Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Energy infrastructure

13637394142172

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,490 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui




  • Posts: 0 Gwen Damaged Pita


    Google is there to answer any questions you may have.

    Let us know how you get on



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    dubhthach, yes, when we talk about using "batteries" in the grid, there is actually about a dozen different battery technologies / chemistries in the running to win this market.

    At the moment, Lithium Ion has been used, simply because it is already produced at scale (for electronics and cars) and thus easy to buy for projects that replace gas peakers. While Lithium Ion may not be the cheapest battery tech, that is less important when it is still so much cheaper then gas peakers already!

    However the next step for battery tech will be possibly displacing Gas CCGT plants for multiple days, to meet those lower prices, other battery techs like Iron-Air batteries may prove a better fit.

    For those who don't know, Lithium Ion is used in electronics, EV's, etc. because it is the most energy dense chemistry. That is important in something small like a phone, laptop, etc. But energy density isn't really important at grid scale storage, so other tech's that are cheaper or last longer, etc. may end up being used instead.

    Apogee, I'm not sure we really need an LNG terminal, etc. It doesn't really make sense to blow 600m on this when it looks like we have other much cleaner technologies are advancing so quickly. It feels like a desperate attempt by the gas industry to try and remain relevant as they see their market being eaten away by competitiors. It feels like they want to try and lock us into another 30 to 40 years of polluting gas production, which we just don't need.

    I feel if we build this, it will end up as another stranded asset like Moneypoint.



  • Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    That is a very open question - Do you include Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island or just facilities where it is stored correct for now?

    As this waste is highly toxic for thousands of years who can be sure that what is safe now, will be safe in 3021, 4021, 5021.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,490 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    So you couldn't find an answer either. That tells us how many there are, which is probably near zero, unlike the wind power industry, which has a fairly poor mortality and injury rate.


    Germany is in a right energy pickle, they appear unable to build out any more renewable generation capacity while the cost of the existing renewables push has made their energy costs for consumers, the highest in Europe. So much for renewables being cheap.

    "In a stunning admission, the German Government recently announced that its transition to Renewable Energy was, “On the Verge of Failure.” This blunt statement was released by Germany’s Economic Minister and Vice Chancellor to Angela Merkel, Sigmar Gabriel at an event at SMA Solar… Germany’s leading manufacturer of Solar technology." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-22/germany-flirts-with-power-crunch-in-nuclear-and-coal-exit?srnd=premium-europe



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,490 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    An Australian scientist came up with a process to deal with nuclear waste in 1978 that was further developed by Australia's very competent CSIRO. The process is called Synroc. It takes high level nuclear waste and incorporates them into a very stable ceramic/glass, which is geochemically as stable as the rock nuclear materials are originally mined from. In such form, there simply is no leaching of nuclear material by groundwater. There are many geologically stable places on earth where Synroc nuclear waste could be stored. The problem isn't really technical, it's nimbyism and politics. It's funny how people run around like headless chooks at t he thought of all things radiation, but if they are sick, they are more than happy to benefit from x-rays and nuclear isotopes if they think they will help in extending their lives, which they do.

    Death toll from Fukashima radiation appears to be one. Chernobyl is around 30, but is such a crock of faeces as a negative reason as it's like saying the west shouldn't build bridges because some incompetently built and maintained bridge in Russia collapsed.

    Speaking of which, I would bet 10,000 times as many people have died from the action of rust, than anything to do with nuclear energy, but due to endless fear mongering about all things nuclear, the perception is that rust isn't a dangerous problem, while radiation is.

    Post edited by cnocbui on


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Given that the cost of building a single new reactor in a pre-existing Nuclear plant stands at aroung 20 Billion in Europe and would likely cost closer to 30 Billion in Ireland (need to build surrounding facilities, etc.), it simply wouldn't make any economic sense, nor would it be sensible for a grid as small and disconnected as Ireland.

    All the safety and waste talk is beside the point, current Nuclear tech is simply too expensive and unsuited to Ireland.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,490 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Rolls-Royce believe that they can build small modular nuclear reactors that output 470 megawatts, for £2 Bn. The big change is that a standard design and factory built modular approach would be far cheaper than the bespoke large scale custom builds that have characterised past nuclear power stations. They sound so confident that I'm sure they would be happy to build the first few ordered on a fixed cost basis.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Sounds great, but I'll believe it when I see it. Companies have been promising such modular reactors for decades. If Rolls-Royce actually deliver on it and install multiple reactors throughout the UK, then I'd look at it, until that happens, I wouldn't give it much credence.

    BTW £2bn for 470 megawatts is terrible value for money! The Celtic Interconnector will cost €1bn and give us 700MW of lovely French Nuclear power, plus the ability to export/sell excess wind power to the French, half the price and almost double the capacity. [1]

    Also 2bn is just for the reactor, you'd still have to buy the land, build the power plant and surrounding facilities, etc. You'd almost certainly need a few extra billion for Ireland, given we have no existing facilities.

    It really doesn't make any sense for us. I'm not anti-nuclear, I can't wait until the Celtic Interconnector is built and we are using French Nuclear power, but the economics of Nuclear directly in Ireland really don't make sense for us.

    [1] As an interesting aside, the EU are covering 60% of the cost of the interconnector, with the French ponying up 35% of it. So it is even better value for money for us. Also they are also going to lay more fibre optic cables for Internet at the same time.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    One dumping ground for the ol glow in the dark was the Beaufort Dyke. Along with toxic gas, phosphorous weapons and a million tonnes of munitions mostly left over after WWII. ( It's one of the reasons why a bridge/tunnel from NI to Scotland is unlikely , that and a lack of infrastructure on the Scottish side. ) The clean up for Calder Hall / Windscale / Sellafield / AKA whatever is estimated to cost £100Bn from the bomb days. ( The general area will include Moorfield )


    I'm happy enough about the highly radioactive waste. That stuff is really nasty but decays fast so short of the UK govt being controlled by complete morons it will remain safe for the foreseeable future. The medium stuff is the big worry, nasty enough but over a timescale longer than empires.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,580 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    You slag off the potential of modular nuclear units yet you appear to have no problem with the many cost, reliability and waste issues associated with the shoe horning unproven battery and wind tech onto a grid??



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,580 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    The ones here who like putting out hysteria about nuclear have no answer to that as there is little or no evidence to back up their doom mongering on the subject. They then resort to irrelevant nonsense like the situation at Chernobyl(ironically whose environs currently host some of the most impressive wildlife assemblages in Europe!!)



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    I'm not slagging off modular nuclear reactors, I really hope they are successful! But I've been hearing about them for decades, so I remain cautious about them coming to fruition.

    Here is what an expert in the field has to say about Rolls-Royces plans:

    "And there are other reasons to question the SMR concept, says Prof MV Ramana of the University of British Columbia in Canada. He is a physicist and an expert on nuclear energy policy who has studied small modular reactors.

    He said UK SMR's 10-year time-scale for its first plant may prove optimistic. The one constant in the history of the nuclear industry to date is that big new concepts never come in on time and budget, he said.

    He is sceptical that the factory concept can deliver significant cost savings given the complexity and scale of even a small nuclear plant. Smaller plants will have to meet the same rigorous safety standards as big ones, he points out.

    He said that where the concept has been tried elsewhere - in the US and China, for example - there have been long delays and costs have ended up being comparable to those of large nuclear power stations.

    Finally, he questioned whether there will be a market for these plants by the 2030s, when UK SMR says the first will be ready.

    "Ten years from now, the competition will be renewables which are going to be far cheaper with much better storage technology than we have today," said Prof Ramana."

    So, yes, lets see how it goes for the UK, if it works for them, great, but if they can't do it with all their experience in Nuclear power, we certainly can't.

    And frankly the economics of these modular reactors looks very poor compared to the other options available to us like interconnectors, etc.

    As for wind and batteries being unproven!

    Wind has been around for decades and now generates over 40% of out electricity, it is well proven by now.

    Lithium Ion batteries [1] too, been around for decades and well proven by now, ironically there is likely one sitting right in the device you are reading this message on.

    [1] I'd readily admit other battery techs like Iron-Air, etc. are less proven and still developing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,410 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Where would you propose putting a nuclear power station in Ireland ?

    Or if we went with several smaller / system built reactors where would we put them - ?

    And yes - Chernobyl is a fantastic wildlife reserve - because the people were all excluded - try suggesting to a population in Ireland that any industry in their midst is fine because if it all goes tits up it'll make a wonderful wildlife reserve -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,859 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    On a day like today with a relatively low amount of on shore wind, (turbines weren’t turning for a few hours in enniscrone) and the high pressure sitting over us, due to stay for a while, I wonder what the conditions are like 10km out to sea, where they plan to build moneypoint 1+2?


    Do we know what wind speed (and hence the kwh potential) that can be generated during prolonged weather like this, with the tallest turbines available and 10km out to sea?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,580 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    The only reason wind power is still around is thanx to cash supports via the likes of RESS and the lobbying power of it big players - its near constant need for backup and poor performance during peak demand times makes your 40% figure rather meaningless. As for batteries - comparing I-phone batteries to whats needed at grid scale is laughable!!🙄



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,580 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    The French must be right idiots then - though last time I checked civilisation as we know it had not ceased there despite their low CO2 nuclear driven grid.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Hundreds of small modular reactors have been build since the 1950's, generally trouble free. There's a load of them in Trench 94. https://columbiainsight.org/spent-naval-nuclear-reactors-part-of-hanfords-complicated-issues/

    Come back to us when someone builds an economic one. Or one that doesn't use fuel enriched to a level that would cause weapons concern.

    It's been done. Wasn't cost effective. Unless there's a breakthrough in fission physics, and there hasn't been since the 1940's, you can ignore any attempt from the nuclear industry to sprinkle turds with glitter. Same goes for over unity breeder reactors, thorium, molten salt and pebble bed etc. too.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    LOL, "Big Wind" conspiracy is it!!! 🤣

    There competitor are the Oil and gas industry, the biggest and richest industry in the world and one with decades of experience of lobbying governments. By comparison the wind industry is nothing, a young small startup by comparison. The fact that wind is easily beating out the oil and gas industry with all their wealth and lobbying experience, just shows how cost effective wind has become. It is so cheap now, even without subsidies, that the energy generation industry and governments can't ignore it.

    And yes, the battery in you iPhone is literally the same as ends up in grid scale batteries. It is just scaled up to a larger size. You do know that for the the first model S and X, all simply used the 18650 cells. The 18650 cell is a cylinder battery a bit larger then an AA battery, that was used for decades in laptops. Tesla literally used the same battery, they just use more of them. While an old laptop might have 3 or 4 of them, a Tesla Model S has over 4,000+ of them. Literally the same thing, just use more [1]

    [1] For their newer cars, Model 3 and Y, they have moved to a slightly larger 2170 cell, but still the same thing, still uses the same chemistry, just in a slightly larger cell. Though Tesla are planning to move to a much larger 4680 cell and they plan to use three different battery chemistries depending on the application. For the cheaper Tesla's and their grid scale batteries, they are swapping to lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP), it is less energy dense, but cheaper to make and much more stable, with a vastly higher recharge life, perfect for grid scale batteries.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,757 ✭✭✭Apogee




  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    "Discussion with Prof John Fitzgerald on Irish electricity infrastructure on Pat Kenny Show"

    Funnily enough, the Professor says almost word for word what I've been saying about Nuclear! He isn't in anyway opposed to Nuclear, but the cost and size of the big European EPR reactors is simply too expensive and doesn't fit our small grid (need lots of backup). Modular is interesting, but still in R&D, with non commercially available, should take a look again 10 years from now when the first actually start to get produced, though still need to look at the economics. The interconnectors to France, etc. make lots of sense for us and are very good value for money.

    He also had an interesting point on how unreliable our grid use to be back in the 70's and 80's and now we actually have one of the most reliable grids. Despite potential issues and concerns, Eirgrid has done a great job in creating a very reliable grid, even with lots of wind, etc.

    BTW The professor did a great job at side stepping Pat's nonsense and answered the questions well without making it too obvious that Pat was wrong, a very good example of professional communications.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Modular is interesting, but still in R&D, with non commercially available, should take a look again 10 years from now when the first actually start to get produced, though still need to look at the economics.

    Modular reactors have been in series production since the 1950's so what R&D is needed ? I keep pointing out that nuclear fission physics was well understood in the 1940's so nothing new there. Developments in material science benefit other generators especially thermal so nuclear won't pull ahead of the pack that way.

    Please explain how they are shortly going to make ancient tech economic in the face of falling renewable costs ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Ok here is an article about the long term effects of radiation that was identified in Hiroshima and Nagaski.

    Though exposure to radiation can cause acute, near-immediate effect by killing cells and directly damaging tissue, radiation can also have effects that happen on longer scale, such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells. Mutations can occur spontaneously, but a mutagen like radiation increases the likelihood of a mutation taking place. In theory, ionizing radiation can deposit molecular-bond-breaking energy, which can damage DNA, thus altering genes. In response, a cell will either repair the gene, die, or retain the mutation. In order for a mutation to cause cancer, it is believed that a series of mutations must accumulate in a given cell and its progeny. For this reason, it may be many years after exposure before an increase in the incident rate of cancer due to radiation becomes evident.

    https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki

    So because people don't drop dead immediately after exposure to nuclear waste does not mean that it did not kill them. It will even be killing birds.

    BTW the size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone is the same size as county Galway - put a plant there and it would make be great for animals



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,859 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    Sorry to interrupt the nuclear debate, but can anyone answer this, or link to a study?



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Well while SMR's have been around for decades, they have mostly been produced for military needs, subs, aircraft carriers, etc. and as such aren't particularly suited to civilian power needs.

    I think the only SMR's actually produced for civilian use, are 2 or 3 Russia designs, which are variants of military designs and very small, I think the biggest is just 50MW. Basically only of use to power far flung towns in Siberia.

    What is unique about the Rolls-Royce design is it's size, 440MW, this would be by far the largest SMR ever produced and it is sized to directly compete with natural gas plants that are usually around that size. They are trying to size and cost it to be competitive for normal power generation for normal cities. No one has ever really tried to do that with SMR's before, though now there are a couple of companies around the world trying to do it and proposing designs.

    I agree with you, I'm pretty dubious about it all, in particular the pricing they state, which is still pretty high anyway.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    "Sorry to interrupt the nuclear debate, but can anyone answer this, or link to a study?"

    Same here, I'd love to see some studies on this. The offshore floating wind farm in Scotland has seen excellent results, far beyond onshore farms.

    Purely anecdotal, but I do a lot of hiking. Often it can feel like their is no wind down at ground level, but at the top of mountains, it is almost always blowing a gale! Having gone hiking hundreds of times, I can only think of 2 or 3 times when it wasn't windy at the top. I think most people don't realise how constant the wind is at higher elevations or at sea.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    Although It doesn't directly answer tom1ie's question, you can see live capacity factors separately for on-shore and off-shore wind in Europe here: https://windeurope.org/about-wind/daily-wind/capacity-factors

    Looking at it right now, the average capacity factor for on-shore across Europe is about 25% while off-shore is at about 70%. Ireland (and Portugal) are outliers with about 7% on-shore.

    Unfortunately the UK has decided to not report their numbers any more because of Brexit, which would have provided a more interesting comparison for the Irish numbers.

    Overall what it says to me is that Ireland needs to diversify away from on-shore wind and add plenty of solar and off-shore wind. I think the bumper years for wind (like 2020) are flattering the Irish renewables numbers to an extent. The pace of battery, solar and (offshore) wind deployment seems slow by European standards - for example the Dutch added nearly 1.5GW of off-shore wind capacity last year. To my amateur eye, the bottleneck seems to be getting connected to the grid - plenty of projects (battery, solar and off-shore) are being held up at the ECP process it seems.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Back in the day the USS Enterprise had 8 reactors. But 440MW is smaller than the reactors used on the other US Navy carriers. This isn't new tech. It's about twice the size of the biggest French and Russian naval reactors so nothing to write home about as both could scale up easily.

    The US Navy has accumulated over 6200 reactor-years of accident-free experience involving 526 nuclear reactor cores over the course of 240 million kilometres, without a single radiological incident, over a period of more than 50 years. If the technology was remotely economic it would already be in use. But it's only viable in an expensive niche.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,580 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    And yet Germany with an extensive network of offshore windfarms has seen a surge in conventional power generation due to poor wind generation since the start of the year as highlighted in my earlier link



Advertisement