Government Strategy for Renewable Energy 2012 - 2020

Sponge Bob

Aidan1 wrote: »

All of that said, there would still be scale problems with building a nuclear plant here. They still need very large scale to operate efficiently (say 3 x 300MW) , probably larger than our system could deal with for the moment. In time that could be dealt with by bilateral deals with the UK, but that wouldn't get anyone over the political problems that would ensueif you actually tried to build one.

Which is why I long advocated putting one (running say 2 x 500mw or 2 x 600mw) near Dublin in Wylfa, search this forum for Wylfa !

SeanW

tharlear wrote: »

I read about radar being used to deter bats from flying near turbine a couple of years ago

http://http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/2872-using-radar-to-protect-bats-from-wind-turbines

They are, at best, 70% effective.

Nothing on that page suggests that it's a good idea to put a large wind turbine 160 metres from a bat roost.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Not at all, the distinction is very important. Projects fail to get planning all the time on the basis of incomplete EISs. Quite often it has very little to do with the worth or otherwise of the project.

You don't see a problem with siting a wind farm 160 metres for a large, multi-species bat roost?

So solar PV in Ger = wind in Ireland?

Well they both have to be subsidised ...

Generally yes, but that has a lot to do with the political origins of the Green movement in Europe given that it sprang from the anti-nuclear/CND movement in the 1970s.

I could accept that, if it were any credible suggestion that Ireland would want to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme.

Does anyone really imagine Enda Kenny leaping onto a balcony in the Dail, waving a sword in the air and screaming at the top of his lungs "We have used a nuclear power programme to develop nuclear weapons, which we use to reuite with our brothers in the Southern Markistani republic of Somewhereville!"

Or that the United States is secretly, unbeknownst to anyone developing nuclear weapons under the cover of their civilian nuclear infrastructure.

Perhaps this makes sense to some of the people in Greenpeace or the major world Green parties, but I fail to see why nuclear disarmament would be an issue for a civilian nuclear programme in a country like Ireland.

It also makes no sense when Global Warming, rather than the Cold War, is the hot-button issue (supposidly).

However some notable figures in the movement (Lovelock for one, and the likes of Monbiot) have come out in favour of nuclear.

Yes, James Lovelock, George Monbiot and Mark Lynas. But they're few in number, and are outcasts from their original movements.

OssianSmyth

There are many unresolved challenges for nuclear: long term waste storage, decommissioning costs and disaster risks, increasing plant build and operation costs, uranium mining environmental costs. The greatest challenge to nuclear feasibility now is probably public opinion.



Still some chance for nuclear in the UK with weaker public opposition and the Conservatives trying to tie up a deal with EDF.

For Ireland the chances of going nuclear diminish further due to our small size and the low chance of nuclear clearing planning, regulatory and public support hurdles before Moneypoint is due for replacement.

Aidan1

Well they both have to be subsidised ...

Not true, at least not all the time, which is exactly my point. PV is so much more expensive than conventional generation that it will always require a subvention to make up the difference, and in some cases that subvention is a multiple of the price of electricty. By comparison, wind is directly comparable with conventional generation in terms of price - in this country at least - and particularly once the price of carbon is taken into account (and it will be post 2013 when the free allowances under the ETS end). The support schemes here (AER and then REFIT) are structured so that the additional cost to the consumer tends towards zero as the prices converge. For the earlier schemes, wind actually results in a saving once conventional is more expensive - the savings are paid back into the PSO pool. Long story short, wind only requires a very small subsidy at the worst of times, and for the rest of the time it actually saves consumers money.

could accept that, if it were any credible suggestion that Ireland would want to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme.

Red Herring.

#1. It is a question of anti-nuclear being an article of faith as much as anything else. It's part of the foundational myth of the environmental movement, strengthened particularly here by the Sellafield campaign, and won't be easily surrendered.

#2. In the unlikely event that we were to be operating a Station, we would need to find someone to process spent fuel rods; I'm sure there are those that would suggest that pushing waste into the supply chain would facilitate the construction of further weapons.

Which is why I long advocated putting one (running say 2 x 500mw or 2 x 600mw) near Dublin in Wylfa

Only brings new problems and no benefits. If the supposed benefit is security of supply, how could we be sure that we'd have access to the output in a crisis? What's in it for the UK? How would the population in the take the idea of having all of that (perceived) risk and no benefit? Much better to sign a deal swapping baseload from the UK grid for renewable exports. Our system is so much smaller than the UK one that it could actually be accomodated relatively easily, and we could take advantage of all of that cheap renewables.