Should Ireland go Nuclear?

sovtek

DublinWriter wrote:

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

You're welcome to refute them other than just assertions.

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

nd I'm just a network administrator from Texas...and I can still refute the esteemed Dr. Walsh....incidentally Patrick Moore isn't the founder of Greenpeace and is an industry lobbyist. I don't need a Doctorate or a Masters in Electrical Engineering to figure that out.
That would make me question wether or not [mod edit]is getting a few bob out of it himself.
A programmer with nothing to gain or an industry lobbyist....hmmmm?

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

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

I don't see an arguement against nuclear power in Dr_Teeths posts, either explicitly or implicitly..?

sovtek wrote:

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

From the IAEA site, which I'd trust many orders of magnitude higher than that well known industry lobyist greenpeace (ooh see what I did there sovtek?):

How many people died and how many more are likely to die in the future?

A reasonable central estimate is about 4,000 fatal radiation induced cancers during the lifetime of the 600,000 most highly exposed individuals and perhaps another 5,000 in more peripheral populations. The number is small (representing a few percent) relative to the normal spontaneous risk of cancer, but the numbers are large in absolute terms. Among the 4,000 is included some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and nine children who died of thyroid cancer, and an estimated total of 3,940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200,000 emergency workers from 1986-1987, 116,000 evacuees and 270,000 residents of the most contaminated areas (total about 600,000). These three major cohorts were subjected to higher doses of radiation amongst all the people exposed to Chernobyl radiation.

The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600,000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers, some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed.

Confusion about the impact has arisen owing to the fact that thousands of people in the affected areas have died of natural causes. Also, widespread expectations of ill health and a tendency to attribute all health problems to radiation exposure have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl related fatalities were much higher than they actually were.

9,000 casualties from the undisputed worst nuclear accident ever. One from which many lessons have been learnt. One which would not have happened in the western world in the first place, which is the relevant part in the debate over whether Ireland should pursue nuclear power.

I dont see anyone arguing that we should never produce pesticides again after the ~18,000 people that died in the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.

and I'm just a network administrator from Texas...and I can still refute the esteemed [mod edit]....incidentally Patrick Moore isn't the founder of Greenpeace and is an industry lobbyist. I don't need a Doctorate or a Masters in Electrical Engineering to figure that out.
That would make me question wether or not [mod edt] is getting a few bob out of it himself.
A programmer with nothing to gain or an industry lobbyist....hmmmm?

Unless you have proof to back up your assertion that [mod edit] is in the pocket of the nuclear industry, I'd expect you to withdraw those remarks. It's funny that you never have a problem attacking the messenger when they're saying something you philosophically disagree with though. Way to go in debating the topic at hand.

themurt

While many here are advocating the development of a nuclear solution to Ireland's continuing energy requirements I'm not sure how this can happen from a political point of view. Would suggesting the construction of a nuclear power plant in Ireland not be political suicide for whoever suggested it? Or does the idea have support in governement circles?

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

I don't see an arguement against nuclear power in Dr_Teeths posts, either explicitly or implicitly..?

Just to explain...thats an argument for not going nuclear.

From the IAEA site, which I'd trust many orders of magnitude higher than that well known industry lobyist greenpeace (ooh see what I did there sovtek?):

Greenpeace isn't an industry lobby group. However they cite the WHO study that claims 8000. Did you read that part...or is the WHO study not good enough?
Ok then the IAEA states 4000 as opposed to the 1500 unlucky Italians. My point stands

One which would not have happened in the western world in the first place, which is the relevant part in the debate over whether Ireland should pursue nuclear power.

TMI was said to have been impossible before it happened as well. A nuclear reactor is a very complex system....you therefore know what happens in complex systems. I also don't need a degree to know that.

I dont see anyone arguing that we should never produce pesticides again after the ~18,000 people that died in the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.

That's not a great example really. Incidentally people are calling for the banning of pesticides.

Unless you have proof to back up your assertion that Dr. Ed Walsh is in the pocket of the nuclear industry, I'd expect you to withdraw those remarks. It's funny that you never have a problem attacking the messenger when they're saying something you philosophically disagree with though. Way to go in debating the topic at hand.

I'm questioning his motives and will not withdraw it. Especially considering the remarks he made which go beyond logic...that should be anathema to a scientist.
When have I attacked anyone in here whom I am "philosophically" opposed to?

sovtek

themurt wrote:

While many here are advocating the development of a nuclear solution to Ireland's continuing energy requirements I'm not sure how this can happen from a political point of view. Would suggesting the construction of a nuclear power plant in Ireland not be political suicide for whoever suggested it? Or does the idea have support in governement circles?

It should be political suicide because it's a 50 yo failed and dangerous technology.

sovtek

Oh I just found an article laying out the MO of the PR campaign for the nuclear industry.
I noticed they are using the "third party option" of "independent researchers, academics, parliamentarians, the media and trade unions."

http://www.publicaffairsnews.com/issues/articleview.asp?article_id=268

Sovtek,
I cannot allow you to post unfounded allegations against academics in this country.
Do not do that again please and stick to debating your points without resorting to such tactics.

I'm editing posta to remove that material
If I see it again,I will ban you.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

Just to explain...thats an argument for not going nuclear.

Sorry, I've missed your point somewhere along the line. I honestly don't know what you're refering to here.

sovtek wrote:

Greenpeace isn't an industry lobby group. However they cite the WHO study that claims 8000. Did you read that part...or is the WHO study not good enough?
Ok then the IAEA states 4000 as opposed to the 1500 unlucky Italians. My point stands

Greenpeace have never lobbied for wind, tidal, solar and biomass power? You know, the "alternative power" industry? Greenpeace are not impartial bystanders in the nuclear debate and never have been. They have an agenda too. That's fine by the way, but you have to be aware of it.


What point exactly are you trying to make? That when a certain amount of people are killed in an accident, that whatever caused the accident should be banned forever more? How many people have to die for this? Is ten enough? A hundred? Seriously, I'd like to know. There's a bunch of things I'd like to have fun getting banned too, so I just want to know the requirements.

sovtek wrote:

TMI was said to have been impossible before it happened as well. A nuclear reactor is a very complex system....you therefore know what happens in complex systems. I also don't need a degree to know that.

Ah, the "it's too complex. Catastrophic meltdowns with massive losses of life are entirely inevitable" arguement. Let me introduce you to Mr. Straw Man.

sovtek wrote:

That's not a great example really. Incidentally people are calling for the banning of pesticides.

Why isn't it comparable? It seems pretty damned similar to me.

I've never seen anyone calling for a ban on pesticides. I'm not saying there aren't any, but there's certainly no popular revolt against them. That would be because banning all pesticide production on the planet because of one accident would be a hysterical overreaction.

I'm questioning his motives and will not withdraw it. Especially considering the remarks he made which go beyond logic...that should be anathema to a scientist.
When have I attacked anyone in here whom I am "philosophically" opposed to?

You're questioning his motives purely on the basis that you don't like what he's saying so therefore he must have an alterior and sinister motive. That is not a practial or logical course to pursue.

I was referring to the attacking-the-man-not-the-message that a lot of people here, including yourself, engage in on political issues. "Bush is an idiot" when he proposes anything ring any bells?

Jackie laughlin

Dr. Walshe's degrees are legit. and worthy but not decisive in debate. As I said above, his politics is extreme neo-liberalism. Indeed I sometimes doubt the man's sanity when he talks politics.

Just for once with this issue he takes side with moderate, sensible people who, having examined the information and arguments, can see no alternative to nuclear being a part of the answer.

KerranJast

sovtek wrote:

It should be political suicide because it's a 50 yo failed and dangerous technology.

True, if you're a Ukrainian or Belarussian. If you're French nuclear power has been a safe, cheap and successful enterprise.

bonkey

KerranJast wrote:

If you're French nuclear power has been a safe, cheap and successful enterprise.

With two exceptions.

1) The issue of waste-management, even allowing for the fact that France actively reprocesses.

2) In the summer of 2003, water shortages led to widescale power-shortages as numerous nuclear stations had to be taken offline because cooling would have raised the temperature of the available water too much (and potentially led to severe ecological problems downstream). The French rode this out by importing energy at need from their neighbours...something that was only possible because their neighbours were not equally dependant on nuclear and thus were not as effected by the water shortages.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

KerranJast

bonkey wrote:

With two exceptions.

1) The issue of waste-management, even allowing for the fact that France actively reprocesses.

2) In the summer of 2003, water shortages led to widescale power-shortages as numerous nuclear stations had to be taken offline because cooling would have raised the temperature of the available water too much (and potentially led to severe ecological problems downstream). The French rode this out by importing energy at need from their neighbours...something that was only possible because their neighbours were not equally dependant on nuclear and thus were not as effected by the water shortages.

(1) is a serious issue alright. (2) was due to an exceptionally prolonged heat wave in France. If the climate ever shifts to give us that kind of weather in Ireland we'll have one hell of a bigger problem than energy shortages.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dr_Teeth

sovtek wrote:

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

What?! You're not making any sense...

You: Let's invest in R&D! We'll totally find magical awesome energy technology!

Me: If all the other countries investing untold billions haven't found it, our tiny country won't either, let's go nuclear.

You: You just made my argument!

Me: WTF?

DublinWriter

sovtek wrote:

Chernobyl death toll: 8000 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/chernobylforumclosingday
[/url]

Firstly, Chernobyl, as Dr. Ed Walsh pointed out, was a car designed without breaks.

It was built on early 1950's Soviet technology with NONE of the safe-guards and containment in place that constitute modern reactor technology.

If you want a decent comparison then go away, play with google and tell us how many died in the Three Mile Island incident and the impact it had on the environoment?

You state you are in Texas Sovtek. The irony is nuclear power plants are generating the power for your PC and ISP for you to retort to the arguments here!

liberty 2007

Mick86 wrote:

When teh fossil fuels run out you're left with wind, water, solar or nuclear. We don't have the space for wind and water, we don't have the sunshine for solar so I guess we have one option left.

Actually, we have enough wind potential to produce many times what we currently consume in electricity and solar pv may work better in this country the in hot countries.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

liberty 2007

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, Don't have access to wind potential figures at the moment and your right there would be an environmental impact with the number of wind farms it would take. but which is the lesser of two evils. The biggest issue with wind is visual, if we want the power maybe we can get over that. The next is noise, I'v sat in my car within 300m of a wind farm, engine of, window open. Faint whish. Window closed nothing. Next interferance with radio signals. tecnology can overcome that. But who's going to live near a nuclear power station, we'd have to compulsary purchase a whole county!!!
What do we do when the wind's not blowing? Simple, we use nuclear without going nuclear.
Our consumption compered to other countries is very small that's another reason why our wind potential is so good. Some days we'll produce far more than we can use, others, less than we need. An interconnector with Britain, power flows east when the wind blows and west on a frosty night.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Jackie laughlin

OK let's all become fantasists! Let's invest all our money in R&D to produce genetically modified trees and grass. The trees would grow into wind turbines and each blade of grass would become a photovoltaic cell. Any land remaining - and there wouldn't be much - could be used to grow biofuel crops. Ooops, I forgot that a thoroughgoing fantasist wouldn't have anything to do with GM. I'm not even enough of a fantasist to join the Green Party!

liberty 2007

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

First, Britain, because of the size of it's consumption, needs nuclear far more then we do, secondly, we can't even get the gas in from corrib because of a hand full of residents who live somewhere near the pipline. We have years of delay building a motorway over a snail. It's got nothing to do with morality. we'd have to be back in the dark ages before we'd get planning for nuclear and by then it would be too late.

SeanW

sovtek wrote:

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

Outside them former Soviet Union, the Nuclear industry has been comparable to any other hazardous industry with regard to fatalities and environmental impact, especially in the last few decades. Remind me again how many people were killed and how many acres of land were made uninhabitable as a result of Three Mile Island? Somewhere in the region of 0. Fact is, Western nuclear power has traditionally been a safe enterprise, and accidents therein have been little more than glorified industrial accidents.

The Soviet Union is dead. Thank bloody heavens for it too.

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

They will when Yucca Mountain comes on stream.

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.

Yes, and despite being around for centuries, these technologies STILL cannot deliver anything resembling an adequate energy supply.

Nuclear power works today. Cleanly, efficiently, safely and reliably.

sovtek wrote:

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

You are. By opposing nuclear, you are a default apologist for a continuance of the status-quo, which is runaway reliance on fossil fuels. This is a constant, much energy supply is either thermal-fired power or nuclear power, one or the other. You have to choose if you want me to take you seriously. Ireland never used nuclear power. Now we're 95%+ reliant on fossil fuels. Germany (link) is dropping it's nuclear power programme, and replacing these with filthy and environmentally disasterous coal-fired power stations. And the so-called "environmentalists" actually consider that a victory!!!

Those are the cold hard facts. You have to choose which you prefer.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

liberty 2007

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I never said I was totally against nuclear, I simply dont believe we need it or would ever get the planning. Besides, we could produce more then we use from renewables, therefore reduce (however small) Britains consumption of nuclear

nesf

liberty 2007 wrote:

Besides, we could produce more then we use from renewables, therefore reduce (however small) Britains consumption of nuclear

Yes, but could we produce said energy stably and securely without losing vast tracts of farmland etc? Renewables aren't very efficient per acre which is their big problem. You need an awful lot of land to produce a lot of electricity. Stability is a bitch because the wind doesn't always blow etc and storing electricity isn't a simple or efficient process.

If renewables used less land and if we could store excess energy cheaply and efficiently the major problems for using them exclusively to generate electricity would disappear. However those are two very big ifs.

Could you imagine the trouble we would be in with this countries builders let loose on a nuclear power plant!

a5y

Deleted User wrote:

Could you imagine the trouble we would be in with this countries builders let loose on a nuclear power plant!

That is a pretty good point. Technologically speaking we couldn't get an oversized digital watch to run reliably in the Liffey for the Millenium, most of the lights on the Dublin Spire to glow nor could we design the LUAS without putting a height limit on all future floats for the St. Patricks day parade.

Regardless of the nukes: necessary evil/unnecessary evil debate, this should get some serious consideration.

purple'n'gold

This countries builders would only be doing the donkey work. The overall job would be handled by experts, probably French.

a5y

purplengold wrote:

This countries builders would only be doing the donkey work. The overall job would be handled by experts, probably French.

Those lads will be seriously shocked if they order a baguette over here. They'll be expecting brie and I doubt they'll be getting any. Here's hoping all those nuclear scientists don't get too pissed about it and decide a prank is in order :eek: