Go Nuclear or no?

Tobias Greeshman · 28-04-2006 10:58AM

No way should Ireland adopt Nuclear Power, this government is incompetent at making project management decisions at best, building and running a nuclear power station. No thanks, with the dangers of Nuclear Fission, I don't want to live in a country with it.

However if Nuclear Fusion were possible, then I would consider it, it's a lot more safer, very little waste and unlimited supply of the fuel needed (Hydrogen). If they only could get it working successfully.

There has to be a more indepth research into renewable energy sources, such as Solar panels. The main reason of their lack of use in this country is down to the relative expense that comes with them, and they produce a much smaller amount of energy than the non-renewable sources, thus needing a far greater number of them (solar panels, wind-turbines, etc.)

New_Departure06 · 28-04-2006 11:24AM

Marts wrote:

I think we should go nuclear. I mean the chances of a meltdown or whatever are so low that you would have to be insane not to, nuclear power stations generate an enormous amount of electricity. look at the facts, nuclear energy has been around for about a half century, how many meltdowns were there? one. and it was due to the design at the time and incompitent workers, Homer Simpsons, if you will

"I can't understand it, there wasn't any radioactive materials in that truck!"

But a meltdown only has to happen once for millions of people to be forced to evacuate. It just isn't comparable to the risks of accidents in other forms of power-generation. A gas explosion isn't going to force millions to leave their homes. Agriculture would also be destroyed by contamination.

Teg Veece · 28-04-2006 11:45AM

Wind power currently makes up about 6% of Irelands needs and, like it or not, that's how its gonna be for quite some time. The reason for this is mainly its unpredictable nature.
The National Regulator must buy power off different suppliers such as the ESB, Bord na Mona etc. If he becomes too dependent on wind power and the wind decides not to blow then the national grid is in trouble. So the regulator will keep our dependancy on this source as low as possible.
Nuclear Power offers a relatively clean supply of massive amounts of power. Much much cleaner than oil and gas.
People should really stop using Chernobyl as an argument against going nuclear. There was no containment of any kind around the reactor, something which is essential in all reactors nowadays. There was a similar reactor failure in 3 Mile Island a few years ago and no one was killed or injured because of the modern protection systems put in place.

Having said all that, the biggest problem with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste. At the moment, the best solution seems to be to bury it deep underground in containers which are good for roughly 100 years. (The waste itself remains active for around 1 million years). This "sweep it under the rug" approach is short sighted and greedy to say the least.

The international community needs to find a better way to deal with this waste fast but something tells me the short term gain mentality will win out once more.

Stephen · 28-04-2006 12:54PM

The Three Mile Island accident actually happened in 1979, 7 years prior to Chernobyl. Three Mile Island had proper containment structures built around the reactor.
Chernobyl's reactor had bugger all, and was an elderly Soviet design built on the cheap.
Nuclear's probably not yet viable for Ireland but fossil fuels are going to get so expensive that I reckon its going to happen sooner or later.

thelordofcheese · 28-04-2006 02:27PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I have cold fusion down, keep it under your hat.

is it a lead hat?

darkman2 · 28-04-2006 04:46PM

One thing that bothers me is the amount of ppl, particularly on the enviromental side making uninformed and uneducated statement about nuclear power. Anyone see prime time the other night when that tree hugger from the GP was cut down to size by that guy from the University of Limerick:D

phantom_lord · 28-04-2006 05:13PM

Nucleart all the way imo.

todd10k · 28-04-2006 05:58PM

Aidi roche on the late late show made me sick. preaching about "the earth we leave to our children". Pontificating Bitch. I applaud the work she does with the chernobyl childrens charities, but by no means does that give her the right to dictate irish energy policy.

Fact of the matter is, when it starts costing 10 euro per kilowatt hour from the ESB, all the anti nuclear campeigners and lobbiest's will be the first to decry the government. We must go nuclear if we hope to maintain anything even remotely close to a working, soverign nation over the next 40-50 years.

KerranJast · 28-04-2006 06:10PM

Where exactly are we supposed to get our supply of nuclear fuel from if we go down that route? I'd have no problem with nuclear power as the current technology is very safe but this country is too small to afford it, we'd probably need a backup one because a nuclear plant won't be able to generate power 24/7/365 and we could end up replacing our dependance on foreign oil with a dependance on foreign uranium. What's needed is to build more interconnectors with the UK and Europe so power is shared (again I have no problem buying nuclear power from other countries that way - we already do). We also have one of the most powerful forces of nature on our Western seaboard in the shape of the Atlantic Ocean. Surely technology can be developed to harness tidal/wave power. Also in the medium term we should possibly mirror other countries and build some of the cleaner low CO2 emitting coal stations.

sturgo · 28-04-2006 10:02PM

we should go nuclear and send the nuclear waste into space. sorted... next question please.

riptide · 28-04-2006 10:10PM

Ya lets go nuclear and contaminate somewhere.... somewhere like Sellafield. Give them a taste of there own 'medicine'.. great idea.

Wertz · 28-04-2006 10:13PM

sturgo wrote:

we should go nuclear and send the nuclear waste into space. sorted... next question please.

So now you're suggesting an Irish space program?
...and proposing that we strap a sh*tload of HLW to the top of a giant firework and launch it over international airspace? We could make chernobyl look like a sunday BBQ...brilliant!

Capt'n Midnight · 28-04-2006 11:01PM

Clean, safe nuclear power is uneconomical. It's that simple.

We don't need plutonium for bombs, which is what makes many other countries adopt nuclear in spite of the false economics.

In the UK they had a "non fossil fuel levy" - a tax on electricity generated from fossil fuel - to subsidise the decomissioning and running of Nuclear plants. http://www.oss.org.uk/publications/infosht/a4.htm

There is a statutory obligation the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) on electricity companies to generate a certain minimum of their capacity from non-fossil fuel. Research and development of nuclear and renewable energy is subsidised through the non-fossil fuel levy of 11 per cent on consumers’ electricity bills.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/varley.htm

For government-owned utilities, the state may accept a lower value for the assets than their book value. For example, the 1996 privatisation of British Energy brought in £1.4 billion, even though the company's newest generating station, Sizewell B, was completed in 1995 at a total cost of over £3 billion. Prior to its privatisation, British Energy's nuclear plant capital accounts were strengthened through a levy on electricity sales, known as the Non-Fossil Fuel Levy.

One plant cost the same as 100,000 houses back in 95.

"non fossil fuel levy"
The cost of nuclear must include ALL costs including guraranteed protection of all waste until radiation levels fall to below level of the original ore, that can take up to 10,000 years. Even then I'd consider that level still too high as uranium ore is still not stuff you want to ingest, but anything above that means extra radioactivity in the environment, and the Brits Cannuks and Yanks all agreeded back in 1947 that there was no safe level of radiation, any increased exposure meaning increased health risks.

I'll say that again almost 60 years ago it was realised internationally that ANY increase in radiation means health problems. Anyone supporting nuclear must justify them.

Alternatives
Better insulation in Irish houses to reduce demand and more solar heating. Solar electric is a waste in our climate.,

Wind power , especially off shore, tidal turbines on the east coast, a joint venture with NI for lough swilly for more tidal. More pumped storage stations like turlough hill, peat stations to use coppiced willow.

Converting biomass and waste into producer gas for electricity generation. It's not just inceneration, it 100 year old technology that uses steam to extract chemical energy in solid carbon sources in to a gas that can be used to run efficient turbines, it produces a lot of hydrogen but even still a hydrogen economy is a pipe dream. I'm not certain but it may provide more reliable pyrolysis than incinearation on it's own.

Sizewell B again
http://eeru.open.ac.uk/natta/renewonline/rol52/11.htm

POST argues that, since nuclear plans are so capital intensive, the discount rate is arguably the most important factor affecting the sensitivity of the cost projections.

“The Sizewell B project appeared to be economically viable at a 5% public sector discount rate and was approved on that basis in 1987. By 1989, the official rate had risen to 8% and the next PWR, Hinkley Point C, was close to being viable, though with lower expected construction costs than Sizewell B. Following privatization, the nuclear industry was advised that the lowest possible commercial discount rate for a nuclear project would be11%. At this rate, the proposed Sizewell C power station would have made a large loss, though the construction costs were even lower than those expected at Hinkley Point C”.

It adds “nuclear power projects in the past have often turned out more expensive than assumed. For example, cost estimates for the Sizewell B reactor were revised upwards by 40% and generation costs were higher (~6p/kWh)".

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1584572,00.html

As we know, the wind is intermittent and, according to DTI calculations, British windfarms work on average at a rate of 30% of full generating capacity. This means we would need around 24GW of wind power to supply 20% of UK electricity, costing around £25bn to install.

So, if we use the evidence of actual installation costs, as opposed to what nuclear (or wind) advocates hope will be future installation costs, we can see that, on installation costs alone, a nuclear power programme is going to be no cheaper than a wind power programme in delivering 20% of UK electricity
...
There is disagreement about the scale of decommissioning costs, but the numbers tend to be rather large. Latest figures from the Environment Agency suggest anywhere between £300m and a £1,000m per power station.

Fuel for free

Nuclear power stations must also buy fuel and prepare it. Windmills get their fuel for free.

How long do nuclear power stations last - they are NOT a capital investment. After a short few decades of use you are left with a money pit that will probably soak up one billion euro in decommisioning.

How long do windmills last, I don't know but how about Ardnacrusha. It was the largest hydro-electric plant in the world back in 1929. It was there before the nuclear age and I'm fairly sure it will outlast any nuclear plant in existance today. Even Turlough Hill has outlasted many nuclear stations. Yes you have to pay maintainance costs but if you do decide to decomission them you would probably make money back selling off the scrap. Also one failure on a rotor won't take out a whole windfarm nor will you have to evacuate everyone in the county.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-04-2006 11:19PM

sturgo wrote:

we should go nuclear and send the nuclear waste into space. sorted... next question please.

Too little problems
First the cost per Kg to put it in high orbit ( low orbits mean it will drop back in only a few years )
Second the failure rate on launches - it's only a few percent.
There are other little problems but until you can show it can be done reliably and it's even remotely economic that plan won't get off the ground.

riptide · 28-04-2006 11:42PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Too little problems
First the cost per Kg to put it in high orbit ( low orbits mean it will drop back in only a few years )
Second the failure rate on launches - it's only a few percent.
There are other little problems but until you can show it can be done reliably and it's even remotely economic that plan won't get off the ground.

Love the pun...

to follow from your post previous, I would be an advocate of Fusion based nuclear power stations if and when they get developed, Very little in the line of dangerous waste material and no need to mine Uranium.

samb · 29-04-2006 12:41AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

, but anything above that means extra radioactivity in the environment, and the Brits Cannuks and Yanks all agreeded back in 1947 that there was no safe level of radiation, any increased exposure meaning increased health risks.

I'll say that again almost 60 years ago it was realised internationally that ANY increase in radiation means health problems. Anyone supporting nuclear must justify them.
.

There is also no safe level of dioxins and furans produced from all combustion of fossil fuels. You are breathing them in right now, just as you are breathing in radioacitve radon. Put a geger counter to your body and listen to the alpha radiation emminating from within your bones..........What is your point.

We cannot avoid risk from carcinogens. They are everywhere and always will be. All we can do is minimise the risk. The oposition to nuclear must justify our production of these substances from fossil fuels when we can reduce it significantly by using nuclear. Remember that there are no air emmissions from nuclear so we can contain the radiation.

nuttz · 29-04-2006 06:06AM

Remarks such as "Pontificating Bitch" are unhelpful and in my opinion deserve a banning for slander at least.
You obviously don't know Adi Roche or her input into the Chernobyl Children's Project.

todd10k and other posters, please read the previous posts before posting, it has been made quiet clear why nuclear is not a good option, the logic of a forum is that you argue the opposing argument, without personal insults on the people in question. If you want to argue against what has been posted, do so without personal insults.

todd10k's last post has been reported.

Capt'n Midnight · 29-04-2006 12:38PM

riptide wrote:

to follow from your post previous, I would be an advocate of Fusion based nuclear power stations if and when they get developed,

There is no point in worrying about fusion now since commercial usage is still very far away, even if there were a breakthrough tomorrow.

Capt'n Midnight · 29-04-2006 02:12PM

samb wrote:

There is also no safe level of dioxins and furans produced from all combustion of fossil fuels. You are breathing them in right now, just as you are breathing in radioacitve radon. Put a geger counter to your body and listen to the alpha radiation emminating from within your bones..........What is your point.

We cannot avoid risk from carcinogens. They are everywhere and always will be. All we can do is minimise the risk. The oposition to nuclear must justify our production of these substances from fossil fuels when we can reduce it significantly by using nuclear.

The background level of dioxins and furans from waste burning, Halloween, transport and peat fires is far far higher than incenerators and we can reduce the levels. Also generation of Hydrogen means that fuel cell technology could be used later on, (maybe) utilising up to 60% of the energy in the fuel.

samb wrote:

Remember that there are no air emmissions from nuclear so we can contain the radiation.

The Irish sea is the worlds most radioactive. :rolleyes:
You should have said - we can contain the radiation IF we spend enough on the containment AND there are no accidents, like the Windscale fire.
Also nuclear is faily inefficient, because of the need to limit contamination of generating equiment you have to use heat exchangers etc. So only 25% of the heat is converted to electricty, the rest heats up the envirionment. Which can affect local species - Possibly the most unusual location for crocodiles is the brackish water cooling canals at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant in Florida.

Hundreds of Billions have been spent on R&D of nuclear power. Had a fraction of that been spent on renewables or means of reducing consumption then we probably would not need nuclear. In the US the reckoned that it would be cheaper to insulate factories than build a nuclear plant to provide the energy to keep them warm. This is interesting because it shows that the Zero Carbon Emission argument is just a red herring. You can acheive similar low emissions by reducing consumption. As I've stated before by promoting diesel instead of petrol we could save up to 50% of the fuel used by nearly 80% of our commuters. By massively subsidising Dublin Bus (50c tickets ?) we could save far more and it would cost far less than one power station.

http://www.beaufortcourt.com/rec/default.htm - zero emissions building.
From http://www.windmillworld.com/news/current.htm - "It notes that the wind turbine, a 36 metre high 225 kW Vestas V-29 was bought second hand from a wind farm in the Netherlands for £140,000 (206,000 Euro)." How can anyone justify nuclear if second hand wind turbines are that cheap ??

Capt'n Midnight · 29-04-2006 02:57PM

mackerski wrote:

True enough - Sellafield is approximately 5km closer.

Dermot

Wylfa in Anglesey is closer than Calder Hall / Windscale / Sellafield

piraka · 29-04-2006 05:28PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Also nuclear is faily inefficient, because of the need to limit contamination of generating equiment you have to use heat exchangers etc. So only 25% of the heat is converted to electricty, the rest heats up the envirionment.

I’m not sure what are inefficiencies to which you are referring. The capacity of a nuclear plant is about 85%

http://www.energy-choices.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78

i.e. a 100MW plant will produce 85 MW of electricity.

Whereas wind has an average capacity of 35% i.e. it is variable and unpredictable. A 100MW installed wind farm will produce 35MW of intermittent electricity to the grid.

Wind requires a backup plant which is currently one of the base load plant such as Moneypoint. Power plants are designated base load based on their low cost generation, efficiency and safety at set outputs. Thus, they are more effective when used continuously to cover the power baseload required by the grid. When wind power is taken into the grid the base load plant no longer runs at optimun efficiency. This in turn relates to increased costs and increased CO2 emissions due to inefficient operation.

Carbon Emission argument is just a red herring. You can acheive similar low emissions by reducing consumption. As I've stated before by promoting diesel instead of petrol we could save up to 50% of the fuel used by nearly 80% of our commuters. By massively subsidising Dublin Bus (50c tickets ?) we could save far more and it would cost far less than one power station.

Diesel emits more CO2 than petrol on combustion. Therefore any savings will be lost in paying for emission credits on increased transport ghg emissions, which has already increased by 6% in 2004 over 2003 figures.

http://www.epa.ie/OurEnvironment/ClimateChange/GreenhouseGasEmissions/FileUpload,9034,en.pdf

It is interesing to note that CO2 reduction in the energy sector was not attributed to wind energy

"It notes that the wind turbine, a 36 metre high 225 kW Vestas V-29 was bought second hand from a wind farm in the Netherlands for £140,000 (206,000 Euro)." How can anyone justify nuclear if second hand wind turbines are that cheap ??

I would not like a second hand turbine near me

http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1107&ArticleID=1295769%20

Capt'n Midnight · 30-04-2006 01:48AM

piraka wrote:

I’m not sure what are inefficiencies to which you are referring. The capacity of a nuclear plant is about 85%

http://www.energy-choices.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78

i.e. a 100MW plant will produce 85 MW of electricity.

Whereas wind has an average capacity of 35% i.e. it is variable and unpredictable. A 100MW installed wind farm will produce 35MW of intermittent electricity to the grid.

:rolleyes:
So you are saying 300MW (thermal power) reactor will produce 85MW Electricity but that 300MW of wind turbines will only produce 105MW. Again I refer you to pumped storage / interconnectors as a way of averaging wind power. In the north of England they also give large discounts to industries that agree to go without power at short notice. Perhaps the Aluminium refiners in Shannon might do so.

Wind requires a backup plant which is currently one of the base load plant such as Moneypoint. Power plants are designated base load based on their low cost generation, efficiency and safety at set outputs. Thus, they are more effective when used continuously to cover the power baseload required by the grid. When wind power is taken into the grid the base load plant no longer runs at optimun efficiency. This in turn relates to increased costs and increased CO2 emissions due to inefficient operation.

Again with the pumped storage, and our neighbours used to have a gas turbine station that was at one stage only used at around 7:30pm on Wednesdays. This argument is a bit like complaining that car engines are designed to operate most thermodynamically efficiently while accelerating uphill but ignoring the fact that you can use smaller engines or ever shut down a power station. Also the ESB have to have stations that can handle winter heating and lighting, even during the middle of summer, it's not like you can ship a plant down to South Africa, till we need it here again.

Wind power fulcutates, but so does electricity demand, measure both on a 5 minute timescale ! Unless consumers store electricity locally we are going to have to have a large overhead anyway and not just to correct for the power factor.

Diesel emits more CO2 than petrol on combustion. Therefore any savings will be lost in paying for emission credits on increased transport ghg emissions, which has already increased by 6% in 2004 over 2003 figures.

Only if you burn the same amount. Diesel engines are more efficient than petrol. Petrol also has a higher CO2 overhead due to fuel used in cracking and combinng in the refinery - several % IIRC.

piraka · 30-04-2006 07:40AM

So you are saying 300MW (thermal power) reactor will produce 85MW Electricity but that 300MW of wind turbines will only produce 105MW. Again I refer you to pumped storage / interconnectors as a way of averaging wind power. In the north of England they also give large discounts to industries that agree to go without power at short notice. Perhaps the Aluminium refiners in Shannon might do so.

What I am saying is that a 300MW thermal plant with an 85% load capacity will produce 255MW constant supply electricity. Whereas wind, as you have correctly pointed out will only generate 105MW, of intermittent electricity.

Wind power fulcutates, but so does electricity demand, measure both on a 5 minute timescale ! Unless consumers store electricity locally we are going to have to have a large overhead anyway and not just to correct for the power factor.

If the electricity demand and generation are not maintained in balance, then the frequency of the system will deviate from statutory level. Grid operators hence prefer base load plants, which give a constant supply to the grid and at short notice, unlike wind which is intermittent. Wind does not give the grid operators a “flick of the switch” option when there is a surge on the grid, unlike a base load plant which is more or less instantaneous in supply when called upon.

http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/InfoCentre/IlexWindReserrev2FSFinal.pdf

In fact ESB can “constrain off” or “curtail” wind generation where they see fit. This is done in order ensue security of supply to the customer.

http://www.cer.ie/CERDocs/cer04247.pdf

There are other interesting reports relating to wind which question the economies of wind in relation to supply of electricity to the grid and its ability to mitigate green house gases:

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Wind%20Impact%20Study%20-%20main%20report.pdf

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR0612_web.pdf

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Executive%20Summary%20Wind%20Impact%20Study.pdf

Only if you burn the same amount. Diesel engines are more efficient than petrol. Petrol also has a higher CO2 overhead due to fuel used in cracking and combinng in the refinery - several % IIRC.

The point I am making is that any cost savings made in fuel efficiencies are lost in increased CO2 emissions (which has a cost to mitigate) not to mention increased particulate emission.

piraka · 30-04-2006 10:00AM

Again I refer you to pumped storage / interconnectors as a way of averaging wind power

I understood that wind power was originally a method of achieving our obligations under the EU directive 2001/77/EC On the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market.

Under the directive we were obliged to generate 13% of our energy requirements from renewable resources. The main argument for renewable energy at that time was the mitigation of CO2.

If Ireland exports (no doubt at reduced rates as in Denmark, again the consumer loses) its wind energy, we in effect do not displace CO2 from conventional plant. The CO2 mitigation from the renewable energy are realized elsewhere. Again there will be an emission credit cost in offsetting the export of electricity abroad and loss of CO2 mitigation to Ireland in order to achieve our Kyoto obligations.

Interesting point on pumped storage. One wonders why not much investment has gone into it. I suppose capital costs are cheaper for wind energy (2.5MW turbine is about €1.5million) as over 90% of EU obligation was achieved through wind as compared to other renewable energy sources.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-04-2006 01:18PM

piraka wrote:

What I am saying is that a 300MW thermal plant with an 85% load capacity will produce 255MW constant supply electricity. Whereas wind, as you have correctly pointed out will only generate 105MW, of intermittent electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapelcross 19% of the heat gets converted in to electricity, actually it's worse than that because nuclear power plants tend to be in remote areas giving higher transmission losses. eg: Having the Nuclear plant in Anglesy near the Aluminium plant saves £4m a year on transmission losses.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.htm - future designs may hit 50% thermal efficiency, but there will be a high R&D cost, expensive and possibly scarce heat resistant materials will be needed, and termperatures and pressures will be far greater.

Wind does not give the grid operators a “flick of the switch” option

Turlough Hill can go from 0 to 250MW in 60 seconds. If you look at my other posts I'm not advocating all our eggs in one basket. Wind power is one part of the equation. Tidal turbines (not barriers or dams) are more predictable. Wave power of which we have oodles is also there for the taking. Willow coppicing on Bord Na Mona's land is yet another technology ( we've got old peat stations in place already ) And reduction of energy wastage is yet anouther way.

Here we build new roads instead of provide public transport. Nuclear power would be a similar sticky plaster apporach. All the material for a Nuclear plant and all the expertise would have to be imported and we would be reliant on foregin supplies. Do we go for US reactors or UK or Continenatal one ?
By diversifing into alternative energy ESB international can gain expertise in areas we could control instead of watching from the side lines and hoping that others continue to allow us to use our nuclear plants.

The point I am making is that any cost savings made in fuel efficiencies are lost in increased CO2 emissions (which has a cost to mitigate) not to mention increased particulate emission.

yip - particulate emission is a big problem with Diesel.
not as insoluable a problem as nuclear waste
and using Diesel will reduce CO2 emissions because the amount of fuel consumed will go down more than the specific emissions of CO2 per unit of fuel consumed will go up ( I don't have figures for the wastage in refinieries but it would be very close to showing that CO2 from usage AND productions of one Kg of petrol is very similar to one Kg of diesel )

piraka · 30-04-2006 04:33PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapelcross 19% of the heat gets converted in to electricity, actually it's worse than that because nuclear power plants tend to be in remote areas giving higher transmission losses. eg: Having the Nuclear plant in Anglesy near the Aluminium plant saves £4m a year on transmission losses.

Still, with a deficiency of 81% in heat transfer as demostrated by you, the nuclear plant will produce 85% load factor.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.htm - future designs may hit 50% thermal efficiency, but there will be a high R&D cost, expensive and possibly scarce heat resistant materials will be needed, and termperatures and pressures will be far greater.

Even the competitors in the wind industry give better load factors for current design of nuclear and fossil fuel plants.

http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html

Turlough Hill can go from 0 to 250MW in 60 seconds. If you look at my other posts I'm not advocating all our eggs in one basket. Wind power is one part of the equation. Tidal turbines (not barriers or dams) are more predictable. Wave power of which we have oodles is also there for the taking. Willow coppicing on Bord Na Mona's land is yet another technology ( we've got old peat stations in place already ) And reduction of energy wastage is yet anouther way.

Turlough Hill is another intermittent power station. Once the upper reservoir is emptied the station is no longer available to the grid. It really operates in reserve to come online when required.
I agree that there should be a mix of energy streams, but large scale renewable energy will never displace conventional plant to any great extent.

TBH I would rather see the boglands be allow to regenerate. Ireland is the only country in western Europe which still has substantial intact bogs. These bogs are rapidly disappearing due to comerciallization, of which large scale wind farms are a party

Here we build new roads instead of provide public transport.

Very good point on the transport. It is bit of topic and needs discussion elsewhere, the government earns about €4 billion in revenue from the transport sector and only spends €400 million on public transport, which is a disgrace. The new transport policy is a bit of pie in the sky from Cullen. It is in the government’s interest to have us all in cars to maintain a revenue stream, as they reduce our income tax.

I wonder at times if the satellite towns to Dublin were planned!!!! Of course there is again the issue of mitigating the CO2 from the transport, which has increased dramatically and is set to increase for the future.

bonkey · 30-04-2006 08:10PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Turlough Hill can go from 0 to 250MW in 60 seconds.

But for how long can it maintain that level of output?

Put a different way, if you had to supply a 250MW shortfall across average daily demand (lets ignore the "normal" demand-spikes for simplicity) for a standard working day, how many Turlough Hills would you need?

jc

Capt'n Midnight · 30-04-2006 09:52PM

bonkey wrote:

But for how long can it maintain that level of output?

Put a different way, if you had to supply a 250MW shortfall across average daily demand (lets ignore the "normal" demand-spikes for simplicity) for a standard working day, how many Turlough Hills would you need?

jc

Only a few hours, (but it should be enough time to get other plants on line)
Anyway you would need a lot of them.

But that technology could be retrofitted to most existing hydro plants.
And they won't be spewing out heat 24/7, causing fogs, changing the local climate, increasing humidity and maybe worsening frosts nearby.

Again I'll point out that decomissioning costs of Nuclear Plants must be factored in fully, bearing in mind that the requirements may be more stringent than at present and the economic climate may mean funds are shorter.

If we were to invest in a Nuclear plant, the investment could be a total loss if it was closed down for some reason. eg: if a foreign nation bombed it. Or an action was lost in the High Court. Or there was a major design flaw in the reactor types. Or there was a referendum to ban nuclear power. Or a government accepted it's closure for short term political gains eg agree with the green party to achieve majority. Or if the price of uranium goes up too much. Or if the countries holding the uranium or enriching plants decide not to do business with us anymore. Or if a new type of hazard is found. Or if we can no longer ship waste to wherever it goes. Or if there was an accident with a similar type of plant. Or if there was a major accident in the UK. Or if medical/health and safety leglislation change such that providing insurance becomes prohibitive. Even if the reactor was 100% safe and clean and economic for the foreseeable future it could still be closed down.

piraka · 01-05-2006 07:31AM

That is the nature of economics of any industry, substitute chemical plant/Power plants etc. for nuclear plant.

Or if there was a major accident in the UK.

DaveMcG wrote:

The 20th anniversary for Chernobyl is coming up, terrorist attacks are a constant fear, and with the price of oil reaching I think it's $72 a barrel, the idea of nuclear energy is being reexamined, and the debate is coming back to life.

56 direct deaths have been attributed to the Chernobyl disaster, but 20 years later the effects are still being felt, with cancer and mutations occuring in the children of those who were children in 1986.

Anti-nuclear campaigners tend to be of the mindset that we don't have all the answers, we have a few suggestions that can be added to, but it's not worth the risk of building nuclear power plants, because the cost is too great, as Chernobyl demonstrates -- one accident can have catastrophic effects for the rest of time.

The worst ever-industrial accident was not a nuclear accident, but an accident at a chemical plant. In Bhopal India over 20,000 people died when 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate was released to the atmosphere with over a 100,000 injured and still suffering to-day. The Union Carbide Plant was handed the plant back to the Indian government who are still dealing with major contamination and compensation issues over 20 years later. Nobody remembered this catastrophe on its twentieth anniversary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/toxic-hotspots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2698000/2698709.stm

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/bhopal-disaster-has-no-paralle

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ec-bhopal-eng

I would rather live beside a modern nuclear power plant, than a chemical plant with a thermal oxidiser incinerating their toxic waste.

piraka · 01-05-2006 09:25AM

And they won't be spewing out heat 24/7, causing fogs, changing the local climate, increasing humidity and maybe worsening frosts nearby.

What about wind farms changing our climate

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6608

Go Nuclear or no?

Comments