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

Jimoslimos said:
2) Problems associated with any large scale crop growth - pest/disease control etc.
Click to expand...

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? :D
 
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)
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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 ;)
Click to expand...

:D

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.
Click to expand...

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?).
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
umop3p!sdn said:
Would you live there?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. It's not like protecting people from Nuclear waste is even that hard.
 
umop3p!sdn said:
I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 
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
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top