Nuclear power

purple'n'gold

Are we right to totally rule out using nuclear power as an energy source?

mike65

Have we?

While this septic isle may never play host to one, we will have significacant useage of nuke power through the interconnecters to Britian and then to France (and beyond).

I understand the Green Party are working on a current filter!

Mike.

MLM

We're a small island that doesn't need as much power as France or Britain. There's also plenty of wind. It would be a shame to waste it.

purple'n'gold

mike65 wrote:

Have we?

While this septic isle may never play host to one, we will have significacant useage of nuke power through the interconnecters to Britian and then to France (and beyond).

I understand the Green Party are working on a current filter!

Mike.

I agree with you. But it’s galling to see how hypocritical we will be when we denounce nuclear power, (the politicians will just see what the most vocal of the public seem to want and go with that) and proceed to buy Nuclear produced electricity from the UK. And wind power is never going to be enough.

professore

MLM wrote:

We're a small island that doesn't need as much power as France or Britain. There's also plenty of wind. It would be a shame to waste it.

Wind is only ever going to be a partial solution. I have seen or read nothing to convince me that we do not need a nuclear power station in Ireland in the near future.

cold_filter

I really think we could use a nuclear power plant or 5 or 6. Ok people will worry that its going to fry us all when it goes into meltdown, but chernobyl was a long time agop people!!!

There is a problem with the waster... but hey fire it on a rocket to the sun:D !

In all seriousness, in 50 odd years when fossil fuels run out and global warming has turned ireland into spain we'll need nuclear power.

mike65

Small article in indo today.

NUCLEAR power contributed 0.17pc of the fuel mix used to generate the electricity consumed here in 2005, according to new figures from the Commission for Energy Regulation.

The figure for nuclear power is derived from electricity imported via the North-South interconnector which links the Irish grid to that of the UK.

Based on the peak demand during winter months of about 4,800MW, this would mean the equivalent of about 8MW of power or enough to power a medium-sized town, is derived from nuclear energy.

Using a method approved by the European Commission, the CER settled on a formulae to calculate how much of this imported electricity was derived from nuclear power.

The method allows the CER to calculate the fuel mix which goes into electricity imported from Northern Ireland.

The result indicates that 0.17pc of the electricity consumed here was generated by British nuclear plant, such as that at Sellafield.

However, a statistical aberration meant that it did not pinpoint which of the nation's six electricity suppliers was selling nuclear energy.

This is due to the fact that when the total of 0.17pc is divided between the six, it averages down to 0pc, meaning none of the six are listed as suppliers of nuclear energy to the Irish market!

The fuel mix breakdown also highlights our huge dependence on coal-fired electricity, with 24pc of the nation's power generated using this fuel, second only to gas which at 46pc is by far the most important fuel source for electricity.

Oil-fired plant was responsible for 12pc of the nation's electricity in 2005, with peat-fired plant contributing 8pc of the mix and renewables, which includes hydro and wind power coming in at 9pc.

Combined heat and power plants were responsible for just 1pc of the nation's electricity generation.

The data is produced in response to a 2003 directive from the European Commission.

This stipulates that all energy suppliers must include reliable information on all bills sent to customers regarding the contribution of each energy source to the overall fuel mix of the supplier concerned and the associated environmental impacts.

Mike.

Seth Brundle

Out of curiosity, is there anything (apart from normal planning channels) to stop the construction of a nuclear plant just North of the border?

purple'n'gold

kbannon wrote:

Out of curiosity, is there anything (apart from normal planning channels) to stop the construction of a nuclear plant just North of the border?

I wouldn’t imagine so. Its part of the legal territory of the United Kingdom, what is built there is none of our business. I’d love to see it happen. Just to listen to the shrieks from down here would be simply hilarious.

bryanw

The worlds energy problems will never be solved completely. But in my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse in ruling out nuclear power. The Green Party can prance around all they want about the "terrible effects" of nuclear radiation but I will never believe them.

And I for one don't want the Irish countryside destroyed by the blight of giant wind turbines.

There is little or no risk from nuclear power and the meltdown at Chernobyl was a worst case scenario - and the reactor was poorly designed. As well as that, the fallout was not remotely anywhere near the amount of radiation from a nuclear bomb. There is also new research to suggest that radiation from the meltdown has had no ill-effects on the population of the greater region since it happened. There were 56 deaths (and between 3 and 9 cases of thyroid cancer, depending on source) directly attributed to the disaster - these being among emergency personnel fighting to control the fire etc. that occured or people living extremely close to the accident. There was a BBC horizon documentary on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5173310.stm - as well as an article in the Irish Times at some stage on this subject.

There is also growing evidence to suggest that areas with high-level background radiation have less cases of cancer than areas of lower background radiation. Apparently its to do with the way radiation exposure is measured and levels below a certain threshold pose no serious risk if any. This brings into doubt the current Linear Threshold model which basically says that any amount of radiation is bad for you.

It would be almost impossible to attribute deaths and cancers to an accident like Chernobyl as the increase would be so tiny. And apparently wildlife within the exclusion zone of Chernobyl is suffering no ill-effects. And then Greenpeace comes along and tries to predict over 100,000 deaths...

Now obviously a nuclear bomb is a completely different situation with far higher levels of radiation as well as it being specifically designed to cause harm and explosions.

Now... sorry for rambling on. :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

kbannon wrote:

Out of curiosity, is there anything (apart from normal planning channels) to stop the construction of a nuclear plant just North of the border?

And has Sean Quinn got land for one and has he noticed this arbitrage opportunity ????

Yes and Yes

Victor

bryanw wrote:

And apparently wildlife within the exclusion zone of Chernobyl is suffering no ill-effects.

Are you confusing this with "wildlife is booming", what with nobody hunting it or poisoning it.

nesf

Victor wrote:

Are you confusing this with "wildlife is booming", what with nobody hunting it or poisoning it.

Are you suggesting that PETA were behind Chernobyl?

dubhthach

Victor wrote:

Are you confusing this with "wildlife is booming", what with nobody hunting it or poisoning it.

Indeed though i recall reading somewhere that field mice in close vincity of the reactor site have as much genetic distance between themselves and "normal" field mice as "normal field mice" have with rats.

In normal run of events that Genetic Distance took 15million years to happen.

Personally though i'm in favour of having the nuclear option. Something between 80 and 90% of our power generation is from imported fossil fuels mainly oil and gas, though Moneypoint with it's coal generation is a major polluter. The only reason states like France have been able to stay within Kyoto limits is cause most of their power generation is nuclear.

SeanW

I guess what it really comes down to is, are we serious about this whole global warming/sustainable living thing? And the answer from government and some people seems to be a resounding NO. On the other hand you have people like the Greens who think everything that isn't a wind turbine is evil who for some reason seem more worried about nuclear operations 100 miles away than the major polluters and CO2 emitters closer to home, like Moneypoint. That's why we don't have nuclear power and no plans for a nuclear programme.

Lennoxschips

As well as that, the fallout was not remotely anywhere near the amount of radiation from a nuclear bomb.

Don't worry lads, it wasn't as bad as a nuclear bomb.

There is also new research to suggest that radiation from the meltdown has had no ill-effects on the population of the greater region since it happened. There were 56 deaths (and between 3 and 9 cases of thyroid cancer, depending on source) directly attributed to the disaster - these being among emergency personnel fighting to control the fire etc. that occured or people living extremely close to the accident.

56 dead is bad enough. However, there is also a study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that says that Chernobyl will have caused 16,000 additional cancer deaths in Europe before the year 2065. (link)

bryanw

Well even though according to what I quoted, 16,000 additional deaths would be quite high - spread over the whole of Europe it would probably be only a very tiny blip that it would be unable to be attributed to a single event.

There were 3.2 million cancer cases in Europe in 2006 (link). It is highly unlikely that 16,000 deaths could be picked out as caused by the Chernobyl disaster over the space of 75-80 years.

SeanW

It should be pointed out that the Chernobyl accident could never have happened outside the Former Soviet Union. Virtually all of the factors leading to the catastrophe were unique to the USSR.

The reactor type, the RBMK, was totally unsafe especially at low power output.
There was also a complete absence of a safety culture or regulatory oversight, everyone on the chain of command followed orders from their superiors and serious mistakes were made at each level.
The whole Soviet nuclear programme was marred by maladminsitration, incompetence, arrogance, recklessness and a lack of transparency on a scale incomprehensible outside the Iron Curtin.

I would highly reccommend this video to those unfamiliar with what exactly happened at Chernobyl.

Most of the people who make glib references to the Chernobyl accident as a reason to oppose nuclear power either don't know what they're talking about or are being slightly disingenuous.

Seth Brundle

SeanW wrote:

The whole Soviet nuclear programme was marred by maladminsitration, incompetence, arrogance, recklessness and a lack of transparency on a scale incomprehensible outside the Iron Curtin.

Im reassured in the knowledge that "maladminsitration, incompetence, arrogance, recklessness and a lack of transparency" could never happen here!

Lennoxschips

Well even though according to what I quoted, 16,000 additional deaths would be quite high - spread over the whole of Europe it would probably be only a very tiny blip that it would be unable to be attributed to a single event.

There were 3.2 million cancer cases in Europe in 2006 (link). It is highly unlikely that 16,000 deaths could be picked out as caused by the Chernobyl disaster over the space of 75-80 years.

Well, that's why the best professionals from the International Agency for Research on Cancer studied this, and I take their word for it, whether you find it to be unlikely or not. 16,000 is 16,000 no matter what number you compare it too.

It's also worth noting that Ukraine has the highest incidence of heart disease in the world, and that heart disease has quadrupled in Belarus since 1986. Doctors have attributed this to Caesium fallout.

SeanW's argument that Chernobyl could have been prevented if it was designed properly has some merit, but your assertion that Chernobyl wasn't so bad after all is really stretching it. 4000 km2 of land have been left unsuitable for human inhabitation for thousands of years!

Rabies

If Ireland developed a nuclear power station would G. Bush put us on his hit list like Iran and N Korea. After all, we do have a terrorist organistion in the country.

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

Well, that's why the best professionals from the International Agency for Research on Cancer studied this, and I take their word for it, whether you find it to be unlikely or not. 16,000 is 16,000 no matter what number you compare it too.

How about comparing it to the 10,000 people in China alone who die EVERY year from mining coal to power our coal burning power plants. Our the thousands of other people who die every year from the fumes released by coal burning power plants.

More people are killed EVERY year as a result of burning coal then in 50 years as a result of Chernobyl.

Lennoxschips

I'm not comparing it to anything, that's the whole point. Just saying that Chernobyl caused what it caused, in simple bare facts. I think that trivialising a major nuclear disaster by comparing it to other things is a dangerous thing to do.

I'm not going to defend the coal industry either because I'm not for coal power. But if we want to go down the straw man road, I bet there is no instance of a badly maintained and designed wind turbine killing thousands of people and spewing radioactive fallout over an entire continent.

lostexpectation

mike65 wrote:

Small article in indo today.



Mike.

0.17pc not very much atall, why do the nuclear lvoers keep bringing it up,

anyway did someone not say the only reason countries build nuclaer powers stations is to produce material for bombs, the electricity being a side issue?

bryanw

Lennoxschips wrote:

Well, that's why the best professionals from the International Agency for Research on Cancer studied this, and I take their word for it, whether you find it to be unlikely or not. 16,000 is 16,000 no matter what number you compare it too.

It's also worth noting that Ukraine has the highest incidence of heart disease in the world, and that heart disease has quadrupled in Belarus since 1986. Doctors have attributed this to Caesium fallout.

SeanW's argument that Chernobyl could have been prevented if it was designed properly has some merit, but your assertion that Chernobyl wasn't so bad after all is really stretching it. 4000 km2 of land have been left unsuitable for human inhabitation for thousands of years!

Apparently, according to some scientists - statistics like that are unsubstantiated in this particular case. There are also supposed to be a small number of people still living around Chernobyl (who were "left behind"), who are not suffering.

Of course everyone can quote their own statistics to suit their arguement - but if there are people like Greenpeace or people who say mobile phone masts cause cancer can have their statistics... why wouldn't you expect to have bad statistics. Greenpeace and the Chernobyl Childerns Project have some outrageous statistics on Chernobyl.

I don't think what I'm saying is stretching it - after all the sources I have quoted (BBC, Irish Times) are very reputable organisations.

WHO website: "While scientists have conducted studies to determine whether cancers in many other organs may have been caused by radiation, reviews by the WHO Expert Group revealed no evidence of increased cancer risks, apart from thyroid cancer, that can clearly be attributed to radiation from Chernobyl." (link)

World Nuclear Association: "An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005 study" (link)

Also another problem would be the sketchyness (if thats a word!) of statistics in Ukraine, pre-1986. And also the state of general health in that region. A lot of the problems predicted failed to materialise according to the UN report.

Robbo

lostexpectation wrote:

anyway did someone not say the only reason countries build nuclaer powers stations is to produce material for bombs, the electricity being a side issue?

Naturally. I, for one, am sick of rogue nations like the Swiss and the Finns waving their nuclear bombs about so that they can do what they like. It's like the cold war never ended.

SeanW

kbannon wrote:

Im reassured in the knowledge that "maladminsitration, incompetence, arrogance, recklessness and a lack of transparency" could never happen here!

Sometimes we lose sight of just how awful the Former Soviet Union was. Yes, anyone can make mistakes with any kind of project, but to REALLY foul things up beyond any hope of repair requires Soviet style bungling and their nuclear programme was no exception.

Nuclear power plants don't uncerimoniously go "BOOM" and take out a country or two with radiocontamination. There has to be a total disregard for safety by all involved from the operators to the highest levels of government. It is true that the plant was badly designed and that contributed to the accident, but bad design wasn't the half of it, there was way more.
If you haven't yet watched the BBC video I linked, you should do so now - it explains the whole thing.

When we in Ireland have to queue for days to buy a loaf of bread, and bribe a government employee for the most routine things, and all live in total abject poverty and in fear of being sent to a gulag by the Secret Police, then we can talk about maladministration endangering the safety of a theoretical nuclear programme.

4000 km2 of land have been left unsuitable for human inhabitation for thousands of years!

Lenny, you do yourself no favours with these total exaggerations. The main contaminant, Caesium-137 has a half life of 30.23 years, after which half of the Caesium that was there initially becomes stable Barium-137. In some areas, such as the abandoned city of Pripyat, it is understood that about 20 half-lives will have to pass before radiation levels become safe for re-inhabitation. The other particle types have already decayed to background levels or weren't released in enough volume to really matter.

The anti-nukes on this thread should face reality - Chernobyl was an oddity of the Soviet Union, one of the many things from the Soviet era that will haunt mankind for generations. Nothing more, nothing less, and comparing the Soviet nuclear programme with that of any 1st world country is like comparing a Trabi or a Lada with a BMW or a Toyota. The comparison does not make sense and it doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.

If we aren't to go nuclear, let it be for a good reason, like finding something better. Let us not avoid nuclear power because of superstition and fearmongering "big scary looking thing could just blow up" propoganda that the likes of Greenpeace like to spread.

Lennoxschips

Lenny, you do yourself no favours with these total exaggerations. The main contaminant, Caesium-137 has a half life of 30.23 years, after which half of the Caesium that was there initially becomes stable Barium-137. In some areas, such as the abandoned city of Pripyat, it is understood that about 20 half-lives will have to pass before radiation levels become safe for re-inhabitation. The other particle types have already decayed to background levels or weren't released in enough volume to really matter.

Ok, so it's not thousands of years, it's only mere centuries of no human inhabitation in an area the size of County Limerick.

While I agree with what you say about Chernobyl, yes, it was a totally bad design and everything went wrong, I tend to err on the side of caution with these things. If this is a power source that people want to adopt to a high degree, then they have to understand that there is a minute chance that something like this could happen. That's a risk that some people are willing to take and I'm not. When the push comes to shove, I prefer to have a power source that, in the unimaginable and very remote instance of something going wrong, it doesn't lead to death, suffering, poisoning and permanent mass evacuations of vast swathes of land. Call me naive.

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

That's a risk that some people are willing to take and I'm not. When the push comes to shove, I prefer to have a power source that, in the unimaginable and very remote instance of something going wrong, it doesn't lead to death, suffering, poisoning and permanent mass evacuations of vast swathes of land. Call me naive.

But you see, the problem is, such a power source doesn't exist, at least not yet (Fusion might eventually give us that).

At the moment coal burning kills thousands every year, with global warming it may lead to millions of deaths. It really does come down to burning fossil fuels or Nuclear and nuclear is the lesser of two evils.

bryanw

bk wrote:

But you see, the problem is, such a power source doesn't exist, at least not yet (Fusion might eventually give us that).

At the moment coal burning kills thousands every year, with global warming it may lead to millions of deaths. It really does come down to burning fossil fuels or Nuclear and nuclear is the lesser of two evils.

Completely agree. I am in no way opposed to nuclear power. I think a lot of fear in peoples minds are on the back of scare-mongering by people like the Green Party, the Chernobyl Childrens Project, Greenpeace and the likes. Did anyone watch that docu-whatif-drama on RTE about an accident at Sellafield? What a pile of rubbish - good entertainment but it stops there.

I know somebody will mention renewables, but their merits have not yet been realised. Basically it would be detrimental to rely solely on solar or wind (until they can be proved energy sources).

nesf

Lennoxschips wrote:

When the push comes to shove, I prefer to have a power source that, in the unimaginable and very remote instance of something going wrong, it doesn't lead to death, suffering, poisoning and permanent mass evacuations of vast swathes of land. Call me naive.

Insert viable in before power source there and you might begin to see why a lot of the people who look into this see nuclear as at least being a maybe.

If you are going to generate power you need to accept a) a certain amount of pollution per megawatt generated (coal fuelled stations rank very poorly in this respect) and b) how much damage there is to people's health due to said pollution (and this includes long term effects not just the easy to grasp dangers of nuclear).

The biggest problem in this is that you have to balance a very unlikely event causing a lot of damage (look at Chernobyl and then consider just how many other nuclear plants are running and have run worldwide and how we haven't seen a repeat of it) and guaranteed damage (but not as dramatic or instant) caused by coal, oil and peat stations. The human mind just plain sucks at making these kinds of comparisons, your average person doesn't intuitively have a good grasp of probabilities and how to compare them (look at poker or any other game of chance for examples).