While we believe that "Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most secure and most abundant source of energy available today" there are many who are completely opposed to it. These views are sincerely held by opponents of nuclear power, all of whom care passionately about the planet. This page will attempt to address their concerns and to dispel some of the myths which surround nuclear energy.
Being a nuclear advocacy site we naturally disagree with those opposed to nuclear and believe their opposition is misguided. We will strive to answer some of the main arguments used against nuclear power. They are listed in order of public concern.

Chernobyl.
The accident at Chernobyl proves that nuclear is too dangerous for Ireland.
There is no doubt that the accident at Chernobyl was an inexcusable man made catastrophe. There is no excuse, it should not have happened. The Soviet engineers were among the best so if it happened to them why would it not happen to a reactor in Ireland? Some say that Chernobyl proves that nuclear is too dangerous a risk. Engineers are arrogant, over confident and cannot be trusted with something so dangerous. These are valid arguments so what answer does BENE have?
The reactors at Chernobyl were graphite moderated (potentially unstable), had no containment building, and were run in a secretive country with a very cavalier safety culture. There was an over confident belief in Soviet technological excellence and any criticism was considered treasonous.
In their defence, if the reactor had been operated as designed the accident would not have happened. The accident occurred because of a safety test being carried out on the backup power generation system. This test would not have been allowed in the west. To conduct the test many reactor safety features were disconnected. This was done without a review by any safety committee. Unforeseen delays in executing the test created a circumstance no one had predicted which resulted in this tragic accident. Many lessons have been learned from Chernobyl and the nuclear industry today is much more open with all countries co-operating together.
This accident could not have happened in the west because all reactors have a containment building, most reactors are water moderated (cannot physically have an uncontrolled reaction) and the safety culture is very extensive. The post Chernobyl nuclear industry is regulated with trusted international control systems. A Chernobyl type accident would be impossible with any reactor proposed for Ireland.

Sellafield.
Ireland can never adopt nuclear because of Sellafield.
Sellafield is a nuclear reprocessing plant on the west coast of England. An Irish nuclear industry would not need to use the facilities at Sellafield. The spent fuel from a nuclear plant does not need to be reprocessed so what goes on at Sellafield has nothing to do with any proposals for Ireland. We in BENE are not apologists for Sellafield and have nothing to do with BNFL.
Irish people may not be aware that Sellafield is not the only reprocessing plant close to Ireland. There is an equally large French plant at Cap la Hague which is as close to the south coast as Sellafield. Both plants reprocess the spent fuel from most of the nuclear reactors in the European Union. These facilities are inspected by EU officials under rules laid down in the EURATOM treaty of the EU.

Nuclear reactors are too large for the Irish grid.
Such a contention might be true if the only commercially obtainable reactors were of 1000 megawatts of electrical power (MWe) or more.  However, this is not the case.
There are currently at least nine power reactors under construction worldwide of less than 700 MWe; for example, Argentina and Romania are building the largest of these with a nominal power output of just less that 700 MWe - a perfect fit for the island of Ireland 's grid.  These are only slightly larger than the reactors considered suitable in the late seventies by the ESB for construction at the Carnsore Point.

Uranium is a finite resource.
This is true but we have more than enough to meet our needs for the foreseeable future. The amount of economically recoverable reserves has increased 50% recently to 85 years. There has been no prospecting for uranium reserves since the seventies because known quantities were more than adequate to meet demand. These reserves can be increased 60 fold to 5000 years if we adopt breeder reactors. When this runs out we can turn to thorium to provide our energy needs. In about 200,000 years we may need to begin to worry.

It would take 20 years for Ireland to have Nuclear power so its not a solution.
This is not an argument which makes any sense. It is true that our record of delivering important infrastructure on time and on budget is not good. However we could have an operating nuclear plant within 4 years if we started today. A more realistic time frame would be within 10 years. The argument that because we need a solution now and nuclear would take too long to deliver is ridiculous. Remember we will need carbon free sources of energy more and more in the future and it is never to late to start solving problems, better late than never. Eventually we will have no alternative to nuclear but by then we may not be in such a strong economic position to prepare properly for its adoption.

Ireland does not have the competence to build or run a nuclear station.
This is probably the most insulting aspersion to throw at Irish engineering competence. The first person to split the atom was an Irishman, Ernest Walton, for which he awarded a nobel prize. The ESB built the first major infrastructure project in the new Irish state between 1926 and 1929 at Ardnacrusha. This feat of engineering was used as a model by the US on how to build the Hoover dam. This hydro electric station is still producing electricity 78 years later. The industrial capacity of modern Ireland is light years ahead of what was available in 1926. Construction of a nuclear station is more than within our competence, in fact Ireland could lead the world in the construction of small to medium sized reactors.

Nuclear provides no solution for heating.
This is another misleading assertion. The most efficient form of heating is by means of heat pumps. A heat pump uses electricity to recover heat contained in the ground, the air or in any water source. An average heat pump recovers 5 units of heat for each unit of electricity consumed. There are many heat pump installers in Ireland, some with more than 20 years experience. The government has a policy to support the installation of domestic heat pumps with a €6500 grant from the SEI. Every home in the country could be heated using nuclear generated electricity by means of heat pumps or storage heaters. This would eliminate the carbon produced from electricity generation and domestic heating. We could trade our carbon allocation and help reduce the heating bills of the elderly.

Nuclear provides no solution for transport.
Again this is not strictly true. The most promising fuel to replace oil is Hydrogen. The lowest cost and most efficient way to produce non carbon Hydrogen is by means of nuclear power. All commercial aircraft could be fuelled by non polluting hydrogen. All cars can also be fuelled by hydrogen using conventional engines or fuel cells. Most public transport should be by electric trains and trams. The technology exists today to do all this, but it will not happen until the inexpensive oil is gone.

Nuclear wastes are an unresolved problem.
In all countries using nuclear energy there are well established procedures for storing, managing and transporting such wastes, funded from electricity users. Wastes are contained and managed, not released. Storage is safe and secure, plans are well in hand for eventual disposal.

Nuclear reactors are unsafe.
The nuclear industry has an excellent safety record, with some 12,000 reactor years of operation spanning five decades. Even a major accident and meltdown in a typical reactor would not endanger its neighbours. Some Soviet designed and built reactors have been a safety concern for many years, but are much better now than in 1986. The Chernobyl disaster was basically irrelevant to any western reactor, or any that might be built today.
According to authoritative UN figures, the Chernobyl death toll is 56 (31 workers at the time, more since and 9 from thyroid cancer).

Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Any reactor licensable in the west has a substantial containment structure and most also have a very robust pressure vessel and internal structures. Evaluations since 2001 suggest that power reactors would be well equipped to survive an impact of that kind without any significant radiological hazard locally. Civil waste and spent fuel storage is also robust and often below ground level

Nuclear energy is too expensive.
Nuclear electricity is mostly competitive with coal, in some places it is cheaper, in some more expensive. If external costs are accounted, nuclear is very competitive. Energy efficiency is vital but cannot displace most generating capacity. Wind power typically costs much more than nuclear - often twice as much per kWh.

Nuclear power uses nearly as much energy as it produces.
This popular folklore is easily rebutted by published data. In fact, considering all inputs including waste management, less than 6% of the output is required, usually only 2-3%.

Decommissioning nuclear plants will be too expensive.
Decommissioning is usually funded while the plant is operating. Experience to date gives a good idea of costs and earlier estimates are being revised downwards.

Nuclear energy makes only a trivial contribution to world energy needs.
Electricity generation uses 40% of the world's primary energy. Nuclear provides 16% of world electricity, more than the total electricity produced worldwide in 1960.