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.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE NEWS HIT headlines last week that a massive new power plant was soon to be built at Hinkley Point in England, just 250km from the coast of Ireland.
Hinkley Point C was given the final investment approval by French energy giant EDF, which would be building the plant in conjunction with the Chinese.
The project will cost a whopping £18 billion (€21.2 billion) to complete, and EDF says it will supply 7% of the UK’s energy when it’s finally done.
All that was left was for the UK government to sign off on the plant, and over a decade’s worth of delays and setback would finally come to an end.
However, at the last minute the UK government stalled on giving its approval, with the UK Energy Secretary saying it needed to review the project before a decision would be made in “early autumn”.
Reports that new British prime minister Theresa May is against aspects of the project have since surfaced, throwing its future into turmoil.
It was just the latest setback for the project, which has been at the centre of decade long saga of funding issues and arguments with the project vocally opposed by activists and politicians on both sides of the Irish Sea.
So, what is the history of Hinkley Point C, will it be built and why are so many people in the UK and Ireland opposed to it?
What is Hinkley Point C
Hinkley Point is an area in Somerset in the south west of England that currently houses two nuclear power plants: Hinkley Point A (1965) and Hinkley Point B (producing energy since 1976).
The Hinkley Point C project emerged from Britain’s commitment to “new nuclear” in 2006 following its national energy review, meaning that it would replace older nuclear plants with new ones.
It was realised at the time that the de-commissioning and shutting down of older nuclear power stations and other fuel stations would lead to significant problems for energy delivery in the future.
The government opted to go for nuclear power combined with renewables like wind and solar energy to meet future demand.
In February 2007, EDF said that it would have a plant operational in time for Christmas 2017, and designs were submitted and safety checks carried out later that year.
However, since then there has been setback after setback to do with design, permission and funding – with various funding and investment models falling through.
At the centre of the project is EDF, which is 85% owned by the French state.
BBC reports that EDF and the French government have a huge stake in the plant getting the go-ahead, as it will further their international nuclear ambitions.
As well as this, EDF has seen its revenues tumble in recent years. While the project will cost £18 billion upfront, a complex subsidy which will cost UK taxpayers billions (more on that later) will see it get around 10% back on top of its investment.
The company finally managed to sort out its financing woes last October by bringing onboard the China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) which is providing one third of the cost of the project (in order to get a foothold in the UK).
It was all going according to plan, until the government decided to stall on signing off the project, throwing it once again up in the air.
So, why are Irish people against the plant?
Let’s not forget Sellafield.
Ireland has a history with not being the biggest fan of UK nuclear power plants and projects.
The government and anti-nuclear activists were long-engaged in a battle with the UK over the Sellafield nuclear site, located on the Cumbrian coast 180km from Ireland’s coast.
There have been numerous worries over the effect the nuclear plant is having on the Irish Sea, as well as fears over what would happen should an incident break out at the site.
The Department of the Environment has even released a comprehensive expert document on the risks to Ireland from the Sellafield site (it found that there would be no observable health issues in Ireland even in the most extreme of incidents at the site).
Nuclear power has long been a flashpoint for heated debate, and Ireland has a history of opposing plants being built here (however, since 2012 some of our power does come from nuclear sources in Britain).
The Green Party is vocally opposed to nuclear power, preferring instead to opt for renewable forms of energy.
Sinn Féin has also voiced its opposition to the proposed plant. Commenting on Thursday, foreign affairs spokesperson Seán Crowe that the plant was “unwelcome and unwanted” by the Irish people.
“The expected news that the Hinkley Point, Somerset nuclear plant is set for final approval by the British government is unwelcome and adds another danger to people living in Ireland,” he said.
Sinn Féin TDs have contended that in increase of birth defects in the north east of Ireland could be linked to the plant, but this has never been proven.
Irish renewable energy firms are also strongly opposed to the plans. Solar energy provider Solar 21 said Ireland would “suffer from any potential disaster that befalls it”.
“With parts of Ireland being closer to the site than many areas of the UK. This raises concerns surrounding the disposal of waste too, along with the potential for an accident that could hurt the Irish environment,” said CEO Michael Bradley.
Rounding off the opposition, An Táisce, the body overseeing Ireland’s heritage, took a legal challenge in 2013 against the UK government for granting permission to build the site without consulting the people of Ireland.
An Táisce contended that as the plant could have a significant environmental impact on Ireland, Irish people should be consulted. An English court ruled against An Táisce in this regard and it also lost a subsequent appeal.
Will the plant go ahead?
Whatever happens, it doesn’t seem as though any Irish objections will halt the development of the nuclear power plant, but opposition is also very strong across the water.
UK environmental groups vehemently oppose the plant, seeing nuclear energy as outdated and harmful the earth in the long run (and also possessing the potential to create a nuclear disaster).
The pros of nuclear energy is that it emits much fewer greenhouse gasses than traditional forms, so governments see it as a way to reach reduced emission targets in the coming years.
As well as this, the plant will provide 25,000 jobs and the finished plant will employ 900 people
However, as we talked about above, the British taxpayer will have to foot the payback for the bill of building the plant in the first place, a situation that’s not proving very popular over there.
EDF’s contract requires a minimum “strike price” £92.5 per MWH for electricity generated by the plant. If the cost of power is lower than this by the time the plant is built (which it almost certainly will be) then consumers will have to foot the bill.
However, opponents of the plant may have a strong ally in current UK prime minister Theresa May. The Guardian reports that she raised objections to the current deal, apparently disagreeing with the over-enthusiasm for Chinese investment.
After so many false starts, the plans for building Hinkley Point C are once again up in the air.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
We need nuclear produced electricity for the future if we are to avoid dependency on car Bon based fuels , which add to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Bull ocks.
and you know it.
Doubt it would be economically viable or politically possible to build one here.
Build more interconnectors to buy British and ultimately French nuclear power and sell renewable energy when available
I would rather have increased levels of co2 than increased exposure to radioactive isotopes
Read this Michael… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Solid_waste
Aloiis, that is based on obsolete technologies.
The consequences of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will bring us to a tipping point and catastrophic consequences for the more vulnerable parts of the world.,
Michael the new idea is to store CO2 underground in the ground as after 2 years it can solidify then?
They call these fuels Hydrocarbons, so what happens to the hydrogen then? Does it join with the oxygen to produce water, so how much water does this add to the atmosphere.
The thing is with global warming the atmosphere warms up and is then able to absorb more water vapour then, which in itself has global warming properties.
The fact is we do not know what will happen and the scary thing is it might be too late now by 50 years?
It all boils down to education and our own everyday actions?
“I would rather have increased levels of co2 than increased exposure to radioactive isotopes”
That’s t-shirt material.
Aloiis, you don’t understand Physics.
You don’t understand the technical challenges of sequestering co2 emissions and you gravely underestimate the real and looming threat of increasing CO2 emissions. We are running out of time.
Your hypothesis of increasing water vapour in the atmosphere as an attenuators of global warming is unproven and highly implausible. We need to focus on actual workable and technically feasible solutions which will work.
A key point is that the technology nowadays is vastly different to the 1950s technology.
Michael I do know a bit about science, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php
“As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
“Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.”
Wind farms are shite. Build a nuclear plant in the midlands and dump the waste in the English Channel. Problem solved.
See attached: by the time this plant is built renewable will be cheaper.
Renewables will become cheaper over time, yes, but so will nuclear as plants become more efficient.
Once again , the Adi Roche Scrae brigade puts the fear of God into so many Irish People with the mere mention of the word “Nuclear”.. It’s taboo to even contemplate the idea of harnessing Nuclear Energy in this country.. Pathetic..
Apparently you just have to throw around a few scary terms without even knowing what they really mean like gamma rays, radiation, fallout, isotope, meltdown etc. and then boom you have yourself an ignorant population swept up in mass hysteria.
gamma rays?? feck no-one said there would be gamma rays bann this crazy stuff!
To be fair lads most of the article talks about price concerns, what the taxpayer will have to pay and the favourable deal the Chinese investment is getting. We all know nuclear away from earthquake zones and coaster regions are relatively safe but if they take decades to build and push up energy costs along with most profit going to China then clearly there are better, cheaper and more sustainable options. Not to mention with fusion still not ready there is nowhere to put the waste. Finland are spending billions building underground bunkers to store there’s
Profit before saftey
It’s probably not going to be built anyway… but somehow it’s still gonna cost the UK around £2 billion … Did they get Michael Noonan to draft the contract for them or something….From a safety point of view if these things are as safe as the politicians say they are then why not build them on the Thames estuary and save billions in additional infrastructure….
Btw… I don’t personality believe modern nuclear plants are any more dangerous than coal or other fossil fuel power plants….
Chernobyl,Fukushima, Windscale,Three Mile Island…
Killed fook all, Dublin smog killed more, and your point is?
And the smog was sorted by a ban over a few years….radiation lasts thousands of years.
Up to 20,000 coal miners die directly or indirectly a yr so I don’t see your argument winston
@Winston Smith
Chernobyl is the only incident you listed that caused fatalities.
Three Mile Island was only a partial meltdown. Fukushima was caused by an act of God, so to speak, i.e. a tsunami.
Chernobyl was caused by Soviet inefficiency.
Winston cancer rates use to be 1 in 10 last century, now it is 1 in 3 and Chernobyl has increased background radiation around the world by a third?
There is no proven causal link between a mild increase in background radiation and increased rates of cancer. It’s the usual confusion if correlation and causation. I know of no oncologist or cancer researcher who supports your unestablished hypothesis.
4 plants out of how many in the world?
IIRC, the levels of background radiation are higher in cities such as Aberdeen, or any other built of granite, than in the vicinity of any normally-operating nuclear power station. Maybe Ireland should ban granite?
Think also, about the crews of nuclear submarines and other nuclear-powered ships. They seem to survive months at a time in very close proximity to reactors. Just lucky?
Joseph…obviously submarine reactors just like commercial power reactors are designed to contain radiation so no big surprise there although about 10 nuclear submarines have sunk so far including the Kursk in 2000, killing 118 sailors!
Cholly did I advocate coal mining?…no I didn’t but can you imagine how many deaths and deformities will have occured from the nuclear industry by the time it is around as long as coal mining? and many of those coal related deaths weren’t known then or were covered up by big business which is likely what is occurring right now in the nuclear industry. How many poor african workers are dying while mining uranium or from it’s related decay products such as radon? Reactors also produce all the fuel for making nuclear missiles and right there is the potential to kill everyone on the planet!
Ciaran you casually and obviously ignorantly typed ‘Chernobyl is the only incident you listed that caused fatalities’ as if the deaths alone were the only consequence…read the following,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/chernobyl-accident-appendix-2-health-impacts.aspx
One third of a million people moved from their homes…massive upheaveal…people’s life’s destroyed including the fear of their children developing Thyroid cancer which many did and the contamination of their food and water. On top of this the exclusion zone, which will last at least 300 years, is as large as counties Dublin & Wicklow put together. So the consequences of any accident or terrorist attack or natural disaster which might hit an irish reactor would be magnified many times over not to mention that our agricultural indusrt would be decimated overnight for good.
In the former Soviet Union, many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about radiation exposure. They developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia along with an increase in fatalistic alcoholism. As Japanese health and radiation specialist Shunichi Yamashita noted:
We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years — not [predominantly] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research.
A survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the disaster.
Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees’ current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.[242]
Stress often manifests in physical ailments, including behavioral changes such as poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation. Survivors, including some who lost homes, villages and family members, were found likely to face mental health and physical challenges. Much of the stress came from lack of information and from relocation.
A survey computed that of some 300,000 evacuees, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation
Winston, and how many of those sinkings were attributable to nuclear power plant faults? The Kursk was put down as a torpedo drive unit malfunction, I believe.
Joseph, the cause of the accident is not the point, it’s that we now have badly damaged and compromised nuclear reactors polluting our seas and causing who knows what environmental damage! This is the future for power,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
it’s limitless and non polluting and relatively speaking just around the corner. Our nuclear fission age must be brought to a quick end.
Everybody with even the slightest bit of common sense in Ireland, isn’t worried about a plant 250km away
They were with Chernobyl and that was above Kiev in Ukraine?
Invest in renewables, cheaper, safer, etc. Read attached link:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21703367-britain-should-cancel-its-nuclear-white-elephant-and-spend-billions-making-renewables
Alternative is not productive enough, efficient enough, supply reliable enough and cost efficient enough to obviate the need for nuclear generated electricity.
Just the foolish Irish are worried. Something to Protest about, isn’t it grand
The shinners and the crustys are concerned. Not the decent people. Anyone with half a brain would understand the benefits of nuclear energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
It is more polluting and dangerous than oil or coal… Cholly.
JOE READ THE FOLLOWING AS NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS ARE STILL HAPPENING NOW… http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/nuclear-plant-leak-threatens-drinking-water-wells-in-florida.html?_r=0
Tell that to coal miners, oil workers, those who clean and detoxify and clean oil tankers. Those who suffer respiratory problems, morbidity and mortality die to diesel particulates, those who are vulnerable to flooding, ferocious cyclones and the other consequences of anthropogenically generated global warming.
aptly enough cholly, a nuclear meltdown might lead to a few more kids being born with half a brain
And so can Zika. Ban travel to the tropics if you are that concerned!! The long and the short of it is. Nuclear energy is safe. Watch pandoras promise
ah i cant disagree with you, im not sufficiently versed on the relative pros and cons of energy sources
Jester, All energy takes effort, like getting outta bed ;)
i dont expend too much energy so. just the amount it takes to get the red wine to my bed
Beer is more fun…
For starters a nuclear plants main purpose is to create plutonium, this ends up in the air and in the water. Plutonium is a toxic metal that causes cancer
Secondly other elements used in these plants are irradiated and also xcause pollution and a rish to animal and human health.
Thirdly, they plan building it in an area and on top of about 27 fracking sites?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/30/greenpolitics.health
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/Radioactive-discharges-from-Sellafield-/id421125/
http://frack-off.org.uk/locations/
https://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/issues/uk_fracking_map_41274
Risky, too bloody risky.
Main purpose is to create plutonium…FFS….Extra thick tin foil hat for this one please…
More people killed by fecking German beansprouts than by nuclear power.
A friend of mine is a heavy smoker but he worries about nuclear radiation levels in Ireland. He denies that smoking tobacco ingests radioactive toxicity into his lungs.
The biggest radiation risk is Ireland is and will continue to be radon gas in areas with a granite substratum.
What’s the relevance if fracking to nuclear generated electricity unless to show that fracking it may be more dangerous in certain areas with a particular geomorphology.
Get Lost Eircode, I had an uncle by marriage to an Aunt, he use to go round and inspect these plants. He died young from cancer… As do many others who work in these plants.
So you make fun out of what I wrote because I know a bit more than you do. Uranium costs $60 to mine and process but is sold at $30 per 454g. A nuclear plants main function is to make plutonium using carbon rods and water to control the reaction in the reactor so the process is controlled and doesn’t runaway and set the carbon rods on fire. The by product is heated water, knowing this then the whole process to make plutonium even as a by product would cost more that it would cost for the electricity being made. Now plutonium is $4,000 per gram and the only use of plutonium is for nuclear weapons, nuclear plants also produce depleted Uranium which is used by the military to make shells armour piercing and caused the Gulf War syndrome which was radiation poisoning from their own ammunition.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/plutbomb.htm
“Nuclear Power Plant Fuel–a source of Plutonium for Weapons?”
Read that if you want to know more?
Ireland could never have a nuclear plant under Zangger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zangger_Committee
Michael Radon gas comes from the same process uranium goes through in nature but is speeded up in a nuclear reactor. The biggest radiation risk in Ireland was from Windscale / Sellafield.
If Fracking has been shown to cause earthquakes in the US and has also in Blackpool in England, then fracking under a nuclear power plant might cause an earthquake that could split the reactor and cause another chernobyl like incident or have people forgotten about chernobyl and the radiation that dumped on Ireland as well as did Windscale?
Aloiis, you are genuinely misguided, basis your views on out of date information and obsolete technologies. Earlier stage nuclear generating plants had serious problems but these have been largely mitigated against.
On the other hand, we now know that increasing CO2 levels will have catastrophic consequences fir the more vulnerable communities on the planet, ironically those communities which have least contributed to the problem of global warming.
Nuclear is the least bad but still viable option.
Michael misguided isn’t the word to use… Nuts is the word you are looking for… Evidence independent nuts…
https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/509-510/link-between-nuclear-energy-and-nuclear-weapons
There you go.
http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/depleted-uranium/item/579-the-links-between-nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons/civmil
Nuclear has one one purpose…
Michael OLainn, Look at the Nuclear accidents happening in the US now. No nuclear plant is safe because it uses Uranium to make the most toxic artificial metal and that is Plutonium. That is why none of them are safe.
Based on previous generations of nuclear plants.
Current technologies are far safer and more reliable.
none “IS” safe. Where did you learn grammar?
Maybe we can buy cheap electricity from the UK. Our ESB seems to be only interested in making millions for their employees who set up power companies. Insider trading ? Facilitating their friends, some of whom established their future businesses well in advance of leaving the ESB.
Eh chernobyl. Radiation. Death by gamma rays etc. Apart from that it’s grand
Benny the big disasters and nuclear plant accidents are still happening now in the U.S.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/nuclear-plants-leak-radiation-and-regulator-faces-scrutiny
Alois are you against windmills too?
Previous generations of nuclear generating plants produced too much nuclear toxic waste and were more accident prone. Improved technologies have made current generation nuclear electricity generating plants safer, less toxic and less prone to human error. In addition smaller scale nuclear generators are easier to control.
The bigger danger is the approaching tipping point of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and a far more volatile and destructive climate.
You want some facts Benny, solar power has killed more people than nuclear power. Nuclear is safe and reliable the only reason Chernobyl happened is because of Soviet incompetence, they built no containment chamber around their reactor, it might as well have been inside a tent.
And as for Fukushima, the plant that was hit by one of the largest tsunamis in modern history, do you know how many people died? none is the answer according to the UN. Do some research and you’ll see the benefits of nuclear power instead of being ignorant and scared of terms like radioisotope and gamma rays.
Fiachra, the modern approach is to build nuclear electricity generating plants away from the sea and tectonically unstable areas. Modern designs build in superior containment, enough to resist the supposed risks of large passenger planes crashing into the plants.
There is much scaremongering about nuclear energy but DrcLovelock considers that it is the only hope for a hugely energy dependent world.
GLE Wind turbines are mainly owned by oil companies, I prefer wave energy as wind dies down on a good day in summer or on a frosty or foggy day in winter, waves energy is constant?
The problem with wind turbines is they cost more money to stop than to let then carry on using wind.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11323685/Wind-farms-paid-1m-a-week-to-switch-off.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2595902/Wind-farms-paid-millions-switch-OFF-turbines-generate-electricity.html
Wave energy is the future?
we’re using too much energy? make more energy! perhaps more of a focus on energy conservation might assist
Michael, see my earlier links to the nuclear power plant accidents still happening in the U.S. this year?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents
Nuclear is dirty and is not safe at all.
Have u evidence wind turbines are mainly owned by oil companies and so what if they do? Waves depend on the wind making them, you haven’t a clue.
Fiachra29, In Africa they have for sale gravity powered or transferable mass driven generator, clock powered generators, “Thermoelectric generator, or TEG is a solid state device that converts heat (temperature … Thermoelectric materials generate power directly from heat by converting temperature differences into electric voltage” solar cells… Nuclear is not always the answer, the Germans were experimenting with geothermal?
Then…
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/strangford-lough/
http://www.seageneration.co.uk/
Jester, that is the human race, living beyond our means, keeping up with the Jones?
Eh where does that say they own “most” wind turbines?
GLE, Wind does effect waves but that is not what drives waves, that is the gravitational pull of the Moon acting on the body of water.
Why do you say I haven’t a clue???
Wave and tidal generated technologies are at least 15 years away from engineering wise viable electricity generation. Then there is the problem of of building and bringing the infrastructure online.
As for energy conservation, it is not feasible to convert from a high energy demand economy to a low energy demand economy especially as China, India, Brazil and far Eastern economies are increasing their energy consumption.
When all other options are excluded, we are left with nuclear generation as the on,y viable option.
Because that’s called TIDAL you clown!!!
GLE https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/21/oil-majors-investments-renewable-energy-solar-wind
“Green really is the new black as Big Oil gets a taste for renewables
Shell, Total, Statoil, even Exxon – they’re all at it. But are the recent moves into solar and wind power lip service, fashion, or a real shift away from fossil fuels?”
GLE, So your saying the TIDAL motion does not produce WAVES, is that what your saying?
Michael, they could have two massive lakes, one on the mountain and the other further down with pipes joining them. This they have done before to produce electricity, even using the excess electricity to pump some water back into the top lake again.
Take this concept and add wind turbines that could produce the power or electricity to pump the water from the lower lake back up to the top lake again?
People need to see that there are other ways of doing stuff than those that pollute?
Unfortunately, alternative energy sources are insufficient to deliver a sufficient reduction in CO2 emissions from carbon fossil based sources.
So, nuclear produced energy is the only way to save the interests of humanity on this planet from severe and human destructive climate disruption.
Michael, there is another way, a drastic way and that is to reduce the number of people on this planet. The fact is, as the population rises then consumerism grows, consumerism grows with population growth, a fact. As the population grows then so will consumerism and that brings more pollution, more pollution means climate change and climate change will cause wars, famines, new diseases and migration. Migration will lead to civil wars, racism and sectarianism.
It will also change the prices of goods by putting them out of the reach of the poor.
What we need to do lies with consumerism and population growth unless we can develop a way to use Quantum technology to use Zero Point Energy as everything above absolute zero has energy in it due to heat but this heat might interfere with getting to ZPE and the Worlds supply of Helium used in CT scanners is getting low?
The thing is the sun produces so much energy especially around the Equator that new solar cells could use this but the speed of technology is slower than population growth and the rate at which consumerism works?
For me nuclear is just too dangerous, unless they invented a type of Sterling engine that ran on an alloy of uranium as the thing that keeps the core of the Earth hot is the radiation from Uranium and this keeps magma the way it is. If we could use the same idea with uranium using a Sterling Engine, the size of the engine wouldn’t have to be gigantic as a series of Sterling engines working together might be better than the size of only one but it is just a mad thought?
Humanity advances through technological and scientific development. The fact is that we already have a huge human population which cannot and should not be culled.
Thorium based and other technologies will be even safer and more controllable but the reality is that third and fourth generation smaller generating plants are safe.
We have to do the best that we can do with current technologies.
Michael, I fear we are culling ourselves by the way we live, we use Round Up to ripen our food, we use plastics to put our food in that effect our hormones and enzymes, we grow GMO’s without knowing the full science, we flush antibiological chemicals down the drains and toilets, we urinate medications out of our bodies down the pan and then these chemicals then enter our drinking water after causing growths and sterility in the fish and mammals that live in our rivers before that water enters the sea.
Our urine is full of the chemicals found in soaps, shower gels, make up and weed killers and pesticides… As a species we are killing ourselves slowly as we are with the planet.
With Thorium, I heard it was a pink elephant really, a way to boost shares but I do not know?
Thorium is close to feasibility.,I can’t see any support for your notion that Thorium is an elephant, pink or white.
It was a comment mentioned I think on Horizon I think, I am not sure now but I think it was that?
Let’s see…hmm…. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island…..
The Rock
Karen Silkwood?
Previous generation technologies which are unsafe.
Brining forward new generation nuclear plants permits the decommissioning of earlier generating plants.
But where does all the radioactive material like the building go? Into a hole in the ground?
We will never be told the truth about Sellafield leaks,never.If you can remember there was a very high rate of birth defects in the dundalk/Blackrock area of co. Louth some 35 years ago and they can’t prove it but reckon it was leaks from Sellafield given the very strong wind direction towards Ireland. I believe we could have a similar situation if this one goes ahead.Im no expert,just saying ok!
I know it’s from the nuclear industry but just to balance the loolaas
I think ultimately, solar power will become the major energy provider of the future. Technology will develop and allow solar panels to be paced in orbit around the earth. The energy collected will be harnessed from them.
Fossil fuels cause magnitudes of more deaths per year then nuclear. Problem with nuclear is the inefficient and ill though uranium fuel cycle. What you want is a bonefide, all singing all dancing Thorium reactor! Burn all the existing waste and miles safer. China and india making moves on it, so maybe in a few years.
It’s desperately simple folks: We still haven’t managed to stop electricity killing our fellow citizens accidentally in homes, factories or farms.
It’s a no-brainer as to how we’d all manage a nuclear accident.
Ireland imports nuclear energy so we cant turn around and say we dont like nuclear energy.
Nuclear is a far better alternative to burning wood in a power station. Wind is not an alternative to nuclear.
Most talk in Ireland about nuclear energy comes from the poorly educated, the greens have brainwashed most people in Ireland.
No mention of the high cost of Nuke Waste. The cost escalates and continues to infinity.Go RENEWABLE.
Why do you think ?
Became you’re from the UK.
No nuclear power plant had ever been shut down it totality.
Ever.
Shut for a while?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/03/29/cuomo-indian-point-plant/
In 2009, Al Gore said the polar ice caps would be melted by now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vapMyAvbsbg
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports that the UN admits Bio Fuels were a huge mistake and damaging to the environment. I always asked how much net energy they yielded and suggested bio fuel is a net consumer of electric power. The fact is the media has been taken over by an elite . Obama hands 400 million in cash to Iran. Why is non of this noticed. The reason is that a change has taken place in the thinking of people, Could it be that children are reared on computers and phones?
have your say