Jump to content

Nuclear Power


Laurence

Recommended Posts

Dont see why Scotland would require Nuclear weapons ! However, if there is still anything left of the UK armed forces if, as and when Scotland did gain independence, then I would assume the politicos would negotiate ownership of a proportionate amount of resources from that armed forces ......

Not sure about SMEE's 7X comment .... I would have thought that at the current levels of efficiency, Scotland would not be able to rely on 'alternative' energy sources - at this time - but technology is advancing (quickly) and Scotland would be in a good place given the geography and weather to be a major generator of wind, wave and hydro energy in the future.

My day job is software asset management with an engineering company and our division that covers sustainable resources or green power, whatever you want to call it, seems to be expanding almost exponentially these days !!!

a lot of focus goes on "Scotland's Oil" and how its been stolen from us or we've been shafted .... in truth, its not Scotland's oil or UK oil ... its ESSO's oil or SHELL and they could not give a rats ass about Scotland, UK, or anywhere else, just about the money ...... but Scotland will be a major player as that particular resource becomes more and more scarce and therefore even more ridiculously expensive and technology advancements make our endless supply of waves/wind a cherished natural replenishable resource.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Not sure about SMEE's 7X comment ....

I think the article was referring to Scotland in the near future, when all the planned windfarms are in place. If i remember correctly, this fact was mentioned in a report about Donald Trumps objetions to a wind farm just off his multi million pound Golf Course Development near Aberdeen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Scotland is an energy exporter then we are already self-sufficient. Nuclear Power Stations could be turned off today and we would still have enough to allow us to be an exporter....this has been the case for as long as I can remember.

The "self sufficient by means of renewable power sources" is a bit of a red herring. Scotland has no desire to be simply self-sufficient (I believe we may already be that, in practical terms*).....it wants to get rich from renewables.

*What I mean by "In practical terms" is that to be truly 100% self sufficient by way of renewables we would have to replace all existing gas/oil dependency and that is a large ask in the short to medium term. The question then arises as to whether we can meet all electrical requirements with renewables at this time...I think that would be a yes. From that point all we need to do is grow renewables in line with the decommissioning of gas/oil dependent consumers and that would be more than easy enough.

The big question that needs to be answered is whether or not we, as a nation, are willing to accept the negatives that come from total reliance on renewables, and do we really want to be 100% reliant on them? Do we want to accept the impact that "getting rich" from renewables would bring?

A lot of these renewable sources haven't been tested sufficiently to allow us to totally rely on them and until they have then I wouldn't be in any hurry to switch off the Nuclear Power Stations.

I've deliberately avoided the arguments about whether or not wind turbines etc are all they are cracked up to be in terms of "saving the planet". Short term I don't believe they are, but we will only get to that point by using, testing and refining the systems. A modern wind turbine has a lifespan of 25 years and that will only improve in time. As it improves and as efficiency improves and we get more from them then I think the demand for them (in terms of number needed) will reduce and things like environmental impact will be reined in accordingly. What is envisaged today will not be what is needed in the future...it will be less...so we are effectively looking at a "what's the worst it could be" situation....and that's one I personally find acceptable. In saying that, I don't view wind turbines as a blot on the landscape, I actually think there's something quite majestic looking about wind farms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the article was referring to Scotland in the near future, when all the planned windfarms are in place. If i remember correctly, this fact was mentioned in a report about Donald Trumps objetions to a wind farm just off his multi million pound Golf Course Development near Aberdeen

It's been mentioned many times before that believe me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interest in this subject goes back a long way

In an earlier life I was trained to pump water from Gloucestshire to Birmingham. The scenario was that the water supply to the Mid lands had been affected by an hydrogen bomb sent from the USSR

Another job I had was to test the aparatus set up in public buildings. These were a sort of dedicated recivers that would give the infamous 4 minute warning. The warning of a Soviet nuclear attack. I also had to test the sirens that were placed at that time on most public buildings . The sirens would whale allowing the populous to take cover.

Later in the Seventies I demonstrated against the bomb, I was not exactly a member of CND but several members of my family were. My wife for instanse was castigated for attendance at Greenham Common

I visted Sellerfield on one occasion and I stood on top the reactor, formally known as Calder Hall - I could feel the heat through the soles of my shoes. I mention to the guide about changing the spent rods, and how did they do it? I was told it happenned above the reactor where I was standing. I said " There have been radio-active rods in this room. I have had nightmares about it ever since.

Anothe job I had was to check the niclear train carry waste from Kent to be re-proccessed in Cumbria. I had the awsome responsibility of declaring the train safe from a fire safety point of view.

I am now not in favour at all of nuclear power , for defence or energy, but I am open to discussion if it considered necessary.

Hope the forum does not find this lot too boring.

Edited by Laurence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't suppose too many folk will be interested in this subject to be honest. I have always been opposed to nuclear power but I do get rather irritated by some of the hysterical over-reaction to some of the radiation risks. Undoubtedly some people have been harmed and some have died as a result of releases fron nuclear power stations but this will be significantly fewer than have died as a result of radiation released from burning coal and hugely fewer than have died as a result of other pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. The focus on radiation risks mean the really scary stuff gets ignored.

My objection to nuclear power is that if it was to become the standard source of power generation in the world there would be pressure on reserves of uranium. The limitations on uranium reserves is the reason given for exploring breeder reactor technology which was what was happening at Dounreay. Without getting technical, breeder reactors convert an inert form of uranium into plutonium which can then be split in a reactor to create energy. And because there is far more of the inert form of uranium than the fissile form, the breeder technology would allow the world's reserves to last some 50 times longer.

The problem is that in order to extract the plutonium and convert it into usable fuel, it is necessary to extract it into a relatively pure form which would allow it to be used for nuclear weapons just as easily as for new fuel. Indeed, the French, (being far more honest than the British) have been quite open that they moved into breeder technology for military reasons). Once you have the raw plutonium it is a relatively simple task to make a viable nuclear bomb. The difficulty in obtaining nuclear weapons is obtaining the plutonium in the first place. Relying on nuclear power in the future therefore would mean that large quantities of the raw material for nuclear weapons would be available for any country which possessed the full fuel cycle and would become a common item of commerce. Not only would that present a security risk between nations but the chance of this material getting into the hands of terrorsits would hugely increase. This is seriously scary and I feel it is a risk too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole renewable agruement is highly complex and needs to be split down into the various forms to get a real appreciation of the complexities.

To deal with wind first, there are a number of basic syncronisation issues as well as the unreliable nature of the wind (i.e. you need 100% redundancy in electricity production from other forms for periods when the wind does not blow) and the best information suggests that the maximum percentage of wind which can be generated is in the order of 7 to 13 % depending on who you believe. This is being borne out in some regions of Scandanavia where there are finding that there is a ceiling on how much wind can be used.

Aside from the technical issues, the cost for wind generation, particularly offshore, are in the order of £157 - £186/mWh vs Nuclear at £67mWh (there is a Motts Report from a couple of years back which gives various numbers for each of the options).

My view is that wind is part of the 'big picture' but has been overplayed as a solution to all problems.

The main other renewable option for Scotland are hydro - both major (Glendoe when it gets fixed and the new Great Glen projects) and micro-hydro (estimated to be 3,500 potential schemes by the Scottish Government). From a profit perspective, hydro is good in that it can provide peak production (unlike wind which is base load due to the non-guaranteed nature) and this offers a major premium. Interestingly, when SSE gave Glendoe the go ahead the ROI was borderline. By the time it was completed (sic) the ROI was massively foreshortened due to the increase in wholesale value. Glendoe, when fixed, will even generate income by providing 'hot stand-by' for the French and English based generators by sitting syncronised but not on-load in case of plant failure (there are massive penalties for the generators if they drop out).

The micro hydro option may struggle to provide the 3,500 due to capital cost/ROI and technical issues. Uncertaintly on FIT does not help either

Wave and tidal generation has yet to demonstrate that it can be successfully deployed. The potential is howver massive both in terms of production and certainty (as long as the moon rotates round the earth :) ).

Nuclear provides a fall back against lack of wind or drought and should be considered as part of the picture. My view is that electrcity security is almost as important as electricity cost - the thought of relying on other countries for fossil fuels does not seem clever (though this may be more of an issue for the wider UK than Scotland).

