How long till the lights go out?

probe

The Economist has a number of articles on energy in this week's issue (print edition dated 8 to 14 August):

"A free energy market needs more than one country" (interconnectivity)

Britain's own supply of gas has been running down since 1999. The country has storage capacity for about one weeks supply of natural gas. (Most continental countries have 3 to 6 months gas storage). Half of Britain's electricity is generated from gas - and this will shortly reach 75%. Freezing cold in the dark (eg if Russia pulls the plug on Ukraine or whatever) - neither gas nor electricity to cook or heat the place during a supply crunch period.

"Brown out; them come the brownouts"

The full article: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14167834

A related article: http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14177328&source=hptextfeature

Ireland's interconnector with Britain can't be relied on as a backup source of electricity for wind - it will probably be a one-way street exporting electricity... Meanwhile the www.corribsos.com gang delay Ireland's only new source of gas (which if/when it materialises will be a short term partial solution to the problem). There is no alternative to direct connectivity to the mainland European grid for Ireland.

Time for the UK to start opening new coal mines and building modern coal fired power stations, QUICK!

SeanW

No. Time for the U.K. to get cracking with a new generation of nuclear power installations. Preferably with proper decommissioning bonds and/or levies on power sales and the use of efficient reactor types that (unlike the present generation of AGRs and MAGNOX plants) will not require a subsidy.

jhegarty

SeanW wrote: »

No. Time for the U.K. to get cracking with a new generation of nuclear power installations. Preferably with proper decommissioning bonds and/or levies on power sales and the use of efficient reactor types that (unlike the present generation of AGRs and MAGNOX plants) will not require a subsidy.

+1

Macha

probe wrote: »

There is no alternative to direct connectivity to the mainland European grid for Ireland.

Indeed, there isn't. Especially if we want to start exporting our renewables.

Húrin

so why do you think governments in general are in complete denial about peak energy?

SeanW

Húrin wrote: »

so why do you think governments in general are in complete denial about peak energy?

Because there's no such thing as "peak energy" in our lifetime per se - the main problem is the forms we're using it in, such as oil, which is very likely to peak within 20 years. Gas isn't far behind.

We should be using nuclear power + renewable energies to displace as much of this as possible but the disingenuous eco-whackos like Greenpeace etc will make sure the first part of that equation fails.

The next alternative is coal, for power generation and to a lesser extent home heating and transport, coal provides 39% of current power requirements worldwide contributing to a total of 65% by fossil fuels.

There are AFAIK something like 300 years of known coal reserves at our current usage.

It is theoretically possible to power all our needs by renewables, but we would need to spend an insane amount of money on wind turbines, solar panels, pumped hydro stations, Li-Ion and Ni-MH batteries, etc.

The question becomes, what do we do when oil and gas get scarce:

1. Allow the developed and/or developing worlds to collapse
2. Default to using coal in power plants, use coal liquification programmes to make transport fuel.
3. Default to weather based renewable energy
4. Use a multi-pronged non-fossil strategy including renewables, nuclear electricity, public transport, and energy conservation measures and technologies, with the intention to eliminate large volumes fossil fuel consumption in a cost effective manner.

Well, number 1 isn't going to happen, full stop. Number 3 is too expensive. Number 4 is my favourite, but your buddies in Greenpeace and the Green Party and a pack of other NIMBYs and FUD scaremongerers will never let that happen, so we're left with Option 2.

Coal. Which, as I referred to above, we have a lot of.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

1. Allow the developed and/or developing worlds to collapse
2. Default to using coal in power plants, use coal liquification programmes to make transport fuel.
3. Default to weather based renewable energy
4. Use a multi-pronged non-fossil strategy including renewables, nuclear electricity, public transport, and energy conservation measures and technologies, with the intention to eliminate large volumes fossil fuel consumption in a cost effective manner.

Well, number 1 isn't going to happen, full stop. Number 3 is too expensive. Number 4 is my favourite, but your buddies in Greenpeace and the Green Party and a pack of other NIMBYs and FUD scaremongerers will never let that happen, so we're left with Option 2.

Coal. Which, as I referred to above, we have a lot of.

Where are your calculations for no.3 being too expensive? Also, you're missing at least one other option - conveniently so, I imagine.

Also, your argument would hold a bit more water if you curtailed your name-calling.

SeanW

taconnol wrote: »

Where are your calculations for no.3 being too expensive?

I don't have specific calculations but if you work it out via common logic:

Weather based renewables are literally as dependable as the weather. So to create a reliable energy supply, you need several MW/h of storage for every MW of capacity. Current options include pumped storage, batteries such as Lithium Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride, and other more artesian solutions like hyrdogen cells and vanadium batteries.
Providing all of this for the entire world via pumped storage would require sumberging about 10% of the entire landed world.
Lithium Ion and NiMH all have severe environmental costs via dirty manufacturing, and have rarely ever been used exclusively for anything bigger than a laptop, although now we're experimenting with using them in cars.
Hydrogen, expensive and is primarily used in prototype cars and a very small number of off-grid power installations.
The makers of the only decent vanadium battery, the VRB, are in bankruptcy protection. Most of their storage systems are in the < 1MW/h range, there was a plan for a 12MW/h battery to accompany the Sorne Hill windfarm, but the problem is that it would have been so expensive as to require an increase in electricity rates for everyone to be viable. That and it's power storage was only 12MW/h, Ireland's peak electricity demand is 4000-odd-MW, which means that if the entire country were to draw from this, it would be depleted in about 10 seconds. We would need at least 10GW/h of storage to be able to rely on renewable electricity to any degree, and this just for one little country.
Yet, as said above, the Sorne Hill VRB station was to be - by far - the largest such installation in the world.

Now, consider that to provide weather based renewables to the entire world, you would need to expand any of the above 'options' by a large degree.
Deduct from this, the potential savings that could be made by using demand management schemes.
You would still be left with a need to spend an insane amount of money (and environmental cost) on one or more of the above systems, in addition to the often high cost of things like solar panels, hydroelectricity, experimental wave generators etc.

The trick, to my mind, is to include nuclear in the mix to reduce those costs, so that you need to build less expensive storage to support the panels and turbines, besides some nuclear reactor designs like the PBMR are able to be switched on and off and could be used to backup renewables in place of storage tech. In short, with my strategy of all non-fossil options including demand management and conservation, you put each component into the mix and regard each as of equal importance.

Also, you're missing at least one other option - conveniently so, I imagine

Not intentionally. Please elaborate.

Húrin

SeanW wrote: »

Because there's no such thing as "peak energy" in our lifetime per se - the main problem is the forms we're using it in, such as oil, which is very likely to peak within 20 years. Gas isn't far behind.

We should be using nuclear power + renewable energies to displace as much of this as possible but the disingenuous eco-whackos like Greenpeace etc will make sure the first part of that equation fails.

The next alternative is coal, for power generation and to a lesser extent home heating and transport, coal provides 39% of current power requirements worldwide contributing to a total of 65% by fossil fuels.

There are AFAIK something like 300 years of known coal reserves at our current usage.

We can't use coal. If the coal-burning programmes of Britain, Germany, and other countries are allowed to go ahead, then our species will be throwing any chance of stopping runaway climate change completely out the window.

It is theoretically possible to power all our needs by renewables, but we would need to spend an insane amount of money on wind turbines, solar panels, pumped hydro stations, Li-Ion and Ni-MH batteries, etc.

Actually we cannot power all our current energy usage ("needs" is a word with a different meaning) with renewables, as was persuasively argued by Ted Trainer in Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society (2007).

The question becomes, what do we do when oil and gas get scarce:

1. Allow the developed and/or developing worlds to collapse
2. Default to using coal in power plants, use coal liquification programmes to make transport fuel.
3. Default to weather based renewable energy
4. Use a multi-pronged non-fossil strategy including renewables, nuclear electricity, public transport, and energy conservation measures and technologies, with the intention to eliminate large volumes fossil fuel consumption in a cost effective manner.

Well, number 1 isn't going to happen, full stop. Number 3 is too expensive. Number 4 is my favourite, but your buddies in Greenpeace and the Green Party and a pack of other NIMBYs and FUD scaremongerers will never let that happen, so we're left with Option 2.

I don't have any buddies in Greenpeace and the Green Party. Though the assertion that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is batty. I agree that Britain is probably in a good position for one last nuclear programme, but it's not a sensible prescription for all countries. We probably have about 60 years before uranium extraction peaks, not taking into account any increase in uranium demand.

Coal. Which, as I referred to above, we have a lot of.

I wouldn't be so sure about the 300 years figure. That claim has been going around for about 30 years now, and over the last 25 years, governments of coal-producing nations have revised their total reserves downward by 60%. Production could even peak as early as 2025. Source

Another point that should be on your list, and that taconnol might have been referring to, is for energy demand to be regulated, and specifically regulated downward. A cut in demand of about 50% might be economical.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

Weather based renewables are literally as dependable as the weather.

A few points:
-tidal is very reliable
-wind mapping will greatly improve predictability of wind resources - actually I think this has just been carried out.

SeanW wrote: »

So to create a reliable energy supply, you need several MW/h of storage for every MW of capacity.

Ah, false assumption. Smart grid technology enables demand management through time-shifting of demand, among other tools. Significant smoothing out of energy demand even on the scale of an individual house has been proven by companies such as Sequentric. When extrapolated out to an entire city, the potential for load levelling is even greater.

Interconnection also significantly reduces need for storage as renewable electricity can be brought in from other countries. The larger the grid, the more stable the generation. In fact, Dr. Gregor Czisch sees an optimal grid as follows:

These findings have resulted from a computational optimisation process determining the system configuration as well as the temporal dispatch (on a annual three-hourly basis) of all power plants and other components, thus establishing a minimum-cost system on a very detailed basis. The resulting optimal configuration is a system dominated by wind power that incorporates generation at good wind sites throughout the entire supply area. A HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) transmission system connects these wind sites with the centres of demand while also integrating existing hydropower storage facilities, thus providing backup capacities that are enhanced by regional biomass power and given additional support by solar thermal electricity production.

ie the Supergrid concept.

On the so-called 'Smoothing-Effect':

If the renewable electricity is delivered with large fluctuations of the generated electricity, the availability of quickly responding power plants becomes increasingly important to avoid bottlenecks of the supply. Storage hydropower stations are among the most interesting technologies for this purpose and already exist with high capacities. This does not hold true for every individual country, however. The currently installed capacity in Germany is only 1.4 GW with a storage volume of 0.3 TWh, which in itself cannot provide any major contribution to long term regulation. The combination of such facilities, however, would play a significant role in a highly interconnected European electricity network. The Scandinavian NORDEL power system currently has an installed capacity of about 46 GW and a storage volume of approx. 120 TWh (s. also [Nor 97a] and [Nor 97b]). In the UCTE grid, to which Germany likewise belongs, the corresponding values are 49 GW and 57 TWh [UCTE 98] [UCTE 00]. The total storage capacity of the NORDEL
and UCTE grid systems is thus equivalent to more than a month of average consumption in the EU and Norway combined. Dedicating these plants to the prevention of power shortages from other production would alter their routine
operation, but could enable a very efficient system to be realized. It would probably also be worthwhile to increase the installed generating capacities of the storage hydropower plants, thereby increasing the ratio of rated generation capacity to storage volume to permit the compensation of additional fluctuating generation from other renewable sources. Only if the momentary output of resource-constrained power stations exceeds demand, and storage capacities are likewise filled also for all pumped storage facilities, will a portion of the potential renewable electricity generation go unused.
The better the renewable energy generation corresponds with the temporal electricity demand, the smaller the power requirements and the necessary storage capacities of the storage power plants engaged for backup purposes (s. [CDHK 99]). Generation variations may be smoothed by increasing the geographic distribution of the plants delivering fluctuating electricity ([CE 01]). In general, the expanse of the area required for smoothing increases with the length of time required to compensate for changes in production level. Seasonal variations require bridging distances of several thousand kilometers. The temporal smoothing effect differs according to the type of renewable energy and the technology employed as well as a more or less appropriate combination of the various production sites.

http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/projekte/LowCostEuropElSup_revised_for_AKE_2006.pdf

Also, the inclusion of renewables on the grid can significantly reduce the cost of electricity (see www.shimonawerbuch.com for the work of the late financial economist, particularly on Portfolio Theory) so arguments that adding renewables makes electricity super-expensive are incorrect.

So I suppose I can summarise as:
-new technology allows for significant demand management
-the supergrid idea, plus hydro-storage (and other options like flywheel storage) allows for significant smoothing on the supply-side
-Portfolio Theory demonstrates that renewables are not as expensive as many would like to make out and in fact, up to a certain point, can significantly reduce the cost of electricity.

Edit: yeah as Huirin points out, nuclear is incredibly expensive. Plus it takes about 15 years to get online (plus the whole waste malarky that I'm assuming we'll just pass onto future generations to sort out?)

SeanW

While I like the "Supergrid" ideas, there are some problems. 1st of all, I don't know if you did Geography for the leaving cert, but I did, and learned that those lovely Scandinavian rivers (whose valleys were shaped by millenia of ice flow) freeze during the winter. So you can only count on them during the off-peak season (summer).

The other flaw relates to the solar panelling part - some supergrid plans suggest large volumes of solar installations in the Middle East and North Africa. Same guys that are screwing us over today with the OPEC cartel. These things would be expensive to build, would require backup cover for the nighttime hours, and again, provide peak energy in our off peak season. And of course they wouldn't do anything for our energy security, we'd just go from a pipeline of Russian gas to a wire of ME-NA electricity. Most of those people don't like us very much either.

nuclear is incredibly expensive. Plus it takes about 15 years to get online

Now here's the interesting part - much of the delays caused to nuclear energy projects are CAUSED by eco-whackos, those same people turn around and say nuclear plants take too long to build and we don't have the time.

The Sizewell B project IIRC spent more time in the courts fighting challenges by eco-whackos than it did in licensing or construction. The same ones who complain that nuclear plants take too long to build.

And this is just a sample of the kind of false economies nuclear proponents face. Like fuel supply, anti-nukes like to go on about a supposed lack of Uranium reserves while stonewalling any exploration for same.

(plus the whole waste malarky that I'm assuming we'll just pass onto future generations to sort out?)

You mean this:

Which is the size of the waste produced to supply nuclear electricity for one person/lifetime.

I'd rather leave this to future generations than tons of CO2, destroyed lakes and rivers via acid rain caused by SO2 and NOX emission from coal fired power, as well as a whole load of mercury, arsenic and radiotoxin emissions from coal and other fossil fired power. This is what we're doing right now, globally:

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

While I like the "Supergrid" ideas, there are some problems. 1st of all, I don't know if you did Geography for the leaving cert, but I did, and learned that those lovely Scandinavian rivers (whose valleys were shaped by millenia of ice flow) freeze during the winter. So you can only count on them during the off-peak season (summer).

They do not freeze for 9 months of the year, as you are insinuating above. Really, I find this sort of misleading copy very irritating.

SeanW wrote: »

The other flaw relates to the solar panelling part - some supergrid plans suggest large volumes of solar installations in the Middle East and North Africa. Same guys that are screwing us over today with the OPEC cartel.

Again, you are being disingenuous.
1)There are only 3 members of OPEC that would be involved in this scheme:Libya, Algeria, Saudi and possibly Nigeria. So there are plenty of other countries involves that are not members of OPEC.
2)Secondly, we don't seem to have any problems doing business with them today.
3) The plan only calls for 17% of electricity to come from solar.
4) The system is not based on one-way dependence but rather interdependence, something that the EU has recognised as fostering cohesion.

So you really haven't proven any flaw with this.

SeanW wrote: »

These things would be expensive to build, would require backup cover for the nighttime hours, and again, provide peak energy in our off peak season.

Um..are you aware how expensive nuclear is?
There are already a significant number of big companies on board, including Siemens that are willing to invest in the project - not all the money will be coming from governments.

It's also clear that you haven't read up on the project because they are planning on using CSP, not PV, which addresses the back-up issue. And that's beside the fact that night-time there corresponds with night time in Europe, where there is a significant drop in demand.

SeanW wrote: »

And of course they wouldn't do anything for our energy security, we'd just go from a pipeline of Russian gas to a wire of ME-NA electricity. Most of those people don't like us very much either.

You've already tried this argument above with OPEC.

SeanW wrote: »

Now here's the interesting part - much of the delays caused to nuclear energy projects are CAUSED by eco-whackos, those same people turn around and say nuclear plants take too long to build and we don't have the time.

Proof? Seriously, I suggest you cut out the name-calling if you want other people to respect your opinions. It's more than a little childish to resort to name-calling for people who don't happen to share your opinions.

SeanW wrote: »

You mean this:

Which is the size of the waste produced to supply nuclear electricity for one person/lifetime.

Where to start? Firstly, the physical size of the stuff isn't exactly the major problem here but multiply that out by 10billion and then multiply with every generation. I'm sure that is a lovely little photo (and thanks to world-nuclear.org for it) but I can make any environmental problem seem small by bringing it down to what one little person would use up by conveniently hiding the scale of the issue.

SeanW wrote: »

I'd rather leave this to future generations than tons of CO2, destroyed lakes and rivers via acid rain caused by SO2 and NOX emission from coal fired power, as well as a whole load of mercury, arsenic and radiotoxin emissions from coal and other fossil fired power. This is what we're doing right now, globally

I agree, but I don't think it's the binary choice you so love to make it out to be (my way or the high way) and you really have yet to put up any decent arguments against the supergrid concept.

Also, you ignore that nuclear, effectively, is a non-renewable power source so by embracing nuclear power what we're doing is handing down the waste to future generations to deal with and also just handing down the problem of converting over to renewable energy!

slagger

taconnol wrote: »

A few points:
-wind mapping will greatly improve predictability of wind resources - actually I think this has just been carried out.

I thought one cannot predict weather, one could only forecast it (ie best guess).

What wind mapping are you referring too. The one produced by SEI or is there a new study.

slagger

Its OT, but who gets the carbon credits when we export our wind energy. Is the one that generates the power or the one that uses it?

Every little bit helps in paying our Kyoto fines

slagger

taconnol wrote: »

They do not freeze for 9 months of the year, as you are insinuating above. Really, I find this sort of misleading copy very irritating.

True, but they are very interested in and monitor the NAO, which has huge impact on rainfall in the scandanavian countries. I would love to see how they pred.. oops sorry, forecast it.

dahak

SeanW wrote: »

While I like the "Supergrid" ideas, there are some problems. 1st of all, I don't know if you did Geography for the leaving cert, but I did, and learned that those lovely Scandinavian rivers (whose valleys were shaped by millenia of ice flow) freeze during the winter. So you can only count on them during the off-peak season (summer).

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that the rivers and reservers in Scandinavia freeze solid in the winter and no hydroelectricity is produced. I did a quick search and I can't find any information in that respect so if you can provide some that would be great.

As to how to valley's came into being, the landscape of a a large portion of Europe (including Ireland) was shaped by the last glaciation but that does effect the general climate or weather (micro-climates however are a different matter)

SeanW wrote: »

The other flaw relates to the solar panelling part - some supergrid plans suggest large volumes of solar installations in the Middle East and North Africa. Same guys that are screwing us over today with the OPEC cartel.

I agree with taconnol regarding both the solar thermal electricity production (Spain seem to have a commercial plant which should be operation in 2011, Solar Tres) and creating an interdependence. This was one of the founding goals of the EU i.e. make [the European] economies interdependent so they could no longer contemplate a war with each other. Our problem with oil in this regard is twofold, firstly we [Europe, the west] are totally dependent on the producing countries and secondly former colonial rule and interference with internal politics has made many oil producing countries belligerent.

SeanW wrote: »

And this is just a sample of the kind of false economies nuclear proponents face. Like fuel supply, anti-nukes like to go on about a supposed lack of Uranium reserves while stonewalling any exploration for same.

taconnol wrote: »

Where to start? Firstly, the physical size of the stuff isn't exactly the major problem here but multiply that out by 10billion and then multiply with every generation. I'm sure that is a lovely little photo (and thanks to world-nuclear.org for it) but I can make any environmental problem seem small by bringing it down to what one little person would use up by conveniently hiding the scale of the issue.

To be honest I kind of agree with both of your points of view here. Personally I see nuclear as being part of the energy mix for many years to come, so it can not be ignored. My main problem with current nuclear power generation is the waste stream, however I think that breeder reactors do a large part to mitigate this.

The nuclear fuel argument is a bit of a red herring, non proliferation treaties are the reason we don't have many breeder reactors.. This was a political decision and not a technical or energy generation one. Breeder reactors would also produce far less nuclear waste as they would extract far more energy per unit of input that current reactors.

Húrin

The construction and maintenance of nuclear waste storage facilites requires a lot of cheap concrete and steel, doesn't it?

dahak

slagger wrote: »

I thought one cannot predict weather, one could only forecast it (ie best guess).

What wind mapping are you referring too. The one produced by SEI or is there a new study.

Well prediction and forecast both mean the same thing (an estimation of a future event) so there is nothing incorrect about it's usage regarding weather, though forecast is the word most often used. Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) is the general name for the models used for weather prediction. Met Éireann use the output of ECMWF and HRLAM (not sure if they use HRLAM anymore).

I think that taconnol was referring wind mapping across Europe rather than just Ireland, as this was in the context to a pan European grid.

Analysis of large scale wind mapping is a little like the difference between analysing weather and climate. While estimating the instantness energy output from an individual wind turbine or wind farm is difficult estimating the minimum combined instantness output of turbines across Europe is easier and can be given with a high level of probability.

mikom

Húrin wrote: »

The construction and maintenance of nuclear waste storage facilites requires a lot of cheap concrete and steel, doesn't it?

What would you prefer it made of............ wicker or hemp possibly?

Húrin

mikom wrote: »

What would you prefer it made of............ wicker or hemp possibly?

What I'm trying to get at, genius, is that it is not about what I prefer, it is about what is economically viable. If you have a lot of nuclear waste, but you can't get concrete or steel without breaking the bank, you're kind of up the creek, aren't you?

The problem with storing nuclear waste is that sustainable building materials like cob are not up to the job. Wicker and hemp are not building materials at all as far as I know.

This is what bugs me about a lot of people I talk to about climate change and peak oil: they are prejudiced against me because they assume without evidence that I am advocating sustainable this or that because it fulfils some ideological fantasy, rather than accepting that I might have come to my opinions from looking at scientific and economic evidence.

In other words, I don't want nuclear power to be unviable - I just think that investing in it is not worth the expense.

slagger

dahak wrote: »

Well prediction and forecast both mean the same thing (an estimation of a future event) so there is nothing incorrect about it's usage regarding weather, though forecast is the word most often used. Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) is the general name for the models used for weather prediction. Met Éireann use the output of ECMWF and HRLAM (not sure if they use HRLAM anymore).

I think that taconnol was referring wind mapping across Europe rather than just Ireland, as this was in the context to a pan European grid.

Analysis of large scale wind mapping is a little like the difference between analysing weather and climate. While estimating the instantness energy output from an individual wind turbine or wind farm is difficult estimating the minimum combined instantness output of turbines across Europe is easier and can be given with a high level of probability.

Thanks for the clarification. I have always used prediction as a certainty and forecast for some degree of uncertainty, learn something new everyday on the boards.

mikom

Húrin wrote: »

Wicker and hemp are not building materials at all as far as I know.

You might want to check that again.........genius.
This will get you started........ http://www.iol.ie/~oldbuilders/oldbuilders/hemphouse/hemphouse.html

slagger

Done a bit of googling, I think this is the wind mapping atlas, though its still not published (due 2010).

http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=newsalert&lg=en&year=2009&na=na-120309

It will cost a whopping 175m euro to produce the atlas!!

I wonder how much the new supergrid will cost.

How many nuclear power plants will you get for 450billion euro

Shiny

I notice no one has mentioned Spirit of Ireland yet......

If their idea went ahead, wouldn't it go a long way to alleviating
this potential problem?

dahak

Húrin wrote: »

... it is not about what I prefer, it is about what is economically viable. If you have a lot of nuclear waste, but you can't get concrete or steel without breaking the bank, you're kind of up the creek, aren't you?

The point regarding breeder reactors is that they are they both use less fuel (are more efficient) and that they can be used to reprocess the nuclear waste that is already exists i.e. 'burn' it (Nuclear transmutation), thus reducing the total amount of waste and converting much of it to isotopes with a much shorter half life.

Húrin wrote: »

In other words, I don't want nuclear power to be unviable - I just think that investing in it is not worth the expense.

I'm not a particular fan of nuclear energy, I am however a pragmatist. While Ireland is not a good candidate for a nuclear reactor (size of the electricity market here, redundancy of supply, expertise etc.) the UK, France, Germany and other countries that have the expertise are good candidates to extend and replace current generation capacity with nuclear.

If only for political reasons I can see current European countries wanting to have a minimum of known generation base capacity 'in house'. As an alternative between fossil fuels (coal seems to be one of the preferred options) and nuclear my preferred option would be nuclear.

The Generation IV Very High Temperature Reactors produce very high outlet temperature of ~1,000 °C. One of the outlets for such high temperatures is the sulfur-iodine cycle for producing hydrogen. Regardless of views on the potential of a hydrogen economy, hydrogen is the main input into the Haber process for producing nitrogen for fertiliser. According to the wikipedia article, nitrogen production consumes ~1-2% of the worlds annual energy supply, with corresponding carbon dioxide emissions.

While this is not the only way of producing hydrogen, large scale production this way does look promising and politically it might appeal to European governments who want to reduce the emissions from European agriculture.

Húrin wrote: »

... is for energy demand to be regulated, and specifically regulated downward. A cut in demand of about 50% might be economical.

By regulated do you mean by economics (i.e. smart meters with varying tariffs to even out and regulate demand), a quota type system, a mixture of the two or something totally different? How would this change overall demand on an instantness basis and total yearly demand?

To be honest I can't see a cut in demand of 50% even with current usage pattern (no additional usage of electrical energy). If some of the estimates for electric car use (plug in) the peek and base demand will be significantly greater than at present. Even more so if we start moving from oil and gas heating to electrical.

InvisibleBadger

Shiny wrote: »

I notice no one has mentioned Spirit of Ireland yet......

If their idea went ahead, wouldn't it go a long way to alleviating
this potential problem?

+1. I watched this talk today, and I now find the whole scheme a lot more believable. Maybe a contender for solving Irelands energy needs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWl2TuHcY6w

probe

While Britain sold its nuclear power generation infrastructure to Électricité de France last September, and EdF are on a first name basis and best customers of the guys who make the reactors at www.areva.fr
the new 1.6 GW nuclear reactor in Finland which started planning in 2003 won't be ready until 2012 at the earliest. With a 9 + year lead time in efficient, non-dysfunctional Finland, with its excellent scientific and technical education system, how long would it take in Britain to plan for and make operational one new reactor? A country that has to replace many its motorway bridges since they were built in the 1960s because of concrete pouring delays or steel problems and other engineering mistakes. One reactor is about 1.6 GW.

GB needs an additional 20 GW of electricity generation capacity according to The Economist article. In quick time to keep up with declining gas availability.

This is not an academic issue for IRL. Most of the country's gas supply now comes from or via GB. When push comes to shove, and large populated areas of GB are threatened with blackout, the least politically damaging option might be to pull the plug on gas supplied by or transiting GB to IRL. If GB is moving from 50 to 75% of electricity from gas over the next four or five years, and is facing a declining gas supply, and is forced to close several antiquated reactors at the same time, the situation could get very serious.

As far as hydro in Scandinavia is concerned, Norway gets about 98% of its electricity from hydro and produces about four times as much electricity as Ireland for a similar population. Virtually all their heating is electric. Moving water doesn't freeze. It has something to do with the hydrogen bonding in the water molecules to make it solid. When the water is moving the bonds aren't created.

johnathan woss

probe wrote: »

Freezing cold in the dark (eg if Russia pulls the plug on Ukraine or whatever)

There are many large elephants in the room at present but one of the largest from a western European perspective is Russian gas reserves.

What if Russia has over-estimated (or is lying about) its gas reserves ?

As far as i can tell we have absolutely no plans for this eventuality.

PeteHeat

InvisibleBadger wrote: »

+1. I watched this talk today, and I now find the whole scheme a lot more believable. Maybe a contender for solving Irelands energy needs.

Hi,

The presentation was excellent, the only reason I can see why it would not go ahead is because the Irish people do not believe in themselves !

Yes there are issues like the grid, we have seen the protests before over pylons with many of the reasons 100% valid, with the payback to Ireland that this proposal envisages there is no reason why we could not promise to treat ourselves to an underground grid network from the savings / profits.

OK I love the idea maybe they are wrong but they might be are right so lets build one, two or three and see how they go, at least we would be getting a lot of work done instead of dole payments.

.

Húrin

dahak wrote: »

I'm not a particular fan of nuclear energy, I am however a pragmatist. While Ireland is not a good candidate for a nuclear reactor (size of the electricity market here, redundancy of supply, expertise etc.) the UK, France, Germany and other countries that have the expertise are good candidates to extend and replace current generation capacity with nuclear.

I agree. The existing nuclear countries should probably go in for another round and we can buy their energy with interconnectors.

By regulated do you mean by economics (i.e. smart meters with varying tariffs to even out and regulate demand), a quota type system, a mixture of the two or something totally different? How would this change overall demand on an instantness basis and total yearly demand?

To be honest I can't see a cut in demand of 50% even with current usage pattern (no additional usage of electrical energy). If some of the estimates for electric car use (plug in) the peek and base demand will be significantly greater than at present. Even more so if we start moving from oil and gas heating to electrical.

Many mechanisms have been proposed to ration energy. I can't see a cut in demand of 50% that maintains our current high material standard of living. Therein lies the political problem.

LibbyPhelan

given all these new carbon taxes, not very long.

Húrin

LibbyPhelan wrote: »

given all these new carbon taxes, not very long.

given the late hour in which i find myself, not very long either. :pac:

cavedave

Well if you had 54 thousand million to spend that would be a lot of wind power (1 million per megawatt "The total investment for a wind turbine averages €1.1 million per installed megawatt"). 54 gigawatts is a lot of power. You would have to set up a National Air Management Agency to sell it all.

You could even spend it on solar water heaters and a few nuclear power stations as well as enough turbines to power the country many times over. Not that people would waste 54 billion on something like that though.

Bee

probe wrote: »

The Economist has a number of articles on energy in this week's issue (print edition dated 8 to 14 August):

"A free energy market needs more than one country" (interconnectivity)

Britain's own supply of gas has been running down since 1999. The country has storage capacity for about one weeks supply of natural gas. (Most continental countries have 3 to 6 months gas storage). Half of Britain's electricity is generated from gas - and this will shortly reach 75%. Freezing cold in the dark (eg if Russia pulls the plug on Ukraine or whatever) - neither gas nor electricity to cook or heat the place during a supply crunch period.

"Brown out; them come the brownouts"

The full article: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14167834

A related article: http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14177328&source=hptextfeature

Ireland's interconnector with Britain can't be relied on as a backup source of electricity for wind - it will probably be a one-way street exporting electricity... Meanwhile the www.corribsos.com gang delay Ireland's only new source of gas (which if/when it materialises will be a short term partial solution to the problem). There is no alternative to direct connectivity to the mainland European grid for Ireland.

Don't panic we will import good clean Co2 less electrivity generated by Nulclear power plants in the UK