Is the interconnector back door nuclear power?

democrates

http://www.esb.ie/main/news_events/press_release243.jsp
Surely if we buy power from the UK it undermines our case against Sellafield et al?

Capt'n Midnight

Nuclear power is clean, safe and economic. Pick at most two options.

France are also a nuclear power.
So yes we would have to interconnect with a country that isn't building any new Nuclear power stations.

And no just because you use part of a system doesn't mean you approve of the whole thing and associated links.

Just because you support the troops who are in Iraq doesn't mean you agree they should be there and it most definetly doesn't imply that you support G. Bush politically.

Keeks

democrates wrote:

http://www.esb.ie/main/news_events/press_release243.jsp
Surely if we buy power from the UK it undermines our case against Sellafield et al?

I'll answer your question with a question.

Do you approve of the buring of fossil fuels?

IF not then think of just where most of the ESBs electricity comes from. Its Oil, Gas and peat power stations. By using electricty supplied by the ESB are people subscribing to the fact that burning fossil fuels is OK?

The ESB are stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. Oil prices are going up. They are soon going to taxed heavily for the amount of carbon being use in their power stations. And power consumption is growing rapidly, that the national grid is near capacity. There are problems with green alternative methods at the moment with locals objecting to wind farms and other projects (the NIMBY and BANANA factors). So at teh moment building an interconector to Wales seems like a logical step to increase the capacity of the national grid while new cheaper and more envionmentally methods of power generation are found.

But to get back to the point of buying Nuclear power. It all depends on where the Interconnecter is connected and where that power comes from. Most people who are Airtricity custumers think they are buying 100% wind generated power, when in actuall fact it just comes from the nearest power station and not the nearest wind farm.

BrianD

What about all the goods that you consume that are manufactured in countries that use nuclear power?

democrates

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Nuclear power is clean, safe and economic. Pick at most two options.

Excellent.

I take the other points, yes the two policies can be quite seperate in our minds, but it doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine the BNFL's UK media apologists accusing us of hypocrisy in objecting to their nuclear power-station(s) on the one hand and yet buying electricity from the grid fed by the same stations on the other.

And in providing extra demand are we feeding Blairs push to look at building more nuclear power stations? Conversely, if we supplied them with eco-power it would reduce their need for more power, including nuclear. But I won't hold my breath on the growth rate of our eco-generation.

Capt'n Midnight

Like Aertricity (sp) we could just not buy Nuclear electricity. This would mean that they could not use our usage figures to justify new stations.

The whole idea of an interconnect is that you don't need to build spare stations. In fact if we go the whole hog with renewables like tidal / wind / coppiced willow grown on bogs / more Turlough Hill storage stations we could prevent then building any more nuclear ones.

Don't forget for years the IRA targeted the Northern Ireland Interconnector.
I don't know if they are talking about that one or an undersea one to Britain. If the latter then part of it's attraction over a land based one is less susceptible to attack by terrorists who have killed more people than all the UK leaks and bomb tests.

democrates

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The whole idea of an interconnect is that you don't need to build spare stations. In fact if we go the whole hog with renewables like tidal / wind / coppiced willow grown on bogs / more Turlough Hill storage stations we could prevent then building any more nuclear ones.

Yes, and I seem to recall that Turlough hill use off-peak excess capacity to pump water back up to the reservoir, thus providing some smoothing of supply and demand.
Seems that could be a good answer to the complaints about wind power's sporadic output, thus hydro and wind could be designed in a complimentary way.
But that raises the problem of more land/habitat loss. Thinking laterally, could excess off-peak power be used to pump out a sea basin, then during peak demand generate hydro-electricity as it refills? It would require coastal topography that minimises the dam construction costs and marine habitat disruption. Can't be blocking the salmon from their spawning grounds.

Or is their a way that wave energy could directly pump out a basin? As the waves make an armature rise and fall this pumps water out. Hmm.

bonkey

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Nuclear power is clean, safe and economic. Pick at most two options.

If you limit yourself to the already-established 70s-and-earlier technology, sure. Course, if you limit yourself that way with the environmentally friendly options, you have...ummm....hydro.

I'm always amazed how ppl can talk about the promise of emerging technologies whilst deriding nuclear tech based on the stuff that was designed 50 years ago and built sometime in the first half of that time period.

Lets be fair here. Either we can be optimistic about newer developments in general, or we can't.

The whole idea of an interconnect is that you don't need to build spare stations.

It also means you can get power available far more quickly. YOu can lay an interconnect to Wales/Scotland a hell of a lot faster than you can build and bring on-line a shedload of generators of any type.

In fact if we go the whole hog with renewables like tidal / wind / coppiced willow grown on bogs / more Turlough Hill storage stations we could prevent then building any more nuclear ones.

Really? But surely then it follows that they could build all that type of stuff and not have to build any more nuclear ones either. So why wouldn't they?

I don't know if they are talking about that one or an undersea one to Britain. If the latter then part of it's attraction over a land based one is less susceptible to attack by terrorists

I didn't know it was time for movie plot of the week.

Besides, it would be a bloody good trick to build an overland connector between two islands.

jc

Capt'n Midnight

bonkey wrote:

If you limit yourself to the already-established 70s-and-earlier technology, sure. Course, if you limit yourself that way with the environmentally friendly options, you have...ummm....hydro.

I'm always amazed how ppl can talk about the promise of emerging technologies whilst deriding nuclear tech based on the stuff that was designed 50 years ago and built sometime in the first half of that time period.

Lets be fair here. Either we can be optimistic about newer developments in general, or we can't.

