Nuclear Power Station in Ireland

fishdog

I am a final year electrical engineering student. As part of my “project management” module myself and my team have to make a 20 minute power point presentation on a project proposal followed by a 10 minute question and answers session. We could choose from a boring list of projects or pick one of our own. For “the crack” we decided to pick one of our own. Our proposal is to build a nuclear power station in Ireland.

None of us are necessarily pro nuclear power, we just thought it would be something different.

To build a nuclear power station in Ireland would present many challenges including the following:

1) It is currently illegal, so the law would have to be changed
2) There is massive political rick to any government backing such a project.
3) A location would have to be picked
4) Planning permission would be required
5) A license from CER and EirGrid would be required
6) The power station would have to be sized
7) There would have to be a decommissioning plan
8) There will be nuclear waste to dispose of
9) Decide what type of nuclear power station to build
10) Decide a rough budget

Now we have to try to address the above points, and several more! The only areas we do not have to get involved in is anything technical. This is the only non technical module on the course.

If anyone on boards.ie has built a nuclear power station of their own :D:D, or has any suggestions on how we may get information on the above I would be most grateful.


Please no arguments about the rights and wrongs of nuclear power!! We all checked our bank accounts, even if we wanted to we could not afford to build one.

jd

You could build it in North Mayo, the probable protesters are there already!

Engineers Ireland has some discussion papers etc
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=nuclear&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engineersireland.ie&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engineersireland.ie

Place it in Leitrim. No-one will ever know where it is to protest it.

fishdog

Place it in Leitrim. No-one will ever know where it is to protest it.

:D

I asked all the people that live there already, they both said it was OK with them....

DublinDilbert

I'm no expert on Nuclear Power....

I guess you'd have to look at the cost per MW to build it, then the cost per MW of power when its running. The compare these costs to the same costs for Coal, oil & gas powered stations.

At the back end i guess you'd have to look at the emissions per MW of power produced from coal, oil & gas... and maybe the cost of these to the country in terms carbon credits etc... Compare the cost of dealing with these emissions to the cost of dealing with radioactive waste... :eek:

As far as i'm aware we already get some nuclear power via the various interconnections in place via NI / Scotland, but you'd have to check that out...

I'm sure the green party wouldn't have an issue with it, as they've already sold their soul

A Primal Nut

This is the most modern, safest reactor that enthusiasts are currently looking to build.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Bed_Reactor

In terms of your first and second point, it seems you have to try to convince politicians and ordinary people on the value and safety of nuclear. It would be necessary to look at the success of nuclear in Sweden and France in particular, and the fact that Sweden is attempting to get rid of oil altogether. Maybe coming from the angle that nuclear is the better of two evils, rather than trying to convince people altogether.

Here is an article on the Economics:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

I didn't read it all but it seems to give cost in terms of cost/kw rather than overall cost.

There is plenty of information out there so just use google. If you like look at both pro and anti nuclear sources and discuss both in your report. I doubt you will find too many sources with no agenda. That world-nuclear one is a good pro one and the first anti i found on google is antinuclear.net should be plenty of information there.

pauln

1) It is currently illegal, so the law would have to be changed.
The relevant legislation that would have to be changed is section 18(6) of the 1999 electricity regulation act. There is EU document which outlines the current legislative position in Ireland with regards to nuclear here.
2) There is massive political rick to any government backing such a project.
At the moment yes, but there is a definite softening of options on the matter with the head of the ESB coming out and saying he believes a station will be built in the coming decades and even green party members supporting debate on the matter. I think it won't be long before a proper open and scientific debate on the subject can take place in Ireland.
3) A location would have to be picked.
I think there was a site in Kerry earmarked for a possible nuclear plant years ago. I know you don't want to go into technicalities but it is the technicalities that would determine the location of the plant. Such things as access to large quantities of cooling water, availability of high voltage transmission networks, geologically stable terrain, easy access to transport for fuel such as ports or train lines etc..
4) Planning permission would be required.
Under the new planning guidelines items such as this of national importance go straight to An Board Pleanala for approval, bypassing local planning processes.
5) A license from CER and EirGrid would be required.
Another issues would be where in the prioritisation list of plants to come on-line would a nuclear plant fit? Would it get preference over renewable? In reality a nuclear plant would have to be a base load plant on full-time to be viable.
6) The power station would have to be sized.
Depending on design and technology most types of plant may have too large an output to supply the Irish grid and stay below EU and Irish limits for any single generation source. The availability of a large inter-connector providing a means to export excess power would be essential.
7) There would have to be a decommissioning plan.
We might have to store the waste in Ireland so a geologically stable area with the right properties would have to be found to build a storage bunker. The plant itself would have to be made safe also.
8) There will be nuclear waste to dispose of.
As mentioned before we might have to dispose of it ourselves. There may be nobody running a disposal service at that time such as Sellafield and also we may not want to send our waste to facilities which convert it to weapons use.
9) Decide what type of nuclear power station to build.
More then likely the job of building the plant would be outsourced to an International contractor with previous experience in the area.
10) Decide a rough budget.
You should look into Finland's nuclear program. They are the most active country in Europe building nuclear plants at the minute and probably the easiest to compare with Ireland, link.

godtabh

Myth wrote: »

Place it in Leitrim. No-one will ever know where it is to protest it.

There one set of traffic lights and roundabout may exceed capacity if people did no where it was

Irjudge1

pauln wrote: »

3) A location would have to be picked.
I think there was a site in Kerry earmarked for a possible nuclear plant years ago. I know you don't want to go into technicalities but it is the technicalities that would determine the location of the plant. Such things as access to large quantities of cooling water, availability of high voltage transmission networks, geologically stable terrain, easy access to transport for fuel such as ports or train lines etc..

Limerick it is then.

toiletduck

pauln wrote: »

3) A location would have to be picked.
I think there was a site in Kerry earmarked for a possible nuclear plant years ago. I know you don't want to go into technicalities but it is the technicalities that would determine the location of the plant. Such things as access to large quantities of cooling water, availability of high voltage transmission networks, geologically stable terrain, easy access to transport for fuel such as ports or train lines etc..

Carnsore Point in Wexford was the proposed location back in the 70's.

fishdog

DublinDilbert:

I guess you'd have to look at the cost per MW to build it, then the cost per MW of power when its running. The compare these costs to the same costs for Coal, oil & gas powered stations

Yes that is what I was thinking. Anyone any ideas on this??

Also the cost to decomission. I think they are good for about 30 years.

Carnsore Point in Wexford was the proposed location back in the 70's.

I never knew about this! Very interesting

This seems to be a very interesting subject regardless of your views on nuclear power. I have learnt alot of interesting facts for example: It seems that the US have not built a nuclear station in over 20 years.


Thanks for all of the advice!! If anyone has anymore relevent information/advice I would be grateful.

mawk

Irjudge1 wrote: »

Limerick it is then.

could we do this AND cut corners on safety?

empower

Pauln gave a lot of good advice that I would like to add to and update a little.

3) There were many good sites identified in Ireland in the ‘60’s, and Carnsore Point, Co Wexford, was selected as the most suitable in the ‘70’s. That would still be a good site, as would Moneypoint in Co Clare. But these are not the only ones.

5) A licence would be given by CER ahead of renewables as it would be vital for Security of Supply reasons, which renewables do not provide. EirGrid do not give out licences, but they offer a Grid Connection to the high voltage electricity network. This would be very straightforward if the site was Moneypoint, as it has all the infrastructure there already.

6) The Irish grid could accommodate a 700MW unit right now, and would be suitable for a unit of up to 1000MW in 10 years time (the earliest we could realistically commission a nuclear plant from where we are now!). There are plenty of nuclear plants of that size available now. There is a super-safe reactor under design called the IRIS, which is 335MW and would be ideal for Ireland.

7) Decommissioning is a tried and tested technology at this stage. As most reactors have been given extensions to run for 60 years, the cost of decommissioning is set aside over this period and works out at a tiny increase in the cost of nuclear-generated electricity. Even including this cost, no other source of electricity is cheaper apart from Hydro, which is almost fully used in Ireland.

8) Nuclear waste could be stored in Ireland in a stable geological formation. However, the planned Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposes to supply the fuel and take back the spent fuel in a highly-regulated manner so there is no risk of weapons proliferation. Note that Ireland produces nuclear waste at the moment in industry and hospitals (X-rays) and so on, and that we export all this waste. Not a whisper of complaint about this nuclear waste! Strange, isn’t it?

10) The IRIS plant referred to in point 6 is estimated to come in at around €1 million per MW installed. 3 units of 335MW each would cost about €1 billion. See the IRIS website for details of how the construction of the units could be staggered to result in a maximum cash outflow of around €300 million, and profit results in under 10 years.
Compare these costs to the renewable energy plan in Ireland, which has the ESB spending €11 billion and EirGrid spending €4 billion just to prepare the network, onshore wind turbines cost the same as nuclear per MW and offshore wind is twice as expensive (while wind only gives 1/3rd of the output of regular plants).

Although you say you only selected this topic for the crack, you’ve hit on a really good topic that will go down very well with the examiners, as most scientists and engineers are in favour of nuclear. They know that the only way to achieve dramatic reductions in our greenhouse gases in a cost-effective and responsible manner is to harness a reasonable amount of renewable energy while generating the majority of our electricity with nuclear power. We could then electrify more of our transport and heating requirements and live a reasonable life without destroying our environment.

grahamo

Advantages
Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide.
This technology is readily available, it does not have to be developed first.
It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant.

Disadvantages
During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation).
The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.

For me nuclear power is the way to go but Ireland may have missed the boat.

Interesting topic. Hope the project goes well.

empower

Known reserves of Uranium would last over 80 years at current usage, and more Uranium is being found as the demand is increasing again. This is according to the OECD NEA & IAEA, Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand ("Red Book").

Uranium is as common as tin or zinc, and new reactors types use the fuel much more efficiently than old designs. If the fuel is scarce, someone better tell China, India, the US, Britain nd others who are all building nuclear plants.

Ireland will eventually catch the boat as we have no viable alternative to supply the energy that renewables cannot, but the longer we wait the longer will be the queue and the more costly will be our delay.

Pgibson

mawk wrote: »

could we do this AND cut corners on safety?

Belfast...and have NO safety features whatsoever.

.

fishdog

Thanks for the help guys!

Perhaps you would care to comment (either way) on the Green Party's policy document "Previous Generation - Ten reasons why nuclear power makes no sense for Ireland"



http://www.greenparty.ie/ga/

Pgibson

fishdog wrote: »

t "Ten reasons why nuclear power makes no sense for Ireland"

18% of the electricity we import from the UK is nuclear generated.

80% of the electricity we import from the France is nuclear generated.

(The Irish government told bare-faced lies earlier this year when it said that this was "immeasurably small fraction".)

100% of solar energy is produced by nuclear fusion.

The Green Party are a bunch of Dandelion Headed Luddites.

.

empower

fishdog wrote: »

The Green Party's policy document "Previous Generation - Ten reasons why nuclear power makes no sense for Ireland"

The policy document demonstrates that the Green Party do not know what they are talking about when it comes to nuclear power. Apart from their recognition of the need for energy efficiency and that transport and heating needs to be cleaned up, the document is almost entirely devoid of merit. It is a triumph of "Dogma over Data", as it is totally at odds with the majority of scientific opinion on the matter.

However, you might find the document useful for your project, as you could use it as the basis for a deconstruction of the popular myths about nuclear power that are prevalent in Ireland. It would show a good knowledge of engineering and science to be able to debunk most of the claims in the document while supporting the parts that have merit.

I attach a brief resume of it below and recommend you check out 2 Irish websites at www.nucleardebate.ie and www.bene.ie for a clearer picture of the truth of the matter.

fishdog

empower, fantastic document. I am sure that took a while to put together.

I will check those websites.

Thanks for your help!

Pgibson

Nuclear plus renewables is the only way to go.

The most advanced thinking on renewable options is going on in the USA at the moment.

The well developed plan described here is breathtaking in its scope:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

An area of Arizona the size of Ireland is to be covered by very efficient solar energy collectors to supply 69% of the USA's electricity and 35% of its total energy by 2050!.

Quote:
"At least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006."


.

empower

Pgibson wrote: »

Nuclear plus renewables is the only way to go.

The most advanced thinking on renewable options is going on in the USA at the moment.

The well developed plan described here is breathtaking in its scope:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

.

I agree that it has got to be nuclear and renewables.

Fair play to the SCIAM plan - they are thinking big about a big problem that we face, and I hope their plan is as good as it looks. Some brief caveats, though, are that they don't seem to include any costs for

• end-of-life replacement of the solar plant (after 30 years?)
• the DC links (at the electricity companies expense)
• compressed air storage setup and operating costs.

It doesn't offer us much in Ireland, however, even allowing for our Sunny South East!

We will need an equally radical departure from our present energy scenario if are to ensure our energy security in an environmentally-friendly way and at least cost.

Which brings us back to nuclear and renewables! Why can't Ireland just work together on this one? They are not mutually exclusive!

Pgibson

empower wrote: »

I agree that it has got to be nuclear and renewables.

Fair play to the SCIAM plan - they are thinking big about a big problem that we face, and I hope their plan is as good as it looks. Some brief caveats, though, are that they don't seem to include any costs for

• end-of-life replacement of the solar plant (after 30 years?)
• the DC links (at the electricity companies expense)
• compressed air storage setup and operating costs.

A solar plant can be maintained indefinitely by replacing bits as they fail.

Europe has a perfect solar collector just next door.

The Sahara desert could effortlessly supply the planet without environmental impact.

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://geology.com/records/sahara-desert-map.gif&imgrefurl=http://geology.com/records/sahara-desert-map.shtml&h=406&w=900&sz=148&tbnid=EWr281-J7_EJ::&tbnh=66&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsahara%2Bdesert&hl=en&usg=__6oUNdtNSMkyrQlz_Wo7_pxn4Nx0=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&cd=1

The long range electricity link would have to be DC of course because 50 Hz AC "sees" a 1500 Km long length of wire cable as a "Quarter Wave Antenna" and,as Maxwell's Equations show ( http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Maxwell_Eq.html ), the energy would efficiently radiate into space as radio waves at frequency 50 Hz and wavelength 6,000 Km.

Nothing left in the cable for us to use!

.

empower

Pgibson wrote: »

A solar plant can be maintained indefinitely by replacing bits as they fail.

Europe has a perfect solar collector just next door.

The Sahara desert could effortlessly supply the planet without environmental impact.

The long range electricity link would have to be DC of course.

Sure enough - parts can be replaced as they fail. It's a bit like the brush that still worked perfectly after 100 years of daily use - but the head was replaced 50 times and the handle 10 times! These things tend to be replaced en masse, rather than waiting for individual components to fail, but, whichever way it is done, there is still a cost which doesn't seem to be included in the figures. I don't know, but that's what it looks like.

Africa (and even southern Iberia) could be used to supply all our power from Solar. Provided the Spanish and French allow us to run our 5,000 MW cables through their land. And the cables installation and efficiency losses would be at our cost. And the supply would not be under our control.

It would work technically, but it might not be best solution from the viewpoints of economy or security of supply.

You're bang on about the links having to be DC. I believe they are now rated for up to 750 MW, with a 1.5% loss at each end of the AC/DC converters.

For security of supply reasons, I think we should have our generation completely under our control. And if we are to have it at a reasonable cost and with low emissions, we need home-based nuclear and renewables in an appropriate mix.

fishdog

You're bang on about the links having to be DC.

AFAIK the Moyle interconnector is DC.

It would seem that the biggest issue with nuclear power is how to dispose of the waste.

Can anyone teel me what is seen to be the best solution???

Thanks!

empower

fishdog wrote: »

AFAIK the Moyle interconnector is DC.

It would seem that the biggest issue with nuclear power is how to dispose of the waste.

Can anyone tell me what is seen to be the best solution???

Thanks!

The Moyle interconnector is indeed a DC link, as are the vast majority of long-distance links.

The biggest issue with nuclear power is the public perception of how to dispose of the waste. The technical solution has been known for years, and it is to store it in deep, stable geological formations. However, the public have concerns about this, as most people think that the spent fuel is still very radioactive and will last for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years.

But if you think about it, you will understand that matter that is very radioactive, by its definition, can only have a very short half-life. Any matter that remains radioactive for long cannot be very radioactive.

The spent fuel is less radioactive when it comes out of the reactor than it was when it went in (otherwise it would be left in). However, it is still very hot, so it is put into a pool to cool and to let the most radioactive elements decay. After about 50 years, it is ready to be stored.

Because reactors are, at most, 60 years old, it is only recently that there is a bit more urgency to begin storing the spent fuel so they can have room for more to be stored. Finland are currently implementing this solution. The US are expected to follow and the UK also have proposals for sites there.

Technically, the repositories offer a very high degree of safety and security for thousands of years. The recent delays have been brought about by those who look for higher and higher degrees of safety for longer and longer into the future. And certainty decreases the more you try to predict that far into the future. But, is it safe enough? Absolutely!

fishdog

Ireland will then have to close Moneypoint's coal burning station, which produces 25% of it electricity and the site would be ideal for a nuclear power station

But that is near my house, I originally suggested Limerick :D:D