Wind Power vs. Nuclear Power: How they compare

[C&AG]

Thanks for that info on the gas turbines. It does look like variability is the issue alright - I wonder if micro-batteries attached to the grid - in cars and perhaps homes and businesses are part of the answer?

The other one is to use the grid itself as a battery, distributing the electricity as you say according to demand and production in different areas. If Greenpeace had only factored us into their plans below - although I believe Airtricity have a similar plan including Ireland.

The EU is studying plans for a transnational power grid in the North Sea that could provide electricity from renewable sources for 70m homes. It could cost up to €20bn (£16bn) to install.

The proposed 3,850 mile offshore grid would connect more than 100 wind farms, containing 10,000 turbines, to seven North Sea countries - Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway.

Senior EC energy officials yesterday gave a warm but guarded welcome to the plans, which were submitted by eco-campaigners Greenpeace and drawn up by environment consultants 3E, calling them "ambitious but realistic".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ableenergy

[CEO2008GAME]

<Mod> This post has been removed. </Mod>

[siobhain]

Useless wind turbines with their exceptionally low power output will never met the ongoing and growing energy needs of Europe

Nuclear power is the only way forward but of course when you have sleaze merchants like Eamon Ryan doling out taxpayer money to enhance his investments in alternative energy companies that promote wind turbines I can't see how Ireland will ever progress

To demonstrate his idiocy he has no problem in sucking in nuclear power generated electricity from the UK whilst promoting turbines

Ryans energy policies are as useless as his broadband ones

sack him and his fianna fail bosses now

[CelticAtheist]

Eh, how about both.

Utilise alternative energy sources to reduce our dependency on oil, and later nuclear energy.

However, any notion that we can all run on pixiedust and wind power when the oil runs out is ridiculous.

[brine]

I am probably the only one here who can look out of the window and see three wind turbines and a 1.25 MW Nuclear Power plant. I can tell you that I much prefer the look of the wind turbines.

Anyway, I was 500 metres under the ground the other day in the Swedish experimental exploratry site for nuclear waste. The disposal method they've developed is to stick the waste in a 30 cm thick copper canister, shove it in a hole 500 metres into the bedrock and then fill the hole with bentonite clay.

This method is developed strictly for the Swedish geological situation. In other words, you couldn't just copy it and use it in Ireland. So when you hear of people saying that we could use the Swedish solution in Ireland, that's not true. So it would be prudent to first invest hundreds of millions in developing a waste disposal solution for any Irish nuclear programme, before even starting to consider whether or not nuclear power should be used.

And even so, the Swedish solution doesn't seem all that great. The bedrock they are using is under the water table, because they don't have suitable bedrock above the water table (rather like Ireland). The bentonite clay will swell when it gets wet. But if the clay gets too wet or if salinity of the water body around the clay changes over time (we're talking 100,000 years and an ice age here) then the bentonite clay could erode, meaning that water gets at the copper canister. The copper starts to rust and you have radioactive waste seeping into the groundwater. A geologist at the place admitted as much.

There's a reason why nobody has started disposing of nuclear waste yet, despite the stuff stockpiling for 60 years now. Nobody knows what to do with it. So why should Ireland invest in a power source that has developed no proven, working solution for its waste? Come back with a solution, maybe then we can put it on the table.

[GreenIsGood]

I am probably the only one here who can look out of the window and see three wind turbines and a 1.25 MW Nuclear Power plant. I can tell you that I much prefer the look of the wind turbines.

Anyway, I was 500 metres under the ground the other day in the Swedish experimental exploratry site for nuclear waste. The disposal method they've developed is to stick the waste in a 30 cm thick copper canister, shove it in a hole 500 metres into the bedrock and then fill the hole with bentonite clay.

This method is developed strictly for the Swedish geological situation. In other words, you couldn't just copy it and use it in Ireland. So when you hear of people saying that we could use the Swedish solution in Ireland, that's not true. So it would be prudent to first invest hundreds of millions in developing a waste disposal solution for any Irish nuclear programme, before even starting to consider whether or not nuclear power should be used.

And even so, the Swedish solution doesn't seem all that great. The bedrock they are using is under the water table, because they don't have suitable bedrock above the water table (rather like Ireland). The bentonite clay will swell when it gets wet. But if the clay gets too wet or if salinity of the water body around the clay changes over time (we're talking 100,000 years and an ice age here) then the bentonite clay could erode, meaning that water gets at the copper canister. The copper starts to rust and you have radioactive waste seeping into the groundwater. A geologist at the place admitted as much.

There's a reason why nobody has started disposing of nuclear waste yet, despite the stuff stockpiling for 60 years now. Nobody knows what to do with it. So why should Ireland invest in a power source that has developed no proven, working solution for its waste? Come back with a solution, maybe then we can put it on the table.

A 1.25MW nuclear plant? That's about the size of a mini cooper.

The rest of your post is equally silly. Disposal of nuclear waste is a far simpler problem than dealing with CO2 emissions. The only reason it has not been dealt with is because it is not particularly urgent. On the other hand our CO2 emissions will hang around in the atmosphere for longer than the lifetime of nuclear waste. With much more uncertain effects.

[brine]

1,250 MW I meant, it's Barsebäck power plant (now shut down, but still full of radioactive stuff).

The rest of your post is equally silly. Disposal of nuclear waste is a far simpler problem than dealing with CO2 emissions.

Hmmm... I didn't make any claims about CO2 emissions, so I fail to see how that statement qualifies my description of nuclear waste as silly.

So you don't agree that Ireland should first develop a waste solution before commencing with nuclear power? Or do you want to start using it before knowing what to do with the waste? That seems irresponsible to me.

[GreenIsGood]

So you don't agree that Ireland should first develop a waste solution before commencing with nuclear power? Or do you want to start using it before knowing what to do with the waste? That seems irresponsible to me.

Yeah, we should specify in advance. Vitrification followed by long term geologic disposal.

Japan's Vitrified Waste Program: Why is Japan Pursuing a Vitrified Waste Program?

[joel]

1,250 MW I meant, it's Barsebäck power plant (now shut down, but still full of radioactive stuff).



Hmmm... I didn't make any claims about CO2 emissions, so I fail to see how that statement qualifies my description of nuclear waste as silly.

So you don't agree that Ireland should first develop a waste solution before commencing with nuclear power? Or do you want to start using it before knowing what to do with the waste? That seems irresponsible to me.

I can't see the slightest thing in favour of Nuclear Power. Its dumbass thinking all the way.

[brine]

Yeah, we should specify in advance. Vitrification followed by long term geologic disposal.

Japan's Vitrified Waste Program: Why is Japan Pursuing a Vitrified Waste Program?

Geologic disposal... where? Japan has mountains. Sweden has thick granite bedrock where nobody lives (and even that is problematic because it's under the water table). The USA has deserts.