Nuclear power, let's have a debate but.......

[Pidge]

The reason I assumed that nuclear power would provide a "cure" was that I can't see (as much as I want to) how renewables can make up our future energy requirements.

Renewables CAN'T make up all of our energy requirements.*

They, especially, can't make up the 40% that is currently used for road transport.

But neither can Nuclear.

Nuclear certainly doesn't provide a "cure", but it does provide a massive profit opportunity - at the taxpayers expense.


But the broader point you make is a good one - the renewables story needs to be put front and centre.

Just because the Civil Servants know that renewables are the answer, as do the energy spokespeople of all the Political Parties, as do the Investment Bankers and Insurance Companies, does not mean that Joe and Josephine public will not be taken in by the pro-Nuke nonsense that appears in the, controversy loving, media.


This is something that needs to be addressed

Of course, a wonder cure for electricity could make up (some) transport and all heating requirements.

I did speak lazily - can renewables make up our future electricity requirements?

[SPN]

Can renewables make up our future electricity requirements?

In Ireland?

Yes!

But over the longer term - there is a lot of life left in our current fossil fuelled generating capacity, even with increasing input costs.

Conservation is the "Big Win". We can reduce our gross energy requirement by 20%, 30%, maybe even 50%, through better efficiency, and reduction of unnecessary waste.

That will pull back our requirement for new generating capacity, and we can then look at short term renewable systems like biomass CHP, medium term renewables like wave and tidal systems, and longer term systems like hydrogen.


But conservation is the biggy!

[Limerick Lad]

I know it's not scientific but it's been interesting to see how the percentages in the poll have changed over the past couple of weeks. From an initial overwhelming anti nuclear position to near parity now.
Maybe if there was a proper debate on nuclear power generation here without the conclusion being predetermined by the Minister, we might be surprised by the result.

[SPN]

I know it's not scientific but it's been interesting to see how the percentages in the poll have changed over the past couple of weeks. From an initial overwhelming anti nuclear position to near parity now.

Have changed in the last 12 hours you mean!

Who's been freeping the poll?

Maybe if there was a proper debate on nuclear power generation here without the conclusion being predetermined by the Minister, we might be surprised by the result.

The debate has been had. The numbers have been crunched. The alternatives have been evaluated.

The answer is NO!


But because there are some vested interestss who want to have another debate - the people who will build the taxpayer funded plants, and Brendan Ogle's Comrades who will operate it - there is a push to reopen the debate.

Eamon Ryan has said - "No bother, lets have the debate again" - but he is as aware as anybody else who has studied the issue that the answer will still be an overwhelming NO!


Why do you hate the Irish taxpayer?

[jc]

The debate has been had. The numbers have been crunched. The alternatives have been evaluated.

The answer is NO!

With respect, the debate has never been properly had, the numbers which were crunched are out of date, and the alternatives evaluated have also changed dramatically in intervening years.

Nuclear has been unfavourable over the last decades for a large number of reasons, most of which are emotional rather than rational. There are questions regarding safety, but by and large these revolve around the presumption that a reactor would be built using 1950s technology, rather than a modern design. There are questions about waste, but by and large these revolve around assuming there will be no reprocessing and that the reactor-design will (again) be from the 50s.

I support an increase in efficiency, coupled with an increase in our use of solar, wind and wave (conventional hydro is already about as far as we can take it). Unfortunately, the reality is that these technologies will - at best - struggle to meet growing demand and the shutting-down of existing thermal stations (incl. oil units) over coming years. If we want to even consider the shutting down of our gas and coal resources. in anything but the long-term, then our only two options will be interconnecters and nuclear.

Interconnecters seem like a great idea. We get to use nuclear power, but have it generated on someone else's turf. Aside from the NIMBYist hypocracy that this entails, this isn't all that bad a solution...except that an additional spectre raises its head: Some current studies show that if our climate continues changing the way it does, that within 20 years, Europe will regularly have more summers like that of 2003, coupled with warmer winters. One major upshot of this is that there will be far less snow in the Alps, which will melt far faster, resulting in massive decreases in the amount of water in the major European rivers....which means that nuclear generation away from coastal areas will face serious trouble. Not a pretty picture if we are basing our future energy demands on the French's massive nuclear capability.

The answer is NO!

If the government were to look at future energy needs and conclude that the best option wasto build another Moneypoint (i.e. 1GW+ coal-burning) .... would you remain so adamant that such a decision was better than even considering nuclear?

This is a very real prospect. Anti-nuclear protagonists tend to wave the "clean, renewable" as the future of everything and seem to believe that the fight they are fighting is "wind, wave, and sun" vs. nuclear.

The reality is that the very numbers that you say make nuclear a resounding NO also make conventional thermal a resounding YES - even allowing for growth in the renewable market.

