# Energy prices on the rise again-time for nuclear power?



## shnaek (21 Jul 2006)

Board Gais announced Gas prices will go up by 34% in October. That is scary. Combined with an up-to 20% increase in ESB  - that will burn a hole in my pocket - and I'm sure plenty other pockets. Why can't we follow Sweeden and reduce our dependance on fossil fuels? If Kyoto kicks in it's going to be mighty expensive to live here.


----------



## Guest127 (21 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again*

Nuclear. Your only man!


----------



## daithi (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again*

I agree that nuclear should remain an option, but would you let any of the muppets currently in charge of this benighted country build one??

d


----------



## ninsaga (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again*

Lets see ..... nuclear is probably the way to go...but would you put in in the hands of the Dublin Port Tunnel designers to come up with it? Or those who sanctioned the e-voting machines to wrtite the software that prevents a meltdown.....

They would probably come up with a great location on where to locate it also ... the Burren perhaps!

what does that do to your confidence level in relation to the government actually being able to carry this off.... if they start talking about it now then we might have one for 2025!

ninsaga


----------



## Meccano (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again*

Reluctantly - I'm pro Nuclear myself now. Not because of these price rises, but probably since around the time of the start of the Iraq war.
We have got to get out from under OPEC and wean ourselves off oil. It makes sense both politically and economically, and like it or not it is inevitable in the long run.

It does worry me that we live in a country run by muppets like Dick Roche who are actually demanding to know the source of every AMP that flows into the country from abroad - because he won't even BUY nuclear nergy, much less build it!


----------



## Eurofan (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again*



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Reluctantly - I'm pro Nuclear myself now.


For all the same reasons you mention i find myself leaning that direction too. It's becoming a question of having control over your own energy resources and for an island like ours nuclear power could be a long term solution. The French are now reaping the benefits of the dominance of nuclear power in their own electricity grid.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> It does worry me that we live in a country run by muppets like Dick Roche who are actually demanding to know the source of every AMP that flows into the country from abroad - because he won't even BUY nuclear nergy, much less build it!


While it may be politically a vote getter to come out with nonsense like this it's economically and practically an impossibility to distinguise between where the electricity came from. There is so little leadership in Irish political life it's depressing; say what you think will get votes and to hell with independent thought about the future of our nation.

While i'm not actually a subscriber to the notion that we're anywhere near Peak Oil problems i do think it's prudent to have a serious discussion about every energy option available *now* and put in place solutions that can serve the nation in decades ahead.

Wind/wave etc can only supply a portion of the grid due to natural fluctuations and nuclear is a feasible option for the rest.


----------



## CGorman (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again*



			
				shnaek said:
			
		

> Why can't we follow Sweden and reduce our dependance on fossil fuels?



Wish we could; but Swedens got a lot of advantages we don't, in particular the huge hydro potential in that country and they have far more land. Their population density is one third of ours (20/sq.km vs. 60.3/sq.km) which means more  empty space for wind turbines, hydro plants, solarcells/solar panals etc.

Personally I am strongly anti Fission Nuclear - however I would willingly accept Fusion Nuclear when it is eventually developed commercially (could be 5 or 50 years away, impossible to tell).

For the moment we have to accept high, and rising energy prices - there is NO short term alternative. IMHO we should:


 follow a policy of energy conservation (switch off those LED's, replace bulbs with more energy efficent), 
 implement national rail eletricification over the next two decades
 continue development of windfarms - especially offshore projects like the Arklow bank project
 switch the entire public bus system to hybrid/biodiesel over the next decade
 introduce extensive new tax incentives for fuel efficent cars, particularly hybrids and heavily tax SUV's.
 introduce tax incentives for private buses and taxis to switch to hybrids  over the next decade.
 copy the Portugese solar panal scheme - i.e. all new homes must have a solar panal on their roofs.
 build more UK/Europe interconnectors and fully support any pan-EU attempts to create a pan-EU grid.
 investigate the possiblity of replicating the Turlough hill project in several more locations (perhaps Kerry, Donegal, Galway and Wicklow again) to ensure the grid can cope with >50% wind power or even >80% and also to increase efficency of existing oil/gas plants.
 promote the development of a biodiesel sector, centred around the sugerbeet farmers who are just after being hit hard by the plant closures.
 investigate the possiblity of creating a national haulage sharing/database database - if a Supervalu truck leaves the distribution center in Kilcock for a supermarket in Mullingar it is simply wasteful that it returns to base completely empty; for example it could go to the Lidl distribution center in Mullingar and bring back a load to Kilcock or Lidl on the way. Obviously firms might not like this - but if it could save them money, squeeze out efficencies then it might seem attractive. (perhaps only sharing/renting truck space to firms not in direct competition? it's just an idea...)
 build a small tram system (like LUAS) in Cork, Limerick and Galway and introduce local bus services to all urban centers over 20,000 currently unserved by such services.
 offer companies & individuals tax incentives for employees cycling/walking/using public transport to work
 encourage higher density housing in urban centers (particularly in Cork, Galway, Waterford  & Limerick) to avoid the urban sprawl that chokes Dublins traffic and wastes so much petrol.
 enforce minimum home insulation regulations and encourage even higher standards.
 build several small scale wave stations to gain experience with the technology and scale up in ten years.
 the government should establish a multi million euro fund to invest in alternative energy firms, public transport companies and related businesses. If we are going to develop the expertise to become energy independent, then we should capitalise on this and export the new knowledge and create jobs, new businesses and export earnings from it.
If we want to get to were Sweden will be soon, that's what we need to do (IMHO). That wish list could leave Ireland with 100% energy security, very low prices when compared internationally, the potential to become a significant energy exporter, create a whole new export-based indigenous business sector, and of course reinforce the two key brands we sell abroad - our greeness (for tourism) and our technological expertise (it takes some pretty darn smart brains to implement the above integrated energy system)

Fission nuclear power is just as expensive as most conventional fossil based electricity sources - once all costs are taken into account and grants/tax breaks subtracted. In addition nuclear power has a major safety aspect - it is correctly argued that it is very unlikely that a major accident would occur in a well run modern western reactor - but _if_ one single accident occured ever it could absolutely destroy this country. The risk is far too vast for me personally to accept. 

Also, it would be 2025 before this country could reasonable hope to build a nuclear power plant and it would probably be 2035 before we could build enough to power the whole country - that's easily enough time to build sufficent Wind/Solar/Wave capacity to power the whole country. We already have experience with the latter option, so why not pursue it enthusiastically?


----------



## CCOVICH (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again*

I think this is important enough to go in Great Financial Debates.

Please don't mention property.

Moved by CCOVICH.


----------



## CelloPoint (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again-time for nuclear power?*

Well we're effectively using nuclear power already with the connector between Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The EU have opened up the energy market and energy suppliers now trade with each other. i.e. if it's -10 degrees in Paris and +15 degrees in England, English nukes can sell their surplus energy cheaper as there's less demand.

The ESB can buy French, German, British electricity as they please. Whenever they can't meet demand on their own, they'll get surplus power from wherever it's cheapest.


----------



## Carpenter (22 Jul 2006)

*Re: Prices on the rise again-time for nuclear power?*

I think CGorman has summed up the issues nicely.  I have always been wary of nuclear energy as a means of electricity generation, especially when you consider that America has not built one new facility in 25 years,  AFAIK.  I read an article on this very subject in National Geographic some time ago.  And, as suggested it would be very difficult to have confidence in our government to manage the procurement of such a facility- should it ever become a reality.  I think the use of bio fuels is surely an obvious choice for our country- we are (still) an agricultural economy, we rely heavily on road networks for transport and our "traditionaL" approach to farming (overproduction of unwanted foods thanks to EU CAP) is changing rapidly.  Agriculture must evolve to changing needs and demands- why not channel our biggest natural resource (farming land) into the production of bio fuels for transport and heating?  The introduction of grant incentives for people who opt to switch to sustainable energy sources is admirable but this scheme will not suit everyone.  It is simply not feasible for someone living in a house in a suburban housing scheme to switch to a wood pellet boiler- where do you store the bulk fuel in a 10m x 10m typical garden? Questions such as these require the type of "joined up" thinking that our public representatives find so challenging.  The up side of all these price hikes (which must impact heavily on inflation?) is that public awareness will be raised- already sustainable energy is a real option for many people; 10-15 years ago this would have been dismissed as a novelty, for the sandal wearing greens only!


----------



## room305 (24 Jul 2006)

While I am not anti-nuclear and think it has enormous potential as a future green energy, I am conscious that we have little expertise in this area in Ireland. While the expertise could be imported, someone still needs to manage and run the plants and our track record for managing large-scale engineering projects is iffy at best.

Although it is touted as an "Irish solution to an Irish problem", importing cheap nuclear-generated electricity from the UK is a good option. I understand the building of a 700MW plant is being considered for Derry.

Alternative energy in the form of wind-power has long been touted for Ireland but frankly the building of these windmills strikes me as window dressing. The power output is low relative to the environmental noise and sight pollution involved in their construction. Solar power, bio-fuels and tidal power offer much better opportunities.

The Mallow and Carlow sugar factory plants would have been ideal for conversion to bio-fuel generation. Farmers could also have kept growing sugar beet specifically for this purpose. Unfortunately, as with many things in this country, the ridiculous price of property has got in the way and the sites will prove far more valuable when converted into blocks of apartments.


----------



## ivuernis (24 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> I understand the building of a 700MW plant is being considered for Derry.


I don't think it is. There was some politician from Derry on Tom McGurk the other morning when he had a discussion about future energy and this guy from Derry is pushing it saying it would basically be great for Derry, loads of jobs etc, etc. Labour (UK that is) said after launching its recent energy policy that none of the new nuclear builds would be in Northern Ireland.


----------



## z107 (24 Jul 2006)

I'm still anti-nuclear. There are two main reasons;

1. The plant itself will probably contaminate the environment. Just take a look at this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
Are these accidents suddenly going to stop?

2. Where are we going to put the waste? People don't even want incinerators, never mind nuclear waste dumps! - let me guess, we can ship it over to those infortunate souls living in Mayak.


----------



## bearishbull (24 Jul 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> I'm still anti-nuclear. There are two main reasons;
> 
> 1. The plant itself will probably contaminate the environment. Just take a look at this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
> Are these accidents suddenly going to stop?
> ...


How many died as a result of those accidents? very few, do you realise the levels of radiation your exposed to in your lifetime? Modern plants are very safe and the waste can be put back into the earth where it came from. My only concerns would be that the real cost is much greater than other energy sources.


----------



## ivuernis (24 Jul 2006)

bearishbull said:
			
		

> waste can be put back into the earth where it came from


true, but it a much more highly concentrated form, thus more toxic


----------



## CGorman (24 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> Alternative energy in the form of wind-power has long been touted for Ireland but frankly the building of these windmills strikes me as window dressing. The power output is low relative to the environmental noise and sight pollution involved in their construction.



I would disagree. Turbine technology is improving very quickly, with the most powerful turbine currently available rated 6MW, and more typical turbines 1-2MW. In addition these can reach 40% capacity in Ireland compared to 20% in mainland Europe. So if it is commercially viable to erect these things in Austria (at 20% capacity); it must be (it is) very lucrative to build them in Ireland. Combine with more pumped storage schemes Ireland could easily generate enough power for the whole country.

At the moment Ireland already has a total installed capacity of 600MW from wind energy. That is the same as Tarbert (the third largest power plant in Ireland). Airtricity alone (who only make up a 25% share of wind energy in ireland at the moment) has planning permission granted for an additional 200MW. Other companies have p.p for many more wind farms also.

Also we could utilise offshore far more - the Arklow bank only has seven 3.6MV turbines and already produces 25MV - imagine if they actually did build the 200 of them that was planned at first? That would be 720MW of power capacity  - all off shore and largely out of sight. Our famous Moneypoint only produces 900MW and manages to power nearly 20% of the country. So in theory self sufficency could be achieved by:


Actually finishing the Arklow Bank
Building 4-5 more major offshore windfarms 
Completeing all existing planning-permission-granted windfarms; no more than that needed!
Building 2 or 3 more pumped storage schemes

If you did that we would hit about 100% supply (after allowing for 40% max operating capacity; and the increase in demand over next few years). If implemented, our landscape would not alter much from today and visual pollution would be no worse than today really.

Now imagine if we built 10 offshore farms of 250 5MW turbines each? And doubled on-shore capacity? And used solar, hydro, and wave power also? Obviously one can only speculate and dream - but seriously the potential exists for us to export perhaps 3 times our own needs. Thats billions and billions of euros worth of green power, thousends of new jobs, important export earnings leading to a very favorable balance of trade, more tax receipts of course, energy security, and a huge amount of interenational respect, admiration and prestige.

One last thing... image thirty 300 6MW turbine farms offshore, quadruppling existing onshore turbine numbers and replaceing existing farms with far more efficent and powerful turbines... i'm far too enthusiastic and of course its all a dream, never likely to be a reality - but it really really really could be!


----------



## daveirl (24 Jul 2006)

ivuernis said:
			
		

> true, but it a much more highly concentrated form, thus more toxic


Which would you rather leave your children one or two warehouse full of toxic waste or the impact of climate change due to global warming forever more. 

For me going Nuclear is a no brainer. I don't see it as something we can rule out. I don't see us as having the choice of wind OR solar OR nuclear, I see it as we're going to need every bit of energy we can get and no one of those clean sources is going to provide it so we're going to need all of them.


----------



## ivuernis (24 Jul 2006)

daveirl said:
			
		

> Which would you rather leave your children one or two warehouse full of toxic waste or the impact of climate change due to global warming forever more.


Preferably neither but if I really had to choose it would be the former... the lesser of two evils perhaps. 



			
				daveirl said:
			
		

> For me going Nuclear is a no brainer. I don't see it as something we can rule out. I don't see us as having the choice of wind OR solar OR nuclear, I see it as we're going to need every bit of energy we can get and no one of those clean sources is going to provide it so we're going to need all of them.


I'd rather see us exhaust the possibilities of wind, wave and solar alongside fossil fuel conservation before going down the nuclear route, perhaps even waiting up to 50 years to see if commercial scale nuclear fusion is feasible after the ITER project. 

I'd also like to see Personal Carbon Credits introduced to begin the long process of mitigating climate change, reducing fossil fuel consumption and redistributing wealth evenly but I don't see it happening. 

I think it's incumbent upon current generations to do as much as possible to bequeath a habitable planet to future generations and I don't see nuclear fission as a way to do it.


----------



## autumnleaf (24 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> Alternative energy in the form of wind-power has long been touted for Ireland but frankly the building of these windmills strikes me as window dressing. The power output is low relative to the environmental noise and sight pollution involved in their construction.


 
That's why you build them off shore! Although personally I think that a wind farm, properly situated, is far from a blight on the landscape. I took a drive to Bellmullet recently and thought they actually looked quite nice whirling away on the hillside there. Windmills are seen as picturesque part of the Dutch landscape so why not as part of the Irish countryside? Much prettier than an oil generator anyway.

And before someone brings up the argument "but they kill birds", well so do all large buildings. And so does climate change. The RSPB in Britain support "appropriately positioned" wind farms.


----------



## ivuernis (24 Jul 2006)

autumnleaf said:
			
		

> And before someone brings up the argument "but they kill birds", well so do all large buildings. And so does climate change.


... and airplane engines.


----------



## CGorman (24 Jul 2006)

I've just come accross a few facts that actually make my above comments seem conservative! 

Eco Wind Power Ltd. have detailed plans for a [broken link removed] offshore wind farm (12-20km offshore).
Hibernian Windpower have about 650MW of onshore power in development/planning permission granted - including a massive 220MW farm in Mayo.
B9 Energy are investigating the possiblity of building a 250MW offshore development in Northern Ireland. Currently they have plans to build onshore farms capable of powering 138,250 homes; much of this has gained planning permission. Most of these are in N.I.
DP Energy is currently planning/building two more wind farms in Ireland.
Saorgus Energy has planning permission for 100MW in Ireland and is developing the Kish offshore farm, phase one of which involves 48MW of power.
Wind Prospect has 30.6MW under construction in Ireland.
Add in Airtricitys 200MW in planning

Thats 2,500MW of capacity (that I am aware of) that may be built over the next few years - obviously some projects will fall through, but even if half is built, thats a huge addition to capacity.


----------



## CGorman (24 Jul 2006)

Might I add, Denmarks, a country half the size of the island of Ireland, currently produces over 3,100MW of power from wind energy. So if we just replicated matched Denmarks current position we could have 6,200MW of power. In addition many of the turbines in Denmark are older, lessefficent models. We could easily match the 6,200MW with far fewer turbines!


----------



## z107 (24 Jul 2006)

I can't believe people are seriously considering nuclear power plants as a viable option.



> How many died as a result of those accidents? very few


No one knows how many people died (or will die) as a result of the accidents. A few people died from radiation sickness, or from explosions. Many more will die from cancer and who knows how many still births and deformities there will be.
Given the choice, I would rather not live on irradiated soil. Land that's going to be contaminated for thousands of years. We have a limited supply of land. Ever see a map of the hugh area of the globe that was affected from Chernobyl?



> do you realise the levels of radiation your exposed to in your lifetime?


I have a fair idea. I've also heard the stats about airline crews getting more of a dose than your average nuclear plant worker, and about coffee beans being radioactive etc... I would not like to see my annual exposure sharply increasing overnight though!



> Modern plants are very safe


Are they? - what makes you think that? - all the accidents and meltdowns that have happened over the last 50 years or so?



> and the waste can be put back into the earth where it came from. My only concerns would be that the real cost is much greater than other energy sources.


can be put back into the earth, or actually is? Why are all these power stations hanging onto it then?


----------



## CGorman (24 Jul 2006)

I agree with umop3p!sdn on this.

Modern plants may be safe - i.e. no major incidents in western plants in the past few years - however, as I said before, all it takes is a single accident to completely destroy our country - that is too vast a risk to take.

Regarding waste - pumping it into the ground is not a long term sustainable solution. Imagine if mankind was 100% nuclear powered and stored all waste in the ground, after 50 years what would our planet be like? After 150 years, what would it be like? Landfills for conventional waste have proved to be a poor unsustainable solution for household waste - why would it be any different for nuclear waste?


----------



## daveirl (25 Jul 2006)

CGorman said:
			
		

> Might I add, Denmarks, a country half the size of the island of Ireland, currently produces over 3,100MW of power from wind energy. So if we just replicated matched Denmarks current position we could have 6,200MW of power. In addition many of the turbines in Denmark are older, lessefficent models. We could easily match the 6,200MW with far fewer turbines!



But you can't get 100% of your energy from wind. In fact the Danes only get around 20%. Besides the fact there will be days when there is no wind the simple fact is that the electricity generated by wind turbines currently is a bit crap. The signal itself isn't as clean as you'd want at all, i.e. it's not a clean 50Hz Sinusoid, this is fine when you keep your percentage of wind power down low enough because you can compensate with other more constant forms of energy but you can't generate 100% from wind energy.

This is something that is constantly missed by advocates of wind power.



> Regarding waste - pumping it into the ground is not a long term sustainable solution. Imagine if mankind was 100% nuclear powered and stored all waste in the ground, after 50 years what would our planet be like? After 150 years, what would it be like? Landfills for conventional waste have proved to be a poor unsustainable solution for household waste - why would it be any different for nuclear waste?


Simple reason is that the 'landfills' required for nuclear waster are tiny. You don't end up with tonnes upon tonnes of nuclear waste per day/year, you end up with very little in comparison to the amount of energy created.

Questions for the No-Nuclear people:
1. How come you value the possible but incredibly unlikely deaths of people from Nuclear more than the lives of the hundreds of people dieing every year in mining fossil fuels.

2. How do you over come the fact that wind can't supply all our energy


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

CGorman said:
			
		

> I would disagree. Turbine technology is improving very quickly, with the most powerful turbine currently available rated 6MW, and more typical turbines 1-2MW. In addition these can reach 40% capacity in Ireland compared to 20% in mainland Europe. So if it is commercially viable to erect these things in Austria (at 20% capacity); it must be (it is) very lucrative to build them in Ireland. Combine with more pumped storage schemes Ireland could easily generate enough power for the whole country.



I'm all for renewable energy but I still think we need to couple it with nuclear power to meet our energy needs. You _cannot_ meet 100% of the grid's needs by wind power, not without fiendishly complicated and wasteful electricity storage schemes.

Also wind power isn't as clean as its proponents imagine. Noise and sight pollution are a side effect. We can build offshore banks but they are expensive and not very cost effective (hence why they haven't been completed). Given the incredibly delicate and  finely balanced nature of weather, I often wonder if having several banks of wind turbines catching wind offshore will change the weather experienced here. That is just idle speculation however.

Tidal power has potential, not least because it is very reliable and predictable. As are solar power and biomass fuels. However, to generate 100% of our energy needs from these alone would be incredibly costly. I did some back of the envelope calculations before (which I will try and find later if needed) and factoring in some reasonable farmer subsidies, supplying the grid with renewable fuels would become cost effective when oil is around €150 a barrel (maybe not that far off). However, the sheer volume of arable land required would be prohibitive.

I think nuclear is required if we wish to remove our dependency on oil for electricity generation. With nuclear, electrifying the railway system would become feasible.

However, in the very short term, here are two things we should start doing:

- Buy our own oil rather than buying via Britain. For cheaper oil we could either look into generating electricity from heavy sour crude (of which there is a glut on the market and it trades at a much lower $55 a barrel) or sign a deal with a country like Norway. The stability of a fixed-price contract might suit both countries.

- Start using coal. Chemical scrubbing technology has improved significantly so this doesn't need to be as bad for the environment as you might initially think. The world has plenty of coal reserves and compared to oil it is very cheap. We could even buy our own coal mine to ensure stability of supply.


----------



## Eurofan (25 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> - Start using coal. Chemical scrubbing technology has improved significantly so this doesn't need to be as bad for the environment as you might initially think. The world has plenty of coal reserves and compared to oil it is very cheap. We could even buy our own coal mine to ensure stability of supply.



The advances in coal based technology is quite remarkable. Was only reading an article last night (Time?) along these lines where the known supplies of coal were termed 'superabundant' with in excess of 200 years worth easily available. Not only that but it is much more evenly spread around geographically.


----------



## ivuernis (25 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> For cheaper oil we could either look into generating electricity from heavy sour crude (of which there is a glut on the market and it trades at a much lower $55 a barrel)


It's only cheaper because there is a lack of refining capacity around the world for heavy sour. Whether heavy sour or light sweet it still needs to be refined. 



			
				room305 said:
			
		

> - Start using coal.


We already do, MoneyPoint is coal powered. 



			
				room305 said:
			
		

> The world has plenty of coal reserves and compared to oil it is very cheap.


Only at current production rates. Ramp it up to offset oil and gas depletion and it runs out in real terms before the end of the century. 

"Clean Coal" has got to be the mother of all oxymorons.


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

ivuernis said:
			
		

> We already do, MoneyPoint is coal powered.



At 915MW it is a significant portion of our total capacity (about 24%) but we should look at expanding this.



			
				ivuernis said:
			
		

> Only at current production rates. Ramp it up to offset oil and gas depletion and it runs out in real terms before the end of the century.



Hence why I suggested we buy an actual coal mine. This way we can ensure the stability of supply and we'll be buying at a price that is cheap compared to oil or gas.



			
				ivuernis said:
			
		

> "Clean Coal" has got to be the mother of all oxymorons.



Not necessarily, General Electric have invested heavily in clean coal technology and it is not a decision they would take lightly. Trapping the CO2 is probably a more likely solution than sequestration but the technology is improving rapidly. Also, we will be replacing electricity generation from oil, so we do not need to reduce it to zero to be effective.

Oil generates about 1.6k lbs of CO2 per MW. Coal generates around 2.2k lbs per MW. With advances in scrubbing and trapping technology it is entirely feasible today to reduce coal CO2 output to on a par with that generated by oil.


----------



## brian1 (25 Jul 2006)

Wind is great, but due to the nature of it it can only make up a small percentage of our overall energy generation. The highest percentage user of wind in the world is Denmark, yet they only use wind for 20% of their energy needs.

I've being trying to find out what percentage of wind mix we can use in Ireland, I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer yet, but I believe it is around 30%.

But then how do we cleanly and securely generate the other 70%?

Solar is out of the question.

We don't really have enough land to grow significant amounts of Biomass energy and it has other significant problems.

Tidal is a very fragile and unproven technology.

So I ask again where are we going to get the other 60 - 70% of our energy needs.

IMO We need Nuclear to fill in the rest of our energy needs after wind.

BTW here are some myths about Nuclear that are simply not true:

It is not expensive, it is slightly cheaper then fossil fuel costs last year (when fossil fuels were much cheaper) and is about half the cost of wind.

Modern plants are safe and don't release radiation. In fact a coal burning power plant like Money Point releases far more radioactive material then any Nuclear power planet.

Also over 1,200 people died in China alone last year from just mining coal. No one died from Nuclear power last year.

BBTW It is great that lots more wind power is coming to Ireland, however FYI 2,500MW of wind power will equate to only about 833MW of real power, this is due to the variance in wind power (wind stops blowing), wind power is only about 30% efficient.

BBBTW Wind power is significantly more expensive then fossil fuels or Nuclear, so expect your ESB bills to go way up, the more wind power we use.


----------



## Howitzer (25 Jul 2006)

2 words: European Supergrid.


----------



## Zack (25 Jul 2006)

I'm against nuclear power for the simple reason that it isn't a long term option. It's primary source of fuel, uranium is just like fossil fuels, a non renewable resource.Current estimates of global uranium reserves are somewhere around 80 - 125 yrs, at present nuclear power afaik, provides 16% of the globe's electricity requirements - about 7% of the globe's energy supply.Allow for a doubling of that capacity even to a modest 30% of global electricity requirements- see what that does to remaining viable reserves. 
(Other identified reserves will require more energy to extract than they provide.)Couple all that with the difficulty and enormous expense of dealing with the waste and it seems like a less and less attractive long term option.

It's interesting that I have yet to hear the above argument touted by the anti nuclear brigade in any public forum.


(Btw, Someone mentioned fusion -well that technology is more than 5 or 10 yrs away - 50 to 100 yrs might be more accurate.).


Unless, and don't laugh!, maybe we (ie. the earth, or more than likely the US) can start harvesting Helium 3 isotopes off the moon - effectively limitless,clean nuclear fuel. It's estimated that the cost of an expedition to extract 1 tonH3, which occurs naturally in the Moon's regolith, would more than pay for itself in terms of the amount of energy ot would provide.

Z


----------



## CGorman (25 Jul 2006)

daveirl said:
			
		

> But you can't get 100% of your energy from wind. In fact the Danes only get around 20%. Besides the fact there will be days when there is no wind the simple fact is that the electricity generated by wind turbines currently is a bit crap.



But yes you can! Several pumped storage schemes like tourlough hill can rule out all the variable nature of wind! Whilst I agree it is unlikely that 100% wind will ever be achieved, it should be a very significant part of our energy sources - the rest could be met by tidal and solar.

Also, Denmark has a larger population and thus uses more electricity than us - there's an extra 1.5m people living there, so it is a remarkable feat that they can get 20% from wind with only half the land area as us. We should be able to do better.



			
				brian1 said:
			
		

> Solar is out of the question.



Why do you say that? Solar panals on rooftops in Ireland can meet a significant part of our energy needs. As I said before, the Portuguese are a superb example of this.



			
				brian1 said:
			
		

> wind power is only about 30% efficient.



The figure is actual 40% in the Northwest of Ireland. As I said before, the figure is just 20% in Germany, Austria etc. - yet it has proved to be a viable option in these places.

BTW: There's an article in todays Indo about an all-island ban on nuclear between Peter Hain and Dermot Ahern.


----------



## CGorman (25 Jul 2006)

Howitzer said:
			
		

> 2 words: European Supergrid.



Fully agree if we can figure out how to minmise energy loss accross great distances... Hydro from Sweden, Finland & Norway, Wind from the British Isles, and Central Europe, Solar from deserts of North Africa, Spain , Italy, France & Portugal and tidal/wave from wherever it proves to be most efficent! It's a beautiful dream. Perhaps 50 years might create a reality?... if only.


----------



## ivuernis (25 Jul 2006)

Zack said:
			
		

> It's interesting that I have yet to hear the above argument [uranium reserves] touted by the anti nuclear brigade in any public forum.


The Green Party have used that argument before, I'm just not sure if it was the Greens in Ireland or the UK. 





			
				Zack said:
			
		

> Unless, and don't laugh!, maybe we (ie. the earth, or more than likely the US) can start harvesting Helium 3 isotopes off the moon - effectively limitless,clean nuclear fuel. It's estimated that the cost of an expedition to extract 1 tonH3, which occurs naturally in the Moon's regolith, would more than pay for itself in terms of the amount of energy ot would provide.


I heard that one before... is it really just completely unattainable though? i mean it has to mined ON THE MOON and one ton is A LOT. How much moon rock have we managed to bring back? A few clumps?!?


----------



## Howitzer (25 Jul 2006)

CGorman said:
			
		

> Fully agree if we can figure out how to minmise energy loss accross great distances... Hydro from Sweden, Finland & Norway, Wind from the British Isles, and Central Europe, Solar from deserts of North Africa, Spain , Italy, France & Portugal and tidal/wave from wherever it proves to be most efficent! It's a beautiful dream. Perhaps 50 years might create a reality?... if only.


 
Err, do a google "European Supergrid". It's happening as we speak. I'd link some docs but they're all a kazillion Mb in size. Airtricity haven't been raising 100s of millions of euros recently just so that they can get Brendan O'Carroll for the Xmas party you know.

Re energy loss see "ABB DC transmission technology".

There's actually more than enough energy currently produced in Europe as a whole you just need a bit of lateral thinking. Nuclear, Wind, Oil, Coal. These will all be considered complementary in matter of years, not decades. East/west time zones also help.


----------



## daveirl (25 Jul 2006)

CGorman said:
			
		

> But yes you can! Several pumped storage schemes like tourlough hill can rule out all the variable nature of wind! Whilst I agree it is unlikely that 100% wind will ever be achieved, it should be a very significant part of our energy sources - the rest could be met by tidal and solar.


That only solves the storage problem it doesn't solve the problem that the electricity generated by wind is crap as I outlined previously.  Also if you're anti-Nuclear how can you be pro-European-Supergrid since that just means you're taking someone else's nuclear power.


----------



## Zack (25 Jul 2006)

Ivuernis, 

Think there are about 800Ibs of moon rock in various labs/museums around the world brought back from the 6 Apollo missions.
Space Shuttle - ( 1970's technology) could - if modified carry a ten ton payload from lunar orbit to the earth, but regardless of limitations of current technology, if the price is right it will, be done. 

Apparently a Russian company - Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia - (manufacturer of launcher and space station components) state it is their aim to establish Helium3  mining operations on the moon before 2025. Whoever gets there first will be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice.

Z


----------



## autumnleaf (25 Jul 2006)

Another factor to look at is reducing the demand:

- Transport: Improve public transport - yes it costs money in the short run but in the long run would save it. Tax cars at a rate that reflects their fuel use (perhaps hybrids could be exempt from tax altogether). Improve the cycle path network. Improve broadband connections to encourage telecommuting.

- Buildings: Offer grants for "green buildings" that use energy more efficiently. Create a standard such as the LEED in the US to rate such buildings. Look at international developments such as Vauban in Germany and Dongtan in China.


----------



## ivuernis (25 Jul 2006)

Zack said:
			
		

> Think there are about 800Ibs of moon rock in various labs/museums around the world brought back from the 6 Apollo missions.


Yes, you're right, I just looked it up. Didn't realise there was that much.





			
				Zack said:
			
		

> Apparently a Russian company - Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia - (manufacturer of launcher and space station components) state it is their aim to establish Helium3 mining operations on the moon before 2025



Heard about them. I wonder was Bush's pledge to return to the moon anything to do with this?!?


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

Google have apparently considered building an elevator into space - if not quite as far as the moon. The idea was to use it to carry payloads cheaply from Earth into space. However, maybe it could be used to carry stuff back down as well.

Probably many years away but I believe commercial space operations will become a very lucrative area of business at some point in the future.


----------



## Zack (25 Jul 2006)

Ivuernis, yes, Bush's pledge to return to the moon was interesting, it could indeed be a factor and the thought occured to me when he made it.Using the moon as a "stepping stone" to Mars for instance just doesn't make sense.(I suppose there is also the fear of China's rapidly progressing space programme- we'll probably be watching another space race in 10-15 yrs time.).

After initial outlay, Helium 3 extraction from the moon would, effectively, give the US (and potentially the planet) limitless and more or less free energy. Until nuclear fusion is (if it ever is) developed.The Gigawatts per ton of this stuff is supposedly truly staggering.

It's interesting also to look at US's proposed means of returning to the moon- its been dubbed "Apollo on steroids" ie. effectively the same vehicles/means they used close to forty years ago, I suppose the adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies. This ensures they have a tremendous headstart over any other nation if "moon mining" is indeed their primary objective in returning to the moon. 

This is an interesting thread, our kids are going to be living in a world where access to energy sources will be the primary politcal and economical imperatives.Eg. Irish farmland could be a long term bet for your grandkids- will we really be paying for air transported perishables from South America in 60 yrs time? probably not- it'll be homegrown.


Z


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

brian1 said:
			
		

> Solar is out of the question.



Funny that when you dismiss any other renewable energy sources you give a reason, yet with solar you simply say it is out of the question. Why?


----------



## brian1 (25 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> Funny that when you dismiss any other renewable energy sources you give a reason, yet with solar you simply say it is out of the question. Why?



Because we live in Ireland, not California.

Yes, I know that you can make some hot water from solar, but it certainly won't get us anywhere to generating the 4,500MW peak winter power that we currently require. And most people aren't willing to pay out the €10,000 that I heard it costs for it by some one on boards.ie, plus flying chaps over from Germany and putting them up for a week to install it!!!


----------



## diarmuidc (25 Jul 2006)

No other energy source has the same density as nuclear. A single wind turbine will produce at most 5MW, the worlds largest solar plant covering 25 hectares generates 10MW. *One *nuclear plant in Lithuania produces 1500MW.  The figures speak for themselves. 

France supplies 78% of their needs from nuclear. I live near one in fact.  The fact of the matter is that modern designs are safe.  How may people die each year from the pollution from coal plants?


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

brian1 said:
			
		

> Because we live in Ireland, not California.



You don't need to be able to sunbathe to generate electricity from solar power.



			
				brian1 said:
			
		

> Yes, I know that you can make some hot water from solar, but it certainly won't get us anywhere to generating the 4,500MW peak winter power that we currently require. And most people aren't willing to pay out the €10,000 that I heard it costs for it by some one on boards.ie, plus flying chaps over from Germany and putting them up for a week to install it!!!



If every house in this country had solar panels then the requirements from the grid would be significantly less. Nobody is advocating generating all of Ireland's electricity supply from one energy source. However, we need to consider alternative in order to:

1) Reduce inflation
2) Stop supporting dictatorships
3) Reduce harmful CO2 emissions

Reducing our dependency on imported oil achieves all of these objectives. You are arguing as though we can only choose one energy source, when in fact, using multiple sources makes the most sense. One of these options should definitely be nuclear though.


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

Also, that €10k sounds very expensive and I'd question why he flew people over from Germany when there are companies in Ireland which can install solar panels.


----------



## brian1 (25 Jul 2006)

Zack said:
			
		

> I'm against nuclear power for the simple reason that it isn't a long term option. It's primary source of fuel, uranium is just like fossil fuels, a non renewable resource.Current estimates of global uranium reserves are somewhere around 80 - 125 yrs, at present nuclear power afaik, provides 16% of the globe's electricity requirements - about 7% of the globe's energy supply.Allow for a doubling of that capacity even to a modest 30% of global electricity requirements- see what that does to remaining viable reserves.



*WRONG 
*yet another myth, please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Fuel_resources

basically it says that there is plenty of Uranium, that it is a very common element in nature and that with the new generation of breeder reactors that can use uranium-238 rather then uranium-235, there are between 10,000 to five billion years worth of uranium-235.

Hell there is a large deposit of the stuff in the Wicklow mountains.

BTW with reprocessing of Nuclear waste, you can extract 95% of the original Uranium for reuse.

So there are *NO* problems with Nuclear fuel supplies. 



> Why do you say that? Solar panals on rooftops in Ireland can meet a significant part of our energy needs. As I said before, the Portuguese are a superb example of this.



Some on boards quoted he got this done, it cost him €10,000 and he had to get guys from Germany to fly over to do it. And all he gets from this is hot water in Summer. And what about all the people living in cities living in apartments? It simply isn't scalable in any meaningful sense.



> The figure is actual 40% in the Northwest of Ireland.



That is nice, but over 30% of the population lives in the East (Dublin area). so nationally we can probably do at very best 30%, again I ask what about the remainder?



> There's actually more than enough energy currently produced in Europe as a whole you just need a bit of lateral thinking. Nuclear, Wind, Oil, Coal. These will all be considered complementary in matter of years, not decades. East/west time zones also help.



There are two be problems:

1) CO2 Emissions
We want to reduce our CO2 emissions as it is causing global warming. We currently burn lots of Oil and Gas, this is very bad for the environment.

People might find this funny, but I'm actually an environmentalist, I actually want Nuclear as I believe it is the only reliable solution to reducing CO2 emissions.

2) Security of supply
Yes, there is plenty of coal, but burning coal is one of the most awful, toxic and environmentally damaging things you can do. People don't realise that coal actually contains  radioactive material that is known to prove cancer, a coal burning power plant realises far more radioactive material then a Nuclear power plant.

Gas mostly comes from Russia, but we all saw how unstable that is last year when Russia tried turning off the Ukrainians gas supply. That sppoked lots of people in the  energy world.

BTW about the European supergrid, it is a great idea, but transmissions lines lose power over distance due to certain physical laws. Such transmission is incredibly inefficient with lots of lost energy. At best it is considered as a backup.

Also a very large part of the  power coming from such a grid would be generated by Nuclear power plants.


----------



## diarmuidc (25 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> If every house in this country had solar panels then the requirements from the grid would be significantly less.



It is much more efficient to have one plant generating large amount of energy than many small ones.

Also from what I've read the manufacturing process for solar panels is not exactly very clean. They contain some exotic chemicals + elements. I'll need to do some research to back that statement up with hard facts


----------



## Jimoslimos (25 Jul 2006)

Incineration anybody..........??

Cue rabid pack of NIMBYs informing me on the dangers of dioxins and other such pollutants to them and their children (whilst smoking 20 a day ). 
I'd move next to an incineration plant before I'd live beside a coal/oil power station. 

Seriously though it is economically suicidal to depend on any one source of energy and since nuclear fusion is looking increasingly unlikely, helium-3 isotopes from moon are still a long, long way from being an option and wind/solar/tidal unable to produce 100% at peak demand then I'd have have to consider myself reluctantly pro-nuclear along with many others.

Another point to note, biomass has been mentioned as a renewable source of energy (which it is) but it seems to be overlooked that it is also a source of greenhouse gases and therefore is not helping tackle global warming.


----------



## brian1 (25 Jul 2006)

room305 said:
			
		

> Also, that €10k sounds very expensive and I'd question why he flew people over from Germany when there are companies in Ireland which can install solar panels.



I asked that also, as I'm really interested, he said the quotes from Irish installers where more then flying them over from Germany.

My point is that it isn't a realistic option by any stretch of the imagine, if anyone thinks every house in the country is going to get they are in Green lala land.

1) What about the massive number of people living in apartments.
2) Most people wouldn't be willing to make such a layout.
3) Many people wouldn't do it as they don't want this on their roof.
4) Where are you going to get all the installers to install 2 million homes?


----------



## brian1 (25 Jul 2006)

Jimoslimos said:
			
		

> Another point to note, biomass has been mentioned as a renewable source of energy (which it is) but it seems to be overlooked that it is also a source of greenhouse gases and therefore is not helping tackle global warming.



Many environmentalists argue that it is emission neutral as by planting the biomass it absorbs the CO2 from when previous plants are burned. Personally I find this a little dubious.


----------



## dam099 (25 Jul 2006)

Zack said:
			
		

> After initial outlay, Helium 3 extraction from the moon would, effectively, give the US (and potentially the planet) limitless and more or less free energy. Until nuclear fusion is (if it ever is) developed.The Gigawatts per ton of this stuff is supposedly truly staggering.


 
I thought to use Helium 3 you need to use nuclear fusion?


----------



## daveirl (25 Jul 2006)

Jimoslimos said:
			
		

> Another point to note, biomass has been mentioned as a renewable source of energy (which it is) but it seems to be overlooked that it is also a source of greenhouse gases and therefore is not helping tackle global warming.


Well only sort of surely. Is it not Carbon Neutral? The amount of Carbon released in buring the tree/whatever will be equal to the amount of carbon the tree uses to grow?  On the Solar panels I have to agree with what has been said, the production of solar panels produces plently of toxic waste and they aren't cheap either.  It's like the guy on Top Gear a couple of weeks ago, said he owned two Prius' one in the UK one in the US. Of course the amount of damage done in building the second car is probably far more than the amount of damage done by a regular engine versus the hybrid one.


----------



## Howitzer (25 Jul 2006)

brian1 said:
			
		

> BTW about the European supergrid, it is a great idea, but transmissions lines lose power over distance due to certain physical laws. Such transmission is incredibly inefficient with lots of lost energy. At best it is considered as a backup.


 
Yes and no. When I was a wee nipper this was definately the case and if you read anything over 10 years old on the topic and you'll come to the same conclusion but like anything where there's a technical impediment smart people generally find answers. Googling "ABB DC transmission technology" will throw up all you need to know on the topic. 

In reality you simply transfer your energy to the nearest destination and so on like a domino trail.

Also, once you have an East / West timezone differential you don't really need to worry as much about capacities since you start trading energy to areas where it's needed most from areas where it's not needed and then back again. This is not the same thing as what Enron were doing in California since there they were mostly dealing within 1 time zone within a North/South area which had chronic energy supply undercapacity.


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

diarmuidc said:
			
		

> It is much more efficient to have one plant generating large amount of energy than many small ones.
> 
> Also from what I've read the manufacturing process for solar panels is not exactly very clean. They contain some exotic chemicals + elements. I'll need to do some research to back that statement up with hard facts



I'm pro-nuclear but I think we should also consider alternative energy sources. Our grid uses about 4,500MW at peak. Since we'd probably only realistically build a 100MW or even 700MW nuclear plant, we need to look at other alternative sources as well.

Given the likely reaction to building _one_ nuclear plant, I could not even contemplate the reaction to a government attempting to build five or six.

One option that tricky Dicky Roche could consider - once we've got the non-sticky chewing gum crisis out of the way, is using Ireland as an experimental base for alternative energies. We're a small country with a relatively small grid. We could encourage companies to set up renewable energy plants of various kinds. They could effectively use us a demo model for larger (and hence more lucrative) energy contracts elsewhere in the world. I'm sure Airtricity don't relish being asked just how much of Ireland's electricity needs they supply.


----------



## z107 (25 Jul 2006)

> Also over 1,200 people died in China alone last year from just mining coal. No one died from Nuclear power last year.



When you state 'died from nuclear power', do you mean 'radiation sickness'?
It's a bit like saying that no one died from smoking last year. A lot died from smoking related illnesses and lung cancer though. How many people are currently suffering as a result of Mayak and Chernobyl?

The problem with nuclear power plants is that when they go bad, they go very, very bad. We only need one meltdown. No one knows what to do with the waste either.


----------



## Zack (25 Jul 2006)

room305, The profits for the corporation(s) who can pull it off reliable/cheap transport to the moon will be staggering - a monoply on the the sale of the raw material and patents on the extraction technology- think of the Dutch East India Company crossed with Microsoft!

(There are of course international laws currently forbidding individual nations or states extracting materials from the moon- that, I assure you, will change.)

diarmuidic, I agree that contemporary nuclear plants are very safe - (excepting fast breed reactors-much more efficient but cannot as of yet fullfill current safety requirements)It's an emotive topic largely due to an uninformed public and trite,simplistic comments by commentators and politicians with their own axe to grind which are interpretated as hard facts. Still, I disagree with nuclear power, for the reason I previously outlined - it is not a viable long term prospect. It's pointless to compare what one plant currently produces relative to X no. of windmills. As nuclear power use increases, uranium becomes scarcer/more expensive.Does France really supply 75% of it's energy needs from nuclear power or is that figure it's electricity needs?- electric cars are fairly thin on the grounf in France I imagine.

brian 1, yep, I'm well aware uranium is all around us and that it is one of the most common elements. It exists in sea water,topsoil, dead vegetaion etc.etc.However, the technology to profitably extract it from these components is currently about as far away as faster than light travel.
Sure you resuse some of the spent fuel- what do you with the rest? (btw, there is no such thing as consenual science - its a bad thing, & wikipedia ain't exactly an authoritative objective source)

Mankind has lived in the fossil fuel age for close to 150 yrs at this point. By "lived", I mean that our economies and lives as we know them are utterly dependant on the extraction and processing of non renewable energy resources. 150 yrs is a mere blink of the eye and necessity being the mother of invention, I see a paradigm shift in the nature of our energy sources/extraction processes (not in our lifetimes though) rather than plastering every m2 of the planet with a windmill/solar panel.

Z


----------



## Jimoslimos (25 Jul 2006)

daveirl said:
			
		

> Well only sort of surely. Is it not Carbon Neutral? The amount of Carbon released in buring the tree/whatever will be equal to the amount of carbon the tree uses to grow?


 
Yes, true I accept but it also has a host of other issues including;
1) Needs a vast amount of land to be efficient. Is it a bit counter-productive to clear forests to grow biomass as a 'green' energy source.
2) Problems associated with any large scale crop growth - pest/disease control etc.


----------



## daveirl (25 Jul 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> The problem with nuclear power plants is that when they go bad, they go very, very bad. We only need one meltdown. No one knows what to do with the waste either.


The idea of what's very bad has been hyped out of all proportion. At most 4000 *will die* as a result of Chernobyl. Those are UN figures not mine. Note that nowhere near 4000 have died as of yet.  With regard to the waste, there's not much of it at all. That's another anti-Nuclear nugget of misinformation. While the waste is harmful there's not that much of it to deal with.


----------



## micamaca (25 Jul 2006)

Jimoslimos said:
			
		

> 2) Problems associated with any large scale crop growth - pest/disease control etc.


 
Isn't this better than contaminating land for thousands of years in the event of a meltdown and not to mention the unborn children for years to come... 

They day the Irish government give some engineer the go-ahead to build a nuclear power station, is they day I jump ship...honest to God, these muppets have spent 9 million trying to get Dublin Bus, Luas and Irish Rail to have one ticket for all three... they are no closer to solving that one either ! Luas - over budget. Oh, and two luas lines which don't connect. The spire - what is it for? The Port Tunnel - delayed indefinitely! E-voting - when will we use that! M50 - carpark. Need I say more. 

And people think they should be commissioning a nuclear power plant, a potential health hazard????

BTW, has everyone still got their iodine tablets?


----------



## brian1 (25 Jul 2006)

Zack said:
			
		

> brian 1, yep, I'm well aware uranium is all around us and that it is one of the most common elements. It exists in sea water,topsoil, dead vegetaion etc.etc.However, the technology to profitably extract it from these components is currently about as far away as faster than light travel.
> Sure you resuse some of the spent fuel- what do you with the rest? (btw, there is no such thing as consenual science - its a bad thing, & wikipedia ain't exactly an authoritative objective source)



Yes and no, the cost of extracting uranium is very low, because there are already large stock piles of it and the ability to reprocess it. It is actually a very restricted business because it is currently so cheap.

By simply doubling the price of Uranium, it makes it viable to produce massive amounts of more Uranium, giving us a few 100 years more worth of Uranium. A doubling in the cost of Uranium would have only a very small knock on effect on the overall cost of Nuclear power generation (about 5% extra cost), because Uranium is already so cheap.

And that is all with uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), rather then uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium) which is now starting to be used in the new generation of breeder reactors. This fixes the supply problem for 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of years. Hopefully we will have Nuclear Fusion by then.



> When you state 'died from nuclear power', do you mean 'radiation sickness'?
> It's a bit like saying that no one died from smoking last year. A lot died from smoking related illnesses and lung cancer though. How many people are currently suffering as a result of Mayak and Chernobyl?



First of all it is estimated that in the region of 4,000 people will die due to Chernobyl, including related diseases, while this is awful, to put it into context an estimated 171,000 people (26,000 from flooding, the rest from subsequent epidemics) died in China when the Banqiao Dam burst.

Also Chernobyl is not something that can happen in any modern western power plants. Please do some research and you will realise that such an accident of that scale cannot happen in a western nuclear plant.


----------



## shnaek (25 Jul 2006)

What the pro-nuclear people need is for the US or the UK to tell us that we are not allowed have a nuclear power plant. Then watch support for nuclear go through the roof 

Seriously though, it helps to debate these issues - and politicians are far from helping the debate progress. When Denmark considered going nuclear the (pro nuclear) government there decided on a referendum. Those against nuclear could not campaign unless they were offering an alternative strategy. The anti-nuclear side won - but they won by presenting the alternatives. I am a bit sick of the 'No-to-everything' brigade in Ireland who don't offer alternatives, just simply say No all the time. 

We need debate, and we need alternatives if nuclear is not to be an option. In effect we need a debate like the one happening here, but we need it on the national airwaves and in the Dail.


----------



## room305 (25 Jul 2006)

shnaek said:
			
		

> What the pro-nuclear people need is for the US or the UK to tell us that we are not allowed have a nuclear power plant. Then watch support for nuclear go through the roof







			
				shnaek said:
			
		

> Seriously though, it helps to debate these issues - and politicians are far from helping the debate progress. When Denmark considered going nuclear the (pro nuclear) government there decided on a referendum. Those against nuclear could not campaign unless they were offering an alternative strategy. The anti-nuclear side won - but they won by presenting the alternatives. I am a bit sick of the 'No-to-everything' brigade in Ireland who don't offer alternatives, just simply say No all the time.



It makes very easy political capital to stand on a platform of opposing something. The politician does nothing but say no and get indignant everytime a dissenting voice is raised.

Far, far easier than providing real leadership and vision. One of the major stumbling blocks in democracy is the Dick Roche or Ian Paisley type politician who simply shouts "no" without ever putting forward their own solutions.

Sorry a bit off-topic there but for a country where the political leadership seem pretty anti-nuclear are setting the targets very low for energy generated by renewable resources - 12% by 2010 if I remember correctly and that could have been set by Europe.

Will it really be viable to keep our economy growing by supplying about 70% of our electricity needs with oil in 2010 (and how expensive will oil be by then - $100 a barrel, $200 a barrel, $300 a barrel?).


----------



## z107 (25 Jul 2006)

> The idea of what's very bad has been hyped out of all proportion. At most 4000 *will die* as a result of Chernobyl. Those are UN figures not mine. Note that nowhere near 4000 have died as of yet.


 Would you live there?



> With regard to the waste, there's not much of it at all. That's another anti-Nuclear nugget of misinformation. While the waste is harmful there's not that much of it to deal with.


 How much exactly is there? Compared to what is there 'not that much of it'? I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.



> Also Chernobyl is not something that can happen in any modern western power plants. Please do some research and you will realise that such an accident of that scale cannot happen in a western nuclear plant.


 Once you introduce the human factor, there's always the possibility that disasters can happen. People get complacent. Do you not remember this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1479483,00.html It only happened last year and was classified as Level 3 out of 7. How can you be so sure that another meltdown *definitely* won't happen? It's a very dangerous attitude. I would be interested if you could please site your source for this _fact_


----------



## bearishbull (25 Jul 2006)

A lot of people beleive in all the media hype regarding nuclear etc and wont ever accept nuclear even as an option. Chernobyl wasnt as bad as the media will have you beleive and organisations like greenpeace etc vastly exagerate the consequences. Why has the ukraine (home of chernobyl) made nuclear power their main source of electricity for forseeable future?  These opponents of nuclear also fail to see the vastly more significant hazards they encounter in every day life. There really is very little danger with modern safety driven nuclear power generation as USA UK France and Japan demonstrate.


----------



## brian1 (25 Jul 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> How much exactly is there? Compared to what is there 'not that much of it'? I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.



About 25 tonnes a year for a large reactor (about 1,500MW), that is very small amount compared to what is produced by other fossil fuel plants and but which goes straight into the air.

I'd have no problems with a dump like the new one they are building in Finland. It is incredible just how much work they put into making it safe.

BTW In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes.

One of the best ideas for dealing with waste, is to mix it back in with the earth that was extracted to get it until it makes up the same part per million of soil and then bury it back where you got it. Therefore it ends up being no more dangerous then it was originally in nature. I believe the only reason why they don't currently do this is that it is expenisve, but it could be done in future.


----------



## diarmuidc (25 Jul 2006)

Here on the BBC is a very good Q&A with guys who know what they are talking about in regards to Chernobyl. Also many don't realise but Chernobyl was in operation until 2000


----------



## daveirl (26 Jul 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> Would you live there?


I wouldn't live in any part of Russia to be honest. I've got a friend who's been to Belarus and is currently on the far side of Russia working in an orphanage there. The conditions there are no better than in Chernobyl hence it's fair to assume that it's deprivation is ruining people's lives in Chernobyl not the fact there was a nuclear accident there at one point.



> I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.


I wouldn't. It's not like protecting people from Nuclear waste is even that hard.


----------



## room305 (26 Jul 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:
			
		

> I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.



Another reason why politicians wouldn't have the guts to build a nuclear plant. The great Irish property bubble. Can you imagine what living near a nuclear plant would do to the price of property in the area?

I wouldn't mind living near one though. Great opportunity to buy yourself a cheap house.


----------



## joe sod (27 Jul 2006)

"While I am not anti-nuclear and think it has enormous potential as a future green energy, I am conscious that we have little expertise in this area in Ireland. While the expertise could be imported, someone still needs to manage and run the plants and our track record for managing large-scale engineering projects is iffy at best.

Although it is touted as an "Irish solution to an Irish problem", importing cheap nuclear-generated electricity from the UK is a good option. I understand the building of a 700MW plant is being considered for Derry."

     I sort of agree with this too even though I am pro nuclear power I dont think it would suit Ireland. I dont think we have the expertise. I dont think there would be any point in a government running with it as it would never be built due to the hostility of the irish people to it.  The UK are going to have to build alot of nuclear power stations so I think they will sell their excess capacity to us. I think another Moneypoint type power station burning coal will be what we end up with. Although the CO2 will have to be buried. However I think we are going to have to become alot more efficient in our use of energy. This is where political leadership is needed.


----------



## Howitzer (3 Aug 2006)

Four of Sweden's 10 nuclear reactors have been shut down, following electricity failures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5241780.stm


----------



## Guest107 (3 Aug 2006)

I am with Lovelock on this since he came out for Nuclear. . 

As a pretty low lying country with much of the population actively threatened by rising sea levels in their lifetime which will drown D4 (hurray) and Salthill and Cork and Waterford I fear that nuclear is the lesser evil now.

Lets start planning for when not IF


----------



## z102 (25 Aug 2006)

7 minutes we where away from a meltdown risk in Sweden. 22 minutes from the actuall meltdown. One of the safest reactors
 in the world.....a couple of months ago it was the same scenario in South Africa.
No nuclear powerplant will stop the sealevels from rising, de facto most nuclear powerplants would get into serious trouble with the rising sea. Sellafield and Le Havre will have to be dugged up and brought to a "safer" place. Anyone here with a spade?


----------

