Frequently Asked Questions

Is terrorism is a threat?

Terrorists pose a threat the world over and security at nuclear sites is crucial. But nuclear power stations are not bombs waiting to go off. Their systems are entirely different from military weapons. Nuclear reactors are operated within robustly thick concrete containment vessels designed to withstand massive impact. In fact, in computer simulations an aircraft flown into a nuclear power station containment vessel at 500 mph evaporated, but the containment was undamaged.

FAQs

The threat of proliferation ?

Ireland will not prevent the international proliferation of nuclear weapons by refusing to build a domestic nuclear power plant.
The effective operation of international anti-proliferation treaties is necessary and so far those protocols have worked pretty well, with UN agencies as active watchdogs. Nuclear materials in nuclear installations and in transit are safeguarded using methods tried and tested over 50 years. The important thing is to promote the responsible peaceful use of uranium as a means of generating electric power: to make sure that uranium - with no other peaceful use other than to generate electricity - is put to the service of man and so extends the availability of other fuels.

FAQs

Don't we have enough potential in renewables to do away with the need for nuclear?

In a word; No.  It is important to bear in mind what we are trying to achieve; we want to reduce carbon emissions and maintain electricity prices at a level that will be competitive internationally, and only nuclear can achieve that.  All other forms of renewables (including solar and hydro) do produce higher levels of CO2 than does nuclear.  Nuclear is also the least expensive and safest. 
It is implicit in the question that nuclear is something to be avoided.  BENE does not have that view.  It is our position that nuclear is not to be feared, although it must be respected.

FAQs

Don't we have enough wind power potential to do away with the need for nuclear?

The main problem with wind power (leaving aside noise, visual intrusion, and interference with broadcast media) is its intermittency.  That is, the combination of the unreliability of wind power (the fact that its availability is unpredictable) and its fluctuating nature.  Intermittency can be accommodated on the national grid up to a certain point, but large-scale use of wind can play havoc with the management of a grid.
A separate problem is that wind turbines generally have a low capacity factor.  The capacity factor is the ratio of the actual energy produced in a given period, to the hypothetical maximum possible (i.e. if running full time at rated power).  The Capacity Factor will obviously vary from location to location, obviously, but is typically in the region of 25%.  In other words, it is as if the turbines work flat out for only 25% of the time, and are completely idle the rest of the time. 
Worse still, the timing of their effective operation is obviously uncontrollable as it depends completely on the weather.  Turbines are therefore often at maximum output in the early hours of the morning, and completely still at daybreak when wind speeds are most likely to be at their lowest.
If there is no wind, then there is no wind, and it doesn't matter how many turbines are on-line as they can produce no electricity if there is no wind.  Large weather systems can affect very wide regions in this way.  The wind energy sector therefore needs backup.  Backup can be in one of three options; pumped storage (this allows excess power to be stored and then released on demand), interconnection with extra-national grids (e.g. the UK , France ), and standby generators.  Not only are these options very expensive, they all produce more CO2 than does nuclear.  As noted above, it is also implicit in the question that nuclear is something to be avoided.  It is our position that nuclear is not to be feared, although it must be respected.

FAQs

Don't we have enough wave and tidal power potential to do away with the need for nuclear?

In a word; No. Brilliant engineers have been trying to make wave power work for more than thirty years, but after all of the time, money and effort expended, there is only one wave-powered electricity generating station in the world.  Why is there not more of that model?  For the very obvious reason; it is too expensive and impractical.
The proponents of wave power contend that not enough resources are being put into research.  However, if more money is not going into wave power it is because the technologies have shown insufficient promise.  The dream is one of limitless power, available free from the ocean.  The reality is that the marine environment is a soup of corrosive chemicals and marine organisms.  Any equipment exposed to the sea is likely to face problems of corrosion and fouling.  Even more important is the fact that the mechanical stresses exerted by the waves on the equipment are enormous, with the result that equipment is prone to mechanical failure and needs heavy maintenance effort.
As for tidal, the requirements of the technology are such that there are very few suitable locations around the world, and none in Ireland .
As noted above, it is also implicit in the question that nuclear is something to be avoided.  It is our position that nuclear is not to be feared, although it must be respected.

FAQs

Don't we have enough potential from bio fuels to do away with the need for nuclear?

In a word; No.  The amount of land required for a meaningful contribution is extraordinary.  The 2020 target of 10% for bio fuels in transport would consume 375,000 hectares (900,000 acres) nearly all of our tillage land (Frank McDonald, Irish Times 17/02/2007 ).  The bio fuel fad is likely only to end in the final destruction of agricultural lands and forests in the developing world.  Already, there are signs that the move toward bio fuels is diverting agriculture away from food production, resulting in upward pressure on food prices around the world.
As noted above, it is also implicit in the question that nuclear is something to be avoided.  It is our position that nuclear is not to be feared, although it must be respected.

FAQs