Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 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 Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Shutdown at nuclear power station as reactor is repaired



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: 15 April 2008
A REACTOR at Torness nuclear power station has been shut down indefinitely for emergency repairs, it was revealed today.
The shutdown has reduced Scotland's nuclear energy output to a quarter of capacity, as both reactors at Hunterston in Ayrshire are currently closed for planned maintenance.

It is the eighth stoppage at Torness in the last year, raising fears that it may not reach its expected closing date in 2023.

Opposition parties today said the problems at the East Lothian plant were evidence of a "looming power gap", and called for the Scottish Government to step up its commitment to renewable energy.

The reactor at the 19-year-old power station was closed at 12.01am on Saturday for a "non-planned maintenance event".

The problem follows a six-week planned full shutdown in December, and another week-long outage for one reactor in February.

Station operator British Energy today refused to reveal when the reactor will be re-activated due to "corporate confidentiality".

However, the company said that the closure was due to a fault in a pipeline leading to turbines in the "non-nuclear area of the plant".

A British Energy spokeswoman said: "We are unable to go into specifics relating to profits, or the effect of stations being off, because that information is commercially sensitive. British Energy runs a very tight ship when it comes to operating the UK's eight nuclear power stations.

"Each nuclear station must come off for statutory maintenance or outages, and there are times when we need to take a reactor off power to carry out essential maintenance from time to time. It is the responsible thing to do, to ensure that the plants are working safely, to a high standard, and efficiently."

The Scottish Government has recently pledged to extend the life of Hunterston B to at least 2016, and keep the younger Torness plant running "until the end of its operational life".

This will take it until 2023, but there are no plans to replace the reactors beyond this time.

Scottish Labour environment spokeswoman, Sarah Boyack, said the repeated shutdowns were not a "short-term problem" as Scotland was part of the national grid.

But she added: "The issue for the SNP is what they do now to close the looming energy gap."

Lothian Green MSP Robin Harper added that he was "reasonably confident" there were no safety issues with Torness.

He said: "I'm reasonably confident that if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate had any problems with the plant they would be recommending an early closure.

"However, we must invest more money in renewable energy and reduce the demand for energy."

A spokesman for the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate said: "We have no details on the current fault at Torness at the present time.

"However, we publish all information on major incidents at British installations in our quarterly reports. There have been no major incidents at Torness in our most recent reports."




The full article contains 497 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 April 2008 11:51 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

THE BPRENTICE,

15/04/2008 12:26:50
why do all the "people" living around the area have extra toes and fingers?
2

The Answer,

Glasgow 15/04/2008 12:47:44
Gosh! How will England survive without "scots nuclear generated electricity" ?
3

Farky,

Non nuclear Scotland 15/04/2008 13:11:04
This surely vindicates the SNP's policy of NO further nuclear power stations in Scotland. They are anything but safe and they do NOT provide cheap energy!



4

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 15/04/2008 13:33:16
Farky: did you have someone read the whole of the article to you? Did you note the part where it was shut down for repairs rather than blew Scotland off the map and started melting its merry way through to China?

Let's save the "anything but safe" scaremongering for "Bunnyhuggers Against Electricity" and early Jane Fonda movies.
5

Angus R,

15/04/2008 14:19:14
EXXXXCELLLLEEENNTTTT.
6

Farky,

NUCLEAR FREE SCOTLAND 15/04/2008 15:46:21
Poo, Of course I read the whole article, did you?

I read this is the eighth stoppage in one year - did you? Are you happy with that? Least it is safer when the reactor is shut down I guess.

Apart from the safety issues however, this is not the clean and cheap method of producing electricity that we are constantly told about, far from it. Just look at the decomishining costs of Dounray and all the pollution to be cleaned up on that site.

Nuclear is mad, even without taking Chrnobyl or Long Island into account, it's a very bad way to power the country.
7

Honest Opinion,

Froggyland 15/04/2008 16:08:53
Why get so excited guys - if its a pipeline fault its probably the ccoling system, therefore the shutdown is absolutely correct and the plant's warning systems are doing precisely what they are designed to do. Pipeline faults do occur and are dealt with relatively easily. This has nothing to do with the pro or anti nuclear debate: these events also happen frequently in conventional power plants - you should be reassured that the protection and warning systems are efficient and fulfilling their function.
8

spiggot,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 16:32:07
#7 It has a lot to do with the pro or anti debate.... nuclear is always put forward as more reliable than wind but here is the great and reliable "Nuclear" once again shut down indefinitely!
9

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

,Newington 15/04/2008 17:01:27
Farky raised Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Let's start with the latter: the safety systems worked perfectly and the reactor shut down.

In Chernobyl, the staff had to break several safety systems to get it to go into meltdown. The most you can conclude from it is that dismantling safety systems is a bad idea, perhaps especially when dealing with a nuclear reactor. That they did says more about their idiotic political system (it was to please their communist bosses who had targets to meet) than it does about nuclear reactors.

You're correct that nuclear isn't as cheap as many had hoped. It is though clean because it produces none of the carbon dioxide of fossil fuels. What little radioactive waste is produced could be sealed in glass and kept until we know how to make use of it (or fire it into space to get rid of it).

The decomissioning costs do add quite a bit to the price, but so long as that's reflected in the price, where's the beef? We are at, or soon will be at, Peak Oil. Nuclear will start looking cheap compared to the other options of mass energy production.

Moving into renewables would be great, but we're going to need clean coal and nuclear generation in the UK or the lights will be going out. We'd best get with the programme, or we'll be reduced to burning hippies for heat.
10

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 17:34:59
Agree with Fernando on this one.

All this scaremongering about nuclear power is based upon supposition and exaggeration on the part of those who know the least about it.

Like the article says Farky, the plant was shut down for maintenance. That is, as opposed to keeping it going anyway and risking further problems, which could very well lead to a major incident.

The root of the problem is the failure of this government to invest properly in the nuclear industry---mainly because they have taken far too much on board from the aforementioned ill-informed cranks.
11

,

15/04/2008 20:16:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Honest Opinion,

Froggyland 15/04/2008 21:39:19
Sorry No 8 Spiggot. Its still got nothing to do with the debate Pro-Anti Nuclear. Wind is wonderful - but only when it blows - BUT - alternative power supply has to be on constant standby, in case it doesn't. Could be nuclear or comventional or renewable. From a personal point of view I prefer Hydro - be it gravitational or tidal. My point was that no-one should jump on their high horse by commenting on a normal mainteance situation whipped up by the nedia into something its really not.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.