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

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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more