[Markcheese]

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]

Originally Posted by ted1

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]

Originally Posted by GarIT

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?

Originally Posted by GarIT

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]

Originally Posted by SeanW

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?

Originally Posted by SeanW

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]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

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/lo...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]

Originally Posted by Markcheese

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]

Originally Posted by Oldtree

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

Ok. And?

Originally Posted by Oldtree

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]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

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]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

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/ene...on-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/ene...rgy-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/dea...y-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/...472786,00.html

That is a mistake I want no part of.

[Chuck Stone]

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/internatio...lear-power.pdf

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

[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by Oldtree

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]

Originally Posted by SeanW

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.

Originally Posted by SeanW

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/ene...on-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/ene...rgy-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?

Originally Posted by SeanW

...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]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

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]

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/bu...bn-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]

Originally Posted by SeanW

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!