way Scotland could afford this renewals programme on the back of the Scottish taxpayer or power consumer alone, so surely its reasonable that those who pay for it (all GB consumers, 90% south of the border) have some say?

To make it simpler, think of the Royal Mail, which I also think the SNP want to leave in place? The price of postage is the same in Shetland as it is in London -there is a cross subsidy on a universal service and rightly so. Presumably you would not argue that the Scottish parliament has the right to make postage free of charge in Shetland and can then automatically require an increased cross subsidy from London?

Strangely enough one of the benefits that I can see from independence would be that maybe it would put a stop to this wind farm nonsense as it would be pretty likely that an independent England would be the first to bin this crazy policy and stop paying "green" subsidies to Scotland.

On another point the WWF gets a lot of public money to protect wildlife. Surely the Scottish WWF job is to protect Scottish birds, squirrals etc., not to provide Mr. Dixon with a platform to lobby on energy policies on which he has no special expertise, and which have the direct effect of damaging Scottish widlife.
106

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 11:47:09
119

Independence isnt going to see a change in the customer base for energy the same customers are going to need the same energy irrespective of any constitutional changes the difference of course is in who is going to profit from it.
107

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 11:51:27
120 sm753

"If you look at my 84 I hope you will see I am not a staring-eyed mentalist."

I don't include you in this list AM2. You are of course in my "arrogant" list.
108

The Tin Man,

09/12/2008 12:00:44
#121 A. T. Scot

Indedendence, or not, we will still be buying electricity from Scottish Power etc, and they will still be making their profits.
109

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 12:01:19
Wave power can used to provide 400TWh of base load, load following and peak shaving electricity to the UK annually with a bit of imagination.

See http://www.greenheating.com and multiply by 8 million
110

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 12:01:57
Hey Fuelhead! Here's one to get you going.

"The open display of tobacco in shops is to be banned in England and Wales, the government has announced."
111

Alan B,

09/12/2008 12:02:54
#119 New Town Resident

Couple of points:
1)when NETA was introduced it only effected England (i understand that has probably changed) but it did show that the english market and scottish markets were treated differently even pre devolution.
2)scotland pre devolution has different levels for nculear production hitting about 50% while england was 20% at one point.
3)scotland electricity industry was privatised differently ie vertically where in england there was a split of generation and distribution companies
4)since devolution labour and the lib dems set far higher renewable targets than england (40% by 2020).

As such it shows that pre devolution and during labours time in office scotlands electricity market and englands were not the same. I find it strange therefore than given that certain political decisions are not devolved and now that labour lose an election Brown now wants to change the devolution rules so he can make decisions.

Lets face it england is not bothered whether scotland has nuclear or not. What Brown is doing is doing is simply protecting himself from a future allegation that he pushed nuclear for england while not in scotland. Remember labour in scotland under McConnell were anti nuclear.

I am not ideolgically against nuclear. In fact i was pro it during the 80s when labour were totally against it but want more support for renewables. However I have not become more anti nuclear for scotland. This is due to the fact i think that we should push renewables as an industry and i do not think scotland can serious support both as both need to some extent underwritten by the tax payer.

Scotland also was exporting 40% electricity. It makes sense to me that if we can produce renewables of 50% by 2020 which the scottish government targets and that is only slightly above labours own previous target then that is decent. We need to determine where the other 50% should come from and to what extent beyond 2020 renewables can be expanded and ou
112

Alan B,

09/12/2008 12:03:25
...our electricty use reduced.

Remember aswell in england. What is their nuclear target and what is their renewable target? I think england renewable target is 20% by 2020 as such england have a much bigger energy gap.

I do think the decision is political. The reason i supported independence and devolution is decision like this. ie scotland was anti nuclear in the 80s voting for an anti nuclear party, but got a pro nuclear policy due to england voting for that pro nuclear party. As such ideologically while i have no particular axe to grind with nuclear i want the decision to have the concent of the people of scotland.

I find too many arguments over policy forget the issue of democracy is about the concent of the people and ensuring the people support the policies of government.

113

Vlad Tepes,

Snagov 09/12/2008 12:04:45
Straight choice here:
1. We use our amazing natural resources to become a world leader in (all sorts of) renewable energy production.
2. We become a dumping ground for radiation-leaking potential nuclear disasters.

Beware of the rich and powerful nuclear lobby posing as new-born environmentalists.
114

Doh,

09/12/2008 12:13:05

Lets get building these new windmills asap.

I'd rather have a view of a windmill than a nuclear power station or nuclear dump.

All objectors should be given that choice.
115

TWC,

09/12/2008 12:14:42
This is not just a Labour pro Nuclear and an SNP ani Nuclear! This is about the future of Scotland and at the last count the Parliament was anti nuclear power at least until the Wast problem was solved.
Jack McConnell said there would be a proposal for waste disposal.
Was that proposal ever forthcoming.
This is not a 2 party posts
116

Alan B,

09/12/2008 12:14:42
#Doh

"I'd rather have a view of a windmill than a nuclear power station or nuclear dump"

The worst aspect from my perspective is pylons. I do not think windmills look bad but pylons are dreadful.
117

The Tin Man,

09/12/2008 12:21:05
#131 Alan B

If Scotland has more windmills per head of population than the rest of the UK, and wind-power has to be subsidised through our electricity bills in order to be viable, wouldn't independence therefore result in higher electricity prices in Scotland?
118

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 12:23:10
Easier to repair faults with pylons.
119

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 12:23:44
133

Nuclear is subsidised too.
120

Alan B,

09/12/2008 12:27:53
#132 sm753

I am talking of existing pylons. For me the visual aspect of them is the worst aspect.

121

Alan B,

09/12/2008 12:36:26
#133 The Tin Man

Could do.

Off course you would have to compare against nuclear subsidies. For instance the bail out of the nuclear company a few yrs ago. Overruns on clean up costs.

As i said part of my reason for moving away from my support for nuclear as part of the energy mix is due to the issue that i think in scotland we have to protect against subsiding too many sources potentially and chosing to focus on developing on core areas.

Part of my reason for supporting renewables is due to the idea that i think it will have wider economic benefits by focussing on developing this industry. ie part of an economic strategy.

Going for the cheapest option is not always best. Look at the dash for gas. Now we import gas and are reliant on foreign supply. Daft. We should have used gas for domestic use like cookers and heating and not electricity.

If coal is cheapest i would not just say go that way due to the fact i do think we should do something regarding CO2 emmissions.

I would also look at other areas for intance abolish VAT on electricity. as such this should bring prices down by what is it 8%.

Prices for renewables are also coming down. Bit like all technology.

But i am happy for the debate and the argument to take place i just want the scottish parliament to take the decision with the concent of the people.

122

,

09/12/2008 13:06:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
123

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 13:16:21
Anybody else get a time out error, or is my computer junk?
124

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 13:22:25
#136 "The Beauly-Denny line upgrade requires the replacement of a 132kV line (small pylons) with a 400 kV one (fewer, but much taller ones).

Lots of people are objecting to it. But it is necessary if much of the planned wind and tidal development in the north is to have a market."

Energy can be transmitted in many ways and you need to be careful what you wish for. If the Beauly-Denny line is built it will have the capacity to transmit all the electricity from a nuclear power station. SSE are relying on those that lack gorms to believe that this expensive line is there to carry dribbles of electrcity from daft wind, wave and tidal turbines.

The 'real time' generation from renewables is the BIG problem. When the tide is flowing and the wind is blowing, unless the electricity is consumed at that very nanosecond it is lost forever. There is no storage on the national grid.

However, you can convert kinetic energy into heat directly without the tiresome process of generating electricity and connecting it up to immersion heaters.

Coverting heat into electricity is the easy bit. This is what happens at any thermal plant be it nuclear of coal. Half a tonne of coal will produce 3MWh(thermal) which can be converted to 1MWh(electrical) and cost the planet 950kg in CO equivalent.

Much better to use renewable energy to heat the water instead. Nuclear and coal plant are essentially big 'kettles' that raise steam.

We are going nowhere with the strategy of real time generation.
125

cataibh,

Over the Struie 09/12/2008 13:31:26
Nobody has told us yet how the waste is to be safely stored. My beloved Sutherland will have nuclear particles on the sea bed and shoreline for the next 1000 years. Never mind the unionists will have their power at Scotland's expence.
126

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 13:31:55
Greenheatman

A number of firms are investigating a wind-power storage system that uses compressed air.
127

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 13:34:45
133

Not if its one energy source replacing another this isnt an extra energy source being added to the overall package this is a replacement source for an existing system. Why does the obvious seem to stump you kid on unionists?
128

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 13:36:14
140

Aye right enough no doubt all of the customers down south they will consider building their own energy farms and resources. What an idiot.
129

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 13:37:25
145

A word salad. WTF are you on about?
130

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 13:38:42
145

All my post said was that it's easier to fix faults in the electric supply if there are pylons.

