Is it time to go nuclear?

Beta Ray Bill

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh there's no question, nuclear is extremely complicated and costly, and when it goes wrong, it really goes wrong. Many countries have successful nuclear programs online, we could of course ask them for help. I do suspect economist Steve keen could be right, we won't consider alternatives such as nuclear until it's too late, when we ll start experiencing regular power rationing, he's also not convinced renewables can fill the gap of fossil fuels alone

I get what you are saying, and in order for renewables to work we will need to trade with other EU countries, particularly those which get a lot of Sunlight (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Greece) and those with terrain suitable for Hydro (Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Slovenia, etc)

Buying electricity off other EU countries is totally fine. (we're one big family )

Japan had a successful Nuclear program until 2011
The shocking thing is there were warning signs and reports 1991,2000 and 2008. But they were ignored (Something Ireland is outstanding at doing) I just wouldn't trust it would be built correctly. (Pessimistic f**ker that I am )

CrankyHaus

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I get what you are saying, and in order for renewables to work we will need to trade with other EU countries, particularly those which get a lot of Sunlight (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Greece) and those with terrain suitable for Hydro (Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Slovenia, etc)

Buying electricity off other EU countries is totally fine. (we're one big family )

Japan had a successful Nuclear program until 2011
The shocking thing is there were warning signs and reports 1991,2000 and 2008. But they were ignored (Something Ireland is outstanding at doing) I just wouldn't trust it would be built correctly. (Pessimistic f**ker that I am )

This to me seems like the best long term strategy to balance out periodic shortfalls in output between different renewables. I expect it will be both safer and cheaper than spending several decades to start a nuclear program from scratch (I still think the Germans rushed their nuclear phaseout in a manner which was counter productive).

However how feasible is massive energy transmission across Europe? Genuine question I know nothing about loss rates over long distance power lines or any of the other technical challenges.

Beta Ray Bill

CrankyHaus wrote: »

However how feasible is massive energy transmission across Europe? Genuine question I know nothing about loss rates over long distance power lines or any of the other technical challenges.

Here ya go!
https://www.calculator.net/voltage-drop-calculator.html


10,000 Volts, using 4 Conductors over 10,000km's results in a loss of 4.5% (AC) over a 600 kcmil wire (These are very thick wires BTW)
The higher the voltage, the less loss you have.

Capt'n Midnight

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Here ya go!
https://www.calculator.net/voltage-drop-calculator.html


10,000 Volts, using 4 Conductors over 10,000km's results in a loss of 4.5% (AC) over a 600 kcmil wire (These are very thick wires BTW)
The higher the voltage, the less loss you have.

If you go up to 1.1 million volts then there's even less current
and you can deliver 12 GW 3,293 Km down the line
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-state-grid-corp-crushes-power-transmission-records




As for calculating transmission losses, it's complicated

DC can use the full cross section of a cable to carry current.

But for AC the skin depth of copper or aluminium at 50Hz is only about 10mm. Which is why you have bus bars and overhead cables can have a steel core that doesn't overheat.

Losses are I squared R, so a lot more power is lost at peak demand. (guesstimate 10 times as much ? )
But it's cheaper than using oversized cable the rest of the time.

You can get 50% more power through overhead cables by replacing them with using an alloy with some zirconium in the aluminium because they can stand more heating. You'd have less losses by installing a second transmission line with a second set of cabling but it's a lot more expensive than swapping out the cable and insulators and besides you'd need planning permission for a second set of pylons.

Markcheese

Interconecters are great and they have a definite role... But I dunno is to back up our entire grid Wether it's renewable or nuclear or anything else... (Or in reverse the brits or the French),
Luckily we more less already have our back up, our current generation system... Which if we don't use it much will last for decades longer than originally planned, and if only brought on stream as back up will use very little natural gas, (and emit little carbon..)

unkel

Markcheese wrote: »

Luckily we more less already have our back up, our current generation system... Which if we don't use it much will last for decades longer than originally planned, and if only brought on stream as back up will use very little natural gas, (and emit little carbon..)

That's a good point!

Mr Meanor

Thorium reactor developments 2019

Thorium MSR Foundation
http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/can-the-netherlands-lead-europe-in-tmsr-development

Molten salt irradiation test completed at Petten
http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Molten-salt-irradiation-test-completed-at-Petten


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/05/31/thorcon-advanced-nuclear-reactor-more-than-worth-its-weight-in-salt/

the_syco

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

The fact that we now have cheap (Getting cheaper) solar panels and wind farms means there isn't much point in investing heavily in it at this stage.

How long do solar panels last, and are they much use in Ireland where the sun doesn't shine that much?

knipex

Macha wrote:

Nuclear doesn't contribute to energy independence. We have no indigenous nuclear industry so we would be reliant on a foreign country with foreign expertise and foreign technology to build and run the plant. We'd also be reliant on nuclear fuel from somewhere like Mali.

And we built Ardnacrusha, moneypoint and all those wind turbines using our own expertise and tech ??

Beta Ray Bill wrote:

You're effectively getting the power for free, so it's worth investing it.

That's a dangerous myth. Capital cost of wind and solar is orders of magnitude more expensive than anything else. They require experience, inefficient and co2 heavy backup. They also require massive investment and redesign of our grid to allow for distributed generation. (10's of Billions spent and more to spend)

Beta Ray Bill wrote:

You can get Solar Systems with batteries now

Sure you can with very limited backup and hugely expensive

Beta Ray Bill wrote:

The problem is energy storage for times when it's dark/cloudy or no wind.

Nit solely but it is the single biggest issue with wind and solar.

Markcheese

the_syco wrote: »

How long do solar panels last, and are they much use in Ireland where the sun doesn't shine that much?

As far as I know theres no commercial solar in Ireland ,yet... Plenty of planned schemes though ..

unkel

the_syco wrote: »

How long do solar panels last

Solar panels last many decades. Their performance will degrade somewhat, but that's fairly marginal

the_syco wrote: »

are they much use in Ireland where the sun doesn't shine that much?

Common misconception that you need sun shine for solar PV to work. Also a common misconception that Ireland is not really suitable for solar PV because we are simply too far North. Solar PV works very well in Ireland. We still get about 50% of the production of a solar panel placed in the best location in the world where the sun always shines.

The average house in Ireland consumes 3,500 kWh per year. If you place 12 solar panels (cost about €100 each for just the panels) on a south facing roof of that average house, that household will produce more electricity per year than it consumes.

antoinolachtnai

unkel wrote: »

Solar panels last many decades. Their performance will degrade somewhat, but that's fairly marginal



Common misconception that you need sun shine for solar PV to work. Also a common misconception that Ireland is not really suitable for solar PV because we are simply too far North. Solar PV works very well in Ireland. We still get about 50% of the production of a solar panel placed in the best location in the world where the sun always shines.

The average house in Ireland consumes 3,500 kWh per year. If you place 12 solar panels (cost about €100 each for just the panels) on a south facing roof of that average house, that household will produce more electricity per year than it consumes.

It will.

The issue is that it won’t produce it at the times when it is most needed. Electricity demand is highest on winter evenings, when there is no daylight whatsoever and no PV generation.

PV on a large scale makes some sense if we are to build a lot of large data centres because it will give us an industrial base that an consume the daytime power.

cnocbui

Good thing large data centres only use electricity during daylight hours in summer.

kravmaga

mickuhaha wrote: »

The question of nuclear energy arises again because the coal burning station at Moneypoint, which provides our baseload electricity since 1985, approaches its end of life in 2025. It is possible that the Irish could accept that new nuclear plants are far safer and less damaging to the environment / people then the rest of the options available. We have our own stock pile in the hills of Donegal of plutonium. One nuclear plant could cover all the output of all the wind energy made in Ireland at the most optimal wind making times but constantly. It would make for cheap electricity and push us into hitting our CO2 targets with the EU.

Nuclear power, No thanks.

They tried this in 1979 at Carnsore point in Wexford, a proposal was put forward by the then Government.

See link :https://www.rte.ie/archives/2014/0818/637809-anti-nuclear-rally-at-carnsore-point-1979/

I would not trust Irish companies or contractors to built a Nuclear power plant.

Sure look at all the apartments built during the boom years in the mid 2,000, lots of structural issues with these apartments now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/up-to-92-000-boom-era-apartments-may-have-defects-committee-hears-1.4075666

Im in favour of wind power and wind farms out at sea off the West coast of Ireland

cnocbui

kravmaga wrote: »

Nuclear power, No thanks.

They tried this in 1979 at Carnsore point in Wexford, a proposal was put forward by the then Government.

I would not trust Irish companies or contractors to built a Nuclear power plant.

Sure look at all the apartments built during the boom years in the mid 2,000, lots of structural issues with these apartments now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/up-to-92-000-boom-era-apartments-may-have-defects-committee-hears-1.4075666

Im in favour of wind power and wind farms out at sea off the West coast of Ireland

Would you trust your life to a commercial aircraft maintained in Ireland by an Irish company? Extrapolating from retail housing to commercial anything, let alone nuclear, is a bit silly.

unkel

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It will.

The issue is that it won’t produce it at the times when it is most needed. Electricity demand is highest on winter evenings, when there is no daylight whatsoever and no PV generation.

Same issue with by far the biggest renewable electricity source in Ireland: wind

That's why we need batteries (in the widest possible definition of the word)

Capt'n Midnight

knipex wrote: »

That's a dangerous myth. Capital cost of wind and solar nuclear is orders of magnitude more expensive than anything else. They require experience, inefficient and co2 heavy backup. They also require massive investment and redesign of our grid to allow for distributed generation. (10's of Billions spent and more to spend)

FYP

Like wind nuclear needs long distance connections to where the power is used. Like solar and wind, nuclear needs load balancing to match demand.

In the UK operators of wind and solar have to pay a subsidy to cover running reserve for nuclear because it's the largest point of failure on the grid.


Any more debunked myths you'd like to discuss ?

jbkenn

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FYP

In the UK operators of wind and solar have to pay a subsidy to cover running reserve for nuclear because it's the largest point of failure on the grid.

Really?, have to wonder how France survives, given that the majority of it's power is generated by nuclear, currently 63.61%
Source https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=FR

SlowBlowin

The French - A perfect example of nuclear power in action:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/french-nuclear-power-under-scrutiny-1.87196

antoinolachtnai

unkel wrote: »

Same issue with by far the biggest renewable electricity source in Ireland: wind

That's why we need batteries (in the widest possible definition of the word)

Well the wind at least has a chance of blowing on a winter evening. There is no possibility whatsoever of the sun shining.

antoinolachtnai

cnocbui wrote: »

Good thing large data centres only use electricity during daylight hours in summer.

Well the thing is that if we had 5 GW Of data centres then we would have a much bigger daytime load to absorb this electricity. There is still the problem of covering the evenings, no doubt about it. It may be that offshore wind is a better option.

But without the data centres it is hard to see the point in increasing daytime electricity production.

jbkenn

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well the wind at least has a chance of blowing on a winter evening. There is no possibility whatsoever of the sun shining.

True the wind has some chance of blowing in the evening, just not this evening
Total System demand 3961Mw Total Wind Generation 286Mw
Source http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#roi

Birdnuts

SlowBlowin wrote: »

The French - A perfect example of nuclear power in action:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/french-nuclear-power-under-scrutiny-1.87196

That article is over 20 years old!!:rolleyes: and currently the French have the cheapest and lowest carbon energy system in the EU - which will soon be keeping the lights on here during cold and calm winter nights like this via the new interconnector coming ashore in Cork by 2025

unkel

Birdnuts wrote: »

currently the French have the cheapest and lowest carbon energy system in the EU

In recent years wind has become far cheaper than nuclear.

SlowBlowin

The point of that article is to show the costs that are all too often ignored with nuclear, they just quote running costs and dont include development/accidents and decommissioning.

For an up to date example how about:

EDF unveils plan to ‘restore trust’ in French nuclear industry

"Flamanville is considered a litmus test for next-generation European Pressurised Reactor technology, which supporters say will be a bigger, safer and more efficient type of nuclear plant.

But the plant’s construction, which was supposed to last four-and-a-half years, is now expected to take 15 years to complete at about four times its originally projected cost of €3.3bn. This follows problems such as faulty weldings.

Once a leader in atomic power, France will not decide whether to build more EPRs until Flamanville is up and running.

To address the sector-wide issues identified in October’s damning report, EDF will seek to change how risks are shared with suppliers and set up a college dedicated to “nuclear disciplines” where there are shortages, such as welding."


https://www.ft.com/content/9a33d12a-1da5-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

cnocbui

unkel wrote: »

In recent years wind has become far cheaper than nuclear.

Where are you getting your data? The worlds largest offshore wind farm, due for completion next year, has the UK government forking out £158.75/MWh when the wholesale price average is £45/MWh. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/hornsea-offshore-wind-farm-opens-at-huge-cost-to-energy-customers/

People who trumpet supposedly low green energy production costs, usually forget to add on the cost of the backup energy infrastructure needed due to their woeful intermittency.

Here's the hourly average electricity generation for the UK Wind and Nuclear sectors last month"



The spiky blue one is wind, of course.

knipex

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FYP

Like wind nuclear needs long distance connections to where the power is used. Like solar and wind, nuclear needs load balancing to match demand.

In the UK operators of wind and solar have to pay a subsidy to cover running reserve for nuclear because it's the largest point of failure on the grid.


Any more debunked myths you'd like to discuss ?

So your saying what I said was incorrect ??

Would you like to discuss a figure on the cost per MW installed of wind turbines ?
How about load factor ? And how the installed capacity has nonrelation to actual output ?
Or grid connection cost ?
Or the cost of single cycle gas turbine plants to back them up ? Or about how much less efficent they are than dual cycle ??
Or discuss the life expectancy of a wind turbine ?
Or the rare eqrth metals used in their construction ? thousands of tonnes of concrete ? Bog lands destroyed to install them and put in the roads ?

Or would you prefer to brush it off by doing a smart ass edit of my post and acting as if it makes you intelligent ??

cnocbui

SlowBlowin wrote: »

The point of that article is to show the costs that are all too often ignored with nuclear, they just quote running costs and dont include development/accidents and decommissioning.

For an up to date example how about:

EDF unveils plan to ‘restore trust’ in French nuclear industry

"Flamanville is considered a litmus test for next-generation European Pressurised Reactor technology, which supporters say will be a bigger, safer and more efficient type of nuclear plant.

But the plant’s construction, which was supposed to last four-and-a-half years, is now expected to take 15 years to complete at about four times its originally projected cost of €3.3bn. This follows problems such as faulty weldings.

Once a leader in atomic power, France will not decide whether to build more EPRs until Flamanville is up and running.

To address the sector-wide issues identified in October’s damning report, EDF will seek to change how risks are shared with suppliers and set up a college dedicated to “nuclear disciplines” where there are shortages, such as welding."


https://www.ft.com/content/9a33d12a-1da5-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

The delays and cost blow-outs in the nuclear energy sector are almost entirely due to politicians and government regulatory quicksand.

knipex

unkel wrote: »

Common misconception that you need sun shine for solar PV to work..

So they work in the dark now ??

It's not a misconception, it's a fact.. It was dark at 8am this morning when I walked into work and it was dark at 4:30 when I walked out..

SlowBlowin

cnocbui wrote: »

The delays and cost blow-outs in the nuclear energy sector are almost entirely due to politicians and government regulatory quicksand.

I agree with you, nuclear power is riddled with extra costs and delays, and these costs are seldom included in "running costs".

Unfortunately due to the potential extreme dangers involved with nuclear power generation, when done in a sloppy fashion, I can't see a way round regulation of the strictest kind.