Why is Scotland anti-nuclear?

As for the fallacy, how can it be false to point out that where the nuclear weapons are stored is generally the primary target in any nuclear exchange? Fair enough depending on what happens we are all probably looking a bit ropey but it is a guarantee of destruction for Scotland. Another Union dividend.

Nuclear powered equipment isn't quite the same in terms of targetting priorities I would have thought.

It depends on who's reaction it is you are talking, I think people up here would generally be happy - the unionist opposition would be having hissy fits - there would local concerns over jobs..

Rightly or wrongly the primary targets for nuclear exchanges are not simply nuclear bases, as Faslane has no actual facility to launch weapons other than the submarines which when operational are at sea the strategic importance of Faslane compared to that of say, London is lower. Scotlands overall strategic placement (in the event of a cold war situation) far outweighs the placement of a single Naval base, and unless you remove the base altogether, along with all significant military installations, conventional or otherwise, the inherrent risks to Scotland remain the same.

I am sure you would agree that the economic benefits of the significant military presence in Scotland outweighs the minimal risk in the unlikely event of a nuclear war. Rogue state or terrorist nuclear threats woukd be primarily focused on large civilian population centres so any realistic risk is also minimal and would be present regardless of the site of the SSBNs.



7000 jobs. Only a proportion of which are directly related to the WMDs. A loss of the subs would be substantial, but depending on the situation something that would have to be replaced.

It seems that the figure is closer to 11,000 job dependent upon the base, not only at the base itself, which is around 7000, with around 60% of those directly associated with the presence of the SSBNs. Either way a significant number of jobs which the region could not afford to lose.
 
I would have thought all the RAF bases in Scotland would take just as much of a pounding as a navy base. Let's face it, if countries really are lobbing nukes about we're all dead (or would wish we were...) anyway.
 
Rightly or wrongly the primary targets for nuclear exchanges are not simply nuclear bases, as Faslane has no actual facility to launch weapons other than the submarines which when operational are at sea the strategic importance of Faslane compared to that of say, London is lower. Scotlands overall strategic placement (in the event of a cold war situation) far outweighs the placement of a single Naval base, and unless you remove the base altogether, along with all significant military installations, conventional or otherwise, the inherrent risks to Scotland remain the same.

It moores the spare boats and munitions. It's enough to make it the primary target. After that it is presumed to be Sheffield, what's left of the industrial heartland, and then if being vindictive - London.

It would depend who is doing it, but they would go for faslane not only for the technicalities but the off chance they caught us off guard. After all, it would be one of many warheads in a nightmarish situation.

The cold war risks were significant, and the long term risk with WMD's would in the event of a conflict of that scale that Scotland would remain a primary for anyone with such capability.

I am sure you would agree that the economic benefits of the significant military presence in Scotland outweighs the minimal risk in the unlikely event of a nuclear war. Rogue state or terrorist nuclear threats woukd be primarily focused on large civilian population centres so any realistic risk is also minimal and would be present regardless of the site of the SSBNs.

No I wouldn't actually.



It seems that the figure is closer to 11,000 job dependent upon the base, not only at the base itself, which is around 7000, with around 60% of those directly associated with the presence of the SSBNs. Either way a significant number of jobs which the region could not afford to lose.

Nuclear submarines are only a component of the base's expertise and role. The base is not hinged upon the nuclear arms hidden in the hills and a couple of submarines.
 
I would have thought all the RAF bases in Scotland would take just as much of a pounding as a navy base. Let's face it, if countries really are lobbing nukes about we're all dead (or would wish we were...) anyway.

Any enemy doesn't need to worry about these bases given the government are doing a good job of removing the bases themselves....
 
It moores the spare boats and munitions. It's enough to make it the primary target. After that it is presumed to be Sheffield, what's left of the industrial heartland, and then if being vindictive - London.

it is no more a target with the SSBNs as it would be with conventional Naval military vessels.

Besides the premise that the site of Faslane was chosen to paint a target on Scotland is ridiculous, it is because operationally it is the best site for the SSBNs in the UK and as military policy considers the UK as a whole, it is a pointless summation to make that it is about a conspiracy against Scotland, when strategically and operationally it is the best option with the quickest and stealthiest access to the Submarine patrol areas in the North Atlantic and Arctic than the other two Naval Operating Bases at Portsmouth and Devonport.


No I wouldn't actually.

I seem to recall you railing against proposed closures of RAF bases and the relocation of military personnel and the associated employment away from Scotland recently?

Nuclear submarines are only a component of the base's expertise and role. The base is not hinged upon the nuclear arms hidden in the hills and a couple of submarines.

It's operational status is primarily supported by it's effectiveness and suitability for the SSBN's, without them the importance of Faslane would be significantly impaired especially with the end of the Cold War and Portsmouth and Devonport would be better placed operationally for a conventional Navy.
 
I'm also starting to question What fusion will do. With the DEMO power plant research not being completed until 2040 and a build time of 15 years. It's going to be a minimum of 2050 before we have commercial plants.
By then renewable energy is going to be cheap and abundant.
Will people give up home production to go back to paying most of their bills. Or is fusion just going to be for corporations needing vast power. To do previously uneconomical ventures.

AT the moment, renewable energy is extremely expensive, impractical and completely unsuitable as the main (let alone only) source of electricity.

Many people hope that over the next few decades with enough money spent on giving state benefits to people who use renewable energy and companies who supply the equipment, renewable energy will become cheap and abundant. There are possibilities on paper, e.g. wave and tidal in Scotland alone could on paper supply enough electricity to power the whole of the UK. On paper.

But on paper nuclear fusion could, in the same sort of time frame and with lower development costs, supply a ludicrous superabundance of electricity to everywhere until the end of the world. With that degree of energy surplus, all sorts of additional things become possible. You're probably aware that there are concerns about freshwater supplies for the future even in richer countries and you must be aware that the lack of them is killing lots of people in poorer countries right now. The problem goes away if you have so much spare electricity that you can desalinate and purify sea water and not care how much energy it takes. Hydrogen is an extremely inefficient energy carrier, which is why it's currently worse than useless for providing highly localised electricity generation for things that could use it (most obviously, cars). That problem goes away if you have so much spare electricity that you can just split hydrogen off from water and not care about how energy it takes. That's just off the top of my head - I'm sure other people could come up with far more applications for having a vast superabundance of electricity.

Also, there's a lot to be said to generating most of a country's electricity from sources that can be controlled by people (i.e. not wind, waves, sunshine or any other renewable).
 
AT the moment, renewable energy is extremely expensive, impractical and completely unsuitable as the main (let alone only) source of electricity.

This just isn't very true anymore. PV isn't that expensive any more and is predicted to at least half in price over the next 5years due to manufacturing processes.
Combine with improvement in efficiency and other energy sources as well as storage. It is very visable in the coming decades and certainly by 2050-2060, at the point when comercial fusion will probably be coming online.
Even with out FIT, PV will pay for itself well within its lifetime and with out FIT you can buy larger and cheaper systems. This is now, let alone if these price drops happen. Which is pretty much a given as can be seen in 99% of techologies.

Storage is the problem with renewable but even that's being worked on with several plants in research/construction. Especially in Germany.
 
Last edited:
Won't we need to massively upgrade the grid to make way for renewable?
Good job I will be doing an Electrical engineering degree :D. I can imagine that the demand for engineers is going to increase dramatically over the next 40 years.
 
We already have started the upgrade and the first stage of the upgrade is almost complete. Iirc To a tune of 3billion a year.

National Grid is committed to a £22 billion investment programme – which began last year – in its networks up to 2015, with much of this investment being made in its electricity transmission infrastructure as it refurbishes and reinforces existing assets and connects new nuclear and renewable electricity generation.

The work is needed to help the UK meet its target of reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.
 
Last edited:
This just isn't very true anymore. PV isn't that expensive any more and is predicted to at least half in price over the next 5years due to manufacturing processes.
Combine with improvement in efficiency and other energy sources as well as storage. It is very visable in the coming decades and certainly by 2050-2060, at the point when comercial fusion will probably be coming online.

Storage is the problem with renewable but even that's being worked on with several plants in research/construction. Especially in Germany.

Note what I wrote:

Many people hope that over the next few decades with enough money spent on giving state benefits to people who use renewable energy and companies who supply the equipment, renewable energy will become cheap and abundant.
Which you have just provided a perfect example of. Your statement that what I wrote isn't very true any more is the opposite of the truth.

You even explicitly refer to hoped-for development of renewables by ~2050 (a few decades from now, no?) and acknowledge that's the same timeframe as the hoped-for development of nuclear fusion.

In short, you're saying the same things I was saying, immediately after you said it "just isn't very true".

Then there's the other point - quantity. Renewables are hoped to be able at some point in the future to provide enough electricity to meet our needs. Fusion is hoped to be able at some point in the future to provide almost limitless amounts of electricity, opening up new possibilities (such as the examples I gave).
 
Last edited:
If you read what I wrote. It says that PV is already viable and pays for itself without FIT. Where you said renewables aren't viable. So no we aren't saying the same thing at all.
 
BBC said:
Ofgem study 'undermines' case for nuclear

Plans being considered by the industry regulator could undermine the prospect of new UK nuclear power plants.

The cost of feeding the north of Scotland's renewable energy into the national power grid could fall by 80% under the proposals.

A study carried out for Ofgem suggested the change would boost the case for building wind and marine turbines in and around Scotland.

The costs were estimated in a draft pricing and investment model.

It suggested the access charge for wind and marine power from the north of Scotland would fall from £24 per kilowatt to less than £5.

Sharing the costs equally across the UK would remove the financial incentives to build any new nuclear power stations, and shift a projected £17bn of nuclear investment to other technologies.

Ofgem asked energy consultancy Redpoint to assess the impact on the energy mix if it removed the high costs for the north of Scotland and the subsidies for the south of England.

These currently create incentives for generating companies to build further south.

Price regulation

Until now, Ofgem has been required to regulate prices in a way that keeps consumer costs down, meaning it encourages power plants close to population centres.

But it has come under pressure to re-shape the market to help encourage renewable power.

Last year, it announced the Project TransmiT review, saying it would be "open, comprehensive and objective".

At present, those feeding power into the grid pay a charge of £24 per kilowatt if they are in the north of Scotland, western Highlands and Skye. It is slightly lower for those around Peterhead. A sliding scale charges those in the south of Scotland about £12.

But in much of the south of England, there is a subsidy of more than £6 per kilowatt.

The differences have been highlighted by the SNP government at Holyrood, and by the renewable energy industry in Scotland, as they have campaigned to remove the higher charges for Scotland.

Grid upgrades

The Redpoint draft report shows how charging might change over the next ten years to pay for upgrades of the national grid - with the grid access charge for power from the north of Scotland being more than doubled to nearly £60 per kilowatt, while central London power stations would have a £12 subsidy.

The report goes on to show how the cost per kilowatt in the north and north-west of Scotland would fall from £24 to less than £5, if the cost of accessing the grid were equally spread.

If it were equalised not to support renewable power but new build gas-powered electricity generation, the unit cost would be £12 throughout Britain.

That would mean shifting from subsidy to the same level of charge for generation in the south of England, with increased costs for the Midlands and Wales.

The projection points to major changes in the location for investment.

Incentive changes

Under the current plans, £6.4bn would be spent on gas plants in the south of England by 2020.

But if access charges are equalised, they would change the incentives to build further north, £4.8bn of it in the north of England.

The projection for nuclear investment under the current charging regime would see £13.2bn of spending in the south of England, with a further £4.2bn in the north of England and Wales - the figures increasing sharply after 2020.

However, under Redpoint's draft modelling, a flat-rate charge would shift incentives so all of that nuclear spend would be cancelled.

According to a minute of the Project TransmiT review group last month, Redpoint was asked to re-work its initial findings on that.

'Fairer proposals'

While Ofgem is scheduled to conclude Project TransmiT by the end of the year, the chief executive of industry body Scottish Renewables, Niall Stuart, said the draft proposals being considered by the regulator would be fairer and reflect cost better.

"They are in line with Ofgem's objective of promoting investment in renewables to support the transition to a low carbon economy," he said.

"The proposed reforms will reduce a significant barrier to investment in clean electricity generation in Scotland, and can only help secure progress towards both the UK's and Scotland's renewable energy and climate change targets."

He said the changes under consideration did not include access to the grid for generators on Scottish islands, and "crippling fees" to access the grid were holding back investment in "the fantastic wind, wave and tidal resources".

A spokesman for Ofgem said: "We are going to publish a consultation in December and we are sharing our consultant's report ahead of that consultation."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-15711200

Ofgem stupid too, Dolph?
 
Solar power is definitely viable, but not in the UK.


solar_energy_world_map.jpg


Renewables are pointless now that the E-CAT is being rolled out.
 
it is no more a target with the SSBNs as it would be with conventional Naval military vessels.

Besides the premise that the site of Faslane was chosen to paint a target on Scotland is ridiculous, it is because operationally it is the best site for the SSBNs in the UK and as military policy considers the UK as a whole, it is a pointless summation to make that it is about a conspiracy against Scotland, when strategically and operationally it is the best option with the quickest and stealthiest access to the Submarine patrol areas in the North Atlantic and Arctic than the other two Naval Operating Bases at Portsmouth and Devonport.

Well I have to disagree on the priority aspect. You wouldn't want to see more fishes out in the sea.

I never said paint a target deliberately, but certainly made sure the target wasn't painted on England. Slightly different. There are benefits to the site, such as geography and weather, but there were largely political ones as well.






I seem to recall you railing against proposed closures of RAF bases and the relocation of military personnel and the associated employment away from Scotland recently?

Which are not really anything in comparison to weapons of mass destruction. Other reasons for the objection for the SDR was the uncosted elements to the plans, particularly with the new superbarracks.

It's operational status is primarily supported by it's effectiveness and suitability for the SSBN's, without them the importance of Faslane would be significantly impaired especially with the end of the Cold War and Portsmouth and Devonport would be better placed operationally for a conventional Navy.

Scotland will remain vital to rapid response in the Atlantic and North seas.
 
Solar power is definitely viable, but not in the UK.


http://www.alternative-energy-resources.net/images/solar_energy_world_map.jpgMG]

Renewables are pointless now that the E-CAT is being rolled out.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is, we get less than other countries, but it's still more than viable. That graph means nothing. What matters is does it pay for itself within its life span. The answer is yes it does.
And that's at around ~10 efficiency. Research PV cells have got up to ~40% efficiency.
[IMG]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9453/1321220108215.jpg

And the ecat hasn't been independently tested, so don't hold your hopes up.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is, we get less than other countries, but it's still more than viable. That graph means nothing. What matters is does it pay for itself within its life span. The answer is yes it does.
And that's at around ~10 efficiency. Research PV cells have got up to ~40% efficiency.

I largely think the reason you won't get much common sense is the fact Scotland is in the thread title. It attracts all sorts of nutters. :p
 
And if each of the 25million homes produced just 5000kwh a year, how much would that be and what percent of uk energy would that deliver?

Is this 'just' amount actually feasibile on average for all homes in the country?
I know I do not use 5000 units in one year, but I am assuming many homes do.
How achievable is 5k?
 
Is this 'just' amount actually feasibile on average for all homes in the country?
I know I do not use 5000 units in one year, but I am assuming many homes do.
How achievable is 5k?

5k is achievable with current PV systems of around the 3.5-5kwp in southern England facing south! Seeing as currently, people do not covere their entire roof in PV cells and Holmes aren't being built with it in mind. So very doable in the south. Up north you would need to wait for more efficient PV cells to be mass produced.
Eventually new houses will be built with totally south facing roofs, mechanical ventilation, solar PV/heat and possibly heat exchange technology. So combining all of them, you would easily achieve such production, whilst massively reducing your heating usage.

5000kwh is the average electrical power consumption of house holds.

We also have a commitment to reduce energy useage by 20% by 2020, however we aren't on target to achieve it ATM. But we have reduced it slightly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom