Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Roman Sigaev via Shutterstock

Opinion Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest – why do we continue to reject it?

Fossil fuels are messy, costly, dangerous to workers and killing our planet. Nuclear energy could be the answer if we let go of illogical, emotional arguments against it.

COAL CONSISTS OF over 40% of the world’s energy consumption. Like all power generation and consumption, coal energy comes at a cost, both in terms of human lives and the impact on the environment. However, the negative impacts of coal are substantially greater than any other sources of energy.

Some 30,000 coalminers have died since 1970, more than in the production of any other energy source. Just recently, Turkey experienced its worst mining disaster with more than 300 miners losing their lives.

But the real cost of coal is in its environmental impact. Coal combustion is the largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere which contributes greatly to global warming. Coal mining also produces methane which has a global warming potential 21 times greater than CO2.

The pollutants produced by coal mining and coal burning also have detrimental effects on health. It can cause or increase the risk of a myriad of health concerns such as heart attack, asthma, lung cancer, bronchitis, and other respiratory conditions. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated in 2008 that pollution from coal particles causes one million deaths yearly.

Given the dangers of coal production and its subsequent adverse health effects, it is alarming that the international community is migrating away from the cleanest, cheapest, and safest method of generating electricity: nuclear energy.

Nuclear power’s reputation as a safe, clean energy source was tarnished after the Chernobyl disaster, when in 1986 steam pressure caused the reactor vessel to rupture sending a plume of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Aside from the deaths caused by the initial explosion and its subsequent clean-up, the radiation which was released also had an impact on the health of the population surrounding Chernobyl. Due to the difficult nature of determining radiation’s role in causing fatal diseases, estimates of the deaths caused by the Chernobyl disaster vary widely. The accepted projected upper limit (UN/WHO/UNSCEAR) for radiation deaths from Chernobyl is 4,000. There has been little evidence of an increase of birth defects or cancer being linked to the disaster, according to UNSCEAR, despite intense study over nigh on 30 years. Others have made claims that Chernobyl has caused almost one million deaths but such claims have been roundly debunked and rejected by the academic community.

However, it raises an interesting point – even if we were to treat this dubious assertion as true, the disaster at Chernobyl has only caused a similar number of deaths which the coal industry causes on a yearly basis. Global reliance on coal is essentially the equivalent of a yearly Chernobyl disaster. However, the key difference is the disaster at the Chernobyl was just that: a disaster. Whereas the deaths attributed to coal are the inevitable by-product of the coal industry even when factories are functioning optimally.

The disaster at Chernobyl is never likely to be replicated. Even for its time the safeguards at Chernobyl were deficient, it lacked vital layers of containment which, if present, would have contained the disaster. For example, it was thanks to these vital layers of containment that a partial meltdown on Three Mile Island led to zero deaths and no observable long term health effects.

When three reactors at the Fukushima plant in Japan went into meltdown in 2011 after being hit by a tsunami, there were no fatalities and no adverse health effects are predicted. Yet despite the accident causing zero deaths, it still provoked anti-nuclear demonstrations worldwide.

Many proposed nuclear projects were postponed or completely abandoned. Germany decided to phase out all of its nuclear power reactors by 2022. National referendums were held in Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland, all of whom voted against building any more nuclear power plants.

Such a reaction is surprising given the total lack of fatalities, especially when you compare it to the international reaction to the coalmining accident in Turkey: there wasn’t one. There were no anti-coal demonstrations, no discussions on the future expansion of coal factories, no plans to scale back the production or reliance on coal.

It becomes quite clear that reactions to incidents surrounding nuclear energy are disproportionate to those related to other energy sources. In terms of human cost, nuclear energy is only a threat when things go drastically wrong, which happens rarely and, in fact, nuclear energy has one of the best safety records. Environmentally, its carbon footprint is even lower than some renewable energy sources.

The question then arises as to why people are so willing to reject the option of nuclear power and accept coal along with all its adverse effects?

This is due to the fact nuclear energy shares a name with the most destructive device ever witnessed. So when people hear the term nuclear power they immediately form a mental link to the nuclear bomb as if it’s somehow synonymous.

There is also an element of the “not in my back yard” syndrome. As long as deaths due to coal pollution are disguised as other maladies and coalmining accidents are in a foreign land then the negative consequences of meeting one’s energy demands are out of sight and out of mind.

However, these are emotional, not rational, reasons for rejecting nuclear energy. When you get down to the cold hard facts, nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest method of energy production. To dismiss it on an emotional basis isn’t just foolish, it is careless and costly. We are facing a grave threat in climate change and nuclear power is the solution, we only need embrace it.

Peter Ferguson is a sceptic and a writer, he is a contributing author in the upcoming book 13 Reasons to Doubt, and he blogs at SkepticInk.com. Twitter @humanisticus

Read: ‘A ticking timebomb’: contamination shield at Chernobyl delayed due to Ukrainian crisis

Read: Obama wants to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 30% – not everyone agrees

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
142 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall Donnelly
    Favourite Niall Donnelly
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:13 PM

    We can’t even build houses that are fit for purpose.

    304
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Limerick Ploy
    Favourite Limerick Ploy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:21 PM

    lol,

    All we need is dobson on 6 o clock news.

    “pyrite has been found in our nuclear power plant”

    194
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Michael
    Favourite John Michael
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:31 PM

    Look what happened in Japan. There are power plants all over Eastern Europe wasting away. Germany has also committed to ridding the country of nuclear power. Let’s not forget the Islamic terrorist threat. Why make their bomb for them?

    79
    See 13 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:09 PM

    In America they are closing newish power plants because they do not make financial sense, even with the massive subsidies there.

    Forget terrorism, hippies, greenpeace, global warming, nuclear waste etc.

    Nuclear is not an option because it is not financially viable to do so.

    Coal, Gas, Solar, Hydro etc all beat it hands down in the cost stakes. Wind probably will in time as well.

    Even if Nuclear was 100% clean and safe it still would not make economic sense.

    70
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Lt General Joe
    Favourite Lt General Joe
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:27 PM

    Islamic terrorist threat? What in the name of God are you on about. To date there have been two bombings of nuclear plant’s, one in 1981 by the Israeli Air Force on a plant that was being built in Baghdad, the second also by the Israeli Air Force on a alleged plant being built by Syria.
    As regards what happened in Fukushima, the tsunami wall was not high enough so the water went over and knocked out the diesel generators which were being used to cool the reactors after they had been scrammed, and the emergency batteries ran out of power the following day despite the authorities best efforts to get power to make the cooling system start again leading to the reactors meltdown.

    63
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Michael
    Favourite John Michael
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:47 PM

    Hold on. First you ask what I’m talking about and then you give me instances of what I’m talking about. You must have been in the debating team at school. I’ll let you go asleep as you are up early for your job as a nuclear physicist or did you just read about Fukishima in the papers. They wouldn’t lie. Would they?

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Brendan Curran
    Favourite Brendan Curran
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:03 PM

    Well as far as I know it’s not possible to make weapons from Thorium, which is what newer nuclear power plants are made from

    31
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Brendan Curran
    Favourite Brendan Curran
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:03 PM

    *made to use rather

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Brendan Curran
    Favourite Brendan Curran
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:06 PM

    Seanie there are some conflicting opinions on the Solar vs Nuclear debate. I’m not sure myself but have a look at this

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/nuclear-is-cheaper-than-solar-thermal

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Willy Moon
    Favourite Willy Moon
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:17 PM

    Ya agree, if all the nuclear power stations are getting closed why would we opt for it, to dam dangerous, we have natural power all around us, ie the sea, the sea could provide ireland with all the power we need and more if we harness it right,

    26
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:48 AM

    John what happened in Japan. Please do expand. There was no deaths. Meanwhile today there was plenty if deaths relayed to fossil fuel

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Bill Murphy
    Favourite Bill Murphy
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 4:06 AM

    A nuclear power plant is a weapon

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Bill Murphy
    Favourite Bill Murphy
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 4:08 AM

    The water they’re using now to cool the reactors is being stored in huge tanks 100s of them to date with no idea how to get rid of this waste. The tanks a leaking and the pacific is being contaminated. That’s enough of a reason no to allow NP .

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Bill Murphy
    Favourite Bill Murphy
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 4:11 AM

    There are adults and kids being diagnosed with thyroid cancer there will be a whole load of deaths for the next 50 years or so.as well a mass mutation of animal and sea life and more human birth deformities . This is the beauty of mass exposure to radiation it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Research it it’s no secret.

    18
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute owen m
    Favourite owen m
    Report
    Jun 19th 2014, 12:35 PM

    All the above posters are using nuclear energy right now – too much hypocrisy in Ireland

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Gee Gach Duine
    Favourite Gee Gach Duine
    Report
    Jun 19th 2014, 3:51 PM

    Israel is not a Muslim country.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Reg
    Favourite Reg
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:36 PM

    Simple answer: Ignorance and nimbyism. Two things we have in abundance!

    260
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Limerick Ploy
    Favourite Limerick Ploy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:40 PM

    my god i agree with you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what am i going to do now?

    59
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Science of Beer
    Favourite Science of Beer
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:49 PM

    Dead right Reg, we need to educate people about 4th generation helium cooled cobalt sphere technology. No water waste as helium in recycled as a coolant and is inert and the cobalt sphere technology make a traditional meltdown impossible.

    111
    See 11 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Limerick Ploy
    Favourite Limerick Ploy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:59 PM

    So many safe clean choices and we burn fossil fuel like we were cavemen.

    114
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Jason Culligan
    Favourite Jason Culligan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:05 PM

    That’s because it doesn’t cost elections to build a coal or gas power plant. Until the stigma around nuclear power is dealt with governments won’t risk their time in office over it.

    89
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:27 PM

    Also Nuclear is not as cheap as it looks. There is massive tax breaks and unofficial state subsidies in most countries with it.

    41
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:36 PM

    Interestingly enough in most of the world solar is rapidly becoming the most cost effective energy source.

    When all subsidies are removed it can now take on coal as an investment. Which is a stunning achievement.

    Question is, does nuclear have a future in the rest of the world, never mind here.

    I personally have no problem with Ireland using nuclear energy as part of its mix. Thorium reactors outside of that offer the advent of clean and completely safe nuclear energy.

    At the end of the day nuclear power is still not viable with out massive Govt. support.

    37
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:08 PM

    Has their ever been a profitable nuclear power plant in last century.

    Gas, coal and now solar are all much cheaper than it as a power source.

    Want to save the penguins fine then demand clearer plant emissions but only lone voices howling at the moon are the ones that think Nuclear is cost competitive.

    Private nuclear plants in America are closing, despite massive tax break because it just cannot compete with gas.

    It makes no financial sense, that is all that matters.

    Screw Greenpeace if you can show someone it makes sense then go for it. The energy world has however moved on.

    33
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute richardmccarthy
    Favourite richardmccarthy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:32 PM

    Its still a lot cheaper than wind generated energy,ask the British who opted to stay with nuclear rather than buy energy from our proposed wind farms because of the substancially higher cost,and thats even before mentioning the security of supply factor.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:56 PM

    Nuclear energy is dying globally because it is being battered by all other energy sources.

    Given the awful return on investment it is not getting the finance for new plants.

    It is 44 years since a successful commercial order of a Nuclear plant in America. The industry is just not cost competitive.

    Nuke plants in America that were planned to be operational till the 2030′s are being closed because they loose too much money.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da2a6bc6-98fa-11e3-a32f-00144feab7de.html#axzz34k8NVd00

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Sheik Yahbouti
    Favourite Sheik Yahbouti
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:07 PM

    There hasn’t ever been a commercially viable nuclear power plant
    All exist only as a result of massive subsidies , the reasons for which have nothing to do with the provision of power. I am old enough to remember the first nuclear power stations in the UK, my father worked on building them. At the time McMillan promised “electricity too cheap to meter” to overcome public objection. Ask your friends in the UK how that worked out.

    29
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:53 AM

    Gas and coal are fossil fuels which are damaging to the world and are also much more finite than thorium. Solar can’t provide baseload energy especially in winter when its cold and dark. Also the materials needed are a rare earth and if a greater roll out was to happen the price would sore

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute david dickson
    Favourite david dickson
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 3:32 AM

    Seanie, apart from the deaths and climate damage from oil and gas you give the American example of gas being cheaper than nuclear power, but shale gas in America costs a fraction of gas in Ireland and the same for oil in the past and now. It would be cost effective here to use nuclear because of our expensive fossil fuels.
    I am saddened that you used America the land of cheap fossil fuels as an example to compare to Ireland. I expected better than that from you.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute owen m
    Favourite owen m
    Report
    Jun 19th 2014, 12:37 PM

    “Ask your friends in the UK how that worked out.”

    Dont need to – you and me are using nuclear from UK right now

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter Bohane
    Favourite Peter Bohane
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:37 PM

    I would fully support nuclear power in Ireland

    147
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Limerick Ploy
    Favourite Limerick Ploy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:36 PM

    Thorium Nuclear power is the safest. It’s created from rock and sand, of which we have plenty. China is currently building some of these plants, We should be building four of these plants and we could create an export industry, i expect this to happen sometime in 2114.

    113
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David Hennigan
    Favourite David Hennigan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:50 PM

    Absolutely. Thoreum is the way to go. It really has no bad side effects and there’s right of it around to power the human race for the next million years. It’s only a pity that this won’t happen. We’ll try to eek by on wind and solar energy.

    69
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Ciarán
    Favourite Ciarán
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:50 PM

    Thorium in a solid fuel reactor is no safer or better than uranium and the molten salt variant is still in experimental phase. We should just take a crack at building an established design. The expertise we need is just a short hop across the water in France, they have decades of experience

    39
    See 6 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Limerick Ploy
    Favourite Limerick Ploy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:00 PM

    Thorium is cleaner and safer than uranium.

    46
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Stephen Murphy
    Favourite Stephen Murphy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:07 PM

    Anything that makes sense, won’t be done and you can blame politicians for that!

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Frank
    Favourite Frank
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:16 PM

    10 Myths about Thorium as a nuclear energy solution..

    1/There is no such thing as a “thorium reactor.”
    2/. You still need uranium – or even plutonium – in a reactor using thorium.
    3/. Using plutonium sets up proliferation risks.
    4/Uranium-233 is also excellent weapons-grade material..
    5/Proliferation risks are not negated by thorium mixed with U-238
    6/Thorium would trigger a resumption of reprocessing in the US
    7/Using thorium does not eliminate the problem of long-lived radioactive waste.
    8/Attempts to develop “thorium reactors” have failed for decades.
    9/Fabricating “thorium fuel” is dangerous to health.
    10/Fabricating “thorium fuel” is expensive.

    The bottom line is this. Thorium reactors still produce high-level radioactive waste. They still pose
    problems and opportunities for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They still present opportunities for catastrophic accident scenarios — as potential targets of terrorist or military attack, for example.

    http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/THE%20MYTHS%20ABOUT%20THORIUM%20AS%20A%20NUCLEAR%20ENERGY%20SOLUTION.pdf

    28
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:12 PM

    Firstly it is completely unproven – they have not been able to make it work… We need to replace fossil fuels within the next few decades to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate change :-(
    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:54 AM

    India has taken the lead on thorium

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:55 AM

    Thorium has far less waste and the waste that is produced is not weapon grade which uranium is

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter King
    Favourite Peter King
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:54 PM

    One nuclear reactor would provide 80% of our energy needs. We’d need to build 2 in case 1 had to be shut down for a few days. We could export the extra power to the UK.

    97
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Donny Duck
    Favourite Donny Duck
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:12 PM

    That’s 2 meltdowns for the price of one. Give this man the Nobel Prize.

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David
    Favourite David
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:35 PM

    If it goes wrong it’s also the most dangerous!!

    93
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Limerick Ploy
    Favourite Limerick Ploy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:39 PM

    no it’s not, millions of people die from coal every year, how many die from nuclear incidents?

    116
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Brendan Cooney
    Favourite Brendan Cooney
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:42 PM

    Burning fossil fuels is the most dangerous, it’s just that we are lulled into thinking it’s okay by its slowness.

    128
    See 8 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Doyle
    Favourite John Doyle
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:58 PM

    The difference is miners oil riggers etc know what they are getting into. When nuclear power goes wrong if affects the area and people around it, the people who have to live with disaster are most likely not nuclear power workers.

    53
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David Jordan
    Favourite David Jordan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:15 PM

    John, the ban on coal burning in Dublin saves 350 lives a year due to better air quality. Just think of how many people die because of dirty power plants each year across the world, the American Environmental Agency estimates 33,000 Americans die a year from pollution from their coal burning power stations. The worldwide death toll maybe approaching 1 million per year, given how bad the air pollution in India and China is these days (total population over 2 billion).

    http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Atmosphere/AirQuality/SmokyCoalBan/

    And if you’re only counting acute accidents, Nuclear never killed more people than conventional power. The Banqaio Dam disaster in China killed 171,000 people in 1975 and left millions homeless.
    Hydroelectric dams have killed 100s to several 1000 per dam collapse.

    55
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:21 PM

    Nuclear is not cost competitive compared to other energy sources.

    That is why it is a dying industry.

    It just doesn’t make financial sense.

    22
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute eye_c_u___
    Favourite eye_c_u___
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:26 PM

    haha :) carbon makes up what 3 parts per million in the air increase that to 5 or 6 and we are Venus. fossil fuels wont just kill a few they will kill everything on this planet. remember giving out iodine pills lol if they wanted to live in reality they are better giving my kids or grand kids suicide pills for the fossil fuels when things get to hot and people die slow horrible deaths.

    nuclear is safest out there and i would have no issue at all if i lives on the perimeter of a plant.

    30
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:43 PM

    Then pay the extra costs if you want Ireland to go nuclear.

    Where will we get the financing to do build these plants, people look at the return on investment for nuclear and see that it is beaten by most clean or carbon dirty energy source.

    You can save the whales and planet if you want but it will not be done by nuclear.

    Very disturbing line about giving your kids suicide pills.

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Deep Beneath You
    Favourite Deep Beneath You
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:16 PM

    Very disturbing line about suicide. I agree, http://youtu.be/hfjGSfuSQpA

    Absolutely disgusting to joke about that stuff. I mean what kind of human excrement would laugh at that. Back in your box Seany Brown nose Ryan.

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:34 PM

    Yes, burning fossil fuels is the most dangerous thing to do at this time, since we are passing points of no return now with the climate… but nuclear is horribly unsafe too and the danger is far too long lasting… not something to bequeath to future generations at all… the safe disposal and storage of the waste relies on a future ordered society, when with climate change we may well not have that at all.
    What is wrong with us that we cannot sacrifice a little and cut back on our energy use for the sake of the safety of may future generations of humans on earth – now is the only window of opportunity to do it before it is too late – how could we be so horrible?

    24
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Denito
    Favourite Denito
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 11:15 AM

    @SeanieRyan: Nuclear is only the most expensive because of the huge amount of engineering required to render it close to 100% safe and to dispose of all harmful by-products.

    If the same safety and environmental constraints were placed on the extraction and burning of coal and other fossil fuels, nuclear would be very competitive.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Ah Here
    Favourite Ah Here
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:55 PM

    “Opinion: Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest – why do we continue to reject it it?”

    Wow. That’s a whole lot of lies within one short sentence.

    1. Cleanest? Are you seriously claiming that a form of energy production which results in a highly dangerous radioactive byproduct is cleaner than renewable energy sources such as solar?

    2. Safest? There have been 33 serious accidents at nuclear power stations since the 1950s: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank

    3. Cheapest? The costs of building nuclear power stations is astronomical and, if it happened in Ireland, would definitely need subsidising i.e. tax payer’s dosh:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10525538/Subsidies-for-UK-nuclear-plant-could-reach-17bn-and-may-be-unnecessary.html

    Yes, we need to transition from a carbon-based economy, but energy efficiency measures and renewables are the real cleanest, safest and cheapest way to do this.

    64
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Richard Creedon
    Favourite Richard Creedon
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:02 PM

    While I am all for renewables as our total source of energy it is not feasible in the short or medium term. We should build nuclear plants while building up our renewables. Relying on Russian gas is very risky. Nuclear power is actually very safe and getting safer. Even in Chernobyl there wasn’t that many deaths. Yes there is long term implications from it but it is a hell of a lot safer nowadays.

    29
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Jason Culligan
    Favourite Jason Culligan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:10 PM

    Every single form of energy plant needs state subsidisation due to the huge investments required. The cumulative deaths caused by nuclear are significantly lower than other sources such as oil, gas and coal. Wind and solar are too unreliable to base an entire national energy grid on.

    30
    See 4 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:40 PM

    Thing is can Ireland afford the massive cost and subsidies needed to make Nuclear possible.

    Would it pass a cost benefit analysis. Going by international norms no it would not.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Donny Duck
    Favourite Donny Duck
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:15 PM

    When you’re all wandering around the country like zombies, dying from leukemia, just remember how much taxpayer money you all saved. Good to know you all have your priorities right.

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:30 PM

    Using oil gas and coal surely do have their downside for future generations (ie catastrophic and irreversible climate change and attendant problems with, um, staying alive), but so too does nuclear and I would be very wary – the waste is too long-lasting, the possible catastrophic consequences too horrific to countenance (especially in a climate-change raddled future full of conflict and societal breakdown). I feel a serious weight of responsibility now to take action in our lifetime to, quite literally, protect the right to life of future generations…

    I wonder what kind of people we are if we cannot give up our power showers, driers and foreign holidays in that space while we ARE building up our renewables for the sake of future generations… if we don’t act soon it will be too late to avert the worst possible effects for them :-(

    8
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 2:20 AM

    John with your stupid scare mongeering comments with out any fact you have just made any comment you make white noise

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Cillian Cahill
    Favourite Cillian Cahill
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:52 PM

    After the hassle Shell had trying to put down a pipeline, can you imagine the protests.

    58
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kevin Higgins
    Favourite Kevin Higgins
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:57 PM

    ‘Hassle’. Pay that place a visit and you’ll realise it goes far beyond ‘hassle’. People have been tossed into ditches, intimidated and abused by private security & the guards

    67
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:58 AM

    I’ve stated numerous times that Ireland should outsource and co late a reactor in the sellafield compound with direct interlinks a 2gw and .5gw would be suffice. Co action would drastically reduce costs and enable a much quicker startup without protests

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Bam Bam Mickey ®
    Favourite Bam Bam Mickey ®
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:49 PM

    Can’t we just develop a system that derives power from the farts of Brian Cowen? Dangerous as Nuclear power I know!, but we’ve got to try…….

    58
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John O'Brien
    Favourite John O'Brien
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:02 PM

    Sadly our system of parish pump politics will stifle any real debate on the subject. It could be the solution to the energy and climate crisis.

    51
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:19 PM

    The finance side will dismiss it.

    Nuclear plants are not cost competitive. If you want to go in to Energy you do so with most return for your buck.

    Nuclear looses out to most other energy forms and by some margin in that.

    Plants are being closed all over the world because it is not even remotely economically viable to keep them operating.

    Nuclear just can’t compete with other energy forms, not even close.

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kate McGoogoo
    Favourite Kate McGoogoo
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:39 PM

    This all sounds lovely the way you put it…
    But the reason people will shy away from nuclear is not as a result of what HAS happened… It’s the realisation of what CAN happen.

    46
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Limerick Ploy
    Favourite Limerick Ploy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:42 PM

    millions of people die from coal every year, tens of millions of other get cancers from coal, thorium nuclear power is the safest and cleanest power source.

    45
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kevin Higgins
    Favourite Kevin Higgins
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:55 PM

    How many have died from the combination of solar, wind and passive homes?

    41
    See 2 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kate McGoogoo
    Favourite Kate McGoogoo
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:04 PM

    Yes. They do. And it’s awful.
    But unfortunately that is the way most of our planet is powered right now so it’s not like we can just wipe are hands of it…
    I’d happily sit and discuss the tragic crippling coal industry, but this article is about nuclear. Not about a competition to which is worse.

    Side note: I also note this article works on a slight twang of misinformation… The fukishima event is still not over. They are still working on controlling the radiation release.

    22
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:53 PM

    We stay away from nuclear because we can not afford the subsidies and tax breaks needed to make it viable, among the biggest any industry receives especially in the energy sector.

    We do not have a market scale for nuclear so it will never make sense.

    Thorium offers mankind a great future but it still does not power a kettle.

    It is economics that is defeating Nuclear ultimately. Even in countries like China were they could care less about their people it is losing out to solar and wind and coal. Money talks.

    12
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter King
    Favourite Peter King
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:50 PM

    Won’t somebody please think of the children.

    34
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kevin Higgins
    Favourite Kevin Higgins
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:58 PM

    Next generation will laugh at our lack of consciousness towards future generations. Solar & Wind are future proof, safe and 20% cheaper each year

    43
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:21 PM

    Indeed Kevin – we need to be real careful at this stage – this is a massive moment in the history of human kind on this planet – paleoclimatology tells us clearly that decisions we make collectively within in the next decade will affect humans for thousands of years to come climate wise – The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Climate for the next 100,000 years (Princeton University Press) iterates this in chilling detail.

    For me, nuclear is far too unsafe… consider a future where we build nuclear and don’t do enough in the next few decades to reduce our carbon emissions as radically as we must – we will have the catastrophic effects that may lead to a breakdown of civilisation as we know it – big sea level rise and all sorts of other unforseen circumstances – including war and societal breakdown/civil unrest – that would mean we could not guarantee that a nuclear plant and its waste would be safe at all – not something I would want to bequeath to future generations.

    Far better to focus on energy conservation and renewable – this is a worldwide crisis and the issue of our generation – what we do, or fail to do in the next very short while will have massive consequences for generations to come – we must not let them down.

    14
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Eileesh Buckley
    Favourite Eileesh Buckley
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:51 PM

    Seriously, this is a country where the national aquatic center leaked, an NRA sub-contracted bridge had to have remedial works to stop it sinking… Until we stop having poor construction quality control there is no way that something as high risk as a nuclear power plant should be built in this country. What we should be doing is putting more effort into viable power generation from tidal & wave energy to develop both a renewable energy source and hopefully technology we could export.

    33
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 2:06 AM

    Absolutely look into tidal, but there’s no commercially viable product on the market

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Donny Duck
    Favourite Donny Duck
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:07 PM

    Is this a paid article for the nuclear lobby? Because it sure reads like one.

    First of all, yes I agree with the statements about coal. Problem is, just because one power source causes environmental problems doesn’t mean the alternative offered is the solution. We’re jumping out of the frying pan into the fire here and the fire is a helluva lot hotter.

    “There has been little evidence of an increase of birth defects or cancer being linked to the disaster, according to UNSCEAR, despite intense study over nigh on 30 years. Others have made claims that Chernobyl has caused almost one million deaths but such claims have been roundly debunked and rejected by the academic community.”

    This is total bunk. I know people who go to Chernobyl regularly and there’s a massive number of cancer sufferers there, among them children who were born with birth defects long afterwards. The Soviet Union evacuated the place pretty quickly and covered up a lot of the damage. Please supply a link to this academic community.

    “In terms of human cost, nuclear energy is only a threat when things go drastically wrong, which happens rarely and, in fact, nuclear energy has one of the best safety records.”

    Wrong again. Sure things are perfectly safe so long as everything’s running smoothly and safety standards are maintained. But what happens in the event of a natural disaster, a war or budget cuts and safety is compromised. Fukushima anyone? Ever hear of Indian Point, just north of New York City? The reckon all a terrorist would need to do is siphon out the cooling water into the Hudson and NYC will have to be evacuated.

    “When you get down to the cold hard facts, nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest method of energy production.”

    Wrong again. What about nuclear waste? There is NO WAY to clean up radioactivity. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years so once that gets into the environment it’s there FOREVER!!!! Other elements like Cesium or Strontium have shorter half lives but that just means more intense radiation for a shorter period. Once animals, plants and humans start mutating, anything is possible. Cancer rates will go through the roof. Problem is, cancer takes a long time to appear and so doesn’t register in the statistics. That doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    Thorium and Fusion are both still experimental and probably won’t be rolled out anytime soon. Solar power, on the other hand just got more efficient and should be bigger than ever next year. The real issue here is the coal, oil, gas and nuclear lobbies are terrified of solar and wind power because it cuts into their profits. That’s why I don’t trust articles like this.

    30
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Aisling O' Donoghue
    Favourite Aisling O' Donoghue
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:18 PM

    Your comment was a better read than the article

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:56 PM

    Brilliant and cutting to the chase – we have to act NOW with something that is SAFE for future generations and not be distracted by pie in the sky new technologies that may or may not work at some time within the next 50 years.

    It is not bloody rocket science – we know exactly what to do but it involves a serious personal, national and international commitment (a bit like in war time) to take on board the grave consequences of inaction for many future generations, the narrow window of opportunity to act that is the privilege of only OUR generation, and to do what is necessary – it will involve serious energy conservation in all areas of life and industry and investment in renewable energy. We can actually save a huge amount of energy without substantially altering our lifestyles – what we have now is utterly profligate use of energy that will badly hurt future generations – a kind of crime against humanity.

    8
    See 3 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 2:11 AM

    Explain what bad things happened in fukishma?
    What has Solar efficiency got to do with anything? Just build bigger plates. Solar doesn’t provide baseload at 5pm in the winter.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 2:14 AM

    The simple fact is that mliond of people Are dying each year because of oil. Iraq, Iran, etc plus those dying of bronchitis etc. Nuclear is still safer than fossil fuels

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Donny Duck
    Favourite Donny Duck
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 7:41 AM

    “Explain what bad things happened in fukishma?”

    Let’s see: Whole area being uninhabitable because of radiation (that costs TAXPAYER MONEY which seems to be everyone’s top priority on here), not to mention a laundry list of other problems.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

    How about radiation leaking into the Pacific ocean and poisoning fish and other wildlife as far away as California and Australia?
    http://www.examiner.com/article/fukushima-meltdown-2-underground-nuclear-explosions-at-crippled-plant-on-dec-31

    “What has Solar efficiency got to do with anything? Just build bigger plates. Solar doesn’t provide baseload at 5pm in the winter.”

    They’re working on that one. Look up Vanadium batteries:
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/vanadium-redox-batteries-could-balance.html

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul kenny
    Favourite Paul kenny
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:15 PM

    Hinkley point in the uk needed a minimum purchase price of 92gbp or €108 per MWh. Wind price in Ireland is €72. Nuclear is the most expensive, not the cheapest. That said I would prefer it to coal from money point, but there are many other better options. We should transition to 100% renewable as per professor David Connolly’s peer reviewed (fully costed) paper at http://dconnolly.net/greenplanireland/

    26
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:25 PM

    Indeed Paul – many many future generations are relying on US right NOW to keep them safe – we must not lose that chance – we have to take urgent action – for those who refute the scientific consensus of the world’s scientific community, there is nothing you can say to people like that, but for the rest of us – even those who are not sure – if there is even a chance of what the science predicts (catastrophic and irreversible – this means for 100,000 years or so – climate change) then how could we do that to future humans???

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 2:05 AM

    Wind has no price in Ireland its market bid in price is zero. This enables it to be accepted each time and obtains the SMP or REFIT price.
    Wind can’t add to our energy security and causes problems with regards to cycling of existing generating

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Daniel Jay Kay
    Favourite Daniel Jay Kay
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:13 PM

    We already have nuclear power plants close enough to Ireland. If they had a disaster we would be screwed anyway. I think its the future of electricity in Ireland. The renewable sources just aren’t happening. We should then put a 10 year roll out on petrol cars and with cheap electricity, we could be the first country to have only electric cars. Cleaner air, no destruction to bogs, less oil and coal imports.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:00 PM

    We don’t have the scale and we can’t afford the cost and subsidies needed.

    Nuclear is mostly state operated worldwide because it cannot survive on its own merits or efficiency.

    There are very few plants being built because it is not proving to be cost effective and it cannot take on other energy sources as an investment.

    It cannot and will not beat coal or gas in cost terms. It is now also losing out to modern solar tech. in most of the world.

    Nuclear is not going to happen because it doesn’t make financial sense.

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 2:08 AM

    Your missing the issue that we are at peak oil. We need an alternative to oil and gas and to date it nuclear can offer the baseload security that we need.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Brian Bergin
    Favourite Brian Bergin
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 7:59 PM

    Thorium

    20
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Stephen Murphy
    Favourite Stephen Murphy
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:05 PM

    Using the hammer of Thor, not a bad idea and you can smash atoms with it?

    8
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Thors Big Hammer
    Favourite Thors Big Hammer
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:26 PM

    We are a bunch of muppets in this country and totally irresponsible. I would feel safier with Homer Simpson in charge than an Irish person.

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Neal Ireland Hello
    Favourite Neal Ireland Hello
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:14 PM

    Chernobyl.

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Stan Smith
    Favourite Stan Smith
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:19 PM

    Cavan

    32
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mark
    Favourite Mark
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:14 PM

    Nuclear power plants like the one in Japan? Fukushima? Hell Yeh that power plant will be spreading cancer for the rest of this planets life.
    Ireland has enough winds and of course water this should be utilised. Nuclear energy will only spread cancer as ireland is enough cancer ridden now.
    Good luck

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute joe soap
    Favourite joe soap
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:41 PM

    surely the tsunami would wipe the country out before the nuclear.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Ronan Stokes
    Favourite Ronan Stokes
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:29 PM

    That pic is wrong btw, electrons don’t orbit the nucleus.

    14
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Vittorio Scardaci
    Favourite Vittorio Scardaci
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:36 PM

    maybe the author of this articles forgets a fundamental rule of nature: energy never comes for free. in the case of nuclear energy the price we pay is nuclear waste. what do we do with it? how do we dispose of it? we have no idea at this stage. provide a viable solution and we can reopen the debate.
    whoever speaks so much in favor of nuclear without mentioning the waste issue is not in good faith, or has a vested interest, or both

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Stack
    Favourite Tony Stack
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:22 PM

    The French will operate the plant and send the waste back to France .

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Sheik Yahbouti
    Favourite Sheik Yahbouti
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:58 PM

    Because it is not safe and can never be safe until we are much more technologically advanced.

    12
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mick Roach
    Favourite Mick Roach
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:08 PM

    Because we’re fcuking thick

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:38 PM

    Your thick, your family are probably thick as well, especially your parents who passed on the flawed genetic inheritance.

    The rest of us are just the same as most people all over the world.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Ronan Stokes
    Favourite Ronan Stokes
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 11:57 AM

    You’re.

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Caoimhghín Ó Tuama
    Favourite Caoimhghín Ó Tuama
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:51 AM

    Go over to Belarus or Fugashima and tell them off for their “irrational, emotional” dislike of nuclear power.

    Nothing that, when it goes wrong, can make entire regions of the world uninhabitable is worth the risk of pursuing.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Steve M
    Favourite Steve M
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:40 PM

    Don’t do it…remember Frank Grimes (or Grimy as he liked to be called).

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Robert Nugent
    Favourite Robert Nugent
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:51 PM

    The problem is too many people are ignorant and don’t understand nuclear power. Its has far less waste. Ireland will wake up when we have an oil crisis. Our 10% solar/Wind power won’t go far enough. 2 nuclear plants would make Ireland independent of Oil/fossil.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:01 PM

    The financial world understands Nuclear.

    It sees an industry that is beaten as an energy investment in every way.

    It sees an industry that will never be profitable, never has been.

    In America they are closing relatively new plants because they just don’t make financial sense.

    Nuclear would be great bar the fact it is financial lunacy.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Sheik Yahbouti
    Favourite Sheik Yahbouti
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:14 PM

    Yes, and we can bury the waste under YOUR house – your country thanks you.

    14
    See 3 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Robert Nugent
    Favourite Robert Nugent
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:16 PM

    Don’t compare 2014 nuclear plants with 1960 nuclear plants. Also we are not far off nuclear fission which has no nuclear waste.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute SeanieRyan
    Favourite SeanieRyan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:44 PM

    I’m talking about modern nuclear plants, they are more cost effective than older ones but still a joke in comparison to all else.

    Nuclear fission is exciting and offers great potential.

    However even the most modern current design nuclear plants do not make financial sense.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Sheik Yahbouti
    Favourite Sheik Yahbouti
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:38 PM

    Bollocks, we have been waiting for fusion reactors for fifty years, and they are always “just around the corner “.

    12
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute James Mcguinness
    Favourite James Mcguinness
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:30 PM

    The irish running a power plant?….. We cant even run a country, it would be worse than chernobyl!

    8
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Aisling O' Donoghue
    Favourite Aisling O' Donoghue
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:10 PM

    The difference between death toll numbers in Chernobyl and mine workers is that a huge number of people who suffered lasting effects and are contaminated are civilian population. There are an estimated 4,000 cancer related deaths associated with Chernobyl. There are still higher cancer rates in huge areas around the site. Mine workers make the decision to work in the risky profession where many people who suffered effects from Chernobyl didn’t get to make any decisions. I’m not against nuclear power though. Sustainable energy all the way! Just need to make sure everything is regulated fully and inspected frequently, like radiation levels in soil/water, waste management systems and explosion prevention measures. Still wouldn’t like to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.

    8
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute brian magee
    Favourite brian magee
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 2:17 AM

    Chernobyl was a freak accident that wont be repeated. It was under funded, under maintained and ran during g a shutdown

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Donny Duck
    Favourite Donny Duck
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 7:45 AM

    Actually it will be repeated. There are thousands of reactors just like it all over the former Soviet Union. It’s just a matter of time before another one blows.

    Then there’s the little matter of terrorism and that half the Soviet Union is made up of little republics that want to break away and impose Sharia Law while murdering each other just for fun.

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute ChemRobb
    Favourite ChemRobb
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 9:41 PM

    Right now, we should be considering the infrastructure necessary for a hydrogen economy in the future. Till then, Europe should invest heavily in thorium like China and India.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:39 PM

    But it is completely uncertain that thorium will ever be a viable source of energy! And even if it is, it will take many decades to develop. Nor is it without its own problems. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html

    We have to act in the very short term to avert the most catastrophic and irreversible effects of climate change, and as far as I know there simply are no magic bullets anywhere in the pipeline as realistic alternatives within the next 30 years or so.

    The really frustrating thing is that we know what we can do to safeguard future generations – we need to prioritise energy conservation and renewables. That is all we have to hand at the moment that is safe and really will work until these futuristic energy sources do become available and viable – if they ever do…

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute ChemRobb
    Favourite ChemRobb
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 7:27 AM

    I wholeheartedly agree that we need a solution for the short term. My own thoughts are that we should be investing in energy storage for our national grid rather than just constantly producing electricity in our power plants and wasting whatever we don’t use.

    However, I don’t agree on your outlook and opinion of thorium based reactors and the link you provided is from a website who’s agenda seems to be against nuclear power at any cost so there’s no balance in its criticisms. Thorium is not perfect but it will be far safer than current uranium fission.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mindfulirish
    Favourite Mindfulirish
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:37 PM

    As soon as Brown Envelopes are passed over to our people in power Nuclear will be a great way forward. Right now it is the turn of the friends of the people in power to make Millions from pylons and destroying the countryside in the process. Next big money maker will be Nuclear. Corruption and a few past Civil Servants win again. Lowery led the charge and the next generation are making more.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Boy
    Favourite John Boy
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 10:59 AM

    Anyone with any doubts about nuclear power should watch a documentary called “Pandora’s Promise”. It was put together by 5 / 6 nuclear energy skeptics who openly admit that they were completely wrong about nuclear power.

    I’ve always been pro-Nuclear energy, but even I was surprised by some of the information and misinformation that’s bandied about by pseudo-science and the oil / coal / gas companies. There’s some very surprising analysis of the “information” about Chernobyl, how many people have actually died, global background radiation level in comparison to near nuclear plants, how ineffective “renewable” energy is (for example wind power is backed up by gas power for when it doesn’t work, i.e. no wind). In America, 13,000 people die annually as a result of the Coal energy industry, since America opened it’s first nuclear plant, there have been 0 deaths related to Nuclear Energy, that’s 0 deaths since December 1957!!!!!

    Fact is Nuclear energy is, clean, safe (when done right) and creates virtually no waste (for example France produces 80% of it electricity through nuclear and all the waste thats been produced since 1973 is stored under the floor in one room that’s about as big as your average house) fact is it’s a no brainer. All the scaremongering is coming from the industries that nuclear energy directly threatens. That’s a Billion / Trillion dollar industry you’re threatening with your clean safe energy, how inconsiderate!

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Random Punter
    Favourite Random Punter
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:55 PM

    Well said John Boy.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute iluvkief
    Favourite iluvkief
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 8:15 PM

    Christy Moore. The house down in Carne.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle O Riordan
    Favourite Michelle O Riordan
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:36 PM

    No..terrible idea

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute PaoloFreire
    Favourite PaoloFreire
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 7:25 AM

    This is the second article with exactly the same tono on the Journal in about three weeks. Are ye being paid to lobby for this industry? This article is a joke as it is based on a false premise ‘Nuclear Vs Fossil Fuels’, thus negating the entire renewable sector, which would make energy production more sustainable, secure and democratic if given time and resources.

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Pat Lonergan
    Favourite Pat Lonergan
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:09 AM

    Because this is fuc”ing ireland plain and simple as that!

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Henry K. Barton
    Favourite Henry K. Barton
    Report
    Aug 30th 2014, 2:13 PM

    I guess aneutronic nuclear fusion energy that is to be truly cleanest, cheapest, and safest option to supply mankind’s future energy needs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8n7j5k-_G8

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Frank
    Favourite Frank
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 10:40 PM

    Nuclear Energy is great and efficient……..but as long as it is not in my back yard…

    Anyone remember this?

    http://www.u2theearlydayz.com/uploads/3/1/6/1/3161617/6774100.jpg

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Random Punter
    Favourite Random Punter
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:57 PM

    Frank, that website doesn’t allow hotlinking to images, so no one can see what you’ve posted

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul
    Favourite Paul
    Report
    Jun 15th 2014, 11:07 PM

    Very very interesting article, I almost 100% agree. My view is that we used nuclear power too early, before really learning on how to contain and control it. There was a case in Long Island where a research reactor was leaking radiation and this was causing massive amounts of cancer deaths in an area. Very interesting debate, which regrettably as explains above people irrationally dismiss it.

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Henry K. Barton
    Favourite Henry K. Barton
    Report
    Jun 21st 2014, 8:45 PM

    Beyond D-D fusion there p-B11 which is neutron-free.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8n7j5k-_G8

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul Rocks
    Favourite Paul Rocks
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 12:55 PM

    Fact is that the money spent on a big nuclear plants could put a state of the art solar panel on the roof of the majority of households in the country. It’s a fact that all big plants waste a huge portion of what they generate, even the most efficient ones. We need to take a good look at micro generation as a real means of addressing the energy issue.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Michelle Rogers
    Favourite Michelle Rogers
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 3:36 PM

    Well said – it’s not all about taxes – it could be about our government working to secure our energy future and paying to put solar panels on houses, paying for insulation for all non-insulated houses to be insulated and a rake of other energy efficiency measures in homes and industry. We need to get serious about this energy crisis.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Vince Petruzzelli
    Favourite Vince Petruzzelli
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 3:05 PM

    Right, ’cause nuclear energy doesn’t require any mining? The article conveniently leaves out the deaths and pollution caused by mining necessary to fuel these plants!

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Cyrille Bonnard
    Favourite Cyrille Bonnard
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 9:29 AM

    Ireland is a small country. If a nuclear accident happened, are people ready to see a third of their country contaminated for years? Look at Tchernobyl and Fukushima! Nuclear accidents are rare but they happen. It seems common sense not to go this way.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kerryleigh Canning
    Favourite Kerryleigh Canning
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 10:02 AM

    Or you know we could start putting our well needed money into renewable energy? Solar panels? You can whack them on Damn near everything, what’s the story with hydro power plants? Why are people not more concerned about clean, renewable energy without waste or major concern from any collective. Ok I will admit wind turbines have a few negatives- but they’re not the only option for clean, green energy.
    There’s not actually enough electricity being generated for our own country yet we’re selling land for future turbines- for other country’s!? Where is the logic?

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Random Punter
    Favourite Random Punter
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 1:53 PM

    Hysteria, that’s why we continue to reject it.

    Also nobody wants a nuclear power station in their backyard and due to the ridiculous one-off housing policy implemented by the planners everywhere in the country is someones backyard!

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Halloran
    Favourite Dave O Halloran
    Report
    Jun 19th 2014, 7:52 PM

    Because if a coal mine goes off it causes Big Bang and lots of smoke. Nuclear power station goes off and it’s not worth running for cover because your skin may melt off as your running?

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute kingstown
    Favourite kingstown
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 9:05 AM

    Time for a national conversation about this. Oil and gas keep rising due to instability in the middle east and with Russia’s invasion of its neighbours.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute seamus mcdermott
    Favourite seamus mcdermott
    Report
    Jun 16th 2014, 10:54 AM

    We need more power because we have too many people. We have passed the point where the planet can sustain our numbers. Food, water, electricity, waste, CO2, oceanic pollution, mass extinctions—all can be laid at the feet of our enormous success at the thing we do best. We can breed.
    It’s possible that we may have already tipped the balance to where we cannot recover no matter what we do.
    Warming melts the tundra, trillions of tons of methane are released. Warming goes runaway. We are Venus.
    Maybe not,
    Ireland isn’t a major factor in this, but we do have the highest birth rate in Europe.
    Maybe if people had one or two children instead of five or six or eight or ten, we can reverse the overpopulation. But it is going to take more than Ireland. If we wise up, we won’t need more power stations. If we don’t, it doesn’t matter how many power stations we build, the problem will remain.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Cian O Criodain
    Favourite Cian O Criodain
    Report
    Jun 17th 2014, 9:59 AM

    Referenda*

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute owen m
    Favourite owen m
    Report
    Jun 19th 2014, 12:34 PM

    We dont reject nuclear. We import nuclear energy everyday from UK.

    1
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.