Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 16th May 2008

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

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.

Call to think small on hydro-power



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

MacAlba: The Coming Independence (c2007).,

08/01/2008 01:26:23
#1 Alex,
"Nuclear is the only realistic way forward" to what? It's also dangerous, carcinogenic, vulnerable to terrorism and, if that's not enough for you, uranium, like coal, oil, petroleum, gas and any mineral you care to mention is a finite resource.

How do you propose that future generations, (who survive nuclear proliferation), will run your "realistic" power stations once all of the uranium has been reaped from the sub-alluvial layers?
4

Wardog,

08/01/2008 01:42:33
An energy strategy was called for over 18 months ago - the LibDem/Lab coalition did nothing!

Here's hoping the the new Scottish Government get the right mix with the mix being aimed at achieving 100% renewables by helping to create a whole industry to develope and export new sustainable technologies globally in due course....

We've got 10 YEARS until the rest of the UK's new reactors come on line

Lets show europe what can be achieved using a mix of renewables including hydro, tidal, wind, solar thermal, biomass, carbon capture and enforcing a Saving Energy Strategy that will include high levels of thermal insulation on all newbuild, investing in old housing stock rehabilitation and modernistaion and reducing the taxes on domestic renewables to reduce their overall payback period.

THIS CAN ALL BE DONE NOW!

NUCLEAR is inherently UNSUSTAINABLE because it relaies on an non-renewable fuel which is not on these islands, it will therefore not achieve 'energy security', the waste produced by the stations cannot be treated an must remain buried and guarded for centuries and all this not cost effectiveness in the slightest, the power companies will have the government over a barrel regarding timeframes & delivery , see the latest episode occurring in Norway for how it will turn out.... wasted billions and late....


The Herald Comment Page on Nuclear Powerr

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1945918.0.Scotland_doesnt_need_nor_want_new_nuclear_power_stations.php

Don't leave a Legacy of Waste for Future Generations!!!
5

The Strategist,

08/01/2008 02:06:11
We've got the entire river system to work with next.
6

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?
7

MacAlba: The Coming Independence (c2007).,

08/01/2008 02:36:20
#4 Wardog,
I agree with you entirely. The hurdle that we encounter is that the predominant majority of the population are still dependent on 'baseload' energy, which of course is produced with the utilisation of some very nasty and ecologically unsound practices indeed.

The question that needs to be carefully pondered, and timely answered is how we convince mainstream people that there are some things in life, (like life on Earth itself), that are more important than Plasma and LCD TV's, Jeep Wranglers and the pollutant oil, coal and petroleum that currently generates the energy to propel and energise the things that we just couldn't envisage life without.

Just as a heroin addict can not reasonably be expected to detoxify from their drug of addiction overnight, it is not realistic to expect the world to relinquish fossil fuel in a haste. However, given the increasing precarioussness of our lithospheric, aquatic, climatic and atmospheric environments, there does need to be a gradual, though timely antiquation of these destructive, carbon-emanating energy sources.
8

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
9

MacAlba: The Coming Independence (c2007).,

08/01/2008 05:45:10
#8 williamx,
The simple answer to your question would be that smaller countries, (i.e., Scotland), that do not contribute so prolifically to the atmospheric diffusion of cO2 can play a prominent role in the lobbying of larger nations to take greater heed of the necessity for reduced emissions and more comprehensive policies.

Hyperthetically, if smaller countries were to form a coalition and sanction trade embargoes against the US, China, India and so forth, until they agree to adopt ecologically-friendlier policies and practices, those countries, (a number of whom are still developing their economies), would lose the global markets that their infant economies are still so dependent upon.

I shall now await the acrimonious vituperation and polemic of the oil and coal company CEO's, employees and reps who visit this site!
10

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.
11

,

08/01/2008 05:53:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

08/01/2008 06:21:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

MacAlba: The Coming Independence (c2007).,

08/01/2008 06:28:39
Queen Sandra,
I sympathise with you deply, but wht does all of this havering have to do with the subject of the article?

Put the lid on that vodka bottle and have a wee lie down!
14

donald anderson it's me,

08/01/2008 07:47:02
Says the small thinkers in the Nuclear Loabby
15

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?
16

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 08/01/2008 08:21:06
No nuclear electricity system has ever earned its keep.

Hydro systems usually do. They can be small 'run-of-the-river' schemes that would light up a small local village, or as large as you like. The water can be used a dozen times over as it flows to the sea. No noise, pollution or waste.

Couple that to submarine turbines and we're up and away!
17

danielrober,

08/01/2008 08:53:47
In the 1960' and 1970's there was a huge investment in power generation technology. Solutions where delivered on an appropiate scale, with Canada, Norway and Sweden been effectivly liberated from the international energy market. This provided them with a freedom of economic and socail choice which the rest of us just drewl at.

Well there has been another investment in power generation technology, one which has failed to deliver for the highly industrialised economies such as USA, Germany and growing China and India.

