Can Ireland develop nuclear power/weapons?

cosanostra · 25-11-2011 11:20AM

It might create another boom!

Leftist · 25-11-2011 11:24AM

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

W.Shakes-Beer · 25-11-2011 11:27AM

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 · 25-11-2011 11:28AM

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 · 25-11-2011 11:30AM

A nuclear Ireland? Jiminy Jillikers! :eek:

Doctor_Socks · 25-11-2011 11:41AM

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 · 25-11-2011 11:52AM

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 · 25-11-2011 12:00PM

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 · 25-11-2011 12:01PM

Too many serious answers here!

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

...when they take over the worrrrlllllllldddd!

W.Shakes-Beer · 25-11-2011 12:03PM

Tabnabs wrote: »

“Nucular, it's pronounced Nucular…”

Aye but its proper spelling is Nuclear.

beardybrewer · 25-11-2011 12:14PM

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 · 25-11-2011 12:50PM

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 · 25-11-2011 01:44PM

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 · 25-11-2011 01:46PM

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 · 25-11-2011 01:53PM

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 · 25-11-2011 02:00PM

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 · 25-11-2011 02:03PM

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 · 25-11-2011 02:17PM

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 · 25-11-2011 02:17PM

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 · 25-11-2011 02:18PM

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

Chuck Stone · 25-11-2011 02:26PM

stimpson wrote: »

It's about how Finland is storing its waste, and how you design a system that will be secure for 100,000 years

All the people who are calling loudly and confidently for nuclear power stations to be built should sign an inter-generational contract where their money is used to build it and their property is used to store the waste - after all it's safe and clean, right?

W.Shakes-Beer · 25-11-2011 05:30PM

stimpson wrote: »

Do you know the Half-life of Pu 239?

Yes

Do you know how corrosive sea water is?

Yes, but storing at sea is current research, currently dry storage above ground or deep underground burial are implemented.

Do you know how stupid your idea is?

Ah yes, one of the typical non believers regarding science. Go back to reading your Daily Star and enjoy having your lungs pumped full of SO2 and CO and quash cleaner forms of energy based on media hype.

The World Health Organization estimated in 2007 that every year more than 600,000 Chinese die prematurely from the effects of air pollution. Although you could attribute some of this to transport, a fairly hefty chunk is due to their use of coal power. And bear in mind, that's just china. The USA are equally as excessive in their coal power use. As I pointed out earlier. It is a large topic of debate currently in the state of Texas due to the CSAPR 2011.

Nuclear is nowhere near perfect as said, the storage is a problem but it is developing and as I study and believe in science there will no doubt be a more permanent measure in place.

John Doe1 · 25-11-2011 05:52PM

I already have, they are all pointed at tubridys house

stimpson · 25-11-2011 05:59PM

W.Shakes-Beer wrote: »

Yes

24,000 years is a long time. And then it's only half as radioactive.

Yes, but storing at sea is current research, currently dry storage above ground or deep underground burial are implemented.

So you think we should dump it in the sea because someone is doing research on it. I'd like to see a few peer reviewed papers at the very least before we start lobbing barrels of the stuff into the Atlantic.

Ah yes, one of the typical non believers regarding science. Go back to reading your Daily Star and enjoy having your lungs pumped full of SO2 and CO and quash cleaner forms of energy based on media hype.

As an engineer by profession I find the Daily Stars science coverage a little on the thin side. Do you usually win debates by slagging off people when your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny?

The World Health Organization estimated in 2007 that every year more than 600,000 Chinese die prematurely from the effects of air pollution. Although you could attribute some of this to transport, a fairly hefty chunk is due to their use of coal power. And bear in mind, that's just china. The USA are equally as excessive in their coal power use. As I pointed out earlier. It is a large topic of debate currently in the state of Texas due to the CSAPR 2011.

Nuclear is nowhere near perfect as said, the storage is a problem but it is developing and as I study and believe in science there will no doubt be a more permanent measure in place.

Yeah, real soon now.

Jeboa Safari · 25-11-2011 06:10PM

We can't even have a proper debate on nuclear power in this country let alone build a power plant

Chuck Stone · 25-11-2011 06:13PM

W.Shakes-Beer wrote: »

The World Health Organization estimated in 2007 that every year more than 600,000 Chinese die prematurely from the effects of air pollution. Although you could attribute some of this to transport, a fairly hefty chunk is due to their use of coal power. And bear in mind, that's just china. The USA are equally as excessive in their coal power use. As I pointed out earlier. It is a large topic of debate currently in the state of Texas due to the CSAPR 2011.

Ah the ol' naked death count without any hint of a cost benefit analysis or freedom of choice.

It's estimated that 1,200,000 (1.2 million) people are killed and 10,000,000 (10 million) people are injured every year in road traffic accidents, the cost of which is estimated at 500,000,000,000 (half a trillion dollar$).

Should we be forced to use bicycles?

shannon_tek · 25-11-2011 06:56PM

cosmicfart wrote: »

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

Fuppin Irish and there government. In another note if you actually read about the chernobyl construction. It's shocking to think they got away with it. And there are still some left of such quality. You can blame the Russians. Ireland is good for building.

W.Shakes-Beer · 25-11-2011 07:00PM

So you think we should dump it in the sea because someone is doing research on it. I'd like to see a few peer reviewed papers at the very least before we start lobbing barrels of the stuff into the Atlantic.

Fair enough, that's a point, anything without review's backing them up can't really be taken as a given. All I mentioned was that the sea looks like a viable option in the future, compared to the current method of just storing. It is currently very securely stored until a suitable method of disposal is discovered. Thats where the research comes in. And with a half life of 24,000 years we have plenty of time for research (maybe a possible Breeder Reactor?)

As an engineer by profession I find the Daily Stars science coverage a little on the thin side. Do you usually win debates by slagging off people when your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny?

Ok, I didn't mean to offend you personally, I just don't understand people who disregard the bigger picture regarding Environmental Science and Health, which is my degree.

The main problem currently is the inefficiency of current energy production methods and the global impact regarding climate change.

There is no doubting that current methods have a massive effect on the environment and public health.

Phil McKenna, NewScientist, March Issue 2805

IN THE wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan, Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its reactors and China, which is building more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, has suspended approval for all new facilities. But this reaction may be more motivated by politics than by fear of a catastrophic death toll. It may be little consolation to those living around Fukushima, but nuclear power kills far fewer people than other energy sources, according to a review by the International Energy Agency (IAE).

"There is no question," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. "Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people."

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. "It's the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death," says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources.

So why do people fixate on nuclear power? "From coal we have a steady progression of deaths year after year that are invisible to us, things like heart attacks, whereas a large-scale nuclear release is a catastrophic event that we are rightly scared about," says James Hammitt of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston.

Yet again, popular perceptions are wrong. When, in 1975, about 30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding, an estimated 230,000 people died. Include the toll from this single event, and fatalities from hydropower far exceed the number of deaths from all other energy sources.

guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Celly Smunt · 25-11-2011 07:03PM

we have no oil,so they'll never find out or presume we have WMD.

W.Shakes-Beer · 25-11-2011 07:03PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah the ol' naked death count without any hint of a cost benefit analysis or freedom of choice.

It's estimated that 1,200,000 (1.2 million) people are killed and 10,000,000 (10 million) people are injured every year in road traffic accidents, the cost of which is estimated at 500,000,000,000 (half a trillion dollar$).

Should we be forced to use bicycles?

If that's your reasoning that why moan about Nuclear Power? Chernobyl as bad and all as it was has so far resulted in 9000 deaths, which is small in comparison to say deaths related to Coal Power plants, and traffic accidents as you mentioned.

Whats your problem so?

Can Ireland develop nuclear power/weapons?

Comments