Ireland and Nuclear Power

Consonata

I know everyone who thinks about Ireland and Nuclear power, Christy Moore and Carnsore point isn't too far from their minds, but isn't it about time we looked into it again.

Nuclear Power has come a long way since Chernobyl and now there is the possibility of using Thorium, a fuel source which is 4 times as abundant and many times as much efficient. Yes, there is a large cost factor to be thought about but if we were able to build one, it would more than cover our energy needs for the moment. We might even be able to close that ghastly Coal plant in Shannon and the Turf-fired plants in Offaly, so we can actually have a fairly eco-friendly energy system.

Apart from the cost, is there any significant arguments against us having a Nuclear Plant.

ted1

Consonata wrote: »

I know everyone who thinks about Ireland and Nuclear power, Christy Moore and Carnsore point isn't too far from their minds, but isn't it about time we looked into it again.

Nuclear Power has come a long way since Chernobyl and now there is the possibility of using Thorium, a fuel source which is 4 times as abundant and many times as much efficient. Yes, there is a large cost factor to be thought about but if we were able to build one, it would more than cover our energy needs for the moment. We might even be able to close that ghastly Coal plant in Shannon and the Turf-fired plants in Offaly, so we can actually have a fairly eco-friendly energy system.

Apart from the cost, is there any significant arguments against us having a Nuclear Plant.

If it goes offline we'll lose 50%+ of our generation

Consonata

ted1 wrote: »

If it goes offline we'll lose 50%+ of our generation

We import 85% of energy as it currently stands. €5.7 Billion is spent on energy imports annually. We would nearly wipe out the construction costs of it within 5 ish years

timmyntc

ted1 wrote: »

If it goes offline we'll lose 50%+ of our generation

Same could be said about all sorts of electricity generation.

If there's no wind in the country we'll lose X%+ of our generation
If our coal plants go offline...
etc

Nuclear plants, like many methods of electricity generation, aren't designed to 'go offline' just like that.
Only with very poor management, serious human error and lots of cutting corners would something like that happen

Mind you, we are in Ireland...

Sam Russell

We cannot build Dart Underground, nor Metro North, nor can we even agree where to build a National Children's Hospital let alone build it. How long did Tallaght Hospital take to build?

I think the Nuclear Option means other things to most politicians - so no chance.

domrush

Sam Russell wrote: »

We cannot build Dart Underground, nor Metro North, nor can we even agree where to build a National Children's Hospital let alone build it. How long did Tallaght Hospital take to build?

I think the Nuclear Option means other things to most politicians - so no chance.

Would construction of such a project be put in the hands of the government or a semi state such as ESB? They do have a better track record at getting things done

Sam Russell

domrush wrote: »

Would construction of such a project be put in the hands of the government or a semi state such as ESB? They do have a better track record at getting things done

Yes, they do. However, such a project would run into all sorts of competition rules that could well kill it unless it was funded outside of any Government control.

Would they ask for tenders, or suggest it would get priority status?

How long would construction take?

What about the 'Nuclear to Sea' or 'NoNuclear' protesters that would spring out of the undergrowth? Would Christie Moore agree not to sing about it?

It would have to be built near Moneypoint to use the existing Rirgrid infrastructure.

Markcheese

timmyntc wrote:

Nuclear plants, like many methods of electricity generation, aren't designed to 'go offline' just like that. Only with very poor management, serious human error and lots of cutting corners would something like that happen

Dont nuclear power plants (like all other power plants) go offline all the time, in fact I think they go off line more often because the safety margins are tighter..
Plus you need spinning reserve to equal your biggest generator.. so even if you built one you'd need something else as big running simultaneously as back up.
They're not cheap, just look at hinkley C,
Yes when thorium reactors become common that may things,but they've been just around the corner for 50 years so dont hold your breath..

plodder

There's been some reports that the European Commission are getting interested in it again.

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160517/1039761181/europe-nuclear-power-plants.html

I personally wouldn't have a problem if the economics could be made to stack up and somebody else agreed to process the waste for us. But, it's hard to see the political system here being able to cope with the idea.

MarkAnthony

A country surrounded by the sea and never a day goes by where it's not blowing a gale and we want to build a Nuclear reactor?

Zebra3

Consonata wrote: »

I know everyone who thinks about Ireland and Nuclear power, Christy Moore and Carnsore point isn't too far from their minds, but isn't it about time we looked into it again.

Nuclear Power has come a long way since Chernobyl and now there is the possibility of using Thorium, a fuel source which is 4 times as abundant and many times as much efficient. Yes, there is a large cost factor to be thought about but if we were able to build one, it would more than cover our energy needs for the moment. We might even be able to close that ghastly Coal plant in Shannon and the Turf-fired plants in Offaly, so we can actually have a fairly eco-friendly energy system.

Apart from the cost, is there any significant arguments against us having a Nuclear Plant.

How close to your house are yourself and other supporters of this project prepared to have this nuclear plant?

Consonata

Thorium is much less dangerous than Uranium plus it leaves next to no nuclear waste left behind. I don't really care where it's built so long as it's not eyesore on the landscape. I know how safe these things are especially considering Irelands Geological position I.e not sitting right on top of a hot earthquake zone. You could build it in a really really low population density area and we only b really need the one. If we had two we would be laughing to the bank at this stage as a major exporter of energy.

ted1

Consonata wrote: »

We import 85% of energy as it currently stands. €5.7 Billion is spent on energy imports annually. We would nearly wipe out the construction costs of it within 5 ish years

We import primary fuel. If we built a nuclear plant it would be about 2GW . If that shut down we could have a brown out or black out. What does importing have to do with my comment?

We would still need to import uranium , plutonium or thorium and more than likely export the waste at a huge cost. Then after several years no one will import the waste and well either need to shut it down or build a waste processing plant

ted1

timmyntc wrote: »

Same could be said about all sorts of electricity generation.


Nuclear plants, like many methods of electricity generation, aren't designed to 'go offline' just like that.
Only with very poor management, serious human error and lots of cutting corners would something like that happen

Mind you, we are in Ireland...

They go offline the whole time, a nuclear plant would have a larger output than the existing plants and that would cause the problem

afatbollix

Its going to cost €50 billion to build the new one in the UK. It will be the most expensive building on earth.

They are decommissioning the first plant in Scotland and that is going to cost over €30 billion. Everything has to be taken apart and put in containers and concrete poured in and will be buried. Everything from gloves to fork lifts have to be buried in concrete and left for our kids to deal with.

Nothing is cheap about Nuclear power.

Water John

Thorium has variable output TMK. I can't remember the response rate but think its quite quick.
We give RE priority of access. Then the Thorium plant takes up the variable slack.
I think that the Govn't/EirGrid might be allowed build it, in that context. It is the base supply.

Consonata

ted1 wrote:

We would still need to import uranium , plutonium or thorium and more than likely export the waste at a huge cost. Then after several years no one will import the waste and well either need to shut it down or build a waste processing plant

As I have said above, Thorium is 4 times as abundant as the others, thus making it much cheaper to import. It produces very little waste because, unlike Uranium which requires a certain isotope within a block of Uranium, you can use almost all of Thorium in the reaction.

It is a cleaner form of energy than much of what we have now. God knows what crap those coal plants and peat plants are belching into the sky.

And as to your first point, it is very unlikely that the whole plant would shut down, it would have back up reactors to continue the power output while others are being serviced.

ted1

Consonata wrote: »

As I have said above, Thorium is 4 times as abundant as the others, thus making it much cheaper to import. It produces very little waste because, unlike Uranium which requires a certain isotope within a block of Uranium, you can use almost all of Thorium in the reaction.

It is a cleaner form of energy than much of what we have now. God knows what crap those coal plants and peat plants are belching into the sky.

And as to your first point, it is very unlikely that the whole plant would shut down, it would have back up reactors to continue the power output while others are being serviced.

Backup generators , backup transformers , backup grid connections ?

Cheaper to import ? What about exporting ? Less waste but still a significantly amount

ted1

My suggestion has always been to co locate a reactor in an existing compound, e,g if Hinckley point eventually gets the go ahead then build a reactor with a DC Link directly into the Irish grid, it would significantly reduce costs and would actually be operational within s few years at giving the go a head

Water John

Thorium reactors are what should have been originally developed but did not suit the military.
I think there was one in USA.
Robert O'Sullivan formerly of UL is very involved in this technology.

Consonata

afatbollix wrote:

They are decommissioning the first plant in Scotland and that is going to cost over €30 billion. Everything has to be taken apart and put in containers and concrete poured in and will be buried. Everything from gloves to fork lifts have to be buried in concrete and left for our kids to deal with.

That plant that you are talking was built when Chernobyl was barely a twinkle in Stalins eye. You surely should see that reactor designs and the way fuel is used has changed radically since then

Consonata

ted1 wrote:

Cheaper to import ? What about exporting ? Less waste but still a significantly amount

It is two orders of magnitude smaller than its Uranium alternative, completely eliminating the need for large scale storage of the waste

ted1

Consonata wrote: »

It is two orders of magnitude smaller than its Uranium alternative, completely eliminating the need for large scale storage of the waste

Define large scale and put a cost to it with references that support it

Water John

Have not watched this, but heard the guy on with PK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IkKzLSthog

Markcheese

Cool , we should build a thorium reactor, where else is there one, how much do they cost... ?

Water John

'Ask not what has been done and why, rather what not has been done and why not.'

But it has been done already.

Nekarsulm

I thought we couldn't build a nuclear power station without a referendum to change some clause written into the Constitution back in the Carnsore Point days?

Water John

Don't remember any ref.
Not to build was the right decision at the time but mainly to do with the tech proposed and the waste issue.

Very little waste from Thorium and gone in a relatively short time frame.
Thus can be stored.

ted1

Water John wrote: »

Don't remember any ref.
Not to build was the right decision at the time but mainly to do with the tech proposed and the waste issue.

Very little waste from Thorium and gone in a relatively short time frame.
Thus can be stored.

"Very little " and "short term" are not quantifiable and indicate you have no real idea what you are talking about.

GarIT

Consonata wrote: »

Apart from the cost, is there any significant arguments against us having a Nuclear Plant.

Ireland's power grid isn't capable of transporting large amounts of power long distances. If we wanted one main power source for the whole country we would need to spend billions on underground cabling or deal with pilon protesters on a huge scale.

Consonata

ted1 wrote: »

"Very little " and "short term" are not quantifiable and indicate you have no real idea what you are talking about.

The fact that you are so sceptical of Thorium shows that "you have no real idea what you are talking about" as you so eloquently put it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx#References

This details it's abundance, it's positives in relation to how difficult it is to turn into a weapon. How it's waste ,U233 can be used again further as a fuel source until the waste quantity is negligible. I'm sure I don't need to quote you the whole article, nor support the validity of the 'World Nuclear Association' as a source.

Consonata

GarIT wrote: »

Consonata wrote: »

Apart from the cost, is there any significant arguments against us having a Nuclear Plant.

Ireland's power grid isn't capable of transporting large amounts of power long distances. If we wanted one main power source for the whole country we would need to spend billions on underground cabling or deal with pilon protesters on a huge scale.

It might be time to remedy that. If we are going to be the gold standard in wind energy, as people seem to be determined to do, we need to improve our power grid generally. It is going to need to be done sometime in the near future as our power usage goes up and our population.

EDIT: and until we get that new upgrade grid up and running, we could export our power to the UK for that time and fund the new grid off the back of it.

Consonata

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A country surrounded by the sea and never a day goes by where it's not blowing a gale and we want to build a Nuclear reactor?

I'm suggesting this mainly because Wind only provided for a small percentage of our energy needs even though we have 126 wind farms nationally. We'd need to heavily invest in off shore wind farms if we were going to truly head in that direction, and I think thorium nuclear energy is a much more beneficial option generally. We need to get over our backwardness about seeing Nuclear as being the great Boogie Man of 90s politics. Plants built now are orders of magnitude different to what they were like when built in the 60s

Wanderer78

I think we may need to look at this again. I'm not convinced our future wind, solar and wave approachs to power supply will actually be sufficient for our needs

armaghlad

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think we may need to look at this again. I'm not convinced our future wind, solar and wave approachs to power supply will actually be sufficient for our needs

Yes. A small island nation of under 5m inhabitants clearly needs nuclear power...

I'm very much convinced the aforementioned would suffice for this country's energy needs, with the right investment.

hsilgnede

1) We don't need it. We should be focusing on the renewable energy that's available to us and developing the tech for the stuff that's nearly there and promising.

2) Show me the politician who will plan it and back it in his own constituency? It's a political non-runner.

3) It's not worth the risk if it all goes tits up. Fukushima.

4) 50 billion? Where's that going to come from. We've already maxed out the national credit card.

cgcsb

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A country surrounded by the sea and never a day goes by where it's not blowing a gale and we want to build a Nuclear reactor?

We can't run 100% on wind power, if we did, we'd need a massive amount of power storage capacity. Nuclear is a good solid option. We could combine wind and nuclear and cease importing energy but the average Irish voter is not intelligent and will just scream chernobyl. Remember FF has gained seats because they decided a few weeks ago they're opposed to water charges, despite their long standing policy of charging for water. Effectively we're an incompetent people.

ted1

Consonata wrote: »

The fact that you are so sceptical of Thorium shows that "you have no real idea what you are talking about" as you so eloquently put it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx#References

This details it's abundance, it's positives in relation to how difficult it is to turn into a weapon. How it's waste ,U233 can be used again further as a fuel source until the waste quantity is negligible. I'm sure I don't need to quote you the whole article, nor support the validity of the 'World Nuclear Association' as a source.

I've actually studied it , can you tell me how many thorium reactors there are in the world ?

Don't include prototypes , only include full scale operational ones

cgcsb

ted1 wrote: »

We import primary fuel. If we built a nuclear plant it would be about 2GW . If that shut down we could have a brown out or black out. What does importing have to do with my comment?

We would still need to import uranium , plutonium or thorium and more than likely export the waste at a huge cost. Then after several years no one will import the waste and well either need to shut it down or build a waste processing plant

The waste is stored in barrels underground. We can easily store it here. The imported uranium would be much less bulky, much cheaper and have 0 green house gas emissions.

ted1

cgcsb wrote: »

The waste is stored in barrels underground. We can easily store it here. The imported uranium would be much less bulky, much cheaper and have 0 green house gas emissions.

And can you put a cost to that bearing in mind it's simply a hole in the ground

cgcsb

ted1 wrote: »

And can you put a cost to that bearing in mind it's simply a hole in the ground

Are you asking me to quantify the actual cost? my point was there's no reason why we can't store waste here, provided we're willing to splash cash on such a plant.

Consonata

armaghlad wrote: »

Yes. A small island nation of under 5m inhabitants clearly needs nuclear power...

I'm very much convinced the aforementioned would suffice for this country's energy needs, with the right investment.

126 Wind Farms nationally, providing less than 15% of our energy needs. Gas is beating it overwhelmingly. We need to take a realistic look at Nuclear.

Water John

I would be for looking at the full range of solutions in the energy field.
The key driver is for the country to become carbon neutral in a safe manner.

From D Connolly's study, Aalborg University, Denmark this means increasing our electricity generation by a factor of 4.

I am not saying it should be nuclear or indeed Thorium. What I am saying is, we should not rule it out.

No doubt we should maximise renewable energy. This has the benefit of reducing our dependence on imported fuel as well as greenhouse gas emissions at zero.

We need an open mind. Who would have said PV Solar would become a real player in Ireland, as it now clearly is going to be.

We have to come up with an integrated system of supply from various sources.
Thorium, variable gas turbines, pumped water storage, new battery tech, can all have a role and tied in with various RE sources, to provide a stable supply.

Consonata

Water John wrote: »

I would be for looking at the full range of solutions in the energy field.
The key driver is for the country to become carbon neutral in a safe manner.

From D Connolly's study, Aalborg University, Denmark this means increasing our electricity generation by a factor of 4.

I am not saying it should be nuclear or indeed Thorium. What I am saying is, we should not rule it out.

No doubt we should maximise renewable energy. This has the benefit of reducing our dependence on imported fuel as well as greenhouse gas emissions at zero.

We need an open mind. Who would have said PV Solar would become a real player in Ireland, as it now clearly is going to be.

We have to come up with an integrated system of supply from various sources.
Thorium, variable gas turbines, pumped water storage, new battery tech, can all have a role and tied in with various RE sources, to provide a stable supply.

+1, I think the fact that we are still burning turf as an electrical energy source, we can all agree is ridiculous. Plus that big dirty coal plant in Shannon.

Water John

One of the prime tasks is either to make Moneypoint almost clean, with newer tech or shut it down.

gctest50

cgcsb wrote: »

The waste is stored in barrels underground. We can easily store it here. The imported uranium would be much less bulky, much cheaper and have 0 green house gas emissions.

There should be a nice bit of uranium in Ireland, well worth mining it

http://i.imgur.com/U44xxEs.jpg


.

K.Flyer

ted1 wrote: »

I've actually studied it , can you tell me how many thorium reactors there are in the world ?

Don't include prototypes , only include full scale operational ones

The reason for the lack of Thorium reactors was due to the U.S. mililtary brass pushing for the development of the Uranium reactors with W.M.D. in mind. So all the R&D financial investments were pushed in that direction, leaving Thorium on the sidelines.

Carawaystick

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A country surrounded by the sea and never a day goes by where it's not blowing a gale and we want to build a Nuclear reactor?

The week leading up to xmas in 2007 was totally calm as was the year before

cgcsb

Carawaystick wrote: »

The week leading up to xmas in 2007 was totally calm as was the year before

Our little patch of the Atlantic Ocean is constantly wild. This resource is currently going to waste.

Jakey Rolling

Carawaystick wrote:

The week leading up to xmas in 2007 was totally calm as was the year before

Ditto during the extreme cold winter of 2009/10 - Eirgrids own data showed one day where there was only 20MW average wind generation out of almost 2000MW installed capacity.

This due to the extended high pressure system over the UK and Ireland causing both cold temps and lack of wind. So the answer is to import (nuclear generated ) electricity from UK via the interconnector?

Even look at last week, where wind generation was as low as 6MW on the 16th, and less than 10% of total capacity for a number of days.

If we are to rely so heavily on renewables, we really need a large scale storage facility to smooth the peaks and troughs in generation.

ted1

K.Flyer wrote: »

The reason for the lack of Thorium reactors was due to the U.S. mililtary brass pushing for the development of the Uranium reactors with W.M.D. in mind. So all the R&D financial investments were pushed in that direction, leaving Thorium on the sidelines.

That's wholly irrelevant , the earlier poster was saying we should build thorium reactors , he neglected the fact that thy are not developed yet.