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

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

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