BBC Reporting Scotland last night offered a one-sided piece on nuclear power restarting in Scotland and, in particular – the new small modular reactors or SMRs.
The piece opened and was dominated by, supporters of the idea with a token Scottish Government comment at the end but none of the real concerns.
The stupid first, then the horrific risks Labour will accept on your behalf just in the hope of winning votes. All of these comments can be backed up by hard evidence at:
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/?s=SMR
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/?s=gas
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/?s=electricity
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/?s=cancer
The stupid:
We produce four times the natural gas we consume and transfer huge amounts of electricity to the rest of the UK – we don’t need nuclear.
There are only two SMRs running in Russia and China – not tried and tested.
US companies are abandoning plans for them – too costly, too unreliable.
The risks:
They are less likely to meltdown but are more leaky producing more waste.
They rely on a richer blend of uranium to run and Russia has a near monopoly on that.
The waste takes thousands of years to become safe.
The security risks from terrorists and organised crime are already high with just a few big ones to protect. You’d need many of these small ones and so much difficult to protect.
There are proven higher risks of childhood leukaemia and breast cancer among mature women, especially, for those living near nuclear sites and Scotland already has the highest cancer rates in Europe.
All claims backed up by peer-reviewed research at the above links.
Talking-up Scotland 
Labour will be voted out. Get rid of Trident.
Scotland losing £Billions because of Brexit. Redundant weaponry, HS2, Hinkley Point etc.
LikeLike
Just a labour Political Party Broadcast we should not be surprised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SMRs are ‘safe’ because they won’t be built anywhere near a Labour MP’s home !
SMRs are economical because nuclear donors to the Labour Party have said so !
SMRs are needed because Scotland’s Renewables are not producing profit for the Nuclear Industry !
LikeLike
Aye, it is amazing how often BBC Scotland has platformed this crap over an as yet unproven nuclear design to viewers hundreds of miles away from where leccy is in short supply, and where ideal soils for storing the nuclear waste underground persist….
As if we don’t have enough of London’s nuclear junk berthed in Rosyth etc…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fired off another complaint to these nakedly obvious Slab campaigning broadcasters. Beyond disgusting.
p.s. I’m the same age as you John but I’m extremely handsome and will gets loads of Valentines next month….. (I wish).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Install Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Scotland and its domestic energy system will be fixed for the future. Simple! This seems to be the British Labour Party’s proposition. Are we supposed blindly to trust in the good sense and heart-felt concern for Scotland’s future of Unionist politicians?
This should be the dawn of an era of prosperity for Scotland’s 5.5 million people, founded solidly on our good fortune of having indigenous sources of renewable energy way above projected domestic demand. But lack of agency within the Union may lead to outcomes optimal for other places within the UK (specifically England), but not Scotland. What follows are some (probably very naive!) musings!
Scotland already has substantial installed capacity for onshore wind generation with more in development and planning. Onshore wind farms are controversial, seen by some local communities and others as despoiling the landscape: locally the issue can become politically toxic. What trade off between generation and landscape detriment is acceptable? How much more onshore capacity does Scotland need? Does this not need to ascertained at an overall system level? After all, a lot of capacity in (more acceptable to voters?) offshore wind generation is being installed in order to supply England! Which government presently has the relevant agency here and in whose interests is it used?
Offshore Scotland already has much installed capacity for offshore wind generation and there is a huge amount more in development and planning, as I understand it to a level far beyond Scotland’s projected domestic demand. Offshore wind farms are controversial, with the wild capture fishing industry and with those concerned with the protection of seabirds. What is the optimal scale of renewable energy generation to meet Scotland’s projected domestic needs? What should the balance between onshore and offshore sources be? Which government presently has the relevant agency and in whose interests is it used?
How much electricity generation offshore in excess of domestic need should Scotland be aiming for, in order to contribute into the electricity system of mainland Europe and/or England and to gain from reciprocal arrangements? (Of course, if such contributions to Europe and England are made by an independent Scotland they will be actual ‘exports’. The net trading position will among other things impact investor sentiment regarding the attractiveness and resilience of Scotland’s economy.) And again, which government presently has the relevant agency here and in whose interests is it used?
In moving forwards, what is the optimal rate to meet Scotland’s own needs during the transition away from utilising indigenous offshore oil & gas reserves and prospective resources? How much reliance on imports (if any) – at what scale and for how long – would be optimal for Scotland relative to indigenous supply as it transitions? Which government presently has the relevant agency and in whose interests is it used?
