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.
The Daily PollIN AN INTERVIEW with the Irish Independent newspaper today, Energy Minister Alex White said that nuclear power needs to be looked at as part of a debate about Ireland’s energy needs.
He said that in order for us to end our reliance on oil and gas, the nuclear option must be considered.
Energy
In today’s poll, we want to know what you think? Is it time that Ireland consider nuclear power or should we never go down that road?
Or do you think that our reliance on imported oil and gas may force us to look at nuclear energy?
Poll: Should Ireland consider nuclear power?
Tell us your thoughts in the comments section below.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I made a submission to the Energy White Paper thing and promoted nuclear energy. Specifically nuclear energy based on Thorium which is incredibly safe plus the fuel is abundantly available.
It can also safely recycle old-style nuclear waste so we could generate massive income from that.
A small Thorium-based nuclear power station could provide the power needs of the whole republic, we would be energy independent and making money from recycling old nuclear waste.
A Thorium-based power station could be hit by a missile or a place and would not leak any radiation.
The reason why we ended up with Uranium etc-based nuclear power was because the powers that be wanted the materials to produce nuclear weapons, you cannot create nuclear weapons from Thorium-based nuclear power, in fact it’s the opposite, Thorium power stations can safely destroy the materials needed for nuclear weapons.
Many people don’t realise this but many of the rare earth materials used for producing ‘green’ power technologies actually get those materials from current nuclear power by-products.
If the government wanted they could have such a power station up and running in a decade.
That’s ‘plane’ not ‘place’.
Your idea is good but it won’t happen anytime soon. There’s no country which is currently able to build a thorium based power plant on an industrial scale. All the projects are just research and I’m not sure if Ireland has the expertise to build that kind of power plant.
Id say we’ve a load if it on our sea floor, or am I wrong?
Thorium reactors ran for 6 years until funding was switched to the use of Uranium and its production of Plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Thus the military needs of the two ‘great powers’ at the time set the production of cheap reliable energy back 50 years.
This may be a silly question but what happens if/when we get a nuclear station and it is shut down for maintenance as all power stations are at times, do we need a second nuclear station to keep our national grid at the necessary output? Or are we expecting the stations that have shut to become operational again.
The problem is, Noel, people will moan that idea down to the ground without listening to what you’re saying. There would be posters of Chernobyl and Fukuushima victims under the banner “is this what you want for Ireland?”
Let’s see a study into the dangers of electricity pylons running through residential areas, show people a real environmental problem.
I am completely against Nuclear power as it is currently generated – but Thorium is a different issue …
But don’t mind the nuclear – ask yourselves why is that we haven’t a gas powered generating station in Belmullet – apparently the gas yield is massive – to shell in the house of commons at any rate !
Great idea, but all the big decisions in this country are totally guided by the ‘brown-envelope’ principle,
so, we could end up with a second-hand radioactive timebomb imported from Iran by one of Edna’s gang.
This article is more to do with softening Paddy’s attitude to Nuclear power so enough of us won’t object to Uranium extraction in Donegal –
I base this contention on the “Green Minister” Eamon Ryan not signing to refuse the extraction of Uranium …… he lost all credibility with that one and anyone who votes for him after that is a cretin !
I will add the main problem with Nuclear power as it currently exists has more to do with concrete and its weakening over time – If we built one in Ireland the problem is that some half baked intellectually impaired crony would probably build it out of Pyrite – “sure what harm is it !”
If they were to build a nuclear power station I’d imagine they would have a few reactors do that they can power down one for maintenance while the others are still supplying power to the grid.
and there are about 6 different private fusion reactors under development that are claiming to have a viable commercial reactor in the same time frame that would produce energy for a lot less, and have even less radioactive waste and it will be just as safe.
Why not invest in some of the most promising fusion companies (e.g. General Fusion and Tri Alpha) and get a share of the potential profits instead of developing a technology and competing with the Chinese who have pretty much all of it worked out at this stage.
Ireland produced 12 % more electricity than it required last year – why all the talk of Nuclear ?
Noel there are different types of Thorium reactors, the one you’re referring to is a molten salt reactor. You can produce thorium reactors which work by using a traditional pressurised water reactor too.
Noel I’ll be honest with you I would be intuitively opposed to all nuclear power however if what you outline about Thorium is true, you make a good opening case. There are a lot of new faces commenting here in favour of Nuke power which I am understandably a little suspicious of. To put it bluntly, if it is so good why isn’t everyone using it? For example why would anyone object if Iran used Thorium if it can’t be used as a vehicle to make weapons grade material. If something sounds too good to be true….well?
Expertise is hired in easily.
@Finn
“This may be a silly question but what happens if/when we get a nuclear station and it is shut down for maintenance as all power stations are at times, do we need a second nuclear station to keep our national grid at the necessary output? Or are we expecting the stations that have shut to become operational again.”
Eirgrid carry out generation adequacy assessments every year so this situation will be well covered for. It would be advantageous if we built 3 SMRs (200MW each) rather than 1 big nuclear plant, that way only 1 or 2 will go out at a time like the current Moneypoint setup. A bit of light reading for you :
http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/10/is-there-energy-bubble-in-ireland.html
“When it comes to keeping the lights on in the depths of winter, you can’t rely on wind energy, and that is why Eirgrid have written off 85% of the installed wind capacity on the island.”
http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/11/eirgrid-publish-winter-outlook.html
“Ireland produced 12 % more electricity than it required last year – why all the talk of Nuclear ?”
because that extra power came when we didnt need it
There is significant debate on the “improvement” of using Thorium.
@Finn Bowe. If shut down for maintenance of refuelling, it will be in summer when demand is less.
china is makeing on one at the moment
There is still the hope of wind and water generated power in this country. But the thing is, the planning in this country is a joke. They were to put wind turbines a mile out at sea and people complained they would be an eye sore. Always some one to complain
You cannot reply solely on wind power for the nation, or we would end up using the inter connector to import almost everything from the UK at a cost
Perhaps you would like to live in dark ages ?
I ber Jason O;Neill does not hold a degree in Science, maths or engineering. I never ceases to amaze me why people will do so much to save the planet except take a course in science. Wind is a novelty, discounted by trial 100 years ago, all that changed is the advent of coalition government with junior partners niche agendas. Destrutive and silly. See EPAW and NAPAWP and val martin ireland you tube myth about win d energy
The poll should be “Do you REALLY trust any Irish government to do nuclear power safely?”
Spot on
My thoughts exactly amy… If not done correctly we could end up with a disaster like chernobyl
I’m just wonder why Alan Kelly is pushing it? Which crony is lobbying behind the scenes for the contract to build and / or operate this plant. Our experience so far with Fianna Fail, Labour and Fine Gael is that no major infrastructure project is built without a CRONY built in to it in the first place.
“There is still the hope of wind and water generated power in this country”
No anybody who has actually researched the facts rather than spin knows this is ludicrous statement unless you want us all to live in the dark ages like Green Party
Our banana state in charge off a nuclear reactor ?
Please it will given to dob and a couple of ex politicians on the board
Francis,
Sinn Fein will be in Government next year. Minister For Energy, in charge of the nuclear power plant, will be…, let’s see, maybe Dessie Ellis TD, or perhaps Martin Ferris TD.
So, NO, Ireland should NOT consider nuclear power
Finally Ireland thinking of looking to secure energy future!!!
Well at least competent people would need to be hired – and salaries offered for such responsible (public sector) jobs would be attractive… Ireland would be as safe, if not safer, than any other European country. Plus planned facilities would be newly designed and state of the art…
I hope they do better j
Jesus lads if you can’t even put a sentence together and you confuse “off” with “of” then you’re hardly fit to criticise
no engineers will be in charge of it
Yes the pig is a magical animal Lisa
MurphEy- The bad speller –
I think that if one takes the time out to examine the policy of SF on this subject , that they are firmly against utilising nuclear power in Ireland, due to its inherent risk to health.
Give the contract to Denis O’Brien & Irish Water !
We are bound to have a Chernobyl then.
Hey David Murphy (little F-Fine-gaeler)…. At least Sinn Féin would put a vitally important issue such as this up for referendum – not ram it down our bloody throats as this crowd would surely do.
SF are a party of uneducated morons supported by a similar cohort. That’s why they are opposed to NP and Water Fluoridation.
One thing Ireland can do is to become much more energy efficient. Ireland, especially households, are very wasteful when it comes to energy.
Stick it up in Donegal, they are always giving out the gov does not invest enough up there :)
Doug, the survey only asks if we should consider it. If after it has been considered it is not the best option then we won’t do it, but surely it merits proper consideration along with all other options?
Of course we should not only consider it but do it. At least we would be energy independent. Not relying on the UK.
At a huge cost Kevin, you would not be happy if bills soared way up. Businesses would not be happy either
Not only would we end dependence on the UK Kevin, but we could be independent of oil/gas rich dictators in Russia and the Middle east and their volatile whims.
Great, where do you get the uranium from?
Canada and Australia
So instead of importing oil/gas/coal we would import high cost Uranium and become reliant on those exporting nations to power an expensive nuclear reactor?
Plus the high exporting costs of the waste that it will produce as we pay the French/Japanese to take it away to dispose of it?
Energy independent? Where’s this uranium mine you think exists in Ireland?
Well I mentioned Canada and Australia because they are the second and third largest sources or uranium respectively. Now I’ve never been to those places but I get the impression they’re more reliable trade partners than Libya, Russia or Iraq. Likewise France and Japan are more reliable for waste disposal. Nuclear energy allows the reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel for more energy generation so if you import fuel you get a bit more bang for your buck. Also we could do a bit of research on thorium which is 3.5 times more abundant than uranium and could be an even more reliable source of nuclear fuel in the future.
Fiachra, i admire your determination for Nuclear. Firstly, we dont mainly use Russia,Iraq and Libya for most of our current needs, its done via a huge risk assessed mix, based on best cost, namely..Canada,USA,Colombia,Norway fuels, we dont use much middle eastern, except Gas from Qatar. Your friends in Canada,Japan,France and Down under are extremely expensive to work with so costs would go way up.
And if you want to gamble the future of our nations power needs on a fuel source that is still in development, then that’s not really a great argument for the countrys future. For the next 50 years at least, we (Ireland) do not need our own nuclear facility
Well despite recent decrease in oil prices the general trend will inevitably be up especially with oil hungry asian economies rapidly on the rise. To not even consider nuclear energy alongside other sources would be incredibly short sighted. No country is truly independent, the closest we can get to it is through diversification of our energy sources, I’m not advocating nuclear reliance.
I’ve exceeded my comment quota on this article beyond which I just get annoying even to myself, I think I’ll finish now.
There is a legal process for this which was completely bypassed by the Green Party when they prepared the NREAP. We have the Aarhus Convention and SEA which if complied with will assess nuclear and all options correctly.
Thanks Fiachra, and i agree it should be looked it, but not needed in the near term.
Our dual is now over.
Comments closed. Hail Coal/Oil & Gas with wind every other day that there is a gust
Why don’t start relying on wind and wave energy? Surely there’s more than enough wind here in Ireland, and if you built off shore wind farms, then no-one could complain about the ugly windmills ruining the beautiful countryside of Ireland, which I think would be a major argument against land based wind power plants.
I’ve seen it back home in Germany, where they went crazy and erected these things every furlong or so, that’s definitely overkill, off shore though, that’d be perfect, just not sure how efficient it is, but it’d sure beat nuclear energy, which, at least in my opinion can never be 100% safe, and also, there is the question, what to do with the burnt out nuclear material?
Wind does not deliver the constant and reliable power we need nor does wave/tidal power.
wind is already costing a fortune
Uranium in Donegal actually !
Dollar-a-barrel uranium comes mainly from a few countries: Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan.
However, *three*-dollar-a-barrel uranium has experimentally been extracted from seawater.
There is no cost Darren. Only savings. Let a private company build it . France is currently paying 11 cent per kilowatt.
No cost Darren just let a private developer build it. France pays 11 cent per kilowatt.
Darren you only need a small amount of uranium. It would be a fraction of the cost of oil And almost certainly we have uranium in Ireland as well if it was legal to mine for it!
Samuel, there are almost certainly deposits of uranium in Ireland. Certainly companies have looked for it in the past and found areas where they think there are viable deposits. Of course it would have to be legally permissible to mine for it in Ireland.
“And if you want to gamble the future of our nations power needs on a fuel source that is still in development, then that’s not really a great argument for the countrys future. For the next 50 years at least, we (Ireland) do not need our own nuclear facility”
we are going to have to embrace nuclear when the fossil fuel runs out so much better to do it now than rush into it and do it wrong later
“I’ve seen it back home in Germany, where they went crazy and erected these things every furlong or so, that’s definitely overkill, off shore though, that’d be perfect, just not sure how efficient it is, but it’d sure beat nuclear energy, which, at least in my opinion can never be 100% safe, and also, there is the question, what to do with the burnt out nuclear material?”
Larissa, you know as well as I do, about offshore wind in Germany. Offshore wind is turning into a very expensive mistake in Germany
Spiegel: Germany’s Large-Scale Offshore Windpark Dream Morphs Into An Engineering And Cost Nightmare
Nuclear is about 18 times more efficient than wind is when everything is counted :
http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
(see graph on last page)
Plus nuclear is dispatchable and can be used as baseload, unlike wind which requires a duplicate system
Now hang a second they can’t plug leaks in the water system and they want to talk about nuclear power FFS!
You need money to plug leaks. And what happens when they try to raise money?
@Silver P. The leaks should have been fixed under Reynolds’, Bruton’s, & Ahern’s watch.instead they eyed it greedily as they cynically allowed it to be run down and readied it for privatisation. Money for builders to build motorways & money to give to people who already had money to save aka SSIA’s but not enough to fix a few leaks or replace lead piping? Give me a break.
For all the negative publicity that surrounds it, nuclear is far more environmentally friendly then fossil power. As the worlds supply of fossil fuels runs out, and the damage to the environment from the use of fossil fuels becomes increasingly apparent, we may be running out of options. But maybe we should consider allowing an independent body to set it up. Someone who has some experience, and certainly not anyone with any connection to Fine Gael.
Uranium resources last approx. 60 to150 years. Not really an alternative.
Thorium 2000 years.
Of course during that time we will abandon all research, invention and innovation and time will stand still.
Even 60 years of CO2-free power production could be the time we need to develop a real sustainable alternative, like nuclear fusion.
Monissen, your comment is complete nonsense. There’s an enormous amount of Uranium on Earth.
There have been 2 major nuclear incidents firstly Chernobyl happened in the USSR a notoriously negligent state that no safety procedures in place and couldn’t even feed it’s people properly. Fukushima happened after the most powerful earthquake in Japanese history occurred, a country with a long history of earthquakes. In fact according to WHO the chance of radiation induced illness from those living the Fukushima area is extremely low because the Japanese evacuated them quickly:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf.
There are 435 nuclear reactors running perfectly in the world talk of doom if we build one is complete fear mongering, and guess what burning fossil fuels has caused far more deaths than the nuclear disasters. We should increase wave and wind power but they’re too unreliable to depend on completely and too costly to maintain not to mention the opposition every time turbines are erected. We have to consider nuclear energy.
Your points are valid. Fiachra. And they have re-inforced my reticence against the plant. Nothing against Nuclear power. But like Chernobyl it would be run by a government that bases everything on money, jobs for the boys, no experience in anything. So a disaster would be imminent. You can be guaranteed some half eejit county council county manager would be put in charge because he licked ar$e somewhere along the line.
What about Three Mile Island?
What about Three Mile Island Larissa ?
Three Mile Island in the USA was not in any way a disaster and the community around was not affected. The safety systems worked. That’s about it on that scare.
Still radiation was leaked to where it shouldn’t have been and the health of the public WAS affected, minimal as it may be, it still was and it rates a 5 on the international nuclear accident scale, accident with wider consequences, so explain to me, how a partial meltdown counts as the safety systems worked?
Actually, the Fukushima plant survived both the earthquake and being stuck by the tsunami – as it was designed to. The meltdown occurred because water got into diesel pumps in the plant.
It’s always the little things. And we do have water in Ireland, don’t we?
As you say, Fiachra, there are 435 plants world-wide. There have been 2 Fukashima / Chernobyl level accidents. That’s a 1/217 chance. For comparison, this is about the same odds as having a specific pair (e.g. two Aces) in poker.
And even if the plant runs without accident, it still begs the question what to do with the nuclear waste, it’s not as if you can just dump it on your garden variety compost heap.
New generation nuclear power stations will produce only about 10% of the wastes from current UK reactors, thorium reactors can deal with that and produce power at the same time.
The coal ash currently produced by German power stations is highly radioactive, where is that being composted?
Larissa you are exposed to low levels of radiation every time you fly on a plane, or eat a banana, or breathe in air they have little to no affect on you. If everyone was so worried about how radiation can cause cancer why not look at drastically reducing those chances by stopping binge drinking,eating processed food and smoking cigarettes and lets save the planet from global warming.
The people most exposed to radiation by far are smokers. They breathe in radioactive Polonium.
Charlie, any nuclear plant in Ireland would be run by one of the major electric utilities, safely. Drop the self loathing please.
This is insanity! I have to think that the poll results so far that show “yes” leading with 58% have to be skewed – likely by early-responding supporters of the 1%ers who time after time try to infer chaos in order to slip their agendas through.
To start 1. Fukushima 2. Chernobyl 3. Three Mile Island
Then 4. Transporting nuclear fuel 5. Storing nuclear waste for at least HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years
Not to mention 6. Vulnerability to terrorist attacks
All of this IN THE FACE of hugely abundant wind and wave energy that surround Ireland.
When we moved to Ireland in 2006 (we’re now citizens) it was the end of the Celtic Tiger. I constantly told people I came to know, “Don’t imitate the US model – it’s a disaster!”
I say this again, though it’s far more than the US as a model. “Don’t do this! It’s nothing buta disaster for the people and is simply another get-rich scheme for the 1%ers.”
Just look at our water situation, for example. Haven’t they played us enough?
The problem is that because of the huge campaign against nuclear power the research tends to miss out on a lot of funding.
Nuclear energy is more than likely our energy of the future and I’m sure one day there won’t be any of the safety issues we have today. Nuclear fusion versus fission for example.
No one died in Fukushima, nor is anyone expected to die because of it. You sound typically American When you state terrorism as a reason not to invest in nuclear power. This is Ireland, the world doesn’t hate us. When was the last time a french/british/german nuclear facility was attacked? And you’re assuming we’re talking PWR power plants, why could we not try to set up a functioning Thorium molten salt reactor instead? Next to zero chance of explosion, can be shut down completely at the first sign of trouble, and the waste is easier to handle and is very difficult to weaponise, making it less of a target. These sort of debates really should be left to people who have the relevant education.
I’ve a couple of issues with your,I’ll informed post, Doug.
Comparing a new Power plant to the three you mentioned is a bit like expecting a brand new Toyota to have the same safety record as a clapped our fifty year old Trabant, so it is not applicable in this. Now if you had compared it to the excellent safety record of a comparable Country, such as France, we might be getting somewhere.
Secondly on your point about storing waste for HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of years that us no longer true. Excellent work has been done recently on thorium breeder reactors, which use their own waste as a fuel source. The half life of the highly radioactive waste is around 1000 years, and this makes up around 1% of all the waste produced. The added benefit is that Weapons grade fissile material is not a waste product if Thorium reactions.
Finally, on your comment read renewables. I am speaking as someone that is highly in favour of renewable and Green policy in general. The main problem we have in Ireland at the moment is energy storage. It’s all well and good saying 48% of our energy needs can be met by wind power, until you look at the fact that when there is no wind our energy needs are provided for by Moneypoint Coal Station. Are you aware of the amount of Radiation that a coal plant spews out? Because it’s far in excess of anything from a Nuclear power plant. That’s before you even get to the greenhouse gas emissions.
you dont know anything about nuclear thats obvious from your post. Have you even heard of an SMR ?
Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and Fukushima were all old type nuclear reactors. New modern reactors are very safe. Believe it or not, nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy creation. Yes when things go bad, there are horrendous consequences but that is so rare. More people die while drilling for oil and gas and mining for coal than people die of radiation from nuclear melt downs. There are no carbon emissions from nuclear plants which also should be taken into consideration since we are paying carbon tax (for no reason in my opinion)
Nuclear is at the end of the day…extremely expensive, wind is a nice to have option. Gas and coal are the future for the next 50 years and then the situation needs to be reviewed again. At the moment it is not viable for Ireland.
Not a single death reported from a nuclear accident in the UK in more than 50 years’ operation. The safety system worked at Three Mile Island in the USA and the community was not affected. The Chernobyl disaster caused the deaths of some 56 people but its reactor had already been widely criticised in the West where it could not have been licensed. New designs of reactor are safer than ever before.
We must learn from Fukushima by not building it anywhere where it’s likely to be hit by a giant earthquake and Tsunami in quick succession. Is there anywhere in Ireland that fits the bill?
Moneypoint is the best place. Replace the coal plant in 2025 , it already has 2 400 kva powerlines
They all dump radioactive water back into the sea and one in the U.K. dumped it into a river used for drinking water.
Yes I’m a lay person without expertise on the subject. In tangential areas, such as terrorism, which one comment disregards due to my being a “typical American,” (stereotyping really helps move along the discussion) I point out the fact that Shannon Airport has been a transit point for rendition flights – many involving Muslims, making Ireland a possible target for terrorist strikes for groups such as ISIL.
But to bring a higher level of expertise to the discussion, consider this paper re the use of thorium:
As for the limitations of wind and wave power, technology continues to develop, and while it may not cover all energy needs, there is much room for improvement. I only mentioned them as two obvious alternatives.
I always thought thorium would be a good thing to power a sterling engine using the properties of how a sterling engine works?
Wave power is great but the fact is wind turbines only work half the time as there is not always wind to power them and some wind turbines give off infra sound which causes ill health. Wave turbines using wave energy has wave movement 24 hours a day and a force that no wind can supply.
With IS any non Sunni Muslim is a target also but Shannon is believed to have been used as an airport used for rendition, many who never came back alive, remember the recent 520 page report was an edited version that had 6700 pages and Shannon would have been mentioned in that I’m sure. The biggest threat to us is Britain’s nuclear power plants as they are getting too old as well as the British government getting new nuclear plants being built for them by China. Britain is a target for terrorist before we will be but we are very close but yet France would be more of a target than Britain and they have most of their power got from nuclear. Remember a nuclear plant was not used for power, its primary function was to make nuclear grade plutonium for nuclear bombs, the heat as a by product was only used to make steam like a steam engine powering a turbine.
You’re such a moron
If you want to make a comment please tell me what is wrong with my statement unless you just make childish comments to people that don’t share your own beliefs. If there is something you don’t agree with please let me know, thanks.
Stepping aside from people griping about Irish Water…
Is this even practical in Ireland?
A nuclear reactor isn’t a standalone piece of equipment.
There’s also reprocessing of the waste material (which also provides Plutonium, which implies a 2nd reactor). Then there’s the storage of nuclear waste.
You need scale to make a nuclear industry work and we don’t have the scale to justify several reactors.
This all changes should commercial fusion become possible, but since I was a kid, commercial fusion has been 25 years way.
You can picture the Jobsbridge advert looking for nuclear plant operatives.
Plenty Homer Simpson’s out there to take the jobs
Well Chris you have a fair point but Slovakia and Finland have similar populations to ourselves and they seem to be able to operate them. If a reactor plus the supporting infrastructure was to be built, it could be built to the scale required by the country. It could be done by experts from countries such as France which have a long history of successful nuclear power, to allay fears of Irish cowboy builders.
I’ll take irish labourers over french labourers any day
How about English labourers? The French never had to change the name of one of their stations.
Windscale/Sellafield? Come to think of it wasn’t there an ‘incident’ at Trawsfynydd also?
Chernobyl aside, how many people have died as a result of nuclear power generation? It’s a lot less than other generation techniques, especially coal. It is one of the safest, cleanest, most cost effective method of power generation available. Waste disposal could be subcontracted to the UK or France, both have a very mature nuclear waste and processing facilities. Wind power is not really a sensible solution to long term power needs, they are a green placebo – on many occasions, especially during the winter there is *too* much wind for them to work! And they are uniquely intrusive. Go take a look at the view off the east coast of England if you need convincing, these are nowhere near as efficient as they are claimed to be. Hydroelectricity is great if you have a lot of lakes and mountains and you don’t mind a countryside littered with dams. Tidal power is the great unimplemented possibility but this in itself has huge problems – take a look at the Severn Estuary Tidal Barrage proposal and the impact it would have on the environment. Nuclear fusion is the holy grail of power generation but don’t hold your breath. Realistically, options are limited for mainline power generation; Gas, coal or nuclear. Or back to candles and turf.
Only about 50 people died as a result of radiation from Chernobyl.
Well the danger and hassle free installation of water meters around the country went off without a hitch, so I’d totes trust us to set up and run a nuclear facility.
Totes to the motes.
Are you saying water metres are dangerous somehow?
There should be an open and honest debate, where all relevent information is gathered together, where expert opinion is given, where the public is consulted in keeping with international planning and environmental law, when all the pros and cons of each energy supply system are listed and considered and then there should be an independent cost benefit analysis carried out in a completely transparent manner. The end result must be in keeping with the 3 elements of sustainability so we end up with an energy policy that is economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable. This is not true of our current energy policy, which was never subject to an independent cost benefit analysis, and has been adjudged by UNECE as being in breach of international environmental and planning law. The reason for this is that it is a developer led plan mired in cronyism as a result of a cosy relationship between developers and politicians/state decision makers.
most definitely we need nuclear power.
We need a New Government – but that seems to be a no-go as well – but sure such is life !
The ESB HAS BEEN VERY PROFESSIONAL AND COULD BE WELL TRUSTED TO MANAGE NUCLEAR ENERGY GENERATION
The ESB could be trusted. You couldn’t trust Eirgrid though…bullies and cowboys. ..rotten to the core with corruption and rife with cronyism. .
If we can’t manage water, why would we even discuss the option, we need to take stock of our abilities as a race of people, stop waffling, stop listening to it and most importantly, stop heeding it, our own brand of it and everyone else’s
That comment doesn’t make sense
“Take stock of our abilities as a race of people”, Donie. I think you’ve been listening to too many old style British comedians over the years and taking their Irish jokes too seriously. We’re not all the gobsh*tes we’re portrayed to be.
It’s a no brainer, if it is economically advantageous then we should build one. And yes I would happily live next door to it.
There was a time when Labour would have opposed the idea of nuclear power. Now they seem to be promoting it. Labour is certainly a party of change, betraying everything they stood for.
“needs to be looked at as part of a debate”
promoting?
Reading is not your strong point.
“end our reliance on oil and gas” the alternative being nuclear power. Promotion of nuclear power in debate.
So are you promoting reliance on oil and gas?
Yes D. God forbid any political party should ever change its mind. Once you have a policy you must stick to it for ever. Sensible people and sensible political parties change their minds. It’s called adopting to the world.
Ireland is a nuclear free zone.
The only changes since that decision was made 30 to 40 years ago have been a few plants exploding, loads of leaks and loads of LIES by the nuclear industry.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NON NON
Please buy a brain and have it installed
Nuclear free zone?
Must remember to inform Cancer patients their treatment has been postponed.
Yes Alex, where did you buy yours? I bet they don’t do refunds
Alex, can you give me one simple answer? Where will be the nuc waste stored?
In Ireland? In Europe? The world? Did you know that there is still no officially storage in the world, it is just “temporary”. Did you know that costs for this are not to found in energy costs calculations? And did you know that uranium resources will last at least 60 to 140 years depending on price and consumption? I am sure you know, cause you are the one with the brain.
Nuclear waste vitrification. Google it. And with regards you absolute bolloxology figures of fissile material depletion in less than 200 years, you obviously know nothing about how radioactive decay occurs.
Any university should sell you one for about 12k with a 4 year installment plan.
I had to give u a like fur that reply
if its affordable it would be a good energy hedge, 10 years worth of fuel could be stored on site which is more secure than relying on Russia or the Middle East. Relying on Britain is still risky as they are not going to turn of the lights in Manchester to keep them going in Dublin
We have our own Thorium as have most countries.
I’m totally opposed to nuclear power, if the Japanese can’t do it safely, what hope do we?
The Japanese put their nuclear stations on the shoreline and the diesel engines to maintain them just a bit above sea level in a tsunami prone country. You would think they did not have a hill in the country. Mad. Germany feared the same would happen theirs inland miles from the sea. You have to realise the technology has improved. But there is plenty of coal, gas and oil. So no need to worry
The risks are too great. Think of the damage that could be caused by just one incident. Onshore wind seems like a sensible option as we have lots of it and although the turbines are contentious, they are much safer.
How can people say yes? I lived for most of my life near two major nuclear power plants in France. While, it did not prevent me from sleeping, I was always aware that an accident can happen, no matter what! And they do happen, even if most of the time they are small. But a major accident in Ireland would sign the end of the country. Would any of you accept to live on half the island? And nuclear waste, France has so much that they don’t know what to do with it! Where are you going to store it? In the sea? Surely, there are better options for Ireland than nuclear power.
Can you provide details on this waste please? Fact would be nice, not opinion.
Nuclear power produces only 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of all the UK’s hazardous waste production.
Well, have you heard of the nuclear waste plant of La Hague in Normandy where the treat nuclear waste? I can tell you there have been a lot of accidents happening there. Fishermen don’t fish the sea around the plant.
Also, when a nuclear power plant has reached its end of its life, what to do with all the waste? Actually, no country knows what to do except waiting that someone finds a solution. As it is said below, you are too naive!
If ALL your energy came from NP the total amount of high level waste in your life would be the size of a bar of soap. That can be put back where it came from, in the ground.
More people have died this month alone from the indirect effects of coal burning power plants than in the entire history of nuclear power.
While getting all of our electricity from green energy is something to aim for, this is an impossible feat in a capitalist economy without using nuclear as a kind of methadone to get us off the heroin of fossil fuels. And that’s coming from a far-left radical green.
This opposition to nuclear power (and GMOs while we’re at it) among many environmentalists is just silly and ungrounded in science.
More like, more have died in the last hour….see
As we are a small country I doubt we would need it, if so maybe a few small plants or one large one, nuclear energy is very much safe these days, France has loads of nuclear power plants and nobody minds going there on holiday.
Thorium Reactors can be mounted on a 40′ trailer, these will be a massive benefit to remote area in Africa where people die because they have no electricity
Small Module Reactors come at around 200MW so perfect
Nuclear power has billion of Euros in hidden costs, from security to waste disposal, etc. etc.. The fuel for it (Uranium, etc.) is becoming scarce. Accidents do happen, and are almost impossible to remedy. Germany is getting out of it and there are LOADS of safe renewable alternatives, Wind, hydro, solar, etc…. Nuclear power is madness, and only a money-making racket for a few unscrupulous companies.
Nuclear power production is lumbered with costs foisted on it by bed-wetters and politically driven zealots of the green religion, even the overalls worn by staff at nuclear power stations is classed as nuclear waste.
PS Germany has only mothballed it’s reactors, they are now using filthy brown coal to produce power [wind has failed to deliver btw] and as we all know coal produces lots of ash. Radioactive ash.
The power generation that releases the most radiation is coal.
There is not loads of hydro, that is a myth in a flat country. Wind farms are net consumers of electricity when counted accurately over one year and Solar is useless. There is a good sensible alternative. Continue as we are doing now. Never let us down and never will. We export 120 million in goods and 60 million in services annually and we begrudge the Arabs and the polls just over 1.5 billion for fuel to make power. Yet we have no issue with buying cars, TVs, and oranges and dates from these same countries.
Why do we want to deny a living to those with fuel, have we to be self sufficient in everything?
I’m undecided on this one. On the one hand, it is probable that we’ll have to go nuclear, but I have no faith in anyone doing anything properly. The building of a Nuclear Power Station would have to be flawless, perfect, no possibility of cracks, leaks, disasters…………. well, considering we couldn’t even build a water-tower near the airport without it leaking………………!
Well you have “no faith in anyone doing anything properly” so forgive me if I dismiss your pessimism as being emotion-based rather than rational
@Silver. The N6 by pass bridge over the Shannon? Took Dutch hydrologists to save that one. The National Aquatic Centre’s leaking pool? The subsiding M7 north of Toomevara? That’s three of the top of my head. All emotional of course, never happened.
Ten, you think infrastructural problems only arise in Ireland? Grow up. They happen everywhere.
As country we are still to naive to go nuclear. We would end up a nuclear waste ground for the rest of the world. And all for a pat on the head from the big powers.
Its a moot question it would never be funded……. Ever…. Unless EU decided in a distopian future that our little remote outpost was a good spot to produce power for the rest of Europe.
Anybody who thinks Ireland should not have a Nuclear power plant is an Idiot.. Plain and Simple
I reckon you don’t have a nuclear physics background but I suppose that does not make you an idiot, plain and simple perhaps!
Sad to see this being considered and all the nonsense being spouted against renewables. Last month, Scotland’s renewables produced 110% of that country’s energy needs. The difference is in terms of investment in core infrastructure and a government commitment that actually means committed to deliver not committed to reissue press releases year after year.
As for the economics of nuclear, massive state subsidies are demanded by the power companies/investors. Can’t wait to add the nuclear charge onto the water charge, the social charge, ……..
Japan and Germany are moving away from nuclear power after the disaster in Fukushima …… The news doesn’t seem to be reporting about the possible leak at the nuclear plant in Ukraine last Sunday !!! We will be exporting !!! That’s right exporting our wind generated electricity to the UK … And they are still considering nuclear power?? What are these idiots in Leinster house thinking
With Germany’s renewable energy feed-in act, and with the very volatile sources of sun and wind, today’s German power grid has become a precarious balancing act, and keeping it from collapsing under the load of wild fluctuations has become a real challenge. Already in 2014 there have been 3500 emergency grid interventions. The frequency of emergency grid interventions has skyrocketed since renewable energies started coming on line. Thus the power supply in Germany is no longer secure enough. In 2012 600000 Germans could not afford to pay their electricity bills and were cut off http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/energie/article13879599/Hunderttausenden-Haushalten-wird-der-Strom-gesperrt.html that number has risen to 800000. A brief check will show that German industry is in serious trouble due to high cost and unreliable power and most of the big energy users are trying to escape. BASF for example, and there are many more.
Yes, Scotland’s commitment to renewable energy is a sterling example of what CAN be accomplished when there’s a will to do so. It’s good to see voices like yours entering this exchange; I believe much of the support of nuclear power comes from zealots who are fascinated by the industry; it’s very tempting to go with what seems like a foolproof method on the surface.
The Union of Concerned Scientists makes note of the high risk of nuclear power, and the paper I cited in another comment, which I’ll re-cite here, addresses the Thorium rebuttal frequently put forth as a “safe” alternative.
Well said. We already have all the nuclear power we need – stored 93 million miles away. It’s up to us to meet the challenge to find ways to use that power. Why haven’t renewables “done the job” yet? Largely due to proponents of fossil fuels & nuclear power doing everything in their power to hold them back. We’re up to the challenge, if we will muster the courage to do it.
You get more from Solar. If you put a solar panel in for every meter of space you would need for a nuclear power plant, you get more power. A plant needs a no go zone around it so it is huge, look up a video by Elon Musk, he was only talking about it a few months ago.
Hawaii and California would seem to be ideal for solar compared to rainy Ireland and look what happened to them.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/4686/Hawaiirsquos-Future-Abandoned-Solar-Farms-Clutter-California-Desert.aspx
Damo, you just made that up didn’t you? Admit it.
Yes Damo, I am currently working on a solar powered torch.
Mort, there seems to be an idea circulating that industrial wind turbines and solar panels save fossil fuel in significant amounts for electricity generation. Where did that idea originate? No one seems to know.
Note I place Eirgrid in posts to attract their monitoring. Eirgrid
Do we need a chernobyl disaster to here??? Cos thats a possibility…
It’s only a matter of time!!
We already consume electricity imported on grid from UK where a percentage is generated by nuclear power stations
However the location is critical ;
I would prefer to see one built near Malin Head as opposed to southwest (for eg sample) due to prevailing winds
Take that, Scotland!
I think we will have no choice but to do sides nuclear fuel. It’s problematic as I wouldn’t want to live near a reactor but I think in order to become self reliant we will need nuclear power plants. I think we need to start planning now . We will need properly trained personnel and will need to look at proper courses and such to ensure our employees are homegrown and we are not farming out jobs . It could be a good area for employment and education too but the planning really has to start now . I don’t mean little nun jets by poluticans to plants in other countries I mean by the people who actually know what they are talking about. We need to keep poluticans as far away from it as possible .
Ah lads, SF says No! However I suspect this is because they don’t have any nuclear physicists amongst their membership.
could you please provide the names and qualifications of the Nuclear Scientists within the ranks of F.G., F.F. and Labour Proinsias – just so we can make an informed opinio0n as to which Political Party is best qualified to deal with the issue …..
Happy New Year by the way !
Sorry unable to comply due to data protection legislation!
Dermot I’m pretty sure there are many scientists and engineers who are members of and support those parties but I would be surprised any Scientists would support SF. Just look at the calibre of those who support SF.
Your remarks are a perfect storm of ignorance and petty snobbery. No problem guessing your political creed.
TM, “petty snobbery”??? Explain why SF voted against Water Fluoridation then? It’s nothing to do with snobbery. SF are the party of the scientifically illiterate.
Come on Ten Major. Why did SF vote against Water Fluoridation if they are not the party of the scientifically illiterate???
I wish that Irish politicians would engage in actions rather than words. It is too easy to call for a “debate” without actually taking any hard decisions. Calling for a “debate” or a “national conversation” is the coward’s way out for our leaders. It is a way of avoiding the obligation to take big decisions and just do things in the national interest (when such important decisions and advances are not being forced on them by foreign entities, of course!).
Our politicians were elected to lead, not merely to follow focus groups or newspaper editorials. Alex White is actually in Government, and is actually the Minister for Energy! It is not as if he is merely a backbencher or a member of the Opposition.
What would be impressive is if our elected leaders (those who were elected to take these sorts of economic/energy decisions in the national interest) actually went ahead and did it with regard to what would be greatly beneficial projects such as nuclear energy. British politicians took these decisions, without fuss, decades ago. Why can’t we?
Is it April fools day? Morons
Yes so long as it is not put in Ringsend
No way should Ireland ever consider nuclear power. Accidents will happen. Look at the disaster that was Chernobyl, then Fukushima and now at the Zaporizhya Nuclear Power Plant in south-eastern Ukraine. You may not know about that one yet because it is being kept from the news. If a release of high levels of ionizing radiation were to happen in a small country like Ireland it could render the entire island uninhabitable indefinitely. In my opinion that is too big a risk and one I’m not prepared to take.
apples and oranges , how old was this ukranian technology, 30 or 40 years built with dodgy commie technology. And last time I checked Ireland isnt a high risk earthquake zone
The Chernobyl disaster caused the deaths of some 56 people but its reactor had already been widely criticised in the West where it could not have been licensed. Meanwhile Russia is to build 24 new Nuclear Reactors for India who in turn are at an advanced stage in building their own Thorium Reactor.
John, you know nothing about NP. Correct?
@William Grogan:
“John, you know nothing about NP. Correct?”
You are correct William. I don’t want or need to know how they work to know that IF there was a leak of ionising radiation of a serious level that Ireland would be finished and that, in my opinion is too great a gamble to take. I don’t need to be a motor engineer to appreciate the dangers associated with the driving of a motor car so I think your statement above is irrelevant.
Excellent response John. We have a number of comments here using the tactic of ad hominem attacks against people who “aren’t nuclear power experts.” (discredit the messenger, but not the message). For me these attacks display the weakness of their position, no matter how much expertise they may claim for themselves.
John & Doug, you are both wrong. If you know nothing about NP you are not in a position to judge the dangers. The people who are, the scientists and engineers, do not think NP is dangerous. Burning coal and the likes killed hundreds of thousands of people yearly. NP kills almost no one. You are like many people who are ignorant of NP, you have an irrational fear of radiation. Radiation is not as dangerous as you think. Bananas are radioactive. You have a trillion atoms of radioactive Uranium in your bodies. You get a highish dose of radiation every time you fly. See below if you want to learn something about the subject you are commenting on. This web site is written by an expert on radiation and health.
@William Grogan:
“If you know nothing about NP you are not in a position to judge the dangers”.
William, the above statement is true however, in the event of a leak, however caused, this is my problem. I know of nothing that can be demonstrated to be 100% safe and that an accident could NEVER happen. I remember the oil tanker explosion in Cork many years ago that was really massive. After it was over and the damage caused was repaired, no further harm was caused. If that had been a nuclear problem then we would be still experiencing problems for generations to come. Modern aircraft are exceptionally safe but we still have disasters. It doesn’t matter if it was caused by human, technical or terrorist causes, it can and will continue to happen. My points are that I believe that the long-term risks far outweigh any benefits we may receive.
John, Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. If you read up on the accident you would know the plant under no circumstances would be licensed in the west. Fukushima is about 40 years old and was caused by a cat 9 earthquake (the largest ever recorded was 9.5) and a 20m+ tsunami.
Probably only 3 people (killed in the chemical explosion) would have died because of Chernobyl if the fire-fighters had radiation protection suites and the Communists hadn’t tried keep the accident a secret and didn’t hand out to their children the Iodine tablets they had. No one will die from radiation in Fukushima. So what are you ACTUALLY worried about?
56 deaths. But death is not the only consequence of nuclear accidents:
Doug, your link is just someone’s opinion and worthless. There are several downright lies on it. There is NOT ONE case of a deformity from Chernobyl. NOT ONE radiation caused miscarriage. The WHO used what is now a discredited model to calculate Cancers. It’s too complex to go into in detail but in a nutshell. It was once though any dose of radiation caused some probability of Cancer, the higher the dose the higher the risk. It’s now known that below a certain dose there is no risk. We live in a radioactive world. We can put up with low doses. There’s even evidence that it’s beneficial. The 4,000 figure had ABSOLUTELY no basis in science. What it really was, was a guess to what the highest number of cancer cases might be. To put it another way. They could not calculate lower than that. To put things in perspective in Belarus alone about 2,000,000 will die from smoking.
You can’t just read a web site and believe what it tells you. The web has almost certainly more quack web sites that factual web sites. You need to understand the topic in detail. You don’t.
PS your link also talks about Peak Oil. That’s a laugh with oil now at $50 a barrel.
The following link is to a scientific book on the Chernobyl accident. I suggest you read it.
http://books.google.ie/books/about/Chernobyl_Record.html?id=O36UC03ODtcC&redir_esc=y
PS Something a lot of people don’t know. For ten years after the “disaster” at Chernobyl, they continued to generate electricity from the other reactors on the site.
William,
Your ad hominem attacks are juvenile and disrespectful. Comparing radiation in bananas to that which would be released in a nuclear power plant accident is idiotic.
As for your “expert,” Wade Allison, from whom you suggest that we “learn something” about radiation:
&
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/28/deconstructing-nuclear-experts/
Based on your manner of posting, the ridiculous comparisons you raise and the fraudulent “expert” to whom you refer us, I seriously question your motives for your posting. You seem well in the pocket of the nuclear industry’s denial squad, or, at best, you yourself have a great deal more to learn about the effects of nuclear accidents, be they accidents or terrorist attacks.
Having looked through Amazon for some other books on the accident I came across this summary of another book:-
The Chernobyl accident’s severe radiation effects killed 28 of the site’s 600 workers in the first four months after the event. Another 106 workers received high enough doses to cause acute radiation sickness. Two workers died within hours of the reactor explosion from non-radiological causes. Another 200,000 cleanup workers in 1986 and 1987 received doses of between 1 and 100 rem (The average annual radiation dose for a U.S. citizen is about .6 rem). Chernobyl cleanup activities eventually required about 600,000 workers, although only a small fraction of these workers were exposed to elevated levels of radiation. Government agencies continue to monitor cleanup and recovery workers’ health. (UNSCEAR 2008, pg. 47, 58, 107, and 119) The Chernobyl accident contaminated wide areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine inhabited by millions of residents. Agencies such as the World Health Organization have been concerned about radiation exposure to people evacuated from these areas. The majority of the five million residents living in contaminated areas, however, received very small radiation doses comparable to natural background levels (0.1 rem per year). (UNSCEAR 2008, pg. 124-25) Today the available evidence does not strongly connect the accident to radiation-induced increases of leukemia or solid cancer, other than thyroid cancer. Many children and adolescents in the area in 1986 drank milk contaminated with radioactive iodine, which delivered substantial doses to their thyroid glands. To date, about 6,000 thyroid cancer cases have been detected among these children. Ninety-nine percent of these children were successfully treated; 15 children and adolescents in the three countries died from thyroid cancer by 2005. The available evidence does not show any effect on the number of adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery complications, stillbirths or overall health of children among the families living in the most contaminated areas. (UNSCEAR 2008, pg. 65) Experts conclude some cancer deaths may eventually be attributed to Chernobyl over the lifetime of the emergency workers, evacuees and residents living in the most contaminated areas. These health effects are far lower than initial speculations of tens of thousands of radiation-related deaths.
William,
Do you have a link? Thanks in advance.
Here’s the details of why Wade Allison is an expert, “Wade Allison is a Fellow of Keble College and Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford where he has studied and taught for over 40 years. …. He was educated at Rugby School and Trinity College, Cambridge where he studied the Natural Sciences and Part III Mathematics. His graduate study at Oxford and his earlier research work was in high energy physics, in particular the radiation field of relativistic particles, but his interests and expertise have spread much wider into medical physics and the explanation of science to the wider public.”
He was the Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford. What are you?? Read his book and come back to me.
Quoting an opinion from someone unknown from the Japan Times is worthless. You might as well quote the Daily Mail. It’s typical conspiracy theory nonsense. “It’s all a conspiracy by the Nuclear Power Industry”, it says.
As for Tatsuhiko Kodama, what did he say other than attack the Japanese government’s reaction to the accident? So what’s new politicians are idiots. The most stupid thing they did was to evacuate too many people.
PS The radiation released from the radioactive Potassium in Bananas or from the Uranium in your body, the walls of your house, the rocks you walk on and the Polonium from cigarette smoke is EXACTLY the same as from a Nuclear Power accident. We live in a radioactive world. Did you even know that?
PS I just realised the link you gave us to the Japanese Times was to a letter written to it by a member of the public.!!!
PPS I looked up the guy who wrote your “counterpunch” link. He’s called Chris Busby. An obvious fruitcake. See what the Guardian says about him. (PS The Guardian is a lefty anti-Nuclear paper)
Here’s a damning review of Busby
Busby’s claims were later assessed by professional scientists working for the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit at the NHS, whose role is to record and analyse the incidence of cancer and monitor any trends in its occurrence.
They published their assessment in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Journal of Radiological Protection. Their paper reported a simple and devastating finding: there is no such cluster. Busby’s claims, it seems, were the result of some astonishing statistical mistakes:
• He counted the overall leukaemia incidence for Wales twice
• He mixed up the figures from urban areas with those from small rural areas, “trebling the local incidence in north Wales” and creating “spurious clusters in various locations”
• He claimed there were ten cases of leukaemia in young children in Snowdonia. In reality there was just one case
Worst of all, the paper says:
• “We found clear evidence of data dredging which renders all subsequent statistical inference spurious … the dataset has been systematically trawled.”
Sorry to go on but Busby is a straight up con artist.
See this
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima
An excerpt
The Green party’s former science and technology spokesman is promoting anti-radiation pills to people in Japan affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster, that leading scientists have condemned as “useless”.
Dr Christopher Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster, is championing a series of expensive products and services which, he claims, will protect people in Japan from the effects of radiation. Among them are mineral supplements on sale for ￥5,800 (£48) a bottle, urine tests for radioactive contaminants for ￥98,000 (£808) and food tests for ￥108,000 (£891).
The tests are provided by Busby Laboratories and promoted through a body called the Christopher Busby Foundation for the Children of Fukushima (CBFCF). Both the pills and the tests are sold through a website in California called 4u-detox.com, run by a man called James Ryan.
William,
I notice you didn’t include the link I requested.
As for your fixation on bananas:
http://boingboing.net/2010/08/27/bananas-are-radioact.html
Re Wade Allison: I could show you resumes of many professors of many subjects that look most impressive indeed. What isn’t posted on their resumes is information about what industries fund their studies.
You are a fraud. All your bluster and posturing is for nil. Your only “defense” for your positioning is your claim of expertise, again with NO documentation. From your further comment I’m more convinced that you’re a Nuclear Industry denial troll. I trust that others who read your comments will come to this conclusion as well. Take your bullying tone and go away.
As for your ad hominems, which you seem to have no control over, if they continue I’ll ask whoever monitors these comments to deal with you about it.
Doug, I put a link to the Amazon book which is what was referred to in my previous post. What link are you looking for?
Doug, you state that you support the Green Party on Twitter and yet the Green Party has now distanced themselves from their previous spokesman, Busby, who is selling fake supplements. So what is it you support Busby or like the Green Religion you will now distance yourself from him.
Is an attempt at censorship the best you can now offer?
I’m a fraud??? That’s hilarious. You’ve tried to support your position by linking to a letter to a newspaper and to a completely discredited con artist who is trying to make money from frightened people in Japan by selling them “useless” supplements.
Here’s another demolition of Busby.
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/bad-science-chris-busby-and-his-articles-on-fallujah/
PS I’m a Systems Analyst and I have absolutely nothing to do with the NP industry. But that’s a standard conspiracy theorist’s statement. You oppose them so you have to be on the payroll of someone.
PS Where’s the “ad hominems”?
William,
You’ve addressed a number of different issues in a few different comments. In no particular order I’ll respond to them here.
First, re the “missing link” to the Amazon book review. When I posted my response I wasn’t aware that you’d posted the link in a different comment. Multiple comments seem to get scattered around in this forum, at least for a while. So that was a systemic issue. When I went to the link there were no reviews there. I had thought that was where you got the review. It’s actually the review to which I’d like the link.
You have a problem with my posting a comment from a member of the public. Your comments are made as a “member of the public,” but you don’t seem to mind that yours are referred to.
As an aside, you refer to the Guardian as a “lefty anti-nuclear paper.” I’d prefer to keep this discussion to the issue at hand. If we drift into the broader “left/right” arena that’s going to mire it down into a political morass. FWIW the very fact that the Guardian printed this review seems to temper your label of “lefty;” they’re certainly making room for an opposing view.
The ensuing review about Busby will certainly send me back to look further into his credentials and his practices. Your further citation is even more damning; again, I’ll check him out more thoroughly.
Re the Green Party issue you raise. Yes, I support much of what they stand for. That doesn’t mean I fall lock-step in line with everything they say or do. Again, I think politics is best left out of this discussion. Nuclear power is a very political issue of course, but the topic of whether or not Ireland should have nuclear power is more than enough to deal with without adding in the smoke & mirrors of politics – ALL sides of politics.
You point out that it’s dangerous to post someone’s opinion. “Doug, your link is just someone’s opinion and worthless. There are several downright lies on it. There is NOT ONE case of a deformity from Chernobyl. NOT ONE radiation caused miscarriage.”
You illustrate your point very well, because here’s a study that makes your assertion seem worthless, and possibly filled with downright lies.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html#01.01 This link is not an opinion from “the public.”
You go on to say “You can’t just read a web site and believe what it tells you. The web has almost certainly more quack web sites that factual web sites. You need to understand the topic in detail. You don’t.”
What I do know is that I’m not prepared to believe everything you tell me. You need to disparage anyone “not an expert” and then very authoritatively state “what is truth” with statements that other experts refute.
BTW, the other book you recommend (which I obviously haven’t read yet) by Mould is given a short review in which the following is said about his book: This book gave me the creeps in parts, honestly. I’m too young to have witnessed Chernobyl firsthand, but the way that Mould depicts the accident, it seems like there was so much negligence from so many people. This shouldn’t have happened, and it’s chilling how much citizens were affected – forced evacuation within a day of the accident, EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH LEVELS OF CANCER AND BIRTH DEFECTS, not to mention the psychological traumas.
Another refutation of your claim of not ONE case of deformity, coming from a source you gave me.
Yet another quote of yours – “PS The radiation released from the radioactive Potassium in Bananas or from the Uranium in your body, the walls of your house, the rocks you walk on and the Polonium from cigarette smoke is EXACTLY the same as from a Nuclear Power accident. We live in a radioactive world. Did you even know that?”
Here’s a quote from a link I sent you. It’s made by Geoff Meggitt—a retired health physicist, and former editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection. Meggitt worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and its later commercial offshoots for 25 years.
“The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body’s level of Potassium-40 doesn’t increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero.
And that’s the difference between a useful educational tool and propaganda. (And I say this as somebody who is emphatically not against nuclear energy.) Bananas aren’t really going to give anyone “a more realistic assessment of actual risk”, they’re just going to further distort the picture.”
Finally, you close with this: “PS I’m a Systems Analyst and I have absolutely nothing to do with the NP industry. But that’s a standard conspiracy theorist’s statement. You oppose them so you have to be on the payroll of someone.”
First off, I didn’t claim that you or Allison has taken funding from nuclear power entities; I did however want to make it clear that that practice isn’t a stranger in academic circles. It is very alive & kicking.
The Conspiracy Theorist label has been used over and over to try to bury opinions of people who disagree with an idea. Label me as a conspiracy theorist, complete with tinfoil hat, and your job is done.
And now it’s bedtime and I’m done.
Link to the Amazon page giving an overview of the book.
I didn’t say it was a review by a member of the public. I said it was a summary. In fact it’s on one of the first pages of the book. It’s an accurate statement of what happened.
My point about the Guardian was that EVEN a lefty anti-nuclear pro-green paper exposed the con artist, Busby, you put forward as an expert. He is totally discredited within the scientific community and is selling fake supplements.
NP is not a political issue. It’s an engineering issue except to those most responsible for Climate Change, the Green Religion. It’s your opposition to NP that has Germany dramatically increase the burning of coal and the hard left idiot the French president Hollande stating, because the Greens are in his coalition, that France will reduce its use of NP from nearly 80% of electricity generated to 50%.
Regarding deformities etc.. I’m quoting the WHO organisation and scientists. You quote an anti-Nuclear Doctors group. The document you link to makes statements unsupported by any links. The following paragraph contradicts other paragraphs in your linked to document
“In 2011 the UNSCEAR committee declared: On the basis of studies carried out during the last 20 years, as well as of previous UNSCEAR reports, UNSCEAR has come to the conclusion that the large majority of the population has no reason to fear that serious health risks will arise from the Chernobyl accident. The only exception applies to those exposed to radioiodine during childhood or youth and to liquidators who were exposed to a high dose of radiation and therefore had to reckon with a higher radiation-induced risk.”
Are you aware that the World Health Organisation clearly said that the greatest damage done to people by Chernobyl was frightening them? They were made to fell “contaminated”, with dodgy sperm, dangerous to be around, due to die early from Cancer. And who created this fear. The Green Religion. It’s the Green Religion that you support did the most damage and you’re at it again in Japan led by Busby, who’s coining it from the fear he and your lot are generating.
I could spend more time responding to your claims. For example, the group I quoted re Chernobyl was an anti-nuclear WAR group. You conveniently left out that important modifier.
But frankly this is a waste of time. You’re only going to continue to pose, lie and obfuscate, not to mention attempt to discredit everything I say. You pose as more of an expert using clearly one-sided sources regarding the use of nuclear power, witness your adherence to Allison as a nuclear guru. He’s a professor at a university with ideas. There are many professors at many universities with ideas.
Let’s agree to disagree and leave it there. I won’t be continuing this, I have other things to do that are more pressing. I suppose you’ll end with a comment of how I couldn’t take the heat and have run off with my tail between my legs. The truth is that I knew what I could be getting into with you, but I had the hope that maybe you’d have more to offer than the discrediting, bullying BS you fill your comments with. I see now I was mistaken, and that spending time with someone of your ilk just serves to keep your presence active. I know you’ll stay and post, regardless. But at least I won’t contribute any more to it.
Arguing with you Green Religion types is like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. Like all religious people you can’t learn. Logic means nothing. Knowledge means nothing. Science is relative. In the meantime you fight against the ONLY solution to Climate Change, Nuclear Power.Your ignorance is destroying the planet.
The Government cant do water so no i would not trust them looking after a nuclear plant!!!!
Nuclear power is a bit like abortion here. We say that we don’t want it , but are quite happy to let the UK provide it to us when the need arises.
Nonsense. It kills far, far fewer people.
We are very good at that.
An Irish solution to an Irish problem!
Yup, let’s do it and I know just the man for the job. He’s doing great things at a little-known company called ‘Irish Water’. He had previously played a blinder at an incinerator project and city-centre regeneration project in Galway.
Anyone care to guess who that might be?
Thorium is the way to go. India has about 25% of the world’s known thorium reserves. India plans to have a 300MW Thorium prototype in operation by 2016. China plans to build the first fully-functioning thorium reactor within ten years.
Thorium enables a passive (fail safe) design, not the daft Chernobyl design where the control of the nuclear reaction was dependent on an external energy source (electricity generators!) … which failed …. daft engineering design.
No no no no no no NO! Moma Mia Moma Mia let me go…….
So, I’d like to say ‘Yes’, but then I think about the possibility of an organisation of the competence levels of say Irish Water being responsible for a nuclear power plant.
One thing which is in great danger in this country is the Dail seats of Fine Gael and Labour. Labour seem to be facing a wipe out which bears testament to the intelligence of voters. Alex White wants to be Minister for energy but says electricity generation is not in his brief. So he can go to Eddie O’Connor for votes because no one else wants him. He accepts rural dwellers are worried, but deliberately denies them their rights under the law. He is not fit for the heat of office so he should get out of it.
These idiots would drown a goldfish look at the water debacle also Ireland is the back door to England a nuclear power station could be attacked in order to get at England with us viewed as collateral damage
The UK has many more nuclear and other much more interesting installations that would be targeted before anything here. This is just paranoia.
It depends on whether you’re talking about fission or fusion. Nuclear fission is safer than most forms of energy, but it isn’t economical for a country as small as ours. We’d be better off helping the British build a new reactor and purchasing megawatt hours off them.
i vote Yes because it’s a reliable and safe form of power generation BUT the economics behind building a Fussion reactor are enormous. For example the UK (Hinkley Power plant C) they estimate construction costs to top 16 Billion Stirling (€27BN) and this is for the older style Fission reactor. On this sole basis Ireland will never have Nuclear power.
So what should we look at……Wind na we already have maxed this, Wave it’s economies of scale mean it wont produce enough energy to make it affordable, Solar just isn’t capable due to it’s poor performance efficiency of about 30%. (decent for a home but not mass production)
A combo of all 4 could be used to help with the production of Hydrogen to be used in Hydrogen Fuel Generator Stations\Hydrogen Fuel Cell Automobiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Power
MPower in the UK are investing big money in this
http://www.mpoweruk.com/hydrogen_fuel.htm
the technology has made massive leaps in the last 10yrs and with some of the biggest Automotive companies launching Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars this year it has to be looked at as the power generation choice for Ireland.
Use the existing infrastructure to power the Hydrogen processing plant and from there use the Hydrogen to reduce Oil dependency in cars, Gas\Coal dependency in power generation.
Start selling Power to the UK and Europe instead of buying it in
We are naive if we think we should not go nuclear .
If we did we would save billions of Euro PA.
How can there if we have signed up to the Zangger Committee, also known as the Nuclear Exporters Committee of 1970? It is still legally binding?
Alex White is talking rubbish as befits him being a member of an Irish government. Germany have reversed their nuclear policy following the Japanese nuclear disasters and for Ireland to consider such a policy would be ridiculous.
Peter Germany did reverse their nuclear policy and told us they would replace it with wind energy. Then they discovered the wind did not blow all the time and had to open 17 new coal fired power stations since. They import a lot of nuclear power from France. Alex White appears to be worried about our campaign to land every pylon and wind farm into court. It will seriously hold them up. A small nuclear power plant in Money point would be a good thing but its an optional extra. I expect that if the legal ban on nuclear power is lifted, I may buy a small micro nuclear plant for the farm. I accept the technology is not here yet, but it is coming. Just like a mobile generator. Sir James Lovelock suggests I could make a heap of the waste in the dung hill on the farm. Seem risky to me but he insists its not.
Ireland should exhaust its wind, wave, solar, natural gas, and geothermal capabilities before it ever considers nuclear. The problem with nuclear is not its emissions, but the fact that it produces radioactive waste..Where on this tiny island do you propose storing or burying the waste? And considering examples from elsewhere in the world, including America, we know that storage is fraught with problems and serious health concerns for those living nearby. The Irish Sea is radioactive enough, no thanks to British nuclear plants. Ireland needs to say no to nuclear and lead the way with renewable technologies.
unfortunately we dont live in Utopia. Renewables are not alternatives to fossil fuel or nuclear.
Sorry to break it to ya.
Well said!
Actually, they are. All that is required is a shift in subsidies from the latter two to renewables.
…And it is those who think we can keep going on climate-altering fossil fuels and DNA-altering nuclear plants run on a finite supply of radioactive material that are delusional. Renewables by their very nature of limitless input and output of energy and no emissions or waste are the best way forward.
Can anyone tell me what do we do if we build a nuclear power station and as expected it is undergoing maintenance at some stage ,do we depend on a 2nd nuclear power station to keep output up?
Genuinely question
Tried replying to the replies to what I posted but The Journal seems to be holding them or else I can’t see them even though I’ve used their app and three different browsers.
There’s a bug in their app.
A bug that makes it look like your comment wasn’t posted.
Agree that nuclear power is a viable option for the future but I do not believe that an Irish nuclear plant should be either designed operated or managed by Irish people or companies and beyond any doubt government departments civil servants must not be involved
While I agree that certain government departments should be kept out if the equation I furmly believe that this should be an irish venture staffed by irish personnel . There is a whole growth industry here that could provide much needed employment directly and indirectly with education and processing waste . In the UK they make no apologies for the fact some jobs require that you be born in the UK . This is for security reasons. So I see no problem at all with sticking to Irish nationals as much as possible for employment in this area. Clearly we don’t want an Irish water scenario but we do want Irish experts in as much as possible. I’m not saying we can’t use outside expertise initially but we already have a situation where we already recruit abroad for many jobs that should be filled by Irish people. Unfortunately Irish people don’t gave the qualifications or experience. Let’s avoid that situation with Nuclear power and educate our own experts .
Fusion reactors will be the future energy generators:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185649-the-new-dynomak-fusion-reactor-design-could-make-fusion-power-cheaper-than-coal
Minister White was on the RTE news to night to discuss options for our future electricity generating sources. He said “its not for me to decide”. So there you have it, nothing to do with him, he is only the Minister for energy. He did not say where to find the real decision maker, I can only suggest its “Twink”
This could be an energy “Boom” if we take the easy route towards nuclear power.
We’d be crazy to go for nuclear now. I remember the claims decades ago that it would all be perfectly safe. Then BOOOM! Three Mile Island………BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!! Chernobyl……………BOOOOOM! BOOOOM! BOOOOM! Fukushima 1,3, 4. And the people who assured us that they couldn’t blow up now assure us that it won’t happen anymore, honest, that it’s all perfectly safe. The cancer death toll from Chernobyl, according even to establishment science, may range from 10,000 to 64,000, irrespective of claims from the outlier wing of the pro-nuke movement that the toll is a mere 50. There may be thousands more fatal cancers eventually from Fukushima. Who wants that potential calamity on this little island? It is unbelievable that White is even considering the idea. Does he want to bury the Labour Party completely?
Is thorium the answer to our energy crisis?
It could power the planet for thousands of years, the reactors would never blow up and the waste is relatively clean. So is thorium the nuclear fuel of the future?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-thorium-the-answer-to-our-energy-crisis-428279.html
With our skill handling large projects – can you imagine what the politicians and local government would do with a project this size ?
Please take a look at the thesis I done on the feasibility of small nuclear power plants for ireland available on my linked in profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=127443143
Includes input from Eirgrid, BENE, mPower nuclear power and the Green Party.
have your say