Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Won't somebody please think of the children!!!
-
16-10-2008 10:34amESB predicts nuclear power plant here by 2035
http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=74922-qqqx=1.asp
Thoughts??0
Comments
-
I just hope they are the ones designing it, given their recent track record.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Of course ESB wants a nuclear programme. Then all those pesky competitors called renewable energies will go away and stop giving them a run for their money.0 -
Bring on the pebblebed reactors.0
-
I just hope they are the ones designing it, given their recent track record.Of course ESB wants a nuclear programme. Then all those pesky competitors called renewable energies will go away and stop giving them a run for their money.
Both very important and valid points.
Personnally I hope it doesn't happen and that small scale renewable plugable into the grid is the route persued but somehow I don't see the lads in charge making this happen0 -
-
Advertisement
-
As I requested thoughts, here are mine...
I believe that nuclear power generation in Ireland will have to be a serious consideration for the future as the historic sources of power disappear, at present I can't see renewables being sufficient for the country as a whole, they may be effective on a local level.
As to the concern about the ESB...their international diivision is winning huge contracts for the construction of power plants all over the place, so I'm sure they could handle it.
As for me I am a reformed typical greenie (anti incineration, landfill, everything etc etc) who having studied Enviromental Science to post grad level came around to the reality of the situation....0 -
-
Is it?0
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
-
Is it?0
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I was thinking more along the lines of, y'know, superhero guy - pointy hat, wears his underpants outside his trousers..Seeing as Captain Planet was so completely nerdy..0 -
Don't tell me you're actually pro land-fill...whatever about incineration!
Landfill is the only way to deal with some wastes (eg asbestos, at the moment)
I am aware that nuclear in not going to last for ever but it will last longer than fossil fuels, depending on the data the figures go from 100 to 360 years and I believe developments are ongoing to increase effieciencies...I guess posting "is it?" was a bad idea...was to early for straight thinking...0 -
Ahem? I thought I was Batman..I am aware that nuclear in not going to last for ever but it will last longer than fossil fuels...0
-
The problem is that every source of energy has its downside. The arguments are well-rehearsed here and in lots of other places.
But we want to use energy so we must, in effect, choose which set of economic and environmental costs we bear. Right now, whatever is proposed, people focus mainly (sometimes exclusively) on the downside. That distorts the discussion.
It would be good if everybody who argued against any particular proposal would answer the question "what would you do instead?". And we should demand proper answers. Opponents of landfill or incineration use "reduce, re-use, re-cycle" as if it were a cure-all formula. As far as I reasonably can, I reduce, re-use, and re-cycle. And I still put stuff in the bin (I'm glad to say that it's not much). The 3-r formula doesn't empty the bin.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Opponents of landfill or incineration use "reduce, re-use, re-cycle" as if it were a cure-all formula. As far as I reasonably can, I reduce, re-use, and re-cycle.0
-
The nuclear debate is not even worth discussing. They can't get a few gas pipelines sorted in Mayo, electric pylons in cavan, incinerators built that would at least turn the waste into power. What chance has a Nuclear power plant got!! They'd have to clear a whole county!!0
-
The nuclear debate is not even worth discussing. They can't get a few gas pipelines sorted in Mayo, electric pylons in cavan, incinerators built that would at least turn the waste into power. What chance has a Nuclear power plant got!! They'd have to clear a whole county!!
I nominate Cavan.0 -
Of course ESB wants a nuclear programme. Then all those pesky competitors called renewable energies will go away and stop giving them a run for their money.Cookie_Monster wrote: »Personnally I hope it doesn't happen and that small scale renewable plugable into the grid is the route persued but somehow I don't see the lads in charge making this happenThat a switch to nuclear is unsustainable?
You do realise that this is all a load of nonsense, right?
Nuclear technology is getting more Uranium-efficient every decade (the European Pressurised Water Reactor for example is 16% Uranium efficient than previous designs and has a projected lifespan of 60 years), there has been no Uranium prospecting for decades on account of the minimal demand, and the possibility of using Thorium has yet to be explored, there is 3 times as much known Thorium readily available as there is Uranium.