Why do you hate the Irish taxpayer?

Why do you want another coal-burning monstrosity built?

Its as honest and accurate a question as the one I've just quoted.

[Limerick Lad]

I know it's not scientific but it's been interesting to see how the percentages in the poll have changed over the past couple of weeks. From an initial overwhelming anti nuclear position to near parity now.

Have changed in the last 12 hours you mean!

Who's been freeping the poll?

From what I've seen after the first overwhelmingly antinuclear position, the pronuclear position has gradually increased but if you noticed an unusually large increase in 12 hours, you should report your concerns to the moderators for investigation, if they find any unusual activity by posters with regard to this poll, they should inform us.

[SPN]

The debate has been had. The numbers have been crunched. The alternatives have been evaluated.

The answer is NO!

With respect, the debate has never been properly had, the numbers which were crunched are out of date, and the alternatives evaluated have also changed dramatically in intervening years.

If you have evidence of this, I'm sure the senior officials at the DCENR would love to know about it.

Nuclear has been unfavourable over the last decades for a large number of reasons, most of which are emotional rather than rational. There are questions regarding safety, but by and large these revolve around the presumption that a reactor would be built using 1950s technology, rather than a modern design. There are questions about waste, but by and large these revolve around assuming there will be no reprocessing and that the reactor-design will (again) be from the 50s.

How about COST?

I support an increase in efficiency, coupled with an increase in our use of solar, wind and wave (conventional hydro is already about as far as we can take it). Unfortunately, the reality is that these technologies will - at best - struggle to meet growing demand and the shutting-down of existing thermal stations (incl. oil units) over coming years. If we want to even consider the shutting down of our gas and coal resources. in anything but the long-term, then our only two options will be interconnecters and nuclear.

The point of investing in efficiency is to remove the "growing demand" problem.

Interconnecters seem like a great idea. We get to use nuclear power, but have it generated on someone else's turf. Aside from the NIMBYist hypocracy that this entails, this isn't all that bad a solution...except that an additional spectre raises its head: Some current studies show that if our climate continues changing the way it does, that within 20 years, Europe will regularly have more summers like that of 2003, coupled with warmer winters. One major upshot of this is that there will be far less snow in the Alps, which will melt far faster, resulting in massive decreases in the amount of water in the major European rivers....which means that nuclear generation away from coastal areas will face serious trouble. Not a pretty picture if we are basing our future energy demands on the French's massive nuclear capability.

And Nuclear generation at coastal areas are facing major problems with rising sea levels and the growing frequency and magnitude of Atlantic storms.

The answer is NO!

If the government were to look at future energy needs and conclude that the best option wasto build another Moneypoint (i.e. 1GW+ coal-burning) .... would you remain so adamant that such a decision was better than even considering nuclear?

This is a very real prospect. Anti-nuclear protagonists tend to wave the "clean, renewable" as the future of everything and seem to believe that the fight they are fighting is "wind, wave, and sun" vs. nuclear.

The reality is that the very numbers that you say make nuclear a resounding NO also make conventional thermal a resounding YES - even allowing for growth in the renewable market.

But the preferred model for Electricity grids going forward is for distributed generation using CHP (ie, utilising the waste heat instead of venting it as waste). Locally grown biomass crops would be the ideal fuel for such a network.

Fossil Thermal is currently only marginally cheaper than renewables (Wind is cheaper than Gas for instance). Once Carbon Taxes are introduced the Fossil Thermal option will lose serious ground to biomass.

Why do you hate the Irish taxpayer?

Why do you want another coal-burning monstrosity built?

Its as honest and accurate a question as the one I've just quoted.

My question asked the other poster to tell us why he wants the taxpayer to take the hit for these uneconomic white elephants he is proposing.

Your question is ridiculous as I have never proposed building a coal burning plant.

[ibis]

Did we have a link to some figures, or would anyone have some to hand? I appreciate there will be several sources, so an attribution would be nice.

[plasterboard]

Did we have a link to some figures, or would anyone have some to hand? I appreciate there will be several sources, so an attribution would be nice.

Electricity demand tables are at Eirgrid ( www.eirgrid.com ).

After that it's off to academia for some studies if you like. A big issue is what is the minimum size for a plant to be economically viable (bearing in mind no learning curve to speak of if one is only installing one or two plants).

[SPN]

A big issue is what is the minimum size for a plant to be economically viable (bearing in mind no learning curve to speak of if one is only installing one or two plants).

We will be building a lot more than two plants , and there is lots of information on the learning curve available from Europe.

Here is a presentation on the development of the first one in Bandon in Cork - The First Biomass CHP Plant in Ireland

Here is a report on a BiomassCHP plant in Forssa in Finland