Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?

Dar

RedPlanet wrote:

Doesn't matter. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are blood brothers.

That explains the emense nuclear arsenels of the netherlands, mexico, indonesia, hungary, bulgaria, finland, japan, norway, austria , sweden, the czech republic, canada and belgium; all of whom have operational fission power plants.

Not very hard and yet it seems fairly easy to debunk the pro-nuclear propaganda that going nuclear is both safe and environmental.

Nonetheless in nearly 20 years of operations and over 50 plants Japan has suffered only 2 fatalities.

Indeed, however it is you that is trying to provide one (nuclear power)

Not really - I just believe that nuclear fission is a more attractive means of energy production that fossil fuel powered plants.

RedPlanet

piraka wrote:

Can you please explain how renewables will be able to replace and at what cost, the current energy requirement in the country.

I am not making that claim.
I care not to maintain the current energy requirement.
This is because we are not living a sustainable lifestyle.
I have little interest in attempting to prop-up a corrupt and unsustainable system with nuclear power.

Take for example our low density housing and low density transport, it's totally unsustainable, seeks to reward selfish people and results in lowering our quality of life; not to mention creating a legacy of burdening the future.

SeanW

RedPlanet, I'm sorry to say that I find your posts to be quite lacking in reality.

I will not be hoodwinked nor bullied by scarmongering tactics

It's patently obvious that you already have, by the anti-nuke extremists. 2 points to me.

Supporting nuclear power will take away enthusiasm and precious resources from going green (100% renewables), ultimately that is exactly what we have to do.

Then you obviously haven't got a clue how weather-based renewables work. If you knew for example how reliable wind power is, and that wind power is expensive and requires a subsidy (PSO levy on ESB bill) you'd realise that 100% power from renewables under any circumstances is unrealistic. Also Google "Derrybrien" to find out what happens when wind projects go wrong (Dynamite + boggy mountain slushheap = landslide).

Indeed, however it is you that is trying to provide one (nuclear power)

Err ... No, if you read my posts you'd have seen that I find no single silver bullet, I believe that all the tools, conservation, nuclear+reprocessing, renewables, and biofuels all need to be pursued with equal vigour, like tools in a toolbelt, each tool performs a specific function. 2 more points to me.

Doesn't matter. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are blood brothers.

Oops, I guess you forgot about all those rich and large countries that have nuclear power but no interest in nuclear weapons? 2 points to Dar for rubbishing the above nonsense.

Dar wrote:

Only of two of those beaches were contaminated by nuclear power plants. Both plants were 60 year old designs and have since been decommisioned.

Yup, none of those beaches were contaminated by a modern nuclear power programme. 2 more points to Dar.

I have little interest in attempting to prop-up a corrupt and unsustainable system with nuclear power.

That ignores 2 key issues:
1: Noone wants to go back to living in Yurts and using candlelight.
2: Coal is the default alternative. Every respected energy outlook analysis predicts more reliance on fossil fuels.

Dar wrote:

Not really - I just believe that nuclear fission is a more attractive means of energy production that fossil fuel powered plants

BINGO!!!!

We're going to need more energy. End of story. If you oppose nuclear power, you are by default supporting fossil fuels and all their attendant problems. You HAVE to choose one, because you can't oppose everything and still expect to have lights come on, a functioning economy etc.

piraka

€270,000,000 to be spent on carbon credits? (an estimated €500,000,000 in total to be spent on carbon credits!!).What a waste of money.

Stern and his buddies must be laughing all the way to the World Bank.
But this is one of the cornerstone principles in carbon reduction to come out of Kyoto.

This money should be put forward to financing a nuclear power plant.

This is how it works. Governments set limits on carbon emissions and then permit companies to trade in the credits they stack up for meeting these targets. If companies want to emit more, they must buy more credits from companies with a carbon surplus. The aim is to give firms an incentive to reduce their carbon emissions.
The credits, however, are given for a virtual commodity — tonnes of carbon dioxide which have not been put into the atmosphere. The system can easily be abused — by setting the targets too high, or by rewarding countries such as Russia or the Ukraine where emissions have fallen because their economies are failing.
Nevertheless, this virtual market is producing vast profits. Thus the bank Morgan Stanley recently unveiled a £1.6bn investment in carbon trading; and the World Bank, where Sir Nicholas previously worked as chief economist, is heavily involved in the trade. Is it any surprise, therefore, that his report is expected to give carbon trading an enormous boost?
And the Chancellor is already there before him. In a speech delivered last April, Mr Brown said: ‘Our ultimate goal must be a global carbon market,’ which he saw as a driver of future economic growth. In other words, on the back of an alleged global catastrophe, Mr Brown sees an unrivalled national business opportunity. Sir Nicholas, it would appear, was brought in to make the argument for a policy that had already been decided.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=460

Akrasia

SeanW wrote:

RedPlanet, I'm sorry to say that I find your posts to be quite lacking in reality.

It's patently obvious that you already have, by the anti-nuke extremists. 2 points to me.

Then you obviously haven't got a clue how weather-based renewables work. If you knew for example how reliable wind power is, and that wind power is expensive and requires a subsidy (PSO levy on ESB bill) you'd realise that 100% power from renewables under any circumstances is unrealistic. Also Google "Derrybrien" to find out what happens when wind projects go wrong (Dynamite + boggy mountain slushheap = landslide).

Err ... No, if you read my posts you'd have seen that I find no single silver bullet, I believe that all the tools, conservation, nuclear+reprocessing, renewables, and biofuels all need to be pursued with equal vigour, like tools in a toolbelt, each tool performs a specific function. 2 more points to me.

Oops, I guess you forgot about all those rich and large countries that have nuclear power but no interest in nuclear weapons? 2 points to Dar for rubbishing the above nonsense.

Yup, none of those beaches were contaminated by a modern nuclear power programme. 2 more points to Dar.

That ignores 2 key issues:
1: Noone wants to go back to living in Yurts and using candlelight.
2: Coal is the default alternative. Every respected energy outlook analysis predicts more reliance on fossil fuels.


BINGO!!!!

We're going to need more energy. End of story. If you oppose nuclear power, you are by default supporting fossil fuels and all their attendant problems. You HAVE to choose one, because you can't oppose everything and still expect to have lights come on, a functioning economy etc.

no we don't.
"concentrating solar power"
free clean safe constant power. and ironically, the bigger the effects of global warming, the more electricity it will produce.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/csp.html

Of course you will probably ignore this post because it doesn't fit into that nice little false dichotomy you have your heart set on. Oh, but if it's any consolation, solar power is nuclear power, so you can still pretend you were right.

Akrasia

piraka wrote:

€270,000,000 to be spent on carbon credits? (an estimated €500,000,000 in total to be spent on carbon credits!!).What a waste of money.

I'm just curious, is that €270 million for one year?

piraka

Akrasia wrote:

I'm just curious, is that €270 million for one year?

I would take it that they are budgeting for when we reach our target date for carbon emission reduction under Kyoto, 2011??

piraka

Akrasia wrote:

no we don't.
"concentrating solar power"
free clean safe constant power. and ironically, the bigger the effects of global warming, the more electricity it will produce.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/csp.html

Of course you will probably ignore this post because it doesn't fit into that nice little false dichotomy you have your heart set on. Oh, but if it's any consolation, solar power is nuclear power, so you can still pretend you were right.

.....and the MWh output is.... can't find any reference to it.

SeanW

no we don't.
"concentrating solar power"
free clean safe constant power. and ironically, the bigger the effects of global warming, the more electricity it will produce.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/csp.html

Of course you will probably ignore this post because it doesn't fit into that nice little false dichotomy you have your heart set on. Oh, but if it's any consolation, solar power is nuclear power, so you can still pretend you were right.

No, I'm not going to ignore your post :rolleyes:

"False dichotomy" eh? At what point did I say that I believed in nuclear power as a replacement for renewables? I have specifically stated my view on numerous occasions that all the non fossil options need to pursued equally.

So if this CSP thing works then by all means go for it. But it won't power everything for 2 reasons:
1: The sun sets every night
2: We don't get much sun in Ireland, we have cloud cover and sub 20C temperatures most of the year.

But if it does work efficiently, then it also has a role - remember in the U.S. when it gets hot people turn on their air-conditioners. So there is a reasonably good correlation between sun exposure and electricity use. It makes sense to pursue CSP in such circumstances.

But it still isn't a "baseline" provider. And won't be unless some kickass energy storage solution is invented.

Remember, my often stated (but seemingly ignored) position is that these are all tools that should be pursued in a concerted and equivalent fashion. There's nothing "falsely dichotomous" about it.

Akrasia

piraka wrote:

.....and the MWh output is.... can't find any reference to it.

it depends on how big you make the plant and the place you build it.

They did a study based on a 4000mwh plant and they concluded that they could easily generate much more electricity on a bigger scale.

Akrasia

SeanW wrote:

No, I'm not going to ignore your post :rolleyes:

well I had already mentioned CSP twice in this thread and you didn't seem to notice

"False dichotomy" eh? At what point did I say that I believed in nuclear power as a replacement for renewables? I have specifically stated my view on numerous occasions that all the non fossil options need to pursued equally.

i think this qualifies:

seanw wrote:

If you oppose nuclear power, you are by default supporting fossil fuels and all their attendant problems. You HAVE to choose one, because you can't oppose everything and still expect to have lights come on, a functioning economy etc.

So if this CSP thing works then by all means go for it. But it won't power everything for 2 reasons:
1: The sun sets every night
2: We don't get much sun in Ireland, we have cloud cover and sub 20C temperatures most of the year.

You don't build the plants in Ireland, you build them in the desert and build a DC electricity inter-connecter to the European Grid.
The plants can continue to produce electricity even at night because they have systems of storing the heat for long periods of time (one way they do this is by using the sunlight to melt salt)

But if it does work efficiently, then it also has a role - remember in the U.S. when it gets hot people turn on their air-conditioners. So there is a reasonably good correlation between sun exposure and electricity use. It makes sense to pursue CSP in such circumstances.

There is another excellent reason to pursue CSP. as part of the process, it can function as a water desalination plant to provide drinking water to the desert and it can provide cold water for use in air conditioning systems in nearby cities.
It's a win win win situation

But it still isn't a "baseline" provider. And won't be unless some kickass energy storage solution is invented.

they only need to store the energy for a few hours a night when energy consumption is naturally lower anyway, and they already have systems to keep the turbines turning.
If we combine this system with our own wind and tidal resources, as well as improving energy efficiency, we could easily provide 100% of Europe's energy requirements without having to have any nuclear plants at all.

piraka

Akrasia wrote:

it depends on how big you make the plant and the place you build it.

They did a study based on a 4000mwh plant and they concluded that they could easily generate much more electricity on a bigger scale.

How about this one. A tower over 3.000ft and 25,000acres for a paltry 200MW. This would just about power the Christmas lights.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,66694-0.html

Sunday Business Post December 3 2006

Fairy lights put pressure on electricity capacity

Christmas fairy lights on houses and streets throughout the country are consuming almost half of the electricity produced by a 400MW generation plant according to the industry experts…..

SeanW

Akrasia wrote:

well I had already mentioned CSP twice in this thread and you didn't seem to notice

I had a lot of anti-nuke myth-busting to take care of first.

i think this qualifies:

no it doesn't. I've state my view that weather based renewables won't be able to cover all world energy demand. I have yet to see any kind of energy review that says otherwise. Therefore something has to cover the rest, and if you oppose the use of nuclear power for the job, then something else has to be used to cover the shortfall => Coal, presently provides a staggering 39% of all world power and there are immense reserves of it which would in the default case, be used.

Put simply Nuclear Power > Coal.

You don't build the plants in Ireland, you build them in the desert and build a DC electricity inter-connecter to the European Grid.

It sounds like a good idea and I keep an open mind to plans such as the TREC. But it raises national security implications, what if something ever happens to the 1000+ kilometres of interconnector or the government of the host or an intermediary country decides to switch us off?

There is another excellent reason to pursue CSP. as part of the process, it can function as a water desalination plant to provide drinking water to the desert and it can provide cold water for use in air conditioning systems in nearby cities.
It's a win win win situation

I agree! Where did I say not to pursue CSP? I just believe it's a tool, and while it may be a good one, it's NOT a silver bullet.

they only need to store the energy for a few hours a night when energy consumption is naturally lower anyway, and they already have systems to keep the turbines turning.

Details please.

Akrasia

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/39291.pdf
there's a link to a report prepared for the state of california.

Dar

Akrasia wrote:

You don't build the plants in Ireland, you build them in the desert and build a DC electricity inter-connecter to the European Grid.
The plants can continue to produce electricity even at night because they have systems of storing the heat for long periods of time (one way they do this is by using the sunlight to melt salt)
There is another excellent reason to pursue CSP. as part of the process, it can function as a water desalination plant to provide drinking water to the desert and it can provide cold water for use in air conditioning systems in nearby cities.
It's a win win win situation
they only need to store the energy for a few hours a night when energy consumption is naturally lower anyway, and they already have systems to keep the turbines turning.
If we combine this system with our own wind and tidal resources, as well as improving energy efficiency, we could easily provide 100% of Europe's energy requirements without having to have any nuclear plants at all.

And how much would it cost to build hundreds of square kilometers of solar panels? How much would it cost to build a DC link from the middle-east to europe? How much energy would be lost in transmission? What happens when a single accident cuts off power to the entire european grid?

If this technology is ready for primetime and cost-efficient, why in the name of god is Saudi Arabia currently building nuclear plants to power its' desalinisation?

I find it unlikely that solar power will be ready for bulk generation in the near future (my bet is on solar power satallites using microwaves to transmit power back to earth).

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote:

It's patently obvious that you already have, by the anti-nuke extremists. 2 points to me.

Not so, i haven't brought up Chernobyl once, nor even suggested we'd see another urban disaster from a nuclear power plant, infact i even agreed with you about Greenpeace's propaganda on a different thread. All's im saying is that i don't trust energy corporations for one minute, that they'll pollute our environment and expect us to clean it up for them. -2 for you.

SeanW wrote:

Then you obviously haven't got a clue how weather-based renewables work. If you knew for example how reliable....

You're making the wrong argument. I was just saying that i care not to maintain current energy output levels. You are in this paragraph explaining the shortfall of wind generated electricity. I accept that. I just think we need to consume less energy, i didn't make an argument that wind power alone can solve our energy crisis. -2 to you again.

SeanW wrote:

Oops, I guess you forgot about all those rich and large countries that have nuclear power but no interest in nuclear weapons? 2 points to Dar for rubbishing the above nonsense.

Not at all, i'll wager that those same countries can develope nuclear weapons if they so desire. I never said that a country must have both so i don't know where your getting this from. -2 again.

SeanW wrote:

Yup, none of those beaches were contaminated by a modern nuclear power programme. 2 more points to Dar.

Not quite. The orginal premise was that i could not name 3 environmental disasters as a result of nuclear power, i did. Now you're trying to move the goalposts and claim they must be from "modern nuclear power", whatever that means. -2 again.

SeanW wrote:

That ignores 2 key issues:
1: Noone wants to go back to living in Yurts and using candlelight.
2: Coal is the default alternative. Every respected energy outlook analysis predicts more reliance on fossil fuels.

1. Are these the same people who turn on xmas lights and drive SUV's?
If so then maybe they should, and maybe we should put them there.
2. Probably true, i wonder can we build up enough wind, solar, hydro power around the globe to wean folks away from coal.

SeanW wrote:

We're going to need more energy. End of story. If you oppose nuclear power, you are by default supporting fossil fuels and all their attendant problems. You HAVE to choose one, because you can't oppose everything and still expect to have lights come on, a functioning economy etc.

No, oil/coal is are not the only resources we are over-consuming via our lifestyle aspirations. Going nuclear won't stop our collective march toward diminishing our planet's resources.

SeanW

Not so, i haven't brought up Chernobyl once, nor even suggested we'd see another urban disaster from a nuclear power plant, infact i even agreed with you about Greenpeace's propaganda on a different thread. All's im saying is that i don't trust energy corporations for one minute, that they'll pollute our environment and expect us to clean it up for them. -2 for you.

I don't trust energy companies either - any nuclear installations no matter who owns them, must be overseen by a strong and vicious nuclear regulator. Besides, if not another Chernobyl, what kind of mess could the nuclear industry possibly make that could be worse than the mess being made on an ongoing basis by fossil fuels?

You're making the wrong argument. I was just saying that i care not to maintain current energy output levels. You are in this paragraph explaining the shortfall of wind generated electricity. I accept that. I just think we need to consume less energy, i didn't make an argument that wind power alone can solve our energy crisis. -2 to you again.

I never said wind couldn't produce enough power for Ireland, I said it couldn't do it reliably. If getting away from fossil fuels was a simple matter of building more windfarms, that would be a no brainer. But the Eirgrid controllers have to cover the situation where there is 5GW of demand and little or no wind plant output. 2 points reclaimed.

Not at all, i'll wager that those same countries can develope nuclear weapons if they so desire. I never said that a country must have both so i don't know where your getting this from. -2 again.

How about this?

Doesn't matter. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are blood brothers.

2 more points reclaimed.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts and claim they must be from "modern nuclear power", whatever that means. -2 again.

Britain was one of the early adopters of nuclear power and had a lot of old experimetal stuff hanging around, hell they're still using things like Magnox and AGRs (Advanced Gas Reactor) from the 60s and early 70s and they have only one standard Light Water Reactor, Sizewell B. Even today the UKs nuclear fleet is almost obsolete so it's a bit of a red herring IMO to talk about stuff that happened decades ago. Modern commercial nuclear reactors are safer, cleaner and more efficient than 50 year old ones.

1. Are these the same people who turn on xmas lights and drive SUV's?
If so then maybe they should, and maybe we should put them there.
2. Probably true, i wonder can we build up enough wind, solar, hydro power around the globe to wean folks away from coal.

1: Good luck selling that message to anyone except enviro-extremists.
2: If I thought the answer to that question was yes, I would not be supporting nuclear power.

Going nuclear won't stop our collective march toward diminishing our planet's resources.

No, but it could go a very long way towards stopping it or slowing it way down.

Dar

Dar wrote:

Name three.
Then point out any which used modern reactor designs.
Then point out any whose radioactive output came to within even a few orders of magnitude of the radioactive emissions of the world's coal power plants.

RedPlanet wrote:

Not quite. The orginal premise was that i could not name 3 environmental disasters as a result of nuclear power, i did. Now you're trying to move the goalposts and claim they must be from "modern nuclear power", whatever that means. -2 again.

Moving goalposts?

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote:

I don't trust energy companies either - any nuclear installations no matter who owns them, must be overseen by a strong and vicious nuclear regulator. Besides, if not another Chernobyl, what kind of mess could the nuclear industry possibly make that could be worse than the mess being made on an ongoing basis by fossil fuels?

A "strong vicious nuclear regulator" is well meaning, however for how long would the political will exist? If 17 "modern nuclear plants" in Japan can fabricate safety data, they can probably get away with much, much more in this country. In USA the chimp-in-chief has taken up energy corporation proposals and called for the lessoning of regulations on nuclear power.
Surely the nuclear industry can make a much larger mess of the planet compared to oil.

SeanW wrote:

I never said wind couldn't produce enough power for Ireland, I said it couldn't do it reliably. If getting away from fossil fuels was a simple matter of building more windfarms, that would be a no brainer. But the Eirgrid controllers have to cover the situation where there is 5GW of demand and little or no wind plant output. 2 points reclaimed.

It's still the wrong argument, or wrong rebuttal to my post. Why are you just concentrating on wind btw?

SeanW wrote:

No, but it could go a very long way towards stopping it or slowing it way down.

Rubbish. You are trying your hardest to prop-up that failing system. What lessons would the people have learned? Nothing really. Except to expect and pressure our scientists and governemnts to pull rabbits out of their hats to meet our energy and consumerist desires. You're not clamouring for conservation, you're clamouring for nuclear power to replace oil. Do you have some relationship to the energy sector and/or nuclear power?

on edit.
I don't get what you're onabout with that nuclear power vs nuclear weapons.
Are you saying that countries that possess domestic nuclear power are not necessarily able to weaponise nuclear power? That just seems inconsistant, particularly with what we hear from the powers that be, y'know all the fuss over Iran?

RedPlanet

Dar wrote:

Name three.
Then point out any which used modern reactor designs.
Then point out any whose radioactive output came to within even a few orders of magnitude of the radioactive emissions of the world's coal power plants.

I don't have time to look that up.
But with tthat reactor in Sweden, the one in Japan, and in USA i reckon there's an answer.
Btw, you should define "modern reactor designs".
Otherwise you'll just be moving goalposts later.
Also, remember that "A nuclear reactor is only a small part of the life-cycle for nuclear power" (according to wikipedia); there's huge scope for environmental disasters when it comes nuclear power.
You've got the mining for uranium, processing the uranuim to into a useable form.
Then the reactor process itself, then transported away for waste disposal.

SeanW

I don't know enough about nuclear power in Japan to comment, but as for how much of a mess the nuclear industry can make, if you exclude Chernobyl type disasters, which you agree are virtually unrepeatable, then the nuclear industry would IMO have to be working very hard to make a mess similar to that made by fossil fuels.

RedPlanet wrote:

It's still the wrong argument, or wrong rebuttal to my post. Why are you just concentrating on wind btw?

Wind is the most common Irish renewable and the easiest to expand. Remember I'm not rubbishing it, I just don't see it as a silver bullet. It's the same for the other weather based renewables. Not very reliable. I discount solid biofuels like miscanthus becuase that has an opportunity cost of using the land to grow biodiesel/ethanol crops, or committing it to a nature reserve.

Rubbish. You are trying your hardest to prop-up that failing system. What lessons would the people have learned? Nothing really. Except to expect and pressure our scientists and governemnts to pull rabbits out of their hats to meet our energy and consumerist desires.

Uhh ... so now we're in the business of teaching people "lessons?"

I thought we were trying to minimise pollution and arrest global warming? My mistake it seems.

you're clamouring for nuclear power to replace oil.

20 points to you for fast observation. I've only been saying that over 10 pages now!! Besides where did I say it was nuclear power alone? I've gone to great lengths to say that I support nuclear power AS A TOOL! Not a single silver bullet but as part of a comperhensive package of measures. Merciful Christ, what part of CONSERVATION + ALL NON-FOSSIL OPTIONS did I fail to make clear

Do you have some relationship to the energy sector and/or nuclear power?

No, I'm just an average bigmouth, former anti-nuke who happens to have seen the *real* truth about Nuclear Power. That's why I tell anti-nukes to do their research.

I don't get what you're onabout with that nuclear power vs nuclear weapons.

You said they're "blood brothers." Even though you can use one to hide development of the other, it's very easy to have one without the other, they're not mutually inclusive.

Lou.m

Guys its a no goer. Even with Uranium enrichment there still needs to be uranium mined. And there is very little in the world VERY LITTLE! A tiny bit in America i believe and then most of it in, yes you've guessed it, the middleast. I think nuclear fission rather than fusion ( i hope i am getting this right) may be the future. But i do not believe that we have the right attitude here with nuclear power as it is we are prolonging the inevitable of having to find a renewable source of energy. And we will not get governments and business to go about this seriously if they think we might go along with nuclear power. The world is dangerous enough.:( And whilst i fo not agree with the philosophy of most enviromentalists that seem to think that poverty is a lifestyle choice or something, i would be prepared to make whatever changes necessary in my lifestyle to make sure nuclear power was never used in this country. I may be alone in this however.:o

SeanW

Oh dear;

Lou, I'm sorry to say that you appear slightly misinformed about nuclear power.

First of all, the main sources of Uranium are Australia and Canada. There are smaller sources in Kazhakstan and moderate reserves scattered here and there across the globe.

You also have fission and fusion mixed up.

Thirdly, why does it have to be either/or renewables (research?) or nuclear? Why can't we have both? The only people I've ever heard claiming that renewables and nuclear are mutually exclusive are enviro-extremists.

Fourthly, you're right the world is a dangerous place, fossil fuels kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, between production, pollution and politics. Anything that reduces this can only be a good thing.

Lou I'm sure you are intellegent and well intentioned, but I would respectfully suggest that you do some research into nuclear power.

Lou.m

OOOPS sorry yes i did get that completely confused sorry thank you for pointing it out nicely

Akrasia

SeanW wrote:

Thirdly, why does it have to be either/or renewables (research?) or nuclear? Why can't we have both? The only people I've ever heard claiming that renewables and nuclear are mutually exclusive are enviro-extremists.

Look, Nuclear power is better than fossil fuels. But it is far worse than renewable energy. My biggest problem with nuclear is that it distracts the debate away from conservation and appropriate investment in renewables. There is no way on earth that Ireland could have a functioning nuclear energy sector this side of 2016, and by then, it will be too late. (some would argue that it is too late already, but i prefer to be optimistic)

It takes longer than 10 years to build a feckin primary school in this country even with 100% support from the local community and political establishment.

We need to spend billions right now building a renewable energy infrastructure. This includes everything from micro-generation (solar powered heating in homes, geothermal and micro wind generators) to offshore wind farms, to methane harvesting on farms and in landfills (methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas) Biomass to power all of our public transport and haulage sector in the immediate term.

We need to take legislative action to improve energy efficiency. Hugely increasing funding for public transport projects and subsidies, banning energy inefficient appliances including incandescent light bulbs, patio heaters etc.
Massively improving building regulations and enforcing them.


There is no silver bullet, as has been said a hundred times already, but this prolonged debate is just shooting ourselves in the foot.

I am an anarchist, but I will be voting for the first time in the next general election, I will be voting for the green party because our existence is at stake.
Latest news is that the Arctic will be completely ice free in less than 30 years unless we make immediate and genuine efforts to change our behaviour.

Isn't that more important than stupid ideological debates?

Lou.m

Ok i have done a little research
Since the the eighties there have been two main safety features 1 the design of reactors with a low void co effecient and 2 the addition of passive nuclear safety systems in which operator feedback is not required.
This would have helped in the chernobyl accident to some degree.
There have been two offical theories by the IAEA about who to blame the first in 1986 blames the operators for the accident the second in 1993 blames the design of the control rods which were inserted into the reactor to slow down the reactor rate. Ufortunately the tips were made of graphite which was a potent nuetron and increased the reactor rate initially before slowing it down which defeated the purpose of inserting them in this instance. Operators had not been informed of this. They had also shut down a number of safety features mistakenly.
In the three mile incident it is difficult to identify one thing that caused the accident a water valve opened letting coolant out, it should have closed ten seconds later, the operators mistakinly read it to have done so but there was actually no instrument to tell them this. Water pumps started to pump water into the system the operators were concerned about overfilling the system with coolant voids started to form in the reactor vessel( spaces where there should have been coolant) and this gave an erroneous reading to the operators and they tried to prevent too much coolant going into the system when they should been doing the opposite. Heat in the reactor core caused steam to react with zirconium nuclear fuel rod claddingand released more radioactivity into the coolant which produced hydrogen gas and produced an explosion. Even at this time the operators could not tell what exactly was going on. A member of the investigating comitee said it would be impossable for an operator to know the functional and operational application of all the equipment.Error tags were then brought in and training changed from focus on diagnosing the problem to going through a checklist to make sure the core recieved enough coolant under sufficient pressure.
My point is no one thing causes an accident and it may even be impossible for the best operator to do the wrong thing a few water guages could have prevented three mile something equally as simple could prevent something else.
In the past six years there have been 6 pretty serious incidents.
Feb 15 200
the Indian point nuclear plant in Buchanan New York reactor 2 vented radioactive steam when a steam generator failed.
Feb 2002 Two workers were exposed to radiation and suffered burns at the Onagawa Nuclear power station in JApan
April10 2003 a radioactive leak in Paks nuclear power plant in Hungary rated INES-3
April 19 2005 sellafield twenty metric tons of uranium and 10 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked undetected for several months from a cracked pipe
Sep 2005 Dourney,266 litres of radioactive reprocessing residues were spilled outside containment. In october another reprocessing lab on their site was closed after eight staff tested positive for radiation after nose blow tests.
July 2006 Electricity fault prompts the shut down of the forsmark nuclear power palntsweden. Several severe problems occure with the shut down. Lars - Olor Hoglund an expert familiar with the plant states it was the most serious incident since chernobyl and that it was luck that prevented a meltdown.
A hundred different things can contribute to one accident i dont believe any system any training can anticipate everything.
I dont believe in SAFE nuclear power.

SeanW

Lou, nuclear technology has moved on in leaps and bounds in the past 30 years since TMI, which in and of itself did not cause environmental damange, and as for Chernobyl, it would have helped if there wasn't a horribly inept communist government playing Russian roulette with their nuclear programme which made a catastrophe inevitable.
As for your 6 incidents in as many years, most of them are low grade industrial accidents or chemical accidents not nuclear disasters. With the potential exception of Forsmark, none of those "serious incidents" are worth talking about, especially things like "Two workers were exposed to radiation and suffered burns" ... come on.

Akrasia wrote:

There is no way on earth that Ireland could have a functioning nuclear energy sector this side of 2016, and by then, it will be too late.

Think bigger, Akrasia. There's too late and there's TOO late. Although you may think 2016 is too late to have changes made, remember 2 things: most energy reviews consider that there will be extensive fossil fuel usage for decades beyond that date, causing EVEN MORE damage. So 2016 may be too late from current perspectives, but we're likely to use more fossil fuels beyond that and the sustainability of the Irish lifestyle is going to take a serious hit if our weather patterns change.

What's more, many of the things you seek - CSP from Africa, major public transport schemes could not likely come on stream before 2016 either. So by your reasoning, we shouldn't do anything other than short term measures. But we both know better.

Edit: This is Cattenom, in France. France generates the vast bulk of its energy from nuclear, and if the contents of this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_Power_Plant_Cattenom.jpg were located in Ireland, all of Ireland's power demands would be met without any CO2 or air pollition emissions of any kind. It's not a huge problem.

We need to spend billions right now building a renewable energy infrastructure. This includes everything from micro-generation (solar powered heating in homes, geothermal and micro wind generators) to offshore wind farms, to methane harvesting on farms and in landfills (methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas) Biomass to power all of our public transport and haulage sector in the immediate term.

We need to take legislative action to improve energy efficiency. Hugely increasing funding for public transport projects and subsidies, banning energy inefficient appliances including incandescent light bulbs, patio heaters etc.
Massively improving building regulations and enforcing them.

Exactly! But why exclude nuclear power? Why can't nuclear power fit in to the strategy? It does have a role. For example, even with the present wind farm fleet, there's already a small power plant in the difference between wind production peaks and low production times. If there was a massive investment in weather based renewables, that relative gap in output would grow to the level of at least one large reactor - perhaps 2 if we had gone all-out.

There is no silver bullet, as has been said a hundred times already, but this prolonged debate is just shooting ourselves in the foot.

No, what's really counterproductive is the level of misinformation and ill-founded objection to what is the safest, cleanest and most efficient and ecologically friendly form of baseline load power generation that is nuclear.

Most anti-nukes are, in my view, as responsible for what happens next as the twats who drive the monster 4x4s and Hummers. I'm sorry to put this so bluntly but I'm ashamed that I was once of the former. I urge you, Lou, and RedPlanet to think very carefully about what you're saying.

Lou.m

Actually i happen to think the number of people injured is not the point. They are still people. And you miss the point something happened that was not supposed to happen human beings lost control over the situation. If we go down the nuclear path it is only a waiting game unil something does happen, it does not matter how sophisticated technology gets there is no perfect system. As for TMI To this day the building at unit 1 is contaminated from radioactive coolant that sank in. It cost over 900 million to clean up.And there has been reported cases of genetic damage to the next generation the jury is still out on whether or not this is China Syndrom.
The threat of nuclear disaster is not the only danger in nuclear power. These low grade accidents that you speak disparagingly of, damaged human beings. I went to school with a girl who is infertile because of a nuclear accident, one that would be classed by you as low grade. The way the one at Forsmark was INES-2 , but the one in Hungary was classed INES-3.No one found out for a long time about that one the company was quite secretive. But it was quite serious.But the main point is accidents happen all the time it really does not matter how serious they are the fact that they happen at all tells us we dont have control.

And my point of explaining how TMI happened was to show that actually huge leaps in technology would not have stopped it, it was one of the findings of the commitee that one water gauge would have stopped it in the first place. Something simple that nobody thought of until that particular accident happened.
And as Forsmark and Hungary show accidents can still happen.

As for chernobyl The government really had nothing to do with it, they only really got in the way after the accident by not informing the general public right away. It was a badly designed containment rod that really sealed their fate.

And i dont really feel safe knowing that sellafield had a nitric acid leak for months and did not know about it and it lead to twenty tons of uranium being disolved. Industrial and chemical accidents are one thing industrial and chemical accidents in a power plant are another.

Lemming

Lou.m wrote:

Actually i happen to think the number of people injured is not the point. They are still people. And you miss the point something happened that was not supposed to happen human beings lost control over the situation. If we go down the nuclear path it is only a waiting game unil something does happen, it does not matter how sophisticated technology gets there is no perfect system.

Two things ....

1. I don't see you, or anyone else, crowing over the amount of people injured or killed in the conventional fossil fuel industry on a yearly basis.

2. Your argument about "only being a waiting game" is the most nihilistic comment I've seen on this entire thread so far. Everything is potentially "only a waiting game". It's a total strawman argument.

But since you're harping on about environmental catastrophes, how about the significant amount of oil-spills that have occured in the last 20 or so years? Far more than any number of nuclear catastrophes.

"Hello Mr. Kettle. Meet Mr.Pot."

piraka

Latest news is that the Arctic will be completely ice free in less than 30 years unless we make immediate and genuine efforts to change our behaviour.

What report did this information come from.