Many countries have scaled back on Fission research and it's not as if anyone is expecting a break through on the problem of waste anytime soon. And health and safety legislation is growing all the time. Fusion would be nice but can't plan electricity generation using it yet. The other thing that scares me about Fission is the plan to use Thorium as a fuel, a byproduct of which is U233. The half life of 90 years means generations of problems with the waste too. But it's easier to make into bombs than U235 because you don't have to separate the atoms to the same extent. Also you don't need to design fancy explosive lenses like in a Plutonium bomb. The main reason it isn't used in bombs it that it very radioactive, you'd have to work on the stuff in a cave or something by remote control where you practise with a joystick on a computer before hand. [/Plot of the week];)

BTW: Willow Coppicing is not an emerging technology - using mechanical harvesters might be, but has no insurmountable problems, except maybe economics.

Really? But surely then it follows that they could build all that type of stuff and not have to build any more nuclear ones either. So why wouldn't they?

don't forget that Nuclear power stations are used by the weapons industry and there are political reasons too. Salters Duck is one of those technologies that could have been interesting if it had a nuclear type budget behind it.

Besides, it would be a bloody good trick to build an overland connector between two islands.

I was referring to the Northern Ireland one
Or you could lay it inside the Tuskar Tunnel



oh yeah forgot to pimp the tidal current generators on stilts
they are on the seabed to generate in a couple of knots
and you lift them up on stilts so maintainance is done above water
and the tides in the Irish sea and around the rest of the coast mean that you get power from one place or another all the time regardless of the state of the tide at any one point.

Victor

The problem is the scale of wind generation potentially available is greater than the Irish sytem can absorb. We could build lots if it could be connected to a better grid where its variability would be less of a problem.

atilladehun

Keeks wrote:

There are problems with green alternative methods at the moment with locals objecting to wind farms and other projects (the NIMBY and BANANA factors).

Where can I find out more on these factors (NIMBY and BANANA)? Personally I think this is something communities should be proud to have near them, knowledge that their community is cleaner than another etc. Ive been asking round to see why would randoom non green people reject such a thing, no good answers yet. With the right marketing this should not be a problem.

Keeks

It is not as simple as that. In general most local people don't care. But all it takes is a few to disagree to casue trouble. NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutley Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) factors are holding up a lot of projects, not just in the renewable sector but right across the bord. Some are justified, but a lot are been held up my mis-information being fed into local communities beacuse some people in these aeras have other agendas, ususally money.

When it comes to windfarms it is not the building of the windfarm that causes the objection but its connection to the national grid, as pylons have to be erected across large tracts of land, usually farms. You see a lot of begrudgery when dealing with this, with some farmers saying why should they have to have pylons in there land when they don't earn any money from it and the windfarm developer pockets all the cash. You also get the the German (could be not not just German) holiday home owner who spends six weeks of the year there and dosen't want it to spoil there view, even though they probably can't see it from there property.

There could also be fighting neighbours involved. The argument could stretch back to their grandfathers. But the main factor is compenstation.

Maskhadov

is those two interconnectors still going ahead ?

stonecipher

Maskhadov wrote:

is those two interconnectors still going ahead ?

Yes the interconenctor project is going ahead, the government approved two 500mw cables in Early 2004. A private company Imera Power has announced its plans to build it an a merchant basis, which means it wont be paid for by end users Use of Network charges. They say that it should be built by the end of 2008. There is a lot of excess generation in the UK and most of it is gas fired.

rsynnott

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Nuclear power is clean, safe and economic. Pick at most two options.

In France, they have all three

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

So yes we would have to interconnect with a country that isn't building any new Nuclear power stations.

Don't bet on that remaining the case for long. The UK is, quite rightly, desperate to keep its carbon emissions down.

stonecipher

Although the interconnector will be connected in Wales, the nuclear plant in Anglesea will be in the process of being decommissioned by the time its operational, there is a huge amount of Hydro and pumped storage in Wales, its likely that the electricity flowing across the interconnector will be coming from one of the large hydro or pumped storage plants in Wales.

There is also a huge offshore windfarm being planned for the north wales area too, its most likely that the energy coming across the interconnector will be from green sources.

There is already the Moyle interconnector between Northern Ireland and Scotland that is used extensivly by Airtricity, Energia and ESB already.

The Interconnector is essential to maintain security of supply in Ireland and also in Wales, the presence of the interconnector in North Wales will enhance and ensure security of supply in that region possibly detering a new nuclear plant being commission in Anglesea.

I understand that Imera Power the interconnector developers will be constructing the east west interconnector in a bi-polar configuration which will allow Ireland to export electricity to the UK if some of the large scale wind power projects in Ireland come on stream.

Eyeball Tickler

Nuke Heads and Others:

Here's an article due to be published in Sustainability magazine shortly. www.sustainability.ie

Please play particular attention to the section on Ireland.




Toxic Legacy

Turning the Lights Out on Nuclear Energy


“One of the worst ideas, circulating in many corners of the global discussion, is the call for an expansion of nuclear power as a means of climate protection.”
Jürgen Trittin, Former German Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (1998-2005) March 2007.

