gaaboard.com

With all Lawnseed's proposals for renewable energy, employment prospects and rocketing energy prices, is there, or will there ever be, an appetite for nuclear power on these shores?

how cheap would the electric be? i'm not sure that after the cost of treating the waste is counted that the power is cheap

In uni we had a lecture tell us that nuclear is the only answer to supplying energy and I total agree. With the whole celtic tiger episode the irish government should have built them when germany was giving out the money

Quote from: Hereiam on April 03, 2013, 11:42:59 PM
In uni we had a lecture tell us that nuclear is the only answer to supplying energy and I total agree. With the whole celtic tiger episode the irish government should have built them when germany was giving out the money

Good option in terms of energy supply but Lawnseed is right that there is no getting away from the huge capital costs both for initial setup and ongoing O & M. David Cameron wants to build a new Mox plant at a cost of about £6 billion - sounds like madness to me.

Wind farms

Quote from: lawnseed on April 03, 2013, 11:36:43 PM
how cheap would the electric be? i'm not sure that after the cost of treating the waste is counted that the power is cheap

UK Estimates from 2010

Technology Cost range (£/MWh)
New nuclear80–105
Onshore wind80–110
Biomass60–120
Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture60–130
Coal with CO2 capture100–155
Solar farms125–180
Offshore wind150–210
Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture55–110
Tidal power155–390

Divide the above figures by 10 to obtain the price in pence per kilowatt-hour.

as i tried to get across on the other thread you have to pee with the one you have no point in looking at the next fellas'. we need cheaper power to help attract more business to this island and to help prevent poor folk dying with the cold. the source doesnt really matter as long as its cheap as chips and doesnt leave us in a toxic mess. we cant afford to do nuclear properly so its safer to leave it.
imagine the mess the plant would be if we let a few of those dublin 'builders' at it. it'd be like that readybreak advert

Quote from: lawnseed on April 04, 2013, 12:16:01 AM
as i tried to get across on the other thread you have to pee with the one you have no point in looking at the next fellas'. we need cheaper power to help attract more business to this island and to help prevent poor folk dying with the cold. the source doesnt really matter as long as its cheap as chips and doesnt leave us in a toxic mess. we cant afford to do nuclear properly so its safer to leave it.
imagine the mess the plant would be if we let a few of those dublin 'builders' at it. it'd be like that readybreak advert

In this instance I agree with you. It is a difficult area as governments have to balance carbon targets against the environment against cost against Nimbyism etc.it is nearly impossible to please everyone.

Quote from: lawnseed on April 04, 2013, 12:16:01 AM
as i tried to get across on the other thread you have to pee with the one you have no point in looking at the next fellas'. we need cheaper power to help attract more business to this island and to help prevent poor folk dying with the cold. the source doesnt really matter as long as its cheap as chips and doesnt leave us in a toxic mess. we cant afford to do nuclear properly so its safer to leave it.
imagine the mess the plant would be if we let a few of those dublin 'builders' at it. it'd be like that readybreak advert

Sure let them Healey Rea boys take care of it, it'd be grand so!

Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 03, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
With all Lawnseed's proposals for renewable energy, employment prospects and rocketing energy prices, is there, or will there ever be, an appetite for nuclear power on these shores?

The brits promised cheaper renewable in the 50's/60's if they got their way, they lied, feck nuclear power and keep Ireland free of nuclear energy.

Sure why would we want nuclear when we have the River Bann?!

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 04, 2013, 07:06:46 AM
Sure why would we want nuclear when we have the River Bann?!

I assume you are referring to the Upper Bann, we keep the Lower part clean ;)

26 votes cast so far with the vast majority in favour of nuclear power, some only in favour of dumping the waste in Tyrone.

Can't ever seeing the wider electorare or politicians in Ireland have the balls to take on nuclear power.

There is already a nuclear power in Ireland, it's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the 6 Counties.

Poor infrastructure (in the north anyway) and a massive abundance of wind energy that's crying out to be harvested means I voted no. 

None of ye gossuns remember Carnsore Point?

(http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Screen-Shot-2012-09-06-at-16.08.13.jpg)

Quote from: qubdub on April 04, 2013, 04:15:07 PM
Poor infrastructure (in the north anyway) and a massive abundance of wind energy that's crying out to be harvested means I voted no.

Whilst there's plenty of wind it's not just as easy to harness it in a meaningful way unless the technology improves.

Wind speeds need to be within a certain window to be viable, too little wind and the thing won't turn enough to produce anything you could put on the grid, too much wind then the thing turns too fast and you've to turn it into the wind and apply the brakes.

The brakes failed on one in Scotland a year or so ago and it went on fire.

Quote from: qubdub on April 04, 2013, 04:15:07 PM
Poor infrastructure (in the north anyway) and a massive abundance of wind energy that's crying out to be harvested means I voted no.

You would need some amount of wind turbines (100s) to generate the same power. That also comes with an environmental impact.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2013, 12:24:28 AM

Quote from: lawnseed on April 04, 2013, 12:16:01 AM
as i tried to get across on the other thread you have to pee with the one you have no point in looking at the next fellas'. we need cheaper power to help attract more business to this island and to help prevent poor folk dying with the cold. the source doesnt really matter as long as its cheap as chips and doesnt leave us in a toxic mess. we cant afford to do nuclear properly so its safer to leave it.
imagine the mess the plant would be if we let a few of those dublin 'builders' at it. it'd be like that readybreak advert

In this instance I agree with you. It is a difficult area as governments have to balance carbon targets against the environment against cost against Nimbyism etc.it is nearly impossible to please everyone.

Given that we're not subject to natural disasters such as significant earthquakes or tsunamis, I'm not sure what the argument is against nuclear power in a modern western country like Ireland. The technology has been around and is being refined for more than fifty years now, with how many serious accidents? Yes, waste is long-lived and hazardous, but as long as it is properly contained and shielded, there is no risk. Part of the problem is that the average person is just clueless about radiation and afraid of nuclear power, yet they'll happily run along for an x-ray or CT scan at the drop of a hat.

Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 04, 2013, 05:06:03 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 04, 2013, 05:00:15 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 04, 2013, 12:24:28 AM

Quote from: lawnseed on April 04, 2013, 12:16:01 AM
as i tried to get across on the other thread you have to pee with the one you have no point in looking at the next fellas'. we need cheaper power to help attract more business to this island and to help prevent poor folk dying with the cold. the source doesnt really matter as long as its cheap as chips and doesnt leave us in a toxic mess. we cant afford to do nuclear properly so its safer to leave it.
imagine the mess the plant would be if we let a few of those dublin 'builders' at it. it'd be like that readybreak advert

In this instance I agree with you. It is a difficult area as governments have to balance carbon targets against the environment against cost against Nimbyism etc.it is nearly impossible to please everyone.

Given that we're not subject to natural disasters such as significant earthquakes or tsunamis, I'm not sure what the argument is against nuclear power in a modern western country like Ireland. The technology has been around and is being refined for more than fifty years now, with how many serious accidents? Yes, waste is long-lived and hazardous, but as long as it is properly contained and shielded, there is no risk. Part of the problem is that the average person is just clueless about radiation and afraid of nuclear power, yet they'll happily run along for an x-ray or CT scan at the drop of a hat.

You don't have to be in an earthquake-prone area to be affected by a Tsunami - granted that the risk of a significant one hitting Ireland is very slight (one coming about as the result of a major rockfall collapse in an earthquake centred around Tenerife is the main one mentioned).

Of course, but we're not a Pacific Rim country where its a near certainty that any stretch of coast will get some kind of hit every century.

And besides, even if you do build a nuclear plant near the coast, much of our coastal land is sufficiently raised above sea level anyway.

A modern reactor should be able to survive a Tsunami or Earthquake.  The problem with Fukishima is it was an old design that relied on water being pumped in electrically, and as soon as the electrical supply failed they were in a lot of trouble.  A modern design would be gravity-fed.

You're missing a category in the choices there: Nuclear Fusion (never's an awful long time).  :P

If we were as quick to fund fusion research as we were to fund wars we'd have achieved it long ago IMHO.

Quote from: J70 on April 04, 2013, 05:00:15 PM

Yes, waste is long-lived and hazardous, but as long as it is properly contained and shielded, there is no risk. Part of the problem is that the average person is just clueless about radiation and afraid of nuclear power, yet they'll happily run along for an x-ray or CT scan at the drop of a hat.

Therein lies the problem - if the waste is going to be dangerous for thousands of years then there is simply no effective way to store it, you're just kicking the can down the road.

If wave energy could be developed, it would provide a reliable renewable energy source - problems include the servicing and durability of the units though.

Quote from: macdanger2 on April 05, 2013, 05:20:30 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 04, 2013, 05:00:15 PM

Yes, waste is long-lived and hazardous, but as long as it is properly contained and shielded, there is no risk. Part of the problem is that the average person is just clueless about radiation and afraid of nuclear power, yet they'll happily run along for an x-ray or CT scan at the drop of a hat.

Therein lies the problem - if the waste is going to be dangerous for thousands of years then there is simply no effective way to store it, you're just kicking the can down the road.

If wave energy could be developed, it would provide a reliable renewable energy source - problems include the servicing and durability of the units though.

The plutonium is also a security risk. This podcast from about a month agois worth listening to for those interested...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qm4pt (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qm4pt)

Quote from: lawnseed on April 03, 2013, 11:36:43 PM
how cheap would the electric be? i'm not sure that after the cost of treating the waste is counted that the power is cheap

We have a bit of expertise on dumping the safe disposal of toxic by-products built up in the border areas already.

Quote from: macdanger2 on April 05, 2013, 05:20:30 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 04, 2013, 05:00:15 PM

Yes, waste is long-lived and hazardous, but as long as it is properly contained and shielded, there is no risk. Part of the problem is that the average person is just clueless about radiation and afraid of nuclear power, yet they'll happily run along for an x-ray or CT scan at the drop of a hat.

Therein lies the problem - if the waste is going to be dangerous for thousands of years then there is simply no effective way to store it, you're just kicking the can down the road.

If wave energy could be developed, it would provide a reliable renewable energy source - problems include the servicing and durability of the units though.

Why is there no effective way to store it?

What kind of environmental impact does wave energy have?

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2013, 07:38:15 PM

Quote from: macdanger2 on April 05, 2013, 05:20:30 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 04, 2013, 05:00:15 PM

Yes, waste is long-lived and hazardous, but as long as it is properly contained and shielded, there is no risk. Part of the problem is that the average person is just clueless about radiation and afraid of nuclear power, yet they'll happily run along for an x-ray or CT scan at the drop of a hat.

Therein lies the problem - if the waste is going to be dangerous for thousands of years then there is simply no effective way to store it, you're just kicking the can down the road.

If wave energy could be developed, it would provide a reliable renewable energy source - problems include the servicing and durability of the units though.

Why is there no effective way to store it?

What kind of environmental impact does wave energy have?

It can be stored obviously but is hugely expensive and obviously needs to be carried on for generation after generation. If you haven't seen Into Eternity it is well worth a watch as it delves into a lot of the practical and philosophical considerations of long-term (100,000 years) waste management.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film) (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film))

not sure about the half life values of radioactive materails. things seem to be getting back to normal around chernoble already. nature seems to clean up alot quicker than mankind

Quote from: lawnseed on April 05, 2013, 09:02:23 PM
not sure about the half life values of radioactive materails. things seem to be getting back to normal around chernoble already. nature seems to clean up alot quicker than mankind

Caesium 137 was the main culprit there which has a short half-life - ~30 years. Some of the plutonium isotopes have a half life of tens of thousands of years.

In Finland they are building Nuclear power stations and have 'invented' their way to store the waste at a cost of Eur3bn? for 4 stations, no one can say it's 'safe' but their way is as safe as it gets. Typical problems are construction delays and delayed projects running over budget by 3 times.
Construction labour is typically the cheapest on offer, mainly migrants from the poorest Euro regions, non unionised and exploitable. How safe can the construction quality be? will they be using the proper rivets? ;D
Work out the cost, construction, maintenance,  importing uranium (plus all those related uranium mining hazards, eg in Africa), environmental hazards, waste disposal and deconstruction after the endlife has been reached, (40 years?) and I have my doubts that it even makes economic sense.

Quoteauthor=J70 link=topic=22976.msg1217649#msg1217649

Why is there no effective way to store it?

What kind of environmental impact does wave energy have?

Why is there no effectivel way to store it? Because we cannot possibly have the technology which lasts that long.

On the effect of wave energy on the environment, I genuinely don't know

hold on.. 10000 years! thats longer than the pyramids exist or any of the recognisable existing buildings its too long. can you picture future tourists (who will be little coffee coloured weaklings) suiting up and tramping through our nuclear waste dumps while the guide tells them how we couldnt control our population growth, we overran the planet killing off wildlife, chopping down forests wiping out thousands of species in the process and then to put the cream on the cake we poisoned the place for 10000 years.

yep you had the stone age then the iron age and so on what will this time be called.. the stupid selfesh bastard age!

picture this instead. my grand father kept a half dozen cows and a couple of pigs it was a full time job with a bit of stone masonary thrown in on more land than we have now. but now because of oil (mechanisation) we are able to to keep ten times the stock on less land.. what happens when the oil runs out? half dozen cattle wont do much they wouldnt cream your tea. so we need to get off wasting precious oil by burning it in power stations and keep it for food production.  unless theres some thing else to power farming and food transport when the oil runs out we're gonna starve. i know john deere are working on a methane engine i dont think its a hit

Quote from: macdanger2 on April 06, 2013, 04:57:48 AM

Quoteauthor=J70 link=topic=22976.msg1217649#msg1217649

Why is there no effective way to store it?

What kind of environmental impact does wave energy have?

Why is there no effectivel way to store it? Because we cannot possibly have the technology which lasts that long.

On the effect of wave energy on the environment, I genuinely don't know

We can't possibly have that technology?? Why not?  Not saying it will be easy or cost-free, but you're talking about a containment and shielding system, which is basically pretty low tech.

Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2013, 07:27:51 PM

Quote from: macdanger2 on April 06, 2013, 04:57:48 AM

Quoteauthor=J70 link=topic=22976.msg1217649#msg1217649

Why is there no effective way to store it?

What kind of environmental impact does wave energy have?

Why is there no effectivel way to store it? Because we cannot possibly have the technology which lasts that long.

On the effect of wave energy on the environment, I genuinely don't know

We can't possibly have that technology?? Why not?  Not saying it will be easy or cost-free, but you're talking about a containment and shielding system, which is basically pretty low tech.

If North Korea fired everything they had, they wouldn't do as much damage as Anglo Irish Bank did. The International Community would never let us build a Nuclear Reactor.

However we should start building immediately, they will pay us to stop.

Quote from: lawnseed on April 06, 2013, 07:23:59 AM
hold on.. 10000 years! thats longer than the pyramids exist or any of the recognisable existing buildings its too long. can you picture future tourists (who will be little coffee coloured weaklings) suiting up and tramping through our nuclear waste dumps while the guide tells them how we couldnt control our population growth, we overran the planet killing off wildlife, chopping down forests wiping out thousands of species in the process and then to put the cream on the cake we poisoned the place for 10000 years.

yep you had the stone age then the iron age and so on what will this time be called.. the stupid selfesh b**tard age!

picture this instead. my grand father kept a half dozen cows and a couple of pigs it was a full time job with a bit of stone masonary thrown in on more land than we have now. but now because of oil (mechanisation) we are able to to keep ten times the stock on less land.. what happens when the oil runs out? half dozen cattle wont do much they wouldnt cream your tea. so we need to get off wasting precious oil by burning it in power stations and keep it for food production.  unless theres some thing else to power farming and food transport when the oil runs out we're gonna starve. i know john deere are working on a methane engine i dont think its a hit

We can all wring our hands and complain about the impact of humans on the environment, but we're all sitting here on computers or smart phones or iPads, most of us driving cars and living in climate-controlled houses on land that used to be wild, flying away on holidays or business and so on and on.

Given that none of us are willing to give up the tools that allow us to live in such consumptive fashion, what can we do except try to change society to the most environmentally friendly and efficient energy sources out there? The tar sands of Alberta and coal are not the answer. Zero emissions power production such as hydroelectricity comes with serious environmental costs too. Wind and solar certainly have their place, but are they going to be enough to meet the energy demands of rapidly developing consumer societies in Asia and Africa, on top of the accelerating demands of the western world? Do we just tell them to piss off, there's no more room for people who aspire to a western style level of comfort and convenience in their lives? Yes, nuclear energy will produce long-lived hazardous waste, but are a  number of localized bunkers buried deep under mountains worse than climate change, acid rain, habitat destruction etc. on a global scale?

Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2013, 07:43:18 PM

Quote from: lawnseed on April 06, 2013, 07:23:59 AM
hold on.. 10000 years! thats longer than the pyramids exist or any of the recognisable existing buildings its too long. can you picture future tourists (who will be little coffee coloured weaklings) suiting up and tramping through our nuclear waste dumps while the guide tells them how we couldnt control our population growth, we overran the planet killing off wildlife, chopping down forests wiping out thousands of species in the process and then to put the cream on the cake we poisoned the place for 10000 years.

yep you had the stone age then the iron age and so on what will this time be called.. the stupid selfesh b**tard age!

picture this instead. my grand father kept a half dozen cows and a couple of pigs it was a full time job with a bit of stone masonary thrown in on more land than we have now. but now because of oil (mechanisation) we are able to to keep ten times the stock on less land.. what happens when the oil runs out? half dozen cattle wont do much they wouldnt cream your tea. so we need to get off wasting precious oil by burning it in power stations and keep it for food production.  unless theres some thing else to power farming and food transport when the oil runs out we're gonna starve. i know john deere are working on a methane engine i dont think its a hit

We can all wring our hands and complain about the impact of humans on the environment, but we're all sitting here on computers or smart phones or iPads, most of us driving cars and living in climate-controlled houses on land that used to be wild, flying away on holidays or business and so on and on.

Given that none of us are willing to give up the tools that allow us to live in such consumptive fashion, what can we do except try to change society to the most environmentally friendly and efficient energy sources out there? The tar sands of Alberta and coal are not the answer. Zero emissions technologies like hydroelectricity come with serious environmental costs too. Wind and solar certainly have their place, but are they going to be enough to meet the energy demands of rapidly developing consumer societies in Asia and Africa, on top of the accelerating demands of the western world? Do we just tell them to piss off, there's no more room for people who aspire to a western style level of comfort and convenience in their lives? Yes, nuclear energy will produce long-lived hazardous waste, but are a  number of localized bunkers buried deep under mountains worse than climate change, acid rain, habitat destruction etc. on a global scale?

Gread, Dunfanaghy for the first Nuclear site and Errigal for the waste?  :P

Quote from: muppet on April 06, 2013, 07:49:38 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2013, 07:43:18 PM

Quote from: lawnseed on April 06, 2013, 07:23:59 AM
hold on.. 10000 years! thats longer than the pyramids exist or any of the recognisable existing buildings its too long. can you picture future tourists (who will be little coffee coloured weaklings) suiting up and tramping through our nuclear waste dumps while the guide tells them how we couldnt control our population growth, we overran the planet killing off wildlife, chopping down forests wiping out thousands of species in the process and then to put the cream on the cake we poisoned the place for 10000 years.

yep you had the stone age then the iron age and so on what will this time be called.. the stupid selfesh b**tard age!

picture this instead. my grand father kept a half dozen cows and a couple of pigs it was a full time job with a bit of stone masonary thrown in on more land than we have now. but now because of oil (mechanisation) we are able to to keep ten times the stock on less land.. what happens when the oil runs out? half dozen cattle wont do much they wouldnt cream your tea. so we need to get off wasting precious oil by burning it in power stations and keep it for food production.  unless theres some thing else to power farming and food transport when the oil runs out we're gonna starve. i know john deere are working on a methane engine i dont think its a hit

We can all wring our hands and complain about the impact of humans on the environment, but we're all sitting here on computers or smart phones or iPads, most of us driving cars and living in climate-controlled houses on land that used to be wild, flying away on holidays or business and so on and on.

Given that none of us are willing to give up the tools that allow us to live in such consumptive fashion, what can we do except try to change society to the most environmentally friendly and efficient energy sources out there? The tar sands of Alberta and coal are not the answer. Zero emissions technologies like hydroelectricity come with serious environmental costs too. Wind and solar certainly have their place, but are they going to be enough to meet the energy demands of rapidly developing consumer societies in Asia and Africa, on top of the accelerating demands of the western world? Do we just tell them to piss off, there's no more room for people who aspire to a western style level of comfort and convenience in their lives? Yes, nuclear energy will produce long-lived hazardous waste, but are a  number of localized bunkers buried deep under mountains worse than climate change, acid rain, habitat destruction etc. on a global scale?

Gread, Dunfanaghy for the first Nuclear site and Errigal for the waste?  :P

Maybe it would be better to put Bundoran out of its misery!  :P

Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2013, 08:28:17 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 06, 2013, 07:49:38 PM
Gread, Dunfanaghy for the first Nuclear site and Errigal for the waste?  :P

Maybe it would be better to put Bundoran out of its misery!  :P

Deal!