Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'Axing nuclear will force out skilled jobs'

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: 10 February 2009
By HAMISH MACDONELL
SCOTLAND is "turning up its nose" at thousands of highly paid high-skilled jobs because of the SNP administration's opposition to new nuclear power stations, UK energy minister Mike O'Brien warned last night.
Mr O'Brien opened up a new front in the ongoing war of words between the Scottish and UK governments when he attacked the SNP administration's approach to nuclear power.

The minister was due to make a speech today explaining why he believed the Sc
ottish Government was wrong.

He was expected to say that every new nuclear power station built in Britain would bring about 9,000 new jobs and an investment of £2.8 billion into the local economy.

Last night he made it clear to The Scotsman that he believed Scotland would lose out because of the Scottish Government's opposition to new nuclear power stations.

"What is Alex Salmond going to say to the young, highly skilled, highly qualified engineer at Torness or Hunterston B, which are due to close in the next few years? Do they have to go to England or some other country to find work?

"And why have the administration jobs at British Energy headquarters when Alex Salmond says he doesn't want nuclear to have a future in Scotland? I want to see those jobs stay in Scotland."

Mr O'Brien argued the Scottish economy would suffer if new stations were not built, saying: "The Scottish Executive's position inevitably means that Scotland won't benefit from the jobs or the billions of pounds of investment that each nuclear power station brings to an area.

"I would like to see these jobs and that investment in Scotland too. I hope that the Scottish Executive will reconsider its position," the minister said.

"Should Scotland really be turning up its nose at high-skilled, well-paid jobs? I want to stand up for jobs in the nuclear industry for Scotland, even if Alex Salmond is failing to do that."

Mr O'Brien said there was a genuine debate to be had over our future energy needs.

But he said the First Minister was gambling everything on the successful commercial application of carbon capture technology to provide a future for the coal industry.

"It is a bet whereas nuclear power is not," he said.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "Scotland has vast clean, green and renewable energy potential. Estimates suggest that generating power from our natural resources can create at least 16,000 green jobs over the next decade."

He added: "It would be foolish, misguided and plain wrong to turn our back on those possibilities or sacrifice them in pursuit of dangerous and unnecessary new nuclear power stations, a view backed by parliament as a whole on behalf of the people of Scotland."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 February 2009 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Rufus-T-Firefly,

09/02/2009 22:25:34
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "Scotland has vast clean, green and renewable energy potential. Estimates suggest that generating power from our natural resources can create at least 16,000 green jobs over the next decade."
=======================================================

Yeah brilliant.

"can create at least 16,000 green jobs over the next decade."

What a lot of pie in the sky nonsense.

Scotland will end up having to import electricity from England and it will be all Alex Salmond and the SNP's fualt.
2

UK007,

10/02/2009 00:08:54
#1 RFT You wrote a lot of pie in the sky nonsense when you wrote "Scotland will end up having to import electricity from England".
Explain to me why and when we will start to import electricity from England ?
3

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 10/02/2009 00:22:15
#1 England currently imports electricity from Scotland, is that Gordon Brown's fault for not building more nuclear power stations in England?
4

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 10/02/2009 00:23:37
#1 Oh, and I just remembered; we have to pay extra for the privelege of providing consumers in England with that electricity.
5

UK007,

10/02/2009 00:42:42
Mr O'Brien......because of the Scottish Government's opposition to new nuclear power stations.

Mr O'Brien, for your information it was the Holyrood parliament who voted to block any new nuclear power stations in Scotland.MSPs voted by 63 to 58 to reject nuclear power.19 Jan 2008
6

,

10/02/2009 00:44:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Sanny,

10/02/2009 00:49:49
Please ignore RFT.You only encourage him to spout more nonsense. His/her arguments add nothing to the debate and only serve to muddy the waters and in so doing renders the column incomprehensible.

GA you are correct we have almost always been an exporter of Electric power to England and yet we have to pay a premium to connect to the national Grid. Another inverse Union Dividend.

With Scotland getting ever closer to independence and with the development of our Marine energy resources, perhaps the day is not far off when Scotland can become a major exporter of non-nuclear energy to europe, in the form of Oil and Electic power.

Scotlands future is bright and it is in energy.
8

subrosa,

10/02/2009 00:59:56
Why not have a public debate then Mr O'Brien instead of just spouting negatives. Bring together experts from both sides and let the public hear what they have to say. No? Didn't think you'd manage that.
9

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 01:02:51

1. You stupid boy
10

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 01:04:23

"What is Alex Salmond going to say to the young, highly skilled, highly qualified engineer at Torness or Hunterston B, which are due to close in the next few years? Do they have to go to England or some other country to find work?

If they specialise in nuclear physics then YES.

Is Labour saying that these new Nuclear Plants will be full of bright young "British Jobs for British Workers'.... par le vous Francais?


11

,

10/02/2009 01:06:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 10/02/2009 01:35:31
Who is this trick o'brian anyway. Does he not know that the SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE died the day liebor lost the election and was replaced by the Democratically elected SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT! Roll on Referendum Day when we can finally say goodbye to this Pathetic DISHONEST STEALING Union with england.............
13

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 01:52:29
How many ways can Mr. O'Brien ask the same question?

A simple question for Mr. O'Brien.

Do you believe that engineering skills are transferable?

Another!!!

Are the skills, possesed by the people employed by SSE, not transferable?

Even another!!!!!!!!!

Why should Scotland gamble on KNOWN & DISCREDITED, DIRTY old technology when it has the opportunity to move forward with 21st Century clean technology?

Remember Mr. O'Brien's NEW jobs are 10/15yrs in the future.
14

UK007,

10/02/2009 02:02:56
I notice Mr O'Brien didn't say we needed more generation capacity in Scotland but he said we needed well-paid jobs and a nuclear power station would be an economic benifit.
Is this his agrument for building an nuclear PS in Scotland ?

Mr O'Brien why a nuclear PS and why can't we build a gas fire PS they are going to build three in England or a coal fired PS they are planning to build one in Kent ?

#11 Quisling Gogs, yes water is going to be important which will in turn make Scotland an important source of fresh water.
15

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 02:05:51
Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16

Edward,

10/02/2009 02:48:25
Yet another guff Labour story from the Labour press
Hamish MacDonnell, why do you quote such rubbish!
Labour are pushing Nuclear as thy re in the pockets ofthe Nuclear industry,but thats something there a bit shy about.
For instance Gordon Browns brother Andrew is Director of EDF Energy.Yvette Coopers father is in the Nuclear industry. We also have a nuber of Scottish Labour MP's who were quoted at the weekend as want less powers for Holyrood,conicidently were taken on a junket tour of a Nuclear facilty in Sweden by E.On
Labour ARE corrupt, they ARE sleazy
17

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 10/02/2009 05:22:19
#1
So in this wonderland of a "United" Kingdom, it is OK for Engerland to have been importing Electricity for generations from Scotland - but OMG, the sky will fall down if Scotland imports any from Engerland.

Look at the time of your post. Nearly two hours before the second post??

Throughout our industrial history, there have always been skilled workers made redundant as technologies became redundant and superseded by others.


This smells like AM2 and others over at the Herald, who we believed were either Herald employees, or getting told about articles before they were printed and able to post onto them before others.

As you say #16.
Westminster is pushing Scottish Labour MP's to call for Holyrood to be stripped of any powers which get in the road of "Energy" and "National Security" - is is translated as "anything that will get in the way of our polluting Scotland with Nuclear materials instead of doing England".

Energy Ministers (from either party) know that they will run into decades of protests from English voters, but Scotland is a push-over, and no one in England cares what happens "up there".
18

greenhill,

10/02/2009 05:40:13
RE Gregor Addison,Glasgow 10/02/2009 00:22:15

You really are a disingenuous nutbag. Your big lie is contained in the word "currently". Get to grips with reality.

The main reason we have a problem with building new nuclear in Scotland and England is political. It is because of scaremongering liars like you that our economy and environment is under threat.

Nearly every point brought up by SNP supporters on this thread is false in one way or another. You people are totally deluded and seem to be incapable of challenging the party line on any issue.

19

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 07:15:06
When Holyrood voted to ban the building of any new nuclear reactors in Scotland, did they also agree to ban the importation of electricity generated from nuclear power stations, or did they just stick their collective head in the sand and bum in the air?
20

Castaway™ ,

10/02/2009 07:15:13
Gas fired power stations for England and Wales-Proposed or under construction.
Severn Power 800MW CCGT, Uskmouth, Wales, under construction
Carrington, near Sale, 860 MW, under construction
Drakelow Power Station 1220MW, planning approved
Grain Power Station 1275MW, CHP, under construction
Langage Power Station 890MW, under construction
Marchwood Power Station 840MW, under construction
Staythorpe Power Station 1650MW, under construction
Teesside CHP power station 800MW, CHP proposed
Thor Cogeneration Power Station 1020MW, proposed (approved)
West Burton Power Station 1270MW, planning approved
Plans have been announced for a £500m expansion of a gas-fired power station in Lincolnshire.20 Nov 2008

Plus DECC approves three new (gas fired) power stations-9 February, 2009
The consented power stations are:
2,000 MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power station at Pembroke, South West Wales.
900 MW integrated coal gasification gas-fired power station at Hatfield, Yorkshire.
1,020 MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power station at King’s Lynn, Norfolk.

The first coal-fired power station in Britain for more than 30 years has been approved by a local government authority.Medway Council in Kent gave the green light to the £1bn Kingsnorth plant.The final decision on whether the Kingsnorth plant will be built rests with the Gov business secretary.8 Jan 2008

P.S. England - Four new nuclear power station sites unveiled 24 Jan 2009
21

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 07:30:09
Hollyroods energy policy is, basically, to allow people to build windmills that are only made viable by the subsidy that Westminster puts on our electricity bills, and on calm days depend on power generated elsewhere, by means that they are too feart of.

Longannet and Kincardine will go the same way as Hunterston and Torness without carbon capture, then we will be left with insufficient power from hydro dams and one uneconomic gas-fired station at Peterhead.

One thing that would change is the exec moaning about power bills being too high.
22

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 07:44:20
Steam turbines - made in Scotland.

Windmills - made in Denmark.
23

,

10/02/2009 07:45:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 07:47:08
(#1) – (Rufus-T-Firefly) – Why do you feel that it is pie in the sky nonsense that Scotland can create at least 16,000 green jobs over the next decade?

Does the 16,000 not look like a minimum figure to you?

What makes you think Scotland are likely to have to import electricity from England?

Why do you think Scotland needs to import electricity from England?

If we are using nuclear power stations until they have to be decommissioned as a pragmatic approach, what makes you believe we haven’t an equally pragmatic approach to generate electricity until we have enough power generated using Green technologies?
25

Audrey Halliday,

10/02/2009 07:49:01
Scotland lost 32,000 jobs in one month.

So who is this genius spokesperson at the Scottish Government who said.

"Scotland has vast clean, green and renewable energy potential. Estimates suggest that generating power from our natural resources can create at least 16,000 green jobs over the next decade."

The words decade, potential & estimates show that you, whoever you are, haven't got a clue.

If you are that confident in yourself stop hiding behind the "spokesperson" guff and reveal yourself to the general public, after all, we are the ones paying for your insight.

Naturally I may be wrong, some why not enter into open debate via this paper about your prognosis & by the way I take it you have noticed the catastrophic job losses lately, oops, sorry, nearly forgot, your public sector.

Perhaps have a word with Jim Mather, he's really clued up on this subject.
26

greenhill,

10/02/2009 07:50:12
I fear we will end up with Salmond declaring Scotland to be a "Nuclear Free Zone" whilst at the same time importing nuclear power from over the border.

I have no doubt that many Scottish people would be stupid enough to buy into such hypocrisy.

The SNP energy policy shows them to be unfit to run a fish and chip shop never mind a country.
27

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 07:55:54
(#2) – (UK007) – Can you guarantee we will not have to rely on external supplies of electricity once nuclear power has finished in Scotland?
28

,

10/02/2009 07:58:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 08:06:52
#24 Gogs

Sheep make jam, pickles, and preserved fruit during the hours of darkness.
30

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 08:11:55
(#26) – (danielrober) – Are you absolutely sure the same young professional engineers who build the nuclear facilities will also be the same people who build the renewable facilities?

You are talking about the same type of engineers and not the same actual engineers who have built the nuclear facilities?

What is your estimation on the percentage of engineers presently employed in the nuclear industry in Scotland that are likely to be employed in the new industries?
31

TWC,

10/02/2009 08:18:28
Take this policy to the people and you'll get the answer you don't want - No Nuclear Power till the waste question is answered.
The Planning laws don't only prevent Power Stations they prevent creation of Waste silos.
BTW How many of the top Engineeering jobs are filled by Scots at the moment? not very many.

It'll be like the army Scotland provides more than her share of other ranks but England supplies most of the officers.
32

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/02/2009 08:20:07
Together with the vast majority (if not all)of those who post here, I do not have the specialist knowledge or expertise to comment with authority on the relative merits of nuclear/renewable energy sources.

However experience has taught me to be wary of taking an uncompromising, fundamentalist approach to a situation. This is what worries me over the stance of the "no nuclear whatsoever" approach of the Scottish govt. By ruling it out for idealogical reasons they may be risking a severe shortage of options.
33

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 08:28:49
(#27) – (Audrey Halliday) – Why does the words “decade”“potential” and “estimates” show whoever the spokesman was they don’t have a clue?

Are you anymore clued up on the exact numbers than anyone else?

What exact number do you have, and are they negative or positive of the estimated figures?

What expertise on the subject do you have to debate on this subject with those who may do?

Do you need expertise on the subject to debate on the subject?
34

TWC,

10/02/2009 08:32:09
34 Ugly George

George, I'm not against nuclear power but if we don't need it, don't use it, at least till we have a clear detailed plan for the waste.
How will it be stored, where will it be stored, by whom and what will it cost.
35

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/02/2009 08:39:34
37 TWC
How is the waste from Torness and Hunterston stored at the moment? It must go somewhere. Is there a concern that it is not being stored safely?
36

me-here,

10/02/2009 08:40:03
# 24 Quisling Gogs
"The worlds supply of uranium ore is expected to run out in 20-25 years. This could drop to 15 years if all the proposed new reactors for China, the US and India come on stream."

That's the argument the nuclear fetishists like to ignore. Blasts their arguments to dust.
A nuclear power station only boils water - nothing else. The waste it produces is far to dangerous.
But the fetichists won't be interested anyway.
37

Linda,

Edinburgh 10/02/2009 08:41:41
Nuclear is not green as Uranium has to be shipped thousands of miles and waste lasts 250,000 years.

Labour and Gordon Brown have continued to fall sharply in the polls despite signs that the collapse of economic confidence may have bottomed out.

The latest Populus poll for The Times, undertaken at the weekend, shows that the bounce in Mr Brown’s ratings after the banking rescue has now been largely wiped out. Labour has dropped by 5 points to 28 per cent since last month, its lowest level for nearly six months. This is still above the low of 26 per cent last summer

The Tories have slipped back 1 point since early January however to 42 per cent, still 4 points fewer than their peak last year. The Liberal Democrats are up 3 points to 18 per cent, their highest level since late August. Other parties, including the Scottish Nationalists, the Greens, the UK Independence Party and the British National Party, have also gained 3 points to 12 per cent.



38

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 08:44:10
#37 TWC

Scotland will simply import electricity during periods of need after Hunterston, Torness, and eventually Longannet, and Kincardine stations are decommisioned. No problems with that - it is the Danish solution, but the required stations would be built and run outwith Scotland.

Instead of people maintaining steam turbines and generators, we will have people maintaining Danish-made variable pitch propellors and dinky generators.
39

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 08:45:12
(#33) – (TWC) –How many top Scottish engineers are unemployed at the moment?

Do we have enough top Scottish engineers to fill all Scottish engineering positions?

As a percentage in the British army how many Scottish officers are there against the number of English officers compared to the number of soldiers?
40

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 08:47:20
#40 Linda

In a recent poll, 10 out of 10 sheep prefered grass.
41

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 08:50:03
#43 danielrober

Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company Iberdrola. So the windmills are Spanish and Atom Plants are French.
42

aljok.23,

the world 10/02/2009 08:54:28
i am dead against nuclear power because of the waste issue. I could do with the double normal salary that they pay you to work there though.
43

Longdirk Maceth,

NZ 10/02/2009 08:56:10
More drivel from you I see rufus, again if your trying to convert me to come ovet to the unionist side you'll have to do a lot better than that.
It's a bit out of date but it's still one of the reasons NOT to have Nuke power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/04/98/nuclear_waste/81801.stm
44

TWC,

10/02/2009 08:56:37
38 Ugly George,
George the current waste is held in temporary safetylocally) and Scotland will have to deal with it's own waste - true.

The big question is where will the long term silos be, jack McConnel committed to discuss with UK and define the locations and method of storage but the response is still outstanding.
The answer is put this in the Labour Manifesto and we'll decide.
45

,

10/02/2009 08:58:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

TWC,

10/02/2009 09:01:23
42 Ewan Randall,

I'm an Engineer and I retired 10 years early because we didn't have any REAL Engineering work in Scotland, where we had the work people were brought in with the contract.
We have plenty of resource we can train our own Engineers when we want them. First you need control of Finances - follow the money; where the money is spent that's where the jobs are, so Scotland needs to control it's spend.
47

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:03:17

Well! Well! what a pair of nutbags :Quisling Gogs,10/02/2009 07:45:24 and me-here,10/02/2009 08:40:03 .

Here are the facts on the subject of supplies of uranium : right now we have around 80 years of known supply .We can also reprocess used fuel , build fast breeder reactors. Then we could use thorium of which there is 3 to 4 times as much. So you are puting forward a non problem. Go and boil your heads.

And as for Linda and :Linda,Edinburgh 10/02/2009 08:41:41 :_"Nuclear is not green as Uranium has to be shipped thousands of miles and waste lasts 250,000 years."

The part about transportation is laughable pedantry and waste is not a technical problem it is a political problem caused by luddite morons like you.

Waste can been dealt with packaged in properly engineered containers. The very latest design of nuclear power station produces only a fraction of the waste of the old. With a new fleet of modern reactors they will only produce 10% of the current waste we have already got and we will be guaranteed 60 years of cheap clean electricity. It's a marginal additional waste burden added to a problem we have already got and can deal with. In fact we even have nuclear technology that generates power from old high level waste turning it into low level waste.


Radioactive waste from nuclear power stations has a huge advantage over waste from conventional power stations. We can quantify it, measure it, know where it is and deal with it. The situation with radioactive waste from conventional power stations is far worse.Coal burning has released to the World more than 100 times more radioactivity than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If such consequences occurred from nuclear power, all nuclear plants would be closed.

In addition we all know very well that radiation is not the only toxic waste spewed out by conventional power e.g.in case you forgot C02.

48

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 09:05:40


29. Can you 'guarantee' you'll stop asking stupid questions?
49

John S,

10/02/2009 09:08:39
#22 TTM: Longannet and Kincardine will go the same way as Hunterston and Torness without carbon capture.
#41 TTM: ....and eventually Longannet, and Kincardine stations are decommisioned.
I don't understand your comments regarding Kincardine power station: The demolition of the power station was carried out over a 3-year period starting in autumn 1998 and completed by 2001.

50

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 10/02/2009 09:09:15
#38 Ugly
“How is the waste from Torness and Hunterston stored at the moment? It must go somewhere. Is there a concern that it is not being stored safely?”

Fiasco’ of secret nuclear waste tips
from Sunday Herald, 15 January 2006
INVESTIGATIONS have been launched into the risks to public health and safety posed by secret radioactive waste dumps on the North Ayrshire coast, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
Thousands of cubic metres of contaminated rubbish from Hunterston nuclear power station have been dumped in five shoreline pits accessible to the public. Yet official records of what the pits contain have been destroyed.
Recent monitoring of the Ayrshire foreshore has uncovered unexpectedly high levels of radioactivity, and there are mounting concerns that the pits could be eroded or flooded by the rising sea levels caused by global warming.
The emerging story of the hitherto unknown waste pits has been described as a “scandal” and a “fiasco” by critics, who are calling for urgent action to clean up the mess. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) and North Ayrshire Council have both stressed the importance of ensuring public safety.
The five pits are on reclaimed land outside the perimeter fence of the Hunterston A nuclear site, near West Kilbride. The two ageing reactors on the site were closed down 16 years ago, though more modern reactors at the adjoining Hunterston B site are still generating electricity.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the government agency which is now overseeing the clean-up of Hunterston A, says the pits contain about 6500 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste. This is thought to include contaminated soil, rubble and concrete dumped between 1977 and 1982.
But according to the British Nuclear Group, the state-owned company that runs Hunterston A, documents detailing the dumped material have been thrown away. They had been damaged by water leaking into the room where they were stored.
Now surveys for the compa
51

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 09:10:10
51. "...we have already got and we will be guaranteed 60 years of cheap clean electricity...."

Rubbish, you can't guarantee that because the design life for the new stations is 30 years, it'll take a decade to build the things and you have no control over uranium availability......

.

52

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 09:12:49
(#43) – (danielrober) – Considering what has happened due to TotalFina is it more likely we will end up with adequate engineers from the local the project will be designated to be built rather than using the available top Scottish engineers?
53

,

10/02/2009 09:14:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 09:17:39

51. You seem to believe that you have solved the nuclear waste issue, I think you should offer your services to the UK Government........
55

John S,

10/02/2009 09:19:01
#26 danielrober,I agree with you said.Ref some of the present engineers at Torness, some worked with and some were apprentices with the SSEB/SP, working in Torness they adapted to a different way of producing electricity. Other engineers would have no knowledge of working in a power station before and would have had on the job training. Other engineers who are now working on renewables also who worked with and some were apprentices with the SSEB/SP.
56

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 10/02/2009 09:21:19
For once, Obrien is correct. You do not have to an Einstein to work out that without nukes we either need more coal stations or the lights will go out. This of course means importing even more coal which can be cut off at any time.
Salmond is not only an idiot but is a dangerous idiot.
57

,

10/02/2009 09:22:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:25:48
RE Quisling Gogs,10/02/2009 09:14:38

New nuclear is already up and running and is commercially viable. It will certainly not be free but right now the French are selling us power at a profit.
59

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:29:06
Wardog™,10/02/2009 09:17:39


I do not need to advise the Government on these facts. They are well aware of the massive difference in waste output between old and new nuclear.

The real problem is a Political one in dealing with luddite scaremongering.
60

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:35:16
RE Wardog™,10/02/2009 09:10:10

EPR stations last around 60 years and I clearly stated all the alternatives to uranium. You willfull choose not to comprehend and put forward false information.In addition I was reffering to known supplies.
61

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 09:35:56

Put simply, nuclear, a non-renewable power source has, still does and would draw vital investment away from genuine renewables, leaving Scotland with a longer and costlier legacy of waste disposal.

