Don't believe them, and I'm sure Scottweb has some interesting video clips to back up that statement!!!!

It makes renewables look very much more attractive - and dependable!

Who said wind power was intermittent?

Comment@1 :)

Mind you if you think about it, you don't need a vid to work out this one.......someones pulling an Enron Special AKA The California power outage/shortage = Energy prices stay high:)

The problem of cracks in the boiler pipework and the cooling gas circulators at Hunterston have been known about for a long time. Repairs were first done to the pipework more than fifteen years ago, when the "in-vessel" work done was pioneering and rectified an on-going problem which is due to heat not radiation. There have been problems at Longannet with their boiler pipework so do we close down the fossil fuel stations too. Materials can only take the temperatures required to produce the high pressure steam required to turn turbines for so long no matter how the heat is produced. Repairs are done to every bit of mechanical equipment in the world, why not Nuclear reactors ? It's been proved that this work can be done safely (how many hazardous releases have there been at Hunterston since the repairs were started ?)and that the repairs last a considerable time. Repair the reactors, at least that would keep our lights on untill something is decided about replacements.

"Scotland has a significant surplus of electricity generation - exporting in the region of Hunterston's total generation to England every year".

This, of course, means that we can manage fine without Hunterston, despite that numpty Brian Wilson saying "it will certainly leave Scotland with an energy gap and the likelihood is we will end up importing electricity from England". This is obviously another lie from the numpty New Labour types.

The fact that there may not be enough to export to, as #4 put it, "the great unwashed of the South East", is tough. They can build their own nuclear power stations, preferably in and around London.

BUT.......if you DID want to see a vid on the subject....i would recommend......Eron....The Smartest Guys in The Room.
Heres a interview with the director, well worth viewing :) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=71793294789985331...

.....demand = profit for power generators.

Reducing demand will fill the gap.

GET ALL THOSE APPLIANCES ON STAND-BY SWITCHED OFF NOW!

#9 Ah, happy days, Wasnt it great to see the Republicans such as Dick Cheney distance themselves from one of their major sponsors, when it went tits up.

As the running joke at the time said, the Iraq war was codenamed 'Operation keep Enron off the front page'.

#9: I would recommend everyone see the entire "Enron" film. It's an eye opener, that's for sure. It's a little much for scottweb to be putting up online, so go take a gander at the real thing everyone.

Rather rich of some people to blame the SNP for inheriting a mess that they (SNP) were warning everyone about for years.

Just exactly where did "consultant" Brian Wilson get his degree in nuclear engineering? Or energy economics?

#13 Wasn't he MP for the area? Isn't that all the qualification he needs to spout his usual "truths".

Go away Brian Wilson - personally, I'd rather sit in the dark than have nukes.
You and your nuclear chums have STILL not solved the problem of what to do with the waste.
Nor will you - it just doesn't go away.

These power stations are not safe, and British Energy isn't to be trusted.

#8 Guga - spot on!

"In terms of installed energy capacity, renewables are on the point of overtaking nuclear"
What renewables would they be?

Yes, these are man-made machines, supervised by computers and people. They do have problems from time-to-time and it appears that (unlike Chernobyl) the correct actions were taken in each instnce cited above. What's the problem? Nuclear remains the best, safest, cleanest, most relaible sourse of power out there. While rading this post one or two people died in the production of fossil fuel and/or from the effects of pollution from same. Whci hwould you prefer. Or, do you prefer and landscape covered with windmills? How many people in Scotland have died in the commercial production of electical power by means of nuclear fuel?

13 and 14 re Brian Wilson. I live in North Ayrshsire and the much reviled Brian Wilson, the former Labour Energy Minister, among other things, is the UK Chairman of Airtricity, the much hated company Airtricity. Airtricity is responsible for the fiasco of the wind farm at the Braes of Doune wind "farm" the Braes of Doune windfarm on the edge of the Trossachs and Lomond National Park which is now visible from the A9 road to the Highlands and from 30 miles in all directions. The waters of Ardoch Burn has run filthy ever since when it rains.

His company also owns the Ardrossan Wind Farm, which blights the landscape of North Ayrshire, including Cumbrae and Arran.

This man is making big money despoiling our landscape and I am sure he knows as much about nuclear engineering as the average contributor to this site.

He is usually described as former labour energy minister of "private consultant". Let's get it straight reporters he is in the pay of Irish company Aitricity, unpopular in Ireland. He is the UK Chairman.

His former parliamentary assistant, Allan Wilson, the former Minister for Life Long Learning and enterprise (only Labour could have come up with such a title) was kicked out at the last election and replaced by an SNP candidate, who has said
"The SNP is resolutely opposed to the construction of large scale onshore windfarms proposed for areas of natural beauty such as Muirshiel Regional Park.

Let's call Brian Wilson, former Labour Energy Minister doing everything he can to line his own pockets. "Big Player In The Energy Business and Spokesman for Airtricity" Now that is accurate.

Oh look, the lights are still on.

Poor article:-
"Experts last night said the shutdown cast doubt on British Energy's plans to extend the lives of Hunterston B and the company's other nuclear station at Torness, in East Lothian. "
Why does a shutdown at Hunterston cast doubts on Torness?
"BASIC MISTAKES THAT AFFECTED STATIONS
May 2002 "
Only one of the items listed is a "mistake" the rest are faults and acts of god.

Fears for whom?

Guga - get your map out - there are several very close to London, even a nuclear bomb making plant, we dont have the exclusivity on this though why you just want to subject the people of London to them once again exposes you as being more a small minded individual than most. Just as well Engalnd has a surplus of cash instead of electricity to keep Salmond happy isnt it ?
I see an article on Scotland being the worst performing small country in Europe - how about you hop over there and blame London as well but keep it confined to the Scotsman in the cabinet please.

Typical anti-SNP propaganda by the good old Scotsman. See a problem, magnify it, blame the SNP.
Conan, How wrong you are. Cleansest ? Safest ? Yeah sure !

Wind generation is probably the best available renewable at present for the UK. We are fortunate that we live in a maritime climate with lots of wind. Provided the windfarms are all connected to the National Grid they will be able to make a useful contribution. The wind is blowing in some part of the UK most of the time.

No. 25:- Isn't a windmill more old fashioned than nuclear power? It could also be argued that hundreds of windmills across moorland is more unsightly than one nuclear power station. If the wind doesnt blow then windmills arent very reliable. There have not, to my knowledge, been any safety issues with nuclear power in Scotland.

As a scotsman living in England, it saddens me to see so much small-minded pettiness over something that is critically important - Guga, the "great unwashed of the south-east" have already built manys a nuclear power plant around London - they are humming away as I type, no doubt - get your facts right, ignorance aint cool! For Scotland to think she can rely on renewables solely is policitcally motivated and plain daft...

lets forget for one miniute about the loss of energy , what about the danger to human life and to the invironment, as far as the loss of energy production, we export more power than we use it is always been the same,as we produce more than we use ,so forget the idea that we will not be able to boil our kettles,

So this shows Scotland needs new generation capacity. It does NOT show it should be nuclear, in fact, it shows the problems of nuclear.

Putting pressure on the SNP here is no bad thing in my view. However it can be said that any urgency in sorting out energy shortfalls which need > 10 year lead times can only be the fault and responsibility of the previous government. I believe they used to be a major political force in Scotland - Nuke Labour I think they were called.

Based on findings by the Royal Society in Edinburgh amongst others it is strongly recommended that in the short term we need to keep a mix of energy sources while investing in new areas from renewables to carbon sequestration. I believe the SNP has a strong goal but we need to have all eventualities covered.

If ever there was something that needed depoliticizing its Energy generation. Many experts recommend a hands off expert body from different backgrounds to drive energy policy and investment.
Scotland is potentially super rich in Energy, creating a situation where we could be in shortfall is gorss mismanagement on a huge scale.

Labour have started us down that road already through lack of investment. Now the SNP and greens are gambling over the nuclear issue. Dont get me wrong, I think that the SNP has the most balanced policy and a strong focus on future investment. However their stance on No Nuclear prior to having all the bases well and truly covered is a big gamble and this is not a subject to be gambling with.

Rather than any U-turns the SNP should follow their policy style elsewhere eg transport and look at expert opinion and latest info as a means to taking prudent decisions. If the experts say we still need some limited Nuclear in the short term then the SNP should follow those recommendations while keeping its stance of phasing out Nuclear asap. ASAP is not now.

We are living in the 21st Century but some of the people posting on this board have their heads stuck in the 13th Century. The idea that Scotland, England and Wales have SEPARATE generating systems is a profound error. The entire UK system is ONE SYSTEM and it is connected to Europe as well - so energy shuttles back and forward across the web all the time.
The nationalists sadly see things through a narrow visor and just can't get their heads around the idea that economically, financially, energy-wise and in a thousand other ways - the UK is one set of islands with one economy and one power system.

With oil in decline and the Russians choking Europe's gas supply - coal and nuclear are the two big foundations of future energy supply. Hydroelectric is probably the next best dependable supply - as long as it keeps raining; wind is just not practical except as a top-up and intermittent supply.

There is no alternative to nuclear in the short term - the best hope we have is fusion but that is going to take another century.

Scotland has only about 6 major power stations, several of which will close in a few years time.
When one of them goes offline as has happened here it is a serious business. Scotland will have to import power from England if something is not done soon to plan and build new generators.

And from the Scotsman aswell

http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=912342007#new

An excellent point Tweedmouth but I'm afraid it wont wash with the protectionist, isolationist posters on here.Confrontation is their sole agenda.

32. It is generally accepted around the world that wind can contribute around 20% without extra backup (all types of generation need backup as all types can fail, as above).
When hydrogen storage systems are fully developed which will happen soon then the backup problems go away.

#35
Nothing protectionist of having the following
goal...

1) reduction of individual and corporate consumption

2) The phaseing out/in of renewables to replace 'conventional' systems.

The difference is that Scotland is potentially renewables rich, it's all about the future, not the past.

The voice of vested interest speaks loudest, those of 'nuclear' being the loudest, unfortunately because of ideology more than any other reason.

We could go crazy and stop exporting energy to england. If hunterston goes thats roughly 20% energy down we export 20% of our energy (which costs us more than england for some obscure reason) problem solved. If it is true that wind can generate 20% that would give us what we need once the other powerstation closes. England can build their own station since it is them that needs the energy and they can stop moaning about it.

#24 - Cleansest ? Safest ? Yes! By far.

Again, I ask you, open your minds cemented with anti-nuclear orthodoxy ..... how many have died as a result of the commercial production of electical power by means of nuclear fuel in Scotland? Compare that with coal, oil or even natural gas before even considering the environmental issues.

#16 Good point Fred, read the weasel words again:
"In terms of installed energy capacity, renewables are on the point of overtaking nuclear"

When they say “installed energy capacity” they mean the max output on the nameplate, not the actual amount generated. Given the capacity factor of new wind is about 30% and the capacity factor for old nuclear is at least 70%, Torness on its own generates more electricity that these renewables.

Renewables are nowhere close to generating enough electricity to replace nuclear, and even if they were, they would not be saving any CO2 emissions by replacing nuclear. The only mature low-carbon solution we have for replacing old nuclear base-load is new nuclear. It’s certainly worth looking at alternatives such as carbon capture and tidal, but another generation of nuclear would be the low risk option. The reasons for doing otherwise are political, as I think this discussion makes clear.

#4

I have read that the (Quote) "great unwashed of the south east(and yes I do mean of England!)" get a large amount of their power from over the Channel in France - and yes it is probably nuclear and provided by a slightly less xenophobic and cooperative nation than the one that you seem to come from....
This small minded pettyness really should have been over years ago and for the majority of Scots it is - it is just people like you who give the rest of us a bad name....

#41 they'll be saying the oil is ours next !

7

How many releases have their been under any circumstances is the question which concerns me more,and how does that compare to the published figures!
For many years Dounreay was given a clean bill of health,when in fact there have been hundreds of incidents which were buried as "not in the public interest".Thats hardly reassuring is it?
The truth is if there were saftey concerns we would be the last to hear about it.
We will never solve the problem of burying the waste in any case.Some argue that buried deep under ground solves this problem Any seismic activity throws that argument back into the dustbin it came out of. The United KIngdom may have a high density population and a higher than average power consumption than she is capable of generating,but the same is NOT true of Scotland.WE do not have a shortage and have no need for nuclear generation.
England does ,especially the South.If they want it they can generate it and store their own waste .
I do not have an internal need for nuclear,so I do not want it.
We were told it was cheaper FALSE
We were told it was cleaner/green FALSE
We were told it was safe FALSE
What makes you think they will now tell you the truth?They have never done so in the past!

So apart from constant leakage of radioactive particles, cancer in kids and the ever-present threat of meltdown, nuclear is reborn as a shiny new "clean" solution?!!! Don't believe it.

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12578&chan...

Yes very clean, I know lets bury it deep down in the earth and forget all about it..what do we care as we wont be around in the years to come. Who cares if the planet turns into a festering boil eh?

Corbett old bean you have returned to the fold!

42
I am presuming that was said tongue in cheek.However ,in the unlikely event that you really meant what you posted,for the record Westminster divided the North Sea into Scottish and English sectors and all of the oil taxes would accrue to Scotland ,and thats pretty certain,and has been checked a number of times.The SNP made that claim based upon sound legal principles, and the findings of the McCrone report confirm exactly that position.
The Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Order around 1968 is an act of Westminster ,and it would be difficult to contest the legitimacy of an act you yourself created! (no doubt they will try anyway)
The oil would belong to oil companies as the Labour Party often told you, but the billions in revenues would belong to an independent Scotland government,something which the Labour party was a lot less enthusiastic about telling you of course.

We were conned is the plain simple truth.Some of us still have not twigged.
I cannot quite make up my mind which camp you fall into.

Now would be a good time for the SNP led Executive to seriously consider the building of the causeway/tidal power station solution for the Forth bridge replacement.

32. Tweedmouth. You make some interesting points but I am afraid you are in error in some of your statements:
"The entire UK system is ONE SYSTEM and it is connected to Europe as well - so energy shuttles back and forward across the web all the time."

Wrong - The UK (but really the south east) Imports from France. There is no 'connected to Europe'. I believe France exports power to the South East are >> 95% of the total. So please forget the simplistic notion that the UK exports to Europe. France however exports to all its neighbours. Yes it is currently 70% Nuclear but they are trying very hard do reduce their fission dependency.

"The UK is one set of islands with one economy and one power system."
There is one large grid electricity transfer network
. Transport and production are 2 separate entities. There are many energy sources and these are quantified by country. Scottish energy production generates a net export to England and Ireland. England imports from its neighbours. Sorry.

"Russians choking Europe's gas supply"
This is largely not relevant to the UK more for central Europe. The Dti latest figures for estimated Gas reserves around the UK are enormous. I say UK but of course >90% of proven, probable and possible resources are in Scottish territory ;)
http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/...

Good point #41, and #39 you've asked a very valid question twice now and no response (although I'm surprised that Guga hasn't chipped in again to call everyone a Numpty!). Oh, and Nell from Falkirk, you're obviously IN the dark so no surprise that you're happy to sit in it!

Now come on everyone, answer #39, how many injuries or deaths have been caused by Scotland's nuclear power stations ?

A single new, safe, clean, nuclear power station is the obvious answer to Scotland's looming energy crisis. Operational safety must, of course, be the paramount concern but nuclear clearly is the best environmental option, and the most efficient in generation.

I am just so thankful that I count as my very good friends some Scots, for if I judged the Scots on the ignoramous that post on here, my opinion of them would be zilch.
And if the types such as Guga are typical of the SNP then the sooner the Union is dissolved the better.
Liz thank you , you are like the people from Scotland that I know,

I despair of reading any sensible reporting on this subject. The article is full of arrant nonsense and most of the quotations are not from objective analysis but interested parties.

