Should Ireland go Nuclear?

DublinWriter

First off, apologies to the mods for posting this here.

I do so because although the question straddles both environmental and economical grounds, it will ultimately be a political question for us.

My own stance on nuclear has completely U-turned in the past ten years.

If you can, try and listen to Dr. Ed Walsh's comments on the Marianne Finucane show from last Sunday (I think he comes in after about 1.15 hours)...

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marianfinucane/

Although it's a pain to try and navigate, it really is worth listening to Dr.Walsh speak. I've never heard anyone put the pro-nuclear argument across so succinctly and persuasively.

Chief among his arguments are:

- Peat burning is the least efficient and most carbon productive of all energy production
- Hydroelectric power is the most dangerous in terms of fatalities over the past few years
- Nuclear power is the safest form of energy production
- Nuclear power is the cheapest form of energy production (Ireland and Italy have the most expensive energy costs in the EU, both countries are the only ones in the EU not to use nuclear, and business' are moving away from us because of this)
- Nuclear power will never happen here because we can never have a balanced political debate on the subject. It's too emotive a subject and politicians are always playing parish-pump politics to see the word from the trees

Dr. Walsh also quotes the original founder of Greenpeace in recently saying that we really have to reconsider nuclear power as the only viable option for energy generation in the future, and other advances coming on-line in China by coating nuclear waste with a 'ceramic' that renders it non-toxic for at least 1,000,000 years.

One of Marian's panelists countered by saying that we should wait at least 15 years to see if this new process works.

Personally, I don't think we even have the luxury of 5 years, never mind 15.

mike65

I've heard Dr Walsh elsewhere recently and he talks a mean talk.

The answer is yes. I once reckoned having an actual reactor would be unnecessary but maybe I'm wrong when one considers security of supply.

The primary problem won't be one of public acceptance (its amazing what the thought of no power in January can achive). Rather its going to be time-scale as hinted at above. Governments here are appalling with regard to prevarication and reportitis.

That said nuclear is only going to be a "stop-gap" in the long run but its a gap that will surely appear in the next 20 years.

Mike.

KerranJast

We'll have a problem if we go nuclear in that we'll be at the arse end of the uranium supply like we are with gas and oil.

grahamo

Nuclear is the way to go! Fossil fuel burning power stations have done far more damage to our planet over the years. Nuclear power is the cheapest and safest way to generate power. Wind power would be another alternative but of course all the people who whinge about pollution from fossil fuel burning power stations don't want wind turbines anywhere near where they live. Most of the scaremongers who object to nuclear power stations don't have a clue what their talking about. Start building NOW before its too late!

Mick86

When teh fossil fuels run out you're left with wind, water, solar or nuclear. We don't have the space for wind and water, we don't have the sunshine for solar so I guess we have one option left.

cavedave

When teh fossil fuels run out you're left with wind, water, solar or nuclear. We don't have the space for wind and water, we don't have the sunshine for solar so I guess we have one option left.

I do not see how space is an issue here. With current technology reliability is though.
I think ireland needs to use nuclear power as it already does. We take electricity from France and Britains grid and i see no way they can separate out the nuclear generated electrons at the border. This leads me to conclude we use nuclear already. Another Irish solution in exporting out nuclear usage though. Oddly I agree with this Irish solution.
We cannot run health system that does not infect everyone with galloping face rot so i do not trust this muppet show with uranium. Sad to say but i would rather pay the French or British to run a station for us then trust a mixture of the ESB and the government.

Maybe we could set up a abortion clinic, hash cafe, whore house and nuclear power station in Wales and have all the Irish solutions to Irish problems in one place.

mike65

In the most recent report for Irelands power useage 0.017% came from imported Nuke.

Mike.

Maskhadov

no, we have 150% of our energy needs in wind energy off the irish coast and we have €500bn worth in oil and natural gas off the west coast as well !!

the_syco

Maskhadov wrote:

no, we have 150% of our energy needs in wind energy off the irish coast and we have €500bn worth in oil and natural gas off the west coast as well !!

Burn baby, burn. F**k those greens with their "carbon footprint". To hell with the solar layer. We got lots of oil and gas (somehwere, yet to be discovered) off the Irish coast...:rolleyes:

Yeas, I was being sarcastic. Nuclear is dangerous, but clean, and pretty safe, unless you decide to ignore all the safety bits (Sellafield), and don't fund it properly, untill it falls apart, or blows up (Chernobyl).

SeanW

cavedave wrote:

Maybe we could set up a abortion clinic, hash cafe, whore house and nuclear power station in Wales and have all the Irish solutions to Irish problems in one place.