BTW - WTF is a kid on unionist?
131

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:07:59
149

It's possibly a case of mistaken identity.
132

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:08:40
One thing though - if he's got the IQ of a pot of yoghurt it means he's cultured.
133

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:29:56
152

Cultured ... yoghurt ... play on words ... sheesh.

I don't remember reading that post. Link?
134

Trond,

Home of trolls 09/12/2008 14:30:59
Wind mills at sea will reduce the production of plant plankton, according to Norwegian meteorologists.

http://www.bt.no/meninger/kronikk/article672015.ece
135

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:44:37
sm753

"So sorry, no proof. Trust me."

Here's the deal. I'll trust you if you won't ask me for links/proof. OK? Just trust me.
136

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 14:47:53
#133 Yes the figures based on the article are quite neat. 50% renewables is 40% wind and 10% hydro. That means 20,000,000 megawatt hours will be produced by wind (ignoring the increase in consumption) a year in Scotland. At the current subsidy of £50 a megawatt hour the annual subsidy will be £1000,000,000. Currently the subsidy (on 3,000,000 mwhs) does come mostly from England but after independence the whole of the subsidy will need to come from Scotland. That's about £500 per household a year. Not an insurmountable amount to be paid.
137

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:47:55
Umophengikeyt!
138

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:48:42
158

Aye very good. How about the nuclear subsidy?
139

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 14:52:09
142 Greenheatman

I sort of see your point, but I've never understood how you propose to store and transport the heat you generate.

Water?

What are the losses?


Large mobile thermal accumulators and heat exchangers.

Losses in renewable energy context is a bit of red herrring - if you have 10% losses you simple put in 110% FOC energy in at the front end!

"Greenheatman

A number of firms are investigating a wind-power storage system that uses compressed air."

Yes, I looked at that about 10 years ago and dismissed the idea shortly afterwards - the Germans have done this for years in ex-salt mines. Pretty inefficient with a lot of losses - as heat!


140

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:52:18
158

Your figures are flawed. Check again.
141

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:55:27
161

How about the Magnetic Piston Generator?
142

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 14:56:33
...."General Compression, based in Attleboro, Mass., last week said it received a $5 million round of seed funding to commercialize a wind-power storage system that uses compressed air."

Bit of a waste of money if it doesn't work.
143

David MacVicar,

web 09/12/2008 15:00:46
132 sm753.

enny powerline - Bigger Pylons, same route, fewer pylons...so what?

So your position from todays posts is: Undersea cable from North to Central Scotland = expensive and Bad.
Undersea Gas pipeline from Norway to east Central England, worlds biggest = OK and at no difference to consumer prices. Great logic you got there. Please clarify this position?



144

David MacVicar,

web 09/12/2008 15:05:57
sm753, In any case I agree pylons are the best way for electricity transmission bar none, there is no easy alternative. Undersea is the only and inferior option.

However EDF wanted to transmit more power to Spain over the Pyrenees. Everyone objected in S. France, so they are going to use an undersea cable instead.
An interesting Political decision.

Gas Piplines already exist from North Sea to Scotland and through to England. Rather than exanding the infrastructure a pipeline was laid from Norwat to England direct. An Interesting Political decision. Wonder why they did it like that?
145

David MacVicar,

web 09/12/2008 15:22:51
169
"It was a commercial one made by private companies"

Yeah right.
146

The Tin Man,

09/12/2008 15:23:48
#160 Hugh R.

Well, there are 3 nuclear sites in Scotland, and presumably we would be subsidising the decommisioning there-of, as well as the windmills.
147

Colin, Glasgow,

09/12/2008 15:33:40
Regarding the cost of nuclear power, the UK has had some bad experiences with choosing the wrong technology and cleaning up after expensive military and research programmes. The global experience is that nuclear power about the cheapest source of electricity available. Look at the data from the International Energy Agency.

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

Here is a summary of the levelised cost ($ per MWh at 5% discount rate) for various sources of electricity:

Coal 25-50
Gas 37-60
Nuclear 21-31
Wind 35-95
Micro Hydro 40-80
Solar 150
CHP 25-65

The only renewable option that is ever likely to compete with nuclear in the foreseeable future is onshore wind – and then only in ideal locations. Offshore wind (and any marine renewable) is likely to remain expensive. That is why it makes sense for the SCDI report to look at onshore wind as the main alternative.

Coal with CCS is never likely to be cheaper than nuclear because it requires significantly more coal to be burned to get the same output, and hence will inevitably be more expensive than traditional coal power.

Nevertheless, globally we'll need all the options that are available including nuclear, wind & CCS.
148

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 15:36:01
160# You are absolutely right. Because the wind doesn't blow all the time (Denmark has 60 days a yaer when output from wind is zero) we shall also need to subsidise nuclear plants to be on stand by when the wind isn't blowing. (Denmark imports electricity from German plants in that eventuality).

So again if we were independent we would need to pay that as well instead of the English subsidising Torness and Hunterston. i gess you could add another £50 million a year for that.

Subsidising Scotland's 40% windpower over the same life as a nuclear plant ((40 years) would obviously amount to £40,000,000,000. You may ask if it might not be cheaper to just have the nuclear plants instead of having them on standby and dispense with the £40,000,000,000 Scotland will need to find to subsidise the wind farms.
149

Geomac 1,

Scotland 09/12/2008 15:36:46
All this guff boils down to whether we in Scotland deserve reliable electricity supply or not. If we do, then the time has come to stop dickering around with windmills and political puff.
If we don't, them let the politicians have their fun.
150

Mcsnagpile,

09/12/2008 15:36:49
A wee toattie Country in the North of Europe thinks it can change the world's climate with its CO2. Now yer Kiddin me--yer no??

I could name many small places in the world that generate a lot more CO2 and total pollution than the whole of Scotland. In fact I could name some that are not even built yet.
151

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 09/12/2008 15:56:37
#144 Hugh

There is also a lot of potential in using plug in hybrid cars and electric vehicles as storage for the excess power created during peak wind periods. They call this V2G or Vehicle to grid.


152

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 16:12:57
161

Greenheat

"Losses in renewable energy context is a bit of red herrring - if you have 10% losses you simple put in 110% FOC energy in at the front end!"

How about a worked example?

You've talked about feeding this heat into existing power plants.

So choose one - say Peterhead or Longannet.

OK let's choose Longannet

Where would you site your venturi thingies?

All over the north sea - and never in the same place twice

How many?

Just one Combined Harvester Unit would deliver an average 50MW(electrical) per hour for ever hour of the year.

How much heat would they produce?

On average 150MW(thermal) per hour

How much would make it to the power plant at the far end?

On average 150MW(thermal) per hour

What difference would that make to its efficiency / fuel consumption?

Assuming a conservative 33.33% thermal efficiency absolutely none

What is the cost?

Around £45,000,000 for basic setup.

For a full breakdown of the financial benefits see www.greenheating.com
153

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 16:13:57
147 148

My post was directed at 133 not 134 moron.
154

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 16:14:12
Battery storage for wind power is looking very promising:

NGK Insulators' 1-megawatt, sodium-sulfur battery is capable of holding 7.2 megawatt-hours of energy for Wind Power Battery Storage:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/gridpoint-to-manage-wind-power-battery-storage-5205.html
155

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 16:17:11
171 Tin Man

I was referring to the bail out we've already given to British nuclear.
156

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 16:18:54
152

I would never flatter our government by referring to them as Yiddish you obviously have the wrong guy.
Why would I refer to them as Yiddish? when there are more appropriate four letter words far more relevant?
157

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 16:19:42
179 A True Scot

Who are you calling a moron? Get real pal.
158

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 16:21:43
151

If I had the IQ of a pot of yogurt everything I post would go over both your heads.
159

,

09/12/2008 16:22:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
160

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 16:23:31
185

Should be "You're a real moron." Get yer grammar right.
161

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 16:24:02
In other words - True Scot - engage your brain before posting.
162

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 16:24:04
178. Greenheatman.

Do you understand the difference between MW and MWh???
163

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 16:24:57
186

should be "get your grammar right" shouldnt it?
164

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 16:26:15
187

Eh most of us dont have to engage our brains they stay engaged from birth. I take it that doesnt apply in your case then?
165

,

09/12/2008 16:28:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
166

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 16:31:37
191

Railway tracks?
167

,

09/12/2008 16:32:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
168

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 16:41:42
192

How can a varying load factor be measured in percentage terms? 100% relative to what? today morning load? afternoon load? evening load? tomorrows load?
169

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 16:48:22
Greenheat

From your website:

"The Gentec WATS 50MW System will generate 445GWh annually "

Um.

50 MW x 8760 hours = 438 000 MWh = 438 GWh.

These figures are from my spreadsheet but I have rounded them down from 50.8MW (There is 8766 hours in a year ie 365.25 x 24)

You appear to be assuming a load factor of over 100%.

I am claiming a load factor of 100% - steam turbines can run for up to eight years provided there is an infinite supply of dry steam

"The energy is captured using a Combined Harvester Unit and stored. The energy is transmitted to the shore without the use of expensive and vulnerable sub-sea cables."

So exactly how is it transmitted to shore? And you're claiming 0% losses?

I have already explained how. I am not claiming zero losses but since the supply of energy is free at the point of harvesting - I simply take more than I need to cover any small losses that exist.

You really need to break out of the mould that surrounds you - it was put there by tertiary education - this idea will work exactly as described regardless of system efficiency and operational losses.

I could see your points if I was buying coal to raise steam - I would want get as much as I could out of it and thermal efficiency would indeed be a major issue.

Using abundant renewable energy resources to heat water is completely different.
170

cataibh,

Over the Struie 09/12/2008 16:57:48
The pro nuclear lobby have still to tell us how the waste can be safely stored. I attended a meeting in Inverness in 1954 and we were assured by the then United Kindom Atomic Energy that nuclear power was safe and that the waste would be stored in a way that would not effect the environment.But now nuclear particles are found on the seabed and shoreline a product of Dounreay nuclear power station.
171

Winston,

Europe 09/12/2008 17:03:18
Scotland has a huge wind potential. Some counties would envy it.
I heard of a german town that is self sufficient on green energy including wind turbines and they export 40% excess power to others.
I wouldn't mind seeeing wind turbines from my window on a hill or in a field. I think they are graceful and pleasant to watch and nice to know they are producing electricity without pollution. I'd have one in my back garden if I could make money out of it.
172

danielrober,

09/12/2008 17:19:00
# 199 Winston,Europe

I once herd of a guy who could drink ten pints and manage not to go to the toilet every 5 minutes. He was either one heck of a guy or it was just some much pub talk.

Is your german town, a town or a big village? Additionally could you maybe supply details of this place (population, work activities, house numbers etc) along with how much investment it took to build these facilities?

It would be very useful.
173

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 17:23:48
198

Like I said you cannot measure these parameters in percentage terms the load varies instantainiously there is no 100% there is peak, trough and everything in between new peak, new trough, etc etc.
174

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 17:24:00
200. I think he means Freiburg:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/23/freiburg.germany.greenest.city
175

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 17:24:36
On the numbers given you are claiming an LF of OVER 100%, which is impossible.

I have already explained that my system will generate @50.8MW continuously which is 445.313GWh giving a capacity factor of 100%.

""I must have missed something. So what is actually being moved to shore? Is it electric current or a piped fluid?"" Well, you have, and you should pay more attention in future!

This is probably the greatest breakthrough in the field of renewable energy and all I get is cringeworthy dog's abuse and scepticism. No congratulatory expressions for inventing something that will replace, and here I am using the true definition of the word, fossil and nuclear power stations.

We even get ridiculous suggestions to use compressed air and, wait for it, batteries to store wind derived electricity from the industry's placeman Fred Bloggs - I wonder how much he gets paid for putting the boot in on anything that threatens wind turbines?

So anyone out there with a £45 million loan that will be repaid after operating for 100 days?



176

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 17:31:15
Dardesheim possibly is the German town.
177

,

09/12/2008 17:35:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
178

danielrober,

09/12/2008 17:42:10
# 202 fred bloggs,Edinburgh

Reads like Germanies Milton Keynes. Proud locals who have worked hard to build a new community but, often underestimate or are juts lied too about how many national resources are directed to there location.

These schemes are note worthy but incredibly expensive to repeat. P.S great shopping in MK.
179

A True Scot.,

09/12/2008 17:53:20
205

Well if it does breakdown it wont take half the population and all of the wild life with it.
180

Drummer1,

Troon 09/12/2008 17:57:17
One day, wind turbines will be seen as a great icon of change - the start of creating a sustainable future.

I already see wind turbines as dynamic sculptures, a true art form or what is pure and good.

The anti-wind sceptics and pro nuclear brigade would spend their wasteful energy better by building a spaceship and heading off somewhere else in the universe (would mars be too close ?) !
181

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 18:07:34
203 Greenheat:

Compressed air energy storage is a long-established technology unlike your mysterious 'venturi' and conversion to thermal energy which you have never been able to explain.

There are serious efforts going into energy storage for wind power including compressed air, flow batteries and flywheels.
182

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 09/12/2008 18:10:42
# 1 please go back home to South East england where you will be happy, that's where according to brown, the next generation of your beautiful Neuc stations are going to be situated. ENJOY. Scotland is going neuclear free. Have a nice day!!!!!!
183

Hugh Roscombe,

09/12/2008 18:21:02
213

You've got more.
184

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 18:24:12
Ref #211:

'New Demand for Energy Storage Economics are changing, technology, is advancing and system requirements compel
us to look at energy storage again. The September/October 2008 issue of Electric Perspectives features an article by EPRI's Dan Rastler who discusses advanced and emerging technologies.'

Find a link to this article at:

http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?
185

danielrober,

09/12/2008 18:48:23
215 fred bloggs,Edinburgh

Very good summary, if a little conservative.
186

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 19:31:34
203 Greenheat:

""Compressed air energy storage is a long-established technology unlike your mysterious 'venturi' and conversion to thermal energy which you have never been able to explain.

There are serious efforts going into energy storage for wind power including compressed air, flow batteries and flywheels.""

I have since remove the veturi from my tidal stream device - we are discussing a wave 99% tidal stream 1% device so your snide remark is misplaced. I know all about compressed air, flow batteries and hi revving flywheels and they are all pretty pathetic methods of generating out of real time.

What bit do you not get - my system will deliver, from thermal storage, base load, load following and peak shaving. So you are saying that when my system is delivering subject to demand 24/7 your pathetic intermittent wind turbines may or may not be charging a battery so that electricity may or not be available at 7o'clock in the morning. At seven my system will ramp up to meet peak demands when everybody is putting on their porridge!

The ONLY problem here is that you do not have the mental powers to see beyond intermittency - just accept that the day will dawn when nobody will want your dodgy dribbles of electricity dependant on the vagaries of the weather and tides.

I predict your machines will be obsolete within 10 years - if I can invent a system that can deliver peak shaving then others will follow with their own versions of my patented invention.

Wake up and smell the coffee!
187

Nevsky,

Moscow 09/12/2008 19:39:29
213 sm753#

Intersting to hear you of all people calling someone else a bore!

Got a stat?
188

Greenheatman,

TAIN 09/12/2008 19:42:53
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?

This is a link relating to the storage of ELECTRICITY not energy

My system stores the ENERGY before it is converted to electricity - not quite the same thing - and a lot cheaper too!
189

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/12/2008 20:06:41
I still say wind tunnels for wind power. Not overground turbines the size of pylons.

The logic is sound and the technology is already there. A wind tunnel would only require a turbine with Bonzai blades as opposed to the Bonzer blades in existence today. Automatic gears should be applied to control the effects of wind speeds. 1st gear for slow winds - 12th gear for gales.

Less concrete per bunker than the mass pours per existing base and less blots on the landscape.

Wind blows down the tunnel, increases in speed as the tunnel narrows and bing-ho!
190

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/12/2008 20:19:42
re 222. The tunnels can be constructed using UPVC drainage pipes with reducers.

Too simple though for the money minded.
191

Hickory,

US 09/12/2008 21:32:14
Aye Turbines do th' job. But, a new technology puts
shrowds over the turbine blades and increases their
power. More in, more out. Every city in Scotland that
replaces their street lamps with LEDs reduces the need
for a wind turbine. The solution is multi faceted.
192

Dr. Francis T. Manns,

The Shire 10/12/2008 02:57:08
Water vapour is the most important green house gas followed by methane. The third most important greenhouse gas is CO2, and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high, making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
Correlation is not causation to be sure. The causation has been studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome. As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun ? reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind ? geomagnetic shield drops ? galactic cosmic ray flux ? more low-level clouds and more snow ? more albedo effect (more heat reflected) ? colder climate
Active sun ? enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind ? geomagnetic shield response ? less low-level clouds ? less albedo (less heat reflected) ? warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research...

Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than atm
193

Dr. Francis T. Manns,

Toronto 10/12/2008 02:58:32
That may explain the link proposed by members of the Danish team, between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that. In addition, although the post 60s warming period is over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.