Comment posted Major environmental groups seriously compromised by wind developers’ cash by Tim McIntyre.
Lowry – nuclear power also requires massive subsidy, and has clean-up and waste disposal costs which have not even been properly quantified yet, half a century after the technology became widespread.
Of all the renewable technologies, wind has currently far and away the greatest potential for rapid expansion, and is also at present among the cheapest in terms of subsidy required to make it commercially viable. That will hopefully change in time as other technologies such as tidal catch up, but these will ALL be needed to replace fossil fuels.
There is a continued and probably increasing role for nuclear power in the UK, but the notion that it can obviate the need for development of renewables is wishful thinking.
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
- Problems with both pro-indy and pro-union campaigns
“Johnson is also the Mayor of the UK’s biggest USP – the majestic London.
Most of us wouldn’t want to live there but who doesn’t want it as ‘ours’ – the international envy of its huge economic engine…”
I’m pretty sure this is the first time I have seen the conspicuous and ever-increasing concentration of the UK nations’ wealth and power in London portrayed as the ‘positive case for the union’
- PR gaffes in Community Land Scotland’s ‘Bunchrew Land Declaration’
Is it just me, or does this article, and the comments which follow, concentrate solely on sniping at the title of the initiative because no-one has anything interesting to say about its intent?
From Rhoda Grant’s quote above: “The declaration also acknowledges the deep divisions in Scotland’s land ownership patterns addressing the terrible reality that fewer than 500 people own half of Scotland’s land.”
That statistic is surely a pretty shocking anachronism in the 21st century isn’t it?
- Donors, public money and funding the independence referendum campaigns
Karl – “…if the SG ( SNP) had pushed the devo-max option I would have supported it 100%”
They did. It was Westminster that refused the third option on the ballot paper.
- The no-no campaign
Jamie – I’m not sure if your point is about corroboration or democracy. Majority governing parties pushing through unpopular measures despite opposition is hardly indicative of a democratic crisis – it happens all the time in Westminster, where coalition government is the exception not the rule.
In Scotland at the moment, there is a combination of lack of voter participation (turnout at Holyrood elections far too low) and a lack of credible opposition (other major parties sending all their best & brightest to serve in Westminster where the real power lies). Those two factors could be argued to mean that our democracy functions less than effectively. Oh, and the lack of a constitution or other means to check the power of politicians.
- The no-no campaign
That’s fine in principle Robert, but I think there is a fair expectation that journalists will at least try to interrogate people in positions of high authority who make assertions that are of crucial importance to a debate – you can’t dismiss something said by Mr Barroso as a mere ‘opinion’, like yours or mine – he’s the president of the EC! Marr should have gone into strong devil’s-advocate mode (as he did with Salmond) and drilled down into WHY Barroso thinks that. Perhaps it would have been genuinely enlightening, or perhaps we would have seen just as much prevarication as you say he got from Salmond.
As former BBC Scotland journalist Derek Bateman said on his blog afterwards: “If you have a title, you get automatic respect from the national broadcaster, no matter what you actually say.”
powered by SEO Super Comments