Should Ireland go Nucular?

Quazzie · 28-07-2008 01:51PM

I say we should build one as long as it is situated in Cork so if it does blow then its still a good thing for every one else. And if it doesn't we get cheap efficient power.. Win - Win!!

Gone West · 28-07-2008 01:51PM

Terry wrote: »

Definitely.
A large amount of fuel from a small source is the way forward.

Its not a small source.
Its waste is arguably the most difficult waste to manage of all electricity generation methods.
Locking it away out of sight/mind is just not good enough really.

Glowing · 28-07-2008 01:55PM

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

Yeah go nuclear, but only if the plants are built near someone who isn't me.

If a nuclear station blows up, I'd rather be living on it's doorstep and go up in smoke, rather than dying a slow, agonising death while I bleed from the inside out! :eek:

Earthhorse · 28-07-2008 01:55PM

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

Yeah go nuclear, but only if the plants are built near someone who isn't me.

They will be. That doesn't preclude them from being built near you though. Unless you live alone for an 8 mile radius?

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 28-07-2008 01:59PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Unless you live alone for an 8 mile radius?

I thought that would have been implicit.
To the hermit cave!

AtomicHorror · 28-07-2008 02:00PM

Fission plants have a bad rep due mostly to human mis-management. I voted yes on this but I have to confess that the idea of the ESB managing a controlled fission reaction is terrifying. Clearly we need a fusion plant.

Gone West · 28-07-2008 02:02PM

BTW accidents are not a risk nowadays.
Those arguments are invalid.

ilovemybrick · 28-07-2008 02:06PM

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

BTW accidents are not a risk nowadays.
Those arguments are invalid.

Because?

Gone West · 28-07-2008 02:13PM

ilovemybrick wrote: »

Because?

Dont be insolent, try to contribute to the forum, rather than just chat or one word posts!

My point (which I believed was obvious) is that the arguments against, citing safety concerns are almost completely invalid, as modern nuclear reactors (those built since 2001 onwards as an arbritrary point) are very safe, and in a long time they haven't had criticality incidents or accidents, there were hints and allegations.

Quazzie · 28-07-2008 02:16PM

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Dont be insolent, try to contribute to the forum, rather than just chat or one word posts!

My point (which I believed was obvious) is that the arguments against, citing safety concerns are almost completely invalid, as modern nuclear reactors (those built since 2001 onwards as an arbritrary point) are very safe, and in a long time they haven't had criticality incidents or accidents, there were hints and allegations.

And do you honestly think that any technology the Irish Government are going to buy is going to be current. The last peat burning technology they bought from the russians was obselete before even being built. Any Nuclear Power plants going up in Ireland will almost certainly former eastern european plans that they wouldn't even touch themselves anymore

bill_ashmount · 28-07-2008 02:24PM

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

BTW accidents are not a risk nowadays.
Those arguments are invalid.

Possibly the stupidest statement of all time.

ilovemybrick · 28-07-2008 02:29PM

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Dont be insolent, try to contribute to the forum, rather than just chat or one word posts!

My point (which I believed was obvious) is that the arguments against, citing safety concerns are almost completely invalid, as modern nuclear reactors (those built since 2001 onwards as an arbritrary point) are very safe, and in a long time they haven't had criticality incidents or accidents, there were hints and allegations.

How is it insolent to ask a question? Your post is unbelievably short-sighted.
You have made a sweeping statement and haven't backed it up. Human error is a huge factor in any nuclear incident or in fact in any industrial accident. How do you think that will be dealt with.

Yes your point was obvious but it is wrong. You are making an absurd claim and providing no evidence to support it.

Dyr · 28-07-2008 02:52PM

Are our energon generators not online yet?

Run_to_da_hills · 28-07-2008 03:11PM

I think it would be great to bring this issue again, we will have more big anti nuke music festivals with great line ups, Who can remember Caronsore point in the 70ies?

astrofool · 28-07-2008 03:22PM

Steyr wrote: »

Those wind fars are an eyesore so too is a powerplant though.

So we should just have no power. Solved all the world's energy problems in a single sentence.

Dave! · 28-07-2008 03:32PM

I'm open to it in general, and not thrown off by stuff like Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc., but the one remaining concern for me is -- what do you do with all the waste? As far as I'm aware there's no way to recycle it, is there? Failing that, it just keeps building up...

cyburger · 28-07-2008 03:45PM

IMO the waste is the only problem... so, what's the worst thing about doing something like the americans are doing and burying it in a big hole in the ground? they're just putting it back where they found it. People talk about launching it into space, what'd be wrong with that? there's a negligible risk to an explosion on take off, but if the waste is protected it shouldn't be a problem? anyway, I vote yes.

Glowing · 28-07-2008 03:51PM

cyburger wrote: »

People talk about launching it into space, what'd be wrong with that? there's a negligible risk to an explosion on take off, but if the waste is protected it shouldn't be a problem?

Haha, we could kill two birds with the one stone - send it all into orbit, and it'd block out the sun, therefore solving our climate change issues

:pac:

Conor108 · 28-07-2008 03:59PM

Yep nuclear:) Who cares if its an eyesore? At least you'll be able to turn on the lights when oil runs out!

Run_to_da_hills · 28-07-2008 04:02PM

I would have no probs having Nuclear power stations in Ireland as long as they are within 100k from my back yard

Agamemnon · 28-07-2008 04:10PM

Bambi wrote: »

Are our energon generators not online yet?

They were supposed to be but the feckin' Decepticons keep stealing our energon cubes. They're worse than the Spanish stealing our fish.

kmick · 28-07-2008 04:20PM

Nuclear is a terible solution in that the by product of its use is so dangerous and lasts so long we cant even begin to understand how to deal with it.

NUCLEAR = FAIL

Back to the drawing board.

Blisterman · 28-07-2008 05:30PM

No, with Steorn, and their perpetual motion machines, we'll have all the electricity we'll ever need. Hurrah!!

It's just a shame, they're having such a hard time, with the distributer, delaying the production.

Cunny-Funt · 28-07-2008 05:35PM

Yes, and we should start a weapons program too. Just too see how the world would react to Ireland developing nukes.

SimpleSam06 · 28-07-2008 06:18PM

Nuclear is an option for many countries (as several posters have pointed out, France), but Ireland has a better option.

Steyr wrote: »

Those wind fars are an eyesore so too is a powerplant though.

No, Ireland is uniquely placed, probably better than any country in the world, to take advantage of offshore wind farms. Recent developments in the technology mean you can even have deep water wind turbines that you never have to see. The winds over the deep ocean are also a lot stronger and more constant than over land, and even then you can pump water up into reservoirs as your emergency supply.

String a load of them up the coast and you have more power than you could ever want. Transmission isn't a problem, you can pump power over thousands of miles with negligible losses; you only lose power at last stage power redistribution and you were going to lose that no matter how you generate it.

Whats more is it could be the starting point for the development of a huge domestic industrial base (for example Denmark, which has wind turbine industries employing over 30,000 people), and we could export the products all over the world. The hits just keep coming.

rossie1977 · 28-07-2008 07:29PM

Dave! wrote: »

I'm open to it in general, and not thrown off by stuff like Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc., but the one remaining concern for me is -- what do you do with all the waste? As far as I'm aware there's no way to recycle it, is there? Failing that, it just keeps building up...

there is no way of recycling it, it all ends up being buried. yucca mountain in nevada is a big topic in the states http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/topics/yucca-mountain/

cyburger wrote:

People talk about launching it into space, what'd be wrong with that? there's a negligible risk to an explosion on take off, but if the waste is protected it shouldn't be a problem?

if that was an option it would have been tried years ago. Its a non-runner. if the rocket explodes on takeoff you render that area uninhabitable for thousands of years, if the rocket blows up mid-air you get deadly nuclear waste raining down on an area hundreds of miles in size :eek:

R0ot · 28-07-2008 07:37PM

Yes, we already import a ton of our electricity from England and Europe, we seriously need to start standing on our own two feet or at least attempt it. This knee jerk reaction when the word nuclear pops up is particularly annoying when we are trying to do something that will benefit the country.

Sonderval · 28-07-2008 07:39PM

For those who espouse the solar option, I was away at a conference last week in Canada dealing with optical materials (I'm a scientist). We had a number of plenary speakers talking about PV devices (solar cells). None of them think its a viable solution in any meaningful timeframe (The 300 odd scientists in the room didn't disagree either).

Meaningful, as in, before we exceed the CO2 450-550 ppm rating that climatologists are referring to as the tipping point.

Nuclear is a viable option now and is uniquely positioned to provide us with a stopgap energy solution. Modern reactor designs are far from the ones used at Chernobyl and have a much, much reduced threshold for failure.

As a note, people seem to think we have plenty of time to solve this issue and reign in our societies energy production excesses. We don't. Another point the speaker emphasized.

DublinWriter · 28-07-2008 07:46PM

Sonderval wrote: »

We had a number of plenary speakers talking about PV devices (solar cells). None of them think its a viable solution in any meaningful timeframe (The 300 odd scientists in the room didn't disagree either).

The problem with solar/wind/wave is the pitifully low yield.

For example, I recall reading one particular study about those wind-generators you can buy for your house - most will have to spend 20 years generating electricity before recouping the energy involved in their manufacture.

The question of should Ireland go Nuclear is largely a mute one; Ireland should have gone nuclear in the 1980's. Boo hoo, too late now. Time's up, game over.

Regarding nuclear waste, the Chinese are now leading the world in ceramic coating in order to render nuclear waste totally harmless.

Sonderval · 28-07-2008 07:46PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

if that was an option it would have been tried years ago. Its a non-runner. if the rocket explodes on takeoff you render that area uninhabitable for thousands of years, if the rocket blows up mid-air you get deadly nuclear waste raining down on an area hundreds of miles in size :eek:

It is an option, actually, just one nobody has the political will to try. Creating containment vessels to safely store any un-processable radioactive material is not an impossible task - it is well within our engineering capability. An understanding of modern rocketry will illuminate you to the fact that there are a number of factors in play which people seem to believe are deleterious to this sort of dumping system.

Should Ireland go Nucular?

Comments