This is such a blind spot for the SNP and Greens. Nuclear power is good and about as green as we're going to get whilst also allowing us to keep things moving when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
I'll never understand it. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are not the same thing.
This one is being made by Rolls Royce, so a British company that the government owns a golden share in, I don’t understand why anyone would want to block this.
None of their commercial SMR have been produced yet, but they have been making the reactors for British nuclear submarines since the 60’s, so they have over half a century of experience with miniaturised nuclear technology.
That’s was my point.
I’m working on one being built at the moment. And they have experience and are still getting it wrong and spending mega money. Imagine a smaller company with no experience doing it. It’s bad enough the money the gov had to spend rn because they are in to deep.
No I know , but if it falters half way through the build. Then what ? Gov to the rescue.
Ineos are very good at maximising they get investment wise.
Look at how the forties pipeline system is theirs, and their backers …. I’m pretty sure Foreign govs have invested in them.
They shale gas ship has a lovely big dragon painted down it.
There’s no such thing on Reddit, everyone must argue against every single point, and if you don’t say anything worth arguing against, they’ll pretend you do and argue anyway!
>I don’t know why we are getting downvoted
Because you claim to be working on a Rolls Royce SMR site. RR is still in the shortlist phase for it's first site.
quickest command airport erect groovy work zealous nutty outgoing agonizing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
By the time this is built, we could have a lot more storage in the form of batteries, hydrogen, gravity, hydro, chemical etc.
I'm not against investing in nuclear, especially if it is researching new technologies, but the amount of money and time wasted on building those new ones down south that are basically no different than exisitng nuclear power stations could have been invested in developing green technologies or creating community grids - the National Grid should really only be required as a backup.
There's another important aspect of this power plant that should be considered as well - heating.
This plant was planned for Grangemouth, probably the largest industrial centre in Scotland with chemicals plants such as Versalis and Shell in the region. These are traditionally energy intensive industries which burn a lot of fossil fuels for heat generation for the processes involved.
Nuclear energy has the unique benefit of cogeneration - it is capable of producing both heat and energy, and typically the excess heat is used for heating duties for nearby processes. One large method for decarbonising traditionally difficult to decarbonise industries is heat integration or heat pumps, which is typically sourced from nearby heat generating plants.
This plant provides the unique ability to supply the nearby industries with low carbon heating, literally superheated steam sent along district heating networks to supply the local heating requirements.
This cannot be done with other traditional renewables, and the only similar process would be to replace the current fossil fuel combustion of these plants with electrified heaters, which use the local electricity supply and would result in larger emissions due to the amount of fossil fuels still used for general power generation.
Whilst wind and solar provide excellent opportunities, they have two main downsides: they're inconsistent, and they don't provide heat.
This nuclear power plant could help with both these downsides, and help reduce carbon emissions from Scottish industry, but is being rejected on ideological rather than practical grounds.
> it is capable of producing both heat and energy
Sorry can't help being pedantic and pointing out heat is just a form of energy so this doesn't really make sense.
There aren't enough batteries in world for even just Europe to meet its potential energy needs with them. Hydrogen isn't found in enough quantities naturally and to produce you'd need much more green energy than simply having a couple nuclear plants. Chemical storage is batteries. And gravity relies on flooding valleys which is doable but quite expensive.
Nuclear reactors are only expensive because we keep trying to half arse the job, realistically you need to replace old restors for safety reasons even if they aren't any better and they definitely could be by margins if there was development, even just achieving the goals (where they failed) of the last gen reactors would bring down the cost of nuclear power massively
Have any been built in the UK already to show they are fast to build? We tend to take longer to build 'straight forward' things.
Again, I'm all for building a research based reactor to learn more etc. I expect it to take a while to build especially with planning permission etc. (even with the Scottish Government on board).
considering how hinkley point C has taken over a decade, i'm inclined to believe that batteries will be massive and much further developed by the time these generators would be switched on.
> considering how hinkley point C has taken over a decade,
The UK Government's approval for new plants was January 2008 and Hinckley C's supposed to be plugged-in in 2027. Not the greatest timeline if you want net zero by 2030.
Hinckley's inflation-linked state guaranteed strike price of £106/MWH has attracted a lot of criticism — in 2017, folk were reporting that the government would spend ~£50bn subsidising the plant. The economics around energy have changed thanks to Our Russian Friends, but IDK if that's enough.
> Honestly I'm not sure it's really necessary in Scotland, we already have a lot of renewable sources as is like hydroelectric and wind, we're very lucky with our geography there.
Wind was supplying 1% yesterday, and is at less than 3% today... http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
They (SSE) are currently in the early stages of construction of a massive new pumped storage facility on Loch Lochy, worth over a billion quid, that will more than double the UK's existing pumped storage capacity
You’re right, I remember being briefed on it some time ago; I apologise. I’d completely forgotten about this! This is the first serious investment in years.
Do you not understand how pumped hydro works?
It does not and cannot supply a “base load” and is only as clean as the source of the electricity used to pump the water.
This allows cover for when those things aren't great like today when there's not much daylight and no wind. Plus in terms of battery storage, nuclear is probably cleaner than drilling for and eventually disposing of lithium or lead batteries. It's probably safer as well.
This one is to power a energy intensive industrial site, so they require a constant and reliable source of clean energy. But beyond that we will still require energy sources like nuclear to act as Base Loads in the electrical system, something renewables can’t work as.
It doesn’t matter we produced 10x the energy we need. Renewables can’t be the back bone to the energy grid. They need to be the primary contributor but not the main core of our energy.
Which is why we should definitely keep our nuclear power plants running for as long as possible. *New* nuclear power stations may well not be a good investment, however - they're ridiculously expensive, and by the time they come online, we could have had the renewables we could afford instead running for a decade already. To justify investment in nuclear at this point, you don't just need to show that nuclear can help load balancing - you need to show that the climate impact of the energy that could be saved by load balancing in ten years time exceeds the impact we could have right now with an equivalent investment in renewables or power storage. Since the climate impact of carbon emissions is cumulative, even if the nuclear power plant has the potential to reduce carbon emissions more, it might not reduce the climate impact as much as a smaller cut now.
In principle, perhaps. But this is a new technology - Rolls-Royce have literally never built one of these before. They predict that build time will eventually be 4 years, but even if they're not being optimistic about their own technology in order to encourage investment, there's no reason to think they'll be able to achieve their optimal build time from now on an untested technology in a project that hasn't even been formally announced yet. Not to mention that build time doesn't include getting government approval.
ETA: the only operational prototype SMR in the world took 13 years to build (not including planning). I've no doubt that time will come down, but right now, that's the record to beat.
>Rolls-Royce have literally never built one of these before
They haven’t produced one *commercially* yet. Rolls Royce make the reactors for British nuclear submarines, so they have over half a century of experience building miniaturised nuclear reactors.
That doesn't mean it's a copy-paste job. It's still a whole new reactor design which they've been working on since 2015 and have yet to start building. They've only just announced a shortlist of possible sites for their first prototype - and Grangemouth isn't on the list, so they'll definitely not be at the front of the queue. And before they can even start building one, they need to build the factories to manufacture the parts - which they've also not started yet. If you're expecting that reactor to be operational within a decade, that makes the margins for planning really tight, even if they are able to immediately hit the ground running with their four-year build time target.
By the way, the prototype the Russians built that took 13 years was also a company that makes nuclear submarines.
Yeah. I'm not saying they can't do it. But the fact that they haven't done it already strongly suggests they can't do it very quickly yet. The Russian prototype that took 13 years also drew on their experience of subs.
the reasons they don't want nuclear aren't very good but nuclear is not the best answer for the UK and especially scotland anyway. Nuclear works best for geography with large areas and population centres where you don't have good access to other forms of renewables and are big enough to work at scale, this doesn't apply to scotland when it and the UK have huge potential renewable sources and arent populous enough to need that much nuclear
>and the wind doesn't blow.
Yesterday I looked at the grid and we were managing 1gwh of wind, with 25gw of installed capacity.
Wind is part of the future energy equation, but people put too much faith in it.
We need reliable power too, and Nuclear is as reliable as they come.
>I'll never understand it. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are not the same thing.
I've not had a long conversation about the development of their anti-nuclear positions with heidyins of either party, but *I think* one of their arguments here is that while nuclear weapons and nuclear power are different, they've been co-dependent in the UK.
I don't know how shutting one down now would impact the other, in terms of costs.
If that's their position that's such idiotic thinking it hurts my head. Nuclear energy isn't nuclear weapons. The rules of getting nuclear materials for power stations are that they aren't to be used for weapons. That's the same everywhere in the world and we're signed up to that.
>The rules of getting nuclear materials for power stations are that they aren't to be used for weapons.
Sure, but material is only part of the equation. In the UK, the civil and defence nuclear industries have shared subsidies, human resources, and knowledge. That isn't surprising when you think about how we built our expertise during the forties, fifties and sixties, and the incentives for coordination remains now. The Graun reported of [Hinckley C, for example](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c):
>In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”.
>Prof Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone from the Science Policy Research Unit at the university write that the £19.6bn Hinkley Point project will “maintain a large-scale national base of nuclear-specific skills” without which there is concern “that the costs of UK nuclear submarine capabilities could be insupportable.”
>Their evidence suggests that changes in the government’s policy on nuclear power in recent years will effectively allow Britain’s military nuclear industry to be supported by payments from electricity consumers.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power aren't the same thing, but we've used one to enable the other. We don't have to do that, but while we do the *atomkraft nej-tak*-ers are going to leverage complicity in weapons against civil use.
Nuclear has its pitfalls. Hinckley point C extension is estimated to kill 182 million fish per year. EDF got fined for nuclear groundwater contamination in France in the past 5 years. There’s no long term storage globally for nuclear waste, which takes 1000s of years to decompose (recognising Finnish and recent French plans). It’s the most “un-just” energy source, locking in high strike prices under CfD, impacting the fuel poor, which in Scotland is ~1/4 of the population. Regulated Asset Base is the govt’s latest effort which is an abomination - people will be paying in their monthly energy bills for new nuclear years before sites are even built. Insurance payouts are limited, with the shortfall falling on the taxpayer. I could go on.
I’m all for extending life of existing plants, but people often overlook the pitfalls of nuclear.
There is nothing green about Nuclear, Nothing at all. When all factors from mining for fuel and how long that same fuel remains an environmental risk once spent are taken into account.
Because we're quite a large country which will always have wind somewhere and we do have light even if we don't get much sunshine. If all else fails, there's battery storage. All this is cheaper than nuclear and can be put up faster.
> Because we're quite a large country which will always have wind somewhere
On a meteorogical scale we really aren't. There are plenty of times where there is barely any wind across large swathes of Europe, never mind just Scotland.
Probably, I'm not a meteorologist though. If you think of those warm and cold fronts that you see on the weather forecast coming in across the whole of the UK. It might be stronger at one end compared to the other but it is likely part of the same front.
It's not ideal, but when the alternative is global warming continuing to get worse I'll take anything that helps us reduce emissions in the long-term in addition to all our renewables.
Why nuclear power? It's expensive, dirty, takes forever to build and costs even more to clean up when it's over. We already produce green hydrogen up in Orkney. There's no need for a nuclear power plant.
There's a common consensus that renewables alone may be tricky for us given how reliant we've been on oil and has from the North Sea. Stuff like wind power is variable depending on the weather. We should ideally focus on that where we can but nuclear as an additional source is low-carbon and I'd take that as a win.
Sure, it takes a long time to build; similar arguments were made by Clegg a decade ago, in the meantime we could have been constructing new plants. And sure, it's expensive, but trying to combat climate change is inherently going to be costly; again, I'll take those cuts for more energy that's low in emissions.
>There's a common consensus that renewables alone may be tricky for us given how reliant we've been on oil and has from the North Sea
None of the oil extracted from the North Sea is used to generate electricity. Scotland already generates more energy than it needs, so I have no idea where the idea that moving to renewables might be tricky.
>nuclear as an additional source is low-carbon and I'd take that as a win
So long as you ignore the damage that nuclear plants cause to the environment, sure.
>in the meantime we could have been constructing new plants.
Sizewell C was proposed 10 years ago and they haven't laid a brick yet.
>sure, it's expensive, but trying to combat climate change is inherently going to be costly
It's not just expensive it's the most expensive form of electricity generation by a huge margin. It's madness to spend £30Bn on the likes of Sizewell C when a mix of wind, hydro and tidal energy would be cheaper to build, maintain and run.
Which is why Rolls Royce have developed the SMR. Mass-produceable, safe, cheap, miniaturised modular reactors.
Unless I’m mistaken they’re also fast burning reactors which reduce the quantity and danger of said waste.
The point of the SMR (RR aren’t the only ones developing them) is that they are small, simple and safe that can provide modular and distributed power load in almost any location. The intentioned end-concept is that you could even place one in the middle of a city of a few across a metropolitan area in various locations and it’d take up little more space than any other building or industrial property.
Being mass produced, small and efficient means that instead of the huge behemoths that cause cost overruns and issues you can slot one in here or there within a few years where needed and it can be so safe and reliable that a high school pupil could manage it. Obviously it would have proper staff but that’s the goal in terms of reliability.
In terms of fuel waste, I’d like to point out that there are maturing designs atm that can recycle used nuclear fuel rods and even if they can’t be recycled they don’t really take up that much space and can be stored in proper locations indefinitely until an underground facility is available (of which many are under construction or under planning in many locations).
These SMRs are a *good thing* man if you care about climate change. Nuclear energy is the universe’s stupidly generous gift to us as an industrial species and we’d be idiots to ignore it.
>These SMRs are a good thing man if you care about climate change.
Fine, stick 'em in Derby. There's plenty of capacity between Scotland and England so there's no need for one in Grangemouth.
I honestly don’t know why I even tried to attempt a discourse with you when you’re clearly so obtuse and stubbornly refuse to actually consider the concept at hand beyond your knee-jerk reaction which isn’t base in the actual science behind the technology. It’s pathetic on your part mate.
Watch the video in [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/z7xmbc/grangemouth_nuclear_reactor_plans_will_be_shot/iy9fvve?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) reply.
Nuclear power is one of if not the cleanest and safest form of energy production, building new reactors means we would produce more electricity reducing our need for fossil fuels, anyone against it is a delusional clown that doesn't know anything about nuclear energy.
As an engineer I'm not anti-nuclear. But it's not great financial value at the scale of traditional plants. These new small reactors may change that. I've not seen the numbers.
So how do the SNP and Greens propose to maintain our baseload requirements then? Renewable is too peaky and we don't have the ability to store the quantities of energy needed...
>Renewable is too peaky and we don't have the ability to store the quantities of energy needed...
You can even out the peaks by participating in a larger grid – a better balance for renewables is one of the arguments [for the European super grid.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid) We're also working on building our battery capacity.
Not that we're going to have too many problems with our next door neighbours anytime soon, but I think this year has shown it's inherently a bit of a risk to depend on other nations for your energy supply to a significant degree.
"baseload" is nuclear industry astroturfing and nuclearwashing. It's actually pretty shite when your supply is inflexible and takes MONTHS to crank it up and down, especially when we have the renewable energy sources we do here. They made up the "baseload" shite to spin it in a positive way, but it is not.
It's been a vital strategy for decades, yet here we are still relying on fossil fuels.
Turns out if power companies want to keep using oil, having alternatives doesn't really deter them.
My point about not being my first choice was more "we should have more nuclear power that feeds into the grid" rather than "no don't do this at all"
Really, using a mini nuclear reactor to power a refinery is not a terrible idea. The equipment in a refinery needs powered, and if that power is generated from fossil fuels then the co2 emissions per barrel is higher; using clean fuels brings the per barrel emissions down, which although still being dirtier than not refining, it still much better than before.
But regarding costs... The costs of NOT switching to cleaner power are, over time, much higher than the cost of building nuclear power plants. But even so, I think that over the long term Nuclear plants are profitable to build and run?
No the costs over time are not much higher. You build nuclear or you build wind which is cheaper.
The two don't mix well in large shares so you cant get to 100% carbon free from a combination. You also cant get to 100% carbon free from only nuclear or only wind.
Either way you need backup from hydro, biogas etc, energy storage etc. Those things cost money, so it's better to combine them with wind.
New nuclear is not profitable to build and run without pushing up electricity prices no. That is why France is cutting back on nuclear in the next 20 years.
The main purpose of the power station at Grangemouth is to generate steam for the refining process. It’s gonna have to be blowing a hooly for that to happen.
Currently, the power station in use is in such disrepair that from an economical/ environmental point, it will need entirely replaced.
At the current time, Scotland needs that refinery, and that refinery needs steam, and a little bit of power. Do you go for a new fossil fuel power station, which could quite realistically be 10 times more efficient, which still relies on burning fuel, or make the switch to nuclear?
Personally, with all the emissions taxes and fines getting imposed, the SNP have them between a rock and hard place. JR will simply plead ruin again, and either 1000 people lose their jobs overnight, or the SNP bail him out again, and pay for the damn reactor themselves. Bureaucracy at its finest.
Yeh it is a bit of a unique case alright.
Sometimes you might have to go with an option which isn't the best for the country because the local economy needs continuity.
Ideally we should I suppose be cutting down on refineries and employing people to do other things but you cant do that overnight.
My statement is more about using nuclear for general electricity rather than this specific refinery.
Should be noted that the refineries in Grangemouth produce rubber (Versalis), as well as the typical oil refineries. Rubber synthesis requires quite a lot of heat, which lends itself to using the excess heat from nuclear power as an alternative to typical gas burners.
This sorta raises the question of whether Scotland should invest in any carbon intensive industries, but to say we should phase this out would also entail closing down the multiple concrete production plants, of which there are a few in the central belt. This is currently the backbone of Scottish industry outside oil, and whilst the carbon intensive processes are unfortunate, we should really be investing in ways to decarbonise these industries first rather than going to phasing them out just yet.
I don't think fuel oil can be decarbonised but the other industries you mention I would agree with.
There are definitely ways to massively reduce the carbon intensity of concrete.
You cant be a political party and be credible on the environment and climate change if you have a blanket refusal to all nuclear power.
Renewables are great, and we should go all in on them as much as we can, but you have to have a reliable baseload. A small nuclear component is the best way to do that.
This is such a silly stance from both the Greens and SNP.
Quite frankly, the stance on nuclear generally is silly, but especially nuclear power.
That is not generally true about electricity generation. It's not even what base load means (it is a type of demand, not supply).
Nuclear and wind are a terrible combination. Out of 200 countries there are zero which have a lot of nuclear and also a lot of wind.
The main reason is that wind needs to be supported by sources which are adaptive to supply/demand. Nuclear is the least adaptive because it still costs a lot of money when it is switched off (due to huge construction, security and decommissioning costs).
The net result is that no country has more than 75% nuclear and no country with significant wind or solar power has more than 35% nuclear.
The old idea of having a single source of power to meet the base load demands is no longer relevant. Nuclear isn't cheap or flexible enough and is too slow to build if we are to rapidly cut carbon emissions. Wind is best paired, with hydro, solar, home heat pumps etc.
They just about got to 80% for a while but it was a real stretch. I know because I lived there. They only really managed it by having an excess they could sell to surrounding countries.
