Nuclear Power

Doc Ruby

Chemical Burn wrote: »

Yeah, Ireland really is a hop-spot for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and strong hurricanes.

Doesn't matter, it's not worth the risk when alternatives exist. We're drowning in wind here, and it will create more jobs, we should do like Denmark and start building and exporting turbines. Nuclear does best when there aren't any other choices.

spankmemunkey

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

If a meteor 1km wide hit Ireland the least of our worries would be it hitting a nuclear power plant. It would take out half the planet.

It happened before in Germany theres a town in Germany living in the crater, it hit 14.5 million years ago and its expected that another will hit again,

Its not really my point, my point is man kind cant control nature or natural events

http://www.psi.edu/explorecraters/riestour.htm

andrew

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Ye know Earthquakes arent the only way things can go pear shaped, what happens when a meteor one kilometre wide hits somewhere on earth? It happened before and it is expected to happen again, just like it did in Germany, its expected to happen again soon, this would render a huge amount of earth uninhabitable,

So of all the plausible natural disasters which could plausibly affect a Nuclear Power plant, you choose a meteorite?!

Jester252

No

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Doesn't matter, it's not worth the risk when alternatives exist. We're drowning in wind here, and it will create more jobs, we should do like Denmark and start building and exporting turbines. Nuclear does best when there aren't any other choices.

But Ireland is hitting the max energy we can get from wind.

Recidivist

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Fracking, another great thing for the environment!

My objection to nuclear power is the economic argument rather than the environmental.

Yes fracking can be a disaster for the local environment.

If we're going to be all NIMBY about it we should import all our energy.]
After all some consider turbines ugly, tidal barrages have huge local impact, burning hydrocarbons has drawbacks too.
Energy is not free, there is always a price to be paid by someone.

How much are you willing to spend ?

pom pom snaz peeler

Jester252 wrote: »

But Ireland is hitting the max energy we can get from wind.

were far from max'ed out in relation to this.......havent you had a curry recently!

spankmemunkey

Recidivist wrote: »

My objection to nuclear power is the economic argument rather than the environmental.

Yes fracking can be a disaster for the local environment.

If we're going to be all NIMBY about it we should import all our energy.]
After all some consider turbines ugly, tidal barrages have huge local impact, burning hydrocarbons has drawbacks too.
Energy is not free, there is always a price to be paid by someone.

How much are you willing to spend ?

if a turbine explodes it doesnt render the place uninhabitable!

What about Chernobyl?

spankmemunkey

andrew wrote: »

So of all the plausible natural disasters which could plausibly affect a Nuclear Power plant, you choose a meteorite?!

I knew somebody would pick me up on that, well if you read my previous posts youd see that i did highlight other causes, it just so happens that i was watching a documentry about meteorites,

Once these plants are started theres NO GOING BACK, if there is a natural disaster theres not starting all over again! were done for, if there is another world war imagine survivin that and then realising oh sh't were fooked anyway cos all the nuclear waste thats stored underground in Denmark or Norway has been exposed, theres so many ways that it can go pear shaped that was just one example,

We also have to teach people that energy needs to be used responsibly, people turn on power in their homes and only think of what it costs them not of the impact to the environment.

What about Solar Power If every home in Ireland had solar power we could generate our own power and even supply power back to the grid. The government should provide grants to homes to install solar power

Whats the solution to Chernobyl??

Recidivist

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

if a turbine explodes it doesnt render the place uninhabitable!

What about Chernobyl?

What about it?


The senarios you describe are fairly outlandish, Chernobyl, world war and large meteorite impacts? (What about the mutant zombies?)

I agree that nuclear power power is not suitable for Ireland, for rational reasons.

spankmemunkey

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

It happened before in Germany theres a town in Germany living in the crater, it hit 14.5 million years ago and its expected that another will hit again,

Its not really my point, my point is man kind cant control nature or natural events

The point is a meteor 1km wide hitting Ireland would take out half the planet, it would make a difference if it hit 10 nuclear power plants at the same time we are all going to be dust.

You are making up crazy scenarios to run down nuclear power, which is one of the safest and cleanest ways to generate power. One major disaster involving the Russians and smaller one in Japan in a plant build in an unsuitable place where there has been very few if any deaths as yet and pales in comparison to the natural disaster that lead to it.

It may not be economically viable but I would certainly be a big supporter of building a nuclear power plant in Ireland and being a Physicist it would mean a massive influx of very good jobs for people like me.

Recidivist

No

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

The point is a meteor 1km wide hitting Ireland would take out half the planet ............being a Physicist .....

No it wouldn't.

A 1km rock slamming into Cork would scare the life out of people in Derry, it certainly wouldn't take out half the planet.

I want better physicists than you working in my plant.

spankmemunkey

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

The point is a meteor 1km wide hitting Ireland would take out half the planet, it would make a difference if it hit 10 nuclear power plants at the same time we are all going to be dust.

You are making up crazy scenarios to run down nuclear power, which is one of the safest and cleanest ways to generate power. One major disaster involving the Russians and smaller one in Japan in a plant build in an unsuitable place where there has been very few if any deaths as yet and pales in comparison to the natural disaster that lead to it.

It may not be economically viable but I would certainly be a big supporter of building a nuclear power plant in Ireland and being a Physicist it would mean a massive influx of very good jobs for people like me.

Did you not see the link i posted? ITS A FACT, It happened before in Germany I lived there i know about this and scientists there say it will happen again, if the planet would turn to dust why didnt it happen in Germany when it happened there? thers a village living in the crater that was formed by it EDUCATE YOURSELF before making GERNERALISATIONS! its not like a scientific paper was written about it possibly happening IT HAPPENED! Theres a visitors center there.

This is besides the point, my point is man kind is not in control of nature **** happens, and as i said before the problem of CHERNOBYL still hasnt been resolved, People like to criticise other pepole when they talk about negative things in life and they like to bury their heads in the sand, IF you talk about the ozone layer your told oh shut up your depressing or about the environment or about global warming, so many people do not want to face upto the facts and when these issues are raised they are made to look like they are weirdo's just becaue they are raising the negative issues,


CHERNOBYL is OUTLANDISH? WOW what movie script did i copy that off??

Meteorites never hit earth or other planets,???

Zombies are your fantasy not reality.

What is your solution to the problem of Chernobyl? It hasnt been resolved, there was concrete poured over it and its cracking and ready to leak again and NOBODY knows how to resolve this problem which will be around for hundreds of thousands of years, and scientists say the next biggest CHERNOBYL disaster will be CHERNOBYL itself,

Recidivist

No

Recidivist wrote: »

No it wouldn't.

A 1km rock slamming into Cork would scare the life out of people in Derry, it certainly wouldn't take out half the planet.

I want better physicists than you working in my plant.

Well Meteor is the wrong word anyway as it only refers to small objects. I might have exaggerated a bit on taking out half the planet but its a lot worse than you think.

A 10km diameter sized object would be getting to an extinction scale level, 5km diameter would be 200,000 times more powerful the the most powerful nuclear weapon ever exploded so I wouldn't be laughing very much at an object with 1km diameter.

Also I am not an astrophysicist so I don't necessarily know a whole lot more than your average person about this specific area, I work in a totally different field.

Recidivist

No

A repeat of Chernobyl is outlandish, the failures in design operation and management are well documented.
I don't need a solution, the existing plan - get the shelter containing the reactor into confinement is detailed here.

http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/BIP/29844.pdf

Chernobyl was a tragedy on an unprecedented scale - coupled with cold war fear of all things radioactive it lends itself to a knee jerk reaction for all discussion of nuclear power.
We don't need World War or meteorites to exaggerate the danger. You cannot design for them anyway.

The majority of people on this thread are in favour of nuclear power.
I understand the idea makes you uncomfortable - I suspect the reason for this is that you're linking it to Armageddon as demonstrated by WWIII, meteorite impact and zombies.

It's a means of generating electricity, it's got some drawbacks and has had bad press. Probably not suitable for Ireland. That's all.


Alright, the zombies are mine but why leave them out of an end of the world fantasy?

Recidivist

No

Sorry Nox, didn’t mean to come across as snide, but I did.

My back of a fag packet calculation was 2×10^20 J
Dunno why I decided to obliterate Cork, just nasty I suppose.

Jester252

No

pom pom snaz peeler wrote: »

were far from max'ed out in relation to this.......havent you had a curry recently!

Too bad we can't do **** with it

spankmemunkey

Recidivist wrote: »

A repeat of Chernobyl is outlandish, the failures in design operation and management are well documented.
I don't need a solution, the existing plan - get the shelter containing the reactor into confinement is detailed here.

http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/BIP/29844.pdf

Chernobyl was a tragedy on an unprecedented scale - coupled with cold war fear of all things radioactive it lends itself to a knee jerk reaction for all discussion of nuclear power.
We don't need World War or meteorites to exaggerate the danger. You cannot design for them anyway.

The majority of people on this thread are in favour of nuclear power.
I understand the idea makes you uncomfortable - I suspect the reason for this is that you're linking it to Armageddon as demonstrated by WWIII, meteorite impact and zombies.

It's a means of generating electricity, it's got some drawbacks and has had bad press. Probably not suitable for Ireland. That's all.


Alright, the zombies are mine but why leave them out of an end of the world fantasy?

No your missing my point entirely, man kind cannot control nature and these things can happen not to mention human error! do you think the world is functioning in a perfectly normal manner today?

Do you not think weather patterns are getting worse and worse and worse?

If we do have a problem there wont be any starting all over again, and the most people dont care about nuclear power cos they dont care what happens after their life span, simple as.

The problem with Chernobyl still exists nobody knows what to do with it and it will be like that for 100,000 years! they can keep building covers for it but they will only last for 15-20 years at at time and its costing 980 million euros just to do that.

I think we can say its safer for man kind to concentrate on renewable technology the type of stuff that wont jeopardise man kind.

Gbear

No

Holding up Chernobyl as to why Nuclear Power is bad is like holding up the Trabant as to why cars are bad.

Curly Judge

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Ye know Earthquakes arent the only way things can go pear shaped, what happens when a meteor one kilometre wide hits somewhere on earth? It happened before and it is expected to happen again, just like it did in Germany, its expected to happen again soon, this would render a huge amount of earth uninhabitable,

you people are all so Naieve that the powers that be have our best interests at heart and they will look after it all, look at all the fook ups that have happened in this country! Theres Sh't we dont even know about thats happened around the world with Nuclear power, sure its a great way of generating power but what about the risks the after life of plants and by products and then the possible risks, man kind will not be able to keep nature in check for ever.

Chernobyl is the next biggest Chernobyl waiting to happen as that problem still hasnt been fixed properly its just been poured over by concrete and its said to be very close to erupting again but the powers that be just dont know how to deal with, once is enough!!!!!!

Who says Chernobyl is about to erupt again?

Agricola

No

Im in favor of it because its the only realistic option for power in the decades and centuries to come. If population growth and energy consumption estimates are in any way accurate, our dwindling fossil fuel resources just wont cut it. Notwithstanding the fact that we should be moving away from them anyway due to pollution. So unless the developed world is happy with going backwards in the years to come, nuclear is the future.

old hippy

Not bloodly likely. Wave power, wind power, solar power - whatever it takes but a nuclear Ireland? No thanks.

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

But Ireland is hitting the max energy we can get from wind.

no we aren't

you have to remember that peak electrical demand hasn't gone up so we still have all the fossil fuel backup plants

now that we have interconnectors we can export surplus too, last year we got 25% from renewables and we are still rolling it out - also 300MW tidal up north in the next few years

worldwide nuclear peaked at about 15%

Capt'n Midnight

Recidivist wrote: »

A repeat of Chernobyl is outlandish, the failures in design operation and management are well documented.

If the nascent nuclear industry had listened to General Grove back in 1943 and taken on board the implications of ignoring common sense instead of continuing to rely on 'we know best' then you might have a point.

Fukushima happened because nothing was done after a near miss in similar circumstances to a French plant ( sea wall wasn't high enough to contain historical flood levels, and backup cooling failed )

We are in a position where the industry has acknowledged that most European reactors need safety improvements. This came out because of a review after Fukushima. So either the nuclear industry didn't know there were problems or they were keeping the problems hidden or the problems were known and not being sorted. The issues here are trust, accountability, and economics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/9587497/Practically-all-of-EUs-nuclear-reactors-need-safety-improvements.html

"Practically all" of the 134 nuclear reactors in the European Union need safety improvements at a cost of up to £20 billion, a bill that is likely to be passed on to the consumer in higher electricity prices.

Capt'n Midnight

Gbear wrote: »

Holding up Chernobyl as to why Nuclear Power is bad is like holding up the Trabant as to why cars are bad.

If it was just Chernobyl


European and American cars only got good when Japanese cars came along. Today's cars don't rust like the death traps of old. Maybe things will get better if someone can get a generation four reactor working safely but that will take 20 year and a dozen reactors before we could be sure

BTW
Trabants don't rust, like most consumer goods made in the East they will last far longer than the fancy stuff you get in the West which is made by the lowest bidder.

spankmemunkey

Curly Judge wrote: »

Who says Chernobyl is about to erupt again?

The powers that be, one of the reactors is incased in a Sarcophagus of concrete that is cracking and will need to be replaced with a new Sarcophagus this will only last for another 15 years and it will need to be done again
and again and again and again, for 100,s of thousands of years! Theres tons or Radioactive dust down there that is bad news for all concerned if it escapes.

One disaster is enough, not to mention fukashima, (natural disaster) that somebody said to me like i was making it up out of a film.

After Fukashima Germany has done a safety audit on all its plants and alot failed causing merkel to call on power stations to be fased out, and focus on renewables, the debate is an ongoing one in Germany!

68 lost souls

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

• The average person who uses fossil fuel based electricity is responsible for 5 freight trains fu of burnt ash etc, whereas a person using nucear their whole life is responsible for about a coke can ful
  

Nuclear energy is still not a renewable resource and therefore is similar to fossil fuels in that it will run out and we will be stuck in the same place further down the road.

Gbear

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If it was just Chernobyl


European and American cars only got good when Japanese cars came along. Today's cars don't rust like the death traps of old. Maybe things will get better if someone can get a generation four reactor working safely but that will take 20 year and a dozen reactors before we could be sure

BTW
Trabants don't rust, like most consumer goods made in the East they will last far longer than the fancy stuff you get in the West which is made by the lowest bidder.

Wha?

I'm saying that holding up a version of a technology made by communists as a reason for not using that technology is seriously stupid.

The Chernobyl event (disaster seems a bit strong) says nothing about the nuclear industry as a whole.

An Coilean

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If it was just Chernobyl
Trabants don't rust, like most consumer goods made in the East they will last far longer than the fancy stuff you get in the West which is made by the lowest bidder.

Its not that they're made by the lowest bidder, western consumer products are specifically designed to fail after a certain period of time, Its called product life cycle. Take lightbulbs for example, standard life is 1000 hours, patents for 100,000 hour lightbulbs were lodged 50 years ago, but selling them would have restricted the market and made them less profitable.

68 lost souls

Gbear wrote: »

Wha?

I'm saying that holding up a version of a technology made by communists as a reason for not using that technology is seriously stupid.

The Chernobyl event (disaster seems a bit strong) says nothing about the nuclear industry as a whole.

It was a disaster not an event look and forgetting Chernobyl there is also 3 mile island and Fukushima incidents to think about.

spankmemunkey

Gbear wrote: »

Wha?

I'm saying that holding up a version of a technology made by communists as a reason for not using that technology is seriously stupid.

The Chernobyl event (disaster seems a bit strong) says nothing about the nuclear industry as a whole.

Fukashimas technology was out dated was it?