Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
First published 6.30AM
PHILLIPE LEGRAIN DOESN’T speak like a typical Brussels official.
He could never be accused of being vague or diplomatic. Take, for example, his analysis of what caused the European financial crisis.
“It all stems from the capture of governments by banks.”
Refreshingly blunt from a man who spent four years as a close advisor to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
There’s no whiff of bureaucratese from his assessments of European officials (“incredibly arrogant”), the election of the EC president (“a farce”), or the claim that austerity is responsible for economic improvement (“nonsense”).
Neither is he anti-European. In his own words, he thinks the EU is a “fantastic thing”.
What he wants is a revision of what he says is the fundamentally flawed and unjust approach European institutions took to solving the crisis.
Banking interests
“The Eurozone was meant to be a community of equals all sharing a currency. In fact, Eurozone institutions, not least the ECB, see themselves as the institutions that represent French and German interest, and in turn the interests of the banks of those countries.”
The first mistake, he argues, was linking banking and national debt.
“(When) bad lending between banks becomes and obligation between governments, that’s what fundamentally changes the whole nature of the EU.”
Partly because of arrogance, but largely because restructuring Greek debt would have implied big losses for the French and German banks, a decision was made to breach the legal basis on which the Eurozone was founded, the no bailout rule.
Legrain argues that the same rule was applied to Ireland.
Look at how banks in Ireland were treated relative to Cyprus. In Ireland, the creditors were British, German, French banks and investors. Therefore you say the government must provide a full bailout to those creditors.
“In the case of Cyprus, the creditors were Cypriot and Russian depositors, so it didn’t matter.”
Missed opportunity
The crisis, in addition to being poorly handled, was also a missed opportunity.
“That’s the tragedy of this crisis. This is a crisis that could have united Europe in an attempt to curb the over-mighty banks that got us into this mess.”
Instead, it has divided Europe, pitting creditor countries countries against debtor countries, and with EU institutions becoming instruments for creditors to impose their will on debtors.
His new book, European Spring, says that there must be a roll back and reform of Europe as it currently exists. The current state of play, he argues, will do nothing more than drive a wedge between Europeans.
“We’re in a position where we’ve gone down the wrong path, and going down the wrong path has eroded support for the EU and for closer co-operation, which makes it difficult to make the changes that are necessary.”
We need to have greater decentralisation, and then, when the popular support exists, move to a better system. The system we have now is economically dangerous and politically poisonous.
Ireland-then and now
Despite Ireland’s own reckless governance and lending during the boom, he says that without the link between the banking system and the soverign, our downturn would have been briefer and less painful.
“Whatever part of the blame Ireland has for a crazy property bubble, which would inevitable have led to a recession and bust, it didn’t have to be exacerbated in the way it was.”
The decision to use government funds to bailout Irish banks was “clearly and unjust” one, he says. And Ireland should do everything in its power to rectify the consequences.
“If you’re Ireland, you should play hardball. Next time that there’s a big decision that requires unanimity, you should say you’ll veto it unless you get official debt relief.”
The relentless application of austerity in Ireland is “perverse”, he says.
“It should have been delayed and it would have been much less. Going on collective austerity at a time when the private sector is trying to repay debt…you end up with unnecessarily deep recessions.”
Hoping for reform
Barroso brought Legrain in after seeing him on television speaking in opposition to European policy. He was working at the London School of Economics, having spent several years as a journalist with The Economist.
Hardly a radical’s CV, but he does think that a dramatic solution is needed in Europe.
“Hopefully the elections will be a wake up call. The huge vote for extremists, mostly of the far right, will serve as a wake up call.
If it doesn’t, then one has to hope that mainstream politicians and a wider campaign will convince people that change is needed.”
The outlook, he says, is grim without change. He paints a picture of a democratic deficit at the heart of Europe that will widen unless it is tackled.
“You ought to have much more democratic accountability and much more democratic choice about the future of Europe…if we are going to co-operate more closely, then we have to have proper democratic control and the right to change course.”
If you don’t accept that, then I don’t think you can have the current level of integration. Either we need to restore powers back to national governments or we need to have much more accountability at European level.
Ultimately, he says that an honest assessment of the direction taken during the crisis is the only way to preserve the European project.
“To pretend that things are fine, and that no mistakes were made, that people are deluded if they disagree, is not pro-European, it’s foolish. If you genuinely want Europe and the Euro to succeed then you have to be honest about what’s gone wrong.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Of course we should be building. Wind is no good for reliable generation. Fossil fuels are only getting more expensive. We need nuclear for energy independence.
@Ciaran Maher: And we manage waste and recycling so well when we can export it. That’s only plastics. What are the plans for dumping toxic fuel? Sellafield/Windscale was bad enough without multiplying the problem.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Well, the alternative is to literally burn fossil fuels and add directly to greenhouse gas emissions, so…
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Have a read up about new generation nuclear plants and the waste produced.
@Ciaran Maher: We could bury it in east Belfast? There’s been no signs of intelligent life found there in centuries.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Finland are buildinga nuclear waste permanent storage site. By the time we have a nuclear power plant and as long as they have the capacity we could export it there, I’m sure there’d be a fair pricetag but it’d be an option.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Obviously as the above have noted there are new generation nuclear generation technologies which would less the waste by a huge amount.
@Ciaran Maher: Those were only developed in my lifetime, thanks to international opposition to radioactive waste dumping. The longer we can hold off, the cleaner it will be as in slightly less toxic. Not fully expended. When I was a teenager there was supposed to be cold fusion just around the next corner. And there was the nuclear arms race. Korea for one is still at it. D O’Brien must have bought shares in nuclear power.
@Diarmuid Hunt: I still say the cost is too high and our country too small to implement it here. Do you think this is to be a nationalised proposal, or akin to the suddenly privatised Uisce Ireland? Certainly there are potential profits to be made.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Any real arguments against safe, clean, low carbon nuclear?
Or are you just throwing out hysterical nonsense and hoping it will stick?
@Fiona Fitzgerald: I honestly believe that there are certain aspects of science humankind were not meant to mess around with and unfortunately the ability to split atoms is one of them.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: How can you say that cost is too high when no reactors have been proposed or costed for Ireland?
Newer smaller reactors are designed to compete with natural gas.
Ireland is not too small for nuclear.
Who cares if if is national or privately owned.
Irish water was never privatised.
@Ciaran Maher: it’s years late ,, should have been done years ago
@Gavin Tobin: And a nuclear plant does not need to be gigantic, there’s increasing interest in Small Modular Reactors.
https://youtu.be/yofGtxEgpI8?t=62
The small reactor vessel for an SMR can be delivered prefuelled on the back of HGV, and after use the reactor vessel along with spent fuel can be taken away for reprocessing or decommissioning.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx
@David Jordan: SMRs will eventually power datacenters.
@Gavin Tobin: Hinkly Point was the last power purchase agreement issued for nuclear power in the UK a few years ago and that was £92.50/MWh escalated annually. The nuclear industry pays no insurance for accidents but it should. This is picked up by the state i.e. the tax payer. Nuclear power is not cheap. I’m not anti nuclear but the costs are not transparent. It would be better to pursue renewables with storage until cost effective green hydrogen is in mass production.
@Frank Cauldhame: Belief isn’t worth very much when we live in reality and not dreamworld. If you have a realistic basis for your belief please share.
@Diarmuid Hunt: on the contary Diarmuid, we create our own reality, which in fact is akin to a dreamworld.
Most of our decisions are maybe on belief systems(religion/political ideologies/economic ideologies) and cognitive biases.
If we actually were connected to the real world we would be living in a completely different way
@Anarch Eco: Most of our decisions are made using belief systems(religion/political ideologies/economic ideologies) and cognitive biases.
If we actually were connected to the real world we would be living in a completely different way
@Diarmuid Hunt: We are human. Accidents happen no matter how much we are told this technology is foolproof. Even if the risks are miniscule are they worth taking? We’re messing around with the laws of physics here and it doesn’t sit well with me.
@Anarch Eco: In our heads, reality however is unaffected by our perception of it.
@Frank Cauldhame: “Were messing around with the laws of physics” what? We are remaining well within the laws of physics and using what we’ve discovered over years to produce electricity. Nothing sci-fi going on.
@David Jordan: please explain the processes of ‘reprocessing’ and ‘decommissioning’. Have we already not ‘reprocessed’ and ‘decommissioned’ millions of tonnes of plastic? Great success there…
@Nick Caffrey: Well done comparing plastics recycling to nuclear fuel reprocessing.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Nuclear waste is easily managed and more modern reactor options can even consume that waste.
To be put very simply nuclear fuel is most often put back where we harvested it from offering no pollution to the environment and no risk to the populous.
Add to that more modern options which again produce less waste and can consume nuclear waste from other reactor types and you end up with very little waste that over very little threat.
Compare that to any other form of power and the risk to health and safety from nuclear is among the lowest of all power generation options including wind and solar even when you account for major events
@Frank Cauldhame: even accounting for catastrophic failure Coal, Oil and just about every other possible energy generation option presents a greater risk to health and safety.
Nuclear power plants failing makes big headlines but in reality fewer have been injured or killed by it in any given year even 1986 I think it was than Coal on any given year as an example. Loads of data on this topic very easy to research and from multiple sources should you choose to not believe any given source.
Fact is nuclear is among the safest power generation options for human health and safety, environmental impact, efficiency of carbon foot print, efficiency of land use, redundancy e.g. tolerance to maintenance need, downtime, etc.
Letting blind poorly informed fear mongering drive us away from nuclear power in the late 80s has set our world up for failure … its to late to fix that but we can stop further failure by correcting that mistake now.
I’m not totally against nuclear power but we built a port tunnel and it leaked, we built a National Aquatic Centre and it leaked…..
@Padraig Kavanagh: I wouldn’t worry about it. By the time the committee set up to look into it reports, the cost over runs and the years behind schedule, you and I will be pushing up the daisies.
@Padraig Kavanagh: I know I’m gonna get grief for this but get a few SMRs from Rolls-Royce, they have decades of experience of building nuclear reactors for submarines, they know what they are doing.
@Richard Cronin: Why would you get grief for proposing an obvious & sensible solution?
@Gavin Tobin: it’s journal, if you mention that the Brits are good at something then you tend to get panned
@Padraig Kavanagh: the tunnel was supposed to leak. Non story.
@Richard Cronin: I remember last year when the two of us brought up SMRs and you’re right in saying there were a lot of neigh sayers
@Padraig Kavanagh: Not forgetting the Tánaiste that leaks
And we would still be amongst the highest prices for electricity in the EU
@Geoff Bateman: Yes but that’s better than blackouts.
@Geoff Bateman: Given the cost to build and run a reactor, I could t see cheap electricity.
Wind and solar to produce green hydrogen, and build more green gas turbines. Small modular, safe and cheap(ish)
Whatever the alternative source, for the most part green electric will be more expensive at least in the short term
@Gavin Tobin: in today’s world that could be termed ad racist
In today’s world that could be misconstrued as racist,the terminology will have to be redefined to accommodate today’s society
It’s an absolute no brainer.
@a: 100% but there has been fear lingering over Nuclear power for years and years in Ireland so will be hard to convince a lot of people. The facts are that it’s safe and clean
@Local Ore: actually the facts are is it’s safer and cleaner than it was before.
No current reactor is safe (ie cannot meltdown) but plans are afoot
For such experimental reactors.
No current reactor is clean, radioactive materials are produced as waste.
For a country of our size, it doesn’t really make and sense to build one, economically.
@Tony Gordon: What are the death rates of coal, gas and oil vs nuclear reactors? Go and have a look.
@Local Ore: it has its with side too
@a: no brainer is that I wouldn’t trust anyone in this country to oversee the construction of a nuclear power plant. Until we get through at least a decade without a major construction snafu and a proper inspection/oversight of construction organisation setup there’s no way it’s safe. Let’s list some issues from the last couple of decades: leaking national aquatic center, leaking tunnel, sinking bridge and roads, pyrite, mica, electric link cable underspecified, massive budget overruns, dodgy school buildings… I’m sure there’s more, but most of those are pretty recent.
@Eileesh Buckley: what has Mica got to do with nuclear power?
The most expensive Nuclear power station in the world…..
@Hairy Teeth: if we can afford €40 billion for Anglo Irish Bank we can afford anything.
@Gavin Tobin: take a bow son.
@Gavin Tobin: 40 billion would be about the cost to be fair. The only full size Nuclear plant under construction in the UK at the moment, in Somerset, has a budget of 20 billion Pounds. That’s in a Country with long nuclear power experience. Rolls Royce engineering are exploring an idea for mini-nuclear stations, for about 5 billion Euro, each producing 450 mW, or enough to power Cork City with room to spare. Could be an ideal consideration for a market the size of Ireland, one or two of them as a permanent backup to renewables.
Talk about a loaded question: “Should Ireland build a nuclear power station to increase clean energy supplies?”
I wonder what the proportion of those in favour would have been if they asked “Should Ireland build a nuclear power station to increase energy supplies despite the prospect of radioactive waste that will have to be stored safely for 10s of thousands of years?”
I’m sorry this country has always been nuclear free, I’m sorry I will never support a nuclear power for as long as I live, nuclear can be very dangerous to human life to the in environments. No to Nuclear Power
@Paul Scully: Hysterical nonsense with no facts to back it up. Nuclear is the safest powergen source by a very wide margin.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
@Paul Scully: I’m sorry this country has always been rhinoceros free. I’m sorry I will never support an rhinoceros for as long as I live, rhinoceroses can be very dangerous to human life to the in environments. No to rhinoceroses
@Paul Scully: Stop with the APOLOGIES Paul jayus.
@Paul Scully: this country has two interconnectors to the UK which uses nuclear power, how are we nuclear free?
@Gavin Tobin: If memory serves me right didn’t Chernobyl have a nuclear meltdown and that land is still unsafe from people
@Gavin Tobin: Nonsense. Nuclear waste is currently impossible to clean up. Try going on your holidays to Chernobyl or Fukushima!
@A Bengal Tiger: What a mindless comment.
Common sense versus ignorant hysteria.
The nuclear fission ban the greens imposed last time they were in power has set the country’s climate mitigation abilities back decades.
Anti nuclear in reality means pro oil and pro gas because that’s what takes up the slack when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
@Gavin Tobin: Nuclear fission is still a pipe dream, Gain.
@Nick Caffrey: do you actually know the difference between fission and fusion? Because it doesn’t look like it.
As a slug, and an environmentalist, I back this whole heartedly. These new modular reactors have zero chance of failing spectacularly. A mixture of wind, solar, and nuclear is what’s gonna get us over the line if we have any hope of feeding these data centres. *cough* I mean saving the planet of course
Have we not got enough to worry about without fear of radioactive leakages too?
@Anna Carr: Vastly overstated fear. Hysterical really compared to actual risk.
@Gavin Tobin: look what’s happening in the Marshall Islands and get back to me….
@Francis Sally: I think you are mixing up an atomic weapons test site with civilian nuclear power. How is that in any way relevant?
You might as well mix up Semtex with butter.
The next gen reactors would have been surpassed by something else by the time Ireland would get around to building one
@Anarch Eco: Doesn’t meant current or previous gen don’t work.
@Gavin Tobin: haha, I was having a go at Ireland’s slowness at doing things!
I looked at this again a couple of years ago to see the balance of risk against climate change, despite being opposed to nuclear fission power because of the impact rather than risks of nuclear power if an accident happened and also because of the way in which four previous major accidents were handled by various régimes. I am a physicist by the way. I am very concerned about climate change being now a much greater existential risk than safely operated nuclear fission 2020s style as opposed to 1960s style. What shocked me was the cost of nuclear power against other options and the fact that it would require subsidy. All other renewable options need to be pushed to their limits first. Nuclear should only be under direct State operation and not for profit and constitutionally barred from privatisation, if we have to go there. There is also the nuclear fusion story. I attended a seminar in 1984, which set a 50 year development timeline on fusion. Curious as to where that is now (I am not a nuclear physicist).
@Pat Kelly: Most of the major nuclear accidents have been by states not corporations.
Take a look at the Irish Air Corps chemical exposure tragedy to see how a state handles health & safety when it is the regulator and the offender.
90% of those yes’s would flip to no if it anywhere in their county.
@B Collins: I’d happily live beside one and beside a waste repository.
@Gavin Tobin: Why don’t you pop one up in your back yard there so Gavin. Sounds like you’re working for the man with all your “hysterical” posts on here in support of lethal, unmanageable waste. Move away there to Fukishima for yourself, or build your gaff outside a nice quiet place called Chernobyl.. I hear there’s free heating after building up there again, to heat your lovely new gaff.. won’t need lighting either, since you’ll be glowing in the dark. It’s your kind of ego driven confidence in what it is you think you know, despite all the evidence to the contrary (just have a little read up there on nuclear waste), that has given rise to every environmental disaster caused by man.
Just a few more points for the debate:
-The world’s uranium reserves are even lower than the oil reserves.
- Nuclear power stations have efficiencies around 40%, similar to coal fired stations; the rest is waste heat (= direct global warming?!). Sure that heat could be used (CHP), but this is very difficult with large generators far from cities.
- A nuclear power station has to be running for years to produce the amount of energy that has been used building it (cannot put an exact figure on this one, because of different calculation methods).
- After our perhaps 50 years’ respite from energy scarcity and global warming, the nuclear waste needs to be looked after for millennia.
@Peter Schneider: queue techno-utopian to counter your claims
@Peter Schneider: World nuclear association says they is enough reserved of uranium to power conventional reactors for 90 years. Breeder reactors would extend this. Burning existing plutonium weapons as civilian fuel would extend this. Burning existing waste in breeders would extend this. Using thorium would extend this.
@Gavin Tobin: and if there are people or some form of civilisation around in a couple of centuries what will they use?
@Anarch Eco: Sure by that time Fusion will be only 10 years away.
@Gavin Tobin: exactly. So we use up all of the earths natural resources in a few centuries for what?
@Anarch Eco: You need to read the Wizard and the Prophet. There is a middle ground and you are an absolute prophet. We have used interim sources of energy to give us time to discover more. The answer is not entirely technological but neither is it totally by going backwards, there is a middle ground. The ‘middle ground’ currently proposed relies far to heavily on technological answers that may not materialise I agree but you will turn many more away from the cause with how you argue.
@Diarmuid Hunt: there is a middle ground but no one is talking about it. The middle ground however is far lower for the developed countries than theyd probably be comfortable with. Especially with current population levels. We are currently consuming 1.5 earths, thats including the earths regenerative capacity and pollution sinks. Even if we found a 100% clean energy we d still be on course for ecological collapse.
There might be no limits to our imagination or invention but there are limits on a finite planet.
@Diarmuid Hunt: I doubt Id sway many journal commenters, its more of an experiment and píss take
@Gavin Tobin: Lol! So true, still just ten years away!
I agree, time to build one, maybe 2. Turners cross in cork and castleknock would be ideal sites
Lay a cable over to France, sure they have loads of them
@Ronan Lawler: until we are outbid by German or the French want it themselves?
@Ronan Lawler: Excellent so we power our grid via the French Nuclear reactors. Along with being at the behest of what prices they charge. We should not rule out Nuclear energy based off the issues of several decades ago. There is no problem with Nuclear tech the issue is us humans causing these issues.
@Ronan Lawler: you mean the Celtic Interconnector that’s already underway? https://www.eirgridgroup.com/the-grid/projects/celtic-interconnector/the-project/
Just hope whoever is to build it and manage it are NOT the same crowd running the children’s hospital
@Nollaig Kelly: generally the people who build and manage childrens hospitals, or any hospitals for that matter don’t tend to build & run nuclear power plants. But I’m open to correction.
@Gavin Tobin: thought they were the same thing myself
Thorium reactors. We’ve plenty of it and the waste is much less dangerous and the risk of meltdown zero
@Gregory Pym: who is this we you speak of?
India, Austraila US?
Oh I get it, Ireland is “split” on nuclear power!
@Anarch Eco: Are we united on fusion?
@Diarmuid Hunt: ask me in 30 years
@Anarch Eco: Ah sure it’s always 30 years away
About as much chance of this happening in Ireland as the Legalising of Cannabis.
Where wud ya build it an what county wud want it let alone let it b built
@david byrne: 1 or 2 at Moneypoint and one each in Lanesborough, Shannonbridge & Edenderry. Distribution network already present. Quality rural jobs for 100 years.
Will this government please do at least one thing right and go ahead and build nuclear power stations, this fairytale of wind energy is not going to get the job done
Nuclear plus renewables is the future. Anything else is papering over the cracks. Renewables have their place but there needs to be a constant supply elsewhere and the choice is either oil/gas/coal or nuclear.
Nuclear is also the only option if we are to adopt electric transport in the future too. But little old paddy land will moan about Chernobyl and kick the can down the road until it’s too late.
We are screwed in terms of energy which is why data centres have got guarantees for energy supply as the move to renewables will cause shortages to supply periodically.
We are just so poorly governed I have no faith that we will do anything bar move slowly to renewables without a plan B.
Less John Gibbons on the radio everyday would help too. The extremes of both arguements on renewables are tiresome and boring and the conversation is always the same. Find qualified people to discuss with the public and not someone with an axe to grind.
Check out this guy in Cork who is building the 1st hydrogen electrolysis plant in Ireland, great initiative!
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/energy-company-plans-120m-hydrogen-facility-near-cork-harbour-1.4574726
@Damian Moylan: Eh hydrogen is not a power source. Are you suggesting to use a nuclear power plant to make H2?
@Gavin Tobin: Hydrogen is abundant everywhere just needs organizing. You can use H2 by electrolysis from water something we have a lot of. You can syphon H2 also from petrochemical installations. Still better as no emmissions from the HFC car. Chemical and petrochemical installations will continue to exist because all kinds of plastic materials are detived from it including ur phone, laptop, car interior, matress and cushions (foam), clothing, the list is endless tbh
Gavin “Proton” Tobin Vs Damian “H2″ Moylan
@Anarch Eco: Damien is a bit confused. H2 is a competition for batteries it is a storage medium. It needs power to fecking make it. At least my spamming is on topic. Can I not be Gavin “Neutron” Tobin…again more on topic :)
@Gavin Tobin: no proton as pro nuclear!
As a compromise your nuclear plant can produce the electricity for the electrolysis to make Damians hydrogen!
@Gavin Tobin: Incorrect. It is not necessary to plug in a HFCV to charge it as hydrogen is the fuel source.
@Damian Moylan: Hydrogen is a not a fuel source it is a storage medium. Green hydrogen especially is made by pissing away lots of electricity that could be otherwise used. Power needed to fuel one HEV vehicle could power 8 x BEVs.
Get America China Australia to sort out their emissions first . Then call back to Us and we can have a chat. Book another World wide for Gretta Thunberg she can chair the CHAT…….
@John Mc Auley: It’s true they need to step up but this is a global crisis and we all must do our bit especially wealthy countries such as ourselves. If we go past a 1.5 degree increase in global temperature increase we will see global chaos such as increased chance of more severe droughts, flooding, areas too hot to live in, trees and crops failing, people dying, rioting, governments collapsing, supply chains shutting down etc. Also 1.5 degree starts of a chain reaction of so called tipping points that will led to much higher temperatures
If all countries go nuclear we’ll end up with an enormous amount of radioactive waste in the world……with a half life of a gazillion years or whattever.
@Damian Moylan: As far as I know the amount of waste from the lifetime of the restoration would fit inside a basketball court. We could build a storage facility deep under the earth where it would be safe. Reactors of today are a lot more safer than 30 or 40 years ago.
@Nathan Smithson: *lifetime of the reactor -autocorrect ^^;
@Damian Moylan: No we won’t because nuclear power doesn’t create an enormous amount of waste.
Coal, Gas & Oil on the other hand create enormous planet changing amounts of waste.
@Gavin Tobin: Yes nuclear does produce lots of radioactive waste especially if every country goes nuclear!
@Damian Moylan: The amount of nuclear waste created since the dawn of nuclear power is miniscule.
The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel each year
This number may sound like a lot, but it’s actually quite small. In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
@Gavin Tobin: worldwide 400,000 tons of high level waste, sitting in aging concrete barrels waiting for a solution.
@Gavin Tobin: worldwide 400,000 tons of high level waste, sitting in aging concrete barrels.
@Dave Nolan: and for much of it that solution will be burning the waste in fast breeder reactors which produce much less waste with much lower half lives.
Win win. Gives us power while cleaning up the mess from previous designs where plutonium production for weapons was a higher priority.
Nuclear fission is not long term sustainable. Economics of decommissioning and waste disposal/storage have never been factored in. We can’t just send it off to some other country, like we did with plastics. Safe? I used to work in a nuclear facility in Canada: 2 accidents in 3 years. Waste was just vented into the atmosphere. Sustainable solution is to use off-peak wind to generate green hydrogen by electrolysis. Then use the stored hydrogen for electricity generation when the wind isn’t blowing.
@Seamus McMonagle: Yes. Makes 100% sense. To speed things up we can also take hydrogen from refineries, still much better and those refineries will be around forever unless “plastic” materials will no longer be used (hard to see). All plastics are derived from hydrocarbon. Also the truck delivering H2 to the filling station will be about 10 times smaller than for diesel as hydrogen has much higher energy density. About 5kg will get you 500km so a lot less needed.
I think it’s time to brush down my old Christy Moore’s Carnsore antinuclear record.
Would be terrified at the idea of a neclear station here. With our history it would be Trillions over budget. Give the contract to UK Contractor with a history of going bust. Before, we would blow ourselves up and half of Europe and nobody would be held accountable. !!
@Theresa Corrigan: if you are terrified you are terrified based on ignorance & hysteria.
We can’t even look after our water…..
No nuclear.
It would be bad.
@Philip Cooper: yes nuclear it would be good.
Imagine Doc Brown selling plutonium to the Loyalist paramilitaries
Hydrogen fuel cell is the future for heavy goods vehicles and anything pulling a trailer. Ideal also for ships trains and busses. HFC cars are also brill for those who can’t have an electric charging point eg. appartments. Also good for those doing a lot of miles outside the city and need fast fill up – takes 4 mins to fill a car with 5kg of H2 good for 500km. And the HFCV needs a much smaller battery than an EV…so less weight…Tesla 3 is 2.3tons (huge # of batteries). A toyota Mirai HFC car s only 1.8 tons! 30000 Mirai’s sold mostly in California where H2 filling stations are available.
@Damian Moylan: H2 is EIGHT times more expensive than simply charging a BEV.
You failed to mention the Mirai is €80k+ with nowhere to fill it in Ireland.
@Gavin Tobin: The future will be EV’s for smaller vehicles and those with EV charging. For all other Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. The price of HFCV’s will come down in time. We dont have supply or pricing to fill up in in Eire as no infrastructure. Government is sadly lacking with no plan at all. A much smaller battery than for EV’s means more vehicles can be made from less material and much lower weight. All good imho.
@Damian Moylan: There is no plan because it doesn’t make any sense.
@Gavin Tobin: It makes a huge amount of sense. Try ploughing with an electric tractor or pulling a 40 ton load. Hydrogen solves the power generation problem. Ireland also needs to spend about 10 years upgrading substations to cater for EV’s due to surge capacity issues. Solves that problem too.
@Damian Moylan: except to get hydrogen cells you need power from where?
@Nathan Smithson: From the wind turbines that produced fook all power from mid August and all through September.
Maybe we can build 8 nuclear power plants to make, compress & store H2 so we can run a single H2 plant.
Tooth fairy stuff from Mr Moylan
@Nathan Smithson: In the short term hydogen is available at hydrocarbon processing facilities. In the medium term green hydrogen like the Irish Times article explained (i posted above) will use offshore floating wind turbines to power the electrolysis plant. Equally wave energy could be used where the turbine is submerged under water and is arguably more consistent – see the project in Scotland on this (youtube). Anyone with a qualification in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and chemistry can see the logic of hydrogen fuel cell technology
@Damian Moylan: If Hydrogen are to be in so much need you’d need a massive number of wind turbines over a huge area that could be going into the national grid. I’ve looked into it and hydrogen are mainly being pushed by fossil fuel companies desperate for a replacement they can sell. EVs are going to get more investment with better batteries and better engines. HGVs could easily sign agreements with pitstops like circle K for those very long routes and simply pull in and have their main battery exchanged for a fully charged one or it could carry an extra battery then pull in for the night and have it charge while they sleep. There’s lots of solutions.
I realise most people have doubts but climate change is happening at a rapid pace and with our fossil fuel plants due to shut down how on earth are we going to power 900k electric cars without some significant boost to our power grid. Renewable would be ideal but I just don’t see how they can be 100% reliable or enough built in time. Ideally there should be a two pronged approach. A reactor wouldn’t be ready until 2035 at the earliest so Government should set up a large solar panel factory in Ireland with the goal of creating cheap panels for every building in the country to help with electricity consumption as well as developing major renewable projects like wind turbines. Also electric cars need to become cheaper. There should be a more basic model that everyone can afford.
Mercedes have ready hydrogen fuel cell HGV with a 1200km range on one fill! Amazing technology…Well worth a watch;
https://youtu.be/ReNat3nBJho
@Damian Moylan: They will abandon it for trucks like they have abandoned it for cars.
It’s pronounced ‘nucular’. ‘Nucular’
Just build it only forty years late.
This issue illustrates perfectly, the virtue signalling over solutions mentality that exists around a lot of the debate carbon emissions.
“Nuclear free Ireland” means absolutely nothing, when power generated using nuclear elsewhere enters our grid through interconnectors, its the same mentality that was applied historically to other Irish issues. What it means in practice is, we don’t have the capacity to meet our power generation needs 24/7/365 without the imported fossil fuel of gas, which creates dependence linked to global markets and supply.
The nuclear safety argument is mostly based on chrenoblyl and fukushima, the former caused by a lack of maintenance due to the end of the USSR and the latter due to a tsunami, neither of which are likely to be a factor in Ireland.
It’s worth mentioning that the technology in the nuclear industry has continued to improve, just like other industries, thanks to computers, sensors, and software, to have layers of protections, monitoring multiple sensor readings simultaneously.
We wouldn’t have a debate about global communications using the available technology of the 1970′s, calling the international operator to place a call, as the standard by which to evaluate current technologies?
So why compare a man sitting watching a gauge in a 1970′s nuclear plant and reacting to that to make manual adjustments, only if they actually saw a fluctuation, to a multiple input real-time computerised monitoring system, that flags warnings and automates adjustments, logging any potential issues.
Because that would make any sense.
@David Van-Standen: There’s been a few more than that.. Sellafield, Three mile Island etc, etc, https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank
@Dave Nolan: The two I mentioned are the most well known and the biggest environmental impact, three mile island would be the next in line.
But if you also want to include every minor incident on the nuclear side of the argument, then on the other side of that argument, you also have to weigh the total global environmental impacts of all fossil fuel power stations during the same timeframe and its pretty obvious, that nuclear power generation even from its very inception up to the present, has resulted in negligible environmental impacts even at its worst, when compared to the fossil fuel caused environmental damage to the planet.
And as I said, the technology of nuclear power generation has evolved into a much safer industry.
@David Van-Standen: No argument, fossil fuels need to go the way of the dinosaurs, but a long term solution to nuclear waste storage/re-use needs to go hand in hand with nuclear power i.e. If you build a power station, long term deep underground storage of waste should be part of that power station not the current kick the can down the road system in place now.
We have considered this before about a Nuclear Power station at Moneypoint and
Yes we should consider going nuclear If we are thinking to move over to electric cars then there is a need for reliable energy
Do it.
I 100% agree to Nuclear power.
Absolutely no to nuclear! There are no long term solutions for dealing with nuclear waste worldwide. Nuclear waste is incredibly toxic and can stay highly radioactive for thousands of years! . Right now and since the 1940s its just put into concrete containers and left on site. It can’t be an option until this is resolved. https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12
@Dave Nolan: nuclear waste is a manageable issue and the only problems are political not technological.
Where are you getting your nuclear information? The Simpsons?
About 10 to 15 billion spent on safest built in contingency plan and construction nuclear power plant and like Singapore have the greenest in terms of output incinerator for our waste disposal and Ireland would have one of the most efficient, reliable, greenest systems for zero carbon emissions in the world, we are a small country compared to our European neighbours and we could easily be self efficient in terms of our energy and waste management if we went Nuclear power and green technology, we would just have to do it once and do it right and we really could be the greenest little country in the world
Interesting that men are the leaders historically in science and this poll shows they have a much higher understanding of physics than women. Nuclear fusion and atomic energy is by far the most efficient way of creating clean energy. No point explaining it to a woman though.
Younger people do not have the depth of experience to appreciate the profound effects of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. They do not fully realise what it means to have thousands of tonnes of material, that will be lethal for hundreds of years, buried in decaying containers that will, inevitably, leach into the groundwater. It is not their fault. The full extent of our carelessness with nuclear waste is rarely discussed in public.
@Nick Caffrey: Chernobyl might as well have been built in a tent. Fukushima & TMI killed no one.
Yes go for it. Ireland would be powered with enough energy to sell to the Uk too.
Interconnector between Ireland and France. They already have a lot of nuclear stations. We in return build many more wind and wave farms on West coast. Make best use of what we have.
If Iran can’t have one why should we?
Is it just me or does the pic of the power plant look like something from Sim City? :P
We need to build a 2-3 GW inter connector with France. Our excess wind could complement with their nuclear plans. Cheap all round.
We can get BAM onto that when they’re finished on the National Children’s Hospital. Guaranteed to get a good quote, and hope for the best on the final price …..
Yes but not in my county
Those who support nuclear power are ignorant to the fact that the solution to our energy needs rests in the hands of each and every individual. We all have a part to play. Less is more. Only the commercial interest wants to produce “more” energy from a process which produces the most lethal and devastating form of waste known to (and made by) man on a tiny island in the Atlantic, because the people of that island are either intellectually or individually lazy or ill informed. Said island having, for example, the lowest level of forestation in Europe (only 2% native species), second only to Malta. Historical evidence shows that this land at one time, had 80% tree cover and supported a population greater in size than today, post famine. Trees being possibly the greatest (if only) “technology” that can sequester carbon.
Perhaps the solution to our energy crisis is “less” and not more. Where is the innovation here? Stifled as usual, by the commercial interest and short term goals, driven by greed and quick fix mentality. Sad that according to what appears to be rigged polls, the highest support for introducing nuclear power is among 18-24 year olds. If anything, its a damning indictment of how poorly educated the youth are about the risks associated with producing even more (lethal) waste to power their iPhones. Future generations, be damned.
James May had one and sold it then bought another one whilst admitting that it was inefficient and not suitable for a daily driver given the scarcity of refuelling stations. Says more about May’s abundance of money than the effiiency of Hydrogen as an alternative.
You won’t have one built by 2030 anyway. Might be a bit late.
@Claude Saulnier: Because we won’t need electricity after 2030?
@Gavin Tobin: the length of time it takes to build one. Find a suitable location for a start…
What are the US Nimitz aircraft carriers fuel source..?
Yes you got it. Nuclear… sounds like a dirty word
but quite the opposite.!
Do’nt they take 10 -15 years to build if there are no holdups along the way? More of a longer term solution really.
I found this a well put together youtube video if anyone is interested – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k13jZ9qHJ5U&t=2177s
Check out this hydroge fuel cell car. Brill imho! https://youtu.be/BFswCrQL5xo
James May (ex Top Gear) has one too!
https://youtu.be/v99AthjW78U
@Damian Moylan: The truth about Hydrogen
https://youtu.be/f7MzFfuNOtY
@Gavin Tobin: Hydrogen good, nuclear bad. H2 is abundant and only a small battery is needed. EV’s need thousands of lithium ion cells….raw material if everyone everywhere goes EV, nope impossible. Also way too heavy….all those batteries…
@Gavin Tobin: The truth about nuclear…
It produces RADIOACTIVE waste.
Just build a nuclear power station that would supply the whole country
@Paul Maguire: what happens when it is down for maintenance?
@Gavin Tobin: the 1980s approach was large reactors but even then they where multiple reactors not just 1 so down time is mitigated
The modern approach are smaller reactors more widely distributed so even less of an issue
For the people mentioning the costs and how we can’t afford to build a nuclear power station, just remember we are currently building a hospital that will eventually cost around 3+ billion. If we can justify that, then wd can justify a nuclear power station.
have your say