On January 10, 2008, the UK government gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear reactors to be commissioned. The move was warmly welcomed by the nuclear lobby but vociferously criticised elsewhere.
The UK government justified its decision on the grounds that it would ensure future security of supply. The plan has been condemned in a report published by the Nuclear Consultation Working Group (NCWG), an independent think tank made up of leading scientists and economists, some of whom had served on the UK’s own committee on radioactive waste management. The report states: “Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision.”
A year earlier at the High Court, Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the consultancy process had been “seriously flawed” and “manifestly inadequate and unfair.” Regardless, it appears that the outcome of the consultancy process would not have swayed the UK Government from its nuclear course. Even before the process was completed, Prime Minister Gordon Brown had stated that “we have made the decision to continue with nuclear power.” Paul Dorfman, editor of the NCWG report, described the series of public meetings as a green-washing exercise in which “the nuclear agenda seamlessly entwined [with] the threat of global warming...However, this sleight of hand was performed without clear reference to how the former related to the latter.”

Dave Elliot, another one of the NCWG authors, pointed out that the UK government’s nuclear energy consultation document played down the viability of renewable sources of energy in order to make the nuclear option appear more attractive, and he argued that the poor development of the renewables sector in the UK was a consequence of poor policy (1)

No Solution to Fossil Fuel Depletion

Building new reactors requires enormous amounts of fossil-fuel energy – so much so that for the first five years or so of the operating life of a nuclear reactor, it remains a net energy loser because the initial energy to build the plant has yet to be recouped. Given the long lead-in time for commissioning nuclear plants, any possible gain from reduced demand for fossil fuels is many years into the future. The energy break-even point on any reactor given the go-ahead now could not occur before 2020, which hardly addresses short- or even medium-term energy-security issues.

During the lifetime of the nuclear plant, considerable quantities of fossil fuels are required to extract the uranium ore from the ground. For an ore to be viable, it must contain upwards of 0.02 percent uranium oxide (U3O8). As Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, one of the authors of a March 2007 report by the Oxford Research group explains: “The energy needed to recover the uranium from the rocks in the earth’s crust increases with decreasing ore grade. At a certain grade the extraction energy equals the gross energy produced in the reactor. Using ore at that critical grade (0.02 percent U3O8, compared to an average today of 0.15 percent) the nuclear system as a whole produces no net energy.”

Moreover, far from being a plentiful resource, the world’s total reserves of uranium ore will last only another 60-70 years at current levels of demand for uranium oxide. These reserves will shrink even faster if the number of nuclear reactors increases. Talk of extracting unlimited supplies of uranium from seawater or from granite is the stuff of science fiction. Granite contains only about 3 parts per million of uranium, while in water the concentration is only 3 parts per billion. In both cases, the energy required to extract and process the uranium oxide would be much greater than the energy payback.

Fig 1 The Nuclear Energy Cliff

Fast Breeders

Since the 1960s, so-called ‘Fast Breeder’ or ‘Generation IV’ reactors have been presented as a solution to the finite supplies of uranium oxide. In theory, these reactors could create their own fuel in the form of plutonium. Plutonium is extremely rare in nature but can be produced synthetically by bombarding uranium with neutrons. Currently, its main use is in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Plutonium is extremely toxic when inhaled in particle form, and its long shelf life of 24,000 years means it remains dangerous for a very long time.
The Fast Breeder programme has also been beset by technical problems: “Fifty years of intensive research [by the world’s major nuclear powers], with investments of tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars so far have failed to demonstrate that the breeder cycle is technically feasible. At present three fast-neutron sodium-cooled [Fast Breeder] reactors are more or less operational, one in Monju in Japan, another in Beloyarsk-3 in Russia and one in Phénix in France. Only the Russian reactor is operating, and it has a history of large and serious accidents. Although designed as breeders, none of the three actually bred. It is not clear whether the French and Japanese reactors, out of operation for years, will ever be restarted.” (Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen).

Fusion

Some have suggested that fusion reactions similar to the ones that occur in thermonuclear explosions could somehow be controlled and used to generate electricity. In spite of as much research funding being poured into fusion as into all non-nuclear energy sources combined, energy from fusion remains a pipe dream. Even the nuclear industry sees the first working prototype reactor being many decades away. In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted an in-depth evaluation of the potential development of nuclear energy in the U.S. over the next 50 years. Despite being broadly pro-nuclear, the report (The Future of Nuclear Power) did not even mention fusion technology.

Terrorist threat

“It is often pointed out that terrorists need succeed only once whereas the security services have to succeed every time.” (Executive Summary: Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming, Oxford Research Group, March 2007)


In July 2006, Tom Parry, a Daily Mirror reporter, was able to walk onto a supposedly secure train in north London carrying clearly visible radioactive flasks of spent uranium fuel rods and plant a fake bomb. Parry stated this was the tenth time he had breached security at the train depot (2).

In 2004, a report from the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology stated: “No reactors have been designed specifically to withstand the impact of a large commercial aircraft.” Two years earlier, the Oxford Research Group had warned the House of Commons Defense Committee that “a successful attack...that released 1-3 percent of the plutonium stored in tanks at Sellafield would be approximately ten times as devastating as Chernobyl and require evacuation of an area which could include Newcastle or Manchester [and presumably Belfast or Dublin], depending on the wind direction.” (3)

Economics

Even the economics of nuclear energy don’t make sense. In the first decades of development of nuclear energy, the reactors were underwritten by state-owned utilities that could pass on any unforeseen costs to the public through taxation or higher energy prices. As a result, it was very difficult to find out exactly how much existing nuclear reactors cost to commission and run. Even harder to assess are the costs of decommissioning and safely storing waste, because that phase of the nuclear cycle is only beginning now. What is clear, however, is that since the nuclear industry began to go private, very few new nuclear plants have been commissioned. Of the world’s 435 reactors, less than 10 percent were completed in the last ten years, and nearly all ran severely over budget. A typical example is the Olkiluoto 3 Reactor being built in Finland by the Elfi consortium. Although still many years from completion, the project is already 50 percent over budget (4).


Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The argument that nuclear energy will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. Interestingly, one of the UK government’s own handouts distributed at public meetings around the country admitted that “the rebuilding of the UK’s nuclear fleet would mitigate only 4 percent of our CO2 emissions.” Even with the relatively high-grade uranium ore used today, nuclear energy compares very unfavorably to renewables. As the ore quality falls, the greater quantity of energy required to process the uranium oxide inevitably results in an increasingly large carbon footprint. Eventually, the carbon footprint of nuclear power will exceed that of burning fossil fuels directly. This has been well documented in a study carried out by the Oxford Research Group (5). See Table 1.


The Unknowns of Nuclear Waste
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
—February 12, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld US Department of Defense news briefing


Jerome Ravetz of the NCWG sums up the problem of radioactive waste thus: “How there could possibly be a solution to the problems of guaranteeing the integrity of containments over geological time under unknowable conditions? For that prospect, we must speak of irremediable ignorance rather than of mere unquantifiable uncertainty.”

These unknowns, however, have only spurred the UK Department of Trade and Industry to greater obfuscation with regard to the safe storage of future nuclear waste. It pretends that its own Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) had identified a solution. However Pete Wilkinson, a member of this committee, has pointed out that “no solution” had been found for the “500,000 cubic metres of long-lived legacy waste containing 78 million terrabecquerels of radioactivity requiring housing in a receptacle five times the volume of the Albert Hall over a period of one million years.” All CoRWM had done was to recommend best practice based on the current level of knowledge and technology: long-term geological depositories deep inside the earth coupled with an intermediary storage phase of undeterminable length above ground at reactor sites (6). Obviously, the risks from terrorist attack at any over-ground site would be high. Leakage presents another risk. One only has to look at the Mayak nuclear complex in Russia (7). Since 1976, there has been a nuclear-waste storage and reprocessing facility at Mayak. Storage facilities are extremely crude, and according to Greenpeace between 5 and 6 million m3 of radioactive waste seeps from storage ponds into the nearby Techa River every year. In 2002, the Russian government overturned an earlier ban on the importation of nuclear wastes from abroad. EU countries currently disposing of their nuclear wastes at Mayak include Finland, Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria (8).

Nuclear Energy and Ireland


The building of electricity interconnectors between Ireland and the UK has been widely proclaimed as being a means of better utilising Europe’s renewable energy resources(9). However, it seems likely that these huge cables will also be used for the import of surplus off peak nuclear electricity from Britain and other countries. IMERA Power, who have licenses to two 350MW interconnectors across the Irish Sea, have recently been given the go ahead to build additional interconnectors from Britain to France (10). IMERA have also applied for a license to build an interconnector to Belgium. 85 percent of French electricity comes from nuclear sources, while in Belgium the figure is 92 percent. According to the IMERA website, “The Irish Sea interconnector’s primary objective is to supply the Irish electricity market with electricity generated in the UK and Europe.” (11).

Unlike conventional power stations fuelled from coal gas or oil which can be powered down during periods of low demand, nuclear reactors run at maximum capacity all the time. What better way of utilising this off-peak surplus then, than by off-loading it onto a neighboring country? The Irish government has stated on numerous occasions that it will not go down the nuclear road. The truth is it probably already has.


Conclusion

To sum up, nuclear energy will have little impact on greenhouse gas emissions; it won’t provide energy security in the short-, medium- or even long-term; and it is a high risk and unproven technology that places unreasonable burdens on future generations. Andy Sterling, Co-Director of the Centre on Social Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability at the University of Sussex, puts it thus: “Nuclear power presents a unique and remarkable conjunction of intractable problems. Unlike renewables, nuclear depletes highly concentrated resources; presents risks of catastrophic accidents; generates toxic wastes requiring management over many millennia; presents highly vulnerable and potent symbolic targets for attack; contributes to pressures to proliferate weapons of mass destruction and reinforces centralized systems of coercion and control.” (12). Not exactly an attractive proposition.

References:

(1) The Energy Landscape and Renewable Energy Viability, Dave Eliot, , NCWG, Public Trust in Government, January 2008.
(2) Daily Mirror, July 21, 2006.
(3) Evidence to the Commons Defence Committee, Frank Barnaby, Oxford Research Group, July 2002
(4) The Economics Of New Nuclear Build, Steve Thomas, NCWG, Public Trust in Government, January 2008.
(5) Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security And Global Warming, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, Oxford Research Group March 2007
(6) Radioactive Waste – A Problem Without A Solution, Pete Wilkinson, NCWG, Public Trust in Government, January 2008. A Terrabecquerel (Tq) is a unit of radioactivity equivalent to 1 trillion becquerels (Bq). ‘Legacy’ waste simply means existing waste.
(6 &7) In 1957, fallout from an explosion at the facility contaminated an area of approximately 15,000 km2 occupied by some 270,000 people. A number of other nuclear mishaps have occurred at Mayak, among them the contamination by radioactive dust of an area occupied by 42,000 people following a storm in 1968. A study carried out by the Russian Academy of Science in 1998 found that genetic abnormalities are 25 times higher than normal in the town of Muslyumovo close to the Mayak complex. See Mayak: A 50-year tragedy, Greenpeace Russia, September 2007.
(9) DCENR Press Release 20 December 2007 and other sources. Two 350 MW and one 500mW interconnectors are now planned for completion by 2012.
(10) Irish Independent 2 April 2008
(11) www.imerapower.com
(12) Choosing Energy Futures: Framing, lock-in, and diversity, Andy Sterling, NCWG, Public Trust in Government, January 2008.

