Depleting energy resources. (1 Viewer)

[Corey]

Blair steps up campaign for nuclear power.


Britain is ready to go nuclear
By Philip Webster, Political Editor
Blair courts controversy with power station plan

BRITAIN will start building new civil nuclear power stations under plans backed by Tony Blair, The Times has learnt.
Less than two years after a government paper called nuclear power an unattractive option, the Prime Minister has become convinced that building nuclear power stations is the only way to secure energy needs and meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions.
NI_MPU('middle');In a controversial move, he wants planning procedures to be quickened so that the first stations could be under construction within ten years, far earlier than expected, advisers have told The Times.
After first promising a decision on new stations by the end of this Parliament, then by the end of next year, Mr Blair will face down critics and set up a government review within the next two weeks, asking it to reach conclusions by the early summer.
The stations would be built on existing sites in the hope of reducing public opposition and swifter planning and building procedures. They would involve the latest technology expected to be adopted soon in France and the US.
Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary and the Cabinet’s leading opponent of nuclear power, hinted yesterday that even she would back the move.
In an interview with the BBC’s Politics Show, she said that, although there were many problems with nuclear power, “I’ve always accepted we can’t afford to close the door on nuclear.”
But Mr Blair, who has been given private preliminary studies, believes that all the arguments point to nuclear power and has effectively made up his mind, according to authoritative sources. His decision is a remarkable U-turn.
The review, though headed by a senior figure from the Trade and Industry Department, will report to the Prime Minister and Alan Johnson, the Industry Secretary, and contain members from other departments and, crucially, from the Downing Street strategy unit.
Critics will suspect that membership will be chosen to ensure a different conclusion to the last energy White Paper in 2003.
Britain’s 12 nuclear power stations provide 22 per cent of the electricity. Unless they are replaced there will only be three stations left by 2020.
Studies prepared for Mr Blair by Sir David King, his chief scientific adviser, and other advisers have convinced him that renewable forms of energy, such as wind and wave power, cannot fill the gap.
As coal-fired and nuclear stations close they will have to be replaced by gas-fired electricity stations and Britain will soon become a net gas importer. Mr Blair’s advisers maintain that the debate should not be seen as a competition between nuclear power and “renewables”, which the Government is committed to boosting. The nuclear option is unlikely to be opposed by the Conservatives. David Willetts, the Shadow Industry Secretary, said at the party conference: “We must make the case for civil nuclear power to tackle the energy crisis with least damage to the environment



I then watched a newsnight documentary on iran. Scared my self shitless.
It aint looking good. We suck the world dry in a fraction of a second and then go to war over the fact there's nothing left.

Armsy, lend an opinion to an ignorant soul?

 

[spiritualtramp]

Ireland are eventually going to have to go nuclear as well.

 

[egg_]

On what do you base this assertion, ST? Nuclear is an incredibly expensive way of producing electricity when you take the cost of safely decommissioning reactors into account. Ireland has no uranium mines, AFAIK - regardless of safety/environmental concerns it'd be kinda foolish for a country to swap dependence on one expensive foreign-supplied power source for another ... especially when our west coast is such a high-energy environment, with enormous scope for power generation from wind and waves (also I might add we control huge areas of the coastal shelf (Ireland's sea territory is larger than its land territory), which again has big potential for wind/wave-powered electricity generation)

 

[spiritualtramp]

On what do you base this assertion, ST?
Nuclear is an incredibly expensive way of producing electricity when you take the cost of safely decommissioning reactors into account. Ireland has no uranium mines, AFAIK - regardless of safety/environmental concerns it'd be kinda foolish for a country to swap dependence on one expensive foreign-supplied power source for another ...

Economically relying on depleted resources like oil and coal isn't going to work. Nuclear power is dead expensive but it isn't going to run out.

especially when our west coast is such a high-energy environment, with enormous scope for power generation from wind and waves (also I might add we control huge areas of the coastal shelf (Ireland's sea territory is larger than its land territory), which again has big potential for wind/wave-powered electricity generation)

Personally I'd much prefer to see wind/wave energy but there hasn't yet been enough investment in them to replace coal/gas/oil.

 

[egg_]

Economically relying on depleted resources like oil and coal isn't going to work. Nuclear power is dead expensive but it isn't going to run out.

Well it is, eventually. Uranium is also a finite resource

Ireland may go nuclear at some stage, I just don't think it's true to say that we will "have to". We can make other, more sensible choices - whether we will remains to be seen

 

[broken arm]

the main problem with the current energy debate is nobody is talking about demand management and were future dependancies lie.

Nuclear has a massive lobby and getting to grips with the astronomical state subsidisation isn't easy - this is why you have never seen a private company develop a station without massive state aid. New technological developments should make running nuclear a realistically economic option - the waste and security issues are still not resolved. Also the security of supply of uranium is still an issue and will be more so with the rapid growth of the emerging economies.

 

[Corey]

Ireland going nuclear would be like Bill gates trying to pay for somthing in coppers.

Given the current state of finite resources, and the impending crisis; if more ephasis is'nt put on the potential of wind farms out west then i think we deserve everything we get.

 

[broken arm]

ireland currently imports 90% of the fuels used to produce our energy.

we are useless at stuff.

 

[rothko]

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/Articles/view.asp?CategoryID=-1&CategoryName=&ArticleID=297

We need to go nuclear
by David McWilliams

What will happen to our civilisation if we have no power?

Could we survive?

How would you behave if the lights flickered, dimmed and then went out for good?

These questions are no longer the stuff of science fiction. In our lifetimes, possibly as early as the next decade, the world will begin to run out of oil.
In the interim, oil prices are likely to rise, governments and regimes will come and go and petrol is likely to be rationed.

We will look for alternatives. We will start to burn other stuff - other fossil fuels - to feed our insatiable desire for energy.
What impact will turning the world into a giant pyre have on global warming?
Environmental concerns apart, these other fuels, like oil, are a finite resource – so what happens when we run out of things to burn? What will we do then?

This week, we had a number of reports, both domestic and international, focusing on how we might deal with the end of oil, and at the same time reduce carbon emissions to prevent global warming.
The reports focused on a combination of changing our behaviour (shorthand for consuming less) and using alternative, more environmentally-efficient energy sources.

One report cited elephant grass as a viable alternative for Ireland. This is doubtless part of the solution, but the missing link in this discussion is the real elephant in the corner, which nobody is prepared to talk about for fear of eternal damnation.

In Ireland, we are all afraid of the N word. This word cannot be used in polite conversation. It is a word so vile, foul and degrading, it automatically puts you outside the pale.

The N word breaks all the rules. So let's just whisper it. Shush, quietly now. . . nuclear. That wasn't so bad, was it? Say it again, nuclear. Yes, nuclear power. Is it time to revisit nuclear power? Given the depletion of the world's resources and the fact that carbon emissions are unsustainable, nuclear power is a logical alternative.

The very word ‘nuclear' scares us. Its lexicon is contaminated. It is associated with Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Cold War. As bread goes with butter, nuclear goes with warhead.
In most of our minds, nuclear signifies death and destruction on a monumental scale. If not warheads, missiles and bombs, the word nuclear conjures up images of accidents, leaks, fallout and horrendously deformed babies.

But this is only half the story, and while we shouldn't dismiss concerns about safety, we should also open our minds to the possibility that nuclear power is part of the energy solution, not part of the problem.
For example, countries with the highest environmental standards in Europe, such as Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, France and Germany rely significantly - and in France's case overwhelmingly - on nuclear power.
These are not irresponsible countries that would willingly put their citizens at risk. Indeed, there has never been an accident in any of these countries.
There has also, despite all the hype, never been a nuclear accident in Britain.

In fact, according to Professor Robert Winston, the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science that had its annual bash in Dublin last week, "more deaths resulted from Markham Main [a Yorkshire colliery] than all the accidents and power stations put together, including Chernobyl".

Most scientists agree with Winston.

Nuclear power is safe and, when reactors are well maintained and standards are high, nuclear power has proved itself to be one of the safest ways to generate energy.

Another argument in support of nuclear power is that it is environmentally much sounder than burning stuff. If we are to achieve significant reduction in carbon emissions and maintain our lifestyles, nuclear power is an obvious candidate.

It is considerably cleaner than fossil fuel and much less damaging to the environment. We harm our environment more from burning peat in Ireland than we would if we had a nuclear power station heating every home in the country.

Internationally, the planet would be a much cleaner place if large countries like China, India and Iran used nuclear power exclusively, rather than burning coal.

With respect to global warming and environmental degradation, others have made the argument that, even in the worst case scenario, the impact of a nuclear accident is localised, whereas the impact of global warming and air pollution from burning fossil fuels affects the whole planet. This seems harsh, but it is true.

Even figures from Chernobyl bear this out. In the 19 years since the accident, 4,000 people have died. In contrast, each year respiratory disease that results directly from coal-based air pollution kills many more.
In terms of nuclear waste and decommissioning older nuclear plants, Finland and Sweden are introducing technical solutions that satisfy most of the domestic opposition to nuclear power. It is fair to say, given their environmental records, that, if it is good enough for the Scandinavians, it should be good enough for us.

The points above could be termed the ‘it's not as bad as you think' arguments in support of putting nuclear power back on the table. While they may not persuade everyone, they are at least an antidote to the blanket hysteria that surrounds the N word.

The other arguments are simply the ‘we have no alternative' position. Oil is running out. The regimes that control oil are becoming increasingly unstable and might not last the shock of running out of black gold. So supplies might be unstable even before it runs out.
Also the price of oil will rise prohibitively, so some other form of energy must be found.

The other ‘no alternative' argument is the simple contention that nuclear power, counterintuitive as it may sound, is environmentally friendly. Either we go nuclear or we risk climate change on a devastating scale. To reduce carbon emissions, either we switch to nuclear power in some form or we change our entire consumer-driven society and its growth-based economic benchmarks.

Maybe, in an environmentally compromised future, a contracting economy will be regarded as the objective of government policy, but, for the moment, the obsession with growth reigns, and with it, the compulsive desire for energy.

While there is no doubt that concerns about nuclear energy are real, they will not be made clearer by regarding nuclear power as heresy. In Ireland, we need to explore every avenue and close the door to none.
In 2020, there is every possibility that we will be a nuclear state and, if not, we will definitely be importing nuclear energy from elsewhere. We might as well start discussing this eventuality now.

 

[mazzyianne]

that's ridiculous saying chernobyl wasn't that bad cos only 4,000 people were killed and more die from respiratory diseases. What about the contamination of water supply, soil, etc? What about the people who have had their lives ruined by horrilbe deformities but didn't die? People are still sufferring from that tragedy.

• 100% increase in the incidence of cancer and leukaemia
• 250% increase in congenital birth deformities
• 1,000% increase in suicide in the contaminated zones
• 2,400% increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer
• “Chernobyl AIDS” is the term doctors are using to describe illnesses associated with the damage done to the immune system by the effects of the radioactive material “strontium”. It is also a contributory factor to the increase in the number of cancer cases as a result of damage to the body’s immune system.

http://www.chernobyl-international.com/aboutchernobyl/medicalimpact.asp

plus all the people who had to be evacuated from their homes...

 

[broken arm]

i was following an interesting debate on gender issues and nuclear power and how the big-machine-quick-fix no-brainer nuclear solution is considered masculine - and favoured by males - in comparisson to other integrated (multi-tasking) solution such as a suppply/demand mix of renewables, CHP, biomass, energy conservation etc etc

whatever blah blah.

but, another thing that is quite interesting is the real uncertainty over actual costs and how are you to make a sound judgement on the options without being driven by ideology, preconceptions and all that jazz.

i.e. the transferability of renewables to large scale network setting and the promise that new (untested) nuclear technology won't lose the many many billions existing nuclear technology has to date.

Although Blair says (or is expected to say) it is on the cards for the UK they are expected to say that there will be no public money put up for it - and the City is not all that keen in investing in new stations........ mmmmmmm

 

[Corey]

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/Articles/view.asp?CategoryID=-1&CategoryName=&ArticleID=297

We need to go nuclear
by David McWilliams

What will happen to our civilisation if we have no power?

Could we survive?

How would you behave if the lights flickered, dimmed and then went out for good?

Holy Hell! No Power! WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?????

What's that?

What's that you say?

Nuclear power? Sounds Good!

OKAY THEN!!!!

I love the way he talks about exploring all avenues AFTER opening the article with the kind of fearful desperation that garauntees a high yes vote.

In as much as i think it's a bad idea; i cant imagine the dail boys would have any problems trying to sway the public. Like shooting fish in a barrel.A Quick favour asked of the Irish indo editor and before you can say 'brown envelope' there'll be a six page article promoting the 'universal benefits' of ireland going nuclear, by Miriam O'Callagahan and Barry 'The Beat' Egan.

And we'd lap it all up because we're stupid.

 

[ICUH8N]

David McWilliams has a posse

 

[ICUH8N]

Wow. Most patronising writing style evar. It's like reading a junior cert essay.

 

[aoboa]

Deadly article from Monbiot, stepping through all the options.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1653215,00.html