Is nuclear power feasible in our current economy.

Pride Fighter · 04-03-2009 06:02PM

Modern nuclear power is completely safe and 95% of the waste can be reprocessed into fuel. The other 5% has a half life of about a decade. Dont believe the lies the media tells you. It's no coincidence that several media moguls own oil futures.

T runner · 04-03-2009 06:22PM

Nuclear Power stations generally take 20 years to build and tend to bankrupt thier builders. Most in the states were not finished by the people who started them. Probably a non runner for financial reasons at the mo although it is a solution to energy sources.

Dont agree with the hypocrisy argument re. Ireland and Britain. I dont think Ireland objected to Britain having nuclear Power. We objected to the shoddy way it was managed in Windscale and Britain's tendency to dump its waste at the frontdoor of its neighbour.

Pride Fighter · 04-03-2009 06:29PM

T runner wrote: »

Nuclear Power stations generally take 20 years to build and tend to bankrupt thier builders. Most in the states were not finished by the people who started them. Probably a non runner for financial reasons at the mo although it is a solution to energy sources.

A modern fission plant takes about 5 years to build. The French have broken ground on the worlds first fusion reactor, Cadarache. It will be built in 9 years and will use deuterium and tritium as fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadarache

Grudaire · 04-03-2009 06:39PM

Pride Fighter wrote: »

A modern fission plant takes about 5 years to build. The French have broken ground on the worlds first fusion reactor, Cadarache. It will be built in 9 years and will use deuterium and tritium as fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadarache

They haven't got fusion to work though...

nesf · 04-03-2009 06:57PM

peasant wrote: »

First you're incapable of grasping the idea that the pumped water acts as a "battery" for the unreliable wind energy supply an then you tell me to listen to some other fella who "seems to know what he's talking about" as he posted two links to wikipedia

This technology is at the moment purely experimental (they're looking into compressed air as a better alternative to water fyi). These technologies might not work well enough to provide base load power, it's utterly false to present them as viable alternatives to nuclear. Especially when you take into account that even if these technologies work they are still dependent on a certain amount of wind being there to have sufficient stored energy to meet future demands during lulls in supply which is not good enough given the unpredictability of wind as a power source. Base load sources need to be "always on" and able to increase to meet demand at an instant's notice. Wind right now is more than viable to provide power relatively cheaply compared to other renewables but it cannot meet base load demands.

Seriously, the results aren't there yet for this form of power and it's still not clear whether they'd be viable as the main source of base load power for a national grid.

ionix5891 · 04-03-2009 07:12PM

Cliste wrote: »

They haven't got fusion to work though...

Do read up, fusion works (lookup hydrogen bomb, existing fusion research) lookup at the sun for proof

it doesn't work yet in a commercially profitable way yet (more energy out than in for sustained periods), thats the aim of ITER produce a commercially viable fusion reactor, and its costing alot less than were spending on bailing the banks out

here some reading for yah

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

theres so much fud around nuclear fission and fusion that one has to wonder

as for the other arguments theres a wide range of nuclear technologies i presented with pros and cons thruout this thread

heres another option that doesnt need maintenance or staff and will work for us "brainless" irish. its a nuclear battery in a container that can arrive in a truck, works for 10-15 years providing electricity for 20,000 houses at $25Million a pop each

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/561553

.

Grudaire · 04-03-2009 07:16PM

nesf wrote: »

Nuclear is the only non-fossil option for base load generation in this country right now.

There's a few issues that might hamper nuclear as the option for Ireland.

I've not got the maths on it, but I've heard that if you look at the realistic size of an economical nuclear reactor it's output is enough to supply the whole country - wonderful until it needs servicing, in which case you end up with the fossil fuel plants as well as back-up...

Also what do we do with the spent fuel? I vote against sending it to Windscale/Sellafield.

We'll assume that the reactor won't blow the west side of the Island off!

Pride Fighter · 04-03-2009 07:21PM

Cliste wrote: »

They haven't got fusion to work though...

They have but not on the scale required. This power plant will produce 500MW, about a third of the best fission power plants but it is a good start for fusion.

ionix5891 · 04-03-2009 07:22PM

Cliste wrote: »

There's a few issues that might hamper nuclear as the option for Ireland.

I've not got the maths on it, but I've heard that if you look at the realistic size of an economical nuclear reactor it's output is enough to supply the whole country - wonderful until it needs servicing, in which case you end up with the fossil fuel plants as well as back-up...

Also what do we do with the spent fuel? I vote against sending it to Windscale/Sellafield.

We'll assume that the reactor won't blow the west side of the Island off!

build several reactors, same way as current ESB moneypoint plant has 3 turbines at 333MB each, one is usually down for maintenance

as for waste do read the posts in this thread, it has been addressed

peasant · 04-03-2009 07:25PM

nesf wrote: »

This technology is at the moment purely experimental ....

WTF is "experimental" about wind & water? Are ye all delusional?

Dissing renewable energies as "experimental" and "unreliable" while nuclear fission all of a sudden is supposed to be available at your local reactor store? Bring a few billion, cash and carry ...:D

What may not be 100% sure is the question if a water "battery" is big enough to provide base supply ...but thankfully that's just a question of scale and not of technology.

turgon · 04-03-2009 07:26PM

peasant wrote: »

But nothing else. We have neither the expertise nor the technology to build our own. So we would have to import it all at massive cost. Other than relatively cheap energy we as a nation and economy would get nothing.

So were having a discussion about nuclear power, and your concerned because it only produces electricity?

peasant wrote: »

So, investing in renewable energy would actually not just generate energy but also economic activity all by itself, which, leaving aside all other concerns, in my mind is far preferable to paying billions to some foreigners to build us a breeder.

With that kind of attitude none of the hydro plants in Ireland would have been built. The first one was built be a German company. Either way, the company would hire Irish people, just like the Germans did.

peasant wrote: »

I think it would be much more realistic to invest in technology that we (and the incompetent fools) at least have a chance of understanding and controlling, yes.

So the benchmark for new technology is whether or not the common man can understand it?

You have just hit upon the very problem with the nuclear debate, most people dont understand so they automatically go against it.

ionix5891 · 04-03-2009 07:32PM

peasant wrote: »

WTF is "experimental" about wind & water? Are ye all delusional?

Dissing renewable energies as "experimental" and "unreliable" while nuclear fission all of a sudden is supposed to be available at your local reactor store? Bring a few billion, cash and carry ...:D

What may not be 100% sure is the question if a water "battery" is big enough to provide base supply ...but thankfully that's just a question of scale and not of technology.

Yes you can go to a store and buy a nuclear battery (links posted few posts up) that fits in a container at 25 million dollars a pop

, requires no maintenance and produces consistent power over 15 year (some quote 30 years) span before being recycled back

Its already being used in remote communities, offshore rigs, islands

so whats your point again?

here more reading

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2007/12/19/the-toshiba-nuclear-battery/

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/29/backyard-reactors-firms-shrink-the-nukes/

LordSutch · 04-03-2009 07:35PM

Gurgle wrote: »

No hypocracy at all there - the issue with Britain was never their use of nuclear power, it was the systematic dumping of radioactive waste in the Irish sea.

I never realised that Britain systematically dumped radioactive waste in the Irish Sea!

Surely this is illegal?

nesf · 04-03-2009 07:41PM

peasant wrote: »

WTF is "experimental" about wind & water? Are ye all delusional?

You really don't understand what you're talking about do you.

ionix5891 · 04-03-2009 07:42PM

Camelot wrote: »

I never realised that Britain systematically dumped radioactive waste in the Irish Sea!

Surely this is illegal?

read up about sellafield on wikipedia

and do note its not illegal for ESB and others to pump toxic gases up chimneys of plants here in ireland, among some of the interesting ones are radioactive ash (yes a coal plant is more radioactive than a nuclear one) mercury and **** load of greenhouse gases and other nasties such as acid rain causing sulphuric compounds

here we have a typical scenarion where people greatly underestimate risk, can be compared about people worrying about dying in an airplane crash compared to car crashed

peasant · 04-03-2009 08:21PM

Where I'm coming from is not the general discussion of nuclear vs. renewable but this discussion in the Irish context.

How many nuclear scientist have we got again? How many experimental reactors / nuclear test facilities to test and develop this technology?
What experienced personell can we fall back on to run and administer a nuclear facility?

Exactly ...silch, nada, nothing, no-one.

We'd have to buy all of it in, the parts, the people, the knowledge. That costs an awful lot of money but it also raises other issues like trust, dependency, reliability, responsibility etc...

IMO nuclear technology is several shoe sizes too big for a country as small as Ireland.

Renewable energies on the other hand are relatively simple and great advances in effiency (its major downfall so far) could be achieved through targeted small scale research operations and concentrated efforts on energy creation parks (instead of a windmill here and there)
With a focussed effort, I'm sure, significant progress could be made in improving current technologies to make renewables more cost effective and efficient. That would not only yield cheaper (alternative) energy, but also independence from outside suppliers plus it would actually create something tangible to sell ...the technology itself ...while creating jobs and experts in their field. I always hear this "knowledge economy" mantra being banded about. This is an area where it could be created, where the demand is there and the rewards could be reaped worldwide.

LordSutch · 04-03-2009 08:24PM

ionix5891 wrote: »

read up about sellafield on wikipedia

Yeah I have, so wouldnt 'occassional leaks' would be more realistic than 'systematic dumping' ?

yoshytoshy · 04-03-2009 08:29PM

peasant wrote: »

Where I'm coming from is not the general discussion of nuclear vs. renewable but this discussion in the Irish context.

How many nuclear scientist have we got again? How many experimental reactors / nuclear test facilities to test and develop this technology?
What experienced personell can we fall back on to run and administer a nuclear facility?

Exactly ...silch, nada, nothing, no-one.

We'd have to buy all of it in, the parts, the people, the knowledge. That costs an awful lot of money but it also raises other issues like trust, dependency, reliability, responsibility etc...

IMO nuclear technology is several shoe sizes too big for a country as small as Ireland.

Renewable energies on the other hand are relatively simple and great advances in effiency (its major downfall so far) could be achieved through targeted small scale research operations and concentrated efforts on energy creation parks (instead of a windmill here and there)
With a focussed effort, I'm sure, significant progress could be made in improving current technologies to make renewables more cost effective and efficient. That would not only yield cheaper (alternative) energy, but also independence from outside suppliers plus it would actually create something tangible to sell ...the technology itself ...while creating jobs and experts in their field. I always hear this "knowledge economy" mantra being banded about. This is an area where it could be created, where the demand is there and the rewards could be reaped worldwide.

My thinking in posting about nuclear power in Ireland ,is as an export in the future.

In relation to wind energy ,can electricity be generated at low revolution and high torque ,or does it have to be high speed to get maximum energy ?

Grudaire · 04-03-2009 08:32PM

Pride Fighter wrote: »

They have but not on the scale required. This power plant will produce 500MW, about a third of the best fission power plants but it is a good start for fusion.

Last I heard they have had controlled fusion - for .1 of a second. Impressive but useless, have they had results since?

ionix wrote:

build several reactors, same way as current ESB moneypoint plant has 3 turbines at 333MB each, one is usually down for maintenance

I'm not saying that they can't have smaller reactors, just that they become inefficient/expensive to the point of not being cheaper

peasant · 04-03-2009 08:41PM

yoshytoshy wrote: »

In relation to wind energy ,can electricity be generated at low revolution and high torque ,or does it have to be high speed to get maximum energy ?

Both, it very much depends on the application and the prevailing conditions.
Most wind generators are geared anyway. Obviously for proper grid-power generation bigger is better and you can't really run a big generator/mill at high speed as the mechanical stresses get too much.

yoshytoshy · 04-03-2009 08:55PM

peasant wrote: »

Most wind generators are geared anyway. Obviously for proper grid-power generation bigger is better and you can't really run a big generator/mill at high speed as the mechanical stresses get too much.

Thanks ,I was wondering about the gearing. Haven't looked at any of the models that are out at the moment.
It's actually something I wouldn't mind getting into myself.

nesf · 04-03-2009 08:59PM

peasant wrote: »

Where I'm coming from is not the general discussion of nuclear vs. renewable but this discussion in the Irish context.

How many nuclear scientist have we got again? How many experimental reactors / nuclear test facilities to test and develop this technology?
What experienced personell can we fall back on to run and administer a nuclear facility?

Exactly ...silch, nada, nothing, no-one.

We'd have to buy all of it in, the parts, the people, the knowledge. That costs an awful lot of money but it also raises other issues like trust, dependency, reliability, responsibility etc...

We also had feck all experience in wind power generation until recently but we turned that around quickly. We don't have the knowledge but we've very good relations with plenty of countries that do. We have engineers easily capable of learning what's required while we build the reactors. We can import the technology from abroad, and benefit immediately from the last 60 years of advancement in this area. If we had to reinvent the technology you'd be completely correct but we don't have to do that thankfully.

We should be looking at both nuclear and wind etc. Nuclear to handle the base load and periods of low generation of power by the wind turbines.

Oh and we have a substantial number of nuclear scientists around the place. Sure didn't UCC have a small breeder reactor up until a few years back etc.

Darragh29 · 04-03-2009 09:04PM

You can just see the headline already...

"Meltdown in Ireland while Nuclear Regulator Sleeps"

The day we put a nuclear reactor on this Island is the day I'm outa here!

GenericName · 04-03-2009 09:09PM

I remember hearing an argument for Nuclear Power in Ireland, where the Irish governement could outsource construction of a station to Wales, thereby taking care of lack of knowledge, personnel and other 'economies of scale' that we do not have present in Ireland. The issue of planning and NIMBY's should be reduced also. If it was decided for Ireland to produce nuclear energy within a decade, surely this is the only way to achieve it?

Earlier in the thread there was some mention of recycling or refueling of reactors to gain cost efficiency and reduce expensive waste. How do these new technologies compare with MOX in Sellafield. The key selling points for the MOX plant turned out to by hype at least with Sellafield no longer looking economically viable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/7895440.stm

Mr.Micro · 04-03-2009 09:09PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

You can just see the headline already...

"Meltdown in Ireland while Nuclear Regulator Sleeps"

The day we put a nuclear reactor on this Island is the day I'm outa here!

Regulation is not a strong point in Ireland.

yoshytoshy · 04-03-2009 09:09PM

Is this type of system possible with the wave reactor generator ?

Delta Kilo · 04-03-2009 09:15PM

ionix5891 wrote: »

read up about sellafield on wikipedia

and do note its not illegal for ESB and others to pump toxic gases up chimneys of plants here in ireland, among some of the interesting ones are radioactive ash (yes a coal plant is more radioactive than a nuclear one) mercury and **** load of greenhouse gases and other nasties such as acid rain causing sulphuric compounds

here we have a typical scenarion where people greatly underestimate risk, can be compared about people worrying about dying in an airplane crash compared to car crashed

Our physics teacher (I'm a leaving cert) told us this a few weeks ago that the reason that the greens have shut up about Sellafield is because the British hired scientists to prove that the power station at moneypoint was causing Acid rain in Wales, which it was.

This is an excellent thread as we are currently doing nuclear/modern physics in Physics. I really appreciate the information given by all of the posters, especially ionix. We talk about nuclear vs wind/wave/solar energy quite a lot.

I am pro nuclear and I agree that the NIMBYs are the biggest problem. They are constantly raving on about Chernobyl (whose reactor was literally inside the wall, no mass concrete shell around it or anything) and based around ancient soviet engineering. The vast majority of the people who are opposed to it are completely mis-informed and do not know the facts.

As regards the cost and having to import the expertise to build one, didn't a poster say that it would take 10 years to plan one. Surely, we could start training people to be prepared when we are ready to build it...few years in college...send them off to France for some work experience and bring them back when we are ready. Kill 2 birds with one stone.

Now is the time to invest, not when the bogs are empty and oil prices soar and we have no electricity!

peasant · 04-03-2009 09:18PM

nesf wrote: »

We also had feck all experience in wind power generation until recently but we turned that around quickly. We don't have the knowledge but we've very good relations with plenty of countries that do. We have engineers easily capable of learning what's required while we build the reactors.

Why does this statement fill me with a strong sense of unease?

ah, yes ...apples and oranges ...that's why :pac:

anyhow ...here's another form of energy that's in abundance round our coasts ...wave energy ... and the Portuguese / Scotts are making a run at it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/25/greentech.alternativeenergy

Delta Kilo · 04-03-2009 09:23PM

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Is this type of system possible with the wave reactor generator ?

I think the infrastructure involved is a major issue...Think about it, we would have to dig up all of the roads, all the way from Malin head to Mizen head and out to clifden. It would only really work in a city and it would involve a huge amount of disruption that would cost a fortune. Maybe if there were a load of tunnels or something there already which could be converted.

Plus, it dosen't mention how the steam is created in the first place.

yoshytoshy · 04-03-2009 09:23PM

peasant wrote: »

anyhow ...here's another form of energy that's in abundance round our coasts ...wave energy ... and the Portuguese / Scotts are making a run at it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/25/greentech.alternativeenergy

Whats the current situation in Ireland with wind farming ,is there any legislation on private companies setting up here?

Is nuclear power feasible in our current economy.

Comments