Skip to main content

On Ireland and Uranium Mining

Ireland's minister of energy and natural resources is working to shut down potential uranium mining there, saying it would be hypocritical for a country that doesn't use nuclear power to do so.

Dave's Rants responds with some inconvenient truths.

Comments

Luke said…
I wonder if Ireland makes use of reactor-derived radiopharmaceuticals in medicine, for example?

There are plenty of technologies in the modern world that involve reactor-derived radioisotopes - do they have ionisation smoke detectors in Ireland?

As such, there's no hypocrisy in mining Uranium.
Anonymous said…
Is'nt this just typical, here we are in the 21st century shaking our heads at the so-called spectre of development. I'm willing to grant that lack of self-made industrialization in Ireland has led Irish polititions to assume that our European comrades are going to do all of the work in creating a industrialized country but I'm afraid no cheese-eating, brown-eyed french man is going to come around here and try to develope this country if I was in charge. no, I would bring about radical change, and Nuclear power is the key. imagine an Ireland with freelance industry, jobs for all,energy to suit our needs, investment in high technology and education and above all complete social independance. look for the radon gas signitures of radioactive alpha decay and mine for uranium. to hell with the taboo on nuclear energy and on genetic research. I have a plan to re-industrialize Ireland and transform it from a capitalist nightmare and into a communist paradise with work and money for all. what we must do is shed off the shackles of europe, claim back our waters and make a new society fr the blue-eyed, pale skinned and dark haired Irish. no more europeans, no more foreign ties, and no more inept government.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…