Nuclear Energy.

Capt'n Midnight

zippy 99 wrote: »

To address the question that started the thread.

The problem with nuclear energy is outlined by Charles Galton Darwin in his book 'The next Million years'.

He states that plentyful and cheap energy would lead to larger families and overpopulation.

So it has been propagated as ungreen, to sway the opinion of the masses aganist it.

as has been pointed out in high energy economies populations are shrinking,


if you had enough energy you could extract carbon dioxide and water from air
food is not a problem you can make nitrogen fertilizers from water and air, you can make methane from limestone and water (via calcium dicarbide) ICI used to have a large fermentation vessel they put in methane and fertilizer in one end and out the other end they got as much protein from bacteria as you would if you had an areas the size of Wales growing soya.

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

even if best practice nuclear power is safe you have to remember we are in a banana republic

A banana republic with absolutely sterling safety records in running power generating stations.

probe

bonkey wrote: »

A banana republic with absolutely sterling safety records in running power generating stations.

Operating the existing power generation plant is little more than running large scale central heating boilers!

Running one or two nuclear generating plants safely, on a damp island, not to mention dealing with raw material and waste issues, is a different ball game entirely.

The capital cost of nuclear is huge - France is in the process of selling two installations to the United Arab Emirates for about $6 billion.

The same investment would buy about 6 GW of solar - with nearly twice the capacity of these nuclear power plants. Solar has no raw material cost to operate, and no waste to dispose of.

.probe

bonkey

probe wrote: »

Operating the existing power generation plant is little more than running large scale central heating boilers!

So thats why Moneypoint has a dedicated fire service, then? Because its all so simple and safe?

The same investment would buy about 6 GW of solar - with nearly twice the capacity of these nuclear power plants. Solar has no raw material cost to operate, and no waste to dispose of.

What, exactly, do you mean when you say 6GW? Is that 6GW total installed capacity, or does it mean that the average production will be 6GW? If the former, what is the minimum which will be generated, how often will this minimum be likely to occur, and are there additional costs to offset where this minimum falls below demand?

probe

bonkey wrote: »

So thats why Moneypoint has a dedicated fire service, then? Because its all so simple and safe?

If you had a 900 MW central heating system in your house, run on coal, you would have a dedicated fire service too! The average household with a family car doesn't need staff to maintain "the fleet". If you had say 500 cars, you would have a full time staff to manage the fleet. It is a matter of scale. And national security - if Moneypoint goes up in smoke, so does about 15% of Ireland's generating capacity.

What, exactly, do you mean when you say 6GW? Is that 6GW total installed capacity, or does it mean that the average production will be 6GW? If the former, what is the minimum which will be generated, how often will this minimum be likely to occur, and are there additional costs to offset where this minimum falls below demand?

I am comparing on a like with like basis - installed capacity. That minimum using solar will go down to near zero at night, every night. But demand for electricity also falls dramatically overnight. They (UAE) already have an installed capacity of non-nuclear plant to meet base load demand. That part of the world has some of the best solar potential in the world - like Ireland has some of the best wind and wave power etc.

As things evolve over the next few decades, electric cars of one type or another will take over and have a huge energy storage capacity to plug into the national grid while they are parked.

The raw material for nuclear is also running out - not unlike the peak oil concept. You end up having to mine low grade material which ultimately will consume more energy to refine than it produces.

Nuclear in 2008 is not a solution for small countries like UAE and Ireland - both of which have more than their share of renewables (more than their populations will require), and no economy of scale or technical experience in nuclear.

While Ireland has a very low risk of terrorism in my view, it is sitting right next to an island that has been engaged in "state sponsored terrorism" for hundreds of years, all over the world. Given the prevailing winds, an attack on an Irish nuclear power plant would be a near bulls eye for some organisation determined to do damage to that neighbouring island. The UAE is situated in the middle of a tinderbox of problems.

Nuclear is not the best choice for Ireland or the UAE.

France is installing its army in the UAE, in advance of any nuclear power plant!

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/44D7E676-CA92-44AF-9C2E-2652C8452ACD.htm


.probe

SeanW

Firstly, maniac101, your post about the Brown Bros. was very, very suggestive, even though you didn't actually come out and accuse them of anything, it looked like you had stopped just short of it.

Secondly, probe, if the UAE could have done so much better with solar power - why didn't they do just that?

"Installed capacity" is a load of nonsense, becuase that will never happen. Most renewable type generation is frightening unstable - you cannot rely on it consistently, 24/7, full stop. End of story. Let's be absolutely clear about that. There is a major difference between "installed capacity" of a nuclear/fossil plant and the "installed capacity" of something that relies on the weather. You most certainly are not "comparing like with like."

If wave power can be done safely, reliably, consistently, 24/7, in a cost effective way without devastating wildlife, chopping up birds in exposed blades, (such as nuclear power can do) then I would not hesitate to say that Ireland should go hell-for-leather down that road.

Beacuse unlike anti-nukes, my pro-nuclear position is not an absolute religious kind of thing. If something genuinely better comes along, then use it. And no, *points the finger at Germany* that doesn't include brown coal.

As for your statement about "Peak Uranium" I've been through this a hundred times, do I have to go through it again?

probe

SeanW wrote: »

Secondly, probe, if the UAE could have done so much better with solar power - why didn't they do just that?

You obviously haven't read between the lines in the aljazeera item!:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/44D7E676-CA92-44AF-9C2E-2652C8452ACD.htm

"Installed capacity" is a load of nonsense, becuase that will never happen. Most renewable type generation is frightening unstable

Nuclear power stations have to be taken offline all over the world day in, day out, for all sorts of reasons. "Frightening unstable" are words probe would apply to nuclear. While the sun goes down in the evening in UAE far faster than in Ireland, it is predictable.

If wave power can be done safely, reliably, consistently, 24/7, in a cost effective way without devastating wildlife, chopping up birds in exposed blades, (such as nuclear power can do) then I would not hesitate to say that Ireland should go hell-for-leather down that road.

If your worry is with birdlife, I would suggest that your priorities would lie with getting every building flattened and moving everybody to work and live underground. Far more birds are killed or injured flying into buildings, vehicles, etc than the odd windmill. Wave energy isn't a threat to marine life either - anymore than a boat might be, probably less - because the devices are relatively static.

.probe

zippy 99

bonkey wrote: »

If what you're saying is that you believe there is no problem with nuclear energy, but that an artificial one has been created because of some reason to do with transparently false claims about population....then yes, you've stated it clearly.


Then the smart thing to do would be to raise everyone to this position. Get population under control, get the population growth under control, and turn everyone into the sheep that apparently our lords and masters want us to be.



Which would suggest that the Western World doesn't want people to be sheep.

I think you need to reconsider how "clear" your position is.

The western world has got nearly everyone as sheep and that is the way they like it.

They are not too concerned about the africans etc, some say the AIDS virus was developed to take care of them.

Some also say zero point energy has been developed, but kept from the public. I myself would consider this a possibility.

Capt'n Midnight

[QUOTE=probe;54904531 Wave energy isn't a threat to marine life either - anymore than a boat might be, probably less - because the devices are relatively static. [/QUOTE]Agree
Tidal turbines are only of use in areas of strong currents. The blades aren't sharp, nor do they move fast compared to the current. Only animals that could swim in strong currents could survive in those areas so avoiding the turbines is not a problem.

Things like salters duck would be even easier to avoid.

And besides we are hoovering up millions of tonnes of marine animals each year in fishing boats, compared to that by-catch turbines would provide a safe haven away from the trawlers.

Electricity lines have red and while spheres on them to scare away birds. (nearly convinced someone they were floats just like the ones on fishing lines ) If windmills were such a big problem you'd see such things on them too.

Capt'n Midnight

zippy 99 wrote: »

The western world has got nearly everyone as sheep and that is the way they like it.

They are not too concerned about the africans etc, some say the AIDS virus was developed to take care of them.

Some also say zero point energy has been developed, but kept from the public. I myself would consider this a possibility.

Epidemology suggests that AIDS arrived into the US via Haiti in 1964 or thereabouts ( New Scientist article ) - you are 20 years late with that gay plague / bioweapons drivel

ZPM amazing ! - yet the us navy still uses nuclear fuel in reactors and of course a shortcircuted ZPM would make nuclear weapons obsolete

Seriously
This is not a conspiracy forum, even if it was you are regurgitating stuff that has been debunked many times before. I would advise you to get back on topic and stay there before you get banned from this and other forumns too.

SeanW

probe wrote: »

You obviously haven't read between the lines in the aljazeera item!:

I don't get it, you think theres a connection between EDF building their nuclear reactor and their decision to allow the French military to build a base there?

So not only are they paying twice what they need to for the same level of "installed capacity" :rolleyes: but that's somehow connected to them giving up a portion of their soveirgnty by letting the French build military bases on their soil.

Jeepers the UAE government must really be running blind according to you.

Nuclear power stations have to be taken offline all over the world day in, day out, for all sorts of reasons.

And the same is true of fossil fuel fired baseline load plant. But both nuclear and fossil fuels are fundamentally reliable, which is why they tend to form the backbones of every single power grid on Earth.

If your worry is with birdlife, I would suggest that your priorities would lie with getting every building flattened and moving everybody to work and live underground. Far more birds are killed or injured flying into buildings, vehicles, etc than the odd windmill.

You're probably right.

But just for fun, I may as well give everyone a laugh and take a leaf out of Greenpeace's book. (The following is a joke)

Wind power kills birds. Little cute creatures lose their way and get owned by evil bird-munching blades that will haunt mankind for generations.


Won't someone please think of Tweety

probe

SeanW wrote: »

I don't get it, you think theres a connection between EDF building their nuclear reactor and their decision to allow the French military to build a base there?

So not only are they paying twice what they need to for the same level of "installed capacity" :rolleyes: but that's somehow connected to them giving up a portion of their soveirgnty by letting the French build military bases on their soil.

Jeepers the UAE government must really be running blind according to you.

You are reading the story the wrong way around… (twisting it?). France wants a strategic military base in that area. The UAE has nice sea views over a sea located at the centre of the global hydrocarbon energy map. A sea that is used by big oil and gas producing economies – Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Iran and of course the UAE itself. Between them, these countries hold over half the world’s known oil reserves.

While the UAE has a small population (about the same as Ireland), it has over 8% of the world’s oil reserves on its territory. And therefore no pressing need to install a nuclear power plant. But I suspect that they would value the protection that a big European country’s military machine would give them.

The cute Emiratis (who know how to drive a hard bargain) appear to me to be saying OK France, you can put your base on our soil, but we want your nuclear technology in exchange. They have no pressing need for the n-power at the moment, but they know that once the plant(s) is/are installed, France is going to be committed to protect it. And protect the UAE in the process, with little chance of France walking away from the commitment if/when the going gets tough.

Strategically therefore it is probably closer to a “nuclear weapon” in Emirati eyes than an energy machine. And of course they are aware that their oil reserves won’t last forever.

Hectares of solar panels in the desert would not achieve the same objective….

.probe

p.s. the project is going to Areva (areva.com), Total (total.com) and Suez (suez.fr) in a consortium - not EdF.

Map: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=uae&ie=UTF8&ll=28.709861,55.437012&spn=16.915491,34.628906&z=6&om=0

zippy 99

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Epidemology suggests that AIDS arrived into the US via Haiti in 1964 or thereabouts ( New Scientist article ) - you are 20 years late with that gay plague / bioweapons drivel

ZPM amazing ! - yet the us navy still uses nuclear fuel in reactors and of course a shortcircuted ZPM would make nuclear weapons obsolete

Seriously
This is not a conspiracy forum, even if it was you are regurgitating stuff that has been debunked many times before. I would advise you to get back on topic and stay there before you get banned from this and other forumns too.

You lot are so quick to call for bans.

Anyone posting on any board here that dosent go along with the 99% consensus of the people who post here risks being banned.

Loosen up a bit, maybe you will learn something.

Too many moderators here in my opinion, they are tripping over eachother.

bonkey

probe wrote: »

If you had a 900 MW central heating system in your house, run on coal, you would have a dedicated fire service too! T

Damn skippy I would.

The reason I'd have it is the same reason as Moneypoint has it. The weight of coal in teh stacks can and regularly does cause spontaneous combustion. I'd want a fire-brigade to make sure that I didn't have a coal-fire of frightening proportions raging within the first few days of having a delivery.

So seriously...I fail to see how its as safe as an oversized family boiler. I dunno about your house, but where I live, we haven't had to put small uncontrolled fires out on a regular basis.

It is a matter of scale. And national security

Its a matter of basic safety. I've been through the coal-stacks in Moneypoint numerous times. I've seen smouldering and flames, even on rainy days. I've been around the plant, and seen everything from the inside of a boiler to the inside of a socket-box....and the attention to safety and quality has always been top notch.

Hagar

How do the Greens suggest that we re-cycle Nuclear waste?
Surely the Finnish proposal of deep underground burial amounts to little more than very expensive landfill dumping?
I wouldn't have thought that to be a very Green solution.

Capt'n Midnight

probe wrote: »

While the UAE has a small population (about the same as Ireland), it has over 8% of the world’s oil reserves on its territory. And therefore no pressing need to install a nuclear power plant. But I suspect that they would value the protection that a big European country’s military machine would give them.

The French have sent in the troops to protect their bases in Africa during civil unrest / wars many times.

Oil wells in the desert means lots of deep holes with no associated water table. You'd think they would be suitable for waste storage, and the Norweigians do it for carbon dioxide, but wells contain oil that isn't economically extractable, as the price goes up and technology improves they will no doubt recover more in future. The russians shelved a plan to use nukes to build underground gas storage resevoirs one of the reasons is that they would not be able to sell gas that has the taint of radioactivity even if the risk was minimal.

oscarBravo

zippy 99, I know you're banned from Conspiracy Theories, but that doesn't make it OK to post them here. If you continue to do so, you'll be banned from here also. This is your only warning.

Also, your comments about "too many moderators" are ill-informed. There is one moderator (Keeks) of this forum, and I moderate the "Soc" category. Everyone else here is just a normal poster, as you'd see if you read the list of forum names beside a moderator's "Mod:" label.

Back on topic, please.

oscarBravo

Nuclear threads merged.

Ferris

djpbarry wrote: »

But these power stations would obviously be operating at higher capacity without the wind turbines. Besides, the Danish grid is heavily interconnected to the European electrical grid and, in practice, Denmark exports almost half of its wind-power to Norway.

My point is that they are still reliant on Gas, which is not going to last forever and will be under the control of Russia.

djpbarry wrote: »

As opposed to nuclear power stations?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant

10MW is 7 large wind turbines (750KW). The proposed plant at Galena, Alaska is going to measure 22 × 16 × 11 m. What is the greater eyesore?

djpbarry wrote: »

Large upfront cost (which also applies to nuclear), yes, but very low running cost. As for "environmental impact" :rolleyes:

Nuclear has a low running cost. Agreed that the enviromental problem of nuclear waste is considerable. What I am saying is that why do we have to burn out the gas and oil before we realise that the only other source of constant power currently in evidence is Nuclear. Also up to 95% of nuclear waste can be reprocessed. to provide more power. Burning coal by the way releases more harmful radiation than nuclear power generation.

djpbarry wrote: »

Even still, a simple solar system can provide a house with 30-40% of its annual heating requirement.

My bosses house has solar panels and he wishes he'd never bothered. If left alone they provide low quality heat by 11am at the earliest in Winter. After his family have left for the day. They may use the water in the evening but it doesn't last that long. Probably more energy used in the manufacture than they'll ever save.

• Gas and oil will run out.
• They will increase in cost before they run out.
• We need an alternative base load energy supply.
• No renewable can provide a decent base load all the time.
• Ireland needs to secure a replacement form of power generation to secure the nations interests.
• At this time Nuclear is the only option.

Capt'n Midnight

Ferris wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant

10MW is 7 large wind turbines (750KW). The proposed plant at Galena, Alaska is going to measure 22 × 16 × 11 m. What is the greater eyesore?

http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/122604/loc_20041226003.shtml

Licensing will be an involved process that will take several years and substantial funding by Toshiba, Yoder said. It will also include development of a federal environmental impact statement.
...

In comparison, improved diesel generation could provide Galena power for 25 cents to 35 cents per kWh. Coal-fired power comes in as a serious alternative in the study, at 21 cents to 26 cents per kWh, Chaney told the mining group. A small coal-powered plant could use coal extracted from a thick coal seam about 12 miles from the community.

The nuclear option looks good even if Galena were to pay for the reactor. In that case the power costs were estimated at 15 cents to 25 cents per kWh in the study, Chaney said. Toshiba has estimated the cost of the 4S reactor at $25 million. Galena's power is now 28 cents per kWh.

However, the nuclear costs vary so much because of uncertainty over the number of security guards the federal NRC may require at the site, Chaney said. Toshiba told SAIC that if the NRC's current regulations are followed, 34 security guards would be needed at the Galena site.

...

And as with any nuclear power plant, long-term disposal of radioactive waste is always an issue, although the nuclear materials would not be removed from a unit in Alaska.

Windmills only take a few m2 of area for the base. You can still let animals graze under them.

The size of the building you quoted is for the surface. The reactor would be buried forever, sounds like it would solve the waste problem. But you'd need a new reactor every 30 years so another hole. Another place where people need to be warned away from for a long time. Longer than the time since there were ground ripping glaciers up there. The site may need armed guards even after it's finished with, as the nuclear material would still be usable after the reactor has ended it's power generating days.

Also the site would be fenced off , how big a perimiter ?

This reactor is better than the thermoelectric ones the Russians used in Siberia thought, those are still a disater.

Economics ?
Toshiba are footing the bill for many of the non direct costs. No doubt their costs are optimistic as most new technology projects run over budget by large percentages.

Alternatives
Coal 12 miles, and you are in Alaska where heat is a concern. Let's not forget the nuclear plant will be producing too much power much of time. If you were to gassify the coal you could store the producer gas and combined with a gas turbine generator you could keep fuel usage to a minimum.

You can only get there by barge 3 or 4 months a year or by air

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena,_Alaska - oh yeah it floods too.

What is best for an isolated community of 675 is not necessiarly the best for the rest of us.

SeanW

The proposed Galena plant is a "nuclear battery."

That means Toshiba is building the reactor, filling it up with a fuel loading adequate to last 30 years. IIRC after that time they're going to come and take the whole thing back to Japan.

In the meantime, the people of the geographically challenged town of Galena will be enjoying clean, safe electricity the costs of which will be in line with the U.S. national average.

To say that its a good deal for the people of Galena would be the understatement of the millenium.

We could take the approach of buying a whole load of those "nuclear batteries" to produce small amounts of energy close to where it will be needed. Like one in every large town, a number in each city.

I have two last questions to those who oppose nuclear power while rejecting my assertion that the question is one of fossil fuels vs. nuclear.

1) Why do you not oppose the continued operation of Moneypoint, nor did you oppose the building boom of CCGT plants that this country has experienced?
2) If it were to be proposed, by for example, the ESB to construct nuclear power stations - with the stated intention of constructing such plants to directly replace Moneypoint etc - what would your stance be?

maniac101

The nuclear option looks good even if Galena were to pay for the reactor. In that case the power costs were estimated at 15 cents to 25 cents per kWh in the study, Chaney said. Toshiba has estimated the cost of the 4S reactor at $25 million. Galena's power is now 28 cents per kWh.

To put that into perspective: at the moment the cost of wind energy in Ireland is less than 5c per kWh. This includes all planning, land, infrastructural and system connection costs, as well as the costs of turbines and their operation and maintenance over a 15-year lifespan. The electricity produced at Galena will cost a multiple of that, and that excludes the huge cost of construction!

If the Irish government was to approve the building of a nuclear plant in the morning, there wouldn't be any companies willing to take it on. Apart from the fact that there'd be no demand in Ireland for all that additional baseload supply on the grid, it's clear to most investors that nuclear couldn't compete with the low costs of wind in the long term. Only if the capital costs of a nuclear plant were subsidised, could nuclear power come close to wind. Thankfully, state subsidies for new power plants in Ireland are now prohibited.

SeanW wrote: »

I have two last questions to those who oppose nuclear power while rejecting my assertion that the question is one of fossil fuels vs. nuclear.

1) Why do you not oppose the continued operation of Moneypoint, nor did you oppose the building boom of CCGT plants that this country has experienced?
2) If it were to be proposed, by for example, the ESB to construct nuclear power stations - with the stated intention of constructing such plants to directly replace Moneypoint etc - what would your stance be?

1. There has been plenty of opposition from environmentalists to the construction of the new generation CCGT plants and to recent reinvestment in Moneypoint, even at Oireachtas level. However, these objections are justified primarily by the fact that baseload plants can't compensate for the variability of power produced from wind and wave.

2. You're asking "those who oppose nuclear power" if they oppose nuclear power ..... so I won't bother answering. By the way, the ESB have no interest in building a nuclear power plant in Ireland.

Lennoxschips

1) Why do you not oppose the continued operation of Moneypoint, nor did you oppose the building boom of CCGT plants that this country has experienced?

I can't very well tell you why I don't oppose something I oppose.

2) If it were to be proposed, by for example, the ESB to construct nuclear power stations - with the stated intention of constructing such plants to directly replace Moneypoint etc - what would your stance be?

It would cost way too much money, take too long to build (even if the planning goes hunkey-dorey) and burden future generations with tonnes of highly radioactive waste. At the end of the day, no energy source currently available gives us something for nothing, so a complete rethink of the amount of energy being used by a wasteful society is what is needed instead, and Nuclear only will postpone that rethink.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

The proposed Galena plant is a "nuclear battery."

That means Toshiba is building the reactor, filling it up with a fuel loading adequate to last 30 years. IIRC after that time they're going to come and take the whole thing back to Japan.

In the meantime, the people of the geographically challenged town of Galena will be enjoying clean, safe electricity the costs of which will be in line with the U.S. national average.

To say that its a good deal for the people of Galena would be the understatement of the millenium.

Read the articles
the reactor will probably stay buried
the electricity will cost several multiples of the U.S. national average

it's a brilliant deal for the people of Galena if you look at just the up front dollar cost - massively subsidised energy. the long term costs may differ

Lennoxschips

I imagine that a large amount of energy in that part of Alaska is needed simply to keep warm. You could also upgrade all the housing there to passive housing. Suddenly the pressing need for a new energy source lessens.

SeanW

To put that into perspective: at the moment the cost of wind energy in Ireland is less than 5c per kWh. This includes all planning, land, infrastructural and system connection costs, as well as the costs of turbines and their operation and maintenance over a 15-year lifespan. The electricity produced at Galena will cost a multiple of that, and that excludes the huge cost of construction!

You're comparing apples and oranges mate.

One more time: Wind plant cannot be relied on because it's weather-dependent. That means when the wind doesn't blow, you get no power and if you look at Eirgrid figures, these normally show that the output of our national fleet of windfarms to be frightening unstable. You cannot build a national grid on most weather-based renewbales.

You need to be comparing nulcear with fossil fuels because they provide electricity in the same (dependable) way. Nuclear and fossil fuels provide reliable power supplies. That is why they are the backbone of all power grids on Earth, and weather-based renewables are not.

There has been plenty of opposition from environmentalists to the construction of the new generation CCGT plants and to recent reinvestment in Moneypoint, even at Oireachtas level.

The problem is that if you have no nuclear and no fossil fuels, you have no electricity service. Beginning, middle and end of story. So you have to choose between one or the other. And I always see opposition to nuclear is way more fervent and borderline religious than opposition to fossil fuels.

You're asking "those who oppose nuclear power" if they oppose nuclear power ..... so I won't bother answering. By the way, the ESB have no interest in building a nuclear power plant in Ireland.

I know, that was a hypothetical question.

As for why I'm asking hypthetical questions? Because for the last six months, I've been asking a succession of anti-nuclear boardsies about whether they prefer fossil fuels to nuclear. I've demonstrated that it's a choice between the two, showed stark contrasts between France, whose electricity system is 95%+ non-fossil thanks mainly to a huge nuclear programme. and Germany, which is experiencing a new Coal Rush since they decided to rely on that form of fuel and abandon their nuclear programme, I've posted a Der Spiegel article about it some time back. (BTW no matter how many times I linked to that Der Spiegel article article or discuss Germany's answer to getting rid of a nuclear programme, no one has ever given me an explanation for what the Germans are doing).

It's a simple either/or question, yet every time I ask, and no matter how I ask it, be it straight or in a roundabout way, I get either obfuscation about how Dublin is like Los Angeles, or accused of beating a straw man, or someone starts talking up the advantages of some limp weather-dependent and unstable form of renewable energy, some of which are still only experimental, or other forms of blatantly fanciful thinking. In one extreme case, a poster suggested that we all copy them by living lives of self-imposed poverty and deprivation.

These are very simple questions but I've found that getting very simple answer out of most anti-nukes is like trying to pull a wisdom tooth with a pair of tweezers.

Lennoxschips

One more time: Wind plant cannot be relied on because it's weather-dependent. That means when the wind doesn't blow, you get no power and if you look at Eirgrid figures, these normally show that the output of our national fleet of windfarms to be frightening unstable. You cannot build a national grid on most weather-based renewbales.

Who says we need a national grid?

Capt'n Midnight

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I imagine that a large amount of energy in that part of Alaska is needed simply to keep warm. You could also upgrade all the housing there to passive housing. Suddenly the pressing need for a new energy source lessens.

interesting but probably not a solution in this case. In Scandanavia passive heating will work to -20c
In Galena gets to -51C

http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

Because electricity is so expensive, consumers avoid using it if possible. Electricity and tanked gas each supply less than 4% of the town's heat, fuel oil or kerosene heaters supply 62% and wood supplies 31%. All of the heat sources have significants costs and limitations, but heat is vital for survival in this town where temperatures can sink as low as minus 60 Fahrenheit.

10MW for 675 people

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/business/03power.html -

An Air Force base uses most of the town's electricity.

...

While the town of Galena has listed a reactor as its preferred option, some of its neighbors sound a little wary. A representative of the Yukon River Intertribal Watershed Council, an organization of 58 tribal governments, was patched in to the meeting by telephone. One tribe is trying to enact a ban on transportation of radioactive material on the river. This would doom the plan.

Lennoxschips

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

interesting but probably not a solution in this case. In Scandanavia passive heating will work to -20c
In Galena gets to -51C

Humans have shown themselves to be very adaptable creatures. Native people have been able to live there in the past with no large energy demand.

But now people from other parts of the US want to live there and walk around indoors in 19 degrees celsius and pretend they are in California. It's an example of human folly.

This is what I mean by rethink.

Ferris

maniac101 wrote: »

To put that into perspective: at the moment the cost of wind energy in Ireland is less than 5c per kWh. This includes all planning, land, infrastructural and system connection costs, as well as the costs of turbines and their operation and maintenance over a 15-year lifespan.

These Guys disagree with your costings:

A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 (€45.44) per tonne CO2 for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal, nuclear and gas ranged £0.022-0.026/kWh and coal gasification was £0.032/kWh. When carbon tax was added (up to £0.025) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up power) at £0.054/kWh — offshore wind is £0.072/kWh -- nuclear power remained at £0.023/kWh either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO2. (Nuclear figures included decommissioning costs.)[30][31][1]
The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

I do not think that we should build a nuclear plant now, but we need to explore the possibility of a new base load provider to replace fossil fuels/gas generation. Can any of you suggest an alternative that is going to provide a reliable, 24hr supply?

maniac101

SeanW wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges mate.

One more time: Wind plant cannot be relied on because it's weather-dependent. That means when the wind doesn't blow, you get no power and if you look at Eirgrid figures, these normally show that the output of our national fleet of windfarms to be frightening unstable. You cannot build a national grid on most weather-based renewbales.

No, power generated from wind isn't "unstable". All commercial wind farms are synchronised with the grid before coming online. Modern wind farms also have the capacity to correct the power factor. So stability isn't an issue.

However, power from wind is variable and unpredictable, which is probably what you're getting at. These issues can be addressed if we put enough storage capacity and interconnections with other systems in place. Unfortunately, efforts to address this infrastucture deficit have been inadequate to-date. The daily Eirgrid figures simply highlight this.

And I always see opposition to nuclear is way more fervent and borderline religious than opposition to fossil fuels.

To be fair, most people reading this thread would agree that one person is far "more fervent and borderline religious" about the topic than anyone else, and it's not anyone opposed to nuclear. And who is that person? Hint: Look at your signature!;)

I know, that was a hypothetical question.

As for why I'm asking hypthetical questions? Because for the last six months, I've been asking a succession of anti-nuclear boardsies about whether they prefer fossil fuels to nuclear.

If you had an understanding of the Irish electricity market, (rather than the French or German one), you would realise that it's not a choice between nuclear and fossil fuels, it's a choice between nuclear and renewables. Since late last year, Ireland has a new all-island market for electricity generation in place. The market requires generators to bid unit electricity prices every half hour. The generators with the highest prices just don't get to sell their electricity if the half-hour demand can be satisfied without them. Wind generators don't have to bid, as their unit sell prices are already agreed. With an expected 4500MW wind capacity in 2020, (and a baseload of 2000MW), a nuclear power plant simply wouldn't be able to sell its electricity when the wind blows.

So there you have it: for economic reasons, a nuclear power plant won't be built on this island. No-one is interested in building one as long as the 33% renewablew target for 2020 is in place. It's got nothing to do with ideology, safety or nuclear waste.

Ferris wrote: »

Can any of you suggest an alternative that is going to provide a reliable, 24hr supply?

As explained above, in a properly interconnected grid with adequate storage capacity and an international market for excess power from renewables, there's no room for nuclear.

Ferris

maniac101 wrote: »

So there you have it: for economic reasons, a nuclear power plant won't be built on this island. No-one is interested in building one as long as the 33% renewablew target for 2020 is in place. It's got nothing to do with ideology, safety or nuclear waste.


As explained above, in a properly interconnected grid with adequate storage capacity and an international market for excess power from renewables, there's no room for nuclear.

At last - a sensible answer instead of bluff or rant. You seem to be better informed than the rest of us. Personally I feel that we should go for viable renewables where possible but I think that it is unlikely that we will achieve the 2020 target of 33%. And there still is a baseload that is generated using fossil fuels to consider.

All I am saying is that we should keep an eye on the newer types of Nuclear reactors like the pebble bed's and the Toshiba 4s as potentially, as fossil fuels increase in price, these units will become more economically viable and will be investigated by private generators.

Also what is the storage capacity that you refer to? Hydroelectric resevoirs?

bonkey

maniac101 wrote: »

These issues can be addressed if we put enough storage capacity and interconnections with other systems in place.

Storage capacity is, as far as I know, beyond even the theoretical. We have no idea how to store quantities of power efficiently which would allow us to power large percentages of the country for potentially days on end (were the country to be hit by a stable patch of calm weather).

Which leaves interconnectors....which is a nice way of saying that we don't need to build a base-load capacity, because we can just buy someone else's base-load capacity off them when we need it. It still requires that someone, somewhere, has that base-load capacity, and enough of it to cover our needs.

The question then becomes whether the Chernobyl-waiting-to-happen station and the won't-someone-think-of-the-children waste are really objectionable, or merely their location.

If you had an understanding of the Irish electricity market, (rather than the French or German one), you would realise that it's not a choice between nuclear and fossil fuels, it's a choice between nuclear and renewables.

I would wager that Ireland has comissioned more MW in fossil-fuel in 2007 (if we include the extension of Moneypoint) than it has in renewables since the start of the decade.

Between the refurbishment of Moneypoint, and the new gas turbines they've comissioned, we're locked into fossil fuels for baseload for the next 20+ years.

Then again, when people talk about nuclear, they say it would take "too much time"...which makes me wonder. If we started looking at nuclear now, we might be in a position in about 10 years to make an informed decision as to whether or not nuclear or renewable are the appropriate replacement for our fossil-fuel baseload systems. That would still leave us with 10-15 years to develop nuclear having made an informed decision. It would also give renewables 10 years to prove their worth, because despite being praised as the saviour of mankind by their supporters, its far from certain that they're suitable for widespread adoption to replace baseload.

With an expected 4500MW wind capacity in 2020, (and a baseload of 2000MW), a nuclear power plant simply wouldn't be able to sell its electricity when the wind blows.

Sell it abroad, over those interconnectors you advocated earlier in the post.

So there you have it: for economic reasons, a nuclear power plant won't be built on this island.

A nuclear plant won't be necessary, if wind proves it can scale up to your estimated 4500MW and if it is regularly generating enough that we have to import little and if there is someone willing and able to supply us when we do need to import.

No-one is interested in building one as long as the 33% renewablew target for 2020 is in place. It's got nothing to do with ideology, safety or nuclear waste.

No, its because people are apparently quite happy with the other 67% being generated from coal and gas.

As explained above, in a properly interconnected grid with adequate storage capacity and an international market for excess power from renewables, there's no room for nuclear.

With a properly interconnected grid you can export your surplus.

Capt'n Midnight

If anyone figures a way of storing electricity cheaply safely and in a volume / weight that isn't too much bigger than a petrol tank then the internal combustion engine will disappear. Electric motors are up three times as efficient as a petrol engine and can accelerate faster too. That is the glittering prize.

Even if you could figure out a way of storing electricity that cost as much as pumped storage but in smaller volume then renewables would be the obvious choice. Maybe compressing air under the sea ?

Ferris

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Even if you could figure out a way of storing electricity that cost as much as pumped storage but in smaller volume then renewables would be the obvious choice. Maybe compressing air under the sea ?

Problem with compressing air is that 90% of the energy input is outputted as heat. Only 10% in energy terms is stored as compressed air. A perfect example of Boyles Law really. You'd have to have a way of recovering this, usually low grade, heat to make this feasible. Thats the problem with the concept of the compressed air powered car.

Of course none of this would be a problem if we had a rake of Nuclear power stations :D:D

djpbarry

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If anyone figures a way of storing electricity cheaply safely and in a volume / weight that isn't too much bigger than a petrol tank then the internal combustion engine will disappear.

The Danes have begun storing excess wind power in the form of hydrogen:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48873

Lennoxschips

The question then becomes whether the Chernobyl-waiting-to-happen station and the won't-someone-think-of-the-children waste are really objectionable, or merely their location.

I don't care if the waste is stored as far away as Nevada or Russia, it's still immoral to produce highly toxic and radioactive waste for future generations to deal with, in the full knowledge that it will take many millennia, ironically longer than CO2 hangs about in the atmosphere, until it becomes safe. It's also immoral to pump tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and burden future generations with climate change.

Like I said, no current energy source gives us something for nothing, so the most obvious solution is to radically reduce our energy usage untill we come up with better sources. And considering how unbelievably wasteful our current society is when it comes to energy usage, radical reduction in energy consumption is the easiest and cheapest option of all. But unfortunately it's also the most difficult for politicians to sell to voters who are hooked on cheap energy like heroin. So do we continue to find more toxic ways to feed the habit or do we go about breaking the habit?

SeanW

Well, I can remember a certain Lou.M that had a similar view to yours, and he/she outlined the lifestyle they lead, the one that would allow us to abandon both nuclear power and fossil fuels. I sure as hell hope you don't mean that by "breaking the habit," because I can assure you that no-one, anywhere, would want to know about it.

That's not to say that conservation measures are a bad idea, in fact I think some things could be done in this area like better public transport, peak-pricing of electricity, restricting the use of incandescent lights, better building codes for insulation etc and so on.

You allude to the fundamental flaw in your argument - energy demand is pretty much fixed and predictably rising - if you don't let people use nuclear, they'll default back to coal. So at the end of the day, you still have to choose. Do you let them use nuclear to prevent ecological damage, like Paris, or do you oppose nuclear and give Big Coal a victory by the back door, like Berlin, Canberra etc. Or do we depend on gas, still hooked on fossil fuels and thus leaving ourselves at the mercy Russia, which is increasingly sliding back towards Stalinism? Let's hope they don't ring in the new year in 2016 the way they did in 2006, because the way we're going, it's going to be "lights out" for us if the Russians get into a temper.

So do we continue to find more toxic ways to feed the habit or do we go about breaking the habit?

No. We find LESS toxic ways to feed our energy wants in the future while using the best technologies we have now, which I consistently advocate as a multi-pronged non-fossil strategy, including nuclear, renewables, biofuels and some conservation measures. Even if we got the cuts you want in energy use worldwide, it likely wouldn't be enough to abadon all fossil and nuclear options - remember that many renewable technologies are totally unreliable.

No-one is interested in building one as long as the 33% renewablew target for 2020 is in place. It's got nothing to do with ideology, safety or nuclear waste.

No, its because people are apparently quite happy with the other 67% being generated from coal and gas.

And that's the crux of the matter.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

The Danes have begun storing excess wind power in the form of hydrogen:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48873

The tanks are at 6 Bar

22.4L/mole divided by 6 (bar) divided by 2g/mole = 1.8L per gramme
very roughly each cubic meter of storage will be able to hold one pound weigh of hydrogen , IIRC the coversion efficience is about 60% so 2/5th's of the wind energy is "lost"

however, hydrogen can be piped long distances and it is used in the chemical and petro chemical industires so there are other uses for it and of course with wind energy it's very low cost when surplus

probe

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Who says we need a national grid?

To make green energy work securely, you need an international grid. Which in turn demands a national grid to plug into at both ends.

What you won't need ultimately is the big power station. They will go the same way as the mainframe computer.

The network is the future. A continent-wide grid (which is already largely in place in the case of Europe) - waiting for Ireland (and Britain) to seriously connect to it.

.probe

Lennoxschips

What does "securely" mean? That the energy doesn't get lost or stolen? I don't understand.

Does secure mean that you want to be able to turn on high energy appliances like a washing machine 24/7? Perhaps with a less reliable energy source people will not be able to turn on the washing machine whenever they want. Maybe they'll have to wait a couple of hours. Is that really a huge problem?

Give each household an energy budget per person. It's too cheap and too abundant.

SeanW

Yes, big government screwing around with people's lives while the economy collapses, great idea there Lenny.

One example - in 2003 IIRC it was reported that if the electricity supply failed for even two seconds, Intel Ireland would lose €100,000. Your idea sounds like a nice way of sending major employers like Intel and all their jobs to China. Our economy is fundamentally reliant on an efficient, dependable supply of electricity.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should allow the electricity system to become unreliable? You do realise that this would cause our economy to collapse, as businesses would start an exodus out of Ireland, and individuals (who could afford to) would resort to buying domestic generators. Unless you want to want to ration diesel too, so that we can go back to ... I don't know ... 1984?

Or are we finally admitting that the opposition to nuclear power arises from the fact that it can be done in a reasonably cost effective way, and provide abundant energy? Would it be the case that a large, clean, efficient nuclear energy programme would take away the reasoning to impose draconian lifestyle changes on everyone?

Lennoxschips

Obviously things like hospitals, traffic lights, intel etc need a constant uninterrupted power supply. There's no reason however that villages and housing estates shouldn't be encouraged to go off the national grid and on to their own renewable mini-grid, where energy efficiency is encouraged and things like solar water heating and energy neutral buildings are standard. That's not draconian, in fact it should have been enacted 20 years ago. People would have to think about their energy usage as well. When is the best time to turn on the dryer, perhaps it's better to wash the dishes in the sink, maybe it's better to buy a small television instead of a 50 inch plasma. I don't consider any of these things draconian. It's just time to stop and think.

You always say that being against Nuclear power means being for coal power. Well here's another one then: being for Nuclear power means you are inherently against energy efficiency. Some people on this thread are even talking about becoming an exporter of energy. All this, whether you like it or not, discourages much needed energy efficiency developments in Ireland, which lags behind the rest of Europe. Power companies, including nuclear ones, want us to use as much energy as possible. They don't want the consumer to get wise about efficiency and save money.

Nuclear power will only postpone that much needed societal and infrastructural development with regards to efficiency and burden us and future generations with radioactive rubbish, ironically for many thousands of years longer than atmospheric CO2 will be a problem. I'm sure people in the year 12008 AD (or whoever is around then) will be delighted that we burdened them with a massive stockpile of decaying radioactive isotopes in order to solve a climate problem from 10000 years ago. It's trading one problem for another.

Or are we finally admitting that the opposition to nuclear power arises from the fact that it can be done in a reasonably cost effective way, and provide abundant energy? Would it be the case that a large, clean, efficient nuclear energy programme would take away the reasoning to impose draconian lifestyle changes on everyone?

No, because I keep harping on about the radioactive waste, which is anything but clean and has no final solution.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Obviously things like hospitals, traffic lights, intel etc need a constant uninterrupted power supply. There's no reason however that villages and housing estates shouldn't be encouraged to go off the national grid and on to their own renewable mini-grid, where energy efficiency is encouraged and things like solar water heating and energy neutral buildings are standard. That's not draconian, in fact it should have been enacted 20 years ago.

There isn't a single benefit to be offered to such people for being off-grid.

There may be benefits to locally-generated electricity, but a grid means that you can sell surplus to others when you have it, and buy surplus from others when you need it. A grid doesn't rule out local sourcing, but the lack of a grid does rule out load-balancing, shortfall-and-surplus-management, and so forth.

There is, therefore, perhaps a criticism to be made that our national grid doesn't lend itself to local input, but is purely a distribution framework, but the solution to that is not removing the grid.

I don't consider any of these things draconian.

There are people who think that having a mostly-unheated house, turning vegetarian, and eating only one-pot meals isn't draconian. There are people who think being asked to as much as spare a thought for efficiency instead of buying their American-standard gas-guzzler is draconian.

What individuals think is acceptable is mostly beside the point.

You always say that being against Nuclear power means being for coal power. Well here's another one then: being for Nuclear power means you are inherently against energy efficiency.

But then being for wind and solar means the same. Renewable advocates - although now with the exception of yourself - have been insisting that we can make the transfer from conventional thermal to renewables without sacrifice. They've argued that we don't need to lose reliability, quantity, or anything that we currently have by moving from coal/gas to renewables, and thus nuclear is not needed.

Why aren't you taking your "anti-efficiency" argument up with those people as well as with those advocating nuclear, gas, or any other option? Singling out one of the many groups who argue that we can meet ongoing energy demands with a given strategy as being anti-efficiency isn't the most objective.

maniac101

bonkey wrote: »

I would wager that Ireland has comissioned more MW in fossil-fuel in 2007 (if we include the extension of Moneypoint) than it has in renewables since the start of the decade.

You'd lose your wager: Nearly 1000MW of wind power has been commissioned since the start of the decade. And the Moneypoint project is not an extension.

Between the refurbishment of Moneypoint, and the new gas turbines they've comissioned, we're locked into fossil fuels for baseload for the next 20+ years.

I agree. That is a realistic forecast.

Then again, when people talk about nuclear, they say it would take "too much time"...which makes me wonder. If we started looking at nuclear now, we might be in a position in about 10 years to make an informed decision as to whether or not nuclear or renewable are the appropriate replacement for our fossil-fuel baseload systems. That would still leave us with 10-15 years to develop nuclear having made an informed decision. It would also give renewables 10 years to prove their worth, because despite being praised as the saviour of mankind by their supporters, its far from certain that they're suitable for widespread adoption to replace baseload.

Interesting, isn't it, that those promoting the idea of nuclear power always end up searching for arguments to undermine renewables. Well, at least you're admitting that it's one or the other, which was what I was saying in my post a couple of days ago.

Which leaves interconnectors....which is a nice way of saying that we don't need to build a base-load capacity, because we can just buy someone else's base-load capacity off them when we need it. It still requires that someone, somewhere, has that base-load capacity, and enough of it to cover our needs.

...and...

With a properly interconnected grid you can export your surplus.

Need I point out that you're contradicting yourself in the one post? On the one hand you critisize the idea of using incerconnectors to trade clean renewable electricity with other countries, and on the other, you advocate using an interconnector to sell surplus electricity resulting from the operation of a nuclear plant.

bonkey wrote: »

Renewable advocates - although now with the exception of yourself - have been insisting that we can make the transfer from conventional thermal to renewables without sacrifice.

I have never come across anyone who understands the challenges we face with respect to climate change and depletion of fossil and nuclear fuels, (regardless of their position on nuclear power or renewables), who does not believe that there will be a need for significant "sacrifice" and change of behaviour in the future.

maniac101

Ferris wrote: »

Also what is the storage capacity that you refer to? Hydroelectric resevoirs?

No, Turlough Hill pumped hydro station is really the only central storage system on the grid. Given the potential cost and environmental impact of a significant pumped storage facility, I think a project like Turlough Hill is unlikely to be repeated again in the foreseeable future.

Local storage at wind farm locations offers more potential. Vanadium Redox batteries currently hold the most promise for Irish wind farms. Some research with these flow batteries has just been completed at a wind farm at Sorne Hill, Buncrana, and the results were very positive. The batteries help even out the variability of the power generated. With adequate storage capacity, a wind farm could replicate baseload or peaking plant, as required, for much of the year. Also, if a wind farm with a rated output of 9MW can deliver a consistent 3MW, instead of a fluctuating 0-9MW, significant savings can be made on the transmission infrastructure that needs to be installed to connect to that wind farm.

Lennoxschips

Why aren't you taking your "anti-efficiency" argument up with those people as well as with those advocating nuclear, gas, or any other option? Singling out one of the many groups who argue that we can meet ongoing energy demands with a given strategy as being anti-efficiency isn't the most objective.

Because wind power doesn't produce radioactive waste, so I don't have as much of a problem with it. I hope wind power works, but it probably won't meet all our needs, so much needed improved efficiency will still be needed.

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote:

You always say that being against Nuclear power means being for coal power.

Yes - and I stand over that 100%.

being for Nuclear power means you are inherently against energy efficiency.

Wrong. If you had read my posts, you would know that I've advocated a "mulit-pronged strategy including renewables, nuclear, biofuels AND reasonable conservation measures." I have been quite clear and quite consistent about that. I believe also, that EdF takes a similar approach. They have both nuclear power and a large hydroelectricity system, they also use demand management and IIRC I once saw an advertising poster encouraging people to install solar panels, embrace conservation etc.

Nuclear power will only postpone that much needed societal and infrastructural development

What if Nuclear Fusion power and biodiesel from Algae were found to work? Would you oppose those on similar grounds?

No, because I keep harping on about the radioactive waste, which is anything but clean and has no final solution.

Actually, there is, but it's presently outlawed. That is Subduction Zone Burial. Basically means you place the stuff on the ocean floor where two tectonic plates collide and go down in to the Earths core, and the Nature does the rest - the waste would spend the 50 million years or more going down to the Earth's core. BTW the inner part of our planet is kept warm by the decay of naturally occuring radiation, so our crap would be right at home. Plus, it would never become fuel for a nuclear weapon, nor would it ever threaten or bother any living creature at any time.

It is presently illegal under treaties about oceanic dumping and to be fair I see good reasoning it, but laws can be changed, if we're really that worried about nuclear waste, such as the stockpiles already in existance.

Unlike radiation, plastic never degrades in any way. And since we dump ours in landfills, then an Irish person's lifetime quota of plastic refuse will be a dramatically worse burden on future generations than one handful of radioactive crap. Put it into perspective - if you EVER threw out one of those plastic can holder rings - and it got into the water - it could still be strangling fish two million years from now.
Or two billion years, even.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

What if Nuclear Fusion power and biodiesel from Algae were found to work? Would you oppose those on similar grounds?

diesel from algae - beats bioethanol because you don't need to waste lots of energy on distillation
nuclear fission generates a wide variety of fission products - will dig up details later bu IIRC one half of the atom weighs about 10 amu more then the other and there is a gaussian disribtion away from the most common ones
fission produces far fewer isotopes , most of which are short life

That is Subduction Zone Burial.

ie drop on the seabed and hope that in a few thousand years it goes where you want. Should work as long as there are no earth quakes or other tectonic events or any possiblity of leaks. Don't forget that the sea floor ooze is deep and lots of organisms live there.

Unlike radiation, plastic never degrades in any way. And since we dump ours in landfills, then an Irish person's lifetime quota of plastic refuse will be a dramatically worse burden on future generations than one handful of radioactive crap. Put it into perspective - if you EVER threw out one of those plastic can holder rings - and it got into the water - it could still be strangling fish two million years from now.
Or two billion years, even.

FFS
The longest lasting thing I've ever heard of is a GLASS coke bottle will take about 7 million years to degrade
Gutters and PVC windows need additives to protect them from UV otherwise you would not be able to guarantee them for even a few years. Some Pseudomonas species will break down polystyrene

SeanW

Some kinds of plastic never biodegrade, from what I've read, and SuperValu used to have "biodegradeable" plastic bags that had an 18 month lifespan, as opposed to regular bags which they claimed could be around for up to a million years.

In addition, some university students in the U.S. went dumpster diving in landfills and found newspapers dating back to 1952 that were in near pristine condition.
http://www.fortfreedom.org/k35.htm

Makes this

seem kinda small.