Go Nuclear or no?

PixelTrawler

if you look at germany - yes germany are commited to having all nuclear power gone by 2020

but if you take their largest windfarm 3500 turbines - what do they have tacked on to it - a nuclear power station....

the thing about windfarms is you need something to balance out the spikes and drops in power as the wind speed changes - therefore wind is only one possibility of power generation going forward but currently it is not feasible to only rely on it

as for fusion - we probably wont see commerical use of it in our life times - thats if the project in france succeeds at all ( be great if it does succeed )

our government is hypocritical about nuclear power - we import power from scotland generated from nuclear stations...

i think we need to seriously look at investing a small scale nuclear power station ( fission ) and now as we are 98% dependant on fossil fuels at the moment and thats a scary place to be at the moment

padi89

I must say im a bit 50/50 on the whole issue.I think inevitably we are going to start to look at nuclear energy as a source of power.
Watching that programme on Chernobyl last night on Discovery "The Battle of Chernobyl" it really really freaked me out.All of the interviews with the people involved in the clean up operation(not randon numbers from Government officials) showed how fragile we are as a race when nuclear power goes wrong.

Wertz

mayhem# wrote:

So what do you suggest?

E.

Oh come on, I was being facetious...you honestly think this nation is in a position to pour billions into an experimetal reactor, of which there are maybe 20 on the planet, none of which have managed to output a viable surplus of the energy that's put in to get the plasma to a stage where it can start to undergo fusion, and use that excess heat to drive tuboines?
People are seriously suggesting fusion as a viable alternative in the short term?

In one of the last tests at the Z-machine, the reaction being observed managed to double the expected heat temperature to along the lines of 2 billion degrees; hotter than the centre of stars. A small explosion resulted. The scientists still don't know even how the heat output doubled. We're in the infancy of being able to viably produce power, safely from fusion...at least we can do it with fission...although "safely" is a relative term.

I have nothing against research and an eventual coming online of fusion reactors...I hope it comes sooner rather than later. Fission may eventually become a necessary evil, but the bottom line, like my other two posts above, is that renewables are not being f*cking harnessed to even close to their potential in this country; wind, wave turbine and biomass can breach the gap and give fusion technology a chance to catch up...rushing out to spend a sh*tload of moeny to build a fission plant and supply it with fuel, service it and decomission it in 30 years is shortsighted. No-one's saying that we shoukld just carry on regardless, importing oil, burning up our gas reserves and peat, of course something needs to be done, but fission is a last chance saloon type option IMO and any move to adopt it is severely jumping the gun.

HappyCrackHead

I love this nuclear debate that we seem to be having....

Most people dont know that the world's uranium deposits (unless LOTS AND LOTS more are found) will only last at a max 20 years. And 50 years of OIL. COAL and GAS run out another 100 or so after that. and they're fairly liberal estimates.

Nuclear is not an alternative, just the industry trying to make a quick buck of the irish tax payer... the kinda thing Fianna Fail love.... "there's your donation"

blu_sonic

HappyCrackHead wrote:

I love this nuclear debate that we seem to be having....

Most people dont know that the world's uranium deposits (unless LOTS AND LOTS more are found) will only last at a max 20 years. And 50 years of OIL. COAL and GAS run out another 100 or so after that. and they're fairly liberal estimates.

Nuclear is not an alternative, just the industry trying to make a quick buck of the irish tax payer... the kinda thing Fianna Fail love.... "there's your donation"

so neuclear would be pointless??

HappyCrackHead

blu_sonic wrote:

so neuclear would be pointless??

no, it would be dangerous, wasteful and irresponsible.

nuclear power is not an alternative, it still relies on a scarce fuel. not to mention a little something called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. the Germans and French are planning to close theirs over the next few years.

this whole debate has just been stirred up by lobbiests who represent moneyed interests in the nuclear industry. We never would have had this debate even 5 years ago.

and dont talk about the price of oil, its over priced at the pumps. It takes nine months for oil to get from the ground to your car, the second theres word of a price hike by OPEC the prices go up at the pumps. Its a joke.

Dave!

There was some bloke on Newstalk 106 this morning talking to Eamon Dunphy, and he brought to my attention a UN report on the Chernobyl incident, which makes some interesting points:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501144.html

MOSCOW, Sept. 5 -- The long-term health and environmental impacts of the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, while severe, were far less catastrophic than feared, according to a major new report by eight U.N. agencies.

The governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the three countries most affected by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, should strive to end the "paralyzing fatalism" of tens of thousands of their citizens who wrongly believe they are still at risk of an early death, according to the study released Monday.

The Chernobyl plant was the site of the world's largest nuclear disaster. The accident has caused fewer than 50 deaths directly attributable to radiation.

The 600-page report found that as of the middle of this year, the accident had caused fewer than 50 deaths directly attributable to radiation, most of them among emergency workers who died in the first months after the accident. In the wake of the world's largest nuclear disaster, there were numerous predictions of mass fatalities from radiation.

The report said that nine children had died of thyroid cancer, but that the survival rate among the 4,000 children in the region who had developed thyroid cancer has been 99 percent. An expected spike in fertility problems and birth defects also failed to materialize, the study found.

"The health effects of the accident were potentially horrific, but when you add them up using validated conclusions from good science, the public health effects were not nearly as substantial as had at first been feared," Michael Repacholi, manager of the World Health Organization's radiation program, said in a statement.

U.N. scientists predicted about 4,000 eventual radiation-related deaths among 600,000 people in the affected area, including emergency workers and residents. That is consistent with predictions in the aftermath of the accident by scientists in the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine, Russia and Belarus were then a part.

But the vast majority of residents and emergency workers received relatively low doses of radiation, comparable to naturally occurring levels of exposure, the report said.
[the guy on Newstalk pointed out that you recieve more radiation from a chest x-ray... dunno how true that is though]

Officials said that the continued intense medical monitoring of tens of thousands of people in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus is no longer a smart use of limited resources and is, in fact, contributing to mental health problems among many residents nearly 20 years later. In Belarus and Ukraine, 5 percent to 7 percent of government spending is consumed by benefits and programs for Chernobyl victims. And in the three countries, as many as 7 million people are receiving Chernobyl-related social benefits.

"The monitoring of people with incredibly low doses uses huge amounts of resources and does more psychological harm than good," said Fred Mettler, a professor of radiology at the University of New Mexico who chaired one of three health groups in the study, titled "Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts." The study, involving more than 100 scientists, was compiled by U.N. agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, and representatives of the governments of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

Shortly after midnight, on April 26, 1986, after a complex chain of events at the Chernobyl plant, the water coolant vaporized and an explosion destroyed the reactor. The plant caught fire and plumes of radioactive material were released. Soviet authorities at first did not report the accident, but radioactive material was quickly detected in Scandinavian countries. Radioactive material continued to be released for another 10 days, spreading across Europe.

Over the next four years, a massive cleanup operation involving 240,000 workers ensued, and there were fears that many of these workers, called "liquidators," would suffer in subsequent years. But most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas "received relatively low whole radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels," a report summary noted. "No evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of congenital malformations."

In fact, the report said, apart from radiation-induced deaths, the "largest public health problem created by the accident" was its effect on the mental health of residents who were traumatized by their rapid relocation and the fear, still lingering, that they would almost certainly contract terminal cancer. The report said that lifestyle diseases, such as alcoholism, among affected residents posed a much greater threat than radiation exposure.

The report said that an immediate priority is to re-secure the reactor. After the disaster, a concrete sarcophagus was built over the plant, but it was hastily constructed and is showing signs of wear. "The main potential hazard of the shelter is a possible collapse of its top structures and release of radioactive dust into the environment," the report said.

David Zhania, emergencies minister in Ukraine, said last week that a new steel shelter for the plant would cost nearly $2 billion and that the country hoped to have it built by 2008 or 2009. About 28 foreign governments have already agreed to contribute more than $750 million to the project.

The report also found that except for a nearly 20-mile exclusion zone around the reactor, radiation levels have returned to acceptable levels in many areas where land had been abandoned for fear of contamination. "By radiological criteria alone a significant part of the abandoned agricultural lands (more than 70 percent) could be returned to economic use," the report said.

The abandonment of large tracts of land, combined with a ban on hunting, has led to a dramatic increase in wild animals and birds, including wolves, elk, wild boars, white-tailed eagles, owls, cranes and black storks.

"Without a permanent residency of humans for 20 years, the ecosystems around the Chernobyl site are now flourishing," the report said. "It looks like the nature park it has become."

So he makes the point that thousands were affected by having to relocate, and being homeless etc., but their health was not directly damaged by the radiation.

What do ye make of this?

New_Departure06

DaveMcG wrote:

Effective alternatives? Do you feel alright about having windmills in your front and back gardens, and solar panels on your roof?

I would. I'd sure feel better about it than creating a cancer factory and having to move to the West of Ireland and having my house turned into a worthless asset.

On the UN report, I am suspicious of an organisation whose idea of Human Rights monitoring is appointing Libya to the chair of their Human Rights Body. The UN is controlled by govts and as such, vested interests and political agendas can frame its utterances. I don't accept the UN report. I believe the Greenpeace report though.

Dave!

The founder of Greenpeace is actually pro- nuclear apparantly. I haven't read the Greenpeace report though.

The Bollox

I think we should go nuclear. I mean the chances of a meltdown or whatever are so low that you would have to be insane not to, nuclear power stations generate an enormous amount of electricity. look at the facts, nuclear energy has been around for about a half century, how many meltdowns were there? one. and it was due to the design at the time and incompitent workers, Homer Simpsons, if you will

"I can't understand it, there wasn't any radioactive materials in that truck!"

Tobias Greeshman

No way should Ireland adopt Nuclear Power, this government is incompetent at making project management decisions at best, building and running a nuclear power station. No thanks, with the dangers of Nuclear Fission, I don't want to live in a country with it.

However if Nuclear Fusion were possible, then I would consider it, it's a lot more safer, very little waste and unlimited supply of the fuel needed (Hydrogen). If they only could get it working successfully.

There has to be a more indepth research into renewable energy sources, such as Solar panels. The main reason of their lack of use in this country is down to the relative expense that comes with them, and they produce a much smaller amount of energy than the non-renewable sources, thus needing a far greater number of them (solar panels, wind-turbines, etc.)

New_Departure06

Marts wrote:

I think we should go nuclear. I mean the chances of a meltdown or whatever are so low that you would have to be insane not to, nuclear power stations generate an enormous amount of electricity. look at the facts, nuclear energy has been around for about a half century, how many meltdowns were there? one. and it was due to the design at the time and incompitent workers, Homer Simpsons, if you will

"I can't understand it, there wasn't any radioactive materials in that truck!"

But a meltdown only has to happen once for millions of people to be forced to evacuate. It just isn't comparable to the risks of accidents in other forms of power-generation. A gas explosion isn't going to force millions to leave their homes. Agriculture would also be destroyed by contamination.

Teg Veece

Wind power currently makes up about 6% of Irelands needs and, like it or not, that's how its gonna be for quite some time. The reason for this is mainly its unpredictable nature.
The National Regulator must buy power off different suppliers such as the ESB, Bord na Mona etc. If he becomes too dependent on wind power and the wind decides not to blow then the national grid is in trouble. So the regulator will keep our dependancy on this source as low as possible.
Nuclear Power offers a relatively clean supply of massive amounts of power. Much much cleaner than oil and gas.
People should really stop using Chernobyl as an argument against going nuclear. There was no containment of any kind around the reactor, something which is essential in all reactors nowadays. There was a similar reactor failure in 3 Mile Island a few years ago and no one was killed or injured because of the modern protection systems put in place.

Having said all that, the biggest problem with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste. At the moment, the best solution seems to be to bury it deep underground in containers which are good for roughly 100 years. (The waste itself remains active for around 1 million years). This "sweep it under the rug" approach is short sighted and greedy to say the least.

The international community needs to find a better way to deal with this waste fast but something tells me the short term gain mentality will win out once more.

Stephen

The Three Mile Island accident actually happened in 1979, 7 years prior to Chernobyl. Three Mile Island had proper containment structures built around the reactor.
Chernobyl's reactor had bugger all, and was an elderly Soviet design built on the cheap.
Nuclear's probably not yet viable for Ireland but fossil fuels are going to get so expensive that I reckon its going to happen sooner or later.

thelordofcheese

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I have cold fusion down, keep it under your hat.

is it a lead hat?

darkman2

One thing that bothers me is the amount of ppl, particularly on the enviromental side making uninformed and uneducated statement about nuclear power. Anyone see prime time the other night when that tree hugger from the GP was cut down to size by that guy from the University of Limerick:D

phantom_lord

Nucleart all the way imo.

todd10k

Aidi roche on the late late show made me sick. preaching about "the earth we leave to our children". Pontificating Bitch. I applaud the work she does with the chernobyl childrens charities, but by no means does that give her the right to dictate irish energy policy.

Fact of the matter is, when it starts costing 10 euro per kilowatt hour from the ESB, all the anti nuclear campeigners and lobbiest's will be the first to decry the government. We must go nuclear if we hope to maintain anything even remotely close to a working, soverign nation over the next 40-50 years.

KerranJast

Where exactly are we supposed to get our supply of nuclear fuel from if we go down that route? I'd have no problem with nuclear power as the current technology is very safe but this country is too small to afford it, we'd probably need a backup one because a nuclear plant won't be able to generate power 24/7/365 and we could end up replacing our dependance on foreign oil with a dependance on foreign uranium. What's needed is to build more interconnectors with the UK and Europe so power is shared (again I have no problem buying nuclear power from other countries that way - we already do). We also have one of the most powerful forces of nature on our Western seaboard in the shape of the Atlantic Ocean. Surely technology can be developed to harness tidal/wave power. Also in the medium term we should possibly mirror other countries and build some of the cleaner low CO2 emitting coal stations.

sturgo

we should go nuclear and send the nuclear waste into space. sorted... next question please.

riptide

Ya lets go nuclear and contaminate somewhere.... somewhere like Sellafield. Give them a taste of there own 'medicine'.. great idea.

Wertz

sturgo wrote:

we should go nuclear and send the nuclear waste into space. sorted... next question please.

So now you're suggesting an Irish space program?
...and proposing that we strap a sh*tload of HLW to the top of a giant firework and launch it over international airspace? We could make chernobyl look like a sunday BBQ...brilliant!

Capt'n Midnight

Clean, safe nuclear power is uneconomical. It's that simple.

We don't need plutonium for bombs, which is what makes many other countries adopt nuclear in spite of the false economics.

In the UK they had a "non fossil fuel levy" - a tax on electricity generated from fossil fuel - to subsidise the decomissioning and running of Nuclear plants. http://www.oss.org.uk/publications/infosht/a4.htm

There is a statutory obligation the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) on electricity companies to generate a certain minimum of their capacity from non-fossil fuel. Research and development of nuclear and renewable energy is subsidised through the non-fossil fuel levy of 11 per cent on consumers’ electricity bills.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/varley.htm

For government-owned utilities, the state may accept a lower value for the assets than their book value. For example, the 1996 privatisation of British Energy brought in £1.4 billion, even though the company's newest generating station, Sizewell B, was completed in 1995 at a total cost of over £3 billion. Prior to its privatisation, British Energy's nuclear plant capital accounts were strengthened through a levy on electricity sales, known as the Non-Fossil Fuel Levy.

One plant cost the same as 100,000 houses back in 95.

"non fossil fuel levy"
The cost of nuclear must include ALL costs including guraranteed protection of all waste until radiation levels fall to below level of the original ore, that can take up to 10,000 years. Even then I'd consider that level still too high as uranium ore is still not stuff you want to ingest, but anything above that means extra radioactivity in the environment, and the Brits Cannuks and Yanks all agreeded back in 1947 that there was no safe level of radiation, any increased exposure meaning increased health risks.

I'll say that again almost 60 years ago it was realised internationally that ANY increase in radiation means health problems. Anyone supporting nuclear must justify them.

Alternatives
Better insulation in Irish houses to reduce demand and more solar heating. Solar electric is a waste in our climate.,

Wind power , especially off shore, tidal turbines on the east coast, a joint venture with NI for lough swilly for more tidal. More pumped storage stations like turlough hill, peat stations to use coppiced willow.

Converting biomass and waste into producer gas for electricity generation. It's not just inceneration, it 100 year old technology that uses steam to extract chemical energy in solid carbon sources in to a gas that can be used to run efficient turbines, it produces a lot of hydrogen but even still a hydrogen economy is a pipe dream. I'm not certain but it may provide more reliable pyrolysis than incinearation on it's own.

Sizewell B again
http://eeru.open.ac.uk/natta/renewonline/rol52/11.htm

POST argues that, since nuclear plans are so capital intensive, the discount rate is arguably the most important factor affecting the sensitivity of the cost projections.

“The Sizewell B project appeared to be economically viable at a 5% public sector discount rate and was approved on that basis in 1987. By 1989, the official rate had risen to 8% and the next PWR, Hinkley Point C, was close to being viable, though with lower expected construction costs than Sizewell B. Following privatization, the nuclear industry was advised that the lowest possible commercial discount rate for a nuclear project would be11%. At this rate, the proposed Sizewell C power station would have made a large loss, though the construction costs were even lower than those expected at Hinkley Point C”.

It adds “nuclear power projects in the past have often turned out more expensive than assumed. For example, cost estimates for the Sizewell B reactor were revised upwards by 40% and generation costs were higher (~6p/kWh)".

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1584572,00.html

As we know, the wind is intermittent and, according to DTI calculations, British windfarms work on average at a rate of 30% of full generating capacity. This means we would need around 24GW of wind power to supply 20% of UK electricity, costing around £25bn to install.

So, if we use the evidence of actual installation costs, as opposed to what nuclear (or wind) advocates hope will be future installation costs, we can see that, on installation costs alone, a nuclear power programme is going to be no cheaper than a wind power programme in delivering 20% of UK electricity
...
There is disagreement about the scale of decommissioning costs, but the numbers tend to be rather large. Latest figures from the Environment Agency suggest anywhere between £300m and a £1,000m per power station.

Fuel for free

Nuclear power stations must also buy fuel and prepare it. Windmills get their fuel for free.

How long do nuclear power stations last - they are NOT a capital investment. After a short few decades of use you are left with a money pit that will probably soak up one billion euro in decommisioning.

How long do windmills last, I don't know but how about Ardnacrusha. It was the largest hydro-electric plant in the world back in 1929. It was there before the nuclear age and I'm fairly sure it will outlast any nuclear plant in existance today. Even Turlough Hill has outlasted many nuclear stations. Yes you have to pay maintainance costs but if you do decide to decomission them you would probably make money back selling off the scrap. Also one failure on a rotor won't take out a whole windfarm nor will you have to evacuate everyone in the county.

Capt'n Midnight

sturgo wrote:

we should go nuclear and send the nuclear waste into space. sorted... next question please.

Too little problems
First the cost per Kg to put it in high orbit ( low orbits mean it will drop back in only a few years )
Second the failure rate on launches - it's only a few percent.
There are other little problems but until you can show it can be done reliably and it's even remotely economic that plan won't get off the ground.

riptide

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Too little problems
First the cost per Kg to put it in high orbit ( low orbits mean it will drop back in only a few years )
Second the failure rate on launches - it's only a few percent.
There are other little problems but until you can show it can be done reliably and it's even remotely economic that plan won't get off the ground.

Love the pun...

to follow from your post previous, I would be an advocate of Fusion based nuclear power stations if and when they get developed, Very little in the line of dangerous waste material and no need to mine Uranium.

samb

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

, but anything above that means extra radioactivity in the environment, and the Brits Cannuks and Yanks all agreeded back in 1947 that there was no safe level of radiation, any increased exposure meaning increased health risks.

I'll say that again almost 60 years ago it was realised internationally that ANY increase in radiation means health problems. Anyone supporting nuclear must justify them.
.

There is also no safe level of dioxins and furans produced from all combustion of fossil fuels. You are breathing them in right now, just as you are breathing in radioacitve radon. Put a geger counter to your body and listen to the alpha radiation emminating from within your bones..........What is your point.

We cannot avoid risk from carcinogens. They are everywhere and always will be. All we can do is minimise the risk. The oposition to nuclear must justify our production of these substances from fossil fuels when we can reduce it significantly by using nuclear. Remember that there are no air emmissions from nuclear so we can contain the radiation.

nuttz

Remarks such as "Pontificating Bitch" are unhelpful and in my opinion deserve a banning for slander at least.
You obviously don't know Adi Roche or her input into the Chernobyl Children's Project.

todd10k and other posters, please read the previous posts before posting, it has been made quiet clear why nuclear is not a good option, the logic of a forum is that you argue the opposing argument, without personal insults on the people in question. If you want to argue against what has been posted, do so without personal insults.


todd10k's last post has been reported.

Capt'n Midnight

riptide wrote:

to follow from your post previous, I would be an advocate of Fusion based nuclear power stations if and when they get developed,

There is no point in worrying about fusion now since commercial usage is still very far away, even if there were a breakthrough tomorrow.

Capt'n Midnight

samb wrote:

There is also no safe level of dioxins and furans produced from all combustion of fossil fuels. You are breathing them in right now, just as you are breathing in radioacitve radon. Put a geger counter to your body and listen to the alpha radiation emminating from within your bones..........What is your point.

We cannot avoid risk from carcinogens. They are everywhere and always will be. All we can do is minimise the risk. The oposition to nuclear must justify our production of these substances from fossil fuels when we can reduce it significantly by using nuclear.

The background level of dioxins and furans from waste burning, Halloween, transport and peat fires is far far higher than incenerators and we can reduce the levels. Also generation of Hydrogen means that fuel cell technology could be used later on, (maybe) utilising up to 60% of the energy in the fuel.

samb wrote:

Remember that there are no air emmissions from nuclear so we can contain the radiation.

The Irish sea is the worlds most radioactive. :rolleyes:
You should have said - we can contain the radiation IF we spend enough on the containment AND there are no accidents, like the Windscale fire.
Also nuclear is faily inefficient, because of the need to limit contamination of generating equiment you have to use heat exchangers etc. So only 25% of the heat is converted to electricty, the rest heats up the envirionment. Which can affect local species - Possibly the most unusual location for crocodiles is the brackish water cooling canals at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant in Florida.


Hundreds of Billions have been spent on R&D of nuclear power. Had a fraction of that been spent on renewables or means of reducing consumption then we probably would not need nuclear. In the US the reckoned that it would be cheaper to insulate factories than build a nuclear plant to provide the energy to keep them warm. This is interesting because it shows that the Zero Carbon Emission argument is just a red herring. You can acheive similar low emissions by reducing consumption. As I've stated before by promoting diesel instead of petrol we could save up to 50% of the fuel used by nearly 80% of our commuters. By massively subsidising Dublin Bus (50c tickets ?) we could save far more and it would cost far less than one power station.


http://www.beaufortcourt.com/rec/default.htm - zero emissions building.
From http://www.windmillworld.com/news/current.htm - "It notes that the wind turbine, a 36 metre high 225 kW Vestas V-29 was bought second hand from a wind farm in the Netherlands for £140,000 (206,000 Euro)." How can anyone justify nuclear if second hand wind turbines are that cheap ??

Capt'n Midnight

mackerski wrote:

True enough - Sellafield is approximately 5km closer.

Dermot

Wylfa in Anglesey is closer than Calder Hall / Windscale / Sellafield

piraka

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Also nuclear is faily inefficient, because of the need to limit contamination of generating equiment you have to use heat exchangers etc. So only 25% of the heat is converted to electricty, the rest heats up the envirionment.

I’m not sure what are inefficiencies to which you are referring. The capacity of a nuclear plant is about 85%

http://www.energy-choices.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78

i.e. a 100MW plant will produce 85 MW of electricity.

Whereas wind has an average capacity of 35% i.e. it is variable and unpredictable. A 100MW installed wind farm will produce 35MW of intermittent electricity to the grid.

Wind requires a backup plant which is currently one of the base load plant such as Moneypoint. Power plants are designated base load based on their low cost generation, efficiency and safety at set outputs. Thus, they are more effective when used continuously to cover the power baseload required by the grid. When wind power is taken into the grid the base load plant no longer runs at optimun efficiency. This in turn relates to increased costs and increased CO2 emissions due to inefficient operation.

Carbon Emission argument is just a red herring. You can acheive similar low emissions by reducing consumption. As I've stated before by promoting diesel instead of petrol we could save up to 50% of the fuel used by nearly 80% of our commuters. By massively subsidising Dublin Bus (50c tickets ?) we could save far more and it would cost far less than one power station.

Diesel emits more CO2 than petrol on combustion. Therefore any savings will be lost in paying for emission credits on increased transport ghg emissions, which has already increased by 6% in 2004 over 2003 figures.

http://www.epa.ie/OurEnvironment/ClimateChange/GreenhouseGasEmissions/FileUpload,9034,en.pdf

It is interesing to note that CO2 reduction in the energy sector was not attributed to wind energy

"It notes that the wind turbine, a 36 metre high 225 kW Vestas V-29 was bought second hand from a wind farm in the Netherlands for £140,000 (206,000 Euro)." How can anyone justify nuclear if second hand wind turbines are that cheap ??

I would not like a second hand turbine near me

http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1107&ArticleID=1295769%20

Capt'n Midnight

piraka wrote:

I’m not sure what are inefficiencies to which you are referring. The capacity of a nuclear plant is about 85%

http://www.energy-choices.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78

i.e. a 100MW plant will produce 85 MW of electricity.

Whereas wind has an average capacity of 35% i.e. it is variable and unpredictable. A 100MW installed wind farm will produce 35MW of intermittent electricity to the grid.

:rolleyes:
So you are saying 300MW (thermal power) reactor will produce 85MW Electricity but that 300MW of wind turbines will only produce 105MW. Again I refer you to pumped storage / interconnectors as a way of averaging wind power. In the north of England they also give large discounts to industries that agree to go without power at short notice. Perhaps the Aluminium refiners in Shannon might do so.

Wind requires a backup plant which is currently one of the base load plant such as Moneypoint. Power plants are designated base load based on their low cost generation, efficiency and safety at set outputs. Thus, they are more effective when used continuously to cover the power baseload required by the grid. When wind power is taken into the grid the base load plant no longer runs at optimun efficiency. This in turn relates to increased costs and increased CO2 emissions due to inefficient operation.

Again with the pumped storage, and our neighbours used to have a gas turbine station that was at one stage only used at around 7:30pm on Wednesdays. This argument is a bit like complaining that car engines are designed to operate most thermodynamically efficiently while accelerating uphill but ignoring the fact that you can use smaller engines or ever shut down a power station. Also the ESB have to have stations that can handle winter heating and lighting, even during the middle of summer, it's not like you can ship a plant down to South Africa, till we need it here again.

Wind power fulcutates, but so does electricity demand, measure both on a 5 minute timescale ! Unless consumers store electricity locally we are going to have to have a large overhead anyway and not just to correct for the power factor.

Diesel emits more CO2 than petrol on combustion. Therefore any savings will be lost in paying for emission credits on increased transport ghg emissions, which has already increased by 6% in 2004 over 2003 figures.

Only if you burn the same amount. Diesel engines are more efficient than petrol. Petrol also has a higher CO2 overhead due to fuel used in cracking and combinng in the refinery - several % IIRC.

piraka

So you are saying 300MW (thermal power) reactor will produce 85MW Electricity but that 300MW of wind turbines will only produce 105MW. Again I refer you to pumped storage / interconnectors as a way of averaging wind power. In the north of England they also give large discounts to industries that agree to go without power at short notice. Perhaps the Aluminium refiners in Shannon might do so.

What I am saying is that a 300MW thermal plant with an 85% load capacity will produce 255MW constant supply electricity. Whereas wind, as you have correctly pointed out will only generate 105MW, of intermittent electricity.

Wind power fulcutates, but so does electricity demand, measure both on a 5 minute timescale ! Unless consumers store electricity locally we are going to have to have a large overhead anyway and not just to correct for the power factor.

If the electricity demand and generation are not maintained in balance, then the frequency of the system will deviate from statutory level. Grid operators hence prefer base load plants, which give a constant supply to the grid and at short notice, unlike wind which is intermittent. Wind does not give the grid operators a “flick of the switch” option when there is a surge on the grid, unlike a base load plant which is more or less instantaneous in supply when called upon.

http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/InfoCentre/IlexWindReserrev2FSFinal.pdf

In fact ESB can “constrain off” or “curtail” wind generation where they see fit. This is done in order ensue security of supply to the customer.

http://www.cer.ie/CERDocs/cer04247.pdf

There are other interesting reports relating to wind which question the economies of wind in relation to supply of electricity to the grid and its ability to mitigate green house gases:

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Wind%20Impact%20Study%20-%20main%20report.pdf

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR0612_web.pdf


http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Executive%20Summary%20Wind%20Impact%20Study.pdf

Only if you burn the same amount. Diesel engines are more efficient than petrol. Petrol also has a higher CO2 overhead due to fuel used in cracking and combinng in the refinery - several % IIRC.

The point I am making is that any cost savings made in fuel efficiencies are lost in increased CO2 emissions (which has a cost to mitigate) not to mention increased particulate emission.

piraka

Again I refer you to pumped storage / interconnectors as a way of averaging wind power

I understood that wind power was originally a method of achieving our obligations under the EU directive 2001/77/EC On the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market.

Under the directive we were obliged to generate 13% of our energy requirements from renewable resources. The main argument for renewable energy at that time was the mitigation of CO2.

If Ireland exports (no doubt at reduced rates as in Denmark, again the consumer loses) its wind energy, we in effect do not displace CO2 from conventional plant. The CO2 mitigation from the renewable energy are realized elsewhere. Again there will be an emission credit cost in offsetting the export of electricity abroad and loss of CO2 mitigation to Ireland in order to achieve our Kyoto obligations.

Interesting point on pumped storage. One wonders why not much investment has gone into it. I suppose capital costs are cheaper for wind energy (2.5MW turbine is about €1.5million) as over 90% of EU obligation was achieved through wind as compared to other renewable energy sources.

Capt'n Midnight

piraka wrote:

What I am saying is that a 300MW thermal plant with an 85% load capacity will produce 255MW constant supply electricity. Whereas wind, as you have correctly pointed out will only generate 105MW, of intermittent electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapelcross 19% of the heat gets converted in to electricity, actually it's worse than that because nuclear power plants tend to be in remote areas giving higher transmission losses. eg: Having the Nuclear plant in Anglesy near the Aluminium plant saves £4m a year on transmission losses.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.htm - future designs may hit 50% thermal efficiency, but there will be a high R&D cost, expensive and possibly scarce heat resistant materials will be needed, and termperatures and pressures will be far greater.

Wind does not give the grid operators a “flick of the switch” option

Turlough Hill can go from 0 to 250MW in 60 seconds. If you look at my other posts I'm not advocating all our eggs in one basket. Wind power is one part of the equation. Tidal turbines (not barriers or dams) are more predictable. Wave power of which we have oodles is also there for the taking. Willow coppicing on Bord Na Mona's land is yet another technology ( we've got old peat stations in place already ) And reduction of energy wastage is yet anouther way.

Here we build new roads instead of provide public transport. Nuclear power would be a similar sticky plaster apporach. All the material for a Nuclear plant and all the expertise would have to be imported and we would be reliant on foregin supplies. Do we go for US reactors or UK or Continenatal one ?
By diversifing into alternative energy ESB international can gain expertise in areas we could control instead of watching from the side lines and hoping that others continue to allow us to use our nuclear plants.

The point I am making is that any cost savings made in fuel efficiencies are lost in increased CO2 emissions (which has a cost to mitigate) not to mention increased particulate emission.

yip - particulate emission is a big problem with Diesel.
not as insoluable a problem as nuclear waste
and using Diesel will reduce CO2 emissions because the amount of fuel consumed will go down more than the specific emissions of CO2 per unit of fuel consumed will go up ( I don't have figures for the wastage in refinieries but it would be very close to showing that CO2 from usage AND productions of one Kg of petrol is very similar to one Kg of diesel )

piraka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapelcross 19% of the heat gets converted in to electricity, actually it's worse than that because nuclear power plants tend to be in remote areas giving higher transmission losses. eg: Having the Nuclear plant in Anglesy near the Aluminium plant saves £4m a year on transmission losses.

Still, with a deficiency of 81% in heat transfer as demostrated by you, the nuclear plant will produce 85% load factor.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.htm - future designs may hit 50% thermal efficiency, but there will be a high R&D cost, expensive and possibly scarce heat resistant materials will be needed, and termperatures and pressures will be far greater.

Even the competitors in the wind industry give better load factors for current design of nuclear and fossil fuel plants.

http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html

Turlough Hill can go from 0 to 250MW in 60 seconds. If you look at my other posts I'm not advocating all our eggs in one basket. Wind power is one part of the equation. Tidal turbines (not barriers or dams) are more predictable. Wave power of which we have oodles is also there for the taking. Willow coppicing on Bord Na Mona's land is yet another technology ( we've got old peat stations in place already ) And reduction of energy wastage is yet anouther way.

Turlough Hill is another intermittent power station. Once the upper reservoir is emptied the station is no longer available to the grid. It really operates in reserve to come online when required.
I agree that there should be a mix of energy streams, but large scale renewable energy will never displace conventional plant to any great extent.

TBH I would rather see the boglands be allow to regenerate. Ireland is the only country in western Europe which still has substantial intact bogs. These bogs are rapidly disappearing due to comerciallization, of which large scale wind farms are a party

Here we build new roads instead of provide public transport.

Very good point on the transport. It is bit of topic and needs discussion elsewhere, the government earns about €4 billion in revenue from the transport sector and only spends €400 million on public transport, which is a disgrace. The new transport policy is a bit of pie in the sky from Cullen. It is in the government’s interest to have us all in cars to maintain a revenue stream, as they reduce our income tax.

I wonder at times if the satellite towns to Dublin were planned!!!! Of course there is again the issue of mitigating the CO2 from the transport, which has increased dramatically and is set to increase for the future.

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Turlough Hill can go from 0 to 250MW in 60 seconds.

But for how long can it maintain that level of output?

Put a different way, if you had to supply a 250MW shortfall across average daily demand (lets ignore the "normal" demand-spikes for simplicity) for a standard working day, how many Turlough Hills would you need?

jc

Capt'n Midnight

bonkey wrote:

But for how long can it maintain that level of output?

Put a different way, if you had to supply a 250MW shortfall across average daily demand (lets ignore the "normal" demand-spikes for simplicity) for a standard working day, how many Turlough Hills would you need?

jc

Only a few hours, (but it should be enough time to get other plants on line)
Anyway you would need a lot of them.
But that technology could be retrofitted to most existing hydro plants.
And they won't be spewing out heat 24/7, causing fogs, changing the local climate, increasing humidity and maybe worsening frosts nearby.

Again I'll point out that decomissioning costs of Nuclear Plants must be factored in fully, bearing in mind that the requirements may be more stringent than at present and the economic climate may mean funds are shorter.

If we were to invest in a Nuclear plant, the investment could be a total loss if it was closed down for some reason. eg: if a foreign nation bombed it. Or an action was lost in the High Court. Or there was a major design flaw in the reactor types. Or there was a referendum to ban nuclear power. Or a government accepted it's closure for short term political gains eg agree with the green party to achieve majority. Or if the price of uranium goes up too much. Or if the countries holding the uranium or enriching plants decide not to do business with us anymore. Or if a new type of hazard is found. Or if we can no longer ship waste to wherever it goes. Or if there was an accident with a similar type of plant. Or if there was a major accident in the UK. Or if medical/health and safety leglislation change such that providing insurance becomes prohibitive. Even if the reactor was 100% safe and clean and economic for the foreseeable future it could still be closed down.

piraka

That is the nature of economics of any industry, substitute chemical plant/Power plants etc. for nuclear plant.

Or if there was a major accident in the UK.

DaveMcG wrote:

The 20th anniversary for Chernobyl is coming up, terrorist attacks are a constant fear, and with the price of oil reaching I think it's $72 a barrel, the idea of nuclear energy is being reexamined, and the debate is coming back to life.

56 direct deaths have been attributed to the Chernobyl disaster, but 20 years later the effects are still being felt, with cancer and mutations occuring in the children of those who were children in 1986.

Anti-nuclear campaigners tend to be of the mindset that we don't have all the answers, we have a few suggestions that can be added to, but it's not worth the risk of building nuclear power plants, because the cost is too great, as Chernobyl demonstrates -- one accident can have catastrophic effects for the rest of time.

The worst ever-industrial accident was not a nuclear accident, but an accident at a chemical plant. In Bhopal India over 20,000 people died when 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate was released to the atmosphere with over a 100,000 injured and still suffering to-day. The Union Carbide Plant was handed the plant back to the Indian government who are still dealing with major contamination and compensation issues over 20 years later. Nobody remembered this catastrophe on its twentieth anniversary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/toxic-hotspots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2698000/2698709.stm

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/bhopal-disaster-has-no-paralle

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ec-bhopal-eng

I would rather live beside a modern nuclear power plant, than a chemical plant with a thermal oxidiser incinerating their toxic waste.

piraka

And they won't be spewing out heat 24/7, causing fogs, changing the local climate, increasing humidity and maybe worsening frosts nearby.

What about wind farms changing our climate

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6608

Capt'n Midnight

Vey few remember the 900,000 who died as a result of the KMT blowing up a dam to block the invading Japanese in July 1938. An explosion that killed more than Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and the biggest raids on Hamburg and Tokoyo put together. Yet it's almost as unknown as the bombing of Chefchaouen. The problem for the nuclear industry is how badly the public have reacted in the past to bad news about the nuclear industry. Ask an accountant/economist to put a book value on "goodwill" for the industry, ask for an insurance premium to cover for the plant being cancelled by external factors over which the industry has no control.

Hoang-Ho / Yangtze Kiang dam / Hwangho
( you'll see from 500,000 to 1,400,000 deaths attributed to this. )

...

As for Bhopal it just renforces my point about having the thrid world subsidise our nuclear plant by having less stringent (ie. cheaper) health and safety. That is a totaly different topic but I've no problem with out sourcing jobs provided workers there get the same rights we get, if they get a fair wage and conditions fine, but if the workers there are exploited to a greater extent especially on the health and safety side it's a moral issue. But since our uranium would come from Canada or Oz or South Africa that's isn't really an issue, eh?

...

Ok maybe wind farms might cause a 0.7 degree increase in air temperature, nuclear power plants do cause 10-15 degree increase in water temperature , an effect orders of magnitude greater.

...

Then there is the history of many previous cost escalations, of well over 100%, and possible bribery scandals.

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Only a few hours, (but it should be enough time to get other plants on line)

So you'd still have to have the other plants....

But that technology could be retrofitted to most existing hydro plants.

To what extent?

ESB lists Turlough at 292MW, and has a sum total of in-nd-around 200MW available from the other hydro plants, of which tehre are a whopping 5. And I dunno if you've seen (m)any of them, but there isn't a single one with a drop comparable to Turlough Hill for such retro-fitting.

And they won't be spewing out heat 24/7, causing fogs, changing the local climate, increasing humidity and maybe worsening frosts nearby.

I was hinting at how realistic a "more Turlough Hills" may or may not be as a solution, not suggesting that I'd rather have a thermal station regardless.

Again I'll point out that decomissioning costs of Nuclear Plants must be factored in fully, bearing in mind that the requirements may be more stringent than at present and the economic climate may mean funds are shorter.

Again, this has no relevance to the practicality of wind-generation. We can talk pie-in-the-sky notions till we're blue in the face, but when it comes to putting infrastructure in place, whatever we choose has to be the least worst solution. We can and should milk wind and water for all its worth, but generally the people providing detailed mathematics to support argumenmts are those talking about the limits of technologies. Then you get a lot of people rubbishing those figures with hand-waving arguments.

Thats why I asked the question I asked. If you want to propose something as a solution, surely its incumbent to show that its more than a pretty notion, but rather a considered and researched position which has solid science behind it.

If we were to invest in a Nuclear plant, the investment could be a total loss if it was closed down for some reason.

That logic, and a goodly chunk of the examples you give apply to any solution. People are just more likely to buy into the "wooo...nuclear is scary and we might have to close it down" argument than with some other solution.

Me? I just look at Moneypoint, and wonder if there's a single anti-nuclear point you made which doesn't apply to it. So one has to wonder why they're so often presented as anti-nuclear, rather than anti-thermal? After all, what if - at the end of it all - the government is swayed by all this no-way-nuclear talk and goes with another coal-burning plant.

Take that idea one cynical step further....

What if the current revival of the abhorrence against nuclear is little more than a ploy to get the public to accept a new coal-burning station. They'll rule out nuclear, and someone will show that wind etc. just won't cut it to supply (say) another GW or so of power, and oil/gas is just out of the question. So what if its all just a cover to make coal the least-worst option?

God thats depressing.

SpaceMonkey42

If sea levels are going to rise as far as predicted, then the number killed will be in the millions.
the issue therefore is
A) Can we developed renewable fast enough to avoid this, and if not
Will the eventual death toll be lower with nuclear.

Firstly, if we were to stop all carbon production today there would still be a lag in climate response. Some deaths are now unavoidable.
Say X deaths.
If it takes 20 years to developed 100% renewable energy provision then those 20 years of carbon production will cause more climate change and more deaths.
X + Y deaths.

If it only takes 10 years to convert to Nuclear (at least 10) then this will reduce the extra deaths (y) by a fair amount say Z.

But it will also kill a certain number through accidents, waste leaks and terrorist attacks over the next century, lets say N.

So nuclear means X + (Y-Z) + N deaths.

The problem is figuring out if X + Y is any smaller than X + (Y-Z) + N

So it all depends on the value of (N) i.e. the number nuclear will kill.
And the value of (Z) i.e. the number killed by waiting an extra 10 years.

Its further complicated by the likelihood of a mixed transition of both nuclear and renewable, as well as different development rates and safety standards in different countries.

My personal suspicion is that some nuclear will be needed.
But im open to review on that one
.

piraka

Very few remember the 900,000 who died as a result of the KMT blowing up a dam to block the invading Japanese in July 1938. An explosion that killed more than Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and the biggest raids on Hamburg and Tokoyo put together. Yet it's almost as unknown as the bombing of Chefchaouen. The problem for the nuclear industry is how badly the public have reacted in the past to bad news about the nuclear industry. Ask an accountant/economist to put a book value on "goodwill" for the industry, ask for an insurance premium to cover for the plant being cancelled by external factors over which the industry has no control.

Hoang-Ho / Yangtze Kiang dam / Hwangho
( you'll see from 500,000 to 1,400,000 deaths attributed to this. )

Not sure what you point is, 60,000,000 people were killed in the Second World War, Yes war is terrible. Over 20,000 people were killed at Bhopal, a chemical plant, compared to 50 at Chernoby, a nuclear plant

As for Bhopal it just renforces my point about having the thrid world subsidise our nuclear plant by having less stringent (ie. cheaper) health and safety. That is a totaly different topic but I've no problem with out sourcing jobs provided workers there get the same rights we get, if they get a fair wage and conditions fine, but if the workers there are exploited to a greater extent especially on the health and safety side it's a moral issue. But since our uranium would come from Canada or Oz or South Africa that's isn't really an issue, eh?

How is the third world subsidizing nuclear plants? They are now in a position to exploit the west and make substantial profits from emission trading.

Ok maybe wind farms might cause a 0.7 degree increase in air temperature, nuclear power plants do cause 10-15 degree increase in water temperature , an effect orders of magnitude greater.

If you have an issue with individual nuclear plants changing climate. I don’t know how you will handle Urban Heat Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Capt'n Midnight

piraka wrote:

Not sure what you point is, 60,000,000 people were killed in the Second World War, Yes war is terrible. Over 20,000 people were killed at Bhopal, a chemical plant, compared to 50 at Chernoby, a nuclear plant

It's a lot more than 50 if you include those who will die of cancer etc. Just pointing out that the PR effect of deaths varies according to who/how they died.

How is the third world subsidizing nuclear plants? They are now in a position to exploit the west and make substantial profits from emission trading.

Expoit the west, don't worry the IMF will soon sort them out. Bhopal is a classic case of the third world subsidizing us, can you see as many deaths here if only because of our more expensive health and safety standards. Similarly recycling western electronic goods in the third world means either land fill and/or desoldering with poor fume extraction. African miners are cheaper because they don't have the same health and safety rights we do.

If you have an issue with individual nuclear plants changing climate. I don’t know how you will handle Urban Heat Islands.

I've mentioned INSULATION, public transport and usage of Diesel instead of petrol. I've also mentioned that one scottish plant was generating 4 times as much heat as electricity. Most of the electricity would end up as urban heat.
Yeah Urban Heat Islands happen, but nuclear plants are far more localised and in most cases evaporate far more water than would happen in a city.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/ireland.jpg - map of Ireland with 50mile scale bar. (254KB)

http://mafijas.valsts.lv/atteli/chernobyl_map.jpg - map of Chernobyl with 50 mile scale bar. (108KB)

Map of Chernobyl exclusion zones to scale of Irish map.

The chances of a Nuclear accident as bad as this happening in any one year are very small. But we could not afford the consequences.

SeanW

I consider myself a semi-environmentalist and for years I have been staunchly anti-nuclear.

But I've been doing research on the topic, and Chernobyl in particular, and I'm beginning to think that not only is nuclear not such a bad idea at all, but that we should actively campaign FOR nuclear power here.

The findings of my research is as follows:
1: The Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused by a very, very, long chain of errors going back to the plants conception, that the Soviet authorities and were reckless and incompetent on a scale unimaginable in the West.
This includes, faulty reactor design, problems with construction, pressure from Soviet authorities to bring Reactor 4 online before it was ready, a doomed safety test run by a skeleton crew who were newly trained and both incompetent and reckless, there was only partial containment on the building, and there was WAAAAAAAAY too much radioactive material on site, much more than there should have been.
2: That Global Warming is a real problem and requires that we do everything in our power to combat it. And I mean EVERYTHING, including Nuclear Power.
3: That nuclear power provides an abundance of energy, 2.2 pounds of Uranium provides as much energy as 3000 tons (50 full freight cars) of coal.
Without any of the attendent carbon dioxide emission.
4: Oil and Natural gas are filthy substances and both are quickly running out.
5: That coal mining kills thousands of miners annually, and that coal contains trace elements of Uranium and Thorium.
6: That a person living near a coal fired power station has higher radioactive exposure than one living a similar distance from a properly run Nuclear Power Plant.
7: Wind plants are unreliable, and do not function properly in conditions of low wind and high wind scenarios. That's not to say that they're bad, but they can not be relied on 100% and we need something else.
8: That Nuclear technology is improving all the time, and a new generation of reactor types, called "Pebble Bed" could theoretically make a nuclear meltdown impossible.

Subject to conditions, I personally would not oppose a nuclear power plant in my area.

The way I see it is this: You oppose nuclear, you support fossil fuels, and all their attendant problems of air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, radiation emissions and miner deaths, it's that simple.

Do we really want that? I don't.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote:

1: The Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused by a very, very, long chain of errors going back to the plants conception, that the Soviet authorities and were reckless and incompetent on a scale unimaginable in the West.

I would say to this that of course Nuclear power can be the cleanest possible fuel and it is possible to store the waste safely till the background level falls off (vitrification and extremely deep burial etc.) , but not if you want to do it economically.

SeanW wrote:

2: That Global Warming is a real problem and requires that we do everything in our power to combat it. And I mean EVERYTHING, including Nuclear Power.

Replacing Petrol cars with a public transport system and other ways of reducing energy consumption eg: isulation and thermostats would do more, and you would not have the CO2 emissions associated with all the concrete used in pant and waste handling construction.

SeanW wrote:

3: That nuclear power provides an abundance of energy, 2.2 pounds of Uranium provides as much energy as 3000 tons (50 full freight cars) of coal. Without any of the attendent carbon dioxide emission.

and seawater provices the same energy as petrol. To get the full energy from uranium you need to convert it to plutonium in a breader reactor. Since isotopes have different decay rates, in a few hundred years you would be able to use te plutonium from waste since the 239/240 ratio would have changed a lot.

SeanW wrote:

4: Oil and Natural gas are filthy substances and both are quickly running out.

natural gas filthy ?
For Oil profitable deposits are running out, but as price increases oil shales and oil tars look attractive, also many wells still leave 30-50% of hydrocarbons unrecoverd.
Natural gas running out ? - Methane Hydrates

SeanW wrote:

5: That coal mining kills thousands of miners annually, and that coal contains trace elements of Uranium and Thorium.

Mostly in third world countries, you could argue that the fumes from car exhausts kill more than here.

SeanW wrote:

6: That a person living near a coal fired power station has higher radioactive exposure than one living a similar distance from a properly run Nuclear Power Plant.

Also the sulphur reduction technologies have removed much heavy metal from coal power stations so they no longer emit as much. Coal stations used to emit 5 times as much radioactivity as a properly running nuclear powerstation. But if you add up the leaks from improperly running stations it's not so even. If you add in the "missing" material it's far far worse.

SeanW wrote:

7: Wind plants are unreliable, and do not function properly in conditions of low wind and high wind scenarios. That's not to say that they're bad, but they can not be relied on 100% and we need something else.

Airtricity are building their own interconnector from Portugal and linking most of the sites together
Something else
Wave power
Tidal turbines
Pumped storage
Willow coppicing ( peat station )
Treatment of waste to produce oils/producer gas etc.
give tax breaks on insulation / double glazing / thermostat installs / storage heaters / Diesel cars / Diesel fuel
Invest in public transport
Invest in broadband so people have the option to telecommute

SeanW wrote:

8: That Nuclear technology is improving all the time, and a new generation of reactor types, called "Pebble Bed" could theoretically make a nuclear meltdown impossible.

We've heard that one so many times before, material science is improving but greater thermal efficiency means pushing the boundries and there is a depressing list of failures in the past of new nuclear technology.

SeanW wrote:

The way I see it is this: You oppose nuclear, you support fossil fuels, and all their attendant problems of air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, radiation emissions and miner deaths, it's that simple.

`If you are not for us, you are against us'
Presenting only two choices and saying those are the only ones ?

Must dig up figures of Irish Fuel imports to see how much used for transport/heating/electricity and compare that to how much a Nuke would save.

SeanW

Replacing Petrol cars with a public transport system and other ways of reducing energy consumption eg: isulation and thermostats would do more

Then do that, like I said, everything in our power, inclusive of all this stuff you just mentioned. And things like biodiesel and renewables. Just not excluding nuclear.

and you would not have the CO2 emissions associated with all the concrete used in pant and waste handling construction.

Wind turbines don't grow on trees either. They too, depend on the industrial base. Besides, if the builders, waste disposers, miners etc. are using BioDiesel, their actions are carbon neutral.

For Oil profitable deposits are running out, but as price increases oil shales and oil tars look attractive, also many wells still leave 30-50% of hydrocarbons unrecoverd.
Natural gas running out ? - Methane Hydrates

[sarcasm]So we can keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Yipee! That's cause for celebraaation![/sarcasm]

We've heard that one so many times before

Primarily from the Soviet Union I'm guessing.

To get the full energy from uranium you need to convert it to plutonium in a breader reactor.

Not necessarily. Some designs can use unenriched Uranium, most others use U238.

Must dig up figures of Irish Fuel imports to see how much used for transport/heating/electricity and compare that to how much a Nuke would save.

I don't have figures for this but we import heaps of Natural Gas, a lot of which ends up in thermal generator power stations.

turbine?

An intersting lecture by Dr. David Fleming,

http://www.feasta.org/audio/Nuclear_IsItAnOption_Pt1.mp3

Its 45 mins long, but well worth a listen.

alternatively similar document available from

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

Puts nuclears ability to provide substantial electricity, for a meaningful time, in to question.