In addition, since Eamon Ryan banned Uranium exploration in Ireland and refused two outstanding Uranium exploration licenses in Donegal, one can hardly support blanket banning Uranium exploration on one hand while talking about the unsustainability of nuclear power on the other - you wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite now?
Of course anything can be subjected to "starve the horse then kill it because it can't pull" economics which is what some enviro-extremists want to do.
As for the comparison between nuclear and renewables, that too is logically insolvent. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Renewables have a fundamental flaw in that they depend on the weather. That means that in many cases their outputs cannot be relied on or even predicted to any major degree, though in any case you know that the wind won't blow 10% stronger when 1/4 of nation runs to the kitchen to boil water for tea when the Coronation Street ad break comes on, nor will the clouds part at 5-7PM every night to allow solar panels to better meet "electricity rush hour" needs. Nowhere has anyone found that building wind turbines, solar cells etc has displaced the need to have baseline plant open and on standby.
For this reason renewables can only ever act as a suppliment, not a replacement for baseline driven electricity supply.
So this idea that nuclear energy and renewables are somehow blood enemies competing for the same market is misguided at best, extremely disingenuous at worst, a fabrication presented by enviro-extremists who most likely have an agenda.
A better (i.e. realistic and coherent) comparison would be one between nuclear power and it's REAL competitor, fossil fuels.
Like nuclear electricity, traditional thermal-fired power plants operate on a baseline basis but can also, to a very large degree, have their outputs controlled. Therefore, either nuclear energy or traditional thermal, or a combination of both, are required to ensure a reliable electricity supply.
Unlike nuclear power however, fossil fuels do, to varying degrees have environmental and political costs. At one end we have coal, plentiful but filthy, burning it spews massive amounts of Carbon Dioxide, mercury, arsenic, Acid Rain compounds like sulphur dioxide, radiotoxins and other particle emissions to make a toxic witches brew. On the other end of the scale we have natural gas, which is much cleaner (1/3 the CO2 emissions of coal and some radon), but most of the big reserves are in Russia and that cannot economically be stored. So if we decide to go down that road (which the evidence to date suggests we have) then we will pay a very steep economic and political cost (having to kiss the Kremlin's backside to keep the lights on)
I oppose ALL fossil fuels on this basis, but policywise they're an easy option - cheap to build, cheap to run, reliable, you can burn all the crap and let loose all the smoke you like because all the enviro-whackjobs will be going on about Sellafield or whatever other nuclear boogeymonster catches their eye today - using the default option of fossil fuels is just too easy!
So to invent this complete fantasy of nuclear vs. renewables and use that as a stick to beat nuclear power with, completely misses the point and is thus at best totally irresponsible.
The better question is to compare like with like - nuclear vs. fossil fuels, and treat renewables as an independent variable.
However given that organisations like Greenpeace's idea to make a coherent anti-nuclear argument is to whore grim pictures of sick looking children in Belarus to score cheap emotional points, when presumably they know full well how the Soviets irresponsibly blew up the Chernobyl-4 plant because their whole society was bankrupt and based on authoritarianism, corruption and incompetence. Anyone who actually knows a damn thing about the Chernobyl accident knows full well that it could only have happened in the USSR or some place with an equally non-functional society, so don't expect too much there.Being slightly out of touch...what have they badly designed recently?P. Breathnach wrote: »It would be good if everybody who argued against any particular proposal would answer the question "what would you do instead?". And we should demand proper answers.
It's as simple as this, we will go nuclear, or we and/or the environment will pay the price.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
In addition, since Eamon Ryan banned Uranium exploration in Ireland and refused two outstanding Uranium exploration licenses in Donegal, one can hardly support blanket banning Uranium exploration on one hand while talking about the unsustainability of nuclear power on the other - you wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite now?As for the comparison between nuclear and renewables, that too is logically insolvent. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Renewables have a fundamental flaw in that they depend on the weather. That means that in many cases their outputs cannot be relied on or even predicted to any major degree, though in any case you know that the wind won't blow 10% stronger when 1/4 of nation runs to the kitchen to boil water for tea when the Coronation Street ad break comes on, nor will the clouds part at 5-7PM every night to allow solar panels to better meet "electricity rush hour" needs. Nowhere has anyone found that building wind turbines, solar cells etc has displaced the need to have baseline plant open and on standby.
For this reason renewables can only ever act as a suppliment, not a replacement for baseline driven electricity supply.
Firstly, tidal power is quite regular. Also,an overhaul of the transmission grid would go a long way to solving the renewables problem with intermittency. This includes more interconnection with Europe (please don't start on Europe's use of nuclear, hypocrisy etc etc-we do not have any control over these countries' energy policies). Moreover, as the country in Europe with the largest wind and wave resources, we could be exporting this energy at certain times.
In addition, I think you'll find that recent developments in solar energy are allowing it to be stored in liquid-based batteries for the first time. There are big assumptions that renewable technology has reached stagnation, which is just complete nonsense.So this idea that nuclear energy and renewables are somehow blood enemies competing for the same market is misguided at best, extremely disingenuous at worst, a fabrication presented by enviro-extremists who most likely have an agenda.
You are also ignoring the environmental issues with nuclear. There is the mining necessary to extract uranium, a heavy metal, which as the name suggests, is found deeper down in the earth's crust and not on the surface. Then there's that whole issue of disposal. Then the thousands and thousands of litres of water that is needed to cool down the reactors. The reason France experienced blackouts during the heatwave of '03 was that water levels in the rivers were too low and the stations had to be shut off.
Edit: I forgot to add in that biofuels are an additional source of fuel that can be used very effectively in local areas. For example there are dairy farms across Europe (and one in Wexford) that uses anaerobic digestion to generate elecricity. Also, the use of waste-based AD kills two birds with the one stone: sustainable electricity generation and waste disposal.0 -
There are no environmental or political costs associated with nuclear power? None whatsoever?
These costs being either massive environmental destruction if we rely on sources like coal and, most dreadfully, peat, or the insane loss of national soveigrnty and security associated with being dependent on a 2000 mile long pipleline from Russia. It is for this very reason that Germany, in it's mad dash bid to abandon nuclear energy, is going on the biggest coal plant building spree in human history after that of China, using, above all things, filthy and inefficient (but plentiful) brown coal.
I find these options repugnant and I want to avoid them if at all possible. "Environmentalists" should, in addition to looking at nuclear power as it really is, and not in the light of Chernobyl children, twisted hyperbole and urban legends, and compare the facts of nuclear electricity against the "don't do nuclear/do nothing" scenario.As has already been pointed out. Nuclear is inherently unsustainable because uranium is a finite source. You can't get much closer to the concept of unsustainable than that.
Also, fossil fuels and peat are also "unsustainable" in the strictest and longest term view of that word, so again, the complaint goes back to what you don't want to talk about.Firstly, tidal power is quite regular.
In any case you can be sure that renewables were not going to be able to step in in the 1970s when the government of the day wanted to build a nuclear plant at Carnsore Point but all the hippies protested and forced Ireland to become irrevocably thermal-fired plant dependent for the 30 years that would come after it.Also,an overhaul of the transmission grid would go a long way to solving the renewables problem with intermittency. This includes more interconnection with Europe (please don't start on Europe's use of nuclear, hypocrisy etc etc-we do not have any control over these countries' energy policies).In addition, I think you'll find that recent developments in solar energy are allowing it to be stored in liquid-based batteries for the first time. There are big assumptions that renewable technology has reached stagnation, which is just complete nonsense.
An opposition to nuclear power was a support for fossil/peat power then, it is now, and likely will be for some time.But the reality is that if all of Ireland's energy comes from a nuclear plant, the motivation to develop renewable technologies will be lost.
Take a look at our nextdoor neighbor. The UK. They have nuclear power. They want the private sector to come in and give them more nuclear power - doing it right this time (I freely admit that the UK nuclear programme hasn't exactly been a model of efficiency and value), but they're also investing considerably in renewable energy AFAIK.
i.e. they want both, to the degree that such is reasoanble.
Remember. Nowhere except Iceland has it been shown possible to run an electricity grid soely on renewables.
Hence they should ONLY be treated as in independent variable.In addition, it will allow us to ignore the gross energy inefficiencies in our transport, housing and other sectors.Also, how much benefit will nuclear be to the transport sector - the sector with the highest rates of growth (genuine question..)
Now, Irish Rail and maybe the RPA (Railway Procurement agency) gave their electrcitiy contracts to Airtricity. But what does Airtricity do when all the Luas and DART passengers head over to the train stations to get home and the wind isn't co-operating? That's right, they just lean harder on a baseline load power plant that was already running.
So if the transport sector grows in a "Green" way - i.e. lots of electric trains and trams - there is plenty of scope for nuclear energy to help.You are also ignoring the environmental issues with nuclear. There is the mining necessary to extract uranium, a heavy metal, which as the name suggests, is found deeper down in the earth's crust and not on the surface. Then there's that whole issue of disposal. Then the thousands and thousands of litres of water that is needed to cool down the reactors
Yes disposal is an issue but the nuclear industry is the only one that attempts to contain its waste - with coal, gas etc, all the crap it produces, CO2, NOX, SO2, merucury, arsenic, radiotoxins etc are all just dumped into the air via the smokestack.
Transport costs are a direct disadvante for fossil fuels as well. According to figures from the World Nuclear Association.
We are also quite happy to destroy a unique ecosystem in pristine boglands as some kind of Midlands subsidy, which I don't think is a good idea.
My purpose in all of this, it to yell STOP. NO MORE. Where there is a need for baseline power, and the choice is between nuclear and some poxy traditional thermal fired 'solution,' me and the Greens are agreed on one thing: the choice is a no-brainer. After that ... well ... you know the restEdit: I forgot to add in that biofuels are an additional source of fuel that can be used very effectively in local areas. For example there are dairy farms across Europe (and one in Wexford) that uses anaerobic digestion to generate elecricity. Also, the use of waste-based AD kills two birds with the one stone: sustainable electricity generation and waste disposal.
In short, four planks to make a comprehensive strategy - doing that I think we can have a lifestyle with reasonable comfort and eco-sensitivity.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
But it's hypocritical to complain about a finite fuel supply while opposing the search for more of such fuel. Are you prepared to condemn Eamon Ryan's actions?
Also, fossil fuels and peat are also "unsustainable" in the strictest and longest term view of that word, so again, the complaint goes back to what you don't want to talk about.First of all, most tidal power systems are at best in the development stage and afaik they're expensive to build, and some of them don't do well in adverse weather conditions. That said they may improve. I'm hopeful that tidal power will work, but you can't bank on it.You are proposing to simply dump the irregularity problems of unstable wind farms onto our European neighbors. I.E. when it's "energy rush hour" continent-wide and our winds taper off, they will have to bring in running baseline reserve not only to compensate for their own loss in reciepts, but send power down the Interconnector to Ireland. It is legitimate to ask how they're going to do that.>_< Methinks you have been reading too many Green party soundbites and swallowed them whole.Take a look at our nextdoor neighbor. The UK. They have nuclear power. They want the private sector to come in and give them more nuclear power - doing it right this time (I freely admit that the UK nuclear programme hasn't exactly been a model of efficiency and value), but they're also investing considerably in renewable energy AFAIK.
i.e. they want both, to the degree that such is reasoanble.Please explain.
In transport, cheap petrol has led to the proliferation of low density housing and over-dependence on private car use.
It is clear that when cheap energy is available, as will continue to happen with nuclear, there is no incentive to innovate. When was the last time there was a huge burst of research and innovation in renewables? The 1970s. What happened in the 70s? Oil crisis.Isn't it obvious? Under the Transport 21 programme, Dublin in particular is to have more public transport, new DART lines including an underground Interconnector (that I helped campaign for BTW) a Metro and some Luas.
Now, Irish Rail and maybe the RPA (Railway Procurement agency) gave their electrcitiy contracts to Airtricity. But what does Airtricity do when all the Luas and DART passengers head over to the train stations to get home and the wind isn't co-operating? That's right, they just lean harder on a baseline load power plant that was already running.
So if the transport sector grows in a "Green" way - i.e. lots of electric trains and trams - there is plenty of scope for nuclear energy to help.
a) provide these areas with decent, good quality, frequent public transport
b) get people out of their cars and into public transport.There are some issues yes, but AFAIK these are minimal. Yes the Uranium has to be mined, milled and in most cases enriched (unless you're using CANDU reactors in which case you can skip enrichment)
Yes disposal is an issue but the nuclear industry is the only one that attempts to contain its waste - with coal, gas etc, all the crap it produces, CO2, NOX, SO2, merucury, arsenic, radiotoxins etc are all just dumped into the air via the smokestack.
Transport costs are a direct disadvante for fossil fuels as well. According to figures from the World Nuclear Association.
THe whole chain of processing from the raw nuclear material to the stations to reprocessing to the unsolved problem of disposal. Huge potential for leaks and pollution. Not minimal.0 -
There are some issues yes, but AFAIK these are minimal.
...
Yes disposal is an issue but the nuclear industry is the only one that attempts to contain its waste.0 -
Of course ESB wants a nuclear programme. Then all those pesky competitors called renewable energies will go away and stop giving them a run for their money.
The ESB have been instructed by the regulator that they will only be allowed to supply 40% of the electricity needs to the grid in the future.
There will still be a need for the "pesky competitors" due to this.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
The ESB have been instructed by the regulator that they will only be allowed to supply 40% of the electricity needs to the grid in the future.
There will still be a need for the "pesky competitors" due to this.
If you actually read the article:
"However, Mr McManus said he did not believe that the nuclear plant would be built by the ESB, which is limited to providing not more than 40% of the country’s electricity. This restriction is likely to be lifted, however, when the inter-connectors between Britain and Ireland are completed by 2020, when the two islands will in effect have one common electricity market."0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,008 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 22604
If you actually read the article:
"However, Mr McManus said he did not believe that the nuclear plant would be built by the ESB, which is limited to providing not more than 40% of the country’s electricity. This restriction is likely to be lifted, however, when the inter-connectors between Britain and Ireland are completed by 2020, when the two islands will in effect have one common electricity market."
So in other words we are going for the typical Irish solution.
Leave the Brits build the nuclear power plants, we'll import most of our electricity from these nuclear power plants over the inter-connectors and we all bury our heads in the sand while clapping ourselves on the back for not going nuclear. Pathetic.
I use to be like many people on this forum, I use to be anti nuclear and I thought that renewables would solve all of our problems. Then I actually did some research into the whole field and it quickly became clear that renewables will have very little or no impact on reducing pollution from electricity generation. The choice is a simple one, do we continue to burn coal or do we go nuclear?0 -
One power plant can sustain the whole country for a fraction of the current costs.
We need one now, simple as that.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,008 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 22604
Really? Based on what?
Well it is interesting to note that France gets 80% of all it's electricity form nuclear, yet has one of the lowest electricity prices in the world and is using this cheap power to it's advantage promoting electric powered cars and public transport.
It is also interesting to note that France is the largest exporter of electricity in the world and that despite that it produces 1/10 the CO2 emissions of the UK and Germany and 1/13 of Denmark, the world leader in wind power.0 -
-
Ok, first of all I may owe an apology to taconnol for my early presumptions, I did not realise you were genuinely considering the question and/or open to new ideas and thought you were simply repeating the old Green(peace) mantras.
This may have been an error, and I must admit it was not my first time.
I come to this debate from the perspective of something of a convert - I grew up listening to urban legends like Sellafield putting Plutonium into childrens bones, Glow In The Dark fish caught in the Irish sea, that story about the 6 Dundalk women who gave birth to down syndrome children (which still persists in some quarters despite being proven to be nonsense) and of course the Chernobyl Accident (without likewise knowing the differences between the Soviet run RBMK reactors and a Western style nuclear system).
To top it all off, the people I thought could be trusted on these matters, i.e. environmentalists like Greenpeace and most Green parties backed up the view.
It was only a couple of years ago that I found myself in possession of better information, and then only by chance, so I tend to take a very firm view promoting nuclear energy on places like boards (and the newspaper letter in my sig) etc.
And given my previous experience as one I find little redeeming holders of firm anti-nuclear opinions hence my somewhat combatitive attitude, but if you are genuinely considering the issue and have an open mind, my apologies for my initial assumptions.Why? I don't believe in investing in finite fuel sources that are polluting to the environment. I don't find there to be anything hypocritical about it. I include fossil fuels and peat in that.It is clear that when cheap energy is available, as will continue to happen with nuclear, there is no incentive to innovate. When was the last time there was a huge burst of research and innovation in renewables? The 1970s. What happened in the 70s? Oil crisis.
A) Fossil fuels are already becoming scarce and tightly controlled - this as you allude to is already happening.
If we use this logic to avoid looking for a cost-effective energy supply, the Chinese etc will, with their mess of unfiltered coal power plants and other non-existant environmental standards, continue to put us at an economic and competitive disadvantage.
For those reasons we need to use clean and cost effective options now, instead of banking on something weather based? that may or may not come down the road.True, but how will it help with airplanes?Public transport is extremely difficult because we have such low-density housing.With over 50% of the population commuting in a private car, it is going to be extremely, extremely difficult and expensive to
a) provide these areas with decent, good quality, frequent public transport
b) get people out of their cars and into public transport.
Case in point: recently Irish Rail added clamper-enforced pay parking at all its commuter belt stations and they're going to increase annual fares systemwide by about 10-15% in one go.
For a couple living in the suburbs and working in Dublin City for example, sharing a car now beats the train on all fronts: 1) It's cheaper than two annual tickets plus parking, 2) the car goes when when it's supposed to 3) the occupants know they will travel in comfort (as opposed to squashing into a capacity loaded carriage that may or may not have working climate controls) and 4) they'll automatically get a full days "refund" any weekday they don't go to work.
This has nothing to do with whether we go nuclear or not!Too easy to just dismiss environmental issues with nuclear as "minimal".
THe whole chain of processing from the raw nuclear material to the stations to reprocessing to the unsolved problem of disposal. Huge potential for leaks and pollution. Not minimal.This “containment” generally amounts to burying the waste in a big hole in the ground – that’s just not good enough and it’s certainly not “minimal”. The waste issue is probably the main reason for my opposition to nuclear energy.
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/Update42.htm
Even under the worst case scenario, the nuclear waste problem does not compare!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Ok, first of all I may owe an apology to taconnol for my early presumptions, I did not realise you were genuinely considering the question and/or open to new ideas and thought you were simply repeating the old Green(peace) mantras.
This may have been an error, and I must admit it was not my first time.But there's a problem: if it were oil companies looking to prospect in Donegal instead of Uranium prospectors, what then? Would the exploration have been so easily and quietly nixed?For those reasons we need to use clean and cost effective options now, instead of banking on something weather based? that may or may not come down the road.It's not supposed to. Aviation is an independent question.We've had poor urban planning, it's true. Another independent question.
Ditto. In Dublin city for example most train lines are over subscribed. In many cases the cost, discomfort and/or inconvenience of public transport rules it out even for people who can use it.
And my fear is that if fossil fuels become cheap as nuclear energy drives down prices, there will be no push for proper transport planning. Because the negatives of bad planning are larger than just more fuel use.Case in point: recently Irish Rail added clamper-enforced pay parking at all its commuter belt stations and they're going to increase annual fares systemwide by about 10-15% in one go.
Pollution is still the major issue with me though-and the removal of impetus to invest in truly renewable energies.0 -
I think we should start converting coal-to-oil.0
-
Advertisement
-
Well it is interesting to note that France gets 80% of all it's electricity form nuclear, yet has one of the lowest electricity prices in the world…As opposed to the peat/coal/gas industry that simply sends their waste up the smokestack for the rest of us to deal with?0
-
One power plant can sustain the whole country for a fraction of the current costs.
.
and that's exactly why you will not see a nuclear plant anywhere near here.
Have you lot not noticed, the green movement is designed to kill all industry. Hence the false connection between c02 and global warming (or is that cooling, or maybe just climate change).
Many of the big boys have stated that unlimited zero point energy would be a disaster.
Oil is big business.0 -
Enforcer, I can understand your last sentence, although why you consider it relevant to this discussion is not obvious to me.
Is there any chance that you would clarify what everything before "Oil is big business" means?0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Enforcer, I can understand your last sentence, although why you consider it relevant to this discussion is not obvious to me.
Is there any chance that you would clarify what everything before "Oil is big business" means?0 -
Disregarding the more classically environmental anti arguments, the economic argument against nuclear in terms of its upfront capital cost, and downstream decommissioning costs (usually excluded from pro-industry analyses) weigh heavily against it. The inability to procure insurance commercially, necessitating state guarantees, are also a factor.
Also looking at the Finn's recent new-build reactor, and the colossal problem with cost-overruns, safety concerns, and systematic non-cooperation with the regulator bode ill for nuclear developments; this was meant as a show-project, and has had the opposite effect to what was intended.
SeanW's argument fossil-or-nuclear argument is a robust one though, and is the nut to crack for any renewables advocate. Imo he overstates the intermittency argument on both sides; nuclear is highly intermittent, and requires spinning turbines as fallback, and a diversified renewable system has I believe lower intermittence than he would seem to indicate. There's a quite good post on TOD by *cough cough biased industry insider* Jerome a Paris on the current economics of wind, if anyone is interested.
However, apropos of the thread title, the main barrier to nuclear I think all will agree is its extreme unpalatability to the public; whether you want to think of it as populist fear-mongering or difference in risk appetites.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would like it that renewables were sufficient in scale and reliability to be a viable replacement for fossil-fuels but if it isn't the case, then so be it.
For everyone else, for now and for the forseeable future, the question will be nuclear vs. traditional thermal. That choice should be a no-brainer, but one example I often cite is Germany (click here for a review of it's coal boom).Ok I see what you're saying..but do you accept that investment in renewables will probably fall?
In addition, Ireland's ability to "lead the world" extends only to taxing, banning and regulating things. If the inevitable course of technological evolution is that we all use weather based renewables (which is far from certain), know this: Ireland will NOT be the first to do it. So it doesn't matter how we obtain a politically sustainable, cost effective and eco-friendly power supply, the main priority for us should be that we do it quickly.Well, they're not entirely independent because nuclear is being hailed as the perfect replacement for fossil fuels. But there are quite a few cases where nuclear, or the electricity it produces are not viable. So for transport in general, even countries like Sweden are still very dependent on fossil fuels.And my fear is that if fossil fuels become cheap as nuclear energy drives down prices, there will be no push for proper transport planning. Because the negatives of bad planning are larger than just more fuel use.I’ve never claimed to be an advocate of peat or coal. As for gas, all it produces is CO2 which can be offset. Besides, gas is essentially a renewable fuel – it can be produced by anaerobic digestion of pretty much any form of organic matter, i.e. waste.0 -
I think (s)he subscribes to the conspiracy theory that anyone of a "green disposition" is being paid by the powers that be (not sure who they are) .
What? The little people would believe anything, jump on any bandwagon. The big boys promote this, the masses follow.Ito promote a certain agenda. Apparently there is a common agenda among all environmentalists - I would have thought this thread is evidence that this is clearly not the case.
There is no common agenda, like any political movement, a lot of effort is put in to make it look "grass roots". However as with everything else it is promoted from the top down.0 -
But it WOULD allow us to have a reliable energy supply, keep a Uranium reserve, etc, so that we would not have to kiss Vladimir Putin's backside twice a day just to keep the lights on...As has been alluded to, the choice is a simple one, either you support nuclear, or you support traditional thermal by default...
- Uranium is a finite resource and it will have to be imported, which doesn't do anything for our energy security.
- Nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste beyond burying it in the ground and hoping for the best.
- The costs associated with nuclear commissioning, decommissioning, maintaining, fuelling, fuel reprocessing and waste disposal are huge and not economically feasible for Ireland.
As for gas, it does emit some crap like Radon..0 -
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,008 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 22604
Whose backside will we have to kiss to get our stockpile of uranium? How much will this stockpile cost?
Erh, our own, we have Uranium in the Wicklow mountains, certainly enough for our own use.
Canada and Australia are the biggest exporters of Uranium in the world, not exactly the most unstable parts of the world.0 -
I'd be perfectly happy with a nuclear station in my backyard. It would mean I could buy a house near it for a knockdown price.0
-
-
Whose backside will we have to kiss to get our stockpile of uranium?
And Lord knows Ireland and Donegal in particular could have used whatever money and jobs these projects might have brought, but no, that possibility had to be sacrificed at the altar of 'environmentalism.'Canada and Australia are the biggest exporters of Uranium in the world, not exactly the most unstable parts of the world.
So there would be no monopoly supplier as with Russian piped gas, more on that below.How much will this stockpile cost?
With what you are proposing, on the other hand, we're going to depend on a 2000 mile long pipeline from Russia for day to day requirements, that means we're going to be in a situation where if the pipeline fails - or the Ruskies turn off the taps (a possibility that should not be discounted) - we're going to be cold and in the dark within 24 hours. I don't know about you, but that is a situation I want to avoid at all costs.I would support ... gas(possibly biogas, remember)How much high-grade ore is present in Ireland?
Anything can fail if subjected to "starve the horse then kill it because it can't pull" economics.0 -
Well, two Uranium prospectors thought Ireland had enough Uranium to justify some exploration in Donegal ... but I forgot you don't like to talk about that...And Lord knows Ireland and Donegal in particular could have used whatever money and jobs these projects might have brought, but no, that possibility had to be sacrificed at the altar of 'environmentalism.'It would be very easy to hoard ~5 years of fuel...Well, you may have your facts arseways...Wishful thinking, at best.In addition to whatever is in Wicklow, two Uranium prospectors thought we had some of the good stuff in Donegal......so if you, like your buddy Eamon Ryan opposes Uranium exploration...0
-
I'm annoyed I can't find that simulation; had it before, could have sworn was Kassel Uni. Modeled demand and supply with a wind/solar/biomass system across Germany, and used hydro as the storage for excess production.
It's relevance for Ireland is somewhat less, due to the variation of weather across the whole of Germany, allowing an averaging out across the territory.
Apropos of uranium mining, while an argument can be made that nuclear is clean and carbon neutral (if you discount both plant construction and decommissioning, that is :rolleyes:), uranium mining in Australia has been a pretty dirty business, if you take your info from anywhere other than worldnuclear.org.
Again, a key issue imo with nuclear is there is no unbiased information out there; though there's plenty from either WorldNuclearLobby.org or Friends of the Virgin Mother Earth. Neither seem exactly neutral or objective parties0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement