Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Nuclear power vital to back up green energy, says Murphy

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.

Sign In
Register
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: 16 February 2009
By Andy Philip
SCOTLAND cannot rely on renewable energy alone and must turn to nuclear power to safeguard future electricity production, the Scottish Secretary said yesterday.
Jim Murphy said it was crucial to invest in renewable energy – such as tidal and wind power – but only as part of a wider mix. Asked if it was possible for the country to become self-sufficient from renewable sources, Mr Murphy said: "I don't believe it is."

The Scottish Government is opposed to any new nuclear power stations, which puts it at odds with Westminster.

Today, Mr Murphy is due to address a nuclear conference in Edinburgh. He said: "It's crucial we have an enormous expansion in investment and deliver our renewables – wind and wave and solar in particular. But in itself that's not enough. We need nuclear as part of safe, environmentally sensitive electricity production in future."

He said the UK should deliver enough energy to power as a whole, not in competition between a nuclear-fuelled England and a nuclear-free Scotland.

"In the long term, I would like to see Scotland as an enormous world centre of renewables but also with nuclear as part of carbon-free electricity production here in Scotland and across the UK," he added.



The full article contains 215 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 February 2009 9:29 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

webwise,

Scotland 15/02/2009 22:20:42
Jim Murphy must know that his 10 minutes of infamy are almost over. Brown is staring into the abyss and will be jetissoned by Labour at the first opportunity.

Where will that leave 'London's man in Scotland'?

Who knows and who cares.

I suppose though, until the inevitable happens, then we will have to put up with his monthly attack (on whatever SNP policy he has been instructed to attack) being headlined.

I wonder just how many of the audience actually give any credence to his utterings.
2

,

16/02/2009 00:16:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

druidh,

edinburgh 16/02/2009 01:02:11
Bye bye Jim Murphy. When you've told us how much it will cost to clean up all the waste from this "cheap" nuclear energy, you'll have a case to make.
4

Edward,

16/02/2009 02:37:42
The conference that Murphy is attending is called 'PIME'
The blurb on the 'PIME' website states 'PIME is simply a 'must' for all nuclear public information specialists wishing to enhance and share their know-how and explore possible new strategies' and 'key topics on the PIME debating table will, among other things, include public acceptance, communications on nuclear waste and transport '
For those interested in knowing the venue, its The Sheraton Grand Hotel & Spa Edinburgh (First Floor Edinburgh Suite)
5

Edward,

16/02/2009 02:40:34
Murphy is a joke
A joke that hasnt actually been in any gainful employment, but is happy to sell his country down the river!
He seems ignorant of the fact that Neuclear energy isrejected by Scotland, its simply not wanted or needed
but he is determined to try all the arguements under the sun, from 'will loose jobs' to 'needs for apprenticeships' now its the 'green credentials' card
the guy is pathetic
6

Ivona Vujica,

Toronto, Canada 16/02/2009 03:18:59
Abolition of King Coal, Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power and Weapons

(PSEA UPDATE FEB.13)TORONTO, Feb. 4 .2009/CNW/ - Organization of CANDU Industries
(OCI) president Dr. Neil Alexander is urging decision-makers
to adopt a long-term perspective on Canada’s global nuclear
opportunities.

“The nuclear industry is experiencing a growth in demand
that will generate trillions of dollars of investment in new nuclear
plants around the world,” said Dr. Alexander.
“It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canada to forge its
place in the burgeoning global nuclear industry.”
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2009/04/c5576.html

Trillions of dollars in nuclear power and weapons will make the credit crisis look
like patty cakes. Like American Revolutionary Paul Revere, we must all be on the
midnight run to stem this flow, an Energy, Environmental, Economic Holocaust.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/paul_revere.htm
7

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 16/02/2009 05:06:47
It really is a no brainer, Scotland STOPS selling her Excess energy to england and Ireland and keep it for ourselves. Now Water that's another subject, we can stop the flow of that little sweety right away. England is in real trouble, all nuclear and no renewable, what a future for her children. Do'nt tell us what to do england YOU ARE FINISHED!
8

David MacVicar,

Web 16/02/2009 05:20:40
Like any UK Minister he is foisting Southern English policy for Southern English benefit. What is 'best' for Scotland doesn't get a mention. Best for UK = Southern interest.

Planning is reserved to Scotland.
The Scottish parliament voted (under Labour) for No More Nuclear build!
Murphy is undermining our parliament, our laws, our very nation and our future.
This is EXACTLY like the reports in the 70s rubbishing the value and impact of North Sea Oil. It is all about Westminsters interests and deception.

A campaign of lies; Murphy and the other UK ministers are full of the brown stuff. Fiscal and Energy control for Scotland will turn the UK region of Scotland once more into a country.
9

Pilrig,

Livingston 16/02/2009 05:50:08
Nuclear power vital for England means Jim
10

me-here,

16/02/2009 06:23:17
Oh Murphy!
You are a joke - a nutter - bonkers!
If you don't like Scotlands energy policy that's okay!
Stay down in London and plug yer stuff in there.
Not the scottish government is opposed to nuclear Mr Murphy - the majority of the SCOTTISH PEOPLE ya numpty!
I'm not sure if a "scottish secretary" has the job to attack the scottish people, that is not his job! A scottish secretary should be telling the westminster government what we want, not attacking Scotland with stupid labour policies!
That the scottish government doesn't react like ya will ya numpty, that just looks embarrissing for you!

Sign up here ya dafty: http://www.snp.org/campaigns/letscotlanddecide


11

me-here,

16/02/2009 06:32:06
"Nuclear power vital to back up green energy, says Murphy"
"SNP nuclear policy 'will cost thousands of jobs'"
"Murphy to slate Holyrood plan to axe nuclear power "
"'Axing nuclear will force out skilled jobs'"

I do think the scotsman has also a big problem accepting this. I don't know but who is behind this newspaper? Labour? Tories?
12

me-here,

16/02/2009 06:44:18
I am missing this story in this newspaper - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7891855.stm
And it's colder there! Why didn't they build a nuclear power station?
One for Murphy to watch.
13

The Tin Man,

16/02/2009 07:15:34
Looks like it must have been a full moon, last night.
14

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 16/02/2009 08:18:10
He is absolutely correct about needing nuclear generation, but wrong about the reasons why. We need it to keep the lights on because renewables today essentially means wind turbines and they simply dont cut it.
His statement "In the long term, I would like to see Scotland as an enormous world centre of renewables"
Has about as much hope as me wanting to see pigs fly!
In fact I would say the pigs flying is a safer bet.
As for the anti nuke brigade above - they are clearly ill informed, they go on about it being dangerous yet they have had less people killed over the last 50 years than almost any other industry. It is so regulated on safety issues that the chance of a fatal accident is almost zero.
15

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 16/02/2009 08:38:04
#14 Absolutely - to reject nuclear completely makes a good headline and you can hug a tree as a result, but the truth of the matter is likely to be that we still need a mix of coal-fired, nuclear and some renewables when they're shown to be viable and not costing the consumer a small fortune. I'm not turning this into a political issue because it's too important for that and it's when it gets to the lights going out stage it will literally be too late.
16

Edward,

16/02/2009 08:38:29
#14
Ah still peddling the pro Nuclear support, by focussing on one single strand of renewable energy, namely wind power. In Scotland its part of a bouquet of sources, being Wind, Wave, Tidal and Hydro as well as advanced technology coal fired power stations
Scotland is leading on all fronts and neither needs nor wants EDF Energy's (or Eon)Nuclear Power stations here.
England on the other hand is stuck with Wind as an alternative as England does not have much in the way of Hydro or wave capabilties
If your so keen on Nuclear, care to explain how and where the spent fuel rods will be stored?
17

gus1940,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 09:00:07
Am I alone in reaching for my metaphorical gun every time the loathesome Murphy opens his mouth?
18

The Tin Man,

16/02/2009 09:05:54
#16 Edward

How do you generate sufficient electricity on a calm day, during slack-tide?
19

greenhill,

16/02/2009 09:09:32
RE Edward,16/02/2009 08:38:29: "If your so keen on Nuclear, care to explain how and where the spent fuel rods will be stored?"

They could be stored right up your @rse
20

The west awake,

Argyll 16/02/2009 09:23:07
In the Herald today; "ScottishPower is due to be named today as the winner of one of 10 "exclusivity agreements" issued by the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed out to the 12-mile British territorial limit. They will allow offshore wind farms to be built off the Scottish coast.
The company's subsidiary, ScottishPower Renewables, will begin a year-long feasibility study and consultation after winning the right to develop the site west of Argyll and the island of Tiree.
The exclusivity contracts are dispersed around the west and east coasts of Scotland and, if all 10 wind farms are built, could ultimately see 6.4 gigawatts of renewable energy generated a year."

And this just from Offshore wind! Never mind, onshore, wind, wave and tidal.

Murphy is either totally out of touch with what is going on, or part of a Labour/Unionist agenda to ensure Scotland has an energy policy which suits the UK, but not Scotland.
Labour ran from from the McCrone Report in the 70s because of what Scotland could become through our oil assetts. Will we be so stupid as to make the same mistake again with renewables?
Murphy obviously thinks so, but I for one think Labour's time has come and gone.
Good riddance!
21

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 09:34:58
Nuclear energy is still uncosted as we have no idea how much it will cost to decommission stations and store the spent fuel.
In Scotland we can have it both ways, let the UK build the new stations near the peak demand, ie SE England while we build pump storage / hydro electric schemes.
That way we can buy the cheap off peak nuclear baseload to do the pumping and run off the hydro electric during other times.
22

David MacVicar,

web 16/02/2009 09:38:22
5 Nuclear Murphys Laws that he does not want to talk about:

1) Before going into detail about the New Nuclear build, what about the costs of the current generation?

Murphy: On target? Real Answser: Decommisioning costs have had to be revised upwards several times this decade. Latest UK audit report mentioned an additional 30% to decommissioning total, 73 Billion and rising. Scotland can’t even fund a bridge!

2)Where is the UK going to put the long term waste?

Murphy: Under consideration? Reality:UK has not officially identified either the method of disposal nor the locations. However as the New Scientist exposed the UK looked at 12 locations, 7 of which were in Scotland.

3) When will the current stations be decommissioned?

Murphy: Er…decommissioning is on schedule. Reality: Most sites will be cleaned up by the Next century, except Dounreay: 2230, or in another 2 centuries.

4 Does Scotland need to use Nuclear to meet its part of UK CO2 targets?

Murphy: YES. Real Answer, Scotlands CO2 output actually rose recently but they will fall well within the UK requirements. Per Capita it is more difficult because we have a low population and are producing about 20% more energy than we consume. Only England can justify Nuclear as a CO2 measure and even then it doesn’t count the full cycle.

The killer here is that not even in England will New Nuclear have any impact prior to 2020, and in Scotland that would not be till 2025 at the earliest, + Nobody has been willing to build any in Scotland. UK energy policy + Murphy = Chaos theory in action.

5) Last bust not least the Scottish parliament already flat out rejected new Nuclear in Scotland unless several conditions were met. These have not been met, so end of story. Or is Scotland just a region for UK colonial ministers to use and abuse?
23

The Tin Man,

16/02/2009 10:06:48
#21 Auld Twa

Flood Scotland, and import electricity? Cool.

We could build the Aswan dam at Pitlochry and issue the inhabitants of Perthshire with snorkels.
24

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 16/02/2009 10:38:58
#16 - Edward
I am not particularly pro nuclear, I am simply being realistic. I would suggest you also be realistic.
It is simply not possible to have any more large scale hydro schemes and any more small ones we get will have little effect on our overall needs. Marine generation is in its infancy uk wise although the "La Rance" tidal barrage has been going since 1966. Even with a large increase in investment we are unlikely to see much installed capacity or output from this source for many years.
Wind is the only show in town due to the subsidies and ease of build. ROCS are currently over £51.
What we are seeing is a rush for wind because it is a politicians answer to a non existant problem.
Meanwhile Longannet and Cockenzie are burning as much coal as ever.
25

The Tin Man,

16/02/2009 10:45:28
#24 drivel

Yes - especially if the Russians paid for it.
26

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 16/02/2009 10:51:06
Until marine energy generation is ready to provide supply of the greater part of base load electricity it is essential that we continue with nuclear. The woeful story of part-time wind has been well aired!
27

greenhill,

16/02/2009 11:09:06
RE:Auld Twa,Edinburgh 16/02/2009 09:34:58

No end of drivel from you and other anti nuclear nutbags.The fact is that modern nuclear power stations run at a profit including all costs and the amount of waste produced is a fraction of what it was in the past.

Modern nuclear power stations are safe clean and ecenomical.By 2015 it is estimated that there will be a new power station opening up every 5 days somewhere in the World.

The anti nuclear brigade have lost their battle to prevent nuclear expansion.Sooner or later Scotland will bow down and kiss nuclear butt.
28

greenhill,

16/02/2009 11:16:15
RE nabodican,Rural Scotland 16/02/2010:38:58"Meanwhile Longannet and Cockenzie are burning as much coal as ever."

And spewing out all sorts of poison including masses of radiation.The anti nuclear brigade do not care about the fact that Coal burning has released to the World more than 100 times more radioactivity than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Coal power kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If such consequences occurred from nuclear power, all nuclear plants would be closed.

29

The west awake,

Argyll 16/02/2009 11:22:15
Man o field - Your opinion, but not accurate.
While onshore wind is "part-time" it has been far from "woeful", in fact it has been so much of a success companies are flocking to get into the act.
In any case, offshore wind is much less "part-time" as there is much more wind offshore and it is much stronger.
Given the real and immediate potential for offshore wind, coupled with marine, it is definitely not the case that we need to continue with nuclear.
30

David MacVicar,

Web 16/02/2009 11:38:25
The Nuclear heads need to revise their posts, just a wee bit.

The policy and planning law in Scotland today is that there IS NO NUCLEAR BUILD. To change this requires a Scottish Parliament bill to change it.

Even if Scotland did pass a bill, there will be no nuclear built until a) Private enterprise would want too, and they have shown no interest b) Until well after existing plants are closed, circa 2025. So Nuclear will not be part of the energy mix for many years no matter what.

To state that we 'need' Nuclear is flat wrong and moronic lunacy. To argue that we should added it to the mix is however a fair point, but the debate is and there are too many unresolved issues.

Yes, Nuclear technology has improved. Yes, safety has improved...BUT we have not even decided what to do with the existing waste yet. To start ramping up Nuclear build again with this STILL unresolved and unclarified is irresponsible.
31

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 16/02/2009 11:54:31
30

Apart from the variability in wind speed which occurs over the country often unpredictably, say in low pressure conditions, there are periods varying from hours, days to even longer than a week when calm and/ or very low wind occurs. Onshore (if not also offshore, for which I have no data), even GB wide, in these anticyclonic conditions wind electricity supply is abysmal. Despite this failure in would- be base load the cash value to wind farm operators etc from subsidies, over the year, will continue to be enormous. Little wonder that massive onshore industrialisations are being desperately clamoured for,in many cases by foreign interests.
32

John S,

16/02/2009 11:57:26
Mr Murphy:Nuclear power vital to back up green energy.
Renewables and nuclear are both baseload generation, cannot follow the grid varying demand and both require back-up, therefore nuclear cannot back up renewables, the two technologies simply do not mix.

Nuclear power stations are large inflexible producers whereas with renewables what is needed are enough existing fossil stations/hydro for managing peak demand,provide baseload and back-up for the infrequent periods of when the output from renewables are low.

Mr Murphy:Scotland cannot rely on renewable energy alone and must turn to nuclear power to safeguard future electricity production.
Why no mention of mention of a gas or coal fired PS why has it got to be nuclear ?

Mr Murphy:One has to look at the energy demand within Scotland whereas you and other pro nuclear are looking at the energy demand within the UK.
England with its much larger min baseload and consumer demand and not being so reliant on renewables to the same extent that Scotland is/will become then nuclear can have advantages.
33

The Tin Man,

16/02/2009 12:36:37
#33 John S

"Why no mention of mention of a gas or coal fired PS why has it got to be nuclear ?"

You appear to be loosing sight of the reason why we subsidise windmills. The idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's the goal, so what is the point of relying on coal and gas-fired stations?

The ice-caps are melting because we burn fossil fuels, not because we build nuclear power stations.
34

John S,

16/02/2009 12:57:15
#34 - The idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's the goal, so what is the point of relying on coal and gas-fired stations ?

Why are they building 13 gas fired power stations in England and Wales with total capacity of approx 15,270MW plus expanding 4 others for an expanded capacity of approx 1,700MW.

A coal-fired power station has been approved by a local government authority.Medway Council in Kent gave the green light to the £1bn Kingsnorth plant. Waiting on the final government decision.

But reducing greenhouse gas emissions doesn't apply to England ?

I wrote as Scotland will rely more on renewables we need fossil fuel and hydro generation and not another nuclear power station, you haven't proved otherwise ?
35

ochone,

Sauchie, Clacks 16/02/2009 13:16:14
Is it not past time that we the people of Scotland were having a say on the relevance of Jim Murphy and his office, especially as the cost of it has gone up even though it's responsibilitys have gone down.

We are supposed to be trying to save money.
36

John (Again),

16/02/2009 17:10:55
#27 A commissioned nuclear power plant every five days in 2015, would mean that construction of 73 would have had to have been started in 2006, as it appears to take 9 years from the signing of the contract to be commissioning ready. (Olkiluoto EPR signed 2003, anticipated to be commissioning-ready 2012).

Of ten new construction initiations last year, 6 were in China, 2 in Russia and 2 in South Korea, showing that nuclear power is mostly a state-supported industry. The likely starts in the UK will be by EdF, an 85% French state-owned enterprise, if it manages to raise the capital.

The UK banks have destroyed their private capital, so that the desired privately-funded capital-intensive nuclear sector will have to draw its funds from the tax-payer.

Meanwhile EdF has to replace half of its nuclear plants in the next ten years, so the French Treasury may be too stretched to pay for the UK's new fleet

Meanwhile uranium production in Canada slumped 14% last year, curtailing supplies to France.

So Jim Murphy's mission to convert Scotland to a belief in nuclear power is perhaps a little ill-advised, it is unlikely to take off in England.
37

David MacVicar,

Web 16/02/2009 18:11:29
Man-O-Field. Nobody is stating that it is a choice between Wind only or Nuclear only. Nobody is saying that the wind blows reliably.
Murphy representing the UK State interests in Scotland says we, Scotland, need Nuclear. This is a naked lie. That is all.

In any case if Murphy says Scotland needs X, you can be pretty certain we should be investing in Y.
38

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 16/02/2009 19:00:39
A lot of people on these posts seem to think that wind turbines reduce emissions from our two coal fired power statios ! This simply not true and never will be.
Longannet and Cockenzie are burning as much coal as ever.
In fact at 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete per turbine base on the latest models, they will never pay back their co2 burden, take into account the thoussnds of acres of forest being felled for the latest large windfarms and it all becomes a rather sick joke.
39

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 16/02/2009 19:26:39
37

I agree that onshore wind in moderation, as you might say, is acceptable. Neither is it unreasonable to accept some offshore projects. The massive over-proliferation of land turbines without reasonable cognizance taken of weather patterns, need for backup, damage to our environment and tourism is a different scenario. The levels of profit, often related to foreign interests,must also be unacceptable to the general public.

Until there is proper provision for an adequate and reliable electricity supply we should not do away with our nuclear units.
40

Gorach,

Queen Margaret hotel 16/02/2009 22:49:42
Dinnae be tellin Scotland what do to Murph - its reserved for Holyrood.

I suppose Westminster will be scheming on how to take it back.

They would be better spending their time figuring out how to maintain good relations with an independent state on their northern flank.

41

donald,

glasgow 17/02/2009 08:40:51
Nuclear madness is only one thing that will cost Jim Numpty his job.

 

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
 
  

 
 


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.