However the UK is a post-industrial society and as such has a different power generation requirement. We are about to enjoy the same liberation from the international energy market which Canada and others already benefit from. Small hydro plants are scaled at 200Kw to 450Kw. Medium scaled systems are measured in 1MW to 4MW and the UK is about to launch 100's of potential sites, from wind to hydro.

Stick to your guns Labour, you are so close to winning. Nuclear and Renewable, with additional peak of gas, and local coal will transform the UK.

Well Done, tunnel engineers.
18

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.
19

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.
20

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.
21

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.
22

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.
23

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.
24

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.
25

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.
26

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?
27

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?
28

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.
29

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.
30

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!
31

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.
32

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?
33

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!
34

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!
35

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.
36

Geoff,

sa 08/01/2008 13:05:34
35 Neil-or even Hyperthermia!
37

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 08/01/2008 13:10:40
No nuclear power station has ever earned its keep. France is a classic example of being in denial over this. Just try to find out about the economics of dealing with nuclear waste in France! Go on! Never mind that the public bears the full costs of insurance, anti terrorism, R&D and other hidden subsidies. The nuclear legacy is a HUGE burden for our children.

Spend nuclear R&D instead on renewables R&D and our problems are over.
38

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.
39

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.
40

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?
41

Chairman Gordon,

Bannockburn 08/01/2008 17:21:12
I've never understood why a country so full of lochs and mountains doesn't have more hydro-electric schemes.
Seems a stupid oversight.
42

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.



43

Chairman Gordon,

Bannockburn 08/01/2008 17:27:00
#9
"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"

A great example of the sheep mentality. Why "must" we do something just because Europe does it? Are you a clone of someone else, or do you loudly proclaim your individuality to anyone not too bored stiff to listen to you?
44

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.
45

Chairman Gordon,

Bannockburn 08/01/2008 17:28:13
#42-
Then we had better bring water-driven mills, eh?
46

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 ?
47

Chairman Gordon,

Bannockburn 08/01/2008 17:29:51
#43 was actually addressed to #20.
48

Chairman Gordon,

Bannockburn 08/01/2008 17:41:53
Here's a nice little mystery for all the eco-chondriacs- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7175617.stm

The so-called experts can't even agree on whether the rainforests ARE disappearing, so how trustworthy are the rest of their claims?
49

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.
50

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 17:56:58
#7 MacAlba: The Coming Independence (c2007).,

I'd agree, there is a huge public 'awareness' issue to resolve , but this must happen - we can't keep delaying this and building more and more power stations to feed and ever growing demand, that's simply unsustainable by definition.

Slightly off topic but....

An interesting thing is already happening with regards to consumer fuels, the N PoPoer bill hikes are the latest in a series of nail in the coffin for the use of GAS as a economic and sustainable heating fuel. The vast majority of home sin Scotland have gas central heating installed at the moment but this probably won't be the case in ten years time as GAS becomes a premium fuel and electricity by whichever means of production becomes the norm..... people will be able to chose 'Green Energy' from their supplier further propelling renewable s as the main source of our energy.

I should mention also, my own anti-nuclear power stance isn't in anyway ideological or ethical but from a very pragmatic belief that it isn't a SUSTAINABLE solution.

Nuclear is a 30 year solution that simply puts the burden onto our children and then their children -after that

It does not answer the following immediate concerns.

NOT SUSTAINABLE
NUCLEAR is inherently UNSUSTAINABLE because it relies on an non-renewable fuel

NOT SECURE
The Uranium required isn't even available on these islands, we'd be at the mercy of allies and markets and therefore WILL NOT ACHIEVE ENERGY SECURITY, - Que Illegal Wars Part II

NOT CLEAN + HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Dealing with the waste as has been acknowledged above will mean burying it for centuries and continuing to monitor and guard it incase someone wants to use it for terrorism or it leaks - HARDLY CLEAN (Think 'Dirty' Bomb) - see my link below for some details on the concerns that the UK's Environmental Agency has about the vitrified glass containment currently being propsoed.

http://environment.n
ewscientist.com/cha
51

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 17:59:21
# Unimpressed One

See my reasoning above, I hope your children are ready for your inheritance!

52

Wardog,

08/01/2008 18:06:57
#15 Unimpressed One

I think you'll find that Germany does't plan any new nuclear and is developing renewables to account for 100% source mainly through biofuels and district heating systems with greater efficiencies....

They along with the other enlightened european countries I noted above are devolving much of the domestic power requirements down to domestic renewables, higher thermal performance & better build qualities..... this is the reasonable, logical & sensible think to do.... rather than keep building new plant to meet demand

Why not put real effort into tackling demand by investing in the built environment which account for 50% of energy usage..... to date Government, I at the moment I mean the Scottish & Uk Government;s have shown little or no commitment to dealing with base load other than to the Jeremy Clarkson approach of bigger, better and more power.... quite sad really.

If like me your thinking about what your generation are going to hand on to the next then NEW Nuclear isn't the way forward, we need to be alot more radical than that!!!!!

53

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 18:12:49
#50 Completing the post

.......some details on the concerns that the UK's Environmental Agency has about the vitrified glass containment currently being propsoed.

http://environment.n
ewscientist.com/chan
nel/earth/mg18925333
.100-fearover-future
-uk-nuclear-leaks.ht
ml

NOT COST EFFECTIVE
We are talking about BILLIONS of cash here just to get them up and running, BILLIONS more to Decommission them after their service life of around 30 Years and god knows what the Power Companies will try to get as subsidies along the way.....and then we have the centuries of monitoring and guarding of the waste to cosndier, it's simply NOT COST EFFECTIVE

This is before we raise any ideological or ethical issues at all on the use of Nuclear, these are pragmatic issues not aligned with any particular party!!!

I suggest that anyone truly interested in a clean sustainable energy production for the future go and study how Germany, Sweden, Spain & the Netherlands are currently leading the world with the aim of having a non-nuclear future.

They have taken on board the true meaning of a MIX of energy sources by exploring all available renewables, invested in renewables research and have been enforcing high environmental standards for years!

The current opportunity for Scotland is to develop a whole industry specilising in these technologies, that industry would include R+D at our Unviersities, technical expertise that could be a global leader (see how North Sea Oil Expertise has been developed over the last decade) and most crucially a manufacturer and export of these technologies to Global markets..... This is how I see Scotland investing in our children's future!

DON'T LEAVE A LEGACY OF CLEANING UP OUR WASTE FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS!
54

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.
55

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.

56

Wardog,

08/01/2008 18:19:56
#54 Neil, Glasgow

Really Neil, can you provide a link to your Uranium 'story' and while your at a link to something telling us all where the uranium may be found.

And when you've finished could you calculate, as you appear to be very good at it, the environmental damage will be of exploiting all this uranium and by that I mean quarrying it, shipping it, refining itt and then depositing it somehwere safe.....



57

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 18:42:10


Let me help you out with the second one Neil, here's a link to the current uranium producers worldwide....we're those two small islands in the middle top.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Uranium_%28mined%292.PNG

The Countries with a big established Uranium Mining base include but are not exclusive too.

Australia
Canada
USA
South Africa
India

Do you see any pattern there....

Russia
Ukraine
Namibia
Niger
China

"....The uranium market, like all commodity markets, has a history of volatility, moving not only with the standard forces of supply and demand, but also to whims of geopolitics. It has also evolved particularities of its own in response to the unique nature and use of this material.l...." - source WIKIPEDIA

Now how do you think that those geopolitics of the above nations will affect the market? - We'd basically be at the mercy of those other countries for our key fuel , that isn't SECURITY that's GLOBAL PUPPETRY....... a secure energy source is one on your doorstep and not reliant on external markets or sources - That's RENEWABLES



58

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).
59

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.
60

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?
61

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.
62

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 20:12:27
Colin, Glasgow, 08/01/2008 19:38:34

Hi Colin

A good and informative post.

I was thinking more of USA v China/Russia and how that would affect availabilit over the next century, all of those countries will also have a huge and growing demand for uranium and we will be competing against them in that fuel market, essentially being held to ransom....

From what you say about the ExternE Report it would appear that Renewables (including Wind, Hyrdo & Tidal?) are indeed the lowest environmental impact and certainly a whole lot cheaper to install than Nuclear?

Have you got a link to the report that we could see, I'd be interested in reading i...does it touch upon issues such as district heating & biomass?

Cheers

63

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.
64

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 20:28:36
Caora Dubh, O'n taigh 08/01/2008 20:17:09

The key to this may well be in energy storage - there are groups doing research + development into this at the moment - mainly to propagate wind energy it has to be said but the principal can be applied to any source so that there is 'always enough left in the tank so to speak'

We also potentially have a huge potential for biomass with quick plantation woodland all over scotland....

I'd agree it;s about diversity but what appears to be happening is that Nuclear is going to take the lion's share of the funds to the detriment of these other technologies and it;s already being subsidised whereas renewables are paying penalties to connect to the grid....
65

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.
66

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 20:35:55
Thanks for the lead Caora Dubh, cheers


67

,

08/01/2008 20:40:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

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.
69

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.
70

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.
71

,

08/01/2008 20:50:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
72

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.
73

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.
74

Wardog,

Buckie 08/01/2008 21:25:17
Thanks for the link Colin - - I'll have a look

The reports methodology would appear to be a good way off balancing the various key energy sources... and their environmental costs -

I am still concerned however about the capital cost of installing the nuclear plant v putting that money into renewables and with the ongoing storage & security of nuclear waste & fuel given the likely threats we are likely to face this century.

Would you agree that the billions planned could be better spent promoting a great mix of renewables and less nuclear?
75

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.
76

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.
77

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.

78

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.....
79

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 cl