Go buy a wee burn with a decent head of water Rab. You'll be quids in as long as you live near it. Somehow I can't remember seeing any in Kilmarnock. :)
I thought that of the eleven new sites for nuclear power stations announced in April, ten of them are in England and one is in Wales. Who's saying you have to have nuclear when you can have hydro? Or have I missed the point, SR?
Interesting Subrosa, whilst also being an emotive subject.
However, if schemes such as that illustrated would only produce 54% of Scotlands needs, you still have to provide the means for the remaining 46%? And please, please don't even start to mention wind turbines!
"That's the only reason London are so desperate to have it here"
I would like to reinforce Goodnight Vienna's point.
If they are so "desperate" to build nuclear plants in Scotland, why are there no proposals?
You do realise it's private companies bringing forward the proposals, not the government?
Why have they allowed Ofgem and National Grid to set up a grid charging system which incentivises generators to build power plants (using whatever fuel source) in the south of England and not Scotland?
(And before anyone starts shouting about penalising "Scottish renewables", the flip-side of that system is that grid charges for Scottish *consumers* (that's us) are lower than those in the south of England.)
GV as far as I know the intention is to run the Scottish plants past their close-by dates.
Of course the subject is politically motivated because the present Scottish government voted against nuclear so Westminster have to tread carefully because they know the Scots don't want it.
Do you honestly think the site mentioned will be the site used?
WW, the schemes mentioned in the video are small fry and could, according to Murray, achieve 54%. Scotland has the ability to produce far greater schemes.
In fact some older hydro electric projects are now classed as a work of great architecture. I have a photo of a marvellous example I took in Perthshire. Email me and I send it to you.
"Why have they allowed Ofgem and National Grid to set up a grid charging system which incentivises generators to build power plants (using whatever fuel source) in the south of England and not Scotland?
(And before anyone starts shouting about penalising "Scottish renewables", the flip-side of that system is that grid charges for Scottish *consumers* (that's us) are lower than those in the south of England.)"
Can you reference these interconnection charges to validate your assertion?
A ray of hope of what's possible if you have the means. We do not need Nuclear power, it kills the environment; I've seen pics of what happens to the fish off Sellafield - you can keep yer fission.
Finally, we don't need Westminster telling us that "it's in our interests" - stand up Scotland have the balls to say No! by ony means.
Morning CD. I think the Scottish government is doing a good job standing up for Scotland on this issue. It will be interesting if DC (should the tories get in) starts heavyweight tactics.
In the UK we do not have a system of fixed "use-by" dates for nuclear plants. (Unlike the US, for example.)
There are periodic reviews by the NII, but ultimately closure decisions come down to the operator's judgement whether it is economic to do all the maintenance & upgrade work required by the NII.
The dates of 2016 and 2023 bandied about for Hunterston and Torness are simply the *accounting* lives carried in BE's books; i.e. lifetimes which their engineers have promised the accountants can be achieved.
It is therefore a near-certainty that both plants will go on beyond those dates. I'd expect Hunterston to go on to around 2020 and Torness towards 2030 (it being newer, so there's more scope to do life-extending things to it.)
BTW GB's brother works for EDF. Eon is German.
Billygoat
"Can you reference these interconnection charges to validate your assertion?
I very much doubt your assertion."
Oh dear. One of the main reasons for my unpopularity with CyberNats is that when I make an assertion, I can back it up.
On Arran I had a water wheel generating from a burn to a bank of car batteries. In the Summer, it barely turned at all because water levels in the burn were so low.
Micro production is a good thing, but like everything else held up in some political quarters, it's not a panacea. As the guy said in the vid - it can cover 54% of DOMESTIC consumption, not total consumption and I'll wager that's only if every single burn in Scotland is channeled through pipes and working at full capacity in the Spring.
There are a lot of sensible, practical measures we can take to produce power. I think these are great but we have to recognise that they can't ever be seriously expected to supply our massively increasing energy needs.
Still, watching Fat Eck running around crowing about his "magic beans" is good entertainment.
Alan, the guy in the vid (the father) was a tory councillor in Perth and Kinross for years and he knows his farming and countryside matters. I think he was mainly talking about wee communities doing something to ensure they have a power supply instead of paying a fortune.
I am fairly certain that they will mean that Scotland will not have to replace Hunterston, and will only have to commission a replacement for Torness sometime in the late 2020s.
We will thereafter be able to get away with only one 1600 MW nuke rather than two 1200 MW ones.
But as for managing without nuclear entirely? Moonshine.
SUBROSA - Please contact me if you have any ideas, stories or complaints: subrosa.blonde AT yahoo.co.uk Replace AT with the @ symbol. My profile can be viewed here.
Posts
27 comments:
Answer: no.
Excellent vid. Aye - the only reason we need nuclear is to export the energy to England.
Agree Mek.
That's the only reason London are so desperate to have it here scunnert and of course the NIMBY syndrome.
It's the power of the future!!
It'll be so cheap there will be no point metering it.
Go buy a wee burn with a decent head of water Rab. You'll be quids in as long as you live near it. Somehow I can't remember seeing any in Kilmarnock. :)
Rab C. Nesbitt said...
"It's the power of the future!!
It'll be so cheap there will be no point metering it."
I remember that spin from the fifties Rab. Well we know better now - yet some folks remain gullible.
And here was me thinking Rab meant Hydro was the way to go!
Most folks aren't that gullible scunnert, many just have a financial interest in this form of fuel. Like politicians for example.
I thought that of the eleven new sites for nuclear power stations announced in April, ten of them are in England and one is in Wales. Who's saying you have to have nuclear when you can have hydro? Or have I missed the point, SR?
Interesting Subrosa, whilst also being an emotive subject.
However, if schemes such as that illustrated would only produce 54% of Scotlands needs, you still have to provide the means for the remaining 46%? And please, please don't even start to mention wind turbines!
Subrosa...
So much hot air comes from Labour that im sure Scotland can survive just on wind power,
No we don't need it. England needs it.
Yes and no.
Well, maybe then.
SR
"That's the only reason London are so desperate to have it here"
I would like to reinforce Goodnight Vienna's point.
If they are so "desperate" to build nuclear plants in Scotland, why are there no proposals?
You do realise it's private companies bringing forward the proposals, not the government?
Why have they allowed Ofgem and National Grid to set up a grid charging system which incentivises generators to build power plants (using whatever fuel source) in the south of England and not Scotland?
(And before anyone starts shouting about penalising "Scottish renewables", the flip-side of that system is that grid charges for Scottish *consumers* (that's us) are lower than those in the south of England.)
Any chance of introducing any facts into this?
Sme there are proposals, as I understand it, to continue the present sites in Scotland way beyond their initial 'use by' dates.
Of course Westminster are part of the proposals. Don't you know Gordon's Brown's brother is a main player in the French company E-on?
I did a degree many moons ago which included a thesis on nuclear energy and since then I have never been convinced it is the answer.
If you'd asked me the question 40 years ago I would have said yes, but now being informed it's no.
GV as far as I know the intention is to run the Scottish plants past their close-by dates.
Of course the subject is politically motivated because the present Scottish government voted against nuclear so Westminster have to tread carefully because they know the Scots don't want it.
Do you honestly think the site mentioned will be the site used?
WW, the schemes mentioned in the video are small fry and could, according to Murray, achieve 54%. Scotland has the ability to produce far greater schemes.
In fact some older hydro electric projects are now classed as a work of great architecture. I have a photo of a marvellous example I took in Perthshire. Email me and I send it to you.
Sme, I'm sure you can produce enough facts so please go ahead.
SME etc
"Why have they allowed Ofgem and National Grid to set up a grid charging system which incentivises generators to build power plants (using whatever fuel source) in the south of England and not Scotland?
(And before anyone starts shouting about penalising "Scottish renewables", the flip-side of that system is that grid charges for Scottish *consumers* (that's us) are lower than those in the south of England.)"
Can you reference these interconnection charges to validate your assertion?
I very much doubt your assertion.
SR,
A ray of hope of what's possible if you have the means. We do not need Nuclear power, it kills the environment; I've seen pics of what happens to the fish off Sellafield - you can keep yer fission.
Finally, we don't need Westminster telling us that "it's in our interests" - stand up Scotland have the balls to say No! by ony means.
CD
Morning CD. I think the Scottish government is doing a good job standing up for Scotland on this issue. It will be interesting if DC (should the tories get in) starts heavyweight tactics.
SR
In the UK we do not have a system of fixed "use-by" dates for nuclear plants. (Unlike the US, for example.)
There are periodic reviews by the NII, but ultimately closure decisions come down to the operator's judgement whether it is economic to do all the maintenance & upgrade work required by the NII.
The dates of 2016 and 2023 bandied about for Hunterston and Torness are simply the *accounting* lives carried in BE's books; i.e. lifetimes which their engineers have promised the accountants can be achieved.
It is therefore a near-certainty that both plants will go on beyond those dates. I'd expect Hunterston to go on to around 2020 and Torness towards 2030 (it being newer, so there's more scope to do life-extending things to it.)
BTW GB's brother works for EDF. Eon is German.
Billygoat
"Can you reference these interconnection charges to validate your assertion?
I very much doubt your assertion."
Oh dear. One of the main reasons for my unpopularity with CyberNats is that when I make an assertion, I can back it up.
The numbers you want are here:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/7670F6EE-3945-4E8A-8F9E-068CDC5EA9FA/33162/UoSCI5R0RFinal.pdf
...and the methodology for same is here:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/252B0D45-0F60-4E6F-AE84-475997230E23/35221/UoSCMI5R1.pdf
Apologies sm of course it's EDF the French firm and not E-on.
I really don't like the use of that word cybernats but hey, the unionists somehow need to insult the supporters of independence.
Thanks for the explanation about the assessment system today. Shows how things have changed in 40 years.
Good job we don't have dry spells in Scotland.
On Arran I had a water wheel generating from a burn to a bank of car batteries. In the Summer, it barely turned at all because water levels in the burn were so low.
Micro production is a good thing, but like everything else held up in some political quarters, it's not a panacea. As the guy said in the vid - it can cover 54% of DOMESTIC consumption, not total consumption and I'll wager that's only if every single burn in Scotland is channeled through pipes and working at full capacity in the Spring.
There are a lot of sensible, practical measures we can take to produce power. I think these are great but we have to recognise that they can't ever be seriously expected to supply our massively increasing energy needs.
Still, watching Fat Eck running around crowing about his "magic beans" is good entertainment.
Alan, the guy in the vid (the father) was a tory councillor in Perth and Kinross for years and he knows his farming and countryside matters. I think he was mainly talking about wee communities doing something to ensure they have a power supply instead of paying a fortune.
We can rely on rain in this country can't we? lol
So you think nuclear is the way to go?
SR
I am (mildly) in favour of renewables.
I am fairly certain that they will mean that Scotland will not have to replace Hunterston, and will only have to commission a replacement for Torness sometime in the late 2020s.
We will thereafter be able to get away with only one 1600 MW nuke rather than two 1200 MW ones.
But as for managing without nuclear entirely? Moonshine.
Post a Comment