Nuclear Yes/No/Maybe

saibhne

Hi All,
Out of interest, a poll to see when/if you see Nuclear energy as an acceptable means of energy production.

Cheers!

S.

meditraitor

You should put a poll up Saibhne, and yes is my answer, in partnership with renewable energy

saibhne

Hi meditraitor, I did put a poll up, can you see it?

meditraitor

There it is now,

blather

Nooooo!

Nukes: It's yer worst nightmare! :eek:

constitutionus

blather wrote:

Nooooo!

Nukes: It's yer worst nightmare! :eek:

i havent laughd so much in ages , thanks man

Nukem

Yes yes yes and yes again.
Did loads of work on energy management in college this year and the figures are staggering. We are one of the worst built infrastructures for energy distrubution in the world. ESB had the (kinda still has) whole market monopolised and renewable energy is not been promoted by the government. think its 2% of our energy load besides hydro we are using!

We have the best loaction for wind farms - offshore that is due to our high wind average wind velocities. We could power this country on wind alone if the gov would let us! (they wont-ESB...monopoly....hand in hand.....etc)

The best bet for the country is to develop just one nuclear reactor and supply the whole country for years to come. Its like an incinerator if its run and maintained correctly then there will be a minute impact on the enviroment (way less than our current energy production). These new pebble reactors are supposed to be fantastic and China are putting in 255 of them in the next few years!

Oh i could go on........just take it yes!

meditraitor

Or we could (just a notion) just let the UK build a clatter of plants on their mainland and get them to supply us, we have some solid trading agreements inplace and the british arnt as bad as they are made out,

One way or the other Nuclear energy is about to have a resurgence and if we cant bring ourselves(the clever thing but being Irish I doubt we will do it) to build one for our own consumption the country that we end up purchasing energy off will be using Nuclear, Britain or France most Likely

saibhne

Hi Nukem/all
Thanks for giving me your answers above.

Can you maybe give me/point me in the direction of, some figures on the availability of the raw material (Uranium??) for Nuclear energy? Considering there could be a massive increase in global production of Nuclear energy in the short/mid term I'm particularly interested in how long it would take to hit a "uranium peak" like peak oil.

Cheers!

S.

meditraitor

saibhne wrote:

Hi Nukem/all
Thanks for giving me your answers above.

Can you maybe give me/point me in the direction of, some figures on the availability of the raw material (Uranium??) for Nuclear energy? Considering there could be a massive increase in global production of Nuclear energy in the short/mid term I'm particularly interested in how long it would take to hit a "uranium peak" like peak oil.

Cheers!

S.

http://www.uic.com.au/ne3.htm#3.3

Nothing to worry about there saibhne

Other fuels such as Thorium can be utilised when the uranium is used up

vector

meditraitor wrote:

Or we could (just a notion) just let the UK build a clatter of plants on their mainland and get them to supply us...

That would work until they UK has an energy crisis itself. To use the cliche "when push comes to shove"

dermot_sheehan

saibhne wrote:

Hi Nukem/all
Thanks for giving me your answers above.

Can you maybe give me/point me in the direction of, some figures on the availability of the raw material (Uranium??) for Nuclear energy? Considering there could be a massive increase in global production of Nuclear energy in the short/mid term I'm particularly interested in how long it would take to hit a "uranium peak" like peak oil.

Cheers!

S.

But you can also run nuclear reactors on plutonium, which you can breed from uranium in fast breeder reactors. Only about 1% of uranium (235) is ordinarily fissionable, the breeding turns the remaining uranium into plutonium which can also be used in reactors. It's not popular due to the obvious proliferation risk though.

meditraitor

vector wrote:

That would work until they UK has an energy crisis itself. To use the cliche "when push comes to shove"

I understand your point but if there was a push to increase the number of nuclear plants in the UK that would in effect make the chance of an energy crisis' very low.

segadreamcast

Interesting one. I'd be of the 'mix it up' variety - whilst it has huge, huge benefits, I do think there's a lot to be said for the wind/hydro model too. However, one thing is for certain - we have to move away from our oil dependency if we want to maintain our position on the economic forefront. Fast.

meditraitor

NoelRock wrote:

Interesting one. I'd be of the 'mix it up' variety - whilst it has huge, huge benefits, I do think there's a lot to be said for the wind/hydro model too. However, one thing is for certain - we have to move away from our oil dependency if we want to maintain our position on the economic forefront. Fast.

Was just about to edit my post to make that point:D

vector

It seems to me that if you have a Nuclear Reactor then you must have an Army/Navy/ and especially Airforce to protect it.

Also once diesel becomes hard to find how do you power the backup generators? and so on (all the negatives are freely available on the web)

Ireland should invest in wind (yes it cannot provide all the power needed, but it should be exploited to the max)

pimpy_c

vector wrote:

Ireland should invest in wind (yes it cannot provide all the power needed, but it should be exploited to the max)

Agreed! There's such potential for wind power that isn't being harnassed. Nuclear power isn't all that bad as long as it's looked after properly. Use it in conjunction with renewable energy and oil will no longer need to be burned for power, which is such a waste if you ask me. We have such a limited supply and so much goes to waste when burning it. Also obvious environmental issues with the burning of oil too.

pimpy_c

Tidal power has such potential too for an island such as Ireland
http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/tidal.htm
http://www.marineturbines.com/technical.htm

meditraitor

vector wrote:

It seems to me that if you have a Nuclear Reactor then you must have an Army/Navy/ and especially Airforce to protect it.

Also once diesel becomes hard to find how do you power the backup generators? and so on (all the negatives are freely available on the web)

Ireland should invest in wind (yes it cannot provide all the power needed, but it should be exploited to the max)

I think your negativity comes from the public perception that "Nuclear is BAD" and you are right to have concerns, the waste issue with nuclear energy is not to be underestimated, but you are also placing to much emphasis on wind as well, this type of energy production also needs to be backed up and to more of an extent than Nuclear.
I believe that wind energy will become viable and has a big role to play in sustainable development within the energy market but it will not be the saviour. Renewable energy sources are not developed enough at this present time to even produce 1/5 of the countries energy needs and even with massive investment would struggle to meet that mark,
All in all I cannot see any choice but to increase the amount of energy produced using Nuclear to offset the effect of carbon based energy production on our environment
This is not just my opinion but the opinion off ALL the influencial and emminant scientists in the field of energy supply and the environment..

Nukem

vector wrote:

It seems to me that if you have a Nuclear Reactor then you must have an Army/Navy/ and especially Airforce to protect it.

Dont think we can do that because we would have to increase our naval capacity and therfore need an admiral and then we would lose our neutral status!

vector wrote:

Also once diesel becomes hard to find how do you power the backup generators? and so on (all the negatives are freely available on the web)

they are looking at coal to use as a viable alternative. there are companies treating coal to refine it to a useable diesel like fuel but its very expensive to do.

vector wrote:

Ireland should invest in wind (yes it cannot provide all the power needed, but it should be exploited to the max)

Yes i was a bit ambitous with the term all it could do a substanial amount of our energy needs. Attended an Airtricity presentation a few weeks ago and they are having problems getting planning to build them so they are goin abroad to places like England down the south to build them. There is only 10 at the moment of the Wicklow banks and the are 104m diamter and there are twice the size being researched at the moment and they would produce a huge amount of power.

Ireland is a very late comer with power. Money point IMO is a hole and should just be knocked (harsh but its outta date and inefficient for the level of tech nowadays)

With Nuclear we could build one reasonable size one or even fund one for another country (not goin to happen as majority of EU countries are steering away from Nuclear and and leaning to renewable;except us) and buy the power from them. Buying power is more expensive than buying though so we would always be operating at a loss.

Nukem

Mike_C

I would be a mix it type of person, the more sources of energy we utilise the better, but this country has to get over the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude to incinerators nuclear reactors and the whole not in my line of view when talking about wind turbines.

rsynnott

blather wrote:

Nooooo!

Nukes: It's yer worst nightmare! :eek:

Oh, indeed.

http://blog.rsynnott.com/2006/01/16/scare-tactics/

Note the comments.

saibhne wrote:

Hi Nukem/all
Thanks for giving me your answers above.

Can you maybe give me/point me in the direction of, some figures on the availability of the raw material (Uranium??) for Nuclear energy? Considering there could be a massive increase in global production of Nuclear energy in the short/mid term I'm particularly interested in how long it would take to hit a "uranium peak" like peak oil.

Cheers!

S.

Bear in mind that using Fast Breeder reactors Uranium 238 and Thorium can be converted into useful fuel. This greatly extends the supply of fuel available.

We should build nuclear, now, and lots of it. Otherwise, we risk serious problems in a couple of decades.

A nice compromise, actually, would be nuclear plants in NI.

Samos

I think that when discussions about nuclear power, incinerators etc. arise, the main point is missed. The question should not be about how we can maintain and increase the energy levels that oil has given us once it has been exhausted. The real question is Why do we need to continue increaing our levels of consumption of materials and energy merely to stand still?

The economy in most industrialized nations seems to be predicated on increasing material wealth and economic success at all costs. Yet, this attitude does not square well with the strictly limited set of resources that exist on this planet. For all the affluence that exists today in Ireland very few people are substantially more content and there remains a substantial portion of people wallowing in unrelenting poverty, with no hope of ever attaining even the basics required for the modern lifestyle. We can continue to sprint onwards and believe that this 'progress' is desirable and inevitable, or we can stop and think about what actually makes life more worthwhile. The requirements for a life of contentment are independent of the amunt of energy we require and money we spend, once we fulfill the needs for food and shelter.

There is little doubt that nuclear power can provide copious amounts of energy and allow even more people to buy into the prevailing western lifestyle. However if everyone realized that having all of this would mean contaminating the earth and expending its unique and irreplaceable amenities, not to mention a life devoted to futile economic progress over development of personal well-being, then enthusiasm for the idea would be severly low...

There are already means in existence to provide almost everyone with the energy the need without causing long-lasting damage to people and their environment. We must invest what remains of oil to develop these renewable technologies for our progeny, not simply expend this precious resource on frivilous day-to-day activities. If we endeavour to create a viable mix of hydro-electricity, wind and tidal power, biomass and so forth and create viable means of storing this energy, then this is the priority, and the nuclear question need not even be considered.

Remember the crisis is approaching fast, so therefore we must slow down...

rsynnott

The problem is not that we need more energy, at least in the developed world. The problem is that we need to maintain our current supply, and we are likely to see it threatened soon. A planetary population of 6 billion cannot survive without considerable industrialisation. Industrialisation requires copious cheap energy.

Wibbs

rsynnott wrote:

Oh, indeed.

http://blog.rsynnott.com/2006/01/16/scare-tactics/

Note the comments.

:rolleyes: Oh yea scare tactics ain't in it. The won't someone think of the children angle really makes it funny.

We should build nuclear, now, and lots of it. Otherwise, we risk serious problems in a couple of decades.

With you all the way. Tidal and hydro usually touted by the hippy brigade can have serious impacts on wildlife and the long term impact from silting up etc are poorly understood. Wind is lovely, but useless except as an add on. It looks bad, sounds bad and is ineficient.

Samos wrote:

not to mention a life devoted to futile economic progress over development of personal well-being,

While I take your point, it does smack of the usual hippy nonsense far based from a town called Reality(Pop. = the rest of us)TBH

rsynnott wrote:

The problem is not that we need more energy, at least in the developed world. The problem is that we need to maintain our current supply, and we are likely to see it threatened soon. A planetary population of 6 billion cannot survive without considerable industrialisation. Industrialisation requires copious cheap energy.

Nail meet head.

Samos

Wibbs wrote:

While I take your point, it does smack of the usual hippy nonsense far based from a town called Reality(Pop. = the rest of us)TBH

I don't think I'm being unrealistic in looking for viable alternatives to fossil fuels that will expire in the near future. Nuclear fissionpropably is not one of them because it causes widespread and long-lasting unavoidable contamination, not to mention the fact that it requires copious amounts of energy just to establish and maintain it. Nuclear fusion is certainly the holy grail, but after billions of dolars in investment, it yas yet to deliver a single Watt. The only realistic way to meet energy needs without compromising the quality of life on the planet is to harness the direct and indirect energy from the sun, which for all intents and purposes is unlimited and safe. We can't simply coninue to grow indefinitely, and presume that industrialisation of all land is unquestionably the right and best thing to do.

By the way ad hominem attacks hardly constitute a real refutation. Do you have any ideas of your own Wibbs?

rsynnott

Samos wrote:

widespread and long-lasting unavoidable contamination,

Sorry, what? What contamination is this?

Samos wrote:

not to mention the fact that it requires copious amounts of energy just to establish and maintain it.

To establish it you need to build the plant. No current fission power system requires energy to keep it running. I think you're thinking of fusion...

Samos wrote:

Nuclear fusion is certainly the holy grail, but after billions of dolars in investment, it yas yet to deliver a single Watt.

Wrong; JET runs at a slight energy profit, and ITER is projected to run at 500-1000MW, though only for short bursts. Commercial fusion should be with us by 2030, all going well.

Samos wrote:

The only realistic way to meet energy needs without compromising the quality of life on the planet is to harness the direct and indirect energy from the sun, which for all intents and purposes is unlimited and safe. We can't simply coninue to grow indefinitely, and presume that industrialisation of all land is unquestionably the right and best thing to do.

That's not very realistic. The problem with solar energy is that the sun goes down at night. There are others, but that one seems fairly inescapable. As to industrialisation, would you really want to live in a pre-industrial society, with a life expectancy of 30?

bonkey

rsynnott wrote:

As to industrialisation, would you really want to live in a pre-industrial society, with a life expectancy of 30?

You were responding to a suggestion that industrialisation of all land isn't the right way to go, and you see the alternative as no industrialisation at all, anywhere?

Whats that you were saying about the use of scare-tactics

Regardless...step one in maintaining our industrialisation should be a move away from consumerism, not a religious war about which new technology will best allow our consumerism to continue unabated.

jc

bonkey

rsynnott wrote:

The problem with solar energy is that the sun goes down at night. There are others, but that one seems fairly inescapable.

Given the invention, in recent days, of the miracle known as the rechargeable battery, this problem is no longer inescapable.

jc

Wibbs

Samos wrote:

I don't think I'm being unrealistic in looking for viable alternatives to fossil fuels that will expire in the near future.

You're not unrealistic in looking, but in avoiding the best current alternative, you're being incredibly unrealistic. I won't repeat what rsynnott has correctly pointed out, about what's wrong with your arguments against fission. I would suggest a bit of research beyond the usual anti nuke hype.

The only realistic way to meet energy needs without compromising the quality of life on the planet is to harness the direct and indirect energy from the sun, which for all intents and purposes is unlimited and safe.

Fine, solar panel etc are a start. Pretty much all the other methods you mention are either grossly inefficient or impact the natural landscape far more than nuclear power, so it's not as "safe" as you may think. Why invest in options that won't cover our current energy needs, no mind future needs when we have the means now to retard global warming/pollution etc. in a significant way.

We can't simply coninue to grow indefinitely, and presume that industrialisation of all land is unquestionably the right and best thing to do.

I never said we should tbh. I'm not a big fan of rampant consumerism myself. I am a realist though .

By the way ad hominem attacks hardly constitute a real refutation. Do you have any ideas of your own Wibbs?

Rule one of "personal well being", is take nothing personally, so chill out, I wasn't attacking you, just the woolly headed hippy stuff re personal development. It's a lovely idea an' all, but it won't stop the greenland ice sheet melting anytime soon as sadly your average person doesn't think like that. Neither will a few wind farms in the atlantic.

blather

Thumbs down to nuclear energy

http://unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1552092&issue_id=13614
Tue, Jan 31 06


Treacy Hogan

THE Government yesterday ruled out any future use of nuclear power to meet energy needs.

There was no question of building a nuclear power plant in Ireland, said a Department of the Environment spokesperson.

Employers' group IBEC had said a nuclear power station could help Ireland solve its energy crisis.

Its spokesman Brendan Butler said: "As a society we do have to ask the question are we prepared to look at the issue of nuclear."

IBEC has warned that the Republic of Ireland is one of the most vulnerable countries in Europe when it comes to dependency on imported oil and gas supplies.

Having our own nuclear energy supplies would save us from future shock oil prices and shortages as well as curb greenhouse gases.

However, the Government said it was emphatically opposed to nuclear power generation despite our continuing over-reliance on imported fossil fuels.

A spokesman said: "We have a long-standing Government policy of being anti-nuclear. A nuclear power station is not on the cards."

Attempts are being made to develop alternative renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy, he added.

ressem

JET runs at a slight energy profit,

Have they added a windmill?

From the JET faq http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq3.html
JET is not large enough to produce more fusion power than the power that is needed to heat the plasma.
...
In the steady state plasmas, the fusion power is around 20% of the input power. In the high performance plasmas the fusion power is approximately the same as the applied heating power.

Looking at runtimes of 5 seconds and .5 seconds respectively.
ITER is meant to be 4000 sec or so?--Edit-- Nope 500, And lots of glowing watch faces for all when they replace the lithium-tritium blanket every few years.

What contamination is this?

More than one type of reactor, but is there a type that doesn't bombard its surroundings with neutrons?


Say for arguments sake, lots of graphite & silicon carbide coated pebbles with radioactive nougety goodness which are difficult to reprocess after they've been through the reactor a few times? And the reactor itself.

Maybe we can pay 20 quid and return it to Germany under the EU waste directive.

But still, possibly less radioactivity/pollution then from coal.

Samos

rsynnott wrote:

Sorry, what? What contamination is this?

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fact that the half life for many fission by-products range from a matter of days to several billion years. No matter if this waste is handled with the utmost care, it takes huge effort to maintain it in a safe location until it is completely safe... This means some sort of safe storage tank that will remain intact for millions of years. That does not seem very realistic. How fair is it to gamble with the lifes of our progeny because we want fast and cheap energy now?

To establish it you need to build the plant. No current fission power system requires energy to keep it running. I think you're thinking of fusion...

I am referring to the costs of maintaining adequate safety on the nuclear plant to prevent contaminant leaks, which pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius of the facility. Concrete only lasts a few hundred years at best. This is an input which most be factored into the energy costs until the radioactivity levels are deemed safe, i.e. hundreds of thousands of years. On the other hand, the ideal fusion generator should not require any more input once it has begun, as is the case in stars.

Wrong; JET runs at a slight energy profit, and ITER is projected to run at 500-1000MW, though only for short bursts. Commercial fusion should be with us by 2030, all going well.

This technology has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet. Perhaps it will in the foreseeable future, but it is highly idealistic to assume that once we have it all energy problems will be solved. There are so many intricate factors involved, and any tiny oversight could render the process uneffective. Is it worth investing strictly limited resources (ie fossil fuels) on this technology if it has no guarantee of success? Should this project fail, we will have gambled most of the finite resouces of the planet on it leaving nothing for proven alternative technologies. I propose we develop these now, and conserve fossil fuels for investment as capital resources or as emergency power. Fusion may then be pursued when there is less at stake.

The problem with solar energy is that the sun goes down at night.

But does the wind stop at night, do plants die, and rivers dry up, or tides disappear? All of these are the indirect aspects of solar energy to which I was referring. Not to mention, storage devices do exist (as Bonkey mentioned), but alot of investment is due here as regards fuel cells.

Samos

Wibbs wrote:

You're not unrealistic in looking, but in avoiding the best current alternative, you're being incredibly unrealistic. I won't repeat what rsynnott has correctly pointed out, about what's wrong with your arguments against fission. I would suggest a bit of research beyond the usual anti nuke hype.

Nuclear fission is not the best alternative when the persistant, unavoidable contaminant waste is taken into the equation. I am not involved with any anti-nuclear movement or any other interest group. These views come from assessing the facts in light of general needs (things like avoiding disease and death from radioactivity, and having a pleasant environment in which to live). Maybe you do have a realistic plan to deal with this waste for several millenia: I'd like to hear it...

Fine, solar panel etc are a start. Pretty much all the other methods you mention are either grossly inefficient or impact the natural landscape far more than nuclear power, so it's not as "safe" as you may think. Why invest in options that won't cover our current energy needs, no mind future needs when we have the means now to retard global warming/pollution etc. in a significant way.I never said we should tbh. I'm not a big fan of rampant consumerism myself. I am a realist though.

Although any technology is not perfect, the danger of pollution posed by fission power significantly outways any cons of the biggest alternative offender, hydro-electricity.

Rule one of "personal well being", is take nothing personally, so chill out, I wasn't attacking you, just the woolly headed hippy stuff re personal development. It's a lovely idea an' all, but it won't stop the greenland ice sheet melting anytime soon as sadly your average person doesn't think like that. Neither will a few wind farms in the atlantic.

I didn't take it personally. I just find it hard to take a person's arguments seriously if he resorts to petty name-calling or ungrouned assumptions. I apologise for being vague about that whole personal development aspect. However this is an important part of the debate, because how much energy we use and what variety we use depends on the attitudes people hold. In fact, this is the primary question because everything else flows from this. One that places immediate gratification and consumerism first and ignores the long-term consequences of one's actions will not bode well for the inhabitants of this planet.

meditraitor

Samos wrote:

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fact that the half life for many fission by-products range from a matter of days to several billion years. No matter if this waste is handled with the utmost care, it takes huge effort to maintain it in a safe location until it is completely safe... This means some sort of safe storage tank that will remain intact for millions of years. That does not seem very realistic. How fair is it to gamble with the lifes of our progeny because we want fast and cheap energy now? .

Dont want to sound like some headcase but the Moon is being touted as possible site for waste storage

Samos wrote:

I am referring to the costs of maintaining adequate safety on the nuclear plant to prevent contaminant leaks, which pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius of the facility. Concrete only lasts a few hundred years at best. This is an input which most be factored into the energy costs until the radioactivity levels are deemed safe, i.e. hundreds of thousands of years. On the other hand, the ideal fusion generator should not require any more input once it has begun, as is the case in stars..

As you say, when more R&D is carried out(no real research on nuclear energy supply and solutions to it problems have been carried out for 20 years) this could become viable.

Samos wrote:

This technology has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet. Perhaps it will in the foreseeable future, but it is highly idealistic to assume that once we have it all energy problems will be solved. There are so many intricate factors involved, and any tiny oversight could render the process uneffective. Is it worth investing strictly limited resources (ie fossil fuels) on this technology if it has no guarantee of success? Should this project fail, we will have gambled most of the finite resouces of the planet on it leaving nothing for proven alternative technologies. I propose we develop these now, and conserve fossil fuels for investment as capital resources or as emergency power. Fusion may then be pursued when there is less at stake..

The nettle needs to be grasped, while people sit around and argue about the pitfalls of nuclear energy supply climate change is still happening and it should be noted that an increase in nuclear energy output could give us some well needed time to look into safer and more relaible power sources while we wean ourselves off Carbon based energy production

Samos wrote:

But does the wind stop at night, do plants die, and rivers dry up, or tides disappear? All of these are the indirect aspects of solar energy to which I was referring. Not to mention, storage devices do exist (as Bonkey mentioned), but alot of investment is due here as regards fuel cells.

Your ideology is admirable but the facts are that the rate of development within these fields will not be quick enough to stop more damage to the environment while we wait for them to supply all our energy needs.

Mark

ambro25

@OP - Yes to Nuclear.

But, ideally, build my own house as self-sufficient & grid-isolated, within the next 10 years max. Based on renewables, mix of solar & wind (have factual experience of both).

Gurgle

Why don't we just wait for ambient temperature polymer superconductors and draw electricity directly from the earth's magenetic field.

rsynnott

bonkey wrote:

Given the invention, in recent days, of the miracle known as the rechargeable battery, this problem is no longer inescapable.

jc

A decent-sized power plant produces 1000MW of power. Some produce far more. Have you any idea how large a lead-acid battery array you'd need to store 1000MW? How much maintenance it would take? Battery technology has been very, very slow to evolve.

Will come back to this later

prospect

blather wrote:

THE Government yesterday ruled out any future use of nuclear power to meet energy needs.

There was no question of building a nuclear power plant in Ireland, said a Department of the Environment spokesperson.

Employers' group IBEC had said a nuclear power station could help Ireland solve its energy crisis.

Its spokesman Brendan Butler said: "As a society we do have to ask the question are we prepared to look at the issue of nuclear."

IBEC has warned that the Republic of Ireland is one of the most vulnerable countries in Europe when it comes to dependency on imported oil and gas supplies.

Having our own nuclear energy supplies would save us from future shock oil prices and shortages as well as curb greenhouse gases.

However, the Government said it was emphatically opposed to nuclear power generation despite our continuing over-reliance on imported fossil fuels.

A spokesman said: "We have a long-standing Government policy of being anti-nuclear. A nuclear power station is not on the cards."

Attempts are being made to develop alternative renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy, he added.

I agree with this for one simple reason.
Would you trust a government that cant bore a hole under Dublin, to build a nuclear power station :rolleyes:

ambro25

prospect wrote:

Would you trust a government that cant bore a hole under Dublin, to build a nuclear power station :rolleyes:

LOL - seconded

rsynnott

Samos wrote:

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fact that the half life for many fission by-products range from a matter of days to several billion years. No matter if this waste is handled with the utmost care, it takes huge effort to maintain it in a safe location until it is completely safe... This means some sort of safe storage tank that will remain intact for millions of years. That does not seem very realistic. How fair is it to gamble with the lifes of our progeny because we want fast and cheap energy now?

It's a necessary evil. And final storage has already begun in Sweden, hundreds of meters below the ground.

In any case, conventional thermal plants release all sorts of nastiness straight into the atmosphere, with no real way to contain it. Is that really preferable?

Samos wrote:

I am referring to the costs of maintaining adequate safety on the nuclear plant to prevent contaminant leaks, which pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius of the facility. Concrete only lasts a few hundred years at best.

And indeed, most plants have a life expectancy of less than a century. They can then be replaced; many plants in France have decommissioned gas-cooled plants and operating APWRs on the same site. Modern designs are easyish to decomission and clean up. Even the cleanup of the Experimental Advanced Pressure Water Reactor (a 70s design; that big spherical thing) at Sellafield is going well, and due to be finished on time and under cost.

But does the wind stop at night, do plants die, and rivers dry up, or tides disappear? All of these are the indirect aspects of solar energy to which I was referring. Not to mention, storage devices do exist (as Bonkey mentioned), but alot of investment is due here as regards fuel cells.

We don't have TIME to wait for effective storage technology, which would still seem to be a while off. We need a solution now.

Wibbs

Samos wrote:

Perhaps you have heard of Chernobyl, or maybe Three Mile Island, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

To be fair 2 of them were weapons. That's like quoting the Dambusters raid as a minus point against hydro. It smacks to much of the hippy mentality of equating "The Bomb" with nuclear power. Old hat and innacurate tbh. In any event, people live in both those cities quite happily. In fact the cancer rate is almost identical to the rest of Japan. BTW how many casualties was there at three mile island. I would suspect more people have died from industrial accidents as a result of coal mining or oil production than nuclear power.

Nuclear fission is not the best alternative when the persistant, unavoidable contaminant waste is taken into the equation. I am not involved with any anti-nuclear movement or any other interest group. These views come from assessing the facts in light of general needs (things like avoiding disease and death from radioactivity, and having a pleasant environment in which to live). Maybe you do have a realistic plan to deal with this waste for several millenia: I'd like to hear it...

The facts are that death and disease are likely to come far sooner from the environment being screwed up by non nuclear means. Actually meditraitor's not far wrong. You could fire it into space. Solve a lot of problems.

Although any technology is not perfect, the danger of pollution posed by fission power significantly outways any cons of the biggest alternative offender, hydro-electricity.

Really? So the mass disruption to the local ecology, migratory fish, bird life etc etc. is outweighed by the danger of pollution from neclear power. The fact is from your examples Chernobyl is the only one where you could try to argue that large scale death and damage was done. Now have a look at what the WHO had to say on the matter http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
Up to 2005 only 50 deaths directly attributed to the accident. This from the "biggest" nuclear disaster in history. They say there may be more. 1000's more but they can't be sure. Not by a long shot. There were more than 50 coal miners killed in mining accidents last year in the coal fields of the US alone. Now as for environmental damage around Chernobyl. The UN want to make Chernobyl and the large area around it a site of world heritage as the animal and plant life is so lush.

This technology has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet.

You could say the same for wind tbh. Except for small scale use it's pretty lame.

I didn't take it personally. I just find it hard to take a person's arguments seriously if he resorts to petty name-calling or ungrouned assumptions. I apologise for being vague about that whole personal development aspect. However this is an important part of the debate, because how much energy we use and what variety we use depends on the attitudes people hold. In fact, this is the primary question because everything else flows from this. One that places immediate gratification and consumerism first and ignores the long-term consequences of one's actions will not bode well for the inhabitants of this planet.

Fair enough, but to get such a shift in attititudes especially in the developing world is pie in the sky tbh. It's worth trying but when we have the solution at hand it seems silly not to at least try it. Nulear power is a lot like sharks(bear with me ). Everyone is afraid of sharks, but the humble bee kills more people in the UK in 10 years, than sharks have in the world since records began. It's all down to perception IMHO.

meditraitor

Wibbs wrote:

The facts are that death and disease are likely to come far sooner from the environment being screwed up by non nuclear means. Actually meditraitor's not far wrong. .

whoooot:D must be my round so

Wibbs wrote:

You could fire it into space. Solve a lot of problems..

http://www.space.com/news/nuclear_moon_020822.html
We are an ingenious lot, but the poor old Luner SETI program would be damaged if this happened

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

Now as for environmental damage around Chernobyl. The UN want to make Chernobyl and the large area around it a site of world heritage as the animal and plant life is so lush.

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for this?

The only information I could find on the topic was suggesting it be a World Heritage site to allow further research into the effects of the accident and/or to serve as a longterm reminder of what our mistakes can cost.

Nowhere have I seen nor can I find the suggestion that it is the lushness of the area that is why it should be made so.

It's worth trying but when we have the solution at hand it seems silly not to at least try it.

We don't actually have the solution at hand. Nuclear, at best, can act as a partial solution.

I also find it amusing that this logic is rarely/never used in conjunction with efficiency. More efficient useage of what we have is arguiably on par with nuclear generation in terms of how much of the existant problem can be solved.

Simple example - Chrysler (I think) released these new "smart" engines in teh US, which fire on fewer cylinders when less power is needed, and fires on all when you put the boot down. OK - hardly sounds as impressive as the cleanness of a Prius, but here's the thing.....the takeup of this technology is estimated to generate at least the same amount of emission reductions as the takeup of Prius-style hybrids will in the coming decade.

So, taking Wibbs comment a bit more generally, one has to ask....why do we continue looking for a method to allow us to maintain our wastefulness, when a solution (i.e. don't be wasteful) is already at hand.

jc

ambro25

This technology (NDQ: nuclear) has not produced a reliable or surplus energy output over input yet.

I must have missed that one :eek:

Erm, you might want to point your Googleator at Cattenom, France.

One of the, if not the, biggest nuclear plants in France, exporting at least half the output to Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands (since it's already supplying national grid acc. to stated French National Grid reqs with +/- 50% of output).

You build one somewhere remote and not too tourist-intensive (let's be realistic ) in IE, and I'd bet you be selling surplus to utilities into NI within a year

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for this?

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Effect_on_the_natural_world (check the last line)
http://ranprieur.com/crash/naturechernobyl.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501144.html
Just a quick Google, but you get the jist. I read it the original article in Nature AFAIR.

I also find it amusing that this logic is rarely/never used in conjunction with efficiency. More efficient useage of what we have is arguiably on par with nuclear generation in terms of how much of the existant problem can be solved.

Do you honestly reckon that efficient useage is going to take up the energy shortfall, especially in industry? Plus, how likely is the widespread seachange in attitude that your efficiency plan call for? Sadly not very. At least this way while we're faffin around the environment is taking one less major hit. If the world went nuclear tomorrow the greenhouse gas and general pollution situation would fall off the scale.

Simple example - Chrysler (I think) released these new "smart" engines in teh US, which fire on fewer cylinders when less power is needed, and fires on all when you put the boot down. OK - hardly sounds as impressive as the cleanness of a Prius, but here's the thing.....the takeup of this technology is estimated to generate at least the same amount of emission reductions as the takeup of Prius-style hybrids will in the coming decade.

Sounds cool. Not an new idea either. The Prius type of car has it's issues too and is not as efficient as a lot of people seem to think.

So, taking Wibbs comment a bit more generally, one has to ask....why do we continue looking for a method to allow us to maintain our wastefulness, when a solution (i.e. don't be wasteful) is already at hand.

Surely we can do both? Reduce wasteful practice and use nuclear power to take up the difference. Seems more practical.

rsynnott

ambro25 wrote:

You build one somewhere remote and not too tourist-intensive (let's be realistic ) in IE, and I'd bet you be selling surplus to utilities into NI within a year

In practice, the opposite seems more likely (we'll run off BNFL reactors in NI).

Samos

Wibbs wrote:

To be fair 2 of them were weapons. That's like quoting the Dambusters raid as a minus point against hydro. It smacks to much of the hippy mentality of equating "The Bomb" with nuclear power. Old hat and innacurate tbh. In any event, people live in both those cities quite happily. In fact the cancer rate is almost identical to the rest of Japan. BTW how many casualties was there at three mile island. I would suspect more people have died from industrial accidents as a result of coal mining or oil production than nuclear power. The facts are that death and disease are likely to come far sooner from the environment being screwed up by non nuclear means. Actually meditraitor's not far wrong.

My point was in relation to rsynnott's question concerning contamination from nuclear fission. This is an undeniable fact. Perhaps more have died as a result of fossil fuel extraction (there are no comprehensive figures), but thew fact that radiation is persistent, long-lasting and almost unavoidable if released makes it a much greater danger, htough it may not have been realised immediately. Pollution from such activities can have detrimental effects on health and quality of life without causing death and these effects are difficult to assess accurately.

You could fire it into space. Solve a lot of problems.

Doesn't really solve the problem; merely prolongs the need for a real solution.

Really? So the mass disruption to the local ecology, migratory fish, bird life etc etc. is outweighed by the danger of pollution from neclear power. The fact is from your examples Chernobyl is the only one where you could try to argue that large scale death and damage was done. Now have a look at what the WHO had to say on the matter http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
Up to 2005 only 50 deaths directly attributed to the accident. This from the "biggest" nuclear disaster in history. They say there may be more. 1000's more but they can't be sure. Not by a long shot. There were more than 50 coal miners killed in mining accidents last year in the coal fields of the US alone. Now as for environmental damage around Chernobyl. The UN want to make Chernobyl and the large area around it a site of world heritage as the animal and plant life is so lush.
You could say the same for wind tbh. Except for small scale use it's pretty lame.

ON worst case scenarios and potential for widespread damage, nuclear energy is clearly the worst offender. However, as I stated earlier, this prospect need not even concern us if we stop wasting energy now and strive for efficiency and quality over quantity.

rsynnott

Samos wrote:

My point was in relation to rsynnott's question concerning contamination from nuclear fission. This is an undeniable fact. Perhaps more have died as a result of fossil fuel extraction (there are no comprehensive figures), but thew fact that radiation is persistent, long-lasting and almost unavoidable if released makes it a much greater danger, htough it may not have been realised immediately. Pollution from such activities can have detrimental effects on health and quality of life without causing death and these effects are difficult to assess accurately.

You know, the major alternative to nuclear will soon be coal. Coal burning causes all sorts of nasty health problems. No way to stop it. Is it better to have thousands die a year as a certainty than to have a very small year-on-year risk of an event killing thousands?

Samos wrote:

ON worst case scenarios and potential for widespread damage, nuclear energy is clearly the worst offender. However, as I stated earlier, this prospect need not even concern us if we stop wasting energy now and strive for efficiency and quality over quantity.

Why do you believe nuclear energy is dirtier than coal, for instance? And where would you have us derive our energy when most of our current supply dries up in a few decades?

Incidentally, with the state the world's space industry is in, sending it to the moon isn't practical. The Ariane V, currently the heaviest operating rocket, can send in the region of 10 tonnes, if that, to the moon. France alone has 40,000 tonnes of waste accumulated from their nuclear industry; the US, who don't generally reprocess, have far more.

Wibbs

Samos wrote:

Doesn't really solve the problem; merely prolongs the need for a real solution.

Why not(rsynotts valid problems noted)? If you could fire all the waste in to deep space that would be the end of the waste problem, full stop.

ON worst case scenarios and potential for widespread damage, nuclear energy is clearly the worst offender. However, as I stated earlier, this prospect need not even concern us if we stop wasting energy now and strive for efficiency and quality over quantity.

If we don't harness the power of the atom, fission or fusion, we're boned. No if's buts or maybes. Even lovelock backs this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Nuclear_Power Furthermore the sooner we start on the technological path where we attempt to directly mine the power of stars the better we'll be. Long way off and a bit mad I'll agree, but the alternative is to remain a pre type 1 civilisation for the foreseeable future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Don't get me wrong conservation of existing energy is good, but even with that I can see a shortfall especially in the developing world(where there's a big problem looming). Who are we to deny them their industrial revolutions? Properly executed Nuclear gives us an out.

Samos

rsynnott wrote:

You know, the major alternative to nuclear will soon be coal. Coal burning causes all sorts of nasty health problems. No way to stop it. Is it better to have thousands die a year as a certainty than to have a very small year-on-year risk of an event killing thousands?

Why do you believe nuclear energy is dirtier than coal, for instance? And where would you have us derive our energy when most of our current supply dries up in a few decades?

Incidentally, with the state the world's space industry is in, sending it to the moon isn't practical. The Ariane V, currently the heaviest operating rocket, can send in the region of 10 tonnes, if that, to the moon. France alone has 40,000 tonnes of waste accumulated from their nuclear industry; the US, who don't generally reprocess, have far more.

I have not stated that I advocate coal as the energy source of the future. We don't have to place ourselves in a false dilemma of choosing between pollution from coal or that from nuclear fission. There are other options, and I fail to see how being more efficient, reducing waste, being less spend-thrift along with a combination of renewable energy sources is such a terrible and unwelcome prospect. There will not be any one magic side-effect-free-technology that will save us from impending doom.

I think that most people place health high on their list of priorities, and as such anything that unnecessarily poses a risk to this will not be accepted. Pollution from energy sources such as nuclear, coal and other fossil fuels fulfils this criterion. Given a choice between the luxury and material abundance of the western lifestyle and a life of health and well-being, people will choose the latter. Nuclear might allow the former to continue but it does not guarantee the latter. Nor does coal.

In any case there are means in existence to reduce pollution from chimney stacks by scrubbing and other chemical approaches. However I am not aware of any methods to successfully recombine radioactive materials into stable elements...