Tuesday, May 29, 2007
SCOTSMAN LETTER
Letter in the Scotsman today on nuclear power. Minor editing in the 1st 2 paragraphs which tightens it up but the last 2 were removed, which I think was a pity. As you will see this was running parallel to my last post.
"Jim Mather's recent letter (23rd May) said that nuclear was "neither wanted nor needed in Scotland" which is pretty clear - currently.
[However] in a recent speech his commitment to avoiding blackouts is even more clear, He asks for ideas without preconditions & absolutely opposes the option of not building sufficient capacity to replace our ageing generators [correctly describing that as "ridiculous". It seems to me that] if those who know make it clear that the alternatives ARE nuclear power or blackouts then, however reluctantly, the SNP would have to choose the former.
[They can, perhaps, put off the choice a few years by extending Hunterston's life but, since it takes a minimum of 4 years to build a reactor & Hunterston is due to close in 2011 this is merely stopping the clock at 5 to midnight.
It is the duty of those who know to say boldly that without new nuclear we ARE going to face the loss of 50% of our capacity. That massive blackouts & deaths will be inevitable. The SNP's door may not be open to nuclear but they have specifically committed themselves to not allowing blackouts. It is up to the supporters of nuclear to prove, at least beyond reasonable doubt that we cannot rely on windmills nor other renewables, mostly not even at the prototype stage to replace 50% of our power without a scientific breakthrough in storage capacity, in a few years. The difference between the 3% windmills provide & the 50% we are about to lose is so stark that there is little room now for doubt of a reasonable nature" ]
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig
"Jim Mather's recent letter (23rd May) said that nuclear was "neither wanted nor needed in Scotland" which is pretty clear - currently.
[However] in a recent speech his commitment to avoiding blackouts is even more clear, He asks for ideas without preconditions & absolutely opposes the option of not building sufficient capacity to replace our ageing generators [correctly describing that as "ridiculous". It seems to me that] if those who know make it clear that the alternatives ARE nuclear power or blackouts then, however reluctantly, the SNP would have to choose the former.
[They can, perhaps, put off the choice a few years by extending Hunterston's life but, since it takes a minimum of 4 years to build a reactor & Hunterston is due to close in 2011 this is merely stopping the clock at 5 to midnight.
It is the duty of those who know to say boldly that without new nuclear we ARE going to face the loss of 50% of our capacity. That massive blackouts & deaths will be inevitable. The SNP's door may not be open to nuclear but they have specifically committed themselves to not allowing blackouts. It is up to the supporters of nuclear to prove, at least beyond reasonable doubt that we cannot rely on windmills nor other renewables, mostly not even at the prototype stage to replace 50% of our power without a scientific breakthrough in storage capacity, in a few years. The difference between the 3% windmills provide & the 50% we are about to lose is so stark that there is little room now for doubt of a reasonable nature" ]
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig
