Brit nuclear reactor planned for Ireland?

joshea3

Unearthed this British Government’s Office for Nuclear Development report in Wikileaks 2010 archives. Scary!

ted1

Not really modern plants are perfectly safe and with the S.E.M we could benefit from cheaper electricity as our current energy mix currently provides us with some of the dearest electricity in Europe

Judgement Day

ted1 wrote: »

Not really modern plants are perfectly safe and with the S.E.M we could benefit from cheaper electricity as our current energy mix currently provides us with some of the dearest electricity in Europe

Gotta love the complacency. :rolleyes:

ted1

Well show me examples where they are not?

mike65

"Brit nuclear reactor planned for Northern Ireland" is what the thread title should be. Not that it would make any real sense to locate such a facility in Norn Iron as far as I can see, it offers no advantage over a comparably "remote" location in Scotland or Wales, though the Scots would of course get uppity at the thought of one as they think they will have independence which presumably will be powered by good will or some such in a few years.

Tomk1

What's this "Brit" word in the title about are you some kind of ra-fanboy why not go dailymail and use scum or other derogatory term while your at it.

As regards to; most likely a French built Nuclear plant in that country Northern Ireland, I say go for it, just because Ireland is like cave-men burning coal doesn't mean everyone else have to be.

ted1

Tomk1 wrote: »

What's this "Brit" word in the title about are you some kind of ra-fanboy why not go dailymail and use scum or other derogatory term while your at it.

Very OTT reaction, what has the RA fit to do with it , what is derogatory about the word Brit?

joshea3

Dear oh dear. I thought this was an environmental forum but now I’m being accused of being a “ra-fanboy” for using the term “Brit”. If Tomk1 thinks it’s offensive, he should inform all those poor musicians who’ve been tarred with the “Brit pop” label, and while he’s at it start campaigning to have the “Brit awards” banned.
There obviously is nothing wrong though with calling the denizens of Cumbria who live under the shadow of the Thorpe reprocessing plant “cave men”, or the other Neanderthals in Co. Louth who don’t share Tomk1’s “go for it” approach to nuclear power.

Reamer Fanny

ted1 wrote: »

Well show me examples where they are not?

Fukushima?

ted1

justryan wrote: »

Fukushima?

Right so, tell me what happened that was so bad. A name of a town with a question mark is hardly a reason to not go nuclear

Judgement Day

ted1 wrote: »

Right so, tell me what happened that was so bad. A name of a town with a question mark is hardly a reason to not go nuclear

Nothing happened, thousands of people didn't have to be evacuated from an environmental disaster and if you expect the truth about the damage to come out you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

ted1

Judgement Day wrote: »

Nothing happened, thousands of people didn't have to be evacuated from an environmental disaster and if you expect the truth about the damage to come out you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

And there was 2 million people relocated/ evacuated for the three gorges hydro plant. Should be ban hydro in Ireland ?

A reactor built on a fault line where the generators whet put in the wrong location. I honestly can't see any issue with one in Europe

mike65

Just as well the island of Ireland is famously earthquake/tsunami free.

ted1

mike65 wrote: »

Just as well the island of Ireland is famously earthquake/tsunami free.

I think we all learned about the ring of fire in primary school

EoghanIRL

ted1 wrote: »

Right so, tell me what happened that was so bad. A name of a town with a question mark is hardly a reason to not go nuclear

Yes but fukshimas reactors were damaged by an earthquake. What are the likely hoods of this occurring in Ireland ?

Technoprisoner

ted1 wrote: »

And there was 2 million people relocated/ evacuated for the three gorges hydro plant. Should be ban hydro in Ireland ?

A reactor built on a fault line where the generators whet put in the wrong location. I honestly can't see any issue with one in Europe

its a lot easier to deal with flooding that radioactive melt down...at least you can move back on to the land that got flooded. There were protest in Japan this month to stop the government from opening back up the nuclear power plants. The fall out is so extensive that every ship arriving from japan has to be checked for radioactivity and all its contents.....and by the way it wasnt the earthquake that caused the nuclear fall out but when the place flooded from the tsunami it knocked out the generators that are used to cool down the plant. And im sure you are well aware of the flooding problems we have in Ireland on a yearly basis

ted1

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Yes but fukshimas reactors were damaged by an earthquake. What are the likely hoods of this occurring in Ireland ?

Yes and then the diesel generators failed due to flooding

ted1

Technoprisoner wrote: »

its a lot easier to deal with flooding that radioactive melt down...at least you can move back on to the land that got flooded. There were protest in Japan this month to stop the government from opening back up the nuclear power plants. The fall out is so extensive that every ship arriving from japan has to be checked for radioactivity and all its contents.....and by the way it wasnt the earthquake that caused the nuclear fall out but when the place flooded from the tsunami it knocked out the generators that are used to cool down the plant. And im sure you are well aware of the flooding problems we have in Ireland on a yearly basis

Yes and the flooding was due to the tsunami, there built close to the coast due to access to water. The damage occurred as the genies were placed in buildings below sea levels, the flooding occurred because of an earthquake. Due to our geographical location these are not at an issue.

ted1

Technoprisoner wrote: »

its a lot easier to deal with flooding that radioactive melt down...at least you can move back on to the land that got flooded. There were protest in Japan this month to stop the government from opening back up the nuclear power plants. The fall out is so extensive that every ship arriving from japan has to be checked for radioactivity and all its contents.....and by the way it wasnt the earthquake that caused the nuclear fall out but when the place flooded from the tsunami it knocked out the generators that are used to cool down the plant. And im sure you are well aware of the flooding problems we have in Ireland on a yearly basis

Japan has been having rolling black outs and thee are Also protests due to lack of power.

ted1

Technoprisoner wrote: »

its a lot easier to deal with flooding that radioactive melt down...at least you can move back on to the land that got flooded. There were protest in Japan this month to stop the government from opening back up the nuclear power plants. The fall out is so extensive that every ship arriving from japan has to be checked for radioactivity and all its contents.....and by the way it wasnt the earthquake that caused the nuclear fall out but when the place flooded from the tsunami it knocked out the generators that are used to cool down the plant. And im sure you are well aware of the flooding problems we have in Ireland on a yearlyis

Nuclear fall out? That's a pretty tabloid saying, care to expand. I'm well aware how nuclear energy is converted I've been studying it for years.

Technoprisoner

the generators where above sea level but the flooding knocked them out.

And by fall out i mean melt down as in the emergency generators that pump water into the reactors to cool them down stop, turned whatever water there was in them into steam and resulted in a melt down that can not be stopped and is still happening to this day!!1

If there was a nuclear power plant put in the North of ireland and it had a melt down anywhere near the scale of Fukushima pretty much everyone on our little island would be in trouble....so stop trying to tell me that Nuclear power is safe when we all know it is not .....2 power plants on the same day suffered the same type of failure. and i dont fancy those odd's

Macha

Safety gaps in many European nuclear plants were uncovered by the stress tests ordered by the European Commission after Fukushkima. And as a result, the Commission has just published a proposed Nuclear Safety Directive:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-539_en.htm

There's a reason no insurance company will fully cover a nuclear plant's safety insurance. The final backer will always be the state, as Japanese tax payers have learned.

djpbarry

Technoprisoner wrote: »

And im sure you are well aware of the flooding problems we have in Ireland on a yearly basis

Which couldn’t possibly be taken into consideration in any plant design?

Technoprisoner wrote: »

...2 power plants on the same day suffered the same type of failure.

...which could have been avoided if the plant were better designed (incredibly, there was no provision for tsunamis in the design basis for the reactors) and the staff were properly trained to deal with the situation that arose. Poor management and lax regulation were major factors in the accident.

Technoprisoner

djpbarry wrote: »

Which couldn’t possibly be taken into consideration in any plant design?
...which could have been avoided if the plant were better designed (incredibly, there was no provision for tsunamis in the design basis for the reactors) and the staff were properly trained to deal with the situation that arose. Poor management and lax regulation were major factors in the accident.

this country cant manage to build a road properly that can accommodate the amount of users....what makes you think we could design a nuclear power plant. The Japanese are usually well ahead in these terms and they got caught out proving that nuclear is not worth taking the chance over. Sure even Germany has closed down some of its nuclear power plants since the japanese disaster

djpbarry

Technoprisoner wrote: »

this country cant manage to build a road properly that can accommodate the amount of users....what makes you think we could design a nuclear power plant. The Japanese are usually well ahead in these terms and they got caught out proving that nuclear is not worth taking the chance over. Sure even Germany has closed down some of its nuclear power plants since the japanese disaster

First of all, I’m not advocating a nuclear power plant for (Northern) Ireland – whatever about safety, I’ve never been convinced by the economic argument.

Secondly, it’s very unlikely that, were such a project given the go-ahead, that the firms involved in the construction would be Irish.

Finally, I really hate this idea that Ireland is somehow light-years behind everyone else in the world in terms of technical know-how – it’s complete nonsense.

Capt'n Midnight

ted1 wrote: »

with the S.E.M we could benefit from cheaper electricity as our current energy mix currently provides us with some of the dearest electricity in Europe

Perhaps you could care to comment on EDF looking for twice the market price for power from their planned UK reactors ? ( £90Bn over the life of the plant)

Or the clean up cost for Sellafield ? (£67.5Bn )
And that might be cheap since the guberment might have to do it themselves rather than handing out the latest installment to the private sector that hasn't managed it so far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10133528/Sellafield-clean-up-could-be-taken-into-state-hands-as-22bn-contract-up-for-review.html

LOL at the way Nuclear accounting is nearly as good as Hollywood accounting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-nuclear-atomic-clean-up-decommissioning

In the NDA's 2011 annual report the provisional cost of dealing with the UK's nuclear legacy was put at £53bn, compared with a 2010 figure of £49bn. The new number in the 2012 set of accounts is expected to be around £55bn. But under previous accounting methods, the figure historically used has risen to well over £80bn with some predicting the final bill could exceed £100bn.

Meanwhile the cost of Solar is dropping 7% a year.
http://www.solarplaza.com/article/moving-the-uk-solar-market-past-the-boom-and-bust

LONDON, 6 MAY 2013 – The UK solar PV market is making headlines again as its 500 MW of installed capacity accounted for 10% of the global installations in the first quarter of 2013. As a result, the UK market passed the 2 GigaWatt mark of cumulative installed solar capacity. 2012 hasn't been a bad year either. Government statistics confirm 779 MW of installed PV capacity in 2012.

NornIron is more likely to get a 200MW tidal turbine system.

Also all Island capacity reports show that we have lots of capacity here for the medium term.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

Secondly, it’s very unlikely that, were such a project given the go-ahead, that the firms involved in the construction would be Irish.

Finally, I really hate this idea that Ireland is somehow light-years behind everyone else in the world in terms of technical know-how – it’s complete nonsense.

Look at the UK, they built their first nuclear power plants back in the 50's but the proposed ones are by EDF who are French. We don't have the same history of nuclear expertise as the UK (mild understatement) so if they have to go foreign then so do we.

One of the reasons for looking at Carnsore Point here was so that ESB International could gain the expertise to sell nukes abroad.

Macha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Perhaps you could care to comment on EDF looking for twice the market price for power from their planned UK reactors ? ( £90Bn over the life of the plant)

And £10Bn of guarantees for nuclear just announced:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/27/danny-alexander-guarantees-nuclear-power.

Interesting statement: "Government sources said the public funding to support the £14bn Hinkley Point project did not represent a subsidy to nuclear power since the guarantees would be offered at a commercial rate."

I've never heard this definition of a non-subsidy..

Technoprisoner

have a read of this and tell me that you still want a nuclear power plant on this island and the it is totally safe to do so http://now.msn.com/fukushima-vegetables-mutated-in-viral-photos-possibly-due-to-radiation

AlmightyCushion

Technoprisoner wrote: »

have a read of this and tell me that you still want a nuclear power plant on this island and the it is totally safe to do so http://now.msn.com/fukushima-vegetables-mutated-in-viral-photos-possibly-due-to-radiation

For a start the source is "some Korean website". Hardly fills one with confidence that this is a reliable and reputable story. Secondly, there is nothing that abnormal about the vegetables apart from that they aren't very appealing to the eye. This type of thing happens all the time, radiation or not. Just Google image search "weird looking vegetables" or something like that for loads of examples.

Technoprisoner

well then does this make you feel nuclear power is safe? http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/lost-world-fukushima/5102

or maybe this will convince you

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818

Capt'n Midnight

You couldn't make this stuff up.

This is what happened in a Korean Nuclear power station back in '97
http://www.nti.org/facilities/6/

Since entering commercial operations, Ulchin-1 shut down several times due to technical malfunctions. The first incident occurred one month after Ulchin-1 began commercial operations, when a short-circuit in the generator caused the reactor to be temporarily shut down. [6] In 1997 and 2001, Ulchin-1 and -2 were temporarily shut down several times due to swarms of shrimp and jellyfish clogging the inflow of water into the generators.

But it's OK because the nuclear industry learns from it's mistakes so it shouldn't happen again.

Except since then jellyfish have also taken out Nuclear power plants in
Japan http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-japan-nuclear-jellyfish-idUSTRE75N0Z520110624
Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13971005
Florida http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/jellyfish-swarm-shuts-down-st-lucie-nuclear-power-/nL2Hc/
California http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/27/11432974-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-in-california-knocked-offline-by-jellyfish-like-creature-called-salp?lite
Israel http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43673597/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/jellyfish-invasions-force-shutdowns-separate-nuclear-plants/
South Africa http://scienceinafrica.com/wildlife/rise-jellyfish-joyride

djpbarry

Technoprisoner wrote: »

have a read of this and tell me that you still want a nuclear power plant on this island and the it is totally safe to do so http://now.msn.com/fukushima-vegetables-mutated-in-viral-photos-possibly-due-to-radiation

Technoprisoner wrote: »

well then does this make you feel nuclear power is safe? http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/lost-world-fukushima/5102

or maybe this will convince you

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818

[mod] Posting a bunch of links does not an interesting discussion make.

Links should be provided in support of arguments, not posted as arguments in and of themselves.[/mod]

Technoprisoner

the first post was to get a discussion going about the safety of nuclear power plants and provided a discussion point. the second post was to provide evidence of the effects nuclear melt downs have on an environment and society. We are approaching the anniversary of fukushima and no better time to discuss safety issues that a nuclear power plant in ireland than now. Because a webiste is korean does not mean that it is not credible or non factual hence posting links to bbc and channel 4.

AlmightyCushion

Technoprisoner wrote: »

Because a webiste is korean does not mean that it is not credible or non factual

Completely agree but it was just some random image hosting site. If it was a credible new site that would be fine but you basically linked to the Korean version of imgur.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You couldn't make this stuff up.

This is what happened in a Korean Nuclear power station back in '97
http://www.nti.org/facilities/6/

But it's OK because the nuclear industry learns from it's mistakes so it shouldn't happen again.

Except since then jellyfish have also taken out Nuclear power plants in
Japan http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-japan-nuclear-jellyfish-idUSTRE75N0Z520110624
Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13971005
Florida http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/jellyfish-swarm-shuts-down-st-lucie-nuclear-power-/nL2Hc/
California http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/27/11432974-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-in-california-knocked-offline-by-jellyfish-like-creature-called-salp?lite
Israel http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43673597/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/jellyfish-invasions-force-shutdowns-separate-nuclear-plants/
South Africa http://scienceinafrica.com/wildlife/rise-jellyfish-joyride

You can now add Sweden to the list of places where jellyfish have taken a nuclear plant offline.


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/jellyfish-shut-down-nuclear-plant-29625385.html

Operators of the Oskarshamn nuclear plant in Sweden had to close reactor number three after tons of jellyfish clogged the pipes that bring in cool water to the plant's turbine

AngryHippie

djpbarry wrote: »

First of all, I’m not advocating a nuclear power plant for (Northern) Ireland – whatever about safety, I’ve never been convinced by the economic argument.

Secondly, it’s very unlikely that, were such a project given the go-ahead, that the firms involved in the construction would be Irish.

Finally, I really hate this idea that Ireland is somehow light-years behind everyone else in the world in terms of technical know-how – it’s complete nonsense.

I don't know what a tracker mortgage is ?:pac:

There is a big difference between technical know-how and practical experience we have plenty of technical know-how building to plans etc, but practical experience of nuclear technology in Ireland is limited at best.
The firms managing and designing any project would undoubtedly be from overseas, but the subcontractors and labor force would largely be local, except for some very specialized installation and commissioning work.

Ireland produces some fantastic graduates in a wide range of technical fields, and at present they are scattered to the four corners of the world gaining valuable experience in their industries, so I agree. we're a nation of spud farmers no more

Macha

AngryHippie wrote: »

I don't know what a tracker mortgage is ?:pac:

There is a big difference between technical know-how and practical experience we have plenty of technical know-how building to plans etc, but practical experience of nuclear technology in Ireland is limited at best.
The firms managing and designing any project would undoubtedly be from overseas, but the subcontractors and labor force would largely be local, except for some very specialized installation and commissioning work.

Ireland produces some fantastic graduates in a wide range of technical fields, and at present they are scattered to the four corners of the world gaining valuable experience in their industries, so I agree. we're a nation of spud farmers no more

Even the UK with it's much superior manufacturing industry than ours is likely to miss out on a lot of the contract work if the UK nuclear projects go ahead.

Irish industry would gain even less.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24561325

The Chancellor, George Osborne, has announced that the UK will allow Chinese companies to take a stake in British nuclear power plants.

...
China has 17 nuclear reactors in operation, which provide about 1% of its electricity production capacity.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/14/british-hinkley-nuclear-contracts-edf

UK companies are set to miss out on the majority of specialist contracts to build the £14bn nuclear power station at Hinkley in Somerset because of a dearth of hi-tech engineering skills in the country, according to the plant's state-backed French developer, EDF Energy.
...
Contracts for what he described as "muck shifting" have already gone to UK companies which are set to prepare the site, but contracts for hi-tech engineering, civil engineering, marine engineering and various support services are at the preferred bidder stage or yet to be tendered.
...
"There are 90 contracts to deliver the job, excluding the muck shifting and enabling work. Two – marine works and civils – are traditional UK [strengths]. The other 88, that's the world of manufacturing and erection,"

Ignore any BS about running out of power in 2015 , this plant won't be ready for at least a decade after that.

And they still haven't agreed a strike price.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You can now add Sweden to the list of places where jellyfish have taken a nuclear plant offline.


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/jellyfish-shut-down-nuclear-plant-29625385.html

Wow, a power plant suffers downtime. You got the scoop of the century!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And they still haven't agreed a strike price.

Any strike price that is eventually agreed will almost certainly make more sense than -€100. That's right, minus 100 Euro per MW/h.

That was the market price recorded on the 16th of June in Germany.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fpe%2Fhowtolosehalfatrillioneuros

They've gone down the road that would no doubt be popular in this forum, spending billions on wind and solar, and as a consequence of that, not only are German electricity prices twice what they should be (because there are FOUR THOUSAND different subsidy schemes to prop up renewables, all paid for by domestic and small business customers) but the grid, and the electricity prices are frighteningly unstable, because the whole thing is literally as dependable as the weather.

I think I can state without fear of contradiction that nuclear power is more reliable than that, invasion of the jellyfish or otherwise.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fpe%2Fhowtolosehalfatrillioneuros

Electricity prices have fallen from over €80 per MWh at peak hours in Germany in 2008 to just €38 per MWh now (see chart 2). (These are wholesale prices; residential prices are €285 per MWh, some of the highest in the world, partly because they include subsidies for renewables that are one-and-a-half times, per unit of energy, the power price itself).

...
Companies made all their money during peak periods. But the middle of the day is when solar generation is strongest. Thanks to grid priority, solar grabs a big chunk of that peak demand and has competed away the price spike. In Germany in 2008, according to the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, peak-hour prices were €14 per MWh above baseload prices. In the first six months of 2013, the premium was €3. So not only have average electricity prices fallen by half since 2008, but the peak premium has also fallen by almost four-fifths. No wonder utilities are in such a mess.

EDF are still haggling for £100 per MWh for the next 30 years. Please explain how nuclear can compete in a market where prices have halved in 5 years to €38 per MWhr ?

Macha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EDF are still haggling for £100 per MWh for the next 30 years. Please explain how nuclear can compete in a market where prices have halved in 5 years to €38 per MWhr ?

Make that 35 years and index-linked. That's a direct operational aid subsidy that a renewable energy producer would never ask for. PV is being built in some countries in the EU with no subsidies at all.

And that doesn't include all the indirect subsidies nuclear enjoys. The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority says the final cost of closing down the last set of UK nuclear plants could top £100bn.

And in case you missed it, the German Energy Commissioner was caught deleting figures on energy subsidies last week. The figures showed that in 2011, nuclear received €35bn, renewables received €30bn and fossil fuels €26bn (but add on an extra €40bn in health and social costs).

That tells us that despite decades of state support and direct and indirect subsidies, nuclear and fossil fuels still to this day receive more subsidies than renewables. The point of a subsidy is to make a technology cheaper. That has happened with renewables but it hasn't happened with fossil fuels (because most of the money goes directly into paying for fuel, not improving the technology) and it definitely hasn't happened with nuclear, which gets more expensive every year.

Eoghan Barra

In my opinion, much of this debate is missing the point altogether.

If we don't stop using fossil fuels immediately, we are looking at climate collapse, the effects of which will be catastrophic beyond our powers of comprehension. (It may actually already be too late, but we should proceed as if it wasn't.)

Renewables will be a very important part of the solution, if it is to be found (as well as increased energy efficiency, obviously), but it is just not realistic to think that they can replace the enormous - and constantly increasing - energy demands currently fulfilled by fossil fuels, either in terms of scale, or capacity to provide baseload power (i.e. there when you need it, not when then wind blows or the sun shines).

Nobody is going to accept doing without the energy supplies that make our present society function, not politicians, not big business, and not most (99%+) of the people. Therefore, fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase, with all of the devastation that brings to our climate and the rest of the biosphere. In fact the results are there in front of our eyes: they are now beginning to drill in the Arctic (ironically only made possible by climate collapse itself), as well as increasing exploitation of tar sands, fracking, etc.

We need to get real and take on board the enormity of the situation we're in. Pretending to ourselves that renewables alone can solve things actually makes our predicament much worse by blinding us to the direction we're going in before it's too late to do anything about it (which may, as I said, already be the case). Imo, those who care about this planet need to consider these things deeply, as this is very, very, real.

IV generation nuclear power is practically carbon-free, does not produce any radioactive waste to speak of, and in fact can use 'spent' nuclear fuel to generate vast quantities of energy while rendering it non-radioactive at the same time. That is not to say that we shouldn't be very watchful and critical of the nuclear industry who, like other energy industries, have a record of dishonesty, greed and corruption. But in the absence of practical alternatives, nuclear power should be part of the solution.

Those people, particularly environmentalists, who are completely opposed (as I used to be) to the newer forms of nuclear should look at it from the perspective of the alternative, which is environmental destruction on an almost continental scale, and global climate collapse.

"With climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened."

(Variously attributed, but quoted from 'Whole Earth Discipline' by Stewart Brand, of the 60/70s 'Whole Earth Catalogue'.)

I invite you to please take a look at these two short videos and reflect (Dr. James Hansen is a climate scientist turned activist, who was the first to try to alert the US government to climate change in the 80s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M

Macha

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

In my opinion, much of this debate is missing the point altogether.

If we don't stop using fossil fuels immediately, we are looking at climate collapse, the effects of which will be catastrophic beyond our powers of comprehension. (It may actually already be too late, but we should proceed as if it wasn't.)

Renewables will be a very important part of the solution, if it is to be found (as well as increased energy efficiency, obviously), but it is just not realistic to think that they can replace the enormous - and constantly increasing - energy demands currently fulfilled by fossil fuels, either in terms of scale, or capacity to provide baseload power (i.e. there when you need it, not when then wind blows or the sun shines).

Nobody is going to accept doing without the energy supplies that make our present society function, not politicians, not big business, and not most (99%+) of the people. Therefore, fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase, with all of the devastation that brings to our climate and the rest of the biosphere. In fact the results are there in front of our eyes: they are now beginning to drill in the Arctic (ironically only made possible by climate collapse itself), as well as increasing exploitation of tar sands, fracking, etc.

We need to get real and take on board the enormity of the situation we're in. Pretending to ourselves that renewables alone can solve things actually makes our predicament much worse by blinding us to the direction we're going in before it's too late to do anything about it (which may, as I said, already be the case). Imo, those who care about this planet need to consider these things deeply, as this is very, very, real.

IV generation nuclear power is practically carbon-free, does not produce any radioactive waste to speak of, and in fact can use 'spent' nuclear fuel to generate vast quantities of energy while rendering it non-radioactive at the same time. That is not to say that we shouldn't be very watchful and critical of the nuclear industry who, like other energy industries, have a record of dishonesty, greed and corruption. But in the absence of practical alternatives, nuclear power should be part of the solution.

Those people, particularly environmentalists, who are completely opposed (as I used to be) to the newer forms of nuclear should look at it from the perspective of the alternative, which is environmental destruction on an almost continental scale, and global climate collapse.

"With climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened."

(Variously attributed, but quoted from 'Whole Earth Discipline' by Stewart Brand, of the 60/70s 'Whole Earth Catalogue'.)

I invite you to please take a look at these two short videos and reflect (Dr. James Hansen is a climate scientist turned activist, who was the first to try to alert the US government to climate change in the 80s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M

Hang on, you posted an almost identical post a few months ago and didn't respond to my response. Simply repeating your points without engaging in debate is not interesting at all.

Edit: [mod] It's actually called soap boxing if I'm not mistaken. Please engage in debate, and don't just repeatedly post your opinions. Oh and because I have to deal with this every.single.time, I'll state preemptively that there's no in-thread discussion of moderation. [/mod]

Capt'n Midnight

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

IV generation nuclear power is practically carbon-free, does not produce any radioactive waste to speak of, and in fact can use 'spent' nuclear fuel to generate vast quantities of energy while rendering it non-radioactive at the same time.

In theory only.

No one has actually built one yet.


(you probably don't want to count the problematic Japanese ones)

And all the spin comes from the same industry has has consistently been economical with the truth in the past. There were problems with all of the pebble bed reactors.

Yes thorium can work, look up Shipping Port, the problem is that it breeds very slowly - slower the demand for electricity rises or the price of renewables falls.

It's a physics thing. The Canadians had thorium in the Zeep reactor back in 1947 so the physics of thorium is well understood.

As for getting breeders working / using spent fuel the Japanese managed to get their fast breeder running for an hour. Total cost including the reprocessing plant is about twice what's being spent on the ITER :eek:

Don't let anyone fool you.
Fusion research is expensive.
The ITER will cost nearly as much as the proposed EDF power plant. Assuming the €13Bn ITER will over run and £14Bn EDF plant won't (and ignoring the EDF lifetime cost of ~ £88Bn depending on strike price and cleanup ) )


Re Thorium / burner reactor to reduce waste
It's all about neutron capture ratios, if the neutron is captured by Th232 leading to U233 that's good. U233 capturing a second neutron to fission is good which is what you want.

But what happens is that you capture two neutrons to end up with U234 (nasty stuff lots of gamma rays) you then need to capture a third neutron to get U235 and then a fourth before the U235 fissions.

You get one spare neutron from every two fissions. To get those two U235 neutrons you need to capture 8 neutrons from Th232, which means 16 U233 fissions (you can probably see where this is heading). Neutrons are also captured by other waste atoms, shielding, coolant etc.

After all that you can use any remaining spare neutrons to create a breeder. It can work, but a very slow doubling time.

The average number of neutrons released by each thermal fission is:

2.49 for U-233
2.42 for U-235
2.87 for Pu-239, and
2.93 for Pu-241.

The US government is spending $500 downblending or whatever heir remaining U233 stocks, or you could dig up similar costs for processing of the megatons to megawatts programs to show how costly it is to use extremely high grade 'spent' fuel.

Eoghan Barra

Macha wrote: »

Hang on, you posted an almost identical post a few months ago and didn't respond to my response. Simply repeating your points without engaging in debate is not interesting at all.

Edit: [mod] It's actually called soap boxing if I'm not mistaken. Please engage in debate, and don't just repeatedly post your opinions. Oh and because I have to deal with this every.single.time, I'll state preemptively that there's no in-thread discussion of moderation. [/mod]

You're right Macha, and I apologise for that.

It wasn't my intention to avoid replying to your post on the other thread: I was seriously out of action at the time, and then just forgot about it. Nor was it my intention to be a soap-boxer (great expression though!).

Will reply to your post in the other thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993092) later on today, if I have time, or else over the next few days.

Eoghan Barra

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In theory only.

No one has actually built one yet.

Hello Captain,

See my reply to you and Macha's posts here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993092

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EDF are still haggling for £100 per MWh for the next 30 years. Please explain how nuclear can compete in a market where prices have halved in 5 years to €38 per MWhr ?

And renewables are so much cheaper? Then you should fly (OK flying is bad for the environment, maybe cycle instead), or run over to Germany and tell all those people on Hartz IV and low ( below Irish minimum) wages that renewables are cheap, cheap, cheap. Because if they geniunely were better than nuclear, German consumer energy bills would be going down, not up.

There is, I'm sure you will agree, a rather large difference between £100/Mwh and €285/Mwh?

Granted, part of the difference is caused by the fact that the subsidies necessary are only paid by residential users, meaning that industrial and commercial users are partly subsidised.

It should also be noted that the £100 figure (if it is the final figure) is an "all in" cost, with no subsidies at all: i.e. the UK policy calls for the cost of construction, decommissioning, and waste fuel disposal. Unlike this, fossil fuels and renewables both have severe external costs that are not factored into the "strike price" but that must be paid indirectly all the same.

SeanW

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

If we don't stop using fossil fuels immediately, we are looking at climate collapse, the effects of which will be catastrophic beyond our powers of comprehension. (It may actually already be too late, but we should proceed as if it wasn't.)

Please don't take this the wrong, because I'm not having a go at you but your post does remind me of a key issue. Part of the reason why I no longer believe without qualification that Anthrophogenic(sp?) Climate Change is real is because of the behaviour of those shrieking the loudest about it.

I remember a couple of weeks ago I was watching one of the English TV channels not long after the Russians arrested that Greenpeace ship, and a rep. from Greenpeace was on shrieking about how we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground or else it's going to be doomsday. Or something. Incidentally, the man spoke with a French accent but appeared to be Middle Eastern or North African, full marks for integration I guess)
Problem is, if you suggest that nuclear power might be a good drop-in replacement for a fossil fuel fired power plant, you'll get something like this:

Clearly not an attempt to induce an irrational phobia of nuclear power or anything!
Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

We keep being told that the ACC is real and that the only "deniers" are conspiracy theorists who believe that it's some kind of environmentalist or left-wing pretext.

But it appears to me that making people 'live ecologically' is the objective, not actually solving the alleged problem of ACC.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

Please don't take this the wrong, because I'm not having a go at you but your post does remind me of a key issue. Part of the reason why I no longer believe without qualification that Anthrophogenic(sp?) Climate Change is real is because of the behaviour of those shrieking the loudest about it.

I remember a couple of weeks ago I was watching one of the English TV channels not long after the Russians arrested that Greenpeace ship, and a rep. from Greenpeace was on shrieking about how we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground or else it's going to be doomsday. Or something. Incidentally, the man spoke with a French accent but appeared to be Middle Eastern or North African, full marks for integration I guess)
Problem is, if you suggest that nuclear power might be a good drop-in replacement for a fossil fuel fired power plant, you'll get something like this:

Clearly not an attempt to induce an irrational phobia of nuclear power or anything!
Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

We keep being told that the ACC is real and that the only "deniers" are conspiracy theorists who believe that it's some kind of environmentalist or left-wing pretext.

But it appears to me that making people 'live ecologically' is the objective, not actually solving the alleged problem of ACC.

[mod]I don't know where to begin with this post (including nonensical comments about Greenpeace staffs' accents?? wtf?) so I'll just say that there's a thread for the climate change debate and I do not expect to have to deal with posters trying to bring it out of that thread. Once more and there'll be a week's ban in it for you. You should know better.

And it doesn't seem to be working much but I'll give it a premptive go anyway: no in-thread discussion of moderation.[/mod]

SeanW

[mod]Sorry but post deleted. No in-thread discussion of moderation, even to apologise or whatever! The point is to keep on topic! I need a drink...[/mod]