Chernobyl blamed for everything

[dunno]

Anti-nuclear sentiment in this country is a religion, in spite of it being a good solution in many respects. The curative effect of holy relics has a stronger scientific grounding than some of the nonsense mouthed in this country about nuclear energy. The economies of scale probably count against it here, though. Adi Roche is helping children with cancer in a poor country, laudable indeed, but nothing to do with Chernobyl.

[evercloserunion]

Some really good posts in this thread. I would agree that the effects of Chernobyl have been exaggerated, and I also think that bringing up Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power is disingenuous because the odds of such a meltdown occuring in Ireland, with 21st century levels of technology and first world levels of funding, are negligible.

I also agree that a nuclear program is not an absolute one-size-fits-all solution, but we should be allowed to consider its costs and benefits as part of a general approach to securing an optimal energy source for Ireland.

[b.a. baracus]

Nuclear power is wonderful. Shame about the radioactive waste is produces though. And what a pity about all those deformed children in Chernobyl highlighting the dangers of nuclear energy when it goes wrong. The ground may be contaminated for centuries, still, very few died so it's not really that serious and there's loads of profits to be made.

At least read the OP and other posts before jumping in with both feet.

[toughbutfair]

I was talking to somebody who visited chernobyl and he said it was no worse than the rest of the Ukraine. He (a doctor) also said their mortality rates are no different but they tend to blame the accident for everything.

[evercloserunion]

I was talking to somebody who visited chernobyl and he said it was no worse than the rest of the Ukraine. He (a doctor) also said their mortality rates are no different but they tend to blame the accident for everything.

That's another part of the problem, it's a real disincentive to progress if you can blame all your problems on a disaster that happened years ago.

[fiannafailure]

That's another part of the problem, it's a real disincentive to progress if you can blame all your problems on a disaster that happened years ago.

Echoes of the famine maybe!!.

[cry freedom]

[QUOTE=fiannafailure;2474467]Echoes of the famine maybe!!.[/QUOTEd]


Or the Brits being beastly to us for 800 years?

[cry freedom]

Some good posts on this topic!

fiannafailure is right that Ireland will never have it's own Nuclear industry! We are too small to make it worthwhile it would be easier for us just to leech off the UK or mainland Europe.

This does not remove us entirely from the Nuclear debate though for we are part of the EU and have a voice, albeit a small voice, on energy policy throughout the EU. We should use that voice to encourage other EU countries to develop their Nuclear sectors.

Chernobyl like the Soviet Union that created it should be confined to the history books. Allowing this event to continuously influence our future would be harmful for an important industry for our future.

There was a time when nuclear power plants had to be massive, 1000-1500 MW, to be in any way economic. With advances in technology that has changed drastically.
Toshiba Corp are believed to be in a position soon to supply sealed 10MW units for specialist applications.
A 750 MW power plant would fit very nicely into the the Irish generating land scape. [FONT="Impact"]Estimated cost about 3.5 billion.[/FONT] All with very little disturbance or remodeling of the national grid.
Relying on foreign power through very expensive inter connectors is fine when all is sweetness and light but when the shoe starts to pinch at the other end of the line we could find ourselves sitting in the dark.
In the modern world few countries are really free. Without energy independence economic freedom is an illusion.

[cry freedom]

Nuclear power is wonderful. Shame about the radioactive waste is produces though. And what a pity about all those deformed children in Chernobyl highlighting the dangers of nuclear energy when it goes wrong. The ground may be contaminated for centuries, still, very few died so it's not really that serious and there's loads of profits to be made.

Greenpeace briefing document:
'Since the origins of the French nuclear industry some 50 years ago, the management of nuclear waste has
been largely neglected. Even today, large quantities of waste remain in unconditioned and unstable form,
inventories of historical dump sites are lacking or were lost and one of the largest dump sites in the world
near the La Hague reprocessing plant is leaking into the underground water. Now evidence is emerging that a
new nuclear dumpsite in the Champagne region of France is leaking radioactivity into the ground water
threatening contamination of tritium and at a later stage other radionuclides. The French nuclear waste
authority ANDRA has only a partial inventory of the multitude of existing waste categories, as large
quantities have not yet been declared by the main waste producers EDF and Cogema, including spent nuclear
fuel or waste from the uranium enrichment industry. Even French government regulators are expressing their
concerns over the conditions at both dump sites.
New nuclear projects threaten to make a crisis into an even greater nuclear catastrophe. Specifically, plans
for an underground high level waste disposal site are moving forward. This would be located at Bure, again
in the Champagne region east of Paris. Further, EDF is seeking approval for construction of the European
Pressurized Water Reactor, EPR, at Flamanville. In addition to all the associated hazards, not least the
reactors vulnerability to aircraft impact, the reactor is due to produce the most high level radioactive waste of
any commercial nuclear reactor in France.
The nuclear power and reprocessing industry have created large volumes of waste, of which many are stored
in an unstable condition. They have also illegally dumped tens of thousands of cubic metres of waste in
France, without an option to ever take them back.'

You are wrong about the French Flamanville EPR reactor. Construction started in 2007 and is scheduled for completion in 2012.
On the waste issue it is useful to point out that a NPP (1000MW) uses annually about 20 tonnes of enriched uranium and generates just several cubic meters of high level waste. By comparison the equivalent coal station, like Moneypoint, burns 2,000,000 tonnes of coal and emits 6,000,000t of carbon dioxide and, with scrubbing, 3000t of sulphur dioxide and 3000t of sulphur dioxide. It also generates 170,000t of ash. (Until Moneypoint installed scrubbers, at a cost of 368 million euro, the CO2 and SO2 emissions were over 20,000t).
When spent fuel is taken from the reactor it should not be called waste as only about 3% of the potential energy has been used; the Uranium 238 can be used in breeder reactors.
It is good to point out that about 2 billion years ago there were 15 naturally occurring nuclear reactors operating in Gabon, Africa. They operated for about a million years and studies reveal that the waste has travelled less than 3 meters since; illustrating how efficient a waste repository can be.
It might be worth mentioning that France has 59 NPP's generating 78% of its electricity with the rest mostly hydroelectricity. (Ours is 90% dependent on imported fossil fuels). As a result their business electricity costs less than half of ours and their CO2 emissions per capita are about half that in Ireland.

[Panopticon]

Chernobyl: yes public perception seems to over-estimate the harms.

Adi Roche: didn't really get a free ride in 1997, when some nasty allegations came out before the presidential election. No matter what the causes of the misfortune of the children happened to be, her work is so positive.

Nuclear power: probably not economic in Ireland without very efficient connection to British power grid. This is based on conversations I have had with senior Italian and French engineers as well as Friends of the Earth.