'Green' Scotland relying on French nuclear power

[joshcryer]

SCOTLAND'S wind farms are unable to cope with the freezing weather conditions – grinding to a halt at a time when electricity demand is at a peak, forcing the country to rely on power generated by French nuclear plants.

Output from major wind farms fell to as low as 2.5 per cent of their potential generation capacity during the cold snap as power demand rose to close to the highest level yet recorded, new figures have revealed.

Meteorologists say extremely cold temperatures can occur only when there is little or no wind and icy pockets of air are trapped close to the ground, prompting accusations from anti- wind-farm campaigners that wind power cannot be relied on to meet Scotland's electricity needs in the depths of winter.

The data, charted on the Balancing Mechanism Reporting System website, which the National Grid uses to monitor UK power generation, also revealed that at times when wind energy was at its lowest, back-up power had to be piped in from France, where the majority of electricity is nuclear-generated.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/39Green39-Scotland-relying-on-French.6672024.jp

Much more at link.

Global warming is slated to cause much larger extremes, indeed, many of the record highs and record lows have occurred in the past 10 years.

[Ghost Dog]

1. Yes, this is correct. Deep cold in windless conditions

is common in Northern Europe as well as elsewhere. Presumably most wind farms are fully operational in average blizzard conditions.

Scotland needs to develop and deploy ocean power - wave and current, and is indeed some leading developments are based in and are assisted by Scotland.

Nukes make sense as long as very tight security can be maintained - at every level and in every sense. And there's the rub.

[joshcryer]

2. I don't want to build Gen III+, I want to research and deploy Gen IV if renewables can't work.

They're not working, unfortunately. :(

[kristopher]

3. Renewables ARE working.

You can post as many distorted interpretations of what constitutes "working" as you want in your attempt to discredit renewable energy sources, but they are working just fine.

You desperately want nuclear power to dominate the world, don't you? Who else would interpret the OP as a "failure" of the plans to move to renewable energy sources? All your OP shows is that the GRID is needed for ALL energy sources. Not a surprising actuality when you consider that ALL energy sources are *designed* to serve society's needs only as a functioning part if a grid.

There is nothing in the OP that leads to the conclusions you are promoting.

[NickB79]

4. 2.5% of potential generating capacity and relying on imported electricity is "working just fine"?

Wow.

[joshcryer]

5. Denialism.

[kristopher]

7. So when Oyster Creek nuclear plant shuts down for "vibrations" nuclear is also a failure?

The shut down results in having to import coal generated electricity so the obvious conclusion (according to the OP's faulty logic) is that nuclear power is a failure.

According to the EIA, in the first 10 months of 2010 in the US, renewable energy generated virtually the same amount of electricity as nuclear (11% of primary energy production).

We've been channeling massive support for nuclear power for nearly 50 years.

We've just started seriously building renewables.

[joshcryer]

10. I don't support Gen III.

[kristopher]

13. Of course you do; that is the entire point of your OP

[joshcryer]

14. You cannot support that lie.

[joshcryer]

6. I merely agree with James Hansen's very reasonable position. R&D for Narrow Gen IV, all renewable...

...in the intrim.

If renewable isn't cutting it in 8 years from now. Well.

That narrow option of Gen IV (IFR + LFTR) should be deployed.

Because I say that renewables aren't cutting it is highly uncontroversial, as 300 Apollo's or 50 WWII's isn't happening, and we know damn well that it's just infeasible to grow our renewable infrastructure even modestly quick, even remotely close to our coal build-out, even.

[kristopher]

8. That is a perverse interpretation followed by a fallacious statement

The perverse interpretation is to assign fault to any given technology when the problem is political will. The fallacious statement following from that is "renewables aren't cutting it" when in fact renewables ARE performing exactly as they should.

What isn't "cutting it" is the political system that directs resources to problems beyond the profit horizon of corporate interests.

Your constant attacks on renewables and your constant support for CURRENT nuclear is part of that political dynamic and contributes to the PROBLEM.

[joshcryer]

9. Nothing I said disagrees with political will. Nothing.

Instead you fill the forum up with misinformation, pretending, indeed, misleading people that renewable energy is causing one iota of a dent in the global energy infrastructure.

It's not.

[kristopher]

11. Yes it does.

If you can't see that, you are incapable of rational thought.

[joshcryer]

12. Quote it, exactly, and I will explain to you how you are incapable of understanding English.