Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Troublesome truths behind quest for universally agreeable energy sources

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: 20 April 2009
Whilst nuclear provides around 78 per cent of France's electricity, it only provides 18 per cent of total energy consumed (Business, 17 April). The country still consumes more oil per capita than the UK. If Britain replaces its nuclear fleet this would only save around 4 per cent of our carbon emissions. We could easily make up for this with extra, cheaper, energy efficiency measures.
Recent more rigorous estimates of carbon emissions from the nuclear cycle are ten times higher than a industry estimates – around 66 g/kWh – worse than all renewable alternatives. This number is likely to increase as the industry is forced to use poo
rer quality uranium ores.

France has the same problems with radioactive waste as everyone else. It has no operating high-level waste repository. In the UK, problems in the 1990s with the scientific basis for calculating the rate waste would leak halted the programme. It is imperative this is resolved before further waste is produced.

If there are concerns about whether new non-wind renewable energy can contribute in time to Scotland's energy supplies, then we should look at combined heat and power (CHP). Pöyry Energy has shown that industrial CHP across Britain could generate as much electricity as ten nuclear stations and halve gas imports. Two of the nine sites examined are in Scotland, at Grangemouth and Peterhead. Together these would be almost enough to replace Scotland's nuclear capacity.

CLLR EUAN McLEOD
Chair, Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities
City Chambers
Glasgow



Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) intends to appeal against the unanimous decision of local Highland councillors who threw out their plans for building a massive "electrical converter sub-station" near Beauly. SSE claimed, in the report presented to the councillors, that the development was needed to transfer electricity from the proposed Lewis windfarms to the mainland network. There are no windfarms on Lewis.

Stirlingshire groups fighting another SSE proposal, the contentious Beauly-Denny pylon line, took their case to the EU to win support for putting parts of the line underground. The vociferous opposition to the pylon line is well documented, with over 17,000 objections lodged with the government against this SSE project. What is perhaps less well documented is the equally vociferous opposition to the "proposed windfarms" on Lewis, including yet another SSE project, this time for 26 giant 500ft turbines, which has already generated over 3,000 official objections and only three letters of support.

Over 19,000 letters of opposition have already been lodged against the three large wind farms planned for Lewis, with only 165 letters of support.

When the controversial Amec/British Energy Windfarm project was finally laid to rest last year, the energy minister, Jim Mather, went on record as saying that no Lewis windfarm would progress without community support. In that case, there is no large windfarm project on Lewis that should be consented, as the third proposal (the Eisgein windfarm, which is the subject of a public local inquiry) generated nearly 3,400 objections and just 85 letters of support.

Clearly, to consent any of those projects, in the face of such unprecedented public opposition, would require some explanation from a Scottish government that could owe its slender one-seat majority to the voters of the Western Isles, who elected the SNP candidate largely on the back of the huge public backlash against the sitting Labour MSP's support for the Amec Windfarm.

DINA MURRAY
North Galson
Isle of Lewis



In her report, "Two men, two very different views of future" (16 April), Jenny Haworth makes two mistakes in claiming that renewable energy provides electricity "only 30 per cent of the time".

William Oxenham (Letters, 18 April) makes a similar error in claiming that wind farms "output their full power for only 30 per cent of the time".

Different renewable systems generate for different periods of time. The percentage Jenny Haworth quotes is one that applies only to windfarms, and then only to their load factor: that is the total amount of electricity energy generated over time aggregated as a proportion of the amount that could have been generated if the plant operated 24/7. In fact, windfarms generate some electricity for about 85 per cent of the time, at varying power rates depending on the wind strength and only generate at full power at high wind speeds.

It is important to distinguish between these two ratios.

STEUART CAMPBELL
Dovecot Loan
Edinburgh




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 April 2009 9:11 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 20/04/2009 07:23:05
If Councillor McLeod is correct with his 4%, then there is absolutely no point in covering the Scottish landscape with wind turbines as their effect on carbon emissions will be almost zero.
While CHP is useful in certain cases, it never will be an alternative to coal and nuclear.

Well said Dina Murray

The 30% load factor for wind turbines is more understandable for most people than claims of working for 85% of the time. For most of the 85% you could hardly boil a kettle.
Also at high wind speeds, wind turbines are shut down as the gearboxes cannot take the load.
Wind turbines need steady dense winds which are found at sea level, the best is found 20deg south of the equator in the south Atlantic - not much wind turbines there though!!
2

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 09:51:32
#1 Cynicus in Exile claimed, "greenhouse gasses are probably the product of global warming rather than its cause."

If you show yourself to have no understanding of the current global warming issues with such statements, do not expect anyone to take much notice of what you say with respect to pylons.

Those who campaign against pylons have some legitimate concerns. They should stick to them. Indicating that you are an AGW denier at the same time shows that your views are based on what you want to believe rather than having a scientific basis. That undermines any case you may have. You might as well suggest that the wind turbines will be damaging because they will kill fairies riding on moonbeams.
3

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 20/04/2009 12:40:52
Luckily nobody pays much attention to Slioch and his buddy Seanie.
There is actually quite a large scientific body that believes c02 levels rise about 800 years after a warming period.
There is an even stronger body that does not believe that other than very local heat islands, that man is not resposible for any temperature changes of the planet.
He may be polluting it to hell and back but changing the temperature ! Not a chance
4

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 14:07:28
#4 nabodican

You also do the cause of resisting damaging effects of wind turbines/pylons a great disservice with your idiotic statements about global warming. Why should anyone take any notice of a campaign, one of whose most regular supporters regularly shows himself to have not the remotest understanding of the subject?

CO2 levels are increasing now because of human emissions from burning fossil fuels and destruction of forests. There is not the remotest doubt about that, and the fossil fuel source of the extra CO2 is attested by the carbon isotope ratios of the resulting build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The "C02 levels rise about 800 years after a warming" is a gross oversimplification of events observed via ice cores during glacial/interglacial transitions and has no significance to current events.

 

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.