Nuclear power in the papers

national | environment | opinion/analysis

Thursday January 12, 2006 20:34

by marcus

Veronica McDermott is a rep for BNFL in Ireland and has had an article in the Sunday Business Post (10/12/06) and been heavily quoted in an article in the Sunday Independent (08/01/06) both of which promote nuclear power as a real option and both of which only refer to her as a public affairs consultant. this along with David McWilliams article a few weeks ago shows that there is a pro-nuclear agenda being pushed in our papers preparing the nuclear industry to pounce when energy becomes a major issue.

Veronica McDermott has appeared in the Sunday Business Post (10/12/06) and was quoted at length in the Sunday Independent (08/01/06)last week defending nuclear power. Neither paper mentioned that she is a BNFL rep in Ireland something easily found out by a word search of her name. She is called a public affairs consultant in both articles. In the sbp article she goes on about climate change then ridicules the alternatives: “we are treated to fantastic delusions about Ireland's wave and wind resources powering the universe, which is entirely possible in theory, but hardly practical in reality”, explaining in detail who around Europe is now planning on building new plants. This is the same tactic used by the incineration industry and those pushing for it, using examples of incinerators around Europe but neglecting to mention those who do not feel the need for them due to adequate recycling. I wrote a letter to the sbp - not printed and this weeks Sun Indo - will see if printed, highlighting the fact that Germany is planning on phasing out its nuclear programme by 2020, Sweden is planning on being fossil fuel-free in 15 years without new nuclear stations and that over 50,000 people are employed in the wind industry in Denmark.
David McWilliams wrote an article a while back for the sbp, referred to in last Sunday’s Independent article about the necessity of nuclear stations in the future in Ireland. Another article appeared in the Herald on Wed. (11/01/06) ridiculing our use of nuclear energy from Britain and our unwillingness to build a station ourselves.
We could be net exporters of wind and undercut BNFL with proper investment. This would require a change in government but if these guys are still in power in five years we could seriously be looking at the nuclear option being proposed, when fuel prices have risen sharply. Goldsmith-Sachs have predicted oil to reach $100 a barrel by 2010. At present, as far as i am aware, the ESB have no real plans to start building wind turbines, instead relying on Airtricity and other private companies to do so. This week we saw Airtricity announcing more turbines but it would be better if our energy was in our own hands and not being controlled by the private sector. Another factor that cannot be forgotten is that if another right-wing government comes in after the next election we will probably see the ESB privatised, like Aer Lingus it will be to boost the coffers for a big give away/pay off to get re-elected. This will totally take control of energy, out of our hands.
Ms. McDermott is trying to scare the public early without giving her full credentials and vested interest;
another article explains how she helped a former press agent for Sellafield get elected for New Labour last May. This government has the foresight of a goldfish and is easily lead by big business
when in trouble e.g. incinerators, when waste became an issue. If Ms McDermott and Mr. McWilliams
keep pumping out this one sided misinformation we could be looking at a nuclear station up and ready within fifteen years. Blair used the window of fear from increased gas prices - directly related to the British privatization of its energy system where gas was 160 a litre at that point, whereas it was still only 60cents a litre in Holland, where there was no privatization. As well as new gas storage facilities being built within three years which will pretty much prevent a repeat of the same gas crisis -to announce his plans for new nuclear stations or a ‘review’ in spin talk. Incidentally did anybody catch Kay Burley of Sky News that day harassing the Greenpeace rep live on air not allowing him finish his points and making it appear that he was the protagonist it was like a scene directly out of “Outfoxed - Rupert Murdock’s war on Journalism’ which I have a copy of if anybody is interested.
Our government will use the same tactics, when the people are feeling insecure, that is when the announcement will be made. As with incineration facts like wind produces five times the power, for the same expense as nuclear, will be lost in waves of paranoia revolving around images of old women freezing to death in their beds pumped out by Ms McDermott and co.
Many readers may not believe in the democratic process but if you don't vote for anybody other than FF,FG, or the PDs there is a very real possibility of a nuclear station being built here by 2020. I reckon that it will be a FF/Labour coalition next term but Patricia McKenna highlighted that Pat Rabitte voted for a pro nuclear plan in Europe in '94 (I cannot quite remember the full circumstances maybe somebody else can fill in the full story), which lost him his seat so if you don't trust them vote for somebody else.
The media battle has begun, subversively with Ms McDermott and with the cold, logical, rational that only an economist like Mr. McWilliams can express. Of course if a plant is ever built I feel all those who are in favour of it and those who have fought against wind turbines should be made move within fifty miles of it. I wonder if Mr. McWilliams would be so pro-nuclear if he had one out his back. When a New Labour minister was asked about how he would feel if a nuclear power station were to built in his neighbourhood he replied that existing sites have worked fine up to now and would see no point in moving existing power stations. Reading between the lines this means; let the Celts have them, there is one station in Scotland all of whose energy goes to England. Nuclear stations in your area discourage other businesses moving in thus leading to total dependence by the locals, a fact which seems to be exploited by Ms McDermott in this article: http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/05/01/story4413.asp

save preference

Comments (7 of 7)

Nuclear Power

by John

Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:58

Almost every country in Europe has nuclear power stations apart from Ireland. Are they all wrong? There is no truth in your absurd claim that Ireland could quickly generate so much electricity from wind that there would be a surplus for export. Denmark has spent a fortune on wind-generated power stations but they still only meet 20 per cent of Denmark's electricity needs. We could of course postpone the day when Ireland will need to build its own nuclear power stations by encouraging multi-national companies like Shell to explore Irish waters for oil and gas and then develop any gas and oil fields discovered. But, of course, the lefty environment fanatics in Ireland are against that too. Its the same with incinerators. Almost every other country in Europe has incinerators. But when these are proposed in Ireland the lefty environmental types go ballistic. Ireland is full of left-wing so-called 'environmentalists' who spend their entire lives telling us how superior other countries in Europe are to Ireland when it comes to protecting the environment. But, when Ireland decides to follow these countries in respect of things like nuclear power and incinerators, we're told by these same people that they will destroy the environment.

...chalk it down

by Northern Light

Fri Jan 13, 2006 13:22

The nuclear option is coming so fast we had better get our answers prepared. Similar articles have appeared in the press in other parts of Europe. One I read said that the price of Uranium has risen by a factor of 3 in the last few years. Nuclear is the capital intensive, technocratic, concentration of power in one place that states and big business love. Given the choice between construction of a 1 Gigawatt Nuclear Power Plant or putting up 400 2.5 Mega watt Wind turbines to get the same installed capacity it's a no brainer as to which option a right wing government would choose. Actually a few hundred more wind turbines would be neede to account for the intermittancy of wind and the conveversion efficiency of wind power to electricity. Giving the coming scarcity of oil and natural gas alternatives are needed. States will instinctivly go for the option which is closest to the "personality" of same state - technocratic, hierarchical, concentration of power in one place, requiring lots of security, requiring lots of administration etc.

What they don't tell you is that using conventional light water nuclear reactors there is only enough uranium left for the next 70 years. As Richard Douthwaite has correctly pointed out Uranium is a non renewable resource. There are currently about 400 Nuclear reactors in the world. If more are built this time scale decreases. The only way to make the Uranium last is to build breeder reactors which "breed" Plutonium from the Uranium. If this option is chosen there will be enough Uranium for the next 20,000 years. We all know, however, what Plutonium is good for so consideration of this option would fly in the face of all the non proliferation rhetoric.

Mohommad el baradi in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on behalf of the IAEA last month said that all Uranium enrichment should be controlled by an international body to prevent the possibility of any country having the means to enrich Uranium to weapons grade. Ask Ms. Mc Dermott, Mr. McWilliams & co. what they think about this proposal!

Lastly what they definately won't tell you is that storage of nuclear waste is a problem which has not been solved. The most widely agreed option - deep geologial storage - has not even begun in the U.S. or in Europe. The volumes of waste are not that big so one would think that a deep cave would have been found somewhere by now. But no... Currently the waste is kept on site at the reactors or sent to Sellafield or Cap de la Hague in France for reprocessing. And as Mr. Blair knows so well Sellafield is about the furthest geographic point away from London that one can get in England...

To conclude ask them where the waste is going, ask them what kind of reactors are to be built, ask them what about the IAEA proposals for enrichment and ask them how many wind turbines could be bought, erected and connected to the grid ... for the same price.

enough to export...some of the time

by staying power

Fri Jan 13, 2006 19:07

It is no exxageration to say that Ireland could generate so much electricity from wind power that it would have a surplus for export. This would require a large capital investment (but less than the real cost of equivalent nuclear power, when storage of highly radioactive waste millenia into the future is included). The problem is that wind power is not always there when you need it, (e.g. on still winter nights) - one reason why Denmark still generates less than 20% with wind. But wind as the main source, supplemented with natural gas (in the short term, biofuel in the long term) for the low wind speed periods, that is a much better proposition. The sticky point is not the real cost comparison with nuclear (wind wins hands down when you look long term) but the double capital cost of wind and the backup thermal (gas etc) generating plant neccessary.

