The Dail Committee Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security met with BENE last week, to here a presentation on the benefits of nuclear power for Ireland.

The case for the use of nuclear power in Ireland as an alternative and reliable energy source was proposed today at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security.

The Committee received a detailed submission form a "Better Environment with Nuclear Energy" (BENE) who outlined what they perceived to be the benefits of the use of Nuclear Energy.

Speaking following the proceedings of today’s meeting, Seán Barrett, TD, chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security said; "I welcome the submission given today by BENE. This group has no vested interest in the provision of nuclear power but offered their views on the genuine reasons why they feel nuclear power is the way forward for Ireland."

"Their presentation provoked vigorous debate among the committee with some members calling for a removal of the statutory prohibition on nuclear generation Ireland."

"There is a clear need for further debate on this issue and the committee intends to seek submissions from other organisations which may hold a contrary view to that of BENE. However, any discussion needs to be done on a rational, well-informed level while addressing the fears and concerns which exist regarding nuclear power."

BENE claims to be independent and neutral, but inevitably includes people who have made their living in the nuclear industry. There is some information on them here.

http://www.bene.ie/Site/BENE/bene.htm

It is inevitable with high oil prices that the industry will pressurise for expansion, and some people will genuinely believe that it is a lesser evil than inaction on climate change. I note that one BENE member was involved in the Carnsore Point proposal, sunk by mass opposition and demonstrations in the 1970s.
My own view is that the risks of nuclear energy are off the wall: it is one more problem we can do without. There are plenty of alternatives and the investment needs to be made in wind, solar and tidal energy and in energy conservation.

It'll never happen - Eamon Ryan won't let it.

The risks are hugely over-dramatised. As so often with risk, our perception is entirely skewed by large dramatic events when compared to ongoing minor events - in this case, for example, the environmental impacts of coal and gas are small(ish) but constant and definite, as compared to the rather more exciting but much much more unlikely effects of a nuclear accident.

The comparison is not dissimilar from that between planes and cars.

Yes, if there are rakes of nuclear submarines and other power plants etc. knocking around for years then I could accept the risk as being acceptable I think. I'm not sure about the processes in mining the fuel in the first place though ... nor disposing of it afterwards. I'd have questions over the economics of it too not to mention the eventual exhaustion of fuel which means external dependence again.

And then there's the alternative energy industry which perhaps could support us if the infrastructure got proper attention. Eamon Ryan said it would never happen - will he swoop in to save the day?

ibis wrote:

The risks are hugely over-dramatised. As so often with risk, our perception is entirely skewed by large dramatic events when compared to ongoing minor events - in this case, for example, the environmental impacts of coal and gas are small(ish) but constant and definite, as compared to the rather more exciting but much much more unlikely effects of a nuclear accident.

The comparison is not dissimilar from that between planes and cars.

A lot of the problem is that data is presented by people who fit it into their hypothesis, rather than looking at things objectively. Is it rational to compare a plane journey with a car journey by duration, trip numbers, or by journey miles?

Risk assessments involving radioactivity often ignore existing levels of radioactivity and the fact that any additional exposure is a top up over and above the natural levels plus the residual levels from previous accidents. Humans evolved generally to be healthy within naturally occurring levels - but even naturally occurring levels of radon can be fatal. Add on personal x-rays. Then add on whatever is out there from Three Mile Island, Sellafield and Chernobyl. Then add on top anything to come. I'm sure you would find examples of risks that are wrongly calculated in the other direction.

A massive amount of safety lessons are incorporated into flying, because the customers stop flying with airlines perceived as unsafe. With nuclear power,
massive amounts of effort is put into convincing us that they are safe, as it would be commercially catastrophic to have to shut down. A plane crash is incontrovertible and the deaths are concentrated and dramatic. Deaths from nuclear accidents are dispersed and impossible bar a few to directly associate with the cause.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

The risks are hugely over-dramatised. As so often with risk, our perception is entirely skewed by large dramatic events when compared to ongoing minor events - in this case, for example, the environmental impacts of coal and gas are small(ish) but constant and definite, as compared to the rather more exciting but much much more unlikely effects of a nuclear accident.

The comparison is not dissimilar from that between planes and cars.

A lot of the problem is that data is presented by people who fit it into their hypothesis, rather than looking at things objectively. Is it rational to compare a plane journey with a car journey by duration, trip numbers, or by journey miles?

Risk assessments involving radioactivity often ignore existing levels of radioactivity and the fact that any additional exposure is a top up over and above the natural levels plus the residual levels from previous accidents. Humans evolved generally to be healthy within naturally occurring levels - but even naturally occurring levels of radon can be fatal. Add on personal x-rays. Then add on whatever is out there from Three Mile Island, Sellafield and Chernobyl. Then add on top anything to come. I'm sure you would find examples of risks that are wrongly calculated in the other direction.

A massive amount of safety lessons are incorporated into flying, because the customers stop flying with airlines perceived as unsafe. With nuclear power,
massive amounts of effort is put into convincing us that they are safe, as it would be commercially catastrophic to have to shut down. A plane crash is incontrovertible and the deaths are concentrated and dramatic. Deaths from nuclear accidents are dispersed and impossible bar a few to directly associate with the cause.

Certainly there's a spin industry devoted to proving nuclear is safe at all costs, but on the other hand there is for every industry pretty much. As to "deaths from nuclear accidents are dispersed and impossible bar a few to directly associate with the cause", what are we actually talking about there? How many deaths would be attributable if all possible/probable deaths were counted up? What 'accidents' are we talking about? And how many deaths are associated with other forms of power generation?

As far as I know, this is the current picture of deaths/TWh, which to me is the obvious comparison - how many deaths per unit of power:



Source

A useful summary of the risks and risk calculations:

RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER - from the Radiation Information Network in the US.

I'm not going to claim there are no risks with nuclear power - there undoubtedly are. However, most of what I see seems to me to be based on a fear of the technology and a misunderstanding of the risks. I am loath to use the language of the p.ie green-bashers, but opposition to nuclear power is a shibboleth, not a rational stance, and the more so now, when we urgently need non-greenhouse power sources.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

The risks are hugely over-dramatised. As so often with risk, our perception is entirely skewed by large dramatic events when compared to ongoing minor events - in this case, for example, the environmental impacts of coal and gas are small(ish) but constant and definite, as compared to the rather more exciting but much much more unlikely effects of a nuclear accident.

The comparison is not dissimilar from that between planes and cars.

A lot of the problem is that data is presented by people who fit it into their hypothesis, rather than looking at things objectively. Is it rational to compare a plane journey with a car journey by duration, trip numbers, or by journey miles?

Risk assessments involving radioactivity often ignore existing levels of radioactivity and the fact that any additional exposure is a top up over and above the natural levels plus the residual levels from previous accidents. Humans evolved generally to be healthy within naturally occurring levels - but even naturally occurring levels of radon can be fatal. Add on personal x-rays. Then add on whatever is out there from Three Mile Island, Sellafield and Chernobyl. Then add on top anything to come. I'm sure you would find examples of risks that are wrongly calculated in the other direction.

A massive amount of safety lessons are incorporated into flying, because the customers stop flying with airlines perceived as unsafe. With nuclear power,
massive amounts of effort is put into convincing us that they are safe, as it would be commercially catastrophic to have to shut down. A plane crash is incontrovertible and the deaths are concentrated and dramatic. Deaths from nuclear accidents are dispersed and impossible bar a few to directly associate with the cause.

Certainly there's a spin industry devoted to proving nuclear is safe at all costs, but on the other hand there is for every industry pretty much. As to "deaths from nuclear accidents are dispersed and impossible bar a few to directly associate with the cause", what are we actually talking about there? How many deaths would be attributable if all possible/probable deaths were counted up? What 'accidents' are we talking about? And how many deaths are associated with other forms of power generation?

As far as I know, this is the current picture of deaths/TWh, which to me is the obvious comparison - how many deaths per unit of power:



Source

A useful summary of the risks and risk calculations:

RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER - from the Radiation Information Network in the US.

I'm not going to claim there are no risks with nuclear power - there undoubtedly are. However, most of what I see seems to me to be based on a fear of the technology and a misunderstanding of the risks. I am loath to use the language of the p.ie green-bashers, but opposition to nuclear power is a shibboleth, not a rational stance, and the more so now, when we urgently need non-greenhouse power sources.

That first link was funny Ibis - did he count construction jobs on nuclear power stations and uranium mining deaths as well as people falling off roofs when they fit solar panels?

And who are the "Radiation Information Network" ?

You see - the first hurdle of trust has not been lepped over.

ibis wrote:

... opposition to nuclear power is a shibboleth, not a rational stance...

Sometimes you're good for a laugh, ibis.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

The risks are hugely over-dramatised. As so often with risk, our perception is entirely skewed by large dramatic events when compared to ongoing minor events - in this case, for example, the environmental impacts of coal and gas are small(ish) but constant and definite, as compared to the rather more exciting but much much more unlikely effects of a nuclear accident.

The comparison is not dissimilar from that between planes and cars.

A lot of the problem is that data is presented by people who fit it into their hypothesis, rather than looking at things objectively. Is it rational to compare a plane journey with a car journey by duration, trip numbers, or by journey miles?

Risk assessments involving radioactivity often ignore existing levels of radioactivity and the fact that any additional exposure is a top up over and above the natural levels plus the residual levels from previous accidents. Humans evolved generally to be healthy within naturally occurring levels - but even naturally occurring levels of radon can be fatal. Add on personal x-rays. Then add on whatever is out there from Three Mile Island, Sellafield and Chernobyl. Then add on top anything to come. I'm sure you would find examples of risks that are wrongly calculated in the other direction.

A massive amount of safety lessons are incorporated into flying, because the customers stop flying with airlines perceived as unsafe. With nuclear power,
massive amounts of effort is put into convincing us that they are safe, as it would be commercially catastrophic to have to shut down. A plane crash is incontrovertible and the deaths are concentrated and dramatic. Deaths from nuclear accidents are dispersed and impossible bar a few to directly associate with the cause.

Certainly there's a spin industry devoted to proving nuclear is safe at all costs, but on the other hand there is for every industry pretty much. As to "deaths from nuclear accidents are dispersed and impossible bar a few to directly associate with the cause", what are we actually talking about there? How many deaths would be attributable if all possible/probable deaths were counted up? What 'accidents' are we talking about? And how many deaths are associated with other forms of power generation?

As far as I know, this is the current picture of deaths/TWh, which to me is the obvious comparison - how many deaths per unit of power:



Source

A useful summary of the risks and risk calculations:

RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER - from the Radiation Information Network in the US.

I'm not going to claim there are no risks with nuclear power - there undoubtedly are. However, most of what I see seems to me to be based on a fear of the technology and a misunderstanding of the risks. I am loath to use the language of the p.ie green-bashers, but opposition to nuclear power is a shibboleth, not a rational stance, and the more so now, when we urgently need non-greenhouse power sources.

That first link was funny Ibis - did he count construction jobs on nuclear power stations and uranium mining deaths as well as people falling off roofs when they fit solar panels?

The sources he cites do in fact do so.

cactus flower wrote:

And who are the "Radiation Information Network" ?

You see - the first hurdle of trust has not been lepped over.

Sure. They're a non-profit/academic information network, maintained by Idaho State University - which in turn specialises in applications of nuclear physics and in radiological protection.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

... opposition to nuclear power is a shibboleth, not a rational stance...

Sometimes you're good for a laugh, ibis.

Funnily enough, I was just thinking of you.