Why Not Nuclear Power?

turgon

The issue of nuclear power is a MASSIVE taboo in Ireland. I personally think it is a viable economic means of achieving very cheap electricity, and I would be for its implementation. In this day and age it is very safe too.

However it is a huge political turn off, no one seems to want to do it. Even the greens, who should because it would reduce carbon emissions immensly. A couple of plants, combined with the hydro electric = very renewable power. In Switzerland over 90% of their electric power is from nuclear and hydro (although admittedly they have lots of mountain rivers).

So, what does everyone else think?

And DO NOT pull the Chernobyl card, I don't want to hear a word of it. The Chernobyl plant was built using dodgy Soviet technology that didn't work properly, and was manned by workers from closed coal mines. They were running an unsafe test, and the reason for the meltdown was because the safety features were not working. You can imagine that all other plants in Western Europe are immensely better than this.

Read fully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster before you start splurting that Nuclear power will kill us all.

sovtek

turgon wrote: »

The issue of nuclear power is a MASSIVE taboo in Ireland. I personally think it is a viable economic means of achieving very cheap electricity, and I would be for its implementation. In this day and age it is very safe too.

It's so efficient and safe that in America and the UK the respective government's have decided to heavily subsidize it whilst giving prospective companies exclusion from liability and it's so safe that not a single insurance company will touch it.
Oh yeah and they still haven't figured out how to get rid of the waste. I don't want to hear about Yucca either if we are putting stipulations on the discussion.
Actually I don't need to mention Chernobyl. How about 3 Mile Island, Sellafield, and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa

partypiper

From the construction of the plants through to the transport of the raw materials to the disposal and storage of the hazardous waste materials for thousands of years the NET energy gain is neglible

Meaning the amount amount of energy expended in the safe production of nuclear power is so close to the actual amount produced that you or me would be better of burning barrels of diesal out our back gardens to generate power

GreenHell

Any alternative to an electric system that produces the majority of its power from oil, would be welcome.

Personnally I'm infavour of a combinatoin nuclear and green sources like hydro and wind.

turgon

Ok I see your arguments. But if nuclear power is so inefficient how does France get 70% of its electrical energy from it?

sovtek I know they dont have a way of fully getting rid of it, but they can recycle 95%??? Plus no ones ever died in those places you mention.

IrishKnight

I'm infavour of a combinatoin nuclear and green sources like hydro and wind.

+1

I am very much in favor of nuclear power. Like the OP said not only is it very safe but also clean.

In relation to the waste, the new desgin for what is called a Pebble Bed Reactor somewhat counter acts the dangers of the waste. The PBR uses tennis sized balls that holds the fuel and is covered in pyrolytic graphite. Most authorities agree that German fuel-pebbles release about three orders of magnitude less radioactive gas than the U.S. equivalents.

And just to top things off, they tried to forces terminal runway and the result, no melt down!

Nuclear power, like incineration, is one of those things people are afraid of, when infact, both are very safe and can partly help slove a greater problem.

Riskymove

Sellafield (even though its not a power plant) and Nuclear power has been built up into such a Bogeyman by Politicians that it is very hard to turn around

the hysteria about it is quite amazing

MCMLXXXIII

I live near Detroit. The power for my area comes from an oil plant in Ontario, a coal plant north of the city, and a nuclear accelerator plant south-west of the city.

The coal puts out awful smoke, and is extremely hot to work in - even during the winter. The oil plant is expensive (paying for oil, and to import the electricity from Canada). The only problem the nuclear plant has ever had is this: it took 3 days to start up again after the blackout in 2003.

Besides, there are multiple nuclear technologies, that don't have the eerie look of the large water-cooling towers, and they all have become safer with time.
I feel much safer with the reactor than with the other plants nearby.



On a separate note: this might be an ignorant question, but why would it be so hard/bad to shoot the waste into outer-space? It's not going to hurt anyone out there, there are trips being taken on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just have a section of the spacecraft detach once they are far enough into space. We can let it float around, or we are on our second trip to Mars...let's just leave it there.

Riskymove

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

On a separate note: this might be an ignorant question, but why would it be so hard/bad to shoot the waste into outer-space? It's not going to hurt anyone out there, there are trips being taken on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just have a section of the spacecraft detach once they are far enough into space. We can let it float around, or we are on our second trip to Mars...let's just leave it there.

and if there were a Challenger style accident?

leninbenjamin

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

On a separate note: this might be an ignorant question, but why would it be so hard/bad to shoot the waste into outer-space? It's not going to hurt anyone out there, there are trips being taken on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just have a section of the spacecraft detach once they are far enough into space. We can let it float around, or we are on our second trip to Mars...let's just leave it there.

funnily enough now that you mention it I've seen people theorize about 'lifts into space' for stuff like that. The reason we don't do it today is because it's so damn expensive to travel to space and uses so much energy. But i've seen wild ideas floated about about having some geostationary platform powered by solar platforms that would literally lift stuff up into space by cables. perhaps in the not so distant future someone will come up with a more plausible mechanism.

I'm all for Nuclear by the way. more die mining coal each year in China than died in Chernobyl (or so i've read, someone can correct/clarify?), yet we never hear about that. besides build any plant on Ireland's Eye and the prevailing winds will blow the fallout on the old enemy.

Khannie

Riskymove wrote: »

and if there were a Challenger style accident?

This is the problem with sticking it in space (currently). Rocket technology is not as reliable as you think and solid rocket boosters cannot be turned off once they're lit.

Manic Moran

Of note, the Japanese have, similar to Ireland, quite an aversion to any military use of nuclear power (they have reservations over nuclear-powered warships visiting, for example), but have absolutely no issues with using nuclear power stations of their own to provide electricity.

Think they know something the Irish don't?

NTM

Belfast

Nuclear Power can be very safe. yes

In practice it does not work out that way.

The problem is the people running the Nuclear industry cannot be trusted.

Sellafield is a classic example.

it is not economically viable.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of note, the Japanese have, similar to Ireland, quite an aversion to any military use of nuclear power (they have reservations over nuclear-powered warships visiting, for example), but have absolutely no issues with using nuclear power stations of their own to provide electricity.

Think they know something the Irish don't?

NTM

schoolgirls underwear is awesome?

turgon

Belfast wrote: »

The problem is the people running the Nuclear industry cannot be trusted

Are you being serious?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Think they know something the Irish don't?

They know how to read.

Most Irish people just scream "NO NO" to like everything. Its kinda wierd. No to nuclear, no to landfills nearby, no to incinerators, no to pipelines, no to roads ... no to Lisbon (:D) But seriously, what is the story with that. Maybe if they took the time to read a wikipedia article they might get a bit educated and find out the facts. Instead they just paint placards like "NO to Nuclear - We Dont Want Chernobyl." Its pure sad, and I have little respect for these No people.

I read the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl two months ago. Took about 10/15 minutes to read (and I just keep clicking on other links). Now I know, for the rest of my life, that the Chernobyl card is crap. It took 15 minutes max to get educated. If only all the ignoramuses did they same we might have a someway liberal society.

And of course the political parties, being sheep to public opinion, just oblige.

Thirdfox

I'd be quite pro-nuclear too (as a viable alternative to the fossil fuels while we're waiting for the green technologies to catch up - 6 countries (US, UK, Fra, Japan, Russia, China) are building that fusion plant in France).

I have read in the New Scientist some time ago a big reason scientists are against burying nuclear waste is that drowning something under tons of concrete isn't a great idea when in the future we can probably utilise the radioactive material for the "next great thing".

Space junk is a big problem, we already have too much junk floating around... but if you were to fire junk into the sun - technically it'd be a pretty good incinerator. Of course that goes back to the original problem with burying, we could probably use this "junk" in the future so should keep it safe rather than getting rid of it.

As for Chinese coal miners... I'm sure thousands die each year - it's pretty awful but the government apparently is clamping down on the rogue operators (you get a particularly bad incident and some of the top people get fired and standards improve a bit).

Going back to the topic at hand - with oil rising to 140 dollars and showing no signs of ever going downwards the naysayers will either change their minds or (to be blunt) die. Of course I hope that some company/country will miraculously discover some sort of inexpensive and plentiful energy but we shouldn't be hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

Kama

I don't accept that being against nuclear makes one ignorant, there's plenty of quite rational arguments against nuclear other than political opposition.
The point remains that nuclear demands massive government subsidy, is uninsurable, and raises huge problems in life-cycle/decommissioning (to whit, cleanup costs aren't included) and waste (tho pebblebed is admittedly better on this), meaning its energy return is pretty poor, even before looking at its greater vulnerability to terrorist or other 'Black Swan' type events.
While the risk can be very low, the impact in the case of the event can be so catastrophic that its unsurprising people can be a bit leery...

Solar photovoltaic was developed in the early 50s in Bell labs. Nearly 60 years ago. With anything like the level of subsidy nuclear enjoyed we could well not have an energy problem by now. The Nuclear industry captured vast levels of subsidy due to its 'positive externalities' in weapons production, and externalised cost and risk onto the public. An industry that promised power 'too cheap to meter' has been milking subsidies too long to retain credibility for some people.

Irelands likely comparative advantage in energy generation imho would be in wave-tidal generation; we have a better environment for it than most places, and it is less intermittent than wind. Leave the nukes to large militaristic countries with the Bomb imo ^^

andrew

Kama wrote: »

While the risk can be very low, the impact in the case of the event can be so catastrophic that its unsurprising people can be a bit leery...


Irelands likely comparative advantage in energy generation imho would be in wave-tidal generation; we have a better environment for it than most places, and it is less intermittent than wind. Leave the nukes to large militaristic countries with the Bomb imo ^^

Not to make it seem as though chernobyl wasn't serious - it was, but the number of deaths as a result is suprisingly low (arguably) -

UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident,[4] however the latest UNSCEAR reports insinuate that these estimates were overstated.[52] In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.[53]

While I agree that this figure is debatable, my point is that even with a worst case scenario the consequences aren't as bad as one might think.

Coal fired plants are more harmful than nuclear ones. More people get cancer from coal fired plants - burning the coal concentrates the harmful elements in coal into dangerous quantities. Yet people are grand with ringsend! Doesn't make sense to me. Gah ignorance. I'd like to know more about the net energy gains with nuke plants though.

Also, regarding energys such as tidal etc. - would it feasibly be possible to power our whole country with them in the time it takes to build a nuke plant? I heard also that such energys can also cause an increse in oil consumption due to the necessity for oil powered 'backup' generators or something.

marcsignal

My only real issue with nuclear power is, what to do with the waste?
I accept that in this day and age, they have made reactors and the generation of electricity using them, a lot safer than times past.

The French seem to have the best system, by keeping their reactors small, and having 5 or 6 fail safe systems in place. Although another problem there is, smaller reactors, means more reactors, and these days they could be a nice plentiful, lightly guarded, target for terrorists. Finding the right balance in that respect is not easy, and then no matter what you do to safeguard in that respect, there's still the problem with the waste.

In the UK now, the Government are proposing a new idea about how to deal with nuclear waste, by sealing it in huge concrete blocks and burying it in deep shafts underground, in selected sites all over Britain.

"But how will they deal with local opposition?" you ask.

Easy, they simply intend to bribe them with better local amenities and facilities, I was rather disturbed to hear. OK, they say it cant happen, but any risk (Earth Tremor for example) that might allow these blocks to fracture, and this waste to get into the water table, is a risk to far IMO.

Personally, I would prefer any other option. In Germany they are really really pushing Solar Energy, and I understand there are more Solar Panels here than anywhere else in the world, per capita. OK it still needs research on more efficient panels, to make it a viable option for Ireland, but there are other options I think Ireland should exploit to their fullest. They figure Solar Energy will make up a sizeable proportion of generated power in Germany in 10 years. Nearly every Farm around the outskirts of Munich have some on the roofs of their barns and milking facilities, to power milking machines etc.

Wind energy is one that Ireland could exploit. I would much prefer to see wind turbines all over the place, than live anywhere near a Nuclear power station, or a reprocessing plant, or waste dump. I really don't understand people complaining about the 'ugliness' of wind turbines, and if it's such an issue, then build huge wind farms out to sea. There is also some potential for Tidal and Wave power in Ireland that could be exploited.

Honda have just launched a new production model Hydrogen car, which we should see in Europe in the next few years. I think that kind of research is a step in the right direction. I'm not a 'Tree Hugger' or anything, but I firmly don't believe they will ever completely safely deal with the issue of Nuclear waste, which is my main concern.

I heard somewhere recently that the UN (I think?) issued a request to world Governments to urgently scoop up, and/or make safe, any nuclear material that is outside state control, to prevent it from falling into the hands of Terrorists. As regards waste, which will always exist as long as we use nuclear power, this will always be a potential problem.

So for me, if there's any other alternative, Nuclear Power is a 'Nicht Nicht'

sink

As many have said before Nuclear power is not that economical. It is safe and the waste is minimal so disposing of it would not be much of a problem. I believe it has a part to play as a backup to a more decentralised energy network. But it is a small part as the electricity generated is just too expensive in the long run. No private funded nuclear reactor has ever turned a profit!

The answer to the energy crisis would seem to me to be a decentralised energy network where the majority of energy consumed is generated on location through a variety of sources (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, ground heat transfer). If every new building that's built is as energy efficient as possible and generates it's own heat/electricity we would be able to meet most of our energy requirements in no time. Excess electricity generated by private citizens can sold to the national grid, so people will stop paying for electricity and instead be paid for electricity. This would be far cheaper and far more sustainable than nuclear power.

andrew

sink wrote: »

As many have said before Nuclear power is not that economical. It is safe and the waste is minimal so disposing of it would not be much of a problem. I believe it has a part to play as a backup to a more decentralised energy network. But it is a small part as the electricity generated is just too expensive in the long run. No private funded nuclear reactor has ever turned a profit!

The answer to the energy crisis would seem to me to be a decentralised energy network where the majority of energy consumed is generated on location through a variety of sources (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, ground heat transfer). If every new building that's built is as energy efficient as possible and generates it's own heat/electricity we would be able to meet most of our energy requirements in no time. Excess electricity generated by private citizens can sold to the national grid, so people will stop paying for electricity and instead be paid for electricity. This would be far cheaper and far more sustainable than nuclear power.

From what I know of how the electricity system works (which is very little) this would be very hard to do. AFAIK the grid needs a constant supply of energy in it or everything goes kaput. This is on of the reasons alternatives havn't been particularly huge. It's all well and good charging batteries, but putting juice into the grid requires a degree of control which is hard to achieve with renewables.I wonder what the combined costs be of making such a system would be as opposed to nuclear.

I could be completely wrong about the whole electricity grind thing btw.

marcsignal

Belfast wrote: »

The problem is the people running the Nuclear industry cannot be trusted.
Sellafield is a classic example.

+1

turgon wrote: »

Are you being serious?

I'm with Belfast on that point. BNFL were in hot water more than once over falsification of documents regarding Nuclear waste, a few years ago. Can't remember the details exactly, but some third party country sent back material they were dealing with, or something like that.

some links about it here

http://www.ieer.org/comments/pu-disp/moxsrp.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515111.stm

Riskymove

We have to remember that Sellafield is not a power plant but a reprocessing plant and thats why there is so much concern over the operation of it and the fact that loads are shipped in and out of it.


A lot of countries don't go in for reprocessing and just store the fuel.

thebman

I don't see problem with importing nuclear power from other countries but I've seen said a few times, Ireland isn't big enough for nuclear power. We don't need it so why use it?

We'd be better off buying Nuclear power from other countries like Britain and France and using it rather than building our own plants.

You might say that it is hypocritical to say we don't want nuclear power but we'll use power from nuclear power plants but it isn't really if other countries citizens are happier to have the plant located near them plus we are hypocritical on lots of issues already so whats one more?

turgon

Kama wrote: »

Solar photovoltaic was developed in the early 50s in Bell labs. Nearly 60 years ago.

Coincidently for Kama ive a test tomorrow in which one sixth of it is on photovoltaic cells. So the fact remains that this technology is not wholly practical. Firstly it only works when the sun is out (!). As well as night this means too if it is cloudy you will get nothing. Also panels are made out of groups of 36 cells. Within these 36 cells if ONE is hidden or not receiving light, the whole electrical output of the group is halved. Secondly its very expensive, both for production to having to buy a LOAD of land to put them.

You will always have to have secondary power stations with this technology, and this is why wind power on its own isnt the answer either. Wave looks promising as the sea is always moving, and their conducting tests off the coast of Galway.

The nuclear waste is a serious issue, and Im not a scientist so I dont know the full repercussions. I do believe 95% can be recycled.

irish_bob

i wouldnt worry to much about it , it will never happen here
you can do nothing in this country , if a mobile phone mast is proposed up a hill somewhere , the parish goes into panic mode

were a very easy nation to frighten

turgon

All too true. It will be a long time before the Kathy Sinnots of this country are gone.

marcsignal

Well look at it this way, if a nuclear industry in Ireland was privatised, then it would 'potentially' be open to the same kind of shenannigans as BNFL, as Belfast and I mentioned earlier, and Ireland is no stranger to scandals and backhanders.

If it was state run, well look at the HSE. Need I elaborate ?

Now I know that may sound like scaremongering, but leaving waste issues aside for a moment, it's also either down to a 'trust' issue or a 'competency' issue imo.

turgon

The HSE is but one example, and reached its current state through years of thorough mismanagement. The new body would be better organized. Look at the ESB I suppose.

SeanW

Kama wrote: »

I don't accept that being against nuclear makes one ignorant

Then why does virtually every anti-nuclear piece start with "X years after the Chernobyl accident ..."

While the risk can be very low, the impact in the case of the event can be so catastrophic that its unsurprising people can be a bit leery...

A leeriness that the so-called environmentalists have been exploiting with the kind of efficiency that would make Joeseph Goebells look like an amaeteur.

With anything like the level of subsidy nuclear enjoyed we could well not have an energy problem by now.

Please give The Wizard my regards when you get to the end of the Yellow Brick Road.

and externalised cost and risk onto the public.

And the cost of all the Acid Rain compounds that have destroyed all before them as rainfall in Scandinavia (coal combustion releases Nitros Oxides and Sulphur Dioxide on a massive scale, these compounds become acid when mixed with water vapour like over the North Sea, Norway alone spends NOK100,000,000 treating its lakes and watercourses with alkaline lime, so as to keep these fragile ecosystems alive), the public health losses due to mercury, arsenic and other toxic emissions from coal fired plants as well as radioactive element emissions.

Some data for you to mull over:
Earth Policy Institute's estimate of the loss of life and public health due to coal burning in the United States.

And a quote from the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.


If you seriously believe that the pubic risk caused by nuclear energy is within any realistic proportion to that of fossil fuels, especially coal, then you are not dealing in reality.

marcsignal

turgon wrote: »

The HSE is but one example, and reached its current state through years of thorough mismanagement.

My point exactly, would you, your children, or grandchildren be prepared to take that risk with the Nuclear industry, considering ?

In the beginning in England, everyone was told, "It will be so cheap, it will be impossible to meter"

andrew

marcsignal wrote: »

My point exactly, would you, your children, or grandchildren be prepared to take that risk with the Nuclear industry, considering ?

In the beginning in England, everyone was told, "It will be so cheap, it will be impossible to meter"

It's not a wreckless risk, it's calculated. Yeah the govt messed up with HSE, but that doesn't mean that the govt. is entirely inept, so much so that they'll kill people through nuclear mismanagement. I think our govt. could handle a nuke station.

Kama

When said energy problem, was in reference to the States btw.
If the tech was developed and scaled up earlier places like where I am now (texas) photovoltaics work pretty nicely. However the EROEI is pretty poor, for all that its improved a lot, as the tech has been funded and production scaled up. Obviously the wrong tech for Ireland tho, for the obvious reason, even before intermittence problems.

Our comparative advantage in power generation is imo most likely in wave-tidal, SEI have tests ongoing. Wave-tidal wins to the extent that it is pretty regular, unlike wind/solar.

Most energy advocates aren't pushing a 'Magic Bullet', unless they are paid to...I reckon the payoff from throwing a lot of different darts at the board will pay off better than making one big bet on unproven nuclear tech that most people regard as anathema. I'd rather be a late adaptor on that technological curve, thank you very much.

Interesting article from Newsweek in Worldchanging on why venture capital won't touch nuclear, even with subsidies, favouring decentralised renewables instead. Nuclear is a bit of a Welfare Queen tbh, been suckling on the taxpayers teat a bit too long.

Um, and Sean...

A: I didn't say 'Chernobyl', so I don't get why you have to.

B: Entschuldigen Sie bitte? Herr Goebbel's? So early in a thread? Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

marcsignal

andrew wrote: »

It's not a wreckless risk, it's calculated. Yeah the govt messed up with HSE, but that doesn't mean that the govt. is entirely inept, so much so that they'll kill people through nuclear mismanagement. I think our govt. could handle a nuke station.

Well, ok, I'd certainly accept that the Irish Government wouldn't wantonly do anything wreckless, with regard to nuclear power, but that word 'risk' is still there, albiet a very small one. The problem with nuclear is, 'if' something goes wrong, the consequences have the potential to be extremely hazardous, and I can't help feeling uneasy about that.