All of Britain plus France and others are on the same grid. A single market exists so that any provider can provide watts at a going rate that varies round the clock and against a futures market. No single power station outage can lead to "shortfalls" - it is pure mendacity to suggest so.

Equally risible is the suggestion that renewables can take over from nuclear. Renewables are not correlated with demand, cannot supply base load and are nowhere near as green as claimed.

A sensible and considered energy policy must have and will have, (just watch if you are a zealot), a mix of fossil, nuclear, hydro-storage & renewables.

To imagine that for tree-hugging nonsense reasons we should expose ourselves to volatility of oil/gas/coal supply or cover the land with teletubby structures for ever more marginal contributions is folly.

I support the SNP AND the maintenance of Torness & refurb/replace of HuntB. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I don't have to agree with all your policies.

And Alex, though you have the loan of my vote, we all know Torness is there past your dotage and Hunterston good to go at least as long as the Holyrood after next. You can't have the cake of opposition to nuclear without eating the reality of power planning, security of supply and pragmatism.

No matter what Scotland decides, there will be French amps in our wires that pulsed from a machine turned by steam, made by heat from fission.

Such enthusiasm as politicians have for nuclear should be directed at the real challenges of waste management, regulation, safety and true cost accounting for this necessary and enduring technology.

The safety officer, Mr. H. Simpson was said to be relieved as a meltdown would have spoilt his lunchbreak.

8# You are right.
26# You are oh so wrong.

Scotland has in the region of five or six Hydro plants. ALL running at reduced capacity to earn grants from the EU. Now correct me if I am wrong ( I know I'm not) should all the neclear power stations close there is still sufficient power generation available ( with a new Hydro online next year to add to the list) to keep our lights on and still export South. Labour are like little kids still trying to get their ball back. Grow up and get back to work and help make Scotland a great country. Something you have failed to make happen over the last century.

Sorry that should read DECADE!! Doh!!

Guga II mentions the Executives cheerful explanation that the electricity sold to England is "in the region of Hunterston's total generation". Region mean sometimes it is higher & sometimes it is a dead match & sometimes it is lower. Which is another way of saying we will have a shortage a bit less than 50% of the time after Hunterston closes. Following that we are going to have to close coal plants as new EU emission standards come in & then will have lost 50% of our electricity when Torness closes. Brian Wilson is optimistic in thinking we can depend on England's electricity. England is already depending of French nuclear & will face shortages of their own. They are unlikely to put a Scotland which refuses to do our best to produce electricity before themselves.

Finally what this accident proves is that Hunterston is getting old. The happy assumption by the SNP & Greens that the life of Hunterston can be extended until something turns up is clearly wrong. It is a paradoxical assumption since for anybody who claims to believe that nuclear is dangerous & the LudDims can be congratulated for consistency if not intelligence, in insisting that Hunterston must close in 2011 whatever the consequences. Christmas 2011 will not be merry.

53. Please post your sources of information and/or calculations.

4 minutes of enlightenment :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRJm3qH9AjA

#13 - exactly, what makes the poisoned dwarf Brian Wilson a nuke expert?! Talking of hypocrisy, how about an ex-nationalist and Labour 'Free Press' socialist now working as a mouthpiece for the sinsiter nuclear industry?

More proof that nuclear is dangerous as well as expensive.

This is a classic example of the reason why we should have continued to invest in the nuclear program.

I see Fred Bloggs the turbinator is still hard at work trying to convince us that on-shore wind power is a good idea. it is not. It does not compare with off-shore or tidal. However, it makes greater profits because it is cheaper to get up and running.

Brian Wilson is the Uk chairman of Airtricity

http://www.airtricity.com/scotland/

Obviously a man with vested interest in the whole energy business

I wonder if Alan Wilson his former parliamentary agent and former MSP for North Ayrshire will fetch up working in the energy industry.

New Labour new con.

53. According to the Royal Society of Edinburgh report the margin in installed capacity in Scotland was down to about 20% in 2006 and was predicted by the National Grid to vanish within ten years, i.e. there will be electricity rationing by 2015 unless significant new generating capacity is installed. They state that the Executive needs to make decisions about new capacity by mid-2007.

60. 'I see Fred Bloggs the turbinator is still hard at work trying to convince us that on-shore wind power is a good idea. it is not. It does not compare with off-shore or tidal. However, it makes greater profits because it is cheaper to get up and running.'

Your last sentence makes a better case for wind than I could myself.

Off-shore wind is much more expensive. Tidal is not commercial yet.

What a lot of fuss over a minor control malfunction. All types of equipment and process plant are monitored by various systems which can and do frequently malfunction. When did you last have a flight delayed because the aircraft had a "technical fault". It happens all the time, but do we hear calls for all aircraft production to cease in favour of everyone taking to bicycles and sailing ships? Why not? A plane crash is almost bound to kill hundreds of people. Yet we trust the aircraft engineers when they tell us the monitoring systems picked up the fault before it became a danger, but for some reason when monitoring picks up a faulty temperature controller at a power plant nobody (other than me and Conan) seems able so keep a sensible perspective and we get these Apocalyptic headlines and irrational near panic.

It does seem that onshore wind is cheap & reliable compared to wave & tidal which is, after all, why our renewabilist governement went for it in the firsts place.

It is merely that it is expensive (twice the price) & unreliable compared to conventional power, which in turn is expensive (again twice the price) compared to new nuclear.

As 53 has failed to come up with any figures, here is the situation:
Cockenzie, coal, closing 2010;
Hunterston, nuclear, closing 2011;
Longannet, coal, closing 2020;
Peterhead, gas, closing 2025;
Torness, nuclear, closing 2023.

p.s. the Royal Society of Edinburgh has stated that the Executive needs to make decisions on new generation by mid-2007.

This just proves how essential it is to start planning and constructing the next generation of nuclear power stations. Also, I now realise why the Sentimental Nonsense Party want to scrap the trams - they know there will be no electricity to run them!!!!

the sooner replacement reactors are built the better. IMO

Scotland should not opt itself out of the nuclear research/technology field ESPECIALLY if we go independent.

You have to wonder what planet Duncan McLaren lives on if he really believes that renewables(read wind) will fill any gap if Hunterston shuts down. His grossly ill informed greenspin simply does not wash.
I would not be in the least surprised to find that FOE receive substantial donations from the wind industry - suatably laundered first of course.
As for the comments from the Scottish Executive spokesman, you can't believe a word of it as it is common knowledge that they are fully paid up members of the wind industry and have been for some time.
You don't hear any of them telling you how much less coal has been burned at Longannet or Cockenzie bexause of wind turbines or how much steam has been vented off by the nukes when the wind is blowing.

I really am sick and tired of all the scare mongering that goes on from the opposition parties, particularly Labour, I refer to the nonsense spouted from the lips of Brian Wilson who claims that the likelihood will be that we will have to 'export electricity from England'. It’s plain to see that these mere puppets of London are clutching at straws now! Am I alone in thinking that for the first time in our history there seems to be a confidence running through the nations veins? Additionally, for the first time it feels like things are actually being done and not just being talked about being done. There is only one direction that this country is heading in now and that's towards independence. And, when that happens Labour may actually become a credible oppostion, particularly when they air there own views and not that of London's - Once they start believing in what they saying the voter might too!

#72 "Am I alone in thinking that for the first time in our history there seems to be a confidence running through the nations veins? Additionally, for the first time it feels like things are actually being done and not just being talked about being done. There is only one direction that this country is heading in now and that's towards independence."

check out the business section - bottom again, i fear independence if thats anything to go by.

And why do you keep saying "london" "westminster" - its dominated by Scottish MP's WE voted in, and the worst is yet to come ! A Scottish seated PM !! Good God, we cant blame the English for that !

Colin #40, "the capacity factor for old nuclear is at least 70%"

I agree with your take on the ridiculous Green Energy Day, but this seems like an odd place to trumpet the reliability of old nuclear. What's the capacity factor of Hunterston been over the past year?

Which, Homer, is an extremely good argumant for replacing it with something new. Hunterston, at its worst, has a capacity factor far better than most 40 year old cars but that is not an argument for not having new cars.

Nik Nak self confidence is all very well but you say nothing about where we are to get the electricity. There are occasions where the triumph of will power can achieve much but it cannot power one electric light bulb for even a second. Face reality.

The real solution ( which is not currently politically desireable ) is to build a new unit on the same site if feasible . The greens are going to have to realize that the overall impact of nuclear is manageable . Wind power is a large blight on the landscape for equivalent power - unless sited far at sea so as to be unobtrusive .

I have done vessel entries at Hunterston 5 years running during outages,not a very comfortible job,but the saftey and monitering is exellent.Health Physics and medical checks are first class.This was only a slight "Hicup" which was well under control.
I object to pontificating "theorists" who have never worked in that enviorment spouting of about things they no "Bog All"about.

#75 Are they serious about having a “Green Energy Day”? It would be a fantastic opportunity to analyse the facts. It’ll do wonders for the case for new nuclear.

Neil#76, I'm hardly anti-nuclear - I'm a safety inspector at Springfield power station!

Seriously though, I'm agnostic towards new nuclear power. It just amuses me how another unplanned shutdown at Hunterston can be used as an argument in favour of more nukes. It makes me wonder exactly what kind of "event" would cause proponents to question the case for nuclear new build.

Colin#79, "Are they serious about having a “Green Energy Day”?"

Apparently so. I'll join you in a chorus of derision (though I might be singing a different part).

Scottish Executive spokesman: 'We look forward to celebrating Green Energy Day in the very near future when renewables exceed nuclear'.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order; nuclear is only 24% even with Hunterston in operation and hydro alone is 19% leaving coal, oil and gas at 50%.
So, when Salmond declares 'Green Energy Day' fossil fuel will still dominate!

81. Figures are for installed capacity.

81 If the spokesperson had said 'We look forward to celebrating Green Energy Day in the very near future when renewables exceed fossil fuels' you might have a point.

As it is, you don't.

73 Dingbat - that is WHY the SNP were voted in.

That's where the Union has got us - bottom of the pile.

Things can only get better.....

Wherryman

"A Scottish seated PM !! Good God, we cant blame the English for that !"

If they could do they would do..... :)

Miss H @ 84

"Things can only get better....."

Gracious .... not that song again please.... haven't we heard that somewhere before?

"And worse I may be yet: the worst is not
So long as we can say 'This is the worst'."

It's clear from all the comments here that nobody really understands what they are talking about.
Can somebody please explain how nuclear energy works? explain nuclear fission to me and the risks involved, explain exactly what happens when fission takes place and what effects stray neutron have on the human body.

Only then will i respect what you people are saying cos it's clear that very few if any of the people here REALLY understand what they are talking about.

83. Miss H:
So, fossil fuels are GREEN?????????
And the sky isn't blue and grass isn't green and.......

In the USA nobody i sbuilding nuclear power plants becuase the government is nto willing to underwrite the cost of stroring the waste or the insurance against catastrophic accidents.

Over here the government is happy to eat the cost of decommissioning.

They once said nuclear power was to cheap to meter but the truth is it is too expensive to bury the waste.

You people are just jumping on the band wagon saying "no genie in a box in scotland!" without really knowing what this "genie" your afraid of is.

The north of scotland would be an economic black spot without Dounreay......

I don't know what drugs Jimmy Neutron is on but please can I have some!!!
Nuclear physics has diddly squat to do with producing electricity because the bottom line is that a nuclear reactor is just a big kettle which produces steam to drive a turbine, as is a coal fired boiler such as at Longannet.
The big scam that the greenies would have you believe is that they are shut down when wind power is used - They are not the excess steam is simply vented off.
These photographs they keep showing to demonstrate nasty nukes polluting the atmosphere are the cooling towers and what is coming out of them is simply steam.
Keep taking the pills Jimmy !

You people are just saying "dunno what it is but we don't want it"
How can you be afraid of a genie in a box, if you don't really know what this genie does?

Homer 80 the point is that if we are going to ned nuclear then far better to have a modern system than an aging one, not merely from safety reasons but even running costs. For the anti-tech crowd to accept extending Hunterston is an implict acknowledgement that they are not honestly worried about safety & that they know that, whatever the hype, windmills aren't going to cut it.

Jimmy 88 if you were honestly looking for information you could find thousands on Google rather than asking commenters here to type out a 200 page technical manual for you here. I assume, on the principles you choose, you will not wish anybody to believe you capable of posting anything here until you have posted a similar length exposition of how the internet works.

I must admit that while I could make a stab at explaining nuclear reactors, even to you, I don't think I could do the same for the internet - but I can manage a keyboard.

it's clear from your comments nabodican that you don't understand either?

I rest my case........

20 years in the nuclear industry tought me a thing or two.......

Maybe it did Jimmy but one thing it didn't teach you was spelling...........

Wind opponents like Neil9% keep claiming that wind requires 100% backup. This is not so. For example a recent US report explains:
'Although some wind opponents
have claimed that each MW
of wind added to the system requires
a MW of new fossil backup, the Minnesota
study revealed that 1,500 MW
of new wind would only require 7.8
MW of new backup power.'

I think the point is Fred that backup is required full stop. Therefore new power plants will still have to be built regardless. That much, I'm sure, you will understand, no?

No 99 - that is not my point. Many sources of electricity considered highly reliable suffer from unexpected outages: for
instance nuclear reactors and coal plants that shut down, often at short notice, for safety repairs
or maintenance. Yet no one proposes to back up a coal or nuclear power plant with a similar
amount of dedicated generation from another plant. The reality is that wind energy is naturally
variable, but not unreliable. Wind farms are built in windy areas, and seasonal and daily wind
generation patterns can be anticipated. Power grids in Europe operate with 10-15% or more of their power coming from wind, without
increased reliability problems or need for additional back-up power plants. And in contrast to
conventional power plants, wind farms need not shut down altogether for maintenance and
repairs—a turbine fault, when it occurs, can be repaired while the other turbines continue to operate

I obviously haven't read the report let alone knowing whether it comes from an impartial source but my off the cuff guess would be that it doesn't. If it is possible to work, in normal circumstances, with only 0.005 backup this suggests that Minnesota winds never vary by more than 0.1 mph. This seems improbable.

The fact is that winds vary a lot between zero (where you get zero power) & above 30mph (where you get zero power). I have seen many supporters quoting other supporters often quoting other supporters on how windmills not producing any electricity will still allow electricity to be produced when there is no backup. However I have never seen any supporter explain how this works & would rather like to before we get the visual demonstration in 2011.

Fred

Your assertion is just that, only an assertion. Where is the proof of your statement?

For example, I will make the assertion that cold nuclear fusion is safe, reliable and produces an abundance of cheap, clean power. Prove me wrong.

What are the "at least 20 different sources of green energy" Rules as a matter of interest?

101.

Neil, from here it looks to me like some of the turbines
(there's about a dozen in all) are going faster than others, and some are stopped altogether.

So, I guess they are still generating something whatever the wind condition, as all of the turbines are obviously recieving variable wind currents.

Answer you concerns?

The blades may be turning Donnchadh but the turbine may be disengaged by way of a clutch because there isn't enough wind to deal with the load on the generator.

You do know how a turbine works aye? And that just because the blades may be turning, it does not mean it's producing electricity.

aha... didn't know that there was a threshold...

obvious now you've pointed it out though. I guess
that is one good argument for not putting all the
turbines in one place...

You on Lewis b.t.w?

I am indeed Donnchadh so have a fairly good insight into the whole thing.

I truely deeply wish that they worked as well as we are being lead to believe but I do not understand why we should site one of Europes largest wind farm so far away from the main population. The extra wind we have up here is offset by the extra attentuation from running the electricity back down to the main populations.

I would guess given the variability in wind conditions in
this one glen, overall a widespread wind turbine
system would actually be highly robust.

Less likely to have to shut them down and run like hell
anyhow :-)

#104 good point Rennie, point of use would be more efficient with only what's generated being used.

What happens, though, during calm nights after the Sun's gone down? Hydro-electric to make up the base load shortfall?

Personally I think dynamoed bicycles in the living room, connected to the 'in-house supply' whilst everyone watches Corrie, would do wonders to keep our inactive nation a bit more healthy....!

I agree with you about Lewis. I would be perfectly
happy to see more on the hills of Easter Ross, and
leave the West wild. I travel around Scotland enough
to see it all as my backyard.

The pentlands or the moorfoots or the campsies would
make more sense though, I would have thought. How
about Arthurs Seat?

101. I though my post at 100 was self-explanatory. However here is another go with a direct quote as to how the grid works, irrespective of the generation source:

When many power stations are feeding into a grid, the most efficient (and cheapest) stations can be chosen to produce electricity first and only the more expensive plant used when necessary. This lowers overall costs.

Backup capacity (known as spinning reserve) can be made available at power stations to provide 'cover' for sudden faults at other stations. Generators occasionally fail because of their operation at high levels of thermal, mechanical and electrical stress. The availability of backup capacity improves the overall reliability of the electricity system.

Nothing you ever write is self explanaory Fred. It's usually conjecture mixed with poor unreliable facts from t'internet.

I think cold nuclear fusion is a better idea and will work better than wind turbines.

Oh yes, I will add that not only is it conjecture mixed with poor unreliable t'internet facts but also baseless assertions, myths and probably made up facts.

Cold fusion is a con.

http://www.xxtensions.com/x10d.htm

Lets not pin our hopes on something that hasn't yet been fully discovered!

#110, "The extra wind we have up here is offset by the extra attenuation from running the electricity back down to the main populations."

That's interesting - what's your source?

It's good to know that the part-time head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority found time in her two day week to turn off the taps at Hunterston. The Lassie concerned with that onerous task, Barbara Judge, having many more important and wide ranging commitments that demand her time! Maybe the SNP have a point in not entrusting future energy supplies to the sort of people whose qualification for atomic management is based on a perusal of their son's physics books! However, within the coastline of Scotland resides enough tidal energy to supply all the power needed not only north of the border but also for all the Sassanachs and Taffies to the south! It only needs central government planning and financing to set the process in motion and Scotland could be the powerhouse of the British Isles without destroying her landscape with atomic plants and windfarms! Perhaps the Scots can show us the way?

It's good to know that the part-time head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority found time in her two day week to turn off the taps at Hunterston. The Lassie concerned with that onerous task, Barbara Judge, having many more important and wide ranging commitments that demand her time! Maybe the SNP have a point in not entrusting future energy supplies to the sort of people whose qualification for atomic management is based on a perusal of their son's physics books! However, within the coastline of Scotland resides enough tidal energy to supply all the power needed not only north of the border but also for all the Sassanachs and Taffies to the south! It only needs central government planning and financing to set the process in motion and Scotland could be the powerhouse of the British Isles without destroying her landscape with atomic plants and windfarms! Perhaps the Scots can show us the way?

Ralph, what's UKAEA got to do with Hunterston?

Nuclear is by far and wide the most efficeint energy source known to man, but like everything it has it's problems.

The biggest one being WASTE i mean man has discovered an energy source that is so powerful it's still producing energy up to 100,000 years later!
I honestly believe far more research into ways of dealing with this should be done.

Man can start this reaction but unfortunately cannot stop it, if we could "Neutralise" this waste we have cracked it!

Would bring the cost of nuclear through the floor, making it so safe it could be used for transport, cars, boats, home reactors etc etc.

In the mean time all we can do is store it, but like every other force known to man there is an equal but opposite force, so why not for nuclear?

Magnetism, Acid, Electricity can all be absorbed and neutralised.

Think about it, there is nothing like it on earth.....

#88 Jimmy, you'll find a hundred explanations of nuclear fission on the web. The second part of your question is more interesting: "what effects do stray neutrons have on the human body".

Firstly, most people will never be exposed to neutron radiation. You are far more likely to encounter gamma radiation or x-rays in everyday life. If you are exposed to neutron radiation then you are probably standing in the wrong place: next to an unshielded reactor core; beside a nuclear explosion; next to a critical mass of fissile material; or possibly in front of a specially made beryllium neutron source.

That said, all types of ionising radiation will affect you more-or-less in the same way. The particle/ray/neutron passes though you, possibly hitting an atom in your body on the way through. If it hits something, it's most likely to be a water molecule. As a result the water molecule can be ionised and will produce free radicals such as hydroxyl radicals. The free radicals and their derivatives will possibly attack DNA in a cell. Consequently the DNA can be damaged. If damaged DNA is repaired imperfectly this can introduce a mutation and consequently a cancer risk. (Note, thousands of DNA damage events happen in every cell of your body every hour of every day, most of them are not related to radiation, and nearly all are repaired perfectly.)

The long term cancer mortality risk from ionising radiation is approximately 5% per 1000mSv effective dose. For comparison, world average background radiation dose is about 2.4mSv per year or 200mSv per lifetime. The highest natural background dose is about 240mSv per year found in Ramsar. The highest excess dose to the general population around Chernobyl was about 200mSv. The Chernobyl emergency workers who put out the fire in the open reactor core received doses of several thousand mSv. Anything above 1000mSv causes radiation sickness if received in a short space of time, and at 4500mSv the radiation sick

#124, Ralph - My goodness! You don't like Ms. Judge very much, do you/ Is she your 'ex', or what?
I think my dog is looking for you. Every time someone comes near the property he runs out shouting, "Ralph! Ralph! . . .Ralph! Ralph! Ralph!

