Nuclear is only feasible option for electricity generation

All renewable forms of electricity generation are intermittent with the possible exception of tidal. However, this is as yet a technology unproven on a commercial scale.
While battery storage will be important to balance grid demand, there will still be a requirement for stable generating capacity available in all conditions.
In order to reduce demand for gas (or other fossil fuels) then nuclear is the only feasible option to provide the necessary base line generating capacity.

Why the contribution is important

Politicians are not being honest about the difficulties of decarbonising. There should have been encouragement for domestic gas production in the last ten years which would have reduced demand for gas imports. This has already resulted in a lack of available domestic gas resources necessary for any transition to a decarbonised future as well as reliance on Russian gas supplies - with catastrophic results.

by jerb on September 08, 2022 at 02:54PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 1.0
Based on: 3 votes

Comments

  • Posted by AngelaMLAnderson September 08, 2022 at 22:25

    There is a need for a base supply of power but nucleat cannot be allowed to be allowed to be the answer. Nuclear is a dangerous option. There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear wasted. The time money and planning needed for nuclear could bring forward a green solution in a shorter time scale with no nuclear waste to deal with forever. Are also technical problems exacerbated by climate change in relation to fresh water for internal cooling and the use of ocean sites for secondary cooling. Fukushima is an example as are the reports advising against Hinckley C. The carbon footprint of the build is also enormous as is the footprint of decommissioning. This is no way to go.

  • Posted by Tony September 11, 2022 at 10:06

    I'm all for a discussion as to why nuclear is needed. But disagree that it is the only feasible option. There are options such as pumped hydro etc. which allow the storage of energy for long periods, enough to cover any lack of renewables. (This would need to be linked into reducing energy consumption as well.)

    Scotland is in shared grid with England and we have links to Europe. Even if Scotland is having a rare windless day we can import power from our neighbours.

    England is building nuclear stations so we will be able to take advantage of their decision to go this route and not have to worry about the waste. So why build more in Scotland? (Genuine question)

  • Posted by Briggen September 11, 2022 at 23:00

    This is a leter from Peter Roche - Edinburgh based Energy & Environmental Cosultant to The herald 9/9/22 and he puts the case against nuclear as well as I have heard it and is a response to the first comment on this page heade "Nuclear is only feasible option for electricity generation" :

    NUCLEAR is the worst possible way to back up wind power. Full Stop.

    Baseload – which Iain Macwhirter in his Herald on Sunday article “Nuclear is the worst possible option ... except for the others” (September 4) suggests

    Nuclear is only feasible option for electricity generationis needed when the wind doesn’t blow – is an outdated concept. Renewables should not be described as intermittent – they are variable, which means their output can be forecast with good accuracy.

    Nuclear plants are on 24/7, so can’t balance the output from variable renewables, and would get in the way of their expansion, because they are inflexible.

    There are plenty of better ways of balancing the grid. We need a more flexible system with smart grids, time-of-use tariffs, batteries and storage including heat storage and hydrogen, made using surplus renewables power.

    A rapidly growing number of studies show that 100% renewable energy systems are not only feasible but also cost effective.

    And we are not just talking about wind. Solar would also be a central pillar, but other sources will include geothermal, tidal and wave power, all backed up with an ambitious energy efficiency programme.

    Nuclear power is too expensive. Building nuclear stations will put energy bills up. Electricity from offshore wind is currently about £37 per megawatt hour. I

    f the UK Government goes ahead with Sizewell, in about 15 years its electricity would cost around £120 per megawatt hour.

    An added problem is that new nuclear stations take too long to build. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that we have less than 10 years in which to make massive and unprecedented changes to global energy infrastructure to limit gloglobal warming to moderate levels.

    The UK Government first started consulting on building new nuclear power stations in May 2007, but Hinkley Point C is not expected to start generating electricity until around 2027.

  • Posted by Briggen September 11, 2022 at 23:03

    The above comment is from Tor Justad Chairperson Highlands Agaisnt Nuclear Transport - based in Strathpeffer,Ross-shire
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas