nuclear

ted1 · 28-04-2012 12:13am #1

Isn't time we explore the nuclear option. With peak oil approaching we need to have something in place. Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.

A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.
What are people's thoughts, if you going to make points or raise concerns please keep it factual and provide credible reference.

GarIT · 28-04-2012 12:17am

ted1 wrote: »

Isn't time we explore the nuclear option. With peak oil approaching we need to have something in place. Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.

A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.
What are people's thoughts, if you going to make points or raise concerns please keep it factual and provide credible reference.

After what happened in Chernobyl and then what nearly could have happened in Japan there is no way I would support it. I'm all for advancements but not something that can cause as much damage as nuclear fission. If someday fusion became a workable idea I would consider it as I've read its not as dangerous.

ted1 · 28-04-2012 12:24am

Technology has moved on greatly since Chernobyl, look at what caused the accident to happen and you'll see how that could not happen again.. Remove the media hype from Japan and explain what exactly happened that would put you off.

Come on guys, I did ask for a good debate not AH style replies.

SeanW · 28-04-2012 12:59am

GarIT wrote: »

After what happened in Chernobyl and then what nearly could have happened in Japan there is no way I would support it. I'm all for advancements but not something that can cause as much damage as nuclear fission. If someday fusion became a workable idea I would consider it as I've read its not as dangerous.

Chernobyl was a catastrophe, no question about it, but it could only have happened in the Former Soviet Union, the RBMK reactor design (only used in the USSR). It was never used outside the USSR because every nuclear regulator in the West knew it was a dangerous, unstable, ill-concieved p.o.s. But within the USSR the flaws were a state secret, unknown to the crew of newly trained electrical engineers that were handed the job of running a dangerous "safety test."

Saying "no to nuclear" because of Chernobyl is like saying no to using ships and ferries, because of the coffin ships that carried emigrants from famine-era Ireland to the U.S back in the 1840s.

As for Fukushima, yes that was a serious accident too, but nowhere near as severe as Chernobyl. Tepco, the Japanese government and people have clearly stated their intention to clean up the excess radiation and I am confident that they will be able to do so.

Noone has died as a result of the Fukushima reactor failure.

Ted is right about Thorium, from what I understand they're even safer than good Uranium reactors and even more efficient. For example this:

Could supply a person with nuclear electricity for a entire lifetime.

Under every concievable measure, cost per kw/h, reliability, dependability, CO2 produced per kw/h, land taken per Gigawatt, air pollution per kw/h and even in some cases radiation emissions per kw/h, nuclear electricity is the best, or near the best in class.

If we choose to irrationally say no to nuclear, we WILL pay the price!

Triangle · 28-04-2012 1:12am

I was once a pro nuclear supporter but now can't support the idea.

Saying previous disasters won't happen again is not saying new disasters won't happen. Noone can predict what will happen and the possibility of having that type of polution in Ireland is unthinkable.
Especially with the type of politicians/government we have where corruption 'seems' rife and the brown envelope is deemed more desirable that the people's well being. (This may be a bit overboard - but stating nuclear energy is safe is similar)

I can't see it as a card to be played in Ireland and would hold out for fission (whenever it comes!)

Chuck Stone · 28-04-2012 5:11am

ted1 wrote: »

Isn't time we explore the nuclear option. With peak oil approaching we need to have something in place. Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.

A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.
What are people's thoughts, if you going to make points or raise concerns please keep it factual and provide credible reference.

I agree with this point so why don't you abide by it?

Where are the facts and credible references in the OP?

ted1 · 28-04-2012 1:26pm

well i was just opening the discussion.

Each year WHO claim there are over 300,00 deaths caused by the burning of Fossil fuel. now granted 40% of fuel is used for transport, so approx 160,000 are due to generating heat and electricity.
this alone is enough to convince me that the couple of thousand deaths caused since nuclear started is enough to warrant its roles out.

there's some interesting read here, especially the comments.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future

the keen edge · 28-04-2012 1:35pm

There's another thread on Nuclear power on the Environmental Science forum, a lot of the issues regarding nuclear are begin discussed particularly the storage of nuclear waste.

You should have a read of it OP.

GarIT · 28-04-2012 4:55pm

I rather Ireland stay a completely green country, We should work on environmentally friendly energy sources and then buy energy from the UK if we need to, the cables are being laid right now.

ted1 · 28-04-2012 5:48pm

Nuclear is green. What other environmental friendly methods of energy conversion are truly viable?

GarIT · 28-04-2012 6:16pm

ted1 wrote: »

Nuclear is green. What other environmental friendly methods of energy conversion are truly viable?

It has a potential massive environmental risk though. 99% of the time it is a green energy. If we properly rolled out wind, wave, hydroelectric and solar energy sources we could produce a decent amount of energy, then we always have the backup. If we had approx 5 wind turbines for every decently sized town we should power nearly everything from that.

Oldtree · 28-04-2012 9:16pm

Three things that I have come across lately give me pause for thought;

From New Scientist

28/3/2012
Underground nukes

Yet there is a solution for future generations of nuclear plants: build all reactors and their primary cooling circuits underground. Decommissioning would then involve little more than sealing the entrance and walking away. The non-radioactive surface plant could be removed like any other obsolete building or industrial structure.

sounds like a progressive idea

13/4/2012
Resilient reactors: Nuclear built to last centuries

Using materials like molten salts or helium gas to cool the reactor and transfer its heat to turbines, "Generation IV" reactors will burn fuel with greater efficiency and could generate far less highly radioactive spent fuel than their predecessors. India plans to kick-start the Generation IV programme with the commission of its Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor early in 2013.
Fast-breeders burn plutonium and other long-lived radioactive isotopes in spent fuel. More than that, they turn it into new fuel, turning waste into energy.

But:

A critical issue is finding materials that can better withstand the stresses created by the chain reactions inside a nuclear reactor.

progress being made

and:

We will be importing nuclear generated power directly very soon (rather than through NI!)

RTE

23/4/2012
Cable to connect Irish and British power supplies

The world's largest cable-laying ship is in Dublin to work on the first direct electricity line between the Republic of Ireland and Britain.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0423/cable-to-connect-irish-and-british-power-supplies.html

ted1 · 28-04-2012 11:53pm

The underground option in intresting. I know there also building moderator release systems into the ceilings, that will auto release a moderator to slow down the chain reavtion, should a need arise.

As regards exporting wind energy, I don't understand why we should be subsiding energy then exporting it. Exporting wind is truly a PR excerise.

SeanW · 29-04-2012 4:04am

Triangle wrote: »

Saying previous disasters won't happen again is not saying new disasters won't happen. Noone can predict what will happen and the possibility of having that type of polution in Ireland is unthinkable.

Nonetheless, despite all the scaremongering, nuclear power remains the cleanest, most efficient, most reliable, and statistically safest for all forms of life.

Especially with the type of politicians/government we have where corruption 'seems' rife and the brown envelope is deemed more desirable that the people's well being.

Tell me, last time you bought a loaf of bread, did you have to queue outside a warehouse for two weeks? Go on a 14 year waiting list for your car? Last time you visited someone in hospital, did you have to bribe the nurse with 3 packs of (scare) Marlboro cigarettes?

No? I didn't think so - but you would have had to do so in the Former Soviet Union which is where the Soviets basically blew up their reactor through a combination of grave RBMK reactor flaws, gross incompetence by all concerned, errors caused by the extreme authoritarian nature of everything there, and just a sprinking of unfortunate timing.

(This may be a bit overboard - but stating nuclear energy is safe is similar)

Few if any will claim that an accident cannot happen. Consider:
"This ship cannot sink" ... said of a certain RMS Titanic which you might have heard something about recently, or:
"This reactor is so safe you could put it in Red Square" ... said of the Chernobyl plant by its designer.

The point I'm trying to make here is that a good nuclear program would avoid the type of conceit you refer to. Everyone involved from the lowest plant operators up to the nuclear regulators, would have to always assume that an accident could happen, and always consider what could cause an accident.

Re: Chernobyl, I don't think I've ever said it could never happen again, only that the environment in which that accident occured is not relevant to the Western world.

Subject to taking proper precautions though, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not chase the vast array of benefits that a nuclear solution would give us.

the keen edge · 29-04-2012 9:23am

To those promoting nuclear power, how do you suggest to deal with the practically eternal legacy of the radioactive wastes generated?

I'm not shooting down Nuclear power,(I'm only learning about it) but proponents never suggest how to deal with it.

Markcheese · 30-04-2012 2:20pm

I'm not anti nuclear but I'm wary... Aside from safety my big concern is cost...
When was the last time a nuclear power plant was built on time and on budget...
....presume we'd need at least 2 nuclear reactors,so that when 1 is being maintained,1 is working.
How much of a nuclear build budget would be spent in Ireland, I know there's a lot of concrete but ....

djpbarry · 30-04-2012 3:23pm

ted1 wrote: »

Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.
...
A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a single thorium reactor in commercial use anywhere in the world. So you want to stop “messing around” with a technology that is providing a significant chunk of Ireland’s electricity (i.e., wind turbines) in favour of an experimental technology?

djpbarry · 30-04-2012 3:24pm

GarIT wrote: »

After what happened in Chernobyl and then what nearly could have happened in Japan there is no way I would support it.

But nothing really happened in Japan? The reactor was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it still remained relatively intact – how is that anything other than an advert for the safety of nuclear power?

GarIT wrote: »

I rather Ireland stay a completely green country, We should work on environmentally friendly energy sources and then buy energy from the UK if we need to, the cables are being laid right now.

So it’s ok to import non-“green” energy, but not to produce it in Ireland?

djpbarry · 30-04-2012 3:24pm

SeanW wrote: »

Under every concievable measure, cost per kw/h, reliability, dependability, CO2 produced per kw/h, land taken per Gigawatt, air pollution per kw/h and even in some cases radiation emissions per kw/h, nuclear electricity is the best, or near the best in class.

I can’t help but notice that a certain form of waste is missing from that list, but anyway, does all the above still hold true if nuclear power generation is scaled up? What percentage of global energy demand can be met with nuclear without knocking it off the top (or from near the top) of the class?

SeanW wrote: »

Nonetheless, despite all the scaremongering, nuclear power remains the cleanest, most efficient, most reliable, and statistically safest for all forms of life.

I’d love to see the basis for all those claims.

Oldtree · 30-04-2012 8:06pm

djpbarry wrote: »

But nothing really happened in Japan? The reactor was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it still remained relatively intact – how is that anything other than an advert for the safety of nuclear power?

amm....

I understand that TEPCO leaked up to 12 tons of waste water containing strontium into the sea.

leading to this claim:

Scientists Find Post-Tsunami Radiation in Sea Kelp, Seek to Expand Research

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Scientist-Study-Nuclear-Contamination-Fish-Kelp-Japan-Tsunami-Ocean-California-Shores-146359685.html

so if its reaching california in a more diluted form whats happening around the immediate coast of Fukushima and Japan where it is more concentrated?

Radioactive material was released into the air and the sea and is present in their water supply and food.

In my mind a question remains as to the truthfulness of the totals of radioactive material released, TEPCO are not known for being realistic with the truth.

Should we decide to opt for nuclear power we must go in with our eyes open and not pretend it is 100% safe and that when it goes wrong this is the reality of what can happen. We would also have to trust the corporates who have not shined in the past, lowest bid, etc...

even if we bury our plants a couple of miles underground

SeanW · 30-04-2012 8:11pm

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.

djpbarry · 30-04-2012 8:11pm

Oldtree wrote: »

I understand that TEPCO leaked up to 12 tons of waste water containing strontium into the sea.

Ok. And?

Oldtree wrote: »

Should we decide to opt for nuclear power we must go in with our eyes open and not pretend it is 100% safe...

Who said it was 100% safe?

Oldtree · 30-04-2012 8:19pm

djpbarry wrote: »

But nothing really happened in Japan?

did I misunderstand your post or were you being glib??

something clearly did happen in Japan of a very serious nature that was not very safe

SeanW · 30-04-2012 8:37pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I can’t help but notice that a certain form of waste is missing from that list, but anyway, does all the above still hold true if nuclear power generation is scaled up? What percentage of global energy demand can be met with nuclear without knocking it off the top (or from near the top) of the class?

I'm not sure. I only know that our little country wouldn't change that big question very much by adopting nuclear energy but we would reap all the benefits.

I’d love to see the basis for all those claims.

Coal power plants releasing fly ash cause more radioactive emissions than a properly working nuclear power plant of the same specification:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

"Clean" coal is actually quite filthy, and creates a waste problem worse than nuclear power by volume:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/morecoalwaste

Subsidies for wind energy in the U.K. top £1,000,000,000 per year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7061552/Wind-farm-subsidies-top-1-billion-a-year.html

Land take: To supply 1/6th of the UK's energy needs (with wind power) would require an area the size of Wales
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

Accidents: A good report from the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum:
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Specifically, they have found 89 fatal accidents that killed 102 people, some of them members of the public. The causes include blade failure, fire, ice throw and structural failure.

They claim:

Some countries are finally accepting that industrial wind turbines can pose a significant public safety
risk. In New Zealand, the government is set to change planning rules to give residents the right to
veto wind turbines from being built within 2km of their homes. In Australia, the Victorian government
has set guidelines forbidding wind turbine construction closer than 2km to houses. In Scotland, a 2km
guideline is also in place between large wind farm developments and communities, though the
guideline is often disgracefully ignored by the Scottish government planners. And in Canada, the
Ontario Government has declared a moratorium on offshore wind projects and has proposed a
reduction of noise from wind turbines from 40dB to 30-32dB, which would effectively extend the
setback distance from homes.

Counting the two crane operators that died during the earthquake at Fukushima, that's 87 more people than were killed in that accident.

Estimated death rates per T/Wh of energy produced.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Oh and yes, as I've been warning about since 2007, there's also the indisputable fact that irrationally opposing nuclear energy almost always means saying Yes to Coal, as shown in Germany.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html

That is a mistake I want no part of.

Chuck Stone · 30-04-2012 8:54pm

The economics of nuclear power have always been questionable. The fact that consumers or governments have traditionally borne the risk of investment in nuclear power plants meant that utilities were insulated from these risks and were able to borrow money at rates reflecting the reduced risk to investors and lenders.

However, following the introduction of competitive electricity markets in many countries, the risk that the plant would cost more than the forecast price was transferred to the power plant developers, which are constrained by the views of financial organisations such as banks, shareholders and credit rating agencies. Such organisations view investment in any type of power plant as risky, raising the cost of capital to levels at which nuclear is less likely to compete.

The logic of this transfer to competitive electricity markets was that plant developers possessed better information and had direct control over management and so had the means as well as the incentive to control costs. Builders of non-nuclear power plants were willing to take these risks, as were vendors of energy efficiency services. Consequently, when consumers no longer bore the economic risk of new plant construction, nuclear power, which combines uncompetitively high prices with poor reliability and serious risks of cost overruns, had no chance in countries that moved to competitive power procurement.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/PageFiles/24160/the-economics-of-nuclear-power.pdf

Nuclear power generation is a public liability both in terms of cost and risk.

djpbarry · 30-04-2012 10:01pm

Oldtree wrote: »

did I misunderstand your post or were you being glib??

something clearly did happen in Japan of a very serious nature that was not very safe

I meant relative to Chernobyl and the in the general context of the earthquake and tsunami.

djpbarry · 30-04-2012 10:02pm

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure. I only know that our little country wouldn't change that big question very much by adopting nuclear energy but we would reap all the benefits.

So what happens if lots and lots of “little countries” all decide to go nuclear? High-grade uranium’s going to become highly sought-after, isn’t it? And after making the massive commitment to go nuclear, it’s going to be pretty difficult to back out if the cost of uranium (in both financial and environmental terms) becomes uneconomically high.

SeanW wrote: »

Coal power plants releasing fly ash cause more radioactive emissions than a properly working nuclear power plant of the same specification:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

"Clean" coal is actually quite filthy, and creates a waste problem worse than nuclear power by volume:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/morecoalwaste

Subsidies for wind energy in the U.K. top £1,000,000,000 per year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7061552/Wind-farm-subsidies-top-1-billion-a-year.html

Land take: To supply 1/6th of the UK's energy needs (with wind power) would require an area the size of Wales
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

Accidents: A good report from the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum:
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Your claim that nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient and most reliable form of power generation is still unsupported?

SeanW wrote: »

...there's also the indisputable fact that irrationally opposing nuclear energy almost always means saying Yes to Coal, as shown in Germany.

How is that an indisputable fact? It’s clearly a false dichotomy?

SeanW · 30-04-2012 10:43pm

djpbarry wrote: »

So what happens if lots and lots of “little countries” all decide to go nuclear? High-grade uranium’s going to become highly sought-after, isn’t it?

Long term, there's a need to look at Thorium. I don't think we're at that point yet, though IIRC India is looking at it now.

How is that an indisputable fact? It’s clearly a false dichotomy?

I said "almost" always. Clearly there are cases like Norway and Iceland where they have lots of hydroelectricity and geothermal. Those countries have cheap, clean, reliable, renewable energy, and lots of it. But these are the exception.

Everyone else has to make some hard choices.

Solair · 30-04-2012 10:51pm

Even if we totally ignore the potential environmental impacts of nuclear power, the economics simply do not add up when you include ALL costs.

The cost of building the plant runs into pretty enormous money to start with.
Then you've got the on-going maintenance, fueling and running costs which are quite high.
You've got major security costs, particularly somewhere like Ireland where there is a genuine and real terrorism risk.
Then you've got the elephant in the room : fuel disposal and decommissioning costs. These are astronomically expensive.

The decommissioning costs for the UK's legacy of nuclear power is running at £73.6 billion at the moment and will probably cost a lot more than that as that estimate's coming from the industry itself and the UK Government.

Some estimates put it at more like £160 billion!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/true-price-of-uks-nuclear-legacy-163160bn-472368.html

Admittedly, it's still possibly cheaper than decommissioning Anglo Irish Bank! (which is an entirely different story) but, I don't really think Ireland could afford to run a nuclear programme.

Also, if you consider the vast cost of building and running these plants, how much CO2 would be saved by putting those billions into say energy efficiency programmes for homes and buildings?

Or, lashing it into public transport in the cities?

I think it could easily offset the CO2 savings of a couple of nuclear reactors!

Solair · 30-04-2012 11:12pm

SeanW wrote: »

Ted is right about Thorium, from what I understand they're even safer than good Uranium reactors and even more efficient. For example this:

It certainly turns your hand a funny colour!

SeanW · 01-05-2012 2:43am

Solair wrote: »

Even if we totally ignore the potential environmental impacts of nuclear power, the economics simply do not add up when you include ALL costs.

Neither renewables or fossil fuels operate without subsidy. 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.

Wind farms aren't cheap either - as well as being unstable, unreliable generators, a public safety challenge and a wildlife nightmare, 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.

Nuclear is the only form of generation that has to account for the bulk of the costs it imposes. Even still it frequently is shown to be economically worthwhile.

The decommissioning costs for the UK's legacy of nuclear power is running at £73.6 billion at the moment and will probably cost a lot more than that as that estimate's coming from the industry itself and the UK Government.

It's safe to say that the UK was an early adopter of nuclear energy and had first movers disadvantage. On the topic of nuclear decommissioning, it would be better to do it the way France does (the French gov't charges a decommissioning levy on nuclear electricity sales) or the American way (the plant builder puts up a decommissioning bond at the time they apply for a license).

Some estimates put it at more like £160 billion!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/true-price-of-uks-nuclear-legacy-163160bn-472368.html

Including £50bn for cleaning up their Defence Forces nuclear issues, submarines, nuclear weapons etc.

Admittedly, it's still possibly cheaper than decommissioning Anglo Irish Bank! (which is an entirely different story) but, I don't really think Ireland could afford to run a nuclear programme.

Between climate change mandates, carbon trading and suchlike, continuing business as usual will be way more expensive than using nuclear power.

CO2 would be saved by putting those billions into say energy efficiency programmes for homes and buildings?

Already happening, to a limited extent.

Or, lashing it into public transport in the cities?

I'm a passionate supporter of railway development in the cities, I campaigned for the Dart Underground for example because I believed and still do, that it's a very important project that will provide serious benefits to our people.

It's not going to solve global warming though.

djpbarry · 01-05-2012 9:00am

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.

Solair · 01-05-2012 11:25am

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.

Markcheese · 01-05-2012 3:19pm

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....

SeanW · 03-05-2012 12:27am

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:

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.
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.
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.

djpbarry · 03-05-2012 11:25am

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?

Solair · 03-05-2012 12:06pm

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.

SeanW · 04-05-2012 10:14pm

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?

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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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!"

Solair · 06-05-2012 10:47am

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!

SeanW · 06-05-2012 4:04pm

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.

Solair · 06-05-2012 9:32pm

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!

Gbear · 06-05-2012 11:01pm

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.

djpbarry · 07-05-2012 10:05am

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.

Jester252 · 07-05-2012 11:34am

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.

djpbarry · 07-05-2012 3:23pm

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.

Tomk1 · 07-05-2012 5:18pm

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.

Macha · 07-05-2012 8:11pm

[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.

Jester252 · 07-05-2012 8:47pm

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

Chloe Pink · 07-05-2012 9:30pm

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.

Macha · 07-05-2012 9:46pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Well let's just drop the wind bit then.

I'm not even bothered debating you on this.

Jester252 · 07-05-2012 10:42pm

why wont they work together?

nuclear

Comments