Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

nuclear

135

Comments

  • #102
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Just to point out the research done was very little compaired to uranium as its by-products it produces can be used in nuclear weapons
    from the post before your yours.

    http://www.hanfordchallenge.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/Chronology_of_thorium_to_U-233_FOIA_Docs.pdf
    the US did a lot of research into this from 1951-1979


    Oh boy ... you do realise that all the original reactors from 1942 onwards were made so they could use by-products in nuclear weapons

    it wasn't until 1956 that nuclear reactors were used for power


    the US even tested U233 weapons so the military would have no problem using them, unless they weren't economic or the conversion ratio was too close to unity to allow reliable breeding


  • #103
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    So ... the Japanese people are going to have to subsidise the higher cost of imported fossil fuel?
    No subsidies for Japanese nuclear power?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Tomorrows nuclear power plants will be better than todays, but renewables will still be dependent on the weather.
    I don’t doubt for one second that tomorrow’s nuclear facilities will be better than today’s – there are plenty of interesting designs in the works:
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-reactor-renaissance

    However, are you trying to tell me that energy storage will not move on one iota in the interim? Wind turbines and solar panels will not become more efficient? No advances will be made in harnessing power from the ocean?

    Honestly Sean, you’re dogmatic ‘pro-nuclear/anti-everything else’ arguments are growing more and more ridiculous.
    SeanW wrote: »
    The best we can hope for is that the next generation wind turbines don't need neodymium, or that solar panels will likewise not need filthy rare earth metals.
    Funny how everything associated with non-nuclear forms of power generation has a “filthy” stuck in front of it.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Not to the same extent no...
    What does that even mean?
    SeanW wrote: »
    For one thing, it produces about 1/3 the CO2 output of brown coal...
    And that makes it filthy how?
    SeanW wrote: »
    ...and is also a source of radon.
    Eh, radon is a decay product of uranium and thorium?
    SeanW wrote: »
    For a little country like Ireland, no not really.
    Eh? Is Ireland guaranteed a super-low price for uranium or something?


  • #104
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Solair wrote: »
    the -10C winter (a freak one off).

    I recorded -17C air temp here and in general I have come to accept -10C AT as normal for an Irish winter now.

    from the met here:

    http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly-summary.asp

    winter 2010 summary

    Coldest winter for almost 50 years; drier, sunnier than normal almost everywhere. Mean air temperatures for the season were around two degrees lower than average for the 1961-90 period and it was the coldest winter since 1962/3 everywhere.

    So not really a one off and I would be more inclined to say that our weather is in flux or in some sort of cycle and that we should be prepared for 2010 to happen again sooner rather than later. And I would agree that the housing infastructure is not up to the standard necessary for this kind of weather, although I took precautions by watching the weather report every day and timing the oil heat to come in as I felt appropiate. Electric dimplexs in the childrens rooms though.


  • #105
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    from the post before your yours.

    http://www.hanfordchallenge.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/Chronology_of_thorium_to_U-233_FOIA_Docs.pdf
    the US did a lot of research into this from 1951-1979


    Oh boy ... you do realise that all the original reactors from 1942 onwards were made so they could use by-products in nuclear weapons

    it wasn't until 1956 that nuclear reactors were used for power


    the US even tested U233 weapons so the military would have no problem using them, unless they weren't economic or the conversion ratio was too close to unity to allow reliable breeding
    I was pointing out that the while research was done on thorium in the 50s it was very little compared to the the research done with uranium from the start of nuclear exploration to now.


  • #106
    Statistician
    Closed Accounts Posts: 256 ✭✭Statistician


    Tomk1 wrote: »
    Actually it proves how safe N-reactors are, that aren't even up to the same safety specifications as the earthquake prone LA N-reactors.
    It certainly does! - Not safe at all.
    Do you not realise that there was loss of containment and three meltdowns?

    The Earthquake did no damage, The tsunami did no structual damage. What did do damage was the ineffective safety standards with an emergancy shutdown, like hitting the brakes on a 1000 m/hr train. I will be the 1st to admit that I might be going out on a limb, but if the reactors were not shut down nothing at all would have of happened and they would be working away aok today.
    Without a cooling system?

    The jury is out on whether or not the earthquake did damage. There were reports that in fact the earthquake damaged the cooling system even before the tsunami struck. If there was no structural damage from these events, why was there no power to the plant?
    With Fukushima, the reactors stayed intact after an earthquake, a tsunami stike, over heating and a fire. The real danger was spent fuel being stored on site.
    The real danger IS spent fuel being kept on site. (Not was) Just like many similar design reactors elsewhere. They have yet to solve the spent fuel pool problem and SFP4 is looking very precarious indeed.
    If you ask me it just shows what a battering a not the best built reactor can take. A real success story apart from the idiots running it. What annoys me is many thousands of people died due to the diasater and instead some people focus on a nuclear plant in which no one died as a case to turn people against Nuclear Energy, if only beds were built as safe as N-plants more people would be alive today. (statistically dieing from falling out of bed makes dieing due to nuclear energy a joke)-source Bang goes the Theory

    Here we go again.
    Not all deaths due to radiation are a result of acute radiation sickness. With Fukushima, I would not expect people entering the exclusion zone to suddenly drop dead. The problem here is that the place is heavily contaminated and the health effects will continue for many years to come.


  • #107
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Jester252 wrote: »
    I was pointing out that the while research was done on thorium in the 50s it was very little compared to the the research done with uranium from the start of nuclear exploration to now.
    yes there has been a lot of work on Uranium since they got the first reactor working 70 years ago. Since. In other words we've had working uranium reactors for 70 years. And the basics of nuclear physics that you need to build reactors hasn't changed since then.

    70 years of R&D and nuclear reactors have a thermal efficiency of maybe 34% , compared to CCGT with 59%. If the same resources had been thrown into renewables...

    How many breeder reactors are there in use today ?

    How many reactors are in use today that don't use a single pass of fuel ?


  • #108
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    yes there has been a lot of work on Uranium since they got the first reactor working 70 years ago. Since. In other words we've had working uranium reactors for 70 years. And the basics of nuclear physics that you need to build reactors hasn't changed since then.

    70 years of R&D and nuclear reactors have a thermal efficiency of maybe 34% , compared to CCGT with 59%. If the same resources had been thrown into renewables...

    How many breeder reactors are there in use today ?

    How many reactors are in use today that don't use a single pass of fuel ?
    Can you clarify this
    I can see that you are not a fan of nuclear power
    So how do we get over the base load issue?
    Going back on my post if more effort was put into liquid fluoride thorium reactor who knows were we could be.


  • #109
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    I have no problem with Nuclear. Its the waste. I lasts so so so so so so so long.

    For this reason it just feels like we are being greedy towards future generations.


  • #110
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Can you clarify this
    I can see that you are not a fan of nuclear power
    So how do we get over the base load issue?
    Going back on my post if more effort was put into liquid fluoride thorium reactor who knows were we could be.

    The thermal efficiency of nuclear power plants is very low because they produce quite low temperature steam compared to traditional thermal plants.

    The only exception to this is the UK's AGR plants which run FAR hotter than any other type of nuclear power plant because they are gas-cooled. The original spec required that they would produce hot gas for the boilers/heat exchangers at similar temperatures to a coal-burning plant. They never quite achieved these design temperatures, but they're still a lot more thermally efficient than US, French or other designs.

    However, they are a weird design and not used outside the UK. Traditional light-water moderated plants produce quite low temp steam and require special low-temperature / low pressure turbines to extract the energy from it.

    A combined cycle gas burning plant is a LOT more thermally efficient, the modern ones, including all of the newer plants in Ireland, are really excellent in comparison to their traditional gas-fired predecessors.

    However, all that being said, thermal efficiency of a nuclear plant isn't really all that relevant due to the fuel source. It's more of an issue when comparing fossil fuel / biomass plants with other designs of plants burning the same fuel.

    Thermal efficiency of the heat exchanges is not something that I would argue in favour / against nuclear though.

    I would argue that the long term economic cost, including capital investment is still rather unjustifiable, and absolutely so in the Irish context when we do have alternatives, particularly wind.

    In an Irish context, we might be better off spending the price of a nuclear plant or two on a network of pumped storage facilities. These could also double-up as a water source for the urban areas in the East (and maybe others too) resolving our water crisis issues in the Greater Dublin area.


  • #111
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Can you clarify this
    I can see that you are not a fan of nuclear power
    So how do we get over the base load issue?
    the point is that nuclear will only ever be used for low grade base load electricity, this means it will never be able to provide valuable peak rate electricity.

    anything can provide the base load

    interconnectors, hydro and to a lesser extent pumped storage can provide peak power
    Going back on my post if more effort was put into liquid fluoride thorium reactor who knows were we could be.
    Not much further, the chemistry has been worked out, the physics is ancient history at this stage. The problems are efficiency in neutron usage and economics.

    When technologies are mature improvements are incremental and breakthroughs extremely unlikely.

    Todays aircraft are essentially the same as the 1957 Boeing 707. All the features that diiferentiated it from almost every previous civil aircraft are used on every long haul aircraft today. (low mounted wing with 70 degree sweepback mounted halfway back, podded turbojet engines mounted underwing and their positions on the wing, all moving tail plane, cylinderical pressure tube with hemisphere ends , tricycle landing gear , etc.)

    Rocket science, the newest rocket to be launched by ESA is just a modified 1957 soviet ICBM. The latest US launcher is an Ariane 5 mounted on top of a space shuttle solid rocket booster.

    Nuclear science into this category, there aren't any big breakthroughs in the pipeline, improvements will be incremental.




    How much steam could you store in an insulated underground cavern ??


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Solair wrote: »
    The thermal efficiency of nuclear power plants is very low because they produce quite low temperature steam compared to traditional thermal plants.
    yes it is that simple.
    ask the crocodiles that live in Florida downstream of the cooling water outlet
    The only exception to this is the UK's AGR plants which run FAR hotter than any other type of nuclear power plant because they are gas-cooled. The original spec required that they would produce hot gas for the boilers/heat exchangers at similar temperatures to a coal-burning plant. They never quite achieved these design temperatures, but they're still a lot more thermally efficient than US, French or other designs.

    However, all that being said, thermal efficiency of a nuclear plant isn't really all that relevant due to the fuel source. It's more of an issue when comparing fossil fuel / biomass plants with other designs of plants burning the same fuel.

    Thermal efficiency of the heat exchanges is not something that I would argue in favour / against nuclear though.

    I would argue that the long term economic cost, including capital investment is still rather unjustifiable, and absolutely so in the Irish context when we do have alternatives, particularly wind.

    In an Irish context, we might be better off spending the price of a nuclear plant or two on a network of pumped storage facilities. These could also double-up as a water source for the urban areas in the East (and maybe others too) resolving our water crisis issues in the Greater Dublin area.
    Desalination with reverse osmosis would be a cheaper way to provide drinking water. And since you can store it you could use renewables.
    compare the costs to the plant set up in London.
    there are many ways of storing the power from renewables, you don't have to use it as instantenous electricity

    The efficiency is to show how much waste heat there is in a nuke , and also how far behind they are. IF you could use molten fuel in a centrifugal reactor (cf. some proposed missiles / NERVA) you could easily extract twice the power but there would be an issue with radioactivity. none of this is news, and if they haven't sorted out after 70 years they ain't going to sort it out any time soon.

    interconnectors are cheaper than pumped storage

    and we'd be better off investing in insulation towards passive heating and better hot water storage than in nuclear reactors and waste storage


  • #113
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,566 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    How would u insulate an underground chamber,? would depend on rock type, size of chamber , temp and pressure of steam....
    Would it be possible to pump compressed air into old gas fields to use as an energy store ??

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #114
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    ...



    Desalination with reverse osmosis would be a cheaper way to provide drinking water. And since you can store it you could use renewables.
    compare the costs to the plant set up in London. ...

    In a low density population country that is basically drenched with rain about 364 days a year, the mind absolutely boggles at how desalination could ever be necessary to provide drinking water!?

    We're practically drowning in drinking water, the only problem is that we don't have the necessary storage infrastructure to capture it.

    Drinking water supply in Ireland should be a non-issue. The problem is Dublin in particular was built without any planning for demand. It's the same poor planning that has lead to public transport issues, traffic jams, lack of broadband etc etc.

    Pumped storage for electricity could work with a network of reservoirs storing anything from fresh water to sea water.

    In fact, you could probably even take a non-scenic harbour, dam one end of it and pump it full / empty it at peak / off peak times.


  • #115
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Markcheese wrote: »
    How would u insulate an underground chamber,? would depend on rock type, size of chamber , temp and pressure of steam....
    It's about surface to volume ratio.
    lining a cavern with whatever works out best , then again very thick layers of rock don't conduct heat that well
    Would it be possible to pump compressed air into old gas fields to use as an energy store ??
    CAES
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage
    The german plant stores as much energy as all the battery systems worldwide


  • #116
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Solair wrote: »
    In a low density population country that is basically drenched with rain about 364 days a year, the mind absolutely boggles at how desalination could ever be necessary to provide drinking water!?

    We're practically drowning in drinking water, the only problem is that we don't have the necessary storage infrastructure to capture it. .

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/02/water_vs_energy_analysis/
    n general, desalinating seawater in a modern reverse-osmosis plant like Beckton requires the use of 7 kilowatt-hours (kWh or "units" on your electricity bill) of electrical energy to produce a tonne (1,000 litres)
    ...
    A kilowatt-hour, purchased on the wholesale electricity markets, can generally be obtained for six pence or less at the moment: the necessary energy would cost a water company say £22 per person annually.
    ...
    Nope: Beckton cost just £270m to build. Another 15 such plants - enough to provide London's entire water supply if required - would cost approximately £4bn, an investment of just £500 for each person living in the city.
    so real world costs of an operating plant are of a similar magnitude to the costs of the water meters.

    cba looking up prices on the Shanon scheme but at a capital investment of £500 per person and £22 per person to run it would suggest that it would fix the major leaks in the pipes and then use this rather than fix all the leaks.

    Yes we could provide potable water for less than the projected cost of metering it - don't forget that we only have to desalinate when natural supplies run low.


  • #117
    Shiny Cactus
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Shiny Cactus


    Read the first 2 pages no mention of 3 mile island, not just Chernobyl and Japan it's too risky and not worth the cost especially with the number of new better self-producing sources for home use, which is what everyone wants not to be charged for the power they use and sell it back to the grid


  • #118
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    When technologies are mature improvements are incremental and breakthroughs extremely unlikely.


    Nuclear science into this category, there aren't any big breakthroughs in the pipeline, improvements will be incremental.

    While I don't necessarily disagree, i should point out that another factor affects the development of technologies and that is demand.

    For example, car efficiency has not followed the kind of linear pattern you describe because of the cheapness of Oil over the past 50 years, particularly in the US where the tax on petrol is a fraction of what it is here.
    There's been no urgency until very recently to develop nuclear power or anything else due to the ubiquitousness of fossil fuels.
    As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

    Shiny Cactus wrote: »
    Read the first 2 pages no mention of 3 mile island, not just Chernobyl and Japan

    No one mentioned Three Mile Island because it was a total non-event.

    Some Argon or some other inert gas was released. No effect on anyone.

    Long-story short. Three Mile Island was irrelevant.
    Shiny Cactus wrote: »
    it's too risky
    It is the safest form of power generation. It could indeed be safer but it has an utterly stellar safety record.
    It gets bad press because of the cold war paranoia about radiation.
    Shiny Cactus wrote: »
    and not worth the cost especially with the number of new better self-producing sources for home use, which is what everyone wants not to be charged for the power they use and sell it back to the grid

    As power grids currently are, renewable energy cannot provide enough power. We do not have efficient enough storage or power transmission for renewables to work.


  • #119
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    the point is that nuclear will only ever be used for low grade base load electricity, this means it will never be able to provide valuable peak rate electricity.

    anything can provide the base load

    interconnectors, hydro and to a lesser extent pumped storage can provide peak power
    Interconnectors while need should not be use as one of the main sources of power for Ireland. Nuclear power is more stable then politics
    Hydro for Ireland taped out.
    Pumped storage said on this thread its a no go.
    Not much further, the chemistry has been worked out, the physics is ancient history at this stage. The problems are efficiency in neutron usage and economics.

    When technologies are mature improvements are incremental and breakthroughs extremely unlikely.

    Todays aircraft are essentially the same as the 1957 Boeing 707. All the features that diiferentiated it from almost every previous civil aircraft are used on every long haul aircraft today. (low mounted wing with 70 degree sweepback mounted halfway back, podded turbojet engines mounted underwing and their positions on the wing, all moving tail plane, cylinderical pressure tube with hemisphere ends , tricycle landing gear , etc.)

    Rocket science, the newest rocket to be launched by ESA is just a modified 1957 soviet ICBM. The latest US launcher is an Ariane 5 mounted on top of a space shuttle solid rocket booster.

    Nuclear science into this category, there aren't any big breakthroughs in the pipeline, improvements will be incremental.




    How much steam could you store in an insulated underground cavern ??
    Chemistry and Physics will always be the same but our understanding of them will change. e.g cars, airplanes, power plant, computers, phones and rockets will they might have built off the old model there safer more efficient. I believe it was you who mention Moore's law in term of solar plane in the desert
    Solar power in the Deserts / Oceans
    Cost of panels is €1/watt and dropping in a Moore's law way
    Which FYI will never work


  • #120
    Shiny Cactus
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Shiny Cactus


    You say we don't have enough renewable resources now but how long does it take to build a nuclear power plant instead of moving forward to self-self-sufficient homes, and I say its risky I meant in terms of nationwide and worldwide concern for any government in Ireland to approve it and live to tell about it, and if we could stop any leak and dispose of any waste by flying it into the sun I been 90% with you


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    However, are you trying to tell me that energy storage will not move on one iota in the interim?
    I have seen zero evidence that energy storage is going to improve, unless that fellow from CalTech perfects his solar > liquid chemical fuel gizmo (video posted on here a while back).
    Wind turbines and solar panels will not become more efficient? No advances will be made in harnessing power from the ocean?
    Again, I have no reason to believe it will.
    Honestly Sean, you’re dogmatic ‘pro-nuclear/anti-everything else’ arguments are growing more and more ridiculous.
    I would like to believe that we can just build windmills and solar panels and live happily ever after enjoying a 1st world way of life and no downsides.

    In fact when I was an anti-nuke, I wanted nothing more than to believe this. Unfortunately I don't believe it for the same reason that I don't believe in the tooth-fairy. Common sense. And the evidence.
    Funny how everything associated with non-nuclear forms of power generation has a “filthy” stuck in front of it.
    That's because virtually every form of power has its issues. With regards to be putting "filthy" before everything, I make no apology for condeming coal, peat and oil power as, yes, filthy, nor for my questioning the environmental prudence of weather based renewables that depend on "rare earth" metals. Or that have a potentially devastating effect on birds and bats as wind mills do.

    As for natural gas, if we accept that it's squeaky clean, there are still two key issues to my mind.
    1. It's a very finite fossil fuel and we'll run out of it at the same time, if not sooner, than we run out of oil. It will also have to be imported from now on, likely from Russia. And again, it will likely have to be imported on a day-to-day basis because building a gas stockpile is somewhat more involved than building a uranium stockpile.
    2. We use gas for building heating as well and could potentially use it to fuel cars instead of Middle Eastern oil. Hence it seems to be strategically wasteful to use so much of it generating electricity. In fact in the United States, old time oilman T. Boone Pickens came up with the "Pickens plan" that specifically calls for the removal of natural gas from power generation and diverting it to NG powered cars.
    Eh? Is Ireland guaranteed a super-low price for uranium or something?
    1. By virtue of our size, the purchase of a strategic stockpile of fuel would probably be little more than a blip on the uranium market.
    2. Ireland could have uranium deposits in Co. Donegal, and at the beginning of the 2007 government two energy companies were looking for licenses to explore for it there. But Eamon Ryan rescinded the applications.


  • #122
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Nuclear power is more stable then politics
    Out of 253 planned nuclear power stations in the US only 27% have been built, and operated without an unplanned outage of over one year.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
    Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable
    Add in the bribery allegations , the cover ups (BNFL reports) , the screw ups

    A nuclear plant will need to run for many decades to break even on construction cost. Look at how politics and the economic climate has changed here in the past two decades.

    Chemistry and Physics will always be the same but our understanding of them will change. e.g cars, airplanes, power plant, computers, phones and rockets will they might have built off the old model there safer more efficient.
    most of the efficiencies are due to weight reduction, a 10% lighter aircraft will probably use 10% less fuel. Otto and Diesel engines haven't changed a lot, regenerative breaking has been around a long time on electric trains. Prius and some other cars are moving from the Otto cycle to the Atkninson or something and are the same fuel economy as Diesel.
    So we will have to wait until diesel hybrids arrive to get an improvement on regular diesel (except in the case of stop-start rush hour traffic, and public transport is the proper fix for that)
    Yes we have electric cars. The only real changes there are better batteries and cheaper control systems. LEAP still use the Lead Acid battery invented in 1859 because it's so much cheaper than lithium - the only battery with a lower power to weight ratio is the iron nickel battery and it was only invented because of patents on nickel cadmium

    I believe it was you who mention Moore's law in term of solar plane in the desert

    Which FYI will never work
    Only in regard to the price of silicon. Polycrystaline silicon is only about half as efficient as the really expensive stuff, so in theory there are large possible efficiency gains, but the real news is the cost keeps dropping and as laboratory proven technology is commercialised costs will drop further. But desert real estate is cheap. Not much use for us at the moment but if Morocco / Algeria were hooked into the EU grid then may be a knock on effect.


  • #123
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    I have seen zero evidence that energy storage is going to improve, unless that fellow from CalTech perfects his solar > liquid chemical fuel gizmo (video posted on here a while back).
    figure out how much steam you could store in a billion euro worth of underground resevoir
    Again, I have no reason to believe it will.
    The costs of renewables are dropping. The cost of nuclear isn't.
    There are no new proven nuclear technoligies on the horizon to be commercialised.
    There are lots of improvements in renewables awaiting development.
    biomass through improved strains of crops
    mangroves will provide biomass in areas without fresh water
    very efficient multi layer solar panels exist again the problem is to commercialise them (one way is to focus sunlight on them so you only need 1/1000th the area , but cooling is an issue)
    energy can be stored and transported as aluminium (IMHO not very efficient, but it can be done)

    Also there are many renewable breakthroughs that are possible and haven't been ruled out by 70 years and billions of dead end research
    If you can figure out a way of reducing bio-fouling then maybe it might be possible to reduce the cost of harvesting uranium from seawater, but it would mean that we could harvest energy from the osmotic pressure between rivers and seawater
    If you can figure out a cheaper battery then the internal combustion engine is history.

    [quoteThat's because virtually every form of power has its issues. With regards to be putting "filthy" before everything, I make no apology for condeming coal, peat and oil power as, yes, filthy, nor for my questioning the environmental prudence of weather based renewables that depend on "rare earth" metals. Or that have a potentially devastating effect on birds and bats as wind mills do.[/quote]please stop with that chestnut
    hydro electricity does not use rare earths
    it would be more efficient if it did. Same is true of wind , at present the cost benefit means that rare earths can be used. If you take a small hit on efficiency or use other materials or if new sources come on line the rare earth materials aren't a limiting factor. Think of them as being like lead in leaded petrol. Leaded petrol had a higher octane rating than unleaded. But not a problem any more is it ?

    Natural gas, we should have better security of supply than for Uranium

    [*]By virtue of our size, the purchase of a strategic stockpile of fuel would probably be little more than a blip on the uranium market.
    If only we had money to do so, also you keep pointing out the capital cost of the nukes is large than the fuel cost. Also by virtue of our size no one will help us out. a large % of uranium comes from politically unstable areas. we aren't going to win a bidding / influence war with China.

    nuclear won't work if everyone else wants it , we can't compete
    if few others want it then what do they know that we don't ?

    Granite - uranium , not exactly rocket science. It's more valuable than gold so massive mineworks,

    TBH I'd rather see a mountain covered in windmills than have leachate from a uranium mine


  • #124
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    I think someone is forgetting that nuclear power plants provide HOT STEAM, not electricity.

    Einstein (1946). “Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water!"

    The electricity from any nuclear power station is generated by the steam going through a steam turbine and driving a synchronous generator, which contains.. wait for it.... RARE EARTH MAGNETS, just like a wind turbine (only on a vast scale)

    A nuclear power plant also requires, vast amounts of concrete, lead shielding, extra thick pressure vessels cast from expensive metals, lead cladding on pipes carrying coolant ... the list is endless.

    You'd really think from the way that it's being talked about by some posters here that you just put the nuclear fuel into a reactor and electricity magically comes out the other end!

    All a nuclear reactor is does is produce heat.


  • #125
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    I have seen zero evidence that energy storage is going to improve...
    Have you? Been using any portable electronics lately?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Again, I have no reason to believe it will.
    You have no reason to believe that there will be any advancement in renewable energy technology ever again? I’m beginning to find it very, very difficult to take you seriously:

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/2011-renewable-energy-recap-tides-turbines-and-big-thinking
    SeanW wrote: »
    I would like to believe that we can just build windmills and solar panels and live happily ever after enjoying a 1st world way of life and no downsides.
    I don’t think you’ll find too many people sharing that belief, so please stop constructing nonsense arguments and attributing them to others.
    SeanW wrote: »
    That's because virtually every form of power has its issues.
    But you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that nuclear has issues. Big, massive economic issues with bells hanging off them.
    SeanW wrote: »
    With regards to be putting "filthy" before everything, I make no apology for condeming coal, peat and oil power as, yes, filthy, nor for my questioning the environmental prudence of weather based renewables that depend on "rare earth" metals.
    Two words: uranium mining.
    SeanW wrote: »
    As for natural gas, if we accept that it's squeaky clean...
    We don’t.
    SeanW wrote: »
    It's a very finite fossil fuel...
    Whereas uranium is infinite. Oh that’s right, I forgot, thorium and breeder reactors will sort everything.

    Methane is actually renewable to an extent (you’re producing it right now) and there’s a lot of research interest in biogas – the UK (for example) had its first biogas facility start feeding into the gas network a couple of years ago.
    SeanW wrote: »
    We use gas for building heating as well and could potentially use it to fuel cars instead of Middle Eastern oil.
    Hang on there now just one cotton-picking minute – you’re telling us that we can’t stockpile fossil fuels...

    ...but we can fuel cars with them? Care to fill in the gaping hole in that argument?
    SeanW wrote: »
    By virtue of our size, the purchase of a strategic stockpile of fuel...
    Ireland’s size is completely irrelevant. How much is this stockpile of uranium going to cost? How long will it last? What happens when Ireland needs more but, because a bunch of other nations have also gone nuclear, the price has gotten so high Ireland can’t afford another stockpile?


  • #126
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Have you? Been using any portable electronics lately?
    Advances in portable electronics are primarily due to improvements in micro-circuitry.

    15 years ago I had a portable cassette player. Needed audio tape and it had a lot of mechanical parts IIRC.

    Nowadays, you can fit many times the music of a cassette tape onto an SD card the size of your thumbnail.
    You have no reason to believe that there will be any advancement in renewable energy technology ever again? I’m beginning to find it very, very difficult to take you seriously:
    Let's just say I'm skeptical, especially with wind.

    I don’t think you’ll find too many people sharing that belief, so please stop constructing nonsense arguments and attributing them to others.
    Great - just as certain sectors stop making ridiculous comparisons between nuclear and renewables as if it were THE either/or choice.

    Renewables will do what they will, they'll either get better or they won't, or more likely just continue sucking up subsidies, killing wildlife and producing an unreliable energy supply.

    But since a 100% renewable scenario is more or less of the table, the choice still has to be made between fossil fuels (e.g. coal) and nuclear.

    That is the choice that has to be made and we've seen it Germany, where they've gone mad on a coal fired power spree and simultaneously made the country an economic vassal of Russia via Gazprom.

    And now we're seeing it in Japan where there will be power shortages, an increase in electricity costs to pay for imported fossil, the economic subjugation of that country to Russia, a first in 30 years trade deficit, oh and the big one, all the environmental damage that will be done burning all those filthy fossil fuels, like oil and coal.
    Two words: uranium mining.
    I don't know enough about it to comment, but I'm sure that, like everything else, there's a right way and wrong wat to do it.
    We don’t.
    Glad we cleared that up.
    Hang on there now just one cotton-picking minute – you’re telling us that we can’t stockpile fossil fuels...

    ...but we can fuel cars with them? Care to fill in the gaping hole in that argument?
    1. For one thing, we're already doing it with oil.
    2. I'm just saying its an option, they're looking at it in the United States (The Pickens plan).
    3. If we accepted as a given that Ireland will always import X amount of natural gas, would it make more sense to burn it in power stations, or divert it to cars, displacing oil?
    Ireland’s size is completely irrelevant. How much is this stockpile of uranium going to cost? How long will it last? What happens when Ireland needs more but, because a bunch of other nations have also gone nuclear, the price has gotten so high Ireland can’t afford another stockpile?
    You were given an estimate of 200+ years supply at current consumption. And that's just uranium.
    May I also remind you that 2 energy companies thought there was uranium in Donegal?
    Oh that’s right, I forgot, thorium and breeder reactors will sort everything.
    Yes, I believe the Indians are going to get it - whereas historically there was only marginal interest in the West (cold war and all that), India has a massive population and an emerging economy, they will make it a high priority. Their need for energy will not simply be a theoretical issue.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote:
    we aren't going to win a bidding / influence war with China.
    No, but the same is as true of oil and gas as with uranium.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote:
    figure out how much steam you could store in a billion euro worth of underground resevoir
    :confused:
    I'm sorry, but after reading this I just couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Advances in portable electronics are primarily due to improvements in micro-circuitry.
    Is that right? So AAA batteries are still powering everything, are they?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Renewables will do what they will, they'll either get better or they won't, or more likely just continue sucking up subsidies, killing wildlife and producing an unreliable energy supply.
    And you accuse others of spreading misinformation about nuclear?
    SeanW wrote: »
    I don't know enough about it to comment...
    So, just to clarify, you have been arguing on here for several years now that nuclear is way, way cleaner than everything else...

    ...and in all that time you never bothered to read up on the damage that uranium mining does? Are you kidding me?
    SeanW wrote: »
    If we accepted as a given that Ireland will always import X amount of natural gas, would it make more sense to burn it in power stations, or divert it to cars, displacing oil?
    Fueling cars with it implies stock-piling – you said we can’t do that with fossil fuels. Are you suggesting now that we can? If so, is that economically feasible and how does that compare with uranium?
    SeanW wrote: »
    You were given an estimate of 200+ years supply at current consumption.
    Great – that doesn’t answer my question. How much will it cost for Ireland to build up a uranium stockpile to meet its energy needs, how much will that stockpile cost and how long will it last?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Yes, I believe the Indians are going to get it...
    Oh, you believe the Indians will crack it, do you? Based on?
    SeanW wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but after reading this I just couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.
    [MOD]Posters have entertained plenty of nonsense from your good self – you are in absolutely no position to play any “I can’t take you seriously” cards.[/MOD]


  • #128
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Fueling cars with it implies stock-piling – you said we can’t do that with fossil fuels. Are you suggesting now that we can?
    I'm reasonably certain that I never claimed it was possible to stockpile fuel for cars. If I did, it was unintentional.
    Great – that doesn’t answer my question. How much will it cost for Ireland to build up a uranium stockpile to meet its energy needs, how much will that stockpile cost and how long will it last?
    I never said that stockpiling would be a necessity, just a good idea. But in answer to your question.

    The World Nuclear Association estimates the cost of obtaining 1kg of nuclear fuel at about US$2700. Of which US$1300 comes from the price of U308 and the rest from processing costs, leading to, in their estimate, a fuel cost of US$0.0077, thats .77 of one cent, per kilowatt-hour, assuming that the fuel yielded 360,000 kw/h.
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

    Ireland used just under 27 billion kw/h of electricity last year,
    http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ei&v=81

    so our fuel requirements would be 75,000 kg per year, (360,000 * 75,000 = 27,000,000,000) or 75 tonnes if you prefer. Total cost for the year would be $202,500,000 (or 75,000 X US$2700), which is entirely reasonable IMO for a national annual electricity fuel cost.

    That's assuming every single kw/h was generated by nuclear power plants which is not what I would be after, I'd be happy with say 50%. The rest to be generated by renewables (which I'm not totally against, just skeptical of) and some fossil fuel backup generators, used in emergency or on an as-needed basis.
    So we're down to $101,250,000. Or €78,372,562.50, for a years nuclear fuel @ 50% of national demand.
    http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert/?Amount=101250000&From=USD&To=EUR
    Assume that we have spent fuel reprocessed on our behalf and that number goes down again, but I don't know by how much.

    And since Donegal may have Uranium there's a good chance a lot of that money would stay in Ireland.

    After that, calculating the cost of a strategic uranium reserve depends on how long you want to stockpile for, and what assumptions you make about future energy demand.
    Oh, you believe the Indians will crack it, do you? Based on?
    My reasoning is this: Cracking the Thorium nut was never a serious issue for the West. With a people scared of anything nuclear and plenty of fuel from other sources, we never really needed it. That and while the West really was a strong bloc, up until 1990, "we" were in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the larger countries in our group (US, UK, France) needed traditional nuclear infrastructure to develop nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the same was true of the Soviet Union itself hence their use of RBMK reactors :mad:

    For India and China it's another story. Between them they have well over 2 billion people and their governments intend to give them all a Western lifestyle. They also have massive reserves of the stuff, should they ever find use for it.

    In summary:
    If cracking the Thorium nut is simply a matter of doing enough research, they will do so because it is a national imperitave and that guarantees they'll put in the necessary effort to do it.
    [MOD]Posters have entertained plenty of nonsense from your good self – you are in absolutely no position to play any “I can’t take you seriously” cards.[/MOD]
    Ok, if you say so (and I'll admit I may have gone off on a tangent here and there :o), but I mean come on, underground steam caverns?


  • #129
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Advances in portable electronics are primarily due to improvements in micro-circuitry.
    They have made better faster and lower powered electronics in the lab, they have made a single atom transistor. It's just a matter of spending $10billion on a fab to commercialise each new size. The semiconductor roadmap www.itrs.net details what the industry feels are achievable goals in the foreseeable future. none of it depends on fundamental breakthroughs
    :confused:
    I'm sorry, but after reading this I just couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.
    It's a very simple question. At present you can store several hours worth of steam in a large boiler. This is just a larger scale version. Something that any decent 19th century steam engineer could calculate.

    You can use renewables to improve the stored steam by increasing the pressure. (mechanical vapour recompression etc.)

    The only query is whether it would be economic to store energy in the form of steam.

    http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_storage.htm - for liquid oxygen the boil off rate is 0.49% per month. Steam / superheated water would have similar temp differences and heat transfer rates.


    Unlike Thorium reactors it's something that can be done with 19th century technology. Reliable breeding Thorium reactors is something we haven't done with 21st century technology. And even if the Indians get it working it will take a long time to ramp up the technology.


  • #130
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    ...so our fuel requirements would be 75,000 kg per year, (360,000 * 75,000 = 27,000,000,000) or 75 tonnes if you prefer.
    Let's assume you want to build a stockpile for, say, 50 years (the approximate lifetime of a nuclear plant). That means you need 3,750 tonnes of uranium, which represents about 6% of global annual production - hardly a blip, as you suggested.

    That also assumes that Ireland's demand for electricity will not increase over that 50-year period, which seems rather unlikely considering it's increased by almost 50% in the last decade (economic boom not withstanding).
    SeanW wrote: »
    If cracking the Thorium nut is simply a matter of doing enough research, they will do so because it is a national imperitave and that guarantees they'll put in the necessary effort to do it.
    So where are all the fusion reactors then? And why hasn't somebody cured cancer by now?


  • #131
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Let's assume you want to build a stockpile for, say, 50 years (the approximate lifetime of a nuclear plant). That means you need 3,750 tonnes of uranium, which represents about 6% of global annual production - hardly a blip, as you suggested.

    That also assumes that Ireland's demand for electricity will not increase over that 50-year period, which seems rather unlikely considering it's increased by almost 50% in the last decade
    These are all your assumptions ... and as you point out they're rather poor.

    I gave you figures only for Irelands energy use for 2011, and the amount of nuclear fuel and the cost of same that would be required to supply all of that with nuclear electricity, with backing for the calculations. Everything else, I said, depended on the assumptions.

    But I further suggested that I saw an objective of 50% nuclear for Ireland, not 100%. Your assumption was for 100%, which doesn't even happen in France, where its about 75%.

    You also assumed that a hypothetical stockpile would have to be built over a single year. Again, a rather poor assumption.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote:
    SeanW wrote:
    Advances in portable electronics are primarily due to improvements in micro-circuitry.
    They have made better faster and lower powered electronics in the lab, they have made a single atom transistor. It's just a matter of spending $10billion on a fab to commercialise each new size. The semiconductor roadmap www.itrs.net details what the industry feels are achievable goals in the foreseeable future. none of it depends on fundamental breakthroughs
    I'm not being smart but I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that micro-circuitry has not improved since the era of of analog mobile phone & Sony Walkman? And who said anything about "fundamental breakthroughs?"


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    I'm not being smart but I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that micro-circuitry has not improved since the era of of analog mobile phone & Sony Walkman? And who said anything about "fundamental breakthroughs?"
    Semiconductor industry has a roadmap for attainable improvements. It's a case of going from stuff that actually works in a lab to large scale economic production. All the major players are on board and the goals set are likely, based on past experience where many targets have been met ahead of schedule.

    Nuclear industry still has pipedreams
    everyone is protecting their own fiefdoms, there isn't a roadmap saying where the technology will be in 18 months time , or five years time.



    India and China are spend vastly more on uranium than thorium
    China is spending more on solar than thorium , they may have an expirimental 5MW reactor in 3 years (I won't keep them to that) and even if they do there is a lot of scaling up to do. And then you may have one first generation station. India hope to have one reactor running by the end of the decade.


    In short the semiconductor industry will produce more efficient chips that will require less power and this will reduce energy demand by far more than thorium reactors will produce in the next 20 years. Considering that a fab costs about the same as the cradle to grave costs of one reactor, it's probably cheaper to invest in reducing electricity demand that way than to try to supply extra needed by obsolete tech.


  • #133
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    There were actually very considerable breakthroughs and changes in battery technology in the last 30 years.

    The mobile device industry, rather than the car industry or power industries, have driven those.

    We've gone from lead-acid batteries and Nickel–cadmium in early portable computers and phones that were the size of a large brief case, to Nickel–metal hydride battery in the late 1980s / early 1990s to commercially usable lithium ion batteries in the mid to late 1990s which are what power all laptops / mobile phones these days.

    The amount of power stored per KG of battery is vastly better than what it was 20 years ago.


  • #134
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    These are all your assumptions ... and as you point out they're rather poor.
    I made an assumption based on the size of the stockpile and it is a perfectly reasonable one – you will need enough fuel to last the lifetime of your reactors, won’t you?
    SeanW wrote: »
    I gave you figures only for Irelands energy use for 2011...
    Indeed you did. I simply pointed out that Ireland’s energy use in future years is very likely to be higher than it was in 2011. Again, that is not an unreasonable assumption.
    SeanW wrote: »
    But I further suggested that I saw an objective of 50% nuclear for Ireland, not 100%. Your assumption was for 100%, which doesn't even happen in France, where its about 75%.
    Fine – you need 3% of annual global production. That’s still a pretty significant amount. What happens if other countries decide to build stockpiles?
    SeanW wrote: »
    You also assumed that a hypothetical stockpile would have to be built over a single year.
    Nope, I just pointed out that the amount required to build your theoretical stockpile was pretty significant in the global scheme of things – I used global annual production to illustrate this.

    So how long will it take to build your stockpile then?


  • #135
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Discussion of cancer research moved to new thread in the Biology forum.


  • #136
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Is that right? So AAA batteries are still powering everything, are they?
    In a way I wish they were - it seems every device has its own unique propietary standard battery these days :mad:
    So, just to clarify, you have been arguing on here for several years now that nuclear is way, way cleaner than everything else...

    ...and in all that time you never bothered to read up on the damage that uranium mining does? Are you kidding me?
    One of the reasons why I have never looked specifically at the issue of Uranium mining, is because part of that would be carbon dioxide emissions (these are alledegy going to cause climate chaos and should be paramount on everyone's mind)

    and everything I've read suggests that the indirect lifecycle CO2 costs of nuclear energy are comaprable with wind and hydroelectricity. Those lifecycle emissions include those of mining and processing fuel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IEA.PNG

    As for any other issues, as I said I suspect it's a case of there being a right way and a wrong way to do it, just like with a wide variety of other industries.

    So yes, I stand over my claim that nuclear way cleaner than coal and oil, likely also solar PV which has severe manufacturing costs, less so gas, the CO2 stats for one clearly back me up on that.
    So how long will it take to build your stockpile then?
    A hypothetical stockpile is only necessary if you think everything's going to go down the toilet, e.g. that international relations are going to get worse, fuel is going to be scarce etc.

    It would be a very good idea if we could do this for gas considering that in future we'll have to feed and placate an increasingly wealthy and aggressive Russian 'Bear' to keep the lights on, the way we're going. Germany is already there, thanks to its anti-nuclear movement.

    But yes, you could build Ireland's stockpile over 3 years, taking 1% of annual production each year. And you could probably fit it all into a large warehouse. Likely side effects would be short term increased mining/exploration and and very small price increases consistent with supply and demand.

    I wonder what would be involved in building a 30-50 year stockpile of gas? I'm guessing it would be more difficult.


  • #137
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    So yes, I stand over my claim that nuclear way cleaner than coal and oil, likely also solar PV which has severe manufacturing costs, less so gas, the CO2 stats for one clearly back me up on that.
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/
    Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells.
    and I am tired of pointing out that there are many developments waiting to be commercialised, the best panels are 4 times as efficient as generic ones.
    materials costs are dropping, anti-reflection coatings are improving. There is plenty of scope for improvement.

    Semiconductor industry is moving to 450mm wafers, with 22nm feature size, that's less than one inch if sized up to Ireland. And this technology will trickle down to solar panels. ( and the whole GeAs on Si could be a game changer never mind nanotubes and graphene - solar panels have many , many paths for improvement. Thorium research started in 1946 ) 22nm is smaller than the wavelengths of light in use, this means it may be possible to make fractal rectennas as in completely new ways of converting light into useful energy.

    800px-PVeff%28rev100414%29.png

    Of course if there is a substantial improvement in photo-hydrolysis efficiency then all bets are off. Sunlight + water = hydrogen (and oxygen)
    Multijunction cells can already provide the voltage.
    and plenty of research on electricity + sunlight to break down water, the technology needed is like the difference between making Red LED's and Blue ones, except that we already have all the pieces, it's just a matter of fitting them together.






    full costs of nuclear are around $10 per watt, our government would be doing well to get 7% loans to build a nuclear plant.

    solar $1/watt and falling at 7% a year




    But yes, you could build Ireland's stockpile over 3 years, taking 1% of annual production each year. And you could probably fit it all into a large warehouse. Likely side effects would be short term increased mining/exploration and and very small price increases consistent with supply and demand.

    I wonder what would be involved in building a 30-50 year stockpile of gas? I'm guessing it would be more difficult.
    Uranium prices have changed by a factor of 10 in the last decade, oil /gas look stable by comparison.

    Enriched uranium is far more expensive and limited by capacity of processing. So if we had a warehouse of natural uranium we still at the mercy of market forces for processing costs and timescales. We could use CANDU reactors with natural uranium but probably need an extra €2Bn per reactor to pay for the Heavy Water, and there is the whole proliferation problems.


    I hope you aren't suggesting we store enriched uranium in a warehouse even if we could afford it.


    PS.
    Don't we already have 30-50 years gas off Mayo ?


  • #138
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    also TBH

    Hb0tM.jpg


  • #139
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,868 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    also TBH

    Hb0tM.jpg
    If I'm reading this right, it's an ad in an American newspaper.
    Wow ... an American umbrella group (Nuclear Energy Institute), promotes nuclear power as an American solution for American people to solve American problems, in an American newspaper intended to be read by citizens of ... the United States of America.

    But according to the 'artist' who FYPed the ad, it's inevitably a cover for a secret nuclear weapons. Did you know that the U.S.A. has nuclear weapons? Because according to the person who "fixed" the ad, this is some deep, dark secret that you would have to infiltrate the CIA to find out!

    Civilian nuclear power has not historically provided a good cover story for nuclear weapons development - Israel is widely considered to have nuclear weapons but it has no nuclear electricity whatsoever,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel#Energy
    Pakistan, another nuclear armed nation, has only a small percentage of its power supplied by nuclear reactors.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Pakistan
    All of the 5 Nuclear Weapons States as signified by the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty have both nuclear weapons and nuclear electricity.

    I have no idea what your pic has to do with a hypothetical Irish nuclear programme. Or the American nuclear energy infrastructure for that matter.
    and I am tired of pointing out that there are many developments waiting to be commercialised, the best panels are 4 times as efficient as generic ones.
    materials costs are dropping, anti-reflection coatings are improving. There is plenty of scope for improvement.
    You do realise that Ireland has a Northern climate right? We get very little solar radiation and our peak energy demand is on cold, dark winter evenings? In short, in Ireland, solar PV, whether they be your multijunction hifalutan whatever they are or not, will be about as useful as a chocolate fireguard (made by Godiva) most of the time. Particularly on the long cold winter evenings when they'll be needed most.


  • #140
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    SeanW wrote: »
    You do realise that Ireland has a Northern climate right? We get very little solar radiation and our peak energy demand is on cold, dark winter evenings? In short, in Ireland, solar PV, whether they be your multijunction hifalutan whatever they are or not, will be about as useful as a chocolate fireguard (made by Godiva) most of the time. Particularly on the long cold winter evenings when they'll be needed most.
    This is not accurate. Solar PV is works perfectly well in Ireland, particularly for space heating.

    Cap'n Midnight is right in saying the costs of nuclear don't stack up. No one has ever been able to show me a falling learning curve for nuclear, basically because it doesn't exist. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper, it's getting more expensive.


  • #141
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Macha wrote: »
    This is not accurate. Solar PV is works perfectly well in Ireland, particularly for space heating.

    I've done cost benefit analysis of domestic PV installations before for a college assignment and it came out as pretty dire.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    I've done cost benefit analysis of domestic PV installations before for a college assignment and it came out as pretty dire.
    In winter Donegal averages one hour of sunshine a day, and you'd need a weeks storage for the storms / rainy days.

    PV is nonsense here in winter.

    In summer when we have up to 18 hours of sunshine so it is one to keep an eye on, especially when prices will drop.

    We have a glut of wind and wave/tidal so not having PV isn't a problem.


    In Morocco / Tunisia it makes sense and interconnectors mean there will be a knock on effect. NorNed is a 580-kilometre (360 mi) long HVDC submarine power cable between Feda in Norway and the seaport of Eemshaven in the Netherlands The trend is for longer interconnectors too.



    Like I said if they get photolysis working - and that might be as difficult as getting thorium working - then it's game over as you just setup a hydrogen pipeline to distribute the energy.


    The economics aren't there yet to build a breeder. In the case of solar this has already been proposed, a solar panel factory powered by solar. Unlikely to happen soon, but it's a matter of time.


    Bottom line, under ideal conditions PV should cost less than the interest payments on the loan for nuclear.



    What is the break even time for nuclear , including paying for finance ?
    It's like a mortgage except you are don't make any payments in the first 10 years because you are waiting for the plant to be finished. (each year delay would add say 7% or whatever the cost of financing a loan is to the overall cost)

    you can see why once a nuclear plant is running there is a huge temptation to keep it running.



    The idea of building such plants underground and then sealing them to decomission is so simple that it's very hard to believe that it hasn't been thought about long and hard by some very clever people in the 70 years we've had such plants. It can't be that simple or it would have been done. Places like Nazi Germany and North Korea have in the past moved all their vital industry underground to protect from air raids and an awful lot of hydro stations are built in underground cathedrals so the issues are obviously more difficult than just making a hole,


  • #143
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    The problem with putting a nuclear power plant underground would be astronomically huge costs.

    For a military dictatorship like North Korea these kinds of things are possible because they simply do not use economic calculations for the costs involved. It's just done at the state's expense using cheap / free labour and military might.

    Sadly, North Korea spends so much time and effort on crazy projects like this that a large % of its population are starving and dependent on food aid!

    Putting a complex facility underground would also make maintenance extremely difficult too.

    Also, just burring something underground does not guarantee it won't contaminate the ground water or cause a problem in the future. You'd have to pick extremely geologically stable and secure sites and those are fewer and further between than you might think!


  • #144
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    In winter Donegal averages one hour of sunshine a day, and you'd need a weeks storage for the storms / rainy days.

    PV is nonsense here in winter.

    In summer when we have up to 18 hours of sunshine so it is one to keep an eye on, especially when prices will drop.

    We have a glut of wind and wave/tidal so not having PV isn't a problem.

    Its not great sunlight during the summer though. Inverter costs are also going to limit how low the price goes. Distributed pv does make a bit of sense though. Definitely more of a runner than any other distributed generation once the solar resources are there.

    For the assignment we worked out the internal rate of return for a domestic installation on our houses. It came out at around 2.8% which is less then the return you can get on a good savings account. I redid it for the craic for my fictional holiday home in Spain and it came out closer to 8% which is a good bit better.


  • #145
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    For the assignment we worked out the internal rate of return for a domestic installation on our houses. It came out at around 2.8% which is less then the return you can get on a good savings account.
    How does it compare to the return you'd get on a share in a new nuclear power plant (without subsidies)?


  • #146
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How does it compare to the return you'd get on a share in a new nuclear power plant (without subsidies)?

    As they is no difference between a nuclear power plant and a domestic solar panels


  • #147
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How does it compare to the return you'd get on a share in a new nuclear power plant (without subsidies)?

    Hells if I know.


  • #148
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How does it compare to the return you'd get on a share in a new nuclear power plant (without subsidies)?
    A nuke means billions into a pit for ~ 10 years before you get any return.

    10 year Irish government bonds aren't popular. The Norwegians have sold all theirs. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0504/breaking16.html

    you are talking 7% compound for 10 years and then you start paying the loan and the interest on the interest.


  • #149
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    The likelihood of Ireland building a nuclear power plant is incredibly small to be perfectly honest.

    1) There's never been political support for them. This has been tried before and resulted in some of the biggest protests ever seen at Carnsore point and basically launched what was to become the Green Party.

    If anything, the opposition now, post Chernobyl and post Fukushima would be a lot stronger.

    2) Financially, it would just not add up. We couldn't come up with those kinds of funds even if the public were totally behind it!

    3) Ignoring all of the environmental arguments for or against, we don't really have the scale to justify the use of nuclear and we would still be entirely dependent on imported fuel and imported technology too.


  • #150
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Hells if I know.
    It was a rhetorical question - I'm just making the point that comparisons to savings accounts are all well and good, but in the context of this discussion, comparisons to other forms of generation would make more sense. Considering that I've yet to see any costing of the lifetime of a nuclear plant that doesn't resemble a giant mound of burning money, then, given the choice, investing in solar looks like a wise decision.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    pljudge321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It was a rhetorical question - I'm just making the point that comparisons to savings accounts are all well and good, but in the context of this discussion, comparisons to other forms of generation would make more sense. Considering that I've yet to see any costing of the lifetime of a nuclear plant that doesn't resemble a giant mound of burning money, then, given the choice, investing in solar looks like a wise decision.

    Just because one investment is a poor one doesn't make another slightly less poor investment a good one. There are other areas in this country where the money could make a far greater impact in a far more cost optimal manner.

    Just regarding the feasibility of integrating a nuclear plant into the Irish grid. I imagine it would be very difficult to integrate an inflexible 1GW+ plant into our relatively small system, especially with the level of wind we have. You would have to provide enough spinning reserve to cover its loss which would be quite difficult and we would have to have enough back up generation to cover it during outages. The network would also need a bit more re-enforcing would could instantly add another billion or so onto the capital cost.


Advertisement