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

Nuclear Power

Options
24567…25

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    seven_eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭seven_eleven


    No
    crazy cabbage wrote: »
    How do we propose to deal with this?

    Lob it in the Irish sea. Twill be grand shur


  • Options
    #33
    thecornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 784 ✭✭✭thecornflake


    parrai wrote: »
    Not content with polluting the earth, lets destroy space too... Lovely.

    I think its more the problem of a rocket failure which could disperse the material as opposed to contaminating space.

    The real space contamination threat are those pesky Romulans , damn you , damn you all to hell !!!


  • Options
    #34
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    crazy cabbage wrote: »
    I am for but there is still some negatives. People say that there is only a briefcase of wast per year per plant but what people fail to factor in is that this wast will have to be stored for potentially millions of years in a very secure manor. How do we propose to deal with this?
    Not near my manor, hopefully.


  • Options
    #35
    cartell_best
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭cartell_best


    My name is URL wrote: »
    As I mentioned earlier, we'll be importing nuclear energy from Britain soon, and they have no plans as of yet for a phase out.

    I do believe sir, we have been importing nuclear power for some time now. It has only been, through recent developments and publicity that the €600,000,000 of undersea cables that we as a public, are more recently informed. Before that, the import and export of utility power has been ongoing.


  • Options
    #36
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    No
    My name is URL wrote: »
    Most of the plants will still be operating by 2030, and huge inroads and advances in fusion reactors are likely to be made by then.

    If Ireland was to plan for and build a fission reactor now there's a good chance that by the time it was completed the technology would be almost obsolete.

    As I mentioned earlier, we'll be importing nuclear energy from Britain soon, and they have no plans as of yet for a phase out.

    Fission power has been 30 years away for a lot more than 30 years. There are still massive hurdles preventing fission power from becoming viable any time soon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Nuclear power is an economic rabbit hole. We have massive potential to become a world leader in clean renewables such as wind wave and tidal and yet we have the nuclear fanboys mindlessly extolling the virtues of building a multi-billion dollar liability.


  • Options
    #38
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    No
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Nuclear power is an economic rabbit hole. We have massive potential to become a world leader in clean renewables such as wind wave and tidal and yet we have the nuclear fanboys mindlessly extolling the virtues of building a multi-billion dollar liability.

    dollar?


  • Options
    #39
    Sir Pompous Righteousness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    No
    parrai wrote: »
    Not content with polluting the earth, lets destroy space too... Lovely.

    Pollute space? Seriously? There an infinite amount of free space, surely we could pollute some of it and it wouldn't make a bloody difference.


  • Options
    #40
    the keen edge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    The nuclear waste is the major problem.
    Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »
    Rockets into space. Dump it on the moon.
    That idea is just so fcuking mental.
    You are suggest to strap nuclear waste atop of a space vehicle containing over half a million gallons of Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen rocket fuel?


  • Options
    #41
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    When I was younger, I thought "Pandoras Box" was what Pandora kept in Pandoras knickers. Now I think it's Nuclear anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    No
    the keen edge wrote: »
    The nuclear waste is the major problem.


    That idea is just so fcuking mental.
    You are suggest to strap nuclear waste atop of a space vehicle containing over half a million gallons of Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen rocket fuel?

    It would be better to launch an empty rocket and then drag up a few kg of nucular waste at a time with a long rope (maybe attach a parachute to the container just in case)


  • Options
    #43
    the keen edge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    eth0 wrote: »
    It would be better to launch an empty rocket and then drag up a few kg of nucular waste at a time with a long rope (maybe attach a parachute to the container just in case)

    I've got a empty USA biscuit tin in the garage.

    Might get 1 or 2 kilos into it?
    I'll sellotape the lid on just in caseys'


  • Options
    #44
    Sir Pompous Righteousness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    No
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Nuclear power is an economic rabbit hole. We have massive potential to become a world leader in clean renewables such as wind wave and tidal and yet we have the nuclear fanboys mindlessly extolling the virtues of building a multi-billion dollar liability.

    Wind, wave and photovoltaic energy sources will never meet exponentially increasing energy demands by themselves.


  • Options
    #45
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    No
    the keen edge wrote: »
    I've got a empty USA biscuit tin in the garage.

    Might get 1 or 2 kilos into it?
    I'll sellotape the lid on just in caseys'

    Nah I don't trust nucular things with "USA" wrote on them
    Wind, wave and photovoltaic energy sources will never meet exponentially increasing energy demands by themselves.
    Energy demands are actually decreasing since the recession in this part of the world. People more careful not to waste and appliances getting more efficient


  • Options
    #46
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »
    Wind, wave and photovoltaic energy sources will never meet exponentially increasing energy demands by themselves.

    I didn't claim they would.


  • Options
    #47
    Sir Pompous Righteousness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    No
    the keen edge wrote: »
    The nuclear waste is the major problem.


    That idea is just so fcuking mental.
    You are suggest to strap nuclear waste atop of a space vehicle containing over half a million gallons of Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen rocket fuel?

    Yes. Launch it from a secure isolated region and dump it into outer space.


  • Options
    #48
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    No
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I didn't claim they would.

    So if you accept that renewables can't meet increasing energy demand, then how is extolling the virtues of nuclear power 'mindless.'


  • Options
    #49
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »
    Yes. Launch it from a secure isolated region and dump it into outer space.
    Leitrim? Could create jobs there and there is already a form of "exclusion zone".


  • Options
    #50
    Sir Pompous Righteousness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    No
    eth0 wrote: »
    Energy demands are actually decreasing since the recession in this part of the world. People more careful not to waste and appliances getting more efficient

    Yes, hopefully "this part of the world" will be in permanent recession. :rolleyes:

    No matter how you like it, demand for energy will increase many times over in the coming decades.


  • Options
    #51
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    The future is in nuclear fusion that will bring limitless clean power. Until then, I'd be more pushing for hydrogen power which is one of the universe's most abundant element.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Sir Pompous Righteousness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    No
    Pottler wrote: »
    Leitrim? Could create jobs there and there is already a form of "exclusion zone".

    Why can't you think outside the box? Governments can set up a global pooling of nuclear waste contents, like an international nuclear binman, and have them launched into outer space from a secure isolated region of the world, take Antarctica or a space launch rig in the Pacific.


  • Options
    #53
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,218 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    No
    Anyone got reliable figures on how much longer fossil fuels are likely to last??


  • Options
    #54
    the keen edge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »
    Yes. Launch it from a secure isolated region and dump it into outer space.

    It costs ~$500 million to launch a space shuttle.
    For what you're suggesting to be cost effective, the payload of nuclear waste would be enormous.

    No matter how isolated the launch site if it went tits up, as a few NASA launches have done, planet earth would be proper fcuked.

    Offloading nuclear waste of in to the vastness of deep space is on the face of it potentially a solution. However attempting this with the current delivery vehicles is just way to risky.

    +1 for the documentary Into eternity, really put the life span of the waste into perspective.


  • Options
    #55
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,218 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    No
    Yeah the keen edge is right. With current technology levels it is way too risky and expensive.


  • Options
    #56
    the keen edge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    MadYaker wrote: »
    Anyone got reliable figures on how much longer fossil fuels are likely to last??

    At least until christmas, maybe even longer!


  • Options
    #57
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    andrew wrote: »
    So if you accept that renewables can't meet increasing energy demand, then how is extolling the virtues of nuclear power 'mindless.'

    Non sequitur.

    The stated premises that there will be an exponential increase in demand for energy (source?) does not mean that nuclear is the inevitable solution/conclusion.


  • Options
    #58
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    It strikes me funny but recently we just built an inconnector to power 100 000 homes in the irish market. With power being so cheap and unregulated in the uk would it not be cheaper to build 16 inconnectors and let the uk worry about the waste...

    It would be far cheaper than one powerstation and you would power the whole country.


  • Options
    #59
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »
    Why can't you think outside the box? Governments can set up a global pooling of nuclear waste contents, like an international nuclear binman, and have them launched into outer space from a secure isolated region of the world, take Antarctica or a space launch rig in the Pacific.

    I'm entirely pro nuclear power but the most isolated location isn't going to be that isolated if the rocket explodes miles and miles into the sky. The waste could easily end up spreading to populated locations.


  • Options
    #60
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    The world is in an utter state of emergency because of overuse of fossil fuels. I've always been adamantly against nuclear power, but at this stage I think it's the only choice, until we build up wave and wind power to a level where it can take the strain.

    If we have time. Since it seems likely that the Greenland melt may stop the Atlantic Ocean conveyor belt, and tip the world into nuclear winter, we may be too late already.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    eth0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭eth0


    No
    Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »
    Yes, hopefully "this part of the world" will be in permanent recession. :rolleyes:

    No matter how you like it, demand for energy will increase many times over in the coming decades.

    If we keep outsourcing to China we will be and when we're broke they'll be in recession too. The outlook isn't so rosy at all. The chinese won't keep giving us loans to keep buying their cheap toasters and other shoite indefinitely


Advertisement