Much of history involves looking back and trying to find the point that changed the future. Recently I just read the book What if. It is about what if little changes in History happened would the world be much different. For instance what if the Romans had conquered the Germans would we have had the English language? History is full of these events and we ourselves can wonder about many of these events ourselves. What if aircraft prior to 9/11 had self-sealing doors? Would we have a war in Iraq?

I attended the Euroscience conference last week in Barcelona. (Dublin bidding for 2012) and listened to the talks about Nuclear Energy. And have changed my view on Nuclear power. Two years ago I wrote against Nuclear power on a number of reasons.

1. We are a small country and nuclear power plants are large hence we would need a lose a lot in transmission.

2. It would result in the state control of the industry as prohibitively expensive for private industry.

3. We would need only need a few nuclear power plants and thus if one goes down like they do then we would have a big drop off.

4. We don’t have uranium and thus have to import it. As countries such as Russia (Canada and Oz also have lots) have large deposits we could end up where we are with oil having little energy security.

5. Plants are expensive(including decommissioning and waste costs) and the cost of energy produced versus created is not much different then oil and gas.

So are those claims now wrong? The answers to 1,3 and 5 are simply OIl price and carbon. With the cost of oil rocketing the difference between Nuclear and oil/gas has increased and with the likelihood  of carbon taxes the cost of Nuclear is looking good. Also with the increase in oil price we are likely to see more things using electricity in Ireland, Electric trains (did you know diesel trains use the engine to generate electricity to run a motor to turn the wheels.) who knows maybe even electric cars. This along with population growth is going to require more electricity. The idea that switching off So the arguments about Irelands energy market being to small change slightly. At current usage we may not have enough to justify it. But 25 years time?

Point 2 is still valid nuclear is still to expensive for private industry. (Whether that is good or not is another debate)

Point 4 was always the one that worried me the most and the one that I got resolved at the conference. 2 Reasons. One the likes of China and Russia are dealing on the market with the likes of Canada and Oz. As Canada and Oz are in the frame the other countries have to play ball. They can’t do what they do with oil and gas as there is alternatives to them. But the second reason is one that I didn’t really consider. Because uranium fuel is quiet small. Stockpiling is easy. Years if not decades of supplies could be stored resulting in an inability of a country to “turn off the tap” like Russia did to the Ukraine.

So those that mean Nuclear is the solution to all our woes? No

With Current usage we have reserves for 50 years. With Nuclear coming back into vogue this length is going to drop. Estimated reserves are 180 years. (longer then we have been seriously using oil) but that is again at present usage. Which is relatively low.  Ireland probably should look at building a few. But it is not easy. We don’t have the expertise in this country to run one. University physics courses do not focus on Nuclear power. To build that sort of expertise would take years. Also with soaring commodities prices. We don’t know what the costs of plants need. (Nuclear power plants do need many materials and metals not need by other plants.) The time it would take to build a plant could be well over ten years. Add in planning delays, protests and general parochial politics even more. People point out the problem with dealing with waste which is massive but as a guy said at the meeting. There has always been talk of the nuclear industries dealing of waste we are now beginning to realize that the other forms of power have not been dealing with their waste.”

Reading the pro-Nuclear arguments you would imagine that it is the solution to our problems but it is not. Nuclear is a stop gap quiet a useful one but a stop gap. By definition a stop gap is something that allows us to bridge between two different points. But what is the other point on the far side of the bridge?

That is unknown but what it realise on is science. But with the way science funding is being cut in the UK and the US. That far side of the bridge might not be discovered when we need it. Will people look back in the future when there is no solution to the worlds problems and wonder why were people so short sighted in cutting spending on science. Will books be written about. What if science funding and science education had been increased? More thoughts later in the week.

By the way probably should plug this terrible video.