Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?

the_syco

I couldn't post in The Thunderdome, so I'm posting here...

Today, "Environmentalists have welcomed the European Commission's order to Ireland to alter its national plan for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol."

But here's the snag. Its all well and good to try to reduce it, but when alot of our energy comes from burning fuel, I don't see it happening anytime soon. With a bit of wind, we could provide some power, but not much, and not enough to power everything.

So, I look at nuclear energy. Not limitless, but one nuke plant, located somewhere in Wexford, far from anyone, could provide enough power to shut down a few of the fuel burning plants that we currently use. Its also true that its not "clean", but it the lesser of two evils, I think.

Sellafield has failed a number of safety checks, and yet is still open. If the checks were done properly, we wouldn't have reason to complain, but they are ignored time, and time again.

Its true bad sh|t happened at Chernobyl when it was part of the Soviet Union, but I don't know if they even had safety checks in Mother Russia.

But if one was built here, we could learn from past mistakes, and get cheaper electricity.

Why Wexford? Because they had one before.

So I ask, with a choice of a nuke plant, and a fuel burning plant, which is better long term?

Oh, and for an added bonus: the price wouldn't go up every time the yanks went to war
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]

Chakar

I'm in support of nuclear power but there needs to be an education of the public because nuclear energy has made enormous strides from the 1980's and there are simply too much misinformation among the public.

Rebeller

Chakar wrote:

I'm in support of nuclear power but there needs to be an education of the public because nuclear energy has made enormous strides from the 1980's and there are simply too much misinformation among the public.

No No No!!!. Nuclear power will never be an acceptable source of energy. I have personally witnessed the devastation visited on Chernobyl.

Yes, the actual energy production itself does not lead to CO2 or other toxic emissions but the process creates tonnes of highly radioactive waste that will be hazardous to life for hundreds of thousands of years.

Furthermore, the risk of accident (however slim) is not acceptable.

Changing how we generate our electricity is not enough. We need to alter how we live our lives.

Instead of writing blank cheques of taxpayers money to the CRH road building and cowboy developer lobby (i.e. FFs main supporters) proper planning should be followed which would avoid urban sprawl and reduce the necessity for workers to commute long distances each day.

Our impending energy crisis cannot be blamed solely on US Middle Eastern criminal activities. It is the result of gombeen politics, corruption and incompetent cronyism by successive FF governments.

You want to see a change in our energy habits make sure you use your vote wisely at next year's election

clearz

Rebeller wrote:

No No No!!!. Nuclear power will never be an acceptable source of energy. I have personally witnessed the devastation visited on Chernobyl.

Yes, the actual energy production itself does not lead to CO2 or other toxic emissions but the process creates tonnes of highly radioactive waste that will be hazardous to life for hundreds of thousands of years.

Furthermore, the risk of accident (however slim) is not acceptable.

Changing how we generate our electricity is not enough. We need to alter how we live our lives.

Instead of writing blank cheques of taxpayers money to the CRH road building and cowboy developer lobby (i.e. FFs main supporters) proper planning should be followed which would avoid urban sprawl and reduce the necessity for workers to commute long distances each day.

Our impending energy crisis cannot be blamed solely on US Middle Eastern criminal activities. It is the result of gombeen politics, corruption and incompetent cronyism by successive FF governments.

You want to see a change in our energy habits make sure you use your vote wisely at next year's election

There is another view that says that the amount of deaths and health risks caused by the fumes that come out of traditional fosil fuel based powerplants far outway those of nucleur plants.
Also I don't think Chernobyl applies here. It was a mis-managed plant in the Soviet Union during the 70's and 80's. Hardly applies to Ireland with 21st century technology.

Dave!

I think that we need to change our lifestyles to the point where renewable energy is sufficient, rather than apply nuclear energy to our current lifestyles.

I'd rather we didn't need nuclear, but that looks like the direction the world is going to be honest.

enda1

Eh its not actually a black and white choice between fossil fuel and nuclear (i presume you're referring to fission). How about wind, wave, tidal and current technologies? These are the cleanest technologies currently available. Ireland has a huge abundance of these resources so perhaps we should be focusing on investing in these fields. And before we know it fusion research will produce a viable long term alternative (ITER project) and we'll be grand.

There is no need to go the route of fission.

Akrasia

the_syco wrote:

Today,
But here's the snag. Its all well and good to try to reduce it, but when alot of our energy comes from burning fuel, I don't see it happening anytime soon. With a bit of wind, we could provide some power, but not much, and not enough to power everything.

What about with a Lot of wind? If we use all of our wind resources we have more than enough to power the country several times over. But we don't even need to rely on wind, there are other sources, Biomass, wave power, solar power (for heating water) geothermal energy. We could reduce our emissions significantly by enforcing stricter building regulations (this 'voluntary' compliance thing really isn't working, many new homes don't even meet the minimum standards), Improved public transport would cut down emissions from transport (immediate solution, buy more buses) and if we made it compulsory for all petrol sold to have a 5% ethanol mix and for all diesel to have a plant oil mix, we would reduce C02 emissions overnight.
All of these things can be delivered faster than nuclear power, which, being realistic, would take at least a decade to complete in this country when you consider the amount of opposition there would be

So, I look at nuclear energy. Not limitless, but one nuke plant, located somewhere in Wexford, far from anyone, could provide enough power to shut down a few of the fuel burning plants that we currently use. Its also true that its not "clean", but it the lesser of two evils, I think.

So you disregard wind power because you don;t think it can supply all of Ireland's energy, but you support nuclear because it can shut down a few coal burning plants?
Also, there is nowhere in Ireland that is far enough away from anywhere else in Ireland to make it a safe location for a nuclear power station. the whole country would be in the damage radius. and given our prevailing winds, building it in the south of the country would mean the whole east coast could likely be contaminated

Sellafield has failed a number of safety checks, and yet is still open. If the checks were done properly, we wouldn't have reason to complain, but they are ignored time, and time again.

Its true bad sh|t happened at Chernobyl when it was part of the Soviet Union, but I don't know if they even had safety checks in Mother Russia.

The Irish government can't even build and run a feckin swimming pool, do you seriously trust them with a Nuclear power plant? They're nothing but 166 homer simpsons

But if one was built here, we could learn from past mistakes, and get cheaper electricity.

We could get cheaper electricity in loads of other different ways too. And nuclear energy isn't cheaper when you take into account all of the externalities, and externalities are the reason we're in a climate crisis in the first place.

So I ask, with a choice of a nuke plant, and a fuel burning plant, which is better long term?

neither

seamus

I'd have no real problem with building a nuclear plant, except that before even the planning started, an independent body would need to be established which would oversee and constantly inspect any nuclear works taking place. The body would have to be 100% accountable, but without accountability to politicians (i.e. a FF TD shouldn't be able to say "Let this one go through, *wink* *wink*"). I can't see any politician setting up a public body that they can't manipulate.

As enda1 says, there are less contreversial options out there than nuclear energy. The west coast is vastly underutilised - there are hundreds of miles of land which could be used for growing biofuels and hundreds of miles of atlantic coastline, ripe with wind, wave and tidal energy.

An entire industry could be created if people were encouraged to put biofuel generators into their homes. You could leave homes hooked up to the main grid, leeching electricity when the generator is empty or off.

RedPlanet

This is a loaded question.
As if there are only 2 energy options.
It's exactly the way the nuclear industry frames the debate.

SeanW

Sorry in advance for the long winded post but there's a lot of misinformation that I have to correct.

Rebeller, you need to do some research:

Rebeller wrote:

No No No!!!. Nuclear power will never be an acceptable source of energy. I have personally witnessed the devastation visited on Chernobyl.

But do you know HOW the Chernobyl accident actually happened? Because that is or should be an even bigger story.I have done a lot of research into the Chernobyl accident and the string of mistakes that were made leading up to it, starting over to 30 years previously. What I found was absolutely astounding.

To cut a long story short, the Chernobyl accident could ONLY have happened in the former Soviet Union. The abominable way in which the USSR nuclear programme was being run, a calamity of some kind was inevitable. It was only ever going to be a question of when and where. BUT, outside the USSR and excluding its reactors still in operation, a Chernobyl style catastrophe cannot happen again.

You've probably been reading too much Greenpeace propoganda saying "No More Chernobyls" or Cher-NO-byl, but you don't realise that the conditions to make a repeat of Chernobyl impossible are already here: the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the job will be finished when the last of the 11 Soviet built RMBK reactors still operating are shut down during the next decade.

Ask yourself why the modern Ukraine is going hell-for-leather with more nuclear power - they're broke (can't afford to waste money), scarred by the legacy of Chernobyl, AND they also have immense coal reserves. Haven't they learned their lesson? Or perhaps they have, but the lesson is not the one Greenpeace etc. would like to teach.

Yes, the actual energy production itself does not lead to CO2 or other toxic emissions but the process creates tonnes of highly radioactive waste that will be hazardous to life for hundreds of thousands of years.

You mean this:

This is a volumetric representation of the amount of High Level Waste generated to provide nuclear electricity to a person for a normal LIFETIME.

Changing how we generate our electricity is not enough. We need to alter how we live our lives.

This is an extremist position, and it will never happen. We don't need to radically disimprove our lifestyles, we just need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Akrasia wrote:

The Irish government can't even build and run a feckin swimming pool, do you seriously trust them with a Nuclear power plant? They're nothing but 166 homer simpsons

Again, this is nonsense and you clearly have no idea what happened at Chernobyl. To make a Chernobyl style calamity, you need Soviet style arrogance and incompetence. Bertie may have screwed up the port tunnel (and everything else) but the extreme levels of governmental incompetence required for a Chernobyl do not exist not only in Ireland, but anywhere in the 1st world.

RedPlanet wrote:

This is a loaded question.
As if there are only 2 energy options.
It's exactly the way the nuclear industry frames the debate.

>_< Merciful God.
This is also nonsense. Noone's saying renewables, conservation, biofuels etc are not good things, but each is limited, you can only shave so much fuel demand, there is only a certain amount of land for agriculture which will be needed for transport fuels, and wind plant output is too unreliable, self limited and needs a backup.

We need to stop using fossil fuels. End of story. In that aim, all the tools at our disposal including nuclear power need to be used.

============================================

Nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient, abundant and reliable. The only "dirty little secret" nuclear power has, is that it inherently makes sense.

Rebeller, Akrasia, you may want to do some resarch before talking about nuclear power again, because it is quite clear to me that you are not fully informed.

Triangle

SeanW,

It anoys me when you tell others to do more research and then say a nuclear disaster cannot happen again. How can you guarentee an accident will never happen again?
It's like saying a loaded gun cannot go off without someone pulling the trigger.
Accidents do happen - and with nuclear power its one big accident.

I would not want myself or my children to live near a Nulear Station for the simple fact of how much damage a handful of radioactive material can cause.


Trig

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote:

>_< Merciful God.
This is also nonsense. Noone's saying renewables, conservation, biofuels etc are not good things, but each is limited, you can only shave so much fuel demand, there is only a certain amount of land for agriculture which will be needed for transport fuels, and wind plant output is too unreliable, self limited and needs a backup.
We need to stop using fossil fuels. End of story. In that aim, all the tools at our disposal including nuclear power need to be used.

What is nonsense SeanW?
That the nuclear industry doesn't frame the energy debate as: Fossil Fuel / Nuclear and pretty much discount everything else?

Even nuclear is limited, despite all your postings on the Green Issues board, you have not demonstrated nor debunked the premise that uranium is a finite resource, and therefor will run out just like fossilized fuels.
The sifting uranium from the oceans is nonsense since it will require huge amounts of energy to sift the huge quantities of water they'd need.
Also, just look at the environmental track record of some of these energy companies that also advocate nuclear power.
These folks are not environmentalists, rather they are capitalists and the fossil fuel/carbon emissions issue to them is not some benevolent cause but a marketing campaign.

seamus

The main problem with Nuclear power though SeanW is that in the extremely unlikely event of an accident occuring, the local damage (and the human cost in containing the damage) can be extreme. You can't really say that what happened in Chernobyl could never happen here, all you can really say is that the sequence of events couldn't occur again. Nuclear accidents don't really have to be on Chernobyl's scale to be a big bloody deal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

That said though, there is a hell of a lot of sensationalism about nuclear power, particularly from environmental groups. Especially when Chernobyl is brought up, people have flashes of the US Military test blast footage, when a nuclear meltdown (even on Chernobyl's scale) is not, and cannot ever produce the same results as, a nuclear explosion.

Moriarty

RedPlanet wrote:

Even nuclear is limited, despite all your postings on the Green Issues board, you have not demonstrated nor debunked the premise that uranium is a finite resource, and therefor will run out just like fossilized fuels.

There's about 50 years worth of useful Uranium-235 reserves, but there's anywhere from 10,000 to a couple of billion years worth of Uranium-238 reserves which could be used instead of -235 in conjunction with fast breeder reactors. I figure we'll have a more permenant solution developed in that timeframe, don't you?

RedPlanet wrote:

These folks are not environmentalists, rather they are capitalists and the fossil fuel/carbon emissions issue to them is not some benevolent cause but a marketing campaign.

I presume you'd also boycot any new drugs developed, what with their main reason for existance being to enhance the profit of mulinationals, yeah? Amazingly enough, sometimes the goals and achievments of capitalisim and the greater good of society can converge.

Sparks

seamus wrote:

The main problem with Nuclear power though SeanW is that in the extremely unlikely event of an accident occuring, the local damage (and the human cost in containing the damage) can be extreme.

Something you can say with equal validity about coal and oil. Except for the "extremely unlikely" bit, since obviously that's not the case with coal and oil.

Put it this way; How many people die from nuclear power every year? And how many die from coal or oil power?

RedPlanet

Moriarty wrote:

I presume you'd also boycot any new drugs developed, what with their main reason for existance being to enhance the profit of mulinationals, yeah? Amazingly enough, sometimes the goals and achievments of capitalisim and the greater good of society can converge.

I don't follow you.
It is not just that these energy companies are capitalists, it's that they are profit before environment.
They will lobby TD's against environmental standards.
They will pollute the environment as much as they are allowed to get away with, and will then coerce the public taxpayer to clean up their mess.

Moriarty

RedPlanet wrote:

I don't follow you.
It is not just that these energy companies are capitalists, it's that they are profit before environment.
They will lobby TD's against environmental standards.
They will pollute the environment as much as they are allowed to get away with, and will then coerce the public taxpayer to clean up their mess.

It's the same with every other type of business too.. and yet amazingly enough we aren't all dead yet. Has it occoured to you that instead of protesting the idea of nuclear power, environmentalists would be better served attempting to save the eco-system by promoting responsbile use of nuclear power? I realise it's a knee jerk reaction for a lot of people when they hear "nuclear" to turn pasleyite, but then the general public never have been the best deciders of what's actually best for them.

SeanW

Triangle wrote:

How can you guarentee an accident will never happen again?

Simple. Nuclear plants don't just uncerimoniously, inexplicably go "boom" and give you a Chernobyl style catastrophe. It simply does not happen.

The reasons why Chernobyl happened are many. Even a short bulletpoint list of the contributing screw-ups and mistakes made by the Soviet authorities would run to at least half a page. So suffice to say (until you've done your research) that the Soviet authorities were practically begging for a calamity, and that something like Chernobyl was inevitable. It had to happen because of the controlling governments unimaginable levels of incompetence and recklessness.

Accidents do happen - and with nuclear power its one big accident.

Well, there's accidents and there's accidents. If you note Three Mile Island, looked scary for a while but didn't have same destructive impacy as Chernobyl. That's because TMI had full primary and secondary containment, wheras Chernobyl didn't even have proper primary containment, one of the long litany of Soviet mistakes that caused the disaster.

Oh sure, something like that COULD happen again but the chances are too small to be considered. You would have a higher chance of being struck by a meteor, or killed by a falling over vending machine than any nuclear plant has of causing a Chernobyl type catastrophe.

I am confident enough to state categorically that an expansion of nuclear power would not

Greenpeace wrote:

result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade.

RedPlanet wrote:

That the nuclear industry doesn't frame the energy debate as: Fossil Fuel / Nuclear and pretty much discount everything else?

The ONLY framing of the debate that I see, is that of environmental extremists putting renewables and conservation vs. everything else. This is neither accurate nor productive.

As only nuclear and fossil fuels can produce large amounts of constant (baseline load) electricity, it is to a certain extent fossil fuels vs. nuclear. But AFAIK noone has claimed that nothing else is needed, or that there is any reason not to also pursue conservation, renewables, biofuels, better planning and public transport etc.

If you want me to believe that your statement is not a load of nonsense, then please point me to one instance where a nuclear industry representative dismissed renewables, biofuels and other plans as a waste of time/money. Can you do this?

Even nuclear is limited, despite all your postings on the Green Issues board, you have not demonstrated nor debunked the premise that uranium is a finite resource,

Then you obviously haven't read the posts you mention (this issue was explored in great detail) so there's no point in debating this with you.

Sparks wrote:

Put it this way; How many people die from nuclear power every year? And how many die from coal or oil power?

Nuclear power, very few. My guess is less than 10 per year.

But for coal, there are estimates in the 20-25,000 range for the U.S. alone http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391 many thousands of miner deaths in China (6000 per year) and that's only bits and snapshots of the problem. If you include the war in Iraq over oil, and the number of people who will be killed by global warming, the fossil fuels figure should be quite high.

How's this for framing the debate, which do you prefer, fossil fuels or nuclear? I have never had an anti-nuke answer this question.

I would like to say to all remaining in the ant-nuke camp that I know how you feel.

Becuase like you, I used to shove my head up my arse in fear every time anyone even mentioned nuclear power.

Until I got the facts. So I cannot stress this enough: go out and do some research, get the real story that 'they' don't want *you* to know.

Manic Moran

It occurs to me that the Japanese, who, much like the Ukraine, also have some first-hand-experiences of the dangers of radiation and other nuclear-related incidents, and whose country the Kyoto treaty was signed in, have very little issue with nuclear reactors at all, and seem quite happy with theirs.

What do they know that we don't?

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

It occurs to me that the Japanese, who, much like the Ukraine, also have some first-hand-experiences of the dangers of radiation and other nuclear-related incidents, and whose country the Kyoto treaty was signed in, have very little issue with nuclear reactors at all, and seem quite happy with theirs.
What do they know that we don't?
NTM

I am not so sure they are.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/df4fa48a-bb19-11da-8f51-0000779e2340.html
"A court ordered the shutdown of Japan’s second-biggest nuclear power plant on Friday on the grounds that it was vulnerable to earthquakes, in a verdict that could have important implications for the embattled nuclear industry.
Operators of Japan’s nuclear power stations, which account for about one-third of electricity production, have been wracked by a series of scandals and accidents that have shaken public faith in the industry’s safety."

Manic Moran

Yes, I remember that spate of incidents.

You will note, however, that (a) Ireland is not know for its vulnerability to earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados or other such disasters, and (b) in the cases that there were incidents, the safeguards worked: That's what they're there for.

NTM

AbusesToilets

I think that nuclear power has the potential to generate a lot of low cost power,but it should be remembered that while the power plants themselves don't produce a lot of pollution,the production of fuel for reactors is quite messy.

Akrasia

while there are safer cleaner alternatives, why would we take any risk with nuclear power? There are loads of things we could do right now. Nuclear power is not a panacea, and it is at least a decade away even if the decision is made today.
A decade from now, it will be too late.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1957692,00.html
Solar power in the desert can easily provide green electricity to the whole world with zero carbon emissions, no safety risk and with the positive side effects of the provision of desalinated drinking water as a byproduct and air conditioning for nearby cities.

As well as this, we have huge domestic sources of renewable energy that are being ignored.

Nuttzz

wind and wave sources on the west coast would be ideal, no doubt the nimby's would kill the wind farms before they ever really got off the ground

Akrasia

Nuttzz wrote:

wind and wave sources on the west coast would be ideal, no doubt the nimby's would kill the wind farms before they ever really got off the ground

they should be built offshore. it's only 50% more expensive to set up (there are no land costs)
If the private sector aren't interested, the government should pay for it.

John_C

Akrasia wrote:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1957692,00.html
Solar power in the desert can easily provide green electricity to the whole world with zero carbon emissions, no safety risk and with the positive side effects of the provision of desalinated drinking water as a byproduct and air conditioning for nearby cities.

May I ask the same thing I do of every 'magic pill' solution I read? If this technology is so cheap, clean and safe, why hasn't it been built yet?

Sand

May I ask the same thing I do of every 'magic pill' solution I read? If this technology is so cheap, clean and safe, why hasn't it been built yet?

Its probably only been proven to work in theory?

And of course, given the location of the majority of the worlds deserts the same geo-political reasons [effing crazies, to paraphrase Powell] for reducing dependance on oil exist.

SeanW is absolutely correct on his assertion that the solution to global warming is to stop burning fossil fuels. Wind, solar, biofuels and tidal power are all Good Things and should be invested in, but they cannot replace the dependability, economy and utility of fossil fuels. Nuclear power can. Hes also correct in asserting that the Soviets basically engineered Chernobyl. France generates 70% of its electricity from nuclear power - no Chernobyl.

We should invest in nuclear power [it would have the added benefit of *really* pissing off the rent-a-riot hippies], but given this is Ireland and government tend to follow the path of least hysterical resistance that wont happen. Instead Ireland will build a connection to the UK power network, the British will build the nuclear power plants, and we will buy the nuclear generated power from them. We will then denounce the British nuclear power industry and regularly put out scare stories about them going boom any day now, while we benefit from the power they produce. Shure, arent we cute whoors all the same?

leninbenjamin

John_C wrote:

May I ask the same thing I do of every 'magic pill' solution I read? If this technology is so cheap, clean and safe, why hasn't it been built yet?

the political power of the current oil and energy companies is one reason. they want to be the ones who profit from any switch away from oil, but currently they would still make greater profits from oil i gather, so they are unwilling to switch until it dries up and become an unviable business I reckon.

John_C

leninbenjamin wrote:

the political power of the current oil and energy companies is one reason. they want to be the ones who profit from any switch away from oil, but currently they would still make greater profits from oil i gather, so they are unwilling to switch until it dries up and become an unviable business I reckon.

That's only a conspiracy theory.

The oil companies aren't the only people with money. If this worked, someone would build it.

leninbenjamin

John_C wrote:

That's only a conspiracy theory.

The oil companies aren't the only people with money. If this worked, someone would build it.

Yes it's somehwat speculation on my part, but you cannot deny that the oil companies are among the post powerful lobby groups in the entire political world. And that their existence is threatened by emerging alternative fuels.

Also, there are people building it. Alternative sources of energy is is undergoing a huge investment boom, similar to that of the internet investment prior to the dot com crash, acccording to the economist a few weeks back. It just takes time. People have been investing in oil for over a century now, but alternative sources really have really only kicked off this past decade. It's just a matter of time really.

Akrasia

John_C wrote:

May I ask the same thing I do of every 'magic pill' solution I read? If this technology is so cheap, clean and safe, why hasn't it been built yet?

Because up until now, Oil has been cheaper and the political will to pursue clean energy has not been there. The project would require a high capacity DC power connector to the European grid

It works