Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Energy decisions require clear debate based on facts

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: 23 January 2008
Scottish Engineering has a real concern that the vital need for us to establish a balanced energy policy is being put at risk by the absence of a meaningful debate and the fact that Scottish Government ministers are manipulating figures to suit their own ends.
We are appealing to everyone involved in the energy debate to indulge in sensible discussion based on facts.

It is misleading for the First Minister to state that renewable installed capacity matches or exceeds that of nuclear when he knows that
the true measure is not installed capacity but output. He is also aware that to provide a reliable and consistent supply of electricity there needs to be conventional generation back-up to balance the wind element of our renewable capacity.

It is misleading of John Swinney, secretary for finance and sustainable growth, to state that more than 90 per cent of Scotland's energy needs are provided by non-nuclear means. Figures published on the Scottish Government's website confirm that more than 30 per cent of Scotland's electricity is provided by nuclear power.

I urge the Scottish Government to participate in a meaningful debate on the matter.

(DR) PETER T HUGHES, Chief executive, Scottish Engineering, West George Street, Glasgow

We are assured by Ian Hendry (Letters, 21 January) that nuclear power is "uneconomic" (except presumably in France, where they have been producing it at half the price of our coal power for decades) and that it is not carbon-neutral because reactors have to be built (though this produces less carbon than windmills). This is allegedly why the nuclear industry is desperate to kill off the "renewables" industry.

The truth is the opposite. In March 2006, Nicol Stephen, Lib Dem leader, speaking in the BBC energy debate, said "nuclear is the easy solution" and went on to explain that it must be destroyed since, if allowed to succeed, the voters would never be so foolish as to pay for all the useless "renewable" subsidies. It can hardly now be denied that the desperation lies with those "environmentalists" who see their scare stories, and, therefore, their power and subsidies, coming to nothing.

NEIL CRAIG, Woodlands Road, Glasgow



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 January 2008 8:25 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Isonomia,

Lenzie 23/01/2008 09:27:16
There are lies, damned lies, and then there are renewables. Never in the scope of human history has so many lies been told for such a supposedly noble cause.

2

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 10:54:24
1# But the big problem is that Salmond and Swinney have both first believed the lies being put out by the renewables industry and are now telling the lies themselves. This isn't spin it is down right lying by them.
Why is so much effort by the media put on taxi fares, housing scams, campaign donations when our most senior politicians are lying to us on the most important topic of all. Is it too difficult for them to understand?
3

Hamilton,

23/01/2008 11:05:30
We need to continue the debate on Scotland's energy, says Scottish Engineering. Give nuclear a fair hearing.

On a commercial basis alone, the most compelling argument against new nuclear power stations is the private sector won't invest in them - without big subsidies from taxpayers. This is unacceptable to the government at present, but on the other hand it's determined the lights will be kept on around London and is therefore hoping for four new nuclear facilities there.
4

stocky,

23/01/2008 11:21:31
mr hughes

30% of scotlands power is generated by nuclear, but as we prodice 125-130% of what Scotland uses , that leaves 90+% that we generate using non nuclear.
Its not rocket science, and its not lies and is not misleading

and you are a chief exec-did they not teach you basic arithmetic when you wee at school?
5

StuartAD,

West Lothian 23/01/2008 11:34:23
Some independence when we will be buying energy from the very country we hve unleashed our shackles from!!
Why whinge now when companies are withdrawing from the Scottish scene, & why whinge when the MOD of UK PLC privatise a maintenance company in Perth. Letting the new company do what they do not wish to appear to be doing, move to England.
6

Neil,

Glasgow 23/01/2008 11:59:27
Stocky look at fig 21 on
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19092748/8
For what our real electicity supplies are.
Scottish nuclear produces 16 Tw
We export 8
We use 34 in Scotland

I suspect Mr Hughes knows his figures & his arithmetic better than you, though he actually appears to be being overly kind in limiting his criticism by merely describing our nuclear proportion as "more than 30%" & that it is merely "misleading" of John Swinney to say we produce 90% of what we need.
7

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 12:28:08
5# Not entirely sure you are being serious or not but are you saying there is a separation of electricity before it goes down the line to England and Ireland - nuclear theirs/coal, gas hydro all ours? The flip side of what you and John Swinney are saying is that Scotland has a very much higher carbon footprint than we are telling the world. Or does it depend on what story we are trying to tell which figures we use.

#7 On top of the 34 used in Scotland and 8 exported there is another 8 lost in transmission so that we produce 50 a year. These figures were also manipulated ad nauseum by the Lab/Lib coalition (especially the Lib bit) - they all think we are stupid.
8

nabodican,

Portree 23/01/2008 13:36:38
Two letters that tell it exactly as it is - well done.
9

Greenheatman,

TAIN 23/01/2008 19:47:23
Neil,

Is it possible to use the correct SI units becaus any comments you make lose credibility.

Correct units are kWh, MWh, GWh and TWh - Not that difficult to remember that James Watt's surname begins with a capital as does yours!

