Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Maybe we can skip the fission and get into bed with these guys for a bit of fusion?

Security in other countries doesn't require the use of the military.

Set up a synroc plant and use that to stabilise the waste, then find a deep salt layer, drill some holes, place the synroc at the bottom of the holes and backfill. If there are no salt deposits under Ireland, then contract with somewhere where there are. But other countries have managed just fine storing their nuclear waste on site for 40+ years without resorting to a final disposal and storage solution, which is ideally suited to Ireland with it's long finger approach to everything important, like the need for a national childrens hospital being identified in the mid 1990's.

We are allowed to have nuclear power plants, that isn't an issue and doesn't make a country a nuclear power, which is based on weapons.

We get South Korea to build them or Rolls Royce if we want to go SMR. A typical nuclear power plant has several reactors. The Barakah plant in the UAE has 3 korean built reactors which together produce enough to power Ireland, at 5380 MW.

A single Barakah type facility in Ireland would make Ireland essentially zero CO2 in 10 years or less if legislation were passed to ringfence the project from Irishness.

It would be extremely rare to need to shut down more than one reactor at a time. If you want competitive pricing, then you could turn to the US. The Koreans have built quite few reactors of the model used at Barakah, multiple in Korea, and have lots of experience doing so. Rolls Royce have been building small reactors for the UK nuclear sub fleet for half a century, with no major issues.

We don't have any uranium deposits that I am aware of, but Australia has the mother load and I am sure would be happy to provide some.

Well since Dublin is the primary consumer, somewhere on the east coast seems most appropriate, to minimise transmission losses.

We don't have any uranium deposits that I am aware of, but Australia has the mother load and I am sure would be happy to provide some.

its kind of ironic that Australia has all that and no Nuclear power plants.

You would think Australua would be the perfect country for them with all the wasteland in the middle of it. Build some there and they could power the whole of Australia. Crazy how much Australia still rely on coal. I know they have started using solar panels more now there but when I was there I was very surprised by how few there were.

Australia has a 20 MW reactor in Sydney, at Lucas Heights - as in actually in the city. It's used for research and for the production of a wide range of radio isotopes used in medicine and industry.

Coal is far cheaper and is vastly abundant. Australia also has vast quantities of natural gas. Australia, until very, very recently, hasn't felt an imperative to not use cheap. plentiful and easy to use fossil fuels.

Historically, Australia has been a bit thingy about all things nuclear due to the British hapilly using the place for atmospheric atomic bomb testing and using Australian and british servicemen as guinea pigs for what happens when you put humans close to a nuclear fireball. This was closely followed by the French also doing some exceedingly reckless and stupid atomic bomb testing at Moruroa atoll in the Pacific. I actually love the whole cancelling of the nuclear sub deal with the French. As payback for the testing and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and the murder that resulted, it's a small start.

These things resulted in one Dr Helen Caldicott, rather successfully spearheading an intense and effective nuclear hysterics campaign instilling fear of all things nuclear among a lot of Australians, much like the irrational fear present in most of the Irish population. At least the Australian government has never been anywhere near as silly so as to send out iodine tablets.

The Australian government CSIRO developed the Synroc process for safely storing and disposing of nuclear waste in the late 70's. It's currently in use there for handling the waste from Lucas Heights. It's also used for dealing with plutonium waste at the Argonne national laboratory in the US and in the UK at Sellafield.

Lol:

"with a particular focus on topics related to nuclear energy and fissile materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons."

He's an anti-nuke head case who seems deeply concerned that nuclear reactors for delivering energy are actually going to be used to create nuclear weapons.

If Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, there would never have been an invasion.

He's a Helen Caldicott clone or wannabe.

Sorry, did the article mention SMR's anywhere?

"And, as was the case with Theranos, many such companies have been backed up by wealthy investors and influential spokespeople

…

The saga of Theranos should remind us to be skeptical of unfounded promises.

…

And, as was the case with Theranos, many such companies have been backed up by wealthy investors and influential spokespeople, who have typically had as much to do with nuclear power as Kissinger had to with testing blood. Examples include Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley investor; Stephen Harper, the former Prime Minister of Canada; and Richard Branson, the founder of the Virgin group.

...

A good example of such flawed claims, with some parallels to Theranos,"

Theranos means SMR's, which are modelled on the annoyingly successful use of SMR's to power nuclear submarines and ships for approaching 70 years, are a bad idea.

People the author likes: Elizabeth Holmes, himself, and Helen Caldicott

People the author dislikes: Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Mattis, Rupert Murdoch (in fairness, everyone should hate Murdoch), Kissinger, Peter Thiel, Stephen Harper, Richard Branson

What an absolute load of twisted and frothing at the mouth tripe. But then thats pretty typical of anti nuclear activists. He's the sort of Greenie pro renewables twat that doesn't realise that all renewables are powered by the unsielded output of a massive nuclear reactor that spews out vast quantites of deadly radiation. Anti nukers are so all encompasingly thick, they would probably advocate for the extinguising of the sun if they were ever smart enought to realise what it was and how many people on Earth it has killed. 121,000 people die every year from skin cancers - quick, extinguish that unshielded nuclear reactor! Has anyone even thought about the nuclear waste problem it represents?

Thank god for Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, without which we would never have been able to see that SMR's are a bad idea that will lead to unbridled nuclear proliferation, as has been the case with all other nuclear power reactors - I've even got a couple of nukes stashed under my bed, just in case.