Should we go Nuclear?

SeanW

yawnstretch wrote: »

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).

Renewables have been that just-beyond-the-horizon great hope of people like you for many decades now. But they're as far on as ever, and may never overcome the inherent fact of their reliance on the weather. Obviously though if that changes, I will change my stance accordingly.

Nuclear power on the other hand is clean, cost effective and safe, and it can be used - and depended on - today.

I don't doubt that your eco-whacko buddies have carried the argument in wider society with scaremongering and disingenuous arguments - just look at the coal plant building spree in Germany (link!) for example, and I don't really expect Ireland to go nuclear in my lifetime - I only hope that sense will one day prevail. On the contrary, I expect the eco-whacko movement to continue cheerleading for fossil fuels, regardless of how meekly and pathetically they claim be anti-coal as well.

That does not alter my view however, that history may well view this irresponsible stance as a grave mistake. So enjoy your hollow victory. Because as and when the chickens come home to roost - as I suspect they will - I'll be saying "told you so."

yawnstretch

It's not cost effective. You just won't have to deal with the real cost. Therefore it's all peachy.

dubhthach

yawnstretch wrote: »

It's not cost effective. You just won't have to deal with the real cost. Therefore it's all peachy.

Or you just build coal plants which have a nice cheap fuel but just happen to put millions of tonnes of additional CO2 into the atmosphere. That link SeanW posted states Germans will end up emitting an additional 150 million tonnes of CO2 per year by replacing their nuclear power plants.

SeanW

yawnstretch wrote: »

It's not cost effective. You just won't have to deal with the real cost. Therefore it's all peachy.

I don't see how - waste, for example is manageable, like in Finland where they've come up with a permanent subterranean repository. As to "not dealing with the real cost," that is true - of fossil fuels, they just dump their waste into the air.

As I keep mentioning, but nobody ever takes me up on, for some reason, rejecting the nuclear option unavoidably means going hell for leather down the road of fossil fuels.

I pointed to Germany (link) as an example of textbook environmentalist is a failure and how for every action, there is an equal and opposite reactor, (abandon nuclear, embrace coal) but for some reason, none of your eco-whacko buddies have ever called me out on it, despite me having posted this in many of these threads for several years.

I therefore suggest you deal with the facts as they are presented, instead of trying to sell us all apartments in cloud cuckoo land. Because like I said, when your fairy tales turn out the be the worlds nightmares, I'll be holding people like you highly responsible.

SeanW

dubhthach wrote: »

Or you just build coal plants which have a nice cheap fuel but just happen to put millions of tonnes of additional CO2 into the atmosphere. That link SeanW posted states Germans will end up emitting an additional 150 million tonnes of CO2 per year by replacing their nuclear power plants.

Just remember that this is pre-Fukushima. That is only likely to accelerate now with the Germans re-accelerating their nuclear phase-out. It also ignores the toxic witches brew of other pollutants (mercury, arsenic, radiation, acid rain compounds) that come from coal burning.

Dwellingdweller

Tremelo wrote: »

what would it save?

not enough.

Dwellingdweller

SeanW wrote: »

Renewables have been that just-beyond-the-horizon great hope of people like you for many decades now. But they're as far on as ever, and may never overcome the inherent fact of their reliance on the weather. Obviously though if that changes, I will change my stance accordingly.

Nuclear power on the other hand is clean, cost effective and safe

you sure?
sorry for double post

SeanW

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

you sure?
sorry for double post

As long as it's not designed and run by muppets, as was the case in the Soviet Union.

yawnstretch

Nuclear is this generation's coal. Destructive with high but short term yield.

We must live within our means and stop looking for the easy way out. The sooner we realise that the more secure out future will be.

Sadly some people only consider the present. We would not have the pollution we have today if people harmonized with nature for their energy.

dubhthach

yawnstretch wrote: »

Nuclear is this generation's coal. Destructive with high but short term yield.

We must live within our means and stop looking for the easy way out. The sooner we realise that the more secure out future will be.

Sadly some people only consider the present. We would not have the pollution we have today if people harmonized with nature for their energy.

Coal is still this generations coal. There's considerably more coal installed plant globally then Nuclear. Especially in countries such as China and US. If anything we going to see considerably more coal plants built over the next 10 years. After all the chinese are commissioning a new coal plant every two weeks!

old_aussie

yawnstretch wrote: »

tech.

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

Huh?, I just saw this thread today and voted yes!

SeanW

dubhthach wrote: »

After all the chinese are commissioning a new coal plant every two weeks!

And remember, those textbook environmentalists in Germany are just behind them!

scotty_irish

scotty_irish wrote: »

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.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html

just realised i never included the link!

Sponge Bob

All of China India and Russia are looking at plutonium burning fuel cycles, generally Thorium and Plutonium in a mix with something a lot less nasty coming out the other end, as well as power. I think this will eventually work and that is where the plutonium stockpiles will end up.

Thorium will eventually be commercialised and scaled up, most likely by the Indians and Chinese who are most committed to this fuel cycle. I do not recommend that Ireland has anything to do with this effort. Good single page overview here ( the thread is a bit long so I won't send ye backwards)

yawnstretch

scotty_irish wrote: »

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html

just realised i never included the link!

First sentence at your link:

"The very existence of plutonium is often viewed as the work of the devil."

Not exactly an encouraging opening. My personal motto is "Tús maith, leath na h'oibre".

scotty_irish

yawnstretch wrote: »

First sentence at your link:

"The very existence of plutonium is often viewed as the work of the devil."

Not exactly an encouraging opening. My personal motto is "Tús maith, leath na h'oibre".

Ach ar léigh tú an alt ina iomlán?

Did ya bother to read it or just the opening sentence? It then continues to explain why this is not true and why there are much more dangerous substances manufactured in much greater quantities which we accept. I know this isn't a reason in itself to produce just cos there's worse out there, but it debunks many of the "facts" about plutonium.

ei.sdraob

yawnstretch wrote: »

"The very existence of plutonium steam engines is often viewed as the work of the devil."

See what I did there?
any technology with potential for much power, which uneducated people can not understand, at first experiences a Luddite backlash.

Anyone who understands the old E=mc2 formula would quickly realise the potential for huge amounts of energy being released from little matter. Nuclear fission and fussion are simply technologies to tap into this matter<>energy conversion, yes there there sideefects such as radioactive waste, but these could be reduced considerably.
On the other hand million of people die worldwide yearly due to coal mining, and burning in steam producing furnances, yet this 300 year old technology is now accepted and the damage caused ignored by the mainstream.

Sponge Bob

scotty_irish wrote: »

Ach ar léigh tú an alt ina iomlán?.

Más glaiseach nach léir nár léigh agus is soiléire nár thuig!!

But as Ireland will not become a serious net contributor to the aggregate of existing plutonium stockpiles in any Nuclear scenario that I can see .....the issue of Plutonium is entirely irrelevant in this thread and of no practical interest.

antoobrien

Sponge Bob wrote: »

All of China India and Russia are looking at plutonium burning fuel cycles, generally Thorium and Plutonium in a mix with something a lot less nasty coming out the other end, as well as power. I think this will eventually work and that is where the plutonium stockpiles will end up.

Thorium will eventually be commercialised and scaled up, most likely by the Indians and Chinese who are most committed to this fuel cycle. I do not recommend that Ireland has anything to do with this effort. Good single page overview here ( the thread is a bit long so I won't send ye backwards)

Confused - what are you suggesting, we don't use this technology (if and when available) or we don't get involved in the R & D of it?

yawnstretch

ei.sdraob wrote: »

See what I did there?
any technology with potential for much power, which uneducated people can not understand, at first experiences a Luddite backlash.

Anyone who understands the old E=mc2 formula would quickly realise the potential for huge amounts of energy being released from little matter. Nuclear fission and fussion are simply technologies to tap into this matter<>energy conversion, yes there there sideefects such as radioactive waste, but these could be reduced considerably.
On the other hand million of people die worldwide yearly due to coal mining, and burning in steam producing furnances, yet this 300 year old technology is now accepted and the damage caused ignored by the mainstream.

I was quoting something I disagreed with...

Sponge Bob

antoobrien wrote: »

Confused - what are you suggesting, we don't use this technology (if and when available)

We will probably not be able to avail of the particular cycle when we need to go nuclear ( by 2025/30) is why.

When you buy into nuclear you buy into fuel/reactor and long term storage too. Or else you don't and only commission a plant.

I don't believe the Belgian Synatom model is suitable for Ireland ( described here) but they do a lot of the work in France anyway

I don't want us to end up like the Phillipines did .....and do remember what Gormley did to incineration once he got in

ei.sdraob

yawnstretch wrote: »

I was quoting something I disagreed with...

I know I wasnt replying to you, but the quote your quoted

cant seem to edit the post now

ei.sdraob

Our friends in Germany who to so much fanfare went about closing nuclear plants, will now replace them with ... ... coal plants :rolleyes:

And the NYMBYs are scuttling plans for renewables with no progress on the "smartgrid" as (surprise surprise) not many want their landscape covered in wind-generators and powerlines.

SeanW

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Our friends in Germany who to so much fanfare went about closing nuclear plants, will now replace them with ... ... coal plants :rolleyes:

And the NYMBYs are scuttling plans for renewables with no progress on the "smartgrid" as (surprise surprise) not many want their landscape covered in wind-generators and powerlines.

Oh dear, who could have seen THAT coming

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

Oh dear, who could have seen THAT coming

What, the coal plants or the nimby's or both?

I'd like to see more willow planting in the bogs around here for use in the power stations instead of turf.

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Our friends in Germany who to so much fanfare went about closing nuclear plants, will now replace them with ... ... coal plants :rolleyes:

And the NYMBYs are scuttling plans for renewables with no progress on the "smartgrid" as (surprise surprise) not many want their landscape covered in wind-generators and powerlines.

I can guarantee you when Angela Merkel is out, and that will be soon enough. A new Nuclear program will be in the making!

All the wind turbines and solar panels can't compete with Nuclear, and the fact is coal powered stations are killing people by causing cancer, just like diesel vehicles and to a lesser extent petrol, not to mention the amount of coal still being allowed to be burnt as a source of heat in homes is a disgrace!

Now I am against Nuclear using current reactor design and uranium.

L.F.T.R design is so much more safer and better over all, Thorium (could) be the way forward, however more research needs to be done in L.F.T.R.

The safety aspects alone make it very attractive and the very little waste.

Any mention of Nuclear here will have people marching on the streets, I bet if Nuclear Fusion works they will march against that too not knowing anything about the facts!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What, the coal plants or the nimby's or both?

I'd like to see more willow planting in the bogs around here for use in the power stations instead of turf.

Exactly the kind of thinking we need! But there is only one thing, that will cost money, and it's too easy to destroy the bogs and that's the Irish way, too many farmers destroyed the forests, fact is Ireland is THE MOST de forested country in the whole of Europe!

We need more trees anyway not just for cutting and burning or industry but for forest and parks. Too much land is farm land and the Irish people have no access to it!

ei.sdraob

Deleted User wrote: »

What, the coal plants or the nimby's or both?

My prediction from when this was announced in March

ei.sdraob wrote: »

This is bad news for environment and peoples health
no nuclear plants will be build to replace old ones that need to go (what are chances of tsunami in Germany?) instead they be replaced by yet more dirty coal of which Germany is already burning plenty

oh goody goody go Greens **** up the environment some more

10GW of new coal plants to replace nuclear, yeh what a surprise, who would have thought...

dubhthach

Moneypoint currently produces 5.9M tonnes of CO2 per year. That's for 915MW if you were to use it as a template the 10GW of coal power will put about 64M tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere per year.