Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Climate Change Bill

1235

Comments

  • #122
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Rotten maths? ei.sdraob, does this nuclear future of yours contain any costs of grid upgrade? Any form of fuel mix?


  • #123
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    Rotten maths? ei.sdraob, does this nuclear future of yours contain any costs of grid upgrade? Any form of fuel mix?

    Why bother upgrading the grid and build pylons into the middle of nowhere :confused: in the process ticking off local people and damaging the environment/landscape
    Put the plants close to the main demand centers (Dublin) or next to existing plants that will be retired soon (Moneypoint on shannon) and save even more money!
    Fuel is a tiny part of nuclear plants expense, main costs are safety and security.
    All for a third of the price of wind
    Hell put the remainder into a fund for any future decommissioning costs and it could be earning nice money in meantime


    instead we will spend 30 billion maybe have 60% power generated on a windy day in 20 years time from now and still be burning fossil fuels, thats a lose lose scenario for everyone but the wind industry who be laughing all the way to the bank (with the bankers) at the stupidity of the Irish


    I thought the whole point of this bill is to help the environment, so how does completely removing fossil fuels a bad thing? Oh I forgot the aim is to subsidise yet another industry with guaranteed profits at the expense of everyone else and fulfil some green wet dream


  • #124
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The maths with wind is rotten and I dont understand how a nationalist like yourself does not understand that importing Chineese/Danish turbines does not create jobs here, once off installation jobs is not what the country needs, with cheap electricity we could attract **** loads of companies to setup datacenters here and then become a real "smart" economy, none of this pissing money into the wind craick

    Actually the one off is the manufacture of the turbines, the sustained jobs comes from installation and maintenance of the turbines and the grid that supports them, creating a fair few jobs. It'll never be a big employer but jobs it will create. It's exactly the same as the maintenance of the current turbines in traditional plants.


  • #125
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Richard Tol wrote: »
    Wind may be free, but wind turbines are not. At present, wind power cannot compete without subsidies. I have argued against the subsidies for wind and peat, rather than against wind and peat per se.
    Ah Richard, glad you could make it. Last time I was speaking to you you wandered off in the middle of the conversation, lets hope we can finish it here. I have linked to an image of fossil fuel subsidies Europe-wide a couple of posts above your own, which dwarf renewable subsidies, how does that circle square with your argument?
    Richard Tol wrote: »
    Ireland does not make much money from designing, manufacturing or building wind turbines or indeed any other renewable energy device.
    Yet. Turbine patents from the 1990s are expired now, and there hasn't been a huge amount of innovation in the field since then - at least nothing we can't replicate with relative ease.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Erm for 30 billion we could build enough nuclear reactors to power the country completely and export some more (7x 1100 MW reactors for circa 10 billion, and it even cover the peaks!)
    And have 20 billion left to spend on other things, or even better not borrow this money in first place
    Really?
    February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.

    March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.

    May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).

    November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.

    November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).

    April 2008 — Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[18] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.[19]

    In comparison, the AP1000 units already under construction in China have been reported with substantially lower costs:

    In 2007, the reported cost for the first two AP1000 units under construction in China was $5.3 billion.

    In 2009, the published cost for 4 AP1000 reactors under construction in China was a total of $8 billion.

    in 2010, the Chinese nuclear commission expect construction costs would fall significantly once full scale mass production is underway. In addition, a domestic CAP1400 design based on the AP1000 is due to start construction in April 2013 with a scheduled start of 2017. Once the CAP1400 design has been proven, work is scheduled for a CAP1700 design with a target construction cost of $1000/kW
    I do not believe those figures include the cost of decommissioning nuclear plants - this is enormous because the entire central power generation needs to be dismantled and disposed of, vast amounts of radioactive concrete among other things.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    and have plenty left over for all those electric car dreams
    By the time something is gone into industrial mass production, its a little beyond the dream stage.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I dont understand how a nationalist like yourself does not understand that importing Chineese/Danish turbines does not create jobs here
    I wouldn't intend to import the equipment, but rather use it as one of our core niche domestic export based industries, building out the local infrastructure as a bootstrap. Bit like the Asian tiger economic model.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    instead we will spend 30 billion maybe have 60% power generated on a windy day in 20 years time from now and still be burning fossil fuels, thats a lose lose scenario for everyone but the wind industry who be laughing all the way to the bank (with the bankers) at the stupidity of the Irish
    Nope, that's an estimate for around 120%. And as mentioned, if we can manage the domestic industry element, we can probably cut that by a third, since up to a fifth of the install cost is just transporting the massive vanes to their site, plus wind turbine manufacture benefits from economies of scale really well.


  • #126
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    nesf wrote: »
    Actually the one off is the manufacture of the turbines, the sustained jobs comes from installation and maintenance of the turbines and the grid that supports them, creating a fair few jobs. It'll never be a big employer but jobs it will create.

    And how many jobs are not being created or lost for that matter thanks to having such expensive electricity :( and other policies being pursued by the Greens in order to increase energy prices (like paying 3x for petrol here compared to US)

    I myself have to send off hardware to the continent (France is one of the location mainly thanks to nuclear) and US where the power is much cheaper supporting jobs there not here in Ireland.

    Hell if we had cheap and reliable power could manufacture these generators things here, but no...


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 718 ✭✭✭dynamick


    Richard Tol wrote: »
    Wind may be free, but wind turbines are not. At present, wind power cannot compete without subsidies.
    The implication of this statement is that fossil fuels are unsubsidised or less subsidised than renewables.

    To back up this assumption you would need to assess and then compare the subsidies for both types of energy source. You would also need an estimate for the price of fossil fuels throughout the lifespan of a wind turbine.

    What is the price of securing the supply of oil and gas from the Middle East and the Russians?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

    The choice of national infrastructure and the planning rules that disperse people from each other and their jobs leaves rational citizens with no choice but to spend heavily on fossil-fuel based personal transport. When you want to heat your house you find that the home heating oil attracts a specially low rate of tax compared to car fuel. This tax break acts as a subsidy.

    When I go to the shops on my bike the prices I pay for goods are used to subsidise the 'free' car park outside. In this way people are encouraged to burn a litre of petrol whenever they need a litre of milk.

    And how much does wind cost Ireland and what alternatives do we have?

    The latest PSO levy adds €3 per month to domestic electricity bills and about €1 of that goes to subsidise wind prices. The levy only kicks in when the price of electricity falls below a certain tariff so for example last year the PSO levy was zero. If fossil fuel prices rise in future there will be no levy.

    What other subsidies exist? there is a tax break for companies buying renewable energy equipment to allow them to write off the capital cost against corporation tax. But there is also a bundle of tax incentives for companies that wish to prospect for oil or gas in Irish waters.

    What alternative does Ireland have to encouraging renewables? None. As members of the EU we now have a legally binding obligation to switch a proportion of energy produced to renewables.
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:01:EN:HTML


  • #128
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Really

    Yes really
    In the spring of 2007 China National Nuclear Corp. selected the Westinghouse/Shaw consortium to build four nuclear reactors for an estimated US$8 billion. As of April 2010, these are the only units in the world to have started construction.

    3 years from permission being granted building begins

    $8 billion is €6 billion euro, not bad for 4x1154MW units! 4500MW is about how much baseload power this country needs, for 10 billion would have enough to cover the peaks we have and export the rest



    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Nope, that's an estimate for around 120%. And as mentioned, if we can manage the domestic industry element, we can probably cut that by a third, since up to a fifth of the install cost is just transporting the massive vanes to their site, plus wind turbine manufacture benefits from economies of scale really well.

    why bother manufacturing them here when the Chinese have cheaper labour and cheaper energy costs, a legacy of decades wasted by the state dabbling in generation and now expensive wind power detroying your plans for an industrial future, i am surprised you cant see that point, or are refusing too.

    manufacturing will never return to this country, not with the energy prices we have, funny enough with a grid running on cheap and reliable nuclear power we could become a manufacturing center, but no sure manufacturing is dirty we need those smart jobs (which need cheap energy too btw!)


  • #129
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    And how many jobs are not being created or lost for that matter thanks to having such expensive electricity :( and other policies being pursued by the Greens in order to increase energy prices (like paying 3x for petrol here compared to US)

    I myself have to send off hardware to the continent (France is one of the location mainly thanks to nuclear) and US where the power is much cheaper supporting jobs there not here in Ireland.

    Hell if we had cheap and reliable power could manufacture these generators things here, but no...

    Power cost is not the main factor in us not making generators here, it's a general lack of a strong native tradition in engineering manufacture. We've imported technology of this type, i.e. electric generators and motors, since the foundation of the State and before then.


  • #130
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    nesf wrote: »
    Power cost is not the main factor in us not making generators here, it's a general lack of a strong native tradition in engineering manufacture. We've imported technology of this type, i.e. electric generators and motors, since the foundation of the State and before then.

    Its not just motors I am talking about, things like making the steel ets for the pylons and the platforms, we used to have steel making industry now we don't in part to high energy costs.

    Cheap and reliable energy would attract heavy industry such as smelting and ship building

    and more importantly in the modern economies, datacenters!

    its is much much cheaper to build these in locations such as US and continent than here, the few datacenters we do have are either empty due to crazy costs or build by multibillion dollar companies who have money to waste since they use Ireland and these operations as a way of evading tax liabilities.

    edit: BTW those motors required rare earth metals for the magnets which take up alot of energy to dig up huge quaries and extract tiny amounts of rare metals from these, currently causing alot of environmental damage in China.
    All the Green policies are doing is exporting the pollution and jobs elsewhere, instead of even bothering to examine all the options available and tacking the climate change that apparently is so life threatening to all of us.


  • #131
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Nope, that's an estimate for around 120%.

    So using an optimistic availability of 30% we will only be making 40% of the countries day to day needs for 30 billion

    Yep so much for energy independence and cutting out fossil fuels


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    $8 billion is €6 billion euro, not bad for 4x1154MW units! 4500MW is about how much baseload power this country needs, for 10 billion would have enough to cover the peaks we have and export the rest
    You want to take lessons in nuclear power plant construction from the same country that gave us lead-filled children's toys? China has a full blown command economy, here in the west the cost would be a great deal higher, as the western figures indicate. I'm quite sure you could make nuclear cost competitive once you dispose of all those pesky insurance, safety, and financing costs. Of course you might lose a chunk of your population and useable land area from time to time, but Thats Progress!
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    why bother manufacturing them here when the Chinese have cheaper labour and cheaper energy costs, a legacy of decades wasted by the state dabbling in generation and now expensive wind power detroying your plans for an industrial future, i am surprised you cant see that point, or are refusing too.
    Why do the Danish bother? Oh yes, four billion in exports annually and thirty thousand jobs.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    manufacturing will never return to this country, not with the energy prices we have, funny enough with a grid running on cheap and reliable nuclear power we could become a manufacturing center, but no sure manufacturing is dirty we need those smart jobs (which need cheap energy too btw!)
    After the infrastructure is built out, we can at times export energy to offset any import costs, removing the full five to six billion annual costs for energy import we currently face. In addition to our favourable tax regime, I would expect total energy costs to drop, especially once the minimum pricing rules are relaxed.


  • #133
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    So using an optimistic availability of 30% we will only be making 40% of the countries day to day needs for 30 billion

    Yep so much for energy independence and cutting out fossil fuels
    And you were complaining about the maths of wind