Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Nuclear costs

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: 04 July 2009
IN answer to William Oxenham (Letters, 26 June), in fact it has been proposed that nuclear energy be designated a renewable energy source. Not only does it produce no greenhouse gases during generation and very little over the full cycle, but its fuel is 97 per cent reusable via reprocessing.
As to whether or not the cost of building nuclear stations has risen to a prohibitive level, those who believe that it has should ask themselves why several companies plan to build stations in the UK without subsidy. Clearly, these companies do not believe this will be an uneconomic development.

Sceptics should beware of trusting a US legal pressure group to have a clear view of costs in the UK, or anywhere.

STEUART CAMPBELL

Dovecot Loan

Edinburgh





The full article contains 129 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 July 2009 8:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 04/07/2009 05:10:38
Another advantage of nuclear power is the very small footprint it has, unlike wind power stations supplying intermittent electricity which has a footprint of hundreds of thousands of acres. It is a no brainer really.
2

McNasty,

Edinburgh 04/07/2009 07:56:38
Last week, France shut down more than 6 nuclear stations due to lack of cooling water. Rivers were so low due to a heat wave there was no make up water for cooling towers.

Nuclear power can be intermittent?
3

mr broon,

Edinburgh 04/07/2009 09:16:06
What about the deadly toxic waste, and multi-billion decommissioning costs?

At present The United Kingdom Decommissioning Authority is spending tens of billions in cleaning up nuclear power stations like Dounrey, and this work will not be finished for many decades.
(Source: UKDA website)

In the 1950s France began a civil research nuclear programme. A convenient by-product was plutonium which allowed France to build nuclear weapons. French civil and defence research then became entwined.
Electricite de France(EDF),the state-owned nuclear company, is one of the most successful nuclear energy companies in the world, and is now the owner of British Energy. However, it has already been reported in France that EDF, certainly a profitable company, is still unlikely ever to recoup the vast outlay made by the French State to build nuclear power stations. (Source Jane's)

4

Unimpressed one,

04/07/2009 10:25:06
#2, However France is prohibited from dumping cooling water in rivers that is greater than 30 degrees, probably a rule imposed on them by the beardie brigade. Since all UK power stations would be cooled by sea water this problem would not exist.
5

Jimmy Neutron,

04/07/2009 19:06:12
Personally i believe there IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE at this moment in time, the footprint/output ratio of nuclear power is unsurpassed nothing known to man can produce more power.
The waste issue however will be resolved in time, after all, every other force known to man has an equal opposite force than nutralises it (alkali/acid hot/cold pressure/vaccuum etc), we just haven't discovered it yet! and when we do the stored waste will be easily nutralised.
If SNP continue objecting to all things nuclear scotland will be an economic waste ground, imagine a scotland with no dounrey, chapelcross, faslane etc and by the time thier actions have bitten there will be no oil industry either. welcome to unemployment scotland because once wind farms are built they pretty much run themselves…..
PS I am born and bread in scotland but was forced to move to england for employment along with thousands of others every year, I’d love to return but since moving five years ago there have been no jobs in central scotland to return to.
6

Greenheatman,

TAIN 04/07/2009 19:13:58
Splitting atoms and burning fossil fuels to raise steam to run steam turbines are pretty expensive endeavours.

Our current energy strategy will consign this, and future generations, to burning mostly foreign coal at old and a new generation of coal fired power stations. The current cost of providing 1MWh(thermal) for generation has been put at £100 in the Report "Renewable Heat in Scotland:2020 Vision" by IPA Energy & Water Economics.

However, about 3MWh(thermal) is required in a coal fired power station to provide 1MWh(electrical). Now, Cockenzie and Longannet have a combined capacity of 3456MW(electrical) so coal will need to provide 27.3TWh(thermal) annually if both these power stations operated with a capacity factor of 90%.

The annual cost of coal required to provide heat to raise steam at these power stations will amount to £8,174,131,200 at current prices. Of course, coal is a dwindling resource and prices will rise naturally on a supply and demand basis over time. In time, Poland may decide not to export any more coal so coal may need to come from New Zealand instead!

This pathetic thinking comes from these numpties who advise governments whilst in the pay of the renewable energy industry - no conflict of interest there then!

Wave energy in the deep north Atlantic will provide all of Scotland's thermal power using Gentec WaTS or a similar system without burning or splitting anything.

Sadly, this will happen only when coal and 'yellowcake' uranium runs out.

7

Yocal,

05/07/2009 19:21:36
Large scale world wide use of nuclear energy would cause 'global' warming as a result of the second law of thermodynamics, according to astrophysicist Eric Chaisson.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227026.800-essay-the-heat-to-come.html

I tend to agree with him, although it would take quite a long time. Basically unless we limit ourselves to the energy the Sun provides on a daily basis (that obviously imcludes wind, hydro etc.) combined with some storage, then one way or another we will run into problems. That means we have to live within our 'solar' means.

Also as pointed out, France has problems with their nuclear power stations situated near rivers. Fortunately they operate the stations with a certain degree of sustainability and responsibility in mind, so that the water released back into the rivers is not to hot.

 

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.