Nuclear Power

ApeXaviour

Following the late late show, radio shows etc. I'm wondering what the general irish opinion is? Are the government shying from it because they fear reactionaries? What do you think? Nuclear or no nuclear? Does it have political political ramifications? It doesn't seem to be a purely right-wing thing, a lot of lefties are for it too.

I am of course speaking of Nuclear Fission. Fusion as a realisable power is 30-70 years away. I personally am of the opinion that use of nuclear power is the most practical environmentally friendly means of dealing with our energy needs until then. Obviously in combination with a healthy percentage of hydro/wind/solar and conservation is ideal.

So if you're anti, why are you anti?

Is anybody anti ALL nuclear power, including fusion by any chance?

Pazaz 21

I gotta say that Nuclear power is the cleanest and most environmentally safe, mass energy source we have. Little or no carbon dioxide being released, etc.

The problem is if a reactor goes into meltdown, it causes a pretty catastrophic disaster, compared to say an oil fire or a gas explosion. This is one, if not the, main drawback and worry about Nuclear power. I know that nuclear reactors are now a hundred times more reliable then they were 10 - 20 years ago, and that a lot of progress has been made to make them safer. But there will always be that fear of another Chernobyl or another Six Mile Island happening.

The panic is already happening in Japan where they shut down the newest state of the art reactor after only a week as resident were afraid that the reactor was not designed properly for the earthquakes that often happen in Japan, even though it was specifically designed for this, it even has a built in off switch in case of a earthquake, as do most, if not all, reactors in Japan.

Environmentally safe, Yes. Politically safe, not even close!!

SeanW

I consider myself a semi-environmentalist and my main concern ATM is global warming. However with the chance for a meltdown and the radioactive waste generated, nuclear isn't a whole lot better.

Nuclear vs. fossil fuels is in my view being asked, "do you want your sh-t sandwich with butter or margerine?" Neither are really desireable if you get right down to it, but you still gotta eat/generate electricity

I would not oppose a nuclear plant near me if I could be asbolutely assured of six things.

1: That no more radioactive material would be held near the reactor cores than is absolutely essential (in Chernobyl, the Reactor 4 building held vast amounts of uranium and plutonium, and only 3-5% of it escaped in the events of April 26 1986, but that was enough to cause the environmental catastrophe and the crumbling sarchophagus could allow much much more out) There are still 190 tons of uranium and 1 ton of nasty plutonium on-site and and badly contained)

2: That the plant itself is safe and does not leak radiation.

3: That no nuclear experiments would ever be carried out in the plant. Chernobyl was caused by a number of factors which came to a head with a dangerous experiment, i.e. the experiment was dangerous, the staff were incompetent, the plant was badly designed and the construction was even worse.

4: That the reactor building can withstand a missile strike, comet strike, extreme weather or a jet-liner full of fuel. In other words that the building could take anything man or nature could throw at it.

5: Short term only, i.e. No more than a single generation of plant.

6: That the waste be held in a secure contained location.

Mucco

Mu suspicion is that we'll come up with an Irish solution. ie buy our electricity from abroad, where it's likely to have come from a nucular (copyright GWB) plant - France for instance.
We'll end up paying more, but it'll be politically safer.

M

Pazaz 21

Mucco wrote:

Mu suspicion is that we'll come up with an Irish solution. ie buy our electricity from abroad, where it's likely to have come from a nucular (copyright GWB) plant - France for instance.
We'll end up paying more, but it'll be politically safer.

M

Do you think it would be politically safe to rely on another country for our power ?:rolleyes:

Dave!

I'm undecided about this to be honest... Fossil fuels are running out, so we've really gotta get working on an alternative soon! Environmentalists would tend to recommend wind power and solar power for the most part, but, the amount of power they generate isn't exactly amazing, for the amount of space etc they take up. I mean, everybody having wind turbines in our front and back gardens, and solar cells on our roofs -- is that really plausible and practical? I'm not sure it is or isn't, maybe there's practical ways to impliment it.

I don't know much about hydraulic power from dams (how powerful they are, etc), but they seem like the most realistic environmentalist option. I know that they cause some problems with fish etc, and nutrients reaching the land at the lower part of the river, but if those factors could be overcome, and the amount of power produced was significant, then more dams along the major rivers could be a good idea (although how many big enough rivers do we have... I dunno).

The thing about nuclear power is that when it's good it's very good, but when it's bad it's horrid -- as we have seen. Is it worth the risk? And with all this terrorist attack malarky, it's even more scary/risky.

Perhaps we should spend more time trying to make our energy use more efficient (eg. leaving phone chargers plugged in, tv's switched on) and maybe lower it to the point that environmentally friendly measures can be used more extensively, without being impractical.

BTW, are there any countries in the world that use solely wind/water/solar power? Or at least mainly...?
It'd be interesting to see how it works.

A Dub in Glasgo

Chernobyl was good... Nuclear is good :rolleyes:

I agree with Sean W

bonkey

SeanW wrote:

Chernobyl was caused by a number of factors which came to a head with a dangerous experiment,

What dangerous experiment? Chernobyl failed during a safety test.

jc

civdef

An amazingly incompetently run safety test.

Current reactor designs are an awful lot more robust/reliable than the Chernobyl sort.

Nuclear power is the way to go - under the supervision of a very strictly enforced safety regieme.

mike65

Ireland will be using Nuclear power. It is using nuclear power right now via the 3 NI interconnectors which in turn tap power from Scotland.

Mike.

elurhs

AFAIK, it is possible to build a completely safe, foolproof nuclear reactor (terrorist strike notwithstanding), but it is very expensive. However a modern nuclear station is also safe if correctly and competently managed. I don't think there have been any deaths resulting from nuclear power, bar Chernobyl of course.

I don't think renewables are going to satisfy all our demands. We're mainly looking at wind in this country, as we get little sun and have no viable hydro sites. However, it would take one incredibly determined government to build a nuclear power station in this country.

Dave!

What's this I've been hearing a bit about lately, people in certain areas along the north-east are getting concerned about the high levels of cancer in their area? Why hasn't more of a fuss been made about that? Cos if sellafield is pumping cancer over to Ireland, then that could be a problem! Is there any substance to the complaints?

elurhs

I think there was something a while back about leukemia in children. IIRC, it was not found to be statistically significant, ie not large enough that it fell outside what would be expected normally.

Most people don't know that radon in homes will expose you to way more radiation than any nuclear plant. A long haul flight, ie over three hours, will also expose you to a fair radioactive dose. Less than 1% of the average annual radiation dose of a normal person comes from nuclear power/accidents, etc

mike65

That 'story' has been rumbling along for years. No one has prioved any link though.

I'm always intrigued about the way nuclear death is affecting Louth but never the Isle of Man.

Mike.

segadreamcast

Any naysayers should pick up a copy of 'Time'/'Newsweek'. Entirely foolproof nuclear stations are being built in India/China at the moment. I'm not going to try and reproduce the article in my own words but I'm sure a 'google' will find it.

The technology has moved far beyond Chernobyl now and - though it's a flippant rebuttal - should we ban cars because of car accidents? No. We work on improving the standards and, now that that has been done, nuclear power can be implemented safely and effectively.

Gurgle

mike65 wrote:

That 'story' has been rumbling along for years. No one has prioved any link though.

http://www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubfiles/atlas-summary.pdf

mike65

Yeah but did you read it?

I just skimmed the maps and charts and it shows strongly that lifestyle/income are the main links to cancer and that the Irish North East is very average in terms of incidents of cancer.

Mike.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

I'm always intrigued about the way nuclear death is affecting Louth but never the Isle of Man.

The big wheel in Laxey deflects all the nuclear rays...;)

bonkey

elurhs wrote:

Most people don't know that radon in homes will expose you to way more radiation than any nuclear plant.

Assuming you mean "any nuclear plant which isn't undergoing catastrophic uncontained failure"....absolutely.

Even fewer people know that you'll be exposed to more radiation from living near a coal-burning station (hello Moneypoint) than a nuclear one of comparable output...again barring catastrophic uncontained failure.

should we ban cars because of car accidents? No.

Actually, yes. And not only should we, but we do.

Individual car-types are recalled by the manufacturers if-and-when they deem them unsafe enough to put on the roads. Car models must undergo certification to meet sufficient safety standards before being allowed on the roads.

The point I'm driving at here is that there is a required level of safety when it comes to cars, and cars that fail to meet that are banned, because of the accidents they would be responsible for were they not banned.

Cars can also be banned (in many countries) for failing to meet emissions standards. As those standards are raised, cars which previously were legal become illegal, and are required to be taken off the roads. Also worht noting that many environmentalists complain that these emission-control levels are a joke, and while better than nothing are a long way off what should really be considered acceptable.

Now...consider if Chernobyl were the best model on the market. I know it never was to begin with...but imagine that it was....

Should we define our standards based on the best that we could do....or should we set our standards based on an objective assessment of what is required, and then see if they can be met?

Clearly, given that we know Chernobyl had a disaster, we'd have to be a little bit nuts to suggest that it should be the former rather than the latter...although the former is all-too-often the model adopted when "retrofitting" safety to existing technology.

We work on improving the standards and, now that that has been done, nuclear power can be implemented safely and effectively.

Yes and no. We define the requirements first, taking operational safety, waste management, and all the other factors into account.

Then, we see if we can meet those requirements.

If we can, then your conclusion - that we can implement safely and effectively[/i] - is true....although we may find that its not as cheap as we'd like it to be. If we cannot, then we don't do it....no discussion. No relaxing of standards to wait for technology to catch up, nor to make it (more) profitable.

You set your standards, and implement only when they can be met.

This is what is lacking in the common man's debate over nuclear generation. Hell, its missing in most of the political and scientific debates as well, because too many people are tied up in absolutes - religious-war stylee.

People will tell you that nuclear is/isn't safe, that waste can/cannot be managed....but with very very few exceptions, you'll find that the people telling you such things cannot quantify what constitutes "the minimum acceptable level" that they say can or cannot be reached.

jc

ApeXaviour

SeanW wrote:

I consider myself a semi-environmentalist and my main concern ATM is global warming.

Then would nuclear not be ideal?

However with the chance for a meltdown and the radioactive waste generated, nuclear isn't a whole lot better.

It really is you know. Melt-down is a non-issue for a modern, strictly regulated power plant. The waste is undesireable, it takes up very little space however and can be contained safely in a room underground. Nuclear is short term anyway, we won't be doing it forever. Uranium will eventually become scarce and we'll (hopefully) have developed fusion as the viable alternative by that time.

SeanW wrote:

I would not oppose a nuclear plant near me if I could be asbolutely assured of six things.

1: That no more radioactive material would be held near the reactor cores than is absolutely essential (in Chernobyl, the Reactor 4 building held vast amounts of uranium and plutonium, and only 3-5% of it escaped in the events of April 26 1986, but that was enough to cause the environmental catastrophe and the crumbling sarchophagus could allow much much more out) There are still 190 tons of uranium and 1 ton of nasty plutonium on-site and and badly contained)

2: That the plant itself is safe and does not leak radiation.

3: That no nuclear experiments would ever be carried out in the plant. Chernobyl was caused by a number of factors which came to a head with a dangerous experiment, i.e. the experiment was dangerous, the staff were incompetent, the plant was badly designed and the construction was even worse.

4: That the reactor building can withstand a missile strike, comet strike, extreme weather or a jet-liner full of fuel. In other words that the building could take anything man or nature could throw at it.

5: Short term only, i.e. No more than a single generation of plant.

6: That the waste be held in a secure contained location.

I'm quite certain you could be assured of all of those apart from the comet thing. Though if you're in the vicinity of a comet impact, I really think it hitting a nuclear power plant would be the very least of your worries.

SeanW

First of all, the way the present governement does major projects, (all substandard, late, over budget and as in the case of the leaking Port Tunnel and Luas opened with known defective track blocks) any nuke plant in Ireland under the present administration would be like defying God himself "hey we want our very Pripyat too"

Technology and stuff may have changed but our government is only marginally more competent than the Soviets. They're good at electioneering and going on junkets but F*** All else, especially when it comes to major projects. FF doing nuclear power would be an open-letter invitation for catastrophe.

And for what? We have so many other ways of getting the energy we need or at least a good chunk of it, terawatts of harnasseable wind, a whole ocean of untapped wave power, AND we have farmers going out of business by the busload who are crying out for something to do, the government should have a policy that gives them something to do, like growing energy crops, sugar beet could have been made into ethanol which could have been mixed into petrol by mandate up to 10%, rapeseed for biodiesel, and Teagasc is doing research into using Miscanthus (oriental elephant grass) for electrical power generation.

But they're doing nothing, and we will probably have to go nuclear soon to make up for their inaction. When that time comes I won't oppose it, as long as I can be assured of my above 6 points. and preferably with a gov't other than the present shower of chancers.

New_Departure06

The health-risks of nuclear power outweight the benefits of cheaper fuel. I say we should aim for as much dependence on renewables other than nuclear as possible. Also it is not true that there are no emissions consequent on nuclear. The mining of uranium for this purpose is carbon emitting.

We have seen the deformed children of Belarus. Do we want that here?

I agree with Enda Kenny's proposals for forcing public sector transport to use biofuels.

Dr Galen

I'm going to google this but thought I'd ask anyways....

How many nuclear plants are there worldwide?
How many major, death causing, meltdown radiation leaking incidents have their been that we know of?

Obviously some incidents may have been covered up but we should be able to get a general idea.....

zepp

I have my opinion in Nuclear here
http://www.irishelection.com/wordpress/?p=164

New_Departure06

It would probably cost 3 billion euro to build one its a waste of taxpayer's money.

ApeXaviour

My my where to start...

New_Departure06 wrote:

The health-risks of nuclear power outweight the benefits of cheaper fuel.

What health risks?

New_Departure06 wrote:

I say we should aim for as much dependence on renewables other than nuclear as possible.

Renewables do have their place. In reality however it would be very much unfeasable to rely mostly on them. The sheer economics of it are just ludicrous. I mean imagine the cost of lining the entire west-coast of ireland with windmills (not far off what we'd need tbh).

New_Departure06 wrote:

Also it is not true that there are no emissions consequent on nuclear. The mining of uranium for this purpose is carbon emitting.

Oh sweet jesus I really hate this argument. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the processes involved. Firstly the mining itself: trucks used, JCB's, mining equipment etc. all use petrol, emit CO2. This can all be considered utterly negligible. The refinement and enrichment of uranium however is very energy intensive (approx. 0.7% of what power will be produced by said uranium). Now if one was to use a coal/plant to power these processing plants it would indeed cause a significant amount of CO2 emission. Therein lies the flaw. If however one was to use a nuclear plant to power the enrichment etc then you could reduce these emissions to negligible again.

New_Departure06 wrote:

We have seen the deformed children of Belarus. Do we want that here?

This type of petty illogical scaremongering shows a complete lack of knowledge about the actual risks involved.

New_Departure06 wrote:

I agree with Enda Kenny's proposals for forcing public sector transport to use biofuels.

Except for the fact that bio-fuels such as switch-grass will tend not run out, they are no better than fossil fuels. They cause just as much carbon emission. I do not support this measure. Nuclear is the only practical and environmentally friendly way to tide us over until fusion becomes realisable.

New_Departure06 wrote:

It would probably cost 3 billion euro to build one its a waste of taxpayer's money.

Whereas to fulfill our needs in the near future, it will require us to import energy from abroad. So in essence we will be using nuclear energy anyway. Why not save money and increase employment by building our own?

zepp wrote:

I have my opinion in Nuclear here
http://www.irishelection.com/wordpress/?p=164

I think the author's figures on our national grid to be extremely dubious at best. The furthest a power line will have to stretch in ireland will be 200km. This 5000km business is a bit silly really. Think of it like a spiderweb; to go from one end to the other does not require one to traverse the entirety of the web.
I also find it quite funny that he quote's the freedom institute as being against it because it will reduce competition. Ironic when one of the freedom institute's head members was on the late late last week arguing vehemently for nuclear power
Also his argument about interconnectors from europe and the cost thereof is extremely flawed. The cost of laying down one of these interconnectors pales in comparison to the cost of buying our electricity from other countries. At the rate we're going we're going to have these interconnectors built ANYWAY; to fulfill our needs in the case of no nuclear and as a rarely required back-up in the case that we do build a plant. So that is a moot point as we will hardly need to buy any electricity if we build a plant (we may actually be selling it more often).


Nuclear may not be ideal but for at least the next half centuary it is the best we've got. Nuclear >> coal/oil in every aspect from environmental, to health and safety.

zepp

ApeXaviour wrote:

I think the author's figures on our national grid to be extremely dubious at best. The furthest a power line will have to stretch in ireland will be 200km. This 5000km business is a bit silly really. Think of it like a spiderweb; to go from one end to the other does not require one to traverse the entirety of the web.

the author is actually me. The thing about the grid is that nuclear electricty would be all be transforing over all those lines. unlike normal which can be some what localised. I realise that it is not one long cable. But it will be losing on each of those 200km cables. Which there will be many. Unlike most power stations that have few 200km. If you get me.

ApeXaviour wrote:

I also find it quite funny that he quote's the freedom institute as being against it because it will reduce competition. Ironic when one of the freedom institute's head members was on the late late last week arguing vehemently for nuclear power

That was the point.

ApeXaviour wrote:

Also his argument about interconnectors from europe and the cost thereof is extremely flawed. The cost of laying down one of these interconnectors pales in comparison to the cost of buying our electricity from other countries. At the rate we're going we're going to have these interconnectors built ANYWAY; to fulfill our needs in the case of no nuclear and as a rarely required back-up in the case that we do build a plant. So that is a moot point as we will hardly need to buy any electricity if we build a plant (we may actually be selling it more often).

Matt Cooper wrote about that with out nuclear we would need interconnectors and as you pointed out we need them anyway. Nuclear is not going to lessen that requirement . But due to the large precentage of electricty nuclear would be it would require more interconnector capacity then a proper energy policy would provide.

ApeXaviour wrote:

Nuclear may not be ideal but for at least the next half centuary it is the best we've got. Nuclear >> coal/oil in every aspect from environmental, to health and safety.

It does not give us the energy security we need. We need to be self-sufficent in terms of energy generation. Nuclear does not give us that.

ApeXaviour

zepp wrote:

the author is actually me.

Oh right.. fair play! That's a lot of research.

zepp wrote:

The thing about the grid is that nuclear electricty would be all be transforing over all those lines. unlike normal which can be some what localised. I realise that it is not one long cable. But it will be losing on each of those 200km cables. Which there will be many. Unlike most power stations that have few 200km. If you get me.

I don't. Transformer efficiency is afaik seperate from resistance load loss over the length of a power line. It will have a set efficiency, so it doesn't matter all that much if you have one big transformer or lots of small transformers (obviously not connected in series!). W.r.t the power line efficiency, say you had a single plant in dublin. There's 200 km of cable leading from there to somebody's house in cork, and there's a 200km cable leading from dub to somebody's house in donegal. The loss should not be significant and does not add up cumulatively. ie the average efficiency for a each location will be the over-all efficiency.

zepp wrote:

That was the point.

Oh really? Okay, I didn't catch that. That's good! I am no fan of the freedom institute and it makes me happy to see them lose credibility. Though in fairness, this is an issue that divides everybody seemingly, nomatter their usual political standpoint. Even some of trevor sargent's green party counterparts in the EU are very much in support of nuclear power.

zepp wrote:

But due to the large precentage of electricty nuclear would be it would require more interconnector capacity then a proper energy policy would provide.

Okay fair enough, I'll concede that. We would require a larger capacity if less use (and hence less maintanance). I think that would be quite a small price to pay in the big picture though. Far outweighed by the cost of the nuclear reactor itself.

zepp wrote:

It does not give us the energy security we need. We need to be self-sufficent in terms of energy generation. Nuclear does not give us that.

So what do you suggest as a practical alternative for the near future? IMO nuclear is the best option we've got.

SeanW

ApeXaviour wrote:

Except for the fact that bio-fuels such as switch-grass will tend not run out, they are no better than fossil fuels. They cause just as much carbon emission. I do not support this measure. Nuclear is the only practical and environmentally friendly way to tide us over until fusion becomes realisable.

That isn't realistic. Yes, burning biofuels emits carbon dioxide.

But the next generation of biofuel crops takes the carbon back by photosynthesis. It can best be described as carbon-recycling, rather than mineral oil which takes carbon out of the ground, puts in the air and leaves it there.

Nuclear is an option and I don't think we should rule it out completely. Saying "let's not go nuclear because of Chernobyl" is a bit like saying "we should ban ships because of the Titanic."

Having said that, if you were travelling between cities along a coast that had both equidistant passenger ship and rail links, which would you choose?

You'd go for the train of course, especially if you knew the water was full of icebergs, there were not enough lifeboats and the captain/crew are all careless twats with a "God himself can't stop me" complex.

It's the same with nuclear power, indeed the Chernobyl AES shared some of the faulty visions etc as the Titanic, cocky designers, incompetent crew etc. Nuke power is an option, but not a good one, and we need to look at our vastly superior renewable options first.

Only after we've taken a good bash at the renewables should nuclear be considered.

zepp

ApeXaviour wrote:

Oh right.. fair play! That's a lot of research.

Cheers

ApeXaviour wrote:

I don't. Transformer efficiency is afaik seperate from resistance load loss over the length of a power line. It will have a set efficiency, so it doesn't matter all that much if you have one big transformer or lots of small transformers (obviously not connected in series!). W.r.t the power line efficiency, say you had a single plant in dublin. There's 200 km of cable leading from there to somebody's house in cork, and there's a 200km cable leading from dub to somebody's house in donegal. The loss should not be significant and does not add up cumulatively. ie the average efficiency for a each location will be the over-all efficiency.

I never mention transformers I just misspelled transfering.
Yes it would be an average effciency but the average efficency would be lower then having power stations spread over the country. I know the 66% figure was well off but as I said don't quote me on it

ApeXaviour wrote:

Oh really? Okay, I didn't catch that. That's good! I am no fan of the freedom institute and it makes me happy to see them lose credibility. Though in fairness, this is an issue that divides everybody seemingly, nomatter their usual political standpoint. Even some of trevor sargent's green party counterparts in the EU are very much in support of nuclear power.

ya it is strange who would have thought 10 years ago enviromentalists would be pro nukes

ApeXaviour wrote:

Okay fair enough, I'll concede that. We would require a larger capacity if less use (and hence less maintanance). I think that would be quite a small price to pay in the big picture though. Far outweighed by the cost of the nuclear reactor itself.

The cost of nuclear is just too much. Even though initailly it is cheaper then wind for example. Over the lifetime of the plant and the life time of nuclear waste mointoring it comes cheaper. It is like a 30 year mortage it might be cheaper in the short term then a 20 year morgage. But in the end it is dearer

ApeXaviour wrote:

So what do you suggest as a practical alternative for the near future? IMO nuclear is the best option we've got.

Funnily enough I also have a post about that as well.
http://www.irishelection.com/wordpress/?p=177

ApeXaviour

SeanW wrote:

But the next generation of biofuel crops takes the carbon back by photosynthesis. It can best be described as carbon-recycling, rather than mineral oil which takes carbon out of the ground, puts in the air and leaves it there.

Hmm.. I can't find fault with that. I'm trying to but I can't. Damn! Good point man.

Edit: actually.. to grow these at appreciable levels would be at the expense of other crops and at the expense of forests etc. Hmm.. I'd like to do a bit more research on this actually before I decide my opinion.

SeanW wrote:

Having said that, if you were travelling between cities along a coast that had both equidistant passenger ship and rail links, which would you choose?

You'd go for the train of course

That would really depend. I mean I think most people would look at the economics/time of it waaay before the negligible safety issue. And if you were to take safety into account then you'd whether or not you are in the UK would play a major factor in that question.

SeanW wrote:

Only after we've taken a good bash at the renewables should nuclear be considered.

But surely it can be projected that renewables won't be sufficient by themselves? And IMO nuclear >> coal/oil. So why the hesitation?

SeanW

ApeXaviour wrote:

Edit: actually.. to grow these at appreciable levels would be at the expense of other crops and at the expense of forests etc. Hmm.. I'd like to do a bit more research on this actually before I decide my opinion.

That is very true of some smaller developing countries where biofuel development is very much at the expense of forests (which get burned :eek: to clear land for palm planting, especially in island parts of Southern Asia. You should look up the writings of anti-Biodiesel activist George Monbiot for such arguments.

However, for the developed world where farming is in decline, and other countries that already have a very strong farming sector, like Brazil, this is a non issue, like Ireland where agriculture is in a staged collapse.

That would really depend. I mean I think most people would look at the economics/time of it waaay before the negligible safety issue. And if you were to take safety into account then you'd whether or not you are in the UK would play a major factor in that question.

Hypothetically if the train was a nice, cheap comfy HSR while the ship had maritime safety conditions similar to Titanic, you'd take the train.

When dealing with nuclear power, there is no room for cockyness or complacency. If you look at the design, construction, operation and eventual failure of both Titanic and Chernobyl AES, there are many frightening paralells.

But surely it can be projected that renewables won't be sufficient by themselves?

That is very possible.

And IMO nuclear >> coal/oil.

Until something goes wrong.

So why the hesitation?

We haven't even begun to explore the possibilites for renewables in this country.

Nuclear is good for the silver-bullet of producing heaps of energy with minimial CO2 emissions, which is why I don't oppose it 100%. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's something it isn't.

jd

SeanW wrote:

That isn't realistic. Yes, burning biofuels emits carbon dioxide.

But the next generation of biofuel crops takes the carbon back by photosynthesis. It can best be described as carbon-recycling, rather than mineral oil which takes carbon out of the ground, puts in the air and leaves it there.

But there would be crops growing there anyway..whethrt those particular crops are used for fuel is immaterial.

zepp

jd wrote:

But there would be crops growing there anyway..whethrt those particular crops are used for fuel is immaterial.

Not if we bury them first depends on the crop as well. surly trees take in more carbon then grass

Gurgle

zepp wrote:

surly trees take in more carbon then grass

Apparently its related to the total leaf-surface area.
Algae converts more CO2 to O2 than any other type of plant.

New_Departure06

Nuclear is an option and I don't think we should rule it out completely. Saying "let's not go nuclear because of Chernobyl" is a bit like saying "we should ban ships because of the Titanic."

Titanic didn't give cancer to thousands of people.

Also, remember that 80% of the world's nuclear waste-reprocessing happens at Sellafield. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack would be vastly worse than Chernobyl.

Airmail

Between Solar, Wind, Tidal, Hydro, Wave, Geothermal and Biomass surely we can do without nuclear. Although I do accept some of these probably are not power station material in Ireland (Geothermal).

Sponge Bob

I would say that we should look at small boiler units as long as the Brits supply the fuel and agree to take the whole lot back when we are finished with them including the reactor.

Its in our own interest ( for about 25000 years) to have a viable reprocessing and decommissioning industry in the UK, imagine a bankrupt Sellafield, ouch

sameoldname

I believe that the biggest obstacle to all of the proposed power generation methods is that of the NIMBY factor.
Where would we build a nuclear reactor? We can't even seem to be able to build an incinerator in this country without mass objection!
The same goes for wind power, the best locations are generally those of scenic beauty.
Solar power requires a large amount of land for anything worth while, same goes for hydro and tidal is claimed to mess up eco-systems.
I dunno about the other options but I think we may end up just importing electricity in the near future.

bonkey

ApeXaviour wrote:

Except for the fact that bio-fuels such as switch-grass will tend not run out,
they are no better than fossil fuels. They cause just as much carbon emission.

You forget to factor in that year-on-year, they also extract carbon dioxide from the air.

Fossil fuels do not do this - the lifeforms that they were formed from have ceased to play an active role in the carbon-cycle, so all we're doing is releasing previously-fixed carbon. With crops, you enter the cycle once more.

Nuclear is the only practical and environmentally friendly way to tide us over until fusion becomes realisable.

It will almost certainly be part of the solution. However, when proposing it as the first, last and always replacement for hydrocarbons, then it is not necessarily accurate to say it is the only choice.

Whereas to fulfill our needs in the near future, it will require us to import energy from abroad. So in essence we will be using nuclear energy anyway. Why not save money and increase employment by building our own?

Ireland's current shortage of energy is an artifically created situation which was designed to create a market for energy suppliers. The interim solution is to buy from abroad. The long-term solution is to have the interconnect for selling our own eventual surplus and/or making up for unexpected shortfalls.

None of this suggests that the only option for indigenous production is or should be nuclear.

I think the author's figures on our national grid to be extremely dubious at best.
The furthest a power line will have to stretch in ireland will be 200km. This 5000km business is a bit silly really. Think of it like a spiderweb; to go from one end to the other does not require one to traverse the entirety of the web.

Thats not how the national grid works. You don't turn on traffic lights and "pipe" the electricity from point-to-point.

Nuclear may not be ideal but for at least the next half centuary it is the best we've got.

Tell me...were you also saying this before the Arklow bank was proposed? Do you think we'd have been better off with a nuke station instead of it? If another 500MW or 1GW of clean energy were to be readily found for Ireland, would you argue that 500MW or 1GW of nuclear generation would still be preferable?

Or is it that nuclear is the best option after we've exhausted all the better ones?

jc

civdef

Also, remember that 80% of the world's nuclear waste-reprocessing happens at Sellafield.The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack would be vastly worse than Chernobyl.

Can you back that assertion (the second one) up?

piraka

sameoldname wrote:

I believe that the biggest obstacle to all of the proposed power generation methods is that of the NIMBY factor..

Surely that would change if the cost of energy increases, who wants to give up their TV's, dvd's, gameboys etc...

The same goes for wind power, the best locations are generally those of scenic beauty.

and scientific interest, which should be protected.

Solar power requires a large amount of land for anything worth while, same goes for hydro and tidal is claimed to mess up eco-systems.
I dunno about the other options but I think we may end up just importing electricity in the near future.

Why can't we go for domestic wind and solar units.

MeatProduct

Nuclear is the only way Ireland can come out of this in a manner that will allow for the continued current energy usage. However I think renewables are the best option. They'll never be able to compete with nuclear and oil and as a result we must get used to the idea that we'll never be able to be so wasteful with energy anymore.

Let the dark ages return

Nick

EDIT: TV's and DVDs and the like just waste time anyway. We'd all be much better off spending that time on self-development. Of course who wants to do that in this day and age when we all seek the next thing that can distract us from ourselves.

Akrasia

Here are a few points that are lacking in the national debate.

1. Nuclear power is extremely long term. We will be dealing with the plant and waste for hundreds or thousands of years after we stop benefiting from the power
2. It would take at least 20 years for a nuclear power station to be built and operational, that is from the moment we start planning.
3. Bertie has come out against nuclear power before the election, so no planning will take place for at least another year, and if the greens or sinn fein are part of the next coalition, the chances of Nuclear power being on the agenda over the next 5 years is very slim. This pushes nuclear power at least a quarter of a century away.

4. Experts are starting to agree that peak oil has arrived now. and to avoid the catestrophic consequences of unaffordable or unavailable energy, we need a plan that will be up and running in around 10 years.

5. none of this precludes planning for a contingency that might include nuclear power in 20 or 30 years if we still need it, But we should absolutely not use a nuclear debate as an excuse to delay ir ignore alternative energy production

6. There are technologies available today, which, with the stroke of a pen by our government officials, could cut our national energy needs by a huge proportion in the short term (change planning laws to require maximum utilisation of renewable energy sources built into all new homes, and to give big grants to existing property owners to implement renewable energy solutions)

7. Biofuels should be a central part of our transport energy plan. it should be a requirement that all new cars sold in ireland be capable of running pure plant oil in the case of Diesel cars, and bioethanol in the case of Petrol cars. And farmers should be encouraged to convert land to growing suitable biomass crops

Akrasia

civdef wrote:

Can you back that assertion (the second one) up?

well, we shouldn't be planning policy on the assumption that a nuclear accident at sellafield would be less devastating than the accident at Chernobyl.

Ciaran500

Akrasia wrote:

well, we shouldn't be planning policy on the assumption that a nuclear accident at sellafield would be less devastating than the accident at Chernobyl.

We shouldn't be assuming anything. Any policies should be planned on actual facts.

SeanW

Given the huge amount of nuclear material stored at Sellafield (similar to Chernobyl), it's a good guess that any nuclear meltdown at Sellafield would have similar consequnces.

Really it comes down to practices, I see so many similarities between RMS Titanic and the Chernobyl NPP: Chernobyl was the showcase of the Soviet nuclear "fleet." Titanic was the showcase of the super-wonderful White Star Line. Both designers were totally cocky and over-confident - Chernobyl's designer I read somewhere that he had said "this reactor design is so safe you could put one on Red Square." Titanic: "God Himself could not sink this ship."

Both designers may have been correct in that their creations may have been safe in everyday operation, but flawed at critical times. Chernobyl's reactors could become unstable at low power output (which came into play in the doomed safety test of Reactor 4), and Titanic was a compartmentalised design that could stay afloat with 4 compartments breached. The iceberg breached 5.

The captain of Titanic was on the last run of his career, and wanted to retire with a bang - making a speed record from Ireland to New York with this wonderful ship. The managers of Chernobyl were in a hurry to commission Reactor 4 to impress their Soviet party bosses.

The crew of both Titanic and Chernobyl were hopelessly incompetent and badly managed. Chernobyl's doomed safety test was carried out by a skeleton nightshift crew of newly appointed managers et. al, who didn't stop their doomed test when they had the chance, and their instruction manual was not clear. Titanic's crew didn't even bother taking their binoculars with them. Chernobyl had vast quantities of nuclear material, probably tens of tons more than they needed, Titanic had far more passengers than she could evacuate with 6 lifeboats.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Chernoybl, like Titanic was caused by a deadly sequence of human frailties, bad practices, shotcuts and error.

However, both accidents have caused reform in their sectors.

Ships don't blindly speed into ice-packs anymore on the assumption that "God himself can't stop me" and nuclear technology and design has improved since Chernobyl. Indeed, the Soviet empire collapsed less than 5 years later and largely their legacy of corruption, mismanagement and incompetence has been forgotten.

There is no reason to assume that another Chernobyl is likely here in Western Europe just because the Soviets F@#Ked up big time in their nuclear programmes.

piraka

Would a reactor of design like Chernobyl prior to the accident allowed to have been built in the West at that time.

piraka

How many nuclear accidents have occurred in France since they went nuclear in the mid seventies? I don't know off any that was made public.

bonkey

piraka wrote:

Surely that would change if the cost of energy increases, who wants to give up their TV's, dvd's, gameboys etc...

But thats the whole point of NIMBYism - recognising and accepting the need, but insisting that somewhere else be chosen as the location to meet that need.

jc

bonkey

SeanW wrote:

Given the huge amount of nuclear material stored at Sellafield (similar to Chernobyl), it's a good guess that any nuclear meltdown at Sellafield would have similar consequnces.

What, as a matter of interest, would cause this meltdown in your good guess? I

I'm just asking seeing as there are no active reactors there since the Magnox reactor in Calder Hall closed down in 2003.

jc