Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?

Akrasia

piraka wrote:

In Ireland

Net capitalisation of Airtricty estimated, if floated €10 billion, company valued at €800 million.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/06/11/story14962.asp

SWS net worth over €100million investing €400million in wind energy projects.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/11/26/story19194.asp

There is no problem to get money to finance the schemes across the country, as where in industry would you get a cast iron 0.057cents/kwh guaranteed for 15 years index linked for supply of electricity irrespective if it used or not and 50% capital gains tax offset. Not to mention that part of PSO at the end of ESB bill which goes to wind generation.

The wind energy sector in Ireland is currently getting about €120 million a year for the electricity produced.

Wind energy is big business for such a paltry return on emissions savings.

The farmers and businesses of the country are queuing up to install wind turbines across the west coast. If any of you are serious environmentalist you should be concerned about the habitat destruction that this will cause, and the minister wants to increase penetration by 30%!!

Greenhouse gases are believed to be causing a major shift in our climate, one of the biggest polluters are fossil fuel power plants. The planet needs a zero emission agenda. This cannot be achieved by renewables.
Nuclear power is the way forward.

I support OFFSHORE windfarms as a viable renewable energy solution. I support onshore micro generation where individual developments and houses supplement their own energy requirements with small wind turbines.

Because offshore is currently 1.5 times more expensive than onshore wind farms, it requires a government subsidy, or to be paid for in full by the ESB as part of our national infrastructure.

bk

Akrasia wrote:

I support OFFSHORE windfarms as a viable renewable energy solution. I support onshore micro generation where individual developments and houses supplement their own energy requirements with small wind turbines.

Because offshore is currently 1.5 times more expensive than onshore wind farms, it requires a government subsidy, or to be paid for in full by the ESB as part of our national infrastructure.

We have discussed this before, wind, even offshore is simply not a replacement for base load energy. It is estimated that at most wind can make up only about 20% of our energy needs.

Even in Denmark, the highest user of wind in the world (20%) it has been found to be a failure:

In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love to see wind be a viable alternative, but so far I've not seen a single shred of evidence, that it has the ability to supply any base load energy.

piraka

Akrasia wrote:

I support OFFSHORE windfarms as a viable renewable energy solution. I support onshore micro generation where individual developments and houses supplement their own energy requirements with small wind turbines.

Because offshore is currently 1.5 times more expensive than onshore wind farms, it requires a government subsidy, or to be paid for in full by the ESB as part of our national infrastructure.

So get the taxpayer to subsidies the wind energy companies for offshore wind turbines for a slight increase in efficiency and no impact on carbon emissions.

Economics of wind in the UK

http://213.130.42.236/wna_pdfs/rae-summary.pdf

leninbenjamin

Lemming wrote:

I amended your question appropriately

what was the point of amending bk's question if you're not going to answer it?

here's how i se the whole situation.

a) we need to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible

b) nuclear power is an existing tried and tested alternative that has proved successful, even with the associated risks.

c) renewable resources are in VERY EARLY stages of development and are not a viable alternative at the moment. At the moment they can only act as a supplement.

if you oppose nuclear on the basis of the risk, fair enough. But by default that means we would have to remain with fossil fuels as the primary source in the long term until either fusion has been successfully cracked, or HUGE leaps are made in the renewables sector.

If we go nuclear now we have an almost guaranteed source on energy. Renewables and fusion could be cracked tomorrow or they could be cracked in the next half century, but there is no real way of knowing when they will be able to function as the primary source of power.
I still think that despite the risks, it's better to go nuclear now, rather than wait for safer alternatives to be developed to the scale we need, although i would hope that any nuclear plant would be merely act as a transitional supply, and that in the long term safer alternatives could be provided.

piraka

leninbenjamin wrote:

what was the point of amending bk's question if you're not going to answer it?

here's how i se the whole situation.

a) we need to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible

b) nuclear power is an existing tried and tested alternative that has proved successful, even with the associated risks.

c) renewable resources are in VERY EARLY stages of development and are not a viable alternative at the moment. At the moment they can only act as a supplement.

if you oppose nuclear on the basis of the risk, fair enough. But by default that means we would have to remain with fossil fuels as the primary source in the long term until either fusion has been successfully cracked, or HUGE leaps are made in the renewables sector.