Nuclear ore supply shows it's not a viable option

by Terry

Fri Jan 13, 2006 19:30

To add a further point regarding the folly of the nuclear option to solve our energy problems it is worth considering the following which has been taken from the Minnesota's Energy Future? by Dell Erickson, October 20, 2003 Part II-B: Energy & Resources -see the section on Ore resources.

Basically there are 400 nuclear power plants world wide at present and what the extract from the report shows is that at current usage, the Uranium ore supplies will only last for 47 years. But adding just 100 new reactors, reduces it to 40 years and 200 to 32 years. Any more and it would very quickly become un-economical to build anymore. And that's without considering energy paybacks and the waste problem.

Report Extract:

A miniscule fraction of uranium ores are high grade (2%) and the U.S. has only 3% of total recoverable ores (not only high grade). Canada has 14%, Australia 28%, South Africa 10%, and Russian States 25% of total uranium ores. The most optimistic of assumptions may have been made by the source in preparing this information, the Uranium Information Centre (an Australian trade association for Australia’s uranium mining industry). Considering all sources, as of 1999 there were approximately 3.1 million recoverable tons of uranium ore. Excluding military stockpiling and use, nuclear reactors use more than 65,000 tons each year. Thus, excluding the military and assuming no increase in nuclear reactors, at best there remains less than 47 years before ores are exhausted.

The world has slightly more than 400 operating nuclear power plants at this time. On average each facility requires 163 tons of ore per year (65,000 ÷ 400). If only 100 additional nuclear facilities were constructed, they would require 16,300 tons of ore each year and over a 30-year life, 488,000 tons. In other words, the construction of only 100 nuclear power plants will move forward in time by seven years the exhaustion of uranium ores —to 40 years (before 2040). The addition of 200 plants implies the exhaustion of the world’s uranium ores in approximately 32 years (before 2032).

Using their figures I have created a table of the total ore quanity, number of reactors, usage per year and resulting lifetime of the ores -all based on their figures. Please note the nuclear optimists dream of increasing the number of reactors worldwide up into the 1200 which incidently would only begin to approach the energy replacement for what oil now provides us with:

Usage is the quantity used per reactor per year and Total is the total tonnage for the given number of reactor plants per year. And lifetime is the total per year divided into the Ore supply which is 3.1 million tonnes -as stated above

Ore Resource - Usage - #Plants - Total - Lifetime
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 400 ---- 65200 --- 47.5
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 500 ---- 81500 --- 38.0
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 600 ---- 97800 --- 31.6
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 700 ---- 114100 --- 27.1
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 800 ---- 130400 --- 23.7
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 900 ---- 146700 --- 21.1
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 1000 ---- 163000 --- 19.0
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 1100 ---- 179300 --- 17.2
3100000 ____ 163 ----- 1200 ---- 195600 --- 15.8

Did somone say

by NUKE Ireland

Fri Jan 13, 2006 22:24

With the non started Bertie Bowl,the leaky port tunnel,and the even leakier olympic pool.The overbudgeted and incompetant national roads plan.etc.And WE should now build a nuke reactor????Can we say "disaster in the making?"

Nuclear resource to last thousands of years

by reader

Mon Jan 23, 2006 18:42

So says Jim Smyth in the Times today, and Chernobyl ,not as bad as was thought but not as bad as what?

History repeating itself - a farce or a tragedy?

by MichaelY - IAWM - not SWP!!

Mon Jan 23, 2006 19:58

As one of those thousands upon thousands who fought and fought successfully against the building of a nuclear plant at Carnsore Point nearly thirty years ago, I am watching with interest how the spokespeople of the nuclear industry and their 'expert' friends are beginning to prepare the ground for a repeat performance. I remember the ex-Taoiseach telling us in the Late Late with Gay that he would have no problem living in a house close to a nuclear plant. A week or so later Three Mile Island happened - and a couple of months later Chernobyl destroyed a whole region. And it was Des O'Malley, Fianna Fail Minister of Industry then, later of PDs, who had to admit publicly defeat. Who will it be this time? The Minister of Injustice perhaps - that farcical ideologue?
Let them dream - let them conspire. Our slogan then was THERE WILL NO NUCLEAR - it's the same today. Let them come - we'll be waiting for them.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

Nuclear power in the papers

Comments (7 of 7)