Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Wednesday, 4th November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Nuclear power not needed in Scotland, Holyrood told

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: 17 January 2008
NUCLEAR power is not needed to meet Scotland's future energy needs, MSPs were told today.
Energy minister Jim Mather added that the possibility of a giant sub-sea cable down the east coast of the UK would further strengthen Scotland's self-sufficiency.

MSPs were being asked to back the SNP's anti-nuclear stance in a debate in Parliamen
t.

The UK Government last week gave the go-ahead to a new generation of plants to help fulfil future power needs with the publication of the Energy Bill at Westminster.

But Mr Mather said in Parliament: "Our approach is clear – Scotland doesn't want or need new nuclear power.

"The facts are that we are already meeting a very large part of our energy needs from non-nuclear sources.

"We have massive potential for exploiting our significant renewable resources and we're also capable of reducing our reliance on fossil fuel energy supplies while making those clean."

The Scottish Government's non-nuclear stance will foster export potential of energy technology, expertise and products, the minister added.

"The views of this government are unequivocal in terms of nuclear power," Mr Mather added.

He added that the provisions in the UK Energy Bill on nuclear decommissioning do not extend to Scotland.

Figures last week show in 2006 Scotland supplied the equivalent of 92 per cent of its gross energy needs from a mix fossil fuels, renewables and pump hydro storage, the minister said.

He added that the amount of energy generated from nuclear power in that year fell by a quarter, although he accepted this was down to the partial closure of the Hunterston plant.

Mr Mather said: "There's no energy gap, there will be no energy gap, especially with the Crown estates forecasting an additional five to ten giga watts from renewables by 2020."

Crown estates research today indicated that a sub-sea cable down the east coast of the UK was economically viable, meaning that renewable generation in Scotland could be more easily fed into large population centres down south. The government motion calls for more dialogue with Westminster.

But Lothians Tory enterprise spokesman Gavin Brown said an overall energy policy was needed and not simply a narrow focus on electricity as put forward by the government.

He outlined national issues of diminishing oil supplies and ageing coal and power stations and an unstable global energy picture.

He said the debate on energy has to cover a broad range of factors that leaves nothing out, and identifies a level of energy decentralisation as playing an important role in the future.

And he accused the government of "flapping in the wind" by only putting £14 million a year into energy and climate change while ruling out new nuclear power stations.

Mr Brown said his party was "terrified" at the potential energy gap and claimed the Nationalists had no idea what their mooted "renewables mix" will look like.

"We need, renewables, we need cleaner coal, we need to be more efficient, we need nuclear and we need more decentralisation," he said.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 January 2008 1:15 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear defence
 
1

malkster,

Scotland 17/01/2008 13:51:20
mmm me thinks a bit of debate would perhaps be welcome before we might make a mistake.
2

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 14:07:41
What a load of waffle from Mather. He should be spelling out now the make up of generation in 2020 and the CO2 emissions that implies. I make it double what we are at just now. Has Scotland unilaterally abandoned Kyoto?
3

I'm no really here,

17/01/2008 14:11:56
#2 No, we've just unilaterally abandoned Nuclear Power - and it's Nuclear Footprint
4

malkster,

Scotland 17/01/2008 14:20:53
Its a difficult position, on one hand we will be spewing out more carbon and increasing global warming on the other hand we have storage of nuclear fuel and possible catastrophic failure. I think it is worthy of further debate.
5

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 14:22:07
Nuclear power ?? No Thanks, you can ram it !
6

Dragonlord,

17/01/2008 15:06:07
Scotland is more than self sufficient in renewables.We don't need wind or nuclear. Next winter a giant Hydro plant opens and all the other Hydro's are running at reduced capacity to gain grants instaed of making power.
7

Am-Bodach,

17/01/2008 15:07:27
Does the energy minister understand the issues involved? Weather systems are much larger than countries, thus both England and Scotland might frequently need to export electricity at the same time. Furthermore, England may decide not to purchase (expensive) electricity from an independent Scotland - nuclear generated electricity from France would be more reliable, less expensive, and supplying the energy hungry south-east would involve lower transmission losses.
8

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 15:10:23
Fossil fuels are running out fast and renewables will not be able to cope with demand. Nuclear energy will supply and is the only presently available power source which will meet our future needs for power.

The anti-nuclear sector are burying their heads in the sand.

9

An Beal Bacht,

17/01/2008 15:35:38
Posters here worried about our future energy requirements should be assured that our nuclear friends would be only too happy to let you borrow a cup of Plutonium 239 (half-life 24,100 years). That'll keep ye toasty during the winter!
10

malkster,

Scotland 17/01/2008 15:40:20
Does anybody have any idea what happens to massive amounts of Co2 and carbon when stored deep underground for long periods of time? Me neither I am all in favour of genuine renewables and I say as much as possible but I would prefer to back that up with Nuclear until its fully viable rather than risk all on "clean coal" and "carbon capture" which is simply a way of storing other stuff underground and is not yet economically viable.
11

Fairfax,

17/01/2008 16:16:49
malkster (12): "Does anybody have any idea what happens to massive amounts of Co2 and carbon when stored deep underground for long periods of time?"

In a sense, the truly long-time bahaviour is known: plant hydrocarbons deposited tens of millions of years ago formed our fossil fuel deposits. It's also common practice in the oil industry to use very large volumes of water to force oil out, presumably resulting in an underground mayonnaise residue! More seriously, I see your point, but oil reservoir numerical simulations should be able to answer this one.
12

MoragfraeEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 16:21:47
6# Giant Hydro plant - It is 100mw less than 2% of Scottish needs. A lot of Hydro plants were vandalised by their owners when the renewables subsidy came in but it totalled 94mw in total.

Mind you the main vandals who reduced our renewables output by 94mw are the same company that are building the new 100mw plant.

Such is the madness of the green agenda.
13

Fairfax,

17/01/2008 16:31:50
An Beal Bacht (11): "our nuclear friends would be only too happy to let you borrow a cup of Plutonium 239 (half-life 24,100 years)."

That's roughly 10 kg of Plutonium -- enough for 3 small fission bombs; however, reactors produce roughly 20 times this mass each year. Your cup might even be sufficient for 10 tiny fission bombs (i.e. enough to destroy, say, several buildings, not a city), if the right technology is used. Why then does no poster worry about the proliferation risk of nuclear power? Instead we have the usual worries of waste disposal. For comparison, Uranium 238 (> 99% of all uranium) has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, whilst U235 (the useful stuff for reactors and bombs) has a half-life of 704 million years (0.72% of uranium). There is roughly 40 times as much uranium as silver on earth, yet life goes on . . .

As for proliferation risk, a 1 GW nuclear reactor produces some 200 kg of Plutonium (Pu239 and Pu240) per year, easily sufficient for some 500 fission bombs. As a fairly pro-nuclear poster, this worries me far more.
14

Fairfax,

17/01/2008 16:42:55
"1 GW nuclear reactor produces some 200 kg of Plutonium easily sufficient for some 500 fission bombs."

A silly typo: I meant to write 40 fission bombs (at 5 kg per bomb). I was going to give our national production of Pu per year in terms of bombs, which would have reached the 500 bombs/year level for some time.
15

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 17:06:02
#15 Anti-nuclear posters always try and scare people with their half lives. My my big toe has a 1/2 life of several billion years too. The longer the half life the less radiation that is being given out - the less the worry. Now if some of the waste had a half life of a week or two then we would have problems. But we don't as it is all just scare stories by the treehuggers.
16

Fairfax,

17/01/2008 17:33:34
Rulesbutnotrulers (17): "There are signs of 'fossil' fuels on planets where there has never been life."

Not just signs: the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn etc) are essentially hydrocarbon, and you're quite correct to mention that hydrocarbons will be fairly common on the cosmic scale, since they're light elements readily formed in stars. However, the accessible hydrocarbons we're mining seem to be fossil fuels, given our geology. In other words, they were formed by plants from the carbon originally bonded to the oxygen making up some 20% of our atmosphere. This point is interesting because it allows us to calculate an upper bound on the total mass of plant-carbon sequestrated in the earth. Such estimates generated a brief fluury of anxiety a century ago, when Lord Kelvin published them:

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/end_of_free_oxygen.html

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/end_of_free_oxygen.html
17

Publius,

London- 17/01/2008 17:34:41
Scotland has nuclear power stations. Finland is building a nuclear power station. Abu Dhabi is getting one from France in exchange for a military base. All the best small countries have one. Scotland should keep its nuclear capacity too.
18

boudica,

Glasgow 17/01/2008 17:58:32
So the SNP and others say No to Nuclear Energy ..but Okay to making Scotland a Nuclear Waste dump the Logic in this is ????
19

Andrew Allan,

17/01/2008 18:03:38
#21.,boudica.
Please do your homework boudica, all of this nuclear waste you are talking about is in fact our own, with what is left of our own nuclear industry, we are only cleaning up after ourselves, and not asking other countries to do so for us.
20

Andrew Allan,

17/01/2008 18:12:09
#20.,Publius.
Up until just after the May elections Scotland was to get its own experimental hydrogen producing plant, which could of well been the next great advancement in energy production, and could of extended the lives of the oil fields. The only problem was the westminster government killed it because they made up excuses about the time delay in saying they would commit to the project with the company involved.
21

Andrew Allan,

17/01/2008 18:27:08
#19.,fairfax.
If it were indeed possible to estimate the amount of carbon in regards to our fossil fuels, are we presuming we have any idea how much mankind has ever used, or in fact how much the earth itself has consumed. Are we also presuming there has been a cut off date for the production, or isn't it just possible it has been an on going process which the carbon you talk about circulated back into the eco-system.
22

Richard Lionheart,

17/01/2008 18:32:05
In the longer term,

1 There is no guarantee that rain will fall.
2 There is no guarantee that winds will blow.
3 There is no guarantee that seas and rivers won’t freeze.
4 There is no guarantee that we will be able to get coal.
5 There is no guarantee that we will be able to get oil.
6 There is no guarantee that we will be able to get gas.

The nuclear option is just that, an option and there is nothing wrong with hedging our bets rather than ruling it out.
23

An English Voice™,

17/01/2008 18:47:31
I have a report that says 40% of Scottish electricity comes from nuclear power.

How are renewables going to match that level of output?

"Scotland is self-sufficient in renewables"....really?!

What happens to the lights on a calm day then? No wind and no waves....oh dear!
24

Conan the Librarian™,

17/01/2008 19:05:00
Its been said many times on these forums,but hear I go again.
Tidal power.
Tidal Power.
Tidal power.
Oh dear.I'm becoming a tidal bore.
25

Belter 3,

london 17/01/2008 19:22:10
For all you ignorant people that are proposing Nuclear Power, the amount of deaths caused by cancer to young men in the industry will never be disclosed. Who thinks it safe enough to have it as your neighbor?
26

whitebaron,

ek 17/01/2008 19:54:53
That last comment really deserves a response - whatalotofrubbish - ive spent the last 3 years working at a nuklear power station and i feel fine
27

Fairfax,

17/01/2008 19:57:58
Andrew Allan (24): "are we presuming we have any idea how much mankind has ever used, or in fact how much the earth itself has consumed."

Yes, that's correct. Such estimates will always be fairly approximate, but the main idea is as stated earlier: the oxygen is our atmosphere was originally bonded to carbon, as carbon dioxide. Plants are responsible for the free oxygen, so (total mass of carbon on the earth ultimately derived from the atmosphere) - (current total carbon biomass) = (mass of carbon required to form CO2 with the mass of oxygen in the atmosphere). Of course, there is also carbon on the earth in forms that have not really interacted with the biosphere, e.g. silicon carbide (i.e. sand).

"isn't it just possible it has been an on going process which the carbon you talk about circulated back into the eco-system."

That's the reason for subtracting the current biomass. You can find out more in Kelvin's original paper.
28

St. Brendan,

The next life 17/01/2008 20:09:40
It should be mentioned that walking to the shop produces more CO2 than driving the same distance.

Not even nuclear power wil be adequate to reduce the CO2 level. Population growth must be calculated into it as well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

BTW: Thorium based reactors give less radioactive waste than the plutonium based ones.
29

ClosetJambo,

Shiny New Tynecastle 17/01/2008 22:06:34
#27 Conan The Librarian

Maybe you should actually read some of books in your library.

Tidal power, like other renewables is undoubtedly a potentially useful source of energy that could play a part in our energy mix. However, it is a cyclic source, not constant. If we had a calm day I think it's pretty unlikely that the demand profile curve for our proud nation will synchronise with the power output curve of any tidal generators, even assuming that enough of them exist to meet the maximum network demand.

As I've said before on these forums, the electricity network depends on a number of large, synchronous machines for its stability. Making simplistic equations between the generating capacity of, say, Torness and all the windfarms in the South of Scotland completely misses the point. The stability provided by large installations complements and supports any renewable capacity we have and allows us to preserve an acceptable level of system security. I'm afraid all the wind, wave and tidal generators on the planet won't do that, however much you might want them to. To ignore issues such as network stability and other dynamic features of power system behaviour will definitely leave us all in the cold and dark.

We need to make serious inroads into energy conservation and use it sensibly. We need also to have a practical energy mix of distributed renewables and the large, thermally-based plants. Clean coal would be good for the latter, nuclear even better, but people do get very excitable when the dreaded N-word is mentioned.

Let's have a diverse and robust portfolio of renewables in our country, by all means, but for goodness sake, let us engineers have some say in what will work and what most certainly won't!!!
30

me150,

17/01/2008 22:32:51
Yet another example of SNP ineffectiveness and lack of commitment to actually help the country. Where are we gonna be in 20 years if they are allowed to continue bastardising the country.

Get them out as soon as possible.

Oh they are doing ONE good thing....dangerous dogs act extention....good on you SNP.
31

Conan the Librarian™,

17/01/2008 22:51:38
32
Closet Jambo
Perhaps I was being over eagre.
32

Conan the Librarian™,

17/01/2008 23:17:20
You need a large club marked "subtle" for some people.
Ah...well.
Jambo. I was on the very extreme periphery of the Salter duck project in the seventies.I was at Napier and I believe some of the engineering models were farmed out to the machine shop there.
But I am so old and ill-read...
33

An Beal Bacht,

18/01/2008 01:30:42
Nuclear lost the debate - get over it.
34

glassbenmhor,

18/01/2008 09:00:38
Aye,damm it,none of you care about the long dark highland winters it was so easy counting the ewes glowing in the park after Chernobyl
35

Highland Mighty,

18/01/2008 09:37:05
I wonder what the SNP mob would be saying if Salmond was in favour of nuclear power?!

(Yep, am still smug over the last independence poll - STILL only 27% after months of Salmond and his mob ranting, raging, whining, whinging, moaning and groaning. Superb.)
36

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 15:51:31
#10 Wardog,Buckie

"There is enough readily accessible coal, in Scotland to last at least another 300 years,"

Sorry, I just plain don't believe that. It would only last that long if the population of Scotland were reduded to 10% of its present size (or you maybe only burn a few million tons of coal per annum).

Ideally a mix of ALL power sources is required, but at the end of the day nuclear power will plainly be the most depended upon in the UK (wait until the Russians decide to cut off our gas supplies for instance).

The Scottish Executive are foolish to turn away from nuclear power and research into it - it will be very necessary soon!!

37

The Master,

18/01/2008 16:08:52
It’s almost comical: dear leader has not just one Achilles Heal but two! The first of course is the independence agenda which he resolutely clings to, come hell or high water. The SNP are way behind the times in rejecting this environmentally friendly and safe solution to Scotland’s energy needs, but isn’t it the party’s raison d’etre to be completely out of step with reality? How sad for the Nats that even the Tories have now taken to knocking lumps out of them over this!

Warning: the Master is pissed, so he accepts no responsibility for this post (although he did compose it before he went out on the ran dan for a leaving do; no doubt you Nutty Nats will pull it part anyway!)
38

kimba,

18/01/2008 16:24:22
Not needed! hope the kids of Scotland like doing their homework by candlelight.
39

Ayrshire Scot.™,

18/01/2008 16:33:03
I hear that developing energy supply is a priority in Eastern Europe. No doubt Scotland will go the same way if Alex has his same way: we all know that his energy policy is as crazy as his independence policy. It’s not time!


#42 kimba: a happy new year to you! Love you! (but keep it quiet!)
40

kimba,

18/01/2008 17:00:49
43,Ayrshire. Love you too,but stop defending BP,HE MADE A BIG mess UP,got tablets from doc,she says i'll be right weight by april.
41

kimba,

18/01/2008 17:05:54
If the people of England and Scotland feel it's time for the union to split,we should go our seperate ways,trouble is 55% of Scots want to stay in the union.
42

Ayrshire Scot.™,

18/01/2008 17:17:17
#46 kimba: the UK will split over my lifeless corpse (although I don’t have much of a life, spending, as I do, all day by my computer commenting on political issues that no-one else in Scotland is interested in, or has even heard of for that matter!) It will never be time!
43

kimba,

18/01/2008 17:29:54
Ayrshire. you need a job,or a woman,either way you are as always correct.
44

Ayrshire Scot.™,

18/01/2008 17:36:48
#48 kimba: if I could find the perfect Nicola…unfortunately, my budget just doesn’t’ stretch far enough, after I’ve paid for the broadband access and my monthly donations to the SNP (which have come to rival even that nice Brian Souter over the years!)
45

kimba,

18/01/2008 17:41:59
Ayrshire,are you having a laugh, if you can not do better than that i'd give up! as for the SNP subscription that is a waste of money.
46

Ayrshire Scot.™,

18/01/2008 17:49:51
#50 kimba: how can investment in the only party dedicated to promoting the interests of scotland possibly be a waste of money? Doesn’t our dear leader always assure us that unionism is dead and independence is just around the corner, whatever the polls may say?
47

kimba,

18/01/2008 17:51:41
ANyone seen spook?
48

kimba,

18/01/2008 17:56:33
AYRSHIRE. Your having a laugh, your dear leader is to say the least "deluded"and at best misguided.
49

kimba,

18/01/2008 18:00:11
Well i'm off for a good night out.Ayrshire, stop believeing all the clap-trap the SNP pump out.
50

Ayrshire Scot.™,

18/01/2008 18:02:04
#52 kimba: how dare you! Haven’t you heard that he recently won the prestigious Scottish Parliamentarian of the Year – he is the pick of the numpties in the sorry excuse for a parliament (and people actually like him, so he must surely be doing something right, mustn't he!)
51

kimba,

18/01/2008 18:05:57
55,ayrshire,yeah right! night pet.
52

Sanny,

Glasgow 19/01/2008 00:06:08
When considering the economics of Nuclear energy we must take full account of the cost of safely storing the waste products, one of which is Plutonium; Pu-239. The isotope Pu-239 has a half life of 24,360 years. That is to say that effectively after 24,360 years in storage,half of it will still remain and will need to continue in a protected store. The cost of storing this material for these sort of periods must strike even the most stupid of our community as horrendous. It is a no-brainer to see that investing in other clean technologies is by far the best way forward.

Scotland has the lions share of sea power for the whole of Europe but it is ignored by the Westminster politicians. As a result research and development is grossly under-funded.

Scotland has a small surplus in supply which is sent to England. Therefore we do not need any supply from England nor do we need the Nuclear stations. Indeed with a reasonable investment in our natural resources we could supply England with all the energy it requires and avoid the Nuclear option. I believe a ten year R&D plus construction programme could see Scotland supply not only her own needs and those of England but with spare capacity to supply parts of Europe.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.