Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is

I'll tell you what will happen.

They will continue to prattle on about GW, fossil fuels et al for a decade or so, until we are so worn down that we won't even complain when they tell us the only way is to build nuclear power stations.

Then they will.
 
RMCF said:
I'll tell you what will happen.

They will continue to prattle on about GW, fossil fuels et al for a decade or so, until we are so worn down that we won't even complain when they tell us the only way is to build nuclear power stations.

Then they will.
Click to expand...
I can only hope. For a responsible, grown up society, nuclear is the clear and obvious energy source. Huge energy density, tiny amounts of waste and no greenhouse gases.

But no. Not going to happen.
 
RMCF said:
I'll tell you what will happen.

They will continue to prattle on about GW, fossil fuels et al for a decade or so, until we are so worn down that we won't even complain when they tell us the only way is to build nuclear power stations.

Then they will.
Click to expand...

We have to consider all options and yes I am in favour of nuclear. We already import energy from the UK, some of which is nuclear generated.

One nuclear station in Ireland would provide all our energy needs. Just one.
We could then close all the fossil fuel burning stations.
 
Teabag said:
One nuclear station in Ireland would provide all our energy needs. Just one.
We could then close all the fossil fuel burning stations.
Click to expand...

Some chance of that happening in this country :( Least of all with the Greens in charge. Eamon Ryan has even banned a company from exploring for plutonium in Donegal, because he says its illegal!
 
Teabag said:
One nuclear station in Ireland would provide all our energy needs. Just one. We could then close all the fossil fuel burning stations.
Click to expand...

After building this single nuclear power station and closing all the fossil fuel power stations what would we then do when this single (point-of-failure) nuclear power station has to close temporarily for whatever reason? We're going to need at least two aren't we.
 
ivuernis said:
After building this single nuclear power station and closing all the fossil fuel power stations what would we then do when this single (point-of-failure) nuclear power station has to close temporarily for whatever reason? We're going to need at least two aren't we.
Click to expand...

Why do planes carry more than one engine?
 
ivuernis said:
Wasn't that what I was just pointing out. Do you think we can/could/should/subsidise build 2 nuclear power stations?
Click to expand...
Probably (to become energy independent or to cut CO2, take your pick). Three or four, for redundancy; surpluses could be sold into the European grid.
 
ivuernis said:
Wasn't that what I was just pointing out. Do you think we can/could/should/subsidise build 2 nuclear power stations?
Click to expand...
Well oil prices are (long term) only going one way and coal isn't very clean or healthy (aside from the CO2 climate change issue) so we might not have a whole lot of options?
 
ubiquitous said:
Some chance of that happening in this country :( Least of all with the Greens in charge. Eamon Ryan has even banned a company from exploring for plutonium in Donegal, because he says its illegal!
Click to expand...

Nobody said it would be easy. Its an option among many. It's easier to give up and blame 'tokenism'.

But as I said, we already import energy from the UK, some of which is nuclear generated. So that makes many of us hypocrites.

My preferred option is offshore windfarms. The potential here is enormous.
 
Teabag said:
Nobody said it would be easy. Its an option among many. It's easier to give up and blame 'tokenism'.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but why then did Eamonn Ryan (the darling of the Green Party) make the decision he did?
Teabag said:
But as I said, we already import energy from the UK, some of which is nuclear generated. So that makes many of us hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Indeed. More specifically it makes hypocrites of Ryan and his fellow travellers who turn up their noses at the very mention of nuclear power.
 
ubiquitous said:
Indeed, but why then did Eamonn Ryan (the darling of the Green Party) make the decision he did?

Indeed. More specifically it makes hypocrites of Ryan and his fellow travellers who turn up their noses at the very mention of nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is wrong to rule it out. I am not a member of the Green Party.
 
diarmuidc said:
Well oil prices are (long term) only going one way and coal isn't very clean or healthy (aside from the CO2 climate change issue) so we might not have a whole lot of options?
Click to expand...

I know and I agree but have you checked the price of Uranium over the last couple of years? It's gone up as much as all the other fuels and will (long term) only continue to rise especially if any large scale nuclear build programmes are announced.
 
ubiquitous said:
Indeed, but why then did Eamonn Ryan (the darling of the Green Party) make the decision he did?

Indeed. More specifically it makes hypocrites of Ryan and his fellow travellers who turn up their noses at the very mention of nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Didn't he also say we need a debate in this country. Granted, he's basically said he would not be for it but at least he's called for a debate in this country to be had on the issue which most politicans will not touch with a barge poll. And we do need such a debate.

If nuclear is be an option for power in this country we'd better get the finger out. In an ideal situation we should have had this debate 10 years ago but then I guess oil was cheap then thus making any point for nuclear power seem futile. If we are to go down this road though we need to be starting now as even if the go ahead was given tomorrow it is hard to see a nuclear power station being up and running before 2020.
 
ivuernis said:
Didn't he also say we need a debate in this country. Granted, he's basically said he would not be for it but at least he's called for a debate in this country to be had on the issue which most politicans will not touch with a barge poll.
Click to expand...

Calling for a debate is one thing. Actually doing something is another thing entirely. And calling for a debate while at the same time forbidding even the exploration of plutonium reserves seems to me to be trying to have it both ways.
 
ubiquitous said:
Calling for a debate is one thing. Actually doing something is another thing entirely. And calling for a debate while at the same time forbidding even the exploration of plutonium reserves seems to me to be trying to have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Yeah we definitely need a debate but it will be long, tedious and tough. It would be like the smoking ban debate except with a lot more crazy people talking crazy talk. It will be in the law courts for years too. In the meantime, we need to develop the alternatives....
 
ivuernis said:
I know and I agree but have you checked the price of Uranium over the last couple of years? It's gone up as much as all the other fuels and will (long term) only continue to rise especially if any large scale nuclear build programmes are announced.
Click to expand...
The cost of uranium is about 25% of the cost of nuclear power. And even then you can reprocess 97% of nuclear waste and use that in the generation of more energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top