Ireland and nuclear power?

Yixian

Ireland is one of the most oil dependent nations in the world, and the most oil dependent nation in Europe. When oil prices go up, Irish GDP goes down, steeply.

Not having grown up in Ireland the whole history of why Ireland never got nuclear power and don't make much of the big opportunities for renewable energy still allude me; if anyone could explain I'd love to know. I gather that the disaster at Sellafield in the UK played a large role, with much of the harmful products being deposited in Ireland.

But amidst all the panicking about the economy I still don't see much on RTE or in the IT about a solution to this oil dependency. If fuel prices rose to the level they were just a few years ago, or even higher, which is almost a certainty, before Ireland has recovered from the recession, a real depression seems possible.

It just baffles me because considering how bloody windy Ireland is and how small it is with such a large coastline, a combination of wind/tide and nuclear power could reduce the Irish reliance on oil for energy to just a few measily percent.


Obviously if it were to happen now, the renewable tech is all there but the nuclear tech all over the world is aging. However the brilliant nuclear plants in France will soon pass their expiry date and the French are going to have to start replacing their network - wouldn't this be an ideal chance for Ireland to get on board with them and bring that tech over to the island? The Brits had considered this but it didn't seem to go anywhere.

Besides there's not a single party in the republic that supports going nuclear, is there? It's like some kind of taboo.

It just seems like the reliance on oil is the BIGGEST ticking time bomb you could possibly imagine...

Fat_Fingers

problem i see here is who would have the money to invest/run it? It would probably be ESB. However the data is freely available to backup the fact that ESB staff are exceptionally well paid , average salary excluding overtime and allowances in the early 70’s and total average post overtime salary estimated to be well over 100K.
So give them nuclear power plant and see what increases would their union demand to run it. It would not come cheap... so defeats the purpose. It would probable be cheaper to import it from UK or France.

let me in

The problem is that we are in the middle of giving away all our gas for free and there is a media blackout on talking about energy and what we're going to do for it in the future coz of this.

Yixian

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

problem i see here is who would have the money to invest/run it?

But sometimes you have to take the hit now so that 5 or 10 years down the line the hit forced on you isn't 100x harder?

irish_bob

irish people are very easy to scare , in rural ireland , you cant attempt to put up a mobile phone mast or an electricity pylon without an all out opposition campaign by locals , how could nuclear have any chance

let me in

irish_bob wrote: »

irish people are very easy to scare , in rural ireland , you cant attempt to put up a mobile phone mast or an electricity pylon without an all out opposition campaign by locals , how could nuclear have any chance

Bob,I don't think irish people are unique in not wanting pylons,masts or nuclear plants near them.Ever been out of the country?

tmdsurvey

Yixian wrote: »

It just baffles me because considering how bloody windy Ireland is and how small it is with such a large coastline, a combination of wind/tide and nuclear power could reduce the Irish reliance on oil for energy to just a few measily percent.
quote]

I was in New Zealand a few years back and if I remember correctly, one of either the North or South Islands is, energy wise, practically self sufficent (perhaps being supplemented with grid electricty from the other island). Could never understand why Ireland has such a reliance on fossil fuels to generate power and isnt on a similar footing with renewables as New Zealand, as we have many similar geographical features and climate etc.

ei.sdraob

OP completely agree with you, nuclear power for base load coupled with wind for rest would be perfect

but nah

thats to sensible a solution, lets continue burning coal, turf, oil and gas

a typical coal plant dumps more radioactive material into the air than a nuclear plant, and then theres all them green house gases

anyways i worked in power generation here, it wont happen since that would make alot of people redundant, ESB has 10k employees and multiple plants, you dont need that many people to run a single nuclear plant (thats all that would be needed)

Yixian

Maybe those jobs could be made up in maintaining large wind and tidal power stations?

Ireland could get a higher % of energy from wind and tide than even France, much much more. If it did, even a single nuclear plant would more than cover the rest and the excess could be sold on to the UK as it's north sea oil supplies dwindle.

Martyr

The main unsolved problem with nuclear energy is the waste created -- how do you properly dispose of it?

It cannot be done safely, there are discussions in the UK to store it deep underground, with no guarantees it wouldn't leak back into the environment.

If it did, how would it be cleaned up? ..can't imagine, the NDA are probably hoping it won't come to this so haven't bothered planning at all.

We also face the problem of decommisioning power stations which is also expensive, estimated to cost the UK 100 or more billion pounds..and by the way, this is Tax payers money, not private investors who own and run them!

Accidents will always happen and many of these may be covered up, especially by privately owned companies.

There are far more disadvantages using Nuclear Power than there are advantages and I think we should follow Scotlands example and plan a non-nuclear future, we should learn from mistakes UK makes, not repeat them.

I see nothing wrong with renewable energy, if it were properly invested in.

If just one of the nuclear plants in UK has an accident, what the hell are we gonna do here? take some iodine tablets? ffs :rolleyes:

Captain Furball

Yixian wrote: »

Not having grown up in Ireland the whole history of why Ireland never got nuclear power and don't make much of the big opportunities for renewable energy still allude me; if anyone could explain I'd love to know.

You have 60+ million in your country,we don't.So wind energy is a good idea your right about that.

ei.sdraob

Yixian wrote: »

Maybe those jobs could be made up in maintaining large wind and tidal power stations?

Ireland could get a higher % of energy from wind and tide than even France, much much more. If it did, even a single nuclear plant would more than cover the rest and the excess could be sold on to the UK as it's north sea oil supplies dwindle.

1. ESB are not allowed to tip a toe into green energy, it would be view as monopoly abuse and competition would scream more murder, grid was already handed over to eirgrid and most of the expertise is in fossil fuel, wind and nuclear are different animals (not that its not possible to retrain its just highly unlikely)

2. there are some very bright people in there, and everyone is very very nice, but these are some of the cushiest and better paid jobs in the country, they wont go without a fight

Martyr wrote: »

The main unsolved problem with nuclear energy is the waste created -- how do you properly dispose of it?

It cannot be done safely, there are discussions in the UK to store it deep underground, with no guarantees it wouldn't leak back into the environment.

fud, yes it can be done safely, nuclear waste would not be a problem if it wasn't for politics, there is technology to reprocess waste over and over, the problems are not technical/engineering they are political as reprocessing equipment can also be adapted to make weapons grade plutonium

heres some reading for you ,please do read up > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

Martyr wrote: »

We also face the problem of decommisioning power stations which is also expensive, estimated to cost the UK 100 or more billion pounds..and by the way, this is Tax payers money, not private investors who own and run them!

you are talking about decommissioning plants that are 50-40 years old, the problem here are economics and politics again, if the operator is forced to save a % of income towards decommissioning and keep this money with state/swiss bank/third reliable party its not a problem

Martyr wrote: »

Accidents will always happen and many of these may be covered up, especially by privately owned companies.

then keep it semi state like ESB and I call fud on that again, the French do quite fine in that area, the only major incident in history involves a soviet reactor (that was designed primarily to create weapons not electricity) that had no shielding (like all western reactors) and was operated by puppets who decided it was a great idea to run tests on a system AND disable all safeties > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Once again a coal plant such as one in MoneyPoint releases a **** load more radioactive material (mercury, **** in the ash) than any nuclear plant

Martyr wrote: »

There are far more disadvantages using Nuclear Power than there are advantages and I think we should follow Scotlands example and plan a non-nuclear future, we should learn from mistakes UK makes, not repeat them.

compared to what? and at what cost??

Martyr wrote: »

If just one of the nuclear plants in UK has an accident, what the hell are we gonna do here? take some iodine tablets? ffs :rolleyes:

1. IF
2. by your reasoning then theres no reason not to have a plant on irish soil since we are already exposed to same "risk"

ei.sdraob

about risk of a meltdown

Pebble Bed reactors can not meltdown

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor


@Martyr some reading for you

Ten myths about nuclear power

article above contains further reading and references

dmullins3

we live in a very conservative country where governments are afraid to make decisions on this scale that may cause them to lose votes with the conservative population

Martyr

ei.sdraob wrote:

fud, yes it can be done safely, nuclear waste would not be a problem if it wasn't for politics, there is technology to reprocess waste over and over, the problems are not technical/engineering they are political as reprocessing equipment can also be adapted to make weapons grade plutonium

heres some reading for you ,please do read up > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

FBR's can reduce quantity and toxicity of nuclear waste, but remaining waste must be disposed of and this can't be acheived safely without high costs.

The SuperPhènix, built in France has over 5,500 tonnes of radioactive sodium coolant which must be integrated with 70,000 tonnes of concrete -- tax payer will pick up the tab.

This alone is nuclear waste.

History of Superphènix published in NUKEM journal, 1997

Date of Event |Description
April 1987|Commercial operation begins.
May 1987|Shut down due to sodium leak.
June 1989|Returns to 100% power.
October 1989|Shut down due to impurities in the primary circuit.
June 1990|Returns to 100% power.
July 1990|Shut down due to impurities in the primary circuit.
December 1990|Roof over the turbine hall collapses due to heavy snowfall.
August 1994|Restarted but at low power.
September 1996|Returns to 90% full power.
December 1996|Shut down.
June 1997|Prime Minister announces project will be abandoned.



If FBR's are the solution to nuclear waste, why was the SuperPhènix closed in 1997?
How was its closure political?

From what I can tell, it was simply too expensive to operate due to its constant technical problems.

France have chosen the town of Bure to dump nuclear waste at a geologic storage site 500M underground.
It will cost hundreds of billions of euro, again all passed on to the stupid taxpayer...who else?

Areva who operate most of France's 59 reactors bought a 51% stake in Multigrid, a company who is researching/developing
renewable energies using offshore wind turbines.

wonder why?

you are talking about decommissioning plants that are 50-40 years old, the problem here are economics and politics again, if the operator is forced to save a % of income towards decommissioning and keep this money with state/swiss bank/third reliable party its not a problem

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2009 expressed concerns that certain companies operating nuclear power stations were not saving a percentage of income towards decommissioning because of the economic recession.

Is it so hard to imagine these very same companies in future claiming bankruptcy and shifting responsibility of decommissioning and waste management onto the taxpayer?

Currently, 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation plants may take up to 100 years to decommission.
So while you may have a plant for 40-50 years, it will take 100 to get rid of it, and again, you're still left with the waste created by the reactor - Conventional waste having a life of 24,000 years.

Initially, the UK NDA reported in 2005 the total cost of cleanup operations for 7 sites over a 100 year period would cost £55.8 billion, in 2006 this rose to £72 billion and no doubt by the end of decommissioning it will be exponentially
higher..we'll probably be kept in the dark about final costs of course, much too boring.

then keep it semi state like ESB and I call fud on that again, the French do quite fine in that area, the only major incident in history involves a soviet reactor (that was designed primarily to create weapons not electricity) that had no shielding (like all western reactors) and was operated by puppets who decided it was a great idea to run tests on a system AND disable all safeties > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Once again a coal plant such as one in MoneyPoint releases a **** load more radioactive material (mercury, **** in the ash) than any nuclear plant

It's simply false to state: "only major incident in history involves a soviet reactor"
Anyone who does some quick research on nuclear accidents will be spoiled for choice.

Japan built an FBR in Monju.
PNC, a semi state organisation were responsible for its commercial operations which commenced in August 1995.

In December of 1995, there was a sodium leak and the plant had to be shutdown.
PNC tried to cover up the extent of damage by falsifying reports and editing video footage taken after the accident.
Employees were obviously instructed not to discuss the incident.

Eventually, the following video of the accident surfaced on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSqW6pFuR8

When incidents such as this are covered up, do you really blame people for not trusting the safety of nuclear energy or the companies involved in running the plants?

Should we discuss history of Sellafield and the Windscale fire, the leaks, or the discharge of nuclear waste, accidental and deliberate into the Irish sea? -- which some argue is the most polluted in the world.

compared to what? and at what cost??

Wind, Wave, Solar, Tidal and Geothermal are completely FREE sources of fuel for creating energy which nobody has to pay for.
The technology costs money, of course..but the fuel is free.

Oil, Gas, Coal and Uranium, Hydrogen..etc all cost money which are usually imported making us dependent on other countries for our energy supply.

If enough research and development into improving and deploying renewable technologies were made, we could generate limitless amounts of clean energy for everyone in Ireland.

In Denmark, they use wind to produce ~25% of electricity requirements and are aiming for 50% by 2030.

The EU identified 42 UK coastal sites which, with tidal turbines installed could generate 33% of the UK's electricity requirements.
Why not invest in tidal energy instead of nuclear which is obviously problematic regarding disposal of waste?

If the UK could in theory produce 33% of its electricity requirements from tidal turbines, why couldn't Ireland generate 100% requirements from wind,waves and tides together?

Maybe we could even export energy, who knows?

1. IF
2. by your reasoning then theres no reason not to have a plant on irish soil since we are already exposed to same "risk"

If all governments were determined enough to create sustainable clean and efficient renewable energy, we could do it.

We don't need nuclear energy, we really don't..

about risk of a meltdown

Pebble Bed reactors can not meltdown

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

They can't meltdown based on what practical evidence?
What commercial Pebble Bed Reactors are currently in operation?
Note I said commercial because that's usually when mistakes occur.

@Martyr some reading for you

Ten myths about nuclear power

article above contains further reading and references

Yes, the mysterious Robert Johnston.

Some of his other worthless contributions include:

Organic produce is better for you? Robert Johnston explodes five myths about its benefits

The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford

They're not healthier or better for the environment – and they're packed with pesticides.
In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods are an indulgence the world can't afford,
argues environmental expert Rob Johnston.

A harsh wind for economic recovery

An article by him about why wind power is useless.
And of course, his myths about Nuclear energy..

Who is he?

Doctor, science writer. Worked in London,
New York and Los Angeles in science and art journalism,
medical education, health and news documentary television.

He's described as "a doctor and freelance journalist" an "environmental expert" a "science writer"
and of course from what you believe, ei.sdraob - an expert on Nuclear Energy and Organic Food.

..an executive producer for Lifetime Television in New York and medical advisor for the Millenium Dome Body Zone

A Jack of all trades..

He claims that the Green Party has "fascist roots, fascist policies" and i quote "shares significant objectives
with neo-fascists and religious fundamentalists"

He labels people concerned about the environment "dumb", "Nitwits" and "Fascists" -- yet he's an expert on environmental issues himself.

grahamo

I doubt we will see any wind, solar or any other ways to generate power with the blinkered nimby (Not in my back yard) brigade. It seems nobody wants to do what's right for Ireland. Just what's right for them:(

meathstevie

Martyr wrote: »

The main unsolved problem with nuclear energy is the waste created -- how do you properly dispose of it?

It cannot be done safely, there are discussions in the UK to store it deep underground, with no guarantees it wouldn't leak back into the environment.

If it did, how would it be cleaned up? ..can't imagine, the NDA are probably hoping it won't come to this so haven't bothered planning at all.

We also face the problem of decommisioning power stations which is also expensive, estimated to cost the UK 100 or more billion pounds..and by the way, this is Tax payers money, not private investors who own and run them!

Accidents will always happen and many of these may be covered up, especially by privately owned companies.

There are far more disadvantages using Nuclear Power than there are advantages and I think we should follow Scotlands example and plan a non-nuclear future, we should learn from mistakes UK makes, not repeat them.

I see nothing wrong with renewable energy, if it were properly invested in.

If just one of the nuclear plants in UK has an accident, what the hell are we gonna do here? take some iodine tablets? ffs :rolleyes:

Ok fair enough, nuclear waste is a tricky substance and requires extremely carefull storage but can someone tell me how many thousands of people have died in oilfield and coal mining accidents in let's say the last five years and compare that to the amount of nuclear plant fatalities in the same timespan. And that's not even mentioning production related pollution.

Catsmokinpot

Personally I think Ireland should grow up and get a nuclear reactor going. We're so scared sh1tless of having a chernobyl accident that we have forgotten that said power plant was built in the 70's by a country that made it on the cheap without the technology we have today.

When the steam engine was being developed there were tonnes of disasters killing hundreds of people, yet we look back on the days of steam locomotion with nostalgia and think "oh what a wonderful invention"

The pure and simple fact is that we are running out of oil, (even if we aren't we need to get rid of it because it is killing us, more so than nuclear) we aren't/can't produce alternative forms of energy quick enough to feed our demands and nuclear power is clean, cheap and totally within our grasp. And contrary to what some people think, nuclear waste can be stored safely. If we can build massive seabound drilling rigs, huge stadiums, tunnel across seas and through mountains then we can build a safe secure bunker under a mountain lined with lead.

Martyr:

You are talking about the tax payer expenses for nuclear waste disposal like the French aren't using any of the energy that's being produced by the reactors? And even so, the problem you are outlining isn't with the concept its with the government. You also talk about how many thousand tonnes of waste their is as if it was a big number and we are dealing with an impossible task, how many tonnes of rubbish is dumped in landfills every day? how many tonnes of coal is dug from the ground every day?

A navvy back in the days of canal building could shift 20 tonnes of earth a day, now we have machines that do 100 times more than a man can do. When the panama canal was built they shifted 249 million cubic yards of earth (considering a cubic yard of earth can weigh anything up to a couple of tonnes) i think we can handle a few thousand tonnes of nuclear waste (not that there will even be that much).

Sure we are and will always be relying on other countries for fossil fuels and uranium but aren't we already relying on other countries for all of our raw materials? apart from our wood producing capabilities. The only mines we have are copper, lead and zinc. And you can't make cars, building supports or bridges out of any of those.

Before you say anything, I totally agree that renewable energy is the way to go, solar won't do us any good (this is Ireland after all), wind only works 30% of the time. however, we have a whole Atlantic ocean to our disposal and wave/tidal power is a real option. The problem is renewable energy is going to take time and money, more time than i believe we have left. So, before we go pumping any more money into the renewables, we have to get rid of fossil fuels and the clear damage they are doing to the environment, therefore if we were being realistic, nuclear has far more clear and immediate advantages over fossil fuels as an intermediary solution.

As for the length of time it takes to decommission a power plant, think about it logically, think of the choice you have, spend a hundred years safely decommissioning a nuclear plant that produces clean energy? Or, pump a few hundred million more tonnes of CO2 and CO into the atmosphere?

I am a hippy (not a beatles/indi rock loving one), but I love trees, I love the environment and every morning I stand at my kitchen window in wonder at nature and all of her creations. the best thing we can do for nature is get rid of fossil fuels, petrochemicals all the **** they bring ASAP. Get the nuke power in as we can handle it now although it takes a bit of effort. Work on our other solutions and roll them out ASAP, then get rid of the nukes when we have realistic renewable energies in place.

When you think about it Ireland has a population less than 1/12th that of France, so we will have a lot less nuclear waste. we have plenty of mountains we can dig miles underneath, we're not under any fault lines (less possibilities of earthquakes endangering the stability of the storage bunkers for their operating lifetimes) we produce more than enough lead from our own mines to line the storage bunkers, it just makes sense.

As I finish this rant I am reminded that people have been so scared by the idea of nuclear power from what it has been used for in the past, bombs, and cheap shoddily built reactors that went tits up, those are things that can't readily be erased from peoples minds. but, when the oil runs out and it will! people will be murdering each other in the streets for fuel and crying out for a nuclear reactor.

Catsmokinpot

Martyr wrote: »

Yes, the mysterious Robert Johnston.

Sorry mods if I'm going offtopic but it has to be said.

I forgot to mention your slating of Robert Johnston, I don't know who he is, nor have I read any of his books or columns. but don't slate somebody for opinions he has, just because he has other beliefs that contradict yours. look at ALL the facts and then make your own opinion, There's a tonne of evidence that Ghandi was a huge racist, does that mean you should ignore his messages about peace?

Personally, I believe the whole organic movement to be a con, if you like broccoli or cauliflower then you are eating genetically modified cabbage. take a look at a wild carrot and you can see the difference, we have been modifying and splicing plants since long before the realisation of DNA and genetics. The more you use organic food the more farm land you use because of the lower yields and the less wild areas we have for nature to do its job and wildlife to thrive.

One of the fathers of GM foods Norman Borlaug saved millions, if not hundreds of millions of lives by introducing GM wheat and rice strains that yielded higher quantities and grew in more arid conditions

At the 2002 environmental summit in Africa groups like Greenpeace convinced the leaders of some of the poorest African nations to turn down tonnes of donated GM food that could have fed their starving populations, they even told some of the leaders that the food was poisoned. Companies that were funding his agricultural centres set up to help improve African farming in order to feed more people have pulled out because of such pressure and its now hindering progress of getting Africa out of the hole it's in.

I always thought wind power was useless, don't take my word for it, or Mr Robert Johnston's. for a form of energy to be to be viable it has to work all the time, which it doesn't. You don't need to write a well known book or have a science degree from a prestigious college to figure it out, the wind doesn't blow all the time, fact. The only reliable source of wind energy is from the jetstream which we cannot harvest with a conventional wind turbine. We have to have an effective method of storing said energy produced in the times when it is working, which we do not.

I don't know about the claims he made about the green party and will have to look into it, but the nuclear organic and wind topics i would tend to agree with him on.

And I would say one more thing about his calling some environmentalists nitwits, I would agree, because they don't look at the whole picture they look at something and say ooh bad technology, and plug for this impossible utopian world that is simply beyond our means. the above mention of greenpeace is a perfect example, peta is another example of stupidity.

Again, don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself.

Yixian

http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/

As the Government plans to generate 40 per cent of Ireland’s energy from wind by 2020, the plant has been designed for quick back-up in case of energy shortages due to calm weather, said Mr Gallagher.

Thaaaat's what I'm talking about! Here we go! Now just build a few big wave farms off the West coast and all you'll need is a single nuclear plant to cover the rest of the energy needs for the entire island and more!

Kudos to FF for this one, had no idea such a plan existed.

handsfree

There is a lack of understanding on how electricity works here.

The main reason there is no nuclear power in Ireland is that the amount of electricity we use, approx 5GW, is small in comparision to the smallest commercially viable nuclear power plant 1GW.

The the grid code states that we would require to have cover for this power plant which essential means that we would need to built 2 nuclear plants and have on acting as spinning reserve in the event of a fault/trip.

There are a host of other reasons not to have a nuclear power plant in Ireland. If our electricity usage grows to a point were it feasable to build a nuclear plant than we should do it. I cant see that happening in the near future.

With regard to wind, this is not free energy. The ESB has invested large sums of money improving the grid in order to allow the irish system cope with the pressures wind exerts on it. There is a requirement for spinning reserve exactly as explained above to cover the system in the event of a tripping/fault event. This spinning reserve is usually open cycle gas turbines which have very low efficiency factors. These are built because they can react the quickest to an event.

Other countries in europe can have a higher percentage of wind on their system because their systems are all part of the grid, so that even though Denmark may have 50% wind, it still only constitutes a small fraction of the overall system.

Ireland may have a high percentage of wind in the future but this will result in higher electricity prices due to the cost of building more open cycle gas turbines/wind farms and the cost of the maintaining the equipment and the debt that has been used to improve the system in order to cope with the many pressures wind puts on it.

Yixian

handsfree wrote: »

Ireland may have a high percentage of wind in the future but this will result in higher electricity prices due to the cost of building more open cycle gas turbines/wind farms and the cost of the maintaining the equipment and the debt that has been used to improve the system in order to cope with the many pressures wind puts on it.

The point of this thread is, and indeed the point people should be learning from the recession, is that it's time to think outside the box of "but I don't wanna pay for it!" and into the world of long term benefits and risk aversion.

Wind energy may mean a few less Starbucks a week but it helps avoid the economic devastation of future fuel price hikes and lowers carbon emissions.

Even in this economic climate, letting Ireland stay as oil dependent as it is is bordering on suicidal. It might cost a lot in the short term but the consequences of avoiding it are utterly astronomical 10, 15, 20 years from now, for almost any country.

ei.sdraob

handsfree wrote: »

There is a lack of understanding on how electricity works here.

The main reason there is no nuclear power in Ireland is that the amount of electricity we use, approx 5GW, is small in comparision to the smallest commercially viable nuclear power plant 1GW.

The the grid code states that we would require to have cover for this power plant which essential means that we would need to built 2 nuclear plants and have on acting as spinning reserve in the event of a fault/trip.

There are a host of other reasons not to have a nuclear power plant in Ireland. If our electricity usage grows to a point were it feasable to build a nuclear plant than we should do it. I cant see that happening in the near future.

With regard to wind, this is not free energy. The ESB has invested large sums of money improving the grid in order to allow the irish system cope with the pressures wind exerts on it. There is a requirement for spinning reserve exactly as explained above to cover the system in the event of a tripping/fault event. This spinning reserve is usually open cycle gas turbines which have very low efficiency factors. These are built because they can react the quickest to an event.

Other countries in europe can have a higher percentage of wind on their system because their systems are all part of the grid, so that even though Denmark may have 50% wind, it still only constitutes a small fraction of the overall system.

Ireland may have a high percentage of wind in the future but this will result in higher electricity prices due to the cost of building more open cycle gas turbines/wind farms and the cost of the maintaining the equipment and the debt that has been used to improve the system in order to cope with the many pressures wind puts on it.

oh dear firstly yes i worked in power generation

secondly the largest plant in Ireland is ~1GW down in money point, an interesting place to work from engineering point of view, but a dirty dirty place that burns mountains of coal from environmental point of view

we can build a small nuclear plant and shutdown likes of moneypoint and a couple of turf plants and the grid will handle it well

tho the problems are political, such an occurrence would put alot of esb staff out of business

heres the countries demand today > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/

and wind generated today > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/ (notice the fall from 600MW down to 180MW as winds stopped blowing, if there were no other plants such as gas ones to back this up it be a disaster)

and here are the system records > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemrecords/


nuclear, coupled with wind and sprinkled with more pumped storage and another interconnected would be the perfect scenario for Ireland, with huge chunk of carbon emissions from this country cut, and literary billions in savings per year, we would be truly green then

Yixian

ei.sdraob wrote: »

nuclear, coupled with wind and sprinkled with more pumped storage and another interconnected would be the perfect scenario for Ireland, with huge chunk of carbon emissions from this country cut, and literary billions in savings per year, we would be truly green then

Don't forget wave farms, anyone whose spent any time by the coast in Donegal will have had the impression the sea there could probably power Ireland + China and the United States combined xD

ei.sdraob

Yixian wrote: »

Don't forget wave farms, anyone whose spent any time by the coast in Donegal will have had the impression the sea there could probably power Ireland + China and the United States combined xD

i hope wave power becomes a bigger player too

but this technology and all is in the realm of vapor ware about now


on different topic theres a great article on ngm > http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/solar/johnson-text

mind boggles how Germany a country with barely any sun is now a world leader in solar power

Yixian

ei.sdraob wrote: »

mind boggles how Germany a country with barely any sun is now a world leader in solar power

That's what you get when you think about the long term situation rather than just the short term one

When people in english speaking countries are whining about "benefit bums" and resisting tax hikes - positive, intelligent planning and the acceptance of it's costs are taking Germany into the future...

handsfree

ei moneypoint may generate 1GW but moneypoint comprises of more than one plant. therefore the effect of losing one plant will not jeopardise the system. the opposite is true for nuclear.

ei.sdraob

handsfree wrote: »

ei moneypoint may generate 1GW but moneypoint comprises of more than one plant. therefore the effect of losing one plant will not jeopardise the system. the opposite is true for nuclear.

remember Ireland's needs are in 3 to 6 GW range (see link i posted earlier)

average nuclear reactor output is 800MW, typical plants have several reactors, worlds first reactor was 50MW, subs and ships have small reactors with a wide range of sizes

the upper or lower limits are what the customer wants, if you want 3x 333MW reactors (moneypoint configuration) then that can be done (tho it makes sense to go for large ones)



hell nuclear batteries completely break the arguments raised earlier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

* $25 million a pop
* produces 70MW of heat energy for 5-7 years
* produces 25MW electricity when this heat is connected to turbine, heat can be used for heating
* can not meltdown, there are no moving parts, based on 50 year old design used regularly in research
* 2meters high and about as much in diameter
* can be delivered by truck
* small and modular so no need for long transmission lines as it can be placed where needed
* no waste as the reactor is shipped back to manufacturer for recycling
* no need for operators or any expertise in running and maintaining these
* designed to be deployed anywhere in world

Martyr

ei.sdraob wrote:

no waste as the reactor is shipped back to manufacturer for recycling

That's a lie.

ei.sdraob, do you want your grand kids to inherit a planet covered in toxic nuclear waste from these miniture reactors?

Judging from your posts, you don't seem too concerned.

First of all, you claim that FBR's can get rid of nuclear waste which is completely false.

They can reduce it, but ultimately, you're still left with radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere and this costs alot of money.

And as you can see in France, they're having difficulty finding suitable sites to store the waste in.

You also claim that pebble bell reactors can't meltdown, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Now you're claiming these nuclear hydride batteries by Hyperion are the solution, yet still can't answer the ultimate question - How do you dispose of the waste?

I'm still waiting for an answer

Dublin_Gunner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. ESB are not allowed to tip a toe into green energy, it would be view as monopoly abuse and competition would scream more murder, grid was already handed over to eirgrid and most of the expertise is in fossil fuel, wind and nuclear are different animals (not that its not possible to retrain its just highly unlikely).

Bull. There are green energy operators in the country already, so that the monopoly argument over and done with. Staff & technicians can be retrained.

2. there are some very bright people in there, and everyone is very very nice, but these are some of the cushiest and better paid jobs in the country, they wont go without a fight.

Their problem, not the country's as a whole. They can be retrained, as said above. Some union members should not be allowed to direct where our energy comes from, in order to 'protect' their cushy jobs.

The main reason we do not have nuclear power / more green power in this country is the absolute ignorance of the majority of the populous.

There have been many threads on this subject here before. People complain that wind turbines ruin their view, nuclear power is unsafe etc etc. Its so BS it's not even funny.

Places like the US, UK, France etc have been running nuclear power programmes for years with little or no trouble.

Sure, there have been accidents, but they're mostly confined to badly managed & funded power stations, or in the case of Cherbobyl, where political ambition of the plant manager clouds the safety of the plant itself.

We don't just want Nuclear Power, or require a supplement to the grid. We NEED Nuclear Power.

We could also do with a hell of a lot more wind turbines, water turbiines etc etc. But the Goverment aren;t willing to say "Lets do it". Never mind the current main energy company ESB, who are happy to maintain their profits on aging, expensive, and dirty power generation.

ei.sdraob

Martyr wrote: »

That's a lie.
ei.sdraob, do you want your grand kids to inherit a planet covered in toxic nuclear waste from these miniture reactors?

oh the "someone think of the children" excuse, your children are getting higher rates of asthma and various other lung diseases from burning fossil fuels, the mercury in coal ash is radioactive and gets spread all over the country by coal plants like moneypoint already,

and thats not even thinking about global warming, please think of the children when they are under water or experiencing temperature and climate extremes

13 people per day die in china in coal mining accidents and thats only one country, how many people had to die so you can type this post on boards with the coal imported from god knows where?

Martyr wrote: »

That's a lie.
First of all, you claim that FBR's can get rid of nuclear waste which is completely false.

the engineering and science know how is there to almost eliminate all nuclear waste

great majority of nuclear waste can be reprocessed or even better transmuted into less radioactive isotopes or isotopes that can be used in other applications like medicine

once again the problems are Political not engineering! for example Carter banned transmutation but the process is being used in the EU now

Martyr wrote: »

They can reduce it, but ultimately, you're still left with radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere and this costs alot of money.

waste that is current gets stored in plants themselves and can be processed further


and there are other designs possible => someone has come up with a solution to the waste problem. It's called a liquid fluoride thorium reactor It's a reactor that takes thorium (more abundant than uranium) as fuel , continuously refuels and reprocesses its fuel, and is about 100 times more fuel-efficient than existing nuclear reactors. Here's the really fun part: the waste, of which it produces very little, becomes exponentially less radioactive over time, becoming safe to handle with bare hands in about 300 years -- not hundreds of thousands of years. And it produces medical isotopes continuously, which is a nice bonus. And it's passively safe and self-regulating, so the reactor core itself doesn't really even need human supervision. Prototypes were tested successfully.

Martyr wrote: »

And as you can see in France, they're having difficulty finding suitable sites to store the waste in.

thanks to NIMBYs and Greens, the waste is kept in plants themselves instead of a secure, single facility

Martyr wrote: »

You also claim that pebble bell reactors can't meltdown, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_modular_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

they can no physically meltdown, as the reactor heats up the spheres expand, and the the reactor cools down, no human intervention or any active systems needed, its completely self contained, human race can disappear of the face of the earth and these would continue to run on their own until the fuel is used up

New pebble bed designs using Silicon Carbide "Pebbles" and helium heat transfer offer incredibly more safety than previous designs. These plants are designed to be literally "Run Away" proof, in fact, left fully engaged they will automatically reach top operating temperature then ramp down, never reaching supercritical temperatures or levels on nuclear reaction.

As well, because of the functional design, these reactors can be used as safe breeder reactors, meaning the there will be little nuclear waste to deal with.

I think this is absolutely one of the better energy alternatives we currently have before us.

Martyr wrote: »

Now you're claiming these nuclear hydride batteries by Hyperion are the solution, yet still can't answer the ultimate question - How do you dispose of the waste?

you send it back to manufacturer who recycle and reprocess the waste, it is not your problem, thats their whole business

---

someone brought up the point that nuclear plants produce too much electricity

heres a 1100MW plant, the safest and most efficient available currently being build in china

Their problem, not the country's as a whole.

ESB employees can quite easily make it everyone else's problem like they did few decades ago resulting in blackouts across the country, as i said they can be retrained but you dont need over 10,000 people to run a nuclear plant or 2 for that matter

maninasia

Too much electricity... sell it back to Europe or use it in smelter or industries that require large amounts of cheap electricity and create jobs.
Nuclear power is the logical answer regarding energy worries and global warming, however Irish people are not conditioned to be self sufficient and depend on other countries to wipe our asses.

irish_bob

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Bull. There are green energy operators in the country already, so that the monopoly argument over and done with. Staff & technicians can be retrained.



Their problem, not the country's as a whole. They can be retrained, as said above. Some union members should not be allowed to direct where our energy comes from, in order to 'protect' their cushy jobs.

The main reason we do not have nuclear power / more green power in this country is the absolute ignorance of the majority of the populous.

There have been many threads on this subject here before. People complain that wind turbines ruin their view, nuclear power is unsafe etc etc. Its so BS it's not even funny.

Places like the US, UK, France etc have been running nuclear power programmes for years with little or no trouble.

Sure, there have been accidents, but they're mostly confined to badly managed & funded power stations, or in the case of Cherbobyl, where political ambition of the plant manager clouds the safety of the plant itself.

We don't just want Nuclear Power, or require a supplement to the grid. We NEED Nuclear Power.

We could also do with a hell of a lot more wind turbines, water turbiines etc etc. But the Goverment aren;t willing to say "Lets do it". Never mind the current main energy company ESB, who are happy to maintain their profits on aging, expensive, and dirty power generation.

as ive said before many times , us irish are a very easy people to scare , you cant get a mobile phone mast errected in rural ireland without a hysterical mob organising an all out opposition campaign