Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Peter Jones: Why environmental benefits of nuclear outweigh waste worries

Premium Article !

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

Subscribe
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 April 2009
NUCLEAR power, we are routinely told by Scottish Government ministers, is "dangerous and unnecessary". Whenever I hear this, I am moved to wonder if Alex Salmond has told the French government.
The French people, bereft of much in the way of natural resources to exploit for their energy needs, get about 80 per cent of their electricity from nuclear power.

The French government's belief that nuclear power is not only safe, but also neces...



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 April 2009 8:45 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Peter Jones
 
1

,

16/04/2009 21:23:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

gus1940,

Edinburgh 17/04/2009 01:50:26
Surely the headline on this story is an oxymoron.
3

,

17/04/2009 02:18:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 17/04/2009 06:52:43
#1- Webwiser "Scotland on the other hand doesn't need nuclear because we DO have other options,"

And exactly what would these options be?
Assuming you want to keep the lights on!
5

Hugo of Garven,

17/04/2009 08:21:48
"But when calculated on a life-cycle basis – that is taking all the emissions caused by construction, mining, transport and decommissioning into account – nuclear energy comes near the bottom of the league for carbon production."

There must be great uncertainty about the emissions during the decommissioning phase. If the decommissioning costs are significantly greater than estimated, then how reliable are the emision estimates?

6

Talorthane,

17/04/2009 08:24:14
"NUCLEAR power, we are routinely told by Scottish Government ministers, is "dangerous and unnecessary"."

Dangerous because we still don't entirely know what do with the waste.

Unnecessary because Scotland has a quarter of Europe's wind and tidal energy potential.


"Whenever I hear this, I am moved to wonder if Alex Salmond has told the French government."

If he did that, then I'm sure you would be one of the first to accuse him of being smug and boastful.


"The French people, bereft of much in the way of natural resources to exploit for their energy needs, get about 80 per cent of their electricity from nuclear power"

"...bereft of much in the way of natural resources..."

Have you not got it yet?

France does not have quarter of Europe's wind and tidal energy potential.


"The French government's belief that nuclear power is not only safe, but also necessary"

What else could they say to the French public?

"It's not safe but, the alternative is to import from England, Germany, Spain...or Belgium".

Perhaps once there is a North Sea energy grid, and competition is enforced, Scotland will offer France s reasonably priced alternative.

Oh, and the French still don't know entirely what to do with the waste, either.
7

GlenB,

17/04/2009 08:51:37
#6 "Oh, and the French still don't know entirely what to do with the waste, either."

But they know what to do with their excess electricity - they export it to UK grid supplying up to about 5% of our needs at times. More than all our renewables I believe.
8

Unimpressed one,

17/04/2009 09:06:07
#6, We've known how to deal with the waste for years. The problem's been the greens ranting every time the solution is mentioned - put it into a big hole. Strangely they have no problem with burying 'dangerous' CO2. Typical hypocrites.
9

Hugo of Garven,

17/04/2009 09:43:32
#8 Unimpressed one

How long has it to last in the hole? Does it need to be shielded to prevent contamination?

10

Unimpressed one,

17/04/2009 12:30:08
#9, Supposedly the process of vitrification i.e. 'glassifying' the waste, should ensure its safe containment for as long as is required for the 'hot' elements to decay. Apparently India leads the way now on this process, which was developed by Sellafield. They plan to bury all their waste using this process. The green luddites here however, will ensure that this solution will never see the light of day.
11

Talorthane,

17/04/2009 13:51:06
#10 Unimpressed One

In this debate, the ludites are not the anti-nuclear lobby.

Things have moved on.

The luddites, now, are those who argue for continued investment in nuclear, at the expense of investment in the newer renewable technologies.
12

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 17/04/2009 14:38:05
#11 - What newer renewable technologies?
13

Hugo of Garven,

17/04/2009 20:19:56
#10 Unimpressed One

Supposedly the process of vitrification i.e. 'glassifying' the waste, should ensure its safe containment for as long as is required for the 'hot' elements to decay.

You are obviously not aware that tests have shown that vitrification leaches the waste material much sooner than expected. (Search on the New Scientist.)

Would you agree that some radio-active waste has to be stored for thousands of years?



14

Colin, Glasgow,

18/04/2009 13:03:10
Talorthane #11

I hate to inject a note of reality, but absolutely nobody, not even Greenpeace, is proposing an all-renewable solution in our lifetime.

The choice is not between nuclear or renewables. It is a choice between nuclear+renewables + less fossil fuel; or just renewables + more fossil fuel. If you use renewables to displace nuclear, you end up burning more fossil fuel. It is that simple.

(In the case of Greenpeace, their preference is to deploy gas-fired plant, even though it produces about 40 times as much CO2 as nuclear, and causes significantly more harm to health and the environment.)

Moreover, if you deploy intermittent renewables beyond a certain point (around 25% of electricity demand) it actually encourages the deployment of more fossil fuel plant as back for the renewables, in preference to low-carbon nuclear, resulting in higher emissions.

The anti-nuclear stance of the Scottish Government means that the main contender for replacing Hunterston is now a new coal fired powerstation. There is no possibility that renewables can replace both nuclear and fossil fuel plant in any reasonable timeframe.

A solution that includes nuclear is unquestionably better for the environment. It does not cause any significant pollution because the waste is managed and sequestered away from the biosphere. Even if it was dumped in the sea or scattered to the four winds it would cause less harm than the current generation of coal plant. But the fact that the waste will be disposed of in a highly engineered deep repository, which is designed to be a hundred times safer than natural background radiation levels at the surface for the next million years, means that the environmental impact is non-existent.

And since nuclear is one of the cheapest low-carbon options available, it leaves more money to subsidise renewables and carbon capture.

 

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.