PDA

View Full Version : No chance of nuclear power in Scotland



peter macdonald
21-May-07, 19:38
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1412234.0.0.php




PM

j4bberw0ck
21-May-07, 20:56
Stupid. Passing up employment, technology and wealth generation.

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 22:12
Good decision, there is just too many people who think we need it, many also think Caithness can't survive without Dounraey. Good riddance to it all if it goes. Scotland has always had a wealth of Hydro Electricity and thats where efforts should be concentrated. I'd rahter see a new water powered power station go up than monstrosity and danger like Dounreay. The one thing Scotland has never been short of is rain and lots of running water, and it shoudl be developed more for the national grid before resorting to nuclear power.

The USA is the largest producer of Nuclear Energy in the world yet it still only supplies 20% of the countries needs, their last power station was built in 1997 and it remains to be seen if they will ever build another as many countries are pushing to phase out the use of Nuclear energy altogether. Of all the power stations in the EU as a whole, only 30% of electricity is being supplied by those. And I also don't think Scotland has a wealth of Uranium mines, there are only 10 countries in the world supplying 94% of the worlds Uranium. none of them incidentally are in Europe, which means we if we go down that road we are reliant on buying from other countries, with our own water we are not, with our own water power we are more self sufficient which is better for the economy of the country.

So well done to Alex Salmond for having a forward looking perspective instead of a backward one. Common sense will tell you that the volatility of Nuclear reaction will make it a thing of the past in the future as far as supplying power, so why stack your chips up on a losing hand?

Tubthumper
21-May-07, 22:20
So our lovely country peppered with turbines and under water sounds like a grand idea? I suppose it's be too damp to be volatile.
Tell me, what are the US planning to develop to make up the 30% of generation created by nuke power... Apparently global warming is now starting to really bite, and remember the US was a tad reluctant to get involved with the Kyoto thing...
Having no nuclear power but developing webbed feet might have something appealing that I'm missing right now, but then I suppose it would be the folk in Bangladesh that would suffer, not us rich types.
I'm not particularly pro or anti anything, however I would like the world to stay reasonably benign at least until I'm dead. Something for my grandkids would be a bonus I suppose.

j4bberw0ck
21-May-07, 22:28
I'd rahter see a new water powered power station go up than monstrosity and danger like Dounreay

I think you'll find that Dounreay is in course of decommissioning as it's obsolete. Nuclear technology has moved on since the 1950's and an object lesson is provided by the French, who generate 80% of their domestic power need from nuclear power using modern, safer reactors.

Hydro is all very well but the power it generates is like windmill power - prohibitively expensive.

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 22:32
So our lovely country peppered with turbines and under water sounds like a grand idea? I suppose it's be too damp to be volatile.
Tell me, what are the US planning to develop to make up the 30% of generation created by nuke power... Apparently global warming is now starting to really bite, and remember the US was a tad reluctant to get involved with the Kyoto thing...
Having no nuclear power but developing webbed feet might have something appealing that I'm missing right now, but then I suppose it would be the folk in Bangladesh that would suffer, not us rich types.
I'm not particularly pro or anti anything, however I would like the world to stay reasonably benign at least until I'm dead. Something for my grandkids would be a bonus I suppose.

If you read again, you will see I said 20% in the USA, its 30% in the whole of the European Union, I think the figure for the UK is even smaller than the USA. There are a multitude of other sources for generating power at the moment which are common knowledge around the world. In the USA one of them happens to be Ethanol. Most of your older Nuclear Power Stations only used the reaction to heat water to produce electricity through steam. Ethanol can be produced from corn, to a very high standard of safe emission and it can also be used to heat water. Also the by products of ethanol, the corn itself can also be compressed into burnable fuel too.

What would be your alternative Tubthumper ro would you rather we filled up countries with Nuclear Power Stations until we had 100% of power coming from them. I do not sit well with wind farms either, thats why I did not mention them, but I do appreciate Hydro Electricity, seeing as I grew up with it I should. I think an independent Scotland could easily be self sufficient as far as power goes, especially if we could educate people to stop wasting it, there would be less demand.

Some countries like Austria and Ireland have no Nuclear Power, but I don't see them in the news saying they can't read at night because they can't get enough power to light the house.

If someone can come up with a decent argument as to why Nuclear Power is the way forward for any country (let alone one that can not mine its own Uranium) then lets hear it.

quirbal
21-May-07, 22:39
I think you'll find that Dounreay is in course of decommissioning as it's obsolete. Nuclear technology has moved on since the 1950's and an object lesson is provided by the French, who generate 80% of their domestic power need from nuclear power using modern, safer reactors.

Hydro is all very well but the power it generates is like windmill power - prohibitively expensive.

Yep, problem is that its all well and good having windmills but you need to have a constant supply and back up for the renewables when they are not running.

I am certainly happier living within thirty miles of Dounreay than I would be living within the same distance Drax.

Kenn
21-May-07, 22:42
I seem to remember from previous enquiries made on ths subject that power generation in not devolved to Scotland, if I am wrong in this please correct me.
I am not pro nucleur energy but am not against it either, living not too far from such an installation and also being supplied by the cross channel link to the French at Le Havre.
My main problem is how are we going to generate the power we will need in a few years time? A chain of wind turbines from John O' Groats to Landsend would not appear to be either efficient or aesthetically pleasing. Hydo Electric as mentioned by a previous poster is also highly costly and innefficient.
I think we have some thing of a conundrum on our hands and with the best will in the world, even if every one of us does what we can to save energy we are faced with a gargantuan problem.

golach
21-May-07, 22:49
My main problem is how are we going to generate the power we will need in a few years time?

I think we have some thing of a conundrum on our hands and with the best will in the world, even if every one of us does what we can to save energy we are faced with a gargantuan problem.
At last, a poster that is not anti this and pro that, but asking what are we going to do about the problem, we have a problem, how are we going to fix it? Oh if we harness the hot air that is being generated in here we would have free power for years to come

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 22:49
I think you'll find that Dounreay is in course of decommissioning as it's obsolete. Nuclear technology has moved on since the 1950's and an object lesson is provided by the French, who generate 80% of their domestic power need from nuclear power using modern, safer reactors.

Hydro is all very well but the power it generates is like windmill power - prohibitively expensive.

Yes I think everyone knows that about Dounreay by now jibberwock, I was comparing a similar attitude to those who though Caithness couldn't do without DOunreay.

Anyway, what is the source for the knowledge that Hydro Electricity is prohibitively expensive? And Nuclear power is not, if Nuclear power is inexpensive and easy to use, most western countries would be using it for the whole grid by now, think about it. Every power source has its disadvantages, but Hydro advantages far outweigh the disadvantages over Nuclear Power or Wind Farming. Nuclear Powr in the long run is not a renewable source of energy, and "renewable energy" is supposed to be everyones catchword. Hydro power is the worlds most popular source of renewable energy.



Compare to the nuclear power plant, hydroelectricity doesn't have to deal with dangerous nuclear waste and doesn't have to face nuclear leakage. It is a renewable energy source.The uranium nuclear power plant consumes is not renewable. In operation hydroelectricity doesn't creat tremendous amount of heat but nuclear power plant do.Hydroelectricity is also cheaper than nuclear power.
Compare to wind farm, hydroelectricity is more reliable and more powerful. It can operate according to the variation of the power demand, but wind farm cannot. There is no garentee that wind always come when electricity is needed.Again hydroelectricity is way more cheaper than wind farm.


So what has money got to do with it? Take the cheapest method and make sure its renewable. Smart think Alex, like I said.

MadPict
21-May-07, 22:53
Perhaps we could invade France, occupy all their nuclear power stations and divert the electricity to the UK?

Tubthumper
21-May-07, 22:54
At last, a poster that is not anti this and pro that, but asking what are we going to do about the problem, we have a problem, how are we going to fix it? Oh if we harness the hot air that is being generated in here we would have free power for years to come
Well I vote for informed debate. Can we have one on here?

golach
21-May-07, 22:55
Perhaps we could invade France, occupy all their nuclear power stations and divert the electricity to the UK?
MP....hmmm do we have an excuse? Have the French got WMD?

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 22:56
I seem to remember from previous enquiries made on ths subject that power generation in not devolved to Scotland, if I am wrong in this please correct me.
I am not pro nucleur energy but am not against it either, living not too far from such an installation and also being supplied by the cross channel link to the French at Le Havre.
My main problem is how are we going to generate the power we will need in a few years time? A chain of wind turbines from John O' Groats to Landsend would not appear to be either efficient or aesthetically pleasing. Hydo Electric as mentioned by a previous poster is also highly costly and innefficient.
I think we have some thing of a conundrum on our hands and with the best will in the world, even if every one of us does what we can to save energy we are faced with a gargantuan problem.

Also like I said above, where does it say its highly costly compared to nuclear energy or wind farming? I know Jibberwock stated it, but does anyone have a cost comparison or study for that?

Also Golach, I did ask Tubthumper for an alternative, or for anyone else to explain an alternative to Nuclear Energy. I am sure if enough people think about it, if the scientists of the world can come up with a plan to replace gasoline then surely they can replace nuclear power? But agree with what your saying on hot air, but won't name any. This is a very important topic, I also am not Anti Nuclear per say, but I don't see a future in it myself. I would rather see renewable and cheap methods of producing the energy to supply electricity so am definately interested in hearing the arguments for anf against and for any alternative. Also Alex Salmond said he did not want them built in Scotland, nothing about England if there are more needed down there?

MadPict
21-May-07, 23:01
WMD - Wind Mill Deficiency?

j4bberw0ck
21-May-07, 23:03
jibberwock

:roll: . Faintly sad, really. You're not thinking, Jeemag, let alone employing logic or knowledge of economics.

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 23:04
:roll: . Faintly sad, really. You're not thinking, Jeemag, let alone employing logic or knowledge of economics.

Please explain?

Tubthumper
21-May-07, 23:12
Rather than hot air as allegedly generated in copious volumes on this site, I was under the impression that if someone came up with a way of generating lots of hydrogen, we'd be well on the way to greatness.
Is it true that hydrogen can be generated in wee drops from small-scale wind, wave, tidal or hydro, or big drops from large scale endeavours? And is it also true that, unlike electricity, large volumes of hydrogen can be stored, equating to large volumes of energy being stored.
I seem to remember from 1st year science at the high school that hydrogen gives off a pretty substantial bang when mixed with oxygen and ignited.
Whatever: We've missed the windpower manufacturing boat (the Danes have that stitched up), so what are the bigshots doing about jumping on the hydrogen cell bandwagon?
Also, just to really stir it up, can't you run a car on hydrogen? And isn't nuclear power a great way to extract hydrogen via electrolysis?
I only ask, I know nothing...

j4bberw0ck
21-May-07, 23:34
I feel no need to spoonfeed you, Jeemag, but I'll try to help. It'll probably come under the heading of flogging a dead horse, though.

You start from the premise that Dounreay is bad, and that by extension therefore that all nuclear power generation is bad. The you talk about hydro power generation "that Scotland has a lot of". You mean that Scotland could have some more of if it gets involved in projects such as the Glencoe one involving a new lake, major civil engineering, habitat destruction and so on - but there'll be another Jeemag somewhere down there who things it's all a bad idea for those reasons.

But, well into your fashionably pseudo-environmental stride by now, you ignore the clean, low carbon footprint (measured in CO2 / MW) possibilities of nuclear power and bang on about hydro as though it's the answer to all prayers. You ignore the technology and income benefits that development and exploitation of a nuclear power industry could bring to the country. You ignore the fact that industry needs low energy costs to retain and create jobs and that wind and hydro power are amongst the most expensive.

In other words, Jeemag, you're the sort of pseudo-environmentalist that just wants everyone to smile and stick to Kyoto while in the background some unsung hero waves a magic wand, solves all the problems and leaves us gazing at pretty windmills and artificial lochs while saving the local habitats and wildlife and cuddly bunnies without worrying about that nasty nuclear stuff.

The fact that there's no uranium here - or rather, not very much - is completely irrelevant. There's no bauxite, either, but it doesn't stop people having aluminium products. And it certainly didn't stop Dounreay, Sizewell, Calder Hall, Torness and a bunch of others.

The truth is there's massive potential for economic development if Salmond will stop for a moment playing to the crowd. Those 2 Green MSP's have already extracted their pound of flesh, wouldn't you say? The answer to meeting power needs is a mix of technologies with nuclear taking a lead until the practical issues of nuclear fusion are resolved.

I stand by my assertion that people who discount nuclear out of hand have got their heads where they should be sitting down.

And now, some typing practice for homework: repeat 10 times

j4bberw0ck
j4bberw0ck
j4bberw0ck

Are you getting the idea now? :lol::lol:

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 23:36
Rather than hot air as allegedly generated in copious volumes on this site, I was under the impression that if someone came up with a way of generating lots of hydrogen, we'd be well on the way to greatness.
Is it true that hydrogen can be generated in wee drops from small-scale wind, wave, tidal or hydro, or big drops from large scale endeavours? And is it also true that, unlike electricity, large volumes of hydrogen can be stored, equating to large volumes of energy being stored.
I seem to remember from 1st year science at the high school that hydrogen gives off a pretty substantial bang when mixed with oxygen and ignited.
Whatever: We've missed the windpower manufacturing boat (the Danes have that stitched up), so what are the bigshots doing about jumping on the hydrogen cell bandwagon?
Also, just to really stir it up, can't you run a car on hydrogen? And isn't nuclear power a great way to extract hydrogen via electrolysis?
I only ask, I know nothing...

Very good points, Iceland is a prime example and they are expecting some time in the future to have most or all of their cars running on Hydrogen, but they have an advantage of being a country rich in natural Hydrogen. You can also extract hydrogen using solar power. It is a very exciting study and one I am really interested in, I also saw people somewhere using Solar Power to extract Hydrogen from Algae, but can't remember much about it.

j4bberw0ck
21-May-07, 23:37
Is it true that hydrogen can be generated in wee drops from small-scale wind, wave, tidal or hydro, or big drops from large scale endeavours? And is it also true that, unlike electricity, large volumes of hydrogen can be stored, equating to large volumes of energy being stored

There you have it in a oner. The problem with renewable energy technology by and large is that the power can't be stored against peaks and troughs in demand. Using it to electrolyse seawater into hydrogen and oxygen and storing the hydrogen is one way of storing generated power.

But it's nasty stuff and goes "bang" very nicely unless you can bind it to something that will then release it slowly.

j4bberw0ck
21-May-07, 23:39
Very good points, Iceland is a prime example and they are expecting some time in the future to have most or all of their cars running on Hydrogen, but they have an advantage of being a country rich in natural Hydrogen. You can also extract hydrogen using solar power. It is a very exciting study and one I am really interested in, I also saw people somewhere using Solar Power to extract Hydrogen from Algae, but can't remember much about it.

Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about? The Hydrogen Mines of Iceland..... that's a good one.

The Icelanders have geothermal power by the mega-bucket load and can use it to generate electricity. They are not "rich in natural hydrogen" :lol::lol:

I think this is one of the days Emo Phillips was talking about..........

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 23:46
I feel no need to spoonfeed you, Jeemag, but I'll try to help. It'll probably come under the heading of flogging a dead horse, though.

You start from the premise that Dounreay is bad, and that by extension therefore that all nuclear power generation is bad. The you talk about hydro power generation "that Scotland has a lot of". You mean that Scotland could have some more of if it gets involved in projects such as the Glencoe one involving a new lake, major civil engineering, habitat destruction and so on - but there'll be another Jeemag somewhere down there who things it's all a bad idea for those reasons.

But, well into your fashionably pseudo-environmental stride by now, you ignore the clean, low carbon footprint (measured in CO2 / MW) possibilities of nuclear power and bang on about hydro as though it's the answer to all prayers. You ignore the technology and income benefits that development and exploitation of a nuclear power industry could bring to the country. You ignore the fact that industry needs low energy costs to retain and create jobs and that wind and hydro power are amongst the most expensive.

In other words, Jeemag, you're the sort of pseudo-environmentalist that just wants everyone to smile and stick to Kyoto while in the background some unsung hero waves a magic wand, solves all the problems and leaves us gazing at pretty windmills and artificial lochs while saving the local habitats and wildlife and cuddly bunnies without worrying about that nasty nuclear stuff.

The fact that there's no uranium here - or rather, not very much - is completely irrelevant. There's no bauxite, either, but it doesn't stop people having aluminium products. And it certainly didn't stop Dounreay, Sizewell, Calder Hall, Torness and a bunch of others.

The truth is there's massive potential for economic development if Salmond will stop for a moment playing to the crowd. Those 2 Green MSP's have already extracted their pound of flesh, wouldn't you say? The answer to meeting power needs is a mix of technologies with nuclear taking a lead until the practical issues of nuclear fusion are resolved.

I stand by my assertion that people who discount nuclear out of hand have got their heads where they should be sitting down.

And now, some typing practice for homework: repeat 10 times

j4bberw0ck
j4bberw0ck
j4bberw0ck

Are you getting the idea now? :lol::lol:

I started on the premise that not wanting more nuclear power stations in Scotland was a good idea, so read again. I still haven't had a valid explantion or evidence that Nuclear Energy is cheaper than Hydro Electricity, although I have found evidence elsewhere that Hydro is cheaper than both Nuclear and Wind energy. I asked you for your explanation for your view, I did not accuse you of not thinking, not applying logic or having no knowledge of economy, those are assumptions and rash projectiles to shoot down someone elses point of view without first giving your own reasonable explantion as to why we need more Nuclear power stations in Scotland. Thats why threads deteriote into slanging matches because some people cannot put forward their own side of a debate without belittling the other persons intellegence. Also I wrote your name the way I did because I don't use numbers when spelling, nor do I when I type so it was easier, but if it offends it won't be done again.

I do think before I speak unlike some, I also am very logical and in my job I manage a budget of over $200,000 per annum, I work for a somewhat non profit making company but am also accountable for over spending and am not allowed to be in the red at the end of the year, and over several years I never have been. All the vehicles in use in our department are electric, we only purchse what we need to do a job and charge to cover the cost of materials and transportation and manual labor. I grew up with a very good sense of being economical and I transfer that into my work and spend very wisely, just thought it would be better to learn something about a person before making assumptions about them as assumptions never help anything and amount to nothing less than hot air.

Tubthumper
21-May-07, 23:48
So I take it that we won't be drilling for hydrogen under the Caithness countryside any time soon then?
I mentioned we (that is Caithness) have missed the boat on windpower manufacture (by about 20 years). It looks like the tidal power boat's slipped its moorings for Orkney, and the hydrogen bubble-car is beetling around Shetland as we speak. And what are we doing? Still arguing about nuke good/bad, green good/bad...
Notwithstanding Jeemag USA's burblings, do I sense that we (Caithness), with our apparently high level of education and erudite debate, have failed to grasp the nettle of what the hell we do next?

Jeemag_USA
21-May-07, 23:54
Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about? The Hydrogen Mines of Iceland..... that's a good one.

The Icelanders have geothermal power by the mega-bucket load and can use it to generate electricity. They are not "rich in natural hydrogen" :lol::lol:

I think this is one of the days Emo Phillips was talking about..........

I meant abundant in natural resources, Iceland has an abundance of Hydro Electricity, simply because of the nature of the country, it produces Hydro Electricity in abundance at a VERY LOW COST, it also uses this to create Hydrogen by the bucketload. Therefore it creates huge amounts of Hydrogen at very little cost and can become completely non reliant on fossil fules from anywhere elese in the world. Scotland could do some of that to a lesser degreee, if Iceland can spearhead good clean forms of renewable energy than Scotland can also do it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2208013.stm

But yet again you have to use insults to make a point, not unexpected of course, just like its not unexpected you get posts deleted for changing peoples names. People who have no respect get no respect.

Tubthumper
22-May-07, 00:26
But it's nasty stuff and goes "bang" very nicely...

Sorry, were we talking about hydrogen, oil or nuclear there...?

triger
22-May-07, 02:25
At last, a poster that is not anti this and pro that, but asking what are we going to do about the problem, we have a problem, how are we going to fix it? Oh if we harness the hot air that is being generated in here we would have free power for years to come
Well said,really made me langh:lol:

j4bberw0ck
22-May-07, 09:17
Sorry, were we talking about hydrogen, oil or nuclear there...?

Well, I meant hydrogen, but take your point :lol:


Iceland has an abundance of Hydro Electricity, simply because of the nature of the country, it produces Hydro Electricity in abundance at a VERY LOW COST, it also uses this to create Hydrogen by the bucketload.

Agreed. But what you seem to be suggesting is that if one country can produce hydroelectric power cheaply, so can another. This simply isn't true. Iceland is pretty much uninhabited across its central section; it isn't covered in green and pretty hills which are in turn covered with environmentalists trying to block any development. It has huge rivers and waterfalls; Scotland doesn't.

What Iceland has most of all is geothermal power. Stick a pipe in the ground, pump in water, and out comes steam which can turn turbines. That's why they're pursuing hydrogen technology. Scotland does not have that resource.

Scotland has limited resources as far as wind power, limited resources as far as hydro, and so needs something different - that something different is nuclear, which ticks all the boxes. And so finally we turn the discussion back on-topic, to Scotland and nuclear energy, and away from Iceland and hydroelectric.


But yet again you have to use insults to make a point, not unexpected of course, just like its not unexpected you get posts deleted for changing peoples names. People who have no respect get no respect.

Insults, Jeemag? Asking if you had the faintest idea what you're talking about? That's not an insult, it's a question based on your statement about "rich in natural hydrogen". Suggesting you're a pseudo-environmentalist? I think you're more interested in the politically correct form of action than a solution to the problem.

As for respect, well, that's up to you. I tend to respect people who can frame a decent argument and think logically. An example for you: Fred, whose views often irritate the living daylights out of me and who's capable of getting me hopping mad. But he thinks about what he says, he argues a good case for his point of view, he's often a pragmatist and most important of all he forces me from time to time to re-examine my own viewpoint. He has my respect. You, on the other hand, remain one tick in a box away from my "ignore" list.

Incidentally, thanks for the CV but I didn't suggest you were uneconomical. I suggested you weren't thinking logically, and that you weren't considering the economic issues around power generation.

scotsboy
22-May-07, 10:22
I think that ruling it out is ignorant and short sighted. It is a political decision by people who obviously know little about the science or economics behing power generation and distribution......but hey that why you voted for.

Like Jeemag, I too think Hydro schemes are great - however I am not sure you would convince many these days that they don't have a significant environmental impact.

Rheghead
22-May-07, 11:09
Iceland has an abundance of Hydro Electricity, simply because of the nature of the country, it produces Hydro Electricity in abundance at a VERY LOW COST.

It is usually unsuitable to compare one country with another when it comes to energy generation.

Over reliance on hydro would be bad in Scotland. THe geology will have to be correct to create more plants and I don't think there are too many people who want their valley to be flooded though it would be another 'clearance' strategy.

Also, it is unreliable. In 2003, the hydro sector underperformed by 50% due to lack of rain.

peter macdonald
22-May-07, 11:33
Scotsboy how you doing?? please note in the article this subject has Cross Party Support
PM

Skerries
22-May-07, 13:32
Over reliance on hydro would be bad in Scotland. THe geology will have to be correct to create more plants and I don't think there are too many people who want their valley to be flooded though it would be another 'clearance' strategy.


I don't think anyone would need a clearance strategy! The clearances had such a devastating effect that remote glens and valleys are hardy teeming with folk that would need to be cleared for hydro, unless you're talking about a midge clearance strategy! [lol]

Not saying hydro is perfect (like any other source) but I don't think you can dismiss it on the grounds of population and geology. :confused

j4bberw0ck
22-May-07, 15:23
I think that ruling it out is ignorant and short sighted. It is a political decision by people who obviously know little about the science or economics behing power generation and distribution.

.....and a nod to the 2 Green MSP's who are the kingmakers........

scotsboy
22-May-07, 15:27
Scotsboy how you doing?? please note in the article this subject has Cross Party Support
PM

I'm fine Peter - not managed to read the article yet, but imho we need to meet our energy needs with a supply from a balanced selection of sources, at this stage I don't think we can rule anything out.

The fact that is is cross party makes me even more depressed about the state of Scottish politics.

Rheghead
22-May-07, 20:04
Not saying hydro is perfect (like any other source) but I don't think you can dismiss it on the grounds of population and geology. :confused

people change but geology doesn't within Global warming timescales. there are only a finite number of suitable sites in scotland and i am afraid that they are mostly taken. so any discussion of hydro vs nuclear is totally fallacious.

Tubthumper
22-May-07, 20:37
Dounreay goes, what replaces it? This debate seems to endlessly cycle back and forward regarding the rights and wrongs of this vs that energy generation method.
Question 1: If there's no work in Caithness, how will we pay our energy bills?
Question 2: If there's no work in Caithness, who will live here & use electricity?
Question 3: Has there been a planning application to stick a turbine or two on Arthur's seat in Edinburgh?

scotsboy
22-May-07, 20:44
Nuclear does not = Dounreay, in the bigger picture I'm afraid. Just because the experiment that was Dounreay happened to be in Caithness, does not mean any future nuclear facilities would be in Caithness.

Tubthumper
22-May-07, 20:55
Ah, not really what I was aiming at teasing out. Post-Dounreay = What?
We have here a remarkable blend of expertise and knowledge considering what an out of the way place we live in. I believe we're looking at 500 fewer jobs out at Dounreay within 5 years, and a steady decline thereafter.
What I said earlier about tidal power & hydrogen stuff wasn't just a joke - it's really happening, but sadly it's not really happening here. The best we seem to manage is rebranding some beef out of Mey.
Dounreay's coming down, whoopy-do! But rather than debate the rights of this technology making money for some absentee git, or of that technology spoiling ma view, or of oily sewage particle clag turning up on our beach, how about debating what happens next?

Tubthumper
22-May-07, 21:12
So Dounreay’s bad
Makes Jeemag mad
O’er in the states
That Exile lad

I think it’s sad
He’d be quite glad
For Scots in wetsuits
To be clad

Back off a tad!
Some hydro’s bad
And windfarms make
The locals mad

So Jeemag lad
Don’t feel so sad
We here in Caithness
Won’t get mad

About this fad
That looks quite bad
For flooding Wick
Though Thurso’s glad

JAWS
23-May-07, 18:34
Hydro is an excellent solution for Scotland's future supply of electricity. Anybody seen the outflow from any melting glaciers recently?

quirbal
23-May-07, 18:38
Well, it looks as if the UK are about to get some new reactors - but they are unlikely to be in Scotland.

I'm sure the local populations at Hunterston and Chapelcross will be really chuffed with that.

NickInTheNorth
23-May-07, 18:45
Hydro is an excellent solution for Scotland's future supply of electricity. Anybody seen the outflow from any melting glaciers recently?
In Scotland? No, not seen any recently. I would love to. can you point me in the right direction? :D

mickey101
23-May-07, 22:02
Hi
I am sorry to say that Scotland will rue the day that "Wee Eckie" got elected to "First Numpty". You can kiss goodbye to a New Forth Road bridge. There is no chance of the road building program in any shape or form happening and best of all watch the lights start to go off or the leccy bills start to shoot up in round about 2 to 3 years when Hunterston is due to shutdown. Scotland will suddenly then have a 20% shortfall in energy production, but it wont be Mr Salmonds fault will it?

M

peter macdonald
24-May-07, 07:58
Mickey If you read the article you will find there is ALL PARTY SUPPORT on this So your Nu Labour/Unionist view is redundant
I would also point out this to you
from the BBC website this morning

"Nuclear debate

If you listened to the exchanges in the Commons you would have thought the energy white paper was a nuclear white paper.

Tony Blair made a passionate plea for more nuclear power to keep on the lights - and was berated by the Conservatives' Alan Duncan for failing to spell out a time-table for nuclear new-build.


A decision on nuclear may still be unclear by the end of the year

The government, though, are tied by the recent High Court judgment into delaying their policies until the autumn so they can fully consult.

But even then there are possibly insuperable problems with nuclear - particularly the promise from Gordon Brown of no nuclear subsidy.

No firm wants to build a nuclear plant unless they can get certainty over the premium that would be paid for low-carbon energy.

And the government will have difficulty in doing that while also adhering to its stated policy of a liberalised energy market.

So a decision on nuclear may still be unclear by the end of the year.

The white paper did offer more support for renewables, though not enough to satisfy green campaigners.

The government will switch its price support scheme so more goes to offshore wave and wind power which are expensive to produce.

This is a tacit admission that the previous government policy of leaving it up to the market to pick the future energy mix has failed to generate enough power from renewables - partly because of planning problems with onshore wind."
PM

peter macdonald
24-May-07, 08:21
Just a thought here but is there any uranium mined in the UK ?? if not then this will be a finite energy resource controlled by foriegn powers I feel another OPEC coming on!!!!
PM

j4bberw0ck
24-May-07, 09:10
This is a tacit admission that the previous government policy of leaving it up to the market to pick the future energy mix has failed to generate enough power from renewables - partly because of planning problems with onshore wind."
PM

"The market" will exploit opportunity - it's what it does surpassingly well. If the market hasn't picked up on opportunity in renewables (other than the small-scale, niche market sectors such as those exploited in Orkney with tidal and wind power) it's because there's no - or very limited - opportunity. The technology is simply unreliable for large scale generation at the moment, and too expensive for investors given that it's something that would become redundant the very moment the footings were put in for a large nuclear power station. And still the killer problem remains; how to store the energy? With a power station you just turn up the heat and generate more to suit demand.

There's also the question of whether the Government can match industry's needs - the news this morning is full of BP withdrawing from a power station in Peterhead, trialling a CO2 recovery scheme which would see CO2 stored in exhausted North Sea gas fields. They withdrew because the Government has messed them around for 12 months and it was costing them serious money.

Like the man said, there is no problem so intractable, so complex and so profound that governments can't make much, much worse.

NickInTheNorth
24-May-07, 09:44
but if the government changed the rules and compelled the generators to operate carbon neutral power stations then they would have to invest in the technology required to be carbon neutral. And yes that cost would be passed on to us the consumer.

If we were being asked to pay the true cost of the fossil fuel produced electricity the cost of all renewables would seem far more palatable.

The short answer is we all need to use less electricity, and then we need to pay the true cost of the electricity that we choose to use.

We do however probably need nuclear generating capacity too, but that also needs to be at it's true cost, and must include the long term costs of decommissioning storage of spent fuel etc

Only when the true costs of all generating options are clear can the market operate correctly.

Rheghead
24-May-07, 12:05
Just a thought here but is there any uranium mined in the UK ?? if not then this will be a finite energy resource controlled by foriegn powers I feel another OPEC coming on!!!!
PM

there is uranium ore under Coniston in England

Jeemag_USA
24-May-07, 12:54
there is uranium ore under Coniston in England

The answer to his question is no, there is no Uranium mined in the UK.

j4bberw0ck
24-May-07, 13:48
but if the government changed the rules and compelled the generators to operate carbon neutral power stations then they would have to invest in the technology required to be carbon neutral. And yes that cost would be passed on to us the consumer.

The economic fallout from that would be catastrophic, and like it or not, the country still has to compete internationally for goods and services earnings.


If we were being asked to pay the true cost of the fossil fuel produced electricity the cost of all renewables would seem far more palatable.I'm puzzled by this one. Power stations are owned by (mostly) publicly-quoted Limited Companies who have shareholders to satisfy as well as regulators. How are they supplying energy at a cost which doesn't reflect the true cost of fossil fuel? You certainly won't find "operating subsidy from the Government" on their Profit and Loss accounts...... Or are you trying to factor in some sort of constant for "ecological damage" or "effect on climate"?


Only when the true costs of all generating options are clear can the market operate correctly.Yes, indeed; hence the ROC system which massively subsidises the production of electricity from wind power and other renewables should be done away with immediately.

Just to come back to the issue of renewable power's viability, though, can I point out again that the problem is less generating the stuff than storing it, both in the long and short terms? Stored for times when the wind doesn't blow, or blows too hard; stored for the ad breaks in East Enders when the nation waddles off to make a cup of tea; stored for cold weather snaps, or hot weather snaps when offices turn up the aircon. With a fuel-based power station, you just turn up the wick a bit. With renewables, you get brown- or black-outs as the system fails to cope. Humans could cope easily enough with the lights dimming a bit, but almost every aspect of our modern world depends on computers and networks - and they don't like power fluctuations. Imagine a world when the wind drops a bit and aircraft start to collide as they're stacked at airports waiting to land, or where traffic lights stop working, or the lifts in buildings stop, full of people; where trains collide wholesale because the signalling packs up. And just to cap it off nicely the emergency services can't respond because their computers are offline. Good, huh? No one has solved the storage problem in a commercially viable form.

If the government were serious they'd stop fannying around with ROCs and windmills and get serious on the business of promoting research into nuclear fusion - where this country still has considerable expertise, somehow. I read in the press today that the UK no longer has nuclear fission power plant design expertise, so we'd have to buy in designs and construction expertise from the French or Americans. Or maybe the Iranians (no, only kidding - they get theirs f.o.c. from Pakistan). Pretty poor stuff for the fourth largest economy in the world and the originators of the technology.

j4bberw0ck
24-May-07, 13:53
The answer to his question is no, there is no Uranium mined in the UK.

Fair bit available in friendly places like Australia and Canada to be going at, though.

NickInTheNorth
24-May-07, 14:13
The economic fallout from that would be catastrophic, and like it or not, the country still has to compete internationally for goods and services earnings.

I'm puzzled by this one. Power stations are owned by (mostly) publicly-quoted Limited Companies who have shareholders to satisfy as well as regulators. How are they supplying energy at a cost which doesn't reflect the true cost of fossil fuel? You certainly won't find "operating subsidy from the Government" on their Profit and Loss accounts...... Or are you trying to factor in some sort of constant for "ecological damage" or "effect on climate"?



As you well know, because I stated it in the same post I am suggesting that the fossil fuel generators should be forced to be carbon neutral in their emissions. The cost of doing so should of course be met by the generators, and in turn by the consumer. But as you don't like that you choose to ignore it to make a silly jibe about some kind of constant for "ecological damage".

quirbal
24-May-07, 14:58
I read in the press today that the UK no longer has nuclear fission power plant design expertise, so we'd have to buy in designs and construction expertise from the French or Americans. Or maybe the Iranians (no, only kidding - they get theirs f.o.c. from Pakistan). Pretty poor stuff for the fourth largest economy in the world and the originators of the technology.

Yep, BNG sold Westinghouse last year - another far sighted move that

Yok Finney
24-May-07, 16:03
Nuclear Waste is the EU option for Scotland. France is eyeing us up. It will be glassified and buried in deep rock depositaries. Except it's not been tried before. Excuse me I'm a geologist: deep rock is inherenty full of fissures and cracks. Into the clay puddle called London is the far safer option but out of the question.. + all the intermediate and low level waste in overalls, gloves, masks, bits and pieces has to be dumped somewhere -- along way from Gospie, or Paris.

j4bberw0ck
24-May-07, 16:20
As you well know, because I stated it in the same post I am suggesting that the fossil fuel generators should be forced to be carbon neutral in their emissions. The cost of doing so should of course be met by the generators, and in turn by the consumer. But as you don't like that you choose to ignore it to make a silly jibe about some kind of constant for "ecological damage".

Careful with that axe, Eugene :lol:

It wasn't a "silly jibe", but a perfectly reasonable question, raised in a perfectly reasonable fashion, based on both what you said (or perhaps, didn't say) and questions which have already been raised about ecological damage and a carbon-trading exchange, or taxation measures, designed to reduce carbon footprint through raising prices.

However, as I also said in a perfectly reasonable fashion, if you raise power prices (by forcing industry to invest in carbon capture, or another means of achieving neutrality), you make it more difficult for industry (both manufacturing and services) to compete in price-sensitive world markets. From that you're looking at a range of issues from increased unemployment to reduced shareholder returns. Which may seem a remote relationship, but it affects a huge number of people through their pension plans (whether employer scheme or private).

Hence the need for balance. Decreeing carbon neutrality may be very tempting, but the price might not be limited to the size of your electricity bill.

peter macdonald
24-May-07, 17:21
"Hence the need for balance. Decreeing carbon neutrality may be very tempting, but the price might not be limited to the size of your electricity bill."

Jwok spot on Once the quality of life goes down then attitudes change
What we (whether it is UK or Scotland) should be looking at is energy independence where we would be free from the whims of OPEC, of rogue dictators or strangely behaving oil companies Whether that independence comes from fossils (which Scotland/ Uk has plenty) Renewables (which have the problem of NIMBYism and hypocracy) sorry planning problems!!! or Nuclear which is expensive to build and has yet to solve the waste problem or a mixture of all of those + biomass then so be it the thing is it has to be solved or as Jwok says its pensions and jobs as well as basic comforts we will lose out on


PM

Rheghead
24-May-07, 19:30
The answer to his question is no, there is no Uranium mined in the UK.

bit like e yanks when they are sitting on oil and using other resources.

Tubthumper
24-May-07, 19:37
Just a thought here but is there any uranium mined in the UK ?? if not then this will be a finite energy resource controlled by foriegn powers I feel another OPEC coming on!!!!
PM
What about that significant seam of uranium ore under the brae behind Stromness in Orkney...?

Jeemag_USA
24-May-07, 22:50
bit like e yanks when they are sitting on oil and using other resources.

Its nothing to do with sitting on it and not using it, don't see what its got to do with the USA either, don't really care as I am not american and for your own info I know where your coming from. Its to do with the difficulty of the process and the dangers behind it, unless you have a Uranium deposit that is of enough magnitude to make it worthwhile then there is no sense in starting, if that was the case many other countries would be doing it. Thanks for the unconnected reference though, its commonplace on here for people to answer questions for the sake of answering them without answering them. But what do I know, I don't think, I have no logic or knowledge, so maybe somebody more qualified should answer Peter's question.

j4bberw0ck
24-May-07, 23:01
What about that significant seam of uranium ore under the brae behind Stromness in Orkney...?

:lol::lol: Careful beuy...... you'll have all those unsightly wooden signs out again after these many years!

Jeemag_USA
24-May-07, 23:05
Fair bit available in friendly places like Australia and Canada to be going at, though.

Uranium ore prices have risen from $20 per pound to $95 per pound in three years and the cost is expected to keep rising. At the moment market specialists say that what the worlds ore producers can supply is not keeping up with the demand from the worlds Nuclear Power Stations, as more Nuclear Power Stations pop up the demand grows and the problem worsens, its good for the market and the producers but not good for the economies of the countries who need it, the price rises because the companies supplying it know they can do that because of the demand is always there to buy a non-renewable fuel. I don't think that because a country could be termed friendly would cause us to get Uranium at a lower price, they are not going to say well lets give it to Scotland at $50 per pound and we can bump the price up for France to $140 cause we don't like them as much anyway, that way we can balance our books and keep the Scots happy?

Tubthumper
24-May-07, 23:14
Just a thought here but is there any uranium mined in the UK ?? if not then this will be a finite energy resource controlled by foriegn powers I feel another OPEC coming on!!!!
PM
But I'm sure we could engineer a reason to raid, blockade, or invade any dodgy nation that was being... obstructive?

Then again, the UK don't seem to be capable of engineering anything nowadays, we'd have to get some allies to engineer it for us. Or maybe we'd just have to tag along in line with someone else...

j4bberw0ck
24-May-07, 23:47
Uranium ore prices have risen from $20 per pound to $95 per pound in three years <snip> the price rises because the companies supplying it know they can do that because of the demand is always there to buy a non-renewable fuel. <snip> I don't think that because a country could be termed friendly would cause us to get Uranium at a lower price, they are not going to say well lets give it to Scotland at $50 per pound and we can bump the price up for France to $140 cause we don't like them as much anyway, that way we can balance our books and keep the Scots happy?

Supply and demand..... of course the price rises with demand, which is the natural balance. It'll find favour with Nick, who's arguing for an increase in prices to discourage usage. I notice that we're handily surviving increases in all manner of commodity prices, and for years we've lived with oil / petrol prices bouncing round like superputty.

As for friendly suppliers, the point was rather that we'd be unlikely to get held to political or religious ransom by Australia and Canada, rather than expecting a "friendly" price.

But again......... ignore for a minute the generation of power and think about the storage of power. You either have to generate power on demand, or you have to store it to release on demand.

How are you going to do that with renewables? And before you answer "hydrogen", the storage technology is in its infancy and won't yet serve to store large quantities for long periods and allow instant release. You can't liquefy it or keep it liquefied without expenditure of mind-boggling amounts of energy, and you need huge quantities of it because its energy density is a fraction of that of hydrocarbon fuels. You can't store it as a gas under pressure because it'll diffuse or leak out of almost anything you could put it in.

A nuclear power station (or a gas or coal one for that matter) aims to run, apparently, at 60% capacity to allow for sudden peaks. You can't do that with renewables - you can only use renewables to provide a baseline (and variable) power input to the system.

So, whether uranium costs $20 or $200 or $2000 per unit quantity, that's the price you pay for being able to live as we want to live - i.e. power on demand - and the price you pay for being independent of Russian or Norwegian gas, and Chinese coal. Oh, and for reducing that nasty carbon footprint.

Jeemag_USA
25-May-07, 00:52
Supply and demand..... of course the price rises with demand, which is the natural balance. It'll find favour with Nick, who's arguing for an increase in prices to discourage usage. I notice that we're handily surviving increases in all manner of commodity prices, and for years we've lived with oil / petrol prices bouncing round like superputty.

As for friendly suppliers, the point was rather that we'd be unlikely to get held to political or religious ransom by Australia and Canada, rather than expecting a "friendly" price.

But again......... ignore for a minute the generation of power and think about the storage of power. You either have to generate power on demand, or you have to store it to release on demand.

How are you going to do that with renewables? And before you answer "hydrogen", the storage technology is in its infancy and won't yet serve to store large quantities for long periods and allow instant release. You can't liquefy it or keep it liquefied without expenditure of mind-boggling amounts of energy, and you need huge quantities of it because its energy density is a fraction of that of hydrocarbon fuels. You can't store it as a gas under pressure because it'll diffuse or leak out of almost anything you could put it in.

A nuclear power station (or a gas or coal one for that matter) aims to run, apparently, at 60% capacity to allow for sudden peaks. You can't do that with renewables - you can only use renewables to provide a baseline (and variable) power input to the system.

So, whether uranium costs $20 or $200 or $2000 per unit quantity, that's the price you pay for being able to live as we want to live - i.e. power on demand - and the price you pay for being independent of Russian or Norwegian gas, and Chinese coal. Oh, and for reducing that nasty carbon footprint.

Not sure why you mention Hydrogen, I certainly wasn't going to, Hydrogen was first brought up as an aside to this subject and I never once mentioned it as an alternative to Nuclear Energy, but it could be a god subsitution to gasoling, thats what that conversation was about.

You can't ignore the generation part, thats what nuclear reaction is used for, to kick start the generation, you need to find an alternative to Uranium and Nuclear reaction to kick start your generation so that you don't have to rely on a non renewable source in the future, its not to do with being environmentally friendly, its about ensuring the future generations with a system of power generation which is consistent and reliable, and that includes factors like price, availabilty, safety and so on.

One of the reasons that Uranium prices are rocketing right now is because the people in charge of discovering and processing it didn't think of the future they only thought about the here and now and how much money can be made out of all this. I read on another site that the time taken from the exploration of a Uranium site through to the cost analysis and actual starting of mining takes a very long time, many of the companies mining Uranium did not put enough effort into discovering new sources and projects whilst using the one they had, thats why the supply is slowing down, because there is going to be a gap where companies screwed up and sat on their laurels getting fat off of what they had. On top of all that it like coal and oil, its never going to last forever so if it is possible to get your heads down and discover an alternative now then it should be done. We can't rely on thinking that oh well somewhere down the line we will have developed space travel so much we will be able to find Uranium deposits on another planet, thats not going to help if it never happens.

Also like someone else said above, its not just about cost of raw materials, its also cost of dumping or removing them as well. If Scotland does at some point gain its independence we will then be in a situation where we have to deicide well do we bury all this in Scotland or do we pay some other poorer country to dump it for us, even if they don't do it properly, out of sight out of mind?

If your generating electricity out of someting you have yourself and you don't have to remove any waste at the end of it then to me that will always be better. I am pretty much convinced that many years from now this planet is not going to be dependant on Nuclear Energy, but thats my opinion.

What needs to be looked at are the day to things that people do that drain most electricty. In Scotland I guess that woudl be heat elements, house heating, clothes dries, ovens etc. We shoudl be looking at alternatives for powering those sources. Many people turn to oil fire, but that still is never going to last.

I read somewhere that many countries are making biodiesel from rapeseed, at the moment though unfortunately rapeseed oil is expensive, China being the largest producer. Scotland produces a fair bit of Rapeseed itself, but again you'd need to look into the effect on the environment of planting hundreds of thousands of acres of rapeseed. Would be good for farmers financially too. But I don't know if that is viable. My point is not looking at putting up prices or introducing more Nuclear energy to supply demand. But look at alternatives to fuel the things that have most drain on the national grid, then we would not need to increase the amount of Nuclear Power Stations we have that rely on non renewable fuels from sources outside of our own economy. I know its not a very good example, but if all we need the grid for was light bulbs, telly and computers etc then why can we not fill that deman with Hydro Electric.

Some will say Salmond is being an arse, I just think he is thinking ahead and I agree with him, but he has to back up his decision by supplying realistic alternatives.

Tristan
25-May-07, 06:08
Just a thought here but is there any uranium mined in the UK ?? if not then this will be a finite energy resource controlled by foriegn powers I feel another OPEC coming on!!!!
PM
I don't think there is any mined but I believe there is some in Caithness and others parts of Britain.
One reason for constructing Dounreay was to see if a breader type reactor would work so Britain would not have to rely on foreign uranium.

j4bberw0ck
25-May-07, 10:18
Not sure why you mention Hydrogen, I certainly wasn't going to, Hydrogen was first brought up as an aside to this subject and I never once mentioned it as an alternative to Nuclear Energy, but it could be a god subsitution to gasoling, thats what that conversation was about.

Yes, but hydrogen is one of the keys here. I keep saying that that generating renewable energy is one thing - but storing it is another. And if you can't just turn the windspeed up when demand for power rises, you have to have power stored for release. A good example is a lake in Wales - or rather, two lakes in Wales. One's up the top of a mountain and the other's at the foot. When demand for power exceeds the ability of the generating station to supply it, they open a gate and the water in the top lake flows to the bottom lake, generating power from turbines. When the demand reduces, they pump the water back up to the top. On the plus side, they get away with a smakller power station than they'd otherwise need. On the minus side, it's an awful lot of messing about for dealing with peaks and troughs - and it illustrates nicely the problem with so-called "green" energy sources.

So, hydrogen. It's a possible storage technology, but not one that's workable yet.


You can't ignore the generation part, thats what nuclear reaction is used for, to kick start the generation, you need to find an alternative to Uranium and Nuclear reaction to kick start your generation so that you don't have to rely on a non renewable source in the future, its not to do with being environmentally friendly, its about ensuring the future generations with a system of power generation which is consistent and reliable, and that includes factors like price, availabilty, safety and so on.I can't disagree with a word of that, which is why it's all the more strange that Salmond has kicked nuclear out without even a scientific study being done.


One of the reasons that Uranium prices are rocketing right now is because the people in charge of discovering and processing it didn't think of the future they only thought about the here and now and how much money can be made out of all this. I read on another site that the time taken from the exploration of a Uranium site through to the cost analysis and actual starting of mining takes a very long time, many of the companies mining Uranium did not put enough effort into discovering new sources and projects whilst using the one they had, thats why the supply is slowing down, because there is going to be a gap where companies screwed up and sat on their laurels getting fat off of what they had.That's only half the story, and a not very well informed half, either. Being a mining company is a bit like being a house builder - your cash flow is completely the wrong way round. You face massive expenditure at the outset over an extended time period - which you have to fund. Usually it's funded by issuing share capital which is why there are so many little gold mining, oil discovery and other resources exploration companies around whose share price is measured in pence.

Then having expended a great deal of money you have to go to the government of the country involved and try to negotiate a licence to allow extraction - if they say no, you (and your shareholders) lose everything you've invested. Many countries and governments are resistant to new mining because the ecological mob got there first, and / or they have to think of the indigenous population.

So finally, you get your mine working and can start to recoup some cash to pay off the bank, pay yourself some money and so on. That's still over-simplified but it's more balanced than the "rabid robber baron capitalist" explanation and reflects reality better. It's no wonder, then, that the mining company then concentrates on exploiting the mine it's got rather than gambling on another hole in the ground elsewhere.

Anyway, as the price goes up, the willingness of people to take a risk and find some more increases. Look at oil - the Canadians have finally got to the point where it's worth digging up a piece of land the size of the UK to extract oil from the sand there, because technology and price of oil have coincided to make it worthwhile.


On top of all that it like coal and oil, its never going to last forever so if it is possible to get your heads down and discover an alternative now then it should be done. We can't rely on thinking that oh well somewhere down the line we will have developed space travel so much we will be able to find Uranium deposits on another planet, thats not going to help if it never happens. True again. But it'll last long enough. There's a huge quantity of oil waiting to be recovered if the price rises high enough - and the technology advances to make it possible. The UK alone has 500 years' worth of coal reserves; if the technology can make it cleaner. And given that the sum of human knowledge doubles every 25 years or so, and the global economy grows at an average of 2.5% p.a., then the hugely wealthy and knowledgeable people of future generations will be far better positioned to exploit alternatives than we are. Here's some figures for you, from 3 minutes on an Excel spreadsheet:

If you earn £10,000 p.a. in 2007 (for the sake of an easy figure)
If you get a regular pay rise of 2.5% p.a.
In 2107 your pay will be £137,003 p.a.
In 2207 your pay will be £1,361,599 p.a.
In 2307 your pay will be £16,085,544 p.a.

So in 100 years time, you'll be roughly 14 times more wealthy than now and there's a reasonable bet that the regular doubling of human knowledge will continue to produce generally lower prices for manufactured goods and services. The sort of economic and knowledge clout that this implies makes us in 2007 look like bumbling infants. The problems will be solved.


If your generating electricity out of someting you have yourself and you don't have to remove any waste at the end of it then to me that will always be better. I am pretty much convinced that many years from now this planet is not going to be dependant on Nuclear Energy, but thats my opinion.Again, I'd agree with you. BUT the problem with renewables, in return for no waste (well OK, we'll let that stand) is that you can't generate power on demand. If you can't, you get brownouts and blackouts. So you need stored energy, for which the technology doesn't yet exist. I have no doubt that it will in the future. So today and in the immediate future you need power stations to generate on demand, and if you want to avoid carbon, then nuclear is a great bet. Will we still need nuclear fission power plants in 200 years time? I'd put my money on the problem having been solved some other way - fusion, perhaps.


My point is not looking at putting up prices or introducing more Nuclear energy to supply demand. But look at alternatives to fuel the things that have most drain on the national grid, then we would not need to increase the amount of Nuclear Power Stations we have that rely on non renewable fuels from sources outside of our own economy. I know its not a very good example, but if all we need the grid for was light bulbs, telly and computers etc then why can we not fill that deman with Hydro Electric.I know, or think I know, what you're saying. The problem, though, is that it isn't tellies that cause the demand - it's industry. And if the price to industry increases massively, then the economic fallout starts. Hydroelectric in Scotland just isn't a big enough resource to guarantee supply into the future, and as Rheghead said, if the rain stops, there's a problem. And how do you store the power against demand peaks or production falls?


Some will say Salmond is being an arse, I just think he is thinking ahead and I agree with him, but he has to back up his decision by supplying realistic alternatives.I happen to think Salmond is a very clever man, much as I disagree with much of his policy, so I wouldn't call him an arse. But I do agree that the onus is on him to provide alternatives, and I don't think, without nuclear, he's going to be able to do it. The Greens would be very happy to see us all back in some rural-idyll-of-the-imagination, cuddling lambs and tending trees.... and those are the people who will make or break his government.

KittyMay
25-May-07, 22:12
Some will say Salmond is being an arse, I just think he is thinking ahead and I agree with him, but he has to back up his decision by supplying realistic alternatives.

Now this could be quite a challenge for Mr Salmond. Realistic alternatives within a limited timeframe? Mmm.
Will Mr Salmond be content to have Scotland importing electricity from England to meet Scottish demand?
No amount of wind energy is going to replace the power stations due for closure. The alternative renewables are not going to be commercially available in time to take up the slack - even if that were possible.
So if not nuclear will he back new gas stations? Coal stations? Or will he rely on England to export their nuclear (or dirty carbon emitting coal and gas) generated electricity to us in Scotland?

quirbal
26-May-07, 14:41
I don't think there is any mined but I believe there is some in Caithness and others parts of Britain.
One reason for constructing Dounreay was to see if a breader type reactor would work so Britain would not have to rely on foreign uranium.

Yep, the UK was a world leader in LMFBRs for fourty years, unfortunately the tories managed to put the boot into that in 1986.

Typical of this country to take a good idea, become a world leader and then either adandon the work or sell it off to another state.

quirbal
26-May-07, 14:46
Some will say Salmond is being an arse, I just think he is thinking ahead and I agree with him, but he has to back up his decision by supplying realistic alternatives.

Oh he is clever, but the problems he will cause by this policy will only come home when he is out of power.

Even the most ardent fan of fission will agree that it is only a stop gap until other forms of power generation are more reliable - and that is going take a few decades of least.

crayola
26-May-07, 16:35
Even the most ardent fan of fission will agree that it is only a stop gap until other forms of power generation are more reliable - and that is going take a few decades of least.I'm not convinced that all aficionados of FBRs would agree with you there. I know a few senior ex-PFR engineers who still believe they can power us for hundreds of years. To which I retort: reprocessing, reprocessing, reprocessing; political suicide, political suicide, political suicide; for the time being anyway. Things may change when the world heats up a bit more and wind, wave and tide don't measure up to the hype.

quirbal
26-May-07, 17:36
I'm not convinced that all aficionados of FBRs would agree with you there. I know a few senior ex-PFR engineers who still believe they can power us for hundreds of years. To which I retort: reprocessing, reprocessing, reprocessing; political suicide, political suicide, political suicide; for the time being anyway. Things may change when the world heats up a bit more and wind, wave and tide don't measure up to the hype.

Ah, yes physically that is possible, but in reality what is needed is a reliable source of energy for the short/medium term until the other potential alternatives really are alternatives.