Nuclear Energy.

Blush_01

Ok, I have to admit, I know virtually nothing about nuclear energy. The virtually nothing I know tells me that Chernobyl was bad, nuclear is nasty and shouldn't be trusted. But on the other hand, oil is running out, gas is running out, and I don't entirely put all my faith in bio-renewable fuels as, in my clueless opinion, the impact of mass conversion to bio-renewable fuel production in Ireland's agricultural sector could potentially lead to the very real possibility of famine down the road when nowhere else is producing the foodcrops needed to support our growing human or animal populations. Wind turbines rely in part on alternate fuel sources, and considering even our summers are waterlogged and cloudy, solar needs serious support too.

Can somebody please set me straight as to whether nuclear is a good or bad thing, and what alternatives are feasible in the long term?

SeanW

Blush_01 wrote:

Can somebody please set me straight as to whether nuclear is a good or bad thing, and what alternatives are feasible in the long term?

With pleasure, though from my sig you can probably tell where I stand.

Nuclear power is a good thing.

You mention Chernobyl and I agree that it is the number 1 reason why people think nucler power is scary. But people who just say Nuclear Power = Chenobyl = scary are missing one key fact. That the accident happened under Old Style Communism, in the Former Soviet Union. Think about that for a second - this abject failure was marked by incompetence, corruption, totalitarianism and economic malaise, all on a scale incomprehensible in the free world.

And their nuclear programme was no different. To find out more about the Chernobyl accident (and why it in no way constitutes a reason for Ireland not to go nuclear) I suggest the following reading and viewing: (links)

Wikipedia Page on the Chernobyl disaster.

And then watching this BBC video: "Days That Shook The World.

Since you have probably heard a lot of stuff from our Green Party and Greepeace, you might want to hear the other side out as well.

You can also read my letter to the Independent (which was published ) a few months ago, where I succinctly make the case to conside Nuclear Electrcity. You can find that in my Sig.

One thing will be clear: The Three Stooges could have run a better nuclear programme than the Soviet Union.

As for alternatives to nuclear power? I'm afraid we don't have that many.

Coal would be the number one substitute choice, but it's the filthiest stuff on Earth, not only is it the worst Carbon Dioxide emittor of all forms of power, but it spews toxic mercury, arsenic, Acid Rain forming compounds like Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides. Norway alone spends NOK100,000,000 treating its watercourses with alkaline solutions to mitigate the damage of evil winds carring acid clouds from Southern Europe.

Coal accounts for 39% of all world electricity supply, contributing to a total of 65% by all fossil fuels.

Biofuels? We won't have enough land to replace even half of our transoport fuels with biodiesel etc, so forget about using them for electricity.

Renewables? Too unreliable, and small in scale. They'll never come close to delivering the large, stable energy supplies that we need, even with some of the ... more unusual flights of fancy being discussed here.

Every time we oppose a nuclear plant, we're helping Big Coal and the Big Oil/Politics wreck the planet just a little more. I used to be like you, not liking fossil fuels but too scared of Chernobyl to embrace nuclear power. Now that I've done some research and become informed, those days are gone.

Lennoxschips

But people who just say Nuclear Power = Chenobyl = scary are missing one key fact. That the accident happened under Old Style Communism, in the Former Soviet Union. Think about that for a second - this abject failure was marked by incompetence, corruption, totalitarianism and economic malaise, all on a scale incomprehensible in the free world.

And Sellafield?

Besides the fact that when Nuclear power goes wrong, it goes wrong big time:

- There isn't enough uranium to power the world, unless we use magic technology that hasn't even been properly shown to work yet on the scale needed.

- Nuclear power is not commercially viable and requires subsidies. Not that I consider this a problem, if you want something then you should pay for it. But too often "not being commercially viable" is used to knock renewables, so this argument should cut both ways.

- Nobody knows what to do with the waste, which has to be stored securely for 100s of thousands of years. (i.e. longer than human civilisation has existed)

The "it's not coal" argument doesn't do it for me.

liberty 2007

Sorry, Nuclear is not the answer and not because it's too dangerous, but because we don't need it.
100 years ago, the British had a plan to build a giant solar collector for generating electricity in the sahara desert. Then they found all that conveniant oil and scraped the plan.
The amount of energy the earth recieves from the sun every year is equal to about 10,000 times what we consume, The main reason why we haven't figured out how to harness it yet is simple. WE DID'NT NEED IT.
The next time you see a wind farm, think of those old bi-planes from 100 years ago and then think of a jumbo jet 70 years later.

Blush_01

Lennoxschips, about the subsidies thing. At the moment bio-renewables are tax free, as an incentive for farmers who have suitable land to produce them to do so. Fossil fuels are taxed. If (and when) the government feels the pinch with regard to fossil fuels (which I believe is not just a possibility but an eventuality) the easiest way they will have of recouping the more than generous taxes that fossil fuels provided will be to clamp down on, and control, bio-renewables. By dictating when, where and what volume of production is allowed they'll effectively do that, which they're more than capable of doing. If bio-renewables are considered to be a viable option then it's only for the moment while they're effectively subsidised (via their tax free status) and leaves them open for manipulation by the government.

Now, that's not to say that government regulation of bio-renewable production volumes is a bad thing. In the right circumstances it could prevent all suitable land being given over to fuel crops, at the expense of food crops. (Some farmers believe that without due care we could see an irreperable famine in Ireland in our lifetimes.) But if manipulated in a negative way, as it probably will be, it could lead to serious problems for everyone.

Thanks SeanW, I'll read all of that information and if you have any more, please do pass it on.

ThOnda

Nuclear energy? Yes, yes and yes.

For the first - there is more than enough fuel now and for next few hundred years. There are also different types of reactors and other ways to "burn" less radioactive elements.
For the second - radioactive waste. Few kilos a year in comparison to milions of tons COx, NOx and SOx in the air?
For the third - Chernobyl - there were so many human made mistakes, breaking of instruction, operation procedures and government laws, that the reactor wanted to stop itself at least four times.

If there is any better source of energy, I will be one of the first who will be for closing nuclear power plants. However it is the best we have so far.

Unfortunately, world is ruled by politics and not by economists, so there is absolutely no way for international solar powerplants somewhere is deserts. How many tide powerplants are here? And this is only one country.

Studied powerplants for few years, I can say that there is not a better solution so far.

And if you are scared, both India and China need to start really big nuclear powerplant every second week. And they are building them, be sure about that.

Blush_01 - I admire you for so open minded attitude. Thank you for such opened mind. Please, get as much information as possible before making some personal decisions. But believe me, that people talking against nuclear powerplants won't like amount of time and effort you are going to spend by gathering information, studying and analyzing truth, facts and logick.

Lennoxschips

Thank you for such opened mind. Please, get as much information as possible before making some personal decisions. But believe me, that people talking against nuclear powerplants won't like amount of time and effort you are going to spend by gathering information, studying and analyzing truth, facts and logick.

By all means research the nuclear question. I have and have come to my own conclusion that it's a massive inefficient waste of money, that there's an oncoming uranium peak, and that nobody knows what to do with the waste.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't have an open mind, I hope.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

lots of people know what to do with the waste... you bury it

it's not that difficult a proposition.

ThOnda

It looks that George W. Bush it! won't be elleceted anymore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7027147.stm

30 new nuclear powerplants to start construction in next three years in USA.

Enjoy...

Jack Sheehan

ThOnda wrote: »

It looks that George W. Bush it! won't be elleceted anymore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7027147.stm

30 new nuclear powerplants to start construction in next three years in USA.

Enjoy...

You must have written this in a hurry...

As for nuclear power, to me it seems like a lazy way out. For America, Britain and other large countries it may be the only solution but for us? A sparsely populated windy island with waves coming out of our arses? Lazy,lazy,lazy.

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote: »

And Sellafield?

Besides the fact that when Nuclear power goes wrong, it goes wrong big time:

- There isn't enough uranium to power the world, unless we use magic technology that hasn't even been properly shown to work yet on the scale needed.

- Nuclear power is not commercially viable and requires subsidies. Not that I consider this a problem, if you want something then you should pay for it. But too often "not being commercially viable" is used to knock renewables, so this argument should cut both ways.

- Nobody knows what to do with the waste, which has to be stored securely for 100s of thousands of years. (i.e. longer than human civilisation has existed)

The "it's not coal" argument doesn't do it for me.

Lenny, the OP asked for straight facts, and I'm afraid your reply is a little short in that department.

First of all, if you're referring to the Windscale fire of '57 (which happened way back in the infancy of nuclear power when the concpet was just out of the experiment labs) or the ongoing managment difficulties that have continued since then, nothing to do with Sellafield even remotely compares to the Chernobyl Disaster which is what the OP asked about.

You mention the Uranium peak but there are many ways of remedying that, first by using resources more efficiently (the newest generation of reactors in Europe, the European Pressurised Water Reactor, or EPR, is 16% more fuel efficient that the French reactors it will outclass. Also, if energy is lost in transmission and up cooling towers, (some think that 2/3s of energy made in power plants is lost this way) then the obvious nuclear solution is to use Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (these are small, systems that produce 10-125MW of powe each, some like the Toshiba 4S are fully self-contained with a lifetime's fuel supply loaded and operate as a "nuclear battery")

There is also Thorium and far from it being a flight of fancy it can be done today in Canadian designed CANDU reactors - these special design reactors can take anything from natural Uranium to enriched Uranium, Thorium, even some kinds of Plutonium.

It just doesn't make financial sense to do so at the moment because there's so much Uranium, which you forget, there's been very little exploration for over the last 30 years.

As for the waste problem, well it's slightly fallacious to say that it has not been solved - becuase Finland has done just that) for itself, and the U.S. isn't far behind.

Finally the "it's not coal argument." You may not buy it, but it remains the giant elephant in the room.

Lennoxschips

To run a Thorium reactor you need weapons grade plutonium. It's not something I'd be jumping up and down in enthusiasm about.

So, if we are to bury nuclear waste, where in Ireland should the waste be buried? Ireland doesn't have a vast uninhabited Lapland like Finland does.

danyosan

Lennoxschips wrote: »

To run a Thorium reactor you need weapons grade plutonium. It's not something I'd be jumping up and down in enthusiasm about.

So, if we are to bury nuclear waste, where in Ireland should the waste be buried? Ireland doesn't have a vast uninhabited Lapland like Finland does.

Are nuclear power plants able to adjust their power output or are they base load? By base load, I mean working at 100% capacity all of the time.

newsjunky

SeanW wrote: »

As for the waste problem, well it's slightly fallacious to say that it has not been solved - becuase Finland has done just that) for itself, and the U.S. isn't far behind.

How did Finland solve the waste problem? Nuclear waste is *the biggest problem* with nuclear power. Also, I've heard the arguement for Chernobyl happening because whahey it was Soviet Russia...but what about 3 Mile Island? Yes, Nuclear Power is safe, but will it really be worth it to switch to nuclear reactors? Think of the cost...

Personally, I'm interested in how we may use our own waste to power us. I read somewhere that the guy who invented the segway also invented a machine that turned cowpats into fuel for several villages in Africa. One machine, buried, with cowpats thrown on top powered *several* villages. I think it's definitely something we should explore. We're already recycling. Why not recycle a little more?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how many people died, or were injured at three mile island?


a big fat


0

.

purple'n'gold

If there was a sound economic or environmental reason why we should not have a nuclear power station in Ireland I would listen to the arguments. But to ban nuclear power outright just because its some how un-Irish strikes me as being just plain silly.(I know we’re Irish and we do things differently) but its near time we grew up.

Lennoxschips

Also, I've heard the arguement for Chernobyl happening because whahey it was Soviet Russia...but what about 3 Mile Island? Yes, Nuclear Power is safe, but will it really be worth it to switch to nuclear reactors? Think of the cost...

Ah, but Chernobyl was because it was the Soviets, Sellafield/Windscale fire happened way back in the infancy of Nuclear power so that doesn't count, and recent incidents at Sellafield are due to bad management. There's always an excuse, you see.

Call me crazy, but give me a power source that, when badly managed, causes only blackouts, and not contamination of surrounding land. There is zero risk of a meltdown at a windmill or solar panel, there is such a risk at a nuclear power station, however small the risk my be.

How did Finland solve the waste problem?

They chucked their waste in a big hole in a rock formation up where nobody lives. Unfortunately Ireland does not have such an area.

The US has rock formations where nobody lives, and have been 'on the verge' of using Yucca Mountain in Nevada for going on 20 years now, but they have yet to get started, due to political resistance in Nevada. The best estimate at the moment is that they'll start in 2017, but expect that date to be pushed back.

Of course, once you dispose of the waste in these places you have to keep it highly secure, with men with guns and big dogs, for at least 100,000 years, because you don't want people mining these sites for dangerous materials. How much does 100,000 years of high tech security cost? It's something that must be factored in to any cost analysis of nuclear power. And once you choose Nuclear power you have locked yourself in to this 100,000 year commitment. There's no going back.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Besides the fact that when Nuclear power goes wrong, it goes wrong big time:

There are no shortage of cases where nuclear power has gone wrong, but where the incident has been correctly handled by the safety procedures and mechanisms in place. Only the largest of these incidents (such as the one in Sweden last year) even make the news, and even then its mostly reported in a manner that suggests that things could have gone badly wrong to some unspecified degree if the safety procedures had failed.

Even if what you're trying to say is that when nuclear goes wrong and everything in place to handle that event also fails, then it goes badly wrong....its open to question as to what constitutes "badly" wrong. There are precious few nuclear incidents that can be identified which could match the pollution generated by a conventional thermal station in an ordinary lifespan.

Call me crazy, but give me a power source that, when badly managed, causes only blackouts, and not contamination of surrounding land. There is zero risk of a meltdown at a windmill or solar panel, there is such a risk at a nuclear power station, however small the risk my be.

No..thats not crazy at all. I'd agree with you 100% - give me as much solar, wind, hydro etc. input as can be managed. Then, for the shortfall - even if its only a mid-term stop-gap until the renewable technology advances even further - consider whether or not nuclear is an option.

Bear in mind that while nuclear will contaminate if it goes wrong, the other options for meeting the shortfall will contaminate even if they go right. Also, remember that modern nuclear designs are inordinately safer than those of existing, productive reactors.

Capt'n Midnight

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=MPHYA6000029000007001511000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Medical Physics -- July 2002 -- Volume 29, Issue 7, pp. 1511-1513
...
A prospective study should be performed to test the hypothesis that an increase in background radiation to residents in the gulf states will increase their longevity

John R. Cameron
University of Wisconsin–Madison, Departments of Medical Physics, Radiology, and Physics, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Jeffrey Kahn
University of Minnesota, Center for Bioethics, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0346

William R. Hendee, Moderator

(Received 29 April 2002; accepted 29 April 2002; published 20 June 2002)

9 months later on March 20, 2003, there was an increase in background radiation, mainly from depleted uranium. However, it has been impossible to say if there was increased longevity since reliable statistics have been hard to obtain. :rolleyes:

SeanW

danyosan wrote: »

Are nuclear power plants able to adjust their power output or are they base load? By base load, I mean working at 100% capacity all of the time.

At present, nuclear power works on the basis of "baseline load." However, there is some very exciting work being done in the field of Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, and small reactor designs like the 10MW Toshiba 4S Nuclear Battery proposed for Galena, Alaska. In theory, a small country like Ireland could employ these micro and mini nuclear solutions for peak loads in conjunction with renewable power, to produce power when the weather allows it, and a medium-sized nuclear installation to provide baseline load.

newsjunky wrote: »

Personally, I'm interested in how we may use our own waste to power us. I read somewhere that the guy who invented the segway also invented a machine that turned cowpats into fuel for several villages in Africa. One machine, buried, with cowpats thrown on top powered *several* villages. I think it's definitely something we should explore. We're already recycling. Why not recycle a little more?

Animal manure is already used for fertiliser or left to replenish the fields where the cows eat the grass.

Besides, not too many Africans have electric immersions, electric underfloor heating, mobile phones, microwaves, electric hobs and ovens, nVidia GeForce 8800 graphics cards and all the other stuff that we seem to love so much.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Ah, but Chernobyl was because it was the Soviets, Sellafield/Windscale fire happened way back in the infancy of Nuclear power so that doesn't count, and recent incidents at Sellafield are due to bad management. There's always an excuse, you see.

You forgot about Three Mile Island ... there was partial meltdown there too, but the major difference between TMI-1 and Chernobyl-4 was that with TMI, the ecosphere was protected by full double (primary and secondary) containment vessels, these have been standard in all Western nuclear reactors for several decades. But they weren't used in Soviet reactors, in particular the RBMK reactor type used at Chernobyl where it's not feasable to do that. The RBMK typically only has a partial primary containment structure. A small heap of Soviet made concrete, they called it an "Upper Biological Shield" and in the accident, it was shown to be worse than useless.

Yet despite the fact that Chernobyl could never happen to a new reactor in a 1st world democracy, Windscale happened 50 years ago in an experimental museum piece, and caused minimal damange, and TMI caused no environmental damage, these are still Exhibit A, B and C in the case not build new reactors anywhere.

Of course, once you dispose of the waste in these places you have to keep it highly secure, with men with guns and big dogs, for at least 100,000 years, because you don't want people mining these sites for dangerous materials. How much does 100,000 years of high tech security cost? It's something that must be factored in to any cost analysis of nuclear power. And once you choose Nuclear power you have locked yourself in to this 100,000 year commitment. There's no going back.

Come on, nobody needs old fuel dumps to make weapons to kill lots of people. It's far easier to use biological or chemical weapons (as Saddam did to the Kurds) and, if you need nukes, to make your own weapons from virgin material with your own nuclear programme, like all the Big 5 did and Iran is now thought to be doing. The risk is not that high and definately will not arise any time in the next 200 years.

Global warming is a fact today.

Besides we already have a radioactive waste stockpile in Ireland from obsolete medical X-Ray machines and stuff.

bonkey wrote: »

Even if what you're trying to say is that when nuclear goes wrong and everything in place to handle that event also fails, then it goes badly wrong....its open to question as to what constitutes "badly" wrong. There are precious few nuclear incidents that can be identified which could match the pollution generated by a conventional thermal station in an ordinary lifespan.

Nominated for post of the year

maniac101

Just to be clear here: Nuclear power plants are suitable for baseload operation only. No nuclear power plant operates at peak load only. This is the main reason why no nuclear power plant will be built in Ireland in the medium term. The country already has sufficient baseload plant.

Building a nuclear plant here would necessitate either the shutting down of the brand new CCGT plants (which won't happen because the cost of compensating their operators would be prohibitive), or the shutting down of Moneypoint power station (which won't happen because coal remains our most secure source of fossil fuel and no politician with half a brain would countenance foregoing it in a peak oil scenario).

bonkey wrote:

I'd agree with you 100% - give me as much solar, wind, hydro etc. input as can be managed. Then, for the shortfall - even if its only a mid-term stop-gap until the renewable technology advances even further - consider whether or not nuclear is an option.

Nuclear power plants are not built as mid-term stop gaps. The level of investment is justified only by a 40 year lifespan. Also, and more importantly, a baseload nuclear power plant does not complement renewable technologies. What's needed is peaking plant to compensate for the variability of the wind/ waves/ sunlight. A nuclear power plant can't do this.

bonkey

maniac101 wrote: »

Nuclear power plants are not built as mid-term stop gaps.

I guess it depends on your definition of "mid-term".

The level of investment is justified only by a 40 year lifespan.

Moneypoint began construction in 1979 and was completed in 1987. It had a minimal operational lifespan of 25 years.

I see this type of timeframe as a "short-term". I would see mid-term as running out to maybe 50 or 75 years....the lifetime of 2-3 plants, depending on the technology.

Also, and more importantly, a baseload nuclear power plant does not complement renewable technologies.

Renewable technologies complement baseload.

What's needed is peaking plant to compensate for the variability of the wind/ waves/ sunlight. A nuclear power plant can't do this.

A nuclear plant can compensate for wind/wave/sunlight, as none of these typically change drastically at a moments notice. Nuclear plants do not have to run at 100% capacity constantly. They can be regulated.

What a nuclear plant cannot compensate for is sudden and significant changes in demand...but no baseload station can do this, nor is it intended to.

newsjunky

Lennoxschips wrote: »

They chucked their waste in a big hole in a rock formation up where nobody lives. Unfortunately Ireland does not have such an area.

See, sooner or later, that's going to destroy the environment. Just because 'nobody' lives there doesn't mean 'nothing' lives there.

danyosan

SeanW wrote: »

At present, nuclear power works on the basis of "baseline load." However, there is some very exciting work being done in the field of Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, and small reactor designs like the 10MW Toshiba 4S Nuclear Battery proposed for Galena, Alaska. In theory, a small country like Ireland could employ these micro and mini nuclear solutions for peak loads in conjunction with renewable power, to produce power when the weather allows it, and a medium-sized nuclear installation to provide baseline load.

The thing is, you cant consider Ireland as a small country anymore in terms of electricity as next month the SEM comes into force, and it wont be long until we're connected with the UK market either.

Bren1609

If we are to achive reductions in carbon emissions and maintain our lifestyles is now the time to consider nuclear power?

SeanW

What's wrong with nuclear electricity? Very little in fact.

The plants themselves produce vast amounts of energy with very little fuel and no CO2 outputs, nor any of the mercury, arsenic, radioactive toxins and Acid Rain forming compounds like Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides, that coal plants spew by the trainload.

You also don't have to sign your soul over the Saudi Arabians or the Russians, nor any of the cabal of American neo-con warmongers to get fuel for nuclear plants, which another major plus.

Nuclear power is safe, with modern Western, Russian and Asian plants being designed, built and operated to the hightest standards. Nuclear technology is improving all the time, becoming safer, cleaner and more efficient with each new invention.

Unfortunately though, it does have one major drawback - it requires people to use their brains. Which is something most of the mainstream environmental movement has abysmally failed to do. Like in Germany for example where enviro-whackos in the SPD have made as a condition for power sharing with Angela Merkel's party, demand the complete shutdown of Germany's nuclear power system.

That's why they're racing to build dozens of GW of coal-fired power (much of it from brown coal). Most would see this as an own-goal of unimaginable proportions. But in some sections of Greens-land, this is actually a victory.

The second group of people that didn't have their brains switched on when it came to nuclear electricity was the Soviet Union. Of which the biggest symptom was Chernobyl.

The Soviets used very poor judgement when developing their nuclear programme and the disaster at Chernobyl-4 was inevitable. The reactor design, RBMK (used exclusively in the Soviet Union) had a dangerously large positive void co-efficient requiring ever more vigilant and careful operation, among other flaws. But, in a mishandled safety test, the necessary "safety first" attitude went out the window as everyone from the plant director to the operator-in-charge became recklessly irresponsible.

The BBC made a good documentary of the accident in their "Days that shook the world" series, you can view that here. It tells most of the story of the utter insanity that previaled in the Soviet nuclear programme but if you care to do some further research on the Internet you'll find even more evidence of Soviet madness.

So now you know the truth for next time you see some piece of scaremongering like "no more Chernobyls" or similar propoganda. You can see in my sig, a response to a letter in the Independent where a Welsh environmentalist had published a letter that was heavy on spin and light on facts.

I saw this cartoon about a month ago about Wifi routers, but TBH it could just as easily have been written about nuclear energy.

Lennoxschips

The Green movement are stupid and support the burning of coal!
The Green movement are stupid and support the burning of coal!
The Green movement are stupid and support the burning of coal!
The Green movement are stupid and support the burning of coal!
The Green movement are stupid and support the burning of coal!
If you say it enough maybe it will become true!


I have only three questions.

Where in Ireland do we build the nulcear power station?

Where do we store the waste?

Who pays for it?

SeanW

The Green movement are stupid

Not necessarily stupid, just perhaps not looking at the full picture, either this or nuclear power doesn't fit in with a puritanical view of people living in yurts, riding bicycles and powereing a couple of CLFs with a windmill. Or some of them have juicy sidelines in the various fossil fuels businesses. I honestly don't know why so many Greens oppose nuclear energy, I only know that the reason they offer, do not stand up to any kind of rational scrutiny.

Either way their opposition to nuclear (which in practice is support for fossil fuels) is pretty irresponsible.

and support the burning of coal!

BTW not all environmentalists oppose nuclear power - some, like James Lovelock, support the responsible use of nuclear energy to lessen our impact on the environment.

If you say it enough maybe it will become true!

I don't just say it, I've already proven it. Unless you can disprove the fossil fuels vs. nuclear argument - perhaps YOU can tell me what exactly the Germans are doing with all those coal-fired power plants that they're building? Or perchance you might explain just where all of France's seemingly non-existant coal plants are hiding?

I'm dealing in facts, not hyperbole. And a direct competition between fossil fuels and nuclear energy is one of those facts.

I have only three questions.

Ask away.

Where in Ireland do we build the nulcear power station?

This would be a practical difficulty, since decades of scaremongering against an uneducated Joe Public would make any attempt to build a power plant end up like Carnsore Point Mark 2. Remember that the average Irish person sticks their heads up their rear ends in terror every time the dreaded N-word is even mentioned. See the WiFi Router cartoon for my take on how the nuclear debate is normally conducted.

This would have to be addressed first, though in the interim, we could build an electrical interconnector from Ireland to France.

In the short term, this is what I advocate as the most realistic option.

Where do we store the waste?

Russia offers a nice "trash for cash" scheme that we could use, if the problems outlined in answer to your last question were not solved. There's a whole bunch of stuff about waste management here.

Who pays for it?

