Nuclear power

Hard Larry

It's highly unlikely that such people would all find work in the same nuclear plant as technicians. This isn't Springfield!

You can't spell 'highly unlikely' without using the word 'likely'!!!

A group of retarded alcoholics?

And don't we vote people like this into Government?

Just doin' my bit to put some humour into the thread

SeanW

I just read a commentary in the Weekend Herlad today that pretty much sums up my views. I couldn't find it online so I transcribed it in here (too much free time )

Dan White wrote:

THE intervention of Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) chief David Begg is a sure sign that nuclear power is back on the agenda. For anyone who has been listeneing carefully, the gradual re-emergence of nuclear power as an issue over the past year or so has been impossible to ignore. Last year industrial development think-tank Forfas, in a report on Ireladn's oil dependence, ever so delicately raised the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in this country. Then last month Bertie Ahern categorically ruled out building an Irish nuclear power plant when he addressed the Ogra Fianna Fail converence. Which of course begged the obvious question: given that nuclear power hasn't been a serious issue in Irish politics for almost 30 years why did the Taoiseach feel the need to say anything on the matter at this stage? Could it be that Ahern is getting it in the neck from both business leaders and trade unions who are increasingly worried about our lack of electricity generating capacity? While the relatively mild winter meant that the ESB never came under serious pressure this year, it was a different story last year when we came within a hair's breadth of blackouts on a number of occasions.

Launching an ICTU policy document on sustainable energy this weeks, its general secretary David Begg pointed out that within five years at least some of the electricity being imported via the interconnectors with the UK would be generated in nuclear power plants. He called for a debate on the merits of nuclear power as a possible way of meeting the energy demands of Ireland's growing population. While Begg made the ritual declaration that he was not "cheerleading" for nuclear energy, his real message was unmistakelable: terrified of offending Ireland's small but noisy environmentalist tendancy, politicians of all parties have effectively abandoned their responsibility for energy policy. After the election the grown-ups are going to take back control of Irish energy policy from the politicians who have failed so lamentably.
Ireland is going to have a to build several new power stations over the next decade. As we already exceed our Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions targets by 10pc very few if any of these new stations can be fossil fuel-fired.

But what about renewable energy?
Unfortunately there seem to be much less to most forms of "renewable" energy than meets the eye. Solar energy has never come remotely close to meeting the claims that have been made for it, hydrogen is probably decades away from commerciality while the production of biofuels such as ethanol requires so much arable land that crop production has been displaced and food prices pushed up. Of all the renewables only wind, with which Ireland is well-endowed, looks like living up to its advance billing. Unfortunately even wind is not without its problems. Electricity, no matter how it is generated, can't be stored. Every electricity generation system needs to have a significant chunk of its total capacity capable of producing power all day, every day, regardless of climactic or other conditions. With the Kyoto targets effectively ruling out other options, nuclear is the only technology which meets this need for 24/7 availability.
Stand by for a complete about-turn on nuclear power from whichever Government is returned after the next election.

What can I say, the man's a genious :rolleyes: I think to a point he's right about the place of nuclear power in Ireland, it seems that we might soon be at the very start of a U-turn.

I haven't heard a word about Sellafield in the last 5 years, a British government decision to eventually decommission the facility generated almost no attention here, people are getting smarter and more able to think for themselves instead of being scaremongered. There have been few if any anti-nuke posts on this thread and some others where there were, most of the arguments were thoroughly and unambiguously torn to shreds, mainly by yours truly I'm getting an impression that people may be starting to realise the truth about the situation.

Mucco

Hey, SeanW and others,

I was just wondering about this deregulation of the electricity markets (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/electricity/index_en.htm). SeanW has said that the grid has tp be able to handle one generation site going down, and therefore we need extra capacity to handle this. Would it not be easier to have this on a european scale? ie have enough extra capacity europe-wide to allow for sites going down? It might not make sense for a small country such as Ireland to have a 'redundant' site because of only occaisional use, but, it would make sense for the UK - we just get our power from them temporarily when it's needed.
The government seems to be going down the 'Irish solution' of buying electricity from abroad anyway, as is mentioned above.

M

5uspect

Nuclear energy is a possibility worth considering, rationally.
However there are other alternatives such as ultra deep geothermal energy which may provide significant amounts of clean power (that is from the nuclear reactor that is our planet)

SeanW

Mucco wrote:

SeanW has said that the grid has tp be able to handle one generation site going down, and therefore we need extra capacity to handle this. Would it not be easier to have this on a european scale? ie have enough extra capacity europe-wide to allow for sites going down?

It's not just the loss of a generating station, the grid controllers also have to cover unexpect rushes in demand (like what happens when half the country is watching Corrie and the ad break comes on - everyone rushes to the kitchen to make tea with their electric kettles at the same time).
The winds could slow down, theoretically at any time, reducing the output of our windfarms.

Any number of things could cause a plant on standby to be fully invoked.

It might not make sense for a small country such as Ireland to have a 'redundant' site because of only occaisional use, but, it would make sense for the UK - we just get our power from them temporarily when it's needed.
The government seems to be going down the 'Irish solution' of buying electricity from abroad anyway, as is mentioned above.

Again, it depends on the plant-size strategy being used. I'm not sure how big our biggest power plant is, or how much excess generation is done at any given time, but we do use a fair amount of electricity nationwide in the normal course, but I don't think we have any huge power stations that demand massive backup running. Plus I think Turlough Hill, a hydroelectric resivior (sp) is used for that purpose - it's capable of going from 0 to 262MW in 60 seconds IIRC.

In terms of the "Irish solution" I'm very much coming to the idea that Ireland should build an electrical interconnector to France, and import nuclear energy from there, they make the stuff pretty cheaply in France, this would also offload some of the grid-backup demands because the contract would probably state X MW constantly.

Either that or go for a PBMR strategy which would also work very well from a grid-efficiency perspective.