Just shows, that it's time to put our energy and money into renewables.
Those, who think it being an easy and quick solution to go for nuclear, ....it isn't...there are long term implications, never mind any health risks.

Having worked at Torness for 20 years we should have no safety fears.
The industry is heavily regulated and our reactors are safe.
The manual shutdown of a reactor is a common practice and was done because an indication showed a temperature fault. The regulations are clear, if an anomily is found, shut the reactor down and investigate the fault.
The fault will be investigated and repaired and the reactor returned to sevice with the approval of the nuclear inspectorate.
The actions taken cost the comany thousands per day but to run safely this is what the nuclear industry do.
With respect to Douneray this was run by a government compant UKAEA as an experiment as was Sellafield. Experiments go wrong as these plants proved it

Well Sius tell that to Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen. He said on the BBC's "energy debate that "Nuclear is the easy answer" & then went on to explain that it had to be stopped because otherwise the people would never put up with all the subsidies to windmills the LDs wanted. An astonishingly inept admission.

Rules we have discused before & you know that the claim about long term radiation form modern reactors is untrue. Because of the short half lives of reactor waste itv is safe within 50 years & less radioactive thann the ground it was mined form in 500.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

Colin (*127).

What you forgot to mention in your reply to Jimmy N (and what I suspect Jimmy was alluding to in the first place) is that there are three main types of radiation from radioactive nuclei and all three have different effects on the body, none of them beneficial.

Gamma radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation so it is not a particle, but it can penetrate the human skin more effectively than the other forms of radioactivity. As we know from skin cancer caused by the sun's rays, this type of radiation is not harmless.

Beta radiation is made of small particles, electrons, which come from the nucleus. It can penetrate human tissue more effectively than gamma radiation.

Alpha radiation is a "helium nucleus" and is made up of 2 neutrons and 2 protons joined togther; this should not be confused with neutrons alone. The alpha particle can barely penetrate the skin but the harm it can do when ingested into the body was shown by its effects on the Russian dissident Alexander Livinenko who was poisoned by polonium 210 which produces alpha particles.

The problem with nuclear power stations is that they produce waste which is typically composed of a mixture uranium and plutonium. The half life of plutonium-239 is 24,400 years and it produces an alpha particle when it decays. If these particles escape into the environment (and this seems to happen on a regular basis) they get into the food chain and can end up inside our bodies. If this happens they are extremely likely to cause cancer.

The recent CoRWM report on nuclear waste pointed out that uranium and plutonium in spent fuel rods are not technically classed as waste at the moment because the materials could be re-cycled into more nuclear fuel.

Since we don't seem to be doing any new nuclear power stations (in Scotland at any rate) I guess we have to reclassify these materials as waste.

#312 James
Sunlight causes skin cancer due to the UV radiation, not gamma.

When you say beta penetrates human tissue better than gamma, I think you mean it penetrates better than alpha.

You are correct that alpha radiation cannot penetrate skin. And also right about alpha sources being most dangerous if they get inside the body - because all their energy is absorbed in a very small area (whereas gamma would tend to go straight through and hit nothing).

The most likely exposure to alpha radiation would come from the potassium-40, which is found naturally in the human body. The most likely exposure to beta comes from Carbon-14 also found naturally in the body. About a third of your background radiation dose comes from these natural alpha-emitting isotopes inside your body.

Another common source of alpha radiation is radon gas. Radon gas is found in areas where there is a lot of granite, which contains Uranium. As the uranium in the granite decays it forms radon, which seeps out and tends to collect in sheltered spaces, such as houses, and if inhaled it poses a cancer risk. Some geographical areas (like Cornwall and Aberdeen) produce more radon than others - and hence have higher background levels - up to three times the average.

One of the most important factors to be aware of when considering the risks from a radioactive substance is the half-life. The half-life is the time it takes for half of the atoms in the material to decay and release radiation. A long half-life means that less radiation is emitted per unit time. A short half-life means that a lot of radiation is emitted in a short space of time. For example the Polonium-210 that poisoned Litvinenko has a half life of 138 days. Radon-222 has a half-life of 4 days.

It should be clear from this that Plutonium, which as you point out has a half-life of 24,000 years, does not emit much radiation at all compared to these short half-life radionuclides. Polonium-210 gives o

(...continued)
James, can you find me a case of anybody who has ever been killed by Plutonium poisoning? Wikipedia says there have been none. It is true that a very small grain of plutonium could cause cancer if inhaled. But it would have to be a certain size - not too large otherwise it won't lodge in the lung - not too small or it would not be sufficiently harmful. This is not likely to occur except under contrived circumstances. Plutonium that is ingested (rather than inhaled) is likely to be excreted with very little risk.

Plutonium, if treated as radioactive waste, is relatively easy to dispose of. As a solid, buried in clay, submerged 500 meters underground it would not reach the biosphere before it decays to safe levels. It is perfectly feasible to render it safe for a million years (or forever, since it will have decayed by that time).

On the other hand, the World Health Organisation has firmly established that over 300,000 people die prematurely in Europe every year from air pollution cause by fossil fuel. If we used more nuclear and less fossil fuel it would unquestionably save lives.

Thanks Colin, good as ever. I only wish you'd include a few links to further information for the curious.

If anyone's looking for a beginner's guide to radiation, its environmental sources, and its effect on the human body, you can do worse than this paper.
http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?23-01.pdf