Should Ireland go Nuclear?

SeanW

Another option would be to buy self contained "nuclear battery" design reactors pre-built from Toshiba, from its 10MW "Micro Nuke" line. They're built at the manufacturer, loaded with a 30 year fuel load at the start, and the whole thing is shipped as a fully assembled battery - local contractors only dig a hole for the device to be placed underground, and build the control room over it. (see here). Simple enough - it's what the people in Galena, Alaska are doing to suit their energy needs. Of course, they only need one - Ireland would need to consider a PBMR farm (which I assume this gizmo can do) of at least 10-20.

The easiest thing to do though would be to run a 300 mile HVDC undersea electrical cable from Cork to Cherbourg, so that we could import clean electricity cheaply enough from France, as most of France's neighbors do.

liberty 2007

nesf wrote:

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.

Ok, if we built 1mw windturbines every half mile along the west cost from south Cork to north Donegal we would go a long way towards covering our overall electric demand.(I'm not suggesting we do this) Including the offshore wind and the considerable potential for wave power. (Experamental 7MW unit currently being built off Welsh cost) The argument that the country would have to be covered in windturbines does'nt stack up.
The issues with nuclear are far greater, even if we get the planning and get the thing built, with a world becoming increasingly dependent on nuclear, the supply of urainum and its security may become a problem.

bonkey

SeanW wrote:

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.

Thats not cold hard fact. Thats a misrepresentation of the facts. Its even a misrepresentation fo the content of the article you linked to.

The coal-stations that are being mentioned are not replacement for the phasing-out of nuclear. As you'll see in the article, it clearly states that " in the long term, the power plants will replace older, dirtier plants".

Now, unless you're suggesting that we put credibility in an article suggesting that nuclear plants are dirty, then its pretty obvious that the older, dirtier plants being replaced are not nuclear.

One could argue that the older dirtier plants should be replaced by nuclear, which would be cleaner than the better-than-whats-there-but-far-from-ideal plants that are being prposed, but thats not what you argued.

bonkey

nesf wrote:

If renewables used less land

Up to 99% of the land-requirement can be dual-use with wind.

Where's the problem?

and if we could store excess energy cheaply and efficiently

Two-way interconnectors. Export the surplus when you have it, to fund the purchase of shortfall when you need it.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

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

Show me a badly-built power-station in Ireland.

SeanW

bonkey wrote:

Thats not cold hard fact. Thats a misrepresentation of the facts. Its even a misrepresentation fo the content of the article you linked to.

The coal-stations that are being mentioned are not replacement for the phasing-out of nuclear. As you'll see in the article, it clearly states that " in the long term, the power plants will replace older, dirtier plants".

Ahem.

DerSpeigelArticle wrote:

But something else is even more important for the Social Democrats. They want the planned power plants to help bridge the electricity gap that will inevitably arise in coming years due to the phasing out of nuclear energy. Germany's previous governing coalition between the SPD and the Green Party decided in 2001 that Germany would abandon nuclear energy -- and Gabriel and his colleagues will not allow the decision to be reversed. If the SPD were to question the construction of new coal-fired power plants, it would inevitably have to rethink its schedule for closing down Germany's nuclear power plants.

The evidence is clear - Germany had to choose between fossil fuels and nuclear power. And they made their choice.

davej

Des O' Malley article in the independent:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/three-decades-on-and-the-lights-are-set-to-go-out-again-892480.html

davej

spank_inferno

On the OP's question I would have to say no.

My main reason is cost.
I dont know how much a nuclear power plant will cost, but considering labour costs, sourcing materials/fuels and upkeep of same the cost would be very high. My worry would be if the energy gain didnt cover the cost of the project?

A second issue may be redundancy.
With the existing network of plants if 1 goes down the rest can cover (barely)
If 1 nuclear plant covering say %50 of energy output went down what covers the slack?

Britain intends to invest in better nuclear power stations. Buying power from them may prove mutualy beneficial if it secures future power needs while focusing capital investment on the efficiency and availability of renewables.

just my 2 cents

RedPlanet

Also in the Independent:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/nuclear-power-solution-can-blind-us-to-bigger-energy-goals-892765.html

I met with Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris recently.
According to him, nuclear energy is just one small part of any solution; it is not a total solution in itself.

And furthermore, he says suggesting that it is, or indeed could be in the foreseeable future, can blind us to more important goals on the near horizon, such as becoming more efficient consumers of energy, securing our existing supply lines and diversifying our dependence away from fossil fuels to renewable, and greener, sources of energy.

In this context, he says that he is not suggesting that Ireland should embrace nuclear power but that we should still consider diversifying our energy mix and reducing our dependence on oil and gas.

Jackie laughlin

The clash is between those who have embraced some sort of "principled" objection to nuclear (like the "principled" and equally daft objection to GM) and those who are willing to face up to the reality of what is happening to our planet and realise that addressing the approaching crisis will require a RANGE of measures and technologies.

At this point the Green Party and those who really are concerned about the environment part company.

I'm intrigued by the Irish bashing above; there is nothing to suggest that we cannot manage technology at least as well as anyone else. We might have to create a nuclear-industry-free zone around the Galway races but that's a question of corruption rather than competence.

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The clash is between those who have embraced some sort of "principled" objection to nuclear (like the "principled" and equally daft objection to GM)

No, its not.

Even if you left the quotes out and established that your side-swipe regarding GM was valid, it still wouldn't be an accurate statement.

and those who are willing to face up to the reality of what is happening to our planet and realise that addressing the approaching crisis will require a RANGE of measures and technologies.

How clever...equating "support of a range of measures" with "adoption of nuclear". You seem to have ignored the peopel who support a range of measures without nuclear, though.

I'm intrigued by the Irish bashing above;

As opposed to the bashing of Irish people who oppose nuclear?

nesf

liberty 2007 wrote:

Ok, if we built 1mw windturbines every half mile along the west cost from south Cork to north Donegal we would go a long way towards covering our overall electric demand.(I'm not suggesting we do this) Including the offshore wind and the considerable potential for wave power. (Experamental 7MW unit currently being built off Welsh cost) The argument that the country would have to be covered in windturbines does'nt stack up.

I'm not arguing that we'd need to cover the country (we don't, and ideally as far as I know we want the west(ish) part of the country for wind turbines anyway). I was saying that the amount of land you need to use for it is substantial. Combine that with the NIMBY factor and you've a problem.

liberty 2007 wrote:

The issues with nuclear are far greater, even if we get the planning and get the thing built, with a world becoming increasingly dependent on nuclear, the supply of urainum and its security may become a problem.

I don't know if the issues with nuclear are far greater. Especially considering that you don't need to constantly refuel them, which lessens the supply problem a bit. If there is a move towards breeder reactors, the supply problem is much smaller (there is a hell of a lot of regular uranium on this planet, it's the U-235 stuff that creates the big supply bottleneck).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nesf

bonkey wrote:

Up to 99% of the land-requirement can be dual-use with wind.

Where's the problem?

The problem is more land equals more NIMBYism. When you consider that we want to put turbines on the sides of mountains or other areas that get good amounts of wind you get further protests about "ruining the landscape" etc. Nuclear has this issue too in that it's tied to a large water source with present technology and large water sources tend to come with population centres attached.

bonkey wrote:

Two-way interconnectors. Export the surplus when you have it, to fund the purchase of shortfall when you need it.

That's only feasible when you've relatively small variations in power needs vs power generation. If you've huge swings with power generation it's not really that feasible since while we're small enough to not need much power compared to the UK or France etc the amount we need isn't insignificant either. Which is what you would have if you exclusively used wind/tidal/solar to generate electricity which was what my post was about. If you've back up generators using nuclear/fossil/whatever then it's a much smaller problem but we need those back up generators which is why nuclear should at least be considered.

The other options are either storage (like I've mentioned) or super-efficient conductors for transferring power (these are being seriously looked into in the US and elsewhere). If your power lines are efficient enough you can have huge areas sharing power and that makes handling swings in generation a bit easier to do. At the moment so much is lost in transport that you are (realistically) limited in who you can draw power from. That will change though but probably not much in the short term (there are tests being done on the moment with extremely efficient conductors as power lines for interconnections in the US but it's in it's infancy at the moment).

bonkey wrote:

Show me a badly-built power-station in Ireland.

Wasn't there serious issues with one or two of the peat generating stations a few years back?

DublinWriter

Dr.Ed Walsh was on the PK show this morning making the argument again for Ireland going nuclear.

It's worth a download.

I don't think it will really happen unless we get a citizen's lobby movement together to reassure the politicians that the public-will is largely not as anti-nuclear as they might imagine.

Where to put the station? Well that's another issue all-in-itself!

mike65

The two peat stations that came online (for no sensible reason except local politics) in 2004 are out of commision or running well below capacity for about 40% of the year due to corrosion

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1010256.shtml

Mike.

nesf

mike65 wrote:

The two peat stations that came online (for no sensible reason except local politics) in 2004 are out of commision or running well below capacity for about 40% of the year due to corrosion

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1010256.shtml

Mike.

Thanks that was exactly what I was trying to remember.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

A wind farm was put up there a few (or more) years ago, however that doesn't necessarily mean they wont stick a plant there.

mike65

daveirl stop that!

Mike.

Jackie laughlin

Bonkey,
The "Irish bashing" to which I referred is a feature of this thread where some of the contributors think that technology is beyond Irish competence. I've no desire to "bash" anyone.

The reason I contrast those who realise that a range of solutions is necessary and those who oppose nuclear is that no combination or sum of other alternatives to fossil will suffice.

I do believe that there are "sacred cows", "principles" - call them what you will - which many irish people have adopted which are closed to discussion. Nuclear power and GM plants are two examples.

I used the inverted commas in the original post because principles as properly understood are not immune to question.

RedPlanet

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The reason I contrast those who realise that a range of solutions is necessary and those who oppose nuclear is that no combination or sum of other alternatives to fossil will suffice.

Suffice to what end?
Continue wasting global energy resources on personal automobiles, plastics, fast food, xmas lights and all that other crap we bandy about in our "1st world" unsustainable lifestyle?

The nuclear debate in this country is a diversion, preventing this country from facing up to it's real challenges and responsibilities.
Our Gluttony.

Moriarty

RedPlanet, just how far do you think we should cut back in our power consumption? Going on your list above it appears you'd prefer us to be back in the agrarian middle ages. And no, I don't think that's an exageration.

spank_inferno

Agree with Moriarity

Humanity doesnt need to curb energy usage.
We just need to generate it better!

We have the technology, there is the public will.
It just takes strong political leadership and less "nimby-ism"

Mabey the more we use energy the more likely something sustainable will be done about energy needs

RedPlanet

Moriarty wrote:

RedPlanet, just how far do you think we should cut back in our power consumption? Going on your list above it appears you'd prefer us to be back in the agrarian middle ages. And no, I don't think that's an exageration.

I think you're dragging my point off topic tbh.
The thrust of what i'm saying is that it's folly to approach the subject of our energy future with the goal of continually increasing our energy demand.
What i'm saying, is that our focus should be on becoming efficient with our energy with a view toward cutting our demand.

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote:

I was in this debate previously with either RedPlanet. It was him (I believe) who basically claimed to live a life of poverty and wanted to impose much of that lifestyle on everyone else. From what I've read of RPs posts in the past, it is not an exaggeration.

Because to render both fossil fuels and nuclear power needless, we would all need to live lives of total abject misery.

Oh?
Attributing views to me that are not mine huh?
I'm really not surprised SeanW.

For the record, show me where i claimed:
1- That i lived a life of poverty
2- That i wanted to impose poverty on everyone else
3- That i wanted to render fossile fuels and nuclear "needless". (i'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but maybe we'll get to taht later)

SeanW

My apologies - I confused you with Lou.m in an discussion from several months ago. I was thinking of this debate where the poster in question outlined a lifestyle that might not be out of the ordinary in Amish country or a Carmelite monastary.

Some of what you were saying sounded very much like Lou.Ms view, but I should have been more careful. I've pulled that post.

But I stand over the rest of it - there is a serious question of nuclear vs. fossil fuels. We debate the extensiveness of this question, and the other factors, but as long as fossil fuels are burned for electricity this question will exist.

It's very simple - which is preferable, nuclear or fossil fuels?

Jackie laughlin

RedPlanet,
You have a point. I certainly was not excluding energy-use reduction from the range of means which must be used to address the problem. There will have to be changes in the way we live. I think those changes can be limited to curbing excesses rather than reverting to something significantly uncomfortable or even primitive.

Dr_Teeth

RedPlanet wrote:

I think you're dragging my point off topic tbh.
The thrust of what i'm saying is that it's folly to approach the subject of our energy future with the goal of continually increasing our energy demand.
What i'm saying, is that our focus should be on becoming efficient with our energy with a view toward cutting our demand.

I agree in principle, but that just isn't going to happen. I think in the next 20 years or so it's going to start becoming seriously difficult to afford a petrol or diesel car/bus/train. However, people will still need to get around, so we'll have to switch to electric powered vehicles instead.

This will be a good thing, as the vehicles won't emit CO2 and electric-powered mass transport is more efficient, however it will mean we'll need a *lot* more electricity production. Overall our total energy consumption (from burning fossil fuels in cars and generating electricity) will go down, but the amount of electricity we will need will go up, therefore we're going to need lots of Wind+Wave+Solar and of course a few Nuclear power stations to keep the supply reliable.

So in short, in future our *total energy* consumption may go down (due to the cost of fossil fuels, more efficient transport, greener appliances), but our *electricity* consumption will go up significantly as our fossil fuel consumption goes down.

Lennoxschips

- Nuclear power is the safest form of energy production

This Dr. Whathisface has a neck made of pure brass I assume.

- Nuclear power will never happen here because we can never have a balanced political debate on the subject.

jaysus, we can't seem to get enough of the whole nuclear debate. it's fascinating that these people appear on radio one, the late late show, questions and answers, the irish times etc etc every week and claim they aren't being allowed to have a proper debate. how much airtime do they need...