Nuclear Power and Ireland
To grow sustainably, every economy needs to provide itself with power without burning fossil fuels in the 21st Century. This presents a problem, because fossil fuels are running out. Even together, solar, wind, wave, hydroelectric, and other greener technologies aren't yet up to the task of supplying Ireland's needs, as the government's 2007 white paper has shown. Chemist and environmental pioneer James Lovelock has controversially written that in the short to medium term, say 25 years or so, nuclear power is the only option for advanced economies to grow without fossil fuels.
I think we'll see a largely nuclear Ireland by 2030.
Ireland has repeatedly rejected the construction of a nuclear power plant, for a host of reasons, most of them irrational fear mongering, factually incorrect, or just twaddle. Sometimes a combination of these.
I think if the benefits of nuclear power were put to the Irish people in a consistent and intelligent way, they would respond with a different answer.
During 2009, nuclear power plants, with a capacity of 370 gigawatts, will produce roughly 14% of the world-wide electric energy. About 65,000 tons of natural uranium are required to operate these reactors. The benefits of nuclear power are cheap, reliable energy which is independent of fossil fuel usage and, as we've seen, price changes. Not only does nuclear power have negligible CO2 (global warming) emissions, but Western nuclear power has never killed a member of the public or had any measurable impact on public health, miles of column inches to the contrary. France is the shining example of the benefits of nuclear power. 78% of French electricity is generated using nuclear fuel.
The costs of nuclear power are, in this order, high level waste disposal, risk of proliferation, severe accidents, and terrorism. Obviously, Ireland would not be subject to most of these risks as it is a (largely) neutral country.
Running out of uranium isn't really an issue either: there are approximately 14,750,000 tonnes of the stuff on Earth, and about a third of that is already mined and in either civilian or military stockpiles. Last year we used close to 67,000 tonnes of this. With type four fast breeder reactor technology, we'd have practically unlimited energy resources into the 22nd century [2].
Right now, Ireland's CO2 emission are 24% higher than our 1990 level. Our Kyoto protocol agreement is for 13% increases, and our energy needs are set to increase by 25% by 2015. So this is not a problem which will go away, as this ESRI report shows. Ireland is contributing to climate change in much the same way as India and China, albeit on a smaller scale.
Pollution is the price of development.
It's fair to say nuclear power isn't the solution, but there is no solution in the medium term without it, as we transition away from fossil fuel power solutions. Those electric cars won't charge themselves.
I should say that I'm not a fan of nuclear power, but there are new ways to buy this power from abroad cheaply, and new reactors being built which we might be able to take a share in. A 25bn pound investment in nuclear power will take place in the UK in the next 10 years, thanks to a recent takeover. This power will need buyers. If it is priced properly, Ireland might be in a position to purchase the benefits of nuclear power without incurring many of its costs.
Stephen Kinsella Blog
Ireland’s recent flooding is only a taste of things to come. Few towns in Ireland even have a flood defence scheme, much less a system of levees.
One challenge facing Ireland by the year 2050 is the persistent risk of rainfall. Increased rainfall brings with it an increased risk of floods, as Read more text
|
 In the long run, Ireland faces two apparently unrelated challenges. First, our infrastructural deficit will grow due to repeated government cutbacks. Secondly, as our population ages, our society will struggle to pay for pensions of a greyer society. The two problems of pensions provision, and Read more text
|
Image by PienJoris via Flickr
Just published in Verbal Magazine
Ireland has a reputation as a land where artists can thrive. Often, Ireland don’t deserve that reputation. I believe it makes long term economic, social, and cultural sense to ensure we keep funding the arts in Ireland for two Read more text
|
|
Here's my interview on TV3 last week, explaining a little about the Read more text
|
 Let's talk about the future. Feminism is going to die in the next 40 years. By 2050, equal rights, legal protection, and social equality for women will have been enshrined in Irish law and, more importantly, in the Zeitgeist, for three generations or more.
In 2009, we are now as far away from Read more text
|
 Take a look at the data below, which comes from this recently released CO2 emissions report by the CSO. (You can get the data I used to make the chart here).
I've taken the largest emitters of CO2 by sector, and graphed them. The data pull out an interesting story. We see a mitigation of the Read more text
|
Stephen Kinsella, PhD , is a lecturer in Economics at the University of Limerick. Originally from Dublin, and in his early thirties, he has lived and studied in the US before taking up his position in the Kemmy Business School. His book Ireland in 2050 began as a newspaper opinion piece in the summer of 2008, which sparked a huge response.
-
And finally, here's Niall Ferguson on the likelihood of a debt-contagion spreading through Europe. Ooh, scary: http://tinyurl.com/yz5st6z
-
Morning all, I'll be on Clare FM with Finbar Bradley around 1015, talking about my talk in ISKS tomorrow: http://tinyurl.com/ybs3l9x
-
Before the rugby kicks off: former IMF Chief Johnson says: "The IMF cannot help [Greece] in any meaningful way". http://tinyurl.com/ycvh3re
Comments
If you start with a false premiss, the rest of your argument is also false. Alternative sources can, should they be deployed, supply the needs, and in a shorter time frame than nuclear Fission technologies. Alternative, or waiting for Fusion technology will be be better long term for Ireland. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Thanks for the comment. The premise isn't false, I think. The question is the speed at which renewable technologies can be rolled out to substitute for 'backbone' technologies like high powered diesel engines in trucks used for industrial purposes, and larger machinery built into factories which only depreciate over a 25-40 year timescale.
The point I'm making in the article, and I flesh it out a lot in the book, is that we have to transition from fossil fuels to renewables on this 25-40 year timescale, and nuclear power can help us do that, as a highly imperfect stop-gap. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
I don't really buy the arguments of people who say that nuclear power plants are a safety risk in terms of meltdowns. I agree with you that newer model reactors have pretty much eliminated that problem.
But isn't waste a huge problem? We have to store all the waste that these reactors produce, taking up more of the limited space on our planet for thousands of years. Pile up enough waste and we'll have another resources problem on our hands.
And by importing energy derived from nuclear power from Britain or wherever, we're still responsible for the consequences of their plants. If there was no demand, the reactors wouldn't be built. We're not just citizens of Ireland, but residents of the world too. Wherever the waste is stored, it's partly our responsibility.
Of course, it may be the only way. But might it not be possible instead to plough more money into renewable energy research in the hope that new technological breakthroughs will come faster? Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Fixing those things alone would greatly reduce our energy usage. Failing to address them would mean that we simply waste other peoples energy in the future - whether its nuclear or not Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
RSS feed for comments to this post.