Phew, us survivors will be able to enjoy our apocolypse with all this lovely power coming from the nuclear power stations then, I won't have to stop playing battlefield 3, although multiplayer won't be great unless zombies are any good at using a controller.
Why is Scotland anti-nuclear?
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
Phew, us survivors will be able to enjoy our apocolypse with all this lovely power coming from the nuclear power stations then, I won't have to stop playing battlefield 3, although multiplayer won't be great unless zombies are any good at using a controller.
They will stop eventually.
Head nearer to the Hoover Dam. Supposed to be quite long term redunancy. A boat might be handy.
It wasn't forced on Scotland due to some political ideology against the Scottish, that is just SNP rhetoric, the decision makes perfect sense when you simply consider the operational viability of the site.
Whether you agree or not, Faslane is no more a target of nuclear attack than any of the other conventional and EWS bases in Scotland or indeed the UK in fact due to the way the SSBNs operate in politically unstable events, it would be strategically unviable to ignore the EWS and RAF bases in Scotland in favour of Faslane, so if being a primary target is what is really te issue, then the only answer is the removal of ALL strategically important Bases from Scotland, something you have debated against in the past.
You are allowing your opposition of Nuclear Deterents colour your objectivity on why Faslane was chosen. If it were to move risk to Scotland then, like I said ALL aspects of the nuclear deterent would be situated in Scotland, including the AWE and the refit and dismantling yards currently in Plymouth, which pose more risk to civilians, especially in peacetime, than the base at Faslane.
Not every decision made by Westminister is intentionally anti-Scottish Biohazard,
In this case it is simply that Faslane (HMNB Clyde) offered the best operationally and strategically viable site in the UK, that it is in Scotland is coinicidence.
Sheffield are you serious? Even the Germans hardly touched the place when it was an industrial heartland!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,309
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
It really doesn't.
Not to mention that Plymouth has had rumors of it being shut down for the last couple of years as there is a suggestion we don't need two naval bases on the south coast... I guess those school children that practice nuclear meltdown drills at their school close to the base would be happy though, does any school in scotland have to do that?...
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I never practiced nuclear meltdown drills at school and I was within a few miles of the base.
[TW]Fox;20565559 said:
It's one specific one that sits right on the edge of the dock.
EDIT: Scary stuff...
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/what_to_do_in_a_nuclear_emergency.pdf
More relevant:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Devonport-nuclear-spill-worst-1985/story-11692731-detail/story.html
Specifically the last comment, can't find anything more relevant but there was an article in the plymouth paper a few years ago abou *** too.
Last edited:
You know what, it's taken multiple threads, hundreds of posts, by dozens of members and finally, almost as an aside you've hit on why trying to debate anything about Scotland and independence with Biohazzard is an exercise in futility.
I didn't know that before, but your post made me look it up. I would hardly call that untouched would you?
Clydebank got similar damage and was for all intents and purposes flattened.
Interesting, I don't think we had much option of outperforming Germany on an industrial output in the middle of war - the war resulted largely because they shafted us in that respect. Primarily they bombed cities to demoralise us and try to get a submission.
Anyway what I was told is quite old now I would guess, but from a relatively reliable source.
Oh yeah, empty rhetoric. When it was announced that Britains Polaris was to be based in Scotland we also got an added “bonus” that the Yanks were to be given what was billed at the time as a permanent nuclear site at Holy Loch in exchange for giving the weapons to Westminster in the first place. That only ceased when the Soviet threat did.
So not only did we have British weapons for 'self defence' laying in Scottish waters, we also had offensive American nuclear arms just up the road as well.
Hit London first you say? Oddly they didn't end up in the Thames.
A Scottish phrase was coined by a clergyman during this period. "You cannot spend a dollar when you are dead". The huge demonstrations were ignored, and in came the missiles.
Again, I disagree. My information is coming from a ex RN CO who was based at Faslane. You will understand my having to be conservative in this respect, but he is of particular insight to Naval thinking in this respect having worked on the thing. Of personal concern to him was the hills surrounding filled with munitions in this scenario, but I am assured that if it happens I need not worry too much.
In any event, I've played too many strategy games man. If someone has nukes, I want to take them out as a priority.
Any amount of bluster is never going to remove this logic, or history. Look at the technical developments from the Cold War, that wasn't for convential arms it was for 'silo wars'.Do you think military planners when trying to take out threats are going to be thinking so long term as to consider a possible post nuclear attack refit of the enemies vessels? I doubt this, in any event these days if it happens we are all done for. Yet it doesn't change the past which was a potential fraction of what we face today in terms of force. Many of the refits took place in Rosyth anyway I believe.
That the people didn't want it is a coincidence as well. Shame.
Last edited:
You know what, it's taken multiple threads, hundreds of posts, by dozens of members and finally, almost as an aside you've hit on why trying to debate anything about Scotland and independence with Biohazzard is an exercise in futility.
Learnt to tie those laces yet?
Last edited:
you say this as if it were only Scotland that demonstrated and only Scotland that has Nuclear Weapons placed in it.....Greenham Common ring any bells?
And it is British Weapons in British waters.....Scotland had significant strategic importance during the Cold War, hence the placement. It was not an anti Scottish decision, it was one made due to operational and strategic importance.
Again, I disagree. My information is coming from a ex RN CO who was based at Faslane. You will understand my having to be conservative in this respect, but he is of particular insight to Naval thinking in this respect having worked on the thing. Of personal concern to him was the hills surrounding filled with munitions in this scenario, but I am assured that if it happens I need not worry too much.
In any event, I've played too many strategy games man. If someone has nukes, I want to take them out as a priority.
i'm afraid that your RN CO is not very conversant with Soviet era target priority then.One of the main targets in Scotland was in fact RAF Lossiemouth, also the then bomber command at RAF Machrihanish, equally the bomber commands at Lakenheath, Scampton etc...in England and If you think that simply having Faslane or Holy Loch in Scotland makes Scotland more of a target you are being very naive. Major first strike targets would include the Civilian Airports in Glasgow, Prestwick and Aberdeen. The Oil refineries would also be priority, not to mention Glen Douglas Munitions Depot and the nearby Glenmallen Jetty. This also doesn't include the various Army bases and EWS bases which again would be first strike priority. In England, Devonport, Portsmouth, Northwood, Cheltenham, Carrick, and the list goes on.
There were around 70-80 first Strike targets in the UK, it wasn't about shifting risk from England to Scotland, it was about strategic and operational viability and effectiveness.
i was refering to the modern peacetime refit and dismantling yards for Nuclear Subs at Devonport and the risk to the local populations with regard to the work carried out there.
Again, Scotland was not unique in opposing Nuclear Weapons.
Last edited:
Scotland is a country, it sat then and still sits in her waters now. Adding on the British Indentity or State does nothing to remove this when we sit within it.
Were the missiles placed on Greenham Common? The answer would be no. Petitions, protests, letters and demonstrations were all ignored. Every single council on the West Coast objected, every population in the locale objected in strong terms. Trade Unions, the Churches, scholars and some politicians objected verhemently. Unfortunately this was of little concern to pacifying "our" relationship with the United States and international prestige. That whole relationship itself was perverse, yet another indication of our decline.
You are? With all due respect, I'd rather listen to him.
The whole of Scotland was a target. Primarily the missiles were, they were most potent. Planes can be shot down, and arguably we were '****ing in the wind' in that repsect.
The UK's superflous involvement in the world stage in effect put Scotland in the front line in the Cold War. We could have done the sensible thing and sat down, and worked hard for our own prosperity without international pretence, distraction and cost.
Which depends on escalation. Invariably Scotland would by course of natural geography be wiped out first by it's mere involvement if UK wide destruction was the intent.
It's not quite the same anymore, is it? I mean the relative 'impact' of the weapons back were smaller and far less accurate - almost sloppy - but "city killers" none the less. These days it's far more likely, and chillingly, that it would be far more catastrophic. In any event, military procedure still dictates that serious threats are dealt with in the highest priority. At least we both acknowledge that in any soviet style threat, that is Scotland.
Castiel said:
Yet Scotland was unique in recieving Nuclear Weapons.
Hmm...I'm going to look at some figures. Feel free to tell me if any of my figures are wrong.
Solar power on the ground in the UK averages about 1000 KWh per square metre per year.
At 10% total efficiency, that's 100KWh per square metre per year.
The cost of generating electricity using conventional power stations is in the region of 8p/KWh. So 10% efficiency solar panels in the UK generate about £8 worth of electricity per square meter per year. Maybe £10, to be more generous.
That's not going to cover the cost of the cost of the system within its working life. Even if it remains working forever without any loss of efficiency, you'd probably be better off putting the money in savings instead.
I'll look at it from another angle:
Companies selling solar power kit and from advocates of it (i.e. I've chosen sources biased in favour of solar power in the UK) state that a fairly typical "3KW" setup (which will not supply 3KW) is generally stated to probably provide ~2500KWh per year in England.
That's maybe £250 worth of electricity.
The cost of having that system installed is about £12,000.
So it would take about 48 years to recover the cost. Assuming that the system worked for 48 years without any loss of efficiency at all (which is obviously not going to happen) and ignoring the loss of the interest that you could have got by putting the £12,000 in savings.
I am far from convinced that PV is anywhere close to paying for itself in its lifespan even in the south of England, let alone elsewhere in the UK. And that's with panels with efficiency far closer to 20% than the 10% figure you said was enough for PV to pay for itself here.
If you think I'm wrong, feel free to prove it. The key numbers are the amount of solar energy at the ground here, the efficiency of solar power systems commercially available today, the generating cost of electricity today and the cost of buying solar power systems today. I've stated the numbers I've used for those things. You have to prove that I'm out by at least a factor of 3.
Then there's the other issues that haven't been mentioned yet:
Solar power is wildly seasonal and variable, so even if we were able to generate enough from solar at some times, we'd still have to maintain other sources continually ready to pick up the slack when the weather is bad for solar, as well as every winter and, of course, every night.
Solar power from homes can't possibly supply a national grid regardless of how much it could generate. You can't run a national grid supplied by millions of very small-scale power stations none of which are under the control of the grid. Any kind of national grid requires controllable electricity generate in order to match supply to demand.
Nor can it reliably provide the home with power 24/7, so you can't have everyone off the grid and generating their own electricity. You still need the grid.
Finally, there's the scale of power issue that I've already mentioned. Solar panels might in a few decades drop so much in price that they're worth sticking all over the place and thus generate a lot of power by sheer scale. Nuclear fusion might in a few decades reliably have a higher energy output than input and if that happens there will be a massive superabundance of electricity, which will make many things possible, e.g. cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells - if you can generate 20 times as much electricity as you need, you don't need to care how much you lose by splitting hydrogen off from water, transporting it around and then passing it through a fuel cell to generate far less electricity than you used to get the hydrogen in the first place.
I'm still standing by my original position - it is not certain that renewables will improve so dramatically in the next ~40 years that nuclear fusion would be pointless. In fact, it's extremely unlikely if not downright impossible.
Has anyone actually argued this though? It is accepted by most that sufficient base load would need to be retained.
I think it would be unwise to wait to see if fusion happens, renewables make sense in the mean time. Not only which, but would continue to prove important moving into a fusion era and beyond. It is more likely than not that the technology you are talking about will continue to improve over its lifespan.
The argument I was replying to was that any research into fusion is pointless because within the next 40 years renewables would be supplying all electricity at little cost and with a large amount of spare capacity. Solar was then put forward as the solution in that time frame, then as being the solution right now, locally generated in the UK.
If someone is arguing that solar could become a useful minority part of UK electricity generation if it becomes cheap enough in the future, I'll agree with them. There is, for example, an initial prototype of transparent glass that is a PV panel. It's woefully inefficient, only about 1%, but development might get that up a bit and might get the price down to a similar level to normal glass. If those things happen, it would be worth making all the windows in all new builds from it and retrofitting it to existing buildings.
If someone is arguing that solar generated using CSP in southern Europe and northern Africa and transmitted across Europe by HVDC lines could provide a large part of UK requirements today at a viable cost, I'll agree with them. Technologically, at least. The politics are another story.
But photovoltaic solar being a cost-effective solution in the UK today? No. Renewables definitely becoming so good that it's pointless to continue fusion research? No.
I agree. There's a gap that needs filling between now and fusion, even if economic fusion does become possible in the expected timeframe. My point was that (i) we can't afford to dismiss fusion on the basis of optimistic predictions of massive improvements in renewables and (ii) PV solar generated in the UK doesn't cut it as the only or major component of the UK's power generation at the moment and is most unlikely to ever do so.
I think we need a variety of generating methods and a system flexible enough to use them all, unless some startling breakthrough occurs that is greatly superior in every way to every other method. Cold fusion, matter/anti-matter annihilation...dilithium crystals
