No chance of nuclear power in Scotland

[peter macdonald]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news...412234.0.0.php




PM

[j4bberw0ck]

Stupid. Passing up employment, technology and wealth generation.

[Jeemag_USA]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Perhaps we could invade France, occupy all their nuclear power stations and divert the electricity to the UK?

[Tubthumper]

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]

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]

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]

WMD - Wind Mill Deficiency?

[j4bberw0ck]

jibberwock

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

[Jeemag_USA]

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

Please explain?

[Tubthumper]

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]

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?

[Jeemag_USA]

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.