Ireland needs a Nuclear Power station. (1 Viewer)

[GO]

I was just wondering what way the Thumped wind blows on this controversial topic.


I was reading a bit about this Richard Lovelock chap who reckons nuclear power is the way to go.

I agree.They're clean, efficient and one of these bad boys would meet all our electricity needs.
Couple that with a mass transition to electric cars and we'd be quids in.

Plus,apparently a nuclear power station produces about a suitcase of waste a year which if managed correctly
can be stashed somewhere and in 600-1000 years becomes fairly harmless.

Compared to the shite coming out of chimneys in traditional fossil fuel set ups which never goes away
and (so far) irreparably depletes this mysterious thing called the ozone layer.

There'd also,as a by product be a loadddddd of jobs created getting the yoke going and maintained
and in subsidary businesses like building replacements for petrol stations and creating a new army of electric car mechanics etc...

Who's with me?

It'd sort out Irelands economic woes in one fell swoop.

Plus I don't think wind power has a hope doing the biz.It's strictly small time.

 

[ann post]

so long as its in dublin, in your gaff.

 

[GO]

so long as its in dublin, in your gaff.

Thats unlikely.This is'nt

 

[ann post]

we waste an awful lot here, not so much in urbia, but in the sticks everyone wants a 4 bed detached house and 9000watts to keep it lit and heated 24 hours a day. i like to convince myself that if people behaved wind could cut it.

 

[GO]

All those detached mock georgian abominations should never have gotten planning permission imo.They're a blot on the landscape.

 

[ann post]

they never did. i studied planning law before i dropped out of college. backhanders. best case scenario they all get turned into workhouses and Magdalene laundries.

 

[fastfude]

Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste
Even if it was only 600 years, do you think the govt/lizard overlords would keep it maintained neatly, efficiently and securely for all that time?
Wind isn't enough on its own, but we do have the Atlantic Fucking Ocean at our disposal – near-infinite free power source anyone? Jobs and exports a go-go there, I'd have thought.

 

[GO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

I think thats a load of guff propagated by big oil to keep themselves in the game.

And I agree that the Atlantics a great recource,below which would be a great spot to bury the waste.

 

[Froog]

i have no problem with nuclear energy. the chances of another chernoble are very slim, that place was shambolically run. nuclear waste can be safely stored and will be treatable with new technology in a few decades. imagine a whole country whose cars and trains are powered from electricity from nuclear energy, a carbon neutral country. it's the only solution at present until fusion power becomes a reality in 2040 ish. renewables can not replace fossil fuels at the moment, when the price and technology is better, great, but until then, nuclear is the way to go. lovelock is a smart man.

 

[magicbastarder]

we do have the Atlantic Fucking Ocean at our disposal – near-infinite free power source anyone?

the gulf stream carries more energy in one day than the entire world uses in three months.

 

[GO]

the gulf stream carries more energy in one day than the entire world uses in three months.

You can't plug a toaster into it though.

 

[plug]

I guess it's an attractive solution but is nuclear power ultimately sustainable?
you still have dig the fuel out of the ground, which in itself has an environmental
impact. and how readily available/abundant are the required nuclear materials?

 

[ann post]

i'm agreeing with the people who dont agree with gaz, simply because changing the source of power isnt any sort of solution to the over consumption of it. over size rural housing, over sized cars, playstation, xbox, ds on standby, computers on all the time, overlit billboards, 24 hour shopfronts, electrical everything, basically what i'm sayin is why invest insomething that facilitates an over consumptive lifestyle instead cutting it at the root?

 

[plug]

an excellent point. the blurb does say 'reduce, reuse, recycle' after all. I think a lot of people ignore two of the three a lot of the time. a lot of people ignore all of them!

 

[GO]

Cutting down is'nt a solution.

I think lighting should be drastically cut back,the place is too bright by a long way.But you can't be turning of yer computer,what about the torrents!

 

[fastfude]

Not cutting down, but better efficiency. Don't do less stuff, just take less power to do it. Unfortunately, that can get abused as do even more stuff for the same amount of power consumption.

 

[magicbastarder]

imagine a whole country whose cars and trains are powered from electricity from nuclear energy, a carbon neutral country.

i think i read somewhere that the amount of CO2 created per watt of energy generated from nuclear is about the same as what you'd get from a modern gas turbine generator, due to all the mining/refinement/transport/disposal and storage/etc., which nuclear requires.
it's far from carbon neutral.

 

[Froog]

I guess it's an attractive solution but is nuclear power ultimately sustainable?
you still have dig the fuel out of the ground, which in itself has an environmental
impact. and how readily available/abundant are the required nuclear materials?

you're right, it is a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

 

[egg_]

Well, this is a low-information debate isn't it? Is anybody basing their opinions on anything bar something they might have read somewhere or overheard on a bus?

 

[Froog]

i think i read somewhere that the amount of CO2 created per watt of energy generated from nuclear is about the same as what you'd get from a modern gas turbine generator, due to all the mining/refinement/transport/disposal and storage/etc., which nuclear requires.
it's far from carbon neutral.

maybe so, but if your cars and trains are running off the nuclear electricity, that's a ball load less co2 in a country.