Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

nuclear

2456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Long term, there's a need to look at Thorium.
    Is that an admission that there may not be enough uranium to go ‘round?
    SeanW wrote: »
    I said "almost" always.
    The false dichotomy I was referring to was lovely, perfectly clean nuclear versus filthy dirty coal. The reality is far less black and white.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Neither renewables or fossil fuels operate without subsidy.
    But nuclear does?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Fossil fuels simply dump their wastes into the air for the most part, and the health costs among the people are paid for directly by the people. It never shows up on any balance sheet.
    Whereas the costs of uranium mining and processing are there for all to see?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Wind farms aren't cheap either...
    Actually they are. Really cheap:
    djpbarry wrote: »
    SEAI estimate the cost of a 5MW wind farm as €7-10 milion. This figure includes “the feasibility studies, EIS and planning application, civil and electrical engineering works, grid connection costs, plus all operating, maintenance and decommissioning costs.”
    http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Wind_Farm_Development/Financing_wind_farms

    Ireland has about 1,400 MW of installed wind capacity, so let’s put a cost of €2 – 2.8 billion on that. Let’s give a wind farm a conservative lifetime of 20 years and a conservative average capacity factor of 25%. That gives an output of about 61 TWh over the lifetime of the entire wind system. That gives a cost per kWh in the approximate range of €0.03 – 0.05, which is pretty damn cheap.
    SeanW wrote: »
    ...as well as being unstable, unreliable generators, a public safety challenge and a wildlife nightmare...
    Come off it Sean. You can’t chastise people for being irrationally fearful of nuclear power and then come out with this nonsense.
    SeanW wrote: »
    ...they also require vast subsidies, like the £1bn/year being soaked to British electricity users. Without that, these wind farms wouldn't exist and any that did, would likely be closed down.
    Wind farms are subsidised to build up market share quickly and reduce dependency on fossil fuels. They are not subsidised because they are not economically viable.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Nuclear is the only form of generation that has to account for the bulk of the costs it imposes.
    What are you talking about? Every form of power generation has so-called hidden costs that are extremely difficult to quantify – if anything, the costs associated with nuclear are among the most difficult to accurately quantify, hence the scepticism surrounding its economic feasibility.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    I think we are having a discussion about something that's extremely unlikely to ever happen to be perfectly honest.

    Nuclear power was contemplated in Ireland in the 1970s and early 1980s and there was absolutely massive opposition back then. That was before the Chernobyl disaster, and obviously before Fukushima Diaichi.

    If anything, I think public opposition to nuclear power in Ireland would be far more galvanised than it was back then. Also, I don't think any Government would attempt to go that route as it would be political suicide.

    Secondly, the economic argument for nuclear in Ireland does not really stack up.

    With gas/oil/solid fuel plants, ESBI (Engineering Consultancy) and various other Irish engineering firms have major competency in building and designing plants and project managing their construction.

    We also have a growing indigenous green energy sector emerging, with potential export possibilities.

    With nuclear, none of those benefits would come to Ireland as the technology would be entirely imported as a turn-key plant built by Areva, GE-Hitachi, Westinghouse or whoever got the gig.

    There would only be short term construction jobs in doing pretty non-technical stuff.

    Once the plant was up and running, the day to day employment is not really any bigger than other types of power plant i.e. minimal.

    We also do not have any known, exploitable source of nuclear fuel, so that would have to be imported and also we would not have the scale or want to have reprocessing or manufacture of fuel in Ireland so, that would probably be done by British or French firms and imported.

    Then you'd have to ship all that fuel and nuclear waste by sea, as we have no possibility of moving it by rail to a reprocessing plant (as is the case in France, Germany, the UK etc)

    The Irish demand for electricity is also not exactly enormous and it's quite a low density population with very little heavy industry. So, again, I don't really see where the big advantage to nuclear would come from.

    We have a huge wind resource, huge potential for using things like biomass in existing peat or the couple of solid-fuel capable plants etc etc.

    I'd much rather see money put into developing technology in Ireland that we can export, into insulation / energy efficiency programmes which could probably save as much power as a nuclear plant could produce, into green transport initiatives, into wind / wave / biofuel / biomass projects that are genuinely sustainable and would reduce our CO2 output without burdening us with huge decommissioning, maintenance, and other costs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,410 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    SeanW wrote: »
    Markcheese wrote: »
    How much of a nuclear build budget would be spent in Ireland, I know there's a lot of concrete but ....
    It is my understanding that the vast bulk of a nuclear reactors' day to day cost is spent on staff wages, as opposed to fossil fuels were most of the cost is (imported) fossil fuel.

    Though there would have to be some import of nuclear technology though.


    The main cost that I've heard of is interest.... On the loans needed to pay for the plant..(and we're having slight difficulty borrowing at the moment) which is why the cost and time overruns are so important.. I don't think any private company is building a reactor anywhere,or even planning one.... The last time was the in the states during the 70's I think....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Is that an admission that there may not be enough uranium to go ‘round?
    No, not being an expert in the field I have no idea how much uranium there is. I do know:
    1. Eamon Ryan, who was our former minister for ... something or another ... scuttled two licenses for uranium exploration in Donegal. So for other environmentalists to say "we don't have any uranium" is like starving the horse and then killing it because it can't pull.
    2. Some countries, mainly the U.S. waste fuel by not reprocessing spent fuel. A lot of what is currently considered "waste" could be reused in some fashion.
    3. Thorium is another option. I imagine that the Indians will crack it eventually, if not someone else first.
    The false dichotomy I was referring to was lovely, perfectly clean nuclear versus filthy dirty coal. The reality is far less black and white.
    Perhaps, but not by much.
    But nuclear does?
    Renewables have to be subsidised. Fossil fuels spew huge amounts of crap into the air. Nuclear accounts for far more of its costs because its power stations don't pollute and the industry has to (somehow) take care of its waste instead of simply dumping it into the air, and our lungs. :mad:
    Whereas the costs of uranium mining and processing are there for all to see?
    Most of them have to be, as they factor into the cost of nuclear fuel.
    Actually they are. Really cheap:
    Great. I'll believe it when they're not subsidised anymore.
    What are you talking about? Every form of power generation has so-called hidden costs that are extremely difficult to quantify – if anything, the costs associated with nuclear are among the most difficult to accurately quantify, hence the scepticism surrounding its economic feasibility.
    With coal etc it's something of a challenge to quantify the hidden costs, all that CO2, SO2 and NoX, arsenic, merucry, radiation and particulate matter have to be linked, by estimates only, to the increased destruction of acid rain, climate change (allegedly), cancers, lung ailments etc that we all know they cause, just can't be sure how much.

    The nuclear energy sector on the other hand has power plants that do not pollute and whose wastes are contained, and must be cared for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    No, not being an expert in the field I have no idea how much uranium there is.
    Ok then. So given that you have no idea how much fuel is readily available, how can you say with such confidence that Ireland (and other countries too, presumably) should be going nuclear? We have no idea what the long-term cost will be?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Nuclear accounts for far more of its costs because its power stations don't pollute...
    You keep saying this and I keep pointing out to you that uranium mining and processing is a pretty dirty business.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Most of them have to be, as they factor into the cost of nuclear fuel.
    I was referring to the environmental cost.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Great. I'll believe it when they're not subsidised anymore.
    In other words, it doesn't matter what figures are put in front of you, you will continue to believe nuclear is awesome and wind is pants.
    SeanW wrote: »
    The nuclear energy sector on the other hand has power plants that do not pollute and whose wastes are contained, and must be cared for.
    Cared for for how long?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ok then. So given that you have no idea how much fuel is readily available, how can you say with such confidence that Ireland (and other countries too, presumably) should be going nuclear? We have no idea what the long-term cost will be?
    You keep saying this and I keep pointing out to you that uranium mining and processing is a pretty dirty business.
    I was referring to the environmental cost.
    In other words, it doesn't matter what figures are put in front of you, you will continue to believe nuclear is awesome and wind is pants.
    Cared for for how long?

    The worrying bit is that it needs to be stored securely for periods of time that are longer than any human civilization has existed for thus far!

    There could be some nasty shocks if a future archaeologist without knowledge of the 20th / 21st century's technology were to dig a waste dump up without realizing what it is e.g. thinking it was some kind of buried treasure / object of cultural significance etc.

    Or, more likely, that storage / waste dumps simply deteriorate over centuries as people have forgotten how dangerous the technology involved was.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ok then. So given that you have no idea how much fuel is readily available, how can you say with such confidence that Ireland (and other countries too, presumably) should be going nuclear? We have no idea what the long-term cost will be?
    1. I'm sort of confident there's enough uranium to go around for a generation or so, especially if our government had allowed those energy companies to explore for uranium in Donegal, Ireland may even have a domestic supply.
    2. Uranium storage is a trivial matter, Ireland could easily build a strategic reserve today to last 30 years or so. This is not like fossil fuels where coal is too large by volume, oil, yes, for a short time with great engineering complexity, or gas, which cannot reasonably be stored at all. And of course renewable energy where we're literally at the mercy of the weather.
    3. If there's a need for more uranium, I know how to get it: more mining, plus reprocessing of American (etc) "waste."
    In other words, it doesn't matter what figures are put in front of you, you will continue to believe nuclear is awesome and wind is pants.
    You seem to be unaware of how the free market works: when investors smell profit in something, they're all over it like maggots and flies on a dog dropping. If the economic case for wind energy was as uncontestable as you say, then there would be no need for subsidies. Hence I stand over my claim that "I'll believe it when the subsidies are gone."
    Cared for for how long?
    Depends on what you're dealing with and how it's dealt with.
    Solair wrote:
    The worrying bit is that it needs to be stored securely for periods of time that are longer than any human civilization has existed for thus far!

    There could be some nasty shocks if a future archaeologist without knowledge of the 20th / 21st century's technology were to dig a waste dump up without realizing what it is e.g. thinking it was some kind of buried treasure / object of cultural significance etc.

    Or, more likely, that storage / waste dumps simply deteriorate over centuries as people have forgotten how dangerous the technology involved was.
    1. I favour a solution of reprocessing so-called "waste" fuel, and burying the transuranic elements so deep that noone will ever find them. I for one would like the issue of subduction zone burial to be reexamined.
    2. Record keeping in our generation is much more extensive than what was in millenia past: we don't know how they built the pyramids, but 5000 years from know our descendants will probably be able to know how the Titanic was designed, how we built our houses, ran our hospitals, what we ate, drank etc.
    3. Radiation will always be with us - and likely so too will its imagery. Consider if you were an X-Ray technician, but you had never heard of nuclear power. Now consider that you 'found' a nuclear waste dump from generations past, festooned with radiation symbols. Chances are you would know - "if I don't know what I'm doing, I'd better get the hell out of here!"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Well assume society fell apart, you could have quite low tech exploring of waste dumps.

    The radiation warning symbols would be utterly meaningless if you'd never seen one before.

    You could think it's a pretty design, a picture of a flower, a religious symbol of some sort, a corporate brand etc etc

    Our records are also largely electronic so, in a few thousand years, should society collapse or move on, the technology to read them would quite likely not exist.

    We already struggle to read 1980s electronic media!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Solair wrote: »
    The radiation warning symbols would be utterly meaningless if you'd never seen one before.

    You could think it's a pretty design, a picture of a flower, a religious symbol of some sort, a corporate brand etc etc
    If you take this uber-pessimistic view then we already have problems: high level waste is already generated worldwide because of life-expired X-Ray machines and the like - this too will have to be cared for and/or eventually disposed of in some secure, eternally safe fashion. If we screw this up, not having used nuclear power won't save those future archaeologists that you are legitimately concerned about.
    Our records are also largely electronic so, in a few thousand years, should society collapse or move on, the technology to read them would quite likely not exist.

    We already struggle to read 1980s electronic media!
    We still print an awful lot though!
    Well assume society fell apart, you could have quite low tech exploring of waste dumps.
    My favoured disposal option is some class of very deep (several miles deep) disposal. In fact, my choice would be subduction zone burial.

    Your fear is somewhat unwarranted therefore, if the waste were buried deep enough that noone would ever find it unless they knew what they were looking for, chances are that "low tech exploration" of waste dumps miles underground, or better still, halfway down an oceanic subduction fault, is pretty unlikely.

    I could be wrong on this but from what I understand, if you reprocess spent fuel, the trans-uranic elements left over from each cycle have short enough half lives, e.g. 200 years or so. Hence, a good burial solution would be more than adequate for much of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    SeanW wrote: »
    If you take this uber-pessimistic view then we already have problems: high level waste is already generated worldwide because of life-expired X-Ray machines and the like - this too will have to be cared for and/or eventually disposed of in some secure, eternally safe fashion. If we screw this up, not having used nuclear power won't save those future archaeologists that you are legitimately concerned about.

    X-rays are produced by an X-ray tube, there is no radioactive source involved at all and absolutely no issue with disposal of machines afterwards. They're no more radioactive than television!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube

    The vast majority of radiotherapy is done with Linear Accelerators, again, requiring no radioactive source, as in general they are accelerating a stream of electrons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_particle_accelerator

    There are some radiative sources used in medicine, but not all that many and mostly they have very short half lives, the majority being hours, the longest being about 37 years.

    They're nothing compared to what's used in nuclear power or weapons production!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Spotted the thread.

    On the amount of Uranium left:
    from Scientific American article here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
    According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

    Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

    So at current rates that's 200+ years without taking into account technological advances and the use of thorium reactors. I'm not sure do those numbers include nuclear weapons stockpiles - they're another source that could be pushed for.
    Plenty of time to develop fusion.

    I think India are using thorium because they have large thorium deposits - probably the largest in the world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    You seem to be unaware of how the free market works: when investors smell profit in something, they're all over it like maggots and flies on a dog dropping. If the economic case for wind energy was as uncontestable as you say, then there would be no need for subsidies. Hence I stand over my claim that "I'll believe it when the subsidies are gone."
    And yet you're convinced by the economic case for nuclear? That's a double-standard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    This thread is why I hate the Irish debating nuclear energy.
    We have had the collapse of society as a reason not for nuclear energy but nobody has talked about Thorium
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
    Thorium is very common
    It produces a molton salt that has a shorter half life the other by-produces
    It can use other nuclear waste
    It can be turned off instantly unlike the current nuclear power source
    Its power plants are must smaller.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Jester252 wrote: »
    This thread is why I hate the Irish debating nuclear energy.
    We have had the collapse of society as a reason not for nuclear energy but nobody has talked about Thorium
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
    Thorium is very common
    It produces a molton salt that has a shorter half life the other by-produces
    It can use other nuclear waste
    It can be turned off instantly unlike the current nuclear power source
    Its power plants are must smaller.
    But, unfortunately, there is not a single thorium reactor in commercial use anywhere in the world (as far as I'm aware).

    Thorium always comes up in these threads, but the above fact is consistently over-looked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Tomk1


    Debating anti-Nuclear power believers is like debating god-believers and a big no no in the christianity form as can result in an infraction, at least it's not the same here and somewhere we can discuss it in Ireland even though we're banned from studying it under Irish law.

    I was brought up with the anti-nuclear faith and believed the unfounded propaganda from the early 80's. I am an environmentalist and just cannot understand the stuck-in-the-mud attitude of so called environmentalists happy with our 2 or is it 3 new fossil-fuel power plants.

    Please just watch this talk by Cork Skeptics:
    note: I am involved with cork skeptics
    Nuclear Energy Reactors Prof.McInerney FULL 48mins
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtp7nd8X--Y

    Everything is covered & all is explained in layman's terms, or I could just write the whole thing out here.

    The only aurgument that has any merit is, we will still need fuel, but just another form of fuel.

    Also it's not 'Wind OR Nuclear' but 'Wind + Nuclear', unless every part of Ireland & sea gets covered by wind turbines and then we hope to god the wind never drops below 15m/hr.

    Well at least at the moment we can get N-power from Airtricity.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    [mod]Tomk1, try not to dismiss people who think differently to you because they belong to a "religion". It doesn't exactly encourage open debate[/mod]

    Renewables and wind don't fit well together in terms of their characteristics. Wind+nuclear can only work on a limited scale.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But, unfortunately, there is not a single thorium reactor in commercial use anywhere in the world (as far as I'm aware).

    Thorium always comes up in these threads, but the above fact is consistently over-looked.

    Hence why it needs development :rolleyes:
    http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/bericht-71533.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    Renewables and wind don't fit well together in terms of their characteristics. Wind+nuclear can only work on a limited scale.
    Well let's just drop the wind bit then.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Well let's just drop the wind bit then.

    I'm not even bothered debating you on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    why wont they work together?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    My favoured disposal option is some class of very deep (several miles deep) disposal. In fact, my choice would be subduction zone burial.

    Your fear is somewhat unwarranted therefore, if the waste were buried deep enough that noone would ever find it unless they knew what they were looking for, chances are that "low tech exploration" of waste dumps miles underground, or better still, halfway down an oceanic subduction fault, is pretty unlikely.

    I could be wrong on this but from what I understand, if you reprocess spent fuel, the trans-uranic elements left over from each cycle have short enough half lives, e.g. 200 years or so. Hence, a good burial solution would be more than adequate for much of it.
    LOL

    To use subduction zones you have to put the waste in the zone, not on the seabed floor. Drilling into a active seismic zone in deep water is not cheap. Also people get kinda upset if there is any suggestion that to do so could lubricate a fault line.

    Yes there subduction zones under the alps one of the few on land. But you have to get the waste there in the first place. The real problem is that the waste is only sinking by a few cm a year , in an area with a lot of energy. A few cm a year is a few meters a century. The stuff would have decayed to ore levels before it move down 1Km assuming the canisters hadn't been ripped open and dissolved away in hot water on it's way to the surface.


    Finland with the similar population (and way better insulated homes) is spending €3 billion (not including cost overruns) on a waste repository.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
    The pit Asse II is a former salt mine in the mountain range of Asse in Lower Saxony/Germany, that was allegedly used as a research mine since 1965. Between 1967 and 1978 radioactive waste was placed in storage. Research indicated that brine contaminated with radioactive caesium-137, plutonium and strontium was leaking from the mine since 1988 but was not reported until June 2008[17]

    The repository for radioactive waste Morsleben is a deep geological repository for radioactive waste in the rock salt mine Bartensleben in Morsleben, in Lower Saxony/Germany that was used from 1972–1998. Since 2003 480,000 m3 (630,000 cu yd) of salt-concrete has been pumped into the pit to temporarily stabilize the upper levels. The salt dome is in the state of collapse.
    ...

    On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing the Yucca Mountain site is no longer viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.[24]


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Jester252 wrote: »
    why wont they work together?
    wave power is a form of wind power


    renewables like hydro in large reservoirs and stored biomass work well with wind


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Jester252 wrote: »
    why wont they work together?

    Basically, nuclear has very slow ramp up and ramp down rates, meaning the plants are slow to start up and slow to turn off relative to other generation technologies. Because of this nuclear works well as baseline load, ie you keep the plants running as long as possible without shutting the plants down.

    Wind, and a lot of other renewables, on the other hand have very fast ramp up and ramp down rates, which means they can be turned on and off very quickly (sometimes when you don't necessarily want them to..).

    If you have nuclear plants running all the time, it's inefficient because demand curves vary throughout the day (peak is normally 5-7pm and bottom is 3-5am). At the same time, wind generation can fluctuate wildly during the day, regardless of the demand.

    Put the two together and you easily get a situation where wind generators are forced to stop generating (curtailment), which makes wind uneconomical. At the same time, if nuclear were asked to be as flexible as wind, it simply wouldn't be technologically possible.

    They work together on a limited scale at the moment across Europe but you're starting to have situations where, for example, Germany is exporting power into Europe at times of high winds/strong sunshine and this is messing with France's steady-state power system based on nuclear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    They work together on a limited scale
    Fine - so what would work well with nuclear?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Fine - so what would work well with nuclear?
    Only other fossil fuels at any scale. If you look at France, which has a relatively high % of nuclear in its electricity mix, the three next largest fuels it relies on are hydro, coal/peat and gas.

    Hydro potential has been maximized throughout Europe which means it is effectively irrelevant in terms of new capacity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    Only other fossil fuels at any scale. If you look at France, which has a relatively high % of nuclear in its electricity mix, the three next largest fuels it relies on are hydro, coal/peat and gas.

    In terms of reducing CO2 emissions, isn't a baseload of nuclear with fossil fuel for demand side management better than all fossil fuel?


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    GarIT wrote: »
    then buy energy from the UK if we need to, the cables are being laid right now.
    I wonder how much of Dublin will be powered by Sellafield...? Of the irony... :P
    Oldtree wrote: »
    something clearly did happen in Japan of a very serious nature that was not very safe
    You mean the earthquake and tsunami? When was the last time we got an earthquake near "6" on the JMA scale?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    In terms of reducing CO2 emissions, isn't a baseload of nuclear with fossil fuel for demand side management better than all fossil fuel?

    Well, demand side management is something else but I know what you mean.

    In theory, the answer is yes but:
    a) sufficient nuclear capacity won't get built in time to help our emissions peak before 2020;
    b) we have other options.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Jester252 wrote: »
    The point is people are forever coming on these threads promoting nuclear for all, but when it is pointed out to them that there may not be enough (easily extractable) uranium to go 'round, they all shout "Hey, look! Thorium!". Which is all well and good, except that, as I said, it's not actually in use anywhere.


Advertisement