Should Ireland go nuclear?

[How bad boy]

That pops up every 5 years or so:
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/motorola-announces-gas-powered-cell-phones-2001104/

It was a big thing in Nokia back in 2005, if memory serves correctly. Never really got off the ground.


As for the above:
http://www.daizizheng.com/index.htm

Educatio
2006-09 - BA (Hons) in Product Design, Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, London
2005-06 - Foundation Studies in Art and Design, London

I suspect it's vapourware. That needs serious scientific and engineering advances. I don't see any science or engineering experience in her CV. I doubt that's even vaguely close to possible right now.

 

[Wallace]

That pops up every 5 years or so:
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/motorola-announces-gas-powered-cell-phones-2001104/

It was a big thing in Nokia back in 2005, if memory serves correctly. Never really got off the ground.


As for the above:
http://www.daizizheng.com/index.htm

Educatio
2006-09 - BA (Hons) in Product Design, Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, London
2005-06 - Foundation Studies in Art and Design, London

I suspect it's vapourware. That needs serious scientific and engineering advances. I don't see any science or engineering experience in her CV. I doubt that's even vaguely close to possible right now.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the Nokia thing .


( as opposed to vapourware I presume it's Patent securing , y'know , so no-one else can come up with it without paying Nokia for the Patent ...)

 

[How bad boy]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the Nokia thing .


( as opposed to vapourware I presume it's Patent securing , y'know , so no-one else can come up with it without paying Nokia for the Patent ...)

Unless she's filed something, she's just busted any chance of a patent...

 

[heifersmash]

I'm not.

If you think I am, you have completely and utterly missed just how much I've studied this subject.
/QUOTE]

I assure you I haven't.
The impression I do get is that you are just recently out of college (recent being within last 5 years) and are very enthusiastic about energy sources. I think however that within the enthusiasm you are green as grass (for want of a better expression) and a little bit on a hobby horse about nuclear energy because you studied it and were, admirably so, quite enthusiastic about it.

I would like to make sure that I mean none of the above in a backhanded way nor am I trying to cause any offense, I am just pointing out why I find your advocacy of nuclear energy so biased.

The way you present the case is this :

with regards to hydro and wind etc you present worst case scenario and disastrous examples.

When speaking of Nuclear you present best case scenario and then dismiss any disastrous examples as lies or bad statistics.

Not sure if you notice you are doing it yourself, as your words may betray you. It is just how you are perceived throughout the thread.

 

[How bad boy]

I'm not.

If you think I am, you have completely and utterly missed just how much I've studied this subject.

I assure you I haven't.
The impression I do get is that you are just recently out of college (recent being within last 5 years) and are very enthusiastic about energy sources. I think however that within the enthusiasm you are green as grass (for want of a better expression) and a little bit on a hobby horse about nuclear energy because you studied it and were, admirably so, quite enthusiastic about it.

I would like to make sure that I mean none of the above in a backhanded way nor am I trying to cause any offense, I am just pointing out why I find your advocacy of nuclear energy so biased.

The way you present the case is this :

with regards to hydro and wind etc you present worst case scenario and disastrous examples.

When speaking of Nuclear you present best case scenario and then dismiss any disastrous examples as lies or bad statistics.

Not sure if you notice you are doing it yourself, as your words may betray you. It is just how you are perceived throughout the thread.

I finished my second degree almost 2 years ago, my first just shy of a decade ago. I thought renewables were the answer till 2 years ago, at a lecture with a UK government energy advisor. I didn't believe him at the time.
It turned out my assumptions till that point were faulty

 

[local]

sure we should .it would still be as safe here as it is in the uk if selerfeild had a major leak we would be fuc- anyway.

 

[Attracta Mann]

http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20110530-35337.html

Well this is what's going on in Europe's largest industrialised country, some are calling it a knee jerk reaction but the first steps towards it were put in place several years ago.

 

[frankeechops]

http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20110530-35337.html

Well this is what's going on in Europe's largest industrialised country, some are calling it a knee jerk reaction but the first steps towards it were put in place several years ago.

From that article:

He(FDP parliamentary leader Rainer Brüderle) told broadcaster ZDF on Monday morning that the hole in the electricity supply leading from the nuclear shutdown would have to be filled by building more natural gas power plants

So the solution is to burn more fossil fuels?

Anyone remember this little spat?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4569846.stm

Watch Germany jump back on the energy security bandwagon the next time this happens.

 

[How bad boy]

Incidentally, what's actually going to happen is gassification of the Irish economy. All future demand will be met by gas, to the point that ~80% of all Irish electricity (and close to 100% at peak demand hours) will be provided by gas. It'll reduce CO2 emissions somewhat and with the falling price of gas, will probably be cheaper than any of the solutions in this thread.

Sad, but it's what's almost certainly going to happen.

Look like it's what's happening right now worldwide:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...demand-rises-as-nuclear-power-is-shunned.html

There are 337 LNG ships worldwide.

The next generation of ships will carry 260,000 m³.

The energy density of LNG is about 60% of diesel, or about 20MJ/L. As a result, an LNG ship will hold 5.5 Petajoules of energy.

That's more than a megaton of TNT, or 20 times the energy of Hiroshima.

Yay, the world is saved from dangerous nuclear power!

Try to avoid living near an LNG site.

 

[How bad boy]

Jesus:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/national_grid_2020/print.html


(I'm partly using this thread as a place to store a number of interesting links on the renewable energy debate. Sorry bout that).


To redress the balance, there was a good article on small hydro last month in the IET's magazine that reckoned you could get up to 248MW out of it (although the original article said GW, not MW, which was later corrected.
Can be found here, but you need a valid login for the IEEE library:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5715030

And another poke in the eye with a pointy stick for those of us who reckon nuclear is really the only truely viable solution if we want to reduce C)2 emissions:
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2011/jun/Italy-referendum.cfm


Yay, it'll be replaced by gas and importation of nuclear supply from France.

Which, coincidentally is the plan Germany has for when their lights go out when a high pressure weather pattern hits northern europe in the middle of winter and demand shoots up.

It's also the current plan for Denmark, the UK and Ireland too.

Viva France (et son industrie nucléaire...)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/20...ucleaire-sarkozy-ne-blame-pas-l-allemagne.php

That is, unless Marie Le Pen gets her way:
http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/01012343228-marine-le-pen-la-sortie-du-nucleaire-est-un-objectif


If she does, it's great news for the Russians (and bad news for CO2 emissions and people who pay for electricity).