Comment posted Major environmental groups seriously compromised by wind developers’ cash by Tim McIntyre.
Robert – maybe the EET committee was bored of their weekly sessions of important but dull technical evidence from experts, and wanted a little light entertainment for a change
Tim McIntyre also commented
- Malcolm – Doc may have a ballpark answer, but I think the truth is that we don’t know – CCS has not yet been proven on a commercial scale, so the costs are subject to huge uncertainty.
Unfortunately CCS does have one big downside which is that it substantially depresses the overall generation efficiency, due to the large energy cost of compressing and pumping the CO2 underground. It might have a part to play, but it will mean we need to burn a good deal more of the fossil fuel in order to get the same amount of electricity.
- One exception does not disprove the rule, Malcolm. This doesn’t even appear to be an exception – they had to provide anemometer data from another nearby site, which was presumably considered to be suitably representative.
Just more e-petition spamming, I’m afraid.
You might get an apology from Doc, but I wouldn’t hold your breath
- Karl – reading between the lines, I sense that the government are quite keen to prolong the life of the two existing nukes, so the question of how to replace them can be held off for another 5 years (at least).
That may seem a bit cynical; to be fair, there are, unavoidably, big and rapid changes to come on energy generation, CCS, storage, demand management etc. – much of it very uncertain still, so a few more years of development will allow a better picture to emerge on how to replace them – that includes possible future developments in nuclear technology of course.
- Hunterston B and Torness nuclear power stations are due to close in 2016 and 2023 respectively. However, they might well not. All the Scottish Government’s emphasis in its energy policy is on ‘no NEW nuclear’
The Government states in its draft Electricity Generation Policy Statement that it expects EDF (the, er, foreign owner of Scotland’s nuclear plants) to apply for a life-extension of a minimum of five years for each of these plants. It goes on to clearly state that it would have no opposition to this, provided that the independent nuclear regulator is satisfied that it can be done safely.
This would mean we maintain a sizeable nuclear generation capacity in Scotland well into the next decade, to allow time for the renewables ‘revolution’ to mature and prove itself able to take over in the longer term. As such, it would seem to be a sensible and prudent approach, and perhaps a Holyrood policy that even Malcolm could approve of?
The policy statement can be read at:-
Sorry – this was supposed to appear under comment 38 Dr Douglas below!
- Hmm, seems to be a number of ‘antis’ and climate deniers parachuting in today…
Recent comments by Tim McIntyre
- On nationalism
Malcolm – maybe you mis-read my comment. I said ‘developed’, not ‘developing’, though I’m not sure why you have lumped Los Angeles together with ‘murderous African dictatorships’?
I don’t object to private enterprise – I run one. Again you have mis-read my point. I (personally) think that there is a place for public ownership in the provision of some public services, and that it is one of the principles which underpins civil society.
“Your last paragraph condemns you” – do you mean if there is a ‘Yes’ vote, then I won’t be able to feel part of Britain any more, even though I’ll still be resident in the British Isles?
- On nationalism
Newsie, I happen to disagree with much of the content of your article, and so I posted my own views – isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? – without resorting to dismissing either you or your contributor as ‘arrogant’ or not ‘worthy of respect’ or lacking ‘independence of mind’. So by all means defend your arguments, but it’s a little rich of you to dismiss mine with such phrases, especially when you are so hair-trigger sensitive to the slightest hint of ‘bullying tactics’ from Yes supporters.
I daresay you may be right about the egg-thrower(s), but please don’t confuse a huge and entirely peaceful ‘Yes’ movement with a single incident involving a tiny handful of over-excited protestors confronting a shouty politician on a soap box.
I did not engage with the ‘Achilles heels of nationalism’ you describe because I have quite honestly not seen any significant elements of ‘chauvinism, utopianism and incipient racism’ in this campaign – the notion that these are defining aspects of ‘Yes’ is, to use your words, the ‘laugh of the campaign’. I’ve seen plenty of optimism, some of it no doubt misplaced, but not even the most ardent Indy supporters seriously imagine that an independent Scotland would be a land of milk & honey.
I’ve commented on here before, more than once, that a federal UK would have been a proposition I could have supported, so I agree with you there. Remind me again which political party is promoting that idea, and how much influence you expect them to have at Westminster in the forseeable future?
- On nationalism
I’m sure this rather rose-tinted expression of quintessential Britishness lies buried deep within the psyche of many people, including many ‘Yes’ supporters. Unfortunately the principles of political, economic and geographical solidarity which underpinned the feeling of a common British identity have been almost completely unwound by successive UK governments of both colours over the past 35 years or so.
The opening notion that “It enjoys a certain standard of living” is surely a joke? Isn’t the UK one of the most unequal of all developed nations in both wealth and income (and therefore ‘standard of living’) these days?
Then there’s the list of treasured public services, all of which have been, or are in the process of being, handed over from common ownership to the tender mercies of private enterprise.
The irony of this referendum is that for many Scots, a Yes vote is about trying to protect what is left of the values and institutions that many of us used to think of as being British, before they are finally and permanently dismantled and discarded by the UK state, for ideological reasons and the benefit of private equity.
Oh, and after a ‘Yes’ vote – we will all still be living in the British Isles. We will still share a cultural history, language, common travel area (No Borders!), monarchy and, if a small number of blinkered politicians come to their senses: currency. We don’t need to belong to a unitary state to share all these things and still regard ourselves as British.
- Thuggish Yes campaign benefits from media’s artificial ‘balance’ as Murphy forced to suspend campaign tour
Of course they won’t condemn it, JnrTick – it was just an ‘isolated incident’
Whereas the cowardly, heinous outrage perpetrated on the gentle, sensitive Jim Murphy can only possibly have been orchestrated through the evil cybernat web controlled by Aleggs Salmonella… etc. etc. etc.
- Cameron to address Scottish CBI as Tory MP quits for UKIP
Malcolm – ‘totally open in what he believes’… hmm, you mean like “A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde” ?
powered by SEO Super Comments