Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Wind boss calls for atomic mix

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: 21 May 2009
NUCLEAR power must be part of the energy mix for the future, according to the man behind Europe's largest onshore wind farm, which the First Minister officially opened yesterday.
Speaking at the launch of the Whitelee wind farm in East Renfrewshire, Ignacio Galán, chairman and chief executive of Iberdrola, Scottish Power's Spanish parent company, said nuclear power and renewable sources had to be complimentary.

His willingness to build new nuclear reactors puts him at odds with Alex Salmond's SNP administration, which has ruled out the construction of new stations in Scotland.

Scottish Power has already thrown its hat into the ring to build new nuclear power stations south of the Border.

But yesterday Mr Galán would not go so far as to call on the Scottish Government to change its policy. He said: "If politicians support this kind of technology (nuclear] then we will build this kind of technology.

"We are the engineers; what we know is how to produce kilowatt hours of electricity. The authorities decide the means by which we produce those kilowatt hours."

Scottish Power was yesterday granted planning permission by the Scottish Government to extend its wind farm at Whitelee, adding a further 36 turbines to the 140 already on site.

The extension will increase capacity from 322 megawatts to 452MW, enough to power 250,000 homes.

Scottish & Southern Energy was last year granted permission to build in South Lanarkshire, with a capacity of 548MW.

But Scottish Power wants to extend Whitelee again, adding a further 45 turbines to build its capacity to 614MW.

Speaking at the ceremony yesterday to connect the wind farm to the national grid, Mr Salmond said: "Whitelee in its current form is already flying the flag for onshore wind power in Europe.

"During its construction, the wind farm employed more than 500 people and ploughed £300 million investment directly into the Scottish economy.

"Scotland's potential for electricity generation from renewables is up to 60 gigawatts – more than ten times our peak demand."

Mr Salmond added that the Whitelee extension meant almost 6GW of renewable capacity had been "installed, consented or was under construction", taking Scotland beyond its target of meeting 31 per cent of demand from renewables by 2011.

The Scottish Government wants to meet 50 per cent of Scotland's energy needs using renewables by 2020.

Environmental groups yesterday welcomed the opening of Whitelee, with WWF Scotland hailing the site as "a very welcome contribution to meeting Scotland's targets for renewable electricity".

Offshore turbines plan scaled back

PROPOSALS for a giant wind farm off the Aberdeen coast are to be scaled back, amid concerns about its potential impact on the safety of helicopter and shipping operations.

The Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group (AREG) and Swedish utility company Vattenfall had originally announced joint plans to build a £100 million offshore wind farm, stretching three miles along the coast from the Bridge of Don to Blackdog, with 23 turbines, each up to 490ft high.

But the consortium has now revealed that the number of turbines is likely to be cut back, following the recent revelation that the European Commission is considering investing 40 million in the project as a European test centre for offshore wind developments.

Aberdeen Harbour Board had previously warned that the proposed development posed a danger to shipping entering and leaving the port.

Speaking at the All Energy conference in the city, Anders Dahl, the head of Vattenfall Wind, said: "We now consider it highly likely that we will apply for consent for a smaller scheme as a first phase."

It is understood that the consortium is planning to develop as few as 15 turbines at the site.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 May 2009 9:26 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Wind Power , Nuclear energy
 
1

The Creature from the Black Lagoon,

20/05/2009 22:42:39
Does Salmond ever do any real work?

All he does is hunt out opportunities to appear on television or in the newspapers.

Tuesday it was the launch of the new ferry from Rosyth.

Wednesday day it was the wind farm.

Wednesday night it was Sky News telling everyone how he had called for tighter regulation of the financial services industry, when in fact the opposite was true.

No wonder he has no time to appear at Westminster.
2

Edward,

21/05/2009 01:10:19
Interesting that this article is so slanted
The Herald has a totrally different take on the story with no mention of Ignacio Galán, chairman and chief executive of Iberdrola.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2509392.0.Europes_largest_wind_farm_to_grow_by_more_than_a_quarter.php

In fact in the press release by Iberdola, there is no mention what so ever of Nuclear Energy.
It does state 'During the inauguration ceremony, the chairman of IBERDROLA RENOVABLES
stated that “Whitelee represents a milestone in Scottish history. Not only is it the largest wind farm in Europe, but also one of the biggest in the world”.Ignacio Galán affirmed that the “IBERDROLA Group is deeply committed to the UK and Scotland and wants to be a driver of development and growth in the
area. In Scotland, our goal is to create wealth and well-being through our investments and purchases from local suppliers and to create jobs”. (http://www.iberdrolarenovables.es/wcren/gc/en/comunicacion/notasprensa/090520_NP_inauguracion_Whitelee_en.pdf)
3

Bill_on_a_boat,

floating - which is better than the mother of parl 21/05/2009 02:18:12
Never ceases to amaze - Nuclear!.

Not needed - with energy policies in effect now there may well soon be no need for Nuclear, Wind, Wave, Oil, Gas, Coal, Tide or Solar, allowing some of the present incubator prorams for alternative energy flies.

A wee bit surprising the media focuses on none of these - of course, it may be no one is paying for that.

Interestingly the ENERGY problem was solved with high school physics millenia ago.

This paper is so pro nuclear - why? - look backwards and travel in circles.
4

McNasty,

Edinburgh 21/05/2009 06:21:26
There are eight nuclear power stations in the UK.
Two are in Scotland. We have 1/10th the population of the UK.
The two so called "advanced AGR's" in Scotland are so unreliable they are run at 60% design load or they would break down.
Say it like it really is.
If the UK wishes to have nuclear power; build it in your own back yard. Not in ours.
Finally, when you come up with a solution for disposal of radio active scrap do let us know. Perhaps a repository in Spain? Or, heaven forbid, England.
5

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 21/05/2009 06:45:50
Whitelee is part of the greatest environmental disaster to be inflicted on Scotland. Alex Salmond should hang his head in shame instead of gleefully selling Scotland to the wind industry.
I drove past Whitelee yesterday having already passed several wind power stations on the way to Glasgow.
It is undoubtedly a massive blight on the landscape.
Note the names, Ignacio Galan, Anders Dahl - Good Scottish names !!! and exactly who got these 500 jobs Salmond claims ?
£300,000,000 into the Scottish economy ! Really - is he telling us every one of these foreign workers spent £600,000
Salmond is a total and utter idiot who knows zero about power generation and the quicker he and the rest of the tartan taliban are gone the better.
6

Richard Taylor,

Aberdeen 21/05/2009 06:57:24
#10: to be replaced by - who, exactly????
7

Angleland Isover,

21/05/2009 07:53:45
12. Many people still say labour are good for Scotland.
8

Don Roberto,

21/05/2009 08:13:17
"Wind boss calls for atomic mix."

No, he didn't. In fact business reporter. Peter Ranscombe, is the only journalist who claims such a thing. Was he even there?

Ignacio Galán did say the CO2 saving will be 500,000 tonnes a year. He also pointed out that roads on site have been specially laid so as not to break the surface of peat areas and disrupt the flow of natural water courses. The roads are constructed with stone taken from the site on top of layers of geogrid – polymer reinforcement material.

He also spoke about pump-storage plants in Scotland, like the 400MW Cruachan power station on Loch Awe, and the need for more.

Was Peter Ranscombe actually on the moor?
9

For Scotlands Future,

Nuclear Free Scotland - Mr Wark. 21/05/2009 08:16:25
Seems like he is saying that if the English Parliament in Westminster would let him, he is willing to build Nuclear Power5 Stations in England.

I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is, again the Hootsman turning someone's statement into an anti-SNP headline.

There seems to be a very strong campaign by this paper to build Nuclear Porwer stations in Scotland. I wonder who is at the back of this campaign.
10

,

21/05/2009 08:23:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

W Smith,

Middle East 21/05/2009 08:24:14
Windy Miller Salmond's lack of engineering knowledge makes me cringe.

1) The so-called 'green' jobs being produced here are completley bogus. Digging holes, pouring concrete and even laying electrical cables is common to all large construction projects and can hardly be called 'green'.

2) The turbines being used here are manufactured by Siemens - so its good business for Germany.

3) Many trees (conifers) were cut down at Whitelee because the 'green' brigade want bogs not forests - not mentioned here.

4) Ignacio Galan is correct. Windy Miller Salmond got it wrong. The most you can hope for is that windmills can produce only 10% of the nations needs as they are reliant on the weather.

5) Salmond wants Scotland's power supply to be weather reliant and suffer, occasionally, in the doldrums!

The genius of this man knows no limits.
12

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 21/05/2009 08:24:24
It was stated in an interview yesterday on Radio Scotland that in a UK context it would take 600 of these size of wind farms to power all of the UKs power, for homes and industry.

The size stated was a farm the size of Wales.

Of course that is only when the wind blows and so full back up capacity is still required - so we need to keep all the existing power station infrastrucure going.

So looks like we despoil the countryside amenity for all, to save part of the UKs minimal % worldwide input to carbon production but have duplicate costs at all times.

Nucleur makes sense and the luddites that throw their hands up just haven't grasped basic facts.
13

Don Roberto,

21/05/2009 08:42:33
#18 W SMITH

"Many trees (conifers) were cut down at Whitelee because the 'green' brigade want bogs not forests - not mentioned here."

That Sir is an outright LIE. You obviously do not know the area and are used to lying through your teeth in order to make sense of your warped view of Scotland.




14

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 21/05/2009 08:43:27
5) Salmond wants Scotland's power supply to be weather reliant and suffer, occasionally, in the doldrums!


Total bawz son. He has expanded open cast coal mining, therefore he wants a mix of conventional coal powered stations and wind/wave/tidal energy as well has gas .

You really are a thick f_kc.
15

Salmond Rushdie,

21/05/2009 08:46:22
For a start, the SNP don't actually have an energy policy for Scotland - apart from having an embargo on nuclear. Scotland nuclear stations will need to be decommissioned.

Within ten years Scotland will lose about 30% of its electricity generating capacity from large plants and within twenty five years is likely to lose it all. At the same time, energy and environment targets have been set for 2020.

Where Salmond is going wrong with all of this is that energy policy and many of the mechanisms to implement it are matters reserved to the UK Government. Other
mechanisms necessary for policy implementation, such as planning and building regulations, are devolved to the Scottish Government. This means that the Scottish Government should work within the UK
Government framework, but with the opportunity to tailor approaches to meet Scottish needs and opportunities - rather than Salmond going it alone.

