Nuclear Power Plant near Dublin to get massive boost !

Capt'n Midnight

Measure Twice wrote: »

I can tell you know a lot about this topic. What I don't know is why you continue to outline scenarios that you admit are not going to happen - can you enlighten me? Why do you also lump in UK interconnection with the renewable generation?

Debunking the myth that using renewables means we're screwed if there is no wind.

Right now it is possible (but impracticable) to provide our energy needs for half the year without using the main fossil fuel plants even when there is no wind.

NI are proposing to install 300MW of tidal.

An interconnector as long as the existing NorNed would link us to France.

It would be cheaper for us to fund an interconnector between Scotland and Norway than build a Nuclear power plant here.

The channel islands are proposing to install several GW of wind - once someone figures out a cheaper way to store electricity job done.

By using smart meters / offering discounts when shedding demand / insulating properties to a level where they can retain heat for several hours we could flatten peak demand possibly by up to 1 GW if absolutely necessary. So we wouldn't need the nuclear power plant in the first place. ( each decade weather forecasting accuracy improves by one day , wind power will get more predictable )


CCGT plants can hit 60% efficiency under ideal conditions, so nearly 4 times as much electricity per tonne of CO2 than some of the very old coal powered stations we no longer use. By changing existing rules that say the can't change operating mode during the day we could get closer to that with our existing CCGT plants. - So a little politics and we can reduce our fossil fuel usage.

On the subject of politics - defo should close the grant aided inefficient plants, the peat plants should be phased out unless we can get more biomass into them.

My belief is that small nuclear plants (about 200 MW each) will have to be considered in a few years time and it may very well be in our interest to go down that road. We should begin this process before we are committed to the CCS route, which may well result in unacceptably high electricity costs.

You are proposing a new reactor design of a size that isn't used commercially for anything other than experimental reactors because economies of scale favour larger reactors. The track record of teething problems with new designs isn't good.

You are proposing to get something that is more expensive to run, almost certainly less reliable and will take longer to deliver.

The UK are talking about 2025 before they get the first new plant online and that's using a 'proven' reactor design that is already in service. The cost is £5Bn for 1325MW The design the UK has chosen has been in operation since 1996 and they still haven't reached 70% operating factor.

opinion guy

Measure Twice wrote: »

Indeed. People have a right to object and to have those objections assessed. Then, society as a whole decides on the best solution for that society.

The solution may not be perfect but it should be the best, balanced, solution.

And the optimum solution should be determined using true facts and thorough, objective analysis taking all relevant factors into account.

But I agree with Positron that those with a "skewed or single-sided view or partial knowledge" shouldn't be able to exert undue influence on decision making that has wide-ranging impact on society as a whole.

I don't know about you but I don't trust the powers at be to make such decisions.

squod

Measure Twice wrote: »

the only option

Only option? You haven't mentioned wind pumped hydro? Whats your opinion on it?

A wind-hydro system generates electric energy combining wind turbines and pumped storage.
Wind-hydro stations dedicate all, or a significant portion, of their wind power resources to pumping water into pumped storage reservoirs. These reservoirs are an implementation of grid energy storage.

Measure Twice

squod wrote: »

Only option? You haven't mentioned wind pumped hydro? Whats your opinion on it?

Here's a proposed electricity generation mix (based on something I posted elsewhere last year) that includes such technology:

• 2400 MW of nuclear power (sourced from 12 to 15 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) of 150 to 200 MWe in 2,3 or 4 stations)
• an increased pumped storage capacity of around 1500 MW (perhaps Spirit of Ireland type if it ever comes about)
• up to 2000 MW of renewable energy (wind, tidal, wave as it becomes available)
• 250 MW waste to energy
• 250 MW of biomass
• 250 MW of hydro as exists now
• 1000 MW of interconnection as already built or under construction
• Some peaking open cycle gas turbines
• Perhaps a coal or gas-fired carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant if it becomes economic (to replace equivalent nuclear generation) and
• Remainder as combined cycle gas turbines (to be determined by system modelling).

The Reactors are being designed and built in the US for 2022 and should be available to replace Moneypoint between 2025 and 2028. They will take only 3 years to build each one and can be built on a rolling basis - so you are earning money from the first one while units 2 and 3 are being built.



These features reduce the risk and the sunk capital and lower the cost per unit output.


A system such as I have outlined would supply energy reliably and at reasonable cost while being low-Carbon and under our control.


The interconnectors could be used to export energy and thus make a profit rather than relying on imports which reduces security of supply and costs more.

Capt'n Midnight

Measure Twice wrote: »

• Perhaps a coal or gas-fired carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant if it becomes economic (to replace equivalent nuclear generation) and
• Remainder as combined cycle gas turbines (to be determined by system modelling).

The Reactors are being designed and built in the US for 2022 and should be available to replace Moneypoint between 2025 and 2028. They will take only 3 years to build each one and can be built on a rolling basis - so you are earning money from the first one while units 2 and 3 are being built.

Carbon capture is very easy.
We have one of the best climates for growing trees.
CVI will provide nearly free labour
Complete no brainer.

Forget coal. (in 2009 we got more power from renewables)
CCGT is more efficient . less CO2, faster responding, and we'll have our own gas soon etc. etc.

I'd take those timescales with a pinch of salt. On time, on budget is rare in the nuclear industry. But ignore the US reversal on Nuclear because of competition with very cheap fracking gas and pretend that it actually happens. 2028 is a very long time away.

Over the last 16 years we've essentially replaced oil with wind.
In 2009 we got slightly more power from renewables than from coal.
Gas now provides four times as much power as coal when it used to be 50:50. Big changes indeed.

We can probably expect more of the same sort of changes in the next 16 years. Nuclear will have to compete in that market not todays.




Stats from.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ireland
( 1996 oil = 2,687 vs 2010 wind = 3,026 )
(In 1996 coal provided 37% of our electricity and gas provided 33%, today its 15% and 61%

Measure Twice

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Carbon capture is very easy.
We have one of the best climates for growing trees.

Carbon capture on the kind of scale required by the power plants is anything but easy. It requires specialised and expensive machinery that is still in development. Growing trees in Ireland will be nowhere near enough.

I'd take those timescales with a pinch of salt. On time, on budget is rare in the nuclear industry.

The timescale are realistic. The US is in competition with China and India to develop smaller but economic reactors for smaller nations such as ours - the demand for small, clean, affordable generators will ensure that this happens. There is a demonstration program underway in the US with a completion date of 2022.

2028 is a very long time away.

Yes - it is 16 years away. But large-scale power plants take about 7 years to implement, so it is not long in power generation terms. Particularly as we will also need to develop our nuclear regulatory infrastructure.

Over the last 16 years we've essentially replaced oil with wind.

Statistically, you are almost correct (we now generate as much from non-hydro renewables (geothermal, solar, tides, wind, biomass, and biofuels) as we used to generate from oil in 1996). But this not what has happened in practice.

What has happened is that oil has been priced out of the market as coal has become relatively cheap while gas has become more efficient with CCGT technology. Oil would not be big in Ireland even if there were no wind turbines installed.

Wind tends to replace CCGT plant rather than the more flexible open cycle gas plant or the less flexible coal and peat units.

Note that using renewables and gas alone will not allow us to meet our 2020 emissions targets, according to the EirGrid studies into the matter. They say we will need nuclear or CCS to meet these targets and I believe them.

They also say that interconnection will not help in this regard.

We can probably expect more of the same sort of changes in the next 16 years. Nuclear will have to compete in that market not todays.

Agreed. The biggest challenge for nuclear in the US at the moment is cheap gas, but this is not expected to continue. In Germany, coal is being used where nuclear is being abandoned (for now, at least). Carbon taxes on gas and coal will keep nuclear competitive in the medium to long term.

squod

Measure Twice wrote: »

Here's a proposed electricity generation mix (based on something I posted elsewhere last year) that includes such technology:

• 2400 MW of nuclear power (sourced from 12 to 15 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) of 150 to 200 MWe in 2,3 or 4 stations)
• an increased pumped storage capacity of around 1500 MW (perhaps Spirit of Ireland type if it ever comes about)
• up to 2000 MW of renewable energy (wind, tidal, wave as it becomes available)
• 250 MW waste to energy
• 250 MW of biomass
• 250 MW of hydro as exists now
• 1000 MW of interconnection as already built or under construction
• Some peaking open cycle gas turbines
• Perhaps a coal or gas-fired carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant if it becomes economic (to replace equivalent nuclear generation) and
• Remainder as combined cycle gas turbines (to be determined by system modelling).

The Reactors are being designed and built in the US for 2022 and should be available to replace Moneypoint between 2025 and 2028. They will take only 3 years to build each one and can be built on a rolling basis - so you are earning money from the first one while units 2 and 3 are being built.



These features reduce the risk and the sunk capital and lower the cost per unit output.


A system such as I have outlined would supply energy reliably and at reasonable cost while being low-Carbon and under our control.


The interconnectors could be used to export energy and thus make a profit rather than relying on imports which reduces security of supply and costs more.

Complicated stuff. The land mass you'd need to dedicate to that would seem to be huge. Can see us profiting from exported 'leccy using the right mix alright.


Just looking at the 1500MW figure for wind pumped hydro. I'd imagine that would come from 3 or 4 different projects?

Neewbie_noob

BOHtox wrote: »

it's pronounced nu-cular

Ahem .. my signature

Measure Twice

squod wrote: »

Complicated stuff. The land mass you'd need to dedicate to that would seem to be huge. Can see us profiting from exported 'leccy using the right mix alright.

The only parts of the proposed generation mix I outlined that require an extensive land mass would be the wind turbines and the land for growing the biomass.. The others are either offshore or are energy intensive so consume less space per useful amount of energy produced.

We already have sufficient wind capacity built and more on the way, while the biomass figure is already included in our renewable energy strategy, which is claimed to be on target.

But the official studies show that even if we quadrupled our wind capacity (up to 6,000 MW installed), we would still be using the interconnector to import energy for 86% of the time. We would only export for 3% of the time. Not likely to be a big earner, I'm afraid, especially as would be exporting at times of high wind and low value while we would be importing during low wind and high value periods.

squod wrote: »

Just looking at the 1500 MW figure for wind pumped hydro. I'd imagine that would come from 3 or 4 different projects?

Spirit of Ireland were originally planning on a station size of 1,000 MW. As we have nearly 300 MW of pumped storage already in Ireland, I imagine the extra 1200 MW would require no more than extra 2 stations.

Measure Twice

opinion guy wrote: »

I don't know about you but I don't trust the powers at be to make such decisions.

I understand how you could have that opinion.

Can I offer 2 consoling thoughts, though?

Firstly; this is a question of power generation and we in Ireland have a fairly good track record in this regard. We should have confidence in our ability to successfully run high-tech operations as we already do in the areas of power generation, pharmaceuticals and IT, to name but a few.

Secondly; if our solution involves nuclear power, it is also regulated by international treaties such as Euratom and are advised by organisations such as the IAEA and WANO (International Atomic Energy Agency, World Association of Nuclear Operators.

It may surprise you to learn that there is already quite an amount of expertise in Ireland to do with matters nuclear (including radioactivity) and not all to do with nuclear power stations.

opinion guy

Measure Twice wrote: »

I understand how you could have that opinion.

Can I offer 2 consoling thoughts, though?

Firstly; this is a question of power generation and we in Ireland have a fairly good track record in this regard. We should have confidence in our ability to successfully run high-tech operations as we already do in the areas of power generation, pharmaceuticals and IT, to name but a few.

Secondly; if our solution involves nuclear power, it is also regulated by international treaties such as Euratom and are advised by organisations such as the IAEA and WANO (International Atomic Energy Agency, World Association of Nuclear Operators.

It may surprise you to learn that there is already quite an amount of expertise in Ireland to do with matters nuclear (including radioactivity) and not all to do with nuclear power stations.

Our banking industry was governed by all kinds of regulations both domestic and international/EU. We all know how well that went.

Measure Twice

opinion guy wrote: »

Our banking industry was governed by all kinds of regulations both domestic and international/EU. We all know how well that went.

Yes, but this nothing to do with how badly banking was regulated.

This is a question of power generation and we in Ireland have a fairly good track record in this regard. We should have confidence in our ability to successfully run high-tech operations as we already do in the areas of power generation, pharmaceuticals and IT, to name but a few.

Capt'n Midnight

Measure Twice wrote: »

Firstly; this is a question of power generation and we in Ireland have a fairly good track record in this regard. We should have confidence in our ability to successfully run high-tech operations as we already do in the areas of power generation, pharmaceuticals and IT, to name but a few.

Eircom
garda pulse system
decentralisation
Mad cow roundabout
Luas lines not joined / integrated ticket

Yes we have a good record, but for nuclear we'd have to import the expertise and everything apart from the aggregate and the limestone used to make the cement. It's like wind or wave or peat or control systems or planning where we could use the expertise abroad.

The biggest cost with nuclear is financing.
And our track record on financial regulation is scary. Quinn group is just PMPA all over again. Look at our record on awarding contracts. The private M50 bridge cost 1/10th what the public roads leading to it cost, and the public will spend over a billion to buy it back. Century radio is still going through the courts. Irish bottle site. The list goes on and on. IIRC the cost of the metro at one stage was going to be the same as the financing and insurance costs (!) for the project.


This is Ireland, it's hard to keep snouts out of troughs.
And a project that won't see the light of day for 16 years would be a feeding frenzy with the main players safely retired and scapegoats found even if they couldn't drag it out for years. Look at the mis management of the semi states because of political appointees 'jobs for the boys'

Secondly; if our solution involves nuclear power, it is also regulated by international treaties such as Euratom and are advised by organisations such as the IAEA and WANO (International Atomic Energy Agency, World Association of Nuclear Operators.

Fukushima wasn't the first nuclear plant to experience failure because the seawall wasn't tall enough to cater for historical events at it's site.

A recent EU report show that €25Bn needs to be spent on safety at nuclear plants, including measures agreed in the 1990's but not yet implemented.

Those regulators have failed.
You might as well have comreg or our financial regulators or FÁS. Look at Clare Hall or the whole Pyrites thing.

Measure Twice

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Eircom
garda pulse system
decentralisation
Mad cow roundabout
Luas lines not joined / integrated ticket

Yes we have a good record, but for nuclear we'd have to import the expertise and everything apart from the aggregate and the limestone used to make the cement. It's like wind or wave or peat or control systems or planning where we could use the expertise abroad.

The biggest cost with nuclear is financing.
And our track record on financial regulation is scary. Quinn group is just PMPA all over again. Look at our record on awarding contracts. The private M50 bridge cost 1/10th what the public roads leading to it cost, and the public will spend over a billion to buy it back. Century radio is still going through the courts. Irish bottle site. The list goes on and on. IIRC the cost of the metro at one stage was going to be the same as the financing and insurance costs (!) for the project.


This is Ireland, it's hard to keep snouts out of troughs.
And a project that won't see the light of day for 16 years would be a feeding frenzy with the main players safely retired and scapegoats found even if they couldn't drag it out for years. Look at the mis management of the semi states because of political appointees 'jobs for the boys'

Fukushima wasn't the first nuclear plant to experience failure because the seawall wasn't tall enough to cater for historical events at it's site.

A recent EU report show that €25Bn needs to be spent on safety at nuclear plants, including measures agreed in the 1990's but not yet implemented.

Those regulators have failed.
You might as well have comreg or our financial regulators or FÁS. Look at Clare Hall or the whole Pyrites thing.

How do you live in a country of which you have such a low opinion, and what are you doing about it?

Following your logic, we should immediately shut down ESB, Airtricity, Aughinish, BGE and all the other power generators as they are ticking time bombs. And then the whole pharmaceutical industry should go too, I suppose? Think of the dangers if they were run by the kind of people you appear to imagine are involved.

But they are not.

Instead of throwing half-baked crap around at all and sundry, as you have done in recent posts here, why don't you tell us how you think our electricity should be supplied?

Capt'n Midnight

Measure Twice wrote: »

How do you live in a country of which you have such a low opinion, and what are you doing about it?

I don't have a low opinion of the country.

I have a very poor opinion of the political appointees.

The celtic tiger was a once in a life time opportunity to bring quality of life here up to continental levels. Instead we spent it all on overpriced construction and got saddled with a generation of debt. The description fits many nuclear plants too.

Instead of throwing half-baked crap around at all and sundry, as you have done in recent posts here, why don't you tell us how you think our electricity should be supplied?

Yeah that is a big problem. The people who support nuclear have to explain where we are getting power from for the next decade and a half. And have to explain it in a way that still makes massive investments in nuclear sound sane.

In the short term it will be mostly gas. We will continue to add more renewables. Interconnectors will become more important all across Europe. If there were suitable mines and the economics were right then CAES powered by renewables could complement CCGT. I'd like to see that 300MW tidal project up North up and running.

Hopefully in the next 16 years we'll get a bit smarter with load balancing of the peak demand. There are many game changing technologies waiting in the wings. I'm not talking about making fuel from fresh air. That's easy. Doing it economically is a little more difficult.

If we go nuclear we'll still need to keep our existing fossil fuel plants as a backup.

BOHtox

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Ahem .. my signature

I, like most normal people, have signatures turned off!!!