If we go nuclear now we have an almost guaranteed source on energy. Renewables and fusion could be cracked tomorrow or they could be cracked in the next half century, but there is no real way of knowing when they will be able to function as the primary source of power.
I still think that despite the risks, it's better to go nuclear now, rather than wait for safer alternatives to be developed to the scale we need, although i would hope that any nuclear plant would be merely act as a transitional supply, and that in the long term safer alternatives could be provided.

Well said

piraka

..........and here's a little spreadsheet to show how much you can make off wind.

http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/FundedProgrammes/File2.xls

and off course the local authorities can get in on the act.


http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/Economics.pdf

Lou.m

bk wrote:

Lou.m let me simplify this, please tell me what is the alternative to nuclear power?

I will answer your question.
Already a total of roughly 25% of the total human energy use is from renewable energy combined altogether, although some figures i found put it at 30% and some at 20%, i went half way.
THere are of course the old favourites of enviromentalists, Solar power(using the heat and light of the sun in different storing methods), wind hydraulics, Hydroelectric power,Wave power, geothermal power (using the engery of the earth's heat etc).
There have also been newer developments such as compressed air technology which produces no emissions and the prototype of the first air compressed car has been revealed in france.
But by far the most viable source is biofuels, biodiesels,biogases(some only as some produce emissions),bio-enthanol,biomass,rape seed oil,hempseed oil,vegetable oil,vegetable waste, peanut oil,coconut oil and by products of agriculture.IN the past by products such as hay stalks had little use as they are no longer used as animal feed and were disgarded and still thousands of tons of agrucultural by products are disgarded and could be used for biomass fuel.
in two thousand and four 8 million cars were using alternative fuels in the world.
Most experts use the transportation industries and domestic markets as a judge as to whether a product will work as vehicles are the most difficult technically demanding on fuels.
ONe of hte greates hopes is bio ethanol aready Brazil has what they call an ethanol economy they use the sugar crops. They used just 4.5% of their ttotal crop area for this crop to produce 42 BILLION litres in 2004, 12.4 litres of this was used for fuel for vehicles for the domestic market.
It is on par with performance with normal fuels with little modification to the engine. IN Fact ethanol only drag racing or INDY racing has sprung up in brazil as a result.

IN America there is now legislation that legally requires that 7.5 Billion GALLONS of bio ethanol is integrated into the economy.

THe united states department of energy finds that for every 1 unit of energy used 1.3 units of energy is produced , this means that if all equipment and machinery and energy use in producing the bio ethanol were using ethanol it self ther would still be a lot more energy produced than used.THey believe that it is economically viable. THey also expect this to improve even further as the system improves. THe department has a goal to ensure that by 2025, 25% of Americas total energy use is produced by America's farms in the form of bio ethanol.And this does not include any other renewable power source.All other renewable power sources would be on top of that.Also the concentration so far has been on bio ethanol but other fuels and oils are also be used and their economic growth encouraged.

A research group At CLarkson University recently has done great research into increasing the economic benefits of biofuels, a company started in a joint venture with there researchers has opened a plant to produce biofuel this one plant alone is expected to produce 500 million gallons per year. THey are also to incorporate using some urban waste if it is enviromentally suitable.

There are also solid biomass fuels being used aswell as some biogases,(although these gases are limited, as many biogases have are enviromentally unsuitable for example methane would be unsuitable for obvious reasons.)

Of course there are also the other sources such as solar, hydroelectric,wind, geothermal power. AS well as air compression technology.
BUt i belive that bio fuels and bio oils are the way of the future there are already plans to use genetic modification to produce much, much higher yields.

Lou.m

I strongly disagree with going nuclear now to produce the amount of power needed we would need at least three to possibley times the amount of nuclear power we have now, producing three to four to four times the waste. We already have terrible trouble containing waste and finding places to store it and remenber that it must be stored for hundreds of years. Could we really cope with three times to four times the waste with this only to increase ?

Also i feel the need to point out the safety issues in my earlier posts about nuclear power.

We finally are going to do something about poisoning our planet are we now going to start poisoning it in just a different way. Plus the facts that i mentioned in my two earlier posts, concerning nuclear power, would ever allow me to agee to it.

Lemming

leninbenjamin wrote:

what was the point of amending bk's question if you're not going to answer it?

Errmm .... I wasn't answering it .....

bk's question left lou.m with a very large margin for interpretation of the question. So rather than have lou.m swing back to the "lets use wind energy" routine I added in the specific 'base-line' bit since it's been established that wind power isn't up to the task of providing that level of guaruantee.

It'd be nice if people bothered to actually read what I wrote rather than turn to hysterical "wont someone please think of the children" mantras.

lou.m wrote:

IN America there is now legislation that legally requires that 7.5 Billion GALLONS of bio ethanol is integrated into the economy.

And what is that 7.5 billion gallons of bio-ethanol to supplant? Since the farming industry is going to be expected to supplant existing crops with this new stuff, can I ask a quick question? Can people live off bio-ethanol as a dietary concept?

Saying that growing and producing that amount of bio-fuels is all fine and well, but in order for it to be grown it has to replace something else ... or else more farm land needs to be found. I'd be inclined to go with the former as being the more likely outcome.

Also a point to note, the US is geographically large enough to find space (assuming that food crops don't suffer) to grow that amount of bio-fuels to support itself. Most other countries are not so lucky. How much arrable land would Ireland have to sacrifice in order to achieve a similar result?

To focus on another area, what kind of climate can support the growth of these bio-fuel crops? Are they succeptible to altitude issues? ie. moving from the theoretical, just how practical are the growth of these crops to most countries when other needs and considerations are factored into the equation?

Akrasia

Lemming wrote:

Saying that growing and producing that amount of bio-fuels is all fine and well, but in order for it to be grown it has to replace something else ... or else more farm land needs to be found. I'd be inclined to go with the former as being the more likely outcome.

Also a point to note, the US is geographically large enough to find space (assuming that food crops don't suffer) to grow that amount of bio-fuels to support itself. Most other countries are not so lucky. How much arrable land would Ireland have to sacrifice in order to achieve a similar result?

You do realise that there is a massive over production of food in America and Europe. (and around the world) That is why there are agricultural subsidies like the Common Agricultural Policy with it's associated Milk Lakes, Bread Mountains and Wine oceans.

As well as this, a huge amount of the raw unprocessed food that is produced in 'developing countries' is lost to decay and damage in the process of transporting said raw material half way across the world so that 'developed' countries can make all of the profits from the act of processing that food into a more stable form. If the 'developing countries' were encouraged to process their raw materials near the point of production, then we would not have so much wastage (it would also have an added benefit of providing gainful and economically valuable work for people in developing countries, and it would eliminate much of the ridiculous commodity trading that goes on in financial districts around the world just to enrich the few who do the least useful work of all.

Lemming

Akrasia wrote:

You do realise that there is a massive over production of food in America and Europe. (and around the world) That is why there are agricultural subsidies like the Common Agricultural Policy with it's associated Milk Lakes, Bread Mountains and Wine oceans.

As well as this, a huge amount of the raw unprocessed food that is produced in 'developing countries' is lost to decay and damage in the process of transporting said raw material half way across the world so that 'developed' countries can make all of the profits from the act of processing that food into a more stable form. If the 'developing countries' were encouraged to process their raw materials near the point of production, then we would not have so much wastage (it would also have an added benefit of providing gainful and economically valuable work for people in developing countries, and it would eliminate much of the ridiculous commodity trading that goes on in financial districts around the world just to enrich the few who do the least useful work of all.

Ah yes, there is over-production in the west. And due to the inherent flaws in things like the CAP which result in obscene scenarios, it's not entirely clear cut.

Humour me for a moment.

Assuming that that overproduction stockpile disappeared tomorrow, would the existing surviving food production complex be capable of absorbing the losses to bio-fuel crops AND be capable of providing the demand for foodstuffs both for import and export. Considering that it is from that stockpile that existing demand is also met. Remember that those stockpiles are not entirely down to over production but also to world trade bureaucracy and good 'ol corporate greed.

I doubt anyone's able to actually answer that question decisively but it bears thinking about beyond a simplistic, cursory "if a then b" answer.


On second reading of your comments, I'd like to point something else out.

1. Can you show me statistics saying that outside of the west there is over-production of food stuffs? Because, tbh ... I sincerely doubt that many countries outside the west are actively feeding themselves beyond the poverty 'bread-line' from their own produce.

2. Have you considered that most of those raw, primary resources that are exported to the west for processing are bought by the west, processed by the west, and most of it is sold in the west? Thus comprising of the large surpluses in the west?

So in short, the west is getting fatter (proverbially speaking), the poorer nations are getting thinner due to lack of dietary fulfillment since they're selling their crops to the west to make money.

On top of that, what would actually happen if all those raw resources on which the west relies were cut to make way for bio-fuels? As I asked above .... could the food complex absorb those losses and STILL meet demand?

Apologies to all for veering off the point of nuclear power and onto agricultural economics

piraka

Lou.m wrote:

We finally are going to do something about poisoning our planet are we now going to start poisoning it in just a different way. Plus the facts that i mentioned in my two earlier posts, concerning nuclear power, would ever allow me to agee to it.

You believe that nuclear is poisoning the planet after all SeanW has present on the coal industry.

Check this out

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/dead_zones.shtml

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040605/bob9.asp

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329993/

http://gpa.unep.org/bin/php/igr/igr2/supporting.php

Lennoxschips

If Europe wanted to get 10% of it's fuel on European grown bio-fuels, 72% of Europe's agricultural land would have to be used, according to a New Scientist article.

The Wine Lake might be big, but not a fraction big enough for our energy needs.

It makes sense too, fossil fuels are hundreds of millions of years of stored dead crops, when you think about it. Nature can only grow so much energy on the soil every year, and we use much more than that.

Most of Europe's bio-fuels will be coming from the third world, where virgin rainforests are being slashed and burned to make room for our thirst for biofuels, paradoxically releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

And of course, biofuels use up land that may otherwise be used for food supply. The price of corn shot up after the US announced it was rolling out new ethanol production. Not great news if you're eating corn.

You believe that nuclear is poisoning the planet after all SeanW has present on the coal industry.

This is the ultimate straw man argument, trying to make opponents of nuclear energy as somehow being supporters of the coal industry.

Lennoxschips

I think the best hope for quick reductions in national CO2 is addressing the obscenely energy inefficient Irish lifestyle of today.

Nuclear power is ridiculously expensive. The British government is paying some 120 billion euros for the cleanup of first generation nuclear plants. That's just the cleanup. And they still have no idea what to do with the waste.

Chernobyl was a nasty disaster based on a bad design. We figured that out after it happened. Unfortunately it will take another accident in a design that people thought was foolproof before the penny drops. A plant in Sweden was a couple of hours away from a meltdown just this past July.

People say nothing happened at Three Mile Island, yet cancer fatalities in children in that area are significantly higher than the United States average.

And then of course there's the minor detail of there not actually being enough easy-to-get-at Uranium left in the world for Nuclear power to be a viable solution. Sure, there's billions of years worth of Uranium left, but it costs more energy to get at it then you get out of it, which is a lose-lose situation if there ever was one. If the world was to go entirely nuclear today, there'd only be six years of decent Uranium left. Then we'd reprocess some fuel and get some more use out of it, perhaps another six years. Then we'd be left twiddling our thumbs in the dark, while wondering what to do with all the highly radioactive waste.

Ireland is blessed with wind, as we have discovered yet again these past months. It's going to waste. Use it, efficiently.

bk

Lou.m it amazes me that you know so much about Nuclear power, yet know so little about renewable energy sources.

Lou.m wrote:

I will answer your question.
Already a total of roughly 25% of the total human energy use is from renewable energy combined altogether, although some figures i found put it at 30% and some at 20%, i went half way.

Where did you get this figure?

I assume this includes the theoretical maximum output of wind power, but not the real output.

For instance as I pointed out, many people say that Denmark gets 20% of it's power from wind, but that is only the theoretical maximum, a detailed study has found that in reality it has only been supplying 3.3% of Denmarks energy supply, due to the intermittent nature of wind.

I also assume this figure includes hydro power and geothermal power, both of which are fantastic sources of good, consistent energy. However unfortunately nearly all the good hydro and geothermal sites around the world are already being used, so unfortunately won't be able to expand in usage in the future.

So that only leaves Wind which is not a base load form of energy, solar (doesn't work at night and not great in the Northern hemisphere), wave (completely unproven and very fragile from what I've seen) and finally bio-fuels.

Lou.m wrote:

BUt i belive that bio fuels and bio oils are the way of the future there are already plans to use genetic modification to produce much, much higher yields.

If you truly believe this, then you should do far more research into bio-fuels. If you did, you would quickly come to realise that it can't give us even a small percentage of the worlds energy needs, due to the need to use arable land to grow crops for people to eat.

Most environmentalists are actually strongly against biofuels, because:

1) As demand rises for biofuels (and therefore price), African farmers will probably be forced into growing this, instead of food crops, leaving far less food for African people.

We could end up with a 21st century version of the Irish potato famine, where hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans will likely die so we can drive around in environmentally friendly cars!!!

2) It encourages poor countries to cut down forests and natural animal habitats to convert to arable land to grow the biofules.

3) Many of the best bofuels are actually genetically modified crops.

(Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the use of Biofuels, up to socially responsible levels, but I just haven't seen any evidence that it is sufficient to replace our dependence on fossil fuels).

So in the end, we come back to where we start. Renewable forms of energy cannot replace our dependence on fossil fuels, so it comes back to either coal or nuclear.

Lou.m, you have honestly not shown me any alternative, I know all about these "alternatives", as I use to believe in them myself, until I looked at the bigger picture and started studying the alternatives in detail and found that non of them will replace fossil fuels.

So what is it, coal or nuclear?

SeanW

I haven't even begun to point out how filthy and destructive coal combustion is. I couldn't because the problems are so vast, acid rain (the Norwegian government spends NOK100,000,000 on lime and other alkaline treatments for its lakes and watercourses just to keep their aquatic ecosystem alive), mercury, arsenic and radiation emissions, particle matter and greenhouse gas emissions that its almost beyond our understanding.

I did try to point this out on a similar thread on Green Issues forum but noone seemed to notice, it's like because the waste is put into the air, its out of sight and out of mind, including to most so-called "environmetalists."

I also believe that the war in Iraq had something to do with oil, another filthy mugs game. It could also be argued that US policy in middle East is heavily influenced by oil and a major cause of the difficulties there and elsewhere. The whole business between Russia and the Ukraine earlier this year over gas supplies doesn't bode well for reliance on that form of fuel either.

A properly run nuclear programme safely provides an abundance of energy with plants causing no CO2, air pollution or environmental damage of any kind, and with a waste output of a handful of HLW per person/lifetime. Countries like the Ukraine, France, are going with nuclear power becuase it fundamentally makes sense. As well as saving the environment, it also gives us a chance to get away from the deadly politics of fossil fuel.

The only credible issue with nuclear power is waste/uranium supply but both problems could be solved if countries like the USA and Finland etc reprocessed their spent fuels which are reusable 20 times over. Like the old saying goes, one mans meat is another mans poision.

To say that nuclear power is just "another flavour of poision" is at best very misguided, and at worst smacks of mendacity.

Oh and anyone who thinks we can power everything through biofuels is wrong, yes there is overproduction in the West of agricultural goods but any spare capacity freed up is going to be needed for transport biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol for cars, trucks, buses, boats, maybe airplanes as well. And its unlikely we could even do that without some kind of miracle like algae biodiesel.

One thing is clear that biofuels and renewables alone, even with conservation, simply won't cut it.

Even if there was enough land on Earth to provide everyone with a place to live, work, recreation, and space to grow food, transport biofuels and electricity biofuels, the question would then arise whether it would be better from an environmental perspective to use those X billion acres to make electric biofuels or to build nuclear plants in the corner of that allotment and use the rest for a nature reserve or something, the opportunity cost, if you will. The latter obviously wins hands down but it doesn't really matter because we're not going to get that far.

Nuclear power offers so much promise to make things better and I don't want to see that squandered becuase of fearmongering, nonsense and people with agendas yelling things like 'Cher-NO-byl' and 'capitalist scum.'

Lennoxschips

A properly run nuclear programme safely provides an abundance of energy with plants causing no CO2, air pollution or environmental damage of any kind, and with a waste output of a handful of HLW per person/lifetime.

None of any kind? Mining and transport of Uranium produces a fair amount of CO2, as well as causing environmental damage to the areas from where it is mined.

RedPlanet

Not to mention the storage of nuclear power waste.
I wonder would any of these nuclear proponents agree to the storage of nuclear wastes in their locality?
Their county?
Their country?
Territorial waters?

Lemming

Lennoxschips wrote:

None of any kind? Mining and transport of Uranium produces a fair amount of CO2, as well as causing environmental damage to the areas from where it is mined.

Erm .... mining aside ...... what's so unusual about the transport of Uranium as opposed to say ....... anything else?

It all produces a "fair amount of CO2". Including your bl00dy holiday to Corfu (or wherever it is you go) next year as soon as you step onto that airplane.... As soon as you get "transport" to the airport in the first place, etc. etc. etc.

Technically ... breathing produces a fair amount of CO2. The next question is of course to ask for a definition of what consists "a fair amount".

Lennoxschips

I was responding to the assumption that Nuclear power produces no CO2 whatsoever, there's no need to get narky.

What's a fair amount? Accoring to these people the mining and production of uranium means that nuclear power could cause more CO2 per kilowatt than a natural gas power station in the near future, as the easy-to-get-at uranium starts to run out, meaning mining will have to become more intensive. Of course, the nuclear industry came op with their own report that stated that Nuclear power cycle's CO2 production is well below that.

Lennoxschips

For instance as I pointed out, many people say that Denmark gets 20% of it's power from wind, but that is only the theoretical maximum, a detailed study has found that in reality it has only been supplying 3.3% of Denmarks energy supply, due to the intermittent nature of wind.

I would very interested in reading the source of this claim.

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

I would very interested in reading the source of this claim.

Happy to oblige:
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

It actually fairly matches up with what you can see on the airtricity website. Most of the time, Irelands wind turbines produce only a fraction of the energy that they are actually rated for.

BTW as for Nuclear not having zero CO2 emissions, you are absolutely correct and I honestly don't believe you would find anyone who is pro nuclear tell you otherwise. However the amount of CO2 produced is a fraction of burning coal and is only very slightly higher then most renewables.

For instance CO2 is released in the production of wind turbines, power lines, etc. and the construction of roads to the wind farms.

Mucco

Lennoxschips wrote:

I think the best hope for quick reductions in national CO2 is addressing the obscenely energy inefficient Irish lifestyle of today.

This is what we should focus on. It's the easiest and cheapest way to address our Kyoto obligations. Not very glamorous, but things like insulation, double glazing, smaller, fuel efficient cars (tax the high consumption models) can make a massive difference.
The states could do this too by increasing the CAFE standards to give them European levels of fuel efficiency in cars etc....

One of the worries about increasing oil and gas prices is the likelihood that countries will revert to coal, which is abundant, but, as mentioned, quite dirty, and has a poor energy density/CO2 ratio

Lennoxschips

bk wrote:

Happy to oblige:
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

It actually fairly matches up with what you can see on the airtricity website. Most of the time, Irelands wind turbines produce only a fraction of the energy that they are actually rated for.

It says in the article that the reason why only 3.3% of Denmark's energy consumption comes from wind is because they are exporting 84% of their wind energy, not because the wind farms aren't providing enough energy. I don't know if I accept the reasoning provided in the article, but it sounds plausible.

If you ask me, there's no fix for the world's energy and CO2 emissions. Wind will address some of it (but, as you say, never all of it) and nuclear might patch things up for a couple of decades more, before it becomes CO2 inefficient as readily accessible uranium runs out, if people are willing to accept the risks and the waste problem. (I'm not, personally, but other people might) Biofuels will never hack it and things like carbon sequestration, clean coal and tidal power are all pipe dreams. It would seem that there's no easy answer.

A massive change in energy usage and efficiency is required first and foremost. The western world is currently extremely inefficient in terms of energy usage, product and food distribution, cultivation, packaging. The cornflakes we eat come in a throw away plastic bag and box and have traveled thousands of miles to get to our bowls. Nearly everything we do is done badly from an energy point of view.

Dontico

the question is about choosing the power of two evils. nuclear is technically more enviromentally friendly, if is carried out properly. the problem with burning fuel is that we are see the downsides now and they are comming very soon. we have about 5 years to do something about it. or we are screwed. a small island with very small mountains? think about it. global warming will destroy us. the climate change is very noticable in ireland. its getting colder in the winter and hotter in the summer. by the end of this winter it is predicted we will have a tornadeo. london got one and dublin is alot windier than london. also we have new wild life in ireland never seen before, that it self isnt bad but it shows the climate change is real.

the french nuclear system is the best way to go.

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote:

None of any kind? Mining and transport of Uranium produces a fair amount of CO2, as well as causing environmental damage to the areas from where it is mined.

Umm ... I said the PLANTS don't cause environmental damage, I accept that mining etc is sometimes another story.

As for transport: One truckload (2 tonnes) of Uranium provides as much juice as 25 trainloads (260,000 tonnes) of coal. So for CO2 from transport being an issue for nuclear power it isn't really. http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ueg.htm

RedPlanet wrote:

Not to mention the storage of nuclear power waste.
I wonder would any of these nuclear proponents agree to the storage of nuclear wastes in their locality?
Their county?
Their country?
Territorial waters?

If it was done properly, yes.

Teg Veece

I've been doing a bit of research into this area recently through college. Unfortunately, at the moment, even if everyone in Ireland wanted nuclear power, it still wouldn't be possible. It's to do with the relative size of Ireland's energy requirements and the power outputs of a nuclear power plant.
Nuclear plants have a minimium power output threshold. You can't just build a plant that gives you 500 MW. The lowest you can get is just under the 1 GW region. And Ireland's power consumption is about 6 GW. This would me that a huge percentage of the grid would be dependent on one source if we were to go nuclear. Any problems with that supply would cause a national blackout.
What's being looked into now is establishing an electrical link with the UK so that we can buy and sell energy off each other depending on the situation. Of course, the other option is to consume more power to bring our national consumption up to around 10 or 12 GW, thus reducing our dependency on a single station!

philologos

If I was involved with choosing what fuel to use in Ireland, I'd say Nuclear without a doubt, windfarms are too expensive, and fossil fuels although cheap are damaging our environment, nuclear however is affordable however has a slight risk. However if we employ the correct kinda staff it should work easily in Ireland.

Lennoxschips

SeanW wrote:

Umm ... I said the PLANTS don't cause environmental damage, I accept that mining etc is sometimes another story.

So Nuclear power plants cause no environmental damage "at all"?

The released coolant water heats up rivers killing fish stocks.
Radioactivity is released to the surrounding environment.
Drying concrete is a sizable source of global CO2 emissions, massive containment structures use plenty of concrete.

piraka

Lennoxchips wrote:

What's a fair amount? Accoring to these people the mining and production of uranium means that nuclear power could cause more CO2 per kilowatt than a natural gas power station in the near future, as the easy-to-get-at uranium starts to run out, meaning mining will have to become more intensive. Of course, the nuclear industry came op with their own report that stated that Nuclear power cycle's CO2 production is well below that.

Don’t forget that we are at the end of the gas pipeline. Remember what happened last year with the Russians if you are worried about the cost increases and supply.

Lennoxchips wrote:

None of any kind? Mining and transport of Uranium produces a fair amount of CO2, as well as causing environmental damage to the areas from where it is mined.

What about the CO2 emission for the production of one turbine to be installed in an upland mountain site?

Iron ore to mined, smelted rolled, formed, welded, cast and transported to the site. Emissions in digging out the peat, digging the road (include the CO2 emission for the disturbance of the peat as well as the machines required to build it). Life expectancy 15 years.

What about the loss of the carbon sequestering due to the loss of peat? (Under the Kyoto protocol peatland is regarding as a carbon sink.)

Here is a renewable zero emission production of energy!!!

Three gorges dam

The environmental impacts of the project are extensive. The submergence of hundreds of factories, mines and waste dumps, and the presence of massive industrial centers upstream are creating serious pollution problems in the reservoir and the tributaries of the Yangtze. For five months every year when high water levels are lowered to accommodate the summer floods, a festering bog of effluent, silt, industrial pollutants and rubbish will remain in the previously submerged areas. This will create a breeding ground for flies, mosquitoes, bacteria and parasites, threatening the health of surrounding populations.

Facts

--Removing 102.59 million cubic meters of stone and earth and filling with 29.33 million cubic meters of stone and earthwork;
--Mixing and pouring 27.15 million cubic meters of cement;
-- Erecting 281,000 tons of metal structures;
-- Making and erecting 354,000 tons of reinforcing bars;
-- Building 231,000 square meters of leak-proof concrete walls;
-- Installing power generators with a combined capacity of 18.2 million kilowatts.

Of course the will be the ongoing emission of one of the more potent greenhouse gases

Teg Veece wrote:

Nuclear plants have a minimium power output threshold. You can't just build a plant that gives you 500 MW. The lowest you can get is just under the 1 GW region

Are you sure about this? Check these out:

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

http://www.nei.org/documents/Insight2004_07.pdf

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/302534.pdf