So how will the SG replace the electricity output of existing nuclear/coal/gas stations?

Secondly, wind, wave and tidal do not provide a reliable base load. The SG will have to build more coal and gas stations to replace the nuclear base load lost to not replacing those stations.
16

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 21/05/2009 08:58:29
#20 Don Roberto
While there are very few trees at Whitelee, several thousand acres of forest are being cut down for the Arecleoch and Mark Hill wind power stations in South Ayrshire with several thousand more to be cut down at the nearby Kilgallioch forest and Balunton hill wind power station proposals.
They are not even using the timber, simply mulching it and spreading it over the ground.
If Salmond continues with this wind nonsense, he will need to build more coal or nuke power stations to supply the backup required.
17

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 21/05/2009 08:59:33
We need to explode a lot of myths regarding nuclear power. A great many people (including Salmond) do not understand it sufficiently to be able to make a judgement call. The rantings from McNasty at #9 go to show that.

In this day and age, it is absolutely ridiculous to shun nuclear power as an option for the future. We should never have let our nuclear industry go into such decline as we have.
18

Saoghal Beag,

21/05/2009 10:11:25
26 Hagard, how about repeating that calculation for Hunterston, and include the annual down time.

Nuclear only provides base load, 20% of peak demand, otherwise you run a grid in a permanent state of over production. It's generally hydro and coal that meet our peak demands.

All nuclear requires down time for servicing, therefore the must be backed up with 100% generation from alternative sources.

Still that wee bitty problem of the waste.

What percentage of its projected profit has the Sellafield waste processing plant generated?
19

Saoghal Beag,

21/05/2009 10:13:10
18 W Smith, you dobviously do not understand the ecological value of a peat bog over a mono-culture of an alien species. Nothing to do with the green brigade, just emperical ecological assessment.
20

hoblar,

21/05/2009 10:15:18
Nobody is taking the Scoitsman seriously, particularly their continuation of the nonsense that Scotland 'needs' nuke energy.

We rely very little on this heavily subsidised form of energy (nuclear) and we should eradicate it entirely since we EXPORT electricity, pay more for it than England and in fact don't need it because we are a bfrilliant place for renewable energy.

Nuke energy was/is HEAVILY subsidised and disposal of waste is still a problem.

Even Jack McConnel had the bottle to realise this is how Scots think, and the dfact we had multi 'news' articles from jim murphy, the pro nuke westminster politician is well known and this paper supports his idea.

The uk may need nuke energy but Scotland itself does not, so let's see some journalism rather than the usual blind support of whatever kak the union wishes for.

The union, with new labour at the helm, is in unbelievable turmoil and under great strain, if the Scottish media continue to talk utter mince, they'll breeak the union, because Scots are more politically sophisticated by virtue of having a capable, non sleaze, non corrupt party and NON UNIONIST party representing their interests.
21

GlenB,

21/05/2009 10:24:41
#9 "Finally, when you come up with a solution for disposal of radio active scrap do let us know. Perhaps a repository in Spain? Or, heaven forbid, England."

Where is UK's high level waste reprocessed and stored now?

England.
22

Drummer1,

Troon 21/05/2009 10:32:39
Whitelee windfarm is absolutely beautiful - not just in its majestic look that represents modern dynamic scuplture at it best, but also for Scotland demonstrating maturity in understanding the ethos of sustainable development.

Lets see more hills developed soon - I love it !
23

Saoghal Beag,

21/05/2009 10:43:37
30 not all of the Irish Sea belongs to England
24

Phil o Brian,

21/05/2009 10:57:13
20# I don't know the area well, but yesterday on the BBC, a local resident complained about the "many trees that had been cut down".
31# Its a matter of choice, I think they are horrible.
Not being an expert on the subject, I still feel the money could be better spent. Heat pumps, home improvements etc. Much more reliable and less intrusive.
Back to the "experts" I have had my 2p worth.
25

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 10:59:05
#29 hoblar

'Scotland' is only capable of 'exporting' electricity while the two nuclear plants are functioning. After they are decommissioned, 'Scotland' then 'imports' power generated, among other means, by nuclear plants. Hypocritical? Of course.

As pointed out by the better informed posters, wind turbines generate exactly zero electricity on a calm day, hence necessitating the retention of all existing thermal generation capability in full working order, ready at a minute's notice.

According to the scotty parly's stance (they have no energy policy), this capacity is to be provided by coal-burning stations, or from the magical land of 'elsewhere'. This is the result of having hugely spoilt MSP's who have proven to be incapable of making any remotely controversial decisions that could make them look bad in any way.
26

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 11:03:21
....Then we have the curious spectacle of scotty exec politicians claiming credit for implementing UK renewable energy policy subsidised through the electricity bills of people living in England, Scotland, Wales, and NI. Slimey.
27

Phil o Brian,

21/05/2009 11:07:33
34# I find your point about MSP's never having to have made a "hard" decision interesting. It will be interesting to see how the cope with much reduced "grant". Its been easy so far. Free this Free that.
We are about to live in interesting times.
This is not a party political statement. I don't think we have enough quality across all the parties.
28

hoblar,

21/05/2009 11:11:10
Listen, I have read your anti Scottish Government drivel and see you as a multi posting commentary spoiler.

To say that Scotland has 'no energy policy' is a complete and utter joke, and of course your ridiculous pro nuke stance goes against what most Scots want or need.

Scotland doesn't need nuclear energy, (neither does Scottish labour by the way) all the 'experts' are talking about the uk's future energy needs, and those briefed by labour might mention Scotland, but as always it as a token gesture, tacking Scotland onto what the uk requires is not a politically accountable act.

As for the 'controversial decisions' made, you allege, by Westminster, it is their faceless, LACK of action, from the economy to sleaze to usage of the public purse that has got them into trouble, and any "controversial" decisions are ones like shafting Scotland's budget merely because we chose not to vote labour.

brown is a ditherer, and the brief 'saviour' mantle relating to economic ability has been shown up as a press created farce.

Brown has barely put a foot right since he became a PM. Be honest and try and work on that instead of your puerile party political nonsense against the Scottish government that merely demonstrates how out of touch the likes of you are with the Scottish electorate and what they actually think.

I see you have agreed that Scotland 'exports electricity' as I stated, but you reckon that this is only because we have "two nuclear plants"....well let's allow them to pass their sell by in twenty years time and concentrate on wave power and renewable energy instead of this mickey mouse tacking on of what the UK (and Godon brown's brother) needs for energy.

labour are rubbish, and their support in these Isles is dwindling-it doeasn't matter to Scotland whether red tories (new labour) or the blue tories are in power, so we should vote for parties that discuss what matters to Scotland.

And we will.

Enjoy your negative troll a thon on here mate,
29

hoblar,

21/05/2009 11:31:13
'I find your point about MSP's never having to have made a "hard" decision interesting. It will be interesting to see how the cope with much reduced "grant". Its been easy so far. Free this Free that.
We are about to live in interesting times.
This is not a party political statement. I don't think we have enough quality across all the parties.'

Rubbish mate.

What you are referring to is the distinct lack of quality in Westminster, where quality is not important, as we have ALL WITNESSED.

The 'difficult decisions' where Labour have chosen to reduce our block grant (our taxes provide that money) merely states a case that means removing the British treasury from the equation, raising and spending our own taxes, telling barnet to get lost and have, er, 'English votes for English laws'-all of which render the union of 1707 to the dustbin of political history.

It was 'dead easy' to simply keep money that belongs to Scotland in London with uk labour, that is indeed the EASY part as you ahve said-now watch 'Scottish' labour BLAME the SNP, very sad and not in the Scottish interest.

They should be speaking for Scotland but their union ties don't allow them to-that is a big problem, for them!
That's what the tories wish for, but brown is feared that it will end the union, but really it is just yet another contributing factor of many to the demise of the union.

What with a viable and more popular political party (the SNP) in Government in Scotland and not oinking their way around the place like Ian Gray and that MP Moffat who have been renting a LABOUR OWNED building at three times the price at the public's expence.

Feel free to vote for some unionist party, but many many Scots are persuaded that the union isn't a safe place to be and that we should have our OWN politicians accountable to us.

In spite of the troll city mentality displayed by some on here, Scotland is still constitutionally more advanced than the rest of these isles by having the SNP i
30

John S,

21/05/2009 11:31:37
We have to look at Scotland's consumer demand now and in the future and the SG energy policy now and in the future and not the UK Government's.

Because the SG rightly or wrongly is going down the road of more renewable (wind) generation this creates a problem because both renewables (wind) and nuclear run 24/7 and are used for baseload generation, they are inflexible ie cannot vary their output to follow the varying grid demand and require back up for the time they are not producing.

In Scotland our fossil fuel (and Hydro) generation can be and is used as baseload/back up and to follow the varying grid demand.

The more renewables that come on stream within Scotland the nearer will be a point where the renewables could be producing most of the baseload demand with less baseload being required from NPS's.

Is happening already with renewable electricity accounting for 20.1 per cent of Scottish gross consumption in 2007, up from 16.9 per cent in 2006 and with electricity generated from nuclear power falling by 13 per cent.9 Jan 2009

Why does it have to be a NPS for Scotland and why not a gas or coal fired power station which would make more sense because we are going down the road of renewables.

England and Wales they are building 12 gas fired power stations with a total capacity of approx 15,000MW.

Wind power usually supplies around 12% of Spain's power, but fierce winds in the area during March helped the farms generate up to 40% of supplies.BBC 19 April 2009

Grid System Transfers - Scot to Eng:
2699MW-25/02/2009 12:51:00 GMT
2807MW-15/03/2009 08:39:00 GMT
2512MW-22/03/2009 10:05:00 GMT


31

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 11:32:00
#36 hoblar

I skimmed through your politicised post. As I previously stated, Holyrood does not have an official energy policy. The windfarms are a result of decisions made in Westminster, and local authority planning permission. They are built because they are subsidised through UK-wide electricity bills.

I am very much in favour of renewable energy. I also favour realism.

The 'nae nukes in Scottyland' bit was a result of Scotty Labour, et al, so I am confused as to why you believe that I posted "anti Scottish Government drivel"?
32

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 11:39:53
#38 John S

Hydro (not pumped storage) is the only existing renewable generation that supplies base-load. The only other significant renewable generation (from windfarms) is dependent on how hard the wind blows (or if it blows at all), hence it cannot be classified as 'base-load', as it has to be completely backed-up by reliable methods of electricity generation - ie. we can build an infinite number of wind turbines, but we still need to be able to generate all the electricity generated by the windfarms through other means.
33

hoblar,

21/05/2009 11:43:10
You talk a load of misinformed nonsense, and it isn't interesting.

Sorry, but I am not culpable for the lack of quality of any unionist, particularly a multi post spoiler of commentary that doesn't have a clue, any more than I am responsible for voting any unionist party.

Your misinformed opinion about what Scotland's Parliament can do or has done is at odds with what the uk government did, like canceling the Peterhead wind turbine project as soon as the current Scottish Government got into power; this is why the union fails Scotland.

Vote labour or tory if you like, pepper every commentary section with inane drivel, but it isn't really going to save the union, those days are numbered, so tough cheese.
34

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 11:43:24
#38

"Why does it have to be a NPS for Scotland and why not a gas or coal fired power station which would make more sense because we are going down the road of renewables"

The reason for renewable energy is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (otherwise we would build more cost-effective coal-fired plants, instead).
35

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 11:44:29
#41 hoblar

Bye-bye, troll.
36

ecosseman,

FACTS NOT PROPAGANDA 21/05/2009 11:52:10
WELL DONE ALEX,ANOTHER JOB DONE.
ENOUGH POWER TO SERVICE GLAGOW YES,BUT ALAS NO AS IT HAS TO GO THE NATIONAL GRID.

THE SAME AS OUR OIL+GAS+WATER+TAXES.

WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF.

ROLL ON THE ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
37

hoblar,

21/05/2009 11:57:29
lol, I have posted as 'Kinghob' for 6 years, nothing in the slightest bit trolly about that.

I can actually be googled for statements that go back over those years, and it is a pity I couldn't register on here under my moniker, but at least that is the ONLY reason, as a pure punter I am not here to spoil commentary, and your own methods are a joke, just like the ramblings of those who are blindly pro union.

I support the Scottish Government and see them as being far more capable of representing the needs of Scotland now and in the future, and that includes my being Independently minded; once that happens I am happy that Scotland will elect proper representatives who are accountable to the inhabitants of Scotland not to some other big boss party.

Please, allow me to don my inflatable pampers so i don't hurt myself falling about laughing at your ridiculous determination to talk complete nonsense about Scotland at any and every level.

Enjoy!

38

Tartan Viking,

21/05/2009 12:32:17
Funny how we always knew that Europe's biggest windfarm would be sited in Scotland - even from the outset, and not overlooking London or somewhere.
39

Phil o Brian,

21/05/2009 12:34:12
45# I thought I was asking a genuine question and did state I was not making a political statement. I don't think any of the parties have so far moved Scotland forward. I accept that the SNP have only been in power a relatively short period of time and are a minority Govt. See the problem that the had with Edin trams as an example.
I am an infrequent poster on these forums as I can't normally stand the boorish commentry.
40

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 12:37:48
#45 hoblar

At least you are honest in your wish to bring every story into the light of 'unionists vs. nats' - even electrical power generation, which would be part of a UK national grid, indy scotty or not. Hence my 'troll' reference - unlike yourself, I believe that seperatism is entirely irrelevant to the matter.

"I support the Scottish Government and see them as being far more capable of representing the needs of Scotland now and in the future"

Unfortunately for all of us, your statement is not supported by the facts - over the last 10 years of devolution, Westminster, believe it or not, has a better record of improving health and education, when compared to the populist pandering of the scotty execs, who, awash with our money, have implemented populist policies with little real benefit to the people of Scotland.

This is a pan-political problem, with Labour, Lib Dems, and SNP all guilty.
41

Chief King Bonga,

21/05/2009 12:38:36
ecosseman,
We English cant wait for you to vote for independence, my worry was that you Scots have got cold feet over the independence issue as there seems fewer "Is it time yet" Bravehearts on these threads because of the credit crunch, just promise me that you will take all your trough feeding Politicians and bankers with you, then we wont have to listen to how, as part of the UK you have to share your resources with England.
42

The Tin Man,

21/05/2009 12:42:32
#45 hoblar

By the way, if you have also posted as 'kinghob' you have had at least one more log-in moniker than me (believe it or not as you may, but that is the truth of the matter - why on earth would I need a different one?). Of course, the Hootsmon comments threads wouldn't be so much fun without the bi-polar mentalist posters.
43

hoblar,

21/05/2009 12:45:41
"I thought I was asking a genuine question and did state I was not making a political statement. I don't think any of the parties have so far moved Scotland forward. I accept that the SNP have only been in power a relatively short period of time and are a minority Govt. See the problem that the had with Edin trams as an example.
I am an infrequent poster on these forums as I can't normally stand the boorish commentry."

Your statement about the the SNP, linking them to the uselessness of labour isn't one that is supported by polls, and certainly not supported by the popularity of the Scottish Government and First Minister.

The popularity is actually unprecedented, the negativity comes from the fact that the Scottish media struggle with the concept of the people voting a non unionist party, in fact the media are very upset by this democratic choice, and we will see if that popularity is sustainable come ANY election.

I believe it will be.

No comparison to the unprecedented political strife that labour are in.

Just telling it like it is.
44

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 21/05/2009 12:56:05
For a study of wind power see

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden05-dtiwindreport.pdf

Critics of wind power please pay Alec Salmond the courtesy of reading it.

When nuclear power was introduced its problem was that it could not readily be turned down at night, hence nightstore heaters and pumped storage. The variability of wind could also be compensated by pumped storage, using artificial hill-top lakes and coastal lagoons for off-shore, but with continuing investment in gas-fired stations and importing of LNG, the grid is sufficient to maintain balance.

It is highly unlikely that there will be any new nuclear build in England, as the economics of nuclear power have subsided with the astronomical rise in build costs since the lobby PR campaign was launched. Also it is taking ten years at least to build and commission the Areva EPR in Finland.

EdF is having to sell its EdF Energy UK subsidiary to raise cash and has debts of Euros 25 billion, while having to find 20 billion for the UK four EPRs and 100 billion for the 20 EPRs it needs to build in France to replace. Areva the builder has lost 3 billion + over its Finnish venture.

We can all relax - the nuclear "renaissance" is likely to be still born.
45

Arfur,

21/05/2009 13:13:00
Since when did an engineer responding to what he thought of nucular power with the answer - "If politicians support this kind of technology then we will build this kind of technology. We are the engineers; what we know is how to produce kilowatt hours of electricity. The authorities decide the means by which we produce those kilowatt hours." become nuclear power must be part of the energy mix for the future, according to the man behind Europe's largest onshore wind farm
46

Phil o Brian,

21/05/2009 13:16:16
51# If I linked them to Labour in any of my statements, I retract it fully.
47

Geomac 1,

Scotland 21/05/2009 13:23:05
Salmond claims that we will soon have 6GW of installed renewables capacity - how much of it will deliver when the wind is blowing too little or too much?
Why also are we not shuttng down coal fired and gas fired power stations as 6GW is around the country's peak demand???
48

John S,

21/05/2009 13:53:34
Wind farm 'kills Taiwanese goats'

A large number of goats in Taiwan may have died of exhaustion because of noise from a wind farm.

A farmer on an outlying island told the BBC he had lost as many as 400 animals after eight giant wind turbines were installed close to his grazing land.

The Ministry of Agriculture says it suspects that noise may have caused the goats' demise through lack of sleep.

The power company has offered to pay for part of the costs of building a new farmhouse at a quieter location. BBC 21 May 2009
49

Phyllis Stephen,

Edinburgh 21/05/2009 13:58:19
Don't you mean that wind and nuclear should be complEmentary - and not free as your article otherwise suggests?
50

,

21/05/2009 14:03:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

Don Roberto,

21/05/2009 14:16:28
#22 Nabondican, Arecleoch in the heart of the Galloway forest? What will they do with less fir trees?

52

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 21/05/2009 14:25:49
Bob Graham notes in Opinion section today - in relation to 'windfarm scam' - that the Whitelee industrialisation will receive, over its lifetime, greater than one billion pounds of subsidy. This is equivalent to around £51m per year 'generated' by a couple of hundred turbines! With the BWEA, and no doubt Scottish Renewables and allegedly OFGEM, concentrating effort on deploying 6000 or so turbines to our beautiful countryside we, the taxpayers, are becoming wonderfully generous. Our tourism industry which is worth over £4b pounds annually to Scotland, not to mention the 200,000 related jobs, is bound, like the environment, to be extensively damaged.
But the GREATER REALITY is that our electricity generation will require constant back-up for even short lived anticyclonic conditions, let alone those of several days and longer which occur both Scotland and even UK wide.
53

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 21/05/2009 14:30:20
cont.
What a price to pay for a part-time technology meant to replace (!!!) the 'dirty' part of electricity generation which would only reduce global warming by up to a few thousandths of one deg.(C) over a period of a century.
54

Drummer1,

Troon 21/05/2009 14:39:54
I love wind farms and RE development, they are bringing signficant wealth and jobs to Scotland and look beautiful !

All my American cousins and friends, a party of over 100 visitors, are coming to Scotland this summer to see the wonderful Whitelees windfarm and other great modern icons of the Scottish landscape !!

Climate Change Warriors are here to stay !!!

Unfortunately in saving the planet the miserable carbon/nuclear loving cynics will also be saved, ach well we can't have everything I suppose.
55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 21/05/2009 14:44:19
Of course it is true that wind power is not available 24/7. Neither is any other technology. Because of this grid operators have around 15% safety margin of capacity installed over and above maximum demand.
Both coal and nuclear generators in the UK have been quite unreliable with frequent and in some cases prolonged outages. In contrast, wind generators are very reliable and much cheaper to maintain.
Furthermore, thermal stations as well as being unreliable are grossly inefficient, wasting large amounts of power as heat from cooling towers etc. They also pollute the atmosphere with colossal tonnages of climate altering gases and health damaging pollutants and particulates.
56

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 21/05/2009 15:13:21
Wind 'farms' provide some jobs during construction - how many, though, are for foreign labour?- but few permanent maintenance jobs. ( Note 200,000 in work related to our tourism.)
The turbines and most of the towers are made abroad. Is that, also, where most of the profits go - to foreign companies?
Scottish 'climate altering' gas volumes in terms of electricity generation are (almost totally) irrelevant in global terms.
57

Don Roberto,

21/05/2009 15:29:16
Man - o - field where do the taxes from the wind farms go?
58

Drummer1,

Troon 21/05/2009 15:32:34
windfarms and RE industry provide jobs for many thousands i.e. developers, environmental/engineering consultancies, government, turbine manufacture and construction. Most of which are Scottish employees !

