Energy infrastructure

CatInABox

I can see us going for wind in a big way, with more interconnectors to France and the UK to utilise their nuclear power.

cgcsb

Too late to go nuclear now, if we done it in the 70s we'd probably have carbon neutral electricity by now but we didn't because of English hippies / English coal industry intervention, we got the coal fired moneypoint instead. New nuclear is now too expensive and mini reactors haven't become commercially available as promised. Investment in storage interconnection and off shore wind seems to be the best solution available right now although that will not provide 0 carbon generation of electricity, it's best that can be done with current technology and finance. ITER doesn't look like it's going to solve our problems soon either and probably best if it doesn't right now for economic reasons.

Sam Russell

Nuclear was never an answer for Ireland because we could not use more than one reactor, and one would be too much of a security risk - what happens if it has to shut down?

Then there is the question of the long term cost of it, the waste produce, and the cost of processing and storing it. In the 1970s, the nuclear idea was sold on the idea that the electricity would be so cheap, it would not be metered - absolute nonsense. Of course, Windscale became Sellafield following a nuclear accident, and had to have a name change to hide behind.

In the 1970s, nuclear energy was an offshoot of nuclear bombs, which of course, was nothing to do with us.

No we were right to reject it.

Nuclear is fine but don't try to paint it as a green alternative without showing how the waste will be taken care of in a safe and sustainable way.

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

Nuclear is fine but don't try to paint it as a green alternative without showing how the waste will be taken care of in a safe and sustainable way.

Honestly I don't believe waste is as big a problem as it is made out to be by some. The amount of waste per person is a fraction of what is produced by coal/oil/gas and you can just bury it. Much better then pumping radioactive output of coal straight into the atmosphere!

However I do agree that the current form of Nuclear power isn't suited to Ireland given it's very high cost and our relatively small sized grid and putting all the eggs in one basket.

Interconnectors to British and French Nuclear makes a lot more sense for us IMO.

cgcsb

There was a lot of chat 5-10 years ago about smaller reactors, zero or very little waste with low decommissioning costs but nothing seems to have happened. A lot of the investment into energy is going into finding more efficiencies, renewables, storage and hydrogen. Nuclear fission is old news I suppose.

Capt'n Midnight

cgcsb wrote: »

There was a lot of chat 5-10 years ago about smaller reactors, zero or very little waste with low decommissioning costs but nothing seems to have happened.

Small modular reactors are a mature technology that haven't been commercialised. At present the US navy leaves theirs in Tench 94.

Lloyd's Register shows about 200 nuclear reactors at sea, and that some 700 have been used at sea since the 1950s

gjim

plodder wrote: »

If we don't go for nuclear then we will be relying on gas for replacing wind when it's not available. Which means the recent court decision against the Shannon LNG terminal is disappointing.

Nuclear is no good at filling in for the fluctuations of wind generation and the like apparently. Nuclear is used mainly for base-load - as the reactors are more or less designed to provide steady constant output.

There are some designs which can ramp up/down production in the scale of an hour - others can take nearly a day. And each ramp up/down is not as simple as turning a switch apparently - and can stress the reactor depending on the type.

I think gas will be needed for the foreseeable future probably fronted by some batteries to give the gas plant time to warm up.

This is kinda irrelevant to your point but I found it interesting that the prices for large grid-scale batteries continues to fall at an impressive rate.

I mean nowhere near enough to economically store, say a day's worth of electricity for the country. My fag-packet calculations: Tesla is quoting $300 per KWh capacity for their megapacks which including servicing over the 15 year life span and I think about 70GWh is used per day in Ireland - which would require spending $21B. That's of course never going to fly but what's interesting is seeing how prices are dropping - this is about half the cost compared to what I remember calculating a year or two ago.

On the other hand flow battery systems - like vanadium flow batteries - have been piloted which should be even cheaper as they can get get 3-5 times the number of cycles - the companies backing this tech claim each KWh round-trip will cost around 4c US compared to about 20c (US) per KWh round trip for Elon's megapack.

magicbastarder

this is a bit of an off the ball question - what provides the power to keep mains water pressurised? if it's electric pumps, they must use masses of power?

loyatemu

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is a bit of an off the ball question - what provides the power to keep mains water pressurised? if it's electric pumps, they must use masses of power?

Gravity?

There are water towers around the place (big one near the airport) - these are supposedly to improve water pressure. I assume they pump the water into them using off-peak leccy. Our mains come from Roundwood ultimately, which is 300 metres higher up than here.

magicbastarder

yeah, i was wondering the same - but as you mentioned, to get the head of pressure, the water has to be pumped up into those towers anyway - and that one near the airport (assuming you mean the one beside the M50) is probably the one giving us the head of pressure where i live.

hans aus dtschl

They can be reasonably low power because the head pressure comes from gravity though. Usage varies wildly through the day but pumping is 24 hours.

cruizer101

Water towers aren't exactly to increase pressure.
Rather they act as a kind of battery/capacitor to balance flow.
Say you have an area that uses 24,000m3 of water a day. So in theory you need to feed that with 1,000m3 per hour from your reservoir. However the reality is between 7 and 9 in the morning it might use 8,000 as everyone gets up and flushes toilet and has shower so the pressure will drop for people as you can only supply 1000 via the pipe from reservoir.
This is where the water tower comes in. You feed it with 1000 per hour and let it handle the demand spikes and ebbs. So it will fill-up overnight and go down during the day.

I have heard the one near the m50 and Dublin airport is empty for some reason, but that might just be a rumour.

In general I think the bulk of pressure is from height but there are booster pumps also used.

bk

bk wrote: »

Honestly I don't believe waste is as big a problem as it is made out to be by some. The amount of waste per person is a fraction of what is produced by coal/oil/gas and you can just bury it.

Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor.

Saying "you can just bury it" glosses over the many, MANY issues with even doing that. The US alone has 2,200 tons of it annually and has no idea what to do with it. Its literally spread all over the country being stored in casks until they can think of something to do with it.



They even spent 9 billion and 30 odd years setting up Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a storage solution and it has yet to receive a single barrel of waste and even if they opened it tomorrow it's capacity is insufficient for even the existing waste nevermind future waste.

Imagine trying to identify a storage location in Ireland for Nuclear waste, we can barely get an incinerator approved ffs

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine trying to identify a storage location in Ireland for Nuclear waste, we can barely get an incinerator approved ffs

it's not even down to the planning process; america has vast open empty spaces which you'd never find in ireland. look at the size of wyoming on that map; it has a population of about half a million.

riddlinrussell

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine trying to identify a storage location in Ireland for Nuclear waste, we can barely get an incinerator approved ffs

Funnily enough there was a bit of furore last year as Britain had identified under the Mournes as a possible good Nuclear Waste Storage site, so there is a slim possibility Ireland could end up with stored nuclear waste without a reactor anyway...

Apogee

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is a bit of an off the ball question - what provides the power to keep mains water pressurised? if it's electric pumps, they must use masses of power?

A mixture I'd imagine - gravity + pumps.

Kerryman wrote:

With Kerry County Council's water services department accounting for over 60 per cent of council expenditure on electricity, the project focussed on improving efficiencies and reducing electricity costs. Kerry County Council's Energy Officer, Willie Moynihan, explained that pumping of water constitutes the majority of the electrical demand, so Kerry County Council's Energy Office implemented a programme of works, including the installation of high-efficiency pumps and motors, which greatly reduce the demand on electricity. "In addition, a 250kW hydroelectric generator was installed at the Lough Guitane pump station in 2001," he explained."The electricity generated through this has been used in the Central Regional Water Supply Scheme Pumping Station, and since 2001, it has generated over €600,000 of electricity."

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/county-councils-innovation-gets-due-rewards-at-awards-27378446.html

A number of treatment plants are currently installing solar panels:
https://www.water.ie/projects-plans/renewable-energy-project/
https://www.water.ie/projects-plans/renewable-energy-project-1/

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

Nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after it is no longer useful in a commercial reactor.

Saying "you can just bury it" glosses over the many, MANY issues with even doing that. The US alone has 2,200 tons of it annually and has no idea what to do with it. Its literally spread all over the country being stored in casks until they can think of something to do with it.

Exactly, it is stored in casks all over the US, because idiot anti-nuclear environmentalists are blocking the use of Yucca Mountain.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy, anti-nuclear folks block investment in new Nuclear technology and proper storage, so instead we end up using older, less safe, ageing designs and storing the waste in less then ideal conditions. :rolleyes: It couldn't be more stupid.

Fortunately most Nuclear powered European countries are a lot more sensible about this. France and the UK do Nuclear reprocessing of waste and Sweden, Finland, France, etc. all have or are building underground repositories.

Markcheese

I'm pretty sure that nuclear reprocessing didn't work out too well in the uk ,
Their thorp reprocessing plant shut down a couple of years back , they just store spent fuel rods there now .
I don't know what's happening with french reprocessing,

Markcheese

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B205

Not sure is the Mox fuel plant closed down or not , it was scheduled to close this year ..

gjim

bk wrote: »

Exactly, it is stored in casks all over the US, because idiot anti-nuclear environmentalists are blocking the use of Yucca Mountain.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy, anti-nuclear folks block investment in new Nuclear technology and proper storage, so instead we end up using older, less safe, ageing designs and storing the waste in less then ideal conditions. :rolleyes: It couldn't be more stupid.

Fortunately most Nuclear powered European countries are a lot more sensible about this. France and the UK do Nuclear reprocessing of waste and Sweden, Finland, France, etc. all have or are building underground repositories.

There's nothing simple about burying nuclear waste - ask the Germans. The geology has to be right - there can be no seismic activity - any paths to ground water have to be sealed and it's not a matter of burying it, walking away and forgetting about it - the disposal sites require constant expensive inspection/monitoring and 24h security. This all costs money and if something goes wrong, the cost of clean-up is an order of magnitude more expensive than if the stuff was stored above ground.

It's not environmentalists or hippies that are blocking more nuclear - it's simple economics.

Most of the 70s era industrial groups that focussed on nuclear have gone bust. There isn't a private company on the planet that could/would finance and build a reactor these days even if you could magic away all objections. The only reason for building new reactors these days is for "strategic" reasons (i.e. building/maintaining a nuclear arsenal) and it always requires massive government subsidy.

Producing electricity from fission has turned out to be a technological cul-de-sac. Most technologies get cheaper, easier, more efficient with adoption and time (even crude tech like burning gas for electricity never mind PV, wind, battery storage, etc.) but no such trend has happened with nuclear.

Economics has meant it's been in decline for decades (at it's peak it was responsible for 18% of global electricity production - it's now down to less than 8%). I think only a single new nuclear plant has opened in the US in the last 3 decades?

It's a dying industry and irrelevant for electricity production. We have far better options and tech today than they had in the 70s - just let it go.

Markcheese

https://youtu.be/aoy_WJ3mE50

This is the waste repository in finland ,
First operational in the world ..

Sam Russell

Markcheese wrote: »

https://youtu.be/aoy_WJ3mE50

This is the waste repository in finland ,
First operational in the world ..

I would have thought that Chernobyl would have put anyone off nuclear power for ever. The cost of partially sorting that out is eye wateringly expensive. The only point in nuclear power is to build nuclear bombs.

Banana Republic 1

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would have thought that Chernobyl would have put anyone off nuclear power for ever. The cost of partially sorting that out is eye wateringly expensive. The only point in nuclear power is to build nuclear bombs.

Nuclear plants have vastly improved since Chernobyl and in realty the effects on the globe were insignificant compared to the current CO2 issues. A lot of the technology advancement humans are in some way used for war, should we abandon all those. Another reality is that the energy consumed derived from fossil fuel by a average westerner in a year would amount to same amount of nuclear waste that would fit in a coke can.

Markcheese

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Nuclear plants have vastly improved since Chernobyl and in realty the effects on the globe were insignificant compared to the current CO2 issues. A lot of the technology advancement humans are in some way used for war, should we abandon all those. Another reality is that the energy consumed derived from fossil fuel by a average westerner in a year would amount to same amount of nuclear waste that would fit in a coke can.

Are you including mining and refining in that ?

Hang on , is that all nuclear waste or just the high level stuff ... ? Those coke cans, start to add up pretty quick ..

Markcheese

Public dislike of nuclear isn't what's gutted the nuclear industry ... It's money .. They just cost too much , and that's not including dealing with the spent fuel ,and decommissioning the site ..

Banana Republic 1

Markcheese wrote: »

Are you including mining and refining in that ?

Hang on , is that all nuclear waste or just the high level stuff ... ? Those coke cans, start to add up pretty quick ..

Mining destroys the earth

Yes all the waste per person per year. The same cannot be said for the vast amounts of fossil fuel waste we pump out. The CO2 in the atmosphere now will effect that planet for thousands of years.

Capt'n Midnight

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Nuclear plants have vastly improved since Chernobyl and in realty the effects on the globe were insignificant compared to the current CO2 issues. A lot of the technology advancement humans are in some way used for war, should we abandon all those. Another reality is that the energy consumed derived from fossil fuel by a average westerner in a year would amount to same amount of nuclear waste that would fit in a coke can.

How have they "vastly improved" ?

Compare the thermal efficiency improvements of nuclear plants to other steam turbine generators like those powered by coal or gas. Gas can hit 60% in combined cycle. Ultrasupercritical coal is at 47.5%. The latest nuclear plant is 37% at best. In theory it could be double this.

Has the fuel efficiency improved more than for coal or gas ?



Reprocessing, how's that going ?

Breeder reactors, how many are operating commercially ?

Small modular reactor, how many are operating commercially ?

Thorium reactors, how many are operating commercially ?

All were promised decades ago.



Over the average life of a plant the cost of renewables is in free fall. Even over the time it takes to build them. EDF have been building EPR reactors since 2005. Olkiluoto 3 should have come online in 2009 , might be fully operational by 2022. A wind farm can be carbon neutral in as little as six months.


Overall nuclear supplies less power globally than was saved by changing from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent and LED. Better insulation would probably save as much again. The "benefits" of nuclear can be obtained quicker, for less and provide more jobs.

Any fantasy about a massive expansion of nuclear power has to take into account the supply vs demand costs of uranium. If you quadruple nuclear you may hit Peak Uranium during the lifetime of the plants.

tom1ie

If we can store renewables like wind we don’t need nuclear.
All we have to do is solve the storage issue :-)

bk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How have they "vastly improved" ?

Compared to Chernobyl, it isn't so much as improved, it is more the case that we use completely different nuclear technology in the rest of the world, compared to what they used in Russia and Chernobyl.

Most power plants in the world are either PWR's or BWR's, while Chernobyl was a weird RBMK type reactor. Only the Soviet Union ever used this type of reactor. RBMK style reactors were rejected in the West due to their unstability during start up and shutdown.

Chernobyl didn't even have a fortified containment building, unlike PWRs/BWRs, it was basically an open reactor sitting in a big shed!

As terrible as Chernobyl is, it isn't comparable in any way to PWR/BWR style reactors.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you quadruple nuclear you may hit Peak Uranium during the lifetime of the plants.

Ugghhh... There is zero issues with running out of Uranium, we have hundreds of years of Uranium supply available. Very little Uranium mining is done at the moment, since we have so much excess left over from decommissioned Nuclear weapons. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US did a deal with Russia to buy up and help decommission their old Nuclear missiles and use the uranium in Nuclear power instead. This killed off most uranium mining for decades due to the glut of supply and very cheap pricing.

Look, I don't think we will do Nuclear power here in Ireland due to the economics of it, lack of experience and small size of out grid. But lets not spread misinformation about it.

tom1ie wrote: »

If we can store renewables like wind we don’t need nuclear.
All we have to do is solve the storage issue :-)

Yep, though we can definitely store power, the trick is making it cheap. The holy grail is getting renewables + storage to below the cost of gas.

Though storage isn't the only solution.

More interconnection is important, in particular on mainland Europe. Sure, maybe the wind stops blowing in one part of Europe, but the sun can be shining bright in another part.

Also smart grids and being able to ramp up and down power usage based on renewable availability will help greatly too. Only charge the EV's when the wind is blowing, etc.