Should Ireland go Nuclear?

heyjude

Offalycool wrote:

If we really need more power there should be so EU initiative to buy the power from the continent.

So France and other EU countries had the foresight to build nuclear power stations instead of relying on oil/gas and you think the EU should encourage them to sell power to us, presumably at a reasonable rate, :rolleyes: so we don't have to make the difficult decisions that they made years ago or at the very least should be making now.

Oafley Jones

sovtek wrote:

Yes there is
You use the money you would waste on nuclear to invest in R&D in overcoming problems with current renewable technologies and also discover new ones.

Lets (for the sake of arguement) say that the cost to set up a nuclear plant is €1 billion and takes 10 years to build. Now, you advocate placing that into R&D, so let me ask you a couple of questions,

1) How would that money be divided up?

2) Would that be enough money to guarantee that solutions be found?

3) What is the time scale alloted for research and then implementation of said solution?

Compare this to Nuclear power which is a proven technology.

Offalycool

heyjude wrote:

So France and other EU countries had the foresight to build nuclear power stations instead of relying on oil/gas and you think the EU should encourage them to sell power to us, presumably at a reasonable rate, :rolleyes: so we don't have to make the difficult decisions that they made years ago or at the very least should be making now.

There is no point in building more power stations.. we just have to learn to use the recourses we have more efficiently. It seems silly to build one in Ireland just because we can. Surely it makes more sense to redistribute the energy currently generated and develop ways of getting more from it.

smoc

Yes we should Go Nuclear!! its by far the cleanest and cheapest form of power. Plus their very safe as well. Even if we were to put it on one of the islands off of ireland where if something did go wrong we would be ok might be best for those against it. Otherwise I think their the best.

jonny72

I don't believe for one second this country could build a nuclear reactor..

Firstly it would end up being the most expensive one on the planet..

Secondly it would be delayed, and delayed, and delayed, I mean cmon we can barely build a motorway..

Maskhadov

heyjude wrote:

They'd never get permission to build enough windmills to provide all our power from wind, unless it is the hot air eminating from the Dail, they have struggled to get the few existing wind farms built and besides, what do we do on those very cool frosty windfree winter/spring days ?

As for the €500bn worth of oil and gas off the west coast, a couple of questions come to mind, where will it be brought ashore ? Mayo or somewhere else along our 'scenic' coastline ??? In any case, these resources will belong to the oil companies and they will sell them for the market price at the time, which could be €150+ a barrel at the time. The problem might not be its availability, but whether we can afford to spend so much on oil and gas, just to generate electricity.

No, we've got to consider Nuclear now. As is pointed out elsewhere, uranium is also a finite resource like oil/gas and if we delay, by the time we do need it, its cost/availability will be as bad as oil.

Maybe if people understand the alternatives such as a doubling/trebling or electricity prices, power cuts and high unemployment as companies move to countries with cheaper power, then maybe it will be more palatable.

its worth €500bn at $50/barrel... currently oil is something like $68. The only thing stopping us getting the €500bn is the oil companies. They are doing their best to con us on the corrib gas field.

RedPlanet

The best argument for going nuclear is that we don't have to cut any fat out of our energy wasting livelihoods. Indeed, we can continue down the path of bad planning, continue eating fastfood and frozen food, continue driving ourselves around in our own personal hulking metal boxes regardless of how much public space they require. We can keep leaving all the lights on in our homes and workplaces, leave computers and other electronics plugged in, continue building one off homes etc etc.

/sarcasm

SeanW

Nuclear power won't do much for transport but it can be used to make hydrogen. Nuclear power, if it is to be used as an environmental protection tool, (of which it is more than capable) then it must be accompanied by a multi-pronged strategy to protect the environment. To include other measures such as better planning, efficiency measures, renewables, biofuels etc each to be used as appropriate.

But should we use nuclear power as a tool to help protect our way of life? Absolutely. Nuclear power is safe, clean and reliable, and in some cases, cheaper than fossil fuelled options and, unlike renewables, is an already mature science that is constantly advancing. It fundamentally makes sense.

bonkey

SeanW wrote:

Nuclear power won't do much for transport but it can be used to make hydrogen.

Hydrogen won't do much for transport...at least not in the near- or mid-term. The infrastructure isn't there and there's a number of technical problems still remaining before its ready for anything more than a bit-part.

I find it ironic, though, that you cite this as a way forward for nuclear with respect to transport, but then go on to note that...

unlike renewables, is an already mature science that is constantly advancing.

This is a somewhat misleading point.

If you mean "mature" in the sense that we've had nuclear stations for decades, then the established renewables are also mature as we've had them for decades also. Indeed, technologies such as hydro and wind are more mature than nuclear, with both (arguably) pre-dating electricity.

If, on the other hand you mean that the specific technology which would be used is mature, then this is not necessarily the case for nuclear at all. Any proposals for modern reactors are typically for pebble-bed reactors, or other modern, relatively-or-completely unproven-at-industrial-scale designs and not for the decades-old designs which are the ones which are proven.

sovtek

SeanW wrote:

Nuclear power is safe

I wonder where this assertion comes from given the history of criminal negligence, incompetence and laziness of the industry.

clean

I seem to recall reading about quite a few storage sites in the US that are still not being cleaned up.

cheaper than fossil fuelled options

Does that include the billions in tax revenue that has been used on R&D etc etc over the past 50 years?

and, unlike renewables, is an already mature science that is constantly advancing.

Maybe it's mature in that its been around for years...but as far as advancing... they still don't know how to store it properly nor does anybody seem to be able to regulate the industry.
Unlike renewables...if they screw up it could kill a hell of a lot of people and trash the environment for ages.

It fundamentally makes sense.

Not really given it's history thus far.

purple'n'gold

jonny72 wrote:

I don't believe for one second this country could build a nuclear reactor..

Firstly it would end up being the most expensive one on the planet..

Secondly it would be delayed, and delayed, and delayed, I mean cmon we can barely build a motorway..

This would not be a motorway, it would be a nuclear power station, and it would be built probably by a French company.Building etc.the Irish would just be providing the basics.

sovtek

purplengold wrote:

This would not be a motorway, it would be a nuclear power station, and it would be built probably by a French company.Building etc.the Irish would just be providing the basics.

So why not get the government to pump money into local renewables rather than pay into the French economy for safer and cleaner sources of energy?

Instant Karma

the problem with NP is that the station will inevitabely be placed in a poor area and those are the people who will suffer health issues.

Also, where do you put all the eventual waste? do you know what the half life on that stuff is, more NP stations = more waste, where does it all go eventually. Sure it may not affect us in our life time but you would be storing up massive problems for future generations.

thumbs down tbh, there are other completely clean ways that are also much much cheaper that should be considered.

brianthebard

Nuclear power is just as finite as oil, and as more countries wish to start using it or increase their use, there will be less of the fuel, it will get more expensive and we'll be back where we started.

heyjude

Instant Karma wrote:

the problem with NP is that the station will inevitabely be placed in a poor area and those are the people who will suffer health issues.

The siting of a nuclear power station isn't like the siting of a landfill or incinerator, a major requirement is a large supply of water, so they are usually built alongside a major river or as is the case with most of Britain's nuclear reactors, by the sea. So unless the poor area happens to have a huge vacant site and be sited alongside a major river or the sea, then they wouldn't normally be considered.

Sure it may not affect us in our life time but you would be storing up massive problems for future generations.

And generating almost all our electricity from fossil fuels is helping future generations ?

thumbs down tbh, there are other completely clean ways that are also much much cheaper that should be considered.

What completely clean and much cheaper ways to generate electricity should be considered ? Assuming you want electricity 24/7 and 365 days a year, no matter what the weather. Importing power from Britain or France wouldn't be cheap or clean(if it is generated by oil/gas/nuclear(according to its opponents)).

sovtek

heyjude wrote:

And generating almost all our electricity from fossil fuels is helping future generations ?

I have yet to see ONE person arguing for the continuation of using fossil fuels in this thread.

Jackie laughlin

Tina

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Tina

Thatcherism is alive and well

sovtek

I just thought I'd post a list of reasons NOT to go nuclear...as the opposite type of list is so popular recently.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hoffman06272007.html

purple'n'gold

What really pisses me of about this whole issue is the”paddywhackery” of completely dismissing nuclear power as an option. It’s just like “a shure ,we’re Irish, we’ll never have anything as evil as nuclear power here” (but we’ll take nuclear generated electricity from other countries, when we need it.)

Dr_Teeth

sovtek wrote:

So why not get the government to pump money into local renewables rather than pay into the French economy for safer and cleaner sources of energy?

Because no matter how many windmills we install, we are always going to need a controllable power station. In fact, we'll need at least two of them, for redundancy. The only technologies that exist for this at the moment are:

1) Hydro (we're all out, sorry)
2) Fossil fuels (no)
3) Nuclear (yes!)

Even with the U.S. and other large countries pumping untold billions every year into R&D, they haven't found another solution.. the pitiful amount of cash that we could afford to invest in this area would be a waste of time.

Please remember that we have to make the decision to go ahead with this at least *10 years* before it's going to be needed, so in fact we really don't have much time given the way the world is going - certainly no time to wait for some magical new technology to be invented. We should be getting the French to work on this asap.

DublinWriter

sovtek wrote:

I just thought I'd post a list of reasons NOT to go nuclear...as the opposite type of list is so popular recently.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hoffman06272007.html

That article is so badly writen and has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.

None of the stats quoted are cross-referenced and it's very hyerbolic.

And who was it written by? None other than Russell D. Hoffman "a computer programmer in Carlsbad"

Dr. Ed Walsh holds Masters and Doctorate qualifications in nuclear and electrical engineering from Iowa State University, where he was an Associate of the US Atomic Energy Commission Laboratory.

I know who I would rather listen to on the subject.

DublinWriter

sovtek wrote:

Unlike renewables...if they screw up it could kill a hell of a lot of people and trash the environment for ages.

Want to know what the most dangerous form of energy production is in terms of body count?

Hydroelectric.

Many dams have burst in the 20th century, consider the disaster in Italy in the late 1960's where several villages were washed away and thousands were killed.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

For what it's worth, a quick wiki claims 85 years of economically viable material using current extraction techniques,

The ultimate supply of uranium is believed to very large and sufficient for at least the next 85 years although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century. It is estimated that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times.

As an alternative it should be possible to place a wave powered generator in a causeway built between NI & scotland and one between SE Ireland & Wales.
between them they would trap the irish sea at a level approx 60% of low tide, the water level difference between inside & outside the "lake" would force water through turbines in the causeway walls. such a system would produce electricity almost 24/7, as the external water level rises & falls with with the passage of the moon. the only time the system can't produce power is when the levels balance during the transition between low & high tide and back again.
There would be about an hour difference between high tide at the northern end to that of the southern end, therefore while one end is balanced and not producing the other will be generating power.

Could it work?.. In theory yes!
Would it provide all of Irelands electricity?.. Possibly!
Finanically Viable?.. Probably not until alternatives are too expensive!
Politically acceptible?.. Possible but would need co-operation with the UK

Pipe dream! ... yes, but you never know there are some systems in operation

Moriarty

On the Uranium supply issue (link)..

As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five-billion years’ (also the estimated remaining life of the Sun) worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants

Dr_Teeth

I don't think anyone's denying that a large proportion of our energy in the future is going to have to come from wind and wave.

However, there will *always* be a requirement for a few fully controllable power stations to prevent oversupply or undersupply minute by minute. This is going to have to come from Nuclear. There is no other option and we should get used to it and start planning for it now, given the 10 years or so that it will take to get these stations online.

sovtek

Dr_Teeth wrote:

Even with the U.S. and other large countries pumping untold billions every year into R&D, they haven't found another solution.. the pitiful amount of cash that we could afford to invest in this area would be a waste of time.

You've just made my argument for me against Nuclear. Thanks

sovtek

DublinWriter wrote:

Want to know what the most dangerous form of energy production is in terms of body count?

Hydroelectric.

Many dams have burst in the 20th century, consider the disaster in Italy in the late 1960's where several villages were washed away and thousands were killed.

Chernobyl death toll: 8000 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/chernobylforumclosingday
Vajont Dam 1963 death toll: 1500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam