Ever since it was announced earlier this year, there has been constant criticism of the decision to close Longannet, Scotland’s last coal-fired power station. There is undoubtedly a consensus that coal-powered fire stations have to be phased out in the long term (for the sake of the planet and our health) but are we really ready yet to lose Longannet in March 2016?
An impressive triumvirate of experts believes we are not. They are Donald Miller, the former chairman of Scottish Power, Colin Gibson, the former Power Network Director of the National Grid, and Iain Macleod, a past president of The Institution of Engineers in Scotland, and they say we could face an extended loss of power supply of up to 36 hours unless some of Longannet's generators are kept in service.
The experts’ concern is based on what they see as the lack of an alternative to the current emergency plans for restoring power in the event of a catastrophic loss. Under the current arrangements, with the Cruachan hydro station at Loch Awe supplying Longannet, there would be restoration of power in around a minute. However, according to the experts, post-Longannet, the only option would be Cruachan combining with small hydro schemes and that could take up to a day and half.
Obviously, this is an extreme situation but it does raise the issue of security of supply. Both the Scottish and UK Governments want to move towards renewables as quickly as possible, but it should only be done when we can be sure there is no threat to the continued supply of energy.
What this means is that for the foreseeable future, there will need to be a mix of renewable and other forms of power, including nuclear. Does this include coal-powered stations as well? It certainly makes sense to put the closure of Longannet on hold until the National Grid can complete its studies into the long-term security of supply.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel