Nuclear Power for Ireland debate

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

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

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?

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

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?

Because I have a degree in English and I recognise when someone is being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

If it comes to a straight choice between nuclear electricty and no electricity I'd choose nuclear.

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?

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....

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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?

adam

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

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.

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

No but you could oversimplify it to the same extent by saying that nuclear waste is bad, therefore nuclear power is bad.

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.

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

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Nuclear power generates nuclear waste, therefore I don't believe nuclear power is an option.

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.

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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.

Would you like to remind me of the alternatives.

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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?

[Feel free to move the rest of this to some off topic thread]
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.

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

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.

No, it isn't.

You never made that assertion and no one accused you of making that assertion.

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.

As bizarre as your accusations are, I'm entitled to defend myself from them.

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.

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

Originally Posted by pete

would nuclear power solve Ireland s emerging energy crisis?

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?

Originally Posted by Macy

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?

Ah yeah but that English nuclear power, we don't mind them having the problems. It'll never effect us..

May I propose a truce so adam? Will we agree that neither of us will post any more off topic discussion in this thread?

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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.

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.

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.