For those interested, there will be investment of c£8 to 10bn over the next 5 years to enable renewables to be incorporated into the wider grid. Part of this will be the proposed interconnector with Norway (look up NorthConnect) which if is goes ahead will 'land' in Peterhead.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post. Two things I would add to that is that storage of excess energy must be properly investigated if we are to reap the (apparent) benefits of our renewable energy potential. Some wave and tidal deployments are already showing that they can be deployed albeit on a demonstration level. Expect this to ramp up significantly in the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will Scotland have Nuclear weapons if it wins independence ?

(Will Iran get there first?- tonge in cheek)

Will Scotland close down the Nuclear Power plants, and rely on Windmills ?

I think it will the English will see to that

I am told that the English are more keen on Scottish Independence than the Scotts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need as much peat as I can get, my garden is one big sand pit. I have spent 3 years getting things to grow.

I get fertiliser delivered in bulk from Cumbria which seems to help

After Independence I may have to pay higer delivery charges I suppose for stuff from England?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will the English will see to that I am told that the English are more keen on Scottish Independence than the Scotts

Maybe the English people are (marginally) in more favour because they read all the trash, in the Sun and the Evening Standard, about us sweaty socks being subsidy junkies, but they're not the ones who pull the strings.

Interesting that you mentioned nukes as I believe that is the number one reason (apart from possibly the oil) the Whitehall establishment has always been keen to hold on to us. Documents released under the 30 year rule prove that the government lied to us in the 1970s about the benefits of oil. It was clear that Scotland could go it alone but we have always been peddled the propaganda that we couldn't as we were too poor/stupid etc, unlike hundreds of other nationalities on the planet, a sort of racism which too many Scots are happy to swallow after hearing it for 300 years.

I believe that the whole strategic importance of us in the North Atlantic, coupled with Westminster's alignment with the good ol' USA, means they will go to any lengths to preserve their bases in the Clyde (only 30 miles from Glasgow remember), as otherwise where would they put them?

Having said all that I respect anyone who's happy to be British, as long as it's not just out of intimidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont see why Scotland would require Nuclear weapons ! However, if there is still anything left of the UK armed forces if, as and when Scotland did gain independence, then I would assume the politicos would negotiate ownership of a proportionate amount of resources from that armed forces ......

Not sure about SMEE's 7X comment .... I would have thought that at the current levels of efficiency, Scotland would not be able to rely on 'alternative' energy sources - at this time - but technology is advancing (quickly) and Scotland would be in a good place given the geography and weather to be a major generator of wind, wave and hydro energy in the future.

My day job is software asset management with an engineering company and our division that covers sustainable resources or green power, whatever you want to call it, seems to be expanding almost exponentially these days !!!

a lot of focus goes on "Scotland's Oil" and how its been stolen from us or we've been shafted .... in truth, its not Scotland's oil or UK oil ... its ESSO's oil or SHELL and they could not give a rats ass about Scotland, UK, or anywhere else, just about the money ...... but Scotland will be a major player as that particular resource becomes more and more scarce and therefore even more ridiculously expensive and technology advancements make our endless supply of waves/wind a cherished natural replenishable resource.

Partly true Scotty. The fact is that the UK at present, and hopefully Scotland in the future, controls the licencing of North Sea sectors for which the oil majors have to pay. We also control taxation on the oil and gas produced. These are where the countries revenue comes from.

As to SMEE's statement, he is getting a little mixed up I think. The only way that Scotland can be in a position to export any electricity in such quantities is to have a mix of natural, fossil fuel and nuclear power. We are, however, in a position to export some. At present we have two nuclear power plants. Hunterston B and Torness. All the rest have ceased producing and are in the process of decommissioning. Those two still active provide half of Scotlands electricity needs. Hydro power provides around 10% of our needs but there is potential to vastly increase this. It is hoped that by 2020 wind power will provide 100% of Scotlands needs. Other renewables are very much still in the development stage so aren't counted in the figures at present. At present the fossil fuel power stations produce around 30%, I believe, but some of the older power stations are set for decommissioning.

Plans are afoot to export more electricty south with the recent announcement that a 220 mile undersea cable will be laid between Hunterston and the Wirral to transport some 2200 MW of power to the English grid.

As for Laurences silly statement.........Why would Scotland, a country that almost totally opposes nuclear weapons, want to have any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need as much peat as I can get, my garden is one big sand pit. I have spent 3 years getting things to grow.

I get fertiliser delivered in bulk from Cumbria which seems to help

After Independence I may have to pay higer delivery charges I suppose for stuff from England?

What twaddle you spout at times Laurence. Scotland is built on peat if thats what you need. Indeed there are still many places where you can aquire it at no cost. As for fertiliser from Cumbria........is it any better than good old fashioned Scottish horseshit from good old fashioned Scottish stables. I think not. Again at little or no cost if your prepared to go get it yersel. Oh! and another brilliant fertiliser thats free to us Scots......good old seaweed. An abundance of which can be found around our 7,500 kilometres approx of coastline.

Edited by Alex MacLeod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to SMEE's statement, he is getting a little mixed up I think. The only way that Scotland can be in a position to export any electricity in such quantities is to have a mix of natural, fossil fuel and nuclear power.

Actually Smee is correct but it is very hypothetical. If all of the leased sites are consented and generate their lease agreed capacity then we would be in a position to export as we will have an electricity surplus. That said we do not as yet know what the capacity factor is for offshore wind, wave and tidal. Onshore wind sites typically generate ~ 31% of their total installed capacity. If a windfarm is capable of generating 300 MW it will, in most cases, generate 100 MW. What kind of figures we would get for offshore renewables we don't know. That said, we will need a mix of all renewables energy sources including hydro, biomass etc. to sustain our needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the big word in your reply Rig is if. The facts are that by 2020 we will supply electricity to England. As much as 2200 MW of it. All the rest, as you say, is hypothetical. We can never really know what our future demands will be nor can we know how much we can produce. The only known facts come from our biomass, nuclear and fossil fuel power stations. All the rest is guesstimates at best. We can predict tidal movement but not wind and weather. Bear in mind that any turbine is only cost effective when it produces more than the energy required to operate the thing. That is taking account of losses through friction factors and natural losses in the transportation cables. Costs of providing supplies etc. Those losses can amount to around 7% of produced electricity.

Because electricity cant be stored and is produced on demand it is actually extremely difficult to predict what we may or may not be able to export in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence why I italicised the if in my post :wink:

As I mentioned earlier, if someone can properly explore the possibility of storing excess energy they would be onto a winner. That and whoever starts building the requried supply vessels and jack ups for some of these proposed developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence why I italicised the if in my post :wink:

As I mentioned earlier, if someone can properly explore the possibility of storing excess energy they would be onto a winner. That and whoever starts building the requried supply vessels and jack ups for some of these proposed developments.

There's no shortage of supply vessels in the north sea and plenty redundant jack-ups and semi's in the Cromarty Firth. What you need for storage Rig is the worlds biggest rechargable battery. It would probably need to sit in an area the size of Russia though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need as much peat as I can get, my garden is one big sand pit. I have spent 3 years getting things to grow.

I get fertiliser delivered in bulk from Cumbria which seems to help

After Independence I may have to pay higer delivery charges I suppose for stuff from England?

What twaddle you spout at times Laurence. Scotland is built on peat if thats what you need. Indeed there are still many places where you can aquire it at no cost. As for fertiliser from Cumbria........is it any better than good old fashioned Scottish horseshit from good old fashioned Scottish stables. I think not. Again at little or no cost if your prepared to go get it yersel. Oh! and another brilliant fertiliser thats free to us Scots......good old seaweed. An abundance of which can be found around our 7,500 kilometres approx of coastline.

Insult me all you like

I will not rise to the bait - The stuff I get from Cumbria is very special, it is made from wool, it keeps my roots warm through the winter to prevent the plants dyeing in the extreme cold. I am well aware of the benifts of animal manure, but unless it is heat treated it can bring with it a lot of harmful weeds and parisites I am not eager to introduce to my reletivly slug free garden

www.dalefootcomposts.co.uk

regards

Laurence

Edited by Laurence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy