Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

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.

Nuclear dilemma as British Energy sale fails



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: 02 August 2008
THE UK government's aim of turning Britain into the world's "number one location" for new nuclear power stations hit a major stumbling block yesterday as the sale of British Energy collapsed.
The attempted takeover of British Energy, which owns eight nuclear power stations, including Hunterston B and Torness in Scotland, failed at the 11th hour after major shareholders rejected a bid from the French state energy firm EDF.

Critics fear this will leave the government racing against the clock to encourage private firms to build the next generation of power stations. Those in service are due to start being decommissioned from 2014. Nuclear power provides 19 per cent of the UK's electricity supply.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has given his strong backing to nuclear power as a way of reducing the UK's reliance on gas to fire its power stations. Along with wind power and other renewable technologies, nuclear energy is seen as a way of meeting the target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

The £12 billion sale of British Energy, based in East Kilbride, is understood to have collapsed after two investors, Invesco and Prudential, thought that EDF's revised offer of 765p a share – up from 700p – was too low at a time of soaring global oil and gas prices.

This price would have raised about £4 billion for the Exchequer as the government owns 35 per cent of British Energy.

EDF, the world's largest nuclear plant operator, yesterday said it was not prepared to make a hostile bid for the company, but that it remained interested in investing in the UK. Pierre Gadonneix, EDF's chairman, said: "I confirm our ambition is to be a major actor in the nuclear renaissance in the UK."

Unions were quick to criticise the government – which has refused to subsidise the building of new power stations – for appearing powerless. Last year, it sold off its majority shareholding in British Energy.

Two months ago John Hutton, the Business Secretary, appealed for energy firms to apply to build new nuclear plants, saying that the government was prepared to do "everything we can" to make them available "as soon as possible".

Sites have yet to be confirmed, but it is expected they will sit alongside the existing power stations as they are decommissioned. However, planning in Scotland is devolved to Holyrood – and the SNP Government has made clear it will not allow new power stations to be built while it remains in power.

Mr Hutton said he was disappointed that the sale had collapsed, and it was for the boards of British Energy and EDF to decide how to proceed. He insisted that interest from investors "remains high".

He said: "Our commitment to nuclear power is clear and nuclear new build does not depend on one single deal. British Energy still has potential sites and sites are available from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority."

Charles Hendry, Tory shadow energy minister, said the collapse of the deal was "worrying but not critical". He added: "Time is not on our side, as the government has left it very late to give a firm direction for nuclear. We need a clear resolution quickly, as further delays might make it difficult to fill the looming energy gap."

However, Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, claimed the government's energy policy was in "total disarray". He said: "New nuclear build is supposed to be a central part of the government's energy strategy, but it seems to be dependent on the decisions of foreign companies over whom it has absolutely no control."


The full article contains 603 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 01 August 2008 9:38 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Lillig,

02/08/2008 00:13:57
Appalling. Why are we even considering such a rash move. This plan is no plan. Nuclear energy does not figure in the idea of preservation of the planet. All we are doing is pushing the problem of nuclear waste onto future generations and offering terrorists an easy option.

In addition, is it really prudent to sell important items, such as utilities to companies based in foreign countries? Free open markets may seem like the way forward but to have basic utilities in the hands of companies or individuals outwith our national legal remit is not a good idea.

We have to try to create more renewable energy sources without polluting the planet further and without endangering the health, safety and wellbeing of the people in our country.

I thought my CND days were over and I could get a rest, but here we go again!
2

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 02/08/2008 00:39:49
The French Government own and control EDF. Need I say more.

This tinpot UK Government would sell anything to anybody, and have done already.
3

Iainbroch,

Moray 02/08/2008 00:46:28
Vive La France!
4

Tris,

Dundee 02/08/2008 00:54:45

Clearly Darling needs the money to pay the expenses and John Lewis list purchases for the MPs.

I bet he's panicking now.
5

Edward,

02/08/2008 01:08:08
Would love to be a fly on the wall, when Gordon Brown next speaks to his brother Andrew!
Andrew Brown is PR director of EDF!
6

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 02/08/2008 01:19:31
THE UK government's aim of turning Britain into the world's "number one location" for new nuclear power stations...........

Hootsman get a grip , Scotland has stated it will become nuclear free.

So please make that England and Wales as "number 1 location" and lets see how many votes that gets labour in middle england.
7

Marky Bhoy,

Fife 02/08/2008 01:35:26

I wont go into a long diatribe on this subject tonight

However the money programme was very informative on this subject tonight should be available on bbc i player soon .

If you watch this my political mask will come off and see who has the second biggest oil fund in the world

NORWAY

Yes an independent Scotland could have done similar and still can given the chance .

But my question is why has the UK government not done something similar to Norway set up an oil fund for the whole UK and set billions aside for a rainy day

Unionists read it again not just for Scotland but for the whole nation from Cornwall to Shetland we have nada zilch nothing ( On a European song contest level we have nul points )

Norway has £382 billion

United Kingdom Nil

WHY

As one Norwegian commentator said at a football match Margaret Thatcher Queen Elizabeth Lord Nelson etc etc etc your boys took one hell of a beating

Well between tax rises criminal council tax levels vat 3.5% inflation whilst my gas bill increases 35% I am taking a hell of a beating .

INDEPENDENCE NOW
8

Guga II,

Rockall 02/08/2008 02:22:02
#5. That's an interesting one, i.e. Maggie Broon's brother works for the foreign company that he wants to sell the nuclear power industry to. Aren't MPs, and presumably Prime Monsters, supposed to declare any interests they have in such things? I would assume that that would cover having your brother in the loop.

To make matters worse for them, the poor, impoverished, nearing bankruptcy, New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party can't even sell any peerages to get the extra money they need, let alone pay for their John Lewis list.
9

,

02/08/2008 02:26:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Longdirk Maceth,

NZ 02/08/2008 03:41:11
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/defects-found-in-nuclear-reactor-the-french-want-to-build-in-britain-808461.html

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/-BE39s-repair-bill-for.4301635.jp
11

Cuppa tea,

02/08/2008 04:51:08
I guess comrade Brown's love of random and unscheduled "windfall taxes" is having the 'desired' affect on long term investment in UK energy.
12

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 02/08/2008 06:15:47
There will be no building of Neclear Power Stations in SCOTLAND. We as an INDEPENDENT NATION WILL NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. england is the country who has this energy defecit to deal with, not us ENERGY RICH SCOTS........Have a nice day!
13

steve 1511,

aberdeen 02/08/2008 06:55:25
people should not worry,comrade broon of the liebour stasi party has reassured us on many occasion that he is getting on with the job to resolve issues such as this and after so many years of failure from his party he must fall lucky and succeed at some time
14

Phil C,

02/08/2008 07:21:32
Looking at most measurements nuclear power is the best available form of electricity generation, clean, safe, efficient, environmentally friendly, cost effective etc.

BUT there's one little problem- it's called nuclear waste. At the moment we are creating a huge problem for future generations by burying the waste. Because of this alone nuclear power is not a viable option. Until we find a way of disposing of this waste there should be no nuclear power stations. Finding a solution should be one of the main investments for the future of this planet.
15

MacGillicuddy,

02/08/2008 08:10:06
#12
Quite correct.
The Scottish Government will not permit any new nuclear stations to be built either now or in the coming independent Scotland.
16

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 02/08/2008 08:19:19
#14, Phil
I think you're stretching the point a bit. Yes, nuclear generation is cheap (ignoring waste management and decommissioning) and renewable (for the foreseeable future) compared with most other forms of generation. It's neither clean nor particularly safe.

Hydro electric is less than half the generating cost, infinitely cheaper to build and has less of a waste/decommissioning cost than the average corner shop. This was very evident from many UK government sources a few years ago but, in all today's statistics, hydro seems to have been airbrushed out.

17

calum,

02/08/2008 08:28:50
The fact remains that we need a reliable and efficient baseload for our increasing needs for electricity (there aren't enough hamsters in wheels to power the trams!!). Wind/wave power cannot be relied upon for anything other than top-up. Every other mass generating facility produces long term side effects.
The way forward is geothermal energy production which will last as long as this earth does. Steam is needed to turn generators through turbines and the most efficient form is right under our feet.
18

calum,

02/08/2008 08:31:37
#15 I think you'll find that whilst the Scottish Government can refuse Planning permission, constitutionally Westminster can overturn that in Energy issues where the national (ie UK) interest is served.
19

Phil C,

02/08/2008 08:39:31
#16 Jacqueline

My point was that the current waste management of nuclear stations should rule these out as an option. Find a way of getting rid of waste safely and it's a great option.

I totally agree that Hydro electric should be the main form of electricity generation in Scotland. As you say the powers that be seem to choose to overlook this. I'm not sure why because it seems an obvious way forward- without expensive turbines scarring the countryside!

The main problem is in England though- more people, less mountains, less water etc. They need nuclear power urgently. As part of the UK it's our problem too! Scotland, as ever, is over-endowed with natural resources yet many here choose to overlook this when they consider the viability of Scotland as an independent country! Scotland could export energy to England and be paid for it, instead of giving it away for nothing as at present.
20

Unimpressed one,

02/08/2008 08:56:24
#1, "Nuclear energy does not figure in the idea of preservation of the planet."

Now there's a ludicrous statement if ever there was. Nuclear power is about just that, power generation. the planet doesn't need preserved.

As for nuclear waste, what about carbon sequestration. If CO2 is as 'dangerous' as you lot make out, then surely any repositories for the gas would have to be guarded and maintained indefinately, a charge levelled at nuclear waste, or else it will wreak havoc with the earth's climate! We need nuclear, we definately don't need renewables.
21

Unimpressed one,

02/08/2008 09:00:14
#12, Yours is a typical nationalist's luddite statement. We will be importing English power in the near future or else have the inevitable renewable spin-off - powercuts
22

Greenheatman,

TAIN 02/08/2008 09:10:12
Nuclear fission is just a silly way of raising steam.
Burning coal is also a silly way of raising steam because 2/3 of the heat is lost in the thermodynamic process that makes electricity.

Renewable energy is the sensible way of raising steam. Feeding heat into existing power stations from wind wave and tides will reduce the amount of coal that needs to be burned.

A good analogy for this is to note just how little energy is required to bring a kettle back to the boil if the water is already been preheated.

So why on earth are we feeding worthless intermittent electricity onto the grid when it can only handle a maximum of around 15%. The other 85% will still have to come from thermal sources in 20, 30, 50 or 100 years from now. That is going to be some carbon footprint if mankind is still around!
23

Steve,

Bo'ness 02/08/2008 09:10:50
Dont see why Scotland should need nuclear.. we export most of our power as it is, and we are championing wind, biomass and wave energy. That's the way forward surely?

Why does Scotland, a country of only 5 million, need more nuclear power which will only head straight over the border?
If the rest of the UK are going to use it, let them build the plants nearer to the demand.
24

Mikey,

02/08/2008 09:25:34
21, absolute hogwash! We export power! You would see Scotland become some vast waste depository to keep London in power! Some Scot you are!
25

weh,

02/08/2008 09:27:22
From a sassenach (real) newspaper:-

Meanwhile, and in another pathetic example of Scottish Labour’s malaise at present, Lord Foulkes, one of their more prominent MSPs, has complained about ScotRail’s plans to paint their wagons with Saltire emblems.

This experienced politician and former minister — who should know better — reckons this is part of a dastardly SNP plot to hasten the advent of independence. What absolute rubbish.

The Saltire is Scotland’s flag — not the SNP’s — and if Lord Foulkes doesn’t know that he should remove himself from the frontline of national politics as gracefully as he can.
26

Unimpressed one,

02/08/2008 09:30:28
#24, I consider myself to be British. Scottishness doesn't come into it for me.
27

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/08/2008 09:37:23
#12 Don't be silly. Of course we are going to have more nuclear power stations in Scotland and we sure do need them. I don't want the lights going out like they do where you live.

Wind power is ugly and only works when the wind blows so nuclear is the only way forward. Clean & pratical. Bring it on.
28

subrosa,

02/08/2008 09:39:28
# 10

Thanks for the interesting links.
29

subrosa,

02/08/2008 09:46:12
# 26

My sympathies. It's rather sad that you are not proud enough of your Scots heritage (that is if you are of Scots descent) to have to class yourself as British. Everyone to their own though ...
30

kt mcallan,

scotland 02/08/2008 09:59:45
gordon broon-thatcher and his brother (head of media relations at EDF) will no doubt do everything in their power to get their way. The links between new liebour and the nuclear industry run deep (brian wilson/BNFL/weber shandwick/colin byrne/yvette cooper's dad/allan donnely to name but a few) - also, i heard nuclear stations took FROM the grid and contributed very little?
31

GM,

02/08/2008 10:00:40
To all those who think wind, tide and wave are the answer to everything -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/


I suggest you read some reality of life without nuclear power and a reliance on renewables...
32

Unimpressed one,

02/08/2008 10:00:48
#29, No 'pride' at being born in Scotland as opposed to being born anywhere else. Purely an accident of birth.
33

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/08/2008 10:05:18
#30 Don't be silly. Far from "taking energy from the grid", nuclear power stations are core producers. How do you think France would live otherwise? Over 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear and it is so awash with it that it sells its surplus to us everyday. We'd be knackered already without its surplus.
34

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 10:10:07
NuclearSpin was originally launched in response to the British Government’s 12-week consultation on energy in 2006. In 2007, the High Court ruled that the Government’s plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations were “unlawful” and the way it consulted with the public over the decision was “misleading, seriously flawed, manifestly inadequate and procedurally unfair”. [1] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,2013618,00.html) [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm)

What makes Brown's decision in January 2008 to give the goahead to a new generation of nuclear plants politically sensitive is that his younger brother Andrew Brown works for EDF Energy, the UK subsidiary of EDF, which is one of the leading companies pushing for a nuclear rebuild programme in the UK.

The Labour Government is also speeding up the planning process, making it easier for nuclear power plants to be built. Planning Minister, Yvette Cooper has already had to fight off criticism of "nuclear cronyism" due to her father's links to the nuclear industry too.

To help people make up their own mind about nuclear power, NuclearSpin has been updated and expanded.







http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Main_Page
35

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/08/2008 10:10:15
For those who are interested you can monitor UK electricity demand in realtime here:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/Demand60.htm

Over on the right of the screen under the heading System Transfers you can even see live details of the amount of nuclear produced electricity we are importing from France.
36

GM,

02/08/2008 10:14:30
@35

nice link - is that a scotland--->england export figure?
37

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/08/2008 10:20:59
#36 Yes it is! We should have a big meter running on that one, but with English finances being what they are, perhaps it should be a coin meter!
38

kt mcallan,

02/08/2008 10:21:50
# 33 i'm only telling you what someone in the industry once said to me - i think he said it's less than 5% of our overall energy needs. i also think i 'm right in saying that wind, wave an dtidal power could deliver morethan twice as much than the proposed new fleet of nuclear reactors in the same time frame.
And we would be more "knackered" as you put it if uranium entered the ground water supplies as just happened in Provence last month.
39

GM,

02/08/2008 10:24:21
@38

its pretty clear that wind and wave power are much quicker to develop, its just that we simply dont have the capacity in terms of coastline, lochs, windfarm sites etc to generate enough renewables to meet current demands...

There's nothing wrong with generating as high a proportion as you can from these sources, but realistically, you need a backup and nuclear is about the only option that means we dont have to rely on foreign imports of energy.
40

Pilrig.,

Livingston 02/08/2008 10:24:51
32 - and you were born and reside in North Britain ?
41

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/08/2008 10:35:46
The difference between how seriously France takes electricity production and how we don't is very clear in this article:

http://tinyurl.com/5n7nn9
42

Dougalp,

Angeles City 02/08/2008 10:38:09
Hydro-electric power is certainly clean and cheap to produce during peak demand hours. Regrettably, during non-peak hours we must use power from conventional stations to pump the damned water back up the hill again!
43

Rickie,

02/08/2008 10:40:10
Brown - another undeclared conflict of interests.

Hootsmon - "as the government owns 35 per cent of British Energy" - no they don't they are simply meant to manage it on behalf of the people of Britain who own it! Not sell it off, as no mandate exists for either the sale or the PM. Can't you actually report these things properly?
44

John B Dick,

02/08/2008 10:46:39
39 GM

So you've never been to Lewis, then?
45

kt mcallan,

scotland 02/08/2008 10:50:47
Em, but we DO have wind, lochs, coastline, waves, wind etc in abundance here in Scotland.We have also just seen europe's largest onshore windfarm been given the green light by our SCOTTISH government, bringing £600 MILLION of investment and 200 jobs during construction.
EDF has already gone on record acknowledging that significant growth in renewable energy means the case for nuclear falls apart.Of course now Gordon and his cronies will be scaremongering again.They don't want to lose their financial perks after all.
46

inkster,

02/08/2008 10:57:36
I can smell vested interests.


Nuclear technology is only good for one thing - and at that it excels. There must be cheaper ways to commit mass suicide.

But for power generation it is essentially Old Technology. Or until a reliable way can be found of shooting the stuff into the sun. And as was said uranium supplies are finite (~20 years)

Try this GM :http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-to-turn-water-into-rocket-fuel-ndash-scientists-unlock-power-of-the-sun-882613.html
47

Daveunderwater,

02/08/2008 11:05:55
Friday, January 11, 2008
The silence on Andrew Brown explained?
at 1/11/2008 11:21:00 AM

It's been making me wonder over the past few days why there has been absolutely no comment from anyone in the Conservative Party about the fact that Gordon brown's brother is Head of Corporate Communications at EDF Energy. According to an internal memo sent around EDF his primary role is to "lead the communications agenda in the nuclear project" as well.

The potential for raising the possibility of sleaze, however tenuous it might be is there. This is especially the case when you add in the nuclear and energy lobbying link of Labour donors like Sovereign Strategy and Weber Shadwick. On top of which you have a former Labour Chairman (Iain McCartney) being a paid advisor to a nuclear specialist.

Then this morning I think I discovered why there is so much silence about the pontentially smelly EDF links to Downing Street. Between 2003 and 2005 EDF Energy, 70% owned by the French state, donated a total of £43,000 to the Conservatives and Labour. £31,000 and £12,000 respectively. Hardly going to big up connections if the quick answer is "you're connected too aren't you!"
48

Daveunderwater,

02/08/2008 11:08:59
Alex Neil go get em!!

49

Daveunderwater,

02/08/2008 11:11:15
Mr Brown was hired by EDF Energy four years ago from Weber Shandwick, a public relations and lobbying organisation. At the time, Michael Prescott, Weber Shandwick's head of corporate communications, described him as a “very calming, very thoughtful, very mature person with a gentle sense of humour”.
Related Links


Andrew Brown had moved to lobbying after a lengthy career as a broadcast journalist, working first as a BBC TV Scotland reporter before becoming a producer for Newsnight and then economics and business producer for Channel 4 News. A 26-year career in journalism ended with a seven-year editorship of Channel 4 News' thrice-weekly lunchtime political discussion programme Powerhouse.

The younger Mr Brown dislikes connections being made with his brother, especially in the nuclear industry, which is well known for its attachments to the political world. He maintains that he does his job, his brother does his.

He also eschews the limelight, largely keeping off-camera despite his broadcast past - an ability his brother must envy at the moment.
50

GM,

02/08/2008 11:11:51
@48

hey, Im not against renewables - its just that in all the reading I have done on the subject, it appears there are clear issues that have not been overcome as yet.

Is the tehcnology still a bit under-developed? definately.

Are there still issues of meeting fluctuating and peek demand? yes.

Are there still issues of location and NIMBY's? yes.

Are there still issues of reliance on foreign imports of energy? yes.

etc etc etc...


Dont get me wrong, I woul dbe *delighted* if *all* our power came from renewable sources... more than delighted!

But until such time as it is proven and realistic, then the pragmatic part of me sees that we have to explore all alternatives at the moment and one of those is nuclear.
51

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/08/2008 11:12:14
Meanwhile...

Have a look at recent potential advances in small scale production of hydrogen, and thereby electricity, that could help supply our needs without massive centralised thermal power stations. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/31/energyefficiency.energy
52

Daveunderwater,

02/08/2008 11:15:18
THE UK government's aim of turning Britain into the world's "number one location" for new nuclear power stations

That'll be the UK Government for England And Wales, I think the Scottish Government have already made their case quite clear.

NO MORE NUCLEAR WASTERS!
53

Charles MN,

02/08/2008 11:15:59
48
Current usage of uranium is ~65000 tons a year. Current KNOWN reserves are 4,700,000 tons. By my arithmetic thats about 80 years worth.
Nobody has been looking for uranium for decades as we have so much of the stuff.

Then ,of course, there is thorium which works just as well ( the Indians have a thorium reactor) and there is three times the amount.
54

kt mcallan,

scotland 02/08/2008 11:16:49
#47 - thanks for the link but i can't access it. And now here are a couple of links for you:

oilofscotland.org and nuclearspin.org
55

Daveunderwater,

02/08/2008 11:17:25
Dounreay costs pass £1bn mark

THE cost of maintaining the Dounreay nuclear plant since 2000 has climbed above £1 billion.
Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, said the actual costs since then amounted to £1.145 billion and the bill last year was £137.5 million.

Mr Wicks told MPs there were no figures available before 2000 as the UK Atomic Energy Authority "did not record costs on a site basis and there are, therefore, no detailed figures on the historical cost of Dounreay".

In a Commons written answer he said the gross costs did not include income generated by the site.

The full article contains 101 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

* Last Updated: 07 July 2008 11:48 PM
* Source: The Scotsman
* Location: Edinburgh
56

kt mcallan,

02/08/2008 11:19:03
52 And isn't Weber Shandwick's "uk" arm headed by liebour's former chief press officer, byrne?
57

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/08/2008 11:39:35
It says it all really when J E Lovelock, author of Gaia and guru of the Green movement, says we need nuclear to save the planet. He is right.

Windmills and wave power cannot make up the difference and, in fact, when you add in the energy requirements to build them (cement production is one of the largest consumers of energy and producers of CO2) they are non-starters.
58

inkster,

02/08/2008 11:50:38
#53 Yes I see good point. But doesn't the pragmatic part of you also see that nuclear power stations have proved to be mind bogglingly dangerous, mind bogglingly expensive, and impossible to effectively clear up the waste product.

#56 charles MN. OK you are right but as you also said 'current usage'. If many many more stations are built that sum will change considerably.

59

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 02/08/2008 12:05:54
#53 Disposal of nuclear waste is actually very simple: rockets are now very safe reliable so just load them up with it and blast them off into the sun.

If 1 rocket in 100 fails it will be no big deal against prevailing background radiation.
60

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 12:09:45
#54 slioch. I am stunned I have seen you on here putting forth passionate argument for nuclear. You now seem to be a hydrogen revolution convert. Congratulations.

The national grid is now redundant as micro generation and hydrogen is becoming viable. Huge multi nationals who can extort money at will from helpless customers will soon be exterminated. The EDF British Nuclear debacle is just the beginning. British Gas have signed thir own death warrant with their disgusting robbery.

Their are many schemes which are showing the way not the leasdt of them being on Unst. http://www.pure.shetland.co.uk/html/index.html


#46. The hydro business in Scotland was sacrificed in an act of malevolence by Thatcher being one of the first companies privatised and the profiteering that followed. There was no way Scotland was going to be allowed to be self sufficient with nuclear breathing down Thatchers neck.

Please read The Hydro Boys by Emma Wood.

There are at least 200 sites in Scotland where major hydro schemes can be built and many more micro hydro sites. The present planning debacle in Scotland which is in control of the nimbys and middle class bean munchers is a joke. Otherwise we would have an excess of hydro power with no need to worry about coal, nuclear or gas. As it is we send vast amounts of power south.




Demand: 35699MW
Frequency: 49.95Hz
11:07:30 GMT
System Transfers

N.Ireland to Great Britain: 74MW
France to Great Britain : 1497MW
North-South: 7464MW
Scot - Eng: 1736MW
02/08/2008 11:07:00 GMT
61

Arrow,

edinburgh 02/08/2008 12:40:36
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/227764/
interesting little link!!
62

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 02/08/2008 13:16:59
#63 200 sites???? That would put most of Scotland under water. I thought that was what we were trying to prevent. The expansion of Hydro came to an end in the early fifties because they ran out of sites and they were putting forward ever sillier suggestions. Many once beautiful and productive glens were drowned by the Hydro - for tiny amounts of electricity. (All the hydro in Scotland produces 2/3rds the electricity of a room in Torness).

Don't know what your figures are meant to be. Scotland produces just over 52GWhs of electricity a year of which 8 are lost in transmission and 8 are exported to England and Ireland.

Incidentally last year when Torness and Hunterston were on low output and a conveyor went at Longannet electricity had to be imported up the line from England for a few days. Seemingly there was so much coming up the line it was close to melting. Thus is our future under the SNP's energy policies.
63

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 02/08/2008 13:27:01
Just a point of interest.

2-3months ago, just as British Energy was being primpt and prepared for take-over, G Brown and his cabal sneaked a bill through parliament covering all of British Energy's waste and storage problems would be to the liability of the state.

In other words any potential buyer would start with a clean slate and we, the tax payers would pick up the tab?

Which then begs the question, could it not be reasonable for any supplier of new or existing nuclear facilities to consider the ruling would relieve them from any liability regarding their nuclear waste?

Firing rockets at the sun; seems to me to have as much veracity as opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble.
64

nolimits,

Kamloops 02/08/2008 14:59:42
Has anyone checked out 'run of the river' projects? We have a couple being built in our area ( South Central British Columbia). Seems to be a viable solution to providing some power at least.
65

sheena,

Menstrie 02/08/2008 15:09:07
Waiting at traffic lights in downtown Vancouver we were informed by a policeman that not only were the 100+ ladies exercising in the brightly lit YWCA Gym across the road, one of the prettiest sights in Vancouver but they were also powering all the city's traffic and street lights.

I presume he was joking but what a great idea. I will be first in the queue for a pedal powered computer or a DVD player for my couch potato DH.
66

Colin, Glasgow,

02/08/2008 16:20:08
Doctor S #34, your “Nuclearspin” site is funded by Greenpeace, so you can hardly expect an unbiased opinion. They are busy trying to justify their 30 year opposition to nuclear power which has directly exacerbated our over-dependence on fossil fuel. Their environmental argument against nuclear power has proven to be groundless, given the disastrous consequences of using fossil fuel, so now they are just playing politics to defend their credibility. They were wrong about nuclear power, and the best thing they could do is admit it.

Similarly the Scottish government’s opposition to nuclear power has nothing to do with the environment or energy strategy, and everything to do with politics. They will change their tune before Torness closes.
67

Unimpressed one,

02/08/2008 17:10:08
"The national grid is now redundant as micro generation and hydrogen is becoming viable."

You're completely mentally challenged.
68

MoragfraeEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 02/08/2008 17:12:05
"What makes Brown's decision in January 2008 to give the goahead to a new generation of nuclear plants politically sensitive is that his younger brother Andrew Brown works for EDF Energy, the UK subsidiary of EDF, which is one of the leading companies pushing for a nuclear rebuild programme in the UK."

Grow up Doctor S. (34#)
69

democracy,

Scottish Borders 02/08/2008 17:17:36
#26 Unimpressed one, Ah!! an englishman living in Scotland OR england! A little britisher, how sad.
70

Greenheatman,

TAIN 02/08/2008 17:28:27
"""22 Greenheatman

"Renewable energy is the sensible way of raising steam. Feeding heat into existing power stations from wind wave and tides will reduce the amount of coal that needs to be burned."

I do hope everyone who read this (including the author) realises it is total codswallop.

You can't get "heat" from wind, wave and tides and feed it into existing power stations."""

Oh yes you can. In fact one of the main problems wind turbines have is keeping the oil in their gearboxes cool. The operators use intecoolers to do just that.

I do not suppose that you have heard of kinetic energy so there is little point in me giving you a short lesson in physics except to say that one of the fundamental Laws of Physics is that you cannot create nor destroy energy.

Following your flawed argument forward what do you think that wind turbines just pluck passing electrons out of the wind?
71

democracy,

Scottish Borders 02/08/2008 17:36:56
#69 Colin, Glasgow says "Similarly the Scottish government’s opposition to nuclear power has nothing to do with the environment or energy strategy, and everything to do with politics. They will change their tune before Torness closes".

Similarly the english government's pro-nuclear power has nothing to do with the environment or energy strategy, and everything to do with wheeling and dealing and money changing hands,new labour dont give a damn about the people NOW, let alone the future generation, who can go hang and grow two heads for all they care, they will be long gone after becoming very rich and living a far better life than any of us and that is ALL that matters to their kind, and to believe otherwise is naivety in the extreme!!
72

Sanny,

Upwey 02/08/2008 17:52:13
Master Plan P.Firth
Pentland Firth Tidal Master Plan, Caithness, UK
The Pentland Firth is arguably one of the best concentrated tidal resources on earth. Estimates of the energy potential in this few square kilometres range from 2GW to 8GW. An objective has been set by public sector agencies and the Scottish Government to harness 1300MW of tidal energy in the Pentland Firth by 2020.

A pre-feasibility study has been prepared by Tocardo BV Tidal Energy to identify the tasks required for a Tidal Master Plan Study, which will be the route-map for the accelerated, large scale tidal energy development of the Pentland Firth.

This is a project that should be entirely in Scottish hands not Dutch! However our Westminster based government is too busy throwing away our resources on unwinnable and illegal wars that should be no concern of ours.

Further we do not need Expensive, Unsafe Nuclear Power when we have the natural resource on our doorstep waiting to be developed.

Scotland needs Independence an it needs it in a hurry!!


73

Sanny,

Upwey 02/08/2008 18:02:32
69 Colin, Glasgow

Read my comment above @75 then tell me why we need Nuclear of even wind turbines. The power source of the Pentland Firth is immense and reliable.

Also I speak against nuclear from a position of knowledge. I'm not, nor ever would be, associated with Greenpeace or any of the other flat earth societies. I spent over 12 years as a young research Engineer with the UKAEA in the late 50 through to the early 70's. I assure you, its danger potential is enormous and it will always be costly, because you cannot divorce the generation and project costs from the waste disposal and storage costs.
74

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 18:12:01
#65. The success of Hydro was a huge threat to the coal industry in the 50s, don't know if you rememeber or perhaps have heard of Gerald Nabarro, MP. He was the mouthpiece of the coal industry and did his utmost to secure the demise of Hydro, many other vested interests were at play, not the least of them the landed gentry who wanted rural Scotland kept as backward as possible to maintain their supply of cheap labour for the estates and lodges.

The Mackenzie report of 1962 secured the end of Hydro schemes being built. Nuclear and Oil were flexing their muscles, combined with the coal lobby were very powerfull vested interests. Enraged landed gentry, academic economists, The South of Scotland Electrcity Board, and the civil service who preferred the tidiness and the lies of nuclear fission to the big social adventure of Hydro, all played their hand as one. All hell bent on their own self interested agenda.

One of the most virulent objectors was The Duke of Westminster, (that well known Highland glen,) who was then, and still is one of the largest landowners in Scotland since 1746, I wonder why?

At the time of their demise NOSHEB had 60 schemes in planning which were abandoned with a further 140 unexplored potential sites. The details are now the property of SSEB. Locked and secured.

Your claim that most of Scotland would be under water is just plain daft, reminiscent of the vested interest scaremongering, the quaint Victorian ideal that Scotland must be free of anything that might startle the deer or pheasants.

You make a nice Victorian reference to "beautiful and productive glens," what products were lost? Do we still not have beauty in Scotland? And thousands of glens, most only seen by intrepid walkers and mountaineers. Most of the Highlands are desolate. Before the Hydro in the late 19th century they were virtualy empty.

Pitlochry/ Faskally caused uproar amongst the gentry for just the reason you have quoted. Hoteliers and Lairds alike were furi
75

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 18:12:31
Pitlochry/ Faskally caused uproar amongst the gentry for just the reason you have quoted. Hoteliers and Lairds alike were furious, until they saw the amount of visitors the fish ladder was drawing in to Pitlochry. 150,000 last year.

Your story about melting power lines sounds like some school boy myth to me, and has not been reported as far as I know.

The figures are from http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/Demand60.htm
where you can see exactly what is going on in real time re power supply.
76

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 18:29:44
Colin. Who can we go to for unbiased opinion, in your opinion?
77

Unrepentant Dinosaur,

Scotland 02/08/2008 18:33:53
#74 Alex Salmond's opposition to nuclear power has been a key part of his beliefs for many years and like him or not you have to accept that he is far truer to his core beliefs than many politicians.

I totally agree with #75. Why is a potentially massive source of electrical generation not in Scottish hands for the benefit of Scottish people? With petroleum becoming a thing of the past the argument over the ownership of Oil reserves gets more sterile by the year. Let's not have some foreign power benefit from a Scottish resource and get screwed yet again!

Westminster have more than enough wind power to keep the power flowing south of the border.
78

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 02/08/2008 19:10:42
#77 & 78 - I think you two should get a hold of a Book "The Last Highland Clearance" by Iain Mackay ( a crofter displaced)and take a good look at the photographs of the devastation caused by Hydro- Monar, Mullardoch, Quoich, Garry, Loyne Luichart ,Fannich.....all beautiful glens destroyed. Yes Faskally is nice but it's a one-off. And you people want more of the this? Allied to the destruction currently being caused by wind farms you are basically arguing for the end of Scotland as one of the most beautiful parts of the world.

But then I guess you never leave your cities so aren't aware of this? Get on the train to Fort William and see the moonscape previously known as Loch Treig - that would be a good inexpensive introduction for you.

(More people died in building the Scottish Hydro than nuclear power has killed in the whole world.)
79

Iainbroch,

Moray 02/08/2008 19:28:30
re 81

So Hydro Power killed more peole than Nuclear Power

3 words for you - Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Chernobyl.

Oh and how many will die over Irans develpoment of Nuclear Power Margaret?

Glow in the dark Margaret - glow in the dark!

80

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 02/08/2008 20:27:48
#82

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nuclear power stations? You're being silly now. Chernobyl killed about 60.

Blackwater reservoir killed 22 (although no-one was keeping a strict count). Bet you don't even know where that is? It produces 19.5mws though so the 22 didn't die in vain. Torness produces 1250mws - none dead.
81

Eve,

Scotland 02/08/2008 20:47:51
No more Nuclear!!!

Hope it fails, Nuclear pullets the ground.

Hopefull this will stop Brown and co trying to steall the planing promisions form Holyrood so the can build their pointless stations hear. Scotland already produces more energy than Scotland uses we exprotet to England and Northen Irealnd.
82

Eve,

Scotland 02/08/2008 20:56:21
#84 Margaret L: I'm geussing yer no counting the folk that died from cancer years later and thoughs in Chernoby who are still dieing with cancerous deisease to this day.

What about thoes who have become infertile because of a nuclear disaster, when there would have been a chance that they could have had children if they hadn't lived so near the disarter area. Should that thing NOT be counted when you look at deaths and losses.

I wance read something discrubing about the children of Chernoby bore round about the time of the accesent. Theres laisses who have no womb or/ and no virgina openings (so to speak, the techincal term I don't rember cause I'm no doctor).

The risks of neclear dissaters are to high a price to pay on the way it effects the people who live there and who will live there in the future.
83

MacGillicuddy,

02/08/2008 21:34:38
#81, #84 MargaretL

As a Highlander, born and bred and whose grandparents' house is now somewhere under the Loch Mullardoch, I can state with certainty YOU are talking nonsense madam!
84

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 21:43:43
81
Margaret L,
Edinburgh 02/08/2008 19:10:42


How predictable that you should spring so easily to conclusions.

I went to school in Dalhalvaig almost in the shadow of Dounreay. Our summer outing was to Sandside beach, a very beautiful beach that is now to dangerous through nuclear hot spots to allow people on.

At that time the big lie was that in five years time Dounreay would be producing power so cheaply that it would not be worth charging for it. That and the fact that employment was provided, good well paid jobs and apprentice ships. Nobody questioned, why Dounreay? We know now.

Please think before jumping to conclusions.

As to your assertions about the number of deaths from nuclear, your statement is just more classic nuclear lies, but it's Saturday and the argument is lost in Scotland, unless they send the cavalry in again. Colin says that the Greenpeace figures are wrong. I ask you who do we believe. The UKAE? The Government? Colin? Gordon Browns brother? Gordon Brown.

Dounreay is a classic exanmple. They lied and lied and lied about their lies and spewed nuclear poison into the Pentland Firth. They still have a 65m deep shaft, on the fore shore filled with contaminated waste that they are only now attempting to deal with. That shaft has now got a radioactive plume spreading from it and will soon be into the local water table.

To many lies and to much spin. The truth is on Sandside beach and will be for a few thousand years.

With regard to beautiful glens. My folks are from Strathnaver and Tongue, beautiful breathtaking lunar landsdcape that I never tire of seeing. Yet these very glens were once thronging with people, living healthy self sufficient lives, you can still see the foundations of there dwellings, and their churches and schools. Yet other vested interests wanted their land. At least if it had been the Hydro they would have been resettled. Instead they were evicted and their homesteads burnt before their eyes.

Please do
85

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 21:45:54
cont from 88...Please do not lecture me about moonscape.


#87.MacGillicuddy....;o) Funny I also arrived at that conclusion, I think strong drink has been taken.
86

Doctor S,

02/08/2008 21:58:09
#83. Please check your sources.




Scotland has 85% of the UK's hydro-electric energy resource, much of it developed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in the 1950s. The ‘Hydro Board’, which brought 'power from the glens', was a nationalised industry at the time although it was privatised in*1989* and is now part of Scottish and Southern Energy plc.