Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Brit nuclear reactor planned for Ireland?

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    MacDonald doesn't just express an opinion on the NRDC (and some other big US groups), she presents well-researched facts that show that much of its - massive - funding is sourced from the biggest polluters, and that correspondingly its stances are often diamettrically opposed to the interests of the environment.

    MacDonald is not alone in saying this, and while not surprisingly attempts have been made to discredit her, her facts have not, afaik, been seriously disputed.

    The credibility of the NRDC, or rather the lack of it, obviously does have a bearing on their statement quoted above by Macha.
    First of all, it is reasonable to assume that most people reading this thread do not have access to the book in question. Secondly, even if they did, it is totally unreasonable to expect them to read an entire book before continuing the discussion. So, all we’re left with is your opinion of the opinion of someone called Christine MacDonald on the NDRC and that is not a reasonable basis upon which to reject someone else’s argument.


  • Options
    #123
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    djpbarry wrote: »
    First of all, it is reasonable to assume that most people reading this thread do not have access to the book in question. Secondly, even if they did, it is totally unreasonable to expect them to read an entire book before continuing the discussion. So, all we’re left with is your opinion of the opinion of someone called Christine MacDonald on the NDRC and that is not a reasonable basis upon which to reject someone else’s argument.

    It's not a question of rejecting someone else's argument, but understanding who is behind a statement quoted by another poster. That cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

    I could provide links to other more accessible - i.e. online - material on this if you like, but I sense that would not be appreciated.

    So let's perhaps just leave it at that?


  • Options
    #124
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    For the umpteent time, can someone from the renewable side tell me how they will overcome the intermittency of wind/solar with present day technology?
    Please don't come up with "just around the corner" wishful thinking.
    You won't allow the nuke heads to use that method as is evident from your poo pooing of generation iv reactors.
    And please don't rely on existing fossil fuel plants which won't last forever and which you claim won't need replacing.
    Smart grids...unless they can be made to generate electricity...are also verboten.
    Unobtainum similarly.
    If you cannot come up with a well planned layout on how this "100% renewables by 2050" promise is going to pan out, then you are cynically playing ducks and drakes with peoples lives and are truly guilty of peddling a ponzi scheme.
    A pound to a penny none of you... none of you ....can lay it out in any meaningful way!


  • Options
    #125
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    For the umpteent time, can someone from the renewable side tell me how they will overcome the intermittency of wind/solar with present day technology?
    Please don't come up with "just around the corner" wishful thinking.
    You won't allow the nuke heads to use that method as is evident from your poo pooing of generation iv reactors. way!

    Don't present this as a 'nukes heads v. renewables heads' debate: some of us are in favour of both carbon-free energy sources.


  • Options
    #126
    TOMP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 328 ✭✭TOMP


    No matter what power generation mix we go for, it still wont result in any cheaper electricity in joe soaps monthly electricity bill. Any savings will go towards paying off the countrys debt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    For the umpteent time, can someone from the renewable side tell me how they will overcome the intermittency of wind/solar with present day technology?
    Please don't come up with "just around the corner" wishful thinking.
    You won't allow the nuke heads to use that method as is evident from your poo pooing of generation iv reactors.
    And please don't rely on existing fossil fuel plants which won't last forever and which you claim won't need replacing.
    Smart grids...unless they can be made to generate electricity...are also verboten.
    Unobtainum similarly.
    If you cannot come up with a well planned layout on how this "100% renewables by 2050" promise is going to pan out, then you are cynically playing ducks and drakes with peoples lives and are truly guilty of peddling a ponzi scheme.
    A pound to a penny none of you... none of you ....can lay it out in any meaningful way!

    This is a thread about nuclear so I'd like the nuclear advocates to explain how they think renewables and nuclear are going to fit together, how nuclear will solve the challenges in the heating/cooling and transport sectors, how we're going to pay for all this nuclear and how long it's all going to take.


  • Options
    #128
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    Don't present this as a 'nukes heads v. renewables heads' debate: some of us are in favour of both carbon-free energy sources.

    Come on...?
    Every time anyone proposes anything, in any way, favourable to nuclear on this or many of the other threads dealing with environmental or energy related issues, Captain Midnight [to name only one] is in like Flynn saying:
    * Nuclear is too dangerous.
    * Nuclear is too expensive.
    * Nuclear is old technology.
    *Uranium will run out.
    * Companies running Nuclear reactors are stupid corrupt muppets who don't have a clue what they're doing.

    Most nuke heads have no problem conceding that wind can be relied on [now and again] to produce up to 25% of total electrical production without serious destabilization of the grid.
    The answer we get from the Greenios, time and time again, when we broach the inclusion of nuclear in the mix is:
    No way!
    Not now!
    Not ever!
    Forget about it!.
    It's much like the debate that went on in central Europe leading up to the 30 Years War, and with possibly similar casualties unless we get our act together.


  • Options
    #129
    el pasco
    Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭el pasco


    mike65 wrote: »
    "Brit nuclear reactor planned for Northern Ireland" is what the thread title should be. Not that it would make any real sense to locate such a facility in Norn Iron as far as I can see, it offers no advantage over a comparably "remote" location in Scotland or Wales, though the Scots would of course get uppity at the thought of one as they think they will have independence which presumably will be powered by good will or some such in a few years.

    Ireland can be used for the whole island in a geographic context so that is OK IMHO


  • Options
    #130
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Come on...?
    Every time anyone proposes anything, in any way, favourable to nuclear on this or many of the other threads dealing with environmental or energy related issues, Captain Midnight [to name only one] is in like Flynn saying:
    * Nuclear is too dangerous.
    * Nuclear is too expensive.
    * Nuclear is old technology.
    *Uranium will run out.
    * Companies running Nuclear reactors are stupid corrupt muppets who don't have a clue what they're doing.

    Most nuke heads have no problem conceding that wind can be relied on [now and again] to produce up to 25% of total electrical production without serious destabilization of the grid.
    The answer we get from the Greenios, time and time again, when we broach the inclusion of nuclear in the mix is:
    No way!
    Not now!
    Not ever!
    Forget about it!.
    It's much like the debate that went on in central Europe leading up to the 30 Years War, and with possibly similar casualties unless we get our act together.

    Fair enough, Curly, point taken.

    (Though as you might have guessed, I would consider myself to be a 'Greenio'.)


  • Options
    #131
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Come on...?
    Every time anyone proposes anything, in any way, favourable to nuclear on this or many of the other threads dealing with environmental or energy related issues, Captain Midnight [to name only one] is in like Flynn saying:
    * Nuclear is too dangerous.
    * Nuclear is too expensive.
    * Nuclear is old technology.
    *Uranium will run out.
    * Companies running Nuclear reactors are stupid corrupt muppets who don't have a clue what they're doing.
    [MOD] Pretty much every one of Captain Midnight's posts is fully explained and referenced. If there's an exception that you feel warrants attention, then report it.

    Otherwise, stop complaining that somebody has a different point of view to your own.[/MOD]
    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Most nuke heads have no problem conceding that wind can be relied on [now and again] to produce up to 25% of total electrical production without serious destabilization of the grid.
    The answer we get from the Greenios, time and time again, when we broach the inclusion of nuclear in the mix is:
    No way!
    Not now!
    Not ever!
    Forget about it!.
    [MOD] First of all, less of the "Greenios" please.

    Secondly, I have not seen any such posts on this thread.

    But, once again, if you think somebody isn't playing by the rules, then report the post in question.[/MOD]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    el pasco wrote: »
    Ireland can be used for the whole island in a geographic context so that is OK IMHO

    Given the prevailing orthodoxy in this country it would be unthinkable to cover a square mile of land in Northern Ireland with a small nuclear reactor to supply electricity to both sides of the border.
    It would however, be perfectly acceptable to the green movement SIZE="1"]hope [/SIZE][SIZE="1"]everyone is happy now[/SIZE to cover vast swathes of our countryside with giant wind turbines to supply electricity to......ENGLAND?
    There no obscenity too monstrous for consideration provided it can be wrapped up in the green badge of renewables.


  • Options
    #133
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Macha wrote: »
    nuclear is not a fast response to climate change.
    Wind turbines can be carbon neutral in as little as 6-8 months.

    The UK nuclear station won't be carbon neutral until long after it's built due to the construction and mining and reprocessing inputs. Add in the decommissioning inputs and the reduced opportunities for renewables and it's going to be a very long time before nuclear can even pretend to make a difference.



    http://www.vestas.com/en/201x_annual-report/management-report/environmental-performance/carbon-footprint.aspx
    A V112-3.0 MW turbine is energy neutral after approx eight months of operation. This means that after eight months, the wind turbine has generated as much energy as the suppliers and Vestas spend on manufacturing, transporting, installing and dismantling the wind turbine after 20 years. In other words, the V112-3.0 MW turbine returns 30 times more energy back to society than it consumes.


  • Options
    #134
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Wind turbines can be carbon neutral in as little as 6-8 months.

    The UK nuclear station won't be carbon neutral until long after it's built due to the construction and mining and reprocessing inputs. Add in the decommissioning inputs and the reduced opportunities for renewables and it's going to be a very long time before nuclear can even pretend to make a difference.



    http://www.vestas.com/en/201x_annual-report/management-report/environmental-performance/carbon-footprint.aspx

    Six months equals 183 days times 24 hours times 3 MW divided by 23% actual generating time,multiplied by 170 euro per MW equals ,if my math is right, just over half a million euro.
    Are you claiming this is the total energy used in the complete process?

    Does that include the cost of backup plant required to keep the lights on for the 77% of the time when they aren't producing electricity.
    Why should "reduced opportunities for renewables" be the concern of nuclear?
    Creative accounting or what?


    Brilliant link by the way!
    Next time I require advice on alcohol addiction I'll ring up Jonnie Walker.
    And should I require help with my gambling compulsion I'll put in a call to a Las Vegas casino.


  • Options
    #135
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    For the umpteent time, can someone from the renewable side tell me how they will overcome the intermittency of wind/solar with present day technology?
    You simply build more renewables than you need and export/use the rest.

    Like I keep saying you can convert surplus electricity into hydrogen for use in the gas mains. Not as efficient as pumped storage but ridiculously cheaper.

    It might be possible to use surplus renewable power to fix nitrogen, it's a large scale use of power and not exactly time critical

    The thing about the fossil fuel plants is that since they already exist the capital cost of using the for backup is again ridiculously cheap compared to having nuclear as a backup.


    Can someone from the nuclear side tell me how they will expand nuclear by a factor of 10 paying attention to front loaded costs of carbon etc. Also how the uranium for that many stations can be mined from harder rocks like granite ?

    Norway gets almost all of it's electricity from hydro. It's the storage battery of north west Europe.
    Please don't come up with "just around the corner" wishful thinking.
    You won't allow the nuke heads to use that method as is evident from your poo pooing of generation iv reactors.
    When was the last time, excluding minor improvements in efficiencies and scale ups, the nuclear industry commercialised a new technology ??

    In solar that happens often.
    Osmotic power could double our hydro resources without large scale dams, and there are several hundred MW of tidal turbines in the pipelines. Both are likely to be online before that new Nuclear plant is up and running.

    When was the last time nuclear got cheaper ?

    Wishful thinking is when you know that the Canadians were putting Thorium in the Zeep reactor back in 1947 and still insist that a breakthrough is just around the corner even though nuclear technology to date is just about achieving a critical mass of well understood material and controlling the neutron flux with inanimate carbon rods.

    And when is someone from the pro-nuclear side going to admit that Thorium just can't be breed fast enough to make a blind bit of difference on a global scale.

    And please don't rely on existing fossil fuel plants which won't last forever and which you claim won't need replacing.
    they only need to last until better renewables come on line. Nuclear can only replace base load so it would need the plants too.
    Smart grids...unless they can be made to generate electricity...are also verboten.
    remind me of what % of electricity is used for space and water heating ?



    Unobtainum similarly
    Thorium breeder.
    Megawatts from Megatons programs have already burnt up much of the possible fuel from that source.

    If you cannot come up with a well planned layout on how this "100% renewables by 2050" promise is going to pan out, then you are cynically playing ducks and drakes with peoples lives and are truly guilty of peddling a ponzi scheme.
    A pound to a penny none of you... none of you ....can lay it out in any meaningful way!

    2030 might even be doable but I doubt it.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030


    TBH I think that one large future use of renewables will be in extracting fossil fuels, and that alone could offset all the fossil fuel used to produce electricity.


  • Options
    #136
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    I could provide links to other more accessible - i.e. online - material on this if you like..
    In future, please do.


  • Options
    #137
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    It would however, be perfectly acceptable to the green movement SIZE="1"]hope [/SIZE][SIZE="1"]everyone is happy now[/SIZE to cover vast swathes of our countryside with giant wind turbines to supply electricity to......ENGLAND?
    [MOD] Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

    I don't recall anyone on this thread voicing their support for the above-mentioned project. Even if they did, stop with the baseless generalisations of "the green movement".

