Go Nuclear or no?

mang87

aloleary wrote:

But we also have to have schemes whereby every new home has solar panels no new cars should be allowed to be sold unless are hybrids etc etc... all these little things help massively (for home users yes)

No not hybrids, hydrogen powered cars. I read about reactors in america being rigged to produce hydrogen from the steam created by the reactors, or something along those lines. If we went that route, it could be used in transport and piped to houses for heating etc

Wibbs

Hydrogen is great in theory and many car manufacturers for example have tested it out, but it has serious problems. The primary one would be the explosive nature of the gas, secondly how do you transport and handle the stuff in it's super cold liquid state? Another issue is extracting it in the first place. It's usually done by electrolysis which means we're back to producing the electricity in the first place. The only place I can see hydrogen at all would be in fuel cells. They're very efficient altogether, have been around a long time, but many things still have to be ironed out for commercial use.

Fusion is the way forward, but no technology is inherently safe. What happens if those electromagnets suddenly lose power. That might be a big enough bang. Oops, is the term I think. If you think that's safe, why worry as much about fission? Granted the radiation should be significantly less with a fusion reactor breakdown.

mang87

Wibbs wrote:

Fusion is the way forward, but no technology is inherently safe. What happens if those electromagnets suddenly lose power. That might be a big enough bang. Oops, is the term I think. If you think that's safe, why worry as much about fission? Granted the radiation should be significantly less with a fusion reactor breakdown.

Because these electromagnets are part of the reaction, if they stop, the reaction stops, and the temperature would drop to levels that could be maintained by blast shielding. Mind you the reactor'd be rightly ****ed

Yes, much, much less radiation. I don't know if this is BS, but I was talking to a physics major about the ITER project, and he said the waste would only have a 50 to 100 year half life :cool: as opposed to 25,000+

Ivan

nuttz wrote:

not to talk about miscarriages.

It might be worthwhile reminding people that Chernobyl is in the Ukraine and the majority of the 9 million people affected were in the neighbouring country, Belarus, just because the wind happened to be blowing that direction.

Um, sorry to break it to you, but if the wind had of been blowing the right way the fallout from Chernobyl was capable of covering the entire planet. The same can be said for almost any reactor on the planet. No one is safe...

well we will always have the leitrim gas field to fall back.apparently one of the biggest in Europe.:)

Tellox

Chernobyl was at what, 400% of its maximum operating power before it blew?
And nuclear plants are much better designed these days. Look at the three mile island incident. Meltdown, with no real long-term damage, no deaths, no mutations etc etc.

Nuclear power is a good thing. And terrorists arent going to ****ing attack Ireland, where's the bloody point in that? "Right, we bombed the paddy's. America will be terrified now!"

Considering America's closest ally is just another few miles away from Ireland, which has a fully operational nuclear power plant, Im fairly sure they'd rather target that one.

Nevertheless, Nuclear Plants are made to withstand the impact of missiles. And the difficulty in flying a plane into a power plant is fairly huge, at that. And dont start with the "oh but they flew one into the pentagon!" bollocks, because we all know how I feel about that. (FYI; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51220136&postcount=97 )

Nuclear power is clean, and safe, when its not being abused. Chernobyl is a prime example of that.

hullaballoo

I'd be an advocate of wind farming. I don't trust any nuclear reactors after James Bond.

mackerski

aloleary wrote:

if you live in dublin etc sellafield is closer than cork etc...

True enough - Sellafield is approximately 5km closer.

Dermot

meowCat

I voted against nuclear power here. But it's a vote out of my gut feeling. I feel nuclear power seems unsafe in many ways. The human potential to orchestrate a desaster out of something that is theoretically considered safe, is just too high.

On the other hand, I think that not enough research is done in the area of alternatives like solar and wind energy. There doesn't seem enough interest in funding such projects. And the public opinion about them isn't decidedly more positive either. I remember that only a few years ago in Germany, a wind farm wasn't built because people in that area complained about the noise.

There's a lot to be done in terms of efficiency, for each method! Also, just because it's alternative power, it doesn't follow that it has no impact on the environment. Or do you really think a wind farm or wave energy has no impact on the animal life for instance?

It's a difficult issue. I hope someone comes up with a clever solution at some stage not so far in the future!!

chern0byl

Isnt the conversation pointless? We dont have the money to do it.

Dave!

chern0byl wrote:

Isnt the conversation pointless? We dont have the money to do it.

Then let it be hypothetical :rolleyes:

mayhem#

Two words:

- Fusion
- Fision

Think about it.....

E.

robinph

mayhem# wrote:

Two words:

- Fusion
- Fision

Think about it.....

E.

You mean that they would make a spelling mistake when doing up the plans for the reactor and we'd end up with the wrong sort?

Wertz

robinph wrote:

You mean that they would make a spelling mistake when doing up the plans for the reactor and we'd end up with the wrong sort?

lol whatever chance there is of us affording the latter, there's not a chance in hell that we could bankroll the former...

Tar.Aldarion

I have cold fusion down, keep it under your hat.

The Gnome

mang87 wrote:

Fusion, maybe. Fission, no. Check out the Fusion Reactor "ITER" over in france. It uses much safer substances Deuterium and Tritium (which are infact much more abundant than uranium, as tritium is extracted from seawater) and forces them to fuse together, creating temperatures in excess of 100,000,000K(3 times that said to be at the heart of the sun)
But don't let that deter you, the reaction is inherently safe with the heat being contained by incredibly powerful electromagnets

I agree, Fusion is the way to go. Wouldn't one large fusion reactor be enough for the residential population here? or have I gone delerious with lack of sleep?

mayhem#

Wertz wrote:

lol whatever chance there is of us affording the latter, there's not a chance in hell that we could bankroll the former...

So what do you suggest?

E.

mayhem#

The Gnome wrote:

I agree, Fusion is the way to go. Wouldn't one large fusion reactor be enough for the residential population here? or have I gone delerious with lack of sleep?

Exactly my point.
When discussing nuclear energy people tend to look to much to the past and not towards the future.
Does anyone really believe that wind energy can replace the current useage of fosil fuels?

E.

The Gnome

mayhem# wrote:

Exactly my point.
When discussing nuclear energy people tend to look to much to the past and not towards the future.
Does anyone really believe that wind energy can replace the current useage of fosil fuels?

E.

True but for all that can be said about wind power, that massive tower they are building (built?) off the coast of Germany is quite impressive. A rake of these babies of the West coast wouldn't hurt* anyone.








*Unless they fly into the blades etc. (Which I would pay to see if anyone is offering...)

mang87

The Gnome wrote:

I agree, Fusion is the way to go. Wouldn't one large fusion reactor be enough for the residential population here? or have I gone delerious with lack of sleep?

Yes, it probably would. I'm be all for it myself, but it will probably cost an arm and a leg to make one, and it is far from being an immediate solution becasuse it won't be ready for commercial use for another 20 to 30 years because, like pretty much all the alternative solutions to what we currently have, there is not enough funding and research being put into the idea, so it's all still experimental. Fusion reactors still have huge mile stones to conquer. One being desiging and building electromagnets that will be strong enough to contain the reaction, a practical way of creating the immense temperatures that are required for Fusion of the two fuels involved, and another being a cost effective way of farming Tritium for the reaction.

I really do love the idea of Fusion, because you would get the same background radiation off of a fusion reactor as you would from sitting too close to the telly

PixelTrawler

if you look at germany - yes germany are commited to having all nuclear power gone by 2020

but if you take their largest windfarm 3500 turbines - what do they have tacked on to it - a nuclear power station....

the thing about windfarms is you need something to balance out the spikes and drops in power as the wind speed changes - therefore wind is only one possibility of power generation going forward but currently it is not feasible to only rely on it

as for fusion - we probably wont see commerical use of it in our life times - thats if the project in france succeeds at all ( be great if it does succeed )

our government is hypocritical about nuclear power - we import power from scotland generated from nuclear stations...

i think we need to seriously look at investing a small scale nuclear power station ( fission ) and now as we are 98% dependant on fossil fuels at the moment and thats a scary place to be at the moment

padi89

I must say im a bit 50/50 on the whole issue.I think inevitably we are going to start to look at nuclear energy as a source of power.
Watching that programme on Chernobyl last night on Discovery "The Battle of Chernobyl" it really really freaked me out.All of the interviews with the people involved in the clean up operation(not randon numbers from Government officials) showed how fragile we are as a race when nuclear power goes wrong.

Wertz

mayhem# wrote:

So what do you suggest?

E.

Oh come on, I was being facetious...you honestly think this nation is in a position to pour billions into an experimetal reactor, of which there are maybe 20 on the planet, none of which have managed to output a viable surplus of the energy that's put in to get the plasma to a stage where it can start to undergo fusion, and use that excess heat to drive tuboines?
People are seriously suggesting fusion as a viable alternative in the short term?

In one of the last tests at the Z-machine, the reaction being observed managed to double the expected heat temperature to along the lines of 2 billion degrees; hotter than the centre of stars. A small explosion resulted. The scientists still don't know even how the heat output doubled. We're in the infancy of being able to viably produce power, safely from fusion...at least we can do it with fission...although "safely" is a relative term.

I have nothing against research and an eventual coming online of fusion reactors...I hope it comes sooner rather than later. Fission may eventually become a necessary evil, but the bottom line, like my other two posts above, is that renewables are not being f*cking harnessed to even close to their potential in this country; wind, wave turbine and biomass can breach the gap and give fusion technology a chance to catch up...rushing out to spend a sh*tload of moeny to build a fission plant and supply it with fuel, service it and decomission it in 30 years is shortsighted. No-one's saying that we shoukld just carry on regardless, importing oil, burning up our gas reserves and peat, of course something needs to be done, but fission is a last chance saloon type option IMO and any move to adopt it is severely jumping the gun.

HappyCrackHead

I love this nuclear debate that we seem to be having....

Most people dont know that the world's uranium deposits (unless LOTS AND LOTS more are found) will only last at a max 20 years. And 50 years of OIL. COAL and GAS run out another 100 or so after that. and they're fairly liberal estimates.

Nuclear is not an alternative, just the industry trying to make a quick buck of the irish tax payer... the kinda thing Fianna Fail love.... "there's your donation"

blu_sonic

HappyCrackHead wrote:

I love this nuclear debate that we seem to be having....

Most people dont know that the world's uranium deposits (unless LOTS AND LOTS more are found) will only last at a max 20 years. And 50 years of OIL. COAL and GAS run out another 100 or so after that. and they're fairly liberal estimates.

Nuclear is not an alternative, just the industry trying to make a quick buck of the irish tax payer... the kinda thing Fianna Fail love.... "there's your donation"

so neuclear would be pointless??

HappyCrackHead

blu_sonic wrote:

so neuclear would be pointless??

no, it would be dangerous, wasteful and irresponsible.

nuclear power is not an alternative, it still relies on a scarce fuel. not to mention a little something called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. the Germans and French are planning to close theirs over the next few years.

this whole debate has just been stirred up by lobbiests who represent moneyed interests in the nuclear industry. We never would have had this debate even 5 years ago.

and dont talk about the price of oil, its over priced at the pumps. It takes nine months for oil to get from the ground to your car, the second theres word of a price hike by OPEC the prices go up at the pumps. Its a joke.

Dave!

There was some bloke on Newstalk 106 this morning talking to Eamon Dunphy, and he brought to my attention a UN report on the Chernobyl incident, which makes some interesting points:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501144.html

MOSCOW, Sept. 5 -- The long-term health and environmental impacts of the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, while severe, were far less catastrophic than feared, according to a major new report by eight U.N. agencies.

The governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the three countries most affected by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, should strive to end the "paralyzing fatalism" of tens of thousands of their citizens who wrongly believe they are still at risk of an early death, according to the study released Monday.

The Chernobyl plant was the site of the world's largest nuclear disaster. The accident has caused fewer than 50 deaths directly attributable to radiation.

The 600-page report found that as of the middle of this year, the accident had caused fewer than 50 deaths directly attributable to radiation, most of them among emergency workers who died in the first months after the accident. In the wake of the world's largest nuclear disaster, there were numerous predictions of mass fatalities from radiation.

The report said that nine children had died of thyroid cancer, but that the survival rate among the 4,000 children in the region who had developed thyroid cancer has been 99 percent. An expected spike in fertility problems and birth defects also failed to materialize, the study found.

"The health effects of the accident were potentially horrific, but when you add them up using validated conclusions from good science, the public health effects were not nearly as substantial as had at first been feared," Michael Repacholi, manager of the World Health Organization's radiation program, said in a statement.

U.N. scientists predicted about 4,000 eventual radiation-related deaths among 600,000 people in the affected area, including emergency workers and residents. That is consistent with predictions in the aftermath of the accident by scientists in the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine, Russia and Belarus were then a part.

But the vast majority of residents and emergency workers received relatively low doses of radiation, comparable to naturally occurring levels of exposure, the report said.
[the guy on Newstalk pointed out that you recieve more radiation from a chest x-ray... dunno how true that is though]

Officials said that the continued intense medical monitoring of tens of thousands of people in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus is no longer a smart use of limited resources and is, in fact, contributing to mental health problems among many residents nearly 20 years later. In Belarus and Ukraine, 5 percent to 7 percent of government spending is consumed by benefits and programs for Chernobyl victims. And in the three countries, as many as 7 million people are receiving Chernobyl-related social benefits.

"The monitoring of people with incredibly low doses uses huge amounts of resources and does more psychological harm than good," said Fred Mettler, a professor of radiology at the University of New Mexico who chaired one of three health groups in the study, titled "Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts." The study, involving more than 100 scientists, was compiled by U.N. agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, and representatives of the governments of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

Shortly after midnight, on April 26, 1986, after a complex chain of events at the Chernobyl plant, the water coolant vaporized and an explosion destroyed the reactor. The plant caught fire and plumes of radioactive material were released. Soviet authorities at first did not report the accident, but radioactive material was quickly detected in Scandinavian countries. Radioactive material continued to be released for another 10 days, spreading across Europe.

Over the next four years, a massive cleanup operation involving 240,000 workers ensued, and there were fears that many of these workers, called "liquidators," would suffer in subsequent years. But most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas "received relatively low whole radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels," a report summary noted. "No evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of congenital malformations."

In fact, the report said, apart from radiation-induced deaths, the "largest public health problem created by the accident" was its effect on the mental health of residents who were traumatized by their rapid relocation and the fear, still lingering, that they would almost certainly contract terminal cancer. The report said that lifestyle diseases, such as alcoholism, among affected residents posed a much greater threat than radiation exposure.

The report said that an immediate priority is to re-secure the reactor. After the disaster, a concrete sarcophagus was built over the plant, but it was hastily constructed and is showing signs of wear. "The main potential hazard of the shelter is a possible collapse of its top structures and release of radioactive dust into the environment," the report said.

David Zhania, emergencies minister in Ukraine, said last week that a new steel shelter for the plant would cost nearly $2 billion and that the country hoped to have it built by 2008 or 2009. About 28 foreign governments have already agreed to contribute more than $750 million to the project.

The report also found that except for a nearly 20-mile exclusion zone around the reactor, radiation levels have returned to acceptable levels in many areas where land had been abandoned for fear of contamination. "By radiological criteria alone a significant part of the abandoned agricultural lands (more than 70 percent) could be returned to economic use," the report said.

The abandonment of large tracts of land, combined with a ban on hunting, has led to a dramatic increase in wild animals and birds, including wolves, elk, wild boars, white-tailed eagles, owls, cranes and black storks.

"Without a permanent residency of humans for 20 years, the ecosystems around the Chernobyl site are now flourishing," the report said. "It looks like the nature park it has become."

So he makes the point that thousands were affected by having to relocate, and being homeless etc., but their health was not directly damaged by the radiation.

What do ye make of this?

New_Departure06

DaveMcG wrote:

Effective alternatives? Do you feel alright about having windmills in your front and back gardens, and solar panels on your roof?

I would. I'd sure feel better about it than creating a cancer factory and having to move to the West of Ireland and having my house turned into a worthless asset.

On the UN report, I am suspicious of an organisation whose idea of Human Rights monitoring is appointing Libya to the chair of their Human Rights Body. The UN is controlled by govts and as such, vested interests and political agendas can frame its utterances. I don't accept the UN report. I believe the Greenpeace report though.

Dave!

The founder of Greenpeace is actually pro- nuclear apparantly. I haven't read the Greenpeace report though.

The Bollox

I think we should go nuclear. I mean the chances of a meltdown or whatever are so low that you would have to be insane not to, nuclear power stations generate an enormous amount of electricity. look at the facts, nuclear energy has been around for about a half century, how many meltdowns were there? one. and it was due to the design at the time and incompitent workers, Homer Simpsons, if you will

"I can't understand it, there wasn't any radioactive materials in that truck!"