Nuclear Power for Ireland debate

**Lionel Ritchie** · 13/10/2006, 9:34 AM

Nuclear is not viable until we can come up with a technology to get the waste off the planet.

Renewables are the way forward. Hydro has come on leaps and bounds and gets little credit for it.

Saw what's his face off the fast show on a discovery channel program where he was looking at a spanking brand new Welsh Hydro station.

From a cold start it could generate the same amount of power that an "Ardnacrusha" class (1930's build) station would contribute to the grid in 12 hours ....in 12 seconds.

Fuel crops have to be part of the solution to our transport problem AND shrinking agricultural sector as well.

**BohsPartisan** · 13/10/2006, 10:29 AM

We shouldn't be importing produce that we can grow or produce at home. This is not from a protectionist perspective but from an environmental one. It is comlpetely mental that we import meat from as far away as Brazil and that we import things like potatoes, cabbage, herbs etc. Producing these things at home would go some way to reducing carbon emissions.

**Aberdonian Stu** · 13/10/2006, 11:27 AM

I see where you're coming from but I disagree.

I believe we must be open in international trade and that any benefits in reduced emissions from reducing international trade would be a band aid on the problem. Domestic emissions (from all domesticities if you get me) would eventually reach the level we're at now and we'd need to find a new patch.

Instead I feel the growth of international trade should make us wake up to environmental and fuel issues (which are obviously related but are not wholly one and the same) and act accordingly.

Importing goods from abroad can offer cost benefits to businesses and benefits to consumers regarding choice (New Zealand lamb being a prime example). These benefits, which could have a long term impact, should not be sacrificed for a short-term fix for environmental and fuel problems.

**John83** · 13/10/2006, 3:19 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Great arguement mate. You really got me there.

I find it amusing that a well established nuclear technology is being rejected out of hand while a theoretical one is being promoted. There are fusion devices around, but they're all net energy users. If we're going to consider fusion, we really need to try building a dyson sphere and we'd have all the solar power we'll ever need.*

Which is why we've been saying that research into alternatives need to be givien adequate funding.

You agree that there isn't another viable option, but think we should use them anyway? I'm still sniggering.

Originally Posted by ccfcman

Wind and Sea power are never going to run out on us

They're also not capable of powering an entire grid unless we develop methods of energy storage many, many times more efficient than Turlough Hill. It's really fascinating to hear people insist that we've all the wind energy we need. We really don't.

*for five billion years.

**BohsPartisan** · 13/10/2006, 3:26 PM

Fission is well established at being unsafe and unclean.

Originally Posted by John83

You agree that there isn't another viable option, but think we should use them anyway? I'm still sniggering.

.

No I think they should be researched. If a fraction of the wealth generated by fossil fuels was transfered into the r&d of new technologies then we would have a viable alternative to fossil fuels and Nuclear energy. Neither fossil fuels or Nuclear power are viable in terms of sustainable developement. They both spell environmental catastrophe in one way or another. Given the massive technological advances that the human race has been able to make in the past, why do you find it incredible that we can make further advances in the sphere of energy?

**John83** · 13/10/2006, 3:33 PM

Yeah, that's what I said alright.

Of course, this will all be academic as soon as we pump money into Steorn.

**BohsPartisan** · 13/10/2006, 3:36 PM

That link is broken, can you repost it?

**John83** · 13/10/2006, 3:41 PM

sorry. That was http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx

**BohsPartisan** · 16/10/2006, 10:45 AM

Related Story:

Sellafield Safety breach

**pete** · 16/10/2006, 12:15 PM

So we can assume since we purchase electricity from the UK grid we are using some nuclear power in Ireland. Strangely I don't hear many complaints about this.

I see adverts in the Uk papers from B&Q for personal wind/solar power, 3,000 sterling cost including installation, claims 30% reduction in electric bill & 10 year guarantee. So 4,500 euro cost over 10 years would mean could not be financially justified unless very high electric bill of at least 1,500 a year.

I don't believe renewable sources of energy can provide 100% of this countries need so we need to make choose of how to supply the rest.

**BohsPartisan** · 16/10/2006, 1:17 PM

Have you missed the entire debate? None of the sourses we use now are environmentally sustainable or safe. That does not mean you must choose from the lesser evil, it means we're fckd whether we choose fossil fuels or nuclear power. The only option is to put massive funding into R&D environmentally sustainable power sources. Hobsons choice is not an option.

**John83** · 16/10/2006, 9:34 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Have you missed the entire debate? None of the sourses we use now are environmentally sustainable or safe.

That's an interesting summary of your side of the 'debate'.

That does not mean you must choose from the lesser evil, it means we're fckd whether we choose fossil fuels or nuclear power. The only option is to put massive funding into R&D environmentally sustainable power sources. Hobsons choice is not an option.

Actually, it is. It's not a desirable one, but it's not necessarily unavoidable either, in spite of any amound of hand-waving about R&D.

**BohsPartisan** · 17/10/2006, 7:52 AM

You're some sophist. Your last sentance in essence is an empty formula which really brings nothing new to the debate. Its a pantomime-esque "oh no its not".
Innovation has always been a trait of humanity. In your scenario we have reached the end point of human innovation. There can be no new advances in the field of energy provision. If this were the case it would completely buck the trend of history. The invention of the waterwheel would never have come about, the steamengine would be a fantastic dream and electricity, well I'd be locked up for suggesting such heresy. Believe me, I am not waving my hands at anything. Are you so blind that you can't see the possibilities in diverting a fraction of the one trillion dollars per year that is spent on weapons of mass destruction into researching and developing new technologies for the advancement of sustainable energy instead of using that wealth for the destruction of the planet as we are now doing? The only other alternative is to return to 1970's levels of energy usage and with the difference in population since the 1970's that in reality means each household would have to subsist at 1940's levels. The other option is your nuclear option which has been tried and proven to be unsafe and expensive. The latest leak at Sellafield is further proof of this.

**Aberdonian Stu** · 18/10/2006, 1:15 PM

Eh that wasn't what he said in his last sentence.

His last sentence said it isn't necessarily unavoidable, not that it is definitely avoidable or definitely unavoidable. He gave both as an option leaving development innovation as a potential option.

Based on your argument for innovation, and I thoroughly support innovation in energy research across all fields, surely you would agree that saying we have proven nuclear power to be unsafe and therefore ceasing research in the field is stunting innovation itself.

I don't consider it to be unmanageably unsafe but let me concede that point to you for a moment and ask you this. Why stop looking for safe ways to use it? As you said we have been innovative as a species in developing energy so why rule out one because of current concerns when there may be a solution down the line?

**BohsPartisan** · 18/10/2006, 1:27 PM

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

Based on your argument for innovation, and I thoroughly support innovation in energy research across all fields, surely you would agree that saying we have proven nuclear power to be unsafe and therefore ceasing research in the field is stunting innovation itself.
?

I'm not saying we should cease research on it. However it has been researched far more than any of the alternatives. By all means keep researching it but don't use Humans beings as Guinea pigs as we are currently doing.

**Aberdonian Stu** · 18/10/2006, 1:55 PM

Entirely a stylistic thing, best not to quote the entire post as that makes dahamsta angry.

**John83** · 18/10/2006, 1:57 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

You're some sophist.

Cool. Now I have something to rival Student Mullet's neo-con puppet.

Yes, I do think that there are problems we can't solve, at least with merely global resources. Further, the consequences of fossil fuels running out are going to bite us in the ass in just a few decades. Maybe we'll have something neat and clean by then. I hope so. I just chose to consider that we might not. If that makes me some sort of evil manipulator, so be it.

**BohsPartisan** · 18/10/2006, 2:46 PM

Originally Posted by John83

If that makes me some sort of evil manipulator, so be it.

Here don't be getting ahead of yourself. Theres a lot of ground between "Sophist" and "Evil Manipulator"

**wws** · 18/10/2006, 2:55 PM

I heard the nuclear debate on a radio programme a few weeks back and one of the experts said Ireland can never go Nuclear as a stand alone job - its simply not economically viable to build two of these yokes for teh ratio of users we have here - and apparently you have to build two (not just one - they have to have an "always on" nuclear yoke as it takes forever to start them up if one is down)

so in short

ireland will never be in a position to viably produce nuclear power