Scotland is going 100% Green by 2020; shame on Dirty America

[unhappycamper]

http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/scotland-green-america.html

Scotland is going 100% Green by 2020; shame on Dirty America
By Juan Cole | Dec. 20, 2013

Glasgow is the city of the future, not Phoenix.

Scotland has a population of about 5.3 million, a little more than the US state of Arizona. But the resemblance stops there. Arizona’s state government is backward-looking, roiled by racial politics, contemptuous of higher education, and a climate laggard, dirtying up the atmosphere and causing its state’s own increasing desertification.

Last year, Scotland got 40% of its electricity from renewables, up from 24% in 2010.

Arizona gets 9 percent of its electricity from renewables, despite vast solar potential that completely dwarfs that of Scotland. Almost all Arizona renewable energy is hydroelectric. About 35% of Arizona electricity is from coal, the dirtiest possible source. A similar proportion comes from natural gas, also a big source of carbon dioxide emissions. Arizona has a pitiful plan to be at 15% renewables by 2025, which is the sort of goal that dooms the earth.

[MADem]

1. If you don't count those Scottish nuclear reactors, I guess.

They may have "no plans" to build more nuke plants, but the ones they have they don't control. And that applies whether or not they leave the United Kingdom--unless they want to start lighting candles as opposed to cursing the darkness, that is. Their energy infrastructures are entirely intertwined; they won't be separated that easily.

So this is kind of a bullshit premise being shopped, here, with an "absolute" that is trying to say "Scotland GOOOOOD, America BAAAAAD" -- to what purpose, I've no idea. It's just not that simple. And saying "Shame on Dirty AMERICA while using just Arizona as an example of "America" is pure bullshit. Plenty of states are ahead of the curve on this issue--picking one with an idiot governor and a cast of characters running the joint that look like something out of Dukes of Hazzard is just not representative of our nation as a whole.

I hate these articles that try to compare a mouse to an elephant. Scotland has less land, fewer people, and more compact infrastructure than USA. They aren't comparable. And they'll still be lighting their homes with nuke power in 2020, mark my words.

That said, I am a fan of renewables. I like the idea of solar, wind, and wave power, passive systems, roof gardens, the whole nine yards. I do wish we'd jump on that train in an aggressive way and ride.

[pipoman]

2. I thought the same thing..

Depends on your definition of "green"..is nuclear power "green"?

[MADem]

3. I guess it's green, until it isn't!!!

So long as no one's getting irradiated and the core isn't "China Syndrome-ing" and making the area uninhabitable, I guess it's all good because it's not belching black smoke or other nastiness. But woe be it if there's a leak, then I'd rather put up with a few emissions, and I'd wager I'm not alone...!

I don't regard nuke power as green. I think it's "emission free" when operating optimally, but not really green.

[PamW]

5. Actually, you'd be better off with the leak...

MADem says
But woe be it if there's a leak, then I'd rather put up with a few emissions, ...

If you are concerned about the radioactivity, then scientifically; you'd be better off with the leak than the black coal smoke.

Evidently, you don't realize how little radioactivity is in a nuclear power plant "leak" and how much is in coal smoke. Courtesy of scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

That black coal smoke contains MUCH more radioactivity than any little "leak" from a nuclear power plant.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[MADem]

12. Tell that to the people of Chernobyl.

Just sayin'....

They'd be back in their homes by shutting down a nasty-ass coal fired plant, but that reactor in their town will ensure that no one goes home again, ever. They couldn't even take their personal treasures.

[PamW]

15. Chernobyl is a "red herring"

MADem,

Chernobyl is such a "red herring".

ONLY the Soviets built a reactor with the faults of Chernobyl, a reactor that was basically "unstable". ( over-moderated )

The Chernobyl RBMK reactors are all going to be shut down, if that hasn't happened already; and nobody is going to build any more.

So Chernobyl is really irrelevant.

It's like pointing to the Hindenberg explosion when you are discussing the safety of flying in a Boeing 777.

Sure, the Hindenberg exploded and crashed, probably due to a static electric discharge, and 60+ people were killed.

However, nobody is going to be travelling in hydrogen-filled airships any more.

A Boeing 777 is so different from the Hindenberg as to make any comparison totally meaningless to any person of reasonable intelligence.

The exact same is true for the comparison between Chernobyl and any other power reactor, present or future.

PamW

[MADem]

16. Cough. Three Mile Island. Cough.

That may not be a red herring, but it's certainly a sardine of some sort....

That was a billion dollar mistake, and we got lucky. It could have gone another way.

[PamW]

24. 100% WRONG!!!

MADem states
That was a billion dollar mistake, and we got lucky. It could have gone another way.

100% WRONG

Scientists have studied Three Mile Island VERY THOROUGHLY and there was NOTHING that went LUCKY.

Three Mile Island went as bad as it could possibly get without violating the Laws of Physics. There was ZERO luck involved.

Perhaps you could "educate" us on this preposterous remark about being lucky and going the other way. What "other way", pray tell?

As far as injury to the public, that was decided by the scientific reports that say the public was unharmed, which figured importantly in the legal case when residents near Three Mile Island filed a lawsuit. Federal Judge Sylvia Rambo granted summary judgment and dismissal of that lawsuit as a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit. The "Plaintiffs" below are the residents that sued TMI's owner, Metropolitan Edison, the Defendant.

Judge Rambo's ruling can be read at:

Three Mile Island: The Judge's Ruling

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

...the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.

PamW

[MADem]

26. Are you saying that it didn't cost a billion dollars to clean up that mess?

I'd say you're 100 percent WRONG.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/15/us/14-year-cleanup-at-three-mile-island-concludes.html

The total cost of the cleanup was put at $1 billion. Unit No. 1 was restarted in 1985 and will be monitored until it and its twin reactor are decommissioned in 2014.

Your conversational "style" leaves a lot to be desired, you know.

[PamW]

27. Reading Comprehension Problem Flaring Up Again???

MADem,

NO - did you see anywhere where I said that it didn't cost billions to clean up??

Evidently there is a severe problem in reading comprehension that requires an elementary school to address.

My remarks were limited ENTIRELY to this issue that TMI got "lucky" and it could have gone "the other way".

As I stated, the scientists that studied it said that it went as bad as it could without violating the Laws of Physics.

Evidently, you have some different information to share; so please don't hold back.

What went "lucky"?

What is "the other way" that things could have gone? You claim that there was "another way"; so please tell us what that way is.

If you want to have a conversation; we can have a conversation. If you would nicely ask a question on something you don't understand, then I will answer nicely.

However, if you post UNSUBSTANTIATED CRAP and say that we should accept it as fact, as if the Pope were speaking ex cathedra; then THAT triggers a totally different response; the type I reserve to propagandists.

PamW

[MADem]

34. Yeah, tell me about it! You should do something about that....otherwise you'll find that you're

(cue dire music)....

100 percent WRONG!!!!!!!!!

You are making it entirely impossible to have a conversation with your dire pronouncements.

And I've substantiated-with links-everything I've said.

Have one of those nice days, now. You obviously like to fight, I like to discuss--we're not working on the same plane, here.

[PamW]

43. BALONEY!!! Reading Comprehension Problem

MADem,

I agree with you that it took a billion dollars to clean up and that is ALL you substantiated.

Evidently, you are NOT familiar with your own post. In addition to talking about clean-up costs, you stated that we were "lucky" in the TMI accident and "it could have gone the other way".

THAT is the part that you have NOT substantiated and have not told us what you mean?

Simple question for you; see if you can answer it. What was "lucky"

Also "What was the "other way" that could have happened.

You made statements that you don't know the details of, have NOT substantiated in any manner, and now you are feebly attempting to run away from you statements by concentrating on the one part where we agree.

Yes - I agree on clean up cost.

Now are you going to be HONEST and either tell us what the "other way" is; or are you going to RETRACT that because you have nothing.

PamW

[MADem]

45. You don't have conversations--you shout and you are rude.

You're also fact free.

So I'm not going to RETRACT anything, and I'm going to just blow you off.

If you can't be civil to me, I will simply chalk up your ANGRY POSTS as TLDR wastes of time.

Season's Greetings!

[kristopher]

30. Blaming technology is a red herring.

It was a human error, and the potential for that is present in all technology. The opportunity for corruption of a system begins with conceptualization and persists through all phases of implementation and retirement.

[PamW]

32. We AGREE!!

Last edited Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:49 PM - Edit history (2)

kristopher states
It was a human error, and the potential for that is present in all technology.

kristopher,

We AGREE!!

Yes - it was most definitely operator error. Professor Kemeny who lead the commission to investigate the Three Mile Island accident, appointed by then President Jimmy Carter, gave a very interesting seminar on their findings at MIT while I was a student there. Basically, the operators weren't thinking about the conditions in the core, and didn't consult their "steam tables" ( equation of state for water ) and, in fact didn't even have those documents handy. Yet, they were operating the controls and issuing commands to the system, when they really hadn't figured out what was going on.

From PBS's The American Experience:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/three/filmmore/transcript/transcript1.html

Technical failures were then compounded by human error. Confronted by baffling and contradictory readings, the operators shut off the emergency water system that would have cooled the core.

If the operators had not intervened in that accident at Three Mile Island and shut off the pumps, the plant would have saved itself. They had thought of absolutely everything except what would happen if the operators intervened anyway.

The Three Mile Island accident was totally reversible for the first 90 minutes of the accident. TMI Unit 2 is a PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor, and the high pressure in the reactor prevents water from boiling as the temperature that is the boiling point goes up with increasing pressure. ( That's why pressure cookers work. ) For a PWR, the "prime directive" for safety is to never let there be bulk boiling of water in the PWR core. Unfortunately, TMI Unit 2 had a stuck open pressure safety relief valve that was dropping the pressure. As the pressure dropped, so did the temperature that is the boiling point, until the boiling point was equal to the current reactor temperature. At that point, the reactor coolant began to bulk boil.

Because the operators had not consulted their "steam tables", they believed that the boiling point temperature was above the current reactor temperature, and that there was no danger of boiling. However, they hadn't consulted the "steam tables" to be sure that present reactor conditions were not in the boiling regime.

The reactor coolant continued to boil and turned into what is called a "two phase mixture"; a mixture of water and steam. ( Those are two of the three "phases" of water, the third phase is "ice" at low temperatures. ) The main reactor coolant pumps didn't like pumping this frothy mix of steam and water, but they were getting the job done and effectively cooling the core enough to prevent a meltdown.

Unfortunately, while pumping the frothy mixture, the main coolant pumps made "funny noises" due to the vibration and cavitation of the water. One of the operators that was sent into the containment heard the noises from the pump, and at 90 minutes into the accident called the control room to report the noises. Here the operators missed an opportunity. If they had asked themselves what might make the main coolant pumps emit these noises, they might have concluded that the pumps were pumping a steam / water mixture and they would have realized that they were boiling. The operators didn't think about that.

Instead, the operators decided to shutdown Unit 2's main reactor coolant pumps because of the noise. That was the mistake that sealed Three Mile Island's fate right there. When they shutdown the pumps, the meltdown of the Unit 2 reactor core began in earnest, and there was no way to recover. Up to that point, keeping the main coolant pumps running was the ONLY way to save the day. The operators in effect, triggered the meltdown.

In many ways, this was actually more of a failing of Government than the reactor vendors and designers.

The reactor designers had actually designed "blocks" in the system that would inhibit operations by the operators that would be unwise. If the system was overheating and the emergency cooling system kicked in, the operators would be prohibited from turning the system off because it was needed to prevent the overheating from becoming worse. However, the NRC at that time, had a lot of distrust for automated systems, and essentially infinite trust in human operators. The NRC balked at having an automated system tell the human operators that they couldn't do something.

Therefore, the NRC forced the reactor vendors to disable the "blocks" that would prevent the human operators from performing an action.

The problem was the NRC never considered that the human operators would become confused, and that the automated system had a better "understanding" of the problem than the human operators.

As a result of the TMI accident, the NRC ordered that the "blocks" be re-enabled so that confused operators couldn't precipitate a more severe accident. That is part of the "lessons learned" from the Three Mile Island accident.

The failure was in the human-machine interface. It is sometimes a tough call as to who to "trust" more; a thinking human operator, or a programmed machine. One might easily say that the thinking human should always be trusted over a programmed machine. The problem is that under emergency conditions, the human may not be thinking very well. The other is that the machine can be programmed by the system designers who have an even better understanding of the system than do the operators. So the program may actually have encapsulated within it, experience from the designers that is superior to that of the operators.

PamW

[caraher]

48. RBMK update

The Chernobyl RBMK reactors are all going to be shut down, if that hasn't happened already; and nobody is going to build any more.

Technically this is true, in that all the reactors at Chernobyl have ceased operations (one way or another). And certainly nobody will build more (also true of most designs of existing reactors).

But there are still 11 RBMK reactors in operation, and plans are to continue operating them for years to come... One is supposed to be shut down this month, while some units in Leningrad are expected to operate well into the next decade.

It's certainly true that the Chernobyl accident scenario can't happen at most reactors. It's also true that, as seen by the public, the goalposts seem to keep moving. Chernobyl was never "supposed" to happen. When it did, the assurance was that the RBMK design was so far beneath Western standards that there was no credible risk of a major release in one of "our" reactors. Until it happened at Fukushima. Now we're hearing OK, it's just that the Japanese nuclear industry has lower standards than ours, and nothing remotely like that could ever happen here...

The problem is this: these things could be perfectly true from an engineering perspective, yet none of it solves the problem that the nuclear industry is asking the public to take their safety pronouncements essentially on faith. Would this be a rational choice? Bear in mind that, as much as we would all like to see higher levels of science literacy informing opinion, the fact is that nobody has time to become an expert on everything important. In practice, most people, on most issues, apply heuristics in drawing conclusions in areas where developing deeply informed decisions isn't likely to happen (whether through disinterest in the effort or sheer lack of time). So in practice, the level of acceptance for something like nuclear is never going to be about technical issues, it will be about trust. And "trust us, we're experts" rings hollow when expert opinion appears to have been spectacularly violated in these big accidents, regardless of any details about things like the relative risks associated with fossil fuels vs. nuclear.

Morphing the industry position from "there is little credible risk of major accidents" to "the risk is still small, and anyway, radiation is not as bad as you think" doesn't instill much confidence in people who are on the fence - even if that revised stance is true!

[MADem]

49. +1. Excellent summary. nt

[kristopher]

4. They mean 100% green, with no reactors

From the 2013 World Nuclear Status Report:
Note#530
The Scottish government is opposed to new build and said it would not allow replacement of the Torness and Hunterston plants once they will be shut down (likely in 2016 and 2023, respectively). Only 18 percent of the Scottish people supported new build in a pre-Fukushima poll, The Scotsman, “Only 18% of Scots Say ‘Yes’ to New Nuclear Power Stations”, 27 September 2010.


http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Report-2013.html#executive_summary_and_conclusions

[PamW]

6. Which is the OPPOSITE of the vote in the USA!!

Americans Still Favor Nuclear Power a Year After Fukushima
Majority also still sees nuclear power as safe

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/Americans-Favor-Nuclear-Power-Year-Fukushima.aspx

Look at it this way; the American public favors nuclear power by a greater margin than that of Obama over Romney.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

7. That Gallup poll is design to inflate support numbers.

Here is what polling designed to elicit the actual opinions of the public (as opposed to polling by gallup that is designed to give the nuclear industry a soundbite) actually tells us.


Search: 030712CSIFukushimaAnniversarySurveyRptFinal.pdf

With the one year anniversary of the Japanese reactor disaster nearing on March 11, 2012, a new ORC International survey of 1,032 Americans conducted February 23-26, 2012 for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute shows that the events in Fukushima continue to have a major impact on U.S. views about further expanding the use of nuclear power in this nation. The 2012 findings are benchmarked to a March 2011 conducted by ORC International for CSI:

• Nearly six in 10 Americans (57 percent) are less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States than they were before the Japanese reactor crisis, a nearly identical finding to the 58 percent who responded the same way when asked the same question one year ago. Those who say they are more supportive of nuclear power a year after Fukushima account for well under a third (28 percent) of all Americans, little changed from the 24 percent who shared that view in 2011.

• More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) say they are now more supportive than they were a year ago “to using clean renewable energy resources – such as wind and solar – and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States.” In fact, about half (49 percent) of ALL Americans now say they are now “much more supportive” of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a year ago. Both of these findings edged up from the 2011 survey levels of 76 percent and 46 percent, respectively.

• More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) would support “a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors” in favor of wind and solar power. This level of support was up from the 74 percent finding in the 2011 survey.

• 72 percent of Americans do not “think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees for new reactors.” This level of opposition was nearly identical to the 73 percent opposition level reported in the March 2011 survey.

• In response to a new question in the 2012 survey, more than six in 10 Americans (61 percent) said they were less supportive of nuclear power as a result of “reports in the U.S. during 2011 and so far in 2012 of nuclear reactors that had to be shut down due to hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, leaks or other emissions of radioactive materials, and/or equipment failure.” Fewer than three in 10 Americans (29 percent) say that such reports have made them more supportive of nuclear power.

And since we know how much trouble you have with nuance, here is the very clear, black/white version. Notice the parallel between the support for nuclear and the support for fossil fuels.
PEW Polling




Partisan breakdown



http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-prices-pinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-production-grows/

[PamW]

8. Data-Trimming?????

kristopher,

Are you "data trimming"? Are you throwing out polls because you don't like what they say??\

My goodness - what would Prof. Schrader-Frechette say about your data trimming?

Yes, yes; we know any poll that says something that kristopher doesn't like has to be fudged to give wrong answers.

One of the most respected polling organizations, Gallup; must obviously be in on the secret nuclear conspiracy since their poll said something that kristopher doesn't like. Yes, yes, we know.

PamW

[kristopher]

9. Gallup is "One of the most respected polling organizations"?

Actually no, but PEW is.

Data trimming might apply to the way the Gallup poll conducted for the nuclear lobbyist was structured. But the PEW poll is as clear as a bell.

It's funny that you consider referencing better polling equals belief in a conspiracy. One could almost be forgiven for thinking you have nothing better than personal attacks and slander.

[PamW]

10. Whatever....

Additionally, I note that the PEW study was done back in 2011.

The Gallup study was done in 2012 - a year later.

I can well expect that people were more apprehensive in the early days of the Fukushima accident in 2011. They didn't know how bad or not bad it was going to be.

A year later, the public can see that the Fukushima accident wasn't as bad as they might have anticipated; in spite of the constant drumming from the propagandists.

Evidently kristopher doesn't understand that the more recent poll is better, all else being equal. I don't believe that Gallup nor PEW is slanting their polls.

If kristopher is so worried about slander; then why is he casting aspersions on Gallup?

Besides; what the public believes now really isn't that important.

The key will be when the public realizes that their choice is between a future with nuclear power that has abundant energy and minimal environmental impact, or a future of renewables with minimal impact but severe energy shortages due to the physical limits on renewables that the propagandists don't have the scientific education to understand; or they can have abundant energy as they desire with severe environmental impact because the primary energy source will continue to be coal.

Unfortunately, I could almost believe that the renewable propagandists are working for the coal industry; because that's probably where they are going to drive the public to. Won't that be a shame.

PamW

[kristopher]

11. You "note" incorrectly.

"The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 7-11, 2012 among 1,503 adults..."

[MADem]

13. They are intermarried with the "British" power grid, so

unless they cut the cord (and light candles, let's get real), assuming they do become "independent," then they will be relying on nuke power.

And as for the proposed plants where planning permission has already been granted, it's up in the air as to whether Scotland CAN say no to them, as the decision at that stage devolves to Westminster...so there's that.

[kristopher]

17. Can you substantiate that they are going to import nuclear power?

I'm not that familiar with the system in the UK, but according to the Scot's claims and this doc from the UK gov it appears that, contrary to your understanding, Scotland is self sufficient. They appear to have no need for imports either to meet shortfalls nor for any sort of load balancing requirements. Is there something I'm missing?

Both Scotland and Wales are net exporters of electricity, with England importing electricity from both countries and from continental Europe (via the France and Netherlands interconnectors). Northern Ireland trades electricity with the Republic of Ireland to which it is a net exporter. It also imports electricity from Scotland via the Moyle interconnector - these imports were greater than exports to the Irish Republic in each of the last four years. In 2010, Scotland exported 20.6 per cent of the electricity generated there to consumers elsewhere in the UK and this rose to 26.1 per cent in 2011. Transfers from Scotland to England rose by 45 per cent between 2010 and 2011, to a new record high, as Scottish generation increased and consumption fell. Wales exported the equivalent of 24.5 per cent of its generation to consumers in England in 2010, falling to a record low of 13.4 per cent in 2011.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65841/7345-elec-gen-2008-2011-et-article.pdf

Table 1 gives a detailed breakdown and shows no imports at all for Scotland.

[MADem]

19. They're interconnected. They would have trouble if they tried to decouple.

They don't entirely control their own destiny in this regard.

The National Grid is the high-voltage electric power transmission network in Great Britain, connecting power stations and major substations and ensuring that electricity generated anywhere in England, Scotland and Wales can be used to satisfy demand elsewhere. There are also undersea interconnections to northern France (HVDC Cross-Channel), Northern Ireland (HVDC Moyle), the Isle of Man (Isle of Man to England Interconnector), the Netherlands (BritNed) and the Republic of Ireland (EirGrid).

On the breakup of the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1990, the ownership and operation of the National Grid in England and Wales passed to National Grid Company plc, later to become National Grid Transco, and now National Grid plc. In Scotland the grid split into two separate entities, one for southern and central Scotland and the other for northern Scotland, connected by interconnectors to each other. The first is owned and maintained by SP Energy Networks, a subsidiary of Scottish Power, and the other by SSE. However, National Grid plc remains the System Operator for the whole UK Grid.


Here's an article that outlines some of the issues:

http://theconversation.com/scotland-benefits-by-paying-for-its-energy-not-uks-mistakes-21200

[kristopher]

21. That doesn't stop them from greening their own grid.

The US has 3 distinct and separate geographically defined grids. They are "interconnected" just as the ones on the UK are. Being "interconnected" but also being an absolute exporter of power means they are entirely capable of living up the the ambitions laid out in the OP. There are clearly other issues, but I'm addressing the idea that they can't go 100% renewable.

Re nuclear: they are scheduled to shut the plants within their system down as I noted above, and there is no indication from any source that they will be replaced with new reactors within or providing power to Scotland.

[MADem]

22. If you want to call nuke power green, sure.

I don't think it is terribly green, myself. Or at least not what I would regard as truly green.

To me, green is stuff like solar, wave, wind...not something that, in the wink of an eye, could go all China Syndrome if someone isn't watching the console, or if a sensor goes wobbly.

[kristopher]

23. I don't understand.

I gave you a reference that they are shutting down the nuclear generation within their grid, and there are no plans to build anything else nuclear in Scotland.

They don't import nuclear or anything else, they are an absolute exporter.

They are aiming for 100% renewables as both you, I and Scotland defines them.

You keep saying that nuclear is part of that picture - what is that based on?

[MADem]

25. But they aren't. They WANT to but they do not have the authority to do so.

That's a distinction and a difference.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunterston_B_nuclear_power_station

Hunterston B Power Station is a nuclear power station in North Ayrshire, Scotland. It is located about 6 miles (9 km) south of Largs and about 2.5 miles (4 km) north-west of West Kilbride.
It has generated electricity since 1976. It is currently operated by EDF Energy. It currently generates up to 1000 MW and (since Dec 2012) is due to operate until 2023.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torness_nuclear_power_station

Torness was the last of the United Kingdom’s second generation nuclear power plants to be commissioned (25 May 1988). The station consists of two advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGR) capable of producing a peak rating of 1364 MWe. Upon deregulation of the United Kingdom’s electricity generation market it passed to the state-owned Scottish Nuclear, privatised as part of British Energy which was sold to the French company EDF in January 2009, and incorporated in the latter's UK subsidiary EDF Energy. It is expected to operate until 2023.[5]

The latter is a piece of shit--it keeps getting clogged: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/seaweed-torness-nuclear-reactor-east-lothian

Note the last para:

Although the UK government is pressing ahead with a new nuclear power programme, the Scottish government in Edinburgh is opposed to building more nuclear power stations.

They can be opposed all they want, but the decision isn't theirs anymore.



There is planning permission (approval, in USA - speak) to fire up (pardon the expression) a few other plants--at least one gas fired and one nuclear--on the boards. These will be constructed IN Scotland. The decision to act on that approval does not lie with the Scottish government. The authority to make that happen lies with Westminster, as I have said elsewhere in this thread.


Also, they're going to have a tough time meeting those 2020 goals if shit like this keeps happening:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/13/scottish-power-cancels-argyll-array-offshore-wind-farm

Scottish Power cancels £5.4bn Argyll Array offshore wind farm plan
Project that would have been world's largest and provided green energy to 1m homes deemed 'not financially viable'

No shooting the messenger. I like renewables but I've been following this issue for awhile. What they want and what is gonna happen are two different things.

[kristopher]

28. I don't see that as a refutation of their goal

Wind and solar tear the hell out of the economics of nuclear and coal. They reduce the market share available to central thermal generators, which results in decreased revenue for the thermal plants. That requires them to raise their prices for the power they do sell, which ultimately results in further declines in market share.
That's one thing that could be going on.
Even if things don't go that way, if they are fully renewable except for one nuclear plant that is going to shut down 3 years after the date mentioned; I don't see that as a big deal. Especially since they export more power than that plant produces.

Lately Scotland has popped up a couple of times here on EE, and both times you've staked out a positon on the issue that seems more hostile than anything in the story itself would justify. Is there something deeper that's bothering you?

Edited to correct sloppy errors - I think I need a nap.

[MADem]

29. The big wind farm just got cancelled.

The UK government can build a new nuke plant if they'd like, and a gas fired one, too, and the Scots have nothing to say about it. That's because the planning permission has already been approved. Now the decision rests in London. As I've said, repeatedly.

I really don't understand your last paragraph and the rather personal insinuation attached to it. Hostile? Please. Here's what's "bothering" me: I UNDERSTAND the back-story, is all. I know how the process works--these "rosy scenario" articles aren't reality.

I've only participated in one other thread on this issue. My "position"--since you apparently aren't taking what I am saying in the spirit in which I offer it--is this:

--I like renewables.

--I prefer renewables.

--I wish the whole world would focus on renewable energy, to the point of investing in experimental methodologies to test/prove efficacy of renewables.

All that said, I live in the real world, and I know what Westminster and the private energy corporations are thinking--and it ain't what's being posited in these articles.

Do with that what you will. If pointing these truths out somehow violates the "EE Mantra" of HappyHappyGladGlad Even If It's Not True I'll back off and not provide this information anymore. Mark my words, though--this is a wish, a hope, a dream--not a realistic goal.

[kristopher]

31. Your evidence doesn't support your claims.

You offer nothing that says a new nuclear plant is anywhere in the offing. You incorrectly characterized the nature of the grid connect between Scotland and the rest of the UK - far from the proof of dependency that you made it out to be, it shows that Scotland is energy independent.

I never took your comments as being against renewables, they came across to me as those of someone that had a bee in their bonnet about the Scots.

Have a merry christmas.

[MADem]

33. What claims? That if Westminster wants to build, they can?

That planning permission has been obtained for a nuke plant and a gas fired one?

That the wind farm--a key aspect of a renewable strategy-- has been cancelled?

I haven't a "bee in my bonnet about the Scots." One of my best mates is a Glaswegian.

I don't know if it's the limitations of the written word, or what, but I happen to LIKE Scottish people and Scotland as well. About the only thing that I don't care for, that is Scottish, is haggis.



This isn't going to be an easy road, is all I'm saying. The impetus for PROFIT is in the way, and the government isn't subsidizing this kind of thing to any great or organized extent if at all.

Seasons greetings to you as well, I suppose...

[kristopher]

35. No, the original ones in post 13 I've been asking about.

Let me stress again, I'm not well versed on UK energy issues so I'm just going by what you say versus what I'm reading. All I want is to understand why there is a discrepancy, I hope you don't see it as a personal attack.

They are intermarried with the "British" power grid, so

unless they cut the cord (and light candles, let's get real), assuming they do become "independent," then they will be relying on nuke power.

And as for the proposed plants where planning permission has already been granted, it's up in the air as to whether Scotland CAN say no to them, as the decision at that stage devolves to Westminster...so there's that.

"They are intermarried with the "British" power grid, so unless they cut the cord (and light candles, let's get real), assuming they do become "independent," then they will be relying on nuke power."

That is a bit ambiguous, so feel free to clarify if I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like you're saying here that they are reliant on nuclear based outside of Scotland.

Also that if they sever the interconnect, then they will not have sufficient generation to keep the lights on.

If that's a fair reading then it isn't accurate because, as I showed you, they are an absolute exporter of power. Scotland doesn't import any of their power.

And as for the proposed plants where planning permission has already been granted, it's up in the air as to whether Scotland CAN say no to them, as the decision at that stage devolves to Westminster...so there's that.

Since the only nuclear power they get is from Torness and Hunterson, I presume the proposed plant with planning permission you are talking about here is one of those two. But when I checked the list here is what I found.

First I went to the World Nuclear Association's webpage on nuclear in the UK and they didn't list any interest within the UK for Scotland's nuclear sites.
However, they mentioned that the new government placed planning control for large infrastructure projects under the control of the National Infrastructure Planning Directorate in 2012, so I went there just before answering your post.

This is the first thing you see on their site:

Welcome to National Infrastructure Planning
Here you can find out about proposed major infrastructure projects within England and Wales.
This site is delivered by the Planning Inspectorate, the government agency responsible for examining planning applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Scotland is conspicuous by its absence. I'm guessing that means they are in charge of their own infrastructure planning.

So that leaves me perplexed. I guess that I haven't understood you correctly. It would be helpful if you could you clarify what I've got wrong. Or, if you've made some assumptions that are off target, perhaps we've both learned something.

Thanks for the interest in the topic either way.

[MADem]

36. They don't own their own grid.

The Brits oversee it, and Spanish corporatists own a big chunk of it. So talking about the "Scottish" grid is more a function of geography than ownership by "They, The People" as it were.

They are interconnected with the rest of the UK system, and nuke plants IN Scotland--and without--supply them in an ebb-and-flow scenario (as is common in most places).


As is typical with most grids, sometimes they export, sometimes they import. Just because they are a net exporter now does not mean that they don't import as well. In fact, one of the plants that they want to build is a plant that will "capture" what they produce so that they will have energy available for when they can't produce enough to meet demand.

Also, they are focused on "emissions" and "carbon capture" when they talk about energy in that neck of the woods. Since nukes don't have an emissions problem, they fall into the "clean energy" category--even though the cost of that sort of power comes to bear when closing a plant, which costs a bundle to do.


You will not find the National Infrastructure Planning for Scotland alongside those of England and Wales because they have their own legislative body and do their thing separately--here's their strategic plan: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00421073.pdf

Even they have acknowledged that they're going to be stuck with nuke for the short term (though they don't acknowledge that they don't really have control over what might happen if the UK decides to lean on them):

There will be no nuclear
new build in Scotland, although
we have not ruled out extending
the operating life of Scotland’s
existing nuclear power stations,
at Hunterston and Torness,
to maintain security of supply
over the next decade while the
transition to renewables and
clean thermal generation takes
place.

Now, overlay that with this:

Nuclear power use up 40 per cent under Scottish National Party
ALEX SALMOND has been urged to drop opposition to nuclear power after it emerged that Scotland’s use of nuclear energy has increased by almost 40 per cent since the SNP came to power.

The amount of nuclear energy generated in Scotland has risen by 37 per cent to 16,892 gigawatts since 2007.

And though there are only two nuclear power stations in Scotland, they generated 33 per cent of the country’s energy in 2011. This outstripped the power produced by the wind turbines, wave machines and hydro facilities championed by the SNP.

Coal, gas and oil accounted for 39 per cent of energy generated. The figures come despite the First Minister’s claims that nuclear plants are declining in output.

Tory energy spokesman Murdo Fraser said: “The SNP can continue dreaming that we can keep the lights on without using nuclear power, but the reality is that it’s a key energy source.

“The very fact we are using almost 40 per cent more nuclear energy is proof that we can’t just power the country by covering the landscape in wind farms.” ...

Don't think for a second that I find this pleasing or delightful (I am not a fan of nuke power for a lot of reasons, Chernobyl amongst them)--particularly since all future nuclear development in UK is to be undertaken by PRIVATE actors, not public utilities. They'll be overseen by government supervisors, but the idea behind privitizing the enterprise means that the private companies have to pay the decommissioning costs, which are a bundle.

The only point I am trying--and apparently failing--to make is that people can often talk a good game, but the reality that comes to pass is something very different. And when you have players on the scene who are intent on making money (and there's money to be made in the energy sector, particularly in the established methodologies) there are competing interests (government/citizens/private business interests) at work and a tension inherent in the discussions about this issue.

I don't think the Scots can make their carbon reduction goals in the near term without extending the life of the existing plants and maybe even allowing an upgrade. It would be nice if they could, but they aren't going to do it without "nuke" power, which they can call "clean" because of the zero emissions, but doesn't meet their wish to be nuke-free. They are between a nuclear rock and a carbon-emissions hard place. The wind and geothermal et. al. just aren't coming on line at a pace to fulfill their wishes.

[Ghost Dog]

37. They're not so very integrated

http://www.nationalgrid.com/annualreports/2007/05_operating_fr/trans_about.html

Just as England is connected to France, it would make sense, in a civilised relationship, for an independent Scotland to also be connected to England, and probably to Ireland, Norway, Holland/Germany...

[MADem]

38. That map doesn't mean anything.

Yes, we know where Scotland's boundaries are--that doesn't say anything about where power flows. Scotland owns their grid--but they don't operate it. National Grid does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)

The National Grid is the high-voltage electric power transmission network in Great Britain, connecting power stations and major substations and ensuring that electricity generated anywhere in England, Scotland and Wales can be used to satisfy demand elsewhere. There are also undersea interconnections to northern France (HVDC Cross-Channel), Northern Ireland (HVDC Moyle), the Isle of Man (Isle of Man to England Interconnector), the Netherlands (BritNed) and the Republic of Ireland (EirGrid)....

[kristopher]

39. That ignores the role of the distribution grid controlled by the Scots.

National Grid also doesn't managed generation resources.

They are a "transmission" entity.

[MADem]

42. NG is the "system operator," though.

On the breakup of the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1990, the ownership and operation of the National Grid in England and Wales passed to National Grid Company plc, later to become National Grid Transco, and now National Grid plc. In Scotland the grid split into two separate entities, one for southern and central Scotland and the other for northern Scotland, connected by interconnectors to each other. The first is owned and maintained by SP Energy Networks, a subsidiary of Scottish Power, and the other by SSE. However, National Grid plc remains the System Operator for the whole UK Grid.

And of course, despite all the national names involved in these energy concerns, they're owned by private concerns...for example, "Scottish Power" is actually owned by a private Spanish energy entity.

[kristopher]

44. Right but system operators role is very limited.

Their primary role is usually managing a transparent process to facilitate the markets where power is traded; and establishing the amount of power required to be satisfied by the auctions.

Beyond establishing the criteria for being a power provider, who bids into those auctions is not part of the System Operators portfolio of responsibilities.

ETA: I didn't know anything about the UK last night. Now I've a pretty good handle on the system (even if a few large gaps remain) and I wanted to thank you.

I'm backing out of this discussion now.

[MADem]

46. In 270 days we'll have a better sense of where Scotland is going!

Salmond is staking his reputation on a YES vote and he has some work to do to create enthusiasm. Right now things are looking poorly for him but he has time to turn that around if he can get his facts in order. He really should debate his counterpart (Darling) in Scotland who is on the NO team, and not demand that Cameron debate him (because that's just never going to happen and no one expects it, either).

Make no mistake, the whole "energy issue" is a big player in the independence argument, but so too are things like pension schemes, civil service, national health, child benefits, passports, currency and the Queen (they say they'll keep the last two). He's not terribly persuasive on a lot of these, and that's affecting enthusiasm for the prospect of independence.

The NO team is looking for a decisive victory so they won't have to go through this again in a few years' time. Whether or not they get their wish, only time will tell.

Anything can happen between now and the vote!

[Ghost Dog]

40. Ok. Good to see those other connections. Interconnectedness is good.

But it does look like the campaign for Scottish independence wants to make a commitment (if only for propaganda purposes) to 100% renewable (ie. shutting down nuclear) electricity generation in Scotland by such an early date.

[MADem]

41. I have a feeling that the independence push is a non-starter.

And there have been accusations that Salmond's commitments (in a number of areas) are pure propaganda--I don't live there, so I am not getting the full flavor of the discussions, but that is the sense I get from the papers.

A lot of the things that are being touted that will come to pass as a consequence of independence aren't starting to look too rosy. There will be a loss of civil service jobs, they say they are planning on keeping the pound (which means that the UK will still control their monetary policy) and there are a host of other advantages that will just go away. There are several lobbying/interest groups from both within and without Scotland that are making a push to encourage a NO vote, the most notable being "Better Together" which is going all-out.

I don't think those pushing for independence have won over anything close to a majority, and I think the numbers are going the wrong way. I don't have my ear at all times close to the ground but that is the sense I am getting. We'll know what's what in 270 days, in any event.

And, there are plans to build a new reactor (again, don't shoot the messenger, I don't care for the things) in Hinckley, UK that--ironically--could potentially
benefit several hundred Scottish workers.

And given the sharks have scuttled the offshore wind farm (for now, anyway), the service life of the existing reactors keeps getting pushed back--some sources are saying to 2025. Also, Scotland has, previous to the present government, given Westminster planning permission for a new plant, so the idea that they won't build in Scotland ever-ever-ever again just may not come to pass.

[Ghost Dog]

47. Yes, thanks. I haven't been following closely,

although I meet more people around here (Canary Islands, travellers) who would prefer an independent Scotland on the right terms rather than the other way round.

Spain's Iberdrola is a publically-quoted company: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IBE.MC so wikipedia would appear to be in error there.

Otherwise your information here looks good and useful, thank you, MADem.

Peace.

[MADem]

14. They don't have the ability to enforce that wish.

They are intermarried with the UK grid, which relies on nuke power.

Also, the Brit power companies have received planning permission for construction of one or more plants in Scotland--nuke, gas fired, etc.

Once planning permission is granted, the Scots are out of it--the decision making process as to whether or not they go forward goes to British Parliament.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. It's important to not assume that because a government wants something, that it will happen--we've seen that often enough, ourselves.

[kristopher]

18. See post 17

[MADem]

20. See post 19.