I just came across a Telegraph article detailing some findings from a June meeting of Salmond's personally appointed team of economists, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA).
It makes interesting reading indeed. They have recommended that he seek an independent assessment of nuclear energy before dismissing it. The article confuses, though. It says "Mr Salmond attempted to dismiss the challenges ... indicating they will not alter his thinking", making you think 'What a stubborn lad'. Later in the article it says "Salmond last night welcomed the council's intervention, claiming an assessment of the data will bear out his claim that nuclear power is unnecessary."
Anyway, aside from the confusion what Salmond is saying is that if we have this independent review, he'll come up trumps. Is he on his high horse a little bit too soon? His finance minister Monsieur Swinney reckons it will take action to meet the SNP's target of 80% CO2 emissions reduction by 2050. But this is not really the issue at hand - we're looking at how our electricity is going to be supplied... you know, how our lights are going to be kept on.
Salmond believes that renewable energy will come to the rescue. An article on 13th August 2008 he held a reception in Banff. In a speech to representatives of Scotland's energy sector he suggested: "We are making great strides in becoming a world leader in renewable energy and have the potential to generate 10 times Scotland's peak demand for electricity." I've not been able to find an article, study or anything similar to suggest that, so I can't confirm these claims.
Reported on the 10th August 2008 in the Scotsman, business groups warned "that Salmond's target of generating 50% of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 does not "stand up to scrutiny". Graham Bell, spokesman for the Scottish and Edinburgh Chambers of Commerce, warned that although the Government's renewables plan is laudable, it does not appear to take account of the unreliability of some alternative forms of energy generation.
Salmond announced in his speech to the energy buffs that "in the last few weeks, we have announced a new biomass plant at Markinch". If there was any renewable energy source that was deemed the least reliable and the least cost effective (in terms of the horrible detrimental effect on food prices), it would be biomass. Scientists all over the world have condemned biomass. It's in a VERY early stage of it's scientific establishment, and whilst there are certainly good prospects they are a long, long way away. Wind power is fairly well established now with newer technologies coming in to increase efficiency etc. However, with its dependence on the weather you typically get a 30% on-time out of it. Wave and tidal power ideas are still, like biomass, in quite early developmental stages. It's a great plan to get on board them early doors and plan ahead to use them, but it's a very bad plan to consider them as Scotland's main energy source any time in the near future.
Nuclear power has its merits - in terms of our CO2 targets, it will help. The main causes of CO2 production when developing nuclear power is based in the construction of the plant, the mining of uranium/plutionium and the transport of the uranium/plutonium. It's the most efficient energy producing process in the world. Storage of waste is the big issue.
If you're not too concerned about the CO2 targets, bolster up fossil fuel burning power plants.
Posts
Service will be resumed as soon as possible…
6 hours ago
2 comments:
Check the Scotsman today and the article where Eon say that wind farms are worse than useless. They claim that the back up required from coal fired power stations will cost £100 Billion!
What hardly anyone ever talks about is saving electricity. Why for instance do advertising hoardings and signs get left on al night? Turn 'em off at 2 a.m. Every house in Scotland should have it's roof space double lagged - by law. Instead of subsidising wind farms and pouring millions into the pockets of landowners and frequently foreign owned wind power companies put the money there.
Hah. The science behind that peak winter electricity demand sounds spot on to me and it makes complete sense. The arguments from the WWF Scotland's director and Friends of the Earth Scotland based on E.On's alternative agenda [because they want to build coal-powered stations] are a bit silly. Even if we have 20%+ of our power relying on renewables, we'll still need other power stations in order to counter the effects of decommissioned nuclear plants and such.
But you're right. There's need to be a much bigger focus on saving electricty. We've had a certain level of interest in saving electricity - everyone thinks about buying Energy Saving Bulbs, people are using solar panels on their homes and such. There needs to be a bigger push though. It would help the SNP too: reduced demand will mean that renewables can be relied on a little more.
I think the overall message at the end of the day is: save more electricity and don't rely on renewables!
Post a Comment