Nuclear plants are not crazily more expensive than fossil fuel-fired plants, and the savings in Kyoto fines alone would pay for a good chunk of it.

silverharp

Split the argument into acceptable for Ireland and global

The disadvantages for Ireland are that there would be little linkage with the Irish economy all the technology would be imported, even the cleaners would be Chinese ;-) . And there would not be economies of scale like France where they roll out Identical plants.

I think the problems with the debate is that the bar is set too high for nuclear and ignore developments in the future like pebble bed which cant overheat, while at the same time being very optimistic about the alternatives. Remember that society benefits form oil which give up to an 80/1 return on energy input versus energy output, if you are going to run a society on 5/1 energy returns then the greens better be honest with the people and explain to them that they will have to give up most of their consumer goodies.

On the global front who cares about the debate, China and India will gladly build as many plants as they can so the debate is abstract to say the least

Lennoxschips

Nuclear plants are not crazily more expensive than fossil fuel-fired plants

They are insanely more expensive. They can't survive without massive subsidies. And then when they are finished, they continue to cost money. The cleanup costs for the UK's first generation of Nuclear plants alone is 100 billion euros. And they still haven't figured out what to do with the waste. Selling it to Russia is a morally bankrupt option.

I think the problems with the debate is that the bar is set too high for nuclear and ignore developments in the future like pebble bed which cant overheat, while at the same time being very optimistic about the alternatives.

I don't agree, the nuclear lobby has been going about these new developments for decades and none of them have yet materialised. They promised us fission in the 70s and 80s and it's still nowhere to be seen. Thorium is another option that has always been talked about, but it's not up and running anywhere commercially - for a reason. The plants of today are still crude and inefficient uranium splitting installations, and anything you choose to build today is going to be of that type.

On the other hand, while nuclear power has been talking about improvements for decades, alternative energy has come along in leaps and bounds, despite not getting the same massive government subsidy and investments that nuclear power enjoys globally.

silverharp

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I don't agree, the nuclear lobby has been going about these new developments for decades and none of them have yet materialised. They promised us fission in the 70s and 80s and it's still nowhere to be seen. Thorium is another option that has always been talked about, but it's not up and running anywhere commercially - for a reason. The plants of today are still crude and inefficient uranium splitting installations, and anything you choose to build today is going to be of that type.

On the other hand, while nuclear power has been talking about improvements for decades, alternative energy has come along in leaps and bounds, despite not getting the same massive government subsidy and investments that nuclear power enjoys globally.

Your position seems to be close it all down and leave the uranium in the ground. I don’t think it is either / or , given that society is heading for a fossil fuel crises over the next decade, every source of energy that has a positive energy return will be required, there are parts of the planet that don’t have good access to wind or water resources or the population density is too high to support small distributed type supplies. The argument isn’t if renewables are better then nuclear (and I hope they are). The question is how do we transition from fossil fuels with the least disruption to society, arguing for no nuclear would be an argument for more disruption.

maniac101

SeanW wrote: »

So now you know the truth

Do we? You declare your opinion to be "the truth" without attempting to address any of the impractalities of building a nuclear power plant in Ireland.

Firstly, once all planned and approved gas-powered generation plants in Ireland come online in the next few years, Ireland will have more baseload plant than it needs for several years to come. As you know, nuclear is suited only to baseload applications. Sure, our gas supply has become unreliable, but who would invest in a nuclear power plant if it could only sell electricity at times when the Russians cut off the gas? In the deregulated electricity market that we now have in Ireland, no-one would build a nuclear plant, even if no ban on nuclear was in place, because a market for the electricity produced couldn't be guaranteed. Modern nuclear power plants must have an all-year round market for their electricity in order to be financially viable.

Secondly, Ireland will have in the order of 4500MW of wind capacity in 2020 if the the EU renewable targets are met, leading to massive fluctuations of electricity supply. Due to our lack of interconnection and storage capacity, we will need a large amount of peaking power plant with variable output to smooth out these fluctuations, which is exactly what a nuclear power plant isn't! Two interconnectors to the UK are currently planned with a combined capacity of just 1000MW, and will take several years to plan and build. Yes, an interconnector with France is needed and should be built, but it's needed to provide a market for our renewable resources, not for exploiting nuclear power. Exporting nuclear electricity to the French is a bit like selling ice cubes to the inuit.

I'm not saying that we should rule out nuclear on this island for good. But a practical analysis of the Irish electricity market shows that there's no place for it - at least not for the next several years.

silverharp

maniac101 wrote: »

Yes, an interconnector with France is needed and should be built, but it's needed to provide a market for our renewable resources, not for exploiting nuclear power. Exporting nuclear electricity to the French is a bit like selling ice cubes to the inuit.

How feasible is an interconnector to France? or would it be via the UK grid?

maniac101

silverharp wrote: »

How feasible is an interconnector to France? or would it be via the UK grid?

Technically, it's feasible. There's already a 700MW HVDC interconnector between Norway and the Netherlands. I've no idea how economically feasible a connection with France would be, to be honest. I'd imagine that cheap electricity in France would be an inhibiting factor on this side of the link as it's a two-way connection!

Going via UK would not be ideal,- their own interconnection with the continent would be a bottleneck, and we'd be relying on them allowing us to use it.

SeanW

They are insanely more expensive.

Olkilouto-3, Europe's newest reactor under construction in Finland, is projected to cost €3 billion, for 1600MW. We pay about €1m per MW of CCGT plant.

But you're right - we'd never get that kind of value for money here because any attempt to build a nuclear plant would end up like Sizewell B in the UK - its only modern nuclear reactor - where the builders spent more time (about 6 years) and money in the courts fighting a sequence of legal challenges by environmentalists - the same ones who now claim that nuclear plants take too long to build.

Of course if you subject anything to "starve the horse then kill it because it can't pull" economics, it won't work.

ANY subsidies given to the nuclear industry by government are more than exceeded by the licenses to pollute that the fossil fuels industry has, and cancelled out by the "It's nuclear KILL IT, KILL IT NOW" approach taken by enviro-fruitloops. Another red herring.

Thorium is already close to reality in India where they are looking at this in detail since they have a lot of the stuff, but the reason it's not used commercially right now is because of the ready availability of Uranium. That's why we're burning well-drilled oil instead of tar-sand oil right now - theres plenty of it for the moment.

Selling it to Russia is a morally bankrupt option.

So is burning fossil fuels, the only realistic alternative as proven time and time again, but *oops* I forgot, we don't like to talk about that Silly me.

In any case, like I said it's an option if we can't do like Finland because of the problems I've mentioned. To keep some perspective, here is a representation of the volume of nuclear waste made to produce energy for one person over a normal lifetime.

Do we? You declare your opinion to be "the truth"

Regarding nuclear accidents yes, in particular Chernobyl which I have shown to be 100% caused by Soviet maladministration. Did you watch the video I linked to?

without attempting to address any of the impractalities of building a nuclear power plant in Ireland.

I already did - I admitted that it is never going to happen.

Firstly, once all planned and approved gas-powered generation plants in Ireland come online in the next few years, Ireland will have more baseload plant than it needs for several years to come.

This being one of the reasons - we've already decided to invest in fossil fuels, much to the apparent delight of our environmentalists!

Yes, an interconnector with France is needed and should be built, but it's needed to provide a market for our renewable resources, not for exploiting nuclear power. Exporting nuclear electricity to the French is a bit like selling ice cubes to the inuit.

This is what I advocate in the near term as the most practical solution - to import nuclear electricity from France.

But if we develop a sideline business in exporting wind power, all to the better.

Lennoxschips

Exactly, we'd be looking to bury and secure 4 million of these for time period of 100,000 years.

That's why it's so damn expensive.

Olkilouto-3, Europe's newest reactor under construction in Finland, is projected to cost €3 billion, for 1600MW. We pay about €1m per MW of CCGT plant.

So the Finnish pay 3000 million just to build a 1,600 MW Nuclear plant (not including decommissioning costs I assume) and Ireland pays only 1,600 million euro for the same MW from gas. It makes the Kyoto fines look positively attractive.

The biggest savings in CO2 are to be made in reducing the amount of energy we use.

Regarding nuclear accidents yes, in particular Chernobyl which I have shown to be 100% caused by Soviet maladministration. Did you watch the video I linked to?

Chernobyl was indeed caused by severe mismanagement and carelessness. But I'm of the opinion that mismanagement and carelessness is human nature and will probably happen again, somewhere. If it happens at other power sources you get a blackout. If it happens at a nuclear power source you give a piece of land the size of Limerick an almighty radioactive dose.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Exactly, we'd be looking to bury and secure 4 million of these for time period of 100,000 years.

Sure...if we took the stupidly short-sighted approach of not reprocessing our waste. if we took that option, we'd have far less, which would be 'hot' for only a matter of hundreds of years.

Unfortunately, reprocessing isn't likely to be accepted because :

a) We'd have to stop moaning about the evil that is Sellafield, and possibly even use it ourselves.
and
b) People are still convinced that "reprocessing == weapons-grade material" (to the same extent that they were convinced that "processing == weapons-grade material" when it came to Iran recently).

So the Finnish pay 3000 million just to build a 1,600 MW Nuclear plant (not including decommissioning costs I assume) and Ireland pays only 1,600 million euro for the same MW from gas. It makes the Kyoto fines look positively attractive.

Thank God CO2 emissions don't actually do anything to the environment, eh? If they did, then there'd be a risk that Kyoto would be superceded with something even more expensive within the lifetime of any plant built today.

The biggest savings in CO2 are to be made in reducing the amount of energy we use.

Its a shame that we can't reduce the amount of energy we use and generate that reduced requirement with a minimum of emissions. If only we could do both.......

Chernobyl was indeed caused by severe mismanagement and carelessness. But I'm of the opinion that mismanagement and carelessness is human nature and will probably happen again, somewhere. If it happens at other power sources you get a blackout. If it happens at a nuclear power source you give a piece of land the size of Limerick an almighty radioactive dose.

If it happehns at a nuclear power source, you might get that if one is talking about a first-generation nuclear power source which additionally fails to maintain or meet its required safety standards. Otherwise....no....thats not what you get.

Here's a quick test...look at the number of nuclear incidents which are reported annually around the world. See if you can explain why your doomsday scenario hasn't happened given that this number is not 0. See if you can go one step further and instead of making a handwaving generality about what 'could' happen, you can specify exactly what combination of events would be required in a modern, 21st-century design to bring this situation about. No-one is proposing building a 1950s reactor in Ireland, so lets not look at the known weaknesses of those designs.

Seriously....this whole "accidental meltdown" doomsday scaremongering is about 30 years out of date. It reminds me of an election poster used here in Switzerland which was trying to scaremonger about the risk of someone flying a plane into a nuclear station....only the poster had it flying into the cooling tower which would...unsurpriginsly...result in a clean and controlled shutdown of the station. Gosh...what a risk that is, eh?

maniac101 wrote:

Firstly, once all planned and approved gas-powered generation plants in Ireland come online in the next few years, Ireland will have more baseload plant than it needs for several years to come.

Imagine if we had all that baseload and we could identify a single 1GW+ coal-burning plant within it which isn't due to be decomissioned by all that gas-plant building. If only we had such a plant, we could think about replacing it with nuclear. Indeed, we could even think about using the infrastructure to deal with 1GW-in-one-place and put the nuclear plant more or less in the same place, decomissioning one as the other came online.

Secondly, Ireland will have in the order of 4500MW of wind capacity in 2020 if the the EU renewable targets are met,

While we're dealing with 'if' scenarios, lets look at what we could have if thorium-based pebble-bed reactors come online in the next 10 years. A virtually limitless supply of fuel and no prospect of meltdown.

Or are we only allowed play the 'if' game when its against nuclear?

Lennoxschips

See if you can go one step further and instead of making a handwaving generality about what 'could' happen, you can specify exactly what combination of events would be required in a modern, 21st-century design to bring this situation about.

In 2005 at Forsmark in Sweden the controllers had no idea what was going on in the core for 23 minutes after a short circuit in the plants electricity supply system, and two of the four of the backup diesel generators supplying electricity failed. If the other two backup generators had failed, the cooling system would have gone offline and all hell would have broken loose. They only thing keeping that plant from meltdown was two diesel generators.

If a backup generator fails at a non-nuclear plant, you don't have a risk of a radioactive meltdown.

The Swedes took half of their Nuclear plants offline to investigate the same faulty circuits used in other plants. These were problems that were discovered ad-hoc while running the plant, not foreseen in the design. Even a modern design in a western country has problems that people didn't realise they had. It's arrogant to think the human race has figured out Nuclear power completely after only 50/60 years.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote: »

In 2005 at Forsmark in Sweden the controllers had no idea what was going on in the core for 23 minutes after a short circuit in the plants electricity supply system, and two of the four of the backup diesel generators supplying electricity failed. If the other two backup generators had failed, the cooling system would have gone offline and all hell would have broken loose. They only thing keeping that plant from meltdown was two diesel generators.

Its worth noting that neither SKI (the Swedish nuclear authority) nor the safety chief in charge of the site agree that a meltdown was in any way likely.

I also believe that the opinion that a meltdown was likely came from a former employee, rather than someone who was actually there on the day, or someone who had access to the full details of what happened.

I assume, incidentally, that you've verified that Forsmark doesn't have any emergency systems in place to handle the situation of all 4 of these diesel generators failing...that the claim that the only thing preventing meltdown was these generators? Most modern nuclear stations have multiple layers of safety piled up on top of each other. Your claim either implies that this was not the case, or that every layer except the last had failed.

Finally, its worth noting that you associate 'meltdown' with Chernobyl (where its not entirely accurate in terms of what happened) and not with Three Mile Island (where it is accurate) and that you picked a 20-year-old station, based on a 50-year-old generator design.....exactly the type of thing I already said that no-one is proposing for new nuclear stations.

It's arrogant to think the human race has figured out Nuclear power completely after only 50/60 years.

Really? I wasn't aware there was a timescale on such things. How many years does it take before its not arrogant to assume we understand a technology well enough to be able to use it? 100? 1000? Any value that keeps it away from you in your lifetime?

So you really expect such an argument to be taken seriously?

I can see it now....

"Why not nuclear"
"I can't tell you what the problem really is, but I don't trust anything thats not older than my grandad".
"What about solar, then? Thats newer than nuclear. So is wave-based, the notion of hte hydrogen economy, and more."
"....."

Lennoxschips

you are putting words in my mouth

Finally, its worth noting that you associate 'meltdown' with Chernobyl (where its not entirely accurate in terms of what happened) and not with Three Mile Island (where it is accurate)

I didn't state explicitly that there was a meltdown at Chernobyl. I have used the word Chernobyl once in this thread, in response to Seanw, who keeps bringing it up.

I didn't once mention Three Mile Island.

Really? I wasn't aware there was a timescale on such things. How many years does it take before its not arrogant to assume we understand a technology well enough to be able to use it? 100? 1000? Any value that keeps it away from you in your lifetime?

You correctly dismiss 1950s designs as bad. I have brought up Forsmark, a 1980s power plant which was found to have problems that nobody realised at the time. In the history of nuclear power, what was once thought to be foolproof later turned out to have problems after all. What was safe in the 50s was found to be wrong in the 80s. What was considered the ultimate in foolproof technology in the 80s has been found to have problems in the 2000s. So why should I believe that 2000s technology ("modern, 21st century") won't go tits up in the 2020s?

egan007

SeanW wrote: »

What's wrong with nuclear electricity? Very little in fact.

The chink in the armour.

The pro-nuclear keep using the same line...It's safe
The anti-nuclear mostly agree...

The real problem the anti-nuclear people have?
A - barrels of radioactive stuff that lasts 1000's of years because there is no way of processing it.

maniac101

bonkey wrote: »

Imagine if we had all that baseload and we could identify a single 1GW+ coal-burning plant within it which isn't due to be decomissioned by all that gas-plant building. If only we had such a plant, we could think about replacing it with nuclear. Indeed, we could even think about using the infrastructure to deal with 1GW-in-one-place and put the nuclear plant more or less in the same place, decomissioning one as the other came online.

I agree that if you had to build a nuclear plant, Moneypoint, where a 915MW coal-fired station is currently situated, would have some technical advantages as a location for that plant. However, a substantial refurbishment at the existing Moneypoint station, costing €360 million, will be complete in the next few weeks, and the plant will continue to operate for the next 15 years at least. Also, from a energy security point of view, it would be better to replace a gas-fired station rather than a coal-fired one. Unlike gas, coal can be (and is) stockpiled and can be sourced from more stable parts of the world. All of our CCGT stations are new, have a typical lifespan of 30 years, and won't be replaced anytime soon. Therefore the real debate about nuclear in Ireland is over. Perhaps it could be reopened in 10 years time.

While we're dealing with 'if' scenarios, lets look at what we could have if thorium-based pebble-bed reactors come online in the next 10 years. A virtually limitless supply of fuel and no prospect of meltdown.

Or are we only allowed play the 'if' game when its against nuclear?

No, we're not dealing with an "if" scenario when it comes to wind energy. The 33% renewables target is clearly defined in the Government 2007 Energy White Paper. With nearly 1000MW wind capacity installed to-date, we're already ahead of that target. Unlike nuclear, it's not a case of "if" - it's just a case of "when".

SeanW wrote: »

Nuclear plants are not crazily more expensive than fossil fuel-fired plants, and the savings in Kyoto fines alone would pay for a good chunk of it.

Under the emissions trading system, a nuclear power plant doesn't receive carbon credits for avoided emissions, so the generator wouldn't see those savings. Also, using money saved by the state through emissions avoided or through any other means, to subsidise a nuclear power plant, is prohibited by EU law.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote: »

you are putting words in my mouth

To a degree, yes.

I didn't state explicitly that there was a meltdown at Chernobyl. I have used the word Chernobyl once in this thread, in response to Seanw, who keeps bringing it up.

That's right. What you said is that :

If it happens at a nuclear power source you give a piece of land the size of Limerick an almighty radioactive dose

I put words into your mouth in the sense that the scenario you describe has happened exactly once - that being in Chernobyl - and did not happen simply because a meltdown occurred, but was rather a combination of design, mismanagement, stupidity, and dangerous mismanagement of nuclear fuel not being used in the reactor at the time.

I didn't once mention Three Mile Island.

Well, that was kind of my point. Three Mile Island is an example of a meltdown occurring where lots of things failed, but the safety design still did its job and contained the leak. Its a prime example of why your argument that I've quoted again above is wrong even if we limit ourselves to older, more dangerous reactor designs - which I've repeatedly pointed out are not what anyone would advocate for Ireland were we to go with a nuclear station.

You correctly dismiss 1950s designs as bad. I have brought up Forsmark, a 1980s power plant which was found to have problems that nobody realised at the time. In the history of nuclear power, what was once thought to be foolproof later turned out to have problems after all. What was safe in the 50s was found to be wrong in the 80s.

I'm not sure where you get your idea that anyone thought the design was foolproof. They put blast shields around Boiling Water Reactors because they're aware of what would happen if everything else failed. If they honestly believed the design was foolproof, why add a redundant, useless containment-shield? Why add all the other safety features, if they believed the reactor itself was a foolproof design?

I put it to you that Forsmark, like TMI, are prime examples of just why so many safety layers were added, as well as being examples that the set of safety layers were well chosen. They are prime examples that the designers understood the weaknesses of their reactor designs and added the appropriate layers of safety to deal with that.

Despite numerous incidents, such designs have every single time successfully prevented a major nuclear incident from resulting...but you want us to believe that this isn't enough for some reason.

The one reactor that did give an unhealthy dose of radiation to a large area didn't have the full gamut of safety features which its reactor design merited and should have had.

What was considered the ultimate in foolproof technology in the 80s has been found to have problems in the 2000s.

They put a series of successive failsafes in place so that should some of them fail a disaster would not ensue. Some of them did fail, and a disaster did not ensue....the system worked as designed.

If anything was considered foolproof, it was the overall combination of all the features together. Given that Forsmark has not 'gone Chernobyl', we should conclude that the April 2006 events support the notion that the safety systems work as designed, rather than what you are suggesting.

Chernobyl, on the other hand, would never have been held up as a 'foolproof' set of safety features even before it went bad. It didn't have the steel reactor vessel that US designs had, nor the concrete containment dome that an LWR or BWR was deemed to need.

So why should I believe that 2000s technology ("modern, 21st century") won't go tits up in the 2020s?

You're entitled to believe whatever you like about any technology, for whatever reason you choose to base your beliefs on.

Its only when you try and pass those beliefs on that I care, at which point I believe that it is necessary that whoever you present your beliefs to be shown the faulty logic on which it is based.

Lennoxschips

The Swedish authorities took all their Forsmark-type nuclear plants offline after the incident to fix inherent problems, so obviously they weren't happy with the technology themselves and thought that they had come too close. If they were satisfied that all the safety net functions worked properly then they'd have left the other plants online.

But then Swedish authorities must suffer from the same faulty logic that I suffer from.

SeanW

The Finns are paying less than twice the capital cost per MW for their new nuclear installation than we pay capital for gas.

Their plants will produce no pollution of any kind, use a lot less fuel than a fossil fuel plant, and will not rely on massively long pipelines to bring dirty fuel from potentially unstable parts of the world. So their unit costs will be lower and more stable by a mile. The EPR type is also 16% more fuel efficient than previous generation reactors, hence my claim that nuclear power is always improving. The Finns have also solved their waste problem.

They're obviously missing your logic. But, since they're on the road to Energy Easy Street now, I doubt they're too worried.

As for the waste problem - the nuclear industry is the only industry that internalises the cost of waste disposal. Fossil fuel plants just dump their wastes into to smoky air, where the CO2 goes into the atmosphere, the Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides fall back as acid rain, destroying forests, monuments and fragile aquatic ecosystems, radiation, and mercury which, when ingested by fish, becomes a potent neurotoxin called Methylmercury.

Delicious.

Brown coal, which the Germans want to use, is even worse for CO2 emissions and particle matter.

I view the reduction, or preferably elimination of coal-fired electricity as an absolute top priority. Using a multi-option non-fossil strategy including nuclear is the only way to do that.

It is a direct choice, as proven time and time again, between fossil fuels and nuclear.

I mention Chernobyl a lot because normally when an environmentalist wants to score some cheap points in anti-nuclear argument, Chernobyl is normally Exhibit A, B and C in their case. Like on Greenpeace's nuclear power section (which now appears to have been removed) featured some drab looking photos of sick Belorussian children living in squalor - a clear effort to pull on the viewers heartstrings and force an emotional response against nuclear energy. Other organisations routinely headline their arguments with references to or pictures of the destroyed plant.

But then Swedish authorities must suffer from the same faulty logic that I suffer from.

Quite the opposite - I agree with the Swedish authorities decision - better safe than sorry is a normal motto when it comes to responsibly running a nuclear programme. But AFAIK all the plants came back online not long after so there must not have been any major problems.

Again, these reactors have double-containment vessels so even if (and that's a very big IF) the Swedish reactor had gone into meltdown, the result would be more Three Mile Island than Chernobyl.

Lennoxschips

The Finns are paying less than twice the capital cost per MW for their new nuclear installation than we pay capital for gas.

Less than twice the cost... 180% of what Ireland pays. That's still not cheaper, huh. That doesn't factor in decommissioning costs either, and the fact that the government has to cover the insurance liability, as insurance companies refuse to cover nuclear power plants (insurance companies suffer from faulty logic as well, it would seem).

Fortunately for the Finns they have massive tracts of uninhabited land and geologically sound formations to store waste in. (Even then I'm not a fan of it, but still, they have a place which they consider suitable). Where should Ireland store its waste? Croagh Patrick would probably suitable. Or Carrauntoohil...

I'm just not a fan of energy sources that produce radioactive waste. That includes coal. (But now you are going to tell me that I love coal)

SeanW

I never said nuclear was cheaper than fossil fuels in terms of capital costs, which is where your 180% figure rightly comes from. However, it is clear that the capital cost of most nuclear plants is well spent and it's obvious that the Finns will get their moneysworth out of the investment. BTW the expected lifespan of an EPR is 60 years - that's twice the expectation of anything in use ATM.

I'm just not a fan of energy sources that produce radioactive waste. That includes coal. (But now you are going to tell me that I love coal)

Not necessarily, at least you've acknowledged coals existance, which is a good start. However, I fear that anyone claiming to oppose both coal and nuclear isn't dealing in facts. But yes, the fact that we (and many other countries) have none or limited nuclear power while relying heavily on coal, clearly suggests that the environmentalists responsible prefer the latter.

If you actually have a credible basis for your assertion that you oppose both, I'd love to hear it.

Adyx

Lennoxschips wrote: »

They promised us fission in the 70s and 80s and it's still nowhere to be seen.

Actually we already have fission. It's a practical fusion reactor that has yet to be realised. Note I said practical. Fusion reactors have been built but currently require more energy than they produce. Such a reactor would be vastly more efficient, safer and produce little or no waste with the exception of components which need to be replaced.

Jack Sheehan

My own reason for not having a Nuclear Power Plant in Ireland is that we simply don't need one. With such a small population, Huge amounts of coastline and similarly huge amounts of wind we could make the switch over to non-nuclear renewable energy.

Granted it would take years, absolutely billions of euro and a enormous drive from both the government and people to conserve energy rather than just make more and more of it. I still think it is achievable.

SeanW

All those CCGT plants we've been buildng would suggest otherwise

Lennoxschips

Adyx wrote: »

Actually we already have fission. It's a practical fusion reactor that has yet to be realised. Note I said practical. Fusion reactors have been built but currently require more energy than they produce. Such a reactor would be vastly more efficient, safer and produce little or no waste with the exception of components which need to be replaced.

Indeed! Sorry, typo.