Scotland doesn't need or want new nuclear stations. Any proposals here would be a huge financial distraction from developing the renewables

Grasp the nettle, build a renewable future.






Why is Labour so ideologically wed to PFI and Nuclear?


62

,

10/02/2009 09:37:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
63

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:41:39
Renewables do not provide base load. If you cannot grasp that then you are being deliberately thick.
64

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 09:41:49

64. The Government does not specify the waste procedures in it's white paper, why don't you help them out and advise on the same means that you outline. While your at you could maybe pinpoint some sites.

The UK government have said that the decision on building new nuclear reactors will be entirely up to the market and utility companies will have to pay their "full share" of decommissioning and waste management costs

We ALL know that Gordon Brown is going to have to cook the books like a cordon bleu chef he if wants to attract new investment.

Ian Jackson, the government's own advisor has published a cost analysis that suggests energy companies cannot be charged a fully commercial price for waste disposal without "killing the prospect" of a new generation of nuclear reactors.

The analysis by Ian Jackson, who has worked in the nuclear industry for over 20 years and is a former nuclear regulator, says that a "fully commercial price would make disposal far too expensive, killing the prospects of any new nuclear build programme in Britain"

Storing waste from the new reactors alongside waste from existing reactors in a £10 billion repository would add about another £500m to the cost.

Ultimately taxpayers would end up having to subsidise new nuclear power stations contrary to the government's promises.

If nuclear power had to stand on its own two feet in a truly liberalised energy market, there's no way anyone would be talking about building new reactors.

The difference is by subsidising win farms, tidal , hydro, chp and biomass, these are all truly renewable energy soruces, all with low CO2.

It's simple, choose renewable over non-renewable

Invest in a green future for our children's sake.

Have we leaned nothing from the current credit crisis about storing up problem s for future generations?



65

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 09:43:59


68. Renewables can meet base load when they read simialr scale of generation as existing conventional sources.

There are a number of techniques and technologies which can provide base load, renaging from linking wind farms to hyrodgen storages and high load capacitors.

It's why Germany, & Denamrk are both aiming for 100% Renewables.




Why i Labour so wedded to BIG BUSINESS & STATE SUBSIDY?


66

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 09:45:27


Cutting co2

The government's own figures show that a new fleet of reactors will only reduce our emissions by 4 per cent sometime after 2025.

Worse still, the taxpayer money that will be needed to kick start investment in new nuclear could instead be used for solutions that could deliver greater cuts in CO2 emissions in the time frame needed.



67

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:45:54
RE Quisling Gogs,10/02/2009 09:37:59

I shall repeat what I said before and add that if you took a Geiger counter about the vicinity of a coal power plant you would find far more radiation than around a nuclear plant:

"Coal burning has released to the World more than 100 times more radioactivity than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If such consequences occurred from nuclear power, all nuclear plants would be closed."
68

me-here,

10/02/2009 09:50:23
#51 greenhill
People like you are the reason why so much nonsens is sent out to the world about nuclear. "We can deal with the nuclear waste" says it all to me.
Get stuffed!
I do think the majority of people in Scotland are educated enough to see the truth.
Creating electricity does not create nuclear waste - it's boiling the water that produces nulear waste.

For all people that are interested in renewables (and don't know it) look at this company (For all nuclear fetichists - don't look at the website please, it could seriously damage you're brain!)
What a simple idea - one of many!
http://www.wavegen.co.uk/about_wave_energy_info_schools_wave_whistles.htm
69

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:54:07
Rulesbutnotrulers,Federation, not separation 10/02/2009 09:47:36

"In plain English" You are not capable of that. What a load of rambling tosh.

New nuclear is just not the same as the old and waste is not the problem it is made out to be. A new fleet of modern reactors they will only produce 10% of the current waste we have already got and give us 60 years of cheap clean power.

In fact the real problem is uncontrollable waste from conventional power stations.
70

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 09:55:25
#66 Wardog

I am sure no-one is too keen on having new power stations of any type. Also no-one is keen to have the highest electricity prices in the EU, like the Danes have.

71

greenhill,

10/02/2009 09:59:45
RE Union in decline,10/02/2009 09:49:00

That is just utter SNP piffle propangda. The SNP intends to wreck the natural beauty of Scotland with windmills and the masses of additional pylons needed to service them.

Renewables do not provide base load.
72

,

10/02/2009 10:05:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

carrottop,

Dumfries 10/02/2009 10:06:38
Rhetoric rules and the masses have been brainwashed into thinking (or not) that anything nuclear is bad.
74

Wardog™,

10/02/2009 10:06:52

77. Tin Man

In Denmark, electricity, water and heating are expensive, because they are paying the real price of investment. reducing energy consumption and cutting co2.

Nuclear offers a fraudulent claim,of clean cheap electricity. and cutting co2.

It simply doesn't deliver.





75

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 10:09:53
(greenhill) – With due respect for the subject matter, can you please supply us with your evidence on life expectancy or the new nuclear power stations, and that of uranium supply?

Can you also supply a forecast for the expected demand for uranium over the next few years, and for the range or materials you named as replacements?
76

bill-alba,

fife 10/02/2009 10:10:07
nuclear is safe! tell that to the people who used to walk the beaches in Dalgety bay.
77

Luigiana,

10/02/2009 10:10:39
#66 "Why is Labour so wedded to BIG BUSINESS & STATE SUBSIDY?"

Family connections?

Avoid responsibility, take the easy option and make future generations pay the cost - it's the Labour way.
78

Scimitar1,

10/02/2009 10:12:19
Nuclear is clean,safe, affordable and provides 1000's of skilled jobs. Lets build them ,and tear down those unproductive, inefficient ugly turbines blighting our lovely countryside.
79

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 10/02/2009 10:12:58
There isn't an issue of producing weapons grade uranium for the son of Trident here, is there?
80

brownlie,

10/02/2009 10:13:06
79 Quisling

Is he related to the Brian Wilson associated with AMEC Nuclear?
81

Lianachan,

Highlands 10/02/2009 10:17:13
Once Torness and Hunterston are "closed down", they will be decomissioned. If anything, this will create and maintain highly skilled jobs for decades.
82

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 10/02/2009 10:19:33
At one time, Scotland had five nuclear power stations in production (to England's eight). Even with just the remaining two, we export electric to England. The nuclear industry in Scotland was never intended for the benefit of the people of Scotland and we know fine well why the Westminster parties are not happy - they'll have to find the room to accommodate their own power stations (which should be 10 times the number Scotland would need).

Greenhill's post are interesting - I agree that waste is a political issue, born out of scaremongering. As with oil extraction, advances in technology will result in increased availability of all nuclear fuels.
So if you'd rather have fossil fuel burning power stations polluting the atmosphere with CO2 and radioactive particles then that's up to you. Personally, I'm leaning towards nuclear power stations letting off a bit of steam now and again and given we've already left our children an legacy of nuclear waste management, adding decreasing amounts to that isn't going to make their problem any worse.

I'll back new nuclear power stations in Scotland only if the power they generate is to be consumed within Scotland. Therefore, given two old stations allow us to export, surely we'd need only one new station? (assuming advances in nuclear technology since Torness and Hunterston and were commissioned).
83

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 10:26:20
Union in decline #74
“With all due respect, I think you are missing one of the important points here. Scotland doesn't need nuclear power, whatever its advantages or disadvantages may be.”

I think you are also missing an important point too. Nuclear is cheaper and cleaner than alternatives being considered.

Nuclear is cheaper than coal when you add carbon capture; and it is considerably cleaner. Even clean gasification plants cause a significant amount of pollution. Nuclear is also cheaper than most renewable options in most circumstances; and not significantly any more harmful than renewables.

The International Energy Agency confirms that nuclear electricity is cheap: competitive with fossil fuel electricity, and cheaper than renewables in most cases. This is based on current powerstations and includes the cost of waste and decommissioning. (New nuclear powerstations are designed to be more efficient and therefore cheaper. New coal with carbon capture would be more expensive.)

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

Furthermore the EU’s ExternE study looked at the health and environmental impact of all the main sources of electricity in Europe and concluded that nuclear was essentially as harmless as the cleanest renewables. More to the point it showed that electricity from fossil fuel (or biomass) causes an order of magnitude more deaths than either nuclear or renewables.

http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf


Technically you are right, Scotland doesn’t need nuclear. But given that it is safer and cheaper it should at least be included alongside carbon capture (if it is viable) and wind (because it can deliver quickly).
84

greenhill,

10/02/2009 10:27:20
REUnion in decline,10/02/2009 10:09:58 "However, nuclear power startions are not only an eyesore of the highest magnitude."

The new nuclear power stations are 25% of the size of existing stations and can fit on the site of existing power stations.whereas the magnitude of windmills and pylons will be collossal ,our small country will be wrecked.Even old nuclear is not anywhere near as dangerous and damaging as conventional power.

The reality is on a Worldwide scale this argument has been won by new nuclear. By 2015 there will be a new nuclear power station built every 5 days. The World will be festooned with nuclear power stations.
85

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 10:28:09
#79 Quisling

We can also have cars powered by water. I think there is a sum total of zero carbon-capture power stations in the world?
86

me-here,

10/02/2009 10:28:19
# 90 TheDisplacedGlaswegian
"and given we've already left our children an legacy of nuclear waste management, adding decreasing amounts to that isn't going to make their problem any worse."

Is it just me or is that called "ignorance"?
87

greenhill,

10/02/2009 10:35:04
RE Ewan Randall,10/02/2009 10:09:53

The new EPR stations will be built to last around 60 years and the Uranium issue was dealt with.Remember I was talking about known supplies and I listed several alternatives.
88

me-here,

10/02/2009 10:43:16
yawn.........

What a load of rubbish - just to boil water.
89

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 10:45:04
Wardog #81 “In Denmark, electricity, water and heating are expensive, because they are paying the real price of investment. reducing energy consumption and cutting co2. Nuclear offers a fraudulent claim, of clean cheap electricity. and cutting co2.”

Says you. However let us compare Sweden with Denmark.

Sweden gets roughly half of its electricity from hydro and half from nuclear. They have been looking for alternatives to nuclear for quarter of a century but last week decided to keep nuclear. They have pretty impeccable environmental credentials – including advanced plan for disposing of the waste; and a fund to cover it.

Denmark gets about 20% of its electricity from wind, and the rest mostly from imported coal. They also have good environmental credentials (even the coal is used in efficient CHP stations) and good energy efficiency policies like Sweden.

The result? Sweden’s CO2 emissions per capita are about 40% lower than Denmark.

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

Furthermore Sweden has some of the cheapest industrial electricity in Europe, and their domestic electricity price is average for Europe. Denmark’s electricity price is amongst the highest in Europe.

Essentially the coal+renewables solution that the SNP is betting on is likely to be expensive and not very environmentally effective.
90

James at Perth,

10/02/2009 10:47:05
The notion that Scotland can survive on windmills is credible only in the minds of the self-deluded or technologically illiterate.

The notion that nuclear waste management is a challenging problem or a life-threatening risk, is lisped so often by tree hugging half-wits and political opportunists, that it is ingrained deep in the National psyche and held to be self-evident.

Whilst Scotland drinks long and deep this cocktail of denial, France has built 59 Nuclear Reactors. Where Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear technology, and he rest of the world has embraced it, we are to turn our talents to making plastic windmills and burning smokeless coal.

To those of you that endlessly parrot your deluded doctrines, fed to you by your green gurus and political spin-miesters, I say you fool yourselves if you want to, but don't try and fool the rest of us. We look and laugh at all that.

And when you wake from your little green Nationalist dream, cold and disillusioned, at least you wont have to turn out the lights when you leave.
91

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/02/2009 10:49:35
79 Quisling gogs
From everything I have read carbon capture for coal-fired power stations is an extremely doubtful prospect. At best, it is still many, many years away as an option and many doubt if it is at all feasible.
92

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 10:57:26
Greenhill #92 “By 2015 there will be a new nuclear power station built every 5 days. The World will be festooned with nuclear power stations.”

Wow. I new there was a lot planned, but I didn’t realise it was happening that fast. Do you have a source for this?
93

,

10/02/2009 11:09:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
94

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/02/2009 11:11:42
Quisling Gogs
I have just read your post at no 11

Rather bizarre to say the least. According to you England is going to turn into a semi desert while Scotland is going to get wetter. Please tell me how the rain clouds will know to stop at Gretna and Berwick.
95

TWC,

10/02/2009 11:13:56
This is too big to be left to Westminster we need to decide, I remember Windscale and I have seen reports about cancer pockets near nuclear sites. The response is, there is no evidence that it is caused by Nuclear establishment.
I remember similar claims for smoking & Asbestos.
Jack McConnell went away to discuss this with UK Government and said he would bring back a clear plan of all the issues about Nuclear generation and waste including How it would be finally resolved, where, by whom and at what cost; until we have that report and the subsequent critique we should not have new Nuclear stations.

NB it must be a formal report not one from Greenhill or his Nat opposite number.
96

greenhill,

10/02/2009 11:15:39
RE Colin, Glasgow,10/02/2009 10:57:26
The figures are from the World Nuclear Association.
97

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 11:19:01
(#95) – (greenhill) – Though you so graciously name the new 60 year lasting nuclear PowerStation’s as being EPR, can you now supply us all with your proof via links we can follow?

In what way was the uranium issue dealt with?

Which known supplies of Uranium are you talking about?

What are the alternatives you are talking about?

What are the supplies like of these alternatives?

You haven’t supplied us with an answer regarding known supply against estimated future demand, can you now do that?

Am I right in believing there could be a greater demand for these fuels due to the number or nuclear plants now being built around the world?

Is it possible that the cost of these fuels could increase dramatically too?

How much do they cost at present?

How much are they estimated to be in the next few years?
98

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 11:25:29
Union in decline #100 “We need guarentees of safety and we just don't have them yet. I don't necessarily mean something on the scale of Chernobyl, but even the uncertainty of Dounrey, for example, as detailed here a while ago”

I think you need to get this in perspective. You won’t get guarantees of absolute safety, but you can get guarantees that nuclear will be safer than coal, by a very, very wide margin. As the link I posted above shows, the average coal plant in normal operation causes 200 deaths per year from air pollution. 8000 over an operating life of 40 years. That is almost Chernobyl-scale harm due to _normal_ operation.

In contrast the Dounreay beach particle situation got a lot of coverage, but SEPA’s assessment of the risk shows that the chances of them actually killing somebody are literally trillions-to-one against.

There is no question: nuclear is safer than coal, even on a bad day.

I think your point about autonomy for Scotland is more relevant. It is hard for a small country to work autonomously with nuclear power. For example it would be expensive for an independent Scotland to have its own deep waste repository just for a couple of reactors (but this would presumably be the case regardless of new nuclear?). Nuclear power works best with cooperation between nations e.g. larger countries can invest in expensive enrichment facilities etc and export fuel to smaller countries.

It depends how fundamentally separate you want Scotland to be. A completely autonomous nuclear programme, just for Scotland, would be more expensive than a cooperative programme.
99

greenhill,

10/02/2009 11:26:33
Re Ewan Randall,10/02/2009 11:19:01

I dealt with the Uranium so called "problem" in this thread. Go back and read what was said.If you cannot comprehend a clear case then that is not my problem.

If you dispute anything I have said then go and find out for yourself and pose a counter-argument.
100

greenhill,

10/02/2009 11:32:16
RE Colin, Glasgow,10/02/2009 11:25:29

The fact is that old nuclear has saved us from the massive radioactive pollution that would have come from conventional power.

Old nuclear has in fact helped the enviroment and saved lives overall.However now we move on to even better new technology
101

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 11:34:12
To the likes of Greenhill, Colin etc.

The real question is not nuclear, good or bad, it is, "what is the best way to energy security for Scotland?"

Greenhill, you like to tell us that nuclear is clean, cheap and efficient; Colin seems to agree.

Let us, for the moment, accept this to be the case to progress the debate.

Scotland, currently, has energy security. What we are debating, here, is future security. What is the best solution?

Nuclear?

Capable of producing base-load. No. required, 2 to allow for shutdowns.

Costs: build £20bn at current prices, waste disposal £?bn (no accurate costings available), but currently running at +/-£1bn.

Raw material availability: in region of 100/150yrs given current consumption; likely to be much less with the commissioning of more reactors world-wide.

Renewables:

Base-load: using wave, tidal and hydro in a phased manner, base-load can be maintained. While this network is being developed current nuclear and coal-fired stations will supply base-load: 20yrs.

Costs: Unknown, but unlikely to be more than the associated costs of nuclear.

Raw material availability: indefinite, and is not subject to changes in global changes, political or financial.

If it's energy security we are genuinely interested in, then there is no argument; renewables win hands down in terms of cost, the environment and sustainability. Furthermore, it obviates the need for political prostitution to maintain a supply raw material.
102

greenhill,

10/02/2009 11:37:50
Re frank mcbride,lusitania 10/02/2009 11:34:12

You forgot to mention we could also have limitless free power from fairy dust.That would make as much sense as the rest of your contribution.
103

Teamdroid,

10/02/2009 11:41:29
My gut instinct is to treat anything said by Westminster government on this subject with extreme skepticism. It's well-known that the nuclear lobby has the ear of the current Cabinet. The PM's brother works for EDF, the planning minister's father is a major lobbyist for the nuclear industry, and several old pals have cushy jobs within the nuclear industry - such as Brian Wilson, a non-exec director at Amec nuclear holdings.
104

James at Perth,

10/02/2009 11:43:20
Re: Several posts from Greenhill and Colin, Glasgow.

Rational argument does not work against the messianic certainty of the anti-nuclear evangelist? You can lead the bores to water but you can't make them think.
105

greenhill,

10/02/2009 11:43:58
RE Teamdroid,10/02/2009 11:41:29

Yeah and I reckon the masons are involved in this as well.
106

John S,

10/02/2009 11:46:51
Is there any form of generation which best for Scotland, fossil fuel or nuclear or both plus renewables ?

From a purely operational point of view and now that Scotland is going down the road of relying on renewables for some of our generation.
Nuclear is base load generation and isn't flexible enough to follow the varying Scottish grid demand, nuclear needs back-up generation.
Gas or coal fired generation (and to a lesser extent our Hydro generation) can run base load and/or follow the varying grid demand and provide back-up for nuclear generation and adjust to the fluctuation of output from the renewables.
Renewables run base load and vary there output ie some wind generators will be producing some of the time so we need flexible/base load back up which fossil fuel generation can provide.
At present what provides this back up generation, follows the grid demand and also provides baseload back up for our NPs ? our fossil fuel generators and to a lesser extent our Hydro generation.
From a purely operational point of view and bearing in mind the renewables situation a new fossil fuel power station would be the one to build for its base load and flexibility.

Maybe part of a solution would be the mini nuclear PS ? loosing the output of one or two of these wouldn't have a dramatic effect on the grid compared with 600 or 1200MW from a NPs ?
Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes - £13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry.
The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years.The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.
http://tinyurl.com/5fqwh4

For England with its much larger min baseload and not being so reliant on renewables to the same extent as Scotland then nuclear can have adv
107

me-here,

10/02/2009 12:01:50
Let's hope noone takes this thread to serious.
Comments from greenhill (pure idiot) like "Old nuclear has in fact helped the enviroment and saved lives overall" are shocking.
Allthough it someway sounds like bad comedy.
I don't really think people like greenhill are much interested in this, they just want to have something to say, no matter how stupid it sounds. Looks like he tips a word in google and takes what he wants for his arguments.
I know, there is no proof that smoking causes cancer either - LOL
The next election will prove the SNP's direction is wanted by the scots.
108

alanh,

ek 10/02/2009 12:02:27
I must be one of those tree hugging luddites.

I simply dont want nuclear energy or weapons in our country?

I dont have facts or figures but simply dont trust that it would be safe to live beside or that some unscrupulous people may take cheaper options with our safety when dumping the waste.
I dont care if this may make the cost of our energy more expensive cos I havent seen any sort of reduction in cost since nuclear came on line and tbh it would not matter to me.
Some well balanced arguments, both ways, on here today but even with facts given I dont trust our country's and children's future with nuclear power/waste/weapons
109

James at Perth,

10/02/2009 12:07:05
116 John S,10/02/2009 11:46:51

Hydro-nuclear combos seem to work well. I think Norway-Sweden work this trick. Spare load pumps water up for the kettle moments, which Hydro serves really well, especially when the wind doesn't blow.

The experts might comment better on your post. All I can say is that it is good to see someone thinking out of the box rather than hugging trees.
110

me-here,

10/02/2009 12:17:19
For those who have not noticed - this is all forgotten in the media. There was a short noise this morning but it's bubble has burst, pop, away.
End of the story - no nuclear nonsens.
All nuclear fetichists can go back and annoy their parents. Or go and get a job....
111

greenhill,

10/02/2009 12:17:35
RE me-here,10/02/2009 12:01:50 :So you say:"Comments from greenhill (pure idiot) like "Old nuclear has in fact helped the enviroment and saved lives overall" are shocking."

Shocking eh! Shocking? I have no doubt you are shocked but it is the truth. If the World had relied on conventional power instead of nuclear then the environment and humanity would be in a far worse state.

Coal burning has released to the World more than 100 times more radioactivity than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If such consequences occurred from nuclear power, all nuclear plants would be closed.

Nuclear has saved the World from masses of CO2 and many other dangerous pollutants. You are shockingly ignorant.




112

,

10/02/2009 12:21:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
113

TWC,

10/02/2009 12:22:15
Nuclear is not going to happen in Scotland and Labour are not going to put it in their manifesto because they've got enough problems without adding a disasterous policy.
114

greenhill,

10/02/2009 12:22:35
RE Ewan Randall,10/02/2009 11:19:01

It seems like we have got a heavy handed censor today so posts are being removed so I repeat part of what was removed:

Here are the facts on the subject of supplies of uranium : right now we have around 80 years of known supply .We can also reprocess used fuel , build fast breeder reactors. Then we could use thorium of which there is 3 to 4 times as much.
115

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 12:24:33
Being frozen out is bugging the hell out of me.
116

TWC,

10/02/2009 12:25:24
124 greenhill,

Never mind all that we just don't want nuclear and we are not going to accept it. We will vote against it no matter how many times Westminster try to Limbo under the door or Business people try to push it.
117

,

10/02/2009 12:26:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
118

greenhill,

10/02/2009 12:31:55
Re TWC,10/02/2009 12:25:24

I reckon Scots will agree to consume imported nuclear power and boast about being a nuclear free country. That is the sort of diddy political culture we have.
119

me-here,

10/02/2009 12:33:50
yawn.....
120

TWC,

10/02/2009 12:34:35
128 greenhill

Rubbish, we will grow as we take more control over our finances and Energy etc and if we are not given clear control of finances then reluctantly it will be Independence for me.
121

me-here,

10/02/2009 12:36:21
greenhill doesn't seem to be scottish.
Another "british" (worker?) nationalist who thinks scots can not look after themselves!
122

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 12:37:42
#131 me-here

The moon is bright tonight.
123

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 12:38:56
#112, greenhills.

Thank you so very, very much for your considered response.

It is obvious, from said response, that you have no interest in debating the issue at hand, otherwise you would have refuted my points.

The fact that this was beyond you exposes the paucity of your argument. Good lord, I even conceded to you, for the sake of debate, that nuclear was clean.

Sir/madam, you are a charlatan apologist for the nuclear lobby.

Please refrain from your instinct to demean yourself as it only makes you look foolish, and is likely to make people disregard your comments, even in the unlikely event of you making some valid point.
124

me-here,

10/02/2009 12:40:18
Yeah, I noticed that.
The comments of some funny greenhills - I wonder if he grows hair everywhere and big long teeth and goes out by night and, well sheep you know?
125

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 12:44:01
#130 TWC

How do you think that Holyrood's energy policy would change? They already have planning permission for power plants. They have voted against building nuclear plants, so none will be built. Ditto coal-fired plants - they would make their carbon emissions targets unachievable. Presumably they are all in favour of the electricity bill supplement used to fund windmills, so I can't see anything different happening, unless they suddenly wish to pour additional money into a state wave-generation program.
126

Arfur,

10/02/2009 12:54:37
If you unionists think Scotland is going to go from exporting energy to England with the natural resources that are currently employed and 2 nuclear power stations running at a low capacity to importing energy from England when all the new green initiative are introduced you are thicker than two short planks and really need to get a grip.

I know that you all mince on trying to slate anything SNP in a vain attempt to save the union but when this is your argument your end result is to just look stupid and a bunch of halfwits.

I actually nearly fell off my seat laughing when I read some of those posts and when asked what I was laughing at I had explained to some of my colleagues who subsequently laughed and added a couple of comments like 'what an idiot'.

As for the article - what a load of garbage. Hamish obviously believes that an engineer working at a nuclear plan cant transfer his engineering skills to being an engineer at a turbine plant or some other kind of green plant. And of course if he cant do that there are no other engineering jobs in Scotland so he is going to have to move away.
127

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 13:00:15
#136

Arfur, all the new green initiatives amount to a lot of windmills doing nothing on a calm day, and a wave-power research station. It doesn't have anything to do with 'nationalism' - the Windmills are funded through Westminster initiatives, and nuke-free Scotland was voted for by 'unionists'.
128

TWC,

10/02/2009 13:00:45
135 The Tin Man

Easy we just stick to our plan and develop new technology while we are in surplus. The main thing is we decide not somebody else. We've been exporting Electricity for years are we not allowed to import some if we need it??
129

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 13:00:49
Think I'm going tohave to re-register.
130

greenhill,

10/02/2009 13:05:56
RE frank mcbride,lusitania 10/02/2009 12:38:56

You made a dull rambling contribution and your points have already been dealt with earlier in the thread.
The main reason you are not worth bothering about is your claim that renewables can provide base load.
131

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 13:08:30
#139 TWC

Nothing wrong with that - we would have to 'import' electricity with the current policies, no two ways about it.

By 'new technology' I take it you mean wave-power and tidal barrages? - These are hardly new, by the way. The problem lies in getting the generated power to the existing grid - expensive.

If the majority of voters want more expensive electricity, with greater resultant fuel-poverty, and negative impact on industry, then so be it.
132

Eve,

Scotland 10/02/2009 13:12:13
UK energy minister Mike O'Brien, is a Minster at Westminster, so there for thinks it's a great Idea to go agaist what the people of Scotlnad want.

North Warwickshire MP aparently, where every that is!!! Defently no in Scotland and this is a Holyrood matter.

Anyway does this guy no realse that the neuclear waste is radio active, or is he another one, who doesn't belive in land poultion.

If these engenrers are genunely talented then they'll easely be able to transfer the skills to the renewable sourses and help delevlop and improve energy suply in this area.

133

Guy Wersh,

Eccy Byde 10/02/2009 13:14:00
Greenhill says:

"Then we could use thorium of which there is 3 to 4 times as much. "

Sorry Greenhill, I think this paper published by Nuclear Monitor (with references) pretty much lays the thorium reactor debate to rest for the near future.
134

Guy Wersh,

10/02/2009 13:15:14
Sorry guys, should have added
tinyurl.com/amtqwt
135

TWC,

10/02/2009 13:19:08
142 The Tin Man,

With fiscal autonomy and our cheap power we would have a great life here in Bonnie Clean Scotland.
It is such a beautiful place.
136

greenhill,

10/02/2009 13:20:37
RE Eve,Scotland 10/02/2009 13:12:13 : "neuclear waste is radio active"

What stunning insight you learn something new every day.
137

,

10/02/2009 13:21:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
138

me-here,

10/02/2009 13:25:40
The world is a pizza and trees grow upside down.

Oh we are stupid!
139

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 13:26:13
#146 TWC

Vote SNP for free electricity.....?

Presumably this 'cheap power' of which you dream of would be coming from outwith the borders of Scotland?

Most of Scotland is beautiful, and I don't mind windmills and dams too much. Methil, of couse, is the exception, being an ideal spot for a nuclear catastrophe.
140

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 13:28:02
#149 me-here

You made a typo in "Oh we are stupid!".
141

greenhill,

10/02/2009 13:28:47
RE Guy Wersh,Eccy Byde 10/02/2009 13:14:00

You refer to a publication from anti-nuclear nutbags. Thank you for helping my case.
142

me-here,

10/02/2009 13:29:07
I was just thinking, let's say they build a nuclear power station doon the road, and greenhill is in charge of it!

How would you feel?
143

greenhill,

10/02/2009 13:30:56
RE TWC,10/02/2009 13:19:08

It will not be a beautifull place when it is covered in pylons and windmills as the SNP plan.
144

Eve,

Scotland 10/02/2009 13:33:28
#10 Wardog™: Could have grants availble for them to retrain in renewabless! Unless they really want to go else ware.

Any talented engerner will have a background knolage of general physics. Shouldn't be that difficult to retrain them. I would geuss it would take something like a year or two part time in training on the job. To get them fully quailfied.
145

me-here,

10/02/2009 13:34:33
This morning the numpty on the radio said he knows the solution for the waste problem. There is somebody who wants to have it. They would take it with open arms.
I just wonder why he didn't say who it was!
146

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 13:34:36
Union in Decline (137): "There is a little caveat I once heard about electric-powered doorbells throughout Europe using enough energy to require the entire output of one nuclear power station or two coal power plants."

This sounds like an urban myth to me. If we take a European population of 750 million, with roughly 2.5 persons per household, then that's 300 million households. If we assume that every household has an electric doorbell consuming 10W, then we would need every doorbell to be ringing for roughly 8 hours every day to consume all the power produced by a 1GW power station! In practice, the power required by doorbells is negligible: the transmission losses in cables will dwarf this figure. By all means speak for conservation, but avoid urban myth.
147

me-here,

10/02/2009 13:35:51
yawn........
148

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 13:37:59
Had to sign on at #140 for some reason, don't know why?

#141, greenhills.

Perhaps, after you've read this, from the University of NSW:

www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/BaseloadFallacy.pdf

You might like to make a more informed comment. But there again, you might not, as it would be more than your job's worth.
149

TWC,

10/02/2009 13:45:40
150 The Tin Man,

I said Fiscal Autonomy not Independence but I will admit I am thinking that there is little competition to the Nats. I would vote for Independence if there is no commitment to Fiscal Autonomy.
150

greenhill,

10/02/2009 13:45:42
You could pull up all sorts of papers from nutbag organisations and academics.I will not take you seriously.
151

me-here,

10/02/2009 13:48:56
What greenhill is saying is everything that doesn't fit into his small radioactive damaged brain is anti nuclear.
152

,

10/02/2009 13:54:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
153

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 14:05:06
(#109) – (greenhill) – Are you talking about Britain or Scotland when you are talking about the uranium?

Who owns the 80 years worth of uranium?

If the uranium supply is owned by companies that run nuclear power stations elsewhere have we really got possession of 80 years of supply, or has a multi-national which could use a significant percentage of the uranium elsewhere?

How much of the fuel do we already reprocess?

What type of fast breeder reactor do you envisage being built in Scotland, and why?

Can we use Thorium in uranium reactors or do you need special Thorium reactors built?

Do we already have Thorium, or were you trying to explain the quantity we could get our hands on?

What are the chances of contamination from an accident when transporting nuclear materials such as fuel?

As I have said before can you show me proof for your findings?

What makes you think I am arguing against anyone?
154

Guy Wersh,

10/02/2009 14:08:09
Greenhill:"
You refer to a publication from anti-nuclear nutbags. Thank you for helping my case."

I note that you don't actually refute the findings of the paper.

OK, if you consider the Nuclear Monitor to be 'nutty', what about "Thorium Fuel Cycle - Potential Benefits and Challenges" form the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA TECDOC -1450 May 2005)?
155

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 14:08:26
me-here (163): "greenhill is just a simple wee english labour supporter"

Roughly 10% of Scotland's population is English. Robertson, at Stirling University, produced an excellent report on your preferred ad hominem argument: ''It's as if you're some alien...' Exploring Anti-English Attitudes in Scotland. '

You can download it here.

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/mcintosh.html
156

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:12:46
# 164 Ewan Randall

Are you crazy?
So many questions!
greenhill won't even answer 50%. The amount of google pages he must read through!
And he'll only answer those where he can find something that suits his confused little brain.
He really thinks radioactivity is healthy, like vitamins etc.
Ask him something easier, what time it is or what is 1 & 1!
157

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:14:29
# fairfax
I'm not anti english. I am a european scot.
greenhill made the comments about scots, what you can read further above.
Calling somone english is not abusive is it?
158

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 14:16:34
Back again. Is anyone else having this problem; having to enter the thread at your last comment?
159

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 14:17:59
Ewan Randall (164):"Can we use Thorium in uranium reactors or do you need special Thorium reactors built?"

Thorium reactors are speculative technology at present. The idea is to mine Thorium in, say, Norway, after which the Thorium is transmuted into Uranium 233 in a particle accelerator. The Uranium 233 would then be used in a fission reactor. It really isn't known whether this would be feasible on the industrial scale required to be useful. Still, it's extremely interesting. You can learn more here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1538756620080215

"Do we already have Thorium, or were you trying to explain the quantity we could get our hands on?"

Thorium is much more common that Uranium, and has the added advantage that all could be used -- only 0.7% of Uranium is a useful isotope for fission, and its isolation is expensive.
160

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:18:12
greenhill is an idiot.
His comments are from coockoo land.
That's abusive!
I'm not taking his stupid arguments and if you read through them you'll notice that. He spreads his comments through this thread as if he is the saviour of us all as we and the scottish government seem to be idiots in his small minded brain.
If you think that's anti english then think so.
161

Mcsnagpile,

10/02/2009 14:18:14
I wish the Scotsman would do something interesting and give us the number of skilled engineering jobs in Scotland occupied by non scots especially industries like North Sea oil. In fact I would like to know how many engineering industries in Scotland that are Scottish I can think of very few--- an they're awe deed.
162

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:19:03
# 169 frank
Yep.
In and out and in and out, it's like ebay!
163

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 14:20:26
me-here (168): "Calling somone english is not abusive is it?"

It depends on the context. Try Robertson's links and consider further.
164

,

10/02/2009 14:26:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
165

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:26:39
# Fairfax

So if an englishman writes "I reckon Scots will agree to consume imported nuclear power and boast about being a nuclear free country." and I write he is a wee english labour supporter (who may not even live in Scotland) what's wrong with that?
Political correctness can go to far, believe me!
No matter whta nationality greenhill is, he is an idiot, a google searcher, no own thoughts.
166

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:27:50
Look at 175
Now he's changed his name and pretends to be scottish.
What a joke he is!
167

The Tin Man,

10/02/2009 14:28:31
I would like to bring the link posted by by 'me-here' to everyone's attention, in case you didn't hear about wave and tidal power 20, or more, years ago.

I know it is targeted at 10-year-olds, but the Blue Peter motion transformer is a must:

http://www.wavegen.co.uk/about_wave_energy_info_schools_wave_whistles.htm
168

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 14:29:58
(#167) – (me-here) – Am I crazy?

Would it make you happier if I were crazy?

What is wrong with questions?

Isn’t 50% answered better than 0%?

Does it matter where greenhill gets his information, as long as it is proof?
169

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 14:30:53
greenhill.

How are you going to explain to your paymasters, your utter incompetence?

Why do you opine that documented and substantiated research from the University of NSW is, "...all sorts of papers from nutbag organisations and academics"?

I'll bet you're the sort of informed intellect who would have supported the Catholic Curch against Galileo.

Your lack of intellectual rigour knows no bounds; you are a charlatan!!! Or, perhaps I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, a paid troll.
170

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 14:33:35
me-here (176): "I write he is a wee english labour supporter (who may not even live in Scotland) what's wrong with that?"

Again, it depends on the context -- perhaps your remark was anodyne. I'm an English academic, living in Cambridge, although I'm certainly not a Labour supporter. I'm often in Scotland, having family, friends and colleagues there, and Robertson's research rings true to me:

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/mcintosh.html

What's your view of Jeremy Clarkson's "Scottish idiot!" comment on Brown?
171

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 14:37:10
#173, me-here.

Have you reported the problem?

I reported it to the Scotsman tech. dept., yesterday morning, but have still to receive any reply.
172

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 10/02/2009 14:40:32
I heard O'Brien on the radio this morning. Sheer propaganda.
173

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:43:41
# fairfax
I agree, I would be more concerned being called labour.
I am not anti-english. I love places like Margate, Ramsgate, Canterbury, Clacton on Sea & Southampton.
I've either worked their or been on Holiday and like it.
So don't be worried, I've got the "british" and the german nationality, both!
Don't need to mention what I was called at school a long time ago!
174

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:44:40
# frank
No! Hasn't happened for a couple of hours now.
175

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 14:46:21
greenhill.

What is your view on nuclear-powered transport as replacements for all the fossil fuel, and fossil fuel generated, carcenogenic/radioactve producing transport?
176

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 14:48:00
(#181) – (Fairfax) – Wasn’t Clarkson’s error the use of “one-eyed Scottish” in the position of adjective?
177

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:48:05
# fairfax

I have no opinion on Clarkson. I don't find him that thrilling!
I was just wondering the problem was more he brought one-eyed and idiot together, that's what the media went on about. Not the scottish thing. But I don't bother about that nonsens.
I was more concerned how the phrase "british jobs for british workers" as my wife is a german nurse working here. Really was getting scared her alone on the bus to work.
178

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 14:49:42
#185, me-here.

If I'm on the thread, and posting, there's no problem. It only happens when I leave the thread and try to return.
179

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:51:39
# frank

Yes, that happens to me too. Used to be logged in all the time. I've had this page open all the time now.
As I said like ebay.
180

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 14:52:24
Ewen (187): "Wasn’t Clarkson’s error the use of “one-eyed Scottish” in the position of adjective?"

I'm not sure. Both adjectives and the noun seemed to give offence in some quarters.
181

me-here,

10/02/2009 14:53:10
# 179 Ewan

He's still googling.
I told you the questions were to much!
182

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 15:00:36
(#192) – (me-here) – I don’t wish to be pedantic, but are you not aware that when something as you said “to much” the “to” should be “too”?
183

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 15:17:29
(#191) – (Fairfax) – Isn’t that an indication that we should watch how we string our words together?
184

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 15:27:06
Central Scrutinizer (194): "If London wants more power build the new nuclear power stations there."

Many nuclear power stations have always been close to London, as will some of the new generation.

"Its now a well known fact that most of the nuclear industry was assembled to build bombs."

The first generation of fission reactors certainly had bombs in mind, but this had ceased by the end of the 1950s: Uranium fission produces lots of Plutonium. Roughly speaking, a 1 GW power station produces some 200 kg of Plutonium per year, which is sufficient for some 60 bombs. Britain currently produces some 15 GW per year, potentially providing some 900 bombs. In other words, a single year of operation is more than sufficient to replenish a respectable nuclear arsenal. If we were using it for bombs, then we wouldn't have a waste problem.

You can learn more here, from a fascinating article by nuclear weapons designer, and campaigner against nuclear power, Ted Taylor:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1996/07/00_taylor_nuclear-power.htm
185

greenhill,

10/02/2009 15:29:42
RE Ewan Randall,10/02/2009 14:05:06

I was talking about overall World demand. The real problem is that there is a plentiful supply of uranium and that means that alternatives are not being fully developed.

When I put forward those alternatives I was indulging the tedious old "running out of essential minerals” argument which gets deployed ad nauseaum in a number of contexts. If these people did have a point then there would be alternatives.

The fact is the 80 years figure is based on known reserves and there has been a lack of exploration due to the current over supply.

Supply of Uranium is not a problem and if it was there would be no end of solutions.
186

me-here,

10/02/2009 15:31:41
# 193 Ewan

Sorry, too!
I lived 31 years in germany, didn't need much to or too, more der, die, and das! Allthough I never understood that.


187

me-here,

10/02/2009 15:32:34
Wow Ewan - He answered!
Not even 10% LOL
188

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 15:39:22
Back on at #189. Just to find out what greenhill's responses are.
189

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 15:39:48
Ewen Randall (195): One interesting source of information on nuclear power is provided by a group of nuclear engineers at the University of Michigan:

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html

and

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/resources/10strikes-response.html

They are broadly pro-nuclear, as (guardedly) am I. Nevertheless, they also link to, and comment on, an anti-nuclear site. My own field is applied mathematics, not nuclear physics, but I would catch any gross errors on their site.
190

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 15:53:38
#198, greenhill.

I see that your still rambling.

Why did you dismiss the University of NSW paper as the product of "nutbag organisations and academics"?

Why do you insist with your assertion of 80yrs of Uranium available, when it is well known that this is reckoned on current exploitation.

Why do you make allowance for the, already announced, masive expansion of nuclear plants worldwide?

Why does the damage that will be caused by the extraction of hard to recover uranium not bother you?

Why are you such an idiot?..........No need to answer that as we all know that you're a paid troll.
191

me-here,

10/02/2009 15:54:25
# LOL
192

greenhill,

10/02/2009 16:02:52
RE frank mcbride,lusitania 10/02/2009 15:53:38

80 years is an underestimate of what is out there. It is all about supply and demand.There is just too much supply at present.

However If there was no uranium at all then there would be other ways of generating nuclear power.There is just so much of the stuff that the alternatives are not ecenomic.It is evident that you did not comprehend my last post

You have already argued that renewables can supply base load. So you are not credible.
193

me-here,

10/02/2009 16:07:55
....you are not credible...

Ooohh!

Thankyou greenhill for sharing your knowledge with us, all day!
We are not able to think and use our knowledge without your comments. Where would we be without people like you!
Now we know we do not need uranium and we have too (#Ewan) much off that stuff. That's why it's so cheap!
Boooaaaaaaaauuuuggghhhhh!!!!
194

greenhill,

10/02/2009 16:14:58
RE Central Scrutinizer,Here & Now... 10/02/2009 16:09:49


Indeed and traces of that radioactivity have been found within the Bat population on Mars .
195

me-here,

10/02/2009 16:15:19
# Central Scrutinizer

Well said, but unfortunatley there is not much interest on this thread for these arguments.
greenhill wrote earlier "Old nuclear has in fact helped the enviroment and saved lives overall"!
Like Radioactive tablets = Vitamin tablets!
LOL
196

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 16:29:13
Greenhill “80 years is an underestimate of what [Uranium resource] is out there.”

Indeed it is. The known Uranium resource is over 100 years now. A couple of year ago there was resurgent interest in Uranium which caused the price to spike, so they increased exploration and promptly increased the global reserve by 17% in just two years. There is almost certainly more if we want to look for it.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=18070

With breeder reactors it would provide 60 times as much energy. Thorium, which is three times as abundant as Uranium, is another possible fuel.

And, at the end of the day, the Japanese have successfully trialled Uranium extraction from seawater. There is an almost inexhaustible supply of uranium in seawater. Although it is currently more expensive than mining, it is still cheap enough to be cost effective for electricity production. It could potentially last for billions of years at current consumption.

In short, there is no shortage in the long term.
197

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 16:33:10
Back on to see how much of a fool greenhill is making of himself or, indeed, if he's morphed, as seems to be the way of trolls.

Still freezing on re-entering at my last post. A real pain in the bahooky.
198

greenhill,

10/02/2009 16:37:54
RE me-here,10/02/2009 16:15:19

You are such a fake. Your latest bit of trickery is taking a comment out of context but I will put it back in to context to demonstrate your dishonesty.You quote me:

"Old nuclear has in fact helped the enviroment and saved lives overall"

But I said in context:

"The fact is that old nuclear has saved us from the massive radioactive pollution that would have come from conventional power.Old nuclear has in fact helped the enviroment and saved lives overall.However now we move on to even better new technology"

This linked back to information in a previous post:

"...Coal burning has released to the World more than 100 times more radioactivity than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If such consequences occurred from nuclear power, all nuclear plants would be closed.

In addition we all know very well that radiation is not the only toxic waste spewed out by conventional power e.g.in case you forgot C02."

So that sorts that out we now have the full position.




199

me-here,

10/02/2009 16:37:59
Oh! Now it's 100 years!
# Colin
Is that the rubbish you get your information from?
You won't fool me. That's like the tobacco industry telling smoking doesn't cause cancer!

# 209 Central Scrutinizer
There's another one of them. Look where he get's his information. Embarrissing!
No argument whatsoever would be accepted by these nuclear fetichists. They're trying to fool people by telling lies and fairy tales.
200

me-here,

10/02/2009 16:38:50
# greenhill
Go and get stuffed. You are an idiot!
201

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 16:40:14
Me-here #208, you may scoff at greenhill’s claims but s/he is right, especially regarding the number of lives saved by using nuclear power in preference to fossil fuel. Each coal plant causes about 200 deaths per year from air pollution according to EU figures. Each nuclear plant causes less than 1 death. The utilitarian arithmetic is not difficult.

It is a lot safer than biomass or PV solar. The overall hazard from nuclear power is similar to hydro or wind power.

Read the Barsebäck example here. Or just look at the graphs of deaths per TWh.

http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf
202

me-here,

10/02/2009 16:45:38
# Colin
You can also get stuffed.
Do you really expect me to argue with you?
You are not here to discuss this, you are here to tell people fairy tales! People like you and greenidiot don't answer what they don't like.
So don't try to fool me, I've been through all this in the eighties. Don't need stupid pro nuclear numpties to explain to me how many people die of what.

203

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 16:47:24
greenhill & Colin.

Seems you two are entering into some sort of auction.

How many gazillions of years of radioactive fuel will we have by, say, 8pm?

#204, greenhill.

Where is your research proofs that renewables cannot produce base-load? I have provided you with research that suggests they can, and that research does not even mention wave or tidal.

If you wish to be taken seriously, rather than ridiculed, you will provide the proofs, preferably from reputable universities, rather than bought and paid for individual scientist; those to whom you refer as "nutbag academics".

I'm not holding my breath waiting, for your answer, as I have no wish to commit suicide.
204

greenhill,

10/02/2009 16:55:30
RE James at Perth,10/02/2009 11:43:20 currently #114

Oh how right you were.
205

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 16:57:04
#215, Colin.

How did our emminent Pole allow for transport polution in his study?

I'll ask you what I asked greenhill, as he is unable or unwilling to answer, are you also advocating nuclear tranport as a replacement for carcenogenic, fossil, and fossil facilitated fuel driven transport?

After all, we now have billions of years of fisionable material that can be used.
206

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 17:05:12
Frank McBride #219 “I'll ask you what I asked greenhill, as he is unable or unwilling to answer, are you also advocating nuclear tranport as a replacement for carcenogenic, fossil, and fossil facilitated fuel driven transport? “

I’d advocate electric cars (and/or hydrogen fuel cells) using electricity from nuclear and renewable sources. This is essentially the decarbonisation plan from the International Energy Agency. Possibly 1 billion vehicles on the road by 2050.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/techno/etp/ETP_2008_Exec_Sum_English.pdf

Shipping and aviation are likely to use biofuel unfortunately. (Though nuclear-powered shipping is not out of the question.)
207

lulach mac gille coemgain,

10/02/2009 17:07:31
Let’s Just Get the separation done and we can deal with all these issues without compare or pathetic media misinformation.
208

greenhill,

10/02/2009 17:09:44
I think we could have personal "nuclear" (by source) transport in future in the form of electric cars being charged by electricity. We shall have to wait and see. I would tend to be optimistic.

I am just about to catch an electric train. Perhaps a good deal of its power comes from a nuclear source.

Trams and underground exist and are powered by electricity.

209

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 17:12:16
#221. Colin.

Do you agree with greenhill's contention that renewables are incapable of producing base-load?

If so, perhaps you can supply the evidence that supports your view; independent studies, if you can produce them. Thanks.

You would appear to be a genuine contributor, unlike the ill-informed greenhill troll.
210

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 17:15:36
#222, greenhill.

Why has it taken you so long to reply? Did you require a clue?

Can you now answer the part about fossil, facilitated fuel (electricity)?

See, I'm a generous sort. There's a clue in the question.
211

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 10/02/2009 17:19:10
Nuclear is the greenest fuel. The waste should simply be loaded onto rockets and blasted towards the sun. Simple.
212

me-here,

10/02/2009 17:19:39
Terrible, getting kicked out all the time.
Hardly could login.

By the way people, the discussion is over - no nuclear -the media has no interest any more - this morning they were all (nuclear industry) trying to make a big story of it, but even the BBC understood it's a non starter in bonnie Scotland.
The nuclear industry is trying to use climate change as an argument, but they don't care a coconut about climate change. So what's the point arguing with them?

Next year = independance, the Westminster Government is working for us. As long as they try to tell us were not capable of this and not capable of that, more and more are going to support independance!

And the day will come where they will have to buy the renewable technology from Scotland - that's gonna be fun!
213

Fairfax,

10/02/2009 17:24:26
Central Scutinizer (206): "Tritium was also used."

Deuterium and Tritium are indeed used in all modern hydrogen bombs and fission bombs -- in other words, our atomic bombs are now combination fission-fusion devices. Nevertheless, these hydrogen isotopes do not require our 15 GW of commercial fission power stations.

"Windscale: Britain’s Nuclear Disaster is a must watch. Watch the 'experts' perform."

It was indeed shameful.

"Aldermaston and Windscale were setup to make bombs... at breakneck speed by a rabid MacMillan."

AWRE Aldermaston began in 1950, somewhat before Macmillan's PM days. As I recall, Calder Hall had moved to primarily commercial use by the mid-1960s. As I said in my earlier post, the early fission stations had clear military purpose. However, there was little need for further weapons-grade Plutonium by the end of the 1950s, simply because a 1GW fission station produces some 200 kg of Plutonium per year -- that statistic alone implies almost all of our nuclear power stations have been primarily commercial since the early 1960s.

214

Ewan Randall,

10/02/2009 17:27:42
(#198) – (greenhill) – The estimation you gave us of 80 years supply of uranium is at present usage?

Are there estimations for the increasing numbers of nuclear PowerStation’s?

Could an increased number of nuclear PowerStation’s bring the uranium supply below the 60 years you gave us estimation of for those new nuclear reactors?

If you were to choose a nuclear reactor for us to install which type would it be?

Why do you choose that type of nuclear reactor?

Could there be more of a problem with the over abundance of uranium than if there had been a shortage at this time?

As a potential safety issue, if we were to choose uranium fuelled reactors would we be choosing the safest type of nuclear reactor?

If uranium reactors are not the safest type of reactor which type are?

Why are the safest reactors safer than uranium reactors if uranium isn’t the safety type of reactor?

Can one type of reactor change from one type of nuclear fuel to another or do you have to change reactors sometimes?
215

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 17:32:28
Have you replied yet, greenhills?

Have to make some comment to catch up with the thread when I return.
216

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 17:38:54
Thought not. Do you need more clues???
217

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 18:26:09
Has the verdant one responded yet?
218

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 18:30:57
???
219

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 18:34:21
Re-entered at #15. Let's se what happens.
220

me-here,

10/02/2009 18:37:53
# frank

No!
The manipulation will not work in Scotland.
I guess this is just the beginning of the fight against independance.
I expect labour, nuclear industry and other dodgy bunchies of "british" nationalists to get really nasty towards the next scottish elections.
My wife, who is german, asked a couple of times if we should join the SNP, but I swore I would never join a political party again.
But due to these stupid comments here that are only targeted against the scottish government, and the nonsens that can be read on the nuclear lobby websites, I will now join the SNP with my wife.
Therefore I will take any insults against the SNP as an insult against me and my freedom!

221

me-here,

10/02/2009 18:41:58
Let's start the fight:

http://www.snp.org/campaigns/letscotlanddecide
222

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 18:45:52
Has everyone gone home???
223

me-here,

10/02/2009 18:49:45
Maybe their lights have gone out! LOL
224

Sanny,

10/02/2009 19:03:19
10 Wardog™, 10/02/2009 01:04:23

Is I have said elsewhere in these columns, as a young Engineer I spent my first 12 years working for the UKAEA. I left and entered the then fledgling UK oil industry and from there worked in many places around the world. I found the skills I acquired during my period in the UKAEA transferred well into other fields of industry.

Closing down Nuclear stations may make it difficult for a few (very few) specialists but for the vast majority their skills are fully transferable and for most they will be exposed to a less harmful workplace.
225

,

10/02/2009 19:32:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
226

ochone,

Sauchie, clacks 10/02/2009 19:45:53
I wonder when those unionists who post on these pages on a regular basis will start to try another, more honest tactic, that of telling everybody which party they support and also trying to sell voters on it's strenghs.

The fact that they never do speaks volumes for them and for the unionists partys!
227

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 20:00:38
Frank #221, "Do you agree with greenhill's contention that renewables are incapable of producing base-load?"

No, I’m aware that renewables can produce baseload. It is just problematic to arrange the right mix in Scotland to provide baseload on a grand scale. The biggest resources are variable and/or intermittent.

Clearly an appropriate mix of renewables could provide a constant supply if enough storage was available. But the scale of the problem is colossal.

Prof David Mackay has done some work analysing the possible low-carbon energy mix options for the UK, and he has also looked specifically at Scotland. His book is available as a free download. It is genuinely one of the most useful analyses of our sustainable energy options that you will read anywhere.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

He did a presentation in Edinburgh, and this is the key slide:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/presentations/SEWTHA7/mgp00211.html

This shows how to construct a renewable energy supply for Scotland without any fossil fuel or nuclear power. As you will see it is a massive undertaking. (The units, by the way, are kWh per day per person. This is his way of looking at national consumption on a personal scale.)

- 3000 square km of windfarms
- 1200 square metre of energy crops per person
- Big tidal stations in the Pentland Firth and in the north Irish sea
- 65km wave power on the west coast
- Conversion of all our major lochs to pumped storage to balance out the variable renewables (this is the key, and also much of the cost)
- Conversion of all vehicles to electricity to provide an additional array of battery storage
Burning all waste for energy

It is a plan on a heroic scale. But logistically it is not feasible to do this within 50 years.

Also he estimates it would cost £75 billion, compared to about £10 billion for equivalent nuclear plant.

But it is not a choice between nuclear or renewables. The sensible option is to deploy both, alon
228

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 20:01:38
[continued..]
... along with a trial of fossil fuel with carbon capture.
229

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 20:16:14
Me-here #214

I don’t particularly want to argue. If you have a source of figures showing “who died from what” I would be genuinely interested to see it. But if you don’t, that’s fine too.
230

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2009 20:39:20
Union in decline #137 “I think I'm right in saying that Italy receives electricity from France and does not have any nuclear power stations of its own, so is nuclear free in the sense of not having nuclear power stations.”

You are correct. Italy is the only country that has ever operated nuclear powerstations and successfully managed to phase them out (i.e. close them all down). This was done as a reaction to Chernobyl.

However last year Italy decided to restart their nuclear power programme.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/europe/23nuke.html?ref=world

Not that this is necessarily a cue for Scotland. But governments do have a tendency to change their mind on the matter. UK labour was opposed to nuclear build until they had been in power for a few years. I would not be surprised if the SNP had a similar damascene conversion given time. Physics trumps politics eventually.
231

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 20:57:29
#239, Colin.

Thanks for the very full answer.

My contention is that we have the sustainable technology already, but, like PV, it requires to be developed to achieve its max potential.

We have 15/20yrs of nuclear production and 20/30yrs of coal-fired production left with existing plant.

This should give us the time to refine the workings of CC for which we have our own raw material. This would also provide an alternative to the current mix for base-load.

Over the longer period, probably 100/150yrs, given coal reserves, alternative sustainable production will be refined.

This process would obviate the need for buying foreign fuel and so increase our energy security. Yes it's an enormous project, but it will leave a sustainable, secure energy future for our decendants, at very acceptable costs.

I believe that the monies that would be spent on non-sustainable imported(raw materials)energy should be spent on CC (initially) and alternative natural renewables. I'm not happy with the idea of "fuel crops" which have the potential for lowering food production e.g. Brasil.
232

frank mcbride,

lusitania 10/02/2009 21:05:04
#242. Colin.

And I, fervently, hope that physics will overcome politics with regards to ensuring that fission reactors are a thing of the past, and that the ingenuity of our scientists will trump the short-termism of our politicians.
233

Carve Salmonds heid on Salisbury Crag,

What say you Colin from BE 10/02/2009 22:10:13
Cancer rates in a Somerset town close to a nuclear power station are up to six times higher than average.
Burnham-on-Sea will be named this week as the most significant 'cancer cluster' so far discovered near a British nuclear plant. The revelation will provide fuel for anti-nuclear campaigners who say the industry pollutes the environment and is potentially lethal for people living nearby.
The residents of Burnham, which lies five miles downwind of the Hinkley Point plant, have demanded an official inquiry into the figures, which were compiled by Dr Chris Busby, a government radiation adviser.
The study will be presented to locals on Thursday - the first anniversary of the death of Burnham resident Jo Corfield from breast cancer. Corfield's mother, Geraldine Trythall, 86, who survived breast cancer five years ago, said yesterday: 'We want to know exactly what is causing all these cancers. We have a right to know.'
Some residents are even moving away from the area. The parents of 18-year-old David Lidgey, who contracted leukaemia three years ago, strongly suspect the power station is to blame for his illness. Susan and Rob Lidgey said they are in the process of moving a mile inland from Burnham in a move to avoid further health effects.
Campaigners believe that radioactive discharge from Hinkley Point into the sea could explain the resort's high cancer rate. Busby, also a member of the Government's committee on depleted uranium, believes dangerous material from Hinkley Point is contaminating tidal sediment around power stations.
When the mudflats off Burnham are exposed at low water, he believes that radioactive particles are carried away on the wind and inhaled by residents. Of the 95 people diagnosed with cancer in Burnham since 1989, more than half took part in sea-based activities such as watersports or bait-digging. Only one in five cancer sufferers was a smoker.
'We have known since the 1960s the mechanism by which radioactive particles come ashore, and
234

Carve Salmonds heid on Salisbury Crag,

10/02/2009 22:12:06
Why does 1 in 3 people die of cancer Colin?

What has caused the surge in cancer deaths Colin?

Is it global warming, er cooling er climate change er nature.
235

Carve Salmonds heid on Salisbury Crag,

Here is the propaganda rap Colin maybe you wrote i 10/02/2009 22:13:39
CANCER CLUSTER... WHAT CANCER CLUSTER? ASK THE HEALTH CHIEFS

Government experts are set to discredit controversial claims that cancer levels near a West nuclear power station are five times higher than the national average, it was claimed last night. As reported in the Western Daily Press, last year a research team lead by radiation expert Dr Chris Busby surveyed 1,500 residents in Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset, which is close to Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

The figures suggested cervical and kidney cancer rates were five times the national average, leukaemia rates four times as high and breast cancers double the UK rate.

According to Dr Busby and local pressure groups, the increased danger was the result of alleged radioactive discharges from Hinkley Point.

But health bosses in the area immediately cast doubt on the methods used by the campaigners and insisted there was no evidence of a significant risk.

Now Government doctors are planning to further soothe the local population's fears by presenting their own data at a public meeting in Burnham next month.

The new statistics will be explained by Dr Julia Verne of the Cancer Intelligence Unit (CIU), which is part of the Department of Health.

Although Dr Verne has refused to reveal the contents of her presentation prior to the meeting, insiders say it is aimed at discrediting Dr Busby's study.

Councillor John Lamb, Sedgemoor District Council's head of environmental services, recently had a meeting with the CIU.

"They indicated that the facts that were presented by Dr Busby and his analysis of them may not have been as accurate as the true facts are," he said.

"It has been decided to present the facts as they are seen by the CIU, but at the same time give the public and Dr Busby the opportunity to challenge these facts." Somerset Coast Primary Health Care Trust, which has long accused Dr Busby of being alarmist, last night welcomed the news of next month's meeting.

Spokesman Paul Co
236

Carve Salmonds heid on Salisbury Crag,

Ssssh watch what you say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10/02/2009 22:25:41
Jason Lewis – Mail on Sunday February 8, 2009

A secret police intelligence unit has been set up to spy on Left-wing and Right-wing political groups.

The Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) has the power to operate across the UK and will mount surveillance and run informers on ‘domestic extremists’.

Its job is to build up a detailed picture of radical campaigners.

Targets will include environmental groups involved in direct action such as Plane Stupid, whose supporters invaded the runway at Stansted Airport in December.

The unit also aims to identify the ring-leaders behind violent demonstrations such as the recent anti-Israel protests in London, and to infiltrate neo-Nazi groups, animal liberation groups and organisations behind unlawful industrial action such as secondary picketing.

The CIU’s role will be similar to the ‘counter subversion’ functions formerly carried out by MI5.

The so-called reds under the bed operations focused on trade unionists and peace campaigners but were abandoned by MI5 to concentrate on Islamic terrorism.

The unit is being set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and will be based at Scotland Yard in Central London.

An internal police job advertisement for the ‘Head of Confidential Intelligence Unit’, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, reveals key details of its wide-ranging powers.

The advert says the unit will work closely with Government departments, university authorities and private sector companies to ‘remove the threat of criminality and public disorder that arises from domestic extremism’.

The CIU will also use legal proceedings to prevent details of its operations being made public.

Its chief will play an active part in obtaining Public Interest Immunity Certificates from Government Ministers, and will attend ‘legal meetings regarding sensitive source material’.

Another vacancy, for an administration officer, states that the CIU will be involved in the collection of ‘secret da
237

Carve Salmonds heid on Salisbury Crag,

10/02/2009 22:26:11
Another vacancy, for an administration officer, states that the CIU will be involved in the collection of ‘secret data’.

The job descriptions indicate that the postholders will have links with MI5.
Details of the senior vacancies were circulated to police forces last year - the closing date for applications was November 14, 2008.

The top job was open to officers of at least the rank of Detective Chief Inspector.
MI5’s counter subversion role led to it compiling files on Left-wing student activists in the Sixties and Seventies.

These included records on Jack Straw and Peter Mandelson.
www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1138755/Secret-police-unit-set-spy-British-domestic-extremists.html
238

Carve Salmonds heid on Salisbury Crag,

10/02/2009 22:27:13
I can hear helicopters. AM2 is here.
239

Colin, Glasgow,

11/02/2009 07:50:03
Frank McBride #243 “We have 15/20yrs of nuclear production and 20/30yrs of coal-fired production left with existing plant.”

Indeed we do have time on our side. If you are prepared to burn coal without carbon capture then you have a cheap solution, but it is dirtier and more dangerous in than nuclear because of the air pollution. The ExternE study makes this clear.

Using carbon capture, coal would still produce more CO2 than nuclear, and it would still be more dangerous because of air pollution, and furthermore it would probably be significantly more expensive. It is second-best compared to nuclear power.

I take your point regarding the indigenous source of coal, but if you are particularly concerned about security of fuel supply it is simple to keep a stockpile of several decades’ worth of uranium fuel. It does not take up much space and is relatively cheap for the amount of energy it produces. At the end of the day, if we do end up in a prolonged war with Canada and Australia (our main uranium suppliers) we would have time to develop reprocessing technology and/or extraction from seawater.

A complete renewable solution is not achievable in the next several decades, and any complete renewable solution would be significantly more expensive than conventional power. If you need to choose between supporting this with fossil fuel or with nuclear then nuclear is a cheaper, safer bet. But my main point is you don’t need to choose. It makes sense to develop all the options, if only to find out how much carbon-capture costs.
240

,

11/02/2009 08:06:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
241

,

11/02/2009 08:07:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
242

Colin, Glasgow,

11/02/2009 13:11:11
Carve Salmonds heid #246 #248
How old is that material that you are pasting? 5 years?

COMARE roundly criticized the methods and the conclusion of the cancer study that Dr Busby conducted as being “deeply flawed”. It was not peer reviewed, and it appears the survey was targeted towards households that had reported cancer; hence the result was skewed.

http://www.comare.org.uk/statements/comare_statement_burnham.htm

COMARE’s own cancer study, probably the largest survey of its kind ever, concluded that there was no statistically significant link between cancer clusters and nuclear powerstations.

Furthermore, the EU’s ExternE study, which involved years of peer reviewed work in many European countries, showed that nuclear power is orders of magnitude less harmful than burning fossil fuel. Nuclear essentially has an impact comparable to clean renewables such as hydro.

These days few people would seriously contend that the operation of nuclear plant poses significant health risk. By comparison, air pollution from fossil fuel is a far greater hazard. (Hence the EU legislation on large combustion plant.)
243

Big Dave Fae The Rigs,

11/02/2009 17:49:51
Dis England turn it's nose up at the jobs or the danger from pollution?
244

Big Dave Fae The Rigs,

11/02/2009 17:52:44
A small group of American companies such as Bechtel and Fluor look set to grab the lion's share of a £50bn British nuclear clean-up programme which should get the green light within weeks but take decades to complete.

The government will start this latest privatisation by approving a draft strategy for dealing with the legacy of the atomic power industry, submitted by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It is also expected to give the go-ahead for the controversial sell-off of state-owned British Nuclear Group (BNG), the operating arm of British Nuclear Fuels, which manages the huge Sellafield fuel reprocessing plant in Cumbria.

It comes as the operation of Sellafield has been criticised for the way it accounts for nuclear materials. Yesterday BNG was warned by the European commission that that it was failing to meet EU standards and told to step up its controls.

The first tender in the privatisation process however will probably involve management of the low-level waste site at Drigg, near Sellafield, and is likely to go out this year. This summer the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, will receive an expert report and make his own recommendation to Tony Blair on how to bury nuclear waste, an issue that his predecessors have, in his words, "disgracefully" neglected.
245

Big Dave Fae The Rigs,

11/02/2009 17:55:04
In April 2006, A leading radiation expert attacked the unscientific approach being taken by CoRWM. Keith Baverstock, a former World Health Organisation radiation expert, who was sacked from CoRWM in 2005 for describing it as amateurish, once again criticised the committee for its "distinctively non-scientific approach". who had done a "Mickey Mouse job".
He said enough radioactive material to fill the Albert Hall five times over was being stored "in very much less than ideal conditions" at power stations such as Sellafield and Dounreay. "If it were to be dispersed into the atmosphere, Chernobyl would look like a vicar's tea party", he said. [13]
246

Big Dave Fae The Rigs,

11/02/2009 17:55:54
As from 1st August 2005, CoRWM retained the PR Company, Luther Pendragon, to advise on "communication issues arising from the third phase of the Committee's public and stakeholder engagement process". [8]
The Luther team working on the account includes two partners at the firm Mike Granatt and Ben Rich as well as Adam Lewis, Susie Winter and Aideen Lee. Mike Granatt is an ex-Government spin doctor. He used to be the Director General of the Government Information and Communication Service (GICS) for seven years and was responsible for the Government News Network, the regional press operation with offices across Great Britain. Before then he had been responsible for all news handling, marketing communication and internal communication for amongst others the Energy and Environment Departments, including working on nuclear power. [9]
PR Week said that Luther Pendragon had been appointed to "help it reassure people that nuclear waste is being dealt with." [10] Luther Pendragon’s PR activities for CoRWM included, amongst others:
Identifying CoRWM’s critics and advocates
media monitoring
media relations including writing press releases
Drafting and placing feature articles
Drafting of letters to the press
The contract is however between NNC (later AMEC NNC) and Luther Pendragon [11].
Sound Bite Science

In November 2005, Luther Pendragon developed a series of "sound-bites" that CoRWM could use. These included:
"CoRWM is independent, impartial, and operates without preconceptions;"
"CoRWM will not suggest locations. Its job is to suggest how waste should be managed, not where;"
"Irrespective of whether we build more nuclear power stations we need to deal with the waste we already have;"
"CoRWM's work does take into acccount of the possibility of waste created by more nuclear power stations. However, CoRWM does not have a view on whether this is desirable or not;"
"To answer its remit, CoRWM must find solutions that are sound technically and inspire publi

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Nuclear energy

More Nuclear energy >>

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Web Links:



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.