nuclear

Macha

SeanW, I think most people understand that it isn't the volume of waste from nuclear plants that is the problem but the characteristics of it. Comparisons with coal are not very interesting as I don't think there are many on here, or elsewhere, who are arguing that we should power our electricity system with coal, or even a large percentage of coal.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

You're just clutching at straws here: you're assuming that we don't know where the tourists go and would put a nuclear reactor in the most idyllic touristey spot possible.

Nukes are put in isolated areas. Look at the location's used in the UK

And as to "stuff going in and out" I am more than happy to take up this point.

you have neglected to include the volume of shielding.

or the space taken up by exclusion areas in Japan, Russia, Ukraine, US and India


You have posted about nuclear safety and waste volumes before Fukushima.

Will you concede that you were wrong about them ?

Or will you ignore the evidence and still claim that new stations will be safer and procedures will be better - remember you said those things before Fukushima.


And since the best predictor of the future is the past. The nuclear power industry has failed miserably at estimating unknown risks , there have been far too many safety improvements that have come about from hindsight.



The 20Km2 exclusion zone is about the size of County Dublin , that is a HUGE volume of waste. Had Carnsore Point had such an accident Wexford town would have to be evacuated, and we'd have lost Rosslare harbour.

By comparison 200,000 tonnes of solid waste would only cover a few acres depending on how high it was stacked.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51350313
back in 2006 I rubbished your waste criteria where you cherry picked figures.


and coal ash is a source of raw materials, and most of the heavy metals are locked in silicates.
http://standardspeaker.com/news/company-s-idea-turn-waste-coal-into-aircraft-frames-armor-1.867762




Bottom line is that yes coal ash is radioactive, but it's about the same level as granite, are we to ban public buildings and evacuate Wicklow ?

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

SeanW, I think most people understand that it isn't the volume of waste from nuclear plants that is the problem but the characteristics of it. Comparisons with coal are not very interesting as I don't think there are many on here, or elsewhere, who are arguing that we should power our electricity system with coal, or even a large percentage of coal.

I was responding to one poster who I think was specifically concerned about the visual impact of inputs and outputs.

As to comparisons with coal, I'm afraid it is instructive as saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels. And like it or not, coal is the fossil fuel mainly used. Like they've been learning in Germany.

Speaking of Germany, here's one news story you're not likely to find headlining an anti-nuclear (or pro renewable) publication:

Power shift begins to move German industry.
Nutshell, sky-high energy costs to subsidise solar PV etc have helped drive Germany's 3rd largest aluminium processor into bankruptcy.

Capt'n Midnight

Macha wrote: »

SeanW, I think most people understand that it isn't the volume of waste from nuclear plants that is the problem but the characteristics of it. Comparisons with coal are not very interesting as I don't think there are many on here, or elsewhere, who are arguing that we should power our electricity system with coal, or even a large percentage of coal.

Regards volume of waste. What is the volume of the Irish Sea ?? :mad::mad::mad:


Until a site is decontaminated it represents a volume of waste , Nuclear waste occupies thousands of km2
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/cleanup/npl_sites.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site 520Km2 on one site.


don't forget the mines
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopjdg.html

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Speaking of Germany, here's one news story you're not likely to find headlining an anti-nuclear (or pro renewable) publication:

Power shift begins to move German industry.
Nutshell, sky-high energy costs to subsidise solar PV etc have helped drive Germany's 3rd largest aluminium processor into bankruptcy.

So basically you are saying they could not compete with Icelandic renewable costs


voerde - 115,000 tonnes - represent a little over 0.2% of global aluminium production and are small fry in the global culling of surplus capacity. They haven't gone wallop yet either. And if they can weather the storm demand will rise again in future.

http://www.aluminiumtoday.com/news/view/voerde-aluminium-launches-insolvency-proceedings/

Germany’s third largest aluminium producer Voerde Aluminium has launched insolvency proceedings but said the business would continue to operate and it would seek to restructure.

The company, which produces around 115kt/y of aluminium annually and has 410 employees, said it had hit liquidity problems because aluminium prices had fallen since July last year while production costs have risen.

The smelter was sold by British group Corus in 2009 to BaseMet, owned in turn by investor Gary Klesch.

"I am confident that we will be able to find a suitable solution to continue operations which will be in the best interests of the company and creditors," Chief Executive Wout Kusters said in a statement.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/fluctuations-in-world-aluminium-capacity/462638/

Europe, besieged by sovereign debt problems, is playing spoilsport for the aluminium market. ... . Banks, badly mauled during 2008-09 crisis and not inclined to take risks like in the past, are asking for adequate margins and also charging higher rates of interest. So, at every point in Europe – the trade, stockists and actual users – the attempt is to do with minimum inventory of aluminium
...
The answer to setbacks in aluminium prices in last year’s final quarter will be largely found in a report of Bloomberg Industries that in the earlier three quarters smelter production outpaced demand by 953,516 tonnes
...
The global deficit is based on the assumption that 1.1 mt of China’s 5.7 mt of unprofitable capacity will be taken offline. Industry officials will not rule out the possibility of another 1.2 mt of Chinese inefficient capacity being guillotined in case aluminium prices don’t rise fast enough.
...
Rising energy and other input costs are to cause considerable churning in the world aluminium industry. Alcoa is to decommission 531,000 tonnes of smelting capacity, amounting to 12 per cent of its total. Rio Tinto is waiting for an “opportune moment” for divestment of 13 aluminium assets. .... “You will see new power efficient smelters replacing inefficient capacity across the globe. After all, global aluminium demand is likely to double by 2020,” says Bagra.

BTW
How are power hungry Aughinish doing these days ?

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

As to comparisons with coal, I'm afraid it is instructive as saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels.

That's an assumption that has yet to be proven and therefore for me, comparisons with coal remain pointless. Everything looks good next to coal.

SeanW wrote: »

And like it or not, coal is the fossil fuel mainly used. Like they've been learning in Germany.

The figures for this story has been traced back to "Reuters research", which has most probably been kindly supplied by the big power companies.

The increase in coal use across the EU is a failure of the ETS system, not support for renewables and the story you link to (not that simply linking to a story is the same as actually putting forward an argument), doesn't go near proving otherwise.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So basically you are saying they could not compete with Icelandic renewable costs

Maybe not but are there lots of bubbling, steaming geysers in Ireland?

Chloe Pink

I really don't get this - so if "saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels" is

Macha wrote: »

an assumption that has yet to be proven"

in the absence of bubbling steaming geysers how else are you going to provide the bulk of a nation's power - there are endless circles of discussion on these threads which evade over and over again the top level issues.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I really don't get this - so if "saying no to nuclear inevitably means saying yes to fossil fuels" is

Macha wrote: »

an assumption that has yet to be proven"

in the absence of bubbling steaming geysers how else are you going to provide the bulk of a nation's power - there are endless circles of discussion on these threads which evade over and over again the top level issues.

For the umpteenth time, many believe renewables are the answer. You have made it perfectly clear on countless occasions that you don't share this view.

[mod] That doesn't mean you get to drag every thread off topic onto that particular debate. Please stop trying to do so with this thread. If you want to start yet another renewables-bashing thread, no one is stopping you.[mod]

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

That's an assumption that has yet to be proven and therefore for me

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Do you actaully believe this? I'm dead serious, what are you trying to say here?

comparisons with coal remain pointless. Everything looks good next to coal.

We use peat as well, that's filthy too (1.2 kg CO2 per kw/h, and requires the destruction of bogland). Oil is not very clean either. Gas is somewhat cleaner again but it assumes that you don't mind your nation becoming an economic vassal of Russia.

The figures for this story has been traced back to "Reuters research", which has most probably been kindly supplied by the big power companies.

Ah, so all the facts therein are made up? Which figures are you disputing, and on what grounds?

Let's not forget that Germany has spent over €100,000,000,000 subsidising solar power, yet gets only 3% of its power from the installed capacity, and of course when Germany needs power the most, well, it seems they don't work very well in snow. And its power costs are only behind that of Denmark, another heavy spender on renewables subsidies.

The increase in coal use across the EU is a failure of the ETS system, not support for renewables

Let me guess, your talking about the European Unions Carbon credit trading system? I'm also guessing that the alleged "failure" of it was down to it not being draconian enough or onerous enough on the people and businesses of Europe? I'm not sure what else could have been done, realistically. And whatever that is, how much would it have cost? Or worese yet, what kind of bizarre laws regulating our lives would we have to accept?

You've also spectacularly missed my point - it's the irrational opposition to nuclear energy that has caused the continued massive use of coal, not support for renewables (though they haven't been much help).

This is something that I blame the environmental-left for: demonising nuclear power out of all proportion to reality while touting renewables as some kind of credible alternative to the choice between fossil fuels and nuclear, when for example to supply 1/6th of the UKs electricity demand would require covering Wales with wind turbines - clearly an insane proposition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Maybe not but are there lots of bubbling, steaming geysers in Ireland?

And Hydro.

And Wind.

And Wave.

Aluminium is a great way of storing / exporting electricity.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

This is something that I blame the environmental-left for: demonising nuclear power out of all proportion to reality while touting renewables as some kind of credible alternative to the choice between fossil fuels and nuclear, when for example to supply 1/6th of the UKs electricity demand would require covering Wales with wind turbines - clearly an insane proposition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

Not this crap again - No one is proposing 100% wind.

And besides you could easily fit all of wales in to the land owned by less than 300 individuals in Scotland. And there is offshore wind. And Scottish wind is windier.

UK could get 20% of it's energy from tidal systems in the Irish Sea,
http://sid.nerc.ac.uk/details.aspx?id=217&cookieConsent=A

extrapolations from the University of Liverpool/POL work show a contribution of 20% to UK electricity supplies from tidal energy can be reliably envisaged, with a combination of barrages/lagoons (~ 15%) and tidal stream devices (~ 5%).

So yeah you could replace Nuclear power in the UK with renewables without needing a single windmill or wave machine, or biomass, or solar or waste to energy. The lagoons sort out issues of intermittancy.


While on the subject of Scotland they will be using renewables when the nuclear plants are phased out. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/05/18093247

"Because the pace of development has been so rapid, with our 2011 target already exceeded, we can now commit to generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland's own electricity demand from renewable resources by 2020. By then we intend to be generating twice as much electricity as Scotland needs - just over half of it from renewables, and just under half from other conventional sources. We will be exporting as much electricity as we consume.

Has anyone speced up a Shannon barrage ?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Let's not forget that Germany has spent over €100,000,000 subsidising solar power...

€100 million is not a very large figure in a country the size of Germany. How much have they spent subsidising nuclear?

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

€100 million is not a very large figure in a country the size of Germany. How much have they spent subsidising nuclear?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

The THTR-300 cost €2.05 billion and was predicted to cost an additional €425 million until December 2009 in decommissioning and other associated costs.
...
From 1985 to 1989, the THTR-300 registered 16410 operation hours and generated 2891000 MWh, according to a full-load working time of 423 days.

Oh it used some thorium too, and pebble bed.

So simply put, this reactor was built by the efficient Germans, with some of the best health and safety legislation.

But maybe if billions more are spent in countries with laxer health and safety then maybe they might get further.

So 308MW for 423 days at a cost of just 23 times the total subsidy in solar.

€2.3 Billion will buy a lot of renewables & storage. Pop up a dam in Norway and run an interconnector back. It's not rocket science, but then again the Germans are good at that too.




cost per actual KWhr delivered ~ €1.41

value of that KWh ? - on the Irish market base band units are usually worth about 0.03c each http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx (over the next few days the base price is 5-6c since there is very little wind forecast http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/ )



When you consider costs of nuclear you can't consider the costs of the best plants in operation. You MUST also include the white elephants and dead ends too, because they have to be paid for. Experimental plants like this are albatrosses around the nuclear industry's neck.

The same is true of renewables and fossil fuel stations, but not so many white elephants and even then they are probably assets instead of having to spend a huge pile of money on decommissioning.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

€100 million is not a very large figure in a country the size of Germany. How much have they spent subsidising nuclear?

I forgot some zeros, the figure is €100 billion. That's €100,000,000,000.

Post edited.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

I forgot some zeros, the figure is €100 billion. That's €100,000,000,000.

Post edited.

Big difference alright.

but the investment is paying off in the way investing in Nuclear hasn't

http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2012/02/23/why-german-has-done-more-to-fight-climate-change-than-any-other-nation/

Germany has in the last 5 years made solar energy reach the poorest people in the world . The country’s subsideis have made large solar companies lower costs and improve technology at a rapid pace to keep up with the lowered subsidies. Solar Panels which were sold for $4/watt in 2008 are solar for 80c/watt now.
...
not comparing the subsidies for solar with that of fossil fuels. Does he know thatFossil Fuel Subsidies globally amount to $550 billion a year which is many times more than that given to Solar, Wind and others.Even a developed country like Norway gives 5 times more subsidies to fossil fuels than renewable energy
...
18 billion euros is the cost of solar energy over 20 years . He conveniently forgets/ does not know the basic concept of time value of money

Back to Nuclear for a moment, insulation is a far better investment

To avoid a ton of CO2 emissions, one can spend €5 on insulating the roof of an old building, invest €20 in a new gas-fired power plant or sink about €500 into a new solar energy system.

Chloe Pink

SaenW says if we don't do nuclear, then we need to do fossil fuels -
Macha then says not necessarily,

Macha wrote: »

...many believe renewables are the answer.

And Captn.M.'s come up with 20% from tidal
Better still, lets also allow 20% from wind backed by the lagoons
What about the rest?

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Germany has in the last 5 years made solar energy reach the poorest people in the world

This is a fair point and maybe a good starting point for poorer countries but in the long term might the poorer countries want energy when it's dark as well.

There are quite a few comparisons going on in this thread at the moment about the amount of subsidy handed out to different generation methods etc; in order for them to be meaningful comparisons, they need to be proportioned to reflect the cost per unit of generation i.e. the percentage of overall energy generated and the number of years the technology has been used for need to be taken into account.

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

This is a fair point and maybe a good starting point for poorer countries but in the long term might the poorer countries want energy when it's dark as well.

as you well know no one is suggesting 100% solar without storage :rolleyes:


The German costs include future subsidies , so it's not a spend it's an obligation and could disappear if there is a period of inflation

nuclear costs are all up front and you are screwed if there is a period of inflation before you pay off the loan

Franticfrank

€100 billion is alot of subsidies. I'm not surprised, they really have to pursue this root if they're going to survive the nuclear phaseout. Or else remain dependent on neighbours to import nuclear. I came across an interesting chart showing the amount of nuclear plants per country. I'm surprised the Slovenians have one with their relatively small size and population.

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

SaenW says if we don't do nuclear, then we need to do fossil fuels -
Macha then says not necessarily,
And Captn.M.'s come up with 20% from tidal
Better still, lets also allow 20% from wind backed by the lagoons
What about the rest?

Not this crap again.

Nuclear is 15% in the UK

This thread is about nuclear.

By allowing up to 40% from renewables you agree that nuclear isn't needed.

It's that simple.

Capt'n Midnight

Longer version

If you halve the demand for fossil fuel you have twice as long to find an alternative.


This thread is about nuclear. It is not "prove that you can get 100% electricity from renewables in less time than it takes to get planning permission for a nuclear power plant."

Don't forget say 20% from better insulation too.

We already have interconnectors that could supply 20% of our peak demand.

Converting from Coal to CCGT would reduce Carbon emissions by another chunk too.

Nuclear is 15% in the UK , so could be replaced by renewables as the plants end of life.
Germany, Italy, Japan have all phased out Nuclear before end of life.
Scotland will be replacing nuclear with renewables at end of life.
Canada will probably phase it out.


So lots of ways of replacing the power that an experimental nuke could possibly produce in 10-15 years assuming no speed bumps. And it has to be experimental since the previous generation of nukes were flaky and the only safe, affordable, clean ones are future tech.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you halve the demand for fossil fuel you have twice as long to find an alternative.

If you continue to use nuclear, you also increase the time required to find an alternative to fossil fuels.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This thread is about nuclear. It is not "prove that you can get 100% electricity from renewables in less time than it takes to get planning permission for a nuclear power plant."

Macha put forward this idea; the point was made that if we don't do nuclear, then we need to do fossil fuels and Macha disagreed saying "...many believe renewables are the answer."

Anyway you still see a need for fossil fuels for the moment at least which seems sensible.

Don't forget increased demand through population growth.

Which type generators are likely to feed the interconnectors?

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you halve the demand for fossil fuel you have twice as long to find an alternative.

How do you propose to do that? The only ways I could think of would be electricity rationing, prohibitive fuel taxes and extremely draconian planning laws.

This thread is about nuclear. It is not "prove that you can get 100% electricity from renewables in less time than it takes to get planning permission for a nuclear power plant."

If you're saying there is no need to choose between nuclear and fossil fuels, then yes, that's exactly what its about!

Don't forget say 20% from better insulation too.

Noone is opposing better insulation - you keep bring up a point that noone is arguing against.

Nuclear is 15% in the UK , so could be replaced by renewables as the plants end of life.
Germany, Italy, Japan have all phased out Nuclear before end of life.
Scotland will be replacing nuclear with renewables at end of life.
Canada will probably phase it out.

So your plan is to eliminate nuclear power by replacing them with a similar amount of renewables. Yet your plan would leave stations like Drax still running. (Drax is a coal fired power plant in the UK with a rating of about 4GW, Europes largest emitter of NOx and the UKs largest source of CO2 emissions.

You see, you are making the choice between nuclear and fossil fuels - and it's not the choice I would make!

So lots of ways of replacing the power that an experimental nuke could possibly produce in 10-15 years assuming no speed bumps. And it has to be experimental since the previous generation of nukes were flaky and the only safe, affordable, clean ones are future tech.

But your focus on "we could replace the nukes" without mentioning the fossil fuel plants is very instructive!

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

as you well know no one is suggesting 100% solar without storage

And what happens if you leave your car headlights on overnight.
People in poorer countries want to be able to keep food and medicines refridgerated overnight; they want hospitals to function overnight; their children want to use computers to study in the evening; their businesses need to run overnight to maintain productivity and to talk to other countries at night to arrange export of their produce; they want to cook at night on an electric cooker rather than an open fire; they want to charge their mobile phones - I won't go on but you get the gist - we need a breakthrough in storage technology for solar to be truly viable.
That's not to say solar doesn't help but its a long way off from supplying the sort of energy that a conventional power station would.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

If you continue to use nuclear, you also increase the time required to find an alternative to fossil fuels.

Macha put forward this idea; the point was made that if we don't do nuclear, then we need to do fossil fuels and Macha disagreed saying "...many believe renewables are the answer."

Anyway you still see a need for fossil fuels for the moment at least which seems sensible.

Don't forget increased demand through population growth.

Which type generators are likely to feed the interconnectors?

[mod]Final warning Chloe Pink. Drag this thread off topic onto only RES-bashing again and you'll be banned for a week.

Everyone: discussion of other generation technologies is of course fine but please keep it relevant to nuclear.[/mod]

If the pro-nuclear posters on here can only give as good as "well, RES won't work", I think the debate speaks for itself.

Markcheese

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ...
There's really only two things that will decide our future generation mix..
Economics and politics.....
I think both will mean we'll muddle along as we are for a long time to come... All new large plants will be gas fired, lots of wind generation will enter the system ...
Can't see our gov instigating a nuclear reactor, can't see a private company shelling out billions for decades on the promise of enormous profits way in future( specially not in a small Market like Ireland)
Future tech may change all but till the gas price becomes obscene I can't see anyone building giggawatt levels of storage (which would still have issues) or micro nuke reactors ( why have one huge planning and security nightmare when u can have hundreds)(could be way wrong on this, maybe every community will want their own backyard nuke)
Efficency will have a big part to play, but demand is only going one way ... Up. Up .up.
My view... No 70's style nuclear revival
No vast renewable energy storage

No change.....except price

Let the mud slinging begin

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Can't see our gov instigating a nuclear reactor, can't see a private company shelling out billions for decades on the promise of enormous profits way in future( specially not in a small Market like Ireland)

Considering how difficult it was to get 'competition' in to the Irish market private industry won't stump up for nuclear.

BTW. our market is only about the same size as Birmingham

Markcheese

Yup....

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

If the pro-nuclear posters on here can only give as good as "well, RES won't work", I think the debate speaks for itself.

I will be just as blunt and say that if the anti-nuclear posters can only give as good as "renewables uber alles" in spite of the fact that they've been saying this since the days of Carnsore Point, and it's no more true now than it was then, then the debate speaks for itself.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Nuclear is 15% in the UK , so could be replaced by renewables as the plants end of life.
Germany, Italy, Japan have all phased out Nuclear before end of life.

Again, I want to follow this point up, because you seem to be unclear - first you go on about cutting fossil fuel demand in half but then you go on about how reneables can replace NUCLEAR! not the fossil fuels you so pathetically claim to oppose.

I want to follow this point up: assuming for the sake of argument that I think your renewables uber alles yarn made sense, and that some of the stuff you've been going on about is actually practical (I most certainly don't, but for the sake of argument).

Assume that England is able to make 2GW of stable, reliable power from floating barrages or something, and their government is faced with a PERMANENT 2GW power surplus that it cannot use.

You get a phone call from the Prime Minister, asking
"Hello Mr. Midnight. You were dead right about all that stuff about steam caverns and multijunction whatever it was, and now we have too much power and have to shut down some generating capacity. We propose to shut down either Sizewell B (Nuclear Light Water Reactor) or part of the Drax (coal fired power) complex. As an environmental consultant, we want your opinion?"

What do you tell him? Why?