Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?

Akrasia

professore wrote:

HELLO ??? Where are the deserts in Ireland we can put this solar power to the test in ?

we don't have any oil other. yet we still have oil powered electricity. How on earth does that work??? i can't for the life of me think how

Lou.m

Intrestingly, those who feel they way forward is nuclear should look at sweden. This country uses nuclear power for half of its total energy use. And it is unique in that it has given itself the task of giving up oil completely within 15 years and according to their prime minister this has to be done without building a new generation of reactors. It has been in the news recently that another of sweden's plants have had to close for financial reasons. Many have had to do so recently this has nothing to do with public opinion, even though sweden is one of the most efficient countries in europe the plants were not sustainable due to the costs of treating, transporting , and maintaining waste sites( dont forget you cant just leave it there the waste site not just the plant has to be maintained. And the longer the plant functions the more waste is produced and the bigger the cost of maintaining such sites is. For many swedish plants the situation was the same and they could not remain solvant and closed. ANd they were even given government subsidies. It just was not cost effective.

Sweden wants to be oil free by 2020 which is a huge goal. They started to use bio fuel in the 60's and currently almost all of their public sector transport system uses it and is oil free. Most of their domestic heating supply is oil free too with the majority of it supplied by bio fuel which for a country like sweden is saying something with their climate. 80% of their bio fuel is supplied by Brazil and imported in.
But my point is that here is a sitution that those who argue for nuclear power would dream of a country with nuclear power with a public who is accustomed to it and the goal of getting itself weanied off oil. And its Government is not building new reactors. And the ones they do have are closing down due to economic reasons. THe government cannot afford the huge subsidies anymore and have instead given huge tax breaks to home owners who use biofuel instead of nuclear power( almost none of swedens heat comes from oil so it is really just renewable sources or nuclear) and now the vast majority are going for biofuel as it is cheaper.
Sweden(i mean the nuclear industry in sweden) has found that processing uranium ore into a usable product, reprocessing and desposing of waste is really more expensive than the profits from supplying that power provides.
It cannot compete in the market there.
THe goverment has stated that there will be no new reactors, those of you know a little about econmonics know that if an industry is not growing it is in decline and cannot sustain itself well that is what appears to be happening in sweden and they are aiming to become oil free by 2020.

Sweden does not really have the same problem about using nuclear power as here and for no other reasons than economic ones the swedish goverment is backing away from it, as it is a drain on there budget and very few of their power stations can durvive without their subsidies.

The use of reneable resources was just the nail in the coffin.

Lou.m

The UK gets around 20% of its power from nuclear energy (Although have to admit i thought it was more than that myself) even if the amount of power it provided was doubled it would still only reduce the amount of emisions by 8%.

Also it is worth noting that by 2023 all but one of the UK's 14 power plants are due to close. Nothing to to with government policies or public interest just business.
It is an industry in crisis.

John_C

Akrasia wrote:

In other words, If I grow potatoes I will starve to death when potatoes are out of season because there is no other possible source of food available.

That's a pretty weak analogy. The potato season is predictable and potatoes can be easily stored.

SeanW

Lou, could you please read your own posts before hitting "Submit Reply?"

Because if you did, you would have seen some fatal flaws in your analysis.

1:

Sweden wants to be oil free by 2020 which is a huge goal

Yes, being OIL free is a huge goal. But presumably they're not doing anything about the other fossil fuels, coal and gas, because they feel that getting away from oil is plenty adequate. And they'd be right too ... oil is one of the worst fossil fuels in terms of filth, abuse and political difficulties, not only that but without nuclear power it isn't really practical at all to get away from coal and gas - which you admit yourself that they're not trying to do. Fair dues to them for getting away from oil though.

But not everyone has this goal and in your own post you give clues as to why:

2:

80% of their bio fuel is supplied by Brazil and imported in.

[sarcasm]Great, so why don't all the EU-15 import 80% of our fuel from Brazil? Problem solved![/sarcasm]

Also it is worth noting that by 2023 all but one of the UK's 14 power plants are due to close. Nothing to to with government policies or public interest

That's because all but one of the UK's 14 nuclear power plants are museum pieces from the late '60s and early '70s. The only new technology plant, the Light Water Reactor at Sizewell B, was held up by in the courts for 6 years by Paiselyite anti-nuke BANANAs.

On the contrast, only fossil fuels are:

just business

and a very filthy business too.

As a person who obviously holds fossil fuels blameless compard to nuclear power which you are primarily concerned about vilifying, it is for YOU to explain:
1: Why Tony Blair has recently announced his governments intention to renew Britain's nucler fleet.
2: Why France is beginning to establish a 3rd generation of nuclear plants, based on the EPR (European Pressurised Water Reactor) design. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.htm
3: Why a bunch of other countries like the U.S.A. and the Ukraine are experiencing nuclear renaissances or are about to. The Ukraine in particular, they're broke, they have vast reserves of coal, and are scarred by Chernobyl, yet they're borrowing up to the hilt to build more reactors despite the fact that they've been producing proportionally more nuclear power just about every year to meet their needs since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now produce less than half of their power from thermal design, ep. coal of which they have immense reserves. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf46.htm
Do they know something YOU don't? They know something, I know something, and a lot of other people know something you don't - that nuclear power makes sense. That's why so many countries are maintaining, expanding, or preparing to renew, their nuclear infrastructure - including those an anti-nuke should least expect.
4: Finally, it is for YOU to explain why there have been so few fatalities due to nuclear power outside the former Soviet Union, especially in comparison to fossil fuels and only one accident (TMI) worth talking about in the past 40 years.

Lou.m

SeanW wrote:

Lou, could you please read your own posts before hitting "Submit Reply?"

Because if you did, you would have seen some fatal flaws in your analysis.

1: Yes, being OIL free is a huge goal. But presumably they're not doing anything about the other fossil fuels, coal and gas, because they feel that getting away from oil is plenty adequate. And they'd be right too ... oil is one of the worst fossil fuels in terms of filth, abuse and political difficulties, not only that but without nuclear power it isn't really practical at all to get away from coal and gas - which you admit yourself that they're not trying to do. Fair dues to them for getting away from oil though.

But not everyone has this goal and in your own post you give clues as to why:

2: [sarcasm]Great, so why don't all the EU-15 import 80% of our fuel from Brazil? Problem solved![/sarcasm]

That's because all but one of the UK's 14 nuclear power plants are museum pieces from the late '60s and early '70s. The only new technology plant, the Light Water Reactor at Sizewell B, was held up by in the courts for 6 years by Paiselyite anti-nuke BANANAs.

On the contrast, only fossil fuels are:and a very filthy business too.

As a person who obviously holds fossil fuels blameless compard to nuclear power which you are primarily concerned about vilifying, it is for YOU to explain:
1: Why Tony Blair has recently announced his governments intention to renew Britain's nucler fleet.
2: Why France is beginning to establish a 3rd generation of nuclear plants, based on the EPR (European Pressurised Water Reactor) design. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.htm
3: Why a bunch of other countries like the U.S.A. and the Ukraine are experiencing nuclear renaissances or are about to. The Ukraine in particular, they're broke, they have vast reserves of coal, and are scarred by Chernobyl, yet they're borrowing up to the hilt to build more reactors despite the fact that they've been producing proportionally more nuclear power just about every year to meet their needs since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now produce less than half of their power from thermal design, ep. coal of which they have immense reserves. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf46.htm
Do they know something YOU don't? They know something, I know something, and a lot of other people know something you don't - that nuclear power makes sense. That's why so many countries are maintaining, expanding, or preparing to renew, their nuclear infrastructure - including those an anti-nuke should least expect.
4: Finally, it is for YOU to explain why there have been so few fatalities due to nuclear power outside the former Soviet Union, especially in comparison to fossil fuels and only one accident (TMI) worth talking about in the past 40 years.

I dont know how many times i have to say this to get it into your head but here it goes again.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS!
I do not own a car.
I have not flown by plain for years.
I do not burn coal.
I prefer to use blankets to keep warm rather than the heating.
I use energy saving light bulbs and ration my use of electricity.

I do not nor have i supported the use of fossil fuels.

And as you wil know that these days almost all extraction of energy from all fossil fuels needs oil in the process, sweden are actually weening themselves off all fossil fuels and have declared as much. I would have thought you would know this. And interestingly although you mentioned it sarcastically Brazil has been trying to sell their biofuel to many other european countries.

There are currantly no plans to build any new reactors in the U.S Donald Runmsfeld has talked about trying to encourage plans but support is thin on the ground.
There is no new legislation on the subject that would be for or against nuclear power. There has been almost no debate on it in the senate even.

Similarly in Britain there are no plans to build any new reactors there has been talk in the public domain occasionally about whether it would be a good idea, but there has been no paln. Tony Blair has not made this announcement at all in fact if you watch his career he has made almost few anouncements that do not regard Iraq for a while. There is a reason for this it does not matter what Tony Blair or this government says anymore they are gone it would not have mattered if they did, which they most certainly did not. They could not do it anyway not without a vote in the house of commons and the house of lords.
And if it got through the house of commons it would never get through the house of lords if you check their views on the subject from media interviews you would realize that.

Anyway in America it is even more constrained politically as the way their system works their senate and house of represenatives have a lot more power as do individual states and govenors.
And the democrats control the senate and they are not traditionally great supporters of nuclear power.
Plus you have the same problem here the American government is not going to be there for long.
And there are definately no plans for a third generation of new reactors in America.
There has been no definitve nuclear plan since the eighties and the government cannot make one without political support from the democrats which they will not get.
There may have been politicians testing the waters but thats all.

The phrase nuclear renassaince is a strange one i never would have put those two words together. You make it sound as if they are planing to have Boticelli maidens in Fra Angelico poses dancing around the core.:D

The third generation of of EPRs that you talk about are still only paper studies any government that would make a plan based on them would be very foolish as it will be years until the first tests are carried. And they may never be carried out since most insiders in the industry are against their designs currantly.
As for France they did have plans for three new reactors although vague ones a few years ago, however there is huge pressure on France from other E.U countries at the momment regarding the preformance of their current plant which the french government itself has penalised.

The Ukraine however does have a definite nuclear PLAN but they are a very poor country as you said and whether or not they have the money so that they can realise their plans (and realise them efficiently, well and safely) is another matter.However most of their power comes from gas from the Russian pipeline not from nuclear power as you seem to think.

And as for politicians knwing more than myself, well i happen to have more acedemic qualifications than a lot of certain American politicians. And you will pardon me for saying that i would like to think that i know more than George Bush on almost every subject.
I have more acedemic qualifications than the vast majority of Irish politicians (which lets face it would not be hard, one bachelors degree would do it in most cases:D ).
And after watching british politics closely for a while i certainly seem to know a lot more about political theory than most of them.
And the mess that our politicians have gotten us into as regards our energy policy leaves me in no doubt that they are a very confused lot.
Intrestingly in britain there are many plans now that i have been suggesting for years. Maybe they are catching up with me.:p

You say that fossil fuels kill more than nuclear power yet processing ore into a usable product is the biggest use of fossil fuels in America more coal is used for that than anything else. One of the reasons for this is that it is much cheaper and easier than reprocessing and i cannot see power plant volunteering to stop this process.

Finally you suggest it is up to me to explain and excuse the deaths caused by fossil fuels.
It most certainly IS NOT.
I have not flown by plain for almost ten years nor have i travelled by boat.
I bet you have.
I have do not own a car.
I ration my use of electricity per day and try not to use it at all if possible.
I use blankets rather than heat.
I never use a fire.
I monitor where the products i buy come from and how they were made.
I'll bet there are many out there who have used the heat all this winter who use hot water, who take car journies, who will build the "cosy" fire this Christmass. Who use aplliances rather than do things by hand. Who do not even know how much electricity they use per day nor how much by the way of emissions they personally contribute to.
I have plans in the future to have an eco friendly generator (Although it may be a few years).
I recycle everything i can.
There are some days i have not been on the computer endlessly posting.I tend to try to post all at once if i can.
You can not blame me for the actions of those who consume power endlessly just because i will not allow them a dangerous poisenous alternative to provide it for them. If it means cutting our use of energy aggressively i say do it if it means we no longer have television every day or cars or whatever i say do it. You cannot blame me for people who will continue to use fossil fuels just because i say no to nuclear, i am not forcing them to turn on the heat in November, they could well do without all these things.
To ask me to explain for the damage caused by fossil fuels is false reasoning as do not recommend people use them. For the kind of lifestyle i suggest renewable resources would be enough and that is the REAL point, people just want to continue to live the way they do now. And that is just laziness on their part.

Lou.m

By the way i don't know why your house keeps suggesting France as a good example of how a nuclear programme should be run as it is one of the worst, I know I really should not do this as one house should never really help the opposing house (bad form etc,etc) but try suggesting Germany, then this might get interesting.;)

leninbenjamin

Lou.m what i don't understand is what alternatives we have to fossil fuels that can be implemented NOW, rather than future generations.

Yes you mention bio-diesel etc, but from you are telling us, it seems it will be decades before they can get it up to the scale and efficiency levels needed for mass production from what i can make out. Basically every alternative that i have seen mentioned in this thread, is not anywhere near ready for the the scale of implementation needed. And i seriously doubt Ireland has the resources or skills to be a pioneer on this one. They will also require MASSIVE shifts in our culture and existing structures, that i reckon, based on what's gone on so far, that people will be reluctant to support such changes until it's too late!

Going nuclear now gives us the time and breathing space to invest in renewables properly, so we don't shoot ouselves in the foot with a sudden changeover at the last minute.

I just can't see any change to renewables until after it's too late. As much as i would like to see us using renewables, i would much rather see us invest in Nuclear tomorrow rather than use fossils for another 50 years (if we even have that).

Lennoxschips

The alternative that Lou.m is suggesting is sustainable living, which we can start to implement NOW. That will give Ireland the largest reduction in CO2, especially when you consider most CO2 emissions, by far, are from the transport sector, not from electricity generation. If housing is built sustainably so that people can walk/cycle/bus/tram to supermarkets and walk/cycle/bus/tram to work then you've knocked a load of emmissions on the head. Unfortunately Ireland has the worst urban sprawl in Europe, according to the EEA. If you want to address CO2 in Ireland, then this is what you need to look at first.

If we continue to build motorways, isolated housing estates and 24 hour out of town TESCOs then we increase our addiction to energy usage and oil. A few nuclear plants won't change this at all.

They will also require MASSIVE shifts in our culture and existing structures, that i reckon, based on what's gone on so far, that people will be reluctant to support such changes until it's too late!

Nuclear would also require a massive shift in culture.

leninbenjamin

Lennoxschips wrote:

The alternative that Lou.m is suggesting is sustainable living, which we can start to implement NOW.

but that doesn't solve the problem of where the energy comes from. even if we managed to cut comsumption by 25% tomorrow, the method to supply the remaining 75% would be still primarily fossil fuels, so the problem still remains essentially.

Lennoxschips wrote:

Nuclear would also require a massive shift in culture.

I would argue that it would not require as severe a shift as changing comsumption levels like you say. It's more a change in attitudes, whereas cutting back requires serious shifts in behaviour. I seriously doubt the goverments willingness to force through, and the populations willingness to accept such measures before it's too late, although i guess i could be seen to be very pessemistic on this.

I do accpet though, that even Nuclear would be a long way off, and that reducing comsumtion will have to be the first step. I just think Nuclear makes that second step a lot more attainable than renewables right now.

SeanW

Lou.m wrote:

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS!

You do by default.

And as you wil know that these days almost all extraction of energy from all fossil fuels needs oil in the process, sweden are actually weening themselves off all fossil fuels and have declared as much. I would have thought you would know this. And interestingly although you mentioned it sarcastically Brazil has been trying to sell their biofuel to many other european countries.

The problem is that if everyone depended on biofuel for everything, the world would run out of agricultural land. That Sweden is already importing 80% of its biofuels should point out the sheer unsustainability of hoping biofuels will solve everything - if Sweden succeds, not everyone will be able to follow their path. Biofuels can help to a very high degree, but can never be the sole solution.

There are currantly no plans to build any new reactors in the U.S

The people of Galena, Alaska might disagee with you, they already have an application before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and there are a small number of projects in the planning stages.

The third generation of of EPRs that you talk about are still only paper studies

There's one under construction in Finland. http://euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-10/Olkiluoto-3.htm

Finally you suggest it is up to me to explain and excuse the deaths caused by fossil fuels.
It most certainly IS NOT.[summary]because I live like a middle ages pauper and count every Watt[/summary]

Yeah, it kind of is up to you to excuse the ongoing destruction caused by fossil fuels, because
1: even though you live ultra-frugally, there is nothing to suggest that anyone else wants to join you, so your argument is back to Square 1.
2: You have no problem, I presume, with the continued operation of plants such as Moneypoint? It's just nuclear you oppose so bitterly?

The Ukraine however does have a definite nuclear PLAN but they are a very poor country as you said and whether or not they have the money so that they can realise their plans (and realise them efficiently, well and safely) is another matter.However most of their power comes from gas from the Russian pipeline not from nuclear power as you seem to think.

They get the bulk of their electricity from nuclear and non-thermal sources, fact. Though they do use a fair amount of natural gas for heating.

The question, for you still remains. If nuclear power is this horrible, unsafe, uneconomic, posionous all singing all dancing demon with fiery red horns that enviro-whackos make it out to be, then why oh why do the coal rich but cash poor and Chernobyl scarred Ukranians insist on wasting their money on this technology. As a pro-nuclear environmentalist who has only relatively recently taken possession of real facts, I already know the answer, but I'd like YOU to explain it since you supposidy know better.

By the way i don't know why your house keeps suggesting France as a good example of how a nuclear programme should be run as it is one of the worst

Perhaps because they generate 90% of their electricity from nuclear+hyrdoelectric sources?

Lennoxschips wrote:

A few nuclear plants won't change this at all.

Nice straw man argument you've got there Lenny. I never said that nuclear power alone would solve all the problems. No one here or anywhere has said this.

Lennoxschips

leninbenjamin wrote:

but that doesn't solve the problem of where the energy comes from. even if we managed to cut comsumption by 25% tomorrow, the method to supply the remaining 75% would be still primarily fossil fuels, so the problem still remains essentially.

No. What I said was that our methods of distribution and living are highly inefficient, some of the most inefficient in Europe. Commuting 40 miles has nothing to do with consumption and everything to do with inept planning. Driving from an out of town estate to an out of town shopping centre, whereas we used to walk down the street, is wrong.

Where I live I have a high standard of living, I would say higher than Ireland (no matter what the economist likes to think), but I don't need to use a car. I cycle or take the tram to where I need to go and I can walk to the shops. In many parts of urban Ireland it is very difficult to get by without a car.

If, in an Ireland in a parallel dimension, the government had actually done their job in the last 25 years and planned the cities properly, Ireland would be well within current Kyoto limits.

And, as I said, nuclear energy solves very little in this matter, because most of Ireland's emissions come from the transport sector, not the electricity generation sector. Ireland needs to think about where it's heading before going about how to power it.

SeanW

Damn, you just love whacking that straw man! Nice job, you and Lou have both managed to thoroughly rubbish claims I and others have never made! Congratulations!

Look, there's been a legacy of bad planning and under-investment in public transport. We all know that. Of course nulcear power won't fix that, and noone on the pro nuke side has claimed so, hence your argument is a straw-man one, it has no place in a debate about electricity unless we decide to go totally hi-density and invest boatloads in trams and railways and whatnot, then the question arises about where do you get the electricity come from for all the trams, metros and electric heavy railways - remember wind isn't an option unless you can accept trains not moving when there's no wind blowing ...

In that scenario you could have nuclear electricity powering trains and trams replacing private car movements and as such displacing oil.

Lou.m

SeanW wrote:

You do by default.

The problem is that if everyone depended on biofuel for everything, the world would run out of agricultural land. That Sweden is already importing 80% of its biofuels should point out the sheer unsustainability of hoping biofuels will solve everything - if Sweden succeds, not everyone will be able to follow their path. Biofuels can help to a very high degree, but can never be the sole solution.

The people of Galena, Alaska might disagee with you, they already have an application before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and there are a small number of projects in the planning stages.

There's one under construction in Finland. http://euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-10/Olkiluoto-3.htm

Yeah, it kind of is up to you to excuse the ongoing destruction caused by fossil fuels, because
1: even though you live ultra-frugally, there is nothing to suggest that anyone else wants to join you, so your argument is back to Square 1.
2: You have no problem, I presume, with the continued operation of plants such as Moneypoint? It's just nuclear you oppose so bitterly?

They get the bulk of their electricity from nuclear and non-thermal sources, fact. Though they do use a fair amount of natural gas for heating.

The question, for you still remains. If nuclear power is this horrible, unsafe, uneconomic, posionous all singing all dancing demon with fiery red horns that enviro-whackos make it out to be, then why oh why do the coal rich but cash poor and Chernobyl scarred Ukranians insist on wasting their money on this technology. As a pro-nuclear environmentalist who has only relatively recently taken possession of real facts, I already know the answer, but I'd like YOU to explain it since you supposidy know better.

Perhaps because they generate 90% of their electricity from nuclear+hyrdoelectric sources?

Nice straw man argument you've got there Lenny. I never said that nuclear power alone would solve all the problems. No one here or anywhere has said this.

I am so happy today has anyone read the Governments green paper on energy? Most of it is a load of **** but the official legal ban of nuclear power in Ireland under the electricity regulation act of 1999 STAYS INDEFINITELY. Yippee !:D THey are also against interlinking with supplies abroad.
I guess all this is just talk now.
Anyway, i am not responsible for what others do.
Let me expain , in a court of law their is such a thing as shared responsibility in certain cases such as if i were to make tobacco and sell it and someone got ill then i would share some of the blame but so would they. But if someone wants to give up tobacco and decides smoking weed is a good substitute for them but i decide that i still believe that weed should be illegal i am not responsible if they get ill. They bear their own personal responsibility.
So in a court of law i am not responsible for the actions of others.
You cannot support political strategies by default unless you believe in tacit consent which by a person is supporting something by not actively opposing it or by not voting the other way.

Let us make an analogy, let us say there are three parties, one with very few votes, one with the most and one with nearly the most. And let us say there are those who did not vote. IF i vote for the party with the fewest votes rather than the party with nearly the most or the party with the most i am not tacitly consenting to the party with the most votes by refusing to vote for the party which comes in second them. Only voters who do not vote can give tacit consent.

Similarly if there are three options, nuclear,fossil fuels and renewable resources combined with "LIVING LIKE A PAUPER" as you put it;) if i support the third option and express my opposition to the other two, it cannot logically be said that i support fossil fuel by tacit consent or by default or else logically it would have to be said that by not supporting fossil fuels i supported nuclear, which could not be said as i expressed my opposition to both and declared my preferance therefore it cannot logically be said that i support anything other than my preferance and it cannot logically be said that i support anything by default or tacit consent.Everyone else is responsible for their own actions.

Everyone should go to the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENT HERITAGE AND GOVERNMENT 'S site to read the government's latest stance on nuclear power.
ANd on the GREEN PARTY WEBSITE
The ESB international estimated that Ireland's wind resources as we are on the atlantic, would generate 19 times the ESB's total generation capacity.
Plus it shows how that the cost of back up power or spinning reserve would need to be as big as three gas plants which would have to be provided from another source other than nuclear power.


ALso interestingly news from your beloved France, Bertrand Paree a scietific adviser to the french nuclear company AREVA , reported that to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power would need 10,000 of the largest reactors and at that rate even with reprocessing all supplies would be used up by the middle of the century.
Which would be well within our lifetimes.

And Sean W. as i keep telling you Biofuel does not need to be grown on land. There is sea algae and most of what you eat is not grown on agricultural land it is grown in the labrotorial conditions of what is MODERN FARMING.

Many countries are choosing nuclear power but just because everyone chooses the wrong path does not make it right or sustainable.

I would suspect that in the Ukraine undue influence is being used by many of the same people who are responsible for the gangster like behaviour associated with the Russian pipelines. The easy way is not neccessarily the best.

SEASONS GREETINGS EVERYONE , INCLUDING YOU SEAN .W. AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Lennoxschips

SeanW wrote:

Damn, you just love whacking that straw man! Nice job, you and Lou have both managed to thoroughly rubbish claims I and others have never made! Congratulations!

Well, you claimed that people against Nuclear power support coal by default.

Now the tables are turned and the straw arguments aren't so nice. How about we stop them altogether.

SeanW

Merry Christmas to all; including Lou and Lenny.

Lou.M wrote:

ALso interestingly news from your beloved France, Bertrand Paree a scietific adviser to the french nuclear company AREVA , reported that to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power would need 10,000 of the largest reactors and at that rate even with reprocessing all supplies would be used up by the middle of the century.
Which would be well within our lifetimes.

If you don't stop posting irrelevant stuff like that, I'm going to have to report you to the SPCSM, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Straw Men. Because you're not gicvig that poor guy a break - I never said nuclear power alone was going to be the answer. Let ... me ... make ... this ... very ... clear. I specifically said ALL NON-FOSSIL OPTIONS. What part of that did you not understand?

Well, you claimed that people against Nuclear power support coal by default.

Yes, I did - and I stand over it. And I'll explain why.

Lou.M wrote:

Let us make an analogy, let us say there are three parties, one with very few votes, one with the most and one with nearly the most. And let us say there are those who did not vote. IF i vote for the party with the fewest votes rather than the party with nearly the most or the party with the most i am not tacitly consenting to the party with the most votes by refusing to vote for the party which comes in second them

Problem is your anaolgy turns flat against you in one practical example. The US 2000 Presidential elections.

Let's say George W. Bush is "fossil fuels, esp coal", Al Gore is "all non fossil options" and Ralph Nader is "renewables and extreme conservation to the point of Poverty." Now assume you know that the election is going to be really tight, and know in advance what's going to happen if Bush/Fossil wins - Bush would lead the US and the world down a path of darkness, but that Gore/all alternatives including nuclear will be gentler, kinder and make the world a happier and safer place. Then there's Nader (extremist conservation and renewables only), only running as a spoiler, hasn't got a hope in Hell of actually winning, and even if he did, would need the help of democrats or republicans in legislature to avoid being a lame duck President (like wind which needs a fossil/nuclear backup).

Essentially, the 3rd option is a complete joke, has no real chance because 96% of people don't want to know about it, and even if it happened couldn't possibly solve the problems on its own.

Put it another way - assume it's November 2000 and you're a Ralph Nader supporter who lives in one of the swing counties in Florida with good idea of what's going to happen. Are you still going to vote Nader?

Lou.m

SeanW wrote:

Merry Christmas to all; including Lou and Lenny.

If you don't stop posting irrelevant stuff like that, I'm going to have to report you to the SPCSM, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Straw Men. Because you're not gicvig that poor guy a break - I never said nuclear power alone was going to be the answer. Let ... me ... make ... this ... very ... clear. I specifically said ALL NON-FOSSIL OPTIONS. What part of that did you not understand?

Yes, I did - and I stand over it. And I'll explain why.

Problem is your anaolgy turns flat against you in one practical example. The US 2000 Presidential elections.

Let's say George W. Bush is "fossil fuels, esp coal", Al Gore is "all non fossil options" and Ralph Nader is "renewables and extreme conservation to the point of Poverty." Now assume you know that the election is going to be really tight, and know in advance what's going to happen if Bush/Fossil wins - Bush would lead the US and the world down a path of darkness, but that Gore/all alternatives including nuclear will be gentler, kinder and make the world a happier and safer place. Then there's Nader (extremist conservation and renewables only), only running as a spoiler, hasn't got a hope in Hell of actually winning, and even if he did, would need the help of democrats or republicans in legislature to avoid being a lame duck President (like wind which needs a fossil/nuclear backup).

Essentially, the 3rd option is a complete joke, has no real chance because 96% of people don't want to know about it, and even if it happened couldn't possibly solve the problems on its own.

Put it another way - assume it's November 2000 and you're a Ralph Nader supporter who lives in one of the swing counties in Florida with good idea of what's going to happen. Are you still going to vote Nader?

Firstly Bertrand Paree was including the use of rennewable power up to a certain percentage of total power output, i dont think it was ever based on what nuclear power alone would do.
Secondly it is the people who voted for bush who are to blame for bush becoming president and perhaps the people who did not vote at all. People who voted Nader got a rough ride in the American media which i felt was really just about a lot of Americans feeling guilty that very few of them voted and in denial about what theit country had done. If the people who had voted had got off their behinds and made a decision........ anyway. It is sad to realize that less than 40% of the public in most western democracies vote. Bring on the Australian option i say.

Anyway you cannot blame those who did not vote for Bush and voted against him for his victory it lets off his supporters it also lets off those who did not vote at all.
I cannot be blamed because others do not give a ****.

Plus one of the biggest pollutors is the transport industry, cars etc, with the hydrogen car still being science fiction how would nuclear power help with that?
It either has to be bio fuel or air compression technology and you know as well as i do that unless these economies are allowed to grow into the sector that will not happen.
I kinow you do not support nuclear power alone but you know that we would still have to pry people away from using fossil fuel in their vehicles. IT would be very difficult to allow renewables to grow while still encouraging nuclear power. Biofuels would need to be allowed to grow in the industrial and heating sector aswell. I do not see it surviving if it only is used for cars. And i cannot see the nuclear sector allowing a competetor in on the game once they are established.

So what do we do about cars then?

The thing is you say that you support the idea of nuclear power combined with renewables but i have a feeling that getting business and people to use both would be more difficult than getting them to use one alone. In that i do not see that renewables and nuclear power surviving.
You seem to think that all will be honourable in the market place with each industry competing.
But that is not how it works in business (particularly in multinational companies) one industry tries to make the other go out of business.
And you know that this is one of the main reasons we are in this mess in the first place we could have had a much bigger percentage of our power provided with renewables years ago but the fossil fuel industry has almost a complete monopoly on the market and inforces that it would never allow a competitor to develop. I cannot believe that the nuclear industry not do the same.

I belive that it is possible for the world to be run on renewables i do think it can proffitable but i don't know if it can grow when it has two aggressive competitors who are already much more established and want to make it as difficult as possible for it to grow.
You admit that we need renewables even if there was nuclear power well i do not see the nuclear industy allowing them to grow. I dont think renewable energy would survive against nuclear energy for business reasons not for energy output or sustainabilty reasons but because at the momment it cannot produce as much money no other reason it could perhaps in the future be as proffitable but not now.BUt i do beleive it could provide our energy needs now and become as proffitable later but never alongside nuclear power. Fossil fuels and nuclear power combined would destroy it . And that would be what would happen . It has been the problem with the fossil fuel industry and nuclear would be no different. Your dream of an emisionless future with nuclear power alongside renewables i believe is a dream nuclear power is not going to be able to provide power for cars and many other industries and with two powerful and greedy established competitors renewables would never survive it would end up being fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The priority must be given to renewables.

leninbenjamin

Lou.m wrote:

So what do we do about cars then?

One we're talking about the national grid here, nothing to do with transport. But if you want to divert down that route... we need to centralise the population more. constrain one off housing even further, encourage hihger density building in urban areas and expand public transport, tax the bejaysus out of motorists even more, introduce car pooling, park and ride etc. all while praying to the gods that the fuel cell is cracked.

Also invest in trains and buses that could be powerd off the national grid...

Lou.m wrote:

I dont think renewable energy would survive against nuclear energy for business reasons not for energy output

then by your logic renewables and fossils cannot co-exist, as they will have to in the medium term if we don't switch to nuclear. fossils will always be cheaper than renewables until the inevitable supply shortage hits us, and most likely the level of investment in Renewables will still be too low by then to achieve the efficiency levels needed to stablise the economy in any transition. It will almost certainly spark a recession, which i for one don't really want to live through.

Lou.m

For once i agree with you i do not think that fossil fules and renewables could exist together and if you read my post i state as much they cant.
We have been trying for years. It never worked.
There are cars which can be fed off the national grid now by the way the problem is that would still be using fossil fuels to power the national grid. And they have to compete with the bigger more established companies. Anyway the national grid is only part of the problem.
In most countries if you look back in history countries have had one main source of power. The business world likes to work that way they do not want competitors in some countries it is not just that it is one source suppling power it is one main company who dominates everything look at our history with the ESB.

I have often wondered if the fact that we have no nuclear power in Ireland is as much to do with the protection of certain business intertests and certain trade unions protecting jobs as protecting our country against nuclear power.

As long as there are fossil fules allowed to be burnt they will dominate and if nuclear power is allowed it will dominate. Business rules.

As for recession it will happen in your lifetime due to energy no matter what is done. Sorry i dont think there is anything that can be done about that even if the world went nuclear. There would be a transitional period and according to Bertrand Paree and ARVERA even if renewable energy provided a significant pertcentage of our energy mining supplies for nuclear power would still only last until the middle of this century as even with renewables 10,000 more reactors would have to be built to compensate for fossil fuels.

I believe you may have to admit that sometime we will have to get all our power from renewable energy you just are under the mistaken impression that you have longer.
All change brings discord at first.

leninbenjamin

Lou.m wrote:

I believe you may have to admit that sometime we will have to get all our power from renewable energy you just are under the mistaken impression that you have longer.
All change brings discord at first.

I don't think anyone can say with certainty how long we really have. it could be 50 it could be 15. And i've said previously in this thread that in the future we will most certainly need to derive all our energy needs from renewables. I look forward to the day. And i agree with you that there will be some element of discord.

I just believe that going nuclear tomorrow could help lessen the negatives associated with any change. I feel will bring a stronger element of certainty to the predicament, that even if fossil fuesl supplies dried up in 5 years completely, if we were well on the path to nuclear we would have some element of certainty over our power needs for the medium future I'm not saying indefinitly, if that's what you though i meant (at least with regards nuclear fission), but that it could act as a transition between fossils and renewables.

I just think that renewables are a long way from ever being our primary source of power, at least not until the fossils supplies have long dried up. Nuclear could bridge the gap, and lessen any inevitable economic damage i feel, and also bring a quicker end to the pollution caused by fossils, rather than waiting for renewables.

Edit: maybe i'm completely wrong on this issue, but from what all i've heard and learned this is how i feel it's going to play out.

SeanW

Anyway you cannot blame those who did not vote for Bush and voted against him for his victory it lets off his supporters it also lets off those who did not vote at all.
I cannot be blamed because others do not give a ****.

To a certain extent yes, the Nader voters in Florida cannot be blamed because they didn't know Bush was going to get in the back door. But you know what's going to happen if fossil fuels continue to dominate. So you don't have that defense.

Also the people who didn't vote, only give default consent to whomever happens to win - had Gore taken Florida, non-voters would have given tacit consent to him instead. But you can't hide behind them because your kind have contributed slightly to the current mess by opposing the largest non-fossil alternative without good cause and preying on the public's lack of enlightenment to promote a culture of mistrust and fear surrounding it.

It would be like if someone had spent all of October 2000 on a campaign to tell everyone in Florida "BUSH IS EVIL BUT GORE IS WORSE!!!! DON'T VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE CLOWNS!!!"

Would you hold the orchestrator of this campaign blameless for Bush's victory?

There are cars which can be fed off the national grid now by the way the problem is that would still be using fossil fuels to power the national grid.

So you admit that fossil fuels are the problem? Would you oppose nuclear backed trains and cars?

and if nuclear power is allowed it will dominate.

Since you've said yourself that this is physically impossible, please tell how THAT would play out - even if it did happen wouldn't it be better than fossil fuels dominating?

10,000 more reactors

Again please tell me how that is actually going to happen? In Ireland's case, to compensate for fossil electricity would take only 3 of these "largest reactors" the largest I know of is the EPR being built in Flamanville, at 1.6GW X 3 = 4.8GW which is just 100MW short of Ireland's highest ever demand which is somewhere in the region of 4.9GW. That includes DART and Luas.

So what do we do about cars then?

1: Promote transport biofuels
2: Tax the bejesus out of those stupid Hummers, SUVs and Land Rovers.
3: Invest hugely in electric heavy trains, Luases and Metros. Back them up with a nuclear programme.Clean baseline provider + baseline consumer = perfect match.
4: Proper urban planning.

dajaffa

Firstly I do not think we will ever have a nuclear fission reactor built in Ireland. It would be politically damaging to whatever party brought it in, and in fairness I think part of this problem is due to a lack of knowledge of the facts among the Irish population.

Personally I'm against Ireland. The country is too so any potential mishap would be likely to affect the whole country (however unlikely this is) and also we would have to export the waste produced, partly because of our size, and partly due to the way things seem to be done here.

I don't think it has to be an either/or situation as to whether we use fossil fuels or nuclear energy. I think we should be harnessing more energy from renewable sources. Now I don't believe that this would provide all the energy we need, but I do think we could drastically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Also the government should be going to much greater lengths to reduce the amount of energy we use. I think the should be grants schemes in place, or at least some sort of VAT refund scheme set up for things that reduce the energy needs of a household/business. Things like insulation, solar panels, double-glazed windows and even smaller devices like draught-proofing for doors, things that reduce energy expenditure.

Personally I am of the opinion that the likes of car tax and VRT should be greatly reduced, even abolished in favour of increased taxation on fuels. It makes more sense imo than slapping more tax for owning say an SUV to tax them for how much fuel they use as obviously enough that's what the problem is.

Btw it's worth bearing in mind that for every reactor there has to be a back-up reactor so that the country wouldn't have huge power cuts in the event of a reactor failing.

cast_iron

dajaffa wrote:

Btw it's worth bearing in mind that for every reactor there has to be a back-up reactor so that the country wouldn't have huge power cuts in the event of a reactor failing.

Surely it wouldn't have to be a reactor?

John_C

cast_iron wrote:

Originally Posted by dajaffa
Btw it's worth bearing in mind that for every reactor there has to be a back-up reactor so that the country wouldn't have huge power cuts in the event of a reactor failing.

Surely it wouldn't have to be a reactor?

Also, this is true of all electric plants not only nuclear ones.

Steyr

Your damned if you do and damned if you dont, truth is fossil fuels are fast running out and wind,solar etc will only do so much, so for me its Nuclear all the way.

El Stuntman

Steyr wrote:

Your damned if you do and damned if you dont, truth is fossil fuels are fast running out and wind,solar etc will only do so much, so for me its Nuclear all the way.

seems sensible

let's put it in Donegal too, that county is full of lunatics anyway so a bit of radiation poisoning surely won't make much difference plus if the damn thing explodes, it'll affect Norn Iron more than us.....

Steyr

El Stuntman wrote:

seems sensible

let's put it in Donegal too

Thats a good idea as Donegal is the real Craggy Island of Ireland, its cold and inhospitable and nobody wants to be that far ooop North so its a good thing.:D

Donegal=UGH

grahamo

We gotta go nuclear. Despite all the hippies bad-mouthing it its still FAR less polluting than fossil fuels. We should build it in Ballsbridge though.....

SeanW

El Stuntman wrote:

seems sensible

let's put it in Donegal too, that county is full of lunatics anyway so a bit of radiation poisoning surely won't make much difference plus if the damn thing explodes, it'll affect Norn Iron more than us.....

Firstly, nuclear plants emit less radiation than coal-fired power plants of similar condition and megawattage. Source. So the Donegallians wouldn't have to worry about glowing in the dark or anything.

Secondly, if you're worried about "the damn thing exploding" like Chernobyl, it simply would not happen. The Chernobyl accident - the only nuclear accident ever to cause widespread environmental damage, was caused by a mile-long list of Soviet blunders, the Soviet Union nuclear programme was little better than a game of Russian Roulette, and what happened there, cannot happen anywhere in the 1st world. Modern nuclear technology and political practice is such that even Bertie couldn't possibly screw up a nuclear programme THAT badly. Though I'm sure he'd try

Lennoxschips

John_C wrote:

Also, this is true of all electric plants not only nuclear ones.

indeed, except with the added bonus that if backup power fails at a nuclear plant you are faced with the imminent threat of a meltdown, because you can no longer power the cooling mechanisms, as the swedes were reminded just this summer

Secondly, if you're worried about "the damn thing exploding" like Chernobyl, it simply would not happen.

we know that what happened in chernobyl wouldn't happen again, because we have learned from the design errors in that plant - the hard way. i am not so optimistic to think however that after only six decades human kind has mastered the atom to the extent that "it simply would not happen". there's many other things that can still go wrong, but we won't find out till they happen. basically, the nuclear industry has done nothing but lie for half a century. what they used to tell everyone was safe 50 years ago is now widely recognised as being dangerous. call me a cynic, but i won't take their word now either.

Your damned if you do and damned if you dont, truth is fossil fuels are fast running out and wind,solar etc will only do so much, so for me its Nuclear all the way.

if all the world's electricity production was to switch entirely to nuclear power tomorrow morning there'd be less suitable uranium fuel left than the equivalent amount of fossil fuel left.