I also can't help getting the feeling that, it's as if the pro nuclear lobby are cryptically saying 'well guys, we've come this far, invested billions in this technology up to now (much of the cost, initally, unforseen, I might add) so we may as well just forge ahead with it, and hope to bejeasus nothing goes pear shaped'

It seems to be hugely expensive, and always seems to be draining more and more cash and resources as it goes along. It generates waste which is put in places that nobody wants to live near, and the situation doesn't seem to be getting any better. I'm really beginning to think, that if any other system was creating as many problems as nuclear, it would have been ditched years ago.

SeanW

Kama wrote: »

Interesting article from Newsweek in Worldchanging on why venture capital won't touch nuclear, even with subsidies

You are aware that the UK government is expecting considerable private interest in its renewed nuclear programme? (So much so, that a bunch of enviro-loonies took the UK government to court over this issue to stop new builds, but thankfully lost ) Evidently some venture capitalists like the idea.

Nuclear is a bit of a Welfare Queen

Wind energy is given a "guaranteed price" here in Ireland (this price being higher than the per unit cost of electricity) and the fact that wind requires a fossil fuel backup for grid stability is not factored into anyones calculations. Ireland subsidies a quotient of both wind energy and peat-fired power by a PSO levy on ESB bills.
Germany also forces its utilities (and subsequently customers) to pay an extortionate charge of 50c per kw/h of energy from solar, all the while embarking on the greatest splurge on coal fired power since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

favouring decentralised renewables instead.

Requires base line backup plants be kept on line ... can't be done on the scale required ... requires a lot of subsidies ... some wave and wind technologies distrub wildlife too ... forget it and move on.

A: I didn't say 'Chernobyl', so I don't get why you have to.

Most anti-nuke arguments work on a base, scaremongering level and Chernobyl is usually exhibit A, B and sometimes C. Just do a Google Image Search for "Nuclear Power" and much of what I've said will be proven right. Actually, I'll pick a few choice pieces for you:
Nuclear Power: Some "Facts"
|From Greenpeace
|From a cartoonist for George Galloway's RESPECT coalition
|From a protest reported by Indymedia

B: Entschuldigen Sie bitte? Herr Goebbel's? So early in a thread? Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

Yes, I am familiar with the Reducto Ad Nazium fallacy, but I believe I have not committed it. The comparison is valid because the level of scaremongering, propogandising and general truth-twisting by the anti-nuke campaigners is such that a comparison is valid.

I used to be in your camp, like everyone else in this country I used to stick my head up my backside in fear every time anyone even mentioned the dreaded N-word. Oooh scary. But a couple of years ago I started digging deeper, and I found that the substance of my past beliefs to be, to put it mildly, unsound. Partly for that reason I know all about the fallacies, baseless scare stories and twisted half-truths needed to make an anti-nuclear argument appear cogent.

turgon

Kama wrote: »

unproven nuclear

Now Im not trying to takes sides but the way I see it is that France produces 70% of its energy from Nuclear, so I would imagine it is pretty proven.

There are other concerns raised in the thread about the actual cost effectiveness of it, which is fair enough. Maybe the best idea would be to start a Dail committee investigating it (that is until Coir, Sinn Fein and Kathy Sinnot et execute the members).

I think some serious throught has to be put into it. It is the only renewable energy on the planet that has worked on a large scale. Wind and Solar require back up systems, or supplemental fuels, as my Engineering Exam termed them today. Wave is still in research and wood burning requires and immense amount of land. Maybe if we took over Iceland....

Kama

On the new wave of nuclear plants in the UK, note that:

Public funds would only be provided in the "very unlikely circumstances of an emergency at a nuclear plant"

from BBC News

In other words, their ass is covered by the taxpayer in the event of a f*ckup, because it is impossible for them to cover it themselves. This is not due the irrational ramblings of an incoherent green facism, this is due to risk analysis of the possible costs. So, if you want to call that unsubsidised, we need to agree on some basic definitions...

The government has also yet to decide how much new nuclear operators should pay towards the cost of building underground caverns as a permanent storage site for Britain's nuclear waste. Until a suitable site can be found, waste will continue to be stockpiled above ground at "interim" facilities at Sellafield, in Cumbria, it has said.

In other words, capital finds it a plausible investment if the costs of waste storage and decommissioning are externalised onto the public. Which are the primary economic and political issues with nuclear.
Which was my original point.

Requires base line backup plants be kept on line

Base-line backup is an engineering problem rather than a knock-down argument. A diverse basket of power sources, on-site microgeneration and storage, microgrids and selling power back onto the main grid all reduce load on the fossil fuel system.
Microgrids also have an added advantage of system resilience in case of 'Black Swan' type accidents.

can't be done on the scale required

Saying renewables isn't scalable doesn't necessarily make it so, btw.
There's a healthy debate on this very question.

requires a lot of subsidies

A: Infant industries often do, to develop them to a point where they are competitive. What is highly objectionable is granting similar massive subsidies to large developed industries.

B: Subsidy can be a social choice; since we are discussing this in politics, its pretty clear that (rightly or wrongly) the public tolerance for nuclear is very low, and appetite for renewable is higher.

C: Would the real unsubsidised industry please stand up?

some wave and wind technologies distrub wildlife too

I agree, they can. They can also suffer nimbyism, just like almost any kind of development. Equally, they can be well integrated into environments, incorporated into design principles, etc.

forget it and move on.

Right back at you with the nuclear.
Its more than clear people don't want it, so either:

A: we are all ignorant idiots who won't accept your enlightened truth

B: 'omfg nuclear=nazi chernobyl-chernobyl'

C: there's an active debate on nuclear which neither side has won convincingly.

I'm more C than B, so I'd rather not be 'rebutted' by saying how terrible and irrational 'someone else on the internets' argument is, or how they photoshopped a picture. I have an admitted bias against the tech, for a couple of reasons, historical, economic, and political, but am expressing quite honestly concerns that exist about nuclear. Saying 'ignorant' or 'Goebbels' doesn't help allay, or even address my concerns.

As to France, I would contend there is a significant difference in context between nuclear power in a state with a strong commitment to nuclear weapons, where civilian nuclear developed as a positive externality of a massive military-status investment, and a small non-nuclear country with no such military program, aka us.

Kama

There's an article on The Oil Drum that I regard as an objective appraisal of the current state of nuclear, and other energy sources. It deals with most of the arguments we have been having in this thread; uninsurability, financial or energy return on investment, reduced carbon footprint, waste disposal, and the generally poor status of the debate, and tendency to bias of its participants ^_^

We have found the information about the EROI of nuclear power to be mostly as disparate, widespread, idiosyncratic, prejudiced and poorly documented as information about the nuclear power industry itself. Much, perhaps most, of the information that is available seems to have been prepared by someone who has made up his or her mind one-way or another (i.e. a large or trivial supplier of net energy) before the analysis is given. As is usually the case, the largest issue is often what the appropriate boundaries of analysis should be.

There are great potential gains and great potential costs with nuclear power. Existing reactors seems to work well and mostly safely although waste disposal problems remain. If the uranium resource limitation people are correct then we cannot go much further without a new technology, perhaps based on thorium. Various issues related to terrorism are more important than they used to be...there is no free lunch with nuclear......Nevertheless it is possible that nuclear fission should be considered as a transition fuel on our way to solar or something else simply because the cycle emits far less CO2 than does any fossil fuel. In our opinion we need a very high level series of analyses to review all of these issues. Even if this is done it seems extremely likely that very strong opinions, both positive and negative, shall remain. There may be no resolution to the nuclear question that will be politically viable.

Nermal

None of the antis have addressed the example of France (70%) and Japan (40%). If they can do it, so can we.

Kama

Nermal wrote: »

None of the antis have addressed the example of France (70%) and Japan (40%)

.

French civilian nuclear power is an offshoot of their military-prestige nuclear armanents program, and has a tradition of support for nuclear power.

The Japanese experience includes the accidents at Tokaimura, Monju etc, and the subsequent falsification/cover-up scandals, which significantly reduced public trust in the industry.

In both cases, there is broad and strong government support for a nuclear industry, which is absent in Ireland.

If they can do it, so can we.

Can? Yes.
Should? Imo, no.

Arguing pro-nuclear, I'd prefer the Finnish example; 30% of their power needs, high safety standards, and deep disposal, in a fair regulatory environment for energy.

'Unlike other energy providers, the nuclear industry does not require state subsidies, which means the public doesn't have to pay for it through taxes.' Mikko Elo, SDP MP

SeanW

France (approximately 90% non-fossil electricity grid) just happens to have both a civilian and nuclear sector. However these are not mutually inclusive, some countries (Canada, Finland etc) have large civil nuclear systems but no nuclear weapons. On the other hand Israel has maybe 150 nuclear missiles, but has no civilian reactors of any kind.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are in most cases two completely different issues. Please stop trying to cause confusion.

In other words, their ass is covered by the taxpayer in the event of a f*ckup, because it is impossible for them to cover it themselves.

The odds of a Chernobyl style accident (and let's be honest, that's what you're talking about here) happening at a modern 1st world Western nuclear reactor are so remote as to be barely worth considering. The odds of something like that happening would probably be similar to that of the country being wiped out by a meteor.

So, if you want to call that unsubsidised, we need to agree on some basic definitions...

Ok, so I will be pedantic and call it "effectively unsubsidised." Deal?

In other words, capital finds it a plausible investment if the costs of waste storage and decommissioning are externalised onto the public.

But the costs of this, are nothing compared to nuclear power's main competitor, fossil fuel fired power, particularly coal. Did you not read my link about the Earth Policy Institute's estimate of the number of deaths, asthama, bronchitis cases, hospital visits, sick days off work in the U.S. which that organisation attributes to the burning of coal? Who pays for that? That's right, the public. Whos going to pay for the CO2 emissions from thermal fired power? The destruction of forests, lakes and rivers caused by the acid rain compound emissions from coal fired power? That's right, the environment, or the local government that has an endless supply of cash to treat watercourses with lime every year.

And MY point was the "invisible" and "public risk" subsidies given to the fossil fuels sector dramatically exceeds anything given to the nuclear industry. So far, you have done little to address this.

And please don't give me this "renewables" nonsense again - as infant as these renewbales are now, they were even more so back in 1979 when a firestorm of protests forced our government to abandon plans for nuclear electricity and sentenced us irrevocably to decades of fossil fuel dependence in the electricity sector.

Noone - with the exception of Iceland - has ever managed to build an electricity grid without either nuclear power or thermal fired power. Every respected energy analysis I've ever seen predicts further growth in demand for energy, most of that to be supplied by fossil fuels.

Its fossil fuels and nuclear for the vast bulk of the world's energy demand. Opposing one, under most realistic analyses, necessitates supporting the other.

In that circumstance, my choice is clear.

Kama

Again, I didn't say Chernobyl. I can say 3 Mile Island, I said Tokamura and Monju. But as an ex-anti-nuclear I'm sure you are familiar with tham all, so its redundant. My point was not to cite a specific accident, repeated sloganistically. It was the general risk of a serious accident; which while low can have exceptionally high damages. If the risk so low, why is it not insurable? While you consider the risk so remote, evidently risk analysts do not. If it truly was 'barely worth considering', why would the industry repeatedly seek to externalise that risk?

Sends the wrong messages neh?

On the matter of coal, I agree its dirty, and I agree that it is dumping costs on the public. No argument there. Even in the more modern 'clean coal' carbon sequestration or gasification scenarios it's still pretty dirty. And yes, this is more publicly acceptable because it is slower, and less monumental, and isn't as vulnerable to protest politics.

As to which is cleaner, I don't know.
I agree with your point that coal is dirty. What I am not convinced by is that nuclear is A: clean and B: safe. Nuclear isn't exactly carbon-free:

Officials in the nuclear power industry say references to carbon-free energy in their promotions refer only to the power-plant operation – and are not intended to describe carbon emissions during the entire nuclear life cycle.

"Yes, absolutely there's carbon," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear power industry in the US. "Most studies have found life-cycle emissions of nuclear to be comparable with renewable. Some show nuclear to be extremely high, but we do not find those credible."

As to the coal-nuclear dilemma, i don't think the world is that black-white. Realistically we are using, and will continue to use, coal and nuclear, and every other available energy source, by force majeure. This is a given, not a choice. I'm asking what we have a productive advantage in, such as the advantage in nuclear waste disposal that the Finns have by virtue of geology, or Norway has for hydro, or Iceland for geothermal, and critically, what is politically feasible. A mixed basket of energy goods is inevitable; the proportion of that basket is what is in question.

That or I'm a paid shill for Big Coal like Al Gore...

PS:
Apologies for Turgon for my 'unproven' rhetoric, i retract my tendentious statement.

nesf

sink wrote: »

The answer to the energy crisis would seem to me to be a decentralised energy network where the majority of energy consumed is generated on location through a variety of sources (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, ground heat transfer). If every new building that's built is as energy efficient as possible and generates it's own heat/electricity we would be able to meet most of our energy requirements in no time. Excess electricity generated by private citizens can sold to the national grid, so people will stop paying for electricity and instead be paid for electricity. This would be far cheaper and far more sustainable than nuclear power.

No. If you have a highly decentralised network like you speak of it doesn't remove the central problem of an electricity grid, electricity is needed at different levels at different times and solar, tide and wind are not like coal, nuclear, oil and gas where you can completely control the output from the power source.

The central problem of the majority of green power sources is that even when they are mature they are going to be erratic and/or uncontrollable. As part of a large grid where we have stable forms of power, say gas stations for the sake of argument, you can get around this by essentially "turning up the gas" to make up for the gap between the renewable output and the demand. But this gas "backup" needs to be very large relative to the renewables "just in case" it's a bad day for solar/tidal/wind power. So, honestly, the power sources you mentioned will never be able to take over power generation, only supplement it (which they very much should, and that's where they are both viable and useful in my opinion).

Another issue, usually not known, is how spiky power demand can be, it isn't a smooth cycle between night and day but a jumpy animal where power needs can spike extremely high for short periods of time (i.e. when factories turn on all their equipment in the morning, which interestingly enough is how they used (and possibly still do) calculate industrial electricity bills, the rate you are charged depends on the biggest spike in demand you draw on the system). This means while your average capacity need is say 10GW, you might actually need a system that's always capable of giving out 20GW to cover for the short periods of extremely high demand in the day. This is problematic enough when you're dealing with conventional power plants where you can control their output with a strong degree of certainty.

The third issue is cost. Electricity grids are expensive, and they aren't "uniform". At the moment we've a centralised grid that's designed to take power from a handful of places and transport it efficiently to a broad range of places. A change over to a fully decentralised network would not be a simple matter of hooking up your windmill onto the local line. It would be expensive to rearrange the entire system when you're just considering physical lines, when you throw in the enormously more complex task of monitoring such a system you're talking about serious amounts of cash.


Contrast the above to nuclear power.

a) It'd fit right into our present network with minimal jigging about.

b) It's controllable and reliable so it can form the base of the power supply, versus green alternatives that require by their nature a large conventional supply to be in place to "fill the gaps" in the power generation.

c) It's already a mature technology that has been implemented on massive national scales with little hassle, none of the green alternatives have. For all the success stories we have of tidal and wind power, there is no country in the world of size that gets 50% plus of its power needs from renewables, never mind 70%.

Black Swan

turgon wrote: »

And DO NOT pull the Chernobyl card, I don't want to hear a word of it. The Chernobyl plant was built using dodgy Soviet technology that didn't work properly, and was manned by workers from closed coal mines. They were running an unsafe test, and the reason for the meltdown was because the safety features were not working. You can imagine that all other plants in Western Europe are immensely better than this.

Naaaaa, I would never ever want to discourage anyone from the latest Three Mile Island fashion statement! Glow in the dark kids! Stay ahead of your neighbors who only have a couple petrol-guzzling Humvees! Pfffffft! I can beat that! I'll have Three Mile Island kids that glow in the dark (in case they run off and I lose site of them... I can just whip out my Gigercounter, and buzz, buzzz, they must be over there!), thanks to proven, safe, efficient USA nuclear energy technology, staffed with the best scientists and technicians (unlike those sloppy has-been Soviets!).

If the risks are so bad, why are you not out protesting at sellafield everyday then?

This is the Irish mentality that voted NO in the lisbon treaty. The idiot vote. The Pat Kenny viewer vote. We really are the rednecks of europe.

A small nuclear plant could provide most of dublins electricity. Wind energy is far from being perfected but technology is evolving all the time. The people calling on us to continue with oil/gas plants are the same people in 5 years time who will be parking cars in the middle of O' Connell st. to protest against the rising cost of electricity..

And to all the conspiracy people who think that NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS cant be trusted...Good lord...

Kama

nesf wrote: »

If you have a highly decentralised network like you speak of it doesn't remove the central problem of an electricity grid, electricity is needed at different levels at different times and solar, tide and wind are not like coal, nuclear, oil and gas where you can completely control the output from the power source.

Replacing conventional power generation isn't feasible, for the reasons nesf and others have outlined; a increased degree of supplementation and load displacement onto renewables definitely is. I believe sink was arguing in the direction of a system on microgrid lines. Again, I'm ideologically biased; peer-to-peer power production? Yes Plz!

Microgrids are among other things designed for the issue of intermittence and spikes; having a local power infrastructure that can take up load in the event of a brown/blackout for system-critical needs, a networked extension of having a backup generator. Technical overview on them here.

Has the advantages that:

Can be introduced organically, on a site-by-site basis, with benefits at each point.

Reduced changeover costs, no delinking.

Greater resiliency in the event of power shortages, spikes, or utility failure.

Less power loss from from transmission distance.

Can help create a market for local power production on P2P basis.


Not a Magic Bullet, but an interesting direction in power infrastructure; towards distributed energy storage and transmission, with local production reducing overall grid load, selling excess power back at excess production side of intermittence, and providing backup/redundancy power. Microgrids have got most attention not from ecologists, but from the military-security angle, as less vulnerable to system disruption.

While intermittence of wind is a significant structural constraint, tidal, if scalable, is highly predictable.
Against that, the price per kilowatt is higher from a peaking-responsive plant than from a baseload plant, requiring a manouevreable energy source.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Replacing conventional power generation isn't feasible, for the reasons nesf and others have outlined; a increased degree of supplementation and load displacement onto renewables definitely is. I believe sink was arguing in the direction of a system on microgrid lines. Again, I'm ideologically biased; peer-to-peer power production? Yes Plz!

I like the idea of microgrids, they are a step in the right direction for the use of solar/wind in my opinion. As supplements to a base system these technologies show the most promise and microgrids are a very effective way of implementing clean power generation I think.

At a very small scale, smaller than microgrids, something I'd like to see implemented in this country would be changes in metering. Essentially at the moment, if you have a windmill or solar panels and you're generating with them more energy than your house actually uses, it's "lost". Ideally, the meter would be able to "tick back" during times like these when the home is giving power back to the grid. Small changes like this, combined with tax breaks for people setting up windmills (I think they had a system of tax breaks for landlords putting in solar and/or wind in the UK for a bit), are a lot more feasible than large windfarms I think.


That said, the nuclear question is a question about the base supply not supplementary "on-site" generation. I do honestly think nuclear is a viable option for base supply versus coal, gas or oil.

turgon

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

This is the Irish mentality that voted NO in the lisbon treaty.

Not appreciated. Although I agree with the rest, all those who voted NO werent ignoramuses.


The way I see is that Ireland is a small enough country to sustain a national grid, and that should not be changed. SeanW's post made an excellent point, if you anti-nuclear then you are pro-fossil fuels. IMO, theres just no two ways about. All the other renewable's are just not economically viable:

Hydro-Electric: IMO, the greatest form of electricity production: generally reliable and free. However you need lots of big rivers, which we dont have. Additionally hydro isnt constant either, it emits a greater amount of energy in Spring.
Wind Power: Well first of all, clearly not constant. The wind doesnt blow all the time. And secondly a lot of the people who are against nuclear would be the same ones to cry havoc if even one turbine was built in their vicinity,fact.
Solar Cells: Are good in isolation but cannot realistically be of any economic value to a country that receives as little sunlight as Ireland.
Wood Burning: I personally think that Ireland does not have a lot of land. And I know the carbon emissions technically cancels out, but how much fumes would the locals be breathing in?
Wave Energy: Still in development. Lots of people advocate this one but realistically it will take a hell of a lot of time before this can be used, if ever.

So I would fully agree with SeanW. Those who are so keen to shout down Nuclear have a responsibility to find a economic alternative, which I dont see as being present. I dont know a load, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Solar Cells: Are good in isolation but cannot realistically be of any economic value to a country that receives as little sunlight as Ireland.

I was also fairly sceptical about the value of solar in this country but my parents installed a pair of solar panels where they heated water rather than generated electricity (i.e. heat exchange from panels to hot water tank). It actually works very well and I was genuinely surprised by how efficient the system was once you put very good insulation around the tank and pipes.

I would genuinely see some economic value in the system in that it cuts a fair amount off the oil/gas bill for home heating. They won't heat a home on their own but they do nudge up the water temperature by a fair margin and with proper insulation you can mitigate much of the loss of that heat over the night. Ten years ago with oil prices as they were then they wouldn't have been viable but with the present cost of home heating oil, they actually are worth installing.

Thirdfox

You should see in places like China - nearly everyone has the solar powered water heaters - great initiatives and exactly what's needed to ensure that billions of people can get "free" energy (at least for their showers).

turgon

nesf wrote: »

my parents installed a pair of solar panels

Sorry for not being specific, I was on about solar cells to produce electricity. The ones for heat work all year around, the same is not true of the electric one.