tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post9136941741610636745..comments2023-05-01T16:14:04.382+01:00Comments on Scots and Independent: UnderreactingRichard Thomsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-37726945126453258612007-06-13T11:11:00.000+01:002007-06-13T11:11:00.000+01:00Hardly wishful thinking, but even wishful thinking...Hardly wishful thinking, but even wishful thinking is still often preferable to binary thinking. <BR/><BR/>I wasn't suggesting replacing nuclear with windpower on its own. Not even the most avid supporters of the technology advocate trying to achieve 50% of output from wind. After all, even nuclear only accounts for 35% of total Scottish output (not 50%). <BR/><BR/>That's why I mentioned hydro and other conventional sources, though I might also have mentioned CHP, biomass and microgeneration as well. So, while you're presenting a nice straw man to blow over (or not), the false choice you try to present between wind/nuclear doesn't affect the 'eggs in one basket' argument one whit.<BR/><BR/>No commercial nuclear outfit wants to build in Scotland anyway. The reasons? They know they can't compete with other sources in Scotland (including renewables) without huge subsidy, and the transmission losses are too high to get the power 'profitably' to where they can sell it in the south of England. It's much easier for them just to build any new stations in the south where there's less public hostility to the idea but more importantly, where the stations will be closer to the markets they are designed to serve.<BR/><BR/>My hostility to nuclear is on economic and long-term environmental grounds. For so long as there are cheaper and safer alternatives, we should be using them where we can.Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-79397304713804493422007-06-13T09:59:00.000+01:002007-06-13T09:59:00.000+01:00"Point is, there's usually wind blowing somewhere...."Point is, there's usually wind blowing somewhere."<BR/><BR/>Nice wishful thinking.<BR/><BR/>Let's do some arithmetic.<BR/><BR/>If 50% of our generation capacity were wind-power, and the wind was not blowing across Scotland (even though it's a huge continent-sized country with vastly different weather happening across it at all times, of course), there'd be a damn sight more than a 9% drop in our generation capacity.<BR/><BR/>This particular argument against nuclear is laughable - it just points up the much greater problem with wind power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-23949110054058232752007-06-12T01:05:00.000+01:002007-06-12T01:05:00.000+01:00Of course they're not. Point is, there's usually w...Of course they're not. <BR/><BR/>Point is, there's usually wind blowing somewhere. And when it fails to blow past a windfarm, you tend not to lose such a large percentage of total output with little idea of when it will come back on stream, as has happened twice recently at Hunterston.<BR/><BR/>We need a mix of generation. For a whole host of reasons, we don't need more nuclear stations as part of that.Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-61591037681606499042007-06-12T00:36:00.000+01:002007-06-12T00:36:00.000+01:00Yeah... Windfarms are immune to unplanned reductio...Yeah... Windfarms are immune to unplanned reductions in output, after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com