Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should we go Nuclear?

Options
24567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Zube wrote: »
    That's because it doesn't exist. It's easy for a theoretical power source to be clean and efficient on paper.

    Nuclear fusion won't be flawless, but damn well better than this fission technology which could ruin us completely.

    For a start, no uranium would be needed. Fusion reactions can be achieved using isotopes of helium. One such isotope is deuterium - and where can you find that? Only in the big blue thing covering 75% of the Earth! It is absolutely abundant.

    Secondly, any nuclear waste that would be produced, while actually more dangerous than fission, would have an far shorter half-life. Most waste will only remain dangerous for 50-100 years, and we will by the time fusion becomes viable, have storage solutions to deal with this adequately.

    Third, uranium has potential to run out. Theoretically, there is enough deuterium to sustain us for over 100 billion years.


  • Options
    #33
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Nuclear fusion won't be flawless, but damn well better than this fission technology which could ruin us completely..

    Third, uranium has potential to run out. Theoretically, there is enough deuterium to sustain us for over 100 billion years.

    Pardon my pointing out the rather very obvious.

    Most of us will be dead and buried by the time Fusion is commercially deployed.

    We are talking NOW about what should be built to replace Moneypoint when Moneypoint life expires in 2020 at the latest.

    Nuclear or Coal is the option for baseload for my lifetime because I am unlikely to outlive the plant that will come onstream c 2020.

    Tide has much better baseload potential than wind but large scale tidal deployments are not possible right now and seem unlikely to make it into the policy by 2020 either.


  • Options
    #34
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Pardon my pointing out the rather very obvious.

    Most of us will be dead and buried by the time Fusion is commercially deployed.

    Unfortunately so, I was merely addressing the posters' comment. Fusion does exist and will work, but, as you pointed out, not on a commerically viable scale for another 40,50+ years.


  • Options
    #35
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    BluntGuy, fusion has been 40-50 years away for the last 40-50 years. Obviously it works (once a day, every day) but that's 1AU away.

    you said
    bluntguy wrote:
    As someone with a background in physics who actually understands how nuclear power works
    then you said
    bluntguy wrote:
    Fusion reactions can be achieved using isotopes of helium. One such isotope is deuterium
    but Deuterium is an Isotope of Hydrogen, not Helium.

    Then you said
    bluntguy wrote:
    The uranium in question was unenriched so its half-life would be miniscule and it would decay quickly.
    Uranium 238 has a very long half life of 4.5e9 years, which is why there is some existing on earth today. It was made in a supernova long before the solar system was made.



    Sure, there are incidents/accidents and fatalities caused by nuclear power. but as has been pointed out coal power emits more radioactivity than a well run fission plant - and I don't think any plant run by bnfl counts as well run.
    Look at Sweden and Canada for examples of how to do it better.

    There are probably more coal miners killed in China each year than have ever died from civil nuclear power accidents.


  • Options
    #36
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    BluntGuy, fusion has been 40-50 years away for the last 40-50 years. Obviously it works (once a day, every day) but that's 1AU away.

    You are correct in saying that some believed Fusion would be working by 2000. But with record levels of investment and a plan clearly set out, the chances are certainly more hopeful.
    Uranium 238 has a very long half life of 4.5e9 years, which is why there is some existing on earth today. It was made in a supernova long before the solar system was made.

    You're talking about natural uranium U-238, which indeed does have a 4.5 billion year half-life. The uranium solution in question was unenriched but not the natural uranium you find in the Earth. It decayed very quickly.
    Sure, there are incidents/accidents and fatalities caused by nuclear power. but as has been pointed out coal power emits more radioactivity than a well run fission plant - and I don't think any plant run by bnfl counts as well run.

    That may be true. But many of the products created by coal power are FAR LESS radioactive than many of the products of fission.
    There are probably more coal miners killed in China each year than have ever died from civil nuclear power accidents.

    In fairness, China probably has more people working in coal mines than have ever worked in nuclear power plants... and the working conditions and safety levels would be atrocious in comparison.
    but Deuterium is an Isotope of Hydrogen, not Helium.

    Oops... that's correct. Rather embarrassing mistake to make. :o

    May as well say for nobody's general interest, that tritium, another isotope of hydrogen, could play a role in a possible viable fusion reactor.

    But I think I've strayed too far into what fusion could do for us, rather than why we shouldn't go with fission.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    serfboard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭serfboard


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    But I think I've strayed too far into what fusion could do for us, rather than why we shouldn't go with fission.

    Agreed. I presume the OP refers to fission. The discussion on fusion is off-topic, really. Now, if only we could get a moderator to say that ... ;)


  • Options
    #38
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    serfboard wrote: »
    Agreed. I presume the OP refers to fission. The discussion on fusion is off-topic, really. Now, if only we could get a moderator to say that ... ;)

    :D I meant fission alright.


  • Options
    #39
    knipex
    Registered Users Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    Plowman wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    We have some uranium - but do we have enough for Nuclear Power? I think we should develop our renewable energy potential first, and if we still need other power sources, we could consider Nuclear Power. However, I'd rather wait until Nuclear Fusion becomes viable - it is said to be more efficient and much safer than the current Nuclear Fission technology.

    For now, I'll vote No...

    Regards!



    To all those advocating a dependence on renewables I have one question.

    Do you want to see a situation where electricity will be rationed and blackouts a daily occurrence ?

    Current renewables (with the exception of Hydro which to my knowledge has been pretty much maxed out) have two issues.

    Firstly they are far from reliable. They produce on an ad hoc basis when conditions are right. You cannot depend on power being available..

    So the solution is smart metering that will adjust the amount that you are allowed to use as the amount of electricity available changes.

    I for one do not see that as a viable solution. It will wipe out any remaining industry in this country.

    Issue two is cost. Wind power in particular is extremely expensive to produce.


    For Ireland to survive and an economic entity we need two things.

    A supply of reliable secure power.
    A supply of power that is competitive on the international markets.


  • Options
    #40
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    No nuclear power.

    Hell no. If you want it put it in your backyard, I bet you will be all up in arms about it. This would end the hypothecial crap on this thread.


    You know as we live on world where energy is free and we generate power in so many ways, why the hell would you consider nuclear.

    It's like taking a **** load of steroids so you cheat the olympics. It's a really really cheap way to be. Take the easy option.


    Really not happy with some of the responses on here. I need to check what decade we are in. For a moment I was nearly sure we were warped into the 60s.

    No we don't need Nuclear power. We have one built 40 miles off Dublin. And thats a nightmare without having nuclear already on this island.


  • Options
    #41
    Tech3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    mysterious wrote: »
    Take the easy option.

    Employ Homer J Simpson? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    tech2 wrote: »
    Employ Homer J Simpson? :rolleyes:

    I used it as Irony!

    We tend to always use the easy option. It's funny now that you say it. Homer simpson works for a nuclear power plant. One would make you wonder.


  • Options
    #43
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    I have another question to all the people who want nuclear.


    If you want it build next to your house. We are a small country. So I don't want it anywhere near me and I have that right!

    Thanks! I'm really looking forward to some answers to THAT one


  • Options
    #44
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    I'm still undecided.
    But can someone clearly tell me: If nuclear power is good enough for the French and the Germans and the Americans and the British and the Scandinavians, why isn't it good enough for Ireland?


  • Options
    #45
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Furet wrote: »
    I'm still undecided.
    But can someone clearly tell me: If nuclear power is good enough for the French and the Germans and the Americans and the British and the Scandinavians, why isn't is good enough for Ireland?

    I don't think it's a case of it not being "good enough", those countries just want cheap 'n' easy power, and they got it. We could do the same.

    But people need to understand that "cheap 'n' easy" comes at a price, a potentially enormous one. And I for one, am not willing to pay that price. I can go into a graphic description of what radiation poisoning does people - how it can affect their atomic structure, even at lower-levels, I can describe in even more detail exactly where fission can go wrong, I can explain the appualingly inefficient waste management solutions we have.

    I just want people to understand fully the possible consequences, don't say "yes" based on some economic commentators, anymore than you'd say "no" based on the uninformed yappings of a random eco-hippy.


  • Options
    #46
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Okay. I have no background in any of this, so please forgive me if the following question is abominably stupid.

    A big concern is a meltdown and a Chernobyl-type environmental disaster, yes? I know that there are other concerns, but this is the big one - am I right? Now, why not build a nuclear power plant deep underground, under hard rock? I don't just ask this with Ireland in mind, but with nuclear power in general in mind. HYPOTHETICALLY, would a nuclear plant gone wrong be easier to deal with if it was deep underground and the chamber that housed it was collapsable?


  • Options
    #47
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Furet wrote: »
    Okay. I have no background in any of this, so please forgive me if the following question is abominably stupid.

    A big concern is a meltdown and a Chernobyl-type environmental disaster, yes? I know that there are other concerns, but this is the big one - am I right? Now, why not build a nuclear power plant deep underground, under hard rock? I don't just ask this with Ireland in mind, but with nuclear power in general in mind. HYPOTHETICALLY, would a nuclear plant gone wrong be easier to deal with if it was deep underground and the chamber that housed it was collapsable?
    Yes, but nuclear power stations are large installations and the cavern required would be enormously expensive (if technically possible) to build. It would also add the risk of a rock collapse itself causing an incident!


  • Options
    #48
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    mysterious wrote: »
    If you want it build next to your house.

    I'd rather live downwind of a Nuclear plant than downwind of Moneypoint, but nearly everyone here actually does live downwind of Moneypoint.

    Thanks a lot, all you 70s hippies.


  • Options
    #49
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,448 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    You're talking about natural uranium U-238, which indeed does have a 4.5 billion year half-life. The uranium solution in question was unenriched but not the natural uranium you find in the Earth.

    If it wasn't natural uranium, and wasn't enriched, what was it?
    It decayed very quickly.
    The half-life of uranium-235 is 703,800,000 years.

    You seem to think that long half-life=dangerous, short half-life=safe. For a given amount of a radioactive substance, in fact pretty much the exact opposite is true. Short half-life means that all of the radioactivity is released in a shorter time, so the rate of emission is higher. Of course you have to consider biochemical factors (e.g. is it excreted or does it bind to bone) and what the decay products are.

    But a nuclear reactor should not be emitting anything into the environment. Coal plants just send all sorts of pollution, including radioactivity, up the stack - even ignoring the CO2 angle it's not acceptable.

    Pinning your hopes on fusion power is futile, imho. Like tidal, it has great potential but just doesn't work at the moment and it may be many decades before it can be made work.

    Edit: I meant open-sea wave power, not tidal. Tidal isn't so difficult to do, but expensive, and like hydro power there is not a huge number of good sites.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #50
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Pinning your hopes on fusion power is futile, imho. Like tidal, it has great potential but just doesn't work at the moment and it may be many decades before it can be made work.

    I don't want to go back into the fusion argument because we all agree that it's many decades away, I've said it multiple times myself.

    I'll briefly address your point about half-life though... I understand very clearly the point you're making about rate-of-decay. However from the stand-point of nuclear waste management, the products created in the whole process of creating energy by fission are easier to deal with if they have a shorter half-life, particularly if they're very radioactive.

    EDIT: Okay, I'm gonna stop talking about fusion. I'd like to ask someone what they think are the benefits of fission as a power source (apart from cheap)? I want to know what people know about how nuclear waste is managed. There seem to be one or two other posters here with some experience in this field... I'd love some new points to address and consider. Also, I wonder, how much do people who aren't in science circles or have science backgrounds know about fission. It may explain why people think how they think. :)


  • Options
    #51
    Zoney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭Zoney


    Zube wrote: »
    I'd rather live downwind of a Nuclear plant than downwind of Moneypoint, but nearly everyone here actually does live downwind of Moneypoint.

    Thanks a lot, all you 70s hippies.

    Don't the Moneypoint emissions land in Wales? (Not that that doesn't matter, but just on the point of people here living downwind of it...)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,448 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I'll briefly address your point about half-life though... I understand very clearly the point you're making about rate-of-decay. However from the stand-point of nuclear waste management, the products created in the whole process of creating energy by fission are easier to deal with if they have a shorter half-life, particularly if they're very radioactive.

    Not necessarily. Short half-life = more heat produced, which can be a problem.

    Been a while since I read up on this, but IIRC the stuff that causes the most issues with high-level waste is that with a half-life of about 50 years. Short enough to generate significant heat, long enough that it has to be stored carefully for hundreds of years.

    But - and it's a big but - we're talking about the high-level waste products of reprocessing here, which are generally quite nasty chemically as well - acidic liquids and sludges that generate lots of heat. Most of what exists in this form is a result of 1950s-60s nuclear weapon programmes and no thought whatsoever was given to anything at that time other than maximising weapon production.

    You're not obliged to reprocess at all. You can store spent fuel quite easily. If you do choose to reprocess it, you can leave it a couple of decades until the short-lived isotopes have decayed away and it's much easier to deal with. That wasn't an option during the Cold War.

    Also, I wonder, how much do people who aren't in science circles or have science backgrounds know about fission. It may explain why people think how they think. :)

    To be blunt - f**k all - apart from media scaremongering which is the only time the word 'nuclear' is heard.

    A friend of mine (10 years older than me :) ) moved in the 'save Wood Quay' type circles in the late 70s. Almost everyone who went to the Carnsore Point demo was hoping to get pissed or get laid, the bands were just looking for a decent gig, a small number of people were actually bothered about the issue...

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #53
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,448 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Zoney wrote: »
    Don't the Moneypoint emissions land in Wales? (Not that that doesn't matter, but just on the point of people here living downwind of it...)

    Nope, they extended the stacks so it goes to Norway and Sweden...

    BluntGuy, can you provide any more detail on what leaked in that leak you were talking about?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #54
    Gonzales
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Gonzales


    I voted yes for building a plant in Ireland as I believe the technology 7 safety standards are sufficently mature to be efficent 7 safe, then on second thought I started to think why bother with all the infrastructure & overheads required, why not just tap inot the euro grid & buy it off them? Seriously - all our power needs?


  • Options
    #55
    knipex
    Registered Users Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    mysterious wrote: »

    You know as we live on world where energy is free and we generate power in so many ways, why the hell would you consider nuclear.

    That single comment destroyed the credibility of your entire argument.

    There is no "free" energy and if you don't understand that then you have understanding of the topic being debated.


  • Options
    #56
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Furet wrote: »
    Okay. I have no background in any of this, so please forgive me if the following question is abominably stupid.

    A big concern is a meltdown and a Chernobyl-type environmental disaster, yes? I know that there are other concerns, but this is the big one - am I right? Now, why not build a nuclear power plant deep underground, under hard rock? I don't just ask this with Ireland in mind, but with nuclear power in general in mind. HYPOTHETICALLY, would a nuclear plant gone wrong be easier to deal with if it was deep underground and the chamber that housed it was collapsable?

    Chernobyl in some ways was abit of a freak. Because the soviets designed that model of a reactor (RBMK) without a concrete containment building. The reason for this is the RBMK model was designed to be refueled while still in use and was thus considerably taller then your average reactor. The soviets basically cut corners and decided it would be too expensive to build a containment building. When the reactor explosion occured it thus blew the un-reinforced roof off the reactor building.

    Every reactor in the west is contained in a containment building, if you look at photos these are solid conrete buildings with round roofs etc.

    If a similar sized explosion occured in a western reactor it would have caused considerably less damage as a result. The other problem with Chernobyl was that the explosion was caused by staff members who were able to over-ride the built in safety system so that they could simulate a disaster for a training session.

    Basically bad engineering combined with bad human procedure led to a disaster.


  • Options
    #57
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,448 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    The problem with Chernobyl wasn't just a lack of containment - several reactors in the UK had no secondary containment, but AFAIK all are decommissioned now.

    It was a failure of the entire system to prioritise safety. That goes from design to build to operation, to training and maintenance, to eventual decommissioning.

    The Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s needed to get power stations online as quickly as possible and keep them online as much as possible. Power shortages were a huge issue, and everything else was secondary to keeping the lights on, literally.

    So - why not build a more risky design, if it allows for on-line refuelling so you don't have to shut down? Why not take shortcuts when carrying out training and a safety drill? (the immediate cause of the accident.) There are so many reasons why Chernobyl could not have happened in the West. The control systems and instrumentation were woefully deficient. The operators were poorly trained.

    Perhaps the worst safety feature of the RBMK was that it had what was known as a 'positive void coefficient' - in other words, the cooling water helps control the reaction. If it overheats and starts to boil, you get bubbles which increase the reactivity, causing even more overheating. This makes the reactor very difficult to control if the operators allow the power level to get too high, and greatly increases the chances of a catastrophic accident. A reactor with such a design would never have been permitted in the West.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #58
    serfboard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,680 ✭✭✭serfboard


    I was watching David McWilliams on the telly last night, and he was looking at a Pebble Bed Reactor in China. This technology is still being researched, but it seems like much safer fission technology than currently exists.


  • Options
    #59
    westtip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    I would say no to the OP - having thought about it and actually voted yes in your poll - it suddenly crossed my mind that someone like the geyser at FAS could be put in charge of the doubtless Government Agency that would be created to oversee safety and regualations at Ireland Nuclear.inc

    Now the thought of anyone at any of these public quangos or any of our politicians having responsibility for such a venture is .....

    The stuff of halloween nightmares.

    Scary very very scary.


  • Options
    #60
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,448 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    That smacks more than a bit of a poor-mouth-shure'n-aren't-tings-terrible response - the attitude that held this country back for decades after independence.

    There is no reason whatsoever why, if we decide to do this, we cannot make a great success of it.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Steviemak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 430 ✭✭Steviemak


    serfboard wrote: »
    I was watching David McWilliams on the telly last night, and he was looking at a Pebble Bed Reactor in China. This technology is still being researched, but it seems like much safer fission technology than currently exists.

    Plus it can be developed on a much smaller scale which would suit our small country perfectly. Going straight to this we could steal a march on most countries who invested heavily on the older generation plants.


Advertisement