Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

McConnell paves way for nuclear power U-turn
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then that is what you are suggesting. If you want the countryside not to benefit from urban & nuclear supplies when there is no wind then they have to be on a separate grid.

I would like you to confirm that you are a farmer since otherwise readers will think that you are a using your alleged commitment to rural independence as a mask for anti-technology. Unfortunately there is a long history of luddites flying false flags since nobody sensible follows theirs.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rinty
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3654


Location: SW Scotland

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:32 pm    Post subject: g Reply with quote

Quote:
Once again I have to question your figures. Previously you said up to 30% of electricity is lost in transmission but didn't give a link. Now you say another 50% goes abroad. I spot a certain inherent improbability.


You should really do your own google searches!

Just under half of Scotland electricty is exported not all abroad but mostly to England.

There are some basic facts and figures here and you will find information such as "Producing more energy than it needs for its own use, Scotland is a net exporter of electricity" from

.http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/sedotcom_home/news-se/key_summaries/press_energy.htm?siblingtoggle=1

You will find that 23% of our business is international (not including NI and England) here

http://www.scotbusiness.org/energy.htm

as well as the statement that "Because of a significant over capacity of energy supplies in Scotland much of the Energy Team's work is concentrated on the export opportunities that exist throughout the world"

As for losing electricity I should have perhaps said "up to" 30%. This is something we all learned in school in science class but there are official figures and good reserach if you want to look for it. The industry themselves claim 8% but this does not include the energy used to heat the conductor up to transmit it highest capacity. Protesters against pylons claim 30-40%, even if you estimate it at somepoint between the two it is still a strong argument for an increase in local production.

Quote:
If you are saying that people in the countryside want their electricity bill sdoubled & that farmers look forward to the lights going out (& more important the heat) every time the wind drops I seriously doubt if you are a farmer.


Thats not how it works. Local and household wind turbines are deliberately aimed at producing only a percentage of needs. This reduces capacity on the grids and the need of large scale production. No-one is seriuosly suggesting only power by wind.

In my opinion I would not go ahead with any of the large scale wind farms currently being proposed until the problem is dealt with nationally and a proper plan is worked out.

Quote:
British nuclear cost 2.3p a unit & French & Canadian 1.5p because they have modern off the shelf reactors. This is, unlike "alternative" without subsidy any time in the last 35 years.


Its not only because of the reactors France has, there are obviously economies of scale as France produces 75% of its electricity from nuclear, is a more compact country geographically. These figures are raw costs of production and do not include the cost of commissioning the plants and decommissioning them and dealing with waste. Are you saying that France or UK does not have subsidies in the last 35 years? The UK still subsidise decommissioning, waste disposal tansportation and will continue to do so for deaceds whether we build a new one or not.

How does that make it efficient if the cost to build and start the thing was all subsidy, if the plants last 35 years then we can say they have had no subsidies or divide the initial subsidy by 35 which would be more "scientific".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rinty
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3654


Location: SW Scotland

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:24 pm    Post subject: h Reply with quote

Sleaze probe into nuclear lobbying at Holyrood

http://www.sundayherald.com/53711

Privatised nuclear clean-up ‘will cause accidents’

http://www.sundayherald.com/53688

£56billion - What a lovely cheap way to produce energy eh? Confused

Micro power saves money

http://www.sundayherald.com/53689
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Abieuan
Standing in a Council Ward


Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 483


Location: Carrick

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neil wrote:
Quote:
Then that is what you are suggesting. If you want the countryside not to benefit from urban & nuclear supplies when there is no wind then they have to be on a separate grid.

I thought what i was suggesting was quite straightforward, that the countryside contribute to the grid with windfarms and urban areas contribute with powerstations. We all draw our power from the grid - regardless of whether it is windy or not!
Quote:
I would like you to confirm that you are a farmer since otherwise readers will think that you are a using your alleged commitment to rural independence as a mask for anti-technology. Unfortunately there is a long history of luddites flying false flags since nobody sensible follows theirs.

I don't see whether i'm a farmer or not matters.
I am not a farmer and have never suggested i was. I have worked on several farms and estates in the past.

Neither am i anti-technology, in my first post i stated that i had no problem with nuclear power.
I am also in favour of wind turbines, which is relatively new technology (on a commercial scale).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rinty I accept that everything you have said represents your highest standard of personal honesty but:

In contradiction to your claim to proving your claim that nearly 50% of our electricity is exported your first link merely says that we are overall a net exporter (something which nobody denies will be the case until Hunterston closes) & your 2nd is specificly refering to oil & gas exports not electricity (again nobody denied that Scotland exports oil).

As for your claim that (up to) another 30% of power is lost in transmission which you stand by - I would suggest that the ifigure from the ndustry, who actually produce the stuff, is infinitely more credible that that of the antis. As this discussion proves many luddites depend on making statements which are in no way truthful. Perhaps you may have evidence that the group you quote is truthful - in which case please present it.

Again despite your statement that the costs of manufacturing nuclear power at 2.3p a unit in the UK & 1.5p in France do not include decommissioning etc the truth is that these are the full costs. Since France exports large amounts of electricity to all its neighbours including the UK it would be extrmely generous of them to subsidise power sold to us -alas it is not true.

I regret life is to short to read yet more rubbish about micro-power saving money, none of which ever explians why increased subsidies are required for it.

Abieuan
Whether you are a farmer or not affects the credibility of your claim to speak for the country in favour of windmills. That you are not destroys your credibility.

It is certainly true that you started your contribution by claiming to have no problem with nuclear & therefore not a luddite & I have to accept that as representing your personal standard of honesty. That you then improperly claimed to speak for farmers in attacking nuclear suggests that you are not as impartial as you claimed.

I think both contributions prove my point about Luddites flying under false colours & indeed making up any old untruth to support their obviously nonexistent case.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515


Location: Dłn Eideann

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neil wrote:
Whether you are a farmer or not affects the credibility of your claim to speak for the country in favour of windmills. That you are not destroys your credibility.

Are you implying that only farmers live in the country? I was brought up in various very rural locations in which farmers made up a small proportion of the population.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Brought up" - as in not there now.

You prove my point
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515


Location: Dłn Eideann

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neil wrote:
"Brought up" - as in not there now.

You prove my point

That proves your point that you need to be a farmer if you live in the coutryside? I wasn't claiming to speak for the countryside, I was talking about the proportion of farmers. I am able to talk about my experience from when I lived there and that's all I did. As it happens, my folks still live in the courtyside, they aren't farmers and never have been. Friends I grew up with are still living in the countryside, and only one of them has had anything to do with farming as a career. So I still think that I'm entitled to talk about the countryside and it's non-farming population.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are perfectly entitled to speak from your knowledge such as it is,
but not to claim to speak on behalf of "we" countrysiders against "them" urban dwellers, of whom you are one.

You are clearly fabricating a rural support for windfarms & opposition to nuclear because you can come up with no better argument.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rinty
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3654


Location: SW Scotland

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:54 pm    Post subject: Neil Reply with quote

Neil.

As yet you have prodided no links or evidence for any of your claims.

Even if you take the energy industrys claims for losses it does not include the cost of heating for maximum conductivity by their own admission so we know it is higher than that. Why take the word of those who make money from pylons against those who oppose them.. I said that I am willing to take a half way point as a possible, and that was at the bottom and of the scales for both arguments.

A wind turbine for a home would have very little loss for producing a third of the household electricity. For a million households this would cost about £10billion. Thats about 20% of the current bill for clean up of nuclear and half of what we are about to spend on trident. Are you saying this would be less efficient than the current system?

To describe me as luddite is well wide of the mark and suggests to me that you are not actually reading my posts. What I suggest is making the production, distribution and use of energy more efficient and that any rush to loads of wind farms, recommissioning nuclear plants or closing coal stations should be out on hold until we stop and think why we are producing far more than we need. We should at least investigate subsidising homes before subsidising nuclear or wind companies.

As I said you really should do your own searches and provide links for your own arguments but here a few from differing sides of the debate and differing sources to add to the sources I already gave you on the 56billion subsidy for clean up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/newsitem.asp?id=86/

http://www.revolt.co.uk/new/rnews202.php

http://www.electric-fields.bris.ac.uk/PowerlinesAndHealth.htm

http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/clim...ease.cfm?ucidparam=20050719100223

http://www.countryguardian.net/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
azzuri
Time For Reincarnation


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 4857



PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

surely there are far more 'non-farmers' live in the countryside than farmers?

I grew up in a rural location in Ayrshire and still live in a rural location now. All of the houses round where I grew up and where I live now are residential - there is only the odd farm here and there. Shouldn't the collective residents' views count more than the odd farmer?

Unless you are talking about landowners?

Anyway, most farmers I know work 15/16 hours a day all year round and earn their living from EU subsidies - they couldn't really give a crap where their power comes from, it comes way down on their list of things to think about. I really don't see why you insist on someone being a farmer if they come 'from the country' in order to have a credible opinion - there aren't that many farmers around now.
_________________
"Gordon Brown mistook a glut of cheap money and a global bull market for his own administrative genius. In so doing, he wrecked the economy. Had the Prime Minister been running a company, instead of a country, he would be facing an inquiry into allegations of criminal negligence." - Jeff Randal

"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." - Alexander Tytler

"There are four ways to spend money. A) You can spend your money on yourself, in which case you will strive for a mix of the best bargain and the best quality. B) You can spend your money on someone else, in which case you are still interested in a bargain, but the quality of the product or service becomes secondary. C) You can spend other people's money on yourself, in which case price is no object but quality becomes a great concern. D) Finally, you can spend other people's money on other people, in which case neither price nor quality is of great concern."

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Abieuan
Standing in a Council Ward


Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 483


Location: Carrick

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That you then improperly claimed to speak for farmers

I have never at any point, nor would, claim to speak for farmers.
I give my own opinions, which are shared by some others in the community in which i live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abieuan.

You first claimed to be "neutral on nuclear. That is clearly untrue.

Then you claimed that you were part of "we" rural dwellers, which obviously includes farmers & thus able to speak for their alleged opposition to nuclear.

We may all claim to "speak for some others in the community in which we live" the point is that you claimed to speak as a member of a rural community in which you clearly do not live.

Rinty

You are still standing by your ridiculously dishonest claim that 80% of electricity in Scotland is lost in transmission or sent to England even though I have shown that the links which, if your word is of the slightest value, supported your claims, did not.

If you could say which of your links actually support your untruths I will check it but I have no intention of wading through tons of spam.

You can find links to prove everything I have said on
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com

You say that £10 billion would pay for 1/3rd of our purely household use of electricity (which ignores the problem of intermittency). £10 billion would also pay for 10 nuclear reactors which would cover twice ALL our electricity usage.

If you are being truthful about not being a Luddite but concerned about efficiency you must therefore support the more efficient nuclear.

rs_azzuri
I was not in any way criticising farmers - I accept you are right about the hours they work but that is a debate for another time. I was merely criticising the claims of another correspondent to fly the false flag of being a rural inhabitant, for the purpose of attacking nuclear, when quite obviously he isn't.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rinty
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3654


Location: SW Scotland

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:49 am    Post subject: h Reply with quote

Quote:
ridiculously dishonest claim that 80% of electricity in Scotland is lost in transmission


Or alternatively, my information that up to 30% could be lost while willing to accept it is likely to be somewhere between the 30-40% claimed by portesters and 7.6% plus the loss in heating cable claimed by the industry.

Quote:
If you are being truthful about not being a Luddite but concerned about efficiency you must therefore support the more efficient nuclear


I would be happy to support nuclear if I thought it would be more efficient. As I said, I have no preferred option and I am arguing for a hold and a moratorium to the look at the issue holistically based on usage and need and not share price.

Quote:
If you could say which of your links actually support your untruths I will check it but I have no intention of wading through tons of spam


Thats how most of us arrive at an opinion, by wading through claims and evidence and coming up with a conclusion.

Quote:
You say that £10 billion would pay for 1/3rd of our purely household use of electricity (which ignores the problem of intermittency). £10 billion would also pay for 10 nuclear reactors which would cover twice ALL our electricity usage.


I'm sorry I was wrong, £2billion would pay for the 3rd but it would be renewable ad infinitum. Of course this would only be a third of DOMESTIC as opposed to the third of total consumption that nuclear currently supplies so it wouldn't replace totally out current nuclear capacity. BUT it would be more efficient and cut the requirements for the grid.

It is clearly wrong to say the a new station would cost £2billion. We know that the clean up bill for our use to date is costing £56billion.

What do you offer as a figure for the amount of over production in Scotland and a figure for the percentage of that exported from Scotland to England and further afield?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rinty
You now calculate that the cost of providing home generation of 1/3rd of power to a million households at "about 4K" (your figures) each no longer totals £10 billion but £2 billion. My guess is nearer 2 million homes, some of which will cost considerably more than £4,000 to reroof. My guess is that this was your original guess too.

Of such arithmetic is the entire Luddite case made.

The decommissioning cost you mention is largely for the military nuclear programme - for some reason greens never mention them.

Equally there is no "overproduction" of electricity in Scotland because it is all used by us or sold or pumped up Cruachan. This is different from the situation in Denmark where, because they have so many windmills, they sometimes, when the wind is steady in the small hours & nobody is using, give electricity to Germany for free, where they are also asleep at the time.

I note I still have your word that your opinions are based on efficiency.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Morph
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!


Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 916



PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

would it not be most viable to split the grid into areas most suited for wind or nuclear? This would produce the most wasteless system of generating power and therefore may also cut costs and pollution
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the terms you are thinking of better to make it nuclear & hydro. Hydro produces 10% of ourpower whereas wind is under 2%. Hydro is actually a pretty good reliable cost effective renewable power source - its just that it only works in real life but the media aren't interested.

However the best way to use hydro is not separate from nuclear but in tandem. This is how the French do it - they are 85% nucler, 15% hydro. Nuclear's greatest strength & also weakness is that it produces full power all the time. Hydro's is that it automaticly stores power behind a dam & can be turned on or off in literally a matter of seconds. Thus when, at the end of Corrie, 6 million people go to make a cup of tea, hydro can take up the load, but only for a short while. Wind on the other hand.....
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515


Location: Dłn Eideann

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most of the readily exploitable hydro schemes have been built. I think there are two more, one of which is starting construction later this year IIRC and the other will not go ahead as it is in a sensitive area. Minor plants will also be possible, but the generation capacity of hydro is pretty much as good as it's going to get.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
azzuri
Time For Reincarnation


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 4857



PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guess there has been movement of late on this -

see - http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/54859.html
_________________
"Gordon Brown mistook a glut of cheap money and a global bull market for his own administrative genius. In so doing, he wrecked the economy. Had the Prime Minister been running a company, instead of a country, he would be facing an inquiry into allegations of criminal negligence." - Jeff Randal

"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." - Alexander Tytler

"There are four ways to spend money. A) You can spend your money on yourself, in which case you will strive for a mix of the best bargain and the best quality. B) You can spend your money on someone else, in which case you are still interested in a bargain, but the quality of the product or service becomes secondary. C) You can spend other people's money on yourself, in which case price is no object but quality becomes a great concern. D) Finally, you can spend other people's money on other people, in which case neither price nor quality is of great concern."

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neil
This is Ma' Life!


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 818


Location: Glasgow

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the herald article
Quote:
Up to 125 turbines, each 410ft in height, would providing enough electricity to meet up to 94% of Glasgow's domestic power needs
this is a prime example of the dishonest use of figure by politicians to sell windmills. The best windmills make about a maximum of 3MW so 125 of them would be 375 MW. Glasgow has a population of a bit under 500,000 which means the maximum we should use is 2/3 of a KW per person = 2/3 of 1 bar of an electric fire OR 3 x 200W light bulbs. Anybody want to live on that - me neither. On top of that windmills work at an average of 26% capacity (& that falls rapidly as the total percentage of wind derived power increases) yet the figure given is clearly based on the assumption that these windmills will produce 100%.

On such figures is the entire "alternative power" case based.



_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics