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

GB's cheap Chinese nuclear plant -v- solar

24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,603 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Thorium has one major disadvantage. Like other breeder reactors it requires an extra neutron capture. Then there's the problem of U232

    We still don't have any breeders that produce a large excess of fuel. And we've been breeding Plutonium in multiple reactors for over 70 years so don't expect this to change any time soon.

    It's still cheaper to burn uranium on a single pass than reprocess. So the economics of thorium are still suspect. Anyway it would take ten years to build a reactor and perhaps as long again to breed the thorium into U233 so it would take a very long time to breed enough to power a new generation of reactors.

    BTW: There's been at least four full scale reactors built using thorium. It had it's chance , it didn't work and it's not getting cheaper.

    Some sweeping statements there - Thorium reactors were shut down in the US in the 70's cos they did not produce by-products that could be used as nuclear weapons which was the main concern of governments then.Ironically that would be considered these days as a major advantage of thorium. As for economics/government support, I think those in the wind/solar glasshouse should be carefull about throwing stones at others on that score. In any case neither India or China have the hangups that some governments have about nuclear and are taking the technology to new levels. Even Japan is now committed to re-starting its nuclear industry. Interesting chart in that link showing Hydro as the main reneweable energy source with wind/solar contributing very little despite a big expansion in support in recent years

    http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19951


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Some sweeping statements there - Thorium reactors were shut down in the US in the 70's cos they did not produce by-products that could be used as nuclear weapons which was the main concern of governments then.
    So nuclear wasn't economic without massive govt support ?

    Ironically that would be considered these days as a major advantage of thorium. As for economics/government support, I think those in the wind/solar glasshouse should be carefull about throwing stones at others on that score
    Considering how much cheaper solar and wind have gotten over the years, can you imagine how much cheaper they'd be now if the billions spent on failing to develop breeders ( Japan alone has spend something like €20Bn on a plant that was online for just ONE hour, and the billions spent on price support, and the billions earmarked for cleanup ($100Bn for Sellafield) and the billions that need to be spent on safety and climate control , most nukes are at sea level Hinkley C site was devastated back in 1707, had been spent on renewables ?
    In any case neither India or China have the hangups that some governments have about nuclear and are taking the technology to new levels. Even Japan is now committed to re-starting its nuclear industry. Interesting chart in that link showing Hydro as the main reneweable energy source with wind/solar contributing very little despite a big expansion in support in recent years
    Hydro is a no-brainer if you ignore the environmental impact. AFAIK Nuclear has never caught up to hydro. Also globally nuclear has fallen from a peak of 17% electricity to 11% and is getting left behind by renewables.

    Just compare solar and wind plans in India or China to Nuclear. Now do the same except if you count stuff in the pipeline you have to give renewables the same lead time.


    Hydro can be great for load balancing. Both Nuclear and renewables need load balance, but at different times.

    Here our maximum demand is twice the minimum so nuclear could never supply more than 50% of our power, and given the UK price it would only do that at multiples of the wholesale price. Renewables here are limited to 50% of grid power because of inverters and freqstability. Last winter they averaged 50% of that limit. So if our grid could handle up to 100% renewables then it's possible that we could get half our power from them in winter.

    And whether we went nuclear or renewables, we'd still rely on fossil fuel for the other half of our power. The big difference is that to go nuclear would mean throwing money into a pit for 10 years before we got a single watt, then paying off the debt for another 20 years before it broke even. Effectively soaking up any investment in energy storage or new technologies.

    Even if you accept the crazy claims that nuclear is economic for base load power production ( £92.50/MWhr , currently €127.50 but will cost more by 2023 when it might start , and a lot more by 2047 because it's index linked - compare to blue line on http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx ) you have to admit that over the next three decades it could be completely undermined by new technology.

    A cheap wave machine or cheap energy storage or a new strain of oil rich algae.

    Read my recent post where wind will be getting 17% less subsidy in the UK. I've been hearing about nuclear getting too cheap to meter since forever, but all the price drops have been in renewables.

    In the renewable world the big question is whether the return on investment in the first few years would match how much the prices are expected to drop in the same time. Nuclear needs 35 years of index linked prices and a guaranteed demand to compete. 35 years ago solar was $27/watt. Today's prices are about 2% of that.


    Early days for the 398MW Tidal turbine project in Scotland. Tidal is very predictable.
    http://atlantisresourcesltd.com/media-centre/atlantis-annoucements/79-2015-annoucements/345-construction-of-onshore-facilities-starts-today-at-meygen-site.html



    Oh yeah , it would be cheaper to upgrade insulation than build a nuclear plant to provide the extra heating. That's how much of a money pit nuclear is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,603 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    So nuclear wasn't economic without massive govt support ?


    Considering how much cheaper solar and wind have gotten over the years, can you imagine how much cheaper they'd be now if the billions spent on failing to develop breeders ( Japan alone has spend something like €20Bn on a plant that was online for just ONE hour, and the billions spent on price support, and the billions earmarked for cleanup ($100Bn for Sellafield) and the billions that need to be spent on safety and climate control , most nukes are at sea level Hinkley C site was devastated back in 1707, had been spent on renewables ?

    Hydro is a no-brainer if you ignore the environmental impact. AFAIK Nuclear has never caught up to hydro. Also globally nuclear has fallen from a peak of 17% electricity to 11% and is getting left behind by renewables.

    Just compare solar and wind plans in India or China to Nuclear. Now do the same except if you count stuff in the pipeline you have to give renewables the same lead time.


    Hydro can be great for load balancing. Both Nuclear and renewables need load balance, but at different times.

    Here our maximum demand is twice the minimum so nuclear could never supply more than 50% of our power, and given the UK price it would only do that at multiples of the wholesale price. Renewables here are limited to 50% of grid power because of inverters and freqstability. Last winter they averaged 50% of that limit. So if our grid could handle up to 100% renewables then it's possible that we could get half our power from them in winter.

    And whether we went nuclear or renewables, we'd still rely on fossil fuel for the other half of our power. The big difference is that to go nuclear would mean throwing money into a pit for 10 years before we got a single watt, then paying off the debt for another 20 years before it broke even. Effectively soaking up any investment in energy storage or new technologies.

    Even if you accept the crazy claims that nuclear is economic for base load power production ( £92.50/MWhr , currently €127.50 but will cost more by 2023 when it might start , and a lot more by 2047 because it's index linked - compare to blue line on http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx ) you have to admit that over the next three decades it could be completely undermined by new technology.

    A cheap wave machine or cheap energy storage or a new strain of oil rich algae.

    Read my recent post where wind will be getting 17% less subsidy in the UK. I've been hearing about nuclear getting too cheap to meter since forever, but all the price drops have been in renewables.

    In the renewable world the big question is whether the return on investment in the first few years would match how much the prices are expected to drop in the same time. Nuclear needs 35 years of index linked prices and a guaranteed demand to compete. 35 years ago solar was $27/watt. Today's prices are about 2% of that.


    Early days for the 398MW Tidal turbine project in Scotland. Tidal is very predictable.
    http://atlantisresourcesltd.com/media-centre/atlantis-annoucements/79-2015-annoucements/345-construction-of-onshore-facilities-starts-today-at-meygen-site.html



    Oh yeah , it would be cheaper to upgrade insulation than build a nuclear plant to provide the extra heating. That's how much of a money pit nuclear is.

    You appear desperate to demonise nuclear on the basis of some of the oldest out of date plants out there. The links I posted describe the new developments in nuclear that are being embraced by the coming new economic super powers in Asia. On top of that you continue to role out the falsehood that wind/solar are cheap and cheerfull based on the "free energy" myth. In the real world grids based on solar/wind are anything put cheap as the likes of Germany are finding this out big time.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

    The MIT study below is also insightful as to how the hidden costs of wind/solar on grids go unnoticed(or ignored in more cases) by policy makers and vested interests

    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    You appear desperate to demonise nuclear on the basis of some of the oldest out of date plants out there.
    wtf ? Hinkley C hasn't even been built yet. :rolleyes:

    Then again neither have Olkiluoto or Flamanville and they have massive cost overruns and delays.


    The links I posted describe the new developments in nuclear that are being embraced by the coming new economic super powers in Asia. On top of that you continue to role out the falsehood that wind/solar are cheap and cheerfull based on the "free energy" myth. In the real world grids based on solar/wind are anything put cheap as the likes of Germany are finding this out big time.
    Please show me where I ever said wind/solar are cheaper than gas ??

    Nuclear also falls in the the fallacy of "free energy" since the costs of construction are so much more than the current price of ore. But the raw costs of wind , wave and sunlight aren't expected to increase as much as uranium ore. And capital costs of renewables are directly comparable to nuclear. When you include the very long payback time and associated financing costs nuclear looses big time.


    Also show me where Asia is investing more in Nuclear than in Solar / Wind.

    China is getting more than 10 times as much energy from renewables as nuclear.
    3785 TWh from coal, 86 TWh from gas, 97 TWh from nuclear, 872 TWh from hydro, and 147 TWh from non-hydro renewables.
    Yes they more than double the number of nukes from 21 by adding another 26. But they plan to add a lot of solar 15 GW this year and they added 20.7GW of wind last year




    [quote[The MIT study below is also insightful as to how the hidden costs of wind/solar on grids go unnoticed(or ignored in more cases) by policy makers and vested interests[/QUOTE]Nothing new. It's the old wind doesn't blow 24/7 argument rehashed. Thing is solar produces power at peak demand when electricity is worth a lot more. Nuclear will be many times the wholesale price on windy summer nights.

    And after me posting that renewables in the UK have their subsidies reduced by 17% while Olkiluoto is now three times it's original price and has been pushed back to late 2018


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Oh dear. Tidal Lagoons are back on the menu.
    The first could be delivering power before Hinkley C
    The others could deliver power cheaper than Nuclear.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31682529
    If approved, it could be generating power by 2022.
    ...
    It wants £168 per MWh for electricity in Swansea, reducing to £90-£95 per MWh from a second, more efficient lagoon in Cardiff.
    ...
    The £90 figure compares favourably with the £92.50 price for power from the planned Hinkley nuclear station, especially as the lagoon is designed to last 120 years - at a much lower risk than nuclear.

    Then again you could stick a few wind turbines on the breakwaters and get offshore wind at close to onshore prices. Possibly opportunities for fish farms ? And of course they could be designed to provide some channelling for tidal turbines. And of course it there's the possibility of pumped storage.

    Other benefits are water sports / amenities and coastal protection and fish nurseries.


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


    These guys are on the PR offensive. They are doing the rounds in Brussels and London trying to gain support for their projects.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.

    Wylfa nuclear power plant to shutdown for four weeks after problem found in reactor

    Fire alarm prompts unscheduled shutdown of Prairie Island nuclear unit

    Pennsylvania nuclear reactor returns to full power after 'hot shutdown' Limerick

    Faulty pipe forces French nuke plant to shut down



    Exelon officials have reported that Byron Generating Station Unit 1 automatically shut down Tuesday at 11:01 a.m., probably due to ice.


    Sequoyah nuclear reactor unexpectedly shuts down



    And hammering home the point that with the nuclear industry it's the same old same old where know problems crop up time and time again.
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bal-report-faults-handling-of-near-miss-at-calvert-cliffs-nuclear-plantn-20150309-story.html
    "Twice within the past five years, precipitation leaked into the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant and shorted out electrical power supplies," the report says, "causing one reactor to automatically shut down and components to malfunction that should have protected the second reactor from automatically shutting down."l


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.

    Note they had "budgeted" for two months down time over the year.

    Point Lepreau reactor hit by unexpected shutdown
    NB Power confirms reactor will be down for likely 2 weeks because of a new refuelling problem
    ...
    The refuelling issue is the latest in a series of problems at Point Lepreau, both large and small, that have caused it to miss budgeted production targets in each of its first three fiscal years since it was refurbished.

    This year, the utility had budgeted for 67 down days, including 45 days for maintenance activities last spring and 22 days for unexpected problems, but those were all used last summer when the maintenance shut down went two weeks over schedule.


    'Chunk of ice' shuts down Unit 1 at Byron nuclear power plant


    Angra 1, one of Brazil's two nuclear reactors, has begun operating normally again nearly a month after being disconnected due to a cooling system failure, officials said.




    Nuclear power can't be done on the cheap. Korea’s nuclear power plants had almost twelve times more industrial accidents than other kinds of power plants largely due to a shortage of manpower, the government said.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.

    PSEG Nuclear took its 1,150 megawatt Salem Unit 1 reactor offline Sunday after workers were unable meet a deadline for restarting one of five fan units used to cool the plant's containment atmosphere.



    Meanwhile in the world of Solar


    you can now get 1,500V panels.
    so you extend the array 50% without loosing power, or use less copper than existing ones.

    Jackie Chan Blu-ray disc boosts solar panel efficiency by a massive 22% nanopatterns increase efficiency


    Can't find the link but you can buy 22% efficient panels now. The trick with bifacial panels is to make the backing transparent so they can collect extra light from the back or underside too.

    Cree SiC MOSFET and Diode Technologies Achieve Higher Efficiency and up to 15 Percent Lower Cost
    Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE), a market leader in silicon carbide (SiC) power products, has demonstrated that its best-in-class SiC MOSFET and diode technologies enable previously unattainable levels of power density in string solar inverter products, yielding ultra-high efficiencies (greater than 99.1 percent at peak) at one-fifth the average size and weight of today’s silicon-based inverter units.

    So Solar costs are still dropping. Ancillary costs are dropping too. Efficiency of cells and converters is still increasing.

    The same can't be said of Nuclear. Construction of EDF's EPR for Olkiluoto 3 in Finland started 10 years ago. The one in China has been pushed back to the end of the year. And let's not forget that there may be teething problems even then.

    Some of these solar cell industry prices are less than 30c per watt for lower grade cells. Yes you have to integrate them into panels but still
    From €0.258 / Wp :eek:


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Another update, longer lasting PV panels. Another step to reducing the lifetime cost of solar.

    http://www.solitek.eu/en/technology/innovation/
    Glass/Glass modules are produced by laminating PV cells between two sheets of glass and insulating the module around its perimeter by using edge-sealing technology. The insulation material Butyl ensures better resistance to atmospheric conditions (in comparison to all other PV modules in the market) and a longer lifespan of 30-40 years. This innovation was brought in from the edge-sealing technology used in the time-tested car glass industry.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.
    FRENCHTOWN TOWNSHIP, Michigan — DTE Energy Co. says it has shut down the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant after a water leak was detected within the dry well that encloses its reactor.


    Just in case there are still apologists out there the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014 makes for depressing reading. Unreal waste of money on nuclear, and then consider the plants that have closed or had incidents or construction delays since then.
    http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2014-.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭SeanW


    PSEG Nuclear took its 1,150 megawatt Salem Unit 1 reactor offline Sunday after workers were unable meet a deadline for restarting one of five fan units used to cool the plant's containment atmosphere.
    All you've proven with any of these stories is that power plants sometimes fail. I'm sure that coal and gas plants have burst steam pipes and other maladies from time to time indeed I recall our own peat fired power plants having been plagued with many of the same kinds of issues as what you've posted, corroding aluminium and stuff like that.

    Meanwhile in the world of Solar


    you can now get 1,500V panels.
    so you extend the array 50% without loosing power, or use less copper than existing ones.

    Jackie Chan Blu-ray disc boosts solar panel efficiency by a massive 22% nanopatterns increase efficiency
    Yet the cost keeps rising. And rising. And you still haven't identified a solar panel that can produce power on a winters night - when power is most needed. Fact is and remains that only nuclear power can produce CO2 free electricity just about any time it is required, e.g. when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Fact is and remains that not using nuclear power inevitably means using more fossil fuels.

    And you still haven't explained why countries that embrace green technology end up paying through the nose while countries with nuclear have cheaper power.

    Please go to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing sort the list by electricity price per country, then explain to us all why the countries in the Top 10 for expensive electricity are all either small remote island countries in the middle of some ocean, or countries that have embranced an Environmental-Left policy on electricity.


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


    One enormous caveat on retail prices is they hide subsidies so they're not a good way of judging technology costs. Actually they're probably one of the worst ways to be honest.

    Prices and costs, people. They're different things and it helps to understand the difference, especially when it comes to energy.

    Still people keep trying to use then to prove a point, mostly around French nuclear which receives monster subsidies, allowing retail prices to be kept artificially low. I'd find it funny if it weren't so tiring.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    All you've proven with any of these stories is that power plants sometimes fail. I'm sure that coal and gas plants have burst steam pipes and other maladies from time to time indeed I recall
    recall ?
    My point is that nuclear drops out regularly. Even I was surprised by how many went off line since my original post.

    The big problem with nuclear is that concerns about safety mean they are required to shutdown at the drop of a hat. And unlike thermal plants you can't simply restart when you like. Xenon poisoning means if you can't restart in a few hours you'll have to wait a few days.

    Yet the cost keeps rising. And rising. And you still haven't identified a solar panel that can produce power on a winters night - when power is most needed. Fact is and remains that only nuclear power can produce CO2 free electricity just about any time it is required, e.g. when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Fact is and remains that not using nuclear power inevitably means using more fossil fuels.
    In the Nuclear world Investment cost estimates have increased in the past decade or so from US$1,000 to around US$8,000 per installed kilowatt.


    No solar at night ?
    If only we had some way to predict when this was likely to happen then perhaps maybe we could have some sort of contingency plan.


    Instead with nuclear you can have unplanned outages lasting weeks. Or even years. Not to mention the political dimension. Or construction delays.

    Cost keeps rising ?? Solar is getting cheaper, I posted links to 25.8c a watt cells. Efficiency is creeping up so the amount of space needed is dropping too. Thing about solar is that all the capital costs are falling, it's constant nibble, nibble

    And you still haven't explained why countries that embrace green technology end up paying through the nose while countries with nuclear have cheaper power.
    In what universe is £92.5/MWh index linked for decades cheap ? Not to mention guarantees and loans and having other power suppliers subsidise the spinning reserve level only needed by nuclear.


    You keep going on about how solar and wind require gas for load balancing. The thing is that Nuclear absolutely requires another generation source for load balancing. In France they do that by using lots of inefficient electrical heating and exporting and importing the stuff to and from Germany and even then because of shale gas the price of coal has dropped enough that France is a nett importer of power from Germany but you don't hear much about the extra CO2 caused by French Nuclear. And France has about 20GW of hydro on tap.


    Very roughly our base load is 2GW. In winter it's 1GW more. During office hours or early evening it's another GW more. Record demand was another 1GW more. And for redundancy and downtime it's worth having 1GW more on the system.

    So we need 6GW of dispatchable power on the grid and Nuclear can only provide 2GW of that unless we run it at low capacity and given the capital costs that's not remotely economic. We already have enough wind to provide that 2GW when the conditions are right. So wind can replace as much fossil fuel as nuclear, it just does it at different times.


    Argentina's third Nuclear Plant came on line last summer. It started construction in 1981. The amount of capital tied up in the project and the interest costs defy logic. How much solar did the UK have in 1981 ? How much solar did the UK have four years ago ? They now have 5GW

    There is a HUGE disconnect between what nuclear promises and what is delivered. Until the nuclear industry can consistently deliver what it promises everything said should be taken with a grain of salt. Or taken as blatant lies since no nuclear plant currently under construction has reached an important milestone on budget and on time. Seriously. Name one. The best that can be said is that they aren't late or over budget yet.


    Nuclear is a one trick pony. It can provide base load power at twice the wholesale rate. With smart grids we don't need as much base load power as before because renewables, pumped storage, interconnectors and demand shedding can step in.

    It also requires long transmission lines. It's thermally inefficient because radiation damage to materials and the usual dual heat exchange means you can't run reactors as hot as other thermal plants.

    Old coal plants are maybe 27% efficient, the latest gas plants are up to 60% efficient. Gas also emits half the CO2 of coal per unit of heat. So overall we can get three or four times as much electricity for the same CO2 emissions than we used to be able to. The switch to gas has removed more CO2 than nuclear. Actually moving from Incandescent to CFL / LED would save more power than nuclear provides globally.

    Our grid runs at 50Hz. When demand goes up this changes. Smart appliances could shed demand based on this. Things with thermal inertial like fridges, the heating cycle in washing machine and dishwashers and immersions and even well insulated ovens and air con and room heaters. Demand shedding would benefit nuclear but like pumped storage it also benefits renewables. Pretty much any investment in the grid needed to cater for nuclear also benefits renewables.


    Please do me a favour and read this
    http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2014-.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Impetus


    The French nuclear industry pretends that it delivers electricity at around 2c per kWh into the wholesale market. As a result electricity is sold at retail for about 10,5c per kWh by a state controlled 99% monopoly into the ejit retail market.

    No account in their costings has been taken into consideration for disposal costs, and the real depreciation/replacement cost. The typical 1GW nuclear plant now costs 22 billion EUR for supply and installation of the hardware. This excludes "fuel" and the little issue of lifespan. eg if a plant lasts for 50 years, and costs 20 billion, that is 400 million a year capital write-off. Add to that the storage until they are "dead" costs of waste (ie almost zero half-live status). 500 years in a cave in a zero quake zone with no water table or similar risks. Which is close to extremely difficult.

    I'm alright Jack. Down here on the Med, where one is heavily solar dependant, there was an eclipse. Not a trivial event either. And there wasn't a blip on the power supply.

    We need to be engineering the supply/storage platform to take advantage of local stuff - such as sun, wind, wave, tidal and developing storage systems (be they storing sea water in a peninsula in Kerry or using ultra-capacitors or making use of the most promising battery technologies) and connecting everything over multi-continent-wide grid networks to balance the load.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I suppose what it comes down to is the only cheap continous cleanish power supply at the moment is natural gas ... And as to its future price, future supply or even availability it's not great to be too reliant on it .
    Everything else has it's issues too - renewables are intermittent -but their down times can be predicted to some degree-
    Coal is duurrtty - and not as easy to handle -distribute as piped gas -
    Wave doesn't really exist anywhere yet -
    Nuclear is politically and financially impossible in Ireland -
    So a more dependable gas network ( which would cost more ) ? Backing up more wind ( solar in Ireland ?) - better grid and storage and more interconnectors - all means more capital though .

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Impetus


    Markcheese wrote: »
    I suppose what it comes down to is the only cheap continous cleanish power supply at the moment is natural gas ... And as to its future price, future supply or even availability it's not great to be too reliant on it .
    Everything else has it's issues too - renewables are intermittent -but their down times can be predicted to some degree-
    Coal is duurrtty - and not as easy to handle -distribute as piped gas -
    Wave doesn't really exist anywhere yet -
    Nuclear is politically and financially impossible in Ireland -
    So a more dependable gas network ( which would cost more ) ? Backing up more wind ( solar in Ireland ?) - better grid and storage and more interconnectors - all means more capital though .

    Near zero interest rates have been the norm for the last decade or so and likely continue for some time. Especially for gov borrowing - even IRL government "bills" are now neg interest rate (-0,01% of late). Let the private sector manage and the gov invest in infrastructure, because private entities have to pay higher % interest on big iron investments. The same goes for electricity interconnectors with mainland Europe, and grid infrastructure generally. By all means use privately incentivized management. But maximise gov investment in fixed assets - to control ownership and minimise financial costs. The alternative is eircom-like disasters with the highest phone subscriptions in the world and a national phone company that goes through multiple hedge fund rip-off exercises, leaving it with high debt levels, replete with corrupt employee incentives.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    All you've proven with any of these stories is that power plants sometimes fail. I'm sure that coal and gas plants have burst steam pipes and other maladies from time to time indeed I recall our own peat fired power plants having been plagued with many of the same kinds of issues as what you've posted, corroding aluminium and stuff like that.
    No , what I've shown is that out of just 388 nuclear plants in operation a good % have failed in the last month.

    Also regarding corrosion look up the cumulative problems with corrosion in steam generators in US reactors. Or Belgian.

    Nuclear reactors are much larger than steam / gas / hydro turbines so each one that goes off line means a bigger hit to the grid.

    http://www.dw.de/cracks-belgian-nuclear-reactors/a-18271456 Looks like the cracks in the Belgian reactors are from Hydrogen embrittlement and the effects of radiation itself ,the energy will distort structure in the metal. So it's likely that other reactors will have the same issues if he nuclear industry were to delve into them.


    Oh and another one. You just can't rely on nuclear.
    http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2015/03/lacey_nuclear_power_plant_shut_down_after_electric.html
    The nation's oldest nuclear power plant has shut down temporarily after an electrical issue occurred in a system that controls steam pressure.

    A spokeswoman of the Oyster Creek plant in Ocean County says staffers will troubleshoot the problem and make necessary repairs to bring it back online. She says all systems operated as designed during the automatic shutdown on Sunday afternoon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Yet the cost keeps rising. And rising.
    What are you talking about? The cost of solar is plummeting. Grid-scale solar in the US can deliver electricity for about 7 – 9 cents per kWh – that’s competitive versus gas:
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/topaz-turns-on-9-million-solar-panels
    SeanW wrote: »
    And you still haven't identified a solar panel that can produce power on a winters night - when power is most needed.
    Nobody is suggesting we should be 100% reliant on solar electricity, are they?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Fact is and remains that only nuclear power can produce CO2 free electricity…
    Nothing can produce 100% CO2-free electricity.
    SeanW wrote: »
    And you still haven't explained why countries that embrace green technology end up paying through the nose while countries with nuclear have cheaper power.
    How many times has it been pointed out to you now that nuclear is anything but cheap? Yet you keep overlooking the fact. You’re telling us that nuclear is cheap, yet Hinkley Point C is going to be phenomenally expensive. Construction costs are estimated at £24.5 billion and EDF have been guaranteed a massive strike price of £92.5 per MWh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Solar costs are plummeting and 7 to 9 cent per kW may be comparable to gas except it's the system costs that counts-
    A solar system needs other components to balance out peaks and something to provide power at night -
    A gas based system doesn't - ( but who wants all their eggs in one basket )
    So if you had a lot of solar on the grid ( Germany / southern USA ) you really want smart meters as well . So day time around noon would be off peak - 2 or 3 am would be expensive -
    I'd also argue that payment for solar / renewable should be based on peaks as well - lowest payment around mid -day highest payment in morning and evening -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You’re telling us that nuclear is cheap, yet Hinkley Point C is going to be phenomenally expensive. Construction costs are estimated at £24.5 billion and EDF have been guaranteed a massive strike price of £92.5 per MWh.
    and don't forget that price is index linked, so it could be a whole lot in ten years time when the plant might start generating power. And it's a reasonably safe bet that the plant will be late and over budget.
    Markcheese wrote: »
    Solar costs are plummeting and 7 to 9 cent per kW may be comparable to gas except it's the system costs that counts-
    A solar system needs other components to balance out peaks and something to provide power at night -
    A gas based system doesn't - ( but who wants all their eggs in one basket )
    So if you had a lot of solar on the grid ( Germany / southern USA ) you really want smart meters as well . So day time around noon would be off peak - 2 or 3 am would be expensive -
    I'd also argue that payment for solar / renewable should be based on peaks as well - lowest payment around mid -day highest payment in morning and evening -
    That's what's happening.

    Solar has decimated the market for pumped storage in Germany. Previously pumped storage could rely on peak prices at peak demand but wind and solar have reduced the margins.
    According to the study, the revenue prospects of pumped storage plants will only improve over the long term – at least a decade – when the share of renewable energy in the power generation mix has expanded sufficiently
    http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2014/09/03/9817356/german-pumped-storage-in-crisis-as-solar-crushes-economics/


    Unless you have oodles of hydro, and France's 20GW isn't enough, you need gas to backup nuclear or wind or solar or stuff like the 3GW surge in demand in the UK after the 1999 eclipse.

    During the eclipse Germany organised lots of backup to cater for the loss of PV and managed through a 15GW drop while Italy just took the safe option and didn't take power from any solar farms bigger than 100KW.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Macha wrote: »
    One enormous caveat on retail prices is they hide subsidies so they're not a good way of judging technology costs. Actually they're probably one of the worst ways to be honest.
    I put it to you that you would say this, since the measure shows your preferred choice in a very bad light.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    What are you talking about? The cost of solar is plummeting. Grid-scale solar in the US can deliver electricity for about 7 – 9 cents per kWh – that’s competitive versus gas:
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/topaz-turns-on-9-million-solar-panels
    You could make the solar panels for free, it wouldn't make a jot of difference because you can't rely on them. There may be no correlation between the output of a weather based renewable and demand. You can't make a reliable power system based on this. That's why the cost of electricity in Germany and Denmark is comparable only to places like Niue and the Soloman Islands.
    You’re telling us that nuclear is cheap, yet Hinkley Point C is going to be phenomenally expensive. Construction costs are estimated at £24.5 billion and EDF have been guaranteed a massive strike price of £92.5 per MWh.
    I don't recall claiming that it was "cheap" per se, just not so stupidly expensive as electicity costs in Germany, Denmark, Tuvalau, the Cook Islands and suchlike places.

    In any case, that's not even the main point. From an environmental perspective, with the current hysetria about global warming, nuclear power should look a lot more attractive to the Environmental Left even if the costs were as ridiculous as some claim them to be.

    Why? Again, look at France.
    576px-Electricity_production_by_sources_in_France.png
    They say a picture speaks a thousands words, and for this I really shouldn't have to spell it out, but I will anyway.

    France has <10% fossil fuel reliance. Gas in paticular accounted for 3.69% of power consumption in France in 2012. There are only two ways to do this:
    1. Be a country naturally blessed with massive fjords and geothermal resources.
    2. Embrace nuclear power unreservadley.
    The only alternatives I've seen from the Environmental Left all include either massively leaving peoples businesses and lives dependent on the weather (demand shifting?) or deciding to invest heavily in natural gas technologies, or more likely both. In particular, there is no way for a country not blessed with geothermal/hydro resources to have <10% fossil fuel reliance. To be more pointed, a figure of 3.7% reliance on gas in Ireland will never be possible.

    During the eclipse Germany organised lots of backup to cater for the loss of PV and managed through a 15GW drop while Italy just took the safe option and didn't take power from any solar farms bigger than 100KW.
    That's the other reason Germany's electricity costs are so stupidly high - the old business models of traditional plant operators are no longer viable.

    Instead of building plant for continuous use, you have to build power plants to cover solar eclipses and polar vortexes when the government spends everyone's money on windmills and solar panels. That limits the plant types that can be built (only combined cycle gas can respond to the violent fluctations in supply/demand caused by renewables) and the plants are only viable if they can sell power for some stupidly high cost on the irregular and sometimes unpredictable intervals that it is required. You can't just assume that the thermal plants will just be there as backup, they have to be paid for, their capital costs and staff costs.


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


    SeanW wrote: »
    I put it to you that you would say this, since the measure shows your preferred choice in a very bad light.
    Nope, it's just true.

    This report by the European Commission explains how prices are set and the different components: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20140122_communication_energy_prices.pdf The main components are the cost of generating electricity, network costs and then taxes, exemptions, levies etc. A change in any sub-section of those main components can change the price consumers pay, assuming prices are unregulated, which they are in Ireland.

    In addition to the many, many other subsidies that the nuclear industry enjoys in France, electricity prices are regulated by the CRE meaning they set the price. For a long time, the CRE (and the French government) has obliged EDF to sell its power at prices cheaper than the cost of generation.

    This keeps retail prices artificially low but the difference accrues to EDF's balance sheet. For this and other reasons, EDF's debt is growing every year, as the newly appointed CEO found out when he started. Indeed, when the French government overruled a proposal to increase prices by 5% last year, it knocked $5 billion off the share price of EDF.

    This doesn't even go into the impacts like a price cap acting as a barrier to new entrants thereby reducing competition etc. France remains a huge problem in terms of market concentration and the resistance of the French government to make EDF really compete with other companies with different generation portfolios.

    So yes, there's SO much going on underneath the headline retail prices (that doesn't even take into account the number of units being consumed, eg how energy efficient a country is) that comparing retail prices in different countries is a really, really bad way to figure out the costs of different energy system, let alone of a specific generation technology.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    You could make the solar panels for free, it wouldn't make a jot of difference because you can't rely on them.
    [citation needed]
    Weather forecasting advances about a day a decade. At present we can give predictions 5 days out.
    http://www.met.ie/forecasts/5day-ireland.asp
    For solar eclipses we can predict to within a second for the next thousand years. :p

    I don't recall claiming that it was "cheap" per se, just not so stupidly expensive as electicity costs in Germany, Denmark, Tuvalau, the Cook Islands and suchlike places.

    In any case, that's not even the main point. From an environmental perspective, with the current hysetria about global warming, nuclear power should look a lot more attractive to the Environmental Left even if the costs were as ridiculous as some claim them to be.
    Until a nuclear plant has been operation for years, and the figures on this are as muddled as the economics, you won't recover the increased the CO2 emissions from it's construction or mining and ore processing. An extreme case but at one stage in the bad old days something like 7% of the USA's electricity was used by isotope separators.

    That's the other reason Germany's electricity costs are so stupidly high - the old business models of traditional plant operators are no longer viable.
    No shít, Sherlock :eek:
    Tell that to the pumped storage operators in Germany
    or the coal operators who are running out of time
    or the French who import lots of German renewables
    or the UK who import from the French

    Nuclear isn't cheap.
    But more importantly nuclear hasn't been able to deliver what is promised. Cost overruns and delays are the norm.


    If you owe the seven three grand it's your problem,
    but if you owe the bank seven billion then it's the banks problem because they'll have to keep bailing you out if it's the only way to get repaid

    Instead of building plant for continuous use, ... (only combined cycle gas can respond to the violent fluctations in supply/demand caused by renewables) and the plants are only viable if they can sell power for some stupidly high cost on the irregular and sometimes unpredictable intervals that it is required. You can't just assume that the thermal plants will just be there as backup, they have to be paid for, their capital costs and staff costs.
    LOL
    Our demand fluctuates over the day. 2GW at night another 1GW in the day , another 1GW in winter. Another 1GW for peak demand and at least 1GW for redundancy.

    The reality of the situation is that we only have 2GW of continuous demand but have several times that amount of despatchable generators. (and I'm being generous here when I say 2GW because that's minimum demand of 1.75GW AND 0.25GW into Turlough Hill)

    So MOST generators will be off MOST of the time.
    In comparison wind here averages half of what the grid can accept during winter.

    Only base load plants can be considered for continuous operation. And even then only if they can produce power at the most economic price.

    Nuclear has an ABSOLUTE requirement for spinning reserve of the size of the largest plant. For Solar or Wind this just isn't an issue because individual farms are smaller, actually it's an issue because Solar and Wind are levied for a level of spinning reserve they will never need.

    Also staffing and capital costs for fossil fuel plant is a fraction of that for nuclear.

    There are whole industries like tourism and retail and farming and fishing that are seasonal. Possibly a contract with minimum hours and overtime rates would suit some of the employees , I'm thinking part time farmers.

    Re spinning reserve and cycling, here we run gas turbines at 2/3rds power so can ramp up 33%. Also gas turbines can idle at low power instead of a full trip depending on running costs , maintenance costs and payments . It's all very complicated stuff. You may not understand it because - the old business models of traditional plant operators are no longer viable

    Using gas as base load means you can just ramp up. Using Nuclear means you can't unless you pay extra to have gas as spinning reserve. It's another hidden subsidy to Nuclear.

    There's been a lot of FUD on gas O&M so a reminder that running at 70% means high efficiency with room to ramp up.
    http://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/ndt/faq-what-are-the-factors-influencing-maintenance-intervals-for-gas-turbines/
    Peak load operation will have in excess of a six fold effect on the life of the blades compared with base load operation. Similarly, a trip from a full load will be equivalent to 8 normal starts in terms of cyclic life consumption.

    Operation at part load, say 80% load, will reduce the turbine inlet temperature on an open cycle plant by as much as 10%. However, for combined cycle re-heat plant, the inlet temperature needs to be maintained by controlling the variable guide vanes, and therefore part load operation does not significantly influence the turbine inlet pressure until load reduces to around 70%.


    TBH the business model of Nuclear generation for the last 60 years has been simple, keep the plant running at close to full power all the time to pay off the crippling debt. Everyone else has had to load balance around them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    I don't recall claiming that it was "cheap" per se, just not so stupidly expensive as electicity costs in Germany, Denmark, Tuvalau, the Cook Islands and suchlike places.
    You said “countries that embrace green technology end up paying through the nose while countries with nuclear have cheaper power”. We’ll ignore for now that this is a ridiculously over-simplistic statement (most countries obviously have a mix of generation sources). You seem to be a big fan of the French and their energy industry. Well, EDF are building the new reactor at Hinkley Point and it’s going to be stupidly expensive, as you put it.

    Explain?
    SeanW wrote: »
    In any case, that's not even the main point.
    For me, it is the main point – the economics of nuclear power just don’t stack up. Never have. I have lost track how many times I have challenged you on this very point and every single time you just avoid the question.
    SeanW wrote: »
    The only alternatives I've seen from the Environmental Left...
    Another of your favourite debating techniques – when all else fails, attribute some argument to the nebulous “environmental left” to add weight to your own baseless claims.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The reality of the situation is that we only have 2GW of continuous demand but have several times that amount of despatchable generators. (and I'm being generous here when I say 2GW because that's minimum demand of 1.75GW AND 0.25GW into Turlough Hill)
    Of course what I forgot to say was that of that 2GW minimum demand, 1GW can be satisfied by wind depending on the weather.

    So for nuclear to sell power continuously it would have to target that 1GW when when it's windy and it could only do that when backed up by lots of fossil spinning reserve which would also be sending power in to the grid so nuclear wouldn't be able to displace that much fossil fuel, and that's before you include the grid stability rules of keeping large generators being kept online near the major cities.

    Operational Constraints Update
    4th February 2015
    There must be at least 3 high-inertia
    machines on-load at all times in
    Northern Ireland. Required for dynamic
    stability.
    ...
    There must be at least 2 large
    generators on-load at all times in the
    Dublin area. Required for voltage
    control. This assumes EWIC is
    operational.
    ...
    There must be at least 2/3 generators
    on-load at all times in the South West
    area. Required for voltage stability.
    ...
    There must be at least one Moneypoint
    unit on load at all times. Required to
    support the 400kV network.

    And in future we could accommodate more than 50% renewables and with the use of smart appliances to reduce demand dynamically to load balance so it non-renewable demand will probably fall below 1GW at times.

    To provide spinning reserve you need to replace 75% of the load within 5 seconds.

    The more I look at it the more I'm convinced that Nuclear is a dinosaur.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    It takes a long time for a nuclear power plant to even begin to approach carbon neutral when you take into account all the inputs during construction and mining. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html
    According to Sovacool's analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh. "A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms," Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.
    Note: €3Bn and 10 years is very optimistic compared to European costs. Argentina's Atucha II plant came on line last July. Construction started in 1981.

    And you have to take into account the relatively large % of nuclear plants that don't get completed or shut down early. Also take into account that production of solar panels is getting more efficient so that future ones will have a lower CO2 level.

    n the nuclear world there's been plenty of talk of self contained 300MW reactors and commercialising them. The world's navies have used 100's of them since the 1950's and still there's only talk of commercialising them.

    In comparison here what promises to be yet another step change in PV production costs, awaiting commercialisation.
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2901612/stanford-breakthrough-could-make-better-chips-cheaper.html
    Next, the uppermost disposable layer is etched so that the many circuits become individual chips. Then, an infrared laser blasts the infrared-absorbing layer, breaking it down so the chips can be separating from the underlying wafer. The remaining wafer is cleaned and is then ready for the next batch of chips.
    ...
    Because the resulting chips are made out of a thin layer of gallium arsenide rather than a full wafer, they are cheaper to produce. As a side benefit, they are also flexible.
    It means instead of wasting material slicing it with a saw or laser you can reuse the same wafer up to 100 times. GaAs isn't cheap but it's used to make cells for concentrators and mirrors are cheap. Transplanting this technology to silicon or other pV materials would be very interesting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,603 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    It takes a long time for a nuclear power plant to even begin to approach carbon neutral when you take into account all the inputs during construction and mining. .

    Sounds like people in glasshouses throwing stones - the damage done to the environment by the mining of rare earth elements for wind turbines and their installation(40 tonne concrete bases, roads, substations and pylons etc.) on fragile upland habitats like peat raise serious questions as to just how green this source of power actually is in this country


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Apologies in advance this might be somewhat long.
    Macha wrote: »
    Nope, it's just true.

    This report by the European Commission explains how prices are set and the different components: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20140122_communication_energy_prices.pdf
    I would say it's simply not true. I suggest very simply that when a country follows Green policy on energy, costs unavoidably rise.

    Again, taking reference to global energy costs, on the one hand we have Capt'nMidnight and others telling us how cheap green energy is, then we have the reality on the ground in Germany and Denmark where costs are similar to those of microscopic Pacific islands like Niue, Tuvalau and the Cook Islands that most people have never heard of.

    Very simply, I put it to you that somehting has gone very badly wrong in Germany and Denmark. Very badly wrong.
    In addition to the many, many other subsidies that the nuclear industry enjoys in France, electricity prices are regulated by the CRE meaning they set the price. For a long time, the CRE (and the French government) has obliged EDF to sell its power at prices cheaper than the cost of generation.
    Evidently, whatever the subsidy costs may be, they're manageable. They must be well within the bounds of reason, and IMO are money well spent - again, pay reference to my graph demonstrating that France is a country not dependent on any fossil fuel, especially gas.
    This doesn't even go into the impacts like a price cap acting as a barrier to new entrants thereby reducing competition etc. France remains a huge problem in terms of market concentration and the resistance of the French government to make EDF really compete with other companies with different generation portfolios.
    The funny thing is that most people would assume that the whole point of having competition is to reduce prices, sort of like in the days Aer Lingus had a monopoly on flights from London to Dublin. I've always considered competition a means to an end, not an end unto itself! Ditto for the "different generation portfolios" ... their system is 90%+ non-fossil so who cares?
    that comparing retail prices in different countries is a really, really bad way to figure out the costs of different energy system, let alone of a specific generation technology.
    Perhaps in limited cases but we have specific trends. Technologies promoted by the mainstream environmental movement cost a lot of money in subsidies and they only produce power when the weather is co-operating. Two powerful factors that drive up costs. We also see the results of this in action: Germany and Denmark have electricity prices comparable to countries like Niue - given that these countries have followed the Environmental-Left's policies to the letter it would be ridiculous to the point of obscenity to claim that these things are not connected to one another.
    Re spinning reserve and cycling, here we run gas turbines at 2/3rds power so can ramp up 33%. Also gas turbines can idle at low power instead of a full trip depending on running costs , maintenance costs and payments . It's all very complicated stuff. You may not understand it because - the old business models of traditional plant operators are no longer viable

    Using gas as base load means you can just ramp up.
    Frankly, this whole section of your post seems like a love letter to the natural gas industry. This is not just bizarre, but deeply disturbing.

    Building a power system that relies on natural gas carries with it, AFAIK 4 major problems
    1. Gas is still a fossil fuel, burning it still release piles of CO2 into the atmosphere, supposidly cooking the planet, which we're supposed tobe going El Nutso to try to avoid.
    2. Gas is among the least sustainable fuel source that there are, it took me about 2 minutes on Google to find out about Reserve to Production Ratios, both oil and gas are fuels that we will run out of in this century. Taking the most liberal view of oil 80 years, the world will run out of gas first in 59 years. Needless to say that any large scale increase in the use of gas will reduce this figure.
    3. Using gas on power generation is wasteful - because gas is so flexible, using it for any one purpose carries with an an "opportunity cost" of not using it for something else. Gas can be used for power, heating, cooking, transport, it's the most flexible fuel for each of these uses. Uranium is better for power generation because it carries no such opportunity cost, coal having only some.
    4. Imported gas must usually be purchased from very nasty people. Two of the main sources are Russia (which has spent the last two years fighting a proxy war to destroy the Ukraine, murdering countless civilians including the passengers and crew of MH-17 in the process) and Qatar, which has certain blurred lines in a relationship with the Islamic State or Daesh a thoroughly evil group that has committed mass muders, genocide against the Yadizi people, and the destruction of mankinds cultural heritage on a scale unprecedented in modern times. This is yet another hidden cost to using gas for any reason, yet it does not feature in any of the above analyses. I find that strange.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    You seem to be a big fan of the French and their energy industry. Well, EDF are building the new reactor at Hinkley Point and it’s going to be stupidly expensive, as you put it.
    The retail price of electricity in Denmark is US$0.40 per unit. Even including the difference between wholesale and retail, and currency exchange, there is still a hell of a difference between 9.25p and 40cents. Also in theory that's supposed to include decommissioning and everything. The "stupidly expensive" prices follow Green policy, not nuclear.

    Again, look at the chart I posted earlier showing that France having less than 10% reliance on fossil fuels. This is accompanied by sensible power costs. The downside, whether that be subsidies or something else, would have to be extremely serious to counteract the positive results of the French approach. But so far as I can see, it's just not happening.
    Another of your favourite debating techniques – when all else fails, attribute some argument to the nebulous “environmental left” to add weight to your own baseless claims.
    The "Environmental left" is a description of a position that I consider to be common to many of the posters here and for example major world Green parties, and other entities like Greenpeace, who share the same policies - (among others) climate change alarmism, promotion of energy taxation, promotion of weather based renewabe power, opposition to the use of nuclear electricity despite the aforementioned climate change alarmism ... these are things one associates with a mainstream environmental ideology, that has traditionally been considered a Left-of-Centre point of view.

    I imagine most of the residents of this board would consider the above to be at least mostly accurate in describing their own views, and it is my view that this view is extremely common. Thusly, while I could repeat the above spiel every time I want to question the ideology, I suggest the term "Environmental Left" is a useful, time saving summary.

    If I were to peg a label on my own position, at least in this area, I'd call myself "Environmental Right" because although I accept the need for mankind to be good stewards of the Earth, I'd favour things like nuclear power which is traditionally something of a right-wing point of view. I'd also prefer a policy of energy security vs writing out blank cheques to Vladimir Putin and Daesh, which again makes me a rightie.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Sounds like people in glasshouses throwing stones - the damage done to the environment by the mining of rare earth elements for wind turbines and their installation(40 tonne concrete bases, roads, substations and pylons etc.) on fragile upland habitats like peat raise serious questions as to just how green this source of power actually is in this country
    LOL

    some pictures of the environmental impact of nuclear - don't forget about the mining or the soil heaps or leachate
    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-05-11/does-nuclear-power-produce-no-co2

    Nuclear plants use a LOT of concrete. Sizewell used more than 40 tonnes 10,000 times over. And then there's the concrete used for the waste etc.
    http://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/160237/SizewellPamphlet_lo.pdf
    At its peak, there were over 2,000 workers employed on the construction of Sizewell A
    power station. This included different types of machine operators, fitters, carpenters, concrete
    gangs, electricians, welders, platers, laggers, scaffolders and many other categories of
    operative. The process of building the station involved the shifting of around 700,000 cubic
    yards of earth, and the application of approximately 300,000 cubic yards of formwork,
    5000 tons of steel and 200,000 cubic yards of concrete.


Advertisement