nuclear

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

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.

Sell it over the existing interconnectors :rolleyes:

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sell it over the existing interconnectors :rolleyes:

You didn't say "Shut Sizewell B and let Drax fire away" so that's progress :rolleyes:

But I did say, assume it cannot use the surplus. One plant has to be partly shut out of a choice of two. Which is it?

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

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.

The point is that renewables are more relevant than nuclear for the next ten years.
they are cheaper
they will actually deliver power

I've already said I'm comparing nuclear to crazy stuff, and it still doesn't stack up.


Considering the number of posts I'm made on CCGT, and our gas reserves , it would be a no brainer if we weren't worried about the environment.

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?

Here is yet another crazy scheme and it still looks better than nuclear.
the choice to beat is CCGT if you are allowed. (changing from coal to CCGT or coal to carbon capture will save a large chunk of carbon so getting rid of nuclear doesn't mean you have to go renewables to lower emission, just close down or upgrade old coal plants too. )


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurgam - latent heat powered submarine from 1878
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage - compressed gas energy storage is not new.

There are plenty of schemes to store heat in molten salt / graphite usually over a number of hours. This is not new technology, the trick is to choose the best value solution.

mechanical vapour recompression is a way of converting electricity to steam energy BTW.


There is also the idea of growing algae in the waste water / waste gas from fossilfuel plants. hot water and CO2 so algae grow faster , producing fertilizer / hydrogen / bio diesel or whatever - and I've posted this before too


for the luddites - mixing solar thermal and fossil fuel
http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/technologies/cst_systems.php

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.cheshire-innovation.com/Sky%20Tube.htm

greenhouses in Southern Europe could provide as much as 250 Watts/m2

max potential energy from existing greenhouses

1ha = 10,000m2 => 2.5MW
Spain 52,170ha => 130GW
Italy 26,500ha => 66.25GW

certainly worth investing a few million into this ?

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

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.

It couldn't be more different. Renewables are often debated on their own merits but in this thread, as with so many on nuclear, it quickly turns into an exercise in RES-bashing.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a positive learning curve for nuclear by the way.

SeanW wrote: »

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.

[mod]Watch your language and your respect for other posters. This is not acceptable.[/mod]

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

You didn't say "Shut Sizewell B and let Drax fire away" so that's progress :rolleyes:

But I did say, assume it cannot use the surplus. One plant has to be partly shut out of a choice of two. Which is it?

Kill the baby to save the wagon train eh ?

You are presenting just two alternatives.

I pointed out that changing from Nuke + Coal to CCGT would reduce carbon.


The world isn't just black and white.

And it isn't just shades of gray either.






nuclear is a solution in search of a problem

and it can't arrive in time

it's extremely unlikely to arrive within budget

it doesn't scale, unless new technologies - which have not appeared in the last 70 years - arrive nuclear cannot provide more than a fraction of global electrical demand before 'peak uranium'. It's not like oil where 2/3rds of the oil is still in the well and even small improvements in recovery technology would extend the supply. With uranium it's all hard work , there are no shortcuts in mining poor quality ore you still have to go through the tonnage one way to cut costs is mining in countries with lower health and safety requirements. On that basis Indian and Central African uranium has a huge human rights footprint (they are able to use poor quality ore because no First World safety costs)
Yes you can recover uranium from the sea. But to do so mechanically with fossil fuel based sponges is probably not break even in energy terms never mind economic. It may be possible to breed/engineer an organism to accumulate uranium, but it's also possible to breed/engineer organisms to produce more bio fuels.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

It couldn't be more different. Renewables are often debated on their own merits but in this thread, as with so many on nuclear, it quickly turns into an exercise in RES-bashing.

Actually what happens is that renewables are often debated by trashing nuclear - the same old lines are trotted out in support of renewables:
"ooo they're better than nuclear" and
"I'd rather live next to a wind turbine than a nuclear power station"

There seems to be no comprehension of the fact that at the moment renewables are not able to replace / displace / substitite our nuclear and fossil fuel generators.

And suggestions such as
'we don't need nuclear or fossil fuels because many believe renewables are the answer'
do nothing but promote poor comprehension of the issues of powering a nation.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Actually what happens is that renewables are often debated by trashing nuclear - the same old lines are trotted out in support of renewables:
"ooo they're better than nuclear" and
"I'd rather live next to a wind turbine than a nuclear power station"

There seems to be no comprehension of the fact that at the moment renewables are not able to replace / displace / substitite our nuclear and fossil fuel generators.

And suggestions such as
'we don't need nuclear or fossil fuels because many believe renewables are the answer'
do nothing but promote poor comprehension of the issues of powering a nation.

[mod]Right, banned for 3 days. Come back when you learn to keep things on topic and not turn every thread into your favourite topic: how much you don't like renewables. [/mod].

Thinking that nuclear is going to play any reasonable sized role in a future sustainable energy system displays a poor comprehension of energy systems and their economics. I am still waiting for that cost curve.

SeanW

I am still waiting for that cost curve.

I'm not sure exactly what you want, but I can give you estimated costs per kw/h.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Most studies show nuclear power comparable with coal and gas, cheaper than offshore wind and WAAAAAAAAAY cheaper than solar PV, per MW/h.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

1. You do realise that nuclear power is a low carbon energy, right?
2. You must also be aware that our economic rivals are going to use all the low-cost energy they can get their hands on right?

So even if the already battered and bruised Western world decides it's more important to be clean than prosperous, which is what you seem to be advocating, that will have a net effect of close to zero as economic activity simply moves East, as has already happened.

Thinking that nuclear is going to play any reasonable sized role in a future sustainable energy system

And thinking that there is no choice to be made between nuclear and fossil fuels demonstrates a tenuous grip on reality.

Said Loyola de Palacio, some years ago.

then Director General for energy of the European Commission, Loyola de Palacio wrote:

“The EU can shut down lots of nuclear plants quickly, or it can meet the Kyoto targets – but not both”.

Kill the baby to save the wagon train eh ?

You are presenting just two alternatives.

I asked you a straightforward question in the form of a hypothetical, i.e. I directly asked you whether you were more opposed to coal or nuclear power.

It was a simple, direct, question that could have been answered decisively with one word.

You responded with some more bizarre off-topicness and a weird, irrelevant "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon.

nuclear is a solution in search of a problem

and it can't arrive in time

I'm confused here nuclear is a solution in search of a problem. But since it doesn't solve any problems, according to you, what can it "not arrive in time" for?

Conor_M1990

I haven't read the full thread and forgive me if this point hasn't being raised.

but where would you put a Nuclear power plant in Ireland and how would you get planning for it I'm going to presume you going to want to put it beside the sea to cool it. The next problem would be planning and protests look at the problems faced in corrib with protesters and the hours the Gardai have to put in to protect the site and employees I could only imagine what it would be like for a Nuclear plant.

But in my opinion its an option we are going to have to seriously going nuclear. As good as CCGT plants are the gas is a fossil fuel and the price is going to increase. Coal is inefficent wind turbines aren't really an answer.

What exactly do you do with the waste ??

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Thinking that nuclear is going to play any reasonable sized role in a future sustainable energy system displays a poor comprehension of energy systems and their economics. I am still waiting for that cost curve.

Well rightly or wrongly, Britain is trying for nuclear again
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/world/europe/british-energy-plan-would-add-nuclear-plants.html

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what you want, but I can give you estimated costs per kw/h.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Most studies show nuclear power comparable with coal and gas, cheaper than offshore wind and WAAAAAAAAAY cheaper than solar PV, per MW/h.

Nuclear and FFs are far more mature than RES technologies. They have benefited from decades of subsidies both in the technology and in the grid infrastructure that has been designed and built to suit them, not to mention the power market design.

But costs keep going up. I'd like to see a cost curve for nuclear showing costs coming down.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Most studies show nuclear power comparable with coal and gas, cheaper than offshore wind and WAAAAAAAAAY cheaper than solar PV, per MW/h.

Are we including the cost of processing/storing waste in that estimate?

SeanW wrote: »

You do realise that nuclear power is a low carbon energy, right?

Only as long as there is a source of high-grade uranium ore available.

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Well rightly or wrongly, Britain is trying for nuclear again
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/world/europe/british-energy-plan-would-add-nuclear-plants.html[/QUOTEYou read that ?

did you look at the numbers

Industry reaction was far from euphoric. In a statement, Volker Beckers, chief executive of Npower, RWE’s British operation, said the required investment would amount to around £8,000, about $12,600, for every household in Britain.

Imagine what a higher % of nuclear would cost :eek:



Even the French are stepping back from nuclear.

During the recent presidential election campaign, Mr. Hollande suggested reducing France’s dependence on nuclear power to around 50 percent from 75 percent and shutting 24 of the country’s 58 reactors by 2025.

Capt'n Midnight

Conor_M1990 wrote: »

but where would you put a Nuclear power plant in Ireland and how would you get planning for it I'm going to presume you going to want to put it beside the sea to cool it. The next problem would be planning and protests look at the problems faced in corrib with protesters and the hours the Gardai have to put in to protect the site and employees I could only imagine what it would be like for a Nuclear plant.

Carnsore Point was the place earmarked. A nuclear plant has to be near the customers due to transmission line losses. This rules out most of the unpopulated areas in the west.

If you add in the constraint that it has to be at least 20Km from any town that you can't to afford to evacuate, even if the odds of that happening are now less than 250:1


The protests & planning mean that no nuke could realistically provide power here in the next decade.

Interconnectors mean that we can have our cake and eat it. If nuclear power was economic then we'd import it. At present the UK is subsidising it's power through a levy on all customers. In theory the prevaling wind means that we'd be upwind , in practice the 1953 fire and Chernobyl affected us because the wind was blowing the other way.

But in my opinion its an option we are going to have to seriously going nuclear. As good as CCGT plants are the gas is a fossil fuel and the price is going to increase. Coal is inefficent wind turbines aren't really an answer.

What exactly do you do with the waste ??

To get rid of the waste plan on spending €3 Bn for a repository, perhaps we could share costs with the Finn's. That cost doesn't include processing, it's just for the hole in the ground.

pljudge321

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Carnsore Point was the place earmarked. A nuclear plant has to be near the customers due to transmission line losses. This rules out most of the unpopulated areas in the west.

Im an electrical engineer, and this is complete nonsense.

djpbarry

pljudge321 wrote: »

Im an electrical engineer...

[MOD]With all due respect, this is an anonymous forum and, as such, the above is completely meaningless[/MOD].

pljudge321 wrote: »

...and this is complete nonsense.

[MOD]Don't just dismiss a post as nonsense - explain why you think it's nonsense.[/MOD]

pljudge321

The fact that we have a national grid, and a relatively small sized one should be evidence enough. The 400 kV line from Dublin to Moneypoint is nearly 300 km long and exists purely for bulk power transfer of thats plant near 1 GW in capacity, comparable to a nuke. You can have a 1000 km line with a percentage loss of around 1% if the conductors are properly sized.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Are we including the cost of processing/storing waste in that estimate?

I'm not 100% sure what they cover, but I may look it up at some point soon.

A nuclear plant has to be near the customers due to transmission line losses. This rules out most of the unpopulated areas in the west.

...

Interconnectors mean that we can have our cake and eat it.

Ok, so Mayo is out, but the East coast of the U.K would be great? You do realise that this is another self-contradiction? I'm still waiting for you to explain the last self-contradiction of yours that I highlighted. As I am also waiting for a direct answer (not some bizarre cartoon) stating whether you are more opposed to coal or nuclear.

Even the French are stepping back from nuclear.
Quote:
During the recent presidential election campaign, Mr. Hollande suggested reducing France’s dependence on nuclear power to around 50 percent from 75 percent and shutting 24 of the country’s 58 reactors by 2025.

I submit that this is a logical fallacy - you are suggesting (or at least hinting) that because Mr. Hollande suggested reducing France's dependence of nuclear power, that he won the election on that basis and the French people support a withdrawl of nuclear power.

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc - after it therefore because of it. A false cause, non-sequitur.

I'd like to see a cost curve for nuclear showing costs coming down.

Now that you mention it, I do have one graphic relevant to your argument:

I've never claimed that nuclear is a cheap option (at least on a capital basis) nor have I ever claimed that nuclear is becoming more capital-efficient on an ongoing basis.

Capt'n Midnight

pljudge321 wrote: »

The fact that we have a national grid, and a relatively small sized one should be evidence enough. The 400 kV line from Dublin to Moneypoint is nearly 300 km long and exists purely for bulk power transfer of thats plant near 1 GW in capacity, comparable to a nuke. You can have a 1000 km line with a percentage loss of around 1% if the conductors are properly sized.

Moneypoint is a lot closer to Limerick Galway, the midlands and Cork than to Dublin.

Yes you can have plants anywhere you want if you over engineer the cable.

ESB are currently replacing many cables with a newer type of allow containing more zincromium, they can carry more current because they can run hotter

Hell , if you over engineer stuff you could probably have safe clean nuclear too ( US naval reactors ?) But not economically.

I'm rather interested in the 1% over 1,000Km at 1GW
It's possible that corona losses alone would account for that since we have measurable rainfall one hour in three.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Ok, so Mayo is out, but the East coast of the U.K would be great? You do realise that this is another self-contradiction?

No none at all. The nuclear plants are already there. And interconnectors are generally two-way systems that means you can save on the capital costs of more power stations.

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK would build a nuke on east coast for us ?
The nearest nuke to Dublin is Anglesey but there is a big Aluminium plant there.

. As I am also waiting for a direct answer (not some bizarre cartoon) stating whether you are more opposed to coal or nuclear.

Still with the Black and White ?


The world became colourised back in the 1930's - that's only a decade before the first breeder reactors went online, you know the ones that are supposed to solve 'peak uranium'

I have no problem with nuclear power on satellites.
I have a more problems with the behaviour of the nuclear industry and the vague economics and the implementation than with the fundamental technology.

I'd be interested to know how gassified coal in a CCGT would work out efficiency wise.

But we won't get nuclear here. And if we did get massive amounts of cheap gas then Moneypoint could be converted.

I've never claimed that nuclear is a cheap option (at least on a capital basis) nor have I ever claimed that nuclear is becoming more capital-efficient on an ongoing basis

Could you at least claim that it won't get more expensive ?
lower grade ores / health and safety at mines
higher costs for waste and decomissioning
stricter standards to be met on emissions
increased possibility of licenses being lost ?

Also you would need to show that the costs of the alternatives are not dropping before having nuclear at a fixed price is still a viable option

Nuclear plants have a nasty habit of arriving years late and over the original signed off budget.

Markcheese

pljudge321 wrote: »

The fact that we have a national grid, and a relatively small sized one should be evidence enough. The 400 kV line from Dublin to Moneypoint is nearly 300 km long and exists purely for bulk power transfer of thats plant near 1 GW in capacity, comparable to a nuke. You can have a 1000 km line with a percentage loss of around 1% if the conductors are properly sized.

What's the difference between an interconnector efficiently bringing power from all over Europe north and south, and a nuclear power plant having to be near the capital because of transmission losses...?? Same engineering ??

pljudge321

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Moneypoint is a lot closer to Limerick Galway, the midlands and Cork than to Dublin.

Yes you can have plants anywhere you want if you over engineer the cable.

ESB are currently replacing many cables with a newer type of allow containing more zincromium, they can carry more current because they can run hotter

Hell , if you over engineer stuff you could probably have safe clean nuclear too ( US naval reactors ?) But not economically.

I'm rather interested in the 1% over 1,000Km at 1GW
It's possible that corona losses alone would account for that since we have measurable rainfall one hour in three.

The 1% loss over 1000 km is admittedly an example of over engineering as you've said, it would typically be closer to 2-2.5%. There are only a handful of these lines in the world because it doesn't really make sense in most instances to transport power over this distance and you run into problems with synchronous grids when they get too large. From generator to load the losses are usually in the 5-6% range, most of this being in the distribution system rather than in transmission.

From an electrical perspective moneypoint is essentially located in dublin, electricity doesn't care about the distance only the impedances (which are effected by distance but I'm sure you get the idea) you can see a map of the transmission system here on page 20. http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

jimmymal

i used to think that we would have to use nuclear. The cleanliness, efficiency and so many other positives it offers. however i always had the hope that fusion would make an appearance and we would all be saved from the hazards of nuclear waste.

There is a very good documentary called Into Eternity that really is worth a watch. Its about the Scandinavian countries trying to make future provisions for their own nuclear waste and the difficulties faced in doing so. Its an eye opener really and if you haven't seen it and are interested in this subject it answers and raises quite a lot of questions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194612/

Solair

I think you mean fusion. Fission is the existing nuclear power technology i.e. splitting atoms.

Oldtree

Interesting to note that the ESB imports electricity from time to time from the uk fuel mix via the Moyle Interconnector, yet they proport that their fuel mix has no radioactive waste?!?!?

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/05/03/00271.asp

Capt'n Midnight

Oldtree wrote: »

Interesting to note that the ESB imports electricity from time to time from the uk fuel mix via the Moyle Interconnector, yet they proport that their fuel mix has no radioactive waste?!?!?

It's OK because it's actually French nuclear power.

Anyway as you almost certainly know already Scotland are phasing out nuclear power in favour of renewables. The interconnector is one way to facilitate this changeover.


until you can show that ESB is a nett importer of power from NI
and NI is a net importer from Scotland
and that the imports happen when the demand in Scotland is lower than the amount of power from Nuclear
you are only scaremongering

Oldtree

on a very quick google:

58 reactors in french fuel mix
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0315/1224292164809.html

and the uk fuel mix has 8 active reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

Scotland and England have a land linked electricity infastructure.

I dont have to show a nett import situation as it is not an offset situation. If one watt comes down the interconnector or from France or Scotland Or Northern Ireland or the UK then part of the fuel mix for that watt is nuclear.

There is no way of distinguishing where a watt you consume is produced so you are only kidding yourself using a nett importer argument.

The same could be said of renewable power purchachsed here, yes the company produces renewable power and puts it on the grid but you ultimatly consume mixed power as you do not have a direct line to the windmill.

Capt'n Midnight

Oldtree wrote: »

I dont have to show a nett import situation as it is not an offset situation. If one watt comes down the interconnector or from France or Scotland Or Northern Ireland or the UK then part of the fuel mix for that watt is nuclear.

Nuclear is base load.
Interconnector is for surplus.

The point being that the electricity generated by nuclear in the UK is generally earmarked for local use. And has been pointed out time and time again there is a surcharge on electricity to subsidise nuclear in the UK.

By your logic Norway has very dirty electricity even considering the amount they generate through renewables.

Oldtree

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear is base load.
Interconnector is for surplus.
The point being that the electricity generated by nuclear in the UK is generally earmarked for local use. And has been pointed out time and time again there is a surcharge on electricity to subsidise nuclear in the UK.
By your logic Norway has very dirty electricity even considering the amount they generate through renewables.

With your logic only non-nuclear electricity comes down the interconnector (or by other means) from the UK, etc. Earmarked does not mean actual electricity use. What does surcharge have to do with electricity going down a connector, does only non-nuclear electricity choose to come down the connector? Nor can you choose the source of electricity coming down a connector, only who you can pay for their contribution to the mix of electricity availably on the network. It only works your way if you have a direct line, with no other contributers, from the supplier.