Skip to main content

Crunching the Nuclear Numbers in Scotland

By Eric McErlain
From The Scotsman:
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: , , , , , , ,

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
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more