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.