Nuclear Energy

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 7:44pm #1

At the risk of digging up old opinions (the last thread was over 2 years old), I'm just wondering as to people's opinions upon nuclear energy.

Ireland has had a ban on prospecting for uranium (there were reports that Ireland's uranium reserves would be commercially viable from the 1970/80s) click for several years. With depleting gas reserves, and with minimal returns on "green" forms of energy, Ireland will have to take steps to securing its energy.

The average energy consumption per head in Ireland is around 5700kWh per person. If we are to use the French as an example, this works out at around €800 per person, per year.

Although the initial cost of investment is high, the ability to raise money through taxation (Belgium, for instance, charges €0.005 per kWh has raised nearly €500 million in 2012 - scroll down to "tax costs")

Of course, this is marred by failures to properly plan and carry out structural test (Hinkley Point), but I am quite sure that such overheads can be negated with proper scrutiny.

The risk of contamination is practically zero, and turning to nuclear power could potentially eliminate up to 8.7 tonnes of emissions (Ireland's current emissions is 8.77 according to the Googles).

We already buy electricity from Britain, no doubt some of it generated by nuclear power, so should we not invest in our own energy infrastructure, and potentially allow us to export any excess energy, as a profit to the State (and by extension, the taxpayer)?

Menas · 05-05-2015 7:47pm

The massive initial outlay always stuck me as the reason smaller nations cant afford to build a nuclear power station.

But I would definetly want us to seriously look at wind and wave power first. We are way too slow to embrace these....or properly debate them.

snubbleste · 05-05-2015 7:48pm

The law sez
NO

Links234 · 05-05-2015 7:49pm

I'm of the opinion that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are what we should be looking into.

Menas · 05-05-2015 7:49pm

Links234 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are what we should be looking into.

Ah jesus, don't be mentioning fluoride on AH.....

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 7:49pm

snubbleste wrote: »

The law sez
NO

A good thing it doesn't ban discussion on it, then, 'ey?

Trigger Happy wrote: »

The massive initial outlay always stuck me as the reason smaller nations cant afford to build a nuclear power station.

But I would definetly want us to seriously look at wind and wave power first. We are way too slow to embrace these....or properly debate them.

Germany has invested heavily in solar power and wind turbines, I believe. They have yet to see a net gain.

BoJack Horseman · 05-05-2015 7:50pm

Well, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere.

Wouldn't mind it ... But its very very costly.

kneemos · 05-05-2015 7:50pm

Why is there a ban on Uranium mining?

SummerSummit · 05-05-2015 7:51pm

Trigger Happy wrote: »

The massive initial outlay always stuck me as the reason smaller nations cant afford to build a nuclear power station.

But I would definetly want us to seriously look at wind and wave power first. We are way too slow to embrace these....or properly debate them.

Wind and wave power is the 21st Centuries biggest scams.

BoJack Horseman · 05-05-2015 7:51pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Germany has invested heavily in solar power and wind turbines, I believe. They have yet to see a net gain.

In Germany in Summer, there is so much solar on the grid, the cost of energy is zero.

The only people against it are the power companies.

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 7:52pm

Links234 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are what we should be looking into.

That's still nuclear power, no?

shane9689 · 05-05-2015 7:52pm

nuclear power just isnt worth the risk. You can have all the worlds finest saftey measures in place, but the risk will always be there when it comes to nuclear energy. Its only energy, its not worth losing our entire Island over it.

as the previous poster said, theres lots of other options that havent been fully explored yet that have practically no risk. the worst a wind turbine or wave turbine can do is fall over.

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 7:53pm

kneemos wrote: »

Why is there a ban on Uranium mining?

Moral outrage at nuclear weapons, scare-mongering over the safety of disposing such materials.

Arsemageddon · 05-05-2015 7:54pm

Sure we don't need that nuclear shyte, we have turf.

snubbleste · 05-05-2015 7:54pm

We should seek a way of harnessing human energy
all those thoughts, dreams, walks, reflex actions, loving, cuddling, anger, talking etc would surely power a house or three

power101 · 05-05-2015 7:55pm

Absolutely no need for nuclear power. Solar with battery storage all the way.

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 7:57pm

shane9689 wrote: »

nuclear power just isnt worth the risk. You can have all the worlds finest saftey measures in place, but the risk will always be there when it comes to nuclear energy. Its only energy, its not worth losing our entire Island over it.

as the previous poster said, theres lots of other options that havent been fully explored yet that have practically no risk. the worst a wind turbine or wave turbine can do is fall over.

Yes, there is an inherent risk. But there's an inherent risk in everything, and the risk in fossil fuels is a real and present danger, not just a mere possibility.

For instance, if a wind turbine is set up, but not properly secured, it could fall apart and cause severe damage, or kill the people maintaining it.

Nuclear energy has so many precautions and preventative measures in place because we know it's dangerous. But there's a danger of getting hit by a car when we cross the road, but we still cross the road. We just look both ways (taking necessary precautions). Nuclear energy is like looking both ways across the road about five times, then waiting and listening to make sure there isn't a car in the distance, then looking both ways again before crossing.

05-05-2015 8:02pm

"With depleting gas reserves, .."

False. The world is awash with cheap natural gas. This is the way to go. The Norwegians can supply a mobile LNG terminal so even if irish gas gets depleted, we could import all our needs for decades to come.

Frynge · 05-05-2015 8:05pm

power101 wrote: »

Absolutely no need for nuclear power. Solar with battery storage all the way.

Your post leads me to believe you have very little understanding of nuclear, solar and battery technology.

Shenshen · 05-05-2015 8:05pm

If Ireland wanted to be cutting edge, we should seriously look into nuclear fusion.

The problem with fission is not just the inherent danger of radiation while energy is being produced, the problems of what to do with used fuel rods is by far greater.
Fission-promoters will always shout about that damage being done to the environment by fossil fuel, and will try and sell nuclear fission as "clean". It's anything but. It produces dangerous waste. Waste that will remain to be dangerous to the environment, humans and wildlife for millenia.

I really don't see any reason for Ireland to join that club. I think there should be massive investment into research into making fusion commercially available and viable.

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 8:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

"With depleting gas reserves, .."

False. The world is awash with cheap natural gas. This is the way to go. The Norwegians can supply a mobile LNG terminal so even if irish gas gets depleted, we could import all our needs for decades to come.

On a technicality, my claim holds true. Yes, there might be large reserves, but every single barrel taken out results in a depleted stock. There's also the problem of climate change and carbon emissions.

Imports results in leakages from the economy. It is better to produce as much of our own energy as possible. This way you can control your energy prices, and not have to rely on external supplies (which could run out, be cut off, etc). If Ireland's uranium deposits are economically feasible, we could use our own uranium. Or, if push comes to shove, we could buy from Australia or Canada (resulting in a significantly lower leakage from the economy).

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 8:09pm

Shenshen wrote: »

If Ireland wanted to be cutting edge, we should seriously look into nuclear fusion.

The problem with fission is not just the inherent danger of radiation while energy is being produced, the problems of what to do with used fuel rods is by far greater.
Fission-promoters will always shout about that damage being done to the environment by fossil fuel, and will try and sell nuclear fission as "clean". It's anything but. It produces dangerous waste. Waste that will remain to be dangerous to the environment, humans and wildlife for millenia.

I really don't see any reason for Ireland to join that club. I think there should be massive investment into research into making fusion commercially available and viable.

I agree with you, but the likelihood of Ireland being the one to crack the code on industrial nuclear fusion is incredibly unlikely. Any resources we could devote to it would be dwarfed by other nations.

Yes, depleted uranium is quite damaging if it gets into the locality. However, it is quite unlikely for that to happen. Of course there are examples of it happening, but it is not catastrophic and those are usually mismanaged/failed oversight.

05-05-2015 8:14pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Imports results in leakages from the economy. It is better to produce as much of our own energy as possible. This way you can control your energy prices, and not have to rely on external supplies (which could run out, be cut off, etc). If Ireland's uranium deposits are economically feasible, we could use our own uranium. Or, if push comes to shove, we could buy from Australia or Canada (resulting in a significantly lower leakage from the economy).

Uranium is the least cost of nuclear power. A single power plant can easily cost 5 to 10 BILLION and this would of course be for foreign companys.

As I mentioned above the answer is gas, most is just flared off today. Its dirt cheap, the power plants are relatively inexpensive and the technology is safe, reliable and well understood.

IrishTrajan · 05-05-2015 8:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Uranium is the least cost of nuclear power. A single power plant can easily cost 5 to 10 BILLION and this would of course be for foreign companys.

As I mentioned above the answer is gas, most is just flared off today. Its dirt cheap, the power plants are relatively inexpensive and the technology is safe, reliable and well understood.

It is also why sea levels are projected to rise, and why we can't continue to use such conventional forms of energy. If you can get clean, "emission-light" gas, I would be all ears.

05-05-2015 8:35pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It is also why sea levels are projected to rise, and why we can't continue to use such conventional forms of energy. If you can get clean, "emission-light" gas, I would be all ears.

I don't want to get into the global warming debate but suffice it to say that, governments should think about this in an intelligent manner. Power generation is essential, gas has huge advantages and must be prioritised, even if this means cutbacks in other fossil fuels. There are much worse things than the emissions from gas.

Junkyard Tom · 05-05-2015 8:44pm

Nuclear is a money pit that the public ends up underwriting for generations.

The most important subsidies to the industry do not involve cash payments. Rather, they shift construction-cost and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening taxpayers with an array of risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents and nuclear waste management.

This approach, which has remained remarkably consistent throughout the industry’s history, distorts market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments. Although it may not involve direct cash payments, such favored treatment is nevertheless a subsidy, with a profound effect on the bottom line for the industry and taxpayers alike.

Reactor owners, therefore, have never been economically responsible for the full costs and risks of their operations. Instead, the public faces the prospect of severe losses in the event of any number of potential adverse scenarios, while private investors reap the rewards if nuclear plants are economically successful. For all practical purposes, nuclear power’s economic gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized.

ucsusa.org

seamus · 06-05-2015 9:34am

As others have said, there's nothing inherently unsafe or evil about nuclear power, it's the build and operation of the plants which is the main problem. The capital costs are very high, and it has a relatively fixed operational cost that's practically impossible to drive down because there are very few corners you can legally or safely cut. But if you have it up and running you can produce savage amounts of power from a tiny amount of fuel, so if you have a buyer for all your power, you're set.

This is why it can works in countries with big power demands, but it's a money pit in countries that don't.

Renewables really are the way to go. Solar and wind in particular. They've recently passed the tipping point - where the world is now installing more new solar & wind power generation than oil & gas. It's all about economies of scale. The more that are installed, the cheaper and more efficient they become. You'll always have detractors, in the same way that some people claim electric cars will never work, but they're pissing in the wind.

The next phase of power generation is a decentralised grid. Rather than relying on massive energy output from individual points in the grid, power generation will be provided by much smaller local stations (and domestic solar/wind generators), with a substantial amount of battery storage provided by local storage stations and domestic power storage. This will mean that load is very efficiently levelled and the overall cost of power drops since you have far smaller transmission costs. Eirgrid would still maintain a couple of power stations to keep the grid topped up, that can also provide large-scale output in the event that there's a significant loss of generation in the grid (such as after a storm or heavy snow).

Renewables aren't completely clean of course. There are issues. But long-term they're the only way to go.

WoollyRedHat · 06-05-2015 12:14pm

I've heard some interesting recent developments re: solar power such as the grids coming out of the likes of China that are significantly smaller in squares but more plentiful therefore absorbing more sun and providing more solar power, anybody care to expand on this who has heard anything about it?

Birneybau · 06-05-2015 12:14pm

It's pronounced nuke-u-ler.

IrishTrajan · 06-05-2015 12:34pm

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I've heard some interesting recent developments re: solar power such as the grids coming out of the likes of China that are significantly smaller in squares but more plentiful therefore absorbing more sun and providing more solar power, anybody care to expand on this who has heard anything about it?

I believe China is working on building the largest solar power plant in the world, and becoming producers of such technology. They're doing it because they see money in it, which is pretty hopeful. More people invest, the cheaper it becomes and more likely to be produced.

Rhys Essien · 06-05-2015 1:39pm

Trigger Happy wrote: »

The massive initial outlay always stuck me as the reason smaller nations cant afford to build a nuclear power station.

But I would definetly want us to seriously look at wind and wave power first. We are way too slow to embrace these....or properly debate them.

We are well ahead.A €15m wave research building is set to open this year.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/15m-research-lab-to-turn-ireland-into-energy-leader-236655.html

Not doing too bad on the wind side of things either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Union

Our population is too small in Ireland to be considering nuclear and we dont need the risk and the cost.

Nuclear Energy

Comments