nuclear Power

[SPN]

The available solar power in Ireland is multiples of our daily usage in purely kW/h terms. While harnessing it in a form that matches our (current) usage patterns is a wee bit difficult at present, it isn't insurmountable.

Would ya get away out of that, 'A wee bit difficult'.

You can't say something is available and then explain away the fact that it's not by saying it's 'A wee bit difficult.'

Now go back and read what I actually wrote!

[Munion]

I wouldn't stand up and say outright NO! It's just that there's this little voice in my head saying "what if something went wrong?"

What, like messing up the entire planet's climate,say?

Exactly!

[david]

I just read this by Peter Sire, contributing to a discussion on nuclear build. He won't mind me quoting him in full, I'm sure. He sort of sums up roughly what I think but expresses it how I wish I could:

It seems to me almost surreal that anyone should still be considering the nuclear option.

It is worth considering why, after dumping a large chunk of their most polluting and energy intensive manufacturing processes on the East, Western countries continue to increase their energy consumption. The answer lies partly in the fact that the energy industry needs to promote continued consumption to ensure a turnover/profit growth which will satisfy/attract investors.

Energy companies have a vested interest in maintaining wasteful growth and building more nuclear plant will of necessity mean they will require a return on their investment and so push for continuing growth. That growth is "a good thing" is accepted unquestioningly as a given but I differ on this and in fact the evidence of Japan living with practically zero growth for more than a decade over the 80s and 90s is, I believe, evidence that growth is unnecessary and leads to a very unattractive and unhealthy collective obesity. Awareness of this fact will not of course be to the taste of the capital markets.

Ed keeps on presenting the argument as a nuclear vs. wind one, but as I have pointed out before, there are trillions of oil ton equivalent energy units available from that solar nuclear plant in the sky and it is up to us to harness that both through bio and artificial ( e.g. photovoltaic) processes together with wave/tidal sources, much more constant than wind, to supply our needs. And if that is beyond our wit (which I don't believe) then the answer is to reduce our needs to match the supply of safe energy and in any event adopt more microgeneration on a personal level.

Nuclear is a dark age solution from the grim 1950s, unnecessary, undesirable and dangerous, never mind the economic arguments. I do not intend to leave a world contaminated by nuclear waste as an inheritance for my descendants and will not give my consent for those who want to exploit it for their own economic interest to rape an earth which belongs to us all. There is no argument as far as I am concerned.

I have to say his penultimate paragraph is the wrong way round in my eyes (because reduction is 80% of the solution) but it's comforting to know there is someone out there - with respect to SPN - who is on the right track.

[jonna]

We live on an Island.. with wind and water.. Why a need for nuclear energy?
On an energy point, when did Irish people become US with their brash Christmas lights? Major draw on the grid?

jonna

[st333ve]

Maybe someone should invent rain power, as solar power in ireland isnt a great option.
Every village and town should have their own wind turbines, i know that they will not supply the full grid with ample electricity but they are effective (when its windy) kind of.
Well ok, even if they are crap id rather have towns full of windmills than pieces of towns stuck to the moon when nuclear waste becomes nuclear bombs.

Houses in northern ireland are going to have to get very energy efficient by law in the coming years.
I cant remember the exact details but a certain amount of your homes energy has to be from a renewable source by some date in the future that i also cannot remember, or to be honest am too lazy to google.

[david]

when did Irish people become US with their brash Christmas lights? Major draw on the grid?

jonna

Merry Christmas me arse.

I have suggested to the local council that any exterior lighting should be subject to rigorous planning requirements, from the point of view of ghg emissions, 'sustainability' (whatever they think that is) and light pollution. For example, on new builds, if planning permission is granted, exterior lighting should be on passive infrared detectors staying on for a maximum of three minutes. No incandescant bulbs allowed, interior or exterior. No permanent exterior lighting allowed. Shops, when closed, should have no lights on apart from pir security lights. Low voltage street lighting and, in some areas, this can be put on pirs too. These are just a few ideas a thicko like me can think of.

But Christmad! People say, come on, cheer up, get a life, whatever, it's only for a few weeks, give us a break.

And if needlessly drawing attention to what a complete nerd you are illuminating a fecking reindeer on your chimney helps drown someone in Bangladesh? Hyperbolic comparison but collectlively, that's what we're doing.

Every village and town should have their own wind turbines,

Definitely.

Houses in northern ireland are going to have to get very energy efficient by law in the coming years.
I cant remember the exact details but a certain amount of your homes energy has to be from a renewable source by some date in the future that i also cannot remember, or to be honest am too lazy to google.

The UK is ahead of Ireland in this field but frankly not by much. No-one is leading the way, no-one is saying, 'stop' or even 'slow down'. The human race is pathetic sometimes, an evolutionary aberration.

[Respvblica]

I dont want to hold back the economy but shouldnt we consider the implications for future generations? Do we want our green and pleasent land contaminated so? I'm against until all possible alternatives are exhausted.

[david]

I dont want to hold back the economy but shouldnt we consider the implications for future generations?

Therein lies the problem. Politicians exist soley to get elected. All other functions are subordinate to this.

[Badboy]

Happy Christmas all.

David with the greatest possible respect - you are right and wrong at the same time.

Reduction is obviously the right answer, however you will never persuade the majority to forgo a hot shower or recess lighting. Therefore we need another strategy.

Monbiot makes a good battle plan (belated thanks to Pax for embarrassing me into reading him), however I thought his chapter on nuclear (or Nuke as some people say trying to obscure the difference between 4th generation pebble bed reactors and Heroshima) very weak.

Lovelock makes the case for Nuclear in the Revenge of Gaia, however I felt that Monbiot's arguments against it were the weakest section of his book and he failed to shake my belief that the evils of nuclear power are less dangerous than the evils of carbon based energy technology. Monbiot argues (correctly) that nuclear power requires subsidies, however I would be prepared to subsidise anything that would halt global warming.

James Martin (The Meaning of the 21st Century) suggests that the economic argument will soon collapse with the advent of small pebble bed reactors that can't be converted into bombs, which will be economically viable quitre soon.

Finally someone suggested that the Irish Govt has rejected nuclear power on economic grounds. When I worked for the dept of Natural Resources the sec general argued (wrongly in my opinion) that energy from nuclear was the cheapest option.

To suggest the debate on nuclear is over while the technology is still evolving is the same as saying that Hydrogen should be banned as a fuel source because of the Lindenberg crash.

However before we embrace Nuclear it is rediculous that we haven't banned wasteful lightbulbs, fine shops that leave lights on at night, tax gas guzzlers off the road and do another 100 hundred things taht would affect nobody elses quality of life.

The argument of rights does not come into it. A right only exists if it can be exercised without harming someone else. The needless burning of carbon harms billions of other people.

[david]

David with the greatest possible respect - you are right and wrong at the same time.

The story of my life.

Reduction is obviously the right answer, however you will never persuade the majority to forgo a hot shower or recess lighting. Therefore we need another strategy.

Any strategy that is truly 'sustainable' involves reduction. And don't forget, the 'majority' have no or little lighting, have no shower and very little we would call essentials like a car or warm clothes, let alone electricity.

Monbiot makes a good battle plan (belated thanks to Pax for embarrassing me into reading him), however I thought his chapter on nuclear (or Nuke as some people say trying to obscure the difference between 4th generation pebble bed reactors and Heroshima) very weak.

Lovelock makes the case for Nuclear in the Revenge of Gaia, however I felt that Monbiot's arguments against it were the weakest section of his book and he failed to shake my belief that the evils of nuclear power are less dangerous than the evils of carbon based energy technology. Monbiot argues (correctly) that nuclear power requires subsidies, however I would be prepared to subsidise anything that would halt global warming.

Well, why not subsidise demand reduction? That's the most obvious and intelligent use of the money currently being wasted on fusion research. The billions that have been poured into it so far, when in 1970 odd it was 'thirty years away', the current one billion per year until 2050 and no-one promises anything as a result of that.

James Martin (The Meaning of the 21st Century) suggests that the economic argument will soon collapse with the advent of small pebble bed reactors that can't be converted into bombs, which will be economically viable quitre soon.

Aaah, yes, put all your faith into technology, the very stuff which is the cause of our current woes. Create a problem to try solve one.

Finally someone suggested that the Irish Govt has rejected nuclear power on economic grounds. When I worked for the dept of Natural Resources the sec general argued (wrongly in my opinion) that energy from nuclear was the cheapest option.

Fair play to you. It is cheap when you ignore the subsidies, the huge environmental cost and, of course, you factor out the what's the word - cost isn't good enough - you factor out the implications of 'safe' storage of waste for 10,000 years.

However before we embrace Nuclear it is rediculous that we haven't banned wasteful lightbulbs, fine shops that leave lights on at night, tax gas guzzlers off the road and do another 100 hundred things taht would affect nobody elses quality of life.

The argument of rights does not come into it. A right only exists if it can be exercised without harming someone else. The needless burning of carbon harms billions of other people.

Now you're back with us! Reduction, reduction, reduction.

Nothing is perfect ever but I wouldn't argue that Monbiot's book is 'weak' in any unassailable respect - instead I look at the fact that he has set a debate going; naturally, I wish the debate was stronger and more widespread. Monbiot is quite happy to be put right in any respect by peer-reviewed and independent research. His work is merely a great start, flawed though it might be.

And it's not that his nuclear arguments are weak so much as the money put behind nuclear spin (another subsidy) is able to smother him. Good man for reading him though Badboy.