Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Call to think small on hydro-power

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.

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: 08 January 2008
ENERGY and environmental experts last night called for further investment in small hydro-electric schemes as Scotland's first large project in the sector in 50 years neared completion.
Workers on the Glendoe project take a break after completing a five-mile tunnel which has taken 15 months to dig with a 220m boring machine Picture: Ian Rutherford
Workers on the Glendoe project take a break after completing a five-mile tunnel which has taken 15 months to dig with a 220m boring machine Picture: Ian Rutherford
The Glendoe project in the Highlands reached a vital stage yesterday, when a 220-metre long boring machine completed a five-mile tunnel workers began digging 15 months ago.

The £140 million project will produce enough energy to power the equivalent number of homes as in Glasgow when completed later this year. However, while campaigners have lauded the scheme's environmental credentials, they believe the future lies in "micro" projects which have less impact than most developments of Glendoe's scale.

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said the Glendoe project, near Fort William, had shown that it was possible to beat the government's renewable energy targets.

But he added: "This is quite likely to be the last big project in Scotland. Those sites that remain are environmentally quite sensitive. There's lots of potential in projects of sub-20 megawatts, a fifth of Glendoe.

"It's a bit more intensive a management process to identify and make use of small sites, but the potential is that over the next ten to 15 years, you could see the equivalent of two to three Glendoes (in small sites]."

Jason Ormiston, chief executive of the Scottish Renewables Forum, said: "Farmers, communities and rural economies will perhaps see the potential of the hydro sector for their own business, or protecting the status of a community on a remote outpost. Opportunities for larger projects aren't there, really."

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Scottish Wildlife Trust said that although the scope for new large-scale hydro projects was likely to be "limited", there was potential in upland areas for smaller schemes which "together could make a real contribution to moving Scotland towards a clean energy future".

Micro projects include those on Eigg, which is set to become powered wholly by renewables following a community buyout.

The calls for more micro projects come as the Forum for Renewable Energy Development in Scotland prepares to report to the Scottish Government on the place hydro-power has in the country's future energy provision.

The forum, which includes government ministers and industry representatives such as Scottish and Southern Energy, ScottishPower, Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Renewables Forum and the STUC, will look at economics, potential, environmental issues and grid connections.

Although it is likely the forum will produce recommendations centred around micro schemes in its conclusions, expected this summer, there is still a chance it may give some credence to larger projects. Such initiatives can be welcomed because of their stability.



The full article contains 445 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

alex patersons analyst,

08/01/2008 00:48:03
Nuclear is the only realistic way forward.

It's clean, quiet and carbon neutral.
2

frank mcbride,

lusitania 08/01/2008 01:16:12
#1, Alex.

It's other advantages are that it can make you very warm - in fact, to the point of vapourisation. It can also make you glow in the dark.

These two attributes make it the only way forward.

I wonder what the eco-wariors/fascists will say to combat the potential, real benefits of nuclear?

God preserve us from those who would protect generations from horrendous debt and indeed from millenia of toxic waste. Do gooders! Stupid, misinformed peasants.
3

,

08/01/2008 01:26:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

The Strategist,

08/01/2008 02:06:11
We've got the entire river system to work with next.
5

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 08/01/2008 02:26:46
"The £140 million project will produce enough energy to power the equivalent number of homes as in Glasgow when completed later this year."

I beg your pardon?
6

,

08/01/2008 02:36:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

williamx,

canada 08/01/2008 05:13:37
Scotland produced 0.2% of world wide carbon dioxide emissions in 2006. Why worry about global warming when Canada, USA , Russia, China and India could not give a damn less and they produced about 90% of the industrial emissions
8

,

08/01/2008 05:45:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Her Majesty Queen Sandra,

08/01/2008 05:47:45
Think small? Or how about think smart? What does it mean? Maybe it means to look at the big picture instead of small aspects that bemuse. Maybe it means to consider all issues in questions, and weigh them as if on a balancing scale. Maybe it means stop, think, and back up, before choosing actions and moving forward.

Reminds me of something recently that possibly could have been worked out but instead went sour, maybe stagnant or backwards are better words.
10

,

08/01/2008 05:53:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

,

08/01/2008 06:21:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

08/01/2008 06:28:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

donald anderson it's me,

08/01/2008 07:47:02
Says the small thinkers in the Nuclear Loabby
14

Unimpressed one,

08/01/2008 08:20:57
# Wardog, 100% renewables? Germany and Denmark have the highest renewable capacity in Europe and don't plan for more. France has similarly decided to have no more windmills. Why? Basically it makes their grid system unstable due to the unpredictability of wind. You can rant your rubbish about wind and waves as much as you like, but we will be getting reliable nuclear energy whether you greens want it or not. As for Salmond's idiotic stance regarding new power stations, when we are trying to stabilise our supply north of the border, we will end up importing English power to make up the shortfall. Independence or what?
15

livenowpaylater,

08/01/2008 09:02:40
"No nuclear electricity system has ever earned it's keep"

So we can expect to see France (86% nuclear) go bust sometime soon?

Nuclear generation provides baseload low carbon electricity in bulk. No combination of renewables can do this without a significant contribution from Hydro. Since the hydro resources in the UK are largely exploited, renewables cannot provide baseload generation to replace the nuclear stations that are due to close over the next ten years. Two or three Glendoes are irrelevent in the context of the UK energy debate.
16

Saoghal Beag,

08/01/2008 09:31:12
Livenowplayer, ah jings here we go again. French nuclear inmdustry is largely state owned and heavily subsisdised, without that subsidy they would go bust. Remove the French subsidies and exactly the same would happen there as did BE which would have had assets of around -£300M if the government had not baled it out.

Nuclear is expensive and can not operate without subsidy, even the new finnish plant is subsidised thought it is supposed to be being built under free market principles. Projections are that the french company will struggle to clear its feet.

The propsal in the UK to bhuild in the free market is being watched across the globe. THe one thing is that there is no developer jumping at the opportunity and there is unliekly ever to be one. So the pro-nuclear argument is merely academic, thankfully.
17

sceptic,

08/01/2008 09:55:17
#9
"Hyperthetically, if smaller countries were to form a coalition and sanction trade embargoes against the US, China, India and so forth"
Your naivity knows no bounds.We can't even agree to drive on the same side of the road as the rest of Europe, something that has caused more deaths than the whole of the world nuclear industry.
18

sceptic,

08/01/2008 10:00:17
#16
"No nuclear electricity system has ever earned its keep"
France produces 75%+ of its electricity from nuclear stations. The Channel interconnector was supposed to flow 50% in each direction. Because of the cheap nuclear power in France and the expensive UK power the flow is 90%+ to the UK.
19

Alfie Bett,

08/01/2008 10:57:47
#8 williamx, exactly, there must be something in the Scottish psyche that says we must wear a hair shirt while everybody else still wears silk,until north america and all the emerging industrial economies in asia commit 100% to this we're peeing against the wind.
That shouldn't stop us from looking at viable alternatives of proven technology for ourselves like the hydro electric scheme under construction at Loch Ness, there are quite a few other areas in Scotland where comparable schemes could be developed and fulfill our needs but no doubt the environment lobby will find something to fault and as usual the nimby brigade will squeal.
Scotland is in the enviable position with our population size of possibly being one of the countries in the world that could serve its energy needs without nuclear power,I am not totally anti nuclear power but it should be the last option and decided by a Scottish government and must not be imposed on us by a Westminster government whose priorities have very rarely been to to the benefit of Scotland.
20

Neil,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 11:01:31
I like hydro but the power it produces is a multiple of the volume of water times the distance it drops. Glendoe has a reasonable volume & a great drop but the number of useable sites are thus limited. "Small scale" hydro is code for "not much power but still nearly as expensive so very attractive to the subsidy seeking lobby".

As regards nuclear the eco-fascists are merely, yet again, demonstrating that they have absolutely no real arguments against it. The claim that France would fake their costs of 1.3p a unit to secretly subsidise not only 85% of their power production but also a large part of Germany's, Italy's, Belguim's & ours shows how completely detached from reality they are.
21

Saoghal Beag,

08/01/2008 11:14:47
Neil, ofcourse it is an utter figment of the collective imagination that BE would not be trading if the government had not baled it out after BE lost it's gauranteed trade levels and prices.

Nuclear fission has been tried, tested and failed.
22

morris,

edinburgh 08/01/2008 11:28:53
1 And produces waste which will never be safely contained as long as seismic activity exists.

Scotland has so much generation potentially on hydro alone,never mind wind wave solar etc,she should never ever require nuclear energy.

To go there voluntarily when clearly we are one of the countries in Europe who least need to do so ,is absolute madness.

Power stations designs have improved.Storage cannot improve!There are no safe sites ,nor will there ever be,and accumulation of waste means progressively less safe sites which is a time bomb guaranteed to go off.
23

The Strategist,

08/01/2008 11:30:34
If Westminster is so pro nuclear power why did Brown flog off Westinghouse to the Japanese at a knock down price?
24

Ally,

London 08/01/2008 11:40:49
Oh for crying out loud. It's depressing that a nation which produced so many great engineers can't get basic physics.

The biggest hydro development in Scotland, Cruachan, is able to produce massive amounts of peak load power on demand (e.g. the famous post-Coronation Street kettle demand) BECAUSE it's all pumped back up the hill again at night using the spare night-time capacity of the nuclear sites!

Renewables are great, and we should do more of them - as much as is vaguely sensible, in fact, provided they don't need excessive subsidy (they will need a fair bit, and that's fine) and don't screw up the landscape (one of Scotland's only genuinely unique assets). They absolutely cannot provide all of the base load requirement, so either we keep polluting & pumping out CO2 - and Longannet is right up there in the list of the world's dirtiest power stations - or we move to a nuclear / renewable mix.

You think renewables can do it all? Fine. Show me the physics - and don't put a footnote in 6 point type noting that it depends on everyone using 90% electricity than they do at the moment because a) it's not going to happen and b) where do you think we're going to get electricity for future cars, trams, trains, motorbikes, central heating and everything else that's going to move off fossil fuels and onto electric in the next 20-30 years?
25

Ninian Reid,

Edinburgh 08/01/2008 11:41:52
Glendoe is far from boring ; we salute the hard hat heroes who risk life and limb to bring us our daily fuel.
26

nabodican,

Portree 08/01/2008 12:01:17
Congratulations to Glendoe, hydro power has been serving the highlands of Scotland well for over 50 years. What is disappointing however is that we have lost over 50 mw of installed hydro capacity due to the stupid subsidies brought in for the wind industry !
Several hydro schemes have taken turbines out of service in order to qualify for rocs which for hydro stops at 20 mw capacity.
The country has gone barking mad on the so called "renewables" bandwagon.
27

westview,

checking no "nuclear cover on house " insurance po 08/01/2008 12:28:57
Depending on expensive middle eastern oil for our transport is financialy crippling and polluting. Backing the proposed hydrogen generation stations which can be powered from wind ,wave or hydro power will let us use hydrogen to power our vehicles and electric generation systems. The by product of burning hydrogen is water! So no worries about guarding nuclear waste dumps for thousands of years or capturing carbon. Making and marketing hydrogen power systems will bring in lots of jobs.
Scotland is small enough to be the poineer of such a change away from dirty oil and big enough to change the world ,as we have done in the past. And do check your house insurance policy. You cannot get cover for a nuclear accident!
28

Ananurhing,

08/01/2008 12:38:10
Some of the new small scale " run of flow" hydro generators are looking very interesting, but expensive to the taxpayer. Expensive due to the subsidy paid to the producer, and the royalties paid to the landowner.
The technology is sound though and has enormous potential in Scotland if a bit of joined up thinking is applied. Should be regarded as a national asset and developed as such.
There was an article last year about the Beck Mickle domestic micro hydro generator which was expected to cost around £2000 and pay for itself in 1-2 years. Invented by a Scot. Can't remember his name.
Anyone heard any more about this? I want one of those.

Glasgow University have developed the worlds first viable led domestic lightbulb which could potentially cut the worlds lighting bill by over 70%.
We've barely begun to look at micro hydro generators. Scotland should be leading the world in this technology also.
29

Geoff,

South Africa 08/01/2008 12:40:51
Interesting debate! The fundamental problems that nobody seems either willing or able to tackle are runaway population growth and consumerism. If all our energies were focussed on these issues then the rest follows. In the short term and as many of you have pointed out, there is huge scope for energy savings within present systems involving only relatively minor lifestyle/planning changes. Hydro, especially for a country like Scotland, has great potential for clean energy but there is an environmental downside-even small dams have adverse consequences for river and estuarine systems. What we are desperately short of worldwide is political will-the absurdity of allowing gas guzzling SUV's carrying one passenger for example, needs to be eliminated quickly. The days of such vehicles should be over-give car manufacturers one years notice to cease production of larger vehicles and we could half consumption in 24 months. The big Q is-who has the balls to enforce such a step?
30

Geoff,

sa 08/01/2008 12:46:46
Dont write Nuclear off too soon-notwithstanding Homer Simpsons green glowing rocks,it may be the lesser of evils.If the use of Hydrocarbon fuels is not curbed almost immediately, the danger of irreversible runaway climate change is very real even though you might not want to believe it. Nuclear buys us time -waste can be relatively safely dealt with!
31

Geoff,

sa 08/01/2008 12:46:46
Dont write Nuclear off too soon-notwithstanding Homer Simpsons green glowing rocks,it may be the lesser of evils.If the use of Hydrocarbon fuels is not curbed almost immediately, the danger of irreversible runaway climate change is very real even though you might not want to believe it. Nuclear buys us time -waste can be relatively safely dealt with!
32

Neil,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 12:49:42
If only everybody would drop dead of hypothermia all environmental problems would be solved & the Greens would be happy.
33

Geoff,

sa 08/01/2008 13:05:34
35 Neil-or even Hyperthermia!
34

Neil,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 15:56:24
No Luddite has ever fully told the truth. Rules is a classic example of being in denial over this. Just try to find a single eco-nut who has ever admited that simple arithmetic works when applied to nuclear acounting or that waste with a short half life quickly ceases to be very radioactive.

Go on!!! Never mind that the public bears full costs of the £1 billion annually we are subsidising windmills with plus all the hidden subsidies. Eco-fascism is a HUGE burden on ourselves & our children.

Spend 99% (see I'm moderate) of the billions we waste on eco-fascism on building a better & wealthier world instead.
35

Unimpressed one,

08/01/2008 16:28:14
#33, "the danger of irreversible runaway climate change is very real even though you might not want to believe it." First part of your sentence - pure green p*ish, second part, very true.
36

diggetydad,

Fife 08/01/2008 16:57:48
If the engineers can dig an 8km tunnel under a mountain as part of a £140 Million hydro-power generator why is it estimated to cost several Billions to tunnel under the Forth? And what about a subway system in Edinburgh rather than trams?
37

frint,

Fife 08/01/2008 17:23:41
Hydro such as this project is neither ecologically friendly nor carbon free. The budget includes flooded land for reservoirs ( emitting CO2 for years), the energy costs of tunneling through a rock mountain, and the vast amounts of concrete poured in construction of the dam etc.



38

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/01/2008 17:27:21
39. I see that you've finally admitted that you don't want to believe in global warming.
39

RVH,

England 08/01/2008 17:28:24
Sorry I'm late Alex (+1) but nuclear generation is only carbon neutral if you fiddle the sums, forget the huge quantities of energy required to build the plants, transport the components to the site, light, secure and protect the installation and mine and purify the fissile material in the first place. ... Oh, and then there might be a need to take it all down and bury it somewhere safe in the future, that might cause a little bit of carbonaceous exhaust too, of course. But you don't count that either, I suppose ?
40

pwd,

Hawick 08/01/2008 17:56:44
*20

''We can't even agree to drive on the same side of the road as the rest of Europe, something that has caused more deaths than the whole of the world nuclear industry.''

The UK has the lowest, or near lowest, road death rate per capita in the world, unless things have changed dramatically of late.
41

Neil,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 18:13:15
RVH I trust you are on record as saying that windmills aren't carbon neutral since everything you mention applies to them with the added bonus of up to 1,000 tons of CO2 emitting in concrete as a foundation for each windmill. In fact I don't think anybody said nuclear was carbon neutral or indeed that anybody honest said any activity involving breathing humans was. But nuclear comes as close as you get.

Wardog it doesn't matter how often you say nuclear is unsustainable (block capitals optional) - doesn't make it true. There is enough radioactive Uranium & Thorium in Earh's crust to keep the whole human race using current western power levels for at least 5 billion years. Since the sun is expected to explode in 4 1/2 it is undeniably more sustainable than solar (or windmills or tidal or anything but magic).

On such lies is the entire Luddite case built.
42

Saoghal Beag,

08/01/2008 18:16:09
Neil, i accept that nuclear elements with low half lifes reduce their radioactivoity in short times. I don't have a problem saying that and i am one of those who has been debating against you and the pro-nuclear lobby, so that must make me a luddite in your books. Proved you wrong again.

Since the french nuclear industry is state owned who else will pay all the externalities mentioned by Rules? Why do you persistently deny the truth? Are you GB or just one of his glove puppets?

As for the ridiculous statement in westminster today that the uk does not want to be reliant on imported fuels and is therefore planning to encourage new nuclear. Where in the UK are there mineable uranium deposits. Currently world demand is outstripping production and since 2003 there has been a doubling in uranium costs. It is not just oil that is increasing in cost.

We did have a reasonable amount of gas in the N Sea but GB encouraged the rapid extraction since that increased his tax returns, now we have to imnport at higher prices which increases his tax returns....see the pattern there?

It's time we stopped subsidising nuclear, no discounted loans, no tax loop holes, no gauranteed market share and prices. without any or all of that nuclear is economically unviable and the private sector will not build any plants.

43

Colin, Glasgow,

08/01/2008 19:38:34
Only about 10% of the cost of running a nuclear power station comes from the fuel; and only about 10% of the cost of the fuel comes from the raw uranium. 1% of the cost of nuclear electricity is dependent on the price of raw uranium. It could double in price, quadruple, or multiply by ten and it would still make very little difference to the price of nuclear electricity.

Security of supply of electricity comes from the fact that nuclear fuel has a very high energy density and can be easily stockpiled. A single load of fuel will run a reactor for at least 6 months (and in some designs it would run for decades). In contrast, if our gas supply was turned off the gas powerstations would run down in a matter of days. A handful of enriched uranium provides as much energy as a trainload of coal. Consequently it is easy and relatively cheap to stockpile years' worth of nuclear fuel. There is enough spare plutonium and uranium in the used fuel stores at Sellafield to run three nuclear reactors for 60 years if we wanted to. (It is not worth the cost of reprocessing the used fuel at the moment because raw uranium is both cheap and plentiful). And that is without using breeder reactors, which would increase the energy yield by a factor of 60.

So if we ever go to war with Canada and Australia (how likely) we would have many years to find an alternative source of fuel.

The ExterenE report by the European Commission looked at the external cost impact for different forms of electricity generation (i.e. the environmental and health costs associated with normal operations as well as catastrophic accidents). The external cost for nuclear, including uranium mining and waste management, was trivial. Of all sources of power, only wind power consistently has lower external impacts. Our friend hydro is sometimes better, and sometimes worse. Nuclear has less external impact than solar or biomass. And of course any of these is much better than coal (clean or otherwise).
44

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 08/01/2008 19:43:08
I am qualified and experienced as both a mechanical engineer and medical physicist. Nuclear power per se is like money: it has the potential to cause great harm and great good. Obviously safe design of all nuclear power station systems is important, but most significant problems stem from the quality of training, and the intelligence of the work force and management. If a nuclear power station is operated wrongly, then it is as safe as an aircraft being flown outside its envelope. If pilot error causes one aircraft to crash, we do not blame the aircraft and then prevent all other aircraft flying. However, if a particular aircraft design is believed to have contributed to a crash, we stop all such aircraft flying until proven otherwise. Exactly the same philosophy holds true for nuclear power stations and much else.
45

Saoghal Beag,

08/01/2008 20:03:34
Colin, i agree that the cost of uranium has a realtaively low imapct on the cost of running a nuclear plant. That is because the cost of actually runnning them is so high, with security, insurance and decommisioing cost set asides, etc. this is why they can not make a profit and therefore must be built in the public sector and operated there if they are to continue to exist.

however the cost of uranium will continue to increase and as Wardog points out will come from increasingly volatile coun tries. AS Wardog also pointed out standard economics do not apply. There is no clear correlation between demand and cost for gas imported through the interconnector, similar patterns seem to exist with uranium.

AS soon as you build centrified generation, regardless of its nature it is not secure. with all the security in force in torness what would stop anyopne nipping into the lammermuirs and blowing up a couple of the pylons that carry the primary ciircuit from the plant?
46

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 08/01/2008 20:05:23
The risk of using a certain type of power generation should be calculated per unit power generated, and including all aspects of the power supply and generation chain: from mining to the generation of the voltage on the mains supply. Per GWh of power generated the risk of serious injury and death from nuclear power is extraordinarily low, even when data from the three most notorious incidents of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Sellafield are included. Nuclear power suffers from an image problem, firstly because of its association in the popular imagination with nuclear weapons, and secondly because major incidents are few and far between, and so become more newsworthy than coal mine disasters, increasing asthma deaths associated with air pollution, and damage inflicted by climate change caused by increasing carbon dioxide. It is utter folly to believe that renewables will provide the same power generation capability as nuclear power, without destroying nature entirely. Wind turbines, tidal power, sea current turbines etc. all interrupt the natural flow of energy in the environment. If the UK was to receive all its power from natural sources, the natural environment would be devastated. Why? Killing wind to the extent that some people demand would mean severely affecting the dewpoint near ground level and thus surface precipitation and frost, the migration of winged insects, the distributions of wind-resistant and wind-vulnerable plants, and pollination. Retarding sea currents affects the distrivution of sea bottom sediments and detritus, and the distribution of fish hatchlings and the larvae of other small sea creatures. Covering the deserts with solar panels would reduce the amount of light re-radiated back to space, thus retaining this energy on earth as heat, and producing significant local environmental changes.
Thus relying on renewables to supply all our energy needs would be to commit environmental suicide.
47

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 08/01/2008 20:17:09
So what is the answer? It is stupid to rely too heavily on just one or two forrms of power generation. We must spread our bets. Scotland is exceptionally fortunate when it comes to power. We can generate meaningful amounts of power from different sources: lots from inland hydropower, some from the strong sea currents and big Atlantic swells, some from the strong winds, some from coal and gas using carbon sequestration technology, and yes, we can and should also generate a significant amount of nuclear power. Why? If an extraordinarily violent storm hits Scotland in midwinter and it proves to be impossible to repair wind turbines and wave machines, then we will still have enough power. If a major coal-fired power station has to be shut down for maintenance we will be fine. If the turbines at a hydropower station are unforeseeably fouled, we will be okay. And of course if the nuclear power station/s are shutdown for safety and/or maintenance reasons, we have the other forms of power too. Right now, no sensible professional engineer is contemplating over-reliance on just one or two forms of power. We all gain through moderation in all things, and strength in diversity.
48

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 08/01/2008 20:34:21
#62 Wardog: If you are really interested in power generation, why not contact the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, www.imeche.org (1 Birdcage Walk, London SW1)? Their members have been debating power generation for decades, and you can get an insider's look at the problems through back issues of the society's magazine, "Professional Engineering". It is full of articles about different sources of power, and the members have conducted a vigorous debate through the "Letters" page. The Achilles heel of nuclear power seems to be the decommissioning costs of the first generation of nuclear power stations, which were unforgivably designed without attention to decommissioning. One can only hope that the new generation (such as that now being built in Finland), have been carefully designed with decommissioning in mind.
49

,

08/01/2008 20:40:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

Caora Dubh,

O'n taigh 08/01/2008 20:45:14
#64 Wardog: I would not support more than two new-build nuclear power stations in Scotland to replace those decommissioned, and I would not sanction their construction except on sites already zoned for nuclear power stations. Scotland doesn't really need more than one new-build nuclear power station of 600 MW to 1 GW capacity, but I would back this.

And yes, you are right about power storage. Conversion inefficiencies are a problem for renewables. Ideally wind turbines would be used directly to pump water upwards into dams, from where the water can be released as hydropower at any time. Windy sites are not usually down near dam walls, and wind turbines are ugly and an obstruction to navigation if positioned in the middle of a loch. Hence one generates electricty using wind turbines, which is then used remotely to pump the water: and this incurs an energy loss.

Judging by the spread of some alien species in Scotland, biomass probably has great potential. I'm sure some academics must be studying this.
51

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 08/01/2008 20:46:38
1. Consume less,the amount of interesting devices that use significantly less power than conventional means are now prolific.

2.Nuclear was developed for military capability, the by product, energy and heinous waste problems.Insane.Half-lifes 40 times longer than recorded history, insane.

3.Intermittent energy sources,wave, wind and solar are plain daft, energy in use needs to be 24-7-365.Battery arrays required to compliment such daft wastes of resources are needed to be replaced every ten years.Bad chemicals.

4 Hydro Power, good, yet displacing huge water tables has its impact on the flora and fauna.

5 Micro Hydro, good for house/houses and minimal damage to the water courses that they involve. Too much red tape. http://www.absak.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/33_89_91/products_id/10

6 Wiers, there are thousands of weirs through-out Scotland, fitted with small hydro they could supply local communities.

7 Waste reprocessing, good this will be the transition for all systems that still require flames. Turn your rubbish into fuel, how zen. http://www.reculture.se/

8 Ground Source Heating, good for keeping your home above 4 degrees all year round, any lower any the energy required to raise the (lower) temperature is significantly greater.

9 Geo Thermal, Good, Drilling costs expensive though and very site specific.

10 Magnetic devices, this is the future (in general)
http://www.searlsolution.com/

Government, once independent can be more adventurous in funding R&D projects.
52

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 08/01/2008 20:48:46
The oils left should be used to lubricate the wheels of industry not power it.
53

,

08/01/2008 20:50:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

fred bear,

Cheshire 08/01/2008 20:51:18
#19 BE going bust was caused by electricity trading arrangements encouraging investment in irrelevant wind power and reliance on gas. Hence power and gas prices are now going up by up to 17%, and rely on gas supplied through a very long pipe going through unstable countries and which we are at the end of. (Sorry for poor grammar).

#49 pwd. Maybe so, but we still kill about 50 a week on the roads in the UK, which is about the total WHO certified death toll to date of Chernobyl.
55

Colin, Glasgow,

08/01/2008 21:16:32
Wardog #62
This is a summary of the ExternE study, commissioned by the European Commission, which calculated the external costs associated with different forms of electricity production in Europe. i.e. it takes the health and environmental effects from each type of powerstation and calculates a monetary cost for the damage it causes per kWh.
Table on p13:
http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf

For example in the UK the external cost of electricity from coal is 4 to 7 € cent per kWh. That more or less doubles the cost of coal-fired electricity (making it uneconomic if the operators had to pay for their pollution). The external cost of wind is a negligible 0.15 € cent per kWh. One reason that the European Commission is pushing renewables is because fossil fuel is _massively_ damaging in health and economic terms. Air pollution alone causes over 300,000 premature deaths per year in Europe. Pay a little more on your electric bill and a lot less on your health bill.

The external cost for nuclear in the UK is very reasonable at 0.25 € cent per kWh. This is because nuclear internalises its major costs. It manages the waste rather than venting pollution into the atmosphere as fossil fuel does (and, for that matter, biomass). The cost even includes the average per kWh cost of a catastrophic nuclear accident. But because nuclear generates so much electricity, and the frequency of accidents is vanishingly small, this has hardly any influence.

So the real total cost of electricity depends on the cost of generation plus the external cost. Now, I know this is a point of argument, but the generation cost for nuclear really is low - certainly lower than most renewables most of the time. The only form of generation which is consistently cheaper than nuclear is (dirty) coal. Coal is relatively cheap for generation but has murderously high external costs which we all pay.
56

Colin, Glasgow,

08/01/2008 21:33:20
Ard Right #69, oh how I wish your Searl effect generator worked. Perpetual motion, contra-gravity and free energy all in one entropy-decreasing device.
57

Saoghal Beag,

08/01/2008 21:35:35
72 FredBear. Scottish power was forced to buy the majority of its power from BE and at a higher market price. With the supposed market liberation, that has been mucked up so much by DETI and other government agencies, SP was liberated from that obligation. The result was overnight the income for torness vanished and BE almost disappeared down the swannie, but like northern rock the government stepped in with a big purse. The renewable sector is irrelevant in this case.

Consistently nuclear power is shown to be barely financially viable and is dependent on hidden and not so hidden subsidies to survive. These subsidies are far greater than that offered to renewables, in fact there are privately funded wind installations and community installations that have paid/are paying for themselves and generating income for communities. something we should encourage.

Caora dubh, at what density do we have to have wind turbines to impact on dew points and insect migration?


As i have said before we are faced by difficult choices.
58

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 08/01/2008 21:46:08
The answer to nuclear power is easy. If Gordon wants to build it and the private sector can cope with no subsidy (even an under the counter variety)then fairplay to them.
If it relies on a 'carbon tax' to keep to price of other more rational power supplies high enough to offset the cost of building the white elephants, then that additional charge should only be levied on those consumers who support nuclear power, those who oppose renewables and other numpties. Ideally any nuclear facilities would only be located at areas where there has been strongest oppostion to windfarms.

Just note that the BERR justification was based on the projected costs of the new plant under construction in Finland. Thats the one that is two years late, 4 years into the project and already way over budget.

The UK would be at extreme risk if it relied on mega power plants for its energy. Renewables is the only economic way forward as they do not rely on failed technologies.

59

Tumbler,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 21:52:14
Colin #73 Wardog #74

Nuclear power plants are relatively cheap to run, but have proven historically to have very high ‘front-end’ capital costs and possibly even greater ‘back-end’ costs.

The full life-cycle costs, relative to the actual price of electricity paid for by customers, are vigorously disputed.

Given a chain of optimistic assumptions, ‘statistically reasonable’ levels of safety and security, environmental impact, and risks underwritten by government, it can be made to look affordable.

But with pessimistic assumptions, lack of government backup, ‘precautionary’ standards of safety, an insistence on total decommissioning and the establishment of final depositories for high-level waste, it can appear extremely expensive relative to other options.....
60

Colin, Glasgow,

08/01/2008 21:58:49
Wardog #74, no I would advocate more nuclear along with renewables. There is room for both. If private money doesn't invest in nuclear it will invest in fossil fuel generation, not renewables. History shows this, and the market conditions for fossil fuel are going to continue to make it attractive for at least a couple of decades. Nuclear power is vastly preferable.

Even if we had endless money to invest in renewables we wouldn't be able to build enough (actually, the same is true for nuclear because of shortage of skills and components - that's why we need both). Hydro is good, but the number of sites is limited. Wind is fine up to say 20% after which it is a liability for the grid. Solar PV would be wasted in the UK - better to deploy that scarce resource in sunnier climes. Geothermal sites are pretty non-existent in the uk. Biomass has a limited fuel supply. Marine technologies are in their infancy.

Nuclear is the only decent scalable source of low carbon electricity we currently have. Phasing it out would mean that all future renewable resources for the next twenty+ years will be simply be treading water to replace nuclear power instead of actually reducing emissions.

The risk from nuclear waste is very small indeed, and there are perfectly good ways to dispose of it away from the biosphere for as long as it takes to decay. It is literally millions of times less risky than our everyday use of fossil fuel.
61

Tumbler,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 22:29:30

Although a small risk, there remains a risk in the future of terrorist attack on any one of these new nuclear facilities.

An incident involving a nuclear power station may well result in the need to shut down a large proportion of the network’s nuclear capacity, leaving a critical gap in supply.

Its large-scale, centralized nature, coupled with the need for high levels of safety and security in its operation, render it subject to compromise in ways that could not happen to a distributed mix of renewable sources, however variable.

With respect to the claims that Nuclear is a way of minimising Climate Change through virtually zero Co2 output whilst maintaining low cost electricity supply

It is widely acknowledged that Co2 emissions are a global problem that can only be solved by co-coordinated action, the international dimensions of the UK's energy policy must therefore also be considered.

If, as its advocates suggest, the UK and other developed nations make new nuclear power a core component of their response to climate change, it will be very hard to make a foreign policy case why less wealthy countries and indeed nations considered as 'rogue states' should not be granted access to the same technology.

The UK Sustainable Development Commission, in its report The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy, reaches the following conclusion:

“If the UK cannot meet its climate change commitments without nuclear power, then under the terms of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, we cannot deny others the same technology”.

This open up th spectre of Global conflict and the possibility of nuclear weapon proliferation from enriching technologies.
62

Colin, Glasgow,

08/01/2008 22:45:35
Wardog #80
Regarding solar, I was referring to PV (photovoltaics). Solar cells are in short supply. Given that California gets twice the insolation (sunshine) as London, and Africa gets 2.5 times the insolation, it makes more sense to deploy PV there instead of here. Solar PV in the UK is essentially green bling - it's a conspicuous waste.

Thermal solar, as you describe, is a different matter. It is certainly cost effective. Likewise ground source heat pumps are worthwhile. (The geothermal power I was referring to was hot geothermal for electricity generation, as in Iceland. This isn't very viable in Scotland).

I am in two minds about combined heat and power for district heating. It's good in very cold countries, but I suspect the balance between wanting electricity and heat at the same time is less pronounced here. Also the only national-scale solution I have seen for this (from Greenpeace) relies heavily on natural gas. Yes, you can use biomass, but there isn't a lot of fuel available. Also, burning biomass is polluting, even if it is carbon neutral. In essence the Greenpeace proposal is a contrived solution that bends over backwards to avoid using nuclear power, which is exactly what I would expect.

Incidentally it is possible to do district heating with nuclear power. It's used like this in Switzerland.

Regarding tidal, I think the SNP will fund this. They have virtually bet the farm on it. There is certainly plenty of energy there - the question is the cost.

I agree we need to do more to provide alternative heating. We need to cut use of domestic gas for heating. But at the same time we are going to have to increase our use of electricity. This is the only way to tackle emissions from transport. We need to move towards hydrogen and/or electric vehicles. In both cases this means more electricity. Even if our overall energy use declines (which I find unlikely) our electricity use will increase. Nuclear power, along with renewables can provide this
63

,

08/01/2008 22:56:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Colin, Glasgow,

08/01/2008 23:01:55
Tumbler #81, are you suggesting that rogue states who want to develop nuclear weapons will have a change of heart and decide not to, simply because the UK cancels its civil nuclear programme (while keeping its nuclear capability)? I find this unlikely. The presence or absence of civil nuclear power in the UK makes scant difference to global weapons proliferation.

Any country is entitled to develop peaceful nuclear power. The Non Proliferation Treaty specifically permits this. Iran is allowed to. The issue is not its nuclear power station, but its extensive (and previously covert) uranium enrichment. Most countries that use nuclear power do not enrich their own uranium, nor do they reprocess plutonium for that matter. Only major users and nuclear weapon states do. Hence Iran is suspect. Russia has offered to supply enriched fuel to Iran, so that it doesn't need enrichment facilities. This would be a fine compromise, but Iran has turned it down.

It is entirely feasible to develop nuclear weapons without a civil nuclear power programme. That's how the US and North Korea started. Likewise with Israel (probably). Conversely most countries that use nuclear power do not posses nuclear weapons.
65

Drum Major,

Australia 08/01/2008 23:32:39
We have plenty of uranium but have no interest in using nuclear energy. We won't sell it to some countries because they expect to send the waste back here. If you use it keep the waste in your own back yard. We just got rid of a prime minister who suggested we might include nuclear in the mix. We can use solar and wind plus clean coal. Our hydros are limited to the southern highlands. You have heaps of streams to generate hydro. In Tasmania water passes through 6 hydro plants before it gets to the city. Have all the brilliant Scottish engineers immigrated to new world or do you still have enough to do this relatively simple engineering task.
66

Tumbler,

Glasgow 08/01/2008 23:41:47
#85

Colin

Any Nation is entitled under the Non Proliferation Treaty to have it's own enrichment facilities for civil use, despite, as you correctly state, this is not the prevalent existing international model.

This by default theoretically multiplies the risk levels of a significant environmental tragedy.

i.e the proliferation of civil nuclear waste without adequate regulatory instruments or the proliferation of covert enrichment to weapon grade material.

I agree that the UK 'not having' a civil nuclear programme will not necessarily discourage other nations from desiring or acquiring civil nuclear but if we are to be a Global 'leader' then having an expansive civil nuclear program can only make it increasingly difficult for the UK to convince these smaller and less wealthy nations that they do not have the adequate resources and safety mechanisms and that there are indeed alternative means of energy production.

For Example, how long before India or Pakistan starts supplying enriched uranium (possibly even covertly) to smaller more volatile states for civil purposes that are ether incapable of safely storing this material and may seek to covertly enrich the material for regional use.

The consequences of civil proliferation would be dire.



67

Tumbler,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 00:01:33
87 Addendum

The risk of civil enrichment proliferation

India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea have succeeded in circumventing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the nuclear control mechanisms and have produced nuclear weapons.

Nuclear reprocessing and enrichment technologies are much sought-after not only in Iran but also in South Africa and Brazil.

All nuclear powers - the USA, Russia, the UK, China, France -are no longer disarming, but planning to modernise their weapons arsenals -they are rearming. At the same time, the Non Proliferation Treaty (NFT) is coming under pressure as a result of the nuclear agreement between the USA and India.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group now has to decide whether the ban on the supply of nuclear materials to India should be lifted.

If it is, this decision will strike at the very legitimacy of the non-proliferation regime.

While demands are being made for Iran to renounce its rights under the NPT as a precondition for negotiations, India’s nuclear armament is being rewarded by the West with the supply of uranium.
68

tassiestag,

rosebery 09/01/2008 08:37:50
thats right.......lets follow americas example.............then we can all have blackouts like california.
69

Neil,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 12:39:40
It is perfectly possible to get uranium from seawater. This is not done because it would be considerably more expensive & there is no world shortage but, as pointed out above, the cost of uranium is a tiny fraction of the cost of power so there would be no problem in doing so.

That being the case Wardog & Seagol, who claim to oppose nuclear because the raw material is supplied by nasty foreigners such as australians will certainly now announce there complete conversion to unlimited nuclear.

Or not if their alleged reason was merely an excuse.
70

Neil,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 12:40:46
It is perfectly possible to get uranium from seawater. This is not done because it would be considerably more expensive & there is no world shortage but, as pointed out above, the cost of uranium is a tiny fraction of the cost of power so there would be no problem in doing so.

That being the case Wardog & Seagol, who claim to oppose nuclear because the raw material is supplied by nasty foreigners such as australians will certainly now announce there complete conversion to unlimited nuclear.

Or not if their alleged reason was merely an excuse.
71

Neil,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 12:40:49
It is perfectly possible to get uranium from seawater. This is not done because it would be considerably more expensive & there is no world shortage but, as pointed out above, the cost of uranium is a tiny fraction of the cost of power so there would be no problem in doing so.

That being the case Wardog & Seagol, who claim to oppose nuclear because the raw material is supplied by nasty foreigners such as australians will certainly now announce there complete conversion to unlimited nuclear.

Or not if their alleged reason was merely an excuse.
72

daviddoyle@thebrain.fsnet.co.uk,

Glasgow 09/01/2008 13:33:28
There has been insufficient consideration for the previously completely uninvaded territory that is to be submerged by the Glendoe reservoir. The loss of the rivers that have for ever been in this area has not been considered. The Scottish Executive never replied to questions about the need for another hydro scheme and could not give any information about the use presently being made of existing hydro sxhemes. The total available output of existing hydro schemes was not known when the Glendoe scheme was well under way. There was no information about the reserve in the existing hydro capacity of the country. Why did SNH not block this scheme? They had blocked other projects such as the Floe district.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.