Should we go Nuclear?

Judgement Day

yawnstretch wrote: »

Japan has decided to raise its assessment of the accident at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant from 5 to the worst rating of 7 on an international scale. http://nyti.ms/hxfzji

Yes, yes but our media have moved on now from all that - ... there was the Omagh PSNI murder, then the Ivory Coast civil war and now we have Portugal looking for a bailout and then there's all those important topics like gay marriage that need to be covered. :rolleyes:

SeanW

Judgement Day wrote: »

Yes, yes but our media have moved on now from all that - ... there was the Omagh PSNI murder, then the Ivory Coast civil war and now we have Portugal looking for a bailout and then there's all those important topics like gay marriage that need to be covered. :rolleyes:

Don't worry JD, you can be sure the fearmongering machines in Greenpeace and major world Green parties will be running in top gear from now until the end of eternity. "Oh noes, the Japanese are having another Chernobyl, the radiation's going to poison the land and eat your children. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES."

Just remember that this is the alternative to nuclear power, and we're going to be seeing lots more of it now thanks in part to the unfortunate events in Fukushima-Daiichi, itself a very old 1st or 2nd generation plant designed with minimal earthquake/tsunami defenses at a time when Japan was still in transition to the status of a 1st world country.

Germany is a great example of why textbook environmentalism is such an abysmal failure.

antoobrien

Our favourite anti - anti nuke media journalist is back to debunk the myths of fukushima. I won't post the the full article as it is long, but I'll provide some quotes from it.

The facts are that the incident at Fukushima Daiichi remains far and away the most minor of the various consequences which have followed the initial, devastating magnitude-9.0 quake and tsunami

The nuclear reactors in the stricken provinces came through mostly unscathed (even at the Daiichi site two are expected to return to service, and at other nuclear powerplants in the region no significant damage at all was seen)

note that the ones that are not being returned to service are being decommissioned because they are near the end of their programmed life, so it's uneconomical to repair then decommission anyways.

One nuclear worker, in a crane cab at the time, was killed by the quake strike at the Daini plant: two were killed by the tsunami wave at Daiichi

Almost all other infrastructure hit by the natural disaster failed catastrophically. Housing, transport and industry across the region collapsed with deadly consequences, killing people by the tens of thousands. Oil plants, chemical factories, storage facilities and tankers of every type ruptured and burned, spilling megatonnes of pollution and carcinogens into the environment. But almost nothing is heard of all this, except as a footnote to the supposed radiological hazards resulting from the Fukushima Daiichi reactors 1 to 4.

At times, close to reactor buildings on the Daiichi site, radiation dose rates as high as 1,000 millisievert/hour have been recorded by remote instruments. That is serious radiation: after an hour exposed to it you'd be likely to suffer actual radiation sickness, though you'd be just about certain to recover. Two hours, and you might die: four hours, a fatal result would become likely. If millions of people were exposed to such levels for say a quarter of an hour, decades later you'd be able to point to increased cancer rates among them (though the risk to any individual would be negligible).

But these were in fact very brief spikes right next to a damaged core, resulting mostly from very short-lived isotopes that were decaying before they could drift beyond the plant fence. Nobody at all has been exposed to such levels.

Thus far the worst exposure was suffered by three workers who stood in ankle-deep radioactive water for several hours and sustained doses above 100 millisievert from doing so, indicating local levels of 20-odd millisievert/hour. They have suffered zero health consequences as a result

Danger beyond the plant fence has remained effectively nil. As of yesterday, according to nuclear experts at MIT in the States (reviewing data from Japanese and international monitoring teams on the ground) the highest dose rates seen within 30km of the plant have been 0.0016 millisievert/hour.

For context, you could live permanently under radiation levels of 0.0016 mS/hr and you would never achieve even half the annual dose levels permitted by airline crew.

In reality, the rise to Level 7 is a result of the constant badgering both from inside and outside Japan to the effect that the Japanese government is not taking this seriously. By calling it Level 7, the authorities are saying that yes, they assess the Daiichi situation as extremely serious. They really do care.

This is the problem that everyone faces, who describes nuclear incidents as they really are – that is, insignificant. You are accused of being heartless, of failing to care about or empathise with people who are terribly frightened

Judgement Day

Surprised he didn't refer to the numbers killed in the Aberfan disaster. :rolleyes:

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

yawnstretch

Some counter articles:

http://usat.me/?46022134

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/04/11/what-does-fukushima%e2%80%99s-new-%e2%80%9clevel-7%e2%80%9d-status-mean/


Counter comment:
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/gnr3g/japan_to_raise_fukushima_crisis_level_from_5_to_7/c1ozaik

I'd rephrase but I'm on a mobile.

In other news I just bought an electric bike today so rising petrol costs won't affect me

Hotblack Desiato

So, where's that electricity coming from, yawnstretch?
Don't kid yourself about renewables, it's mostly almost all fossil with a small but measurable British nuclear contribution

yawnstretch

ninja900 wrote: »

So, where's that electricity coming from, yawnstretch?
Don't kid yourself about renewables, it's mostly almost all fossil with a small but measurable British nuclear contribution

Are you honestly saying that you don't know why environmentalists want to use electricity?

Do you think I don't know where modern electricity (sadly) comes from?

Do you even think your comments through before clicking submit?

Do I actually have to explain this to you?

Hotblack Desiato

yawnstretch wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that you don't know why environmentalists want to use electricity?

If they're pro-electric transport and anti-nuclear they're either hyprocrites or very badly misinformed IMHO, because renewables just don't cut it.

Do you think I don't know where modern electricity (sadly) comes from?

No - and if you're not happy about it then you really should be in favour of substituting coal with nuclear, because putting aside all the guff about renewables (which is really just a way of scamming subsidies out of the taxpayer and consumer) that's the real choice we face for existing demand never mind what will happen if people start using electric vehicles in a big way.

Do you even think your comments through before clicking submit?

Yes :cool:

Do I actually have to explain this to you?

No need to get like that.
Seems to me you're not interested in an actual discussion if the green dogma 'nuclear BAD, renewables GOOD' is going to get questioned :rolleyes: Hope you enjoy your part-nuclear, mostly-coal-and-gas powered bike

SeanW

It would be even funner if the OP wanted to bring his electric bike to Germany (link) where they're starting to burn coal like it's nobody's business, and that is likely to accelerate thanks to the events at Fukushima.

Funny thing is, no matter how many times I link to that story (and I have done so many times) no anti-nuke on these boards will address it. Ever. It seems there are some who would like to believe that when the wind doesn't blow we can keep the lights on with happy thoughts, rainbows and sunflowers. But at my age (or the age of anyone over 10), you realise that isn't credible.

Do I actually have to explain this to you?

No. But I'd love to see you try. Remember renewables are not a solution, otherwise the worlds textbook example of mainstream environmentalism, Germany, would not have embarked on a coal power expansion on a scale comparable only to China.

yawnstretch

The reason environmental activists want to move to electric powered vehicles is because they are the only ones with the potential to be powered renewably.

Nuclear is not viable today because the technology is wasteful and destructive to manage. It may be viable some day.

Now, imagine if we concentrated on making solar, wind, wave, geothermal etc viable - even though they may not "cut it" right now?

Today we focus on making nuclear viable but I say that renewables are more deserving of our efforts. The reason that nuclear power is being pushed is because it makes money.

Sponge Bob

yawnstretch wrote: »

The reason that nuclear power is being pushed is because it makes money.

It makes money BECAUSE it is renewable , not that logic like that ever works on the shallow Irish Green genepool.

yawnstretch

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It makes money BECAUSE it is renewable , not that logic like that ever works on the shallow Irish Green genepool.

Money is a useful concept but is not a source of sustenance in and of itself. Consider the following:

"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money."

the_syco

DUB777 wrote: »

A Tsunami.. Didnt see that coming did they?? The force of water is far beyond mans ability to control.

The design of the plant seawall was based on some historic research of height of tsunamis in the area. TEPCO made those decisons in conjunction with the Japanese government. The plant was protected by a seawall designed to withstand a 5.7 metres (19 ft) tsunami, but not the 14-metre (46 ft) wave which arrived 15 minutes after the earthquake

DUB777 wrote: »

We dont even have the foresight to build a tunnel that will carry super trucks??

The tunnel is being constructed with a physical height clearance of 4.9 metres but will operate at a limit of 4.65 metres to protect against loose loads or flapping tarpaulins. If the tunnel was higher, once you get out of the tunnel, you'd probably hit one of the bridges listed here: http://www.irishrail.ie/bridgeheights/bridge_heights.asp

=-=

IMO, they should build one on the east coast, to minimise the chance of a tsunami hitting it.

the_syco

yawnstretch wrote: »

Money is a useful concept but is not a source of sustenance in and of itself. Consider the following:

"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money."

When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the oil is gone, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, the nuclear power plants will continue to provide power to filter the water, to filter the air, and to keep us alive.

scotty_irish

yawnstretch wrote: »

Some counter articles:

http://usat.me/?46022134

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/04/11/what-does-fukushima%e2%80%99s-new-%e2%80%9clevel-7%e2%80%9d-status-mean/


Counter comment:
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/gnr3g/japan_to_raise_fukushima_crisis_level_from_5_to_7/c1ozaik

I'd rephrase but I'm on a mobile.

In other news I just bought an electric bike today so rising petrol costs won't affect me

here's a reply to the reddit comment you linked to. well worth a read but will take about an hour or so. Written by a scientist, not a journalist or other lay person.

the_syco

yawnstretch wrote: »

In other news I just bought an electric bike today so rising petrol costs won't affect me

If you're in Ireland, it'll affect you though your electric bill.

yawnstretch

the_syco wrote: »

If you're in Ireland, it'll affect you though your electric bill.

A lot less than my car's petrol bill

Sponge Bob

Wait till it rains, it will affect you then

SeanW

yawnstretch wrote: »

The reason environmental activists want to move to electric powered vehicles is because they are the only ones with the potential to be powered renewably.

Nuclear is not viable today because the technology is wasteful and destructive to manage. It may be viable some day.

Now, imagine if we concentrated on making solar, wind, wave, geothermal etc viable - even though they may not "cut it" right now?

Today we focus on making nuclear viable but I say that renewables are more deserving of our efforts. The reason that nuclear power is being pushed is because it makes money.

I had a feeling I'd find this explanation enjoyably amusing but I didn't expect it to be downright silly!

There is a wise old saying that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Obviously you disagree. In this case obviously nuclear is the bird in the hand, and your ideal endpoint for renewables is the 2 in the bush.

Only this attitude isn't exactly new - perhaps it was a similar view held by the Carnsore Point hippies way back in '78? That's nearly 35 years since then of burning fossil fuels thanks SOLELY to people like you. That's nearly 35 years of total, abject and absolute failure. And it's quite possible likely IMHO that the next 35 years will be no different.

Thanks to Fukushima though, you're getting your way - public sentiment is turning Anti-Nuclear Pro-Coal again, and a rolling train wreck of coal power expansion that started in Germany can only accelerate.

If and when this mass insanity causes the climate catastrophe that we've all been warned about, and our children ask us why? My conscience will be clear.

A lot less than my car's petrol bill

Diesel, plus hypermiling FTW.

yawnstretch

Burning diesel contributes to your "climate catastrophe". Hypermiling - and you call me silly?

Renewables have come a long way and if we use this opportunity to finance their development perhaps we can come back to nuclear at a later stage. Priority one should be sustainability because our habitat is being destroyed by the second.

SeanW

Hypermiling - and you call me silly?

I doubled my fuel economy - nothing silly about it! But FWIW I called your explanation silly, not you personally.

Renewables have come a long way and if we use this opportunity to finance their development perhaps we can come back to nuclear at a later stage.

But they were presumably pre-historic back in the days of the Carnsore Point protests, and in any case, they are still - literally - as dependable as the weather, so that much hasn't changed in all the years since, and is unlikely to change in the medium term. "Finance their development" with what? Maybe you missed a newscast or two, but our government is broke! The private sector, on the other hand, can often run a complete life cycle nuclear system without a subsidy, and this is what the UK wants to have done for its new nuclear power plants. There are no shortage of interested parties.

Priority one should be sustainability because our habitat is being destroyed by the second.

Agreed.

mgmt

SeanW wrote: »

Maybe you missed a newscast or two, but our government is broke! The private sector, on the other hand, can often run a complete life cycle nuclear system without a subsidy, and this is what the UK wants to have done for its new nuclear power plants. There are no shortage of interested parties.

No nuclear power plant operates without a subsidy. None.

This government said over and again that there would be no subsidy for the nuclear industry. But George Osborne seems to have found another way to give the industry a boost, funded by anyone who pays a domestic energy bill. You will pay more. Some of the money will go to the UK government, and some will go to help boost the renewables industry. But you might be surprised to hear that some will also effectively go to the government of France.

The Chancellor says he wants to increase the proportion of revenue raised from environmental taxes. And the government wants to make low-carbon technology financially attractive. Setting a new ‘Carbon Floor Price’ means that from 2013 up to 2020 electricity generators who emit carbon dioxide (from gas or coal fire power stations) will steadily pay more every year for carbon permits. They will pass that on to consumers. It isn’t a tax on their profits but is effectively part of their generating costs, so they will argue that there is no reason why they should not pass the costs on. Renewable and nuclear generators will not have to pay these extra taxes as they do not emit carbon dioxide. The electricity price is set by the amount that gas fired power stations can sell their electricity, because they are the ‘marginal plant’ (the last bit of electricity traded when demand is high). So the renewable and nuclear companies, who do not have to pay for carbon permits because they do not emit carbon dioxide, will effectively get a windfall profit (because they sell electricity at the same price as those whose costs have risen).

http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/a-new-subsidy-for-nuclear/957

Taxpayers also have to pay for the storage costs of nuclear waste.

Sponge Bob

mgmt wrote: »

Taxpayers also have to pay for the storage costs of nuclear waste.

The marginal extra cost of 'new' waste on top of what is already there is negligible. If no new nukes were ever built in the UK they would pay these costs ANYWAY! Don't conflate the legacy of the UK weapons programs particularly between 1945 and 1980 with power generation in future, please!!!

The original Magnox program was skewed towards munitions production not power generation. A Magnox ( the main UK reactor design) was a plutonium producer that output electricity as a side effect almost.

Essentially the UK Nuclear Generation Industry from the 1960s to the 1980s subsidised the military. This will not happen again.

But that is a sunk cost or a legacy cost. A future nuclear program will also train and equip a new generation of technologists to manage and maintain this legacy which will last many generations....I mean they can hardly ABANDON it can they ????

Ireland has no business advocating such an abandonment either, it is in our interest that the UK continues to manage this legacy properly. Listining to Irish Greens one would think that walking awy from their toxic stockpile is the best idea, it most certainly is not

ei.sdraob

mgmt wrote: »

Taxpayers also have to pay for the storage costs of nuclear waste.

In Finland they build a long term underground storage facility for under 2 billion, paid in full by the plant operators who are required by law to handover money up front which will be used for decomissioning and storage. The figures used by Eirgrid in their study uses Finlands figures as an example.

To reiterate disposal and storage is charged up front.

Sponge Bob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

To reiterate disposal and storage is charged up front.

I knew that when I recommended Wylfa :cool:

ei.sdraob

There is a detailed document here, http://www.energia.fi/en/publications/nuclear%20waste.pdf

Those pesky Scandinavian countries always get things right :P

superelliptic

Fission reactors in Ireland are a bad idea. They may solve the question of how to make Ireland energy independent, but if there is ever an accident - which lets face it, we cant rule out- then we will have to abandon most of the country, as it would be uninhabitable.

I'd hold out for this to be honest, even if it does take another 20 years before we see a properly working plant:

http://youtu.be/DyB7Ho_W9RE

Read all about it...

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/

Hotblack Desiato

mgmt wrote: »

No nuclear power plant operates without a subsidy. None.

Renewables are heavily subsidised, building a wind farm isn't so much about selling energy as it is about grabbing taxpayers' cash.

dubhthach

superelliptic wrote: »

Fission reactors in Ireland are a bad idea. They may solve the question of how to make Ireland energy independent, but if there is ever an accident - which lets face it, we cant rule out- then we will have to abandon most of the country, as it would be uninhabitable.

The problem is if we thought about everything in same way nothing would get built. I think one most important things to point out regarding the accident in Japan is that it was a 40 year plant. There has been a huge improvement in safety technology over those 40 years. New reactor designs include "passive safety features". For example the would contain coolant tanks of water above the reactor that are fed by gravity (no pumps) as a result if there was a loss of power the reactor would still receive coolant etc.

Anyways I think the Chinese are probably going to crack the Thorium nut. It's considerably safer tech.

Of course if one is cynical one reason for using Carnsore as a site was that in event of a leak most of radiation would have either ended out at sea or blown by prevailing winds across the Irish sea.

yawnstretch

Pro-nukers always say the same thing - if we didn't try then we'd never succeed at anything but they won't apply that logic to renewable tech!

Nuclear industry has has plenty of subsidies - now it's time for the Eco-tech.

Just accept it. Each new person who sees this thread is voting no. (Yes percentage decreasing by the day).