What would you like Minister Gormley to do?

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm not convinced it's safe to assume we can reverse global warming.

What I’m saying is that I think it is safe to say, based on the huge body of evidence, that human behaviour is a factor in global warming.

oscarBravo wrote:

Do they? Where do they go? Genuine question.

Methane is oxidised in the upper atmosphere, producing water vapour and methyl groups. The influence of nitrous oxide on global warming is substantially less than CO2, although concentrations are increasing.

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

What I’m saying is that I think it is safe to say, based on the huge body of evidence, that human behaviour is a factor in global warming.

How much of a factor is human behaviour is responsible for global warming.

Methane is oxidised in the upper atmosphere, producing water vapour and methyl groups. The influence of nitrous oxide on global warming is substantially less than CO2, although concentrations are increasing.

Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It also acts as medium to effect climate change.

While NO2 does not directly influence warming, it can have dramatic indirect effects that can lead to substantial warming and climate change.

Peak oil just around just around the corner and the greens focusing on global warming.

Gormley should resign.

Elmo

I would like him to ask his Junior Partners in Government to Resign.

djpbarry

piraka wrote:

Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Yes, it is - no one is denying that. Were it not for cloud cover, the earth's surface temperature would swing from one extreme to the other (as it does in the Sahara for example). It is accepted that there is much we do not know about the influence of clouds on the climate. However, we do know that CO2 traps heat. So, it stands to reason that if we drastically increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see below), this will have an effect on our climate.

piraka wrote:

While NO2 does not directly influence warming, it can have dramatic indirect effects that can lead to substantial warming and climate change.

Not unless it's concentration is dramatically increased. I would be more concerned about the rapidly increasing CO2 concentration, which is forecast to approach near-toxic levels by the end of this century.

piraka wrote:

Peak oil just around just around the corner and the greens focusing on global warming.

I would say that the two problems go hand-in-hand. If we generate more of our energy from renewable sources in this country, we not only reduce our dependence on imported oil, we also reduce our carbon emissions - everybody wins .

Hotblack Desiato

Ah, the old trick of using a graph without a true origin, making any change look far more dramatic.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote:

I would be more concerned about the rapidly increasing CO2 concentration, which is forecast to approach near-toxic levels by the end of this century.

Waitasec. At the moment, carbon dioxide makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Toxic levels (as I understand it) start around 5%.

Are you forecasting a 125-fold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by the end of the century?

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

So, it stands to reason that if we drastically increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see below), this will have an effect on our climate.

How will CO2 affect our climate

Not unless it's concentration is dramatically increased

NO2 and N2O coupled with H2O are implicated in current climate change. These gases are increasing dramatically in the atmosphere.

djpbarry

ninja900 wrote:

Ah, the old trick of using a graph without a true origin, making any change look far more dramatic.

There’s no trick here; both axes are clearly labelled. Besides, I think a 20% increase in 45 years is “dramatic”.

oscarBravo wrote:

Waitasec. At the moment, carbon dioxide makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Toxic levels (as I understand it) start around 5%.

Are you forecasting a 125-fold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by the end of the century?

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 380ppm. Concentrations above 1,000ppm will cause discomfort for about 20% of people (think of conditions in a stuffy office). Now, according to the IPCC’s worst-case scenario, CO2 concentrations could increase to 970ppm by 2100 (in the “business as usual” scenario). Ok, maybe “near-toxic” was a bit of an over-statement, but the point is people will be able to “feel” the difference and this will cause health problems.

piraka wrote:

How will CO2 affect our climate

Impossible to predict with absolute certainty – it’s difficult enough to forecast next week’s weather! But, according to the IPCC:

• Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
• The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
• World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century and that:
• There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
• There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
• Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

piraka wrote:

NO2 and N2O coupled with H2O are implicated in current climate change. These gases are increasing dramatically in the atmosphere.

I have already agreed that nitrous oxide is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere and that, yes, it has been implicated in climate change and we should make an effort to reduce our emissions of it. But, it’s effect pales in comparison to that of CO2. As for H2O, I very much doubt it’s concentration is increasing “dramatically” – the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapour before it precipitates back to earth.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote:

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 380ppm. Concentrations above 1,000ppm will cause discomfort for about 20% of people (think of conditions in a stuffy office).

This looks suspiciously similar to something I found in Wikipedia. In context:

Wikipedia wrote:

Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself.

Note: this is talking about using carbon dioxide levels as a proxy for measuring indoor air conditions. It's not talking about atmospheric toxicity.

djpbarry wrote:

Ok, maybe “near-toxic” was a bit of an over-statement, but the point is people will be able to “feel” the difference and this will cause health problems.

I genuinely worry about the perceived need to use overstatements and out-of-context facts to make a point.

Something else I wonder about: we're told that global warming will cause the ice caps to melt, and sea levels to rise to an extent that will threaten coastal communities and island nations. Fair enough. But we're also hearing about the extent to which the ice caps have already melted - and, last I heard, the Maldives (and Dollymount) were still above sea level.

I just wonder, is all.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

Something else I wonder about: we're told that global warming will cause the ice caps to melt, and sea levels to rise to an extent that will threaten coastal communities and island nations. Fair enough. But we're also hearing about the extent to which the ice caps have already melted - and, last I heard, the Maldives (and Dollymount) were still above sea level.

I just wonder, is all.

Maybe we've read or told different things, but what you say isn't quite what I've read / been told.

On one hand, I've been told that a lot of sea ice has melted (and a small amount of landlocked ice). On the other hand, I've been told that should this pattern continue, then more and more landlocked ice will follow.

The sea-ice melting has had a small, but noticeable effect. This is what it should have - other than the density-difference between ice and cold water, the displacement is the same.

Land-locked ice, on the other hand, does not currently displace water. Should that start to melt in volume (which some models predict), then the game changes, and the sea-levels will rise accordingly.

Of course, we can take solace in the fact that its only some models, and that even they can't agree fully on the rate. Obviously this means that there's nothing to worry about and that its all just make-believe

edanto

One recent revision to the land-locked ice model involved taking into account the observation that slippage towards the sea is speeding up, apparently because of meltwater running through crevices in the glaciers which lubricates their passage.

If the Greens can influence policy - or at least get people discussing this in politics - that's a start.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote:

This looks suspiciously similar to something I found in Wikipedia.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for information on anything.

oscarBravo wrote:

I genuinely worry about the perceived need to use overstatements and out-of-context facts to make a point.

One small mis-use of a phrase does not negate the entire argument - I'm only human, I do make mistakes, but I am quite prepared to admit it when I do.

oscarBravo wrote:

we're told that global warming will cause the ice caps to melt, and sea levels to rise to an extent that will threaten coastal communities and island nations. Fair enough. But we're also hearing about the extent to which the ice caps have already melted - and, last I heard, the Maldives (and Dollymount) were still above sea level.

Well, a rise in sea levels has already been measured and there's still a hell of a lot more ice left on the planet. For example, if the whole of Greenland were to melt, it is estimated that oceans would rise by up to 7 metres.

cyclopath2001

randomname2005 wrote:

Ok, so Minister Gormley said he would like to introduce initiatives to curb climate change. Now, I see 'initiaves' as being either encouragements for 'good' or penalties for doing 'bad' what would the three things would you like to see him do?

1: Repeal the 1998 regulations passed by the PDs that make cycle tracks compulsory for cyclists and which at the same time legalised their use by motorists.

2: Make 2 metres the minimum width for a cycle track.

3: Prosecute local authorities who don't adhere to legal specifications when building cycle tracks.

4: Audit all cycle infrastructure spending to date and identify instances where facilities were built and subsequently removed to make more space for motorists. Fire those responsible.

Jackie laughlin

DjpBarry,
I've debated the nuclear issue on this site before. When I referred to a "stategy", I meant no more than that nuclear had a place among the complex of responses necessary to addressing man-made, global warming.

djpbarry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

When I referred to a "stategy", I meant no more than that nuclear had a place among the complex of responses necessary to addressing man-made, global warming.

Ok, fair enough. But personally, I don't think nuclear is the way forward for four reasons:

• Ireland's national grid is too small to warrant the construction of nuclear reactors here.
• The refinement of thorium and uranium is difficult and expensive, both environmentally and financially.
• There is a finite supply of nuclear fuel.
• If Ireland were to become dependent on nuclear energy, we would have to import all the necessary fuel, meaning we would still be relying on imports for the bulk of our energy.

I think that concentrating on the development of renewables in Ireland would be far more beneficial to our country in the long run.

Jackie laughlin

Does it have to be one or the other?

I'm interested in the argument that a grid designed for a large generator (in this case nuclear) is incompatible with distributed (perhaps small) producers. I can't find any info on this. Is it an insumountable problem?

The other points apply to fossil fuel too and they aren't relevant to reducing CO2 emissions.

djpbarry

The problem with going nuclear, from an Irish perspective, is, because we are a small population, it would encourage energy consumption. There’s no such thing as a “mini” nuclear reactor – the average nuclear power station produces 800 to 1100 megawatts. Most power stations in Ireland don’t produce anything near that, the exceptions being Moneypoint (915MW) and Poolbeg (1,020MW).

What would make more sense to me would be to gradually (or rapidly if possible!) reduce our energy consumption – this is not that difficult to achieve. For example, imagine every new home in the country was built with a solar panel and a wind turbine. Net energy consumption for such homes would be close to zero – they could even produce more energy than is needed, which could be fed back into the grid.

Jackie Laughlin wrote:

The other points apply to fossil fuel too and they aren't relevant to reducing CO2 emissions.

I’m not sure I understand this statement. Basically, what I’m saying is, is that if we go nuclear, we are effectively shifting our fuel dependency from one source to another, rather than making ourselves more self-sufficient by producing more of our own energy.

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

The problem with going nuclear, from an Irish perspective, is, because we are a small population, it would encourage energy consumption. There’s no such thing as a “mini” nuclear reactor – the average nuclear power station produces 800 to 1100 megawatts. Most power stations in Ireland don’t produce anything near that, the exceptions being Moneypoint (915MW) and Poolbeg (1,020MW).

Toshiba 10MW reactor
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/tech/review/2007/high2007/high2007pdf/0705.pdf

Installation in Alaska
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Alaska_10MW_07_04.pdf

djpbarry

Ok, small-scale reactors are in development.

But my arguments about fuel sources and environmental impact still stand.

Hotblack Desiato

djpbarry wrote:

There’s no such thing as a “mini” nuclear reactor – the average nuclear power station produces 800 to 1100 megawatts.

Wrong, as has already been pointed out.

Most power stations in don’t produce anything near that, the exceptions being Moneypoint (915MW) and Poolbeg (1,020MW).

The point is that the large stations like Moneypoint and Poolbeg are kept going 24/7 if possible, the smaller and less efficient stations are only switched in as needed.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to switch off Moneypoint and all of its filthy coal emissions? You simply cannot do that with wind, tidal or solar - only nuclear.

What would make more sense to me would be to gradually (or rapidly if possible!) reduce our energy consumption – this is not that difficult to achieve.

Yes it is when your population is growing strongly, as ours is.

For example, imagine every new home in the country was built with a solar panel and a wind turbine. Net energy consumption for such homes would be close to zero – they could even produce more energy than is needed, which could be fed back into the grid.

This is laughable. Domestic wind turbines are quite simply a joke and a scam, they are much too small, too low and too shielded by other buildings to do anything, unless you live in a one-off house on top of a hill and can get planning permission for a whopper.
Solar - whatever about water heating, for photo-voltaic in this country it's doubtful indeed whether you'd make back what you put in in manufacturing, transporting and installing these panels.

I’m not sure I understand this statement. Basically, what I’m saying is, is that if we go nuclear, we are effectively shifting our fuel dependency from one source to another

No, we're not. We're not going to get rid of gas-generated electricity, just use nuclear for a good chunk of the 24/7 base load, use gas in addition at peak demand, and get rid of coal altogether if possible as it's by far the worst fuel. If Vladimir Putin throws a wobbler again it would be nice if he only could knock out ~40% of our electricity rather than ~80%.
Uranium comes from places like Canada or Australia (or possibly Donegal) that we are on much more friendly terms with, you don't need much to fuel a reactor for years and keeping a strategic stockpile of years' worth of fuel right here in Ireland would be entirely feasible. Our national petroleum reserves are no more than about the 60 day mark I believe, at best, for gas it's probably only a couple of days.

djpbarry

ninja900 wrote:

This is laughable. Domestic wind turbines are quite simply a joke and a scam, they are much too small, too low and too shielded by other buildings to do anything, unless you live in a one-off house on top of a hill and can get planning permission for a whopper.

ninja900 wrote:

Solar - whatever about water heating, for photo-voltaic in this country it's doubtful indeed whether you'd make back what you put in in manufacturing, transporting and installing these panels.

No, THIS is laughable; it's based entirely on supposition. A wind turbine can quite easily be installed on a shaft fixed to the side of a house (so the turbine is above the roof), rather than in a garden. This will ensure that the turbine is rotating about 90% of the time with power output ranging from about 3 to 6kW. As regards solar panels, once it is on an incline of 40 – 50 degrees to the horizontal and facing between SSE and SSW, it will work just fine. Despite our crap weather in this country, we still get sunshine 40% of the time.

Remember, my point was that houses should be built with these features, i.e., incorporating them into the design of the house.

At the moment, the UK is considering doubling its nuclear energy production to about 160TWh. But, it is estimated that renewable sources such as wind, tidal, geothermal, wave, hydro and bio-fuels have the potential to generate up to 585TWh in the UK. I would imagine the figures would be similar here.

ninja900 wrote:

Uranium comes from places like Canada or Australia (or possibly Donegal) that we are on much more friendly terms with

My points regarding this are:

• We would still be effectively importing a large chunk of our energy.
• Uranium and Thorium are finite resources. Granted, there’s a fair bit of the stuff out there, but it won’t last forever.
• These minerals are also expensive to refine, both financially and environmentally. Now, if a large number of countries decide to rely on nuclear energy (think China and India), the price of nuclear fuel will skyrocket.

Then of course there is the issue of the spent nuclear fuel…

Overall, I think switching to nuclear would be a very shortsighted solution and it would undermine the drive for greater energy efficiency. I think people see nuclear as the “quick-fix” to climate change, when no such quick fix exists; nuclear cannot tackle climate change alone.

Jackie laughlin

I don't know of anyone who looks to nuclear as a quick fix. Many people look to it reluctantly, some look to it as the lesser of two evils.

The discussion above inclines me to think that nuclear will figure in Ireland's response to global warming.

I'd like too to point out that national sovereignty is being mixed into the argument. This is a quite separate issue which involves fuel supplies but extends too to recycling, state involvement in shipping and air transport, access to a whole range of raw materials, ability to process vital products on the island etc. etc. Even abortion!

Can someone confirm for me that there is no technical reason why a grid cannot be fed from small quantity, locally produced energy as well as from largescale generators?

Hotblack Desiato

Can you please not throw size and colour tags into your posts all over the place as it makes them very tedious to reply to.

djpbarry wrote:

A wind turbine can quite easily be installed on a shaft fixed to the side of a house (so the turbine is above the roof), rather than in a garden.

No sh*t.
I didn't honestly think that anyone would be daft enough to believe you could usefully install a wind turbine in the garden BELOW roof level. :rolleyes:

The point is, a single roof mounted (and as high and as large as possible) turbine in splendid one-off-housing-no-hills-or-trees-about isolation is one thing. A little turbine stuck on the chimney of a suburban semi-d is quite simply pathetic and will never do anything except annoy the neighbours and then crash through the roof in a few years, probably.
There are a hell of a lot of chancers pushing 'green' products which are nothing of the sort.

This will ensure that the turbine is rotating about 90% of the time with power output ranging from about 3 to 6kW.

LOL. That is simply fantasy land. (Hint: prove me wrong if you can.)

Remember, my point was that houses should be built with these features, i.e., incorporating them into the design of the house.

Much better insulation, passive solar, and yes, solar water heating would be a far better start. Of course there's no reason we can't do conservation AND renewables where possible AND nuclear. We need to tackle our dependence on imported oil, coal and gas on all fronts not just one.

But, it is estimated that renewable sources such as wind, tidal, geothermal, wave, hydro and bio-fuels have the potential to generate up to 585TWh in the UK.

Sure there is plenty of potential there. Problem is, all the easy stuff (hydro) is being done already, the rest is expensive, unreliable, not invented yet or blights the landscape.

We would still be effectively importing a large chunk of our energy.

So what. We can do this for nuclear as a one-off transaction and have a strategic stockpile right here in Ireland that gives us years of energy security.
It's no different from, say, importing a stockpile of silicon wafers just in case someone tried to hold us to ransom for all the solar panels we'll be installing :rolleyes:

Uranium and Thorium are finite resources. Granted, there’s a fair bit of the stuff out there, but it won’t last forever.

But you'd rather we just ignore it anyway, because it's not a perfect solution to everything? That makes no sense.

Overall, I think switching to nuclear would be a very shortsighted solution and it would undermine the drive for greater energy efficiency.

After all, nothing promotes energy efficiency like power cuts and that's the future we're looking at...

I think people see nuclear as the “quick-fix” to climate change, when no such quick fix exists; nuclear cannot tackle climate change alone.

Come on. Nobody is saying nuclear is the answer alone, or a quick anything. It will take years to plan, construct and commission which is why we need to get cracking now.

djpbarry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I don't know of anyone who looks to nuclear as a quick fix. Many people look to it reluctantly, some look to it as the lesser of two evils.

The lesser of two evils? In my opinion, nuclear should be an absolute last resort. It is quite possible for Ireland to meet its energy needs using renewables alone. At present, the maximum capacity of our fossil-fuelled power plants is 3951MW. But, if we reduce our energy requirements, which, as I have already stated, is not difficult to achieve (more stringent planning laws, etc), then replacing this capacity with renewables is achievable. Renewable energy resources are abundantly available in Ireland, but only a fraction of these resources have been tapped so far. Just to put things in perspective, the total installed capacity of wind farms in Ireland (April 2007) was 782MW. The challenge is hardly insurmountable.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'd like too to point out that national sovereignty is being mixed into the argument. This is a quite separate issue…

I disagree – we should be reducing our reliance on imports (for energy, that is).

Jackie Laughlin wrote:

Can someone confirm for me that there is no technical reason why a grid cannot be fed from small quantity, locally produced energy as well as from large-scaled generators?

Investment in a new nuclear programme would require the development of a centralised grid system and could therefore decrease the investment available for the network reinforcement needed to cope with much higher levels of decentralised generation (micro-generation) and large-scale renewables.

silverharp

djpbarry - It is quite possible for Ireland to meet its energy needs using renewables alone. At present, the maximum capacity of our fossil-fuelled power plants is 3951MW. But, if we reduce our energy requirements, which, as I have already stated, is not difficult to achieve (more stringent planning laws, etc), then replacing this capacity with renewables is achievable. Renewable energy resources are abundantly available in Ireland, but only a fraction of these resources have been tapped so far. Just to put things in perspective, the total installed capacity of wind farms in Ireland (April 2007) was 782MW. The challenge is hardly insurmountable.>quote



Just one point there, you mention planning laws but this will only affect new builds. If there are 2million plus existing houses these would need to be retrofited to best standards you are talking about 10K-20K per house you are talking about 20 to 30bn euros. It’s possible but it ain’t easy. Throw in peak oil and the country will need to figure out how to feed people and move people and things around with $200 oil and suddenly you have a perfect storm

djpbarry

ninja900 wrote:

prove me wrong if you can

But you’re not stating any facts? What exactly are you asking me to disprove?

ninja900 wrote:

Sure there is plenty of potential there. Problem is, all the easy stuff (hydro) is being done already, the rest is expensive, unreliable, not invented yet or blights the landscape.

More expensive than nuclear?!?

Not invented yet? Every renewable technology I have referred to is already in use, the only exception being wave energy, which is currently in development here in Ireland, in Portugal and in Scotland. As for “blighting the landscape”, are you trying to tell me that nuclear power stations are pleasing on the eye?

ninja900 wrote:

We can do this for nuclear as a one-off transaction and have a strategic stockpile right here in Ireland that gives us years of energy security.

How many years? 5? 10? 100?

Let’s first ignore the fact that the quantity of uranium necessary for this is not readily available – it has to be mined, converted, enriched and fabricated (all of which consumes energy). Now, let’s say we want to replace our current fossil-fuel electrical generation with nuclear (assuming our energy demands do not increase). Using the current spot-price of uranium (which is sky-rocketing), that would cost us over €200 million per year (and remember, this is all hypothetical).

ninja900 wrote:

But you'd rather we just ignore it anyway, because it's not a perfect solution to everything? That makes no sense.

I’m not ignoring it, but let’s not forget one of the main goals here is to reduce our carbon emissions. If we switch to nuclear, we’re not reducing our emissions by all that much, from a global perspective.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote:

I’m not ignoring it, but let’s not forget one of the main goals here is to reduce our carbon emissions. If we switch to nuclear, we’re not reducing our emissions by all that much, from a global perspective.

Can that be backed up, alternative energy systems have to be manufactured using fossil fuel energy and mined materials, how much steel is there in your average offshore wind turbine and how much oil did it take to make?

djpbarry

silverharp wrote:

Can that be backed up, alternative energy systems have to be manufactured using fossil fuel energy and mined materials, how much steel is there in your average offshore wind turbine and how much oil did it take to make?

Everything requires energy in order to be manufactured, including nuclear power plants, but renewable technologies don't require (non-renewable) fuels to operate.

maniac101

silverharp wrote:

Can that be backed up, alternative energy systems have to be manufactured using fossil fuel energy and mined materials, how much steel is there in your average offshore wind turbine and how much oil did it take to make?

Very little actually. It's been calculated that the CO2 payback period for a wind turbine in Ireland is about 6 months. However, this only takes into account the manufacture and installation. In truth, wind turbines have considerable CO2 emissions associated with them, due to the additional low-efficiency peaking plant required to operate when the wind isn't blowing. I haven't seen any exact figures on this though.

IMO, the nuclear debate is over. We already have enough baseload plants in Ireland. Most of these are brand new gas plants which are built to operate for the next 40 years (if they can get the gas) so they wont be closing anytime soon. Nuclear would have been an alternative had they not been built. No politician in their right minds would consider closing our coal plant (as polluting as it may be). It's by far the most secure source of fossil fuel that we have.

I suspect that the people at DCENR are more concerned with securing our unreliable gas supply. This will involve the contentious issue of bringing online the Corrib gas field and the building of facilities to take LNG.

The real challenge for Ireland is our transport requirement. We have an excessive requirement for transport fuel built-in to our economy, due to the way we plan our towns and cities (and countryside).It'll take generations to change this. I suppose that brings it back into the remit of Gormley, which is what this thread was originally about.

Hotblack Desiato

djpbarry wrote:

But you’re not stating any facts? What exactly are you asking me to disprove?

I said that the figures you quoted were laughable.
Can you show that "a domestic turbine is rotating about 90% of the time with power output ranging from about 3 to 6kW" is credible and under what circumstances?

More expensive than nuclear?!?

Quite possibly, yes, at the very least we need a rational evaluation of the cost of massive renewable projects.

Not invented yet? Every renewable technology I have referred to is already in use, the only exception being wave energy, which is currently in development here in Ireland, in Portugal and in Scotland. As for “blighting the landscape”, are you trying to tell me that nuclear power stations are pleasing on the eye?

Usually when these sort of 'potential' figures are quoted they include tidal and wave, which are certainly not ready for prime time by any stretch of the imagination. They may never turn out to be practical on a commercial scale.

Nuclear power stations don't have to be less visually attractive than any other thermal power plant. To generate electricity on a similar scale with, say, wind power would require a huge number of turbines (plus backup fossil power stations for when the wind is too weak or too strong to use.) Look at eirgrid's wind power graphs - we can't rationally run a large fraction of a power network off such a variable source.

Let’s first ignore the fact that the quantity of uranium necessary for this is not readily available – it has to be mined, converted, enriched and fabricated (all of which consumes energy).

Solar panels or wind turbines don't exactly grow on trees either.

Using the current spot-price of uranium (which is sky-rocketing), that would cost us over €200 million per year (and remember, this is all hypothetical).

Source please.