Nuclear Power

L

leesider29

Registered User
Messages
120
In the light of the hikes in oil, gas and hence electricity should Ireland strongly consider going down the nuclear route soon??

Is it the one economically viable option that could save us from being totally dependent on imported energy??

I don't have the figures but will renewable energy even meet 20% of our needs anytime soon??
 
I see no evidence that nuclear is economically viable. There's a huge capital cost in building reactors, fuel is not cheap and there is the disposal issue afterwards. All for a small population. It doesn't make economic sense.

I remember reading somewhere that Ireland could easily produce 50% of our needs from wind if we chose to grasp the nettle. There are other alternatives too, such as wood heating to reduce gas and oil usage, and let's not forget the basic point - reducing our usage of energy overall.

If we need nuclear energy, can't we just buy it from France or somewhere? I see no need to have a reactor here.
 
No , No , No, not until every other option is explored even if that means that my lifestyle changes a lot. We waste an incredible amount of energy nowadays, in offices, shops, nighttime lighting of cities etc apart from homes. Many of us grew up to shouts of 'Do I look like I have shares in the ESB, tuirn that off if you're not using it' and with a bit of thought , that kind of mindset nowadays would see a lot less energy used.
Sorry , for me , nuclear is a lot way off.
 
The capital cost of building reactors is high but the ongoing costs of fuel and maintenance are cheaper than coal and a lot cheaper than oil and gas. The decommissioning costs are only about 15% of the capital cost. Waste disposal costs from coal are not considered when comparing with nuclear so it isn't an entirely fair comparison either. [broken link removed].

We should continue to buy foreign nuclear power. We should invest heavily in inter-connector capacity so that we can export future renewable sources like wind and wave and import nuclear and solar generated in Spain and North Africa as these facilities are built.

If the renewals fail to deliver adequate power we can increase the amount of nuclear we import or get the enlightened Finns over to build us a couple of next generation reactors. We probably even have the uranium locally waiting to be extracted.
 
GeneralZod said:
The decommissioning costs are only about 15% of the capital cost.
Click to expand...

15%? How can we know what something will cost when decommissioning and waste storage time frames extend not just for decades, but potential hundreds of years into the future. We have no past experience of storing waste for a hundred years as it has'nt been done... so we simply don't really know the cost. I presume your figure relates to the operators costs. In that sense you are correct... but just because the legacy cost will be swallowed by the government doesnt mean it can be ignored.

I am all in favour of alternative energy, but I truely believe that if we invested the sums required to build significant nuclear capacity in major wind developments along with a more efficent pan european network system then we would be far better off. Wind is no more expensive in reality compared to Nuclear. In fact because its costs are more certain (no potential for clean up costs down the line), I would argue it is a far better investment. If we invested in a pan european network with integrated pumped storage and hydroelectric backup generators then we could solve the energy crisis. Wave, solar and existing power sources would be enough to balance such a system.

Having said that, Nuclear has proven very successful in France, no argument their. I just believe that the quickest and most economic method to secure future energy capacity is enormous investment in wind and to a lesser extent hydro, solar and wave.
 
The British are reckoning these next generation reactors will cost €5-6bn apiece, which if Ireland followed that pattern is up to €1,200 per head for every person in the country.

In my house the average ESB bill is €120ish every 2 months and there are 3 of us. Even applying every penny we pay to the construction it would take 5 years just to pay for our share of the construction. And that's forgetting about the fuel (which is not that cheap), the Grid, staffing, overheads, the necessity to have conventional plants online and running to provide some power at next to no notice if the nuclear plant has to be scramed etc. And that's for one plant. I don't know how many plants we'd need, but obviously the costs would increase in proportion. Plus the construction period is several years, so we have to begin to pay for it before we get any benefit.

I find it hard to see how an economic argument can be made to spend that much on something that will not yield significant benefit. If it is built, what happens. In a liberalised electricity market, it will be obliged to sell its power at market rate, so the price will only shadow what's happening in the general market. Energy will not be cheaper as a result.

There are alternatives that are not as dangerous that can be scaled to suit our needs and rolled out very quickly if we have the courage to choose them.
 
A lot of people are putting forward the idea that renewals can replace our dependence on fossil fuels.

The head guy in Shell pointed out in an interview recently that to replace a 1GW Nuclear plant with Wind Generators would require a land area 3 times the size of France (that's a lot of wind generators).

Wind and Waves and Solar is not enough. To meet our energy needs of the future, we will need Nuclear. We are already importing a certain amount of Nuclear power from the UK.

The only debate should be can we produce our own Nuclear power cheaper than we can import it.
 
LouisCribben said:
The head guy in Shell pointed out in an interview recently that to replace a 1GW Nuclear plant with Wind Generators would require a land area 3 times the size of France (that's a lot of wind generators).
Click to expand...
Perhaps an independent view on this matter might be more pertinent?
Wind and Waves and Solar is not enough.
Click to expand...
Because the guy from Shell said that something else was not enough?
To meet our energy needs of the future, we will need Nuclear. We are already importing a certain amount of Nuclear power from the UK.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you on the general point but the basis of your argument would seem to be pretty weak.
 
and there is the disposal issue afterwards.
Click to expand...

That problem exists for fossil fuel powered electricity generation too and we've been simply dumping that in the atmosphere all along. We already purchase nuclear generated power from the UK via (don't we?). Time to really consider building our own plant(s) and get over the NIMBY approach.
 
I think we should at least consider nuclear power again.

I think the whole argument about ireland being too small is bunk.

The Finns, who always struck me as a rather rational and practical lot, if a bit stilted, seem to have decided to increase nuclear power as part of their mix.

As for the irish grid being too small, arent we building interconnectors with the UK?

I often wonder, if the British did not have nuclear power, would the Irish mentality have remained so vehemently anti-nuclear? Not one irish person seems to get in a flap over France, Germany or Sweden!

The SDP/ Green coalition in the early 2000s committed Germany to getting rid of nuclear power, but now the SDP/ CDU coalition is split, with the CDU now realising that the varied mix is required.

Are we going to have another Irish double think, where we import foreign nuclear power, look the other way, wring our hands, keep the lights burning, and leave others to do our dirty work for us again?

This is an interesting article from earlier this year arguing against nuclear fuel reporcessing
[broken link removed]
 
Last edited:
CGorman said:
15%? How can we know what something will cost when decommissioning and waste storage time frames extend not just for decades, but potential hundreds of years into the future. We have no past experience of storing waste for a hundred years as it has'nt been done... so we simply don't really know the cost. I presume your figure relates to the operators costs. In that sense you are correct... but just because the legacy cost will be swallowed by the government doesnt mean it can be ignored.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from the link I posted on that issue

The back-end of the fuel cycle, including used fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes up to another 10% to the overall costs per kWh, - less if there is direct disposal of used fuel rather than reprocessing. The $26 billion US used fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy.
Click to expand...

So the costs are manageable. This so-called "waste" is actually fuel that the vast majority of the energy has not been extracted from. It makes sense to store this valuable concentrated energy source for possible future use.
 
rob30 said:
I often wonder, if the British did not have nuclear power, would the Irish mentality have remained so vehemently anti-nuclear? Not one irish person seems to get in a flap over France, Germany or Sweden!
Click to expand...
Maybe this is part of the reason we're opposed to nuclear power
[broken link removed]

Wind farms or solar energy plants do not do this.

Given the number of accidents for such a small industry (as in small number of plants) that is allegedly so highly regulated, and given the Irish cavalier attitudes to safety, I would not be confident of a plant here.

This is of course aside from the economic argument which does not stack up in favour of nuclear for Ireland.
 
j26 said:
Given the number of accidents for such a small industry (as in small number of plants) that is allegedly so highly regulated, and given the Irish cavalier attitudes to safety, I would not be confident of a plant here.
Click to expand...

That list of accidents is very small with most of the serious ones (partial meltdowns or accidental criticality) concentrated in the early phase of the industry up as far as Chernobyl. That didn't have a containment vessel unlike in the US 3 mile island incident 7 years previous to that. All modern reactors have containment vessels and better safety designs.

The rest of the incidents are site leaks where the risk was contained.

Here's a list of mining accidents in Poland alone. In 2006 in China 4,749 people were killed in mining accidents.

SciAM article Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

What is needed is a more realistic view of the relative risks and environmental impacts of the various power generation technologies.
 
LouisCribben said:
A lot of people are putting forward the idea that renewals can replace our dependence on fossil fuels.

The head guy in Shell pointed out in an interview recently that to replace a 1GW Nuclear plant with Wind Generators would require a land area 3 times the size of France (that's a lot of wind generators).

Wind and Waves and Solar is not enough. To meet our energy needs of the future, we will need Nuclear. We are already importing a certain amount of Nuclear power from the UK.

The only debate should be can we produce our own Nuclear power cheaper than we can import it.
Click to expand...
I agree almost entirely. I would add that the only debate is not just whether we can produce nuclear energy more cheaply than importing it but also should we strive for energy self sufficiency or be content to rely on the UK/France etc. to generate our energy for us. It's a serious question and I believe energy is so crucial (just slightly after food) that we should indeed strive to be self sufficient in its production-exhaust (pardo the pun) all renewable options first (we have many on this windswept rock of ours) and then evaluate nuclear generation (especially if we have uranium deposits).

Edit: How much did Ardnacrusha cost per capita in today's money I wonder? It must have seemed like a white elephant to many-it produced MORE energy than the entire country needed at first!
 
As a nation we need to change our energy mindset completely. Public transport needs to be improved, we need to conserve energy, we need to use our current supply more efficently. There should be a large premium on all electricity used at peak time (around dinner time each day in winter - this would encourage a better spread of the load), private homes should have a quota for each month so people wasting electricity get fleeced. There should be dedicated cycling lanes, the law should favour the bike over the car

It will take fundamental change to resolve the energy problem. Nuclear is part of the solution (but we should import it IMO) but we all need to change our ways.
 
MrKeane, agree with that as part of the short to medium term solution.

Longer term civilisation needs to be able to return to its profligate use of energy so that the world's people continue to develop and everyone can have the high standard of living of the average Irish or Texas resident. Once we've perfected sustained nuclear fusion and commercialised it we'll be producing huge amounts of power many orders of magnitude greater than what we are now.

The technological trick that will save us is to have non-environmentally damaging energy sources that can pump out serious amounts of power. The people of China and India aren't going to settle for bikes.
 
There is a thought that Bertie took the long term view :rolleyes:, when he decided to send the troops to Chad :
 
what about biogas plants.I heard some Prof McConnell (i think thats his name) talking last week on radio about nordic & german cities running on energy created from raw sewage. Is this feasible? How do other countries do it, can we copy??
 
dockingtrade said:
what about biogas plants.I heard some Prof McConnell (i think thats his name) talking last week on radio about nordic & german cities running on energy created from raw sewage. Is this feasible? How do other countries do it, can we copy??
Click to expand...

This was big thing over 20 years ago. I remember being at the Spring Show in the RDS and seeing units for sale which were designed for farmers to extract gas from slurry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top