Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Won't somebody please think of the children!!!
-
16-10-2008 9:34am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Hmm, maybe after a few years here.Ahem?
I thought I was Batman..
Not necessarily - there's quite a bit of coal out there (I'm not necessarily advocating it's use). Also, methane can be produced by anaerobic digestion of materials such as biomass, manure or sewage, municipal waste or green waste.I am aware that nuclear in not going to last for ever but it will last longer than fossil fuels...0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yes, there are some costs political and environmental costs associated with taking the nuclear electricity option. However, broadly speaking these are costs that I can live with. Not going nuclear (i.e. the status quo) has costs that I don't want to live with but will if forced to by the "Green" lobby.There are no environmental or political costs associated with nuclear power? None whatsoever?
These costs being either massive environmental destruction if we rely on sources like coal and, most dreadfully, peat, or the insane loss of national soveigrnty and security associated with being dependent on a 2000 mile long pipleline from Russia. It is for this very reason that Germany, in it's mad dash bid to abandon nuclear energy, is going on the biggest coal plant building spree in human history after that of China, using, above all things, filthy and inefficient (but plentiful) brown coal.
I find these options repugnant and I want to avoid them if at all possible. "Environmentalists" should, in addition to looking at nuclear power as it really is, and not in the light of Chernobyl children, twisted hyperbole and urban legends, and compare the facts of nuclear electricity against the "don't do nuclear/do nothing" scenario.
But it's hypocritical to complain about a finite fuel supply while opposing the search for more of such fuel. Are you prepared to condemn Eamon Ryan's actions?As has already been pointed out. Nuclear is inherently unsustainable because uranium is a finite source. You can't get much closer to the concept of unsustainable than that.
Also, fossil fuels and peat are also "unsustainable" in the strictest and longest term view of that word, so again, the complaint goes back to what you don't want to talk about.
First of all, most tidal power systems are at best in the development stage and afaik they're expensive to build, and some of them don't do well in adverse weather conditions. That said they may improve. I'm hopeful that tidal power will work, but you can't bank on it.Firstly, tidal power is quite regular.
In any case you can be sure that renewables were not going to be able to step in in the 1970s when the government of the day wanted to build a nuclear plant at Carnsore Point but all the hippies protested and forced Ireland to become irrevocably thermal-fired plant dependent for the 30 years that would come after it.
You are proposing to simply dump the irregularity problems of unstable wind farms onto our European neighbors. I.E. when it's "energy rush hour" continent-wide and our winds taper off, they will have to bring in running baseline reserve not only to compensate for their own loss in reciepts, but send power down the Interconnector to Ireland. It is legitimate to ask how they're going to do that.Also,an overhaul of the transmission grid would go a long way to solving the renewables problem with intermittency. This includes more interconnection with Europe (please don't start on Europe's use of nuclear, hypocrisy etc etc-we do not have any control over these countries' energy policies).
I'm not saying renewables have stagnated and I hope they have not. However it will be some time, if ever, before they can compete with coal-fired power on the basis of cost and reliability which is all grid controllers care about. And as I said before, if your logic is true and renewables are constantly growing, they were even less of an option in 1970s when Ireland last looked at the nuclear issue.In addition, I think you'll find that recent developments in solar energy are allowing it to be stored in liquid-based batteries for the first time. There are big assumptions that renewable technology has reached stagnation, which is just complete nonsense.
An opposition to nuclear power was a support for fossil/peat power then, it is now, and likely will be for some time.
>_< Methinks you have been reading too many Green party soundbites and swallowed them whole.But the reality is that if all of Ireland's energy comes from a nuclear plant, the motivation to develop renewable technologies will be lost.
Take a look at our nextdoor neighbor. The UK. They have nuclear power. They want the private sector to come in and give them more nuclear power - doing it right this time (I freely admit that the UK nuclear programme hasn't exactly been a model of efficiency and value), but they're also investing considerably in renewable energy AFAIK.
i.e. they want both, to the degree that such is reasoanble.
Remember. Nowhere except Iceland has it been shown possible to run an electricity grid soely on renewables.
Hence they should ONLY be treated as in independent variable.In addition, it will allow us to ignore the gross energy inefficiencies in our transport, housing and other sectors.
Please explain.
Isn't it obvious? Under the Transport 21 programme, Dublin in particular is to have more public transport, new DART lines including an underground Interconnector (that I helped campaign for BTW) a Metro and some Luas.Also, how much benefit will nuclear be to the transport sector - the sector with the highest rates of growth (genuine question..)
Now, Irish Rail and maybe the RPA (Railway Procurement agency) gave their electrcitiy contracts to Airtricity. But what does Airtricity do when all the Luas and DART passengers head over to the train stations to get home and the wind isn't co-operating? That's right, they just lean harder on a baseline load power plant that was already running.
So if the transport sector grows in a "Green" way - i.e. lots of electric trains and trams - there is plenty of scope for nuclear energy to help.
There are some issues yes, but AFAIK these are minimal. Yes the Uranium has to be mined, milled and in most cases enriched (unless you're using CANDU reactors in which case you can skip enrichment)You are also ignoring the environmental issues with nuclear. There is the mining necessary to extract uranium, a heavy metal, which as the name suggests, is found deeper down in the earth's crust and not on the surface. Then there's that whole issue of disposal. Then the thousands and thousands of litres of water that is needed to cool down the reactors
Yes disposal is an issue but the nuclear industry is the only one that attempts to contain its waste - with coal, gas etc, all the crap it produces, CO2, NOX, SO2, merucury, arsenic, radiotoxins etc are all just dumped into the air via the smokestack.
Transport costs are a direct disadvante for fossil fuels as well. According to figures from the World Nuclear Association.
We are also quite happy to destroy a unique ecosystem in pristine boglands as some kind of Midlands subsidy, which I don't think is a good idea.
My purpose in all of this, it to yell STOP. NO MORE. Where there is a need for baseline power, and the choice is between nuclear and some poxy traditional thermal fired 'solution,' me and the Greens are agreed on one thing: the choice is a no-brainer. After that ... well ... you know the rest
No disagreements there, if you have read any of my posts supporting nuclear energy, you would see that I support it as part of a multi-pronged pro-economy and pro-ecology solution, including renewables, nuclear, a carefully thought out biofuels programme and reasonable conservation measures such as better public transport, improved building standards, recycling, discouraging wasteful behaviour etc.Edit: I forgot to add in that biofuels are an additional source of fuel that can be used very effectively in local areas. For example there are dairy farms across Europe (and one in Wexford) that uses anaerobic digestion to generate elecricity. Also, the use of waste-based AD kills two birds with the one stone: sustainable electricity generation and waste disposal.
In short, four planks to make a comprehensive strategy - doing that I think we can have a lifestyle with reasonable comfort and eco-sensitivity.0 -
Why? I don't believe in investing in finite fuel sources that are polluting to the environment. I don't find there to be anything hypocritical about it. I include fossil fuels and peat in that.But it's hypocritical to complain about a finite fuel supply while opposing the search for more of such fuel. Are you prepared to condemn Eamon Ryan's actions?
Also, fossil fuels and peat are also "unsustainable" in the strictest and longest term view of that word, so again, the complaint goes back to what you don't want to talk about.
Which is why the only reason I support nuclear is as a stop-gap until these technologies are further devloped.First of all, most tidal power systems are at best in the development stage and afaik they're expensive to build, and some of them don't do well in adverse weather conditions. That said they may improve. I'm hopeful that tidal power will work, but you can't bank on it.
It's never "energy rush hour" all across Europe. That's the whole point. Europe as a continent spans 3 time zones. Although I haven't had a look at the figures in detail provided by the EU-I'll have to check when I have more time.You are proposing to simply dump the irregularity problems of unstable wind farms onto our European neighbors. I.E. when it's "energy rush hour" continent-wide and our winds taper off, they will have to bring in running baseline reserve not only to compensate for their own loss in reciepts, but send power down the Interconnector to Ireland. It is legitimate to ask how they're going to do that.
Methinks you are being a little disrespectful. This may come as a shock but I might actually have come to these conclusions of my own accord and another shock, I might be an Irish environmentalist that is not a member of the Green Party or knows that much about their policies on nuclear.>_< Methinks you have been reading too many Green party soundbites and swallowed them whole.
The UK are also one of only two countries in the EU that fought, in vain, for nuclear to be considered a renewable energy. They are investing considerably in renewable energy, largely because it has been forced on them by the EU. If they had their way, nuclear would be conisdered renewable and they would be compliant with the EU's 2020 renewables target today.Take a look at our nextdoor neighbor. The UK. They have nuclear power. They want the private sector to come in and give them more nuclear power - doing it right this time (I freely admit that the UK nuclear programme hasn't exactly been a model of efficiency and value), but they're also investing considerably in renewable energy AFAIK.
i.e. they want both, to the degree that such is reasoanble.
Isn't this obvious? THe era of cheap energy has allowed us to ignore efficient design in buildings, transport etc. Years ago, architects used to design buildings that were cool in the summer, warm in the winter, made best use of sunlight etc. Now - hot? turn on the airconditioning. Cold? turn on the heating. Not enough light? Turn on the lights. It is only recently that architects have started to return to intelligent design with many features used in passiv houses. Please explain.
In transport, cheap petrol has led to the proliferation of low density housing and over-dependence on private car use.
It is clear that when cheap energy is available, as will continue to happen with nuclear, there is no incentive to innovate. When was the last time there was a huge burst of research and innovation in renewables? The 1970s. What happened in the 70s? Oil crisis.
True, but how will it help with airplanes? Public transport is extremely difficult because we have such low-density housing. With over 50% of the population commuting in a private car, it is going to be extremely, extremely difficult and expensive toIsn't it obvious? Under the Transport 21 programme, Dublin in particular is to have more public transport, new DART lines including an underground Interconnector (that I helped campaign for BTW) a Metro and some Luas.
Now, Irish Rail and maybe the RPA (Railway Procurement agency) gave their electrcitiy contracts to Airtricity. But what does Airtricity do when all the Luas and DART passengers head over to the train stations to get home and the wind isn't co-operating? That's right, they just lean harder on a baseline load power plant that was already running.
So if the transport sector grows in a "Green" way - i.e. lots of electric trains and trams - there is plenty of scope for nuclear energy to help.
a) provide these areas with decent, good quality, frequent public transport
b) get people out of their cars and into public transport.
Too easy to just dismiss environmental issues with nuclear as "minimal".There are some issues yes, but AFAIK these are minimal. Yes the Uranium has to be mined, milled and in most cases enriched (unless you're using CANDU reactors in which case you can skip enrichment)
Yes disposal is an issue but the nuclear industry is the only one that attempts to contain its waste - with coal, gas etc, all the crap it produces, CO2, NOX, SO2, merucury, arsenic, radiotoxins etc are all just dumped into the air via the smokestack.
Transport costs are a direct disadvante for fossil fuels as well. According to figures from the World Nuclear Association.
THe whole chain of processing from the raw nuclear material to the stations to reprocessing to the unsolved problem of disposal. Huge potential for leaks and pollution. Not minimal.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Ok, first of all I may owe an apology to taconnol for my early presumptions, I did not realise you were genuinely considering the question and/or open to new ideas and thought you were simply repeating the old Green(peace) mantras.
This may have been an error, and I must admit it was not my first time.
I come to this debate from the perspective of something of a convert - I grew up listening to urban legends like Sellafield putting Plutonium into childrens bones, Glow In The Dark fish caught in the Irish sea, that story about the 6 Dundalk women who gave birth to down syndrome children (which still persists in some quarters despite being proven to be nonsense) and of course the Chernobyl Accident (without likewise knowing the differences between the Soviet run RBMK reactors and a Western style nuclear system).
To top it all off, the people I thought could be trusted on these matters, i.e. environmentalists like Greenpeace and most Green parties backed up the view.
It was only a couple of years ago that I found myself in possession of better information, and then only by chance, so I tend to take a very firm view promoting nuclear energy on places like boards (and the newspaper letter in my sig) etc.
And given my previous experience as one I find little redeeming holders of firm anti-nuclear opinions hence my somewhat combatitive attitude, but if you are genuinely considering the issue and have an open mind, my apologies for my initial assumptions.
But there's a problem: if it were oil companies looking to prospect in Donegal instead of Uranium prospectors, what then? Would the exploration have been so easily and quietly nixed?Why? I don't believe in investing in finite fuel sources that are polluting to the environment. I don't find there to be anything hypocritical about it. I include fossil fuels and peat in that.
This is not an argument against nuclear becasueIt is clear that when cheap energy is available, as will continue to happen with nuclear, there is no incentive to innovate. When was the last time there was a huge burst of research and innovation in renewables? The 1970s. What happened in the 70s? Oil crisis.
A) Fossil fuels are already becoming scarce and tightly controlled - this as you allude to is already happening.
If we use this logic to avoid looking for a cost-effective energy supply, the Chinese etc will, with their mess of unfiltered coal power plants and other non-existant environmental standards, continue to put us at an economic and competitive disadvantage.
For those reasons we need to use clean and cost effective options now, instead of banking on something weather based? that may or may not come down the road.
It's not supposed to. Aviation is an independent questionTrue, but how will it help with airplanes?
We've had poor urban planning, it's true. Another independent question.Public transport is extremely difficult because we have such low-density housing.
Ditto. In Dublin city for example most train lines are over subscribed. In many cases the cost, discomfort and/or inconvenience of public transport rules it out even for people who can use it.With over 50% of the population commuting in a private car, it is going to be extremely, extremely difficult and expensive to
a) provide these areas with decent, good quality, frequent public transport
b) get people out of their cars and into public transport.
Case in point: recently Irish Rail added clamper-enforced pay parking at all its commuter belt stations and they're going to increase annual fares systemwide by about 10-15% in one go.
For a couple living in the suburbs and working in Dublin City for example, sharing a car now beats the train on all fronts: 1) It's cheaper than two annual tickets plus parking, 2) the car goes when when it's supposed to 3) the occupants know they will travel in comfort (as opposed to squashing into a capacity loaded carriage that may or may not have working climate controls) and 4) they'll automatically get a full days "refund" any weekday they don't go to work.
This has nothing to do with whether we go nuclear or not!
I'm not a scientist and my knowledge even now is not in depth. However, I personally am satisfied that the costs associated with going nuclear are less than those associated with not going nuclear, and as for the waste issue I am satisfied that the appropriate micro-containment technologies exist, if not the bigger solutions.Too easy to just dismiss environmental issues with nuclear as "minimal".
THe whole chain of processing from the raw nuclear material to the stations to reprocessing to the unsolved problem of disposal. Huge potential for leaks and pollution. Not minimal.
As opposed to the peat/coal/gas industry that simply sends their waste up the smokestack for the rest of us to deal with? Like This?This “containment” generally amounts to burying the waste in a big hole in the ground – that’s just not good enough and it’s certainly not “minimal”. The waste issue is probably the main reason for my opposition to nuclear energy.
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/Update42.htm
Even under the worst case scenario, the nuclear waste problem does not compare!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm annoyed I can't find that simulation; had it before, could have sworn was Kassel Uni. Modeled demand and supply with a wind/solar/biomass system across Germany, and used hydro as the storage for excess production.
It's relevance for Ireland is somewhat less, due to the variation of weather across the whole of Germany, allowing an averaging out across the territory.
Apropos of uranium mining, while an argument can be made that nuclear is clean and carbon neutral (if you discount both plant construction and decommissioning, that is :rolleyes:), uranium mining in Australia has been a pretty dirty business, if you take your info from anywhere other than worldnuclear.org.
Again, a key issue imo with nuclear is there is no unbiased information out there; though there's plenty from either WorldNuclearLobby.org or Friends of the Virgin Mother Earth. Neither seem exactly neutral or objective parties
0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement