Nuclear Power

murphaph

Ok, I have read precisely 0 of this thread but here's my $0.02 on Nuclear....

We're at least going to have to look at it. Firstly of course we should explore energy consumption reduction, then we must look to sweat every possible renewable low emission resource we have, and we have quite a few that other countries would be very envious of;

• Wind
• Tidal
• Hydro
• Solar (yes, solar!)

Then we must look at renewable roesouces such as biofuels (again, we have plenty of arable land available for this!).

At the same time as looking at these things we continue to exploit our domestic fossil resources and finally we must look at Nuclear fission. It is silly to dismiss any/all of them as they can all form a part of our energy supply requirements. Fission has come on leaps and bounds in the last 50 years, comparing a modern, well run nuclear fission station to Chernoblyl is a poor comparison. I'd rather look at France with 85% nuclear generation with no major incidents at all! Obviously fusion provides at least a hope of very low emission/waste energy generation but in the interim I believe modern fission will have to be looked at. One thing's for certain, Ireland, despite having masses of available renewable resources has utterly failed to significantly tap into them and we are as a result the most fossil fuel dependent nation in the EU. A very sad state of affairs for a nation which in 1926 managed to generate 100%+ of it's electricity requirements from renewable hydro. Where did we lose our way on this and go hell for leather into fossil generation? We built these large hydro plants at a time when we were broke. Now we have oodles of money and have apparently no inclination to develop our renewable resources further.

bk

bonkey up until last year I would have been dead set against Nuclear energy, it is only over the last few months that I've done some reading about it and I've found it to be far from as evil as I first assumed and actually quite a good option compared to the alternatives.

I'm certainly not 100% convinced about Nuclear and I'm completely open to effective alternatives. However I do try and go out of my way to correct peoples misconceptions about the dangers of Nuclear.

This may cause me to sound like I think Nuclear is the only option, I don't think that, but I do want to remove the FUD surrounding Nuclear power so like murphaph says we can have a logical, dispassionate review of all the options open to us and choose the most efficient, cleanest and realistic option, weither it be Nuclear, Wind, scrubbed coal burning, biofuel, etc.

Sponge Bob

bk wrote:

bonkey up until last year I would have been dead set against Nuclear energy, it is only over the last few months that I've done some reading about it and I've found it to be far from as evil as I first assumed and actually quite a good option compared to the alternatives.

especially as the outer limit sea level rises will have Sellafield under the Irish sea in 100 years anyway .

KerranJast

Nobody has really answered my earlier question about where we would get our supply of nuclear fuel from. Are there viable uranium deposits in Ireland or would we be dependent on foreign nations for it as we are with oil/gas?

If we did want to build a nuclear plant, I don't think as a nation we could do it alone. We would probably have to offer to share power from it with the UK or even France (via an interconnector) in return for some initial investment/expertise in setting it up. We would have to have the backup power from an interconnector available if we did build our own plant as it wouldn't be operational all the time. There's no way it would be viable in isolation.

Sponge Bob

KerranJast wrote:

Nobody has really answered my earlier question about where we would get our supply of nuclear fuel from. Are there viable uranium deposits in Ireland or would we be dependent on foreign nations for it as we are with oil/gas?

dunno about viable but there are deposits .

were we to import then the main suppliers would be canada or australia with whom we get on rather than the wahhabis .

If we did want to build a nuclear plant, I don't think as a nation we could do it alone. We would probably have to offer to share power from it with the UK or even France (via an interconnector) in return for some initial investment/expertise in setting it up.

I would say we could and we MUST interconnect whatever we do. Make sure its built inland, not in Carnsore point .....and don't forget that Sellafield itsleft could end up under the sea , see the independent .co.uk 17/02/06 quoting a NASA Scientist Jim Hansen on the subect of the lakes on top of the Greenland ice cap.

How fast can this go? Right now, I think our best measure is what happened in the past. We know that, for instance, 14,000 years ago sea levels rose by 20m in 400 years - that is five metres in a century. This was towards the end of the last ice age, so there was more ice around. But, on the other hand, temperatures were not warming as fast as today.

How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don't act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth's history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself

25m would take out most of Dublin Cork Limerick and Galway , make Kildare into beachfront and make Athlone cosmopolitan and funky .

We would have to have the backup power from an interconnector available if we did build our own plant as it wouldn't be operational all the time. There's no way it would be viable in isolation.

nothing is, interconnects are required for all possible scenarios going forward.

zepp

bk wrote:

No, it was a report done in the UK in 2004 that looked at the total cost of building NEW power generating plants and included all costs including waste disposal and decommissioning:

There is loads of reports on cost. The one you quote is one of the lowest http://www.nirs.org/ch20/publications/nip5_thomas.pdf

Pa ElGrande

A major Energy Policy report published on Wed. July 12 recommends that Ireland needs to reduce per capita energy demand by 20% within the next 15 years, and at the same time achieve a 15% substitution of fossil fuels by energy sources that have no greenhouse gas emissions or which are environmentally neutral.

Irish Academy of Engineering Comprehensive Blueprint To Tackle Energy Problems
http://www.iei.ie/PressArchive/pressdetails.pasp?INT_NEWS_ITEM_ID=389&recordsperpage=20&PageNumber=1&ShowTab=1&MenuID=20

Spotted this over the week but I have not got my hands on it yet so I can't comment of its contents.

punky

A lot of posters have mentioned the fact that renewable won't meet our energy demands in the coming decades. Therefore, we need to start building lots of nuclear reactors.

This presupposes that:

1. We cannot become far more efficient with the energy we generate and use.

2. It is in the best interest of the human race that we keep expanding our economies and our populations to sustain our development (as opposed to ensuring sustainable development that can prosper without overheating the planet).

3. That we cannot use a combination of renewable energies to make up for any inadequacies in any one particularly energy source. For example, off-shore wind turbines can also harness tidal power. Solar panels could provide free and clean hot water to all houses for 6 months of the year.

4. We have any long term solution to the radioactive waste produced by nuclear fission plants. If fusion works in the future, fine. But future generations will have to live with the legacy of fission plants if we turn to them for a short-term energy fix. Better to wait until there is proven clean nuclear energy available.

5. That nuclear energy makes any financial sense. All of us are indirectly subsidising the European nuclear power through the Eurotom treaty. Nuclear energy is heavily subsidised by governments throughout the world because it's extremely costly. Tony Blair recently stated that there would be no subsidies for a new generation of nuclear plants in Britain but the experts don't believe him because it won't be economically viable for the nuclear companies without lots of subsidies and tax-breaks.

I don't support current nuclear energy technologies but am open-minded about future technology. Meanwhile, lets do everything we can to be energy efficient, to develop clean renewable technologies (no, nuclear isn't clean) and let's try and shift our mind-set and think of the long-term and the big picture.

silverharp

punky wrote:

2. It is in the best interest of the human race that we keep expanding our economies and our populations to sustain our development (as opposed to ensuring sustainable development that can prosper without overheating the planet).

This is a valid point but in a democracy this will only be a 5% view, to some extent we are hard wired to continue today as we did yesterday. No party will ever get elected on the basis that they will implement negative growth policies, for this to happen a sustained and severe energy crises would have to occur only after this would people come to their senses slowly. RTE 5-7 did a few pieces on Peal Oil a few months back, did everyone drive home and put a for sale sign on their car, NO! . The greens for electoral reasons come across as saying that a few changes here and there will sort this out with the underlying view that life goes on as normal, this is utterly false, the implications of peak oil with 1-3% less oil each year as output drops implies the end of the car, globalisation, air travel for leisure purposes, the list is endless

If anyone is against nuclear on a worldwide basis then you have to add that many high rise cities around the world are to be abandoned, large cities can’t go from dense energy sources back to less dense energy sources, nature may impose this solution on mankind but politicians certainly won’t, anything that has a positive energy return will be used, it will come down to do you prefer nuclear or manufactured oil made with coal or tar sands with all the greenhouse gas implications, in reality there may not be a choice.

bk

punky wrote:

A lot of posters have mentioned the fact that renewable won't meet our energy demands in the coming decades. Therefore, we need to start building lots of nuclear reactors.

This presupposes that:

1. We cannot become far more efficient with the energy we generate and use.

We can become some what more efficient, but not significantly enough to make up for the massive increase in energy demands due to increasing world populations (10% in Ireland alone in the last 5 years) and increasing wealth of formerly poor populations (greater wealth typically means far greater energy use).

Energy efficiency is unlikely to have a real impact on our energy requirements going forward.

punky wrote:

2. It is in the best interest of the human race that we keep expanding our economies and our populations to sustain our development (as opposed to ensuring sustainable development that can prosper without overheating the planet).

What is best is irrelevant, it is human nature to expand and unfortunately it is would almost be impossible to convince most people in the world to change their ways.

We need to make decision based on what is realistically possible, most people living in the real world will realise that what you say above is simply not possible.

punky wrote:

3. That we cannot use a combination of renewable energies to make up for any inadequacies in any one particularly energy source. For example, off-shore wind turbines can also harness tidal power. Solar panels could provide free and clean hot water to all houses for 6 months of the year.

Again nice thoughts but I've yet to seen any evidence that shows that renewable's can 100% replace our energy needs.

1) Wind
Nice energy source but unreliable, from what I've seen it can make up about 20% of a countries energy needs (Denmark has the highest wind use at 20%), but not more due to it's unreliability.

2) Hydro
Great source of power, proven tech, some Northern European countries use it to get most of their electricity. Unfortunately nearly all the good hydro sites throughout Europe including Ireland are already being used, so not much more to be gotten from this.

3) Tidal
Completely unproven technology, seems to be very fragile, very little being used in the world.

4) Solar
LOL, this in Ireland we are talking about. Lets be realistic for a moment, the majority of Irish people live in Dublin, many if not most in apartments, solar isn't going to do much for our energy needs.

I really wish I was wrong about this, I'd love if we found some fabulous renewable energy source, but I've yet to see anything that will fix 100% of our needs.

punky wrote:

4. We have any long term solution to the radioactive waste produced by nuclear fission plants. If fusion works in the future, fine. But future generations will have to live with the legacy of fission plants if we turn to them for a short-term energy fix. Better to wait until there is proven clean nuclear energy available.

Actually there are plenty of solutions to Nuclear waste, it is a messy but not impossible problem, vitrification being pretty damn good. The only problem is we need more vitrification plants to deal with waste, but no one wants the sites in their back yard.

punky wrote:

5. That nuclear energy makes any financial sense. All of us are indirectly subsidising the European nuclear power through the Eurotom treaty. Nuclear energy is heavily subsidised by governments throughout the world because it's extremely costly. Tony Blair recently stated that there would be no subsidies for a new generation of nuclear plants in Britain but the experts don't believe him because it won't be economically viable for the nuclear companies without lots of subsidies and tax-breaks.

Nearly every type of electricity generation is subsidised, just take a look at your last ESB bill, see the charge entitled "Public Services Obligations Levy" well that is there to basically subsidise wind power generation, which is significantly more expensive then burning fossil fuels like gas and coal.

Recent reports have found that Nuclear power, including all setup, running, decommissioning and waste disposal costs to be the same cost as coal and gas (when excluding carbon charges for coal and gas) and half the cost of wind or coal and gas including carbon charge.

In other words, including all costs, nuclear is actually one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity.

You can take a look at the report here (warning PDF): http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report.pdf
page 7 has a good graph summarising the cost results.

punky wrote:

I don't support current nuclear energy technologies but am open-minded about future technology. Meanwhile, lets do everything we can to be energy efficient, to develop clean renewable technologies (no, nuclear isn't clean) and let's try and shift our mind-set and think of the long-term and the big picture.

Up until about a year ago I was like you, I thought Nuclear was really bad and that renewable energy could solve all our problems. However I kept a really open mind, I researched all the available material and it is only over the last few months that I've started to change my mind and I've realised if we really want to stop polluting the environment, probably the only long term workable solution is Nuclear.

punky

Bk. Some interesting respones

With regards to the renewables issue, I didn't mean to suggest that we can feasibly get 100% of our energy sources from renewables in the near future. But we can do a hell of a lot better than now. I don't see 60 to 80 % by 2050, if coupled with massive energy efficiency measures, being unobtainable. The rest of our energy needs will undoubtedly come from remaining fossil fuels (hopefully with workable carbon capture technologies) and existing nuclear power plants.

If there is a serious effort to get as much as possible from renewables, the growth of this emerging industry could well bring about new technologies and techniques that could sometime in the future account for 100% of energy needs. I think it's something even the most sceptical of us need to keep an open mind about. Who would have imagined the power of nuclear a hundred years ago?

As for your point about population growth and human nature. I agree but I really do believe (here comes the controversial bit) that the International community needs to FORCE people to reproduce less. This can be achieved through education, supplying birth control, incentives etc. I'm not talking about killing unwanted babies or anything like that. Just sensible policies to bring down the populations trends in the developing world. From a humanitarian and environmental perspecitive, it is the right thing to do for the world's poor and the future of the planet.

silverharp

punky wrote:

Bk. Some interesting respones
As for your point about population growth and human nature. I agree but I really do believe (here comes the controversial bit) that the International community needs to FORCE people to reproduce less. This can be achieved through education, supplying birth control, incentives etc. I'm not talking about killing unwanted babies or anything like that. Just sensible policies to bring down the populations trends in the developing world. From a humanitarian and environmental perspecitive, it is the right thing to do for the world's poor and the future of the planet.

Well now, lets see how this was done in the west, turn everyone into consumers with mortgages where both people have to work and the marginal cost of having extra children becomes too high. How do we apply this to 3bn Asians and a billion Africans??