Harsh. But you forgot about Air Force bases

Nuclear power is safe and clean if it's done properly. Chernobyl was an anomoly. The USSRs nuclear programme as a whole was a disaster (much like the Soviet Union itself) and was an accident waiting to happen. If you play Russian Roulette long enough, you will eventually lose, and that's what the Soviet's did with their nuclear programme.

Nuclear plants emit no air pollutants of any kind as opposed to coal, that spews CO2, toxic compounds radiation and sulphur dioxide (which forms sulphuric acid in the atmosphere) by the boatload.

Renewbales can only go so far.
Conservation and related measures can only go so far.
Biofuels can only go so far.
The rest will be either fossil fuels or nuclear.

To me, there is no choice. Nuclear FTW!

In the short term, I would like to see a two-way link with France (so we could buy their nuclear power and, in the future, sell them wind). Medium term I'd like to see the parts of 1999 Electricity regulation act (not sure if that's the name) being removed and a nuclear regulatory system put in its place. We could then go down the road of using small reactors, down potentially as low as the 10MW Toshiba "Micro Nuke" of the 30 year nuclear battery design. Or we could just leave our "Irish solution" in France - they have an excellent power system and could easily give us all the juice we need.

davej

The arguments for nuclear power are laid out here:

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/Nuclear_lifeline_en.pdf

One of the key points in the above article is that the dangers of nuclear radiation have been grossly overstated.

Part of the problem with acceptance of nuclear power, I think, is due to the cold war. The threat of nuclear armageddon and radioactive fallout has been burned into the psyche of most people.

There is a very powerful meme floating about that basically says "nuclear =deadly". This meme probably had a beneficial affect during the cold war but now there is a danger we won't be able to ween ourselves off of it before the planet heats to catastrophic (for us) levels.

From a political perspective I think there are a huge number of problems that seem insurmountable at least for the next 10 years. Even if public opinion begins to shift as electricity bills soar, NIMBYism will still be there.

davej

sovtek

Ireland go Nuclear????!!!!! Are you insane...it's 2007 and ye can't drink the water. :P

Mick86

cavedave wrote:

I do not see how space is an issue here. .

Because wind farms and hydro-electric powerstations take up lots and lots of land.

sovtek wrote:

Ireland go Nuclear????!!!!! Are you insane...it's 2007 and ye can't drink the water. :P

With all that cheap nuclear generated electricity we can build water purification plants all over the place.

Maskhadov wrote:

no, we have 150% of our energy needs in wind energy off the irish coast and we have €500bn worth in oil and natural gas off the west coast as well !!

Can the €500bn worth in oil and natural gas be got up from under the sea. The big pic is that the world is burning oil faster than it's being found. That might sound like a lot of oil and gas but it probably isn't.

is_that_so

mike65 wrote:

In the most recent report for Irelands power useage 0.017% came from imported Nuke.

Mike.

That will probably be as close as we get and we'll get an Irish solution. We'll end up agreeing to take electricity generated by nuclear power. As to the question, well IMO it should be reviewed and discussed properly and sensibly. Even getting to the point of accepting nuclear-generated power would be an achievement.

cavedave

Because wind farms and hydro-electric powerstations take up lots and lots of land.

I looked up the sums here and you are right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Land_use

RedPlanet

Listened to some of that radio programme.
Sounds like your man was advocating technologies that aren't even in production anywhere in the world yet.
Later in the interview he aid some odd things i thought, for example he was saying that the French have a "socialist problem" and said they need a "Thatcher" to put things right.
I suspect he's a friend of big energy corporations.

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

Later in the interview he aid some odd things i thought, for example he was saying that the French have a "socialist problem" and said they need a "Thatcher" to put things right..

Not even the French deserve that.:D

Offalycool

If you look at what’s happening in Sheffield at the mo.. major environmental situation. I believe having a nuclear reactor in our back yard could have unforeseen consequences in the event of an environmental crisis. I also think that going down the nuclear path will hinder R&D in other types of renewable energy. If we really need more power there should be so EU initiative to buy the power from the continent.

sovtek

RedPlanet wrote:

Listened to some of that radio programme.
Sounds like your man was advocating technologies that aren't even in production anywhere in the world yet.
Later in the interview he aid some odd things i thought, for example he was saying that the French have a "socialist problem" and said they need a "Thatcher" to put things right.
I suspect he's a friend of big energy corporations.

If he was quoting the founder of Greenpeace then he is most likely on their payroll somewhere along the way. I know the guy from Greenpeace is most definitely a corporate whore.

heyjude

Maskhadov wrote:

no, we have 150% of our energy needs in wind energy off the irish coast and we have €500bn worth in oil and natural gas off the west coast as well !!

They'd never get permission to build enough windmills to provide all our power from wind, unless it is the hot air eminating from the Dail, they have struggled to get the few existing wind farms built and besides, what do we do on those very cool frosty windfree winter/spring days ?

As for the €500bn worth of oil and gas off the west coast, a couple of questions come to mind, where will it be brought ashore ? Mayo or somewhere else along our 'scenic' coastline ??? In any case, these resources will belong to the oil companies and they will sell them for the market price at the time, which could be €150+ a barrel at the time. The problem might not be its availability, but whether we can afford to spend so much on oil and gas, just to generate electricity.

No, we've got to consider Nuclear now. As is pointed out elsewhere, uranium is also a finite resource like oil/gas and if we delay, by the time we do need it, its cost/availability will be as bad as oil.

Maybe if people understand the alternatives such as a doubling/trebling or electricity prices, power cuts and high unemployment as companies move to countries with cheaper power, then maybe it will be more palatable.

DublinWriter

RedPlanet wrote:

Later in the interview he aid some odd things i thought, for example he was saying that the French have a "socialist problem" and said they need a "Thatcher" to put things right.
I suspect he's a friend of big energy corporations.

If he was, I doubt he'd be advocating nuclear over fossil.

Yeah, he did start coming across as a bit of a rabid rightie at the end, but the points he made earlier were valid.

I do believe nuclear is the way to go for Ireland, but it won't happen.

The most that will happen is people will just whinge and moan and call Joe Duffy when their electricity/gas bills probably increase by about 1000% in 5 years time, around about the same time of the remaining American corporates will start fecking off to Eastern Europe and China.

We don't do long termism in this country.

mike65

Today FM right now! Its being discussed with Greens and ESB union chappie

Mike.

ninebeanrows

Should we go nuclear?

Yes

Jackie laughlin

RedPlanet,
Ed Walsh is a neo-liberal nutter but on this issue he is correct.

Dr_Teeth

Yes, absolutely. Even if we somehow build enough wind/wave power stations to supply most of our needs, these stations will never be reliable or controllable. You will always need a few power stations that you can control the output on (up or down) for certain times of the day when everyone turns on their kettles etc.

With global warming and the great increase in oil and gas prices that will occur when the world starts to run low, our few "controllable" power stations will have to be nuclear, there's no other way to do it.

sovtek

Dr_Teeth wrote:

With global warming and the great increase in oil and gas prices that will occur when the world starts to run low, our few "controllable" power stations will have to be nuclear, there's no other way to do it.

Yes there is
You use the money you would waste on nuclear to invest in R&D in overcoming problems with current renewable technologies and also discover new ones.

Mick86

sovtek wrote:

You use the money you would waste on nuclear to invest in R&D in overcoming problems with current renewable technologies and also discover new ones.

And supposing you don't overcome the problems or discover that wonderful ubiquitous, everlasting, environmentally friendly source of energy. You'll have wasted all that time and money and will still have to build nuclear power stations.

DublinWriter

sovtek wrote:

Yes there is
You use the money you would waste on nuclear to invest in R&D in overcoming problems with current renewable technologies and also discover new ones.

Oh really? Yes, personally I'm still working on that perpetual motion machine up in my attic.

Honestly, if I hear someone bandy about around the term 'R&D' again without mentioning specific contexts and applictions, I'll go nuclear meself.

heyjude

sovtek wrote:

Yes there is
You use the money you would waste on nuclear to invest in R&D in overcoming problems with current renewable technologies and also discover new ones.

How would R&D overcome practical problems such as people not wanting windmills built near them ? ie. Not on land or close enough to be visible from land(spoiling the view). Or how would R&D solve the problem of windless days ?

Wind power is probably the most developed of the renewable energy sources, but no R&D is going to solve its disadvantages, the main one of which is unreliability. As regards solar energy, we can generate some electricity in this way, but again it depends on the weather, heavy cloud and winter days, not much happening. As for wave and tidal power, they are years from application on the scale required and what about spoiling the view again.

Biomass would require farmland to be transferred from food to biomass production, which would increase food prices and besides in many cases, you'd only get one crop per year.

As for the solution of going for large scale on wind, solar, tidal, wave and biomass, the duplication of generating capacity would be immense and the cost huge.

As for finding new renewable sources, there are no guarantees that R&D will produce any usable results and we need a plan that offers certainty. You can search for new energy sources to supplement your primary electricity supply, but to expect it to carry the workload (?)

Lets drag ourselves out of the dark ages here and get real.

We are the most fossil fuel dependant nation in europe. We will get very little price benift from the oil and gas reserves off our own coast. Indeed we will have to buy them at market rates like everyone else. Renewable energy is to be encouraged but in its current form it cannot be relied on for constant energy.

Nations all around the world have used nuclear safely for years. Lets consider it now, it could take upwards of 10 years to actually build from planning stage according to a recent report. Years down the line when energy is in short suppy we will be ruing the day we rejected nuclear because it will be too late.

heyjude

sovtek wrote:

Yes there is
You use the money you would waste on nuclear to invest in R&D in overcoming problems with current renewable technologies and also discover new ones.

Why would money spent on nuclear by wasted ? France gets 78% of its electricity from nuclear stations and I'm sure they are delighted with oil/gas prices rising that they don't depend on oil/gas for most of their electricity, as we do.

heyjude

Offalycool wrote:

If we really need more power there should be so EU initiative to buy the power from the continent.

So France and other EU countries had the foresight to build nuclear power stations instead of relying on oil/gas and you think the EU should encourage them to sell power to us, presumably at a reasonable rate, :rolleyes: so we don't have to make the difficult decisions that they made years ago or at the very least should be making now.

Oafley Jones

sovtek wrote:

Yes there is
You use the money you would waste on nuclear to invest in R&D in overcoming problems with current renewable technologies and also discover new ones.

Lets (for the sake of arguement) say that the cost to set up a nuclear plant is €1 billion and takes 10 years to build. Now, you advocate placing that into R&D, so let me ask you a couple of questions,

1) How would that money be divided up?

2) Would that be enough money to guarantee that solutions be found?

3) What is the time scale alloted for research and then implementation of said solution?

Compare this to Nuclear power which is a proven technology.

Offalycool

heyjude wrote:

So France and other EU countries had the foresight to build nuclear power stations instead of relying on oil/gas and you think the EU should encourage them to sell power to us, presumably at a reasonable rate, :rolleyes: so we don't have to make the difficult decisions that they made years ago or at the very least should be making now.

There is no point in building more power stations.. we just have to learn to use the recourses we have more efficiently. It seems silly to build one in Ireland just because we can. Surely it makes more sense to redistribute the energy currently generated and develop ways of getting more from it.

smoc

Yes we should Go Nuclear!! its by far the cleanest and cheapest form of power. Plus their very safe as well. Even if we were to put it on one of the islands off of ireland where if something did go wrong we would be ok might be best for those against it. Otherwise I think their the best.

jonny72

I don't believe for one second this country could build a nuclear reactor..

Firstly it would end up being the most expensive one on the planet..

Secondly it would be delayed, and delayed, and delayed, I mean cmon we can barely build a motorway..

Maskhadov

heyjude wrote:

They'd never get permission to build enough windmills to provide all our power from wind, unless it is the hot air eminating from the Dail, they have struggled to get the few existing wind farms built and besides, what do we do on those very cool frosty windfree winter/spring days ?

As for the €500bn worth of oil and gas off the west coast, a couple of questions come to mind, where will it be brought ashore ? Mayo or somewhere else along our 'scenic' coastline ??? In any case, these resources will belong to the oil companies and they will sell them for the market price at the time, which could be €150+ a barrel at the time. The problem might not be its availability, but whether we can afford to spend so much on oil and gas, just to generate electricity.

No, we've got to consider Nuclear now. As is pointed out elsewhere, uranium is also a finite resource like oil/gas and if we delay, by the time we do need it, its cost/availability will be as bad as oil.

Maybe if people understand the alternatives such as a doubling/trebling or electricity prices, power cuts and high unemployment as companies move to countries with cheaper power, then maybe it will be more palatable.

its worth €500bn at $50/barrel... currently oil is something like $68. The only thing stopping us getting the €500bn is the oil companies. They are doing their best to con us on the corrib gas field.

RedPlanet

The best argument for going nuclear is that we don't have to cut any fat out of our energy wasting livelihoods. Indeed, we can continue down the path of bad planning, continue eating fastfood and frozen food, continue driving ourselves around in our own personal hulking metal boxes regardless of how much public space they require. We can keep leaving all the lights on in our homes and workplaces, leave computers and other electronics plugged in, continue building one off homes etc etc.

/sarcasm

SeanW

Nuclear power won't do much for transport but it can be used to make hydrogen. Nuclear power, if it is to be used as an environmental protection tool, (of which it is more than capable) then it must be accompanied by a multi-pronged strategy to protect the environment. To include other measures such as better planning, efficiency measures, renewables, biofuels etc each to be used as appropriate.

But should we use nuclear power as a tool to help protect our way of life? Absolutely. Nuclear power is safe, clean and reliable, and in some cases, cheaper than fossil fuelled options and, unlike renewables, is an already mature science that is constantly advancing. It fundamentally makes sense.

bonkey

SeanW wrote:

Nuclear power won't do much for transport but it can be used to make hydrogen.

Hydrogen won't do much for transport...at least not in the near- or mid-term. The infrastructure isn't there and there's a number of technical problems still remaining before its ready for anything more than a bit-part.

I find it ironic, though, that you cite this as a way forward for nuclear with respect to transport, but then go on to note that...

unlike renewables, is an already mature science that is constantly advancing.

This is a somewhat misleading point.

If you mean "mature" in the sense that we've had nuclear stations for decades, then the established renewables are also mature as we've had them for decades also. Indeed, technologies such as hydro and wind are more mature than nuclear, with both (arguably) pre-dating electricity.

If, on the other hand you mean that the specific technology which would be used is mature, then this is not necessarily the case for nuclear at all. Any proposals for modern reactors are typically for pebble-bed reactors, or other modern, relatively-or-completely unproven-at-industrial-scale designs and not for the decades-old designs which are the ones which are proven.

sovtek

SeanW wrote:

Nuclear power is safe

I wonder where this assertion comes from given the history of criminal negligence, incompetence and laziness of the industry.

clean

I seem to recall reading about quite a few storage sites in the US that are still not being cleaned up.

cheaper than fossil fuelled options

Does that include the billions in tax revenue that has been used on R&D etc etc over the past 50 years?

and, unlike renewables, is an already mature science that is constantly advancing.

Maybe it's mature in that its been around for years...but as far as advancing... they still don't know how to store it properly nor does anybody seem to be able to regulate the industry.
Unlike renewables...if they screw up it could kill a hell of a lot of people and trash the environment for ages.

It fundamentally makes sense.

Not really given it's history thus far.

purple'n'gold

jonny72 wrote:

I don't believe for one second this country could build a nuclear reactor..

Firstly it would end up being the most expensive one on the planet..

Secondly it would be delayed, and delayed, and delayed, I mean cmon we can barely build a motorway..

This would not be a motorway, it would be a nuclear power station, and it would be built probably by a French company.Building etc.the Irish would just be providing the basics.

sovtek

purplengold wrote:

This would not be a motorway, it would be a nuclear power station, and it would be built probably by a French company.Building etc.the Irish would just be providing the basics.

So why not get the government to pump money into local renewables rather than pay into the French economy for safer and cleaner sources of energy?

Instant Karma

the problem with NP is that the station will inevitabely be placed in a poor area and those are the people who will suffer health issues.

Also, where do you put all the eventual waste? do you know what the half life on that stuff is, more NP stations = more waste, where does it all go eventually. Sure it may not affect us in our life time but you would be storing up massive problems for future generations.

thumbs down tbh, there are other completely clean ways that are also much much cheaper that should be considered.

brianthebard

Nuclear power is just as finite as oil, and as more countries wish to start using it or increase their use, there will be less of the fuel, it will get more expensive and we'll be back where we started.

heyjude

Instant Karma wrote:

the problem with NP is that the station will inevitabely be placed in a poor area and those are the people who will suffer health issues.

The siting of a nuclear power station isn't like the siting of a landfill or incinerator, a major requirement is a large supply of water, so they are usually built alongside a major river or as is the case with most of Britain's nuclear reactors, by the sea. So unless the poor area happens to have a huge vacant site and be sited alongside a major river or the sea, then they wouldn't normally be considered.

Sure it may not affect us in our life time but you would be storing up massive problems for future generations.

And generating almost all our electricity from fossil fuels is helping future generations ?

thumbs down tbh, there are other completely clean ways that are also much much cheaper that should be considered.

What completely clean and much cheaper ways to generate electricity should be considered ? Assuming you want electricity 24/7 and 365 days a year, no matter what the weather. Importing power from Britain or France wouldn't be cheap or clean(if it is generated by oil/gas/nuclear(according to its opponents)).

sovtek

heyjude wrote:

And generating almost all our electricity from fossil fuels is helping future generations ?

I have yet to see ONE person arguing for the continuation of using fossil fuels in this thread.

Jackie laughlin

Tina

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Tina

Thatcherism is alive and well

sovtek

I just thought I'd post a list of reasons NOT to go nuclear...as the opposite type of list is so popular recently.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hoffman06272007.html

purple'n'gold

What really pisses me of about this whole issue is the”paddywhackery” of completely dismissing nuclear power as an option. It’s just like “a shure ,we’re Irish, we’ll never have anything as evil as nuclear power here” (but we’ll take nuclear generated electricity from other countries, when we need it.)