    Final warning.[/MOD]


  • Options
    #138
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    You simply build more renewables than you need and export/use the rest.

    But is that feasible? There is not an infinite amount of land available for onshore renewables and the power density per square meter is poor compared to conventional power generation or nuclear. It would take one hell of a lot of wind turbines to generate as much power as Hinkley Point.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100243023/nuclear-power-vs-wind-farms-the-infographic-the-government-doesnt-want-you-to-see/


  • Options
    #139
    Neon_Lights
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭Neon_Lights


    ted1 wrote: »
    Well show me examples where they are not?

    Chernobyl, Fukashima


  • Options
    #140
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    Some of those in this forum who are opposed to nuclear energy demand only the highest of standards when it comes to verifying the credibility of a source of information.

    Hence the following:
    djpbarry wrote: »
    First of all, it is reasonable to assume that most people reading this thread do not have access to the book in question. Secondly, even if they did, it is totally unreasonable to expect them to read an entire book before continuing the discussion. So, all we’re left with is your opinion of the opinion of someone called Christine MacDonald on the NDRC and that is not a reasonable basis upon which to reject someone else’s argument.

    So we are told that published material (which tends to only contain facts that have been thoroughly cross-checked, and can be backed up in court if necessary) will not do because it is not 'accessible' enough. Ironically, only online material is acceptable, despite the obvious fact that anyone can stick anything they like on the internet, including complete factual inventions.

    However, strangely enough, when it suits their own argument, mere hearsay is perfectly fine. For example, Macha writes about the British journalist and environmental activist Mark Lynas:

    "I'm sorry but the guy is paid by the nuclear industry. I don't consider him an unbiased source of information on the sector."

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993092

    When asked to give evidence to support that claim, none is produced other than perhaps a vague recollection of a blog that cannot be checked by anyone: i.e. hearsay.

    Three words come to mind: 'blatant', 'double' and 'standards'.


  • Options
    #141
    Cork boy 55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    ted1 wrote: »
    Yes and the flooding was due to the tsunami, there built close to the coast due to access to water. The damage occurred as the genies were placed in buildings below sea levels, the flooding occurred because of an earthquake. Due to our geographical location these are not at an issue.

    Ireland and Britain could be hit by a tsunami at any moment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Cork boy 55 wrote: »
    Ireland and Britain could be hit by a tsunami at any moment.

    Of course!
    And the greater Dublin area and half of Leinster could be wiped off the map by a meteor from space between now and the eight o'clock news tomorrow morning.
    But so long as it doesn't contain a nuclear power plant ...thats the main thing.


  • Options
    #143
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Greensleeves wrote: »
    But is that feasible? There is not an infinite amount of land available for onshore renewables and the power density per square meter is poor compared to conventional power generation or nuclear. It would take one hell of a lot of wind turbines to generate as much power as Hinkley Point.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100243023/nuclear-power-vs-wind-farms-the-infographic-the-government-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
    do an infographic for the exclusion zones too ;)

    or compare the decrease in land value around fukushima with that around wind turbines


    250,000 acres for 3.2GW ?
    that's 1,011 Km2 or just 1.2% of the republics land area ( 84,421Km2 ) and it won't the productivity of that land by much if at all because wind turbines take up room for the base of the tower. You can still grow crops / trees / graze animals under them. Most of the room is taken up by the separation between them.

    System demand today is approx 3.2GW ;)
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/


    Nuclear power plants aren't usually on the tops of mountains.
    And apart from the Russian floating reactors, and as yet to be commercialised naval reactors, no one build reactors at sea like they do with offshore wind.


  • Options
    #144
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    So we are told that published material (which tends to only contain facts that have been thoroughly cross-checked...
    That's an incredibly naive assumption.
    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    However, strangely enough, when it suits their own argument, mere hearsay is perfectly fine. For example, Macha writes about the British journalist and environmental activist Mark Lynas:

    "I'm sorry but the guy is paid by the nuclear industry. I don't consider him an unbiased source of information on the sector."

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993092

    When asked to give evidence to support that claim, none is produced other than perhaps a vague recollection of a blog that cannot be checked by anyone: i.e. hearsay.

    Three words come to mind: 'blatant', 'double' and 'standards'.
    [MOD] How many times do I have to say it?

    If you have an issue with a post, report it. Don't take it upon yourself to question the motives of moderators in-thread.

    Anyone else who posts anything else along these lines gets a ban. No exceptions. [/MOD]


  • Options
    #145
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    do an infographic for the exclusion zones too ;)

    or compare the decrease in land value around fukushima with that around wind turbines


    250,000 acres for 3.2GW ?
    that's 1,011 Km2 or just 1.2% of the republics land area ( 84,421Km2 ) and it won't the productivity of that land by much if at all because wind turbines take up room for the base of the tower. You can still grow crops / trees / graze animals under them. Most of the room is taken up by the separation between them.

    System demand today is approx 3.2GW ;)
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/


    Nuclear power plants aren't usually on the tops of mountains.
    And apart from the Russian floating reactors, and as yet to be commercialised naval reactors, no one build reactors at sea like they do with offshore wind.

    The fact remains that the footprint of a nuclear power plant is far smaller than the footprint of equivalent power generation using PV or wind. And farming continues near nuclear power stations - agriculture is hugely important in France.


  • Options
    #146
    Cork boy 55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Of course!
    And the greater Dublin area and half of Leinster could be wiped off the map by a meteor from space between now and the eight o'clock news tomorrow morning.
    But so long as it doesn't contain a nuclear power plant ...thats the main thing.

    :confused:

    The probability of a Tsunamis and severe storm surges inundating a coastal power plant in UK or Ireland is far far higher than that of a meteor effecting them. Tsunami can be generated in Atlantic by a number of factors.
    Probability is almost certain and their is a historical record of them.
    Just a matter of time.
    Can Britons plants that they have built in coastal areas withstand them ?


  • Options
    #147
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Cork boy 55 wrote: »
    :confused:

    The probability of a Tsunamis and severe storm surges inundating a coastal power plant in UK or Ireland is far far higher than that of a meteor effecting them. Tsunami can be generated in Atlantic by a number of factors.
    Probability is almost certain and their is a historical record of them.
    Just a matter of time.
    Can Britons plants that they have built in coastal areas withstand them ?
    Well ...we'll be alright if a tsunami hit us. Because we don't have a nuclear power station to worry about.
    Nine or ten thousand dead bodies and a devastated infrastructure will be about the height of our worries.
    If we did have a nuclear plant here, built post Fukushima, don't you think we'd
    have incorporated the lessons learned from Fukushima into the design and construction of that plant?
    In those circumstances I'd be far more worried about what was going to happen to the patients in Temple St. and Crumlin hospital than what might happen to a well fortified nuclear plant.
    My main concern would be how quickly afterwards the same plant could be producing electricity to a shattered community.
    Incidentally, can you tell us all when in history we had the last magnitude 9 earthquake followed by a 13 meter tsunami off the coast of Ireland?


  • Options
    #148
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Incidentally, can you tell us all when in history we had the last magnitude 9 earthquake followed by a 13 meter tsunami off the coast of Ireland?
    The last time the Hinkley site was inundated by a storm surge / tsunami was 30th January 1607.

    http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/1607-flood.shtml
    the floodwaters reached further inland in places, such as to the foot of Glastonbury Tor (14 miles inland)


  • Options
    #149
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Greensleeves wrote: »
    The fact remains that the footprint of a nuclear power plant is far smaller than the footprint of equivalent power generation using PV or wind. And farming continues near nuclear power stations - agriculture is hugely important in France.
    Wind turbine only take up the room of they plinth they stand upon. All the other land in a wind farm can be used for it's previous uses. After 20 years if the turbines aren't refurbished for a fraction of their initial cost they can be removed.

    In contrast most nuclear plants will take so long to decomission that their flood defences will need to be raised to take into account global sea level rises. It's yet another hidden cost of nuclear.


  • Options
    #150
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,161 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Plus the yanks will probably impose sanctions on us for trying to build nuclear weapons.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    In contrast most nuclear plants will take so long to decomission that their flood defences will need to be raised to take into account global sea level rises. It's yet another hidden cost of nuclear.

    But if sufficient nuclear plants were built quickly enough CO2 emissions would start to fall and the sea levels wouldn't rise!

    Here's a graphic from the Guardian showing the planned expansion of new nuclear capacity across the world between 2013 and 2018. If the graphic is accurate China is investing heavily in nuclear which might be a good thing if the nuclear replaces coal.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/oct/21/nuclear-power-growing-world-interactive


Advertisement