Should Ireland go Nuclear?

Manic Moran

nesf wrote:

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.

I'm pretty near the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, which is pretty darned big (6,000 turbines), but only makes about 10% on average as a typical US nuclear power station (which makes its power reliably without depending on wind fluctuations). It's a -lot- of land.

Oh, and the environmentalists recently sued (and won out of court earlier this year) because the turbine blades were killing birds. Apparently the birds liked the winds as it made their migrations easier, which brought them into the path of the big whirling blades which were sited to catch the wind. You just can't win.

NTM

nesf

Lennoxschips wrote:

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

I assume it's for some given value of "safe". Maybe in it's definition people are compelled to have trampolining competitions beside wind turbines or something.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote:

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...

Its not airtime that they need.

Their definition of a proper debate is simply one in which their opinion carries the day. Until and unless that happens, the debate will remain improper.

Its just like people cheering about a "victory for democracy" when their side carries the day, and a "sad day for democracy" when they find that they are not in the majority. They equate "democracy" with "what I want".

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm pretty near the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, which is pretty darned big (6,000 turbines), but only makes about 10% on average as a typical US nuclear power station (which makes its power reliably without depending on wind fluctuations). It's a -lot- of land.

APWF is considered largely obsolete, though, because it predominantly uses a large amount of small, out-of-date-technology turbines.

Oh, and the environmentalists recently sued (and won out of court earlier this year) because the turbine blades were killing birds. Apparently the birds liked the winds as it made their migrations easier, which brought them into the path of the big whirling blades which were sited to catch the wind. You just can't win.

Sure you can win. You replace the small, fast-turning, low-output turbines with larger, slower-turning, higher-output turbines. This gives you more output, and the slower, higher turbines pose less of a danger. You replace the "gridwork" support with the more common, modern, sleek designs which don't offer perches for birds. You take more care when considering where to put your windfarm in the first place.

It should also be pointed out that APWF is a recognised anomaly in this regard. It is no more representative of the danger from windfarms then Chernobyl is regarding nuclear.

As for it taking up a lot of land...what urgent need for the land has been supplanted by it?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

There is a distinction between calling for such a debate - which is what you say the Greens are doing - and complaining that such a debate is inherently impossible to have - which is what the proponents for nuclear on threads such as this seem to delight in telling us.

I get the impression that many pro-nuclear peolpe don't want a proper debate just yet. I believe they know if they get it they'll not win the day and will have lost the moral high-ground to complain about the lack of debate.

Why don't the pro-nuclear lobby sit down and call on the Greens to sit down with them and agree how to jointly set about having this debate. If the Gerens back down, then there is ground to complain.

However, when someone is saying "yes, I agree, we should have a debate on this", then it is simply disingenuous to suggest that not only is there no debate, but that no debate is possible.

Jackie laughlin

The Greens certainly are not alone in opposing nuclear power. Opposition was firmly entrenched before the Green Party was formed. To the best of my knowledge all political parties in Ireland are opposed to nuclear power. This situation limits but doesn't prevent debate.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote:

Its not airtime that they need.
Sure you can win. You replace the small, fast-turning, low-output turbines with larger, slower-turning, higher-output turbines. This gives you more output, and the slower, higher turbines pose less of a danger.

Even those big ones are pretty damned fast. They may have fewer revolutions per minute, but the longer blades still go along at a fair clip towards the ends. I recall trying to figure out if I could make it through the larger whirling blades if they were low enough, and deciding that I would probably still get chopped up.

take more care when considering where to put your windfarm in the first place.

You want to put them where the wind is. It's like saying you shouldn't have a hydroelectric station on a river, because the fish are there.

As for it taking up a lot of land...what urgent need for the land has been supplanted by it?

California has a lot more spare acreage to play with than Ireland does. APWF covers 29 square miles, where would you put the Irish equivalent? The newer turbines are indeed more efficient so you need fewer of them, but they're also larger, resulting in a similar acreage requirement.

NTM

Lennoxschips

APWF covers 29 square miles, where would you put the Irish equivalent?

Where they're being put now. In the sea.

nesf

Lennoxschips wrote:

Where they're being put now. In the sea.

Most are still land based no?

Lennoxschips

Yep. But I think they should press ahead with off-shore.

MooseJam

yes, otherwise we will be screwed when oil runs out in the next decade - we should start building soon ! it's safe as houses at this stage

nesf

Lennoxschips wrote:

Yep. But I think they should press ahead with off-shore.

I don't disagree, it's a fair bit more expensive to set up and run though isn't it? (I remember there being some hassle between Eirtricity and the ESB over Eirtricity wanting power from offshore wind stations costing the customer more on their bill or something)

Manic Moran

If they're going to be offshore anyway, what's wrong with floating wave-powered generators, (i.e. generate electricity from the up-and-down motion of the waves) instead of trying to come up with an infrastructure to support wind turbines?

Probably less damaging to hit a floating generator than a wind turbine anyway if a ship goes off-course.

NTM

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote:

Where they're being put now. In the sea.

However this is dramatically more expensive - it would send the cost of electricity skyward - and Ireland already has among the highests energy costs in Europe if not the highest outright. France on the other hand is right in line with the average - in bulk perhaps less. Combine that with the fact that wind turbine output has to be backed by equal megawattage on standby from a traditional power plant to stop the grid going black if the wind dropped off, you end up spending a lot of money doing sod all if you are heavily reliant on wind.

And wherever you put the turbines, you have to consider the possibility of bird-kills. Some of these wind turbines are harder on the ecosystem than the filthiest coal-fired power plants on Earth.

Now, I don't oppose wind power or any other renewable - what I oppose is this misguided utopian view that renewables will save us/make us the Texas of Europe etc. Because it's not going to happen. Conservation, renewables, biofuels etc on their own will not avert disaster. Heck, even with nuclear it would be difficult. But the odds would be stacked in our favour at least.

I get the impression that many pro-nuclear peolpe don't want a proper debate just yet. I believe they know if they get it they'll not win the day and will have lost the moral high-ground to complain about the lack of debate.

I don't think so. In any debate based on reason and fact, nuclear would come through in shining colours.

Problem is most of what counts as "proper debate" consists of muppets like Greenpeace yelling "Cher-NO-byl" and using demagoguery at every turn to scare people senseless from even thinking rationally about nuclear power before they think "ohh scary." I used to be in your camp so I should know.

Then, the pro-nuclear side has to spend most of its time dealing with persistent deception and mendacity. Like this garbage for example which make a very selective use of facts and could never stand up to any reasoned analysis.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

You want to put them where the wind is. It's like saying you shouldn't have a hydroelectric station on a river, because the fish are there.

No, its not like that at all.

Everything I could find about the problems with APWF have all more-or-less said the same thing - that since then a lot has been learned about choosing location more intelligently/carefully, as well as the relevant risks that need to be taken into account.

If you want the hydroelectric equivalent, its like saying that because some stations didn't/don't supply fish-runs to allow fish to bypass the station, that hydro is a bad idea because of the problems it would cause to fish.

APWF covers 29 square miles, where would you put the Irish equivalent?

Allowing that up to 99% of the area can be dual use for purposes such as farming, I'd be inclined to say as a simple answer I'd use 29 non-contiguous square miles of farmland.

I recognise that its not as simple as all that, but at the same time, it also not as simple at looking at APWR either.

bonkey

SeanW wrote:

And wherever you put the turbines, you have to consider the possibility of bird-kills. Some of these wind turbines are harder on the ecosystem than the filthiest coal-fired power plants on Earth.

You regularly (and rightly) complain about the misrepresentation of the nuclear industry by picking worst-case examples to argue a point, yet I have the distinct impression that you're doing the exact same here.

If you don't use those particular turbine types (typically the older designs) and make sure to site your turbines away from areas where the hazard is identifiable as being highest, then the impact on the eco-system is far from what you are suggesting.

If someone suggested to build a Chernobyl-design-and-quality station in a populated area and concluded that nuclear was a bad idea as a result, you would literally be livid at how badly they're misrepresenting the situation.

How is this argument if yours any different? Best practice with modern turbines intelligently sited does not have anything like the impact you're suggesting.

Problem is most of what counts as "proper debate" consists of muppets like Greenpeace yelling "Cher-NO-byl" and using demagoguery at every turn to scare people senseless from even thinking rationally about nuclear power before they think "ohh scary." I used to be in your camp so I should know.

Its not my camp.

My camp is that both sides address the issues, rather than taking pot-shots at each other, as well as knocking all technology thats not their favoured choice.

My camp is that ultimately Ireland, Europe, and the world in general is going to need a vastly-diversified range of generation options. Each locale will be able to leverage different options to different effect, and that these issues will need to be taken into effect.

While France is currently the poster-child for nuclear, I believe that within the next 20 years there is a significant risk that France is going to face increasingly regular situations where water-shortfall will cause massive reduction of supply as occurred twice in 2003. If Western Europe embraces nuclear as its widespread saviour, then these problems will be exacerbated, as neighbouring nations will find themselves in a similar situation and be unable to use interconnects to stop-gap the problem (as they were able to do in 2003).

Ireland admittedly doesn't face those problems. As a small island nation, water for cooling is not particularly difficult to come by, nor do we have distances to deal with where coastal-situation would be problematic.

Then again, as a small island nation on the west of Europe, we have resources available to us that we'd have to be barking mad not to use. And we should use those first, Ireland will probably have no option to go nuclear, but it should do so after it has leveraged its native resources (wind, probably wave in coming years), not before or instead-of.

Most non-hydrocarbon advocates are quick to point out that Ireland is so dependant on foreign resources to meet our needs. This is undoubtedly the case. However, nuclear advocates are generally less quick to point out that a switch to nuclear will do nothing to wean us off foreign-dependancy, merely change the resource we are dependant on.

In any debate based on reason and fact, nuclear would come through in shining colours.

Not so. In any debate based on reason and fact, nuclear would present itself as an option with advantages and drawbacks, depending on timescales looked at and how one chooses to view the various unknowns which could significantly effect its practicality.

I have very few problems with nuclear. I live in a country with several nuclear stations. I believe that it will comission more in coming years, and if I had a vote here (which I don't), I would most-likely support that issue.

My ultimate stance, however, is that the underlying problem is our addiction to energy, and (generally speaking) our massively wasteful use of it. Nuclear is rarely presented as a solution to this addiction, but rather as a way to continue getting our "fix". For that reason, I disapprove of it being presented as a "no brainer" or hands-down winner. It has costs and drawbacks and ultimately I believe the biggest of those is that broad adoption of it to continue to supply "infinite energy".

For that reason, I take the stance of "nuclear when we've run out of options", not "we've run out of options, we need nuclear"

DublinWriter

bonkey wrote:

My ultimate stance, however, is that the underlying problem is our addiction to energy, and (generally speaking) our massively wasteful use of it. Nuclear is rarely presented as a solution to this addiction, but rather as a way to continue getting our "fix".

Really? As a percentage, how much energy do we waste, and how exactly?

SeanW

My point is that anyone promoting a renewables-first and foremost strategy needs to explain how 1) It's going to provide the energy we need, 2) How to deal with the variability in power outputs from renewable installations (other than dumping the responsibility on our neighbors with an interconnector). and 3) The environmental impacts that can occur with some types of renewable power installation.

I just saw Eamon Ryan, Minister for Energy >:( talking grandiose talk about how Ireland was going to become all green and conserve, use renewables and cut our reliance on fossil fuels. All without recourse to nuclear. He forgot to mention that his buddies in Germany tried that and they failed miserably.

For that reason, I take the stance of "nuclear when we've run out of options", not "we've run out of options, we need nuclear"

No! Part of what I've learned about nuclear power is its limitations. Indeed, I refer to the Soviet nuclear programme as the "What not to do" guide. By this I mean the whole thing, not just Chernobyl, although it is Exhibit A in this regard. One of things that must surely feature near the start of any such guide, is not to rush a nuclear programme because if you're going down that road, and need power desperately, shortcuts could end up being taken which can have disasterous consequences.

If we started going on the road to nuclear power now, we'd first have to remove components of the 1999 Electricity Regulation Act, develop a nuclear regulator, design and fund a reactor proposal, submit an application for license to said regulator, construct the reactor, test it, commission it into service etc. Bottom line, we'd be doing well to see it this side of 2020, even if it were on the governments agenda today.

By 2020 though, we might all depend on Boris the Mad, in Russia not to turn the gas off, and brownouts could be a problem, unless we burned coal in which case Europe and the world would have suffered environmental disaster.

It would be too late then to say "oh crap, the lights went off and we're all freezing/our overuse of fossil fuels has caused a planetary crisis, let's go nuclear." In fact, I would consider it dangerous to go nuclear at that point.

It makes sense to start now - so that we can have a well prepared nuclear programme to deal with the issues when they arise, or head them off altogether.