November 4, 2006

Why is it an article of faith to be against Nuclear power?

Posted in Ireland · 16 comments ·
Share 

The world – and that means Ireland too – is at a once-in-a-century crossroads. We are moving away from carbon based fuels to nuclear power. This century will be nuclear and we had better get used to it. While the language and prejudices of the 20th century still (understandably) dominate the nuclear debate, the realities of the 21st century point unambiguously to a nuclear future. Nuclear power does not mean nuclear weapons and this distinction will become increasingly apparent in the years ahead and the world is already going nuclear. Led by France and Asia, in twenty or thirty years’ time, nuclear power will be the norm. Ireland cannot opt out or shirk responsibility indefinitely.

If we want to maintain our lifestyle with its voracious demand for energy we will have to embrace nuclear too. The fact that we are the third most oil-dependent country in Europe will accelerate this process. There are five major factors driving the nuclear world.

1. Oil production will peak in the next decade and run out thereafter.
2. Global warming implies that we can’t continue to burn carbon based fuels for energy.
3. The world population is growing rapidly and, as it does, the demand for energy rises exponentially. The demand from China and India alone will drive the price of oil and other fuels through the roof.
4. Nuclear is the most environmentally-friendly energy known to man
5. Thus far, renewables and other forms of sustainable energy such as wind, water and wave have proved not to be powerful enough to satisfy our energy needs.
6. Resource-driven conflicts will mean that countries or regions will have to look after themselves and increasingly look after their own needs by investing in nuclear power plants.

But don’t take my word for it: look at the plans for new nuclear power plants in Finland, France and Sweden – all countries with impeccable environmental records. The UK announced that it will ramp up its nuclear programme over the next ten years while, in Asia, China is opening 24 new nuclear plants in the next ten years. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

An interesting way to assess the global attitude to nuclear is by examining the price of uranium itself. It has risen by 650% in the past four years as savvy investors see that the nuclear age is almost upon us and are buying uranium accordingly. Interestingly, in the past few months as oil, gas and other commodity prices have fallen, uranium is the only commodity whose price has continued to rise.

In Ireland, it is an article of faith to be against nuclear power. Why is this? We are talking about the clean, efficient power which heats houses, freezes food, keeps hospital operating theatres working and lights our schools. Why, when energy is the single biggest economic and political issue facing rich countries, do we feel that we have to exclude the most ‘green’ and environmentally friendly source of energy known to mankind?

Why do we stifle debate on nuclear power? The sometimes hysterical muzzling of a debate on nuclear power can be seen as a modern secular version of the old religious dictates that led to Galileo’s retraction in the 16th century or the banning of books here in the 1950s.

Given the depletion of the world’s resources and the fact that carbon emissions are unsustainable, nuclear power is a logical alternative.
First we have to get over our very 20th century fear of nuclear power. 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 (80%) – on nuclear power for electricity.

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.

When Britain announced a few weeks back that it was going to open five new nuclear plants over the coming years to diversify its dependence on oil and other fossil fuels, it stated that its aim is to reduce carbon emissions. It seems quite logical and grown up to look at all the alternatives.

However, our Minister for the Environment Dick Roche responded by stating we would never buy electricity from Britain that was generated by nuclear power. Ok not from the Brits but where are we going to get our energy from? What are the alternatives? Is the present policy or more and more oil dependence sustainable and has the anti-nuclear mantra replaced hard thinking when it comes to taking responsibility for the planet?

The issue is pretty clear-cut: the world – with its burgeoning human population – risks a new hot age. The more fossil fuels we burn, the hotter the planet becomes, the more the polar ice caps melt and the greater the risk, among other things, of a great flood.

Obviously, prior to this hot-age Armageddon, we would experience cataclysmic climate changes, such as the possible disappearance of the Gulf Stream. Imagine Ireland with Newfoundland’s winter. This would be traumatic for all of us. In the extreme, we could experience global meltdown. This is the mainstream green movement’s trump card and we should all listen to it.

For example, when the last ice age ended and the world’s temperature heated up, the oceans rose by 120 metres which eliminated land life on entire continents. So the choice for all environmentalists – and here I believe that includes most of us – is a new hot age or not.

At first glance, the numbers seem trivial.

When scientists talk about a 1 degree centigrade change here and there, most of us shrug our shoulders. But if you think that the difference between the average temperature of the past 1,000 years in this part of the world and the ice age 12,000 years ago was only just over 3 degrees, you should start to worry. Climatologists are suggesting that if we continue living as we are and burning fuels as we are doing, the northern hemisphere might experience a 5 degree increase in average temperature in this century. So something has to be done.

The beauty of nuclear energy for the environment is that it is so efficient. Basically, you get much more energy from nuclear than from any other source – lots more. For example, it takes a million times more oil and gas to produce the same amount of electricity as it does using uranium. So 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.

Now how environmentally sound is that?

Despite the fact that most engineers will accept that nuclear is much more efficient, most of us have a fear about nuclear waste. But the rest of the world has shown that nuclear waste can be buried safely. 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.

Many environmentalists appreciate the efficiency and thus environmental soundness of nuclear. For example, according to James Lovelock – one of the world’s most unimpeachable environmentalists and the proponent of the wonderful Gaia theory of why the whole planet works – nuclear fission reactions generate two million times less waste than burning fossil fuels. Nuclear waste pits are no threat to the planet (at worst, if managed irresponsibly they are a threat to those in the immediate vicinity), unlike carbon dioxide emissions, which could kill us all via global warming.

So, the nuclear debate appears to be shrouded in irrational fears and, in some instances, blatant lies. Take the Chernobyl affair. I remember distinctly the terror after the news trickled out. People were talking about thousands dying and large swathes of Europe being irretrievably contaminated. The figure of between 30,000 to 40,000 dead was taken as gospel.

Do you know how many people died as a direct result of Chernobyl? According to the World Health Organisation, the figure 20 years after the accident is 75.Thesewere mainly the workers and firemen who tried to control the blaze in the hours and days after the fallout. What about Three-Mile-Island in the US? Not one person died as a result of the accident at Three-Mile-Island. Ask any anti-nuclear campaigners the truth on this figure and you will be hard pressed to get a straight answer.

So why are we fed so many lies about nuclear power by the mainstream green movement? Why, when the industry is self-evidently smaller and less well connected than the oil industry, do we still hear so much about ‘the nuclear lobby’? I realise that it is more theatrical to dress up your enemy in vaudeville villain’s clothing, but is it accurate? Does it help us avoid a new hot age?

Maybe the reason is that for many of us, the word ‘nuclear’ conjures up images of Japanese civilians being vaporized by the heat of the atomic bomb.

Many original Green Party members from the 1970s and 1980s were both antiwar activists and members of CND. Both were inextricably linked and “morally good”.

Environmentalism and the anti-war movement went hand in hand and, in their eyes, so too did imperialism (either American or Soviet) and nuclear power.

So nuclear energy – and where you stood on it – was more about your politics than your science. Thus being anti-nuclear was part of a suite of ideas that was unequivocally ‘right on’. It was part of a unifying mantra that put humanity over aggression. Who could argue with that?

But shibboleths and old positions are not enough any more. Given the other narrative about the possibilities of nuclear power, the reality of oil production peaking, the ramifications of the soon to be 8 billion voracious humans on the planet and the prospect of a new hot age, all ideas and technologies need to be entertained.

We simply have no alternative. 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.
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.

While there is no doubt that concerns about nuclear energy is 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.
A new generation is emerging -the Pope’s Children – who are not hamstrung by the ideology of the 1970s, who realize that the planet is in danger and who want to maintain the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed. For them, nuclear is an option. In 2030, 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.


  1. J. Brendan O'Reilly

    An enlightening item. The influences that have affected our thinking about nuclear energy are propogated by the vested interests that exercise the policy of fear and promote ignorance. It is not in the interest of oil companies to promote a nuclear policy. Patrick Moore, one of the Founders of Greenpeace, has observed that, “In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust”. This underscores your case that the ignorance that exists today in modern Ireland is consistent with our past. Sellafield and the reported leaks have not helped our influenced views, either. BNF have been negligent in their covertness and lack of transparency. Patrick Moore goes on to say that, “More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.” Our Government needs to rethink their stated policy on nuclear energy. Your points are well made.

  2. 1 Because of lies, damn lies and statistics. You quote a figure of 75 deaths, but these relate only to the workers sent in at the time of the explosion. That figure completely ignores the effects of radiation on Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine, to name but three countries affected by it, where, according to a Greenpeace report based on research from the Russian and Belarusian Academies of Sciences, the accident resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths between 1994 and 2000… and that the incidence of cancer in Belarus jumped 40 percent between 1990 and 2000.

    According to the report, children born after 1986 have shown an 88.5-fold increase in thyroid cancers.
    (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406)

    Okay, so you might think Greenpeace is biased, but I’m sure you’ve seen the pictures of Belarusian children horribly deformed because their parents were exposed to radiation.
    If not, then I refer you to the table compiled with figures quoted from the Thyroid Tumour Centre, Minsk at
    http://www.chernobyl-international.com/aboutchernobyl/thyroidcancer.asp

    The damage to the genetic heritage of those countries most affected is widespread and horrifying, and will last for centuries. That’s not an article of faith; that’s a fact.

    But even the report you quote from claims the disaster will cause no more than 4,000 deaths worldwide, as if 4,000 deaths was somehow a negligible figure.

    2. Nuclear power is not a green energy at all, much less “the most ‘green’ and environmentally friendly source of energy known to mankind”
    The mining of uranium has serious environmental impacts, including the contamination of groundwater by radioactive tailings. The disposal of spent uranium after the decommission of plants is a nightmare for which there is no real solution as yet.

    3. It is not feasible or ‘economic’ without massive subsidies, which does not even take into account the cost of an accident.. The UK government has pledged that it will not subsidise nuclear power in the future, so it’s unlikely that private enterprise will risk its own money in an enterprise it knows is uneconomic in itself.

    4. Peak Uranium. Current global use requires 68,000 tonnes of uranium annually, but there are only 2-3 million tonnes of exploitable uranium sources globally.
    (Uranium Information Centre, http://www.uic.com.au.)

    So it is not an article of faith, but a marshalling of facts that convinces people that nuclear power is not an option. If a fraction of the monies spent on subsidising nuclear power was spent on wave energy research, for example, countries like Ireland might well be an energy-sufficient.

    I read your columns in the SBP with great interest and pleasure, which is why I’m taking the trouble to reply at length to this one.

    (ps your comment box is hellishly difficult to write in, at least using Firefox, as the text fades almost to invisilbility when writing)

  3. Keith

    Great article about time some rationalism was introduced into this debate. Arguments against nuclear power are all too often based on unlikely worst case scenarios which ignore the progress that is has been made in relation to nuclear safety and ignore the adverse consequences we are going to face if nothing is done or propose unrealistic solutions which would rune the economy. I heard an excellent discussion of the topic on the radio show Science Friday over here in the states a few months back, apparently the new generation of fission plants are designed so it is physically impossible for them to melt down.

  4. Declan Carolan

    Dear David,

    This is another one of your articles that is ill informed and extremely biased.

    Why don’t you point out in any of your articles or TV shows that Germany is in the process of dismanling their nuclear power plants? and becoming nuclear independent!

    Is Uranium unlimited? no (I think the article by Philip deals with this)

    by your own admission uranium has increased in price by 650% so why would it be a good idea to become dependant on that then? (are you or are you not, an economist, I thought that one of the first concepts in economics was supply and demand)

    That would be like moving from one addiction to another!!!

    Yes nuclear does produce less carbons but it also produces radiation, look at sellafield look at the instances of children with lukemia do you believe that this is a coincidence?
    (If you believe that this is a coincidence and it’s not caused by radiation, you probably believe in the tooth fairy and the easter bunny as well, do you?)

    You never pointed out the cost of constructing or dismantling a nuclear power plant, surely to God if we can’t build the luas or the port tunnel on time and on budget how do you propose we could build a power plant on time and on budget?
    (by the way, constructing a plant is in the Billions and dismantling it is in the Billions too,)

    I wrote to you before about Chernobyl never responded to me with regard to Chernobyl on your last article, I have witnessed first hand the affects of Chernobyl. There doesn’t have to be another Chernobyl for us to learn our lesson. If this happened again in Europe, there is NO second chance.

    Do we really need to go down the route of nuclear power? No
    We have an ample supply of clean technologies available but there is not enough political will to push on with them because at this point in time its not lucrative enough.

    I challange you, for the benefit of you children and your children’s children to become a catalyst for new clean technologies that don’t threaten our futures. It would be more worthwhile for you to do a TV show on methods to save money, conserve energy and help the environment. But I think that this would contravene your capitalist stance and may seem like taking a step backwards.

    Go on make the difference, think outside the box, I know you can.

    P.S. does the UK have an impecable record on Nuclear Power???? you didn’t mention them because they don’t, there was a number of fines handed out for leakages in plants less than a month ago!

  5. Garry

    Hi,

    Its good to see somebody pushing alternatives to the natural gas/turf/oil based powerstations …

    But I just think people just don’t get the scale of the problem…

    Natural gas and oil is running out and will get more expensive as supplies reduce. Whether that is in 5 years time or 50 years time, obviously makes a big difference to us as individuals but it doesnt make a huge difference when discussing the human race collectively.

    Even if alternative oil sources (tar sands etc) can be shown to meet our needs for > 50 years out, there remains the central issue — keeping production at current levels is seriously damaging the planet.

    So either way provides the time window by when an alternative has to be found or like the easter islanders, our standardard of living/civilization collapses when the cheap sources of energy are used up and we havent solved the tremendously difficult problem of creating a sustainable alternative.

    In my opinion, nuclear aint as clean as claimed but it is viable and cleaner than its detractors say, the main issue is in mining and refining it.. Solar and wind arent viable for the 24/7 nation we have become. To support this, airtricity used to have a graph showing power output but have dropped it… it was a great way to educate people who thought wind was the future, the peak power output was impressive but the average was tiny. So windpower was great if you only wanted to boil the kettle or run the furnace on windy days. Wave has possibilities. Biofuels dont.

    How much energy does it take to boil an electric kettle? to put those kiwi’s and oranges on the supermarket shelf? to drive down to the supermarket and pick them up? to power the PC you are viewing this on? to produce the 3.3MW (peak) of electricity that the ESB produces?

    Try to do the calculations not in terms of watts, but in terms of “How many people or horses would be needed to crank the generator to generate that power?” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)

    Maybe by stating the problem as bluntly as that would at least force people to see the scale of our current energy consumption and by extension the scale of the problem. Hopefully, after the inevitable “The end is nigh” reaction, then we start coming up with solutions.

    Proposing solutions like nuclear are dismissed because a majority dont see the need…

    Q: Would you rather have nuclear, wind or natural gas power.
    A: Wind obviously, then gas and lastly nuclear.

    Q: Which would you prefer, nuclear power or Mr. Putin having control of your ESB/gas bill… Because the ‘do nothing’ approach, is going to get us there…
    A:

  6. Garry

    Sorry, one inaccuracy in the last post ESB produces 3.3GW not MW peak, slight difference:)
    and

    very interesting quote from this link
    http://www.windstreampower.com/humanpower/hpgtech.html

    — The typical average continuous power that can be generated by pedaling is about one-sixth horsepower or 125 watts, more or less, depending on the weight, strength, and endurance of the person pedaling —

    So, your a 3 bed semi probably needs most of the australian footy team pedaling away in order to keep the lights and TVs on and heated during these winter nights…. and then theres the christmas lights :)
    makes you think!

  7. John Dawson

    In favour of nuclear power

    1. It the only means we have to generate large amounts of electricity without producing carbon dioxide
    2. It is an existing technology and can be ramped up immediately

    Against nuclear power

    1. The history of nuclear energy is inextricably tied up with nuclear weapons
    2. We have consistently been lied to about nuclear energy, particularly regarding the cost
    3. The risk of a very serious accident (e.g. Chernobyl) is small, but not negligible
    4. The long-term storage of nuclear waste is an unresolved problem
    5. There are only limited amounts of uranium available
    6. Nuclear power can only generate electricity, in particular it can’t (currently) help with transport

    In brief, for the next few decades we will have no alternative; in the long term, we will simply use far less energy – we will have no choice

    In Ireland, the objections to nuclear power will evaporate overnight – as soon as the lights go out.

  8. I agree,

    power consumption in this Country will climb year after year no matted how many crazy energy saving TV switch-off-your-unused-lights adverts there are. The big issue for the not so future Ireland is when will the first nuclear plant be built and where.

  9. The big issue for the not so distant future Ireland…

  10. As you consider your country’s energy options, you might find this an interesting / entertaining inside look at how the nuclear industry really works in the US, from someone who has been in the middle of it for two decades. There’s good and there’s bad, but it’s clear that there’s a wide gulf between public understanding (including both pro- and con- punditry) and how things actually are done. See http://RadDecision.blogspot.com

  11. Kieran O'Brien

    An interesting topic indeed.

    Last Wednesday the Trinity Phil debated the subject and concluded by approving the use of Nuclear Energy. Perhps today’s students are a bit more rational (and caring of the environment) than their parents.
    A French speaker at the debate made the following points:
    – Demand for electricity will double by 2030
    – Greenhouse gas emissions must be halved by 2030

    To succeed in this fourfold improvement we will need ALL of the following:
    – Energy conservation
    – Renewables
    – Carbon capture and sequestration
    – Nuclear Energy

    Not all countries are capable of managing the financial investment or technical complexities of Nuclear Power.
    Those that can (mainly the developed world of the OECD) have a duty to their poorer neighbours to develop Nuclear Energy since this will permit them to increase their energy utilisation and reach first world living standards. Far better to do this for the 3rd world than to keep it in virtual starvation and throw it the odd sop of aid.

    I note the usual reluctance of the uber-environmentalists to accept the findings of the UN report on the final death toll from Chernobyl. This issue was well debated by William Reville and Adie Roche in the Irish Times. Adie lost!

    Chernobyl was terrible accident, caused by a an inherently unstable reactor design (RBMK) operated without proper safety procedures and I wouldn’t want one of these anywhere near me, but the report is correct.

    The figures include ALL deaths to-date including a small number from thyroid cancer. A much larger number has suffered from such cancers (and survived), undoubtedly more will suffer earlier than normal deaths as a result (the report estimates a total of 4400). But multiples of this number will suffer early deaths from lack of clean water or even from their association with automobiles. This does not in anyway excuse the terrible damage done by the accident but it does put it into perspective.

    The argument that the children of people who suffered radiation exposure suffer from genetic defects is entirely unproven. The most extensive and unfortunate “experiment” ever carried out in this area was the dropping of two Nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For more than 60 years scientists have monitored the incidence of disease in more than 80,000 children of those exposed to that terrible radiation. There is as yet no evidence that children inherit genetic defects from parents who have been exposed to radation (the studies still continue) see the following http://www.gsf.de/neu/Aktuelles/Presse/2005/pdfs/Hiroshima-Nagasaki-2005_en.pdf . If we are going to debate this issue, scientific facts are always friendly.

    It is in the interest of ALL of us who live on this planet that Nuclear Energy is utilised by those countries wealthy enough and sufficiently technologically advanced to be able to afford to do so safely. This is not an alternative to conservation or renewables, we need all our energy sources if we are to live sustainably on this planet and permit billions of other human beings to attain our standard of living.

  12. Mark Costigan

    Nuclear Reactor Shut Down after Fire
    A fire forces Sweden to shut down its largest nuclear power plant. The incident is the second nuclear safety problem to hit the country in recent months.

    One of the reactors at the Ringhals nuclear plant in Sweden, which was shut down when a fire broke out on Tuesday
    Just months after a brush with disaster in Sweden, a fire at the country’s biggest nuclear power plant forced the shutdown on Tuesday of yet another reactor. A spokesperson for the plant said that the fire near Reactor No. 3 in Ringhals had been of an “explosive nature.”

    “There was some kind of a bang with flames shooting up,” said spokesman Gosta Larsen. The blaze, which broke out in the small hours of Tuesday morning at the Ringhals plant was quickly put out by fire fighters. All safety systems functioned without problems and a shutdown was triggered immediately, he said. At no stage was there a danger of a radioactive leak.

    The fire broke out shortly after midnight in a transformer about 70 meters (230 feet) away from Reactor No. 3. There were no injuries. The security system automatically shut down the 1,000 Megawatt reactor. “From a nuclear security standpoint this was not a serious incident,” Larsen emphasized. It was not immediately clear when the reactor would be restarted.

    Swedish nuclear safety already came in for some hefty criticism after a previous incident this summer. On July 25, two reactors at the Forsmark plant were shut down after two backup emergency generators malfunctioned during a power failure. There wasn’t enough power for the plant’s control electronics. It was only through the prompt action of an employee that the situation didn’t get out of control. As a safety precaution, four of Sweden’s ten nuclear reactors had to be shut down for up to three months after the incident.

    Ringhals, around 60 kilometers south of Gothenburg, has four reactors and is the biggest nuclear power plant in Sweden. It produces 28 billion Kilowatt hours of energy a year, about 18 percent of the energy consumed in the country. The first reactor at the plant was put into operation in 1975, the last in 1983.

  13. Glen Quinn

    Most british nuclear reactors are in Cumbria and Wales and so if any accidents happen then we will get radiated. Does that make sense?

    I have traveled to Belarus 4 times a year and I do be in the Gomel region which got it bad and to this day I see very healty children and the people that lived through it are all still very healthy. I went to the hospital and I see healthy babies. I don’t see any of the destruction that so called enviromentalist say there is. The only problem that I found was that they cannot use some of there land for agriculture purposes.

    Since we do not have a nuclear reactor can Enviromentalist explain why so many people in Ireland are dying of cancer. Everyone that I know have died of a cancer related death.

  14. James

    On the whole I think the article is to be applauded.
    I am for job creation, and sustained good economic performance, therefore I am for Nuclear.
    And I am someone working in the renewables space(!) – which is worthwhile but won’t save us longterm.

    Intel, HP, Google and all the other bigs guns (particularly the pharmacueticals) will not stay in this country long term if our energy prices continue to spiral upward as they do today….

    In order of priority:
    1. Energy awareness, conservation and efficiency campaign.
    2. Renewables
    3. Nuclear

    I’d be for local nuclear, not imported, but safety is key, and proper and transparent management and controls are essential.

  15. Jonathan Benson

    Regardless of whether we, as a nation, go nuclear or not, it can only be a positive thing to have a rational, fact based, debate.

    On that note I would like to make a few points. First the future is nuclear regardless of your point of view. It’s just that it may not be nuclear fission but rather nuclear fusion reactors. Many scientists are predicting sucessful fussion by 2050 which would effectively mean an end to the global energy crisis. Furthermore this is as clean as nuclear gets. No meltdowns: The process is extremely difficult to sustain so in the event of an accident the whole lot will just stop. The “fuel” deuterium and tritium, hydrogen isotopes both, have a very short nuclear halflife unlike uranium and plutonium. In the event of a “Chernobyl” type disaster you would just stay in for a week while the radiation decreased to normal levels. Also there is no shortage of deuterium and tritium. Strangely enough German funding for fusion research was cut during the previous governments tenure due to the German Green’s aversion to all things “nuclear”. Eamonn Ryan of the Green party, however, knew better as he proved when he attended a debate in UCC on whether the future was nuclear in 2005, wholeheartedly agreeing that fusion was the way forward.

    Second, while uranium is a limited resource it is possible to build breeder reactors which make more fuel that they consume.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

    Third, while Germany is busy dismantling its reactors and has switched to gas from Russia, the canny russians have been busy building more modified Chernobyl clones so that they can sell as much gas and oil as possible. Personally I’d rather the Germans kept theirs. I know who I would trust the most not to blow up.

    Fourth, nuclear waste is pretty horrible stuff but at least it’s localised to a large degree. Better to have waste all in one spot than strewn everywhere. Hopefully new technologies will ameliorate the problem in the future. There’s always the option of putting it in a very very deep hole. Likewise, nuclear accidents are horrible but maybe climate change is the greater of two evils. Renewables can slow the climate change at best but are unlikely to stop it or reverse it.

    Finally, while there is a risk of proliferation of fissionable meterials for bombs it is possible to contaminate materials used in nuclear reactors so that they cannot be used in bombs (with the exception of dirty bombs of course).

    It would be a great stride forward for Irish society in general to have a rational debate about this issue and,more to the point, what we are going to in the future (deciding our own destiny for good or bad is a more important question that whether nuclear is good or bad). Are we mature enough, do we have the political leadership & will hysteria prevail over facts? Time will tell.

    BTW we are currently in an Ice Age albeit in an interglacial period. The last hot age was 40 million years ago. Therefore its not unreasonable to assume that it might get colder rather that hotter. Changes in the Gulf stream cause by unstable global warming could bring it on. Without the gulf stream the polar ice sheet would grow over Europe. As the ice sheet grows more and more solar radiation is reflected back into space causing further cooling and growth in the ice sheet.

You must log in to post a comment.
× Hide comments