Nuclear must be in the mix
IT is necessary that I respond to Iain Mcintyre’s criticism
(Letters, June 8th) of my letter (June 1) concerning the necessity to include nuclear in our energy mix. He falls into the information trap set by renewable industry spin, gullible politicians, and a supine media which fails to challenge received wisdom.
While it is true that wind energy, at point of connection to the grid, is cheaper than nuclear for favourable onshore and shallow-water offshore wind farms, the intermittency of the energy, defined as capacity factor, means that at best the energy is only available for approximately 30% (onshore) and 60% (offshore), the life span is at best 25years, the source of the energy is remote from the demand, non-synchronous and requires expensive transmission infrastructure to send the energy to where it is required. This transmission results in power losses, complex voltage stability management of reactive power and insertion of inertia in the form of large synchronous machines. Moreover, the times when wind energy is lacking, the gap has to be filled by gas generation, a situation that cannot prevail beyond 2050 if the net zero target is met. The only practical storage solution, as I previously stated, is pump storage, since batteries, while useful for grid stability, would need to be of a size which is impracticable. The amount of energy that would be needed to compensate for wind’s fickle performance is truly immense. Figures of hundreds of billions of pounds and vast landscape destruction are no exaggeration. This is why “the whole system cost” of wind energy is several times that of nuclear.
In contrast nuclear offers reliable power for 60 years at 90% availability, has inherent inertia, modest real estate requirements and can be located close to demand. Future developments promise inherent stability and a reduced volume of hazardous waste.
Mr Mcintyre refers to the levelised cost of onshore wind as £38 per MWH. This is as misleading as “how long is a piece of string”. What is telling is the actual strike price negotiated for each site. A random sampling will reveal many onshore sites having negotiated strike prices well over £100/MWH and offshore in excess of £150/MWH at current value. (Hinkley Point C current price, £124.65. Future nuclear is predicted to be about half the cost of Hinkley).
George Morton (Letters, June 8th) says that I failed to consider tidal. I am well aware of its potential, but space limited me covering all the issues. Tidal has advantages in that it is entirely predictable and the economics of storage to cover slack tides are practical. Unfortunately, it is hugely expensive. For example, the Maygen Pentland Firth tidal stream project has negotiated a strike price of £245.29/MWH.
Whatever we do, we cannot afford an energy policy dominated by wind. We need a mix of technologies and recognition that whatever we do, energy will never be as cheap as energy-dense carbon.
Our future energy strategy must be determined by a government-sponsored, professional and independent authority and not by the present free market and ill-advised politicians.
Norman Mcnab, Killearn.
These resources aren’t Scotland’s
I AM at a loss to understand why Stephen Flynn has had such a good press for his performance in the TV debate of the seven (“SNP’S Westminster leader was the ‘star’ of BBC debate”, The Herald, June 10). It is probably that the other performers, and the host, Mishal Husain, were not sufficiently au fait with Scottish politics to know when he was talking nonsense.
Still, one might have thought that they would register the daftness of him saying “It’s Scotland’s wind, it’s Scotland’s waves”. No-one owns the wind and the waves, and “Scotland” certainly doesn’t. Private companies, mostly foreign-owned, are the proprietors of energy companies that utilise these resources.
The SNP likes to harp on about “Scotland’s resources”. It isn’t “Scotland” or Scots who have invested in and exploited these resources, or made successful businesses based on them. It is a sad commentary on Scots that so many of them seem not to know that.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.
0 Comments