New electricity microgeneration programme announced

expat girl

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
141
The problem with the nuclear option, as I see it, is threefold

1) Peak uranium, estimated at 2035 at current rates of use. But everyone thinks that nukes will offset their carbon and are beginning large building programmes. So, bring that date forward a bit perhaps. It would probably take us 10 years to build the power stations, followed by 5 years of use, followed by fuel shortage

2) the vast cost of construction (although perhaps we could tender to EDF as the Brits are considering doing)

3) Our electoral system in combination with the waste issue. I would defend STV to the hilt for most things, but one of the minor issues it tends to throw up is the NIMBY syndrome.... no one would want the waste in THEIR constituency, so where would we put it?? Combined with the 20-30 years post peak oil scenario, how could we also afford the heavy drilling equipt to bury the stuff miles underground??
 


michael1965

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
143
expat girl said:
The problem with the nuclear option, as I see it, is threefold

1) Peak uranium, estimated at 2035 at current rates of use. But everyone thinks that nukes will offset their carbon and are beginning large building programmes. So, bring that date forward a bit perhaps. It would probably take us 10 years to build the power stations, followed by 5 years of use, followed by fuel shortage
Estimated by who? It sounds a bit like the first estimates of peak-oil, that were made at start of the 20th century (for the start of the 20th century). Even if the price of Uranium increases massively, it will make little difference to the economics of nuclear power. But Uranium unlike oil is a common occurring metal.
2) the vast cost of construction (although perhaps we could tender to EDF as the Brits are considering doing)
Fair point. Though the experience in France seems to indicate that (on their scale at least) it is economic
3) Our electoral system in combination with the waste issue. I would defend STV to the hilt for most things, but one of the minor issues it tends to throw up is the NIMBY syndrome.... no one would want the waste in THEIR constituency, so where would we put it?? Combined with the 20-30 years post peak oil scenario, how could we also afford the heavy drilling equipt to bury the stuff miles underground??
I'd have no problem living near a nuke. Far less than a landfill. Yes, the waste issue is the big unknown. Would we have the scale to be able to deal with it, economically? Possibly not, on our own.
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,685
expat girl said:
The problem with the nuclear option, as I see it, is threefold

1) Peak uranium, estimated at 2035 at current rates of use. But everyone thinks that nukes will offset their carbon and are beginning large building programmes. So, bring that date forward a bit perhaps. It would probably take us 10 years to build the power stations, followed by 5 years of use, followed by fuel shortage
See for example
http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm
it is not that simple & there is no consensus on your 35 year peak Uranium figure (source???)

2) the vast cost of construction (although perhaps we could tender to EDF as the Brits are considering doing)
So not a problem then? The cost of wind/tidal/wave power is also pretty "vast"

3) Our electoral system in combination with the waste issue. I would defend STV to the hilt for most things, but one of the minor issues it tends to throw up is the NIMBY syndrome.... no one would want the waste in THEIR constituency, so where would we put it?? Combined with the 20-30 years post peak oil scenario, how could we also afford the heavy drilling equipt to bury the stuff miles underground??
Russians and others will take the waste for a price (see link above)
Our electoral system/NIMBY prob is the main problem - the irrational fear of technology (people organising meeting to oppose new mobile phone masts - using their mobiles etc...)

Sadly unreason probably will lead to us trying to muddle through and we will be in serious trouble re power supplies in 10 years or so.
 

thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
Vega1447 said:
SPN said:
Vega1447 said:
It seems to be taken as obvious on this thread that nuclear power is not a runner.
France is doing just fine with nuclear-generated electricity and it seems to have popular support:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_po ... ic_opinion

Why the unthinking opposition to it?
Let's have a detailed scientific, engineering and financial analysis of the issue - tree-huggers welcome. :D
I think you have it backwards - the real question is Why the unthinking SUPPORT for a Nuke?

Please tell us why you believe that we need a Nuke (or a pair of Nukes, given that we'll need a second one on standby in case the first one goes down - it takes three weeks to get a Nuke back up once it is Scrammed.)

Please tell us how much they will cost to build.

Please tell us how much of a subsidy the taxpayer will have to pay to the developers to motivate them to build it.

Please tell us the price per kW we can expect from the Nukes.

Please tell us where we are going to import the Uranium from, and hw much it will cost.

If you want a Nuke, put forward your arguments in favour of it.
I'm no expert on power generation - though probably more technically qualified than some on this thread (PhD in Mathematical Physics).
The fact that the French - a medium sized developed country - have operated their nuclear powered generating plants safely for years (as ballotstuffer points out) with apparently very little popular opposition tells me that at the very least the option should be examined - like all others.
You should also be aware of the need for a 'spinning reserve'. This is back up power that grid operators can immediately call on should a power station shut down. At the moment we have a total electricity generating capacity in Ireland of 5,000 MW. Efficient nuclear power plants are at least 1,000 MW in size. If we were to build such a plant in Ireland we would need three gas-fired plants running on standby in case the nuclear plant has to be shut down. I support yours and Minister Ryan's proposal for a public debate to find the best solution to Ireland's future renewable energy needs.
 

Eddiepops

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
106
Please, this is a debate on microgeneration, not nuclear power. There are more threads on that topoc than I care to mention, please take the debate on nuclear there. That includes us tree huggers!
 

John_C

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
129
thebrom said:
You should also be aware of the need for a 'spinning reserve'. This is back up power that grid operators can immediately call on should a power station shut down.
Or should the wind die down, which is much more common.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
Vega1447 said:
I'm no expert on power generation - though probably more technically qualified than some on this thread (PhD in Mathematical Physics).
The fact that the French - a medium sized developed country - have operated their nuclear powered generating plants safely for years (as ballotstuffer points out) with apparently very little popular opposition tells me that at the very least the option should be examined - like all others.
Exactly which part of IT HAS BEEN EXAMINED, THOROUGHLY, AND IT HAS BEEN REJECTED are you not quite getting?


I don't "want a Nuke" - I do want the best (most economically sensible) choice for the rest of the 21st century.
A pair of Nukes are NOT an economically sensible solution.


Both Wind and Tidal/wave generation need subsidies to compete with burning oil/gas/coal in terms of cost per MWhr.
...... because we have been subsidising oil/gas/coal for years. Peak Oil, Peak Gas, Peak Coal, and Carbon Taxes will soon make these technologies competitive.


Nuke may also need subsidies for the capital cost of the plant but has negligible CO2 output once built and makes us immune to blackmail from owners of oil/gas/coal reserves. I'd prefer to cosy up to the French/Chad for access to Chadian Uranium than rely on Putin or King Khalid...
Instead of subsidising the Nukes, how about spending less than one tenth of the money on demand reduction measures?

Spend the balance on Biomass and other indigenuous technologies - keep the money in Ireland instead of France or Chad?


I can't quite fathom why people keep going back to Nukes. They have been evaluated by the Department on numerous occasions and they have been comprehensively rejected - even before Eamon Ryan became Minister. They are a non-runner"
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,107
SPN said:
I can't quite fathom why people keep going back to Nukes...
It's not so difficult to fathom really. The nuclear industry has a huge propaganda machine, and people like Vega lap up their disinformation.

Who is that Irishwoman, her name escapes me right now, who used to do PR for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd? I'm sure she'll crop up again soon.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
soubresauts said:
SPN said:
I can't quite fathom why people keep going back to Nukes...
It's not so difficult to fathom really. The nuclear industry has a huge propaganda machine, and people like Vega lap up their disinformation.
I prefer to say that they have a massive marketing budget with which to hire PR Consultants and Lobbyists - it doesn't turn people off the way the word "propaganda" does.

;)
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,685
SPN said:
[
Exactly which part of IT HAS BEEN EXAMINED, THOROUGHLY, AND IT HAS BEEN REJECTED are you not quite getting?
Link? Examined by whom, rejected by whom? Not the French, that's clear.

Both Wind and Tidal/wave generation need subsidies to compete with burning oil/gas/coal in terms of cost per MWhr.
...... because we have been subsidising oil/gas/coal for years. Peak Oil, Peak Gas, Peak Coal, and Carbon Taxes will soon make these technologies competitive.
Link? How (except by not taxing aviation fuel) have we been subsidising oil/coal/gas?

[quote:3fn49q0a]Nuke may also need subsidies for the capital cost of the plant but has negligible CO2 output once built and makes us immune to blackmail from owners of oil/gas/coal reserves.
Instead of subsidising the Nukes, how about spending less than one tenth of the money on demand reduction measures?
Reducing demand=solution to shortage of electricity? Best of luck... It may work in NW Europe but try getting Chinese, Indians or US to reduce demand. I don't see reducing demand for energy as a Good Thing anymore than reducing demand for food or books. Do you?
I can't quite fathom why people keep going back to Nukes. They have been evaluated by the Department on numerous occasions and they have been comprehensively rejected - even before Eamon Ryan became Minister. They are a non-runner"[/quote:3fn49q0a]
Link? Where is the "Dept evaluation"?

And (unkind I know) as this is a technical area and you are so emphatic, what are your credentials/qualifications in the power generation area?
 

John_C

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
129
SPN said:
Exactly which part of IT HAS BEEN EXAMINED, THOROUGHLY, AND IT HAS BEEN REJECTED are you not quite getting?
I'll let him answer for himself but my money would be on the parts where opinion is stated as fact.
 

Eddiepops

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
106
I've already said this is not a thread on nuclear. It's on microgeneration. There at least 7 threads on nuclear. I'll hide any off topic comments
 

thebrom

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
69
Website
blogs.greenparty.ie
Eddiepops said:
Please, this is a debate on microgeneration, not nuclear power. There are more threads on that topoc than I care to mention, please take the debate on nuclear there. That includes us tree huggers!
Sorry Eddie, we just got excited.

Back to the point. Personally, I think it is an excellent idea. It will encourage small scale initiatives on farms, private land etc. with minimum investment. This will allow farmers and developers to test the market and upscale if they believe there is an opportunity for profit.
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,685
Eddiepops said:
I've already said this is not a thread on nuclear. It's on microgeneration. There at least 7 threads on nuclear. I'll hide any off topic comments
Are you a moderator?
If so imo suggesting that nuclear power is worth investigating as an alternative to "alternative" energy is hardly OT.

OP asked "Is microgeneration a solution to our future energy needs?"

My posts are suggesting "probably not but lets talk about it.".
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
Eddiepops said:
I've already said this is not a thread on nuclear. It's on microgeneration. There at least 7 threads on nuclear. I'll hide any off topic comments
You are such a big meanie! :evil: :evil: :evil:

You know how much I love baiting WingNuts! :cool: :cool:

Anyways, how's about we do a little research into Micro Generation?

The Micropower Councilhttp://www.micropower.co.uk/

Then we can discuss the realities of the technologies.
 

Eddiepops

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
106
Vega1447 said:
Eddiepops said:
I've already said this is not a thread on nuclear. It's on microgeneration. There at least 7 threads on nuclear. I'll hide any off topic comments
Are you a moderator?
If so imo suggesting that nuclear power is worth investigating as an alternative to "alternative" energy is hardly OT.

OP asked "Is microgeneration a solution to our future energy needs?"

My posts are suggesting "probably not but lets talk about it.".
You're not discussing nuclear in regards to microgeneration, you're just discussing nuclear in regards to nuclear. Which is fine, it's done about once a month here as you can see here, here, here, here and here. That's just a small selection.

I am a mod, and I'm also a firm believer that when people click on a thread on microgeneration that they should be able to read about microgeneration.
 

lostexpectation

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
14,007
Website
dublinstreams.blogspot.com
thebrom said:
FF receive huge financial support from the construction industry.
yes but bertie said himself it wasn't necessary for them to give him any money, he do what he did anyway.

the winners in this will be a few green tech co's who companies or product match government grants, can you say biofuel, it the same green tech mindset, produce to save the planet, rather then go simple, most of the green tds said there are very interested in green tech, in privatising for the sake of the environment etc. we can what the interested in. they keep saying that the climate change could be a boon for business... sickening.
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,685
Eddiepops said:
Vega1447 said:
Eddiepops said:
I've already said this is not a thread on nuclear. It's on microgeneration. There at least 7 threads on nuclear. I'll hide any off topic comments
Are you a moderator?
If so imo suggesting that nuclear power is worth investigating as an alternative to "alternative" energy is hardly OT.

OP asked "Is microgeneration a solution to our future energy needs?"

My posts are suggesting "probably not but lets talk about it.".
You're not discussing nuclear in regards to microgeneration, you're just discussing nuclear in regards to nuclear. Which is fine, it's done about once a month here as you can see here, here, here, here and here. That's just a small selection.

I am a mod, and I'm also a firm believer that when people click on a thread on microgeneration that they should be able to read about microgeneration.
Fair enuf.
Looks like more people are interested in talking about one than about the other though.. (ducks on way out)..
 

expat girl

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
141
lostexpectation said:
thebrom said:
FF receive huge financial support from the construction industry.
yes but bertie said himself it wasn't necessary for them to give him any money, he do what he did anyway.

the winners in this will be a few green tech co's who companies or product match government grants, can you say biofuel, it the same green tech mindset, produce to save the planet, rather then go simple, most of the green tds said there are very interested in green tech, in privatising for the sake of the environment etc. we can what the interested in. they keep saying that the climate change could be a boon for business... sickening.
I'm sorry, but just what is wrong with paying for clean energy??? We've been paying the oil companies for dirty energy for years. Frankly, we've gotten so paranoid about corruption we are beginning to see Monsters Inc where they aren't, if you see what I mean

If some nice person can kit my gaff out with a solar panel that might halve my lecky bills for a semi-reasonable price, I don't mind paying them... sure we pay the ESB and Bord Gais anyway....I really can't understand what the problem is. :shock2:
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top