Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSPs vote No to new nuclear stations

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: 18 January 2008
THE Scottish Parliament voted narrowly last night to block any new nuclear power stations north of the Border – as Alex Salmond was warned that his legacy might be the "lights going out" across Scotland.
MSPs voted by 63 to 58 to reject nuclear power, exactly a week after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, committed the UK government to a new generation of such stations.

The Holyrood vote was hailed by SNP ministers as signalling a clean, bright f
uture for Scottish energy.

Jim Mather, the energy minister, said: "This vote transforms the terms of the energy debate in Scotland – we now have a parliament and government able and willing to take forward Scotland's clean, green energy future. Scotland's energy future is bright."

But Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Conservative leader, told the First Minister he was making a mistake by ruling out new nuclear power stations, a decision that could lead to black-outs across Scotland.

An alliance of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens was enough to see the policy through, with the Tories and Labour voting to retain nuclear energy.

The vote will give the Scottish Government solid parliamentary backing for its opposition to nuclear power stations and will mean Scotland and England pursuing completely different paths in electricity generation for the foreseeable future.

Energy policy is reserved to Westminster, but Holyrood has control over planning policy, so can veto any applications for new nuclear plants.

Mr Salmond has made it clear he will do just that, an approach that is likely to dissuade energy companies from coming forward with applications.

However, last night's parliamentary victory for Mr Salmond was tarnished by stinging criticism from his opponents, with Miss Goldie warning him that his legacy might be "the lights going out" over Scotland.

Miss Goldie referred in First Minister's Questions to a recent YouGov poll that showed 70 per cent of Scots were in favour of a mix of energy sources, including nuclear. She then quoted John Swinney, the finance secretary, who last week stated Scotland did not need nor want nuclear power.

She challenged Mr Salmond: "Will the First Minister admit his favourite pollster got it right, his favourite minister got it wrong?"

Miss Goldie went on: "The bottom line for Scotland is we are currently relying on over half of our energy production coming from finite and diminishing fossil fuel sources.

"So, yes, let's grow our renewables, but let's not risk the lights going out in Scotland because of the blockheaded parochial dogma of one man and his party.

"Does the First Minister really want that to be his legacy?"

The First Minister hit back, arguing that "virtually no country in Europe has the vast array of potential cheap, renewable, low carbon energy sources that Scotland has".

Mr Salmond went on: "The real task for our country is not just to secure our electricity production, which we will do and can do, the real task is to find the economic means of exporting that substantial surplus of power to the energy-poor areas of Europe.

"And that is what this government has been addressing."

John Lamont, the Tory MSP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, kept up the pressure on Mr Salmond by claiming the decision to block new nuclear power stations would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs at Scotland's two existing nuclear stations, Torness and Hunterston.

The First Minister replied: "While I recognise the importance of jobs in communities, let's just remember that there are now 2,600 jobs in renewables energy in Scotland – jobs that weren't there a few years ago but have been created by the substantial increase in renewable generation."

Last night's vote at Holyrood was welcomed by environmental campaigners.

Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "We warmly welcome the Scottish Parliament's rejection of the expensive white elephant of nuclear power, and their recognition that new nuclear power stations would be practically useless in the fight against climate change."

He went on: "This vote confirms Friends of the Earth Scotland's earlier research, which found that a majority of Scotland's MSPs are opposed to new nuclear power stations in Scotland."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 January 2008 9:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 18/01/2008 01:12:24
#2 Warthog "a rich backbone of energy support" are you selling dog food.
2

An Beal Bacht,

18/01/2008 01:49:42
A great decision by Scotland's parliament. Well done SNP, LibDems, and Greens. Although the danger still lurks south of the border Scots have shown the way forward.

Annabel - the only lights goin out are in your wee brain.
3

An Beal Bacht,

18/01/2008 02:00:36
Mercutio - you might be an english teacher - I don't know. But this is a board to discuss political ideas not grammar. Gee's nae mair ae yer damp squibs ae indignation it errors ae syntax, ur allusion. A didnae come here fur tiddlywinks, but fur meat and strong ale!
4

Saul Tyre,

Germany 18/01/2008 06:33:00
If we had no Scottish parliament, how many of these new 'British' nuclear reactors would have been planned for Scotland? Normally Scotland with under 9 % of the population would have been allocated one new reactor, at the most two. But Westminster's tired old excuse is that they should be built where the population is sparse. I dread to think of Scotland being saddled with a whole battery these time bombs for export to England only.

As long is Scotland is at the mercy of Westminster's whims, there can only be a policy of NO to nuclear power. Hats off to the Scottish government.
5

donald,

glasgow 18/01/2008 07:46:01
Hamish forgot to mention his reactionary Labour chums. No briefing today?
6

juan kerr and his dead magic hands, now re risen.,

18/01/2008 07:55:30
SO the Labour sheep voted as per Westminsters wishes. So much for a once Anti Nuclear and Socialist (LOL) Party

I hope all these stupid votes and childish decisions come back to haunt them at the ballot box.

7

Cadgers,

18/01/2008 08:23:47
"But Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Conservative leader, told the First Minister he was making a mistake by ruling out new nuclear power stations, a decision that could lead to black-outs across Scotland." Aye Ms Goldie, just like the razorwire and border guards and the £5,000 extra it would cost the Scots for independence. Wilnae happen.
8

glassbenmhor,

18/01/2008 08:35:27
Aye the sharpest,hardest and GREEN-LIKE the News-reader has ever sunk his flase teeth into me-thinks!
9

Talorthane,

18/01/2008 08:41:40
Labour's credibility is really going down the tubes.

One day they scream "Right Wing Alliance" while in a huge strop because the Finance Committee approved two Conservative ammendments but blocked all Labour amendments.

The very next day, they vote with the Conservatives to oppose the prevention of new nuclear power stations, and their high-level nuclear waste, in Scotland.

The only way that these two positions can be consistent is if Labour genuinely believes that "right wing" means "to not agree with Labour", rather than to be anything to do with the issue at hand.

Their arrogance is only matched by their increasingly apparent incompetance.
10

morris,

edinburgh 18/01/2008 09:04:03
According to recent figures (very recent)on generation in Scotland ,it is clear that closure of all nuclear installations in Scotland would still show a considerable surplus over peak demand.(These are the industries own figures,not my interpretation of them).

If the lights go out in Scotland its far more likely because we did not pay the bill!

It is simply pro nuclear scaremongering.

A combination of hydro wave wind and solar is absolutely more than Scotland could ever need,and I have even heard it said that Scotland could if required ,supply the UK's energy needs and then some.The problem with that Scenario is an independent Scotland would mean that England was dependent upon her northern(foreign) neighbour for her energy needs, and thats what really upsets Westminster.

England/UK cannot (or will not) generate electricity by means which do not include nuclear.She also DOES NOT NEED TO DO THIS. She chooses that it is so, because she "does not want to be dependent upon anyone for fuel" (and we wont go into the nuclear weaponry argument)although the link is clear enough.

I find it interesting that she would gladly accept nuclear generation which originates in Scotland, but objects if we supply her with the same electricity whilst keeping our own back yard clean? How can this be?

Surely clean electricity is no less of a fuel than nuclear electricity ?

It would appear that whatever the real reasons are , what they should be measured in is the question, because they cannot be measured in Watts !
11

Mikey,

18/01/2008 09:06:07
Ah, but the Labour Parody DO believe that to disagree with them is to become right wing! Ask any Labour supporter! You'll hear the same delusional mantra about Labour being socialist etc.!

They do seem to have a large capacity for self delusion.
12

Highland Mighty,

18/01/2008 09:29:18
1 and 2: Wardog, do you ever think your beloved SNP could be wrong?

Is it a safe assumption that your desk is very close to Miss H and An Beal Bacht?
13

morris,

edinburgh 18/01/2008 09:44:34
19

Have you ever considered that along with thousands of educated Scots they could be right ,and you are wrong?

The SNP has a research department,which compiles the information the party needs.

Where do you get yours from?
14

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

18/01/2008 09:45:30
#5, #7, #10, #11

Labour's line is not dictated south of the border or in London but much closer to home - it is the trade unions in the nuclear industry who are amongst the biggest supporters of nuclear power.

My own view is that we can't say either way if or if not new stations are required.

There needs to be a fully comprehensive review of energy policy in this country that examines all options including, renewables, nuclear and energy conservation. Until that happens this stance is as ill-considered as Thatcher's "dash for gas".
15

morris,

edinburgh 18/01/2008 10:00:06
18

It has indeed been the case for many years now that some Scots view the political spectrum as Labour and everything else is "Tories".
I remember well the constant repetition when I was younger of the phrase , "Tartan Tories" and they would all agree heartily. It occurred to me at the time,that they had learned this parrot fashion,and the comparison is only unfair, in the sense that an average parrot probably has a superior cranium, so I am being unfair!
This is not so much simplistic as infantile !
In fact there is precious little difference between the three Unionist parties at the moment,and I'm not convinced that Labour would be the more left wing of the three !

The SNP are at least identifiably left of centre,although clearly a broad church also,and not to the liking of the loony left.
They would presumably drop to around 1% of the popular vote if they were.
I wonder,does it ever occur to these pursuers
of the "Peoples Republic of Groucho"that when they depart this planet they will be no nearer than when they arrived,and their entire life has been a monument to futility?
16

DAVID,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 10:19:07
I'd rather see a few nuclear power stations dotted around the landscape than the proliferation of ugly, blighting wind farms. But I guess with the current paranoia and fear whipped up by the Green fascists these days, it is unlikely to happen. Anyone disagreeing with the Green tree huggers is dismissed as a climate change denier.
17

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 10:25:15
So there we have the proof. The majority of our MSPs are brain dead.
18

morris,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 10:38:32
24

Nuclear power has improved in safety as far as generation is concerned,so we are assured anyway,but storage (and transportation)of waste is something which cannot ever be considered safe ,because seismic activity and time (we need to guarantee the safety for tens of thousands of years)are a fatal combination,and quite honestly to go there when there is no need is a logic which escapes me !Why risk it?

Wind farms are debatably an eyesore but even if we agreed that they were,(and I don't) Id prefer that to we don't have a planet to live on,which is what you would leave future generations.

What is this fascination with nuclear power? Have you all been standing too close to Torness?

The question is do we have enough power ? The answer according to many is we potentially have far too much!A mixture of reneweables will more than suffice.
People ask what do we do when the wind stops?

Answer We use hydro,tidal and solar and who knows maybe use storage heaters etc. Peak demand can be balanced by peak generation storage and local generation. I know I already use wind and solar although on a very small scale.(An interest rather than a serious supply)but I KNOW IT WORKS!
19

Am-Bodach,

18/01/2008 11:56:32
A sad day for Scotland – this ill-considered decision by the Scottish government will condemn an independent Scotland to expensive and unreliable supplies of electricity that will drive investment in industry to other countries, and massively increase the incidence of fuel poverty. The over-hyped renewables will achieve little other than to trash Scotland’s most important industry, tourism. Renewables at their current technological maturity are unable to replace our dependence on fossil and/or nuclear electricity generation. Scotland wishes to abandon nuclear power, despite several analyses demonstrating that this energy source is indispensable to the security of the electricity transmission grid that includes both England and Scotland. Indeed, the Scottish government seemingly wishes to use this same transmission grid to export a (probably wishful) surplus of renewable energy. Perhaps the solution is for nuclear-free Scotland to sever the grid connections with the remainder of the UK, and endure the consequences of its own energy policy.
20

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 18/01/2008 12:11:35
Better have a good bit of coal-fired capacity then because ruling out a strategic option like this depends on renewables being reliable and power availability being smoothed across the network at times which may not coincide with wind and tide! This looks more like a statement of faith than solid science and the way back may not be painless! E.g. having to purchase excess capacity from England.
21

Colin, Glasgow,

18/01/2008 13:00:05
So the Greens essentially voted for increased use of coal, plus renewables subsidised by oil revenues. How green! And the SNP voted to become reliant on electricity imports from England. How independent!
22

Hadrian,

Tillicoultry 18/01/2008 13:19:11
Would any one like to calculate the cost of removing the waste products of fossil fuels from the environment as they are consumed, to the same level required of nuclear fuels ?.
I suspect the cost could well be higher than nuclear, certainly the amount of cleanup for wind, hydro, wave, and solar generation of electricity would be much lower.

The real problem is electrical storage systems. The only systems we have are crude, like car batteries or filling up lochs in the hills to drain them later, like hydro power. Not very convenient for running the car!
So find an effective electrical storage system and you could be very rich!

How about this as a science project for schools, with nothing ruled out or in,could bring results?.
23

kimba,

18/01/2008 13:45:58
Hope the kids of scotland can do their homework by candlelight!
24

Colin, Glasgow,

18/01/2008 14:03:26
Hadrian #31, the UK Energy Review looked at the cost of cleaning up fossil fuel electricity, and it is part of the reason why nuclear was kept as an option.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file32014.pdf

The review assumes that all coal plants will have Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) or equivalent technologies to make so called "clean coal", and looks at the additional cost of removing the CO2 using Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). This adds about 50% to the cost of coal fired electricity. It can only be estimated, because full-blown CCS generation has not been achieved commercially anywhere. But it makes coal more expensive than nuclear. Similarly, gas-fired electricity with added carbon capture is also more expensive than nuclear. Both are still cheaper than wind though.

Note, even with Carbon Capture, these fossil fuel plants still produce about 100g-150g of CO2 per kWh. Nuclear, wind and hydro are down around 10g per kWh for their complete lifecycle (and sometimes even lower). So not only is Carbon Capture likely to be more expensive than nuclear, but it also produces about 10 times as much CO2.

Another way of looking at this issue is to consider the external costs of dealing with the effects of the pollution caused (rather than preventing it). This makes fossil fuel even more expensive. The European Commission's "ExternE" report looked at the external costs of generating electricity by different means (i.e. the cost of health and environmental damage, which is not traditionally paid for by the generator).

The ExternE study worked out that the external costs would almost double the cost of generating electricity from "dirty" coal. i.e. the cost in terms of environmental damage and healthcare requirements due to air pollution would make coal uneconomic if the operators actually had to pay for them. In contrast nuclear power internalises almost all of its costs because it has to pay for waste management and decommissioning which is included in th
25

Colin, Glasgow,

18/01/2008 14:07:09
[continued]
...In contrast nuclear power internalises almost all of its costs because it has to pay for waste management and decommissioning which is included in the electricity price. In fact the only methods of generating electricity that has lower external impacts than nuclear are wind power and, sometimes, hydro. Adding up the internal and external costs of generation, nuclear power is the cheapest of any option (though many people have a problem digesting this fact).
26

 Ayrshire Scot™,

18/01/2008 14:12:27
34. If as you say nuclear power is the cheapest, can you point to one nuclear power station on the planet that has been built without state subsidy?

UK nuclear had its masssive capital debts written off prior to privatisation and continues to enjoy subsidy - the decommissioning and waster storage costs are not fully factored into pricing fully at all.
27

Colin, Glasgow,

18/01/2008 15:38:40
#35 All forms of energy, including fossil fuels, require subsidy of one type or another. Nuclear needs relatively little for the amount of energy it can supply.
http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html

Nuclear electricity is (generally) more expensive than dirty coal; and it is has historically been less profitable than gas (because gas can adjust to peak demand more readily, and reaps profits in the process). But as low-carbon sources of electricity go, nuclear electricity is cheap. However since it is all sold at the minimum price for baseload electricity, it is not necessarily very profitable. It is a long term investment, not a get rich quick fix.
28

pehman,

sussex 18/01/2008 17:05:03
So the truth is out, slab to a man/woman voted for pro-nuclear.

So much for all their anti-nuke rehtoric
29

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 18/01/2008 17:15:18
So where does the SNP statements square with their colleague Bruce Crawfords opposition to another wind farm in the Stirling area, Is this just a case of NIMBY ism and a desire to appear popular to the opponents of the plan, or what? He certainly can't have it both ways thats for sure.

I suggest we ask the Scottish electorate - would you prefer twenty "ugly" wind farms or a couple of nuclear power stations generating highly toxic waste (that will last for thousands of years contaminating our water courses) to be built on our lovely countryside?
30

barbour,

Northumberland 18/01/2008 18:07:01
The stupidity of the Scottish nation never ceases to amaze me."Renewable Energy" on an industrial scale,if Scotland will ever ever reach that demand? is a nonsense.Solar power forget it,tidal generation may be for the distant future,long distant future,wind power,not dependable or cost effective.Coal power,who will mine the product?when would a station be built to use it?
Nuclear power is the only way ahead.One of the biggest fears appears to be of an accident,god forbid that an accident would happen anywhere in the UK,but if it did,then of course any fall out would stop at the border would'nt it?
These posts were full of Scotland's present generation capability,and should only be available to Scotland,pulling the plug at the border etc.The English in the future may take the same attitude.
Finally,#Morriss,Edinburgh,take time on the WWW.com and study Power Generation & Distrbution Principles,because your posts are a joke.
31

weh,

18/01/2008 18:08:50

"Runner" Bean never changes, does he?


Ping-pong diplomacy hit a new low today as Gordon Brown ducked out of a table tennis challenge from the Chinese prime minister.

The British PM, who is blind in one eye, politely declined a quick knockabout with Wen Jiabao as the two watched exhibition matches between young British table tennis hopefuls and their Chinese counterparts.

Prime minister Wen told Brown: "Actually, I do want to play a table tennis match with you."

The two men walked over to the tables and for one brief moment it appeared the contest between them might actually happen.

Article continues
But instead Brown walked to a microphone to announce a new scheme of partnership between young Chinese athletes and their British colleagues, who would work and train together on a "buddy" system.
32

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 19:19:09
Peak Uranium

The claims for carbon-free nuclear energy are undermined by the fact that the industry’s advocates want us to overlook the carbon emissions that are an inevitable part of the uranium extraction process. This is only going to get worse as the higher demand for uranium (both nationally and internationally) makes it necessary for it to be extracted in less refined forms, adding to the emissions. In reporting on energy security and uranium reserves, Jan Willem and Storm van Leeuwen, independent nuclear analysts at Ceedata Consulting, state:

A new generation of nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium ore to produce reactor fuel. In 2005 the world nuclear fleet consumed about 68,000 tonnes of natural uranium, mostly from mined sources. At the end of 2005 the world known recoverable uranium resources amounted to about 3.6 million tonnes. These resources show a wide variation in ore grade and accessibility. … Uranium ore is not an energy resource unless the ore grade is high enough. Below grade 0.02% (U3O8 Uranium Oxide) more energy is required to produce and exploit the uranium fuel than can be generated from it. Falling ore grade leads to rapidly rising CO2 emissions from the nuclear energy cycle. Assuming world nuclear generating capacity remains at 2005 levels, after about 2016 the mean grade of uranium ore will fall significantly from today’s levels, and even more so after 2034. After about 60 years the world nuclear power system will fall off the ‘Energy Cliff’ – meaning that the nuclear system will consume as much energy as can be generated from the uranium fuel. Whether large and rich new uranium ore deposits will be found or not is unknown.



33

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 19:25:58
42 barbour,Northumberland 18/01/2008 18:07:01

You have added no value to the debate rather you have come on here to make sneering insulting comments.

If you want and example of stupidity look at your own nation who are governed by Scots being led down a nuclear dead end because of corruption and vested interests.

The great intelligent English politicians and statesmen are very conspicuous by there absence.

Why are they not stepping up to the plate to save your nation from out of control emigration and a sell out to the EU. At least "we here in Scotland" are prepared to stand up and be counted.


ALBA GU BRATH.
34

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 19:27:58
Even according to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee’s sixth report, “the history of nuclear industry gives little confidence about the timescales and costs of new build’; that “nuclear can do nothing to fill the need for…new generating capacity… by 2016, as it simply could not be built in time”; that “uranium mines can only supply just over half the current demand for uranium, and the situation is likely to become more acute”; whilst “nuclear power can justifiably be regarded as a low-carbon source of electricity….the level of emissions associated with nuclear might increase significantly as lower grades of ore are used”; and that “no country in the world has yet solved the problems of long-term disposal of high-level waste. The current work being conducted by CoRWM [Committee on Radioactive Waste Management] will not be sufficient of address the issue”.

If media saturation has been dominated by a crisis of reaching the peak point in oil production – that less oil is left to find than we have already used – the proponents of nuclear power are silent about the nuclear industry’s equally fragile dependency on uranium and the associated insecurities.

As Jan Willem and Storm van Leeuwen state:

“It is inevitable that replacements for uranium fuel will be sought within the lifetime of any new nuclear build in the UK. It is also inevitable that as high grade uranium supplies decrease, the cost of nuclear power will increase along with nuclear CO2 emissions.” And that: “Once high-grade uranium ores are no-longer available, the nuclear industry will rely on uranium and plutonium from military and civil stockpiles. These will last only a few years, and questions remain about the net energy gain from reprocessing these materials. In the future, it is likely that the nuclear industry and governments will look to MOXfuel – a mixture of uranium and plutonium dioxides. In time, the nuclear industry hopes to develop fast breeder reactors fuelled by weapons
35

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 19:29:47
A SpinWatch / Nuclear Spin investigation has uncovered documents that seriously question the independence of a crucial British government committee that is looking into the issue of nuclear waste. A highly controversial and divisive issue, nuclear waste is one of the last remaining hurdles that the government has to clear to be able to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear plants.

The independent committee set up to resolve the issue is called the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management – or CoRWM for short. Its task “is to review the options for managing those UK radioactive wastes for which there is no ageed long-term solution.”

However our investigation has uncovered that CORWM which is meant to be free of industry and government influence, is closely intertwined with a nuclear company, AMEC NNC, that has a vested interest in both new nuclear build as well as decommissioning.

AMEC NNC has been acting as CoRWM’s programme manager, as well as managing the discussion at its plenary meetings, organizing its public consultation and procurements procedures as well as its PR company, Luther Pendragon. In fact Luther Pendragon is not contracted to CoRWM at all, but to AMEC NNC.

Despite this, CoRWM has made much of its independence and neutral stance on nuclear. For example, documents released under FOI show that in response to inquiries from journalists, CoRWM put out a statement saying “CoRWM has no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build”. .

This may be so and its committee members come from a broad spectrum of industry and academia. For example, the Chair is Gordon MacKerron, Director, Sussex Energy Group, SPRU, University of Sussex, members include a former Board Member of Nirex UK, and the former Chair of Greenpeace UK.

The Secretariat for CoRWM comes from Defra, the government agency that oversees its work. However, the three full-time programme staff are from the nuclear company AMEC NNC, based in Cheshire.
36

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 19:36:06
Conservation, greenhouse gas and nuclear plants

Firstly, let’s consider the benign potential of energy conservation. Amory Lovins, William Keepin and Gregory Kats (Energy Policy, December 1988) of the Rocky Mountain Institute have shown energy conservation strategies are far more effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than constructing power stations of whatever type. Nuclear power only produces electricity and can only possibly displace electricity plants, not the bulk of CO2 emissions which come from cars, trucks, factory smokestacks and home furnaces.

They also looked at the costs of nuclear versus improved energy efficiency and found every dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces 6.8 times more carbon than the same investment in nuclear power. “To the extent investments in nuclear power divert funds away from efficiency,” the study concludes, “the pursuit of a nuclear response to greenhouse warming would effectively exacerbate the problem.” Obviously it would be much better to replace investment in nuclear power with investment in energy efficiency, for example insulating drafty buildings or installing energy-efficient light bulbs
37

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 19:38:09
Current uranium reserves, according to 2003 data from the World Nuclear Association, are about 3.5 million tonnes, enough to last 50 years but only at present consumption rates. If large numbers of nuclear reactors were to be built to satisfy our ever-increasing demand for electricity, reserves of high-grade ore would be rapidly exhausted, leaving huge quantities of low-grade ores most of which would cost more energy to utilise than it would deliver in electricity. Even if useful uranium resources were found to be much larger than now estimated, it would only satisfy global demand for several decades and then the world would be left with huge quantities of radioactive waste with no source of energy to sequester it safely.

According to detailed research published this year (2005), if all the world’s electricity, currently 55 exajoules (1018 joules) or 15,000 terawatt(1012 watts)-hours, could be generated by nuclear reactors, the world’s known uranium reserves would last only 3.5 years, if full dismantling costs of nuclear plants are included.
38

Am-Bodach,

18/01/2008 19:56:25
#44 - 49

Re: Uranium shortages - interesting comments, however, you appear to ignore the possible use of alternative fuels such as thorium, or the production of fuel using breeder reactors. I have seen estimates for IFR type facilities that claim sufficient uranium would be avialable for 100,000 years - I can't vouch for the accuracy or otherwise of this figure.


Re: SpinWatch / Nuclear Spin

Is the latter funded by Greenpeace and Greenpeace International?


Re: According to detailed research published this year (2005)

er - it's currently 2008 !!

39

barbour,

Northumberland 18/01/2008 20:02:18
#49 Some stupid Name.
You really have a penchant to extrapelate selective detail from very dubious sources.
As for the UK being ruled by Scots re your earlier post,this is not what the majority of England wants.We want Scotland to gain independance and release the tartan millstone from around English necks.Please.
40

weh,

18/01/2008 20:12:14
51 Barbour

We Scots will unfortunately have no option but to continue ruling over your lot until you can produce candidates of the apropriate calibre to govern.

The sooner you do this the quicker we can head north and leave you to govern yourselves!
41

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 20:49:09
Wave energy technologies can be based either onshore or offshore. In the early part of this century, navigation buoys were fitted with a vertical open bottomed tube to allow waves to oscillate inside. This up and down motion forced air through a whistle to act as a signal. Later, in the 1940s, generators were fitted to replace the whistle with a light. There are over one thousand such devices currently in operation around the world. Research and development was advanced during the oil crises of the 1970s and many new wave power installations were developed around the world. The coasts of the UK were identified as possibly providing a potentially significant source of renewable energy. Indeed, the UK was a ‘lead nation’ in the development of wave power up to 1985 (Prins and Stamp 1991). These schemes, however, looked at large-scale projects, rather than smaller projects suitable for island communities. The Government decided to cut expenditure on wave power as it was considered to be uneconomic at the time. However, in reality, this was not the case. The main device being investigated at the time was the Salter Duck, named after its inventor, Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University. The Salter Duck was designed for operating in the open sea. It consists of floats, ‘ducks’, which nod as waves pass. This oscillating action generates electricity by compressing air to drive turbines. In 1985, the first full-scale pilot plant was built in Norway and produced electricity at 4p/kWh. However, in the same year, the UK Government cancelled all research on wave power. The reason for this action was a secret report, produced by the Advisory Council on Research and Development which recommended saving the £3M being spent on research. At that time £200M was being spent on nuclear research. Indeed, the nuclear lobby and Government, were pushing for the Sizewell B nuclear power station, and were afraid that cheap wave power would undermine the nuclear p
42

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 20:51:33
#51. So that is the sum of your debating skills. You are quite obviously incabable of taking your own advice, I would leave you with this thought but you have no place to put it.

ALBA GU BRATH.
43

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 20:53:03
Re: According to detailed research published this year (2005)

er - it's currently 2008 !!




Does that mean in the past 3 years they have found more?
44

HEN BROON 5,

18/01/2008 23:43:26
#56. danielrober. What gave you the idea that I was having a go at Salter. I was trying to point out how vested interests distorts the market and politicians who are in the pocket of the Nuclear lobby are prepared to be utterly dishonest and crooked. The nuclear industry has no credibility and can not be trusted their record on safety and record keeping is abysmal, and now they want to be allowed to regulate them selves. Please read the post again.
At this moment in time if all the nuclear supply was switched of in Scotland and the connector with England were disabled we would still have a surplus. It's the same old unionist ghost stories. Scotland the subsidy junkies.
We do not need nor want the weapons the subs or the power stations. We have the ability and capacity to exist out side of it all.
We have the engineers the R&D the yards the will to provide for our own people, and that is all that counts. The days when Scotland was the site for the UKs experiments are over.
45

An Beal Bacht,

19/01/2008 08:51:33
Hen Broon 5 - great posts - very informative. I am sometimes lazy and have to rely on folks like you to do the research for me. Apologies and thanks.
46

Nikostratos,

19/01/2008 09:14:33
Give me the politician who stand up for nuclear power and i would like him to shake my hand any one of the three of them.
47

Nikostratos,

19/01/2008 09:16:54
hen broom all posts everday.


Yawn..yawn..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

??? ??? ????; Abu Ghurayb


or summat like that
48

Nikostratos,

19/01/2008 09:18:27
61 An Beal Bacht

Hoi......don't encourage him he is bad enough already
49

george1977,

19/01/2008 12:35:40
I think your forgetitng a few things guys. There are quite alot of nuclear power stations dotted around England. listening to some of the comments here, I would be forgiven for thinking that our country (Scotland) was the only part of the UK generaing nuclear power.
50

Am-Bodach,

19/01/2008 12:59:40
#55

"Does that mean in the past 3 years they have found more?"

Apologies - the point is that:

Estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that sufficient uranium is extractable to meet 500 years’ supply at current demand.


"nuclear can do nothing to fill the need for…new generating capacity… by 2016"

"Canadian company AECL, has built six new reactors since 1991. From the pouring of concrete to criticality, the longest build took six-and-a-half years and the shortest just over four years"

51

HEN BROON 5,

19/01/2008 13:47:58
#63. It's your complete lack of originality that makes you stand out from the crowd, what a dreadful bore you are, away and lick yer windaes.


61 An Beal Bacht,19/01/2008 08:51:33
Thankyou, you are a gentleman and a scholar,very few of us left on here. I think :o)

52

HEN BROON 5,

19/01/2008 18:22:33
And if nuclear was used worldwide to replace present generation there would be 3.5 years supply left. We are being led down a dead end.
53

HEN BROON 5,

19/01/2008 18:46:10
#69. Oh my God the Security Guard has graced us with his usual brand of acidic well researched rebbutal. Yes you for one know crap as that is all you contribute on here in your one line sarcastic asides.
So go and patrol your complex and then lick the windaes clean. Is it Torness tonight?

If it's crap then you prove it, other wise sling your hook.
54

Nikostratos,

19/01/2008 19:33:50
#67 Henny

As your the world expert on being 'Boring' I'll have to listen to your criticism..........But it wont make any difference.
55

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

19/01/2008 19:47:25
The most recent example of the failure of the nuclear Grail is in Finland where the most recent new build in Europe of a nuclear station is already in breach of Grail claim 1 and 2, apparently it is already two years behind and massively over budget. The French head of EDF energy has talked nonsense on the BBC recently claiming that French power stations are not subsidized ie they are economic. This is a lie because the French nuclear company has the largest debt of any company in the world. They will never be able to pay it back. What is this if it is not a hidden subsidy?If you let me borrow 500 Billion Euros I could also produce lots of so called cheap electricity!The snp govt energy review is a sensible well thought out policy and is more appropriate to the green energy treasure Quest we need to embark on in the 21century. Believers in the grail are losing their power. The largest industrial country in W.Europe ie Germany is phasing out nuclear energy and building steadily more green energy capacity.WE can all do this ourselves by supporting the snp review and if we can afford it,by installing solar heating panels personally and other forms of microgeneration as well as conserving energy through insulation. WE should ignore Browns plans and build our own green energy future.I calculate that my solar panel I will be installing this year from www.solartwin.com /.co.uk will pay for itself in 8 years. IF my power company supports new build nuclear I will switch to ecotricity. The nuclear grail is dying the green energy quest is growing.Claims in support of the Grail have been repeated for 50 years and never achieved,you show me one nuclear power plant anywhere in the world that has achieved the grail and I will eat my hat.Why is the Finnish plant so much behind and over budget?It is time these nuclear con men are exposed.Why is the most succesful industrial country in Europe a country that actually is a net exporter of industrial goods anti nuclear and building
56

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

19/01/2008 19:50:10
4 elements of the nuclear power station Grail.
Believers in the grail promise to achieve 4 things in building a new nuclear power station.
1 To build the nuclear power station on time.
2 To build a nuclear power station on budget.
3 To build it in such a way that no release of nuclear radiation into the environment will occur and that the plant will safely operate without health damaging effects.
4 That when the plant is old the sight will be returned
to something similar to when the station was started.
This is what I mean by believers in the nuclear Grail.

All these promises are made frequently by believers in the grail.IN PRACTISE THE GRAIL IS NEVER ACHIEVED,IT IS A FANTASY.IN THE NIGHTS TEMPLAR OF THE NUCLEAR GRAIL THESE BELIEFS ARE REPORTED TO OTHER BELIEVERS AS TRUTH BUT NEVER HAVE ALL BEEN ACHIEVED. I am embarking on a personal Quest to build some green energy capacity.
57

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

19/01/2008 20:10:19
I welcome this vote as another sign of the weakness of the British state and the movement towards an independent none-nuclear green energy prosperous Scotland. Let us hope someone like Alex Salmond can emerge in England after Scotland has broken away from the ridiculous nucleophile policies of westminster,which are failed policies from the 20th century while the vision offered by the SNP is appropriate for Europe and the world in the 21century. Victory comes in steps and the vote yesterday was one of those steps. I wish I had heard about it earlier but I only just read this story 15 minutes ago.
58

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

19/01/2008 20:25:30
completing sentence in 72#. ...and building green energy capacity.ie Germany. Answer.Because this is a good idea.
59

Am-Bodach,

19/01/2008 21:12:47
#68

There has been very little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2005 (presumably explaining your use of this year in your post above), so the ongoing increase in exploration effort could double the known economic resources. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time.

60

Eve,

Scotland 19/01/2008 22:45:59
#34 Colin, Glasgow: You ovbousely have a problem digesting this fact that nuclear produces radio active waste. Wake up you get more than 1 type of poultion, theres at least 3 I can think of and they are; Air poultion, Water poulition & Ground poultion.

We have treat them all with equal importance.

Is it NOT obvoes that burring the nuclear is poulting the ground. Nuclear is NOT safe and is certainly NOT clean!!!

Another thing it's no cheap, Finland have a new Nuclear powerstaition was supose to be open 2years ago, it's still being built and it's serousley over budget already.

Nuclear power is made out, to be something that it's NOT by a lot of MP's, and apparent energy experts/ Nuclear experts.
61

Eve,

Scotland 19/01/2008 22:58:36
#38 danielrober: That's rediculess!!! Engineers do so much more than work with nuclear!! If they were only experts in Nuclear, they would be pretty stupid/ useless Engineers. Hardly the quality that we would want, to help build/ develop our environmentally friendly (Green) electricity reperts/ equipments.

You don't seem to know much about engineers and the industries they can work in!!! You appear to have a very narrow minded vision of engineers.

May be you should look up the meaning of the word!!!!

62

Eve,

Scotland 19/01/2008 23:03:20
#69 Chairman Gordon: Your right BUT NOT for the reason you think you are!!!

BUT because every pise of land and water would be radio active and we'd all either be dead, dieng or radio active before the 3.5 years are over!!!!

Sad BUT a warring that can't be ignored!!!
63

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

19/01/2008 23:47:41
DEATH TO THE NUCLEAR GRAIL MAY THE QUEST FOR A HUGE EXPANSION IN GREEN ENERGY BEGIN.VOTE TO REJECT NEW BUILD NUCLEAR POWER 63 TO 58.
quoted from this newspaper
By HAMISH MACDONELL
Scottish Political Editor
THE Scottish Parliament voted narrowly last night to block any new nuclear power stations north of the Border – as Alex Salmond was warned that his legacy might be the "lights going out" across Scotland.
MSPs voted by 63 to 58 to reject nuclear power,.....

note the use of the word "might" and note the rejected Grail below.

4 elements of the nuclear power station Grail.
Believers in the grail promise to achieve 4 things in building a new nuclear power station.
1 To build the nuclear power station on time.
2 To build a nuclear power station on budget.
3 To build it in such a way that no release of nuclear radiation into the environment will occur and that the plant will safely operate without health damaging effects.
4 That when the plant is old the site will be returned
to something similar to when the station was started.
This is what I mean by believers in the nuclear Grail.

All these promises are made frequently by believers in the grail.IN PRACTISE THE GRAIL IS NEVER ACHIEVED,IT IS A FANTASY.IN THE NIGHTS TEMPLAR OF THE NUCLEAR GRAIL THESE BELIEFS ARE REPORTED TO OTHER BELIEVERS AS TRUTH BUT NEVER HAVE ALL BEEN ACHIEVED. I am embarking on a personal Quest to build some green energy capacity.
MSPs voted by 63 to 58 to reject nuclear power,.....
colin and wardog note reality! IF you can't beat them join them eh
64

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

19/01/2008 23:54:07
This really is going to have to be my encore.You are wrong; there were deaths at three mile Island.Even the so called byproduct of the nuclear industry ie DU depleted Uranium has hugely increased the rate of cancer in both former Yugoslavia and in Southern Iraq.SEE www.cadu.org.uk. If you still don't believe radiation causes cancer go and discuss it with an oncologist I think they are called ie cancer specialists. And if you don't believe the nuclear industry releases radiation into the environment why does it keep turning up on the beaches near Dounrey and Sellafield. It is a bit like me denying that mining coal doesn't create lung disease as doubtlessly mine owners did in Victorian Britain.. Of course it does and of course those who work in the nuclear industry can attribute some of their cancers to exposure to radiation.Actually read some of the work of Dr Chris Busby some of whose work has appeared in the BMJ and has been peer reviewed.IF scientific peer reviewed articles in the BMJ are rhetoric just because they don't chime in with nuclear Grail beliefs then too bad.If you want to claim that black is white then what can we do. This has always been the problem with nuclear Grail believers. . I certainly do not concede that Sellafield has no connection with the generation of civilian nuclear energy that is why it is operated by BNFL nor do I concede other people since have not been killed by radiation obtained from your so called nuclear pile, which used to gain electricity by nuclear means til it switched to gas Colin get into the real world and join the 21century Quest for green energy treasure.www.solartwin.com/co.uk. The Grail is dying recognize reality
65

Am-Bodach,

20/01/2008 10:38:20
#81



"IF scientific peer reviewed articles in the BMJ are rhetoric just because they don't chime in with nuclear Grail beliefs then too bad.If you want to claim that black is white then what can we do."

I have read several peer-reviewed articles on this subject in the medical research literature, and the issue is more complex than you describe. I am surprised that as a PhD in science your comments seem to display little awareness of the difference between association and causation, and also the use of controls in scientific research. In the case of cancer clusters around Sellafield and other nuclear facilities, similar clusters have been identified at control sites - that is sites suitable for the construction of a nuclear facility, but where no such facility exists. This would suggest that there is some aspect of the sites per se, ( i.e. rather than the operation of a nuclear facility) that may be responsible for raised indidence of cancers. Population mixing has been proposed as a possible mechanism in a number of peer reviewed studies.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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