Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Can Ireland develop nuclear power/weapons?

13

Comments

  • #62
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    hoorsmelt wrote: »
    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.

    Ireland cannot start its own missile programme as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would be illegal.


  • #63
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,092 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    I have no problem with Nuclear Power. I am confident that we have Nuclear Fusion sorted within 30 years using water as fuel & no harmful waste.

    Did anyone see the feature on it on Channel 4 ?

    One bucket of water would power a City.


  • #64
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,707 ✭✭✭stimpson


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Ireland cannot start its own missile programme as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would be illegal.

    Meh. Those centrifuges are for "research" purposes.


  • #65
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Discodog wrote: »
    I have no problem with Nuclear Power. I am confident that we have Nuclear Fusion sorted within 30 years using water as fuel & no harmful waste.

    Did anyone see the feature on it on Channel 4 ?

    One bucket of water would power a City.

    Fusion has been 30 years away for the last 60 years.

    A great documentary on nuclear waste is Into Eternity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(documentary)


  • #66
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,092 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Oppenheimer - odd choice of name for someone opposing Nuclear weapons :D

    Technology has moved on a little in 60 years !


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,707 ✭✭✭stimpson


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    A great documentary on nuclear waste is Into Eternity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(documentary)

    Ahem!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75662186&postcount=50


  • #68
    Herb Powell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭Herb Powell


    mconigol wrote: »
    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
    It's a hell of a lot cleaner than nuclear.
    I would support nuclear power, but honestly I think the risk is not worth it.
    Yes, proponents argue that the risk of anything going wrong is tiny. But if something does go wrong, it is a big deal. The effects of radiation last an awful long time too.
    Ireland is small. If we had a nuclear disaster, most of the country could be made uninhabitable.
    Even Fukushima and Chernobyl is too much gone wrong imo, and I don't think it should even be given the chance to happen again


  • #69
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    W.Shakes-Beer wrote: »
    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?


    Firstly, I'm not 'moaning' and, secondly, I don't have 'a problem'. If anything it is you that seems frustrated somehow.

    I'm simply drawing attention to your highlighting that loads of people die from pollution and coal mining etc. I'm saying that that is not a rationale, in and of itself, to advance the cause for nuclear.

    It's not as simple as a 'death count'. There are costs and benefits to everything.


  • #70
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


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

    Women of Massive Dimensions?


  • #71
    Tomk1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Tomk1


    Boy there sure is a lot of half-facts & mis-informative myths on N-power, that's why CorkSkeptics.org had a talk on the real facts by Prof. McInerney head of dept. of physics UCC.

    Sorry can't embed it:
    Www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtp7nd8X--Y
    The video covers Fuka.. Chernobyl, new & old reactor technologies .etc

    On Chernobyl: a few died due to the actually ''accident'' after which people were told that the food was safe to eat, so they eat contaiminated food, also remember those Iron tablets that people are meant to take in the event of N-radiation release, well the Russian's didn't give anyone those tablets at the time, this is the reason why so many people died. On the point of 'wasteland' actually Chernobly-area is now one of the most bio-diverse naturally wild eco-systems on the planet, with 3rd+ gen deer in perfect health.

    Back within topic, under the ban, Universities can't even research new-nuclear, and lets face it, knowledge is the only resouce Ireland has, we could develope this technology to sell.
    Fuel prices are going to go up and up, we all know that, from a newspaper article from a few months back, In England a lot more people die from being unable to afford heating than car-crashes.

    How many died due to Fuka.. N-plant after the earthquake and being hit by a huge Tidel wave ??? Zero -''the TV show bang goes the theory''

    Btw I once was opposed to Nuclear-''everything'' because we were fed, misinformation that Nuclear power = nuclear weapons and a whole lot of wooo. Now after learning to read for myself rather than being fed balony, I am 100% for Nuclear power for Ireland, and yes I would live next door, even as stated in the video, be safe camping inside the plant.

    One day hopefully Ireland will leap from Iron-age power to 21st century-power.

    Ireland Go Nuclear.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Mitch Buchannon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,006 ✭✭✭Mitch Buchannon


    Tomk1 wrote: »
    Boy there sure is a lot of half-facts & mis-informative myths on N-power, that's why CorkSkeptics.org had a talk on the real facts by Prof. McInerney head of dept. of physics UCC.

    Sorry can't embed it:

    Here you are: :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtp7nd8X--Y


  • #73
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    We should really be delvoping nuclear power - No Co2, cheaper and more efficient

    Fail Fail and Fail again !


  • #74
    Vicxas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,646 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    Im all for a new energy source, but i think nuclear fusion is better then nuclear fission. Although fusion is still a long way off being a viable power source just yet.


  • #75
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Vicxas wrote: »
    but i think nuclear fusion is better then nuclear fission.

    How do you know ?

    Youre making a comparison with something which hasnt been invented yet.

    When nuclear fusion becomes technically and commercially viable it just might be the case that the technology might have unforeseen downsides and/or may fail to live up to the hype.

    After all in the early 1950's many people believed that nuclear fission would be an unlimited energy source resulting in electricity becoming "too cheap to meter".


  • #76
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Youre making a comparison with something which hasnt been invented yet

    They can actually do it - just not commercially.

    Chinese fusion reactor


  • #77
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Nuclear power is usually for national prestige and weapons making (or at least the ability to make weapons like Japan).

    Anyone ever looked at the Thorium reactor concept?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGZ_Y-xkPM


  • #78
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Nuclear power is usually for national prestige......

    Isint Thorium just another form of nuclear power (albeit with some possible advantages over Uranium-based nuclear power) ?


  • #79
    CamperMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭CamperMan


    I doubt the retarded ****wits in government could even spell it!


  • #80
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Isint Thorium just another form of nuclear power (albeit with some possible advantages over Uranium-based nuclear power) ?

    From what I know of it it is a form of nuclear but it's far safer (they just cool down if they aren't maintained correctly - the opposite is true for traditional nuclear - they heat up and blow) and the by-products are far less toxic and thorium is abundant.

    That's my rudimentary understanding.

    Edit.

    Here you go.


  • #81
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    From what I know of it it is a form of nuclear but it's far safer (they just cool down if they aren't maintained correctly - the opposite is true for traditional nuclear - they heat up and blow) and the by-products are far less toxic and thorium is abundant.

    That's my rudimentary understanding.

    In a melt down nothing blows up. All that happens is that the nuclear material gets hotter and hotter because it can't be cooled sufficiently and then there is a risk it will breach containment and radioactive material can escape into the atmosphere. It won't explode like a nuclear bomb though. As far as thorium goes, I seen a news article about two countries currently building thorium reactors. One was India (I think India plans on making all their reactors thorium) and I believe the other was China.

    I don't know much about Thorium reactors but it does have some benefits from what I remember. Thorium isn't anywhere near as radioactive as Uranium so extraction is safer. Thorium is more abundant so it'll last a lot longer than Uranium. It's more efficient than a Uranium reactor and it doesn't need to be enriched. You can't make weapons from it (some would see that as a disadvantage). You do still need some Uranium to kick start the reaction though.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    I'd be far more comfortable with a Thorium reactor nearby than a traditional uranium reactor because as TAC says they pretty much negate the nuclear fallout accident.


  • #83
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,405 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Isint Thorium just another form of nuclear power (albeit with some possible advantages over Uranium-based nuclear power) ?
    far less waste
    normal reactors use about 0.5% of the uranium the other 99.5% is waste , not only that but it's pretty nasty stuff after being bombarded with neutrons in the reactor.

    thorium reactors convert thorium to Uranium 233 almost all of which can be burnt up into isotopes with half lives that are at most in the order of hundreds of years , no 99.5% waste, no need to worry about building waste repository to withstand ice ages.

    a thorium-fluoride liquid salt reactor would mean you wouldn't need to buy expensive and problematic fuel rods. reactor safety is simple, you have a stopper made of a certain metal at the bottom of the reactor. If the reactor over heats the stopper melts and liquid goes into a flat container under the reactor and no longer has critical mass


  • #84
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,405 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The most common reactor size is 1GW due to economies of scale.

    Our PEAK electricity usage is 5GW

    Or BASE usage in summer is about 1.75GW in Summer / 3GW in Winter
    So using more than TWO reactors would require interconnectors / pumped storage and if you use them then you might as well invest in wind power.

    While people talk about importing nuclear power from the UK over the interconnector you have to remember that there is a surcharge on UK electricity to pay for the higher costs of the nuclear plants.


    Also
    Reactors go off line for all sorts of reasons, including political.
    And we'd be just as dependent on imported fuel as we are now, with the exception that nuke's need a working life of 40-50 years to break even so we'd be locked in


  • #85
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    foxyboxer wrote: »
    Ireland: Historically prone to tsunami's and devastating earthquakes. :)

    Ireland got hit by Two tsunami's in the space of a few years in the mid 18th century yanno! :D

    No really!


  • #86
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,178 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    chem wrote: »
    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/

    Who ever is teaching them that better stop and teach them how to spell first before we go anywhere near nuclear power.


  • #87
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    We're a friendly, somewhat moralistic, somewhat money-grabbing small nation (for want of a better word) at the edge of the eu with us connections. Where does nuclear arms fit into that schema?


  • #88
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,178 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    ToddyDoody wrote: »
    We're a friendly, somewhat moralistic, somewhat money-grabbing small nation (for want of a better word) at the edge of the eu with us connections. Where does nuclear arms fit into that schema?

    We should ask the US if they want to install a few ICBM silos around the country, a few dozen missiles closer to their targets plus it will make us a legitimate target for a nuclear strike, we may as well glow in the dark with the rest of the planet when it all kicks off. Like what Cuba did for the Russians.


  • #89
    aramush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭aramush


    Our government aren't capable of organising a cue to a toilet, never mind let them get their hands on nuclear power.

    Are you mad?


  • #90
    CajunPenguin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 126 ✭✭CajunPenguin


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Isint Thorium just another form of nuclear power (albeit with some possible advantages over Uranium-based nuclear power) ?

    Thorium is better in every way. Cleaner, cheaper and more efficient. But you can't refine thorium into weapons, so the US and Russians didn't need it.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,405 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    CajunPenguin wrote: »
    Thorium is better in every way. Cleaner, cheaper and more efficient. But you can't refine thorium into weapons, so the US and Russians didn't need it.
    1955 Operation Teapot 22 kilotons




    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233#Weapon_material

    the main difficulty weaponising it is that U232 levels can be high, it's very radioactive and has a half life that short enough to only deter a few generations form raiding waste to retreive U233.


    It's not so much that it's difficult to do, it's that the military already use U235/Plutonium so no point in reinventing the wheel. And there is the slight problem of whether the Thorium cycle can be a breeder.


Advertisement