In ensuring a resilient domestic energy system for the long term, in addition to the factors above, consider: (i) attractiveness and feasibility of gaining substantial tidal energy generation; (ii) attractiveness and feasibility of using energy storage (various technology options) to secure domestic energy system resilience; – how much storage capacity, using what technologies, where; (iii) attractive and feasibility of using carbon capture and storage technology to support fossil fuel dependent domestic industry through transition. In all of these issues there is the reality of private investors having critical agency over investment decisions but which government sets the policy/strategic framework, has the major power over market incentives, and over market regulation and resource pricing? Whilst in the Union it’s NOT Scotland’s.
And in addition to all of the above, there remains issues of how best to finance and optimise public investment in energy saving schemes (business, public sector, domestic) and in community and household energy generation schemes. Can these be considered in isolation or do they need to be considered within the whole ‘system’? Which government presently has the relevant agency and in whose interests is it used?
You may be able to identify many more ‘issues’.
For Labour there is seemingly just one energy issue we voters in Scotland should concern ourselves with at the polling station in 2026 (and it’s not price!) – the imperative for small modular nuclear reactors to be installed in Scotland. According to Unionist politicians, the other energy issues facing Scotland can and should be set aside. Strategic matters such as these are for Westminster to decide in the interests of the UK (effectively of energy-constrained England)!
LikeLiked by 3 people
On the issues you raised Stewart – Tidal generation is still the most expensive renewable generator/kWh, but that would substantially change with scale, much as it did with wind after first gaining interest – Compared to the real cost of nuclear even now, it’s a pittance, hence ‘the powers that be’ aka via HMG, putting every obstacle possible in the way of further development, and instead promoting nuclear on back of the dunkelflaute illusion…
On battery storage, it’s very much more than as implied – Whereas for decades the ‘grid’ (made in England) has relied on gas generators to bring the grid back into ‘balance’ over minutes at enormous cost to the consumer, those ‘batteries’ can correct it in milliseconds – With little to no fanfare, these ‘batteries’ have been quietly fanning out across England further undermining O&Gs historic monopoly, further annoying the investor class.
By now it’s fairly obvious who controls all to do with energy, and curiously even energy conservation as Westminster plays colonial head office delaying funding which SG can re-purpose – I do realise I’ve bored everyone to death over my 70% energy savings, but what’s to stop say the current WC/Minister Shanks promoting 70% savings on people’s bills by tomorrow funding a national draughtproofing and insulation program, instead of promoting an as yet experimental nuclear design to make up the energy shortfall in Kent, Essex etc, etc..?
Nobody in England wants nuclear either, but they’re stuck with it as the future solution due to a lack of strategic vision at Whitehall to benefit of the populace for decades…
That’s why 90% of England, 60+% of Scotland, 40% of Wales and 75% of NI want to leave little England…
LikeLike
Down near the bottom of the piece on the BBC Website it states.
“The UK government has not yet secured a site for storing the waste. It says that the nuclear waste from ALL the SMR’s across the UK will be buried at one site”
Well you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work why they are desperate to put some SMR’s in Scotland. It would give them the perfect excuse to use Scotland as a dump for all the waste.
It would be difficult for the Scottish Government to refuse to accept the waste if we had accepted to have SMR’s so well done the SNP and Greens for refusing to accept nuclear.
WE DON’T NEED IT
WE DON’T WANT IT
WE’RE NOT TAKING YOUR WASTE
Jim
LikeLiked by 3 people
A colonial broadcaster promotes propaganda by a colonial political party, over nuclear power which is required in the south of England, but the BBC/Labour argue should be sited in Scotland.
Questions BBC North Brit did NOT ask?
Who wants it built, why have they not applied so far, and because no one has applied, why is this a story?
What reactor type does the unknown company propose?
What share work should Scottish companies and workers expect, given the very small percentage of the budget/work Scottish companies have gained at Hinckley point…..SMRs would be even worse as the plant would be built in a factory (in England?), and assembled by a specialist workforce. Hint…it will not be a local plumber.
Parameters of the timescale involved in the build?
What would it cost? Ballpark figure would do.
Levelized price of the electricity per KWh, with all costs accounted for?
Cost of 24/7 security?
Waste disposal (one of the main reasons the Brits insist Scotland be involved). SMRs produce more waste and are more expensive per KWh than the big plants. The BBC totally failed its audience over its lack of journalistic norms, and its bias toward Labour.
gavinochiltree
LikeLiked by 1 person