Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?

John_C

leninbenjamin wrote:

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.

I don't deny that but I do deny that the oil companies have enough power to supress the existance or construction of alternative sources of energy.

leninbenjamin wrote:

Also, there are people building it. Alternative sources of energy is is undergoing a huge investment boom,

Other sources of energy are, this particular one is not, dispite the articles claim that it is developed and ready to be built today. There is a contradiction here and my guess is that the scientists interviewed have exaggerated the usefulness of their invention. I think that is a much more likely explanation than a global conspiracy to hide this technology.

John_C

Akrasia wrote:

It works

Is there any evidance of this?

leninbenjamin

John_C wrote:

I don't deny that but I do deny that the oil companies have enough power to supress the existance or construction of alternative sources of energy.

Other sources of energy are, this particular one is not, dispite the articles claim that it is developed and ready to be built today. There is a contradiction here and my guess is that the scientists interviewed have exaggerated the usefulness of their invention. I think that is a much more likely explanation than a global conspiracy to hide this technology.

meh... i was taking more in the general sense, not about this one technology in specific.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

The project would require a high capacity DC power connector to the European grid

It works

It does? Is there such a thing as a high capacity DC power connector to any grid - anywhere - given that electricity grids are, by their very nature, AC?

axer

Ok, maybe Nuclear power can be fairly contained but accidents do happen and can happen. The cost of such an accident can be so great for nuclear that even the smallest of risk is not worth it. NOBODY can say that an accident won't happen. It doesn't need to be earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados or other such disasters.

What about the risk of terrorist attack? What about an accident such as even a airplane crash landing into the power plant? These are possible and could cause serious problems that we could not be certain of containing.

There are too many other alternatives before even needing to consider nuclear. Wind is soooo under utilised in Ireland. I go to Germany where they have wind turbines everywhere you look and we are living on an Island with so much more wind to harness and we haven't fully done so yet.

leninbenjamin

axer wrote:

Ok, maybe Nuclear power can be fairly contained but accidents do happen and can happen. The cost of such an accident can be so great for nuclear that even the smallest of risk is not worth it. NOBODY can say that an accident won't happen. It doesn't need to be earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados or other such disasters.

i don't really agree with this argument. Afterall cars kill hundreds on our roads each year, yet we deem the the benefits outweigh the negatives. and even though the potential costs of any nuclear accident are great, the positives are great also.

axer wrote:

What about the risk of terrorist attack? What about an accident such as even a airplane crash landing into the power plant? These are possible and could cause serious problems that we could not be certain of containing.

that is somewhat scaremongering, there is no reason to believe that terrorists with the capacity to cause such damage would wan't to do so in Ireland. but i agree it is an area for concern and consideration must be given to the possibility. we may have to invest in more of an airforce to prevent something like that.

axer wrote:

There are too many other alternatives before even needing to consider nuclear. Wind is soooo under utilised in Ireland. I go to Germany where they have wind turbines everywhere you look and we are living on an Island with so much more wind to harness and we haven't fully done so yet.

Ultimately I agree with this. i think there are far more immediate alternatives available to us. Any proposed reactor would take decades, but we could expand our wind farms in a few short years if we wished. While sources such as wind may not provide the total solution to our energy problem we should explore and exhaust all the possibilities of green energy such as wind and tidal , bio fuels, solar etc. before embarking on something with the scale of risk such as Nuclear power.

axer

leninbenjamin wrote:

i don't really agree with this argument. Afterall cars kill hundreds on our roads each year, yet we deem the the benefits outweigh the negatives. and even though the potential costs of any nuclear accident are great, the positives are great also.

Cars do kill hundreds on our roads every year alright. IF a major accident were to happen in a nuclear power plant located in Ireland it could have potential to kill many more than the amount killed in car accidents. I don't believe the positives outway the negatives when it comes to nuclear power plants.

leninbenjamin wrote:

that is somewhat scaremongering,

It might sound like scaremongering and I know that greenpeace say things like that to scare people BUT it is still credible extra risk.

leninbenjamin wrote:

there is no reason to believe that terrorists with the capacity to cause such damage would wan't to do so in Ireland. but i agree it is an area for concern and consideration must be given to the possibility. we may have to invest in more of an airforce to prevent something like that.

I could argue about the 147 CIA flights that we allowed to land on our runways as collusion with the enemies of many terrorist groups but that could be stretching it as a risk BUT we do not know what will happen within 20/30 years. We could very well be a target of international terrorism within that length of time. I don't think any investment in airforce or military can prevent the possibility of terrorism. Look how badly the likes of the USA and UK overcome terrorism with the amount of money they pump into the military. All it takes is one person from within the powerplant. I can never see us buying a fleet of fighter jets at about €40 million a pop. I think if it comes to this in order to protect the nuclear power plants then the cost definitely outways any possible benifits.

marie_85

Why on earth would we seriously contemplate nuclear power when we are an island country? We have so much access to wind and tidal power in particular.

Sweden, which currently has nuclear power plants, is planning on decommissioning these. By 2020, they want 50% of their energy resources from renewable energy and by 2050, that figure should be 100%. There is absolutely no reason why we can't do the same.

On a side note, there is no way I would trust this government to build a nuclear power plant. Between the Bertie Bowl, the NAC, the port tunnel, the voting machines, the computer system in the HSE... need I go on?

SeanW

Yes, you could go on to tell us about their election budgets, the lack of public transport, the health service, driver test waiting lists, dangerous roads etc. But it would make no difference.

I am a frequent critic of the Fianna Fail government yet despite all the above, I'd trust both Bertie and Enda K. with an Irish Nuclear Power Plant project. Why?

If you look at the only nuclear accident worth talking about, Chernobyl, the whole thing was caused by a Soviet government that was arrogant, reckless and incompetent to a scale even Bertie would be unable to imagine. And while Bertie and Martin Cullen etc might be a pack of clowns, for them to be the cause of a catastrophe risk with a nuclear project would, as one of my favourite PC game characters once said "require f**kwittage beyond the call of duty."

The biggest risk I can see with an Irish nuclear power plant is that it would come online years behind target and 50% over budget, at which point it basically would be just like everything else that happens in this country.

Finland is building a new nuclear reactor, a state of the art job which will be able to withstand a jet impact. France is continuing with its unapologetically pro-nuclear stance, as is the Ukraine (where Chernobyl happened). Both the U.S. and the U.K. are about to have a nuclear renaissance and Germany looks like it might to be about to do a U-Turn on it's "phase out all reactors" policy.

Nuclear power is getting a new look because it makes sense. There is no credible reason not to have a nuclear programme here in Ireland too.

John_C

oscarBravo wrote:

It does? Is there such a thing as a high capacity DC power connector to any grid - anywhere - given that electricity grids are, by their very nature, AC?

The short answer is yes.

MontgomeryClift

"Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?"

Nuclear is burning fuel.

SeanW

no its not.

Akrasia

If you look at the only nuclear accident worth talking about, Chernobyl, the whole thing was caused by a Soviet government that was arrogant, reckless and incompetent to a scale even Bertie would be unable to imagine.

Are you serious? Almost every big project this government has undertaken over the last decade has been scandalously mismanaged. Ask anyone from Cork about the state of their airport

The Aquatic center Built at a cost of millions, handed over to a shelf company to run, leaking roof, leaking pool, unsanitary conditions...., the M50, the current routing of the M3,
PPARS computer system which was first mooted in 1995, cost hundreds of millions of euros, and was a disaster from the very beginning, and then scrapped last year.
Electronic voting is an example of the supreme arrogance and incompetence of this government. Despite all of the evidence that they are unsafe, expensive, poorly designed and unnecessary, the government is still committed to using them because they are incapable of admitting when they made a mistake. And that is the kind of arrogance that leads to massive industrial accidents.

Zynks

I heard before that Scandinavia is the living proof that economic development and environmental friendliness can co-exist, and having spent at least one year there since 2000 I totally agree with that view. And guess what their main source of power is? You guessed, nuclear... and they will be expanding their nuclear capacity*, so I go with our Nordic friends view in conjunction with other sustainable sources, which I feel still have some road to mature as a primary source.

* I understand the public opinion is in favour of resuming construction of reactors and the government is expected to move in this direction from talking to locals but don't hard evidence.

Zynks

Akrasia wrote:

Are you serious? Almost every big project this government has undertaken over the last decade has been scandalously mismanaged...

OK, our government is incompetent, no question there, but is the answer to continue burning oil and coal because of their messes?

There are other answers to that, including efficient state and semi-state owned companies in Ireland (not many, I know). We could always look at the partnerships with countries with a proven track record.

piraka

Akrasia wrote:

Are you serious? Almost every big project this government has undertaken over the last decade has been scandalously mismanaged. Ask anyone from Cork about the state of their airport

The Aquatic center Built at a cost of millions, handed over to a shelf company to run, leaking roof, leaking pool, unsanitary conditions...., the M50, the current routing of the M3,
PPARS computer system which was first mooted in 1995, cost hundreds of millions of euros, and was a disaster from the very beginning, and then scrapped last year.
Electronic voting is an example of the supreme arrogance and incompetence of this government. Despite all of the evidence that they are unsafe, expensive, poorly designed and unnecessary, the government is still committed to using them because they are incapable of admitting when they made a mistake. And that is the kind of arrogance that leads to massive industrial accidents.

So what do suggest as an alternative to nuclear. With projected increase in power consumption in the republic, eirgrid is recommending that the country build more conventional power plants. More conventional power plants, more greenhouse gas emissions, faster the climate change.

piraka

Arkrasia wrote:

The Aquatic center Built at a cost of millions, handed over to a shelf company to run, leaking roof, leaking pool, unsanitary conditions…

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

God help the wind energy sector.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=719051&issue_id=7112

http://www.ecowindpower.com/main.php?section=3

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.

It is not just that these energy companies are capitalists, it's that they are profit before environment.

Of course that goes for renewable energy companies as well!

piraka

Arkrasia wrote:

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.

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?

This subject has been discussed in other threads. It would appear that you have not read them.

Here are some key reports that identify wind as an intermittent and unreliable energy source.

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

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/uploads/Publications/TransmissionDevelopmentPlan2006-2010Draft.pdf

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR0713_v1.8.pdf
Note pages 14, 21, 36, 44


And if you think I am biased, here is a report from a German wind energy company, read the summary!!

http://www.eon-netz.com/Ressources/downloads/EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf

Zynks

In the Netherlands they are considering building a HUGE lake in the mountains that will be filled up through wind powered pumps and the hydro-electric power is generated in the way down. This addresses the issue of inconsistency of winds. we have something similar in Ireland (can't remember the name of the place), but the lake is filled during the night using oil-burning ELECTRICITY to run the pumps.... so almost clever!

piraka

Zynks wrote:

In the Netherlands they are considering building a HUGE lake in the mountains that will be filled up through wind powered pumps and the hydro-electric power is generated in the way down. This addresses the issue of inconsistency of winds. we have something similar in Ireland (can't remember the name of the place), but the lake is filled during the night using oil-burning ELECTRICITY to run the pumps.... so almost clever!

We have one of them in Ireland, again an intermittent source of energy. What about the habitat loss, not very environmentally friendly.

professore

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.

Sellafield's not a nuclear plant it's a nuclear reprocessing plant. A different beast altogether.

professore

DaveMcG wrote:

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.

We can all go back to using candles, hand washing and hauling water with a bucket. This is the alternative at the moment.

professore

SeanW wrote:

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Not to mention deaths and illness (asthma) from carcinogenic petrol and diesel fumes. Yet the anti-nuclear lobby are strangely silent on these as the y drive their SUV's to the neighbourhood meetings.

professore

Zynks wrote:

In the Netherlands they are considering building a HUGE lake in the mountains that will be filled up through wind powered pumps and the hydro-electric power is generated in the way down. This addresses the issue of inconsistency of winds. we have something similar in Ireland (can't remember the name of the place), but the lake is filled during the night using oil-burning ELECTRICITY to run the pumps.... so almost clever!

Is that in the mountain range with the peak of 10 metres above sea level? (sorry couldn't resist

Zynks

piraka wrote:

We have one of them in Ireland, again an intermittent source of energy. What about the habitat loss, not very environmentally friendly.

I consider the environmental impact of an artificial lake (once off) perfectly acceptable when compared to the the constant emission of CO2 by oil fueled electricity.
I was in Brazil 20 years ago when they filled the dam for Tucurui. Sure, it had an ecological impact, but now they have a reliable source of clean electricity for generations to come.

professore

Sand wrote:

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?

Not really - we'll be subsidising their nuclear industry. But then again in good old "Rip Off Ireland" it will still work out a lot cheaper than building them ourselves.

piraka

Zynks wrote:

I consider the environmental impact of an artificial lake (once off) perfectly acceptable when compared to the the constant emission of CO2 by oil fueled electricity.
I was in Brazil 20 years ago when they filled the dam for Tucurui. Sure, it had an ecological impact, but now they have a reliable source of clean electricity for generations to come.

Build a nuclear plant, smaller development footprint and no CO2 emissions, better for the environment allround.

oscarBravo

John_C wrote:

The short answer is yes.

And the long answer?

Zynks

professore wrote:

Is that in the mountain range with the peak of 10 metres above sea level? (sorry couldn't resist

I knew this would come from somewhere

Actually they have a couple of mountains over 1000 feet, but what is important is the drop, not how high the water is stored.

John_C

oscarBravo wrote:

And the long answer?

I suppose it involves science. Is it enough to say that there is a DC connection between Scotland and The North?