Nuclear Power in Ireland

[Shamrock Shore]

None of ye gossuns remember Carnsore Point?

[johnneycool]

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.

[Tony Baloney]

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.

[J70]

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.

[J70]

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.

[Eamonnca1]

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.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

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

[Eamonnca1]

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

[macdanger2]

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.

[Tony Baloney]

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

[LeoMc]

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.

[J70]

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?

[Tony Baloney]

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)

[lawnseed]

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

[Tony Baloney]

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.