Will the greens ever accept nuclear power?

silverharp

Would the greens ever accept nuclear power, I saw Primetime last night, McKenna of the greens was on the panel, it was a tame affair and not very enlightening, but it seems for it’s part that the greens are “religiously” opposed to nuclear power. I am not necessarily advocating nuclear power for Ireland however we will be importing it from the UK, it’s just that we are facing a huge crises and an honest debate of the options is needed

Among the thinks McKenna said was

Nuclear power is not zero emission because of the mining of Uranium
I say- So what, wind farms aren’t exactly made from recycled xmas trees, they depend on an industrial base for their manufacture

One life expended because of nuclear power is one too many
I say- every time you come home and flick on a switch, a coal miner some where around the world dies, again getting into a numbers game is not useful

The point is we are where we are, it is not even proven that a modern society can run on renewables alone, ie nobody has ever made solar panels from infrastructure made from solarpower. If I am expected to vote green I would like to see them use hard logic and not pandering to peoples fears

air

To be honest I thought that McKenna was very poor on the programme and she does not have any debating skills to speak of. Her style was very repititious and she seemed to have very little knowledge overall on the topics being discussed.

You make a good point on the renewables from renewable alone, in the long term though renewables will have to represent 100% of our energy - by their very nature, non renewables will eventually run out. Eventually everything will have to be manufactured from energy created from renewable sources.

Irish people have a very irrational fear of nuclear power, the physics lecturer on the panel made a few very valid points which nobody really took any notice of. Nuclear energy is a pretty natural phenomenon, there were several naturally occuring nuclear reactors on earth in the past.
However nuclear isnt the panacea that some people might think, uranium is like oil a finite resource and I read somewhere recently that there would only be enough to run the world for 10 years if it was the exclusive energy source (ie used for transport, electricity generation, heating etc).
It will be a useful help while we make the transition to renewables but doesnt have much of a future beyond this AFAIK.

In the long term I think we need to reduce the world population back down to about 2 billion to have a sustainable future. However the economic policies of modern governments are hopelessly predicated on expanding populations and the economics of a reducing population are not very appealing.

babybuilder

What was more worrying was the performance of the head of sei. Very similar vibes to what one gets from the EPA. Neither outfit wishes to displease their political masters. In my view, both have contributed little to stimulate the energy/environment debate or sought to provide real leadership. It seems it is more important to hold down a well paid job than to rock the boat. Ireland has the resources via its new found economic growth to do something but we have a dearth of ideas or desire.

Capt'n Midnight

silverharp wrote:

One life expended because of nuclear power is one too many
I say- every time you come home and flick on a switch, a coal miner some where around the world dies, again getting into a numbers game is not useful

Every time you fill your car 100,000's have been killed in the oil wars in the middle east.

Nuclear power is safe, economic and there are acceptable solutions to waste storage you can have at most two, you can't have all three. Fusion is rightly treated as the Holy Grail because waste storage is vastly reduced and the fuel source is not as restrictive.

re uranium running out - Thorium will last three times as uranium BUT it's much easier to make bombs from it as you don't need any fancy implosive lenses or isotope seperation. The intense radiation seems to be the main limiting factor, but remote control could be an option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

There are moves we can make now, reduce our dependence on cars, Ireland is nearly up to 80% of commute journies this way, most in petrol cars at jogging speed. A diesel / battery hybrid could cut our need for crude oil drastically (don't forget that a lot of crude oil is wasted in cracking/combining to increase the yield of petrol - 5% ?) diesels will burn most oils, the only things they don't like are highly flamable things like petrol (alcohol might be usable in a diesel engine - I'll have to look it up) the first one ran on Coal Dust !

Nuclear power is only an option if you can sort out the waste problem, you need a region that is politically and geologically stable. The thorium reactors as India are planning to use will produce a lot of stuff with 90 year half life. That's going back to world war one. Large dams hold a lot of water. many resevoirs have caused small earthquakes. climate change, especially the level of water table can upset geology at the surface too.

Or another way of looking at is the stuff is too nasty to entrust to corporations who have been found guilty repeatedly of mismanagment and illegal activity

SeanW

I consider myself a semi-environmentalist and to my mind, the choice between nuclear power and fossil-fuel energy is akin to being asked if you would you prefer your manure sandwich with butter or margerine.

Ireland's dependence on fossil fuels has become runaway. So I think dramatic action, up to and including nuclear should be considered. That said, I would only support nuclear power in Ireland if the fuels used had relatively short half lives, and even then, only a single generation of plants, 35 years max, to be used to help a transition from fossil-fuels to susitainable options like wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen or whatever.

Everyone should have a look at this: The last days of Pripyat. Gut-wrenching stuff.

I don't think a mass-abandonment of nuclear power would help given the worlds runaway carbon emissions, plants decommissioned today would likely have to be replaced with coal or natural gas.

But don't think the Greens are wrong to be staunchly anti-nuclear either. It really is a horrible mess and there is no easy answer.

Capt'n Midnight

One interesting use for radioactive and heavy metal waste would be to dump it in the few areas of pristine wilderness left. This would discourage human activity in them. Yes the species there would suffer, but they would still exist.

Bit like Goldfingers plan to devalue the gold in Fort Knox. Would you as a consumer like to buy goods made from radioactive materials ?

On Eco-Eye or similar I saw that the EU could easily get all it's electricity from wind power, and with our climate and proximity of mountains to most major populations centres pumped storage is a no-brainer. And then there is tidal power. Here on the east coast we have two tides a day and between Dundalk and Wexford power output would be almost continuous. In the West there are very high tides, and tonnes of wave power - just string the generators across galway bay via the aran islands etc. later futher offshore. And the peat bogs could be converted to coppiced willow, harvested by machine , so much lower risk than mining as long as you don't do anything stupid.

In the US it's cheaper and less resource intensive to insulate factories than build power plants to generate the wasted electricity. We could do the same here too.

Incenerators could supply power too, but I feel we should look at alkaline hydrolysis first.

In the 1930's we passed a law that all exported goods had to be packaged. IMHO this was almost certainly to line the pockets of the Smurfit enterprises, but even the 70% of cardboard was recycled. Modern laws could insist on recyclable packaging. The word Recyclable meaning that free recycling centres exist in the country. - Plastic is recyclabe but try to find somewhere where you can dispose of it for free !

Ok not a big step but every little helps. We only need Nuclear Power if we continue to increase our power usage. And this country the level of corruption means it would be madness to even consider, let alone pretend it would be done safely, cleanly AND econocmically .

ednwireland

i only have one problem with nuclear power, what do you do with the waste ?

thats it (especially the high level waste never mind the the tons of low and medium level waste)

emaherx

SeanW wrote:

Ireland's dependence on fossil fuels has become runaway. So I think dramatic action, up to and including nuclear should be considered. That said, I would only support nuclear power in Ireland if the fuels used had relatively short half lives, and even then, only a single generation of plants, 35 years max, to be used to help a transition from fossil-fuels to susitainable options like wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen or whatever.)

Could we use nuclear power to help a transition from non-rewnewable to rewnewable, considering the cost of decomissioning these facilitys?

saibhne

To be fair to the Greens they did propose that there be an all party consensus on the energy issue - basically a call for all parties to put aside short term electoral politics and get together to form a coherent long term policy that will address the national energy question. This to me is the act of a party that would be willing to compromise their policies (including on Nuclear energy) for the greater good.

FG and Labour shot the proposal down, presumably short term electoral politics are more important..

silverharp

Saibhne- RTE radio did a series on Peak Oil, and Colin Campbell (peak oil wirter and geoligist that lives in Ireland) held a meeting with the different parties. Apparently FF took an interest (but when have FF ever preempted anything), FG thought it was an afront to the Celtic Tiger and SF thinks it's a conspiracy by big oil. Irish Politics is always stuck on stupid imho , we need to see the lights go off before we will see any action. Ask the NRA if they have considered Peak oil when planning roads for 20 years in the future.

css

The main problem a lot of the so called 'greens' have is people taking them seriously. You can't expect to come up with ludicrous policies without offering alternatives. Stuff like ban cars, ban this, ban that, bla bla, is all well and good, so what are people supposed to do.. It's the same with Nuclear power, sure there's alternatives out there, but how much power do they cost to set up? I'm glad to see some sensible suggestions coming out, and some proper analysis. Rather than the extremism that some of the 'tree hugger' types practice. (glen of the downs anyone?)

Shinto

I care about the environment more than most...

But im also a pragmatist, im becoming more in favour of Nuclear Power everyday. Sheer volume of power at such low CO2 emmissions.

Finland had this debate already (as they mentioned on PrimeTime) and they sure care about their unspoilt environment, and they decided to start up a Nuclear Programme.
I'd gladly support our own Irish Nuclear Power station. Of course i wouldnt want it on my own doorstep, but there's got to be somewhere remote and secure they could put it.

Capt'n Midnight

Shinto wrote:

I'd gladly support our own Irish Nuclear Power station. Of course i wouldnt want it on my own doorstep, but there's got to be somewhere remote and secure they could put it.

Aren't you forgetting the losses in transmision lines , it CAN'T be very remote. http://homepage.tinet.ie/~wexfordtransformed/links5.htm

A cheaper way would be an undersea DC cable to Sellafield/Windscale/Calder Hall or what ever they call it these days.

http://struggle.ws/wsm/talks/carnsore2002.html - remember the miners strike ?
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0078/S.0078.197407090004.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0313/D.0313.197905020011.html A 650MW Nuclear station - we'd need a LOT more of them

Turlough Hill 292 Hydro (Pump Storage)

Moneypoint 915 Coal
Tarbert 620 Oil
Aghada 525 Gas
Poolbeg 1,020 Oil and Gas

Two new peat stations totalling 250MW were opened in 2005 in Shannonbridge (West Offaly Power) and Lanesboro (Lough Ree Power) - again I'll pimp coppicing for when the peat runs out.

Oh yeah aren't we going to get 520MW from the Arklow offshore windfarm ?

And besides public transport and telecomuting would do more for our Koyoto comitments than a nuclear power station would, and be FAR cheaper.

Cuauhtemoc

ie nobody has ever made solar panels from infrastructure made from solarpower.

I thought i read somewhere that one of the Solar Panel manufacturers plants was powered by Solar.
Can't remember where it was(Germany maybe) i'lll have to go google.

silverharp

Cuauhtemoc - I don't want to be negetive but even if the factory is powered by solar, what about the energy used to build the factory and to mine all the materials, how to the employees get to work? what are the computers made of......

ednwireland

Shinto wrote:

I'd gladly support our own Irish Nuclear Power station. Of course i wouldnt want it on my own doorstep, but there's got to be somewhere remote and secure they could put it.

wher do you suggest we put it i doubt any part of this island is on anyones doorstep. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE WASTE (asked this before) swnd it to sellafield ?, i suggest we put it on shinto's doorstep and see what the local leukemia cluster does to your area. maybe dublin 4 would be a good place.
i still beleive in conservation and micro electricity production which would reduce demand and reduce peoples own electricity bills.
i ask again what do we do with waste

quote from stuk the finnish nuclear energy authority
"Preparations for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel began in the early 1980s. The goal set in 1983 by the Government was to have a site chosen by the year 2000. Construction of the disposal facility was scheduled to start soon after 2010. In October 2003, however, the Ministry of Trade and Industry made the decision that the construction licence application should be submitted by the end of 2012"

they have nowhere to dispose of high level waste i dont see that as good environmental practice
also theyve been planning since the early eighties ireland has no such planning or the ability to think this long term like 50000 year storage facility

Akrasia

emaherx wrote:

Could we use nuclear power to help a transition from non-rewnewable to rewnewable, considering the cost of decomissioning these facilitys?

I don't think so, considering the fact that it could take up to 20 years to actually get a nuclear plant up and running in this country, and by then we'll be in the depths of a recession as Oil prices leap by hundreds of percent.
What we need to do is act immediately. Decentralise some of power generation, instead of having one big nuclear plant, we should have every single house and business premises supplimenting their own electricity needs with small wind turbines and solar powered water heating systems. (we also build offshore wind farms and tidal and wave power) These micro generators should be manditory on all new houses and developlments, (change the planning laws, it's as simple as that) and it should be introduced ASAP. We should ban non CFL bulbs (arguments based on aesthetics should not be entertained, we can get over it) and increase the minimum insulation requirements for all homes and commercial developments.

If we can increase energy efficiency, and suppliment our own energy needs from a renewable source, then we should see an immediate reduction in our CO2 production and our reliance on imported fossil fuels.

next, we should make immediate and massive investment in BioFuels and the necessary infrastructure.
Get the old Sugar Beet farmers to grow Crops suitable for oil production, set up some oil presses and then pass a law requiring all diesel cars sold in Ireland to be pre converted so they can use Pure plant oil. All State and public transport Vehicles should be run on pure plant oil ASAP.
Tax incentives should be introduced to encourage the sale of diesel cars converted to Pure Plant Oil, and excise on this fuel should be waived 100% in the short term until economies of scale in Plant oil production can be achieved.
we have 1.2 billion budget surplus for the first 3 months of this year. We can do all of these things and still have loads of money left to pay for white elephants complete waste of money like E-voting and electronic payment systems

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Cuauhtemoc - I don't want to be negetive but even if the factory is powered by solar, what about the energy used to build the factory and to mine all the materials, how to the employees get to work? what are the computers made of......

Whereas if the factory is powered by oil, then...

the energy used to build uit to mine the materials, to get the employees to work, to build the computers etc. all remain, and on top of it you add in the oil spent to keep the place functioning.

an honest debate of the options is needed

Yes. It is indeed.

jc

silverharp

Bonkey - I don't get the criticism of my post, I am absolutely in favour of renewable energy I was just making the point that all materials and energy sources have a hidden oil "subsidy" somewhere.

bonkey

The way I look at it is this:

The greens are not looking to introduce what they see (rightly or wrongly) as an equally unacceptable solution (nuclear) to the problem of meeting energy needs as the one that we currently have (predominantly thermal hydro-carbon).

You've accepted that we are where we are. So the question is where can we realistically go, agreed?

We can't eliminate our oil needs overnight no matter what we do - short of dusting off and nuking the site from orbit. The Greens certainly aren't suggesting that we can.

Criticising or faulting an option for not cutting out oil entirely would therefore seem neither here nor there. It is neither a justification for nor a case against nuclear (which is ostensibly what this thread is about). Nothing can utterly remove our oil dependence, so what we need to look at is how to reduce it. So how do we reduce it? Well, it would seem that when looking at a number of options, one should elimniate the factors common to all as these will remain as factors no matter which option is chosen.

So, if given a choice between a nuclear station and a wind/wave/??? "clean" source, what relevance does it have that both of them involve workers driving there, construction costs etc? Surely what is important is which produces a cleaner net result. That people drive cars to a nuclear plant is neither case for nor agaisnt nuclear, no more than it is for or against solar. It is, rather, a seperate issue (transportation) that needs to be dealt with seperately.

The Greens support renewables. More generally, it would seem that they support a move away from thermal-based generation, but I wouldn't rule out them supporting an interim renewable-thermal solution. They do not see nuclear as a suitable alternative for a number of reasons. The costs of supplying fuel (and - although unmentioned in your original post - dealing with waste) are not insignificant amongst those. Renewables (non-thermal-based) do not have such costs.

The costs of someone driving to and from work is not an issue, however, because it has nothing to do with which option is better. People will drive to/from both plants, regardless of which is built, and the oil-cost of this factor will only be reduced when we tackle the seperate issue of transportation.

So basically, I don't see the relevance of knocking solar-built-using-solar on the grounds that it hasn't tackled transportation problems etc. Its not meant to tackle them, nor is it a cost that is unique to solar-built-using-solar. It owuld be a cost for solar-built-using-nuclear, solar-built-usnig-oil, or indeed solar-built-using-the-dirtiest-hydrocarbon-source-you-can-find.

OK - if what you want is a Miracle Max solution which will remove all oil dependancy from everything, immediately....then sure....renewables probably aren't teh way to go. Neither is nuclear, fusion, or anything else on the planet.....so again, I don't see why, in discussing whether or not the Greens are being realistic in refusing to consider nuclear. the ancillary non-generation-linked costs which are common to all solutions have any bearing on the discussion.

Ultimately, I just foundd it ironic that you ask if the Greens are being realistic in their opposition to nuclear generation, but one of the first issues mentioned is one that realistically is entirely seperate.

jc

replytohere2004

there are two questions here:

One supporting nuclear power in Ireland and WHERE in Ireland!!

For all the people supporting NP in Ireland would you accept a nuclear plant in your locality?

tj-music.com

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Nuclear power is safe, economic and there are acceptable solutions to waste storage you can have at most two, you can't have all three. Fusion is rightly treated as the Holy Grail because waste storage is vastly reduced and the fuel source is not as restrictive.

Rubbish! It is unsafe, costly and dangerous. Talked to Emma Gibson from Greenpeace UK for radio and the statistics she had were showing that it is cheap enough for the world leaders to keep or bring it back into the focus point. You can´t get rid of the stuff, nowhere to put with a lifespan of literally 1000s of years and don´t think that Tchernobyl like incidents can´t happen.

call the RPII - Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and they´ll tell you the truth about how safe it really is. Think twice!

silverharp

Bear in mind that more people have died (shortened lifespan) in Ireland because of Radon gas then have died (shortened lifespan) in the Ukrane because of nuclear power

We don't have to build one in Ireland, there is one for sale in North Wales


My previous point was that for the first time in history we dont have a natural transition to a "higher" source of energy, wood to coal to oil to ???? and as a planet we have never been forced off an energy source. This time it is different, and to leave options off the table is a folly, it is also worth bearing in mind that some renewables are "currently" very dependant on fossil fuels. We will need every option that has a positive energy output

Akrasia

silverharp wrote:

Bear in mind that more people have died (shortened lifespan) in Ireland because of Radon gas then have died (shortened lifespan) in the Ukrane because of nuclear power

We don't have to build one in Ireland, there is one for sale in North Wales


My previous point was that for the first time in history we dont have a natural transition to a "higher" source of energy, wood to coal to oil to ???? and as a planet we have never been forced off an energy source. This time it is different, and to leave options off the table is a folly, it is also worth bearing in mind that some renewables are "currently" very dependant on fossil fuels. We will need every option that has a positive energy output

If there was a nuclear accident anywhere in Ireland, it could make the entire island, and much of Europe uninhabitable. We are trying to minimise a risk of damage to our eco system through Global Warming, by introducing a whole new risk that can have a much worse effect?

And aside from the safety issues, I'll say it again, It would take at least 20 years for a nuclear power station to be constructed in Ireland. By then we'll be well into peak oil and Global warming will already be having a massive effect. We need to start changing things NOW.

The_Minister

air wrote:

Nuclear energy is a pretty natural phenomenon, there were several naturally occuring nuclear reactors on earth in the past..

A natural reactor? Please explain.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally Posted by air
Nuclear energy is a pretty natural phenomenon, there were several naturally occuring nuclear reactors on earth in the past..Point of information.
a/ natually occuring uranium was twice as enriched as now
b/ at least one is thought to have exploded
c/ the waste is still hazardous even though it was decomissioned a long time ago

brianthebard

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Every time you fill your car 100,000's have been killed in the oil wars in the middle east.

Nuclear power is safe, economic and there are acceptable solutions to waste storage you can have at most two, you can't have all three. Fusion is rightly treated as the Holy Grail because waste storage is vastly reduced and the fuel source is not as restrictive.

re uranium running out - Thorium will last three times as uranium BUT it's much easier to make bombs from it as you don't need any fancy implosive lenses or isotope seperation. The intense radiation seems to be the main limiting factor, but remote control could be an option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

There are moves we can make now, reduce our dependence on cars, Ireland is nearly up to 80% of commute journies this way, most in petrol cars at jogging speed. A diesel / battery hybrid could cut our need for crude oil drastically (don't forget that a lot of crude oil is wasted in cracking/combining to increase the yield of petrol - 5% ?) diesels will burn most oils, the only things they don't like are highly flamable things like petrol (alcohol might be usable in a diesel engine - I'll have to look it up) the first one ran on Coal Dust !

Just in regards to the diesel engine, all it takes is one small adjustment(to the spark plug or injector I think) and you can run a car off of used chipper oil, veg oil etc,. It's not yet legal to do it here but they are trying it out on trucks in England and some European countries are allowing the conversions to be made.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Bear in mind that more people have died (shortened lifespan) in Ireland because of Radon gas then have died (shortened lifespan) in the Ukrane because of nuclear power

Apples and oranges.

How many people in Ireland have been relocated because of Radon gas, compared to how many were relocated in teh Ukraine because of Chernobyl?

How many acres of land in Ireland have been rendered unsafe for habitation because of Radon gas?

We don't have to build one in Ireland,

In other words, as long as its foreigners who are bearing the most significant risk on our behalf and not our own citizens...there's no problem.

to leave options off the table is a folly,

But the option hasn't been left off the table. The option was put on the table, looked at, and then removed because it wasn't deemed acceptable.

Would you, for example, advocate a largescale return to coal? There's enough of it about to last for quite a few years, apparently....so isn't is also "folly" that we've let considerations like global warming, radiation exposure and general all-round pollution remove it as a major option too?

jc

silverharp

Bonkey- When they build the interconnectors between the UK and Irl, we will be importing nuclear energy in any event, the uk only have a surplus in elecricity because of nuclear power.

World wide, nuclear energy will be an important component in the transition from oil to other supplies, to argue differently is artificially reducing energy to the global economy. In the case of Ireland if the Green argument was, we don't have the expertise or it would crowd out developments of renewables and we owe it to Europe to be an exporter of wind and wave power and stop there I would say, good platform, you've got my vote. However when you use Chernobyl as a reason to oppose nuclear power you are just trying to scare the masses who can be very bad at calculating risks. Comparing 1950's Soviet reactors which were built to produce both electricity and nuclear material for weapons with no shielding and few failsafes to a modern Pebble bed reactor (see wikipedia) for instance, is scaremongering. You're simply saying I don't like nuclear but lets scare the people to make sure and heck we might get some votes out of it.

turbine?

Chernobyl was one instance of a Nuclear meltdown that scared the world and nobody wants to see again right?

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/nuclearliteracy.html

The RSS estimates that a reactor meltdown may be expected about once every 20,000 years of reactor operation; that is , if there were 100 reactors, there would be a meltdown once in 200 years. The report by the principal organization opposed to nuclear power, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS),4 estimates one meltdown for every 2,000 years of reactor operation.

Thats from a pro nuclear site.

there are more than 100 reactors in operation at present, actually there is more like 443

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

so thats a probability of one meltdown every 45 years.

Nice. Maybe people are right to be scared?

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Bonkey- When they build the interconnectors between the UK and Irl, we will be importing nuclear energy in any event,

Not quite true, but I take your point. I'd wager you'll find, however, that the Greens (whos point of view I was discussing...rather than my own) are opposed to this as well but may consider accepting it as the least worst option available.

However when you use Chernobyl as a reason to oppose nuclear power you are just trying to scare the masses who can be very bad at calculating risks.

No, you're not.

Chernobyl is a reason to consider not using nclear power. Its not the only reason, and its debateable about how significant a reason it is, but it is a valid reason.

I would also point out that while you've been bashing the greens for their almost-religious anti-nuclear stance up to this last post of yours, this is the first time you've mentioned Chernobyl as being a reason of theirs at all.

Now you make it sound like its their only reason....

Comparing 1950's Soviet reactors which were built to produce both electricity and nuclear material for weapons with no shielding and few failsafes to a modern Pebble bed reactor (see wikipedia) for instance, is scaremongering.

Whereas you see no problem suggesting that a modern Pebble Bed reactor - a design which is still considered to be in development is unquestionably superior. Lets not also forget the accident in Germany in 1986 which released radioactive material into the open air from one such developmental pebble-bed reactor, nor the other criticisms. All of this information is also in that wikipedia article.

I've seen very heated arguments about the pros and cons of pebble-bed designs over the years. It occurs every couple of months on Slashdot, for example, and you'll generally find the posters who can demonstrate a clear knowledge of what they're talking about are split down the middle into two camps as to whether or not pebble-bed are really as safe as they're made out to be, let alone whether or not they're the "best of breed" design out there at the moment.

Yes, we've come a long way since Chernobyl. Does that mean we're safe, or merely not as much at risk? Its not scaremongering to ask for solid answers to such questions, dealing with every aspect from delivery of material, through the entire generation-lifecycle, through to disposal. And its not scare-mongering to decide - having received what answers one can - that one is still not satisfied with the resultant risks.

You're simply saying I don't like nuclear but lets scare the people to make sure and heck we might get some votes out of it.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm asying that your argument about "the greens are foolish to leave this off the table" is misleading.

The Greens have put it on the table, looked at it, decided its not an acceptable way forward for them, and removed it from the table again. They have not done so purely and solely on a "Chernobyl in Ireland" scaremongering run....as even your first post here supplies other reasons that their (admittedly poor) spokesperson was able to supply.

The more and more I hear of the whole nuclear discussion, it seems neither side can countenance even the mere possibility that anyone could come to a conclusion other than theirs without being woefully misinformed.

jc

silverharp

Turbine - fair point but you have have to access the risks of current technology as opposed to the stock of 40 year old reactors

It comes down to how seemless do you want the transition from oil to other sources of energy, it's sobering to view a graph of population growth compared to supply of oil. We may just need nuclear to jump start us onto new technology

turbine?

So what is the probability of a reactor meltdown for new technology reactors?

And bear in mind that a reactor meltdown is a worst case scenario, what are the probabilites of fugitive emissions and other major incidents?

Not to mention the issue of waste.

As far as population vs oil is concerned, I wont argue its not worrying, but perhaps with higher efficiency and more importantly de centralisation to smaller scale networks, electricity will be less of a problem than the major oil user, transportation.

see http://transitionculture.org/?p=293#more-293 for an (idealistic) picture of decentalised energy production

Nuclear doesnt resolve this issue, and to my mind nor do bio fuels.
Transportation rather than electricity generation is the sector which has, so far, no real alternative to oil.

Mortmain

tj-music.com wrote:

Rubbish! It is unsafe, costly and dangerous. Talked to Emma Gibson from Greenpeace UK for radio and the statistics she had were showing that it is cheap enough for the world leaders to keep or bring it back into the focus point. You can´t get rid of the stuff, nowhere to put with a lifespan of literally 1000s of years and don´t think that Tchernobyl like incidents can´t happen.

call the RPII - Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and they´ll tell you the truth about how safe it really is. Think twice!

Is this the same greenpeace who were recently fined for running the rainbow warrior over a coral reef? Not whiter than white and not exactly impartial in the area. As far as i can see, most of the objections in the tread are based on the waste issue - there is one compelling argumant which should be borne in mind. We may not have the technology to deal with it now, but the liklihood is that we will, in the future, if left to continue our technological advances, devise ways to recycle the waste at a future date. If one follows the law of conservation of matter, when we can utilise 100% of waste product we will have achieved pure renewable (cyclical) energy. Getting there won't happen if we stem or chances to innovate.

bonkey

Mortmain wrote:

We may not have the technology to deal with it now, but the liklihood is that we will, in the future,

Well then...at that point, the waste issue will be no longer an issue. Until then, it is an issue.

Getting there won't happen if we stem or chances to innovate.

Who's stemming anything? Ireland isn't dictating that the entire planet cease research into nuclear waste management.

I also don't see the need for more nuclear waste in order to facilitate such research - there's plenty of it to go round already. If someone wants to innovate....there's a massive market already established, as well as no shortage of governments and corporations who will fall over tehmselves to make such a successful innovator a very, very rich person.

However, deciding an issue should be disregarded on the grounds that "I believe it will be solved in the future as long as we keep heading in this direction" strikes me as foolhardy.

It also has a marked similarity to GWB's stance on Global Warming - we don't need to do anything about it, cause advances in technology will probably solve the problem anyway. All we have to do is keep advancin' and we're fine.

In both cases, its also noteable that the people willing to bet that science will supply the answer are not teh ones who will suffer if science doesn't deliver the goods on time. Nope - that will be some other generation.

In short, it boils down to little more than "let our kids worry about it".

jc

silverharp

OK, as was mentioned I have a suspicion that the greens have a “religious” dislike of nuclear and that in some way risk of death by man made radiation is more objectionable then risks from other types of energy production. So let me assume this is not the case and that the green case is based on sound risk/reward and cost/benefit analysis. As an example I assume a Green would have objected to the 3 gorges dams in China on the basis that a habitat was wiped out, a million people or more had to move, a future generation will be left to deal with the dismantling of the dams and there is a risk of large scale death if the dam fails for whatever reason. (feel free to comment if you think a nuclear plant is x10 worse then the dam eg or broadly that they are in the same ball park)

From a peak oil point of view I can understand why nuclear might not be a good idea on the way up the curve as “Jevon’s paradox” would imply that nuclear doesn’t even displace oil demand as other uses are found for oil and even more unsustainable development occurs, however once we hit peak oil and go down the other side the carrying capacity of the earth goes down, how that plays out is anyones guess and this is where I say we need every option available to us, even if 100,000 die because of (New) nuclear developments over the next 100 years, that will be small beer compared to the potential reduction of the carrying capacity of the earth from 7bn back to say 4bn, nuclear won’t bridge this gap but will it will certainly help along the way.

It was mentioned that transport will be more affected then power generation, indeed, but the challenge will be to go back to electrically powered transport , trains busses even cars. Electricity generation will increase as a % of our overall energy use.


It will be interesting to see how the publics attitude to risk change in relation to nuclear over the coming years, given that collectively we decide to drive even though 10’s of thousands of people die every year in car accidents, how will people react when the power starts to go off

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

As an example I assume a Green would have objected to the 3 gorges dams in China on the basis that a habitat was wiped out, a million people or more had to move, a future generation will be left to deal with the dismantling of the dams and there is a risk of large scale death if the dam fails for whatever reason.

I would have said they would be the negatives that noe would have to weigh-up in the equation, not the reason to object.

Let us not forget that without the dam, thousands of people were killed and more dishomed, literally every year. I think the figure was something like 10,000 deaths per year were caused on average by seasonal flooding which will no longer occur.

One-off relocation, and the risk of catastrophic flooding vs the reality of almost-annual semi-catastrophic flooding, deaths, dishomed.....not quite as unbalanced as your objections made it sound. But I agree...if the Greens were to object to the 3 Gorges, it would be most likely because the costs you outline outweigh the advantages you omitted.

The dismantlnig of the dams is indeed an issue for future generations, but I'm not sure what teh issue with that is. Is there some reason (other than a return to the flood-prone pre-dam conditions) that this is comparable to the "we don't have a long-term workable solution" problem of nuclear-waste storage, for example?

(feel free to comment if you think a nuclear plant is x10 worse then the dam eg or broadly that they are in the same ball park)

What technological problems regarding the dam do we not have solutions for?

What cumulative problems does it face (i.e. problems which, like nuclear-waste storage, grow in size, year-on-year).

In the face of catastrophic failure, what would be the time-to-recovery for both the agricultural land that would be affected (and on which China is dependant) and for the damage to cities?

how that plays out is anyones guess and this is where I say we need every option available to us,

But nuclear is still an option available to us. Its not like anyone is suggesting that we erect an indistructable barrier around the country which will prevent anything nuclear (fissile) from ever getting through.

Today, the Greens do not appear to believe that nuclear is the least worst option available to us to remedy problems that need to be remedied. If and when it becomes so, I do not believe they will sit on "religious" opposition, but rather will accept it as a necessary evil.

However, they will not accept it as a "preventative" evil - something that we should implement now because we just might need it down the line.

It is important to remember that while we see figures for the shortfall of energy, and how technology X, Y and Z cannot fill the gap, not every nation will fit that model exactly. Swizterland generates almost 60% of its power through hydro....a figure far in excess of what the global average potential contribution of hydro is currently reckoned to be. There are no shortges of other examples - every "renewable" power-source is more suited to certain areas than others. Thus, just because one can argue that the world cannot meet its energy demands without resorting to nuclear, it does not immediately follow that Ireland cannot do so.

even if 100,000 die because of (New) nuclear developments over the next 100 years, that will be small beer compared to the potential reduction of the carrying capacity of the earth from 7bn back to say 4bn, nuclear won’t bridge this gap but will it will certainly help along the way.

So what you're really saying is that you agree nuclear carries risks, but you think there's so many other dangers out there, that really, the risk of huge numbers of people getting killed in the occasional disaster isn't worth worrying too much about ???

Interesting perspective, but not one I can see being too popular. You could just as well use the same logic to argue for making oil-based heating illegal. Sure, hundreds of thousands might die from freezing over the years....but the net savings would stave off what might be a more terrible fate, and - like you said - we need every option.

Right?

collectively we decide to drive even though 10’s of thousands of people die every year in car accidents

Indeed, but those deaths are not concentrated in a single (or a few) localised area as would be the case with nuclear (or nuclear storage) disasters.
Nor is it the case that driving accidents have the potential to leave nation-sized areas of land uninhabitable.

It is also the case that some people choose not to drive for exactly the reason you've given. Collectively, the world has chosen nuclear. That doesn't mean every single nation must embrace it.

jc

saibhne

The political context should also be considered alongside the scientific when analysing the Greens viewpoint here. The Greens are a small party and can only realistically hope for a maximum of 15% of the vote in the forthcoming election, they will always be either a minor partner in a coalition or an opposition party so they will never call the shots entirely.
In government they will always have to compromise to get their policies enacted (especially one as sensitive as Nuclear) and as any haggler knows it is best to start with an idealistic offer and work to an acceptable conclusion. To extend this analogy to the political debate on Nuclear energy it may be Green tactics to maintain the rigid stance on nuclear in the belief that this can be relinquished in a future compromise with a governing partner.
At least that's how I would do it...

Oldtree

I think you're right, just look at the PD's now! If the investment that was to go into setting up a nuclear source of energy here in ireland, was to go to setting up a renewable source, I feel that there would be little difference in the end costs. It seems to boil down to a question of a political choice and the political will. Vote carefully as its our only input into this decision.

silverharp

I think it's a mute point for Ireland, the irish market is too small to support nuclear, I would be interested if anyone has info on Finland, they are either building a new plant or have just built one. I saw a survey recently that showed that the Scandanavians are not afraid of nuclear.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

the irish market is too small to support nuclear,

I coulda sworn you'd been backing it all the way, and saying its foolish to rule it out....now you're saying we're too small to support it anyway?????

I saw a survey recently that showed that the Scandanavians are not afraid of nuclear.

And were we Scandinavians, that would be significant.

jc

silverharp

Bonkey apologies for the confusion, I didn't clarify at the start wherther I was talking about Ireland specifically or Green attitudes in general worldwide, I did say ealier that I'd be happier with the "green" argument if they focused on practical reasons appropriate to Ireland like size of market, necessary skills, displacement of renewables



re previous post -Wasn’t aware of the background of the dam project in china so thanks for that, I was trying to point out that a nuclear project has some similarities and risks as other large scale projects. Some peak oil writers have made the point that large infrastructural projects like motorways or my example the dam will get increasingly difficult to maintain when oil runs out

Dealing with nuclear waste is an issue but is not a reason to not go nuclear, the volume is tiny and could be stored for 100’s of years if necessary

The potential contamination due to an incident is a risk but it has to measured against the systematic failure of oil supplies to the west
for geological or geopolitical reasons. I agree nuclear is not appropriate everywhere, countries with natural advantages should go for those first, other areas around the globe however don’t have (sufficient) natural resources to fall back on.

Capt'n Midnight

silverharp wrote:

Dealing with nuclear waste is an issue but is not a reason to not go nuclear, the volume is tiny and could be stored for 100’s of years if necessary

100's ? you think

We have had earthquakes here in Ireland in the last 100 years.

Look at the wars on the continent WWI, WWII, Balkans, Poland vs. Russia, loads of civil wars, domestic terrorists who have attacked infrastructure.

And the time scale is not measured in 100's of years
its longer than any recorded history, in fact the really nasty stuff needs to be hidden for a time further away than the last ice age. And glaciers tend to remove all above ground markers and structures, so how do you warn people about the waste then ?

silverharp

The pyramids have lasted pretty well

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

The pyramids have lasted pretty well

You mean some of the pyramids have lasted pretty well, surely.

The concern is exactly that - some nuclear storage would undoubtedly work fine for the timeframes needed.

Some isn't a good enough quantity, and pretty well isn't a terribly inspiring quality level either

silverharp

How high do you want to set the bar - Commet proof?

Desert location/away from tectonic plates/ underground/ as much concrete as is needed with eartquake proof features/ material stabilized so not in liquid or gas form/ hi tech monitoring...pretty well does it for me, in a hundred years time it can be sent on a probe back to the sun for ultimate recycling ;-)

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

How high do you want to set the bar - Commet proof?

Probably not...I was just pointing out there's a lot of pyramids that have fallen by the wayside where Giza hasn't....and that this is exactly the issue. Everything must survive.

Desert location/away from tectonic plates/ underground/ as much concrete as is needed with eartquake proof features/ material stabilized so not in liquid or gas form/ hi tech monitoring...pretty well does it for me, in a hundred years time it can be sent on a probe back to the sun for ultimate recycling ;-)

So what you're basically saying is that the US and/or some African nations should store the nuclear waste of the world? God knows there isn't a location in Europe that meets those criteria....unless we skip the desert / away from tectonic plates combination.

Concrete, incidentally, isn't terribly useful for sites that need to take year-after-year of storage. It also defeats the use of monitoring...after all, what good is it to know that the stuff you've buried is leaking, if you can't get back down to it.

Current plants (if memory serves) produce about 30 cubic metres of post-processing dangerous waste per GW of generated power per year. While this may seem like a small amount per plant, imagine the quantity that would be produced if nuclear were to be far more widely adopted (world total at present == 6% nuclear generation). Also bear in mind that one of the criticisms of pebble-bed reactor design is that it produces a greater volume of waste....

All of a sudden, the "tiny amounts" of waste don't seem so tiny....

Storage is neither a trivial issue, nor one that is as easily solved as many would have us believe. It can probably be solved, but we can't be entirely certain, may not be willing/able to afford the proper solution, and may not be able to store as much stuff in this manner as we'd like to.

Advocates will tell you that all of these issues have been surmounted. Critics will tell you why these claims are exaggerated. I don't claim to have the answers....I just recognise that (in general) anyone taking an absolutist position on either side is downright wrong.

jc

democrates

All we need is a device to connect to our rectal sphincters to capture methane for use in energy production. 6.5 Billion humans wasting farts left right and centre, it's a disgrace. Not to mention adding dynamos to exercise machines.

But seriously. On the one side reduce energy consumption. If every household replaced all bulbs with cfls, that would save megawatts per annum. Anyone care to estimate? More public transport than private. Composting. I won't go on, there are countless measures all of which ultimately cut energy consumption and also pollution.

The talk now is CO2 footprint. But our footprint is much larger and with many more harmful elements. It all needs to be reduced, we need to consume less unneccesaries. How many products that people buy are necessary for comfortable lives?

We've been encouraged to consume more, and produce more for others to consume, to drive economic growth, ostensibly because that will deliver prosperity and support social services. So people by into the economic growth imperative and nations compete ever harder to survive. Leaving aside the transnational vested interests driving the wealth concentration agenda, infinite economic growth in a limited ecosystem? La la land.

Sadly it's a la la land that we can live in now at the expense of future generations. "We'll have the technology to dispose of the waste in the future". Asbestos. Oil spills. Mercury in tooth fillings. It doesn't get cheaper to clean up a mess, it gets more expensive. If the Billions needed to clean up that windscale sizewell B were put into r&d of renewables how much progress would be made? Not to mention weaponry and space excursions.

At least there is one corporate voice of sanity, the insurance industry openly contradicts the received capitalist 'wisdom' of infinite excess, because their profit projections are the only ones that must account for the backlash. The rest are free to privatise the profit and socialise the risk.

You might guess my position on nuclear is that I don't buy our current production or consumption needs, let alone projected increases, so it's a moot point for me. Consume less and make do with renewables. I remember the oil shortage in the early 70's. We weren't very rich then. But the climate was fine. Maybe most people are happier with an Ireland of tycoons and tornados? If only it were that simple.

irishguy

Not sure if this has been said before, but the founder of greanpeace seems to think nuclear is now an option
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Capt'n Midnight

silverharp wrote:

The pyramids have lasted pretty well

In 1301AD they were damage in an earthquake and the smooth outer surface of limestone was used to rebuild the earthquake damage in Cairo.

Most of the tombs have been opened by tomb-raiders. In the future people may think a great treasure lies behind all the protection.

Several thousand years ago the Sahara was green. www.uea.ac.uk/sahara/conf04/docs/abst_drake.pdf - up to 10% of it was covered by lakes !
And crocs still live there http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0617_020618_croc.html

Oldtree

A main problem with nuclear power is that the constructions and storage facilities will be built by the lowest bidder, and we all know what kind of value we get for that sort of bid! A greedy citizen is not a concerned citizen.

Sending the waste to the heart of the sun sounds like an ideal medtod of disposal. But the rockets would be built by the lowest bidder.................