Table 1

This table shows the grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt hour (gCO2 / kWh) of electricity generated by a nuclear power reactor using uranium fuel produced from an ore grade of 0.15% U3O8 (today’s average) compared to other common energy sources. Emissions from nuclear power lie somewhere between biomass and natural gas,
meaning nuclear power should not be classed as a particularly low-carbon energy source. Furthermore, as the available average ore grade declines CO2 (and other Greenhouse Gases) emissions from nuclear power will increase.

Technology (2005 - 2020) gCO2/kWh


Coal 755

Natural Gas 385

Biomass 29 - 62

Wind 11 - 37

Nuclear @ 0.15% U3O8 (Storm and Smith) 84 – 122


Nuclear @ 0.01- 0.02% U3O8 (Sustainability estimate based on Storm and Smith) 400-500

These figures do not take into consideration the impact of other greenhouse gasses released during the nuclear cycle. These include fluorine compounds with a global warming potential of up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide. Uranium hexafluoride is an essential component of the uranium enrichment process.

maniac101

Eyeball Tickler wrote: »

Toxic Legacy

Turning the Lights Out on Nuclear Energy

If it's a critique of the article that you're looking for, then I'd have to say that it's poorly thought out, and its main message is unclear. Is it arguing against an interconnector with UK and Europe? If so, why doesn't the article adress the issues that are being tackled by the interconnector project, and suggest alternative solutions?

I'm opposed to any proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Ireland (mainly for reasons that are not touched on in the article). However, to suggest that we shouldn't trade with countries that have nuclear power plants is just impractical and ignores Ireland's unique geographic situation in Europe.

According to the IMERA website, “The Irish Sea interconnector’s primary objective is to supply the Irish electricity market with electricity generated in the UK and Europe.” (11).

:mad: Grrrr. It really annoys me when an article deliberately misrepresents the truth and misquotes someone just to reinforce a poorly-made argument. What the Imera website actually says is:

The Irish Sea Interconnector’s primary objective is to supply the Irish electricity market with electricity generated in the UK and Europe and in the future to allow Ireland export some of its huge renewable energy potential to the UK market.

So can you spot the difference?? The Imera website tells us the interconnector is a two-way street that helps introduce more much-needed competition into the Irish electricity market, and also provides an international market for our wind-generated electricity.

The disingenuous, out-of-context and selective quotation in the article you posted completely undermines the journalistic integrity of its author, and calls into question the credibility of this so-called "sustainability" website as a whole. Never heard of this magazine before, but I for one won't be buying it!

democrates

Store it safely underground, hmm. From http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php
this excerpt is what's listed so far today:

MAG UTC DATE-TIME y/m/d h:m:s LAT deg LON deg DEPTH km Region MAP

5.1 2008/05/06 10:06:37 -20.364 168.780 52.2 LOYALTY ISLANDS SIZE=2]MAP[/SIZE]
4.8 2008/05/06 08:47:10 53.266 -35.000 10.0 REYKJANES RIDGE MAP
4.7 2008/05/06 08:39:52 53.267 -35.184 10.0 REYKJANES RIDGE MAP
4.6 2008/05/06 08:36:30 53.262 -35.287 10.0 REYKJANES RIDGE MAP
3.4 2008/05/06 08:06:53 51.138 -174.097 24.5 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
2.8 2008/05/06 07:52:00 51.922 -177.603 17.4 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
2.6 2008/05/06 07:41:09 51.857 -177.531 0.1 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
4.7 2008/05/06 06:52:06 -24.513 -69.633 61.2 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE MAP
2.7 2008/05/06 06:47:59 51.875 -174.751 29.3 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
3.6 2008/05/06 06:39:20 53.607 -174.558 100.0 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
3.2 2008/05/06 06:15:00 51.636 -177.899 0.1 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
3.5 2008/05/06 06:12:45 51.191 -174.219 8.8 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
3.2 2008/05/06 05:55:37 51.890 -177.557 4.3 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA MAP
4.8 2008/05/06 05:25:37 35.129 81.251 36.6 XINJIANG-XIZANG BORDER REGION MAP
4.3 2008/05/06 05:00:26 71.646 -12.706 10.0 JAN MAYEN ISLAND REGION MAP
4.3 2008/05/06 04:50:15 71.668 -12.479 10.0 JAN MAYEN ISLAND REGION MAP
2.6 2008/05/06 04:44:44 60.804 -151.525 72.1 KENAI PENINSULA, ALASKA MAP
3.0 2008/05/06 03:37:07 53.164 -166.997 64.0 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA MAP
4.2 2008/05/06 02:48:28 6.674 -72.918 168.7 NORTHERN COLOMBIA

Why am I reminded of Homer singing "under the sea" /fearmongering

maniac101 wrote: »

The Imera website tells us the interconnector is a two-way street that helps introduce more much-needed competition into the Irish electricity market, and also provides an international market for our wind-generated electricity.

I can see the benefits in smoothing particularly at euro night if we have massive international datacentres running 24x7.
The double whammy for uk taxpayers is that yes, the unit price of electricity from nuclear which we'll pay bears no relation to it's far higher long term cost, which they must pay. I may be a hypocrite but if we're at risk whether we like it or not we may as well take some of the benefit too.

maniac101 wrote: »

The disingenuous, out-of-context and selective quotation in the article you posted completely undermines the journalistic integrity of its author, and calls into question the credibility of this so-called "sustainability" website as a whole. Never heard of this magazine before, but I for one won't be buying it!

Some people can become blinkered, eco-tourism for example which ignores the fact that it encourages people to travel far and wide, I don't think they're all swimming or cycling here somehow.
Another example is domestic renewables, compare the carbon footprint of 500 wind turbines, deep cycle lead acid batteries, inverters for installation, maintenance and replacement with doing one large install for 500 dwellings. It's as if economies of scale aren't needed to preserve our environment so long as you feel good in your faux eco haven.

Victor

When do we run out of uranium?

democrates

Victor wrote: »

When do we run out of uranium?

Seems to be no easy answer. There's no conceivable way to deplete all uranium on the planet, so of course it's a question of economic viability, the total cost of supply depends on proximity to consumption points, richness of deposit v technology of extraction, price of labour, oil etc.
It's also a moving goal post and the economics improve somewhat with demand as there's more investment in technology, prospecting, transport etc. so any extrapolation exercise is a row centre for experts with those wildcards simplifying the generation of controversy.
So I calculate 73 years and 5 months of uranium left based on tea leaves, sadly Paddy Power are refusing my bets since that 500 sov punt on Denman.

Capt'n Midnight

Victor wrote: »

When do we run out of uranium?

Not really a problem
it can be extracted from sea water
not economically but I'm sure the pro nuke guys would claim it can be done.

I guess the real problem is what to do with the 99.8% of the uranium that isn't used as disposal will be come more difficult. there is an unreal amount of Uranium Hexafluoride gas stockpiled in the US nasty corrosive toxic stuff and it's radioactive too. Maybe that's why there is so much fluoride in the water :pac:

The other option is to move to a Thorium/U233 cycle where you don't have to seperate out isotopes and 100% of the fuel is potentially usable. In theory you could use the neutron flux to burn up any remaining heavy elements of mass > 200 and then you only have to worry about the lighter and shorter lived fission products about 70-140.
But 50 years later it's still the doable fix. The main problem is reprocessing to separate out the U233 on an ongoing basis. Would have thought differential solubility of the salt or ion-exchange might be an option , but how do do without having water as a solvent or how to get the super high pressures to use water ? Can you do ion-exchange with zeaolites and liquid bismuth.

I'm still not convinced that it won't lead to an excess of U233 but maybe they are right that the neutron flux isn't high enough to generate excess fuel, because lets' not forget that many "breeder" reactors are there to produce plutonium for the military as a major part of their existance.

happy penguin

It good this debate has livened up. But I think Maniac 101 might be missing the point about the IMERA interconnectors joining Britain, Ireland, France and Belgium. To be economically viable, they have to be used at high capacity. Given the very high proportion of nuclear electricity in Belgium and France, and the inevitable surpluses at off peak times, it would be hard to argue the inter connectors from these countries to Britain will ever be used for renewable energy-generated electricity. Or does Maniac envisage Britain having a renewable energy surplus to export to the continent?

While the UK- Ireland link COULD be used for hydro electricity from the pumped storage facility in Wales, this resource will be most valuable for selling during peak periods, when electricity has a higher price, and will be much sought after in the UK itself where there are 60 million people looking for power.

At off peak periods, there will be a temptation to turn off generation. This is easily accomplished. One simply closes the sluices.

Nuclear, on the other hand, cannot be turned down. It will regularly be surplus to requirements. As a consequence it will have a lower value, but this low price will also make it attractive to any user able to avail of it.

An example of how it might be used in Ireland is to recharge the pumped storage facility at Turlough Hill.

The UK's new nuclear output will be perhaps 15-20 times larger than the pumped storage hydro facility in Wales. I think if anyone is being disingenuous, it is IMERA. They will buy electricity from the cheapest source. As for the potential large surpluses from Ireland they speak of, while one cannot rule this out, it will most likely coincide with high output from British wind farms, and as such, may have limited usefulness.

Regarding the points made elsewhere about the viability of uranium. Its not a cost issue, but an energy return issue. Once the quality of the ore drops below a certain threshold, it takes more energy to extract the uranium oxide than can be recovered from using it as fuel in reactors. Technological advances are unlikely to significantly change this, as most of the energy is used in the mining process.

Other nuclear fuels, though not something which can be ruled out, are not treated as serious contenders in a recent study carried out by MIT, even though the study was essentially pro nuclear.

It is understandable that energy concerns make inter connectors seem like a good idea, but the two questions which need to be answered here are

1/ Will they actually provide that security or is it more a case of good economics for those building them?

2/ Assuming for the sake of argument the answer to the security question is YES ( which I would dispute), it is acceptable that some/most of the electricity is from nuclear sources?

If it is acceptable to take in nuclear electricity from abroad, why not build the nuclear plants in Ireland? It would eliminate all the transmission losses between Ireland and Britain.

But that would expose the hypocrisy of the NIMBYISTS who are happy to use it as long as they don't have to deal with the associated problems.

Capt'n Midnight

happy penguin wrote: »

Technological advances are unlikely to significantly change this, as most of the energy is used in the mining process.

Link please

Other nuclear fuels, though not something which can be ruled out, are not treated as serious contenders in a recent study carried out by MIT, even though the study was essentially pro nuclear.

Link Please

happy penguin

The MIT Study: " the Future of Nuclear Power" MIT 2003. This 180 page document concentrates almost entirely on contemporary nuclear technology, even though its frame work is the next 50 years.

Re mining energy costs, please refer to extensive research carried out by Smith and Storm (www.stormsmith.nl) Storm's work is widely quoted in other studies. He was one of the authors of the Oxford Research Group report referred to in the article posted above. At a yield of under about 0.02% uranium oxide, net energy gain falls off a cliff. Estimates made by Storm as to when this point will be reached vary from 2075 ( based on current global nuclear capacity) to 2050 ( increased capacity).

see also www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk

Another point about the Dinorwig pumped storage hydro scheme in Wales: It is merely a repository for surplus electricity from elsewhere. It comprises two reservoirs. When there are grid surpluses, water is pumped from the lower reservoir to the upper one. When there is a shortfall, the water from the upper reservoir is run back down though six 275MW turbines . Essentially, it is an imaginative way of utilising conventional sources of electricity - including nuclear - more efficiently. It also provides an emergency back up in the case of partial grid overload and has saved the UK's bacon on at least one occasion. It is wrong however, to view it as a squeaky clean energy source.

Capt'n Midnight

happy penguin wrote: »

The MIT Study: " the Future of Nuclear Power" MIT 2003. This 180 page document concentrates almost entirely on contemporary nuclear technology, even though its frame work is the next 50 years.

Thanks.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf
Full text of this publication is available at: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

One trick they use in wales is to have the turbines spinning at full speed using grid electricity, this means they can go to full power in about 10 seconds.

I suspect that having very large steam resevuoirs on steam powered stations could also be used on the short term too, bu would be expensive and no one would like to be near one in case it bursts.


Just because there is uranium in the ground doesn't mean it hasn't been used already

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5854065
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

maniac101

happy penguin wrote: »

It good this debate has livened up. But I think Maniac 101 might be missing the point about the IMERA interconnectors joining Britain, Ireland, France and Belgium.

My point earlier was that the above article was poorly written, contained fabricated statistics and misquotations, and that the position of the article's author on the interconnector was unclear.

To be economically viable, they have to be used at high capacity. Given the very high proportion of nuclear electricity in Belgium and France, and the inevitable surpluses at off peak times, it would be hard to argue the inter connectors from these countries to Britain will ever be used for renewable energy-generated electricity. Or does Maniac envisage Britain having a renewable energy surplus to export to the continent?

Firstly, the proportion of nuclear-generated electricity in Belgium is nothing near the 92% quoted in the article, It's in fact closer to 50% according to IEA. Furthermore, recently-passed legislation in Belgium restricts the lifetime of a nuclear plant to 40 years and there's a moratorium on new nuclear facilities. So the proportion of nuclear in Belgium, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency, will continue to decrease over the coming years. This provides an obvious opportunity for those with a connection to the Belgian grid to sell electricity generated from renewables.

Secondly, in France, where the proportion of nuclear is around 75% of electricity generated, or around 33% of total primary energy requirement, ADEME has committed to the EU target of 20% of primary energy supply from renewable resources by 2020. This will reduce the proportion of nuclear to around 25% of primary. As in many EU countries, France is expecting to meet the target primarily with electricity generated from wind. But ADEME have identified the lack of suitable sites for wind turbines as the main obstacle to achieving the target. So the opportunity to sell energy generated from wind turbines located outside the country is clear, as this too helps achieve the national target.

While the UK- Ireland link COULD be used for hydro electricity from the pumped storage facility in Wales, this resource will be most valuable for selling during peak periods, when electricity has a higher price, and will be much sought after in the UK itself where there are 60 million people looking for power.

At off peak periods, there will be a temptation to turn off generation. This is easily accomplished. One simply closes the sluices.

Not sure where you're going with that one! I never suggested that an interconnector should be used to import solely renewable electricity or electricity from pumped storage. Pumped storage facilities are usually used to adapt supply to fluctuations in the daily load curve within a grid, not for export of electricity to another system.

Nuclear, on the other hand, cannot be turned down. It will regularly be surplus to requirements. As a consequence it will have a lower value, but this low price will also make it attractive to any user able to avail of it.

You're assuming that Britain's nuclear energy will be cheap. While the UK government has given the green light to a new nuclear power programme, they've made clear that the new stations must bear the costs of waste disposal and decommissioning. This is going to increase the cost of nuclear power in the UK substantially. If the planned programme goes ahead, I believe that UK nuclear will be considerably more expensive than renewables, for instance. Being 'surplus to requirements', as you say, will not make it any cheaper. In a liberated market, nuclear will have to compete on a daily basis with other forms of generation, regardless of its excess baseload capacity. So if there's an oversupply of generation capacity in the UK, it will result in electricity generated from nuclear, not renewables, being dumped. Bear in mind that Britain also has to fulfill the EU renewables target. Dumping of nuclear excess capacity could result in a new environmental problem: hot water.

The UK's new nuclear output will be perhaps 15-20 times larger than the pumped storage hydro facility in Wales. I think if anyone is being disingenuous, it is IMERA. They will buy electricity from the cheapest source. As for the potential large surpluses from Ireland they speak of, while one cannot rule this out, it will most likely coincide with high output from British wind farms, and as such, may have limited usefulness.

You need to put that into perspective. Firstly, the installed wind capacity in Ireland will exceed the interconnector capacity by far, so most wind power in Ireland will be used in Ireland. Secondly, unit prices for wind energy in Ireland are guaranteed and don't have to compete with nuclear or other sources imported from the UK. Thirdly, in a scenario where there's high output from British farms, excess wind energy from the UK could be exported to France for instance. This highlights the need for a further interconnector between Ireland and continental Europe.

It is understandable that energy concerns make inter connectors seem like a good idea, but the two questions which need to be answered here are

1/ Will they actually provide that security or is it more a case of good economics for those building them?

They will obviously do both. Improved security of supply and good economics are not mutually exclusive. The interconnectors also open up the electricity market to more competition - which is good for the consumer.

2/ Assuming for the sake of argument the answer to the security question is YES ( which I would dispute), it is acceptable that some/most of the electricity is from nuclear sources?

Yes.

If it is acceptable to take in nuclear electricity from abroad, why not build the nuclear plants in Ireland? It would eliminate all the transmission losses between Ireland and Britain.

Because Ireland already has enough baseload capacity installed and nuclear wouldn't compete with what's already there, if its true costs are reflected in their short run marginal costs.

But that would expose the hypocrisy of the NIMBYISTS who are happy to use it as long as they don't have to deal with the associated problems.

I believe my views are neither hypocritical nor nimbyist. Rather than letting this discussion descend into another name-calling farce, maybe you'd clarify whether you're opposed to or in favour of the interconnector projects, and why?

SeanW

If we had any sense, we'd building GigaWatts of interconnection to France, to tap into the good stuff (nuclear electricity).

Safe, clean, economical, the Frenchies have managed to do all 3 - and they're only a few hundred kms off the Cork coast.

It is true that we have all the installed baseline load capacity we need but the supply of electricity from those have "hidden" costs, which would not be incurred by nuclear imports, or an Irish nuclear programme.

1) Environmental pollution and destruction - the nuclear industry is the only major baseline load providor that makes any attempt to contain its own wastes. All the others (fossil fuels + peat, all thermal types) simply pour the refuse smoke into the air.
The nuclear industry actively seeks solutions for what is a much smaller waste problem - a volumetric representation of the HLW (High Level Waste) generated to produce nuclear electricity for one person over a normal lifetime would fit comfortably in the palm of ones hand. In the U.S, a decommissioning bond is paid up front by an operator proposing to build and run a reactor, in France, a decommissioning charge is levied on every kw/h sold.

In the U.K. the Blair administrations decision to allow a new generation of generators according to international best practice (private operators taking full responsibility for waste management and decommissioning) has about 3 different consortia chomping at the bit to get in. If the anti-nukes are right, and nuclear power is fundamentally unviable, then why is the current UK policy of "you build it, you pay for all to do with it" considered likely to attract the development of new reactors? Why did the Friends-Of-The-Earth types feel the need to file a legal challenge against the Blair government's decision? After all, market forces (the supposidly unviable cost of nuclear electricity generation vis-a-vis the cheap cost of burning fossil fuels) should take care of any plans to build nuclear plants?

2) Peat, like wind, actually recieves a subsidy via a PSO levy. So we have "baseline load" that is partially in the form of peat-fired power stations, primarily in the Midlands. These are expensive and require the industrial volume cutting and destruction of boglands, the problems with that should be obvious. Not only that but it is the worst form of power generation in terms of CO2 emissions per kw/h. Peat fired power is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

3) Energy insecurity. Ireland has hedged its bets on Natural Gas electricity, this has comprised most of our new baseline capacity in the last decade or so. While it is the cleanest of all forms of thermal-fired generation, there is still a Carbon Dioxide emissions cost, as well radiological emissions such as Radon (though there is only about 1/3 the CO2 emissions, fewer radioactive compounds, and less heavy metals, toxins and particle matter than coal).

However, our natural gas reserves are running out, the Kinsale is running low, the Corrib field project is constantly imperiled by NIMBYism etc and isn't going to produce large amounts of gas for any length of time as and when it comes online. The various gas fields in the UK and North Sea are also running out. We will, going forward, be relying on a very long gas pipeline from Russia. In light of that countrys continuing backslide towards Stalinism, and the kind of troubles that can occur when the Russian Bear feels like roaring a little (remember the Gazprom-Ukraine problem of 2006?) that is one situation I do not want to see transpiring at all.

In summary: Neither the environmental pollution and destruction costs, or the energy insecurity costs, of thermal fired generation are charged off against the operations of these plants. Nuclear generation accounts for and internalises its costs and still manages to compete.

The reason for this is that, properly done, nuclear electricity is safe, clean, cost-effective, reliable and secure. That is the real dirty secret of nuclear energy, and it is this truth that many "environmentalists" don't want you to know. Why this is I can only guess.

democrates

SeanW:
Fair points about the double-standards of total cost for nuclear v alternatives, fossil generators have spewed CO2 and worse for a long time without bearing their share of the long term costs of environmental damage.

That said, the first time a commercial nuclear operator had to take the cost of decommissioning onto their books they went bankrupt and the British taxpayer was left holding the baby. To assume it was unexpected would be naive, the profits were taken in full knowledge of the problem, and I'd expect no different instincts from 'new' private interests. Credibility of proposals comes down to confidence in those supposed to represent the public interest over private interests who may have helped fund their election campaigns, and whether there's a choice of course.

The discussion would take on a very different complexion in the event of actual shortages. Last autumn there was a power cut in my area. No radio, tv, pc, internet, microwave, lights, the mobile battery ran out too. Instant 1800's experience and the lack of music that was the worst of it because I was forced to sing by candle light, "going mad blues" of course. I've no doubt if that became frequent any opposition to nuclear would evaporate faster than p155 off a spent fuel rod.

On another point, the recent expansion of Irish sovereignty over a large area of the continental shelf comes at the same time as optimism for new finds in the area. Optimism is very different to a find though, and even if there is a big discovery, will it be clean, will it benefit Ireland, time will tell.