Is Bertie "stuck on stupid"

silverharp

Did anyone catch Bertie's comments about Ireland building more Gas powered stations?

I know the man doesn't have to be an expert on energy issues but I assume this is the information he is receiving from his "experts". So he wants to build gas power satations which I assume have a 25 year plus lifespan, even though at most we have 10 years worth of proven local supply, after that we will be depending on the Ruskies assuming there is even enough gas by then

Akrasia

bertie isn't stupid. but he is a politician so he doesn't have the same concept of honesty as us.

Here's what he's doing.
He's considering the nuclear option but he knows he can't mention the N word before an election, so he'll say he far prefers gas to nuclear until the election is over, and if he is still in charge after the next election, then he can suddenly realise that Gas isn't a good option afterall, and that maybe we should pursue nuclear energy, knowing that there isn't a thing the electorate can do about it for 5 more years.

this is the 'democracy' that we have built. We are asked to choose between which different sets of lies we would prefer. the only crowd i would trust to push for their public agenda, are the Greens, all of the rest of them will lie through their teeth if they think they know what the public wants to hear.

mike65

and the Greens wil lie if they are in power I'm afraid. As for Bertie well its about par for the course. The government have just discovered wind power it seems yet the ESB is blocking its development at every turn - the Minister could do something to allow independent supplies in to the market place but can he be arsed?

I don't see a Nuke station being built here to be honest the costs are huge and the waste issues beyond the capabilities of the countrys regulators, we'll just import the current.

Mike.

silverharp

Akrasia wrote:

bertie isn't stupid. but he is a politician so he doesn't have the same concept of honesty as us.

Here's what he's doing.
He's considering the nuclear option but he knows he can't mention the N word before an election, so he'll say he far prefers gas to nuclear until the election is over, and if he is still in charge after the next election, then he can suddenly realise that Gas isn't a good option afterall, and that maybe we should pursue nuclear energy, knowing that there isn't a thing the electorate can do about it for 5 more years.
.

To be honest I don't think the current Gov are that clever to be deceiving us, I doubt if they even know there is a problem, that's the problem

piraka

mike65 wrote:

and the Greens wil lie if they are in power I'm afraid. As for Bertie well its about par for the course. The government have just discovered wind power it seems yet the ESB is blocking its development at every turn - the Minister could do something to allow independent supplies in to the market place but can he be arsed?

Mike.

How are the ESB blocking the development of wind.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Did anyone catch Bertie's comments about Ireland building more Gas powered stations?

Funny....just on another thread, I was considering the possibility that the whole nuclear contraversy had been revived to get enough outrage to clear the way for coal.

So he wants to build gas power satations which I assume have a 25 year plus lifespan, even though at most we have 10 years worth of proven local supply, after that we will be depending on the Ruskies assuming there is even enough gas by then

I'd imagine the logic runs along the lines that his experts have advised him that we just don't have the necessary capabilities all-round to meet our short-term demands in established renewable tech, he's not willing to go on a gamble, and he needs electricity real soon now.

So that leaves nuclear or some form of traditional thermal.

No matter which we pick, we have to import our fuel, with - as you pointed out - the exception of gas over the next ten years. Modern gas plants are also relatively and comparatively clean, compared to all the other traditional remaining options (notably coal), and the projections suggest that over the lifetime of a plant, there will be enough gas to meet demand.

So its gas or nuclear. I don't believe the Irish public would accept nuclear regardless of who believes its the right choice, and I would also be willing to bet that a gas station run over a standard lifetime with ten years of local supply, or whatever it turns out to be - more or less would work out cheaper than a nuclear plant over the equivalent time.

So while gas has more emissions, nuclear has its own issues that are also not ideal.

So it may well be that there is an argument that gas is the best combination of cost, cleanliness, surity-of-production and acceptability - the least worst option.

Personally, though, I've little time for any government which will go on a production-expansion trip without also (and ideally first) going on an effeciency-expansion trip, and I'm willing to bet that Bertie has done little more than agree that he is all in favour of it and that they government heartily recommends/supports the idea,

Andor

I find it very frustrating that at this time, when our EU counterparts are holding their fans to the wind, that we're still even discussing gas and nuclear when addressing our need to upgrade the national grid.

silverharp

bonkey wrote:

No matter which we pick, we have to import our fuel, with - as you pointed out - the exception of gas over the next ten years. Modern gas plants are also relatively and comparatively clean, compared to all the other traditional remaining options (notably coal), and the projections suggest that over the lifetime of a plant, there will be enough gas to meet demand.

I'm just wondering if anyone has done real projections, Ireland only has a proven supply of about 10 years (hopefully the Corrib protoestors will hold things up for another 5 years) and the true energy picture will be clearer by then. Ireland will be depending on the Brits to reexport gas which they have imported, Given the depletion rates in the North Sea, they will probably have to import most of their gas from Russia, that leaves Ireland very exposed.

saibhne

mike65 wrote:

and the Greens wil lie if they are in power I'm afraid. As for Bertie well its about par for the course.
Mike.

Why do you think the Greens will lie when in power when their whole ethos, membership and raison d'etre is contrary to this?
Trevor Sargent and his Dail colleagues refuse to use any spin (the vehicle of untruth in politics) on any issue. The Greens also refuse to accept corporate donations to ensure there are no obligations on them other than serving the public in as truly a democratic way as possible. This a very detrimental decision in trems of winning elections as money plays a massive part in winining modern political campaigns but it is one the Greens stand by as it is essential to remain objective and financially unobliged if you are to serve truly and effectively.
I am a long time and active member, as you may have guessed, and I know for a fact that the membership of the party, myself to the fore, would not tolerate any actions from the elected representatives that is contrary to the truth and democracy.

lostexpectation

saibhne wrote:

Why do you think the Greens will lie when in power when their whole ethos, membership and raison d'etre is contrary to this?
Trevor Sargent and his Dail colleagues refuse to use any spin (the vehicle of untruth in politics) on any issue. The Greens also refuse to accept corporate donations to ensure there are no obligations on them other than serving the public in as truly a democratic way as possible. This a very detrimental decision in trems of winning elections as money plays a massive part in winining modern political campaigns but it is one the Greens stand by as it is essential to remain objective and financially unobliged if you are to serve truly and effectively.
I am a long time and active member, as you may have guessed, and I know for a fact that the membership of the party, myself to the fore, would not tolerate any actions from the elected representatives that is contrary to the truth and democracy.

greens are politicians, politicians lie, it environmentalism for those that can afford it.

there are other types, im not saying environmentalism is a threat to the poor

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

I'm just wondering if anyone has done real projections,

If you're not aware of whether or not this has been done, wouldn't you agree that its a bit premature, then, to suggest that the decision is stupid when you're not sure of the amount of research which has gone into it?

It would seem, in effect, that you're saying "I don't know how much they've looked into this, but I'm going to assume its not a lot, and thus the decision is stupid".

Ireland only has a proven supply of about 10 years

And while we have uranium deposits, we have no refining etc. Thus, for nuclear we have a proven supply of 0 years.

For non-thermal, non-nuclear solutions, supply isn't measured in duration, but rather in what percentage of our system we can safely base on variable-production-rates (e.g. wind), and to what extent we can mitigate the variability of the production.

While we may disagree over the objectivity of it, this research has been ongoing, and it is no secret that continuity-fears (real or imagined) have already caused delays in the implementation of renewable stations.

and the true energy picture will be clearer by then.

We can't afford to wait till then - whenever "then" is - to make decisions on what needs to be built.

Ireland will be depending on the Brits to reexport gas which they have imported,

Or we'll be dependant on someone to supply us with uranium.

Or we'll be dependant on the wind not being excessively calm in our neck of the woods for any period of time.

Or we'll be dependant on teh Brits / EU having enough spare power from their generation to sell us.

In short, we'll be dependant on something.

they will probably have to import most of their gas from Russia, that leaves Ireland very exposed.

Very exposed in what way?

Is there anything to suggest that in 10 years there will be a worldwide shortage of gas and/or the means to distribute it?

Is there any alternative which would leave us less exposed? Sure, renewables would leave us less exposed on import, but more exposted on constancy....and that from day 1.

If backing gas is stupid...whats the snart thing to back, bearing in mind that it shouldn't fall prey to the same risks you conclude are what makes gas a stupid choice.

jc

silverharp

What bugged me about bertie's comments was that it seems to have passed him by that Russia was playing politics with gas over the winter which seems to have spooked Euopean politicians but not (it will be grand) Bertie. Objectively gas is fantastic, but if gas is going to be used for incremental supply then we should consider creating a storage facility (refilling Kinsale if possible) and building LNG terminals so we can buy gas on the world market, being at the end of the russian pipelines is a stategic risk
From a strategic point of view, if the gov doesn't trust renewables for whatever reason although I think this is flawed, then coal is a better bet as there are no supply risks. the Corrib gas should be reserved for domestic heating. The advantage for the UK building more nuclear plants is that Canada and Australia are the 2 main suppliers of Uranium so again little strategic risk and we will benefit via the interconnectors.

It's my own view that Peak oil is 3 to 5 years away with Peak Gas a couple of years behind. If I'm wrong then great but I think I am right. Maybe a crises is needed to focus peoples minds and is probably the only way to get real change in energy policy, however I also believe it will be too late to avoid real hardship for alot of people in this country.

Here's my prediction for Jan01 2010

IrishTimes headlines

- New 8 Lane M50 opened today

- Petrol just passed 5 Euro a litre

SeanW

Wind power is great, and its a shame we're not exploiting it more.

However, something has to be used to cover the times the wind isn't blowing or is too strong.

A year ago, I would have said that Nuclear Power is evil, but since then I've done a lot of reasearch into the Chernobyl accident etc. and I'm starting to think the anti-nuclear hysteria is mainly just deliberate FUD (Fear Understanding and Doubt). There are only a few major accidents of note.

Three Mile Island: The reactor did go into meltdownm but there was proper containtment on the building and the accident resulted in no deaths, and negligeable exterior contamination.
Chernobyl: Caused by faulty reactor design, and a crew/management that was reckless, incomeptent, untrained an uninformed in the extreme, all on a scale so vast it is unimagineable in the West. The events that lead to the Chernobyl accident (and more importantly its aftermath) could only have occured in the USSR.

The most telling thing is the policy of the Ukraine (the country in which the Chernobyl site is located) in relation to Nuclear Power (i.e. they want and are building more) one would have thought that the Ukraine would have "learned their lesson" from Chernobyl, but it seems they have, just the lesson wasn't the one the Greenpeace types would have thought was there to be learned.

A safely done (ie the complete opposite of Chernobyl) nuclear power programme could be the answer we're looking for.

Cork

Wind Power?

Acres of wind turbines, landslides?

As for the greens - they seem to have no problem with flying and all the associated c02 omissions.

piraka

SeanW wrote:

Wind power is great, and its a shame we're not exploiting it more.

How much wind in terms of MW do you recommend we exploit.

SeanW

That's a good question. The Eirgrid Portal shows just how variable wind output is today - going over the MW generation tables over the last week that it provides shows output ranging from -1MW (the plants drawing power from the grid) to highly positive values such as +438MW (this taken from 6th May 14:00 to 14:15) which makes a serious dent in system demand, which seems to vary from about 1900MW to 3200MW.

So I'm guessing we've got about 500MW maximum wind capacity at the moment, and there could be scope to double that to 1GW. In that case, on a windy night, wind could cover over half the system demand. However, its increasingly becoming clear that if we want to do something about our runaway carbon dioxide emissions, wind alone wont do the job. The question, to mind therefore is, what do we use to accompany such an expansion in wind? For me, the answer is nuclear, which could provide a stable 500-2000MW if we grabbed the bull by the horns.

Of course other possibilities such as tidal and wave power could also show prospects.

Or just build an Interconnector to somewhere else, which will probably have to be done anyway.

piraka

SeanW wrote:

So I'm guessing we've got about 500MW maximum wind capacity at the moment, and there could be scope to double that to 1GW.

Is that installed capacity or actual load capacity.

Tazz T

SeanW wrote:

Of course other possibilities such as tidal and wave power could also show prospects.

Exactly! And a network of wave power generators is what we should be building now so we're prepared for inevitable power shortages of the future. We're surrounded by cheap power yet the government is so short-sighted.

SeanW

piraka wrote:

Is that installed capacity or actual load capacity.

I'm getting this from the EirGrid Portal, which has system demand and wind generation stats recorded every 15 minutes. The 500MW I quoted is (my guesstimate of) installed wind capacity. But the actual generation figures are a little whacko, ranging from averages in the mid-hundreds to double and single digit figures.

silverharp

Tazz T wrote:

Exactly! And a network of wave power generators is what we should be building now so we're prepared for inevitable power shortages of the future. We're surrounded by cheap power yet the government is so short-sighted.

Here is a 10-20 year vision

Build up a 200% wind capacity both onshore and offshore, in addition develop wave and tital power and let Ireland become a centre of excellence. As a hedge have 2 way interconnectors with the UK and have a mixture of coal and gas as a back up. Unlike large economies like the UK we could export surplus renewables and have enough capacity installed so that it would be unlikely that the combined renewables would ever go below 100% of peak demand. I have no idea what this would cost but regardless it would give Ireland a strategic industrial and marketing advantage

luckat

Accidents aren't the main problem with nuclear power stations. The main problem is the nuclear waste, which just can't be disposed of with any realistic kind of safety. It has an immense half-life, and even if we do something that sounds secure, such as burying it deeply surrounded by concrete, it will be eroded away and cause unimaginable pollution, damaging human and animal and vegetable life at the genetic level.

SeanW

Luckat, I would reccommend you do some research into the above problems. Look for these issues on Wikipedia etc. There is also a nice documentary on Chernoybl from the BBC, from their "Days that shook the world" documentary series. For the truth shall set ye free

First of all, a nuclear accident with disasterous effects such as Chernobyl cannot happen in most of todays reactors, with the exception of the 12 remaining RBMK reactors left over from the Soviet Union, of which the closest to us is in Lithuania, one reactor of a pair still online, scheduled to be decomissioned in 2009. These could present a safety hazard if not run stringently within guidelines until their decomissioning. I've done a lot of research into the Chernobyl accident and nuclear power over the last month and I'm now confident that it will probably never happen again, except possibly if those RBMKs are left running for too long or without due caution.

Secondly, there is a process for final disposal called "Vitrification" which basically means purifying the waste and stuffing it into a sugary glass type structure which will remain solid for millions of years. Research into final disposal options is ongoing, including a process called Atomic Transmutation.

Thirdly is the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, this and our reliance on fossil fuels is the biggest threat to the future of the world. This requires utilising every technology to reduce emissions.

Consider also that there are greater radioactive emissions from the burning of oil (Radium), gas (Radon) and coal (Uranium and Thorium) than a safely run nuclear power plant. See Wikipedia article on sources of radioactive emissions such as fossil fuels, and how nuclear waste can be dealt with.

If you decided to be anti-nuclear because of Greenpeace type soundbytes (as I had done previously) I reccommend, in addition to Wikipedia research, the following:
World Nuclear Association
Uranium, Electricity, and Greenhouse, including this key phrase

If the amount of nuclear power were doubled, emissions from electricity generation would drop by one quarter.

One page flyer for nuclear

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying Ireland should go nuclear tomorrow, but I agree with the idea of the thread title that it's stupid to be talking about more Natural Gas generation becuase its so much worse than nuclear power in so many different ways.

If we end up not going nuclear, let it be because we've got something better - which right now we don't - instead of because of hype, scaremongering and FUD.

Byrno

The one of the main problems with nuclear is that at current consumption rates uranium ore is going to run out in 50 years. If the nuclear industry get their way and consumption is doubled it'll be gone in 25 years. Thus is this really a fuel that can replace oil and gas?

Nuclear will also cause us to be even more relient on other countries for our fuel requirements whereas biofuel, wind, wave energy etc. will allow energy independence for this country. Thus we won't be subject to the volatile fluctuations of the international energy market.

The only realistic medium to long term solution is renewables. IMO we shouldn't be investing in antiquitated power like nuclear and fossil fuels when the economical lifespan of them is going to be short.

SeanW

The one of the main problems with nuclear is that at current consumption rates uranium ore is going to run out in 50 years. If the nuclear industry get their way and consumption is doubled it'll be gone in 25 years.

Sources please?

Nuclear will also cause us to be even more relient on other countries for our fuel requirements

Not true. Ireland does have some uranium deposits AFAIK, and while it may make sense economically to import uranium for a theoretical Irish reactor, it would not be strictly necessary.

biofuel

Will be useful for powering cars with biodiesel and a ethanol as a component of petroleum (or a substitute in some cases). And Teagasc has been experimenting with Miscanthus, or elephant grass for the generation of electricity. Question. Even if this works, would it still be the most environmentally friendly option to generate 1GW of power from Miscanthus, using X thousand or million hectares of farmland, or build a nuke plant instead and devote the aforementioned land as a nature reserve?

Have you REALLY thought this through?

wind

Needs the wind to blow. On a calm day, you get nada. That means building a windfarm doesn't negate the need to build other power plants, no matter how many wind farms Ireland builds, there will still be a need for 4GW of something else. So what should it be if not nuclear?

wave

I hope wave power comes to something, but AFAIK its a very new and experimental form of power generation. Has it actually been done anywhere?

Fossil fuels are filthy, a source of CO2 emissions, and radioactive emissions and are unsustainable. We need something else, and fast. It would be foolish to rule out Nuclear on the basis of FUD.

Sign the petition for a non-nuclear Europe

Looked at that petition? Windfarms vs. Chernobyl? Come on, surely you can do better than that?

silverharp

SeanW wrote:

Quote:
The one of the main problems with nuclear is that at current consumption rates uranium ore is going to run out in 50 years. If the nuclear industry get their way and consumption is doubled it'll be gone in 25 years.
Sources please?

I doubt this as no one has been looking for Uranium for the past 30 years although there will be a medium term shortage, currently only 60% of Uranium used comes from mining, the rest comes from old nukes however Oz had a rule that there was only 3 mines allowed at one time however this is changing and there is alot of new exploration in Canada for Uranium.

Byrno

Sources: Translation from Die Welt

www.energy-choices.com - a nuclear industry site

SeanW wrote:

Not true. Ireland does have some uranium deposits AFAIK, and while it may make sense economically to import uranium for a theoretical Irish reactor, it would not be strictly necessary.

Come on now, sources! And also it is most likely a minimal amount and never economically efficient.

SeanW wrote:

Will be useful for powering cars with biodiesel and a ethanol as a component of petroleum (or a substitute in some cases). And Teagasc has been experimenting with Miscanthus, or elephant grass for the generation of electricity. Question. Even if this works, would it still be the most environmentally friendly option to generate 1GW of power from Miscanthus, using X thousand or million hectares of farmland, or build a nuke plant instead and devote the aforementioned land as a nature reserve?

Have you REALLY thought this through?

Yes. It does have a role in motor fuel as you mentioned. Maybe it wouldn't produce all our energy needs but combined with batteries to store the wind energy, see sources above, and biogas produced from compostable waste and other technologies it could produce our needs. But we also have to become more efficient by using small, local energy production. 1/3 of electricity produced in the country is lost in transmission. Local production would cut carbon emmissions by a third. And we have the technology now, or very soon. If the money being put into nuclear research was put into renewable research we wouldn't be talking about wave energy being a distant dream.

And yes I do think that it would be better to convert some of the land to renewables. What with the continuing loss of people from the land it will provide a future for farmers. If we don't reduce emmissions, as I'm sure you'd agree, there won't be much nature left.

SeanW wrote:

Sign the petition for a non-nuclear Europe
Looked at that petition? Windfarms vs. Chernobyl? Come on, surely you can do better than that?

No. I too have listened to the arguements from both sides and I have come to the conclusion that nuclear is not the answer.

silverharp wrote:

I doubt this as no one has been looking for Uranium for the past 30 years although there will be a medium term shortage, currently only 60% of Uranium used comes from mining, the rest comes from old nukes however Oz had a rule that there was only 3 mines allowed at one time however this is changing and there is alot of new exploration in Canada for Uranium.

Medium term shortage. Unguarenteed sources of Uranium. Relience on other countries for our fuel when we should be moving towards independence. Environmental cost of transporting the uranium (carbon-wise). Is this a technology we should invest in?

SeanW

Big thread on this in politics about Uranium deposits in Ireland here. Granted some of this is theoretical. But it is projected that there are more resources than those that are proven. As silverharp stated, its more a question that no-one has been really looking for the stuff for the last 30 years. So the powers that be (corporate and government) are obviously not that worried, or there would have been more Uranium exploration like there is with oil and gas.

And yes I do think that it would be better to convert some of the land to renewables.

SOME YES! but to fill all our needs, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity could easily swamp all available farmland and more if we tried to become a 100% biofuel economy. And that's before we actually make any food. Biofuel has much potential, but not without limits.

Environmental cost of transporting the uranium (carbon-wise).

You seeminlgy haven't read my links.

2 tons of uranium versus 260,000 tons (25 trainloads) of coal.

And that's before we ask if the miners and truckers are using Biodiesel, in which case CO2 emissions are Sweet FA.

The plants themselves are also zero-emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. Nuclear beats all others, even the other renewables, in indirect emissions.

And my problem with your petition is that the paraphernelia used on it is totally absurd, first of all, like I said an ecological disaster like Chernobyl is impossible outside the USSR/RBMK where everything - and I mean ABSOULUTELY EVERYTHING - went wrong, the stage for the accident being set years in advance, a huge chain of errors by everyone from the Soviet party officials to the designers and builders to the managers and operators. The whole Soviet nuclear programme from start to finish was an accident waiting to happen, like the USSR itself. Chernobyl was inevitable not because it was nuclear, but because of the people who put it there.

It is also fallacious to compare the above stretch-of-the-imagination to wind, because presently wind only provides benefits on an irregular basis - the construction of a wind turbine doesn't negate the need to establish a baseline backup.

I could set up a petition screaming "NO MORE SHIPS" and filled the site with pictures of the Titanic up against pictures of a German ICE train - would you sign/promote that?

Tazz T

There was an prototype wave power device 'launched' off Cork a month or so ago. They cost around 1/4 a mill each but this can be cut by mass production. In the UK, one of these devices can power 10-20 thousand homes depending on conditions and there's plans to power scottish isles on wave power alone. It's simply madness that we aren't building these now when we have the money in the coffers now. We will have no choice in the future - only we'll be spending so much on importing oil and gas we won't be able to afford to build them.

silverharp

The way I see it there is no benign global powerdown scenario, the population of the planet will probably drop back to 3bn or less over the next 50 years, though demographics and starvation from a reduction in energy supplies, the question is how smooth do you want this transition to be. Ruling out energy supplies eg nuclear will accelerate the less desirable form of population reduction. If china for instance didn’t have a plan to build reactors over the next couple of decades then they would be forced to burn though their coal reserves either for electricity or converting to oil.
The politics of a “nuclear free Europe” is the politics of plenty, from a personal point of view I would accept the inherent downside of Nuclear power over the near certainty of being deprived of heating (if my heating was turned off I would burn shredded car tyres if it would keep me warm, and that will be the public attitude whether you like it or not)

Take the UK, they could only feed a population of 25-30m people in a post oil deglobalised world, where exactly are they going to grow bio fuels. Here is what will happen. Nuclear will be exploited to it’s maximum potential if not in Europe then in China, coal will be used to make oil, renewables will be rolled out, bio fuels will be rolled out but it won’t be enough. The “hydrogen” economy is a fraud, for the first time in human history we are going from a dense energy source to less dense energy sources, there is no silver bullet, it means that from a point 5 or 10 years in the future real economic activity will drop globally and permanently , entropy will take over. There are other exotic form of energy which may be exploited in the future like methane hydrates but that is another CO2 emitter and there is some kind of “clean” nuclear material that can be mined on the moon but I wouldn’t bet the family farm on that happening.

bonkey

Tazz T wrote:

There was an prototype wave power device 'launched' off Cork a month or so ago.

I think you're thinking of the one launched off Galway in March....some of the research/testing was done in Cork.

silverharp

I take it back, I saw on the news last night that they are going to build an LNG terminal in the Shannon area.