Chernobyl blamed for everything

[soubresauts]

... For brevity I will just deal with the,"Senator Mark Dearey raises cause for concern over design flaws in French designed nuclear rectors".
What design flaws?

I doubt that anyone thinks the older French reactors don't have design flaws. As for the new design, the European Pressurized water Reactor (EPR), much evidence suggests that they cannot even be built!

Perhaps you didn't read the Schneider article (written in 2008) cited above. Schneider pointed out:

In the existing French nuclear fleet, the number of safety-relevant events has increased steadily from 7.1 per reactor per year in 2000 to 10.8 in 2007... This is a disturbing trend considering that the entire fleet is aging and conceivably, such events will only increase with age. There are also the construction errors AREVA has made while building new plants, which are based on the EPR design that the company is hawking worldwide. Last December, the company started an EPR project in Flamanville, France, where French nuclear safety authorities noted that basic technical specifications and procedures such as proper concrete pouring hadn't been followed, culminating in an unprecedented and unlimited May order to stop cement pouring.
... AREVA is struggling to demonstrate that it can build new plants on time and at the estimated cost. For example, after nearly three years of construction, the EPR project in Olkiluoto, Finland, is two years behind schedule and at least $2.3 billion over budget.

The only EPR projects in construction are Olkiluoto and Flamanville. Both projects are financially disastrous, and there are doubts about final commissioning.

[cry freedom]

As deceitful as people like you prognosticating 10 years ago we would never achieve 10% of renewables for electricity, prognosticating today we will never achieve 20% of renewables... Diehard propagandist you cry freedom.

No more to say.

I'm afraid you are wrong in suggesting that I forecast [FONT="Arial Black"]anything[/FONT] for renewables 10 years ago and I am prepared to admit that at great cost you may get to 20 or even 25%. This however leaves the uncomfortable fact that we are still 75 to 80% short of our requirements.
Where is that energy going to come from?
You haven't a clue, have you?
As it is, the wind energy being pumped into the grid is of the Cinderella variety.
The ESB would not buy one watt of it given a free choice.
It is only through government compulsion that they take any of it on board.
Why? Because it is expensive. Because it cannot stand on its own as a viable industry. Because it cannot be relied upon. And because the ESB have to continue to build plant to generate electricity just as if the wind farms did not exist in the first place.
The recently announced gas generating power station in Co. Offaly is a case in point.
Renewables remind me of a ne'er do well uncle sponging off a hard up family.

[SirCharles]

I'm afraid you are wrong in suggesting that I forecast [FONT="Arial Black"]anything[/FONT] for renewables 10 years ago and I am prepared to admit that at great cost you may get to 20 or even 25%. This however leaves the uncomfortable fact that we are still 75 to 80% short of our requirements.
Where is that energy going to come from?
You haven't a clue, have you?
As it is, the wind energy being pumped into the grid is of the Cinderella variety.
The ESB would not buy one watt of it given a free choice.
It is only through government compulsion that they take any of it on board.
Why? Because it is expensive. Because it cannot stand on its own as a viable industry. Because it cannot be relied upon. And because the ESB have to continue to build plant to generate electricity just as if the wind farms did not exist in the first place.
The recently announced gas generating power station in Co. Offaly is a case in point.
Renewables remind me of a ne'er do well uncle sponging off a hard up family.

There's studies on the way about feasible 80% renewables. I'll post them as soon as they'll be published.

Investing in 100% renewables is a long term investion which involves some amount of money. The reason why countries in Europe are drawing back is the lack of money due to the banking crisis, not the lack of interest in these technologies.

You're like a sponge to me, having sucked up all the arguments from the nuclear branche brought up in the 70s and 80s, already disproven... and ... dangerous.

[jcdf]

There's studies on the way about feasible 80% renewables. I'll post them as soon as they'll be published.

Investing in 100% renewables is a long term investion which involves some amount of money. The reason why countries in Europe are drawing back is the lack of money due to the banking crisis, not the lack of interest in these technologies.

You're like a sponge to me, having sucked up all the arguments from the nuclear branche brought up in the 70s and 80s, already disproven... and ... dangerous.

You are living a bit in the past are you not?

Renewables are never going to provide 100% of the Worlds power. To suggest this is insane.

[SirCharles]

You are living a bit in the past are you not?

Renewables are never going to provide 100% of the Worlds power. To suggest this is insane.

I've been talking about the Irish electricity supply.
Never say never again.

[cry freedom]

I've been talking about the Irish electricity supply.
Never say never again.

Are you suggesting that that 100% of Ireland's electricity will be produced from renewables in the future.
And while I have you there can I also ask you if you are quite mad?

[fiannafailure]

cry freedom

I made you a promise at the beginning of the thread, I still intend to keep it, but regarding your last post

Are you suggesting that that 100% of Ireland's electricity will be produced from renewables in the future.
And while I have you there can I also ask you if you are quite mad?

I give you the words of Thomas Watson chairman of IBM, at a talk on computers in 1943

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

And another foot in mouth moment

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

Lots more here

I am not mad, I was tested for madness last year on sparkeys recommendation and I have been certified sane, if we wish to have a 100% renewable solution, we can have it.

[SirCharles]

Are you suggesting that that 100% of Ireland's electricity will be produced from renewables in the future.
And while I have you there can I also ask you if you are quite mad?

Sometimes I could become mad indeed about those diehard nay-sayers like you, yes.

[cry freedom]

cry freedom

I made you a promise at the beginning of the thread, I still intend to keep it, but regarding your last post


I give you the words of Thomas Watson chairman of IBM, at a talk on computers in 1943

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

And another foot in mouth moment

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

Lots more here

I am not mad, I was tested for madness last year on sparkeys recommendation and I have been certified sane, if we wish to have a 100% renewable solution, we can have it.

Pat, There seems to be some confusion here.
My accusation [suspicion] of madness was directed at Sir Charles and not you.If it has touched you by implication then I am sorry.
As regards the 100% renewables argument I think it is the 21st century equivalent of a perpetual motion machine and therefore impossible.
At our present state of development this country needs 6,600 MW of electricity, either being consumed or on standby.
If you or another like minded enthusiast were to offer me some means as to how this could be achieved with either current or even emerging renewable technology I might be persuaded.
I adopt the scientific approach that if it can be proved it must be accepted and will not hang on to my cherished beliefs for one minute after receipt of that proof.
Be warned however I do not consider wishful thinking to be proof.

[SirCharles]

Pat, There seems to be some confusion here.
My accusation [suspicion] of madness was directed at Sir Charles and not you.If it has touched you by implication then I am sorry.
As regards the 100% renewables argument I think it is the 21st century equivalent of a perpetual motion machine and therefore impossible.
At our present state of development this country needs 6,600 MW of electricity, either being consumed or on standby.
If you or another like minded enthusiast were to offer me some means as to how this could be achieved with either current or even emerging renewable technology I might be persuaded.
I adopt the scientific approach that if it can be proved it must be accepted and will not hang on to my cherished beliefs for one minute after receipt of that proof.
Be warned however I do not consider wishful thinking to be proof.

Doesn't sound soo mad anymore.

First of all I ask the question: do you have the will for 100% renewables?
If the answer was a "Yes", we should go and look for possibilities and feasibility... and so on.
The answer "No" means just madness to me.