Crunching the Nuclear Numbers in Scotland

SCOTLAND's refusal to build a new generation of nuclear power stations will ruin Britain's bid to cut greenhouse gases.

A report commissioned for London mayor Ken Livingstone warns that if Scotland's two nuclear stations are not replaced, the UK will be forced to build gas-powered stations to compensate.

As a result, carbon emissions will increase, preventing Britain from meeting its commitment to cut global warming.

[...]

[T]he report, written by Large & Associated Consultant Engineers, concludes that such a hope is in vain. It declares: "The policy of the Scottish Parliament may well preclude new-build NPPs [nuclear power plants] in Scotland, or it may choose only to permit a new generating capacity proportionate to its electricity consumption demand ... If so, [it] ... could jeopardise the UK's carbon-free treaty obligations."

Report author John Large added: "If Scotland said no to another nuclear power plant, it would effectively be a Scottish veto on the Energy Review. The UK would not be able to meet its commitments under the Kyoto treaty."

Technorati tags: Energy, Electricity, Natural Gas, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, U.K., Scotland, Politics

Comments

Anonymous said…

Why do the plants have to be built in Scotland? Why not build them in England or Wales?

November 5, 2006 at 3:28 PM

Anonymous said…

Why indeed not put the reactors in the London area and use them as CHP plants? Four or five should be enough to heat London, while at the same time generating power.

November 5, 2006 at 3:39 PM

Randal Leavitt said…

Exactly, why in Scotland. New reactors should be placed right in the middle of London to minimize power transmission line losses.

November 5, 2006 at 9:07 PM

Anonymous said…

It should also be pointed out for balance, that Scotland has long been an net electricity exporter to the North of England.

Scotland could, conceivably, run without nuclear power plants if it were comfortable with using its existing hydro/gas/coal units.

That said, I'd prefer new nukes over the old coal units any day of the week.

Andy

July 21, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog