More from the Sunday Times poll
The full results of the YouGov poll are still up on their website here. As usual they asked a wide variety of subjects, so here’s a run down of some of the other findings.
Gordon Brown’s figures continue to plummet, his net “good job” in the YouGov poll for the Sunday Times was down to -20, as compared to -10 in November. Cameron’s figures are up at plus 25. There were figures for Nick Clegg, but so far these mean very little indeed, with well over half of respondents saying don’t know.
Less good for Cameron was one of those focus group style questions asking what animal people thought politicians resembled: Brown was seen as a bear, a nice strong image there. Cameron was seen as a snake, oh dear.
In reality these questions aren’t really suited to a quantative survey, it depends too much on what options you give them, I remember arguing about the wording for we did about whether tortoise should be included in the list, since it was so obvious it was just leading people to give that negative response about Ming Campbell. In this case there was one very obvious “positive” animal for Brown, so Labour supporters all said bear – negative repsonses from Conservative supporters were split between things like Ostrich, Hippo and snake. For Cameron it was the opposite, negative responses were concentrated on snake, but positive responses from Tory supporters were split between leopard and bear (neither of which are particularly Cameronish). If the question tells us anything, it is that for those who still have a positive view of Brown, his qualities are very well defined. In Cameron’s case his negatives are well defined, but his positives aren’t. (My favourite outcome in one of these comparison questions was an ICM focus group that found Cameron was seen as a some upmarket BMW saloon car, the type slightly flashy salesmen would drive. Ming Campbell was a nice old Jaguar. Brown was a tank.)
Moving on, the Sunday Times poll also covered nuclear power. Asked if they approved of a new generation of nuclear power stations to replace current ones, a majority (59%) approved, with 27% opposed. Conservative supporters were most supportive, but even a plurality of supporters of the Lib Dems – the only one of the three main parties to oppose the plans – were in favour, 48% to 39%. Overall 39% of respondents thought the proportion of Britain’s energy needs filled by nuclear power should increase in the future, 17% though it should stay the same, 25% though it should be reduced or entirely phased out.
It’s worth pointing out again the unusual contrasts between men and women on the issue of nuclear power. On most issues men and women think much the same, nuclear power is an exception. Men overwhelmingly favoured the decision to build a new generation of nuclear plants by 74% to 20%, women were far more cautious, with the balance in favour 44% to 32% against.
The Sunday Times also did a series of questions on “rip off Britain”, which had a nuggest of good news for the big supermarkets, who were very much the whipping boy last year. Overwhelming majorities of respondents thought that the public were ripped off by petrol companies, rail companies, dentists, banks and local councils…supermarkets alone broke the trend, with 61% of people thinking the public got a good deal from them.
Finally there were a couple of “are you are heartless unfeeling bastard?” questions. 57% of people claimed they paid great attention to the way food they bought had been produced. 60% said they would pay £1 extra for chickens reared in more humane conditions.
Questions like this where there is an option that is obviously the more socially desirable invariably give worthless results, it’s so much easier to say it in a survey than actually fork out the money. Have sales of non-free range chicken collapsed as over 60% of consumers spurn them for more humane alternatives? Of course not, the supermarkets report sales of chicken slightly up, with Tesco saying the proportion of customers buying their Willow Farm bird which have a higher standard of welfare are “slightly up”.
My favourite example of this type of question was done by Populus after the Boxing Day tsunami, they asked respondents how much money people in their household had donated to the relief effort…and came up with a figure considerably larger than the actual donations made by the entire country. People will very rarely tell pollsters they are heartless bastards.
Filed under: YouGov
One thing I notice from these polls is that Scotland has come out nowhere near as anti-nuclear as one would think listening to the politicians there. Is this the usual response? (I am fairly new to these things). 49% broadly agreed to the policy of replacing power stations which is lower than other regions, but not crazily so. On the other question of what role nuclear should play Scotland was on a par with the rest of the country. While I agree Scotland does need nuclear (not sure the rest do either), I was interested by this on a day when the parties in Holyrood were making noise about the decision.
Sorry that should have ‘Scotland does NOT need nuclear’. Ahem.
Interesting comments on Cameron. I thought his performance on the AM Show resembled that of a super-slick, glib salesman who had the answers to every problem. I was reminded of Richard Nixon. I wonder how he’ll fare in the rigour of a five-week General Election battle. Andrew Marr is very gentle compared with some of the more robust political interrogators.
It is funny that David Cameron came out as a snake, but really, what else could have happened! Those sort of questions are far too leading. Again what could GB be but a bear? Perhaps if tortoise had been included….
I agree that David Cameron still has a long way to go to prove he is more than a Blair-like smooth boy. Fortunately for him the political cycle is on his side.
The question on page 7:
Do you agree or disagree with the following
statement: “A high proportion of people
receiving Incapacity Benefit should not have the
money as they are perfectly able to work.”
Is particularly poorly worded. Really, it’s two statements:
“A high proportion of people receiving Incapacity Benefit are perfectly able to work.”
And:
“People receiving Incapacity Benefit should not have the money if they are perfectly able to work.”
I may disagree with the first but agree with the last, or vice-versa, or both or neither.
Alasdair – questions like that can actually be very useful in focus groups (like the car one from ICM I mentioned, which is think is wonderful), they only work though if people aren’t led or prompted at all. In quantative surveys its all down to what options you give people, rubbish questions, but papers often ask them because they provide good copy.
Alasdair,
One big change on the attitudes to nuclear power has been the way it has been presented.
Up until this year it was more or less asked in the context of,
“Do you want new Nuclear Power Stations, or another form of power generation such as renewables”,
Now it’s very much,
“Do you want new Nuclear Power Stations or would you rather all the lights went out”.
It’s not quite WMD’s in Iraq but in it’s own way it’s as loaded as which animal does Brown remind you of.
In Scotland you turn on the TV and get two (mixed) message.
The domestic one which tends to point out that Scotland has plenty of Oil, Gas and Coal, Europe’s best renewable potential and produces 20% more electricity than it uses, while having some of the worst insulated homes in the UK (and the worst weather.)
The UK message is we are an importer of oil and gas and we are now increasingly dependant an unreliable Russia for gas while oil is $100bbl.
In many respects it is the scaremongering about the lights going out that are driving it as much up here as in the rest of the UK.
Having said that, as Anthony has pointed out, the size of Scottish samples means that the difference here between North and South are probably within the margin of error.
Peter.
An alternative form of words, ZX?
Personally, I like the first of your two statements; it is a straightforward one, whereas the 2nd is leading one to agree.
As far as the animals go – I wonder if anyone suggested “chicken” or “duck”? I reckon “peacock” would have garnered a few for Cameron!
Thanks guys. I agree with Peter about the scaremongering (north and south). The energy gap does not yet exist, and nuclear is an expensive way to solve it (the most expensive, despite what they say!!). Offshore wind and solar could be a better bet in the long run.. (you could do a lot for the £70 billion it will cost to clear up our existing nuclear fleet).
“The energy gap does not yet exist”
It isn’t possible to react instantly to shortage of electricity capacity-it takes some years to plan for & build power stations.
The government is planning forward, and foresees what has been clear for some years-a huge reduction in UK’s self sufficiency in gas & oil at a time when imports are subject to significant political risk.
This will be excacerbated if we close down existing outdated nuclear capacity without replacing it.
The “cost” of energy is a comparative-not an absolute. The price of gas & oil will continue to rise as readily exploitable supply dwindles.We will see horrendously expensive and environmentally damaging resources like Canadian Tar Sands being utilised.
Wind energy has a very limited role to play since it is unpredictably variable & intermittent.
Denmark-one of the two most intense users of wind energy, exports it unuseable high output surges to Norway via a shared grid -where it displaces zero-carbon hydro generation!
Germany-the other major user of wind published a report recently which exposed the excessive costs of this output. Germany plans currently to build 26 coal powered station to utilise cheap East European coal-Germany has set its face against nuclear plant renewal.
Wind Turbines in UK are only being built because of the ROC sytem & the value of the subsidy-around £1bn pa.It’s contribution to UK electricity generation is laughably insignificant, and -in the Welsh and Scottish uplands particularly is frequently environmentally damaging.
Nuclear most definitely has a significant role to play in power generation-look at France and check where they stand in the world CO2 emissions league.We import their nuclear electricity.
Actually Nuclear is the ideal base load companion for intermittent renewable output in a low CO2 generation mix.
Are bears not short-sighted, violent, aggressive, solitary creatures who can be prone to run away at the unexpected?
They are also unwelcome in human communties where they require tranquiliation and immediate removal for the safety of the general public.
To answer the intermittency question. Yes wind is intermittent, but report after report, from the US, to Denmark and Canada have shown that there is no problem up to about 20%-25% with modern grid control. With a proper offshore grid, this will be less of a problem as capacities are higher – 40% – and predictions easier.
As far as subsidy goes, nuclear beats all. Untold billions have been spent and continue to be spent on nuclear R&D, dwarfing anything that renewables have had. Wind does require subsidy, but what it really requires is for all the subsidies on other power to be reduced.
No nuclear power will be built unless the price of carbon is fixed very high, or the taxpayer agrees to pay for insurance, security and clean up. Oil and gas too are heavily subsidised (in the US this subsidy is estimated at almost $1 a gallon) through military intervention.
Furthermore the work of the late economist Shimon Awerbuch and others have demonstrated that including renewables like solar and wind in an energy portfolio reduce the inherent risk of price volatility.
Finally, the idea that nuclear will make us energy secure is interesting as all our uranium will have to be imported from a very small number of countries. Also check out how much uranium there is in the world. It’s a lot less than you might think.
I agree though, that forward planning is necessary.
Sorry. I appreciate that this nuclear debate has nothing to do with the poll!
Sally C – I suppose in terms of being solitary, bad tempered and aggressive being seen as a bear could be a negative…but for the Labour voters who selected it I suspect they were thinking of strength
They also s*** all over their home turf. Do you think they were thinking of that? Perhaps not.
They infamously shit in the woods. I don’t think Gordon Brown does that
You clearly used the word ‘think’ in order to avoid any accusation of being partisan as your recognised area of expertise is the field of polling, not anthropology.
I order to clear up any issues of my own partisan nature…the ‘bear’ is metophorical, the statement… analogous [clearly].
Please put my name forward for the YouGov polling panel, where I will at all times happily refer to Mr Brown as a bear. Is the Bear also a symbol of Soviet Russia?
Colin,
My point was that very little of the nuclear debate is applicable to Scotland, as we don’t have the same needs as the UK, have different resources and can connect to Norway as well.
So whatever solution the rest of the UK chooses and it’s your choice, Scotland is free to make it’s own.
Peter.
Wonder if YouGov will ever commission a poll in Denmark asking if the Danes wish they had some lovely AGR;s instead of their horrible windmills?
Interesting being in France in 2006 and seeing all the windmills going up. The only country building a nuclear power station is Finland whch appears to have had a spate of heavy power user closures ever since the decision to build was made.
I’d be astounded if Germany was building 26 power stations as its energy use is decreasing
YouGov have a Scandinavian subsidiary these days – Zapera. Don’t speak Danish so I can’t search google for any of their polls that might have covered nuclear power
Alasdair, yes uranium has to be imported. However I feel far more confident on our security (and also that the money we spend is going on positive things overseas) by importing off Australia, than importing from the Middle East or Russia.
The debate in Scotland is deliberately misleading.
We don’t need nuclear (Scotland)
We will have an energy gap without nuclear. (UK)
Both can be true, but seldom is it made clear whether “we” are Scotland or UK.
An independent Scotland may be short of many things. Wind, wave power and rainwater are not among them.
How about ‘Fox’?. That, or ‘wolf’ might be good for Cameron. Sort of fast and cunning.
I think if there had been some big strong animals with more undesiable features such as ‘ape’ Brown might have got some hits there.
Peter-
Out of interest:-
When/if Scotland goes independent will you disconnect from the National ( UK) Grid?
Can you balance your Hydro/wind/fossil mix within Scotlands demand profile?
Thanks
Colin
wolf:-
“I’d be astounded if Germany was building 26 power stations as its energy use is decreasing”
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2383879.ece
Germany’s power consumption is rising at 9% pa.
Merkel tried to get German coal fired plants excluded from ETS !!!-so much for her “green” credentials-that is the price of blinkered anti-nuclear attitudes.
Alasdair:-
The UK nuclear announcement included the assertion that new nuclear would not be subsidised & that generators would have to ring fence funds for decommissioning & waste handling.
The Tories gave their support on the strict basis that these conditions would apply.
I agree that Carbon price needs to be jacked up considerably. Stern called for this-all the authorities on the subject assert that only a penal price on Carbon will drive the development no/low carbon alternatives. ( of course nuclear will benefit from this-it should-it’s low carbon)
The EU must get it’s finger out and push down the carbon limits in the upcoming round of ETS.-and it MUST auction the majority of permits. The free issue in the last round was a disaster which collapsed the price of carbon & gave the power companies massive windfall profits-a comp-lete cock-up.
Political will is needed to drive carbon pricing.
If Arnie can grasp the concept -the Commission should be able to!
Hi Colin, you are right in that I suspect Scotland would struggle to balance its grid without connection to the rest of the UK, and/or Denmark and Norway. However that would not happen in the event of an independent Scotland (I don’t support independence, but let’s be honest).
The best way to utilize intermittant electricity is through large interconnected grids, like the European Supergrid proposed by one company which is being looked at by EU governments (including the UK).
Yes, Australia is a amajor producer of uranium, but it can’t supply the world, not with China, India, the US and the rest of Europe and Asia getting in on the nuclear act. The other major suppliers are Kazakhstan, Canada, South Africa, Niger, Russia, Namibia and Brazil. Only a few of these will be in a position to export much once their own nuclear production ramps up. Plus of course the price will increase and reserves will likely run out in less than 70 years.
It won’t matter very much if all the lights go out in Scotland because by the time they do nobody in Scotland will be able to afford the cost of turning them on anyway. That’s unless the cosy little social democratic consensus which passes for political debate in Holyrood is prevented from wiping out what passes for the private sector. Scots are vaguely aware that they are too dependent on the state and that greater wealth generation is needed to pay for the services they want but the political leadership need to bring this about is sadly lacking. Posturing over nuclear issues won’t bring home the candy. Only inward investment will do that.
Back to the poll. I am always interested in the questions about whether an individual’s family will be worse off financially in a year’s time. The responses invariably seem to be negative, but when asked how the past year went they are invariably positive. Is this the normal trend, and if so what do these type of questions tell us?
I haven’t noticed anyone mentioning that the “current voting intention” graph seems to have gone a bit off track since the most recent polls were added (in my browser anyway).
Alasdair – I haven’t seen much in the way of “how was it last year?” but I’m intrigued at the relative pessimism of
opposition supporters – are they being loyal to the cause when they answer that question, or are they really expecting deteriorating personal finances? Likewise with Govt supporters being overly optimistic I suppose.
JohnH – I know, someone emailed me to tell me earlier, it’s because I must have put the wrong date on one of the polls. Unfortunately I can’t get onto the database to correct it from work.
Having said that, the YouGov figures aren’t that negative – even 50% of Tories think their situation will improve or stay the same (though I can’t tell whether the trend is up or down).
Alasdair-intermittent is intermittent-and it’s worse if it’s unpredictably so. However big & expensive your super grid is-you need a predictable, continuous base load-what’s it going to be?
If Scotland doesn’t disconnect from the UK grid on becoming independent, then they will have no grounds for stopping replacement nuclear plants in Scotland. To insist on being able to export subsidised wind output, hundreds of miles to England and to rely on English nuclear base load output, whilst “posturing” over nuclear ( to use Nick’s splendid phrase) would be self indulgent…..posturing.
I think you are absolutely right about ‘heartless bastard’ questions, Anthony.
In fact, I’ve been describing such in exactly that way since at least the mid 1980s!
Did you consciously pinch the phrase from me, or have we both come up with the same (il?)legimate idea independently?
Or did I steal it from a third party?! Can’t remember!
Cheers and keep up the splendid work!, R
Robert – Didn’t consciously nick it, but I think I might well have read you using it on Mike Smithson’s site and squirrelled it away in my subconscious!
Alasdair – I keep meaning to have a really detailed look at those economic confidence questions and pick out some long term trends. Haven’t had the time to do it alas.
Colin:
When/if Scotland goes independent will you disconnect from the National ( UK) Grid?
Can you balance your Hydro/wind/fossil mix within Scotlands demand profile?
The first question should rather be “What price will the market bear?” (for Scottish exports) The answer to the second is “nae bother”
Alasdair-IAEA say breeder technology extends the life of currently exploitable uranium resources to 2500 years usage. As ever of course as energy prices rise, economically exploitable resources expand.
The big question is how long before oil & gas resources begin to seriously dwindle. The world shows no signs of reducing it’s consumption of them.
John B-my question related to Grid input mix Engineering, rather than economics.
In the long run we will all have to bear a heavy price for our energy extravagence.
I’m pleased to see Robert Waller posting on this site, (unless someone is naughtily pretending to be him of course!)
Peter Cairns:
You said
“So whatever solution the rest of the UK chooses and it’s your choice, Scotland is free to make it’s own.”
I’m not sure that’s quite right. Do you mean “If Scotland were independent it would be free to make its own”?
It does seem that the nuclear power industry has suddenly realised (on the election of an SNP government) that there are high transmission costs on electricity generated in Scotland and used in the south. The expected conflict may not happen, but only because the opposition has walked away.
If the SNP can frighten off the nuclear industry, and the immigration service snatch teams when their majority over the next largest party has gone off on maternity leave,can they do the same thing with Trident when she comes back? If the answer to that is “Yes”, please remind me what you need independence for.
Anthony,
The SNP have released a press re;ease about a Scottish Daily express story about a YouGov poll in Scotland. Any information on it.
John,
The SNP as government control planning, so no planning consent no nuclear power. In general as a nation or as part of the UK we can certainly reduce demand, and indeed although it’s good for the balance of payments we don’t need to be a net exporter of electricity.
Wind farms in particular are intermitant, but wave and particularly tidal are less so.
In addition whether it be traditional pump storage or Sea Loch storage, let along hydrogen, in the longer term globally energy storage is becoming a big issue and a market we should be developing both for domestic use and export.
In addition there is also Carbon capture and biomass both of which can allow us to provide base load at far lower carbon levels than present without reliance on imports.
It might not be fully renewable or carbon neutral but it would be a lot better than now and stable and sustainable.
Compared to that even if the UK builds it’s ten reactors by 2020 and that is a big big if I still think that on CO2 we will be no where near meeting the targets Browns government have set.
Peter.
This from the SNP e-mail…
The opinion poll conducted for the Scottish Daily Express shows;
Scottish Constituency Vote
SNP 38
Labour 29
Tory 14
Lib Dem 14
Other 6
Scottish Regional Vote
SNP 30
Labour 27
Tory 13
Lib Dem 12
Other 18
It doesn’t mention Westminster or anything else, or elese it hasn’t been released yet. Although the 14%/12% though down a bit makes the 7% LibDem for Westminster look particularly unlikely.
LibDem Holyrood result was 16%/11%.
Put these in to the Scotland votes website and you get roughly ( as it doesn’t break down others).
http://shandwick2.fs-server.com/_client/wspa/
Labour 40 (-6), SNP 48 (+1), Tory 18 (+1), LibDem 16 (0), SSP 0 (0), Green 5 (+3), Ind 2 (+1).
Peter.
Thanks for that Peter , the Others regional vote seems rather high , presumably they are showing the same very high Green vote as in their last poll on which we had some discussion with Anthony suggesting it was boosted by the way the voting question was phrased .
Well if Peter’s reply to John constitutes the SNP’s energy strategy I am not surprised he didn’t tell me whether they would disconnect from the “nuclear” UK Grid-they wont.
Hunterston B & Torness output will need 4000 2MW wind turbines to replace-better get those planning applications moving.
I,m puzzled that anti-nuclear Salmond has announced all Scotland’s nuclear legacy waste must now stay in Scotland-more hassle for Gordon?
Colin,
With only 5 million people, the largest oil and gas reserves in the EU, and an estimated 25% of the whole of Europe’s wind and wave potential Scotland doesn’t need nuclear.
We also have plenty of coal and are close (if Brown gets his finger out) to the worlds first carbon capture hydrogen power station at Peterhead.
Compared to the UK, Scotland is extremely well placed in energy terms, and the decision to go for nuclear is a triumph for the nuclear industries lobbying power more than a real solution to Britain’s energy needs.
As to waste, the SNP policy is safe storage as close to the point of origin as possible. No reprocessing, no shipping it the length of the country.
That means building our own storage facilities at tax payers expense rather than waiting two (or possibly three) decades for a single UK megasite that’s already a quarter century late.
Dealing with Scotland’s share of UK nuclear waste properly and safely won’t be easy or cheap but the SNP government are tackling it head on in the first year, something that has been needed since the first British reactor opened in 1956 more than fifty years ago.
It may not be the perfect policy for energy or waste but it beats the hell out of doing nothing and hoping the problem will go away till there is a real energy crisis or the waste becomes unstable.
Peter.
Thanks Peter
I look forward to the day you unplug from the Grid then.England’s electricity transmission costs should fall a bit.
I hope the Peterhead project proceeds soon-CCS has a big contribution to make.
Colin
The gender divide on nuclear power is very interesting – a really huge difference between men and women. There aren’t many issues that give that kind of divide, although I seem to remember support for the Iraq War just before it began in early 2003 was also quite divided, with men much more supportive than women.
Hello, I know that this nuclear debate has heavily strayed from the point, but the issue of Scotland ‘unplugging’ from the gris is bizarre. Grids don’t operate in that way. Buying and selling electricity across borders is a normal part of economic activity. If Scotland did become independent (and let me say again that I am NOT a nationalist) England’s energy prices would be totally unaffected. The electricity would continue to be generated by private companies and set by the international price of oil/gas/wind etc. For the record, wind is actually one of the cheapest forms of electricity as it is the least economically risky (beaten only by baseload coal, and only if you ignore the environmental and health problems it causes). Whether or not you like it is another issue.
Thanks, Andy – if that is indeed a compliment! – but I’ll say now I’ll only be here with any regularity until the exams taking place now are ready for me to mark …like tomorrow …
O joy! (And actually, I mean that!)
Alasdair.
Actually the Electricity Grid in Scotland is owned by Scottish & Southern/Scottish Power. The National Grid plc owns the transmission network for England & Wales.
However-The National Grid as GREAT BRITAIN System operator has the resonsibility of ” balancing demand on a continuous real time basis” across the UK.
SNP will refuse to implement in Scotland the UK Government’s plan to replace Nuclear base load capacity for the UK Grid. Instead SNP will press ahead with environmentally damaging intermittent renewables-the very part of the mix which gives rise to balancing management-despite the fact that around half of the Scottish people expressed a view in the YouGov Times Poll in support of replacing Scotland’s two nuclear plants.
This seems ironic to me -to put it mildly-hence my flippant, but by no means bizarre question about an Independent Scotland, with a self contained ( see Peter Cairns post) generation mix relieving The National Grid of it’s responsibility to balance out Scotlands electricity demand.
To the extent that the increased imbalance imposed across the UK by SNP incurs additional costs for The National Grid-I would like to be relieved of my small contribution to them.
However-judging by Opinion Polls, Scotland will never become Independent-which actually makes this whole situation -to pinch your word-bizarre -but then I have no doubt that the more the practicalities of separation are examined, the more bizarre it will become-and the more SNP take separatist actions whilst still being joined at the hip-the more pissed off we will all become down here.
Still-no doubt that’s what Mr. Salmond intends.
I noticed the gender difference on nuclear power.
Perhaps it’s a bit wimpish not to be pro nuclear.
I fear the waste isn’t resolvable – even deep cylinders it could leak out if an earthquake. Also, unless we’re determined to be balanced, it’ll inevitably take our eye off the ball developing alternatives.
But I suppose when we had mad cow disease, West Cumbrian roast beef was best because if you went mad, at least you’d grow an extra head from the nuclear power station.
The nuclear waste problem would not be something new – we have it already from the present nuclear reactors, and will have to find safe options anyway. (As will the French, and others). So this is a red herring.
The question is, can any other existing technology be guaranteed to deliver enough, safe (and yes, nuclear is safe), reliable, base load, which is also low-carbon and relatively free from threats of being cut off by international blackmail? If not, it would be criminal negligence not to give the go-ahead, in view of the long time scale for getting the new generators installed.
Of course other measures must be promoted too, including renewables and energy saving. But this, alone, cannot guarantee our future supplies.
JohnH
In a nutshell.
John H
I like your site – particularly the Settle railway.
You have valid points, but
We have to resolve the nuclear waste – the fact that it has been accumulating without a solution even in France surely has to raise the alarm – and means we don’t know the cost of all this.
A vast amount of electricity can be generated from the Bristol Channel/Severn alone.
“A vast amount of electricity can be generated from the Bristol Channel/Severn alone.”
6% of UK generation-but with huge adverse ecological effects ( if as a barrier)
The current estimated cost of cleaning up nuclear waste in the UK is £70bn and rising, and we still have no site, no plan, no timetable and no budget.
In a nice piece of spin the nuclear Industry is saying the next generation of stations will only increase the amount of waste by 10% , which is true.
What they haven’t been so forth coming on is that they will increase the amount of highly radioactive long half life waste, which makes up only 1 or 2% of the total now to almost five times that amount.
JohnH,
The Consequences of Failure….
Before adopting any future option you should think about what happens if it goes wrong.
If Scotland’s renewables policy doesn’t deliver the possible negative consequences could be,
Falling tourism, Higher use of Coal (all be it low carbon with carbon capture, and locally mined), More reliance on Gas or Oil (all be it we have plenty it will still be at the market price), More electricity imported from Norway or the UK ( in the longer term potentially Iceland), much higher electricity bills.
The CoF for the UK,
The private sector won’t build them, The Government needs to bale them out, Still growing reliance on unstable imports, escalating costs for waste storage, A technical failure that undermines the waste strategy, The industry holds the country to blackmail over price, escalating fuel bills and ultimately a major accident.
On balance I think our route even if it does have higher costs is lower risk.
Colin,
Every country in Europe shares electricity across their borders, it’s just daft to expect Scotland to be different. They also share Gas in the same way.
Oh and Germany generates over a quarter of it’s electricity from renewables and the lights stay on as far as I know.
Peter.
Peter
THe UK has a NationaL Grid charged with the responsibility of balancing electricity demand across the UK.THe UK government has decreed an energy strategy which will continue to include a nuclear component ( as now!).
Scotland is part of the UK.
THe SNP is therefore frustrating a UK energy plan. I think this is wrong.
If and when Scotland becomes Independent, I would be very happy to see you contained within your own grid with whatever mix you choose-provided the English Grid can decide when & if it wants to share.
RE Germany-do your own research and ask why they now see the unpredictable variable intermittency as a problem for assured supply-the lights do go out.They are building 26 coal fired stations because they are anti-nuclear.
RE Scottish wind power-if SNP chuck out Isle of Lewis ( Barvas Moor) I will begin to believe that some vestige of sanity prevails-if not I will never accept your environmental arguments for Scottish wind power.
Colin
Why is not having any new nuclear plants in Scotland frustrating a UK plan?.
Are you suggesting that as it’s a UK Plan the plants must be evenly divided geographically regardless of need or market. Are Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool getting one? Where’s the Northern Ireland and Cornwall sites.
If the plans are for ten Nuclear Stations to make up 20% of all Nuclear power for a nation of 60 million, Scotland’s share with 5 million people would be 0.8, but that is a daft way to locate power stations.
So what’s wrong with having the 20% the UK government wants from renewables where that’s most economic, and the 20% that’s nuclear where the bulk of the population is.
You seem to think that as it’s UK policy then Scotland should have a nuclear plant instead of wind power even if we don’t really need it and other UK renewable sites aren’t as good.
As to Germany there decision to replace nuclear with coal still won’t change the fact that they will still generate 25% from renewables and have a stable grid, Scotland therefore can do the same and the nuclear or the lights go out is daft, because the target for both is still 20%.
The UK target for renewables can probably best be met by letting Scotland push ahead because we have the best renewable resources.
Peter.
Colin – any costs incurred by the national grid for incorporating wind power will be offset by the extremely low cost of wind generted during peak load hours.
Any costs incurred to the grid by short-term intermittancy (ie. if the wind suddenly stops blowing for half an hour when it wasnlt predicted to) will be picked up by the companies owning the wind generators (this is already what happens and is a non-compliance penalty).
Incidentally, I would not say that nuclear waste is a red herring. While we do have some waste storage, it is not ideal and we still haven’t got a long term solution. Furthermore if every country follows our lead and goes nuclear we will have a lot more waste, being stored in far more unstable places, or being shipped continuosly around the world. Something only needs to go wrong once to negate all the alleged ‘cost savings’ associated with nuclear.
Peter-
Germany has around 20% of its CAPACITY for electricity in INSTALLED MAX OUTPUT of wind turbines.
Wind turbines produce a load factor of around 30% ( BWEA)of INSTALLED CAPACITY-because a) they do not operate at wind speeds lower than 10mph & are shut down over 50mph…and b) the wind doesn’t blow all the time.
Therefore Germanies OUTPUT ( the stuff you can actually use)of electricity from it’s wind turbines is around 7% of total output-from tens of thousands of turbines….that is why-having said no to nuclear, they are massive users of coal & gas-mostly imported.
Alex Salmond had to be corrected in the SCottish Parliament for similarly misunderstanding the difference between INSTALLED/MAX output of wind turbines and ACTUAL AVERAGE output( Load Factor) !!
I hope the SNP remember these basic facts when they consider desecrating habitat on Lewis of international ecological importance ,by installing
200 wind turbines on it despite Protective Designations and 20,000 objections ( not forgetting the miles of sub-sea interconnectors pylons & cables to get the output to England.)
Alasdair
Your second paragraph-with great respect -shows scant understanding of the way wind turbines work, the market in ROCs-or indeed the nature of the weather.
Colin
Hi Colin, just for the record I have a fair deal of knowledge about how wind turbines work as I was professionally involved in the energy and renewable energy sector for several years…
The point is that grid operators charge penalties for non-compliance. So if a company says it will sell XX MWh of electricity to the grid from their turbines, but fail to do so, they are charged a penalty. This is factored into the cost and profit projections made by electricity companies and applies to all forms of power, although it is obviously of more concern to intermittant renewables.
Furthermore, problems with the grid are just that- problems with the grid, not the energy source. Strehgthening the grid is important in increasing the amounts of renewables we can bring online, but should not be a reason not to do it. Otherwise its a bit like saying airbags don;t fit into old cars, so the problem is with the airbag.
Alasdair-thanks-I meant no offence.
Airbags don’t cause environmental damage-wind farms can & do-but-
a) Its a long story
b)Its off topic here
c) I have pushed Anthony’s forbearance enough
So will leave it there
Colin
No worries!! And I agree wind farms are nowhere near perfect. We could go on for days.
Next topic.