Battle lines drawn over Scotland’s energy future
MICHAEL SETTLE
and DAVID ROSS
The UK Government's declaration that it wants to expand Britain's nuclear capacity so it becomes the nation's new North Sea oil was derided by the SNP as "madness".
The debate over green energy intensified as Scottish and Southern Energy announced a big expansion on renewables with the prospect of three new hydroelectric projects in the Highlands.
In a speech in London to Unite, Britain's largest energy union, John Hutton, Westminster's Business Secretary, said his ambition was to make the UK "the number one place in the world for companies to do business in new nuclear".
Replacing Britain's existing capacity could create £20bn of new business and up to 100,000 new jobs. Yet Mr Hutton said the nuclear industry should go beyond just replacing the current stock of 23 reactors, which provide 20% of the UK's energy, to contribute a "significantly higher proportion" of the nation's energy needs.
The revival of nuclear power in Britain together with significant investment in renewables had "the potential to be the most significant opportunity for our energy economy since the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas," he added.
However, given that Alex Salmond's Government is the final planning authority in Scotland and is opposed to any new nuclear, Mr Hutton's ambitions of a "nuclear renaissance" will be confined to England and Wales.
Mike Weir, the SNP Energy Spokesman at Westminster, said the minister had "succumbed to a severe bout of March madness in proposing a massive expansion of nuclear power in the UK".
He claimed Gordon Brown's Government was becoming "increasingly obsessed with the illusion that nuclear power is the silver bullet' to tackle climate change", which was crazy given the problems associated with atomic power, such as the disposal of nuclear waste.
He added: "Rather than chase the illusion of a nuclear quick fix' the UK government needs to put serious effort into developing renewable resources. Thankfully, Scotland has an SNP government that will prevent this nuclear madness spreading north of the Border." The row broke as Scottish and Southern Energy said it planned to resurrect Scotland's hydro power programme with new schemes in the Highlands.
The company is currently building Britain's first big scheme for about 40 years, the 100 megawatt Glendoe hydropower station, deep beneath the mountains on Loch Ness-side.
It was widely viewed as the SSE's last project, but now it wants to increase its hydro generation by a further 110 megawatts.
A year ago, Chief Executive Ian Marchant suggested there could be three other possible but unnamed sites in the Highlands. In an interview yesterday he again floated the idea but stressed that for any to go ahead the planning system would need to change by putting the global issue of climate change ahead of local concerns for flora and fauna.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: isonomia, Lenzie on 12:38am Thu 27 Mar 08
What is all this talk of green energy? Hasn't anyone told the politicians that global warming stopped in 1998 and even the Met Office's own forecasts are so consistently disasterously wrong that it is almost impossible that this could happen by pure chance ... which is about as close as we'll get to 99% certainty that the theory of global warming is utter tripe!
What is all this talk of green energy? Hasn't anyone told the politicians that global warming stopped in 1998 and even the Met Office's own forecasts are so consistently disasterously wrong that it is almost impossible that this could happen by pure chance ... which is about as close as we'll get to 99% certainty that the theory of global warming is utter tripe!
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 12:44am Thu 27 Mar 08
"Replacing Britain's existing capacity could create £20bn of new business and up to 100,000 new jobs"
Nothing for Scotland!
100,000 jobs will be in private sector.
20 billion investment private money , no chance of 2 billion to scotland under the barnett formula.
Go SNP!
"Replacing Britain's existing capacity could create £20bn of new business and up to 100,000 new jobs"
Nothing for Scotland!
100,000 jobs will be in private sector.
20 billion investment private money , no chance of 2 billion to scotland under the barnett formula.
Go SNP!
Posted by: Boabby, Vancouver Island on 3:45am Thu 27 Mar 08
Had something to say, but having read the first two comments, I'll stay clear till I see proof that some more discerning readers are interested......
Had something to say, but having read the first two comments, I'll stay clear till I see proof that some more discerning readers are interested......
Posted by: ryeoman, fife on 9:00am Thu 27 Mar 08
Brown and crew can create even more nuclear jobs by transferring polaris to the thames.
Brown and crew can create even more nuclear jobs by transferring polaris to the thames.
Posted by: GML, right here on 9:13am Thu 27 Mar 08
No doubt many of the jobs 'created' will be for Labour ex-ministers, their relatives and cronies. Andrew Brown, brother of Gordon, already works for EDF, largest nuclear generator in the world, main supplier of electricity to London, and incidentally controlled by the French state so his new (right wing) pal Sarkozy is ultimately Gordon's brother's boss. Funny old world, eh?
To put this into context, Scotland doesn't need nuclear power, as we have outstanding resources per capita of wind, rain, tides, currents, coal, gas and oil. Even Labour in the Scottish parliament, not normally a group you associate with the highest standards of thinking, has managed to work this out, and oppose new nuclear power plants in Scotland. Denmark, Norway and Ireland don't have any nuclear stations and aren't going to build any either.
But you can be pretty confident that Labour ministers in Westminster will speak out in favour of it again and again. Why on earth would they do this? [italic]See first paragraph[/italic] .
No doubt many of the jobs 'created' will be for Labour ex-ministers, their relatives and cronies. Andrew Brown, brother of Gordon, already works for EDF, largest nuclear generator in the world, main supplier of electricity to London, and incidentally controlled by the French state so his new (right wing) pal Sarkozy is ultimately Gordon's brother's boss. Funny old world, eh?
To put this into context, Scotland doesn't need nuclear power, as we have outstanding resources per capita of wind, rain, tides, currents, coal, gas and oil. Even Labour in the Scottish parliament, not normally a group you associate with the highest standards of thinking, has managed to work this out, and oppose new nuclear power plants in Scotland. Denmark, Norway and Ireland don't have any nuclear stations and aren't going to build any either.
But you can be pretty confident that Labour ministers in Westminster will speak out in favour of it again and again. Why on earth would they do this?
See first paragraph .
Posted by: oldmack, Scotland on 9:16am Thu 27 Mar 08
Question; how many of the nuclear plants in the UK are above the 3meter high water tide line, proposed in the rise in tidal levels due to global warming?
Question; in global warming the sea temperature is rising, what is the heat energy being poured into the rivers and sea around our coasts from nuclear plants?
Answers on a post card to,
Gordon Brown
10 Downing Street
London
Question; how many of the nuclear plants in the UK are above the 3meter high water tide line, proposed in the rise in tidal levels due to global warming?
Question; in global warming the sea temperature is rising, what is the heat energy being poured into the rivers and sea around our coasts from nuclear plants?
Answers on a post card to,
Gordon Brown
10 Downing Street
London
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 11:49am Thu 27 Mar 08
we need wind to power the machines, to be placed in north queensferry. a key area whre wind levels are high.
step forward gordon brown, enough wind to keep the east of scotland going, from both ends.
we need wind to power the machines, to be placed in north queensferry. a key area whre wind levels are high.
step forward gordon brown, enough wind to keep the east of scotland going, from both ends.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 11:59am Thu 27 Mar 08
only one good hutton in england at present and it isn't this one.
only one good hutton in england at present and it isn't this one.
Posted by: teamdroid on 12:38pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]GML[/bold] wrote:
No doubt many of the jobs 'created' will be for Labour ex-ministers, their relatives and cronies. Andrew Brown, brother of Gordon, already works for EDF, largest nuclear generator in the world, main supplier of electricity to London, and incidentally controlled by the French state so his new (right wing) pal Sarkozy is ultimately Gordon's brother's boss. Funny old world, eh?
To put this into context, Scotland doesn't need nuclear power, as we have outstanding resources per capita of wind, rain, tides, currents, coal, gas and oil. Even Labour in the Scottish parliament, not normally a group you associate with the highest standards of thinking, has managed to work this out, and oppose new nuclear power plants in Scotland. Denmark, Norway and Ireland don't have any nuclear stations and aren't going to build any either.
But you can be pretty confident that Labour ministers in Westminster will speak out in favour of it again and again. Why on earth would they do this? [italic]See first paragraph[/italic] .
[/quote] It goes further than Gordon Brown's brother, of course. Brian Wilson, former Energy Minister, is a director of AMEC Nuclear Ltd. Add in other blasts from the Labour past like Jack Cunningham, and the current links of the planning Minister Yvette Cooper, and you'll see how far the nuclear industry's claws are in the UK Labour government.
The Nuclearspin website does a very good job of keeping track of the nuclear industry lobby.
GML wrote:
No doubt many of the jobs 'created' will be for Labour ex-ministers, their relatives and cronies. Andrew Brown, brother of Gordon, already works for EDF, largest nuclear generator in the world, main supplier of electricity to London, and incidentally controlled by the French state so his new (right wing) pal Sarkozy is ultimately Gordon's brother's boss. Funny old world, eh?
To put this into context, Scotland doesn't need nuclear power, as we have outstanding resources per capita of wind, rain, tides, currents, coal, gas and oil. Even Labour in the Scottish parliament, not normally a group you associate with the highest standards of thinking, has managed to work this out, and oppose new nuclear power plants in Scotland. Denmark, Norway and Ireland don't have any nuclear stations and aren't going to build any either.
But you can be pretty confident that Labour ministers in Westminster will speak out in favour of it again and again. Why on earth would they do this? See first paragraph .
It goes further than Gordon Brown's brother, of course. Brian Wilson, former Energy Minister, is a director of AMEC Nuclear Ltd. Add in other blasts from the Labour past like Jack Cunningham, and the current links of the planning Minister Yvette Cooper, and you'll see how far the nuclear industry's claws are in the UK Labour government.
The Nuclearspin website does a very good job of keeping track of the nuclear industry lobby.
Posted by: Thyme Kelpie on 12:39pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Think perhaps that the phrase 'global warming' should change to 'global climate change'
Why?
Because warming and cooling have similar symptoms to start with and of that there is no doubt - the climate is having a collywobble.
Re energy
Is it right to foist a method of electricity generation on to an area which does not need it and does not want it?
Think perhaps that the phrase 'global warming' should change to 'global climate change'
Why?
Because warming and cooling have similar symptoms to start with and of that there is no doubt - the climate is having a collywobble.
Re energy
Is it right to foist a method of electricity generation on to an area which does not need it and does not want it?
Posted by: Deasún, Glasgow on 1:38pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Same old isonomia, Lenzie, some old nonsense. Global warming didn't stop in 1998. More specifically, 1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.
Same old isonomia, Lenzie, some old nonsense. Global warming didn't stop in 1998. More specifically, 1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 2:53pm Thu 27 Mar 08
What a prospect! England and Wales - mindful of the SNP's wish to take Scotland out of the union - go ahead and build French-designed nuclear reactors in the Lake District and the Brecon Beacons.
Meanwhile, Scots are blowing on their windmills.
What a prospect! England and Wales - mindful of the SNP's wish to take Scotland out of the union - go ahead and build French-designed nuclear reactors in the Lake District and the Brecon Beacons.
Meanwhile, Scots are blowing on their windmills.
Posted by: Graham, Larbert on 7:11pm Thu 27 Mar 08
If disaster strikes, and Labour were to regain a position of power in the Scottish Government,..Just watch how quickly the two existing Nuclear licenced sites, at Calderhall and Chappelcross (once the old decommissioned bits are out the way ) are earmarked for a new reactor, ....to supply the north of England !
Planning would be fast-tracked for JOBS !, ENGLISH JOBS.
Better get your local "Action Groups" ready.
If disaster strikes, and Labour were to regain a position of power in the Scottish Government,..Just watch how quickly the two existing Nuclear licenced sites, at Calderhall and Chappelcross (once the old decommissioned bits are out the way ) are earmarked for a new reactor, ....to supply the north of England !
Planning would be fast-tracked for JOBS !, ENGLISH JOBS.
Better get your local "Action Groups" ready.
Posted by: Maxgen, Glasgow on 7:31am Fri 28 Mar 08
SNP says that nuclear power is madness. The UK cannot cannot be supplied with 100% renewable energy sourced in Scotland. They have said that Scotland does not need nuclear, but the rest of the UK does. What is good for Scotland may not be good for the rest of the UK. The SNP should display abit more maturity and acknowledge that fact.
Scotland used to build presure vessels for nuclear reactors in Renfrew. I don't know if they can still do that anymore. Pity.
SNP says that nuclear power is madness. The UK cannot cannot be supplied with 100% renewable energy sourced in Scotland. They have said that Scotland does not need nuclear, but the rest of the UK does. What is good for Scotland may not be good for the rest of the UK. The SNP should display abit more maturity and acknowledge that fact.
Scotland used to build presure vessels for nuclear reactors in Renfrew. I don't know if they can still do that anymore. Pity.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (14)