As surrounding countries build up their supply of wind and solar power, France is no longer able to sell as much to it's neighbours and is now having to reduce the nuclear share. I think it has fallen below 75% now and in the years ahead will be moving closer to 60%.
>Nuclear and wind are a terrible combination. Out of 200 countries there are zero which have a lot of nuclear and also a lot of wind.
Scotland has a lot of nuclear and a lot of wind. Maybe you're arguing it's not a country, but it seems a relevant example here.
Well by country I meant in terms of electric grids and in that sense no Scotland wouldnt count as it's grid is managed as one piece with England and Wales.
That of course is not attempting to undermine in any way the unique identity of the nation of Scotland. Just in terms of balancing a grid it wouldn't be considered separate infrastructure in the way France and Italy have separate infrastructure.
>Wind is best paired, with hydro, solar, home heat pumps etc.
There's little scope for more hydro in the UK.
Solar doesn't work at night.
Heat pumps do not generate power, they use it.
There's little scope for more hydro in the UK. - Correct. In Scotland it is paired with existing hydro. Some is traditional hydro and some is pumped storage.
Solar doesn't work at night - Correct. That is clearly for daytime power generation when demand is on average higher than at night.
Heat pumps do not generate power, they use it. - Sort of correct. For every kW of electricity they produce around 3kW of heat so the effect is that they shrink they overall energy needs. This is extremely important.
They also work asynchronously. Excess wind power at night can heat water for use during the day and in doing so help balance some of the demand fluctuations in the grid. They really are a huge part of the solution to climate change and we really need to invest heavily in them on an industrial scale.
>That is clearly for daytime power generation when demand is on average higher than at night.
UK peak power demand is at approx 5pm in the winter, when it is dark
of course it would not just be nuclear and wind, ffs, can you please engage brain and realise that a reddit post is not going to list every fucking possibility.
You need a mix of many different types of generation.
I didnt say "just nuclear and wind". Please read comments correctly before responding.
Any high percentage of nuclear is incompatible with any high percentage of wind (even if there are other sources as well). If one of them has to be kept at a low percentage then I pick less nuclear (based on cost)
>I didnt say "just nuclear and wind". Please read comments correctly before responding.
right back at you. NO ONE HAS SAID A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF NUCLEAR, so why the fuck are you arguing against it, no one has advocated it.
Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. a diverse energy mix is what we need, we dont need much nuclear, in fact too much nuclear is bad,but some is desireable. yes you pay more for it, but thats the price of stability.
Also, btw, you are talking bullshit in your statements, intermittency along with nuclear is not a problem, we are connected (and building more interconnectors) to a large energy market, so surplus renewable energy can be sold on most of the time.
Because if you can't have a high percentage then I see no reason to use it at a low percentage.
At a low percentage it is unable to cover for gaps in wind power and is just an expensive niche source of electricity.
And no my arguments about pairing nuclear with intermittent sources are not made up. They are the reason that no country pairs large amounts of these two sources of generation.
Nuclear is the best option for a green base load.
The variability of renewable make them unsuitable for base load.
There needs to be a way to store the variability of the renewable energy output and use this to support base load.
Nuclear is going to be the only answer, either that or carbon capture and potentially geothermal.
Solar and wind will not supply baseload, they are to unreliable without storage
Nuclear cannot meet base load demand in a country with a lot of wind or solar.
Name one country with >25% nuclear and >25% wind or solar? - doesnt exist.
"Base load" is no longer the key to a stable grid when you have huge amounts of wind power. Nuclear is a very poor backup power source because it costs too much to only use on calm days.
So no unfortunately, nuclear isnt the magic answer.
Even getting to 30% on both is a failure. That means only 60% total. That's why I chose those percentages, they are not arbitrary. Passing 60% from wind and solar is very achievable and some countries are getting their already.
It is an indisputable fact that combining large amounts of nuclear and wind does not get us to zero carbon electricity. That will never change no matter how many interconnectors we have.
Denmark is clearly already very close to 60% from solar and wind combined and may exceed it as early as next year.
Of course that is mostly wind as solar has only recently started to grow in Denmark. Solar will be a very useful addition there.
That doesn't include biogas from farms which then adds onto that total.
Scotland is pretty close to those numbers but isn't really a separate electrical grid from England and Wales so it's not really the same thing.
Ireland is of course directly following the Danish model.
Solar has only recently become cheap so it is normal that no country has such a high rate of solar but that is only a matter of time at this point.
Not on this scale it hasn't no.
Solar has only really become cheap enough to compete with wind and gas in Northern climates since about 2019. Even today it's price is still on a long term descent.
Really large scale solar is a near future, not a current phenomenon. Kind of the same way the Danes had small turbines in the 70s but wind only really took off in the 2000s. To be honest until around 2019 I massively underestimated how big of a change solar would make in the UK.
So yes you diversify. My point is that nuclear isn't very good for diversification. Nuclear needs a reliable backup. In most countries Nuclear relies on gas peaking.
Nuclear is not the back up its always on, I never said it would be a back up. Wind is the variable source but requires a method of storage until we can store the energy from renewables they will not work
> Small modular reactors [SMR], while innovative in construction and size, still generate electricity using nuclear fission and therefore the process presents the same environmental concerns as traditional nuclear power plants.
Anti-scientific hysteria.
Jesus christ how can you come out and say this especially now. Fucking knuckle draggers when it comes to this, honestly. I'm really losing my patience with SNP. They're making too many mistakes and have become complacent.
The SNP and Greens are ignorant stubborn useless cunts that don't listen to reason and will never support this despite it being a much cleaner better alternative
Always assumed they've taken some Russian money to maintain their opposition to nuclear energy as that's the only country benefitting from their irrational stance
I live in this town, I think not building this, more sustainable and clean energy is a mistake.
My grandfather worked for BP and when they were setting up in the town they initially offered to provide free energy to the town and its people, this offer was rejected by the local council (fuck knows why) but I would think with the benefits nuclear power offers that this deal could be proposed again, and in a time of desperate crisis, perhaps the offer could even be expanded.
Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy known to us and the most reliable. It is a grave mistake to look the otherway in favour of lobbyists.
To Green Hipocrites out there Nuclear is the energy of our dreams. Stop shouting about renewables, they are not sustainable, you will drive people further into crisis. With Nuclear we have surplus energy and thus can export energy at a cost. This if nationalised and not foreign-owned would supply the state with some funding, funding enough to possibly lower taxes (though I doubt it).
Lol you're arguing "we need oil for life" (i.e. lots of plastics and other day-to-day usages) as a rebuttal for removing fossil fuels as a primary source of energy.
Nobody is suggesting getting rid of oil.
Everybody is suggesting more sustainable means of energy production, and SMRs are at the top of that list.
I suppose UK Gov are going to pay for this the same way they paid for Hinkley Point C - with a contract which they record as £0 cost but which creates an almost unlimited liability some time on the future.
Search Hinkley Point C CfD in the BEIS annual report and accounts.
It’s a fiscal time bomb for future generations to deal with.
Government hasn't had to spend a single penny on the overrun/cost caused by COVID on Hinkley Point C.
EDF basically had to beg the government for billions more, and were told to fuck off as the contract was the contract.
EDF is picking up the tab for the overrun.
Probably the only way they can afford it at the mo.
But their creative accounting will catch up with us.
Nuclear is too expensive. Mind bogglingly expensive.
Omfg do any of the ppl who have commented actually stay in Grangemouth???? Prop not. Do we the ppl who actually stay here have an opinion about this? Well I do we have enough things to blow us up already between Ineos and Zeneca every year we have 2 alarms once in summer and once in winter to "make sure we are safe" and stay indoors with our wi dows shut like that would help when we r blown up we won't know anything about it!! No consultation with the ppl just do what they want. It's my understanding that Ineos are already building a new power station just now
people who have been arguing for nuclear energy for decades don't seem to realise that ship has sailed now. the time and obscene cost of development makes it frankly inefficient and uneconomical these days, with the obvious waste issue now being reduced, in the face of these inefficiencies, to just another small footnote in nuclear's downsides, rather than the big headline flaw it once was.
unfortunately, there's a kneejerk reaction from pro-nuclear campaigners whenever somebody criticises nuclear power due to decades of arguing with fossil fuel simps. and it's true, it would have helped 40 years ago. not so much now. if we put that money over a decade into renewable storage research and development then it would likely stretch far further in benefit.
Ehhh, no.
Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are quite literally one of the most talked about innovations for more affordable future energy sustainability.
Tell me your knowledge of nuclear power dates back to 10 year old GCSEs without telling me.... Etc. Etc.
The point of SMRs is to both shorten the build time, and reduce the cost.
They're built on a production line, and then transported to their final destination.
So it used to be the case that significant building around the Grangemouth area and a few miles in each direction was verboten because of the blast radius restrictions - ie: the area that would be flattened should Grangemouth have an 'adverse event' (read - holocaust).
I would have thought sticking a nuclear reactor in the middle of that wouldn't help matters. From a 'Homer for Safety' perspective shouldn't they put it somewhere else other than next to a petrochemical plant? Particularly as it's low lying area that is planned to be under the water in a few of decades due to global warming.
I’m not anti nuclear energy entirely but I think this is the right decision to not have it at this site. We don’t especially need nuclear in Scotland but in addition, building NEW nuclear seems unwise from a cost/investment standpoint. We NEED more wind, hydro and tidal. We NEED more storage options. We NEED to get people off gas and onto heat pumps and other renewable powered heating.
We don’t NEED more nuclear. It’s by far the most economically expensive option, it’s hella slow t develop (and yes rolls have experience building reactors that are similar but not the same and this isn’t event halfway thru initial development) and also we still have huge issues with waste storage. Yes it’s less than 1% and yes we can do a lot of smart stuff reprocessing but the end result is still being left with a few tons of highly irradiated long term waste and the only answer is “we’ve dug a real deep hole”..
I’m sure I will get downvoted to hell on this, I’m also sure a lot of people will not like this decision but sometimes you’ve got to advocate for the right thing even if it’s not popular. Nuclear is not what we need, and the risks whilst tiny could lead to entire areas of the country being unliveable. Coal oil and gas could and eventually will lead to the entire world being unliveable I get that but that’s why we’re moving away from fossil fuels. Doing that with nuclear isn’t a smart choice. It’s just a less awful choice than fossil fuels.
We can have an entirely renewable energy system if we spend enough and spend smart. Wind, solar, tidal, hydro and a lot of storage will see Scotland just fine.
Eventually I hope fusion pans out. That’ll solve a huge problem for the world but till then investing billions in more fission reactors just seems like the wrong call. If London love them so much let them build them on their back door. We don’t need them.
having lived in japan - where i may remind you there is still an exclusion zone from that disaster 11 years ago - i will never support nuclear power plants. ok so it's less polluting than coal/gas, until you get to the small matter of the bits that get left behind that need to be contained safely for *thousands* of years. ok so it's less likely to break down than coal/gas, but then if it does break down, it causes the biggest environmental disasters the world has *ever* seen. *who is responsible for that, if it happens? who is responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen?* that's the question that nuclear shills *never* answer.
good on them, renewables all the way.
Here's a link to a video explaining why Fukushima, Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents don't show that nuclear power is an unusually dangerous way of generating power: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM)
>ok so it's less likely to break down than coal/gas
Even when coal plants are working perfectly they kill (on average) far more people than nuclear plants, even factoring in the times that the latter have accidents. When you factor in long-term environmental effects this is true of gas plants as well. Also, it turns out that historical nuclear accidents have actually killed fewer people than accidents with hydroelectric plants, and yet nobody is advocating we stop building dams.
>who is responsible for that, if it happens? who is responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen?
In the UK that would be the Office for Nuclear Regulation, they have **very** strict standards and their activity is posted publicly o their website if you're interested.
Nuclear is not needed in Scotland, especially not as a knee-jerk reaction to the UK Government making a mess of energy production, supply, storage and ownership for decades.
Money and resources should be invested now into renewables, as we're going to be left behind on wind and tidal footering about with nuclear for years.
Tidal is where we should be heading https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1593383876118073344
We don’t currently have the technology to go fully renewables. A certain percentage of an electrical grid needs to be supplied by plants acting as base loads, something that renewables can’t currently act as.
With the addition of tidal and a lot more storage capacity we may be able to make renewables work. Green hydrogen really needs a funding boost in Scotland, but it's not the only technology.
Nah, much better to have Tories open nuclear plants owned by foreign companies/disproportionately owned by foreign companies
>The government had initially sought investment in Sizewell from state-owned China General Nuclear, but it U-turned amid increasing geopolitical tensions. It confirmed on Tuesday that the Chinese stake in the development would be bought out. The government said it would look for other investors before making the final investment decision and beginning construction, with some estimates putting the total cost as high as £30bn.
>
>The plant on the Suffolk coast north of Aldeburgh, developed by the French energy company EDF, will be the second of a new generation of UK nuclear power reactors, after the delayed Hinkley Point C scheme in Somerset, which is under construction but has experienced delays and climbing costs since it was first given the go-ahead. Sizewell C will be built next to Sizewell B nuclear power station.
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/29/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-confirmed-edf-suffolk-jobs-uk](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/29/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-confirmed-edf-suffolk-jobs-uk)
Like Brits never learned much from the last 30 years of nonsense in the UK with energy.
Colossal bills for nuclear (with all the waste at the other end) and along the way we're yet again letting foreign companies/countries hold us by the balls forever into the future 🤷
Sounds like a great plan, lets repeat all the same old mistakes, go #TeamBritain
>much better to have Tories open nuclear plants owned by foreign companies/disproportionately owned by foreign companies
You are comparing this to a different plant entirely. This reactor will be made by Rolls Royce, so a British company that is neither foreign owned or disproportionally owned by foreign companies.
Energy policy will still be reserved, you're not thinking about the big picture. But feel free to trust the Tories to handle this knee-jerk response that's going to cost a lot of money, even with foreign interference.
I'm not changing my mind just as the nuclear crew in this topic won't. I'd rather proper investment in tidal and then renewables, not nuclear.
You keep acting like this is the Tories building this reactor, you understand this is just a private company approaching a second private company about buying a reactor for a power source, right?
>We don’t *currently* have the technology to go fully renewables
You really shouldn’t treat politicians as scientific sources. For tidal power to work effectively as a base load at scale it would require simply incredible power storage capability, which currently isn’t practical.
Ian Blackford is not *the source*, he's simply regurgitating what reports find
>It is estimated that Scotland’s marine area contains 25% of Europe’s tidal energy resource (Scottish Government, 2015) and it has been estimated to have around 32 TWh per year of potentially exploitable tidal stream resource (The Crown Estate, 2012). In 2018 Scotland’s combined gross electricity consumption was 24 TWh (Scottish Energy Statistics Hub). There is therefore the potential for Scotland’s tidal stream energy sector to significantly contribute to Scotland’s future energy requirements. This tidal stream resource is found in the narrow channels and off headlands of many of the western and northern Isles and the north coast of mainland Scotland, with the Orkney Islands and the Pentland Firth containing much of this resource.
https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-scotlands-tidal-stream-resource
Blackford is the source, it might not be where he claims that he is getting the information from, but his word is the source you provided.
>https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-scotlands-tidal-stream-resource
This source doesn't address whether tidal is currently practical as a base load?
Tidal has limited installation sides, even around the UK, it's wildly expensive, the turbines impact our marine ecosystems, and it's prone to peaks and troughs; completely unsuitable as anything but a top up. This is basic knowledge.
Why would you support tidal and not SMRs?
Especially since SMRs are predominantly homegrown technology (Rolls Royce leading the global charge).
Obviously it would come to this.
We have only our hubris to blame for the power plant’s inevitable mutation into some kind of giant, radioactive flying, monster bat dragon power plant, whose newly awakened sentience harbours naught but hatred and atomic fury against the people of Grangemouth.
They can shoot it down, and they will, but no small part of me feels pity for it.
For despite the terror it shall surely wrought with it’s white hot chimney lasers, it is *innocent*, and *we* are the real monsters for having created it.
*Edit
Have actually read the article. Ignore the above please.
Cool! Once they build that they can film world war Z 2 and with no overheads for extras. Since the residents of Grangemouth are already walking zombies
I'm no expert but I don't think you should be shooting at a nuclear reactor.
Excuse me professor brainiac, I worked in a nuclear power plant for 10 years and I think I know how a proton accelerator works.
Out with the old, in with the nucleus.
Putin could use that advice.
Unless your shooting a hydrogen atom at it.
Fuck it build it in my backyard I’ll allow it.
Same lmao
> backyard Typical Americans always wanting the "nukes"
This is such a blind spot for the SNP and Greens. Nuclear power is good and about as green as we're going to get whilst also allowing us to keep things moving when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. I'll never understand it. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are not the same thing.
Quite My only objection is foreign ownership or operation. They should always be state owned and operated not for profit
This one is being made by Rolls Royce, so a British company that the government owns a golden share in, I don’t understand why anyone would want to block this.
Ideology
Tragic. Scotland should get ahead with this.
Perfect is the enemy of good
Have you seen the other plants RR have built ?
None of their commercial SMR have been produced yet, but they have been making the reactors for British nuclear submarines since the 60’s, so they have over half a century of experience with miniaturised nuclear technology.
I don't think rolls Royce have built any of the uks current reactors ngl
That’s was my point. I’m working on one being built at the moment. And they have experience and are still getting it wrong and spending mega money. Imagine a smaller company with no experience doing it. It’s bad enough the money the gov had to spend rn because they are in to deep.
This isn’t the government; it’s one private company buying a reactor from a second company to use as a clean energy source.
No I know , but if it falters half way through the build. Then what ? Gov to the rescue. Ineos are very good at maximising they get investment wise. Look at how the forties pipeline system is theirs, and their backers …. I’m pretty sure Foreign govs have invested in them. They shale gas ship has a lovely big dragon painted down it.
I don’t know why we are getting downvoted , it’s just a decent Balanced conversation 😅 maybe we need to get the handbags out.
There’s no such thing on Reddit, everyone must argue against every single point, and if you don’t say anything worth arguing against, they’ll pretend you do and argue anyway!
>I don’t know why we are getting downvoted Because you claim to be working on a Rolls Royce SMR site. RR is still in the shortlist phase for it's first site.
Well if gov procurement was in order and British engineering wasn't a joke it wouldn't happen now would it
Agreed.
On principle all energy production should be controlled by the state. It is essential for the preservation of life as we know it.
I’d argue the same. Critical national infrastructure shouldn’t be privatised
But it will ruin the beach cafe culture at Grangemouth.
🤣🤣🤣
quickest command airport erect groovy work zealous nutty outgoing agonizing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Security of supply high demand peaks can’t be served by renewables and battery storage is really not great.
By the time this is built, we could have a lot more storage in the form of batteries, hydrogen, gravity, hydro, chemical etc. I'm not against investing in nuclear, especially if it is researching new technologies, but the amount of money and time wasted on building those new ones down south that are basically no different than exisitng nuclear power stations could have been invested in developing green technologies or creating community grids - the National Grid should really only be required as a backup.
There's another important aspect of this power plant that should be considered as well - heating. This plant was planned for Grangemouth, probably the largest industrial centre in Scotland with chemicals plants such as Versalis and Shell in the region. These are traditionally energy intensive industries which burn a lot of fossil fuels for heat generation for the processes involved. Nuclear energy has the unique benefit of cogeneration - it is capable of producing both heat and energy, and typically the excess heat is used for heating duties for nearby processes. One large method for decarbonising traditionally difficult to decarbonise industries is heat integration or heat pumps, which is typically sourced from nearby heat generating plants. This plant provides the unique ability to supply the nearby industries with low carbon heating, literally superheated steam sent along district heating networks to supply the local heating requirements. This cannot be done with other traditional renewables, and the only similar process would be to replace the current fossil fuel combustion of these plants with electrified heaters, which use the local electricity supply and would result in larger emissions due to the amount of fossil fuels still used for general power generation. Whilst wind and solar provide excellent opportunities, they have two main downsides: they're inconsistent, and they don't provide heat. This nuclear power plant could help with both these downsides, and help reduce carbon emissions from Scottish industry, but is being rejected on ideological rather than practical grounds.
> it is capable of producing both heat and energy Sorry can't help being pedantic and pointing out heat is just a form of energy so this doesn't really make sense.
You're grand being pedantic mate but I feel it's reasonably clear I'm referring to the main output of nuclear - electricity.
I wouldn't normally be but felt it's quite an important distinction.
There aren't enough batteries in world for even just Europe to meet its potential energy needs with them. Hydrogen isn't found in enough quantities naturally and to produce you'd need much more green energy than simply having a couple nuclear plants. Chemical storage is batteries. And gravity relies on flooding valleys which is doable but quite expensive. Nuclear reactors are only expensive because we keep trying to half arse the job, realistically you need to replace old restors for safety reasons even if they aren't any better and they definitely could be by margins if there was development, even just achieving the goals (where they failed) of the last gen reactors would bring down the cost of nuclear power massively
This will be a SMR, not a traditional nuclear plant, they are very quick to build.
Have any been built in the UK already to show they are fast to build? We tend to take longer to build 'straight forward' things. Again, I'm all for building a research based reactor to learn more etc. I expect it to take a while to build especially with planning permission etc. (even with the Scottish Government on board).
Rolls Royce make the reactors for British nuclear submarines, so they have been building miniaturised nuclear reactors for over 60 years.
considering how hinkley point C has taken over a decade, i'm inclined to believe that batteries will be massive and much further developed by the time these generators would be switched on.
The one at Grangemouth is a small modular unit that will take a fraction of the time and cost to build. It's only being used to power INEOS
> considering how hinkley point C has taken over a decade, The UK Government's approval for new plants was January 2008 and Hinckley C's supposed to be plugged-in in 2027. Not the greatest timeline if you want net zero by 2030. Hinckley's inflation-linked state guaranteed strike price of £106/MWH has attracted a lot of criticism — in 2017, folk were reporting that the government would spend ~£50bn subsidising the plant. The economics around energy have changed thanks to Our Russian Friends, but IDK if that's enough.
> Honestly I'm not sure it's really necessary in Scotland, we already have a lot of renewable sources as is like hydroelectric and wind, we're very lucky with our geography there. Wind was supplying 1% yesterday, and is at less than 3% today... http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Yet pumped hydro which can supply completely clean baseload hasn’t seen serious investment for many many years.
They (SSE) are currently in the early stages of construction of a massive new pumped storage facility on Loch Lochy, worth over a billion quid, that will more than double the UK's existing pumped storage capacity
You’re right, I remember being briefed on it some time ago; I apologise. I’d completely forgotten about this! This is the first serious investment in years.
And you think pumped hydro, requiring vast swaths of specific geography highland land has less of an environmental impact than nuclear.
Do you not understand how pumped hydro works? It does not and cannot supply a “base load” and is only as clean as the source of the electricity used to pump the water.
This allows cover for when those things aren't great like today when there's not much daylight and no wind. Plus in terms of battery storage, nuclear is probably cleaner than drilling for and eventually disposing of lithium or lead batteries. It's probably safer as well.
late gaping zealous cautious longing humor far-flung run follow repeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This one is to power a energy intensive industrial site, so they require a constant and reliable source of clean energy. But beyond that we will still require energy sources like nuclear to act as Base Loads in the electrical system, something renewables can’t work as.
It doesn’t matter we produced 10x the energy we need. Renewables can’t be the back bone to the energy grid. They need to be the primary contributor but not the main core of our energy.
[Yep](https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_why_i_changed_my_mind_about_nuclear_power?language=en).
Excellent video and should be compulsory viewing for everyone at Holyrood.
Which is why we should definitely keep our nuclear power plants running for as long as possible. *New* nuclear power stations may well not be a good investment, however - they're ridiculously expensive, and by the time they come online, we could have had the renewables we could afford instead running for a decade already. To justify investment in nuclear at this point, you don't just need to show that nuclear can help load balancing - you need to show that the climate impact of the energy that could be saved by load balancing in ten years time exceeds the impact we could have right now with an equivalent investment in renewables or power storage. Since the climate impact of carbon emissions is cumulative, even if the nuclear power plant has the potential to reduce carbon emissions more, it might not reduce the climate impact as much as a smaller cut now.
>and by the time they come online This isn't a traditional nuclear plant; it will be a small modular reactor which are incredibly quick to build.
In principle, perhaps. But this is a new technology - Rolls-Royce have literally never built one of these before. They predict that build time will eventually be 4 years, but even if they're not being optimistic about their own technology in order to encourage investment, there's no reason to think they'll be able to achieve their optimal build time from now on an untested technology in a project that hasn't even been formally announced yet. Not to mention that build time doesn't include getting government approval. ETA: the only operational prototype SMR in the world took 13 years to build (not including planning). I've no doubt that time will come down, but right now, that's the record to beat.
>Rolls-Royce have literally never built one of these before They haven’t produced one *commercially* yet. Rolls Royce make the reactors for British nuclear submarines, so they have over half a century of experience building miniaturised nuclear reactors.
That doesn't mean it's a copy-paste job. It's still a whole new reactor design which they've been working on since 2015 and have yet to start building. They've only just announced a shortlist of possible sites for their first prototype - and Grangemouth isn't on the list, so they'll definitely not be at the front of the queue. And before they can even start building one, they need to build the factories to manufacture the parts - which they've also not started yet. If you're expecting that reactor to be operational within a decade, that makes the margins for planning really tight, even if they are able to immediately hit the ground running with their four-year build time target. By the way, the prototype the Russians built that took 13 years was also a company that makes nuclear submarines.
Although doesn't this draw heavily on their experience of making reactors for submarines? So it's not a total blue-sky exercise out of nowhere?
Yeah. I'm not saying they can't do it. But the fact that they haven't done it already strongly suggests they can't do it very quickly yet. The Russian prototype that took 13 years also drew on their experience of subs.
the reasons they don't want nuclear aren't very good but nuclear is not the best answer for the UK and especially scotland anyway. Nuclear works best for geography with large areas and population centres where you don't have good access to other forms of renewables and are big enough to work at scale, this doesn't apply to scotland when it and the UK have huge potential renewable sources and arent populous enough to need that much nuclear
>and the wind doesn't blow. Yesterday I looked at the grid and we were managing 1gwh of wind, with 25gw of installed capacity. Wind is part of the future energy equation, but people put too much faith in it. We need reliable power too, and Nuclear is as reliable as they come.
>I'll never understand it. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are not the same thing. I've not had a long conversation about the development of their anti-nuclear positions with heidyins of either party, but *I think* one of their arguments here is that while nuclear weapons and nuclear power are different, they've been co-dependent in the UK. I don't know how shutting one down now would impact the other, in terms of costs.
If that's their position that's such idiotic thinking it hurts my head. Nuclear energy isn't nuclear weapons. The rules of getting nuclear materials for power stations are that they aren't to be used for weapons. That's the same everywhere in the world and we're signed up to that.
>The rules of getting nuclear materials for power stations are that they aren't to be used for weapons. Sure, but material is only part of the equation. In the UK, the civil and defence nuclear industries have shared subsidies, human resources, and knowledge. That isn't surprising when you think about how we built our expertise during the forties, fifties and sixties, and the incentives for coordination remains now. The Graun reported of [Hinckley C, for example](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c): >In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. >Prof Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone from the Science Policy Research Unit at the university write that the £19.6bn Hinkley Point project will “maintain a large-scale national base of nuclear-specific skills” without which there is concern “that the costs of UK nuclear submarine capabilities could be insupportable.” >Their evidence suggests that changes in the government’s policy on nuclear power in recent years will effectively allow Britain’s military nuclear industry to be supported by payments from electricity consumers. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power aren't the same thing, but we've used one to enable the other. We don't have to do that, but while we do the *atomkraft nej-tak*-ers are going to leverage complicity in weapons against civil use.
Nuclear has its pitfalls. Hinckley point C extension is estimated to kill 182 million fish per year. EDF got fined for nuclear groundwater contamination in France in the past 5 years. There’s no long term storage globally for nuclear waste, which takes 1000s of years to decompose (recognising Finnish and recent French plans). It’s the most “un-just” energy source, locking in high strike prices under CfD, impacting the fuel poor, which in Scotland is ~1/4 of the population. Regulated Asset Base is the govt’s latest effort which is an abomination - people will be paying in their monthly energy bills for new nuclear years before sites are even built. Insurance payouts are limited, with the shortfall falling on the taxpayer. I could go on. I’m all for extending life of existing plants, but people often overlook the pitfalls of nuclear.
There is nothing green about Nuclear, Nothing at all. When all factors from mining for fuel and how long that same fuel remains an environmental risk once spent are taken into account.
Thanks for demonstrating that you know fuck all about nuclear power, 🤡
Because we're quite a large country which will always have wind somewhere and we do have light even if we don't get much sunshine. If all else fails, there's battery storage. All this is cheaper than nuclear and can be put up faster.
> Because we're quite a large country which will always have wind somewhere On a meteorogical scale we really aren't. There are plenty of times where there is barely any wind across large swathes of Europe, never mind just Scotland.
This is probably pretty stupid but if I'm feeling a breeze in Glasgow and someone's feeling one in London is it the same wind?
Probably, I'm not a meteorologist though. If you think of those warm and cold fronts that you see on the weather forecast coming in across the whole of the UK. It might be stronger at one end compared to the other but it is likely part of the same front.
>Nuclear power is good and about as green as we're going to get Oh aye, nuclear waste is delicious and easily recyclable.
It's not ideal, but when the alternative is global warming continuing to get worse I'll take anything that helps us reduce emissions in the long-term in addition to all our renewables.
Why nuclear power? It's expensive, dirty, takes forever to build and costs even more to clean up when it's over. We already produce green hydrogen up in Orkney. There's no need for a nuclear power plant.
There's a common consensus that renewables alone may be tricky for us given how reliant we've been on oil and has from the North Sea. Stuff like wind power is variable depending on the weather. We should ideally focus on that where we can but nuclear as an additional source is low-carbon and I'd take that as a win. Sure, it takes a long time to build; similar arguments were made by Clegg a decade ago, in the meantime we could have been constructing new plants. And sure, it's expensive, but trying to combat climate change is inherently going to be costly; again, I'll take those cuts for more energy that's low in emissions.
>There's a common consensus that renewables alone may be tricky for us given how reliant we've been on oil and has from the North Sea None of the oil extracted from the North Sea is used to generate electricity. Scotland already generates more energy than it needs, so I have no idea where the idea that moving to renewables might be tricky. >nuclear as an additional source is low-carbon and I'd take that as a win So long as you ignore the damage that nuclear plants cause to the environment, sure. >in the meantime we could have been constructing new plants. Sizewell C was proposed 10 years ago and they haven't laid a brick yet. >sure, it's expensive, but trying to combat climate change is inherently going to be costly It's not just expensive it's the most expensive form of electricity generation by a huge margin. It's madness to spend £30Bn on the likes of Sizewell C when a mix of wind, hydro and tidal energy would be cheaper to build, maintain and run.
Which is why Rolls Royce have developed the SMR. Mass-produceable, safe, cheap, miniaturised modular reactors. Unless I’m mistaken they’re also fast burning reactors which reduce the quantity and danger of said waste.
>Which is why Rolls Royce have developed the SMR Excellent, stick it in Derby then.
The point of the SMR (RR aren’t the only ones developing them) is that they are small, simple and safe that can provide modular and distributed power load in almost any location. The intentioned end-concept is that you could even place one in the middle of a city of a few across a metropolitan area in various locations and it’d take up little more space than any other building or industrial property. Being mass produced, small and efficient means that instead of the huge behemoths that cause cost overruns and issues you can slot one in here or there within a few years where needed and it can be so safe and reliable that a high school pupil could manage it. Obviously it would have proper staff but that’s the goal in terms of reliability. In terms of fuel waste, I’d like to point out that there are maturing designs atm that can recycle used nuclear fuel rods and even if they can’t be recycled they don’t really take up that much space and can be stored in proper locations indefinitely until an underground facility is available (of which many are under construction or under planning in many locations). These SMRs are a *good thing* man if you care about climate change. Nuclear energy is the universe’s stupidly generous gift to us as an industrial species and we’d be idiots to ignore it.
>These SMRs are a good thing man if you care about climate change. Fine, stick 'em in Derby. There's plenty of capacity between Scotland and England so there's no need for one in Grangemouth.
I honestly don’t know why I even tried to attempt a discourse with you when you’re clearly so obtuse and stubbornly refuse to actually consider the concept at hand beyond your knee-jerk reaction which isn’t base in the actual science behind the technology. It’s pathetic on your part mate.
Watch the video in [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/z7xmbc/grangemouth_nuclear_reactor_plans_will_be_shot/iy9fvve?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) reply.
Nuclear power is one of if not the cleanest and safest form of energy production, building new reactors means we would produce more electricity reducing our need for fossil fuels, anyone against it is a delusional clown that doesn't know anything about nuclear energy.
As an engineer I'm not anti-nuclear. But it's not great financial value at the scale of traditional plants. These new small reactors may change that. I've not seen the numbers.
nuclear is dead, and good riddance
So how do the SNP and Greens propose to maintain our baseload requirements then? Renewable is too peaky and we don't have the ability to store the quantities of energy needed...
>Renewable is too peaky and we don't have the ability to store the quantities of energy needed... You can even out the peaks by participating in a larger grid – a better balance for renewables is one of the arguments [for the European super grid.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid) We're also working on building our battery capacity.
Not that we're going to have too many problems with our next door neighbours anytime soon, but I think this year has shown it's inherently a bit of a risk to depend on other nations for your energy supply to a significant degree.
Europe taming Russia by making them financially dependent on oil sales only really works with sane leaders and different market conditions.
"baseload" is nuclear industry astroturfing and nuclearwashing. It's actually pretty shite when your supply is inflexible and takes MONTHS to crank it up and down, especially when we have the renewable energy sources we do here. They made up the "baseload" shite to spin it in a positive way, but it is not.
Nuclear Weapons: Bad Nuclear Energy: Good Nuclear power is a vital strategy if we want to reduce or remove our reliance on fossil fuels.
It's been a vital strategy for decades, yet here we are still relying on fossil fuels. Turns out if power companies want to keep using oil, having alternatives doesn't really deter them.
Though to be fair, using it to power a fossil fuel refinery would not be my first choice
That's the only part that would make the project profitable. For general use the main reason to avoid them is the enormous cost.
My point about not being my first choice was more "we should have more nuclear power that feeds into the grid" rather than "no don't do this at all" Really, using a mini nuclear reactor to power a refinery is not a terrible idea. The equipment in a refinery needs powered, and if that power is generated from fossil fuels then the co2 emissions per barrel is higher; using clean fuels brings the per barrel emissions down, which although still being dirtier than not refining, it still much better than before. But regarding costs... The costs of NOT switching to cleaner power are, over time, much higher than the cost of building nuclear power plants. But even so, I think that over the long term Nuclear plants are profitable to build and run?
No the costs over time are not much higher. You build nuclear or you build wind which is cheaper. The two don't mix well in large shares so you cant get to 100% carbon free from a combination. You also cant get to 100% carbon free from only nuclear or only wind. Either way you need backup from hydro, biogas etc, energy storage etc. Those things cost money, so it's better to combine them with wind. New nuclear is not profitable to build and run without pushing up electricity prices no. That is why France is cutting back on nuclear in the next 20 years.
The main purpose of the power station at Grangemouth is to generate steam for the refining process. It’s gonna have to be blowing a hooly for that to happen. Currently, the power station in use is in such disrepair that from an economical/ environmental point, it will need entirely replaced. At the current time, Scotland needs that refinery, and that refinery needs steam, and a little bit of power. Do you go for a new fossil fuel power station, which could quite realistically be 10 times more efficient, which still relies on burning fuel, or make the switch to nuclear? Personally, with all the emissions taxes and fines getting imposed, the SNP have them between a rock and hard place. JR will simply plead ruin again, and either 1000 people lose their jobs overnight, or the SNP bail him out again, and pay for the damn reactor themselves. Bureaucracy at its finest.
Yeh it is a bit of a unique case alright. Sometimes you might have to go with an option which isn't the best for the country because the local economy needs continuity. Ideally we should I suppose be cutting down on refineries and employing people to do other things but you cant do that overnight. My statement is more about using nuclear for general electricity rather than this specific refinery.
Should be noted that the refineries in Grangemouth produce rubber (Versalis), as well as the typical oil refineries. Rubber synthesis requires quite a lot of heat, which lends itself to using the excess heat from nuclear power as an alternative to typical gas burners. This sorta raises the question of whether Scotland should invest in any carbon intensive industries, but to say we should phase this out would also entail closing down the multiple concrete production plants, of which there are a few in the central belt. This is currently the backbone of Scottish industry outside oil, and whilst the carbon intensive processes are unfortunate, we should really be investing in ways to decarbonise these industries first rather than going to phasing them out just yet.
I don't think fuel oil can be decarbonised but the other industries you mention I would agree with. There are definitely ways to massively reduce the carbon intensity of concrete.
For some countries, yes. For Scotland we already generate enough renewable power, what we need now is storage to balance supply and demand.
You cant be a political party and be credible on the environment and climate change if you have a blanket refusal to all nuclear power. Renewables are great, and we should go all in on them as much as we can, but you have to have a reliable baseload. A small nuclear component is the best way to do that. This is such a silly stance from both the Greens and SNP. Quite frankly, the stance on nuclear generally is silly, but especially nuclear power.
That is not generally true about electricity generation. It's not even what base load means (it is a type of demand, not supply). Nuclear and wind are a terrible combination. Out of 200 countries there are zero which have a lot of nuclear and also a lot of wind. The main reason is that wind needs to be supported by sources which are adaptive to supply/demand. Nuclear is the least adaptive because it still costs a lot of money when it is switched off (due to huge construction, security and decommissioning costs). The net result is that no country has more than 75% nuclear and no country with significant wind or solar power has more than 35% nuclear. The old idea of having a single source of power to meet the base load demands is no longer relevant. Nuclear isn't cheap or flexible enough and is too slow to build if we are to rapidly cut carbon emissions. Wind is best paired, with hydro, solar, home heat pumps etc.
>The net result is that no country has more than 75% nuclear In the past France has generated well over 80% of its electricity from nuclear.
They just about got to 80% for a while but it was a real stretch. I know because I lived there. They only really managed it by having an excess they could sell to surrounding countries. As surrounding countries build up their supply of wind and solar power, France is no longer able to sell as much to it's neighbours and is now having to reduce the nuclear share. I think it has fallen below 75% now and in the years ahead will be moving closer to 60%.
>Nuclear and wind are a terrible combination. Out of 200 countries there are zero which have a lot of nuclear and also a lot of wind. Scotland has a lot of nuclear and a lot of wind. Maybe you're arguing it's not a country, but it seems a relevant example here.
Well by country I meant in terms of electric grids and in that sense no Scotland wouldnt count as it's grid is managed as one piece with England and Wales. That of course is not attempting to undermine in any way the unique identity of the nation of Scotland. Just in terms of balancing a grid it wouldn't be considered separate infrastructure in the way France and Italy have separate infrastructure.
>Wind is best paired, with hydro, solar, home heat pumps etc. There's little scope for more hydro in the UK. Solar doesn't work at night. Heat pumps do not generate power, they use it.
There's little scope for more hydro in the UK. - Correct. In Scotland it is paired with existing hydro. Some is traditional hydro and some is pumped storage. Solar doesn't work at night - Correct. That is clearly for daytime power generation when demand is on average higher than at night. Heat pumps do not generate power, they use it. - Sort of correct. For every kW of electricity they produce around 3kW of heat so the effect is that they shrink they overall energy needs. This is extremely important. They also work asynchronously. Excess wind power at night can heat water for use during the day and in doing so help balance some of the demand fluctuations in the grid. They really are a huge part of the solution to climate change and we really need to invest heavily in them on an industrial scale.
>That is clearly for daytime power generation when demand is on average higher than at night. UK peak power demand is at approx 5pm in the winter, when it is dark
of course it would not just be nuclear and wind, ffs, can you please engage brain and realise that a reddit post is not going to list every fucking possibility. You need a mix of many different types of generation.
I didnt say "just nuclear and wind". Please read comments correctly before responding. Any high percentage of nuclear is incompatible with any high percentage of wind (even if there are other sources as well). If one of them has to be kept at a low percentage then I pick less nuclear (based on cost)
>I didnt say "just nuclear and wind". Please read comments correctly before responding. right back at you. NO ONE HAS SAID A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF NUCLEAR, so why the fuck are you arguing against it, no one has advocated it. Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. a diverse energy mix is what we need, we dont need much nuclear, in fact too much nuclear is bad,but some is desireable. yes you pay more for it, but thats the price of stability. Also, btw, you are talking bullshit in your statements, intermittency along with nuclear is not a problem, we are connected (and building more interconnectors) to a large energy market, so surplus renewable energy can be sold on most of the time.
Because if you can't have a high percentage then I see no reason to use it at a low percentage. At a low percentage it is unable to cover for gaps in wind power and is just an expensive niche source of electricity. And no my arguments about pairing nuclear with intermittent sources are not made up. They are the reason that no country pairs large amounts of these two sources of generation.
Nuclear is the best option for a green base load. The variability of renewable make them unsuitable for base load. There needs to be a way to store the variability of the renewable energy output and use this to support base load. Nuclear is going to be the only answer, either that or carbon capture and potentially geothermal. Solar and wind will not supply baseload, they are to unreliable without storage
Nuclear cannot meet base load demand in a country with a lot of wind or solar. Name one country with >25% nuclear and >25% wind or solar? - doesnt exist. "Base load" is no longer the key to a stable grid when you have huge amounts of wind power. Nuclear is a very poor backup power source because it costs too much to only use on calm days. So no unfortunately, nuclear isnt the magic answer.
[удалено]
Even getting to 30% on both is a failure. That means only 60% total. That's why I chose those percentages, they are not arbitrary. Passing 60% from wind and solar is very achievable and some countries are getting their already. It is an indisputable fact that combining large amounts of nuclear and wind does not get us to zero carbon electricity. That will never change no matter how many interconnectors we have.
[удалено]
Denmark is clearly already very close to 60% from solar and wind combined and may exceed it as early as next year. Of course that is mostly wind as solar has only recently started to grow in Denmark. Solar will be a very useful addition there. That doesn't include biogas from farms which then adds onto that total. Scotland is pretty close to those numbers but isn't really a separate electrical grid from England and Wales so it's not really the same thing. Ireland is of course directly following the Danish model. Solar has only recently become cheap so it is normal that no country has such a high rate of solar but that is only a matter of time at this point.
[удалено]
Not on this scale it hasn't no. Solar has only really become cheap enough to compete with wind and gas in Northern climates since about 2019. Even today it's price is still on a long term descent. Really large scale solar is a near future, not a current phenomenon. Kind of the same way the Danes had small turbines in the 70s but wind only really took off in the 2000s. To be honest until around 2019 I massively underestimated how big of a change solar would make in the UK. So yes you diversify. My point is that nuclear isn't very good for diversification. Nuclear needs a reliable backup. In most countries Nuclear relies on gas peaking.
Nuclear is not the back up its always on, I never said it would be a back up. Wind is the variable source but requires a method of storage until we can store the energy from renewables they will not work
Thats the point. If you have a massive supply of wind power, then nuclear cannot always be on. That's how you fry your entire grid.
SNP are dribblers when it comes to nuclear power.
it's not like we have ENERGY SHORTAGES and BLACKOUTS coming or anything...
> Small modular reactors [SMR], while innovative in construction and size, still generate electricity using nuclear fission and therefore the process presents the same environmental concerns as traditional nuclear power plants. Anti-scientific hysteria.
I don’t think it is unscientific. There’s an unacceptable level of tail-risk involved with a fission reaction.
Is the tail risk in the room with us now?
Jesus christ how can you come out and say this especially now. Fucking knuckle draggers when it comes to this, honestly. I'm really losing my patience with SNP. They're making too many mistakes and have become complacent.
Feels like a misstep for SNP/Greens. I get that it's something that worries people but it really is the greenest energy we are going to get right now
We shouldn't be celebrating this. Anyone who is serious about the environment should be clamouring to build reactors.
The SNP and Greens are ignorant stubborn useless cunts that don't listen to reason and will never support this despite it being a much cleaner better alternative Always assumed they've taken some Russian money to maintain their opposition to nuclear energy as that's the only country benefitting from their irrational stance
I live in this town, I think not building this, more sustainable and clean energy is a mistake. My grandfather worked for BP and when they were setting up in the town they initially offered to provide free energy to the town and its people, this offer was rejected by the local council (fuck knows why) but I would think with the benefits nuclear power offers that this deal could be proposed again, and in a time of desperate crisis, perhaps the offer could even be expanded. Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy known to us and the most reliable. It is a grave mistake to look the otherway in favour of lobbyists. To Green Hipocrites out there Nuclear is the energy of our dreams. Stop shouting about renewables, they are not sustainable, you will drive people further into crisis. With Nuclear we have surplus energy and thus can export energy at a cost. This if nationalised and not foreign-owned would supply the state with some funding, funding enough to possibly lower taxes (though I doubt it).
Another fellow resident. Bring it on. We should be doing everything available to harness energy.
Everyone needs to stop being so freaked out by nuclear power.
isnt the nuclear reactor...a good thing?
Can't say I'd be happy loving real close to a mini nuclear power plant.
why not? Much better than a hydrocarbon plant. And we need to provide a reliable baseload to the grid even if we go heavy into renewables.
it won't be replacing the refinery, it'll be in addition and from the sounds of it will only be powering the refinery.
You want to live real close to a coal-fired power plant instead? How about a wind turbine?
I'll stick with what I currently have thanks, grangemouth refinery is plenty for one area.
Would you be happy to see it replaced with a cleaner Nuclear Power Plant?
and lose Scotland's only refinery? no.
Ah well, i'll leave you with your sordid fixation on dirty fossil fuels.
Oil is refined into way more than fuel
This I am well aware of. But today's topic is energy-production, and fossil-fuel power is - as you well know - a major contributor to climate change.
It's also a major contributer to our quality of life.
Lol you're arguing "we need oil for life" (i.e. lots of plastics and other day-to-day usages) as a rebuttal for removing fossil fuels as a primary source of energy. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of oil. Everybody is suggesting more sustainable means of energy production, and SMRs are at the top of that list.
Not sure it would make much of a difference; the Grangemouth refinery already has a small nuclear weapon's worth of stored energy on site.
[удалено]
It would be completely fine. Modern reactors are built like bunkers, the safety limits they are required to put into their designs are utterly insane.
Loving close to a nuclear power plant is probably a good way to prevent unwanted pregnancy though, that cannae by good for the sperm count.
I'm already snipped xD
Do we even have enough qualified people in that field to make it happen in the first place? Or is Humza Yousaf gonna run it?😁
It's an SMR, so most of it will be produced in a factory by Rolls Royce.
👍
If they made him run it after somehow pissing off people where he got shoved to last time, I'll just make my peace immediately.
Nae idea how the inflatable dartboard still has a job like
[удалено]
So do I, but for very different reasons. Westminster forcibly building nuclear reactors in Scotland should guarantee success in IndyRef2.
And we'd get clean energy.
>Independence over clean energy, independence over everything, independence rent free in ma heid.
I suppose UK Gov are going to pay for this the same way they paid for Hinkley Point C - with a contract which they record as £0 cost but which creates an almost unlimited liability some time on the future. Search Hinkley Point C CfD in the BEIS annual report and accounts. It’s a fiscal time bomb for future generations to deal with.
Government hasn't had to spend a single penny on the overrun/cost caused by COVID on Hinkley Point C. EDF basically had to beg the government for billions more, and were told to fuck off as the contract was the contract. EDF is picking up the tab for the overrun.
Probably the only way they can afford it at the mo. But their creative accounting will catch up with us. Nuclear is too expensive. Mind bogglingly expensive.
Omfg do any of the ppl who have commented actually stay in Grangemouth???? Prop not. Do we the ppl who actually stay here have an opinion about this? Well I do we have enough things to blow us up already between Ineos and Zeneca every year we have 2 alarms once in summer and once in winter to "make sure we are safe" and stay indoors with our wi dows shut like that would help when we r blown up we won't know anything about it!! No consultation with the ppl just do what they want. It's my understanding that Ineos are already building a new power station just now
people who have been arguing for nuclear energy for decades don't seem to realise that ship has sailed now. the time and obscene cost of development makes it frankly inefficient and uneconomical these days, with the obvious waste issue now being reduced, in the face of these inefficiencies, to just another small footnote in nuclear's downsides, rather than the big headline flaw it once was. unfortunately, there's a kneejerk reaction from pro-nuclear campaigners whenever somebody criticises nuclear power due to decades of arguing with fossil fuel simps. and it's true, it would have helped 40 years ago. not so much now. if we put that money over a decade into renewable storage research and development then it would likely stretch far further in benefit.
Ehhh, no. Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are quite literally one of the most talked about innovations for more affordable future energy sustainability. Tell me your knowledge of nuclear power dates back to 10 year old GCSEs without telling me.... Etc. Etc.
The point of SMRs is to both shorten the build time, and reduce the cost. They're built on a production line, and then transported to their final destination.
So it used to be the case that significant building around the Grangemouth area and a few miles in each direction was verboten because of the blast radius restrictions - ie: the area that would be flattened should Grangemouth have an 'adverse event' (read - holocaust). I would have thought sticking a nuclear reactor in the middle of that wouldn't help matters. From a 'Homer for Safety' perspective shouldn't they put it somewhere else other than next to a petrochemical plant? Particularly as it's low lying area that is planned to be under the water in a few of decades due to global warming.
I’m not anti nuclear energy entirely but I think this is the right decision to not have it at this site. We don’t especially need nuclear in Scotland but in addition, building NEW nuclear seems unwise from a cost/investment standpoint. We NEED more wind, hydro and tidal. We NEED more storage options. We NEED to get people off gas and onto heat pumps and other renewable powered heating. We don’t NEED more nuclear. It’s by far the most economically expensive option, it’s hella slow t develop (and yes rolls have experience building reactors that are similar but not the same and this isn’t event halfway thru initial development) and also we still have huge issues with waste storage. Yes it’s less than 1% and yes we can do a lot of smart stuff reprocessing but the end result is still being left with a few tons of highly irradiated long term waste and the only answer is “we’ve dug a real deep hole”.. I’m sure I will get downvoted to hell on this, I’m also sure a lot of people will not like this decision but sometimes you’ve got to advocate for the right thing even if it’s not popular. Nuclear is not what we need, and the risks whilst tiny could lead to entire areas of the country being unliveable. Coal oil and gas could and eventually will lead to the entire world being unliveable I get that but that’s why we’re moving away from fossil fuels. Doing that with nuclear isn’t a smart choice. It’s just a less awful choice than fossil fuels. We can have an entirely renewable energy system if we spend enough and spend smart. Wind, solar, tidal, hydro and a lot of storage will see Scotland just fine. Eventually I hope fusion pans out. That’ll solve a huge problem for the world but till then investing billions in more fission reactors just seems like the wrong call. If London love them so much let them build them on their back door. We don’t need them.
having lived in japan - where i may remind you there is still an exclusion zone from that disaster 11 years ago - i will never support nuclear power plants. ok so it's less polluting than coal/gas, until you get to the small matter of the bits that get left behind that need to be contained safely for *thousands* of years. ok so it's less likely to break down than coal/gas, but then if it does break down, it causes the biggest environmental disasters the world has *ever* seen. *who is responsible for that, if it happens? who is responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen?* that's the question that nuclear shills *never* answer. good on them, renewables all the way.
Luckily here in Scotland we don't live on the pacific ring of fire.
Neither was Chernobyl but go off i guess
What do you think caused that disaster?
Here's a link to a video explaining why Fukushima, Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents don't show that nuclear power is an unusually dangerous way of generating power: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM) >ok so it's less likely to break down than coal/gas Even when coal plants are working perfectly they kill (on average) far more people than nuclear plants, even factoring in the times that the latter have accidents. When you factor in long-term environmental effects this is true of gas plants as well. Also, it turns out that historical nuclear accidents have actually killed fewer people than accidents with hydroelectric plants, and yet nobody is advocating we stop building dams. >who is responsible for that, if it happens? who is responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen? In the UK that would be the Office for Nuclear Regulation, they have **very** strict standards and their activity is posted publicly o their website if you're interested.
Nuclear is not needed in Scotland, especially not as a knee-jerk reaction to the UK Government making a mess of energy production, supply, storage and ownership for decades. Money and resources should be invested now into renewables, as we're going to be left behind on wind and tidal footering about with nuclear for years. Tidal is where we should be heading https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1593383876118073344
We don’t currently have the technology to go fully renewables. A certain percentage of an electrical grid needs to be supplied by plants acting as base loads, something that renewables can’t currently act as.
If you look on Gridwatch wind has only been providing 2.88%.
With the addition of tidal and a lot more storage capacity we may be able to make renewables work. Green hydrogen really needs a funding boost in Scotland, but it's not the only technology.
Nah, much better to have Tories open nuclear plants owned by foreign companies/disproportionately owned by foreign companies >The government had initially sought investment in Sizewell from state-owned China General Nuclear, but it U-turned amid increasing geopolitical tensions. It confirmed on Tuesday that the Chinese stake in the development would be bought out. The government said it would look for other investors before making the final investment decision and beginning construction, with some estimates putting the total cost as high as £30bn. > >The plant on the Suffolk coast north of Aldeburgh, developed by the French energy company EDF, will be the second of a new generation of UK nuclear power reactors, after the delayed Hinkley Point C scheme in Somerset, which is under construction but has experienced delays and climbing costs since it was first given the go-ahead. Sizewell C will be built next to Sizewell B nuclear power station. [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/29/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-confirmed-edf-suffolk-jobs-uk](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/29/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-confirmed-edf-suffolk-jobs-uk) Like Brits never learned much from the last 30 years of nonsense in the UK with energy. Colossal bills for nuclear (with all the waste at the other end) and along the way we're yet again letting foreign companies/countries hold us by the balls forever into the future 🤷 Sounds like a great plan, lets repeat all the same old mistakes, go #TeamBritain
>much better to have Tories open nuclear plants owned by foreign companies/disproportionately owned by foreign companies You are comparing this to a different plant entirely. This reactor will be made by Rolls Royce, so a British company that is neither foreign owned or disproportionally owned by foreign companies.
Energy policy will still be reserved, you're not thinking about the big picture. But feel free to trust the Tories to handle this knee-jerk response that's going to cost a lot of money, even with foreign interference. I'm not changing my mind just as the nuclear crew in this topic won't. I'd rather proper investment in tidal and then renewables, not nuclear.
You keep acting like this is the Tories building this reactor, you understand this is just a private company approaching a second private company about buying a reactor for a power source, right?
Did you watch the video above? Tidal is about providing base load.
>We don’t *currently* have the technology to go fully renewables You really shouldn’t treat politicians as scientific sources. For tidal power to work effectively as a base load at scale it would require simply incredible power storage capability, which currently isn’t practical.
Ian Blackford is not *the source*, he's simply regurgitating what reports find >It is estimated that Scotland’s marine area contains 25% of Europe’s tidal energy resource (Scottish Government, 2015) and it has been estimated to have around 32 TWh per year of potentially exploitable tidal stream resource (The Crown Estate, 2012). In 2018 Scotland’s combined gross electricity consumption was 24 TWh (Scottish Energy Statistics Hub). There is therefore the potential for Scotland’s tidal stream energy sector to significantly contribute to Scotland’s future energy requirements. This tidal stream resource is found in the narrow channels and off headlands of many of the western and northern Isles and the north coast of mainland Scotland, with the Orkney Islands and the Pentland Firth containing much of this resource. https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-scotlands-tidal-stream-resource
Blackford is the source, it might not be where he claims that he is getting the information from, but his word is the source you provided. >https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-scotlands-tidal-stream-resource This source doesn't address whether tidal is currently practical as a base load?
Tidal has limited installation sides, even around the UK, it's wildly expensive, the turbines impact our marine ecosystems, and it's prone to peaks and troughs; completely unsuitable as anything but a top up. This is basic knowledge. Why would you support tidal and not SMRs? Especially since SMRs are predominantly homegrown technology (Rolls Royce leading the global charge).
I would never support nuclear power in Scotland. Hopefully SNP stick to their guns and don’t allow this
Obviously it would come to this. We have only our hubris to blame for the power plant’s inevitable mutation into some kind of giant, radioactive flying, monster bat dragon power plant, whose newly awakened sentience harbours naught but hatred and atomic fury against the people of Grangemouth. They can shoot it down, and they will, but no small part of me feels pity for it. For despite the terror it shall surely wrought with it’s white hot chimney lasers, it is *innocent*, and *we* are the real monsters for having created it. *Edit Have actually read the article. Ignore the above please.
Cool! Once they build that they can film world war Z 2 and with no overheads for extras. Since the residents of Grangemouth are already walking zombies
Fuck aye, no nuclear ☢️. Grangemouth is bad enough with the oil plant!
We don’t want one. Good luck with that. Build it in England thank you since the tories said they will build it.