Prof Igor Shvets on Frontline tonight

ApeXaviour

22.35 RTE1, topic is energy

A physics professor and innovator here in TCD, he's spearheaded the Spirit of Ireland campaign for energy independence. He gave a few talks about it in the college last year, maybe some of you have seen them.

This is the basic idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUa1PFix1A

Jonathan

Great idea in theory, but totally unworkable in reality. Bring back An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh tbh.

ApeXaviour

What do you reckon are the practical pitfalls?

I'd agree with you on principle, nuclear energy is great. Is it not the unrealistic one though, at least in this country? Some people get so caught up in hysteria over it as to lose all objectivity. Politically it's akin to abortion.

devinejay

This book, http://www.withouthotair.com/, was basically half our 2E7 - Energy and The Environment course this year, and is a very interesting read for anyone interested in climate and energy issues. There's a free downloadable .pdf on the website.

As far as I remember one of the issues with the above proposed energy solution is dealing with variable demand, being able to cope with the huge fluctuations in energy usage. In reality it can only help out with the problem, and is by no means a complete solution (which can be said of practically every alternative we have available to us at the moment)

Again, I recommend the book (even if it is a bit lengthy) for a good perspective on things.


Edit; as an interesting statistic consider that generous estimates of total available/conceivable wind power to Britain and Ireland equates to 20kWhr/day per person, and our energy consumption per person for heating and cooling alone (Fridges, central heating, air con, hot water) comes to 37 kWhr/day. It would appear that wind power will only ever be able to marginally subsidize our energy consumption, even if Igor's clever system removes the element of unpredictability involved with wind. And think again that we're in a privileged position, a land locked superpower like Germany has a practically no use for wind power as an alternative energy source.


Edit 2; If you do download the book, and don't feel like reading the whole thing, I think pages 121 - 122 sums up a lot of his points. Then if you feel like it, you can read back to how he comes to these conclusions, or forwards to what alternatives he offers.

mathew

edit: knew my maths was wrong

timmywex

The man is a genious! We had him as a lab supervisor this year, and he was top quality! He took groups away for small little tutorial sessions, i learned more in the ten minutes with him in one of these than in 10 weeks listening to Dr. Krstic ****e on about physics for engineers!

mathew

ah now geneious is a bit of an overstatement. Talk to the majority of the engineering lectureres and they will explain his many faults.
He's a professor of physics, so yes, he is a very very clever man. But his engineering isnt up there.. certainly not according to engineers anyway!

Kristopherus

Crikey he's making a lot of sense in comparision to that clown Ryan

Jonathan

ApeXaviour wrote: »

What do you reckon are the practical pitfalls?

The idea of trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is a workable solution.
Claiming to produce enough to solve all our problems, and produce enough to export is unworkable. Export how? Over what interconnector?

The current grid is a bit of a mess. It was designed for large centralised power plants, not for lots of windfarms.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

I'd agree with you on principle, nuclear energy is great. Is it not the unrealistic one though, at least in this country? Some people get so caught up in hysteria over it as to lose all objectivity. Politically it's akin to abortion.

Possibly, but I don't think it is as unthinkable as it sounds. Many people don't like wind farms either. Many countries around the world are renewing and/or planning new nuclear programs.

timmywex

mathew wrote: »

ah now geneious is a bit of an overstatement. Talk to the majority of the engineering lectureres and they will explain his many faults.
He's a professor of physics, so yes, he is a very very clever man. But his engineering isnt up there.. certainly not according to engineers anyway!

Ah true im sure, but for 1e4 this year, where we had dr krstic stand there talking about things no one had the slightest idea about, he seemed like a physics genious!

El Siglo

I read in Anthony Sweeney's book that the ESB is investing €20 billion to have 40% of our energy coming from alternative energy sources. The same money invested in 4 nuclear power plants would mean that there would be energy security for the next 200 years with a surplus generation (i.e. we'd be selling energy). What amazes me about this place is that every tree loving crusty would be up in arms about it (much like incinerators) yet we're getting the stuff piped in from the UK. Talk about hypocrisy: "out of sight - out of mind".

Jonathan

An interesting poll on After Hours.

devinejay

Watched it on the RTE player there, interesting, but unfortunately they seemed to all have their own agenda. Somebody mentioned an independent review board type deal and it's a really good idea, all the arguing and everyone fighting their own corner is woefully counterproductive.

Marshy

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Politically it's akin to abortion.

Very true. People don't seem to realise the extent to which other countries use nuclear.

The relatively high start-up costs are obviously an issue but I guess most renewables wouldn't be much cheaper.

Brian

In an Environmental Engineering lecture earlier this year, only one person out of a hundred or so was totally opposed to nuclear power.

ApeXaviour

Jonathan wrote: »

Possibly, but I don't think it is as unthinkable as it sounds. Many people don't like wind farms either.

This is true but I'm not sure it has the same visceral response. People will grumble about wind farms like they do about bin charges and motorways, I personally wouldn't be surprised if there were hunger-strikes over nuclear power.

Jonathan wrote: »

Many countries around the world are renewing and/or planning new nuclear programs.

We're a special case. I'm sure everyone (shamefully) remembers the government sending iodine tablets to every fucking home in the country...

Baza210 wrote: »

In an Environmental Engineering lecture earlier this year, only one person out of a hundred or so was totally opposed to nuclear power.

A selection of educated, technically-minded lefties.

Even our "Green" Party is opposed to fission power. I can remember the intransigent Trevor Sargent spouting yarn on the late late arguing against a trinity student and a baffled (you don't like nuclear... but why?) frenchman.