Can Ireland develop nuclear power/weapons?

hoorsmelt

Just curious, with peak-oil upon us Ireland is extremely vulnerable to oil price hikes in the future. Some people believe setting up a nuclear power station somewhere unimportant like Dublin would be a good idea, as it would provide power sufficient to power the country. I think they're right. We could import nuclear technology from countries with world class nuclear industries, like Iran or North Korea (and in the mean-time establish bi-lateral trade links with these two large markets) to get us started, and when it is up and running we could set up our own indigenous missile industry to complement it and to sell for hard cash. Two birds with the one stone, we could significantly dent our deficit and set up sustainable industries which would provide much needed jobs. Discuss.

mdoyler2

would you trust our government with nuclear energy?

Deus Ex Machina

We have big mates who'll step in if we get into anything, we don't need to be able to swing any big digs.

El Weirdo

Do you really think we could be trusted with nuclear power?

It'd be done like everything else in this country - half-arsed and incompetently.

BOOM!!!!

W.Shakes-Beer

I personally think Nuclear Power is great, as long as the waste is suitably disposed off it has little to no effect on the atmosphere (gives off steam).

There is a big perceived risk around it that "oh a nuclear power station beside me is making me grow another eye in my head" or there'll be a meltdown but the actual risk as opposed to the perceived risk is actually very low. Modern Nuclear Power Stations are very very safe and have security measures to prevent meltdown.

Chernobyl only happened due to an aging design and bad safety procedure.

Circus_O

It was attempted before in the 1970's. Ignoring the inherent risks of nuclear power and nuclear proliferation when they planned to build four nuclear power plants there a big backlash and anti-nuclear groups sprang up in a load of places. Ireland just apparently doesn't want nuclear power.

Paparazzo

OP, our economy is in the worst shape in history, do you really think it's a good time to invest in a nuclear weapons program?

Tabnabs

“Nucular, it's pronounced Nucular…”

tin79

W.Shakes-Beer wrote: »

I personally think Nuclear Power is great, as long as the waste is suitably disposed off it has little to no effect on the atmosphere (gives off steam).

There is a big perceived risk around it that "oh a nuclear power station beside me is making me grow another eye in my head" or there'll be a meltdown but the actual risk as opposed to the perceived risk is actually very low. Modern Nuclear Power Stations are very very safe and have security measures to prevent meltdown.

Chernobyl only happened due to an aging design and bad safety procedure.

What about Fukishima though? The problem is that if/when they go wrong they go really wrong.

fungun

Nuclear power is already developed, so we kinda missed the boat on that one

Oranage2

We should really be delvoping nuclear power - No Co2, cheaper and more efficient

Immaculate Pasta

We should definitely develop nuclear weapons. I've got my eyes of the Isle of Man to blow up first. Look at it there, just positioned so near us, plotting...

foxyboxer

tin79 wrote: »

What about Fukishima though? The problem is that if/when they go wrong they go really wrong.

Ireland: Historically prone to tsunami's and devastating earthquakes.

W.Shakes-Beer

tin79 wrote: »

What about Fukishima though? The problem is that if/when they go wrong they go really wrong.

Well again, that was just very unfortunate circumstances and in fairness, the matter was handled very well to prevent a major disaster. Fukushima was a relatively modern plant so in light of the fact that it was rocked by an earthquake and hit with the sea it stood pretty well.

It's just that the risk is perceived to be higher than it actually is. You'd probably be more likely to win the lottery 10 times than to be directly affected by nuclear power.

Sonics2k

tin79 wrote: »

What about Fukishima though? The problem is that if/when they go wrong they go really wrong.

To be fair it took one hell of a Typhoon to actually do any damage to it.

And whilst they've had some issues, not explosions yet.

hoorsmelt

Paparazzo wrote: »

OP, our economy is in the worst shape in history, do you really think it's a good time to invest in a nuclear weapons program?

We could sell the technology to other countries around the world that lack nuclear missile technologies. We'd probably get big bucks for them as well.

mawk

I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy. I have two engineering degrees and I'm currently studying energy policy.
nuclear is awesome, just not for ireland.
we don't have the scale of requirements to prompt building a facility.

but wind and solar are only good options for politicians, so..

let england build the nuclear infrastructure and buy power off them.

and nuclear power plants are perfectly safe when running. they can't fail on their own any more. but that doesn't stop some asshole from flying a plane into one.

smurf311

All i'll say is Homer Simpson

clare ny

think it would be great for the country .. but seriously , ok i will stay away from the shell to sea thats a mine field what about the ennis by-pass being moved because of a fairy tree ,the chances of a nuclear power station being built in ireland are slim to none

Caoimhín

mawk wrote: »

they can't fail on their own any more. but that doesn't stop some asshole from flying a plane into one.

Incompetent public servants have already laid waste to the economy, imagine if they were put in charge of a nuclear power plant.

pragmatic1

Nuclear power will become more and more widespread. Its the only really viable option to produce enough power for a growing population.

baddebt

I'd have more trust in giving Al-Quaida than the fuchin incompetent Irish government

shannon_tek

Twould be Chernobyl all over again

chem

Its taught ,that Ireland has some of the largest, deposites of Uranium ore in the world. But the government wont allow it to be mined.

http://www.examiner.ie/story/Ireland/eysneyojql/rss2/

grumpymunster

clare ny wrote: »

think it would be great for the country .. but seriously , ok i will stay away from the shell to sea thats a mine field what about the ennis by-pass being moved because of a fairy tree ,the chances of a nuclear power station being built in ireland are slim to none

Yes and sadly slim just left town. Would be good to have as an interim whilst getting up to speed with wind and wave. But too many ill informed tree huggers in this country for it to happen.

doolox

We know what the present setup with large scale power stations is like, too prone to Union inspired pay hikes and cost demands and not open to competition. We couldnt afford to have more than one nuclear power generating company for our population and they would be in a very powerful position to demand huge wages on "safety" grounds. The ultimate blackmail weapon given our "clean" record with food and tourism etc.

A better way is distributed small scale generation using wind, solar wave etc supplied by competing companies who the consuming public can then squeeze for the best price by pitting them against each other.

CrazyRabbit

Nuclear power plants are usually heavily subsidised by governments. Do you really want to give the Irish government a reason to create yet another tax, or an excuse to raise current taxes again?

Nephinbeg

Nuclear power, if done correctly, would be a fantastic way to cut our carbon emissions and provide energy as other power sources inevitably become dearer.

The major problem is the MASSIVE capital investment that is needed to set a plant up. It would eventually pay for itself but if the state can't afford to pay the Gardaí the bill for the State visits, how can a few billion be found for such a politically-sensitive proposal?

If in ten years the country was in better economic health, and uranium sources could be guaranteed, it might be a more realistic proposition.

W.Shakes-Beer

shannon_tek wrote: »

Twould be Chernobyl all over again

Joe? Is that you again?

two wheels good

W.Shakes-Beer wrote: »

I personally think Nuclear Power is great, as long as the waste is suitably disposed off it has little to no effect on the atmosphere (gives off steam).

There is a big perceived risk around it that "oh a nuclear power station beside me is making me grow another eye in my head" or there'll be a meltdown but the actual risk as opposed to the perceived risk is actually very low. Modern Nuclear Power Stations are very very safe and have security measures to prevent meltdown.

Chernobyl only happened due to an aging design and bad safety procedure.

I think you're being just a bit complacent

Nuclear waste gives off harmful radiation - not steam.
The UK still hasn't devised a waste disposal plan - after almost 60 years of nuclear power. It also has a record of potentially dangerous incidents.

Whatever the cause of the incidents the effects have been disastrous - Chernobyl, Fukishima.

As for the costs. Despite privatisation, the UK public have been lumbered with the decommissioning costs - approx £80b was the last figure I read. The building costs went over-budget by enormous amounts.

Developing an indigineous green energy industry seems better for jobs, technology growth and environment instead of importing foreign nuclear expertise.

fungun

Sonics2k wrote: »

To be fair it took one hell of a Typhoon to actually do any damage to it.

And whilst they've had some issues, not explosions yet.

Im sure the Fukushima locals will be delighted to hear that

cosanostra

It might create another boom!

Leftist

Can ireland create nuclear weapons. I've really heard it all now. An island of delusion.

W.Shakes-Beer

two wheels good wrote: »

I think you're being just a bit complacent

Nuclear waste gives off harmful radiation - not steam.
The UK still hasn't devised a waste disposal plan - after almost 60 years of nuclear power. It also has a record of potentially dangerous incidents.

Whatever the cause of the incidents the effects have been disastrous - Chernobyl, Fukishima.

As for the costs. Despite privatisation, the UK public have been lumbered with the decommissioning costs - approx £80b was the last figure I read. The building costs went over-budget by enormous amounts.

Developing an indigineous green energy industry seems better for jobs, technology growth and environment instead of importing foreign nuclear expertise.

Yes Nuclear Waste gives of radiation but its effects are not actually harmful if contained correctly. Nuclear Waste has a long half life so one way of storing it is burying it deep out at sea in casks. Now, sure you're thinking it effects the ocean.

And sure, the effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima have been bad, but they were due to poor design and natural disaster. What are the alternatives besides wind (generates small amount) and solar (surely not in ireland?)......... Coal powered electricity generation, and I can tell you that the effect of traditional power generation methods such as coal has a much more detrimental impact on human health than Nuclear.

About 40000 people a year die in the US from "traditional" electricity generation benefits, due to the amount of SO2 and NOx being pumped into the atmosphere, messing up respiratory and cardiovascular system.

Sure there is a massive public court case over in Texas involving a company called Luminant who provide electricity to half of Texas, purely because of its emissions and health effects/ non-compliance with Cross State Air Pollution Rule.

So costs aside, Nuclear cleaner than most current traditional energy production methods. It just has a large perceived risk that is actually minuscule.

So, not at all complacent.

cosmicfart

its written in Irish law that no nuclear power is allowed to be created on Irish soil. I guarantee that no nuclear power plant or bomb will EVER be created by an Irish government (unless the Shinners get in of course)

we are a nation of green energy

foxyboxer

A nuclear Ireland? Jiminy Jillikers! :eek:

Doctor_Socks

As much as I would love to have a nuclear plant in this country, it just isn't feasible as out population is to small to validate building one.

To the people who think that nuclear power is dangerous, it isn't! More radiation is given off from coal waste and particles entering the atmosphere then is given off by nuclear waste. The only problem with nuclear waste is that it has a long half-life which needs to be dealt with responsibly.

Sure, when a plant fails it REALLY fails! But since the only real disasters have been Chernobyl (which was caused by retarded safety measures and bad practices from Russian engineers) and Fukishima (which was hit by some of natures most powerful forces, even then it didn't explode, as some people seem to think it has).

New reactor designs are constantly being researched by some of the best minds in the world as it is the way of the future, at least it will be for a long time because wind turbines just aren't efficient enough for large, ever increasing populations (not carbon neutral either as the amount of emissions produced building, transporting the turbine and erecting it on site is higher then the emissions it saves over its lifetime).

W.Shakes-Beer

Sure everyone belting around in their TDI's has a more damaging atmospheric/human health impact with the amount of Particulate Matter being shot out (PM10)

People forget that during their daily lives they are exposed to all sorts of toxicants (some of which are carcinogenic), you'd be surprised by the amount of shíte in the air (ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, PM, even metals such as lead and cadmium)

Just look at an EPA annual air quality report and you'll see every year that there are a large number of exceedances regarding "safe" levels.

Nuclear however, once the waste is contained appropriately gives of steam, H2O, harmless to human health.

Spacedog

Irelands energy needs can easily be accommodated with mass wind for generation, hydro for storage. there's no shortage of wind and rain here.

Wind turbines contain nothing but copper wire and magnets and can be easily mass produced here.

leave the gas and oil (if any) in the ground until it's value as a rare chemical element is a premium (oil is too valuable a chemical compound to burn)

nuclear energy should be bought over grid connections, but we are too small a country to justify the expense of a modern, quality, standard conforming plant without having to cut corners and accept some form of "managed risk"

Every country, including Ireland, should have at least 1 doomsday device, to deter aggression and exploitation from established nuclear powers.

"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

Corvo

Too many serious answers here!

The Chinese will bring their nuclear technology with them....


...when they take over the worrrrlllllllldddd!

W.Shakes-Beer

Tabnabs wrote: »

“Nucular, it's pronounced Nucular…”

Aye but its proper spelling is Nuclear.

beardybrewer

The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.

I wouldn't trust this goverment for 240 days let alone 240,000 years. Tempting as it may sounds, we're running around like kids with guns toying with something we can't possibly control.

Unless the whole plant is build atop of rocket than can lauch the whole feckin thing in to the sun when it goes wrong it aint good enough.

Jordan 199

As Smilin' Joe Fission once said: Nuclear Energy, out misunderstood friend.

This clip isin't the best and the only one I could find in english:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VkOptU6ngM

stimpson

W.Shakes-Beer wrote: »

Yes Nuclear Waste gives of radiation but its effects are not actually harmful if contained correctly. Nuclear Waste has a long half life so one way of storing it is burying it deep out at sea in casks. Now, sure you're thinking it effects the ocean.

Do you know the Half-life of Pu 239?

Do you know how corrosive sea water is?

Do you know how stupid your idea is?

OneArt

W.Shakes-Beer wrote: »

I personally think Nuclear Power is great, as long as the waste is suitably disposed off it has little to no effect on the atmosphere (gives off steam).

There is a big perceived risk around it that "oh a nuclear power station beside me is making me grow another eye in my head" or there'll be a meltdown but the actual risk as opposed to the perceived risk is actually very low. Modern Nuclear Power Stations are very very safe and have security measures to prevent meltdown.

Chernobyl only happened due to an aging design and bad safety procedure.

This is what I don't understand about people who are pro-nuclear power. Yes it's clean, efficient etc but if it gives off radioactive waste how in the name of God is it considered safe? Unless it's ejected into space it is still a risk to the environment.

Even with proper safety measures in place the risk of contamination is still there. If a hydro-electric power station is blown up or whatever, it's not going to have a long-lasting effect on the environment.

I guess I come off as an anti-nuclear person, I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea, but I don't see how its clean if the process leaves behind radioactive waste.

mconigol

OneArt wrote: »

This is what I don't understand about people who are pro-nuclear power. Yes it's clean, efficient etc but if it gives off radioactive waste how in the name of God is it considered safe? Unless it's ejected into space it is still a risk to the environment.

Even with proper safety measures in place the risk of contamination is still there. If a hydro-electric power station is blown up or whatever, it's not going to have a long-lasting effect on the environment.

I guess I come off as an anti-nuclear person, I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea, but I don't see how its clean if the process leaves behind radioactive waste.

No the hydro electric power plant has already had a long lasting affect on the environment simply by being build in the first place.

Chuck Stone

I'd be happy for nuclear power in Ireland as long as I get the choice not to pay for it and not to have to pay for the security issues around it and as long as proponents of it's safety have to bury nuclear waste in their own back gardens.

It's perfectly safe after all!

Chuck Stone

mconigol wrote: »

No the hydro electric power plant has already had a long lasting affect on the environment simply by being build in the first place.

Pales in comparison to the danger and timeline of nuclear waste. Also hydro electric creates lakes for fission, water sports and drinking water so it has a clean economic dividend.

mconigol

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Pales in comparison to the danger and timeline of nuclear waste. Also hydro electric creates lakes for fission, water sports and drinking water so it has a clean economic dividend.

Hydopower is not so clean:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html

stimpson

This is worth watching for people who think nuclear waste storage is a simple problem. It's about how Finland is storing its waste, and how you design a system that will be secure for 100,000 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_%28film%29

You can watch the film online here

http://dotsub.com/view/8e40ebda-5966-4212-9b96-6abbce3c6577

cosmicfart

this thread is redundant, Ireland will never ever have nuclear power. end of.