Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Murphy: SNP's ban on new nuclear power stations lacks common sense

Premium Article !

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

Options

Premium Article !

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

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

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: 17 February 2009
THE Scottish Government was yesterday accused of lacking common sense in its decision to block new nuclear power plants, in the latest row between Westminster and Holyrood over future energy supplies.
Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, accused the SNP of having no good reason for banning nuclear power, and claimed that the country would be missing out on billions of pounds of investment and thousands of jobs because of an "ideological" opposi
tion.

However, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, who yesterday opened the new Aberdeen office of a marine renewables firm, described nuclear power as a "busted flush" that was "unnecessary" for Scotland.

Mr Murphy, speaking in Edinburgh at a Public Information Materials Exchange conference about nuclear power, argued that it provided a secure energy supply and benefited the environment by providing green baseload electricity.

He added: "It is a source of regret that such common-sense thinking is not replicated here by the Scottish Government."

Mr Murphy also claimed that Scotland was "yet to hear any convincing energy-based argument against nuclear power generation from the SNP-led Scottish Government".

He added that the idea of Scottish self-reliance without new nuclear was "imaginary".

He made his comments on the day it was announced ten new sites had been earmarked for offshore wind farms around Scotland, which could between them generate more than 6 Gigawatts of electricity.

Mr Salmond praised the potential of marine renewable energy. He added: "In contrast, nuclear power is a busted flush, steadily declining in output to its lowest level in the 21st century as a result of unplanned outages.

"For Scotland, that proves – once again – that nuclear power is unreliable and ultimately unnecessary, with risks and uncertainties in waste disposal and the staggering costs of decommissioning."

A spokesman for the First Minister highlighted the "contrast", saying that while Mr Murphy was addressing "an audience of spin doctors for the nuclear industry", Mr Salmond was opening new offices for a marine renewables company.

"The Scottish Secretary talks about 'common-sense thinking' – it's a pity he doesn't follow his own advice," he said. "What could be more common sense than capitalising on Scotland's vast renewable energy potential, as the Scottish Government is doing, instead of Jim Murphy's blind faith in costly, dirty, dangerous and unreliable nuclear power?" the spokesman said.


WHAT NEXT

THERE are two nuclear power stations in Scotland, Hunterston B and Torness, which are both likely to be shut down within 15 years from now.

The Scottish Government would have to give planning consent for any new nuclear plant in Scotland.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has made it clear the Scottish Government would not allow any new stations to be built. Instead he aims to rely on a mix of renewables and "clean" fossil fuel power stations, which are fitted with technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions. However, critics say carbon capture and storage technology has not yet been proven.



The full article contains 499 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

W Smith,

Middle East 17/02/2009 00:22:53
Good to see Salmonds using our Rufus's "busted flush" term.

Salmond and his supporters think they have solved the worlds energy problems before the Japanese, German, British and American scientists.

If only they had studied windmill-ism with more care they, the scientists, would have realised how stupid they have been and how clever our Alex really is.

Its your windmills that are the "busted flush' Mr Salmond and your unworkable green ideology is becoming a national embarrassment.
2

frank mcbride,

lusitania 17/02/2009 00:25:22
Is there some sort of agenda here?

This is the 5th article, in 3 days, covering Murphy's conference speech.
3

frank mcbride,

lusitania 17/02/2009 00:27:03
#2, W. Smith.

Unlike you, sir, who already is.
4

,

17/02/2009 00:32:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

17/02/2009 00:35:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

me-here,

17/02/2009 00:44:28
# 2 W Smith
Go to bed ya numpty.

Has Murphy took over the scotsman?
How many stupid articles are we going to get this week?

Looks like the scam is going to get worse as we near the referendum.
I remember the last elections as in the morning certain newspapers had front pages in favour of labour, targeting the weekend heavy drinkers.
7

me-here,

17/02/2009 00:46:47
"Murphy: SNP's ban on new nuclear power stations lacks common sense"
"Nuclear power vital to back up green energy, says Murphy"
"Murphy to slate Holyrood plan to axe nuclear power"


What's wrong with this newspaper?
Did they get money from westminster?

8

,

17/02/2009 00:47:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

,

17/02/2009 00:48:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

luke_a,

17/02/2009 00:49:32
Plenty of weirdo nats on here eh?

Come on, thats the spirit!
11

frank mcbride,

lusitania 17/02/2009 00:53:21
And when Brown tried to send Browne to Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankans rejected him, and accused Brown of acting like an Imperial Governor-General.
12

Rob - Honest Toun,

17/02/2009 01:24:15
Whit is sae green aboot nuclear waste? A doot the Secretar o Scotland micht be colour blinn.

Hydro electricity disnae stop. Wind on land micht stop noo an agane but on the sea there less chance o that an the tidal flows aroond oor coasts micht drap aff at the turn o the tide but no for lang an certainly no aw at the same times.
13

me-here,

17/02/2009 01:29:39
And Brown spoke to Murphy "Go up north and be a nuisance"!
And Murphy did so!

14

Brian Hill,

17/02/2009 01:37:25
I think Murphy must be the best in Europe at laying on that quiet, from the heart, almost hurt, sincerity.

I can just see all the old granny's with a tear in their eye clutching their hankies as they listen to Mr M droning on about how reasonable and mature he and his London Labour masters are and how sorry he is to have to keep pulling up the naughty SNP school pupils for their silly behaviour in the playground.

Don't underestimate Mr M, he's a player and no mistake.
15

Edward,

17/02/2009 01:59:32
#3
Im glad someone else has noticed
An article a day about why Scotland should accept the dictat of London on Nuclear energy
The 'journalists' of the Scotsman should really be embaressed to actually report what Murphy keeps coming out with.But then again its hardly surprising as they are just taking the Labour breif.
If they were worth there salt, they would see that its the Nuclear industry itself thats pushing.
Scottish Labour MP's have been on junkets arranged and all expenses paid for by EDF energy and Eon.So its little surprising that Labour MP's want to go against the wishes of the Scotland people.
It wasnt hard for me to find these things out,as its all listed in members interests.
Nor is it hard to find that Gordon Brown's brother is a director in EDF Energy

I find it breathtaking that Murphy likes to focus in on the Scottish Government as the body politic that is against Nuclear energy in Scotland, when in fact its common knowledge that the other parties in Scotland are also against it as is the Scottish people,pity the Scotsman journalists cant seem to find it in them to actually report that little fact
16

Edward,

17/02/2009 02:09:30
Typically on lats nights Reporting Scotland on the BBC, they presented a totally slanted story in favour of Murphy's comments.The BBC had not even bothered to show all the renewable energy sources, giving the report a very one sided view, especially when it flashed up current percentages of energy sources in Scotland. The BBC like to claim its not biased. The truth is, it ie VERY biased!
17

FerryPort,

17/02/2009 02:18:14
wha the fek is murphy?
18

,

17/02/2009 02:32:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 17/02/2009 03:30:22
Who is this idiot Murphy?? Get a life, SCOTLAND does not want your nuclear, all we SCOTS have to do is to TURN OFF; ELECTRICITY, WATER, OIL, and GAS to england then maybe they might treat us with respect!!!!!!!!!!!!
20

Castaway™ ,

17/02/2009 05:13:43
System Transfers - 2 Jan 2009
N.Ireland to Great Britain: -58MW
France to Great Britain : 201MW
North-South: 8146MW
Scot - Eng: 2593MW
02/01/2009 11:50:00 GMT

It looks as if the South of England requires more nuclear power stations ?
21

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 17/02/2009 05:30:47
why no mention unlike yesterdays times newspaper,that scotland had more bobbies on the beat,and more to come
but no just recycled jim murphy quotes
maybe he believes in murphies law,as some god given right to complain about opponents who beat his party in an election,or is it erection as theres loads of stiffies in labour
22

tomi,

17/02/2009 05:34:39
Murphy is right.

Soon the SNP will have us back to using candles, but think of the CO2 that they cause when lit.

23

,

17/02/2009 06:38:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Angleland Isover,

17/02/2009 06:42:55
How would the world look upon angleland if it lost its northern colony. Then lost most of its people because they would rather bring up their children in that former colony. Let them keep their nuclear waste and their corrupt attitude to life. No country in the world respects them. Their empire is long gone!.
25

The Tin Man,

17/02/2009 07:14:22
#25

Well, there isn't much else going on in Scot politics - Salmond still has two jobs, and we are safe in the knowledge that Holyrood doesn't intend to invade Gaza.
26

Macuistean,

Isle of Tiree 17/02/2009 07:18:38
I have noticed that the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday are coming on line later and later each day. I believe this "nespaper" belongs to the Johnstone Group who are trying to sell off some of their local publications so they can try and stay afloat. With this type of reporting they have as much chance as a chocolate fireguard. Is this rag in it's death throws?
27

steve 1511,

aberdeen 17/02/2009 07:38:48
murphys opinion counts for nothing a man in a job that has little or no power over what happens in scotland a nobody
28

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 17/02/2009 07:43:26
With around 300 years worth of coal under Fife alone and clean coal technology available and limited supplies of the basic Uranium required for nuke power stations, why the nuclear option at all?

With a mixture of coal and gas generation, coupled with windmilling and hydro and the relaxation of planning rules to allow people to generate thier own power, we simply don't need nuclear.

Or do we? Yes, to keep England warm.
29

 sm753,

17/02/2009 07:58:19
31

"With around 300 years worth of coal under Fife alone"

Uneconomic coal.

" and clean coal technology available "

No it isn't.
30

donald,

glasgow 17/02/2009 08:08:17
So speaks another student ex boy careerist "revolutionary". Is the money worth if for being a Quisling and a shameless Old Firm Unionist creep?
31

Ken Mac,

Glasgow 17/02/2009 08:15:12
Total spin. Successive UK governments have sat on their hands for 40 years fully aware of the coming energy gap and the ability of the energy rich nations to hold us hostage. First the Saudis etc and now the Russians. Scotland has massive resources. What is needed is the political will to develop new technology to best exploit those resources. Scotland isn't going to run out of energy, England is and this is what this is all about. The UK gov has delayed so long in developing new energy sources they are left with going for the quick fix. Polls and votes have shown the Scottish Gov is against nuclear, the Scottish parliament, the Scottish people, Labour MPs, Labour MSPs. Not too many on Murphy/Browns side.
32

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 17/02/2009 08:16:36
32

Yes it is available. And as for uneconomic coal? Have you noticed the pound is a busted flush? Do you know they are already re-opening pits in Scotland?
33

John S,

17/02/2009 08:18:06
#31: Dave From Barra, I agree .With a mixture of coal and gas generation, coupled with windmilling (renewables) and hydro we simply don't need nuclear.

You mentioning: With around 300 years worth of coal under Fife alone, brought back memories for me when I worked "down pits" mining coal under the Forth in the Lothians.
34

Longdirk Maceth,

NZ 17/02/2009 08:19:57
Brain dead mor"n Smith (the Muslim lover from the Middle east)
Below is some of the reasons why, Scotland should aim to move away from Nuke power:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7058185.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7674889.stm

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4479848.ece

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2008/08/extra_inspection_of_nuclear_construction_site_planned_315575.html

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article2741526.ece
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nwaste-containers-likely-to-fail-warns-devastating-report-907200.html

35

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 17/02/2009 08:20:40
John S

We burn sea coal here. It gets dredged up in our fishing boats and boy what a heat from it!
36

sam the god,

17/02/2009 08:21:23
Fast breeding reactors are renewable source of power somebody should point that out to old leapy salmond.
37

It's me!,

17/02/2009 08:31:20
Why is Murphy banging on about this unless nuclear power stations are already planned for Scotland? Only other reason I can think of is to cause division between Westminster and Holyrood. If I am correct it is devious and divisive.
38

Rock Lobster,

17/02/2009 08:35:19


Tattie Heid says its the Scottish Government thats against nuclear power, when in fact the Scottish Parliament voted against it.

So in standing against nuclear power the SNP Government
is representing the wishes of the people of Scotland.
39

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 17/02/2009 08:50:13
Salmond is placing all his eggs in the wind turbine and carbon capture basket. The fool does not seam to realise that carbon capture does not yet exist in any useable form and wind turbines simply don't cut it.
I would like to know how he expects to get 50% renewables(ie-wind) when even the wind industry only claim 30% efficiency and not necessarily blowing at the correct time. Hydro is unlikely to grow anymore, marine is still in the developement stage.
This only leaves coal or nuke - of which all our present stations are getting old and need replacing.
40

Alastair the First,

17/02/2009 08:56:13
What is this "Jim Murphy" of which you speak? Is it some kind of weird alien life force from another planet?

Yes, it appears so.
41

Queen D,

Glasgow 17/02/2009 09:15:15
there was an alarming article in the Guardian on Saturday, Google nuclear waste and you'll find it, but to summarise those in charge are asking for anyone who might have been involved in the original burying of Nuclear waste to come forward and tell them what, exactly, was buried.
This does not fill my heart with confidence about nuclear anything!
42

TWC,

17/02/2009 09:16:25
Murphy doesn't want a fight with Holyrood but immediatelt starts one. It is up to us Spud.
Put Nuclear power in your Nu Labour Manifesto for Holyrood election, meantime keep your nose out of Holyrood.
43

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 17/02/2009 09:36:16
Another stupid, non-story, Labour propaganda release from Jim Murphy.

A third article publised on this in as many days? So how much biased coverage is the Scotsman going to award this rather pathetic, sycophantic governor of North Britain? It seems the media are only interested in balance when things go bad for Labour (as they often do).
44

,

17/02/2009 10:15:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

Walter Ego,

Durness 17/02/2009 10:21:51
I fear that Mr Murphy is correct - time for the SNP to ditch another manifesto commitment I suspect.
46

,

17/02/2009 10:22:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

John south of Soutra,

17/02/2009 10:26:36
How many times is the Scotsman going to run this story, it's becoming boring now
48

,

17/02/2009 10:28:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 17/02/2009 10:31:49
Murphy will need to work on his Labour MSPs and try to get them round to the idea of new nuclear power in Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament under FM Jack McConnell voted against any expansion of nuclear power in Scotland until there was a satisfactory method of disposing of the spent fuel.
That motion still stands.
50

IainGlasgow,

17/02/2009 10:52:11
I think Jim Murphy needs to go and read up on the Order of Precedence in Scotland to see where his place is. The First Minister is higher in it than the Secretary of State For Scotland but ever since his appointment Murphy has been acting as if its the other way around.

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

I think we should have a referendum on nuclear power then skeletor can eat the result
51

,

17/02/2009 11:10:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 17/02/2009 11:27:01
I am getting fed up with brain dead idiots sticking windmills in the shipping lanes making it more difficult for navigation just to satisfy politicians childish ego's and fantasies of windmills.
53

Number 6,

Germany 17/02/2009 11:32:44
What is this hopeless flounder doing sticking his nose in. Is it any wonder Gorbals Mick has had to censure the unionista cabal at Westminster for continous critisism of SNP policy.


When someone like that gets embarresed by the behaviour of the movement, you can tell they are going over the top.

Who at this paper still thinks anyone in Scotland, outside the rabid wing of the unionista cabal, gives a flying F#ck what the repulsive Murphy has been told to say?

Someone needs to tell this latest Labour neanderthal to raise it's ugly corrupt head above the unionista parapit to shut his ill informed trap.

As a country of only 5 million, not 60 million, we do not need nuclear power. End of story. Now, the fact englandshire will definetly need them in the future is not our concern, theyre inability to embrace alternative technologies will leave them as the first major european country to suffer power outages on a regular basis.

We must not let ourselves be dragged down by them. We will develop our own energy sources while they are still "humming and haaaing" over where in Wales they should site their French built power stations.

54

,

17/02/2009 11:32:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Munguin,

17/02/2009 11:39:24
I suppose it wont be long before Lord Ffoulkes wades in with his tuppence worth in support of the nuclear industry, after all isn't he a paid puppet of theirs in the House of Lords.

Jim Murphy really is particularly sickening, he reminds me of that Tory Minister (whose name slips my mind) that Spitting Image portrayed as a huge slimy snail.
56

Tartan Viking,

17/02/2009 11:59:57
#63 Number 6. "Now, the fact englandshire will definetly need them in the future is not our concern, theyre inability to embrace alternative technologies will leave them as the first major european country to suffer power outages on a regular basis."

Hence the need for nuclear power stations in Scotland. You don't think they are going to build them on their green and pleasant land do you. That's what Scotland is there for - to use and abuse.
57

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/02/2009 12:01:45
Interesting article on the Beeb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7894571.stm

58

Shredder,

17/02/2009 12:03:05
#65 Manguin: "Jim Murphy really is particularly sickening, he reminds me of that Tory Minister (whose name slips my mind) that Spitting Image portrayed as a huge slimy snail."

You mean Kenneth Baker, but I think the comparison's unfair. There's a lot of substance to Murphy (hence his high profile job as Europe Minister) and he's been able to expose the hollowness of Supernat's many flights of fancy in his own quiet way.
59

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 17/02/2009 12:04:41
The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is presently deactivating fuel rods at Chapelcross Nuclear Power Station at Annan.

It will cost £800 million and will not be completed until 2016.

The site will still not be available for other purposes for many decades to come.
(Source UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority website)
60

Number 6,

Germany 17/02/2009 12:08:37
#65 Ref Tory Minister. Was it Nigel Parkinson ?.

#68 That's the idea but just as they found when they proposed dumping the toxic waste from the site of the englandshire Oylimpics in Falkirk, The unionista movement may approve, but it's the SNP who call the shots.

It was they and they alone who averted this potential enviromental catastrophy. BY the time Grey received his orders on the subject, it had been dealt with and the committe were told to find a site "Nearer to home".

Says it all really. Scottish unionistas must be so proud of their parties total lack of protest over the proposed measure.
61

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 17/02/2009 12:13:15
62
daveserviceman,
edinburgh 17/02/2009 11:27:01

“I am getting fed up with brain dead idiots sticking windmills in the shipping lanes making it more difficult for navigation just to satisfy politicians childish ego's and fantasies of windmills.”.

Ah yes, it will be all those offshore wind turbines which caused one of your high-tech, state of the art, infallible submarines to crash into in a similarly equipped submarine?

You know the one, it is nuclear powered and equipped with WMD.

Just as well nothing can go wrong then, can it?

Russian submarine K-141 Kursk, Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Windscale accidents, Hunterston B down time, Dounreay pollution, and leukemia clusters.......................

We are obviously in safe hands by putting our faith in the nuclear industry.

Or are we?
62

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/02/2009 12:22:32
70 Shredder, an earlier comment said that Murphy was a player, which he is.

I thought the position of SoSoS was represent Scotland in the cabinet, I was being naive of course.

Hollowness? Compared to a labour minister of state oh the complete irony of such a statement.
63

frank mcbride,

lusitania 17/02/2009 12:24:21
#65, Munguin.

Unlikely M.

He's on the Auntie Bella thread, in the guise of Water MacMitty, recovering from his hangover, and spewing as normal.
64

noswod,

Honestas 17/02/2009 12:24:37
Unfortunately the lichts will go oot if we dinny get on with building new Nuke power stations. The SNP will have to do a U turn on this when the lights start to fail. Could someone put the lights on in Alex Slamonds office
65

Munguin,

17/02/2009 12:25:37
70 Thank you yes Kenneth Baker it is! Or to give him his current title Baron Baker of Dorking. You think the comparison unjust? I think not, you will find that the noble Baron attempted to introduce a law to solve the west lothian question. So just like Mr Murphy he is interfering in things that do not concern him!

Mr Murphy certainly has quite a profile but that is due to his huge nose more than his political accumen. And worst of all he is a quisling who only does what is best for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party. Pretty much what Baron Dork did as Home Secretary.
66

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/02/2009 12:27:19
Also remember that when the civil nuclear programme was devised, it was to produce plutonium as it's primary task.
67

Eve,

Scotland 17/02/2009 12:30:02
"common sense
n. Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment. " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common%20sense

This common sense argument of Murrys lacks sence and is purely irelavent as when it comes to things like Nuclear Power (or Weapons) we the people of Scotland want our goverment to make informed decisions and choices.