10

Greenheatman,

TAIN 23/01/2008 20:18:03
The rationale behind renewable energy it to close down fossil fuel power stations and reduce generation emissions to zero.

Using real time generation methods just produces random electricity mostl when it is not needed. The capacity factor of wind turbines includes the wee sma' hours when everybody is in bed and mobile phones are being charged. The chances of the wind being available every morning at 7am is zero.

Ah, but what about tidal, we have great tides in the Pentland Firth - enough energy to power Europe - this is probably true for 2 days in every lunar month during new and full moon tides (Springs). The power falls to one eighth of Springs during 1st and 3rd Quarters,making tidal stream hopeles pretty hopeless option, on the face of it, for providing the necessary base load electricity - if we are serious about replacing fossil fuelled power stations.

In short, building millions of conventional wind and marine turbines will not close a single fossil fuel generator and we're are heading towards a dead end - no question.

So, where do we go from here?

We need to start again and only pay ROCs to renewable energy systems that provide reliable base load electricity - wind turbines should get nothing.

This will concentrate minds wonderfully.

Gentec venturi is just one such device that can deliver base load 24/7 and should be operational by the end of this year.


11

Colin, Glasgow,

23/01/2008 21:13:24
#8 Better yet, when we consider that the vast majority of customers on "green energy" tariffs are south of the border, and the vast majority of UK renewables are produced in Scotland, it can easily be demonstrated that virtually all of Scotland's electricity export is in the form of renewables. We're probably not exporting any notional "nuclear" electricity at all.
12

fred bear,

23/01/2008 23:41:15
#11 Can I ask for the third time in threads in recent days, details of how this invention works, likely units sizes, resistance to winter storms, how soon it can be expected to produce base load in the gigaWatt range, etc. Your website tells nothing about this. I am strongly pro-nuclear but only because I don't believe there is an alternative. I want to believe that a renewable, base load device can be developed that can be scaled up to the massive level required, but if you won't tell anyone about it?
13

Neil,

Glasgow 24/01/2008 18:50:42
Rules once again asserts things which not only ain't so but for which he attempts to produce no evidence.

eg the assertion that all reactors are subsidised for which there is no evidence, but the fact that there is no evidence is conveniently explained by payments being hidden, for which by defintion, no evidence exists. A bit like David Icke but without the credibility.
14

Colin, Glasgow,

24/01/2008 20:13:18
To some extent all commercial sources of energy are subsidised, whether it takes the form of govt funded R&D, or tax breaks, or direct payments. It happens that Nuclear gets little subsidy compared to the amount of energy it produces.
http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html

Fossil fuel is particularly heavily subsidised because the cost of its pollution is externalised (i.e. society picks up the tab for the health and environmental damage caused - which, in the case of coal, would double the cost of electricity). In contrast nuclear power internalises virtually all of its costs. Even so it is often competitive with coal power and is generally cheaper than any other form of generation.

The reason that a nuclear station costs more to build is because about a third of the cost goes on regulatory requirements for safety and security - exactly the measures required to mitigate the risks of environmental pollution, terrorism etc. On top of this all nuclear operators in the west are required to pay insurance. Even Three Mile Island was covered in full by insurance. But when it comes down to it, the regulations that nuclear operators need to adhere to are worth more (and cost them more) than any insurance policy.

Rules' suggestion that nuclear power is uneconomic beggars belief. In order for this to be true it would need a global conspiracy. It requires either a) none of the many governments that have deployed nuclear are capable of calculating its cost, or b) all of these governments are deliberately misleading their citizens. Neither of these is plausible on a global scale.
15

Inside Story,

Glasgow 31/01/2008 19:56:38
#7 Neil, the figures you are referring to on the Scottish Governments web site are for 2002 (a peak year for nuclear) and are now well out of date. The amount of electricity produced by nuclear is well down on this historic figure and the amount from renewables has increased dramatically, almost 7GWh in 2006.
See here for al the stats you will ever want to read
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/statistics/source/electricity/page18527.html

On the cost of nuclear the issue is with the decommissioning. When they fist built nuclear stations nobody factored in the decommissioning costs because they did not know what they would be.
They do now.
The Nucelar Decommissioning Agency publishes its monthly and annual costs of decommissioning UK power stations, http://www.nda.gov.uk/sites. At the moment they have spent £1.1Bn in 2007 on 19 sites. All funded by the UK tax payers.They recently estimated that this clean up would cost about £70Bn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm) which is not factored into the cost of electricity from the current nuclear plants.
Renewable energy projects must have a decommissioning strategy and cost built into their planning application and they must prove that they have a contingency fund to cover such costs.
If the nuclear industry have to cover their own decommissioning costs then they will not build any new plants (as has been the case in the US). The tax payer will have to bear this burden before new plants will be built by the industry.
£70Bn spent on renewables (offshore wind, wave or tidal) would produce 50GWs of installed capacity, more than enough to produce 35% of the UKs electricity.That's more than the total amount supplied by nuclear today.
What would you rather have your tax spent on?

 

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.