Why Not Nuclear Power?

turgon

The issue of nuclear power is a MASSIVE taboo in Ireland. I personally think it is a viable economic means of achieving very cheap electricity, and I would be for its implementation. In this day and age it is very safe too.

However it is a huge political turn off, no one seems to want to do it. Even the greens, who should because it would reduce carbon emissions immensly. A couple of plants, combined with the hydro electric = very renewable power. In Switzerland over 90% of their electric power is from nuclear and hydro (although admittedly they have lots of mountain rivers).

So, what does everyone else think?

And DO NOT pull the Chernobyl card, I don't want to hear a word of it. The Chernobyl plant was built using dodgy Soviet technology that didn't work properly, and was manned by workers from closed coal mines. They were running an unsafe test, and the reason for the meltdown was because the safety features were not working. You can imagine that all other plants in Western Europe are immensely better than this.

Read fully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster before you start splurting that Nuclear power will kill us all.

sovtek

turgon wrote: »

The issue of nuclear power is a MASSIVE taboo in Ireland. I personally think it is a viable economic means of achieving very cheap electricity, and I would be for its implementation. In this day and age it is very safe too.

It's so efficient and safe that in America and the UK the respective government's have decided to heavily subsidize it whilst giving prospective companies exclusion from liability and it's so safe that not a single insurance company will touch it.
Oh yeah and they still haven't figured out how to get rid of the waste. I don't want to hear about Yucca either if we are putting stipulations on the discussion.
Actually I don't need to mention Chernobyl. How about 3 Mile Island, Sellafield, and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa

partypiper

From the construction of the plants through to the transport of the raw materials to the disposal and storage of the hazardous waste materials for thousands of years the NET energy gain is neglible

Meaning the amount amount of energy expended in the safe production of nuclear power is so close to the actual amount produced that you or me would be better of burning barrels of diesal out our back gardens to generate power

GreenHell

Any alternative to an electric system that produces the majority of its power from oil, would be welcome.

Personnally I'm infavour of a combinatoin nuclear and green sources like hydro and wind.

turgon

Ok I see your arguments. But if nuclear power is so inefficient how does France get 70% of its electrical energy from it?

sovtek I know they dont have a way of fully getting rid of it, but they can recycle 95%??? Plus no ones ever died in those places you mention.

IrishKnight

I'm infavour of a combinatoin nuclear and green sources like hydro and wind.

+1

I am very much in favor of nuclear power. Like the OP said not only is it very safe but also clean.

In relation to the waste, the new desgin for what is called a Pebble Bed Reactor somewhat counter acts the dangers of the waste. The PBR uses tennis sized balls that holds the fuel and is covered in pyrolytic graphite. Most authorities agree that German fuel-pebbles release about three orders of magnitude less radioactive gas than the U.S. equivalents.

And just to top things off, they tried to forces terminal runway and the result, no melt down!

Nuclear power, like incineration, is one of those things people are afraid of, when infact, both are very safe and can partly help slove a greater problem.

Riskymove

Sellafield (even though its not a power plant) and Nuclear power has been built up into such a Bogeyman by Politicians that it is very hard to turn around

the hysteria about it is quite amazing

MCMLXXXIII

I live near Detroit. The power for my area comes from an oil plant in Ontario, a coal plant north of the city, and a nuclear accelerator plant south-west of the city.

The coal puts out awful smoke, and is extremely hot to work in - even during the winter. The oil plant is expensive (paying for oil, and to import the electricity from Canada). The only problem the nuclear plant has ever had is this: it took 3 days to start up again after the blackout in 2003.

Besides, there are multiple nuclear technologies, that don't have the eerie look of the large water-cooling towers, and they all have become safer with time.
I feel much safer with the reactor than with the other plants nearby.



On a separate note: this might be an ignorant question, but why would it be so hard/bad to shoot the waste into outer-space? It's not going to hurt anyone out there, there are trips being taken on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just have a section of the spacecraft detach once they are far enough into space. We can let it float around, or we are on our second trip to Mars...let's just leave it there.

Riskymove

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

On a separate note: this might be an ignorant question, but why would it be so hard/bad to shoot the waste into outer-space? It's not going to hurt anyone out there, there are trips being taken on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just have a section of the spacecraft detach once they are far enough into space. We can let it float around, or we are on our second trip to Mars...let's just leave it there.

and if there were a Challenger style accident?

leninbenjamin

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

On a separate note: this might be an ignorant question, but why would it be so hard/bad to shoot the waste into outer-space? It's not going to hurt anyone out there, there are trips being taken on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just have a section of the spacecraft detach once they are far enough into space. We can let it float around, or we are on our second trip to Mars...let's just leave it there.

funnily enough now that you mention it I've seen people theorize about 'lifts into space' for stuff like that. The reason we don't do it today is because it's so damn expensive to travel to space and uses so much energy. But i've seen wild ideas floated about about having some geostationary platform powered by solar platforms that would literally lift stuff up into space by cables. perhaps in the not so distant future someone will come up with a more plausible mechanism.

I'm all for Nuclear by the way. more die mining coal each year in China than died in Chernobyl (or so i've read, someone can correct/clarify?), yet we never hear about that. besides build any plant on Ireland's Eye and the prevailing winds will blow the fallout on the old enemy.

Khannie

Riskymove wrote: »

and if there were a Challenger style accident?

This is the problem with sticking it in space (currently). Rocket technology is not as reliable as you think and solid rocket boosters cannot be turned off once they're lit.

Manic Moran

Of note, the Japanese have, similar to Ireland, quite an aversion to any military use of nuclear power (they have reservations over nuclear-powered warships visiting, for example), but have absolutely no issues with using nuclear power stations of their own to provide electricity.

Think they know something the Irish don't?

NTM

Belfast

Nuclear Power can be very safe. yes

In practice it does not work out that way.

The problem is the people running the Nuclear industry cannot be trusted.

Sellafield is a classic example.

it is not economically viable.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of note, the Japanese have, similar to Ireland, quite an aversion to any military use of nuclear power (they have reservations over nuclear-powered warships visiting, for example), but have absolutely no issues with using nuclear power stations of their own to provide electricity.

Think they know something the Irish don't?

NTM

schoolgirls underwear is awesome?

turgon

Belfast wrote: »

The problem is the people running the Nuclear industry cannot be trusted

Are you being serious?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Think they know something the Irish don't?

They know how to read.

Most Irish people just scream "NO NO" to like everything. Its kinda wierd. No to nuclear, no to landfills nearby, no to incinerators, no to pipelines, no to roads ... no to Lisbon (:D) But seriously, what is the story with that. Maybe if they took the time to read a wikipedia article they might get a bit educated and find out the facts. Instead they just paint placards like "NO to Nuclear - We Dont Want Chernobyl." Its pure sad, and I have little respect for these No people.

I read the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl two months ago. Took about 10/15 minutes to read (and I just keep clicking on other links). Now I know, for the rest of my life, that the Chernobyl card is crap. It took 15 minutes max to get educated. If only all the ignoramuses did they same we might have a someway liberal society.

And of course the political parties, being sheep to public opinion, just oblige.

Thirdfox

I'd be quite pro-nuclear too (as a viable alternative to the fossil fuels while we're waiting for the green technologies to catch up - 6 countries (US, UK, Fra, Japan, Russia, China) are building that fusion plant in France).

I have read in the New Scientist some time ago a big reason scientists are against burying nuclear waste is that drowning something under tons of concrete isn't a great idea when in the future we can probably utilise the radioactive material for the "next great thing".

Space junk is a big problem, we already have too much junk floating around... but if you were to fire junk into the sun - technically it'd be a pretty good incinerator. Of course that goes back to the original problem with burying, we could probably use this "junk" in the future so should keep it safe rather than getting rid of it.

As for Chinese coal miners... I'm sure thousands die each year - it's pretty awful but the government apparently is clamping down on the rogue operators (you get a particularly bad incident and some of the top people get fired and standards improve a bit).

Going back to the topic at hand - with oil rising to 140 dollars and showing no signs of ever going downwards the naysayers will either change their minds or (to be blunt) die. Of course I hope that some company/country will miraculously discover some sort of inexpensive and plentiful energy but we shouldn't be hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

Kama

I don't accept that being against nuclear makes one ignorant, there's plenty of quite rational arguments against nuclear other than political opposition.
The point remains that nuclear demands massive government subsidy, is uninsurable, and raises huge problems in life-cycle/decommissioning (to whit, cleanup costs aren't included) and waste (tho pebblebed is admittedly better on this), meaning its energy return is pretty poor, even before looking at its greater vulnerability to terrorist or other 'Black Swan' type events.
While the risk can be very low, the impact in the case of the event can be so catastrophic that its unsurprising people can be a bit leery...

Solar photovoltaic was developed in the early 50s in Bell labs. Nearly 60 years ago. With anything like the level of subsidy nuclear enjoyed we could well not have an energy problem by now. The Nuclear industry captured vast levels of subsidy due to its 'positive externalities' in weapons production, and externalised cost and risk onto the public. An industry that promised power 'too cheap to meter' has been milking subsidies too long to retain credibility for some people.

Irelands likely comparative advantage in energy generation imho would be in wave-tidal generation; we have a better environment for it than most places, and it is less intermittent than wind. Leave the nukes to large militaristic countries with the Bomb imo ^^

andrew

Kama wrote: »

While the risk can be very low, the impact in the case of the event can be so catastrophic that its unsurprising people can be a bit leery...


Irelands likely comparative advantage in energy generation imho would be in wave-tidal generation; we have a better environment for it than most places, and it is less intermittent than wind. Leave the nukes to large militaristic countries with the Bomb imo ^^

Not to make it seem as though chernobyl wasn't serious - it was, but the number of deaths as a result is suprisingly low (arguably) -

UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident,[4] however the latest UNSCEAR reports insinuate that these estimates were overstated.[52] In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.[53]

While I agree that this figure is debatable, my point is that even with a worst case scenario the consequences aren't as bad as one might think.

Coal fired plants are more harmful than nuclear ones. More people get cancer from coal fired plants - burning the coal concentrates the harmful elements in coal into dangerous quantities. Yet people are grand with ringsend! Doesn't make sense to me. Gah ignorance. I'd like to know more about the net energy gains with nuke plants though.

Also, regarding energys such as tidal etc. - would it feasibly be possible to power our whole country with them in the time it takes to build a nuke plant? I heard also that such energys can also cause an increse in oil consumption due to the necessity for oil powered 'backup' generators or something.

marcsignal

My only real issue with nuclear power is, what to do with the waste?
I accept that in this day and age, they have made reactors and the generation of electricity using them, a lot safer than times past.

The French seem to have the best system, by keeping their reactors small, and having 5 or 6 fail safe systems in place. Although another problem there is, smaller reactors, means more reactors, and these days they could be a nice plentiful, lightly guarded, target for terrorists. Finding the right balance in that respect is not easy, and then no matter what you do to safeguard in that respect, there's still the problem with the waste.

In the UK now, the Government are proposing a new idea about how to deal with nuclear waste, by sealing it in huge concrete blocks and burying it in deep shafts underground, in selected sites all over Britain.

"But how will they deal with local opposition?" you ask.

Easy, they simply intend to bribe them with better local amenities and facilities, I was rather disturbed to hear. OK, they say it cant happen, but any risk (Earth Tremor for example) that might allow these blocks to fracture, and this waste to get into the water table, is a risk to far IMO.

Personally, I would prefer any other option. In Germany they are really really pushing Solar Energy, and I understand there are more Solar Panels here than anywhere else in the world, per capita. OK it still needs research on more efficient panels, to make it a viable option for Ireland, but there are other options I think Ireland should exploit to their fullest. They figure Solar Energy will make up a sizeable proportion of generated power in Germany in 10 years. Nearly every Farm around the outskirts of Munich have some on the roofs of their barns and milking facilities, to power milking machines etc.

Wind energy is one that Ireland could exploit. I would much prefer to see wind turbines all over the place, than live anywhere near a Nuclear power station, or a reprocessing plant, or waste dump. I really don't understand people complaining about the 'ugliness' of wind turbines, and if it's such an issue, then build huge wind farms out to sea. There is also some potential for Tidal and Wave power in Ireland that could be exploited.

Honda have just launched a new production model Hydrogen car, which we should see in Europe in the next few years. I think that kind of research is a step in the right direction. I'm not a 'Tree Hugger' or anything, but I firmly don't believe they will ever completely safely deal with the issue of Nuclear waste, which is my main concern.

I heard somewhere recently that the UN (I think?) issued a request to world Governments to urgently scoop up, and/or make safe, any nuclear material that is outside state control, to prevent it from falling into the hands of Terrorists. As regards waste, which will always exist as long as we use nuclear power, this will always be a potential problem.

So for me, if there's any other alternative, Nuclear Power is a 'Nicht Nicht'

sink

As many have said before Nuclear power is not that economical. It is safe and the waste is minimal so disposing of it would not be much of a problem. I believe it has a part to play as a backup to a more decentralised energy network. But it is a small part as the electricity generated is just too expensive in the long run. No private funded nuclear reactor has ever turned a profit!

The answer to the energy crisis would seem to me to be a decentralised energy network where the majority of energy consumed is generated on location through a variety of sources (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, ground heat transfer). If every new building that's built is as energy efficient as possible and generates it's own heat/electricity we would be able to meet most of our energy requirements in no time. Excess electricity generated by private citizens can sold to the national grid, so people will stop paying for electricity and instead be paid for electricity. This would be far cheaper and far more sustainable than nuclear power.

andrew

sink wrote: »

As many have said before Nuclear power is not that economical. It is safe and the waste is minimal so disposing of it would not be much of a problem. I believe it has a part to play as a backup to a more decentralised energy network. But it is a small part as the electricity generated is just too expensive in the long run. No private funded nuclear reactor has ever turned a profit!

The answer to the energy crisis would seem to me to be a decentralised energy network where the majority of energy consumed is generated on location through a variety of sources (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, ground heat transfer). If every new building that's built is as energy efficient as possible and generates it's own heat/electricity we would be able to meet most of our energy requirements in no time. Excess electricity generated by private citizens can sold to the national grid, so people will stop paying for electricity and instead be paid for electricity. This would be far cheaper and far more sustainable than nuclear power.

From what I know of how the electricity system works (which is very little) this would be very hard to do. AFAIK the grid needs a constant supply of energy in it or everything goes kaput. This is on of the reasons alternatives havn't been particularly huge. It's all well and good charging batteries, but putting juice into the grid requires a degree of control which is hard to achieve with renewables.I wonder what the combined costs be of making such a system would be as opposed to nuclear.

I could be completely wrong about the whole electricity grind thing btw.

marcsignal

Belfast wrote: »

The problem is the people running the Nuclear industry cannot be trusted.
Sellafield is a classic example.

+1

turgon wrote: »

Are you being serious?

I'm with Belfast on that point. BNFL were in hot water more than once over falsification of documents regarding Nuclear waste, a few years ago. Can't remember the details exactly, but some third party country sent back material they were dealing with, or something like that.

some links about it here

http://www.ieer.org/comments/pu-disp/moxsrp.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515111.stm

Riskymove

We have to remember that Sellafield is not a power plant but a reprocessing plant and thats why there is so much concern over the operation of it and the fact that loads are shipped in and out of it.


A lot of countries don't go in for reprocessing and just store the fuel.

thebman

I don't see problem with importing nuclear power from other countries but I've seen said a few times, Ireland isn't big enough for nuclear power. We don't need it so why use it?

We'd be better off buying Nuclear power from other countries like Britain and France and using it rather than building our own plants.

You might say that it is hypocritical to say we don't want nuclear power but we'll use power from nuclear power plants but it isn't really if other countries citizens are happier to have the plant located near them plus we are hypocritical on lots of issues already so whats one more?

turgon

Kama wrote: »

Solar photovoltaic was developed in the early 50s in Bell labs. Nearly 60 years ago.

Coincidently for Kama ive a test tomorrow in which one sixth of it is on photovoltaic cells. So the fact remains that this technology is not wholly practical. Firstly it only works when the sun is out (!). As well as night this means too if it is cloudy you will get nothing. Also panels are made out of groups of 36 cells. Within these 36 cells if ONE is hidden or not receiving light, the whole electrical output of the group is halved. Secondly its very expensive, both for production to having to buy a LOAD of land to put them.

You will always have to have secondary power stations with this technology, and this is why wind power on its own isnt the answer either. Wave looks promising as the sea is always moving, and their conducting tests off the coast of Galway.

The nuclear waste is a serious issue, and Im not a scientist so I dont know the full repercussions. I do believe 95% can be recycled.

irish_bob

i wouldnt worry to much about it , it will never happen here
you can do nothing in this country , if a mobile phone mast is proposed up a hill somewhere , the parish goes into panic mode

were a very easy nation to frighten

turgon

All too true. It will be a long time before the Kathy Sinnots of this country are gone.

marcsignal

Well look at it this way, if a nuclear industry in Ireland was privatised, then it would 'potentially' be open to the same kind of shenannigans as BNFL, as Belfast and I mentioned earlier, and Ireland is no stranger to scandals and backhanders.

If it was state run, well look at the HSE. Need I elaborate ?

Now I know that may sound like scaremongering, but leaving waste issues aside for a moment, it's also either down to a 'trust' issue or a 'competency' issue imo.

turgon

The HSE is but one example, and reached its current state through years of thorough mismanagement. The new body would be better organized. Look at the ESB I suppose.

SeanW

Kama wrote: »

I don't accept that being against nuclear makes one ignorant

Then why does virtually every anti-nuclear piece start with "X years after the Chernobyl accident ..."

While the risk can be very low, the impact in the case of the event can be so catastrophic that its unsurprising people can be a bit leery...

A leeriness that the so-called environmentalists have been exploiting with the kind of efficiency that would make Joeseph Goebells look like an amaeteur.

With anything like the level of subsidy nuclear enjoyed we could well not have an energy problem by now.

Please give The Wizard my regards when you get to the end of the Yellow Brick Road.

and externalised cost and risk onto the public.

And the cost of all the Acid Rain compounds that have destroyed all before them as rainfall in Scandinavia (coal combustion releases Nitros Oxides and Sulphur Dioxide on a massive scale, these compounds become acid when mixed with water vapour like over the North Sea, Norway alone spends NOK100,000,000 treating its lakes and watercourses with alkaline lime, so as to keep these fragile ecosystems alive), the public health losses due to mercury, arsenic and other toxic emissions from coal fired plants as well as radioactive element emissions.

Some data for you to mull over:
Earth Policy Institute's estimate of the loss of life and public health due to coal burning in the United States.

And a quote from the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.


If you seriously believe that the pubic risk caused by nuclear energy is within any realistic proportion to that of fossil fuels, especially coal, then you are not dealing in reality.

marcsignal

turgon wrote: »

The HSE is but one example, and reached its current state through years of thorough mismanagement.

My point exactly, would you, your children, or grandchildren be prepared to take that risk with the Nuclear industry, considering ?

In the beginning in England, everyone was told, "It will be so cheap, it will be impossible to meter"