Carnsore article
I know it would be unlikely to ever be built but would nuclear power solve Ireland s emerging energy crisis? The ESB are running out of capacity & building more fossil fuel burning stations hardly seem like a solution.
Printable View
Carnsore article
I know it would be unlikely to ever be built but would nuclear power solve Ireland s emerging energy crisis? The ESB are running out of capacity & building more fossil fuel burning stations hardly seem like a solution.
Wait five years or so to see if wind power lives up to its potential. If it does, great, it not then take another look at nuclear.
Nuclear works, but we don't need the hassle of expendature.
When a way of destroying - not disposing, destroying - nuclear waste becomes available, I'll back it 100%. Until then we're just fobbing off our problems on future generations. If global warming isn't acceptable for our children and their children, why should our nuclear waste be acceptable ten or a hundred generations from now?
adam
If we don't have anything to replace the oil when it runs out we're going to have to get our electricity from somewhere. If it comes to a straight choice between nuclear electricty and no electricity I'd choose nuclear. I think future generations would prefer a bit of nuclear waste (which isn't really going to put out with anyone) to reverting to reading by candle-light.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Irish people moan about everything. Sure they'll moan about wind farms but they also complain about fossil fuel burning stations. Where do irish people think electricity comes from? Ah sure nuclear is ok as long as we only buying from the UK or France.
There are many, many potential energy sources to replace fossil fuels if only enough funding went to R & D. If you read New Scientist or Science or Nature, nearly every month there is some new idea. Now I'm willing to postulate that 90% of these will amount to nothing but if 10% turn up something then we'd be laughing. Problem is some of these ideas have no profit making potential (They do not reach the state of entropy at the same rate as fossil fuels) therefore the oil/energy companies are not interested.
Yourself and a bunch of your mates should set up a democratically controlled workers cooperative and research them yourself. I mean, the shareholders in these oil companies have no intrinsic knowledge of these things so why don't you pick up when they drop the ball?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Because I have a degree in English and I recognise when someone is being sarcastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
:p
I honestly don't think you could oversimplify the subject more than that. It's the kind of thing Bush and his puppetmasters come up with. If you're not going to come up with a logical argument, what's the point in posting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
adam
Oil prices on the way down for US elections in November...
this thread... and link
The Commies not so good at the nuclear reactors....
No but you could oversimplify it to the same extent by saying that nuclear waste is bad, therefore nuclear power is bad. Sometimes you have to choose between the least bad option, at least that's what my puppetmaster told me to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
How can you say Nuclear waste is not a problem? How can you say the safety of Nuclear plants is not a problem. Nuclear fission is intrinsicly flawed. No harm in researching Nuclear Fusion though. Yes its more expensive in the short term but if it payed off it would be an answer to the world's energy needs in the long term.
I don't think I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Nuclear power generates nuclear waste, therefore I don't believe nuclear power is an option. If I was to suggest that nuclear power could be generated without creating nuclear waste, I would be making a completely illogical assertion. I didn't, because I would assume pete wants a sensible debate. Your assertion simply isn't sensible. It isn't a choice between nuclear energy and no energy, it's never been a choice between nuclear and none, it will never be a choice between nuclear and none.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Now, would you like to try a logical argument or would you like to continue down this futile path, resolving nothing, just frustrating the discussion with illogical neocon what-ifs? Make the debate about the debate, isn't that the way they do it, to distract from an inability to answer a genuine question?
adam
That's a fair opinion for you to hold but I disagree with it. Oil and Gas are running out and the only alternative currently available is nuclear. I don't really consider coal to be an option because it generates much more waste than nuclear and it would do the planet in if we burned enough of it to replace the oil & gas we burn at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
You never made that assertion and no one accused you of making that assertion. You are defending yourself from a straw man argument you were never attacked with.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Would you like to remind me of the alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
[Feel free to move the rest of this to some off topic thread]Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
It seems to be a pattern adam that whenever we try to discuss something we end up with this debate and you are generally the one to start it. You can't on one hand accuse me of dragging the thread off topic and on the other accuse me of being a neo-con puppet master of George Bush. As bizarre as your accusations are, I'm entitled to defend myself from them.
No, it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
I was giving you an example of a ridiculous assertion, akin to your suggestion that there might some day be a choice between nuclear and nothing.Quote:
You never made that assertion and no one accused you of making that assertion.
You're the one making the bizarre comments I'm afraid, in an attempt to distract from your inability to discuss subjects like this in a reasonable manner. What I can't understand is why you even bother. You would be contributing more to these topics if you said nothing.Quote:
As bizarre as your accusations are, I'm entitled to defend myself from them.
I can't split this thread without splitting out relevant statements, so let's get back to the start of this discussion: You said that if it was a choice between nuclear or no energy, you'd choose nuclear. Defend the validity of that statement in the real world please. I've defended mine, now it's your turn.
adam
Sure it already is. Ireland is already nuclear via our link up with the UK National Grid. Unless people think we get electricity from a special network that doesn't include electricity produced from Sellafield et al?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Ah yeah but that English nuclear power, we don't mind them having the problems. It'll never effect us..Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
May I propose a truce so adam? Will we agree that neither of us will post any more off topic discussion in this thread?
As is it, I don't think you've defended your statements particularly well. Saying 'no it isn't' in the post above isn't much of an argument. The best way to argue that credable alternatives exist is to give an example ot two.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
In defence of my statement, I think that the harm that comes from nuclear power would be less than the harm which would come from not having any power. I think that's pretty clear so I'm not going to give any real world examples of how electricity is useful. Like I said at the top of the thread, I don't expect it to come to that but if wind energy doesn't overcome the problems holding it back and no other alternative emerges, I'm glad we have a fallback position.
I wonder what the chance that we actually get electricity from Sellafield. That would open a can of worms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I think the ESB should give me an option of choosing different power sources (oil, gas, peat, wind, nuclear) with price be unit next to it so I can make informed choice.
I'm sure there would be logistical difficulties to that. The electricity supply for your whole area probably comes from one source and it would be difficult to let individuals choose. You'd have loads of different types of powerlines everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
We do. We get power from the UK National Grid, which gets a significant portion of it's electricity from Nuclear sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
What, they should run seperate networks for the different sources? As that's the only way you can genuinely make that choice (as with the UK link up, once it's in the grid, there's no way of differentiating).Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
There's no truce because there's no war Student Mullet, all I'm doing here is highlighting a nonsensical statement being used to distract from the real issue.
Your answer to the question simply reiterates that statement and ignores valid commentary being put forward telling you that alternatives are in fact available. Another poster in this thread has even listed alteratives for you -alternatives I've seen with my own eyes - but rather than try to refute these, you focus and evade. All phoney right-wing tactics that achieve nothing bar frustration of a legitimate debate.
Answer the question you were asked: How does suggesting that our options are "nuclear or nothing" contribute reasonable to this debate? The assertion is simply ridiculous, if not an outright lie.
adam
It's worth noting that other alternatives, while not viable in Ireland for energy generation, could and do contribute in terms of energy saving, thus reducing reliance. Solar is already being used to power roadside signs and emergency telephones on motorways, for example.
Energy policy has a lot to answer for too. In some southern US states it's possible to generate your own power and feed surpluses back into the grid, to effectively roll your meter back. Because alternatives like solar are efficient in many of these locations, some individuals have become net contributors.
adam
The thing these all have in common is that they're not yet invented. Wind is the most advanced and it's still a long way from being able to provide the bulk of our energy. I'll stand by my opinion that the best thing to do at the moment is to wait a few years to see what advances are made and take another look at the nuclear option if none of the above (or anything else) provides an alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I never said our options are "all or nothing" I said if they become "all or nothing", which has a different meaning. I'm happy to stand over my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Feel free to stand by it, it doesn't stop it being nonsense, no matter how you try to define it. Trying to suggest that wind energy is yet to be invented is another nonsense, as is trying to suggest that alternatives need to generate a bulk of our energy on their own.
You haven't come up with a single logical, helpful or even reasonable comment in this thread, so yet again I have to ask: Why do you even bother? Don't you have something better to do? Aren't you just trolling when you get right down to it? How about just sticking to football?
adam
The wind turbines being used currently cannot provide more than about 15% of our electricity needs, this is for reasons I have explained on these bords before and I'd be happy to dig up the post for you. You may recall that the ESB recently put a moratorium on new wind power being connected to the grid and they are now very strict over where and when it can be added. No combination of non nuclear/fossel fuel sources currently available can make up 100% of our needs.
This is why I say that nuclear is currently the only alternative to fossel fuels, the statement is not nonsence and I stand by it.
Just a thought that struck me while reading through the thread, how would the US feel if little old Ireland started a nuclear program.
Also we as a nation have been complaining about Sellafield for years and the threat it is to our shores , especially the east coast. This really came to my notice after Chernobyl , up to that point the only thing I knew about nuclear was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think I'll stick to the turf from the bog at the back of my house, theres enough there to keep a few more generations of "Firsts" going. After that who the **** knows we'll probably have left the planet behind like the litter I see all over the streets of the towns of Ireland.
The problem is they do not recieve adequate funding. One of the problems is that governments generally get their "advice" from people with vested interests in stopping any of these alternatives getting off the ground. If you take the European round table of industrialists for example, they provide the personel for many "think-tanks" throughout Europe that influence government policies. These people are in the main from the boards of oil firms, nuclear energy companies, the automobile industry etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
I actually partially agree with SM in that on the basis of the profit system, there seems little hope of developing any of these alternatives on a mass scale. However that just increases the urgency of getting rid of the system and replacing it with one where the vast wealth of the planet is put to work serving the needs of the population of the planet rather than making a small minority of the population extremely wealthy. Scientists should be able to come to governments with proposals for energy provision and governments should allocate funding on the basis of efficiency, effect on environment etc. not on the basis of how much money can be made out of it. Then the vast sums of money that are spent on killing via the arms trade, or is wasted due to excessive advertising (circa one trillion dollars a year is spent on advertising) could be put to developing clean, renewable energy. IMO that is the only alternative to environmental disaster.
Planning Green Growth, A Socialist contribution to the debate on Environmental Sustainability By Pete Dickinson
slightly off topic, but don't GM/Shell (have a pact) have the patent to electric cars and something else, and they have set a stupid price for use of this patent, to stop research (from rival companies etc )into these areas of transport powered by other means/sources?
Yeah heard something like that alright.
Amen brother,Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
The fundamentals of some of them are correct. Taking wind energy as the best example, you hook a turbine up to the sky and collect as much free energy as you need.
Mullet is correct to say that there are problems outstanding. Examples are, how to regulate the frequency or regularity* of the electricity coming from the turbines but these are engineering problems rather than fundamental scientific ones. Engineering problems like these are generally solvable, the only variable being how much money it costs to solve them.
So, in conclusion, nuclear power will almost certainly not be needed in Ireland because we should soon have a free and clean source of power available to us but it might prove to be a useful technology for mankind to have in case we ever need to power a space ship or something like that in the future.
*The Science Bit:
Frequency; all ac electricity has a frequency. In Europe it's 50 units and in Americal it's 60. You'll notice this marked as Hz on the back of plugs in your house. Wind turbines have the annoying property that they don't produce electricity at the same frequency as the rest of the generators in the country. This is what's currently stopping the ESB from putting more wind power onto the Irish grid, the differing frequencies can only be tolerated up to a certain point. This problem is not insurmountable and there are certainly low-tech solutions to it but there are currently a lot of people working on better ones, including a research group in UCD.
Relyability; this is the less sciencey one. The electric grid cannot store electricity. At any given time, the amount of electricity used must equal the amount generated. Wind power output varies a lot so a relyable method is needed to store the excess untill there is a shortfall. At the moment, the state of the art is to pump water up and down a hill. We have one such plant in Wicklow already and if the country does eventually turn to wind power we'll probably need a few more, not too big a deal.
I'm not under any spell by my right wing masters etc but I feel the nuclear option (pardon the pun, and the corniness if you don't see the pun) should be researched.
I feel that ignoring any option, be it wind, water or nuclear, would be negligent. We will run out of oil. That is something I believe nobody doubts (if you do, please feel free to offer a reason why). We must, therefore, explore the alternative options available.
Limiting research now on any of these fields can only open us up to harm in the long run. While things might well work out with other options surely it makes sense to examine all sources including nuclear power just in case they don't.
I agree with the posters who argue other formats need more funding. They do.
Our fears about implementation should not stop research in the field, if anything they should aid that research in order to find the safest form of development.
Fusion? *sniggers*
There isn't a viable other option at the moment. As coal and gas get more expensive to obtain, and peat begins to run out, we'll have some serious questions to answer. And the guy who suggests running the entire grid off of wind farms and water storage faculitities will get an exasperated look from the ESB's engineers before they throw him out to let the people who know what they're talking about discuss the underfunded mess they're in.
Great arguement mate. You really got me there. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Which is why we've been saying that research into alternatives need to be givien adequate funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
StudentMullet there are huge options in renewable energies, not just nuclear.
Wind and Sea power are never going to run out on us :)
It does **** me right off that everyone seems to think its right to complain about wind farms, simply as they are an eyesore and create too much noise. Personally I think they look awesome and having stoood underneath one [with much trepedation] admittedly they are noisey from within 200 metrers, but seeing as the other option is to sear a hole in the ozone layer and melt some ice I'd rather see loads of white poles around the place :)
Horse one into my back garden if ye want eirtricity :D
Yeah, I've seen them up mountains in Crete and they look great.
There's a load of 'em in Clare as well, I suppose they'd get tiresome after a while, with an exclusion zone, they could be a good way of farmers making an extra few bob [as if they flippin' need it]