So, once again the Cynics (i.e. pro nuclear and carbon brigade) don't see the positive ... just shut up !!
59

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 21/05/2009 15:46:21
65
Please quantify the tax takes. Subsidies come from us.

60

Geomac 1,

Scotland 21/05/2009 15:49:09
#1 The Creature Etc. Good question. yesterday's papers were full of grinning pictures of Salmond pushing buttons or shaking hands. Mostly rabbitting on about Scotland leading the world in wave and tidal power technology (conveniently ignoring the abject failure/collapse of the wave powered installation off the coast or Portugal - from which the developers have walked away). Then he conveniently confuses renewables capacity with electricity demand - two entirely different measures.
#65 Don Roberto - you ask where do the taxes go? Do you mean taxes paid by consumers on their electricity? Yes, we pay the taxes in addition to around 5 pence per unit (kWh) subsidy (via ROCs) for onshore wind generated electricity - and 10 pence per unit for offshore generated electricity. This goes into the coffers of foreign owned electricity supply companies such as Scottish (misnomer!?) Power. These companies pay taxes on their profits (there is no tax on construction of windmills) but yet again this is exracted from the ever poorer consumer - it's not only world gas proces that are hiling up eleectricity bills!!!!
61

Drummer1,

Troon 21/05/2009 16:02:07
#70 Geomac (Mr Cynic), once again you like the rest of the anti RE brigade get your 'facts' all wrong !

Babcock, one of the owners of the portugal pelamis project did not "walk away" they have went into administration - other potential investors are keen to get a piece of the action. Pelamis did have a technical problem (premature wear & tear on a hinge joint), like any early technology, but now have fixed the problem.

why is it the cynics always state misinformation and portray such negative pictures - its a pity you can't jump onto another planet with your 'business as usual' attitudes or is it just ignorance !?
62

Geomac 1,

Scotland 21/05/2009 16:14:59
#71 Drummert1 - try the following web page:
http://cleantech.com/news/4276/pelamis-sinks-portugal-wave-power-p
from which I quote the following
"But in mid-November, all three were removed from the water because of leaks in the buoyancy tanks that required replacement, according to the International Herald Tribune. Other technical problems followed, and the energy-conversion units are now sitting idle in Leixões harbor near the city of Porto, the paper reports."
Yes Babcock experienced financial problems BUT technical failures were the main issue!!
Also try site:
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/17/portugals-pelamis-wave-power-project-killed/ from which I quote "We were pretty excited about Pelamis’ wave power plan in Portugal., but not every technology written about here pans out in the end. Pelamis’ €9 million Aguacadora wave power project–the world’s largest–has been taken offline due to numerous technological and financial setbacks."
Another quote "TreeHugger has touted how cool the Pelamis wave power device on a number of occasions, as well its implementation in the €9 million Aguçadoura project in Portugal. Well, that 2.5 MW adventure has come to an end. Citing technical and financial setbacks, what would have been the world’s current largest commercial wave power project has been taken offline indefinitely:… "
I could go on citing web pages and offering quotes but that should be enough for you to chew on???
So, where exactly is the technology with which Salmond claims that "Scotland is a world leader"?????
63

Geomac 1,

Scotland 21/05/2009 16:20:22
#71 Drummert1 - I forgot to note that you seem to have resorted to the last resort of the eco brigade, namely name calling and personal insults - shame on you! I much prefer adult and intelligent debate supported by good and reliable data!! I am far from being a cynic - I am a prfagmatic engineer who is embarrased every time that Salmond and Mather open their mouths on the subject of renewable energy - they need to be briefed a lot better than they are at present.
By the way, Pelamis had more that ONE technical problem as you will see from my references!!
64

Drummer1,

Troon 21/05/2009 16:31:26
73# Geomac. you are a cynic and shame on you for not being better informed on the subject matter of climate change and the absolute need for RE.

Your data and thus opinion is flawed !
65

Geomac 1,

Scotland 21/05/2009 16:47:45
#74 Drummert - when did I once mention climate change?? We were debating wave energy and Scotland's misrepresented position. You must be a politician - when you have no answer, change the subject!!
For the record, I believe that the climate is changing - but is has changed for millenia - BUT it changes for many reasons and not simply humankind's activities.
It would seem that you have chosen to ignore my referenced material. It's not MY data by the way, it's published data - from Portugal!!
When did I say there was no need for RE? I simply said that hyperbole was not a substitute for science and realism by Salmond and co.
It would seem that my thoughts were valid - you have no real basis for your arguments but would rather resort to name calling and personal insults
66

Drummer1,

Troon 21/05/2009 17:11:21
#75 Geomac, please stop going on about so called 'insults', I was merely stating in factual terms how cynical you are about the good efforts others are making to combat climate change.

In terms of the climate change science, you once again combine truth with misinformation. Yes, we all know climate change occurs naturally, but we are trying to reduce mankind's effect, which you appear not to understand in terms of the science or strategy.

BTW, what are you specifically doing to combat man's contribution to climate change, other than ranting negatively about the positive efforts of others ?
67

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 21/05/2009 17:22:56
Will someone please save us from scams and spinners! ROC's are the lifeblood of windfarms, they must be increased for the sake of the environment! See http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/pouring-cold-water-on-global-warming-14299972.html
68

Geomac 1,

Scotland 21/05/2009 17:29:40
#76 Drummert1
Have you given up on Pelamis argument? have you accepted the facts? You have now moved on to another subject, namely climate change which an altogether more complex issue.
I assume that you are aware that the issue of anthropogenic climate change (used to be anthropogenic global warming until warming stopped!!) is based on a theory developed some 25-30 years ago and has not yet been proven by factual climate performance?
That said, i do believe that it is essential than mankind does take steps to reduce its use of the earth's limited resources and I have done as much as most (except installing a windmill) - my house is insulated top bottom (underfloor) and sides, I have a low energy boiler and have a personal energy meter (not that it's much use really - all it does is to confirm the electrical rating stamped on the appliance!) I recycle.
I do all these and more on an earth resources basis so tell me what more you are doing?
69

Geomac 1,

Scotland 21/05/2009 17:33:03
#77 says "Will someone please save us from scams and spinners! ROC's are the lifeblood of windfarms" Do you mean politicians or do you mean landowners or do you mean windfarm developers or do you mean BWEA - all of the afore mentioned are the scammers and spinners. Windfarms alone will simply NOT result in any conventional power plants being shut down so where is the CO2 saving?
70

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 21/05/2009 17:54:21
77

Without ROCs wind 'farms' would not be economically viable. With ROCs it is little wonder that vast, otherwise indefensible, over proliferation of such industrialisations is being pursued.

Please refer to the points I also made and referred to in 60/64.

70 highlights the subsidies position.
71

greenhill,

21/05/2009 18:46:41
Wind farms are for fools and Scottish Nationalists are abject numpties. Then again many supporters of other parties buy into the same delusion.

Fools ignore the fact that fossil fuel burning pumps out far more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear. The SNP intend to maintain base load via fossil fuel burning but talk big time about renewables.They are despicable obfuscators.

Large scale carbon capture is unproven but Labour and the SNP seek to chance it. However even if it works the technology will not remove the radioactivity spewed into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. In fact because it needs more fuel the radioactivity pollution will increase.

The anti nuclear power brigade are in favour of kicking out far more radioactivity into the atmosphere than the pro nuclear lobby who wish to reduce the numbers of deaths caused by such pollution.


72

hoblar,

21/05/2009 19:51:24
Scotland, in spite of what the weekly pro nuclear pamphlet in our press by jim murphy states, is not England.

Our geography and weather are radically different, and there is a downside to that if you like more temperate weather, however the definite upside is that we are not that reliant on nuclear energy and could easily invest the money wasted on nuke energy into wave and wind power.

That unique geography and weather makes us the best suited not only in the uk, but in Europe to ignore any expensive nuke newbuilds and invest the money in renewable energy.

A sensible Scottish government would do just that, it is the westminster clowns determined to tack what is the best for the UK (or England) as if our geography and weather are identical, and in fact, it is this square peg in a round hole philosophy that has saw the uk wanting as a political agreement, and I am afraid that despite the protestations from the obligatory unionist trolling two men, their dogs and fleas, four dozen time as day, the union looks like a kak poltical idea.

This is now reflected in the voting preferences of the inhabitants of Scotland, and it is arrogant of these labour trolls posting 50 posts on the SNP reversal on the Gurkhas (!) etc. to be so ignorant of how ordinary Scots think of new labour, because new labour have let themselves down, and proven that they do not have the Scottish interest at heart.

That is the truth of it, and political oblivion beckons for new labour, who are as tired as their few multiposting mouth pieces on this political commentary section.
73

hoblar,

21/05/2009 23:44:29
It is the whole of Scotland that will be "sorry" if we don't get our fingers out of our bottoms and wake up to the fact that what you have described as" the best potential renewables resources in Europe" won't be of any use to us by twiiddling our thumbs and investing in the TOTALLY wrong energy resource; nuclear.

The idea that using renewables to replace as much of nuclear power staions as possible is one most people in Europe would have no problem with, for Scotland, out of all of the countries within Europe, this is very achievable.

We need a government with the financial power and vision to see it happen, and that will be an Independent one, or a more fiscally responsible Scottish Parliament.

Certainly westminster aren't interested because it appears, though I am no expert on the matter, that the solution for England is nuclear power.
74

greenhill,

22/05/2009 07:50:33
RE danielrober,21/05/2009 23:21:15

It is not worth "debating" with hoblar he is a fool just like the American rednecks who bought into Ronald Reagans SDI science fiction.

There is nothing that can be said to those who are willfully foolish.
75

sellafield soul singer,

UK 25/05/2009 11:33:55
well well scotland may be not very good at football but alex salmond rocks my world - how long can he keep the nuclear lobbyists at bay - long may he continue:
Read the truth about nuclear below:

http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=935



http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
76

Dragonfire,

17/07/2009 16:10:08
A windy debate is brewing that's for sure.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

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

Featured Advertising



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.