The stance againts Nuclear is an informed decion because;

1) Most Scots are against it and don't really want Nuclear in their country.

2) The Nuclear waste is Radio Active.

3) The disposing of nuclear waste, appears to be a case of burrying it and hopeing of the best.

4) There is no garentes that their wont be another Chernobyl disaster or a worse nuclear disater in the future. What with their always being a risk of Human errors and techinical errors happing. It happens in all industrys I would very much dought that the nuclear industry would be any diffrent.

It really does sound that the only person lacking common sence here is Jim Murphy him self.
68

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 17/02/2009 12:30:28
#71 Mr Lachie Todd
Chapelcross will therefore be an excellent place to build a new nuclear power station.
This would bring a lot of employment to the area and would be greatly appreciated.
69

John S,

17/02/2009 12:36:29
We have to think of what is Scotland's energy baseload and varying consumer demand is throughout the year.Mr Murphy is looking from UK perspective and is pushing a NP but why not a gas-fired PS which would be more useful with Scotland relying more on renewables.

If there is enough of say wind turbines available and spread throughout Scotland the chances that on any one day there will be zero wind anywhere and thus no output is very remote but that is not a proper answer.

The problem with nuclear generation for Scotland's energy requirments is a nuclear PS is a large inflexible generator that is baseload, cannot follow the varying grid demand and requires back-up generation.

Renewables and nuclear simply do not mix due to them both being baseload etc

This is where fossil fuel and to lesser extent hydro generators are useful along with renewables because the fossil fuel/hydro generators can respond to the varying grid demand, provide baseload and back-up if required.

Fossil fuel can be gas-fired like the 13 gas-fired power stations being built in England and Wales, these can/will also be used as baseload, back-up for the proposed NPS down South and to follow the varying grid demand. If this is not the case why not just build NPS in England ?

When a nuclear PS stops producing for any reason its output will need replacing ie 600/1200MW because it is baseload but with smaller generators not all will stop producing at the same time and any reduction can be taken up by other generators ie fossil fuel/hydro but not nuclear.

For England with its much larger min baseload and larger back-up nuclear will have its advantages and being less relient on renewables but for Scotland ? unless we build much smaller capacity NPS's or they can vary the output from a NPS, nuclear is not much use in Scotland which is going down the renewable path and with renewables taking over some baseload generation.

Just an opinion with Scotland's energy needs in mind.
70

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/02/2009 12:44:23
John @ 81 A Gas CCGT can be twice more thermally efficient than a NP station.

It also can started up more quickly and has lower operating costs.
71

frank mcbride,

lusitania 17/02/2009 12:44:58
#80, nabodican.

A typical Unionist response. Totally without any regard to the welfare of the people.

Let's send in loads, and loads of workers to this extremely contaminated area, to build an uneeded nuclear power station.
72

Publius,

London 17/02/2009 12:49:33
Murphy is usually a waste of space, but, for once, he is making a valid point.

According to a letter in yesterday's Times renewables provided 0.5 per cent of the UK@s electricity during the January cold spell. A lot of the wind turbines produced nothing at all because there wasn't any wind so the temperature was lower!

The SNP says it wants Scotland to be a prosperous north European state like Sweden and Finland which are now about to build new nuclear power stations.
73

,

17/02/2009 12:50:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

Arfur,

17/02/2009 12:50:57
How long till the Labour press release gang pull that one down do you think?
75

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/02/2009 12:56:15
Also John @ 81 I posted this link to the beeb about an interesting development in Fife.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7894571.stm
76

LEAL,

17/02/2009 13:06:44
Where do Labour MSPs stand on this issue?Are they pro or anti nuclear?
77

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 17/02/2009 13:27:38
#89
They voted against any more nuclear power stations until there was a safe method of storing the spent fuel.
Effectively the same position as the SNP, no more nuke in Scotland.
78

Number 6,

Germany 17/02/2009 13:27:41
#89 LEAL, you can't even get their supporters to admit they will be voting Labour at the next election (Try it), so I doubt you would have much luck getting one of their MPs to say where they stand on such a contensious issue.

The last labour mob in Scotland, led by Joke McConnell,
voted against nuclear power. We have not heard any official statement to say official policy has changed.

Surely they are not scared of telling the Scottish people the truth ?. Well, the sad fact is yes they are too cowardly to announce a total U-turn on the subject. That's because this is not their stance, it's Westminster's,and that is all that has ever mattered to Labour.

Hence this latest betrayal of the Scottish people's trust.
79

Eve,

Scotland anti nuclear stance is correct. 17/02/2009 14:16:19
#84 Publius,London: Does it really matter if these countries go nuclear, thats there choice to make. I'm still aganist nuclear power. I'd rather cut down the use of electrity that I use than use nuclear source.

Though I belive that Scotland generates more electrist than Scotland needs and uses, currently.

I have faith that renewable will improve and become one of the best and more effective ways of producing electricty.

There was an artcle in the Sunday Hearld talking about where the enrgy came from.

Apparently 19% comes from Perth based Scottish and Southern Energy.

12% of UK Energy comes from Scottish power and they seem prety keen on the re newable.
http://www.scottishpower.com/

Centrica provides 22%.

Thats 53% of UK energy coming from UK supliers.

Scotland would possibly need/use roughly 10-15% of the energy used in the UK.


80

Eve,

Scotland 17/02/2009 14:18:52
#85 Arfur: The day Scotland becomes an independent nation again.
81

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/02/2009 14:31:05
Is that tw4t Murphy still getting air-time? That's three days now (or more?) on a non-story.
82

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/02/2009 14:33:19
"Mr Murphy also claimed that Scotland was "yet to hear any convincing energy-based argument against nuclear power generation from the SNP-led Scottish Government"."

Does the Skull not realise that "Scotland" seems not to want new nuclear, so any "convincing argument" needs to come from him?

Over to you , Skull !
83

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/02/2009 14:36:25
84 publius

Why are you quoting UK figures? They are absolutely not relevant to the situation in Scotland.
84

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 17/02/2009 14:38:44
John S 81

I can assure you that CALM, also CALM/VERY LOW WIND conditions DO occur throughout Scotland, even GB, giving rise to derisory wind electricity generation.

These events can last for a matter of hours,days or even for over a week.

Unfortunate but true. Save us and save our baseload!
85

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/02/2009 14:39:01
88 Home Rule Boy

Murphy a bully? More like a dead sheep !
86

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/02/2009 14:41:06
83 frank

You can safely ignore Nabo. He thinks that power stations don't generate MW. Poor soul !
87

Eve,

Scotland 17/02/2009 14:48:24
#94 connaughtboy: Aye it's his voice, tou see, Murphy single handedly helps everyone is finding diffucilt to sleep cause of the current resesion climate get a decesent nights sleep.

I'm no kidding thanks to Murphys speach on the news last night I went on to have the best sleep ever.
88

redcliffe62,

17/02/2009 15:28:21
The real and present dangers of nuclear power are the reason Labour MSP's decided to vote against nuclear power.
After managing to nearly blow up 400 men in the Atlantic poisoning everything within 200 square miles but for a lucky break, who would want any nuclear material near them.
Lots of leafy areas in London could be transformed, as could Battersea Power Station. if, not when it blows up it is near enough to Westminster that there might be collateral damage. We can hope.
Has Murphy made a statement that nuclear energy in all its forms, for heating or for weapons of mass destruction is safe. No?, thought not.
What is Gray's position, in fact any position from labour on anything related to nuclear power in scotland from MP's and MSP's alike.
4 days of Scotsman write ups straight from labour HQ does not convince a cynical nation after the SUN spilt the beans on the subs crashing in the Atlantic, something which was hidden or at best not publicised by Murphy and his gang of manipulators at the nuclear conference where safety was not an apparent issue.
89

,

17/02/2009 15:41:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
90

Questions,

Glasgow 17/02/2009 15:47:30
Build Nuclear power stations in England and problem solved.

Why is Murphy pusing for Scotland, is it to turn Scotland into a Nuclear waste dump?

Yes, that is exactly what it is.

Build in England and ship the power to Scotland.
91

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 17/02/2009 15:51:48
84 Publius,London

Are you the same Publius, London who posted yesterday, apparently believing that a six lane, motorway standard New Forth crossing could be funded by tolls on the existing bridge?

Did you also read that in a letter in “The Times”?

Balloon.
92

BillyC,

Paisley 17/02/2009 16:02:28
What qualifies this numpty Murphy to comment on anything, never mind this?

The guy has never worked in his life, no qualifications, and he has the cheek to slag off the Scottish government. How did he get this position, oh that's right, he was given the position by another numpty who hasn't worked in his life also, Gordon Brown. Then again he has at least got qualifications, a Degree in Labour party history - god no wonder the country is in a state!
www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com
93

redcliffe62,

17/02/2009 16:08:20
And the removal of a nuclear power watchdog, independent and fair minded, operating for 50 years, was done last October without public comment. Bit like the way the government reacted to the subs smashing each other.
One would think they have something to hide, now Sellafield appears to be a disaster waiitng to happen.
Changed the name from Windscale, but it is still a disaster.
Has Murphy any thoughts about whether experts who know about these things should have an opinion, rather than a fool such as himself who carries on as if nothing is wrong.
94

Publius,

London 17/02/2009 16:39:48
#104 bully wee alba

To answer your points.
(1) Yes I did post about the Forth Road Bridge. I didn't say all the money could be raised from tolls...but without tolls it will be impossible to fund a decent bridge. Throughout the world bridges and tunnels on this scale levy tolls on the user. Why should the Forth be any different?
(2) If you don't believe that renewables contributed only 0.5 per cent of electricity during the recent cold weather, how much do you think they contributed? Don't you realise that a basic feature of our climate is that intense cold often goes together with little or no wind? When we need most electricity, wind power will let us down.
95

McNic,

Symington 17/02/2009 16:54:24
EBC web page this afternoon, Skull "The Strontian Dog" Murphy really should drop this issue.

A nuclear power station operator has been fined £250,000 for allowing radioactive waste to seep into the ground over a 14-year period.

Waste leaked from a sump in a decontamination unit at Bradwell power station in Essex between 1990 and 2004.

Magnox Electric was convicted of breaking legislation governing the disposal of radioactive waste.

The company was also ordered to pay £150,000 costs following the trial at Chelmsford Crown Court.

Magnox denied allowing waste to seep out in breach of legislation but admitted failing to maintain a sump at the power station, which stopped operating in 2000.


There was never any risk of any harm to the general public and no prospect of any of the waste ever leaving the licensed site
Charles Oliver, Magnox counsel

The court heard Magnox had been fined £100,000 eight years ago, after being convicted on similar offences.

In that case, the company failed to maintain equipment, breached laws governing waste disposal and failed to inform industry watchdogs of an unlawful discharge at Bradwell and at the Hinkley Point power station near Bridgwater, Somerset.

A statement by Charles Oliver, Magnox's general counsel, said: "Throughout the proceedings it has been common ground between the parties that there was never any risk of any harm to the general public and no prospect of any of the waste ever leaving the licensed site.

"We believe that it is important to remember that the charges cover a period going back almost 20 years, when the Bradwell site was run and operated by very different legal entities."

Jurors were told "radioactive water" had leaked from a decontamination unit at Bradwell between 1990 and 2004.

The court heard Bradwell was built in the late 1950s by the Central Electricity Generating Board and began producing electricity in 1962.

The plant was controlled by Nuclear Elect
96

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 17/02/2009 16:56:15
Pubius, above, I think you'll find bully wee alba was asking how much electricity generated in Scotland was derived from renewables in that same period... It will be way above 0.5%.
97

,

17/02/2009 16:56:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
98

,

17/02/2009 16:58:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
99

McNic,

On the way to the pub!!!! 17/02/2009 17:03:41
The best possible Nuclear Repository in the British Isles has always been recognized as the Thames Basin as it is a very large clay pit which plasticizes during seismic activity as opposed to our beautiful country which is made up almost entirely of solid rock which shatters and breaks during seismic events.

Although I am sure given enough R&D we could devise a Nuclear Suppository for all the Nuke Fans with a really big one for The Skull
100

zeitgeist,

17/02/2009 17:03:47
Last year the Wastemonster govt produced a consultation on new nuclear plants that was subsequently trashed by a group of experts in the field who amongst other things suggested that the consultation was disingenous over many aspects of a new nuclear programme including waste disposal, cost and safety. Now a year on these issues still remain unresolved and not discussed by the proponents of the new French power plants to be built here. Nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity and has only survived due to massive subsidies and by purposely not factoring in the decommissioning and waste disposal costs, as these would be dealt with by our children/grandchildren. This is wholly unsustainable and the pro-nuclear lobby refuse to say how these massively expensive and technically difficult problems will be addressed. Sorry Murphy, you may wish to leave a nuclear legacy for future generations so that you and your ilk can get rich, but Scotland through it's parliament has said no. Which part of NO do you not understand. Your time would be better spent preaching to the converted in wastemonster - your views carry no truck in Scotland. Anyway given Nuliebour's track record I for one don't believe a word you say.
101

McNic,

17/02/2009 17:10:05
Quisling, I find it hard to believe that The Once Proud Labour Party are so utterly and obviously in bed with this most destructive of industries while we have spoken though our elected Government that we do not and never will want any more Nuclear.

Where is Smee?
102

Rasco,

17/02/2009 17:10:42
Strange how just today BBC comes out with the story about Chapelcross years to clean at a cost of £100m is this the sort of legacy spud would like to leave.
103

Geomac 1,

Scotland 17/02/2009 17:43:01
The arrogance and self accredited omniscience in the field of energy generation by Alex Salmond never ceases to amaze me. He know it all apparently - no-one else (other than his sycophantic coterie of SNP ministers) knows anything - least of all engineers and energy generation experts.
I have to ask if Salmond is being subsidised by the renewables lobby - or is he hell bent on destroying our way of life for personal/party gain??
104

,

17/02/2009 17:50:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

BillyC,

Paisley 17/02/2009 18:18:34
#116

Funny that no-one is interested in taking on Nuclear power unless the government takes on the de-commissioning costs. Always the same, only want the best(profitable) bits, not interested in the risky(expensive) bits.

Well since one goes with the other then they should stay together. Whoever builds and runs these Nuclear power stations should have to decommission them not the tax-payers.
106

TWC,

17/02/2009 18:22:34
116 Geomac 1,
Arrogance is creating Nuclear waste without a process or agreed plan to dispose of it.
One way is to let people bury it where they like and then put an article in the paper asking what was buried where.
107

Miss H,

17/02/2009 19:32:38
You would almost think from this that the SNP was alone in opposing a new generation of nuclear power stations. There is no recognition that this position is supported by the majority of MSPs.

It's how democracy works.
108

Miss H,

17/02/2009 19:37:03
62 How many ships have crashed into windmills?

Have any nuclear subs crashed into windmills - or are they too busy crashing into each other?
109

Miss H,

17/02/2009 19:56:04
107 I think the issue is that you are quoting UK figures not Scottish figures. Renewable energy accounted for 20.1 per cent of Scottish gross consumption in 2007. That figure will have increased in the past year.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious Scotland is not England. We have more renewable energy resources than England, more than the vast majority of European countries.

There is no advantage therefore to investing in more nuclear power which is extremely expensive and leaves a legacy of waste for which there is no completely safe method of storage and never will be.

On the other hand we do have a comparative advantage both in developing our renewable energy potential across a range of sources (not just wind) and in supporting the technology.


110

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 17/02/2009 21:17:56
109 and 122

Certainly, during the first three days of this year, to quote just one example, any reliance upon wind power electricity generation here in Scotland would have been a black(out) mistake.
111

Colin, Glasgow,

18/02/2009 10:33:28
#116
"I have to ask if Salmond is being subsidised by the renewables lobby"

No, he is subsidised by the fossil fuel industry. The independence plan requires finance from fossil fuel revenue. Renewables are an allowable sideshow, because they need backup from fossil fuel. Nuclear is a real competitor to fossil fuel. Therefore nuclear is opposed and fossil fuel is promoted, despite the fact that fossil fuel is dirtier and an order of magnitude more dangerous.

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

The SNP is being deliberately mendacious in hiding the truth about nuclear power from the Scottish people.
112

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 18/02/2009 13:10:51
Look, it's very simple. If Westminster want to build Nuclear Power stations, then build them in England close to where they are needed.
113

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 18/02/2009 13:15:36
The pro nuclear lobby keeps telling us that they are safe, and mocking anyone who says they aren't. In that case build them in the middle of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool.
114

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 18/02/2009 13:17:48
The Highlands and Islands pay a premium because of their location. But the SE of Engerland uses Scottish Electricity and doesn't pay a premium.
115

Colin, Glasgow,

18/02/2009 17:02:30
#126 I suggest you look at where the likely new sites are on a map. Sizewell and Bradwell are up the coast from London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6685163.stm
116

FerryPort,

19/02/2009 02:12:13
As I said
wha the fek is murphy?
and how is he got a gobb we listen to?

117

Matt there,

Somewhere 19/02/2009 09:55:29
Wasn't Murphy's party the anti-nuclear pwoer party back when they wanted 'Green' votes?

Labour. "Sleaze in Action."
118

Niall,

Cairnbulg Aberdeenshire 19/02/2009 16:55:25
Mr Murphy.
Would you be so kind as to explain HOW, if Nuclear power is so safe, green and cuddly, do we Scots deal with the highly dangerous toxic wastes generated by the nuclear Power stations? Waste material that will still be lethal in 200,000 years time. As yet no one in the Nuclear Industry and Central Government has come up with an answer except to build 26 one kilometre deep shafts in Scotland to dump all this waste in. The people of Scotland are not stupid, they are aware of Chernobyl and its aftermath and they do not want a repeat performance.

'S mise le meas
Niall Ban.
119

Colin, Glasgow,

20/02/2009 08:56:02
Niall #130

A nuclear waste repository cannot create a repeat performance of Chernobyl. It would not contain the necessary material.

The material that caused most of the public harm around Chernobyl was Iodine-131. It has a half-life of eight days. Consequently it is highly radioactive for a short period of time. The body treats it as normal iodine so it is concentrated in the Thyroid, and causes thyroid cancer.

But after 10 half-lives (80 days) 99.9% of the Iodine 131 has decayed.

After 160 days it is basically all gone.

The waste in a deep repository does not contain much in the way of short-lived, highly radioactive isotopes so it cannot have an impact like Chernobyl. By definition the highly radioactive isotopes decay first. The long-lived isotopes are less radioactive. The waste that goes into a repository has been cooling for 50 years and is about 1000 times less radioactive than when it emerged from the reactor.

Added to this, obviously the waste repository does not have high temperatures and pressures that are found in an operational reactor, so there is no mechanism that could spread the waste around quickly. On the contrary, water permeates through bentonite clay at the rate of about 1 metre per million years, so it is going nowhere fast.

You say “The people of Scotland are not stupid”

No, they are just badly informed by a government more interested in fossil fuel revenue than public health.
120

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

21/02/2009 00:47:05
The SNP govt are spot on in their policy. nuclear power stations are a failed technology from the 1950s. They are so last century.The future is green sustainable energy. Just as there is peak oil,there is also peak uranium and peak coal. The Sun won't peak for at least a Billion years. The wind is here to stay as is the moon that creates the tides. It is only by phasing out all nuclear technology we can be sure of being around for the next century. Up the Salmond,Up the Sturgeon up the Swinney. That is S for success.
After all whose backing have they got! Good luck stay positive in Scotland and send us back the useless trident as soon as possible, to Barrow for dismantling.
Isn't it a shame that these poor labour numpties couldn't deliver anything to the anti nuclear powerhouse after 50 years in charge north of the border and nearly twelve in Westminster. Too busy sucking up to America and not putting either England or Scotland first.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.