Why is Scotland anti-nuclear?

[Amp34]

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).

It's funny really, almost the exact argument was used against nuclear less than ten years ago. Nuclear is/was a lot more expensive than fossil fuels and was/is subsidised to some degree.

 

[Castiel]

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 suspect that had their been a more suitable site elsewhere in the UK that would be the site of the SSBN's.

If the reason was to remove a threat (and I don't accept that Faslane is more of a priority than any other major Naval, Army or Airbase) then the AWE would also be located in Scotland as would have the Cruise Missile Silos of the Eighties and early Nineties instead of the heartland of England.

If the concern is with retaliation and target priority then the RAF Bases and the Air Defence installations are a larger priority due to the nature of our deterrent and it's mobility and the critical nature of Air Defence and EWS in the event of War.

I agree with the political aspects of the argument over Faslane, the SNP used the inherent fear of nuclear weapons among the public to propogate this kind of nonsense ( based largely on a report by CND, no less), other than that Faslane offers the prime site for SSBNs and in reality that is why it was chosen, nothing more.

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

it is a separate issue to be opposed to a nuclear deterent in general and claiming that the siting of a nuclear deterent is political and about shifting risk rather than operational viability.

Scotland will remain vital to rapid response in the Atlantic and North seas.

Rapid Response doesn't require another large deep water port such as Faslane, especially as the Naval aspects of the JRRF operate out of Devonport in Plymouth, Poole and the PJHQ based in Northwood and other aspects such as 16AA Bde also based in England proper, while there are elements currently based in Scotland, the nature of the JRRF limits Scotlands strategic importance somewhat.....without the SSBN's and the need for the strategic and covert environment offered by Faslane, it would quickly become a shadow of its current status, if not redundant.

 

[Xiler]

Scotland is one of the very few countries than can obtain 100% renewable power and have high aims for the future.

I would imagine we dont want anymore nuclear powerstations due to our ability to meet such high renewable power % of our high EU targets.

 

[[TW]Fox]

the Naval aspects of the JRRF operate out of Devonport, Plymouth, Poole and the PJHQ based in Northwood and other aspects also based in England proper

You keep mentioning Devonport and Plymouth as if they are two different places

 

[Castiel]

You keep mentioning Devonport and Plymouth as if they are two different places

I have mentioned Devonport and Plymouth only once together, and only to illustrate where the Naval base is in relation to Scotland.


Edit: I have made it clearer for you by removing the comma.....I thought it was obvious myself.

 

[Jonny ///M]

I'm not against nuclear power as I understand, very roughly, how it works.

I think the nearest one to me is,or was?, hunterston B on the west coast which is about 40-50 miles away.

I also don't mind massive wind farms as I have Whitelee Wind Farm very near me which doesn't ruin the scenery that much.

I think there is another farm to the North of us which I can see from here but I'm not sure which one it is.

 

[bobbyspangles]

I'd be quite happy to have one in mine, but then I'm not irrational about risk management.

Really?

 

[Angilion]

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.

Apart from the facts that's not what you wrote and it isn't true in the UK and you were expressing (and presumably including in your view of viability) a hoped-for 50% reduction in PV panel costs in the future.

So we are saying the same thing, but I'm not assuming that hoped-for improvements in the future are definitely going to happen.

 

[Angilion]

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

I'd agree with you if there was compelling evidence that it actually worked and it was being rolled out. But there isn't and it isn't, so I don't agree with you.

 

[Glaucus]

Apart from the facts that's not what you wrote and it isn't true in the UK and you were expressing (and presumably including in your view of viability) a hoped-for 50% reduction in PV panel costs in the future.

So we are saying the same thing, but I'm not assuming that hoped-for improvements in the future are definitely going to happen.

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

So yes I did write it. The post contained two things, what's feasible now and what's likely in the future.

How many technologies haven't reduced in price over time.
PV has already substantially fallen. And there's plenty of PV manufacturing technics that are far cheaper than current production methods. But are a few years away from being produced. It takes time to retool factories.

I think you have also completely missed the point of the original post as well, which sparked this. And that was talking about fusion, which we don't have and won't have till at least 2050, so that option isn't viable ATM and the point that by then we are likely to be almost Totaly renewable energy.

 

[Fenris]

Because in their dreams of being a real country they think that sucking up to the big boys will get them into the club.

Who knows I could be wrong.

 

[Biohazard]

I suspect that had their been a more suitable site elsewhere in the UK that would be the site of the SSBN's.

If the reason was to remove a threat (and I don't accept that Faslane is more of a priority than any other major Naval, Army or Airbase) then the AWE would also be located in Scotland as would have the Cruise Missile Silos of the Eighties and early Nineties instead of the heartland of England.

If the concern is with retaliation and target priority then the RAF Bases and the Air Defence installations are a larger priority due to the nature of our deterrent and it's mobility and the critical nature of Air Defence and EWS in the event of War.

I agree with the political aspects of the argument over Faslane, the SNP used the inherent fear of nuclear weapons among the public to propogate this kind of nonsense ( based largely on a report by CND, no less), other than that Faslane offers the prime site for SSBNs and in reality that is why it was chosen, nothing more.

Well, as I said before the last time you typed this out I disagree. Faslane would clearly be the primary target for any attack.

The politics were very clear, force it on Scotland when it could do little about it. It was a mere convience for the MOD and Westminster.

Fear of nuclear weapons or the moral and social abhorence of them by society is no nonsense.

it is a separate issue to be opposed to a nuclear deterent in general and claiming that the siting of a nuclear deterent is political and about shifting risk rather than operational viability.

Which has what to do with the RAF bases and so forth?

Of course the placement was partly political to displace the risk, I don't see what this has to do with my objections to the SDR either.

Rapid Response doesn't require another large deep water port such as Faslane, especially as the Naval aspects of the JRRF operate out of Devonport in Plymouth, Poole and the PJHQ based in Northwood and other aspects such as 16AA Bde also based in England proper, while there are elements currently based in Scotland, the nature of the JRRF limits Scotlands strategic importance somewhat.....without the SSBN's and the need for the strategic and covert environment offered by Faslane, it would quickly become a shadow of its current status, if not redundant.

The only way trident is moving is when Scotland becomes independent and kicks them out, what happens to faslane would to subject to a Scottish SDR and would more than likely to stay to fascilitate naval operations into the Atlantic.

 

[Biohazard]

Because in their dreams of being a real country they think that sucking up to the big boys will get them into the club.

What does this statement even mean in context of being anti-nuclear?

 

[Fenris]

What does this statement even mean in context of being anti-nuclear?

It was a joke in relation to Scotland's wish to be independent and the fact that many countries are currently heavily debating the future of their nuclear development in the aftermath the disaster in Japan.

I hope you actually got that and were just obfuscating stupidity for the sake of sounding high brow.

 

[ThePirateHulk]

What does this statement even mean in context of being anti-nuclear?

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.

 

[Biohazard]

It was a joke in relation to Scotland's wish to be independent and the fact that many countries are currently heavily debating the future of their nuclear development in the aftermath the disaster in Japan.

I hope you actually got that and were just obfuscating stupidity for the sake of sounding high brow.

Ah I see, nope sorry.. didn't get it. I think the Japanese disaster highlighted ssome concerns about the industry which only strengthened the case for those who argue against it..

 

[Colbaker]

Ponder this..if and when the zombie apocalypse comes and we have our country littered with nuclear power plants what will happen? Surely if these power plants cannot run by themselves then they will all go into meltdown.

That wouldn't be very nice for us survivors!!

 

[Fenris]

Ponder this..if and when the zombie apocalypse comes and we have our country littered with nuclear power plants what will happen? Surely if these power plants cannot run by themselves then they will all go into meltdown.

That wouldn't be very nice for us survivors!!

You evidently have a very low opinion of the people who develop nuclear power plants and reactors.

Do you REALLY think that they would allow a reactor to go into "meltdown" just because no one was there to stop it?

 

[Colbaker]

You evidently have a very low opinion of the people who develop nuclear power plants and reactors.

Do you REALLY think that they would allow a reactor to go into "meltdown" just because no one was there to stop it?

If they are self sustainable and able to run by themselves then why have people working at them at all?

 

[Fenris]

If they are self sustainable and able to run by themselves then why have people working at them at all?

Not needing people to stop is going boom is not the same as not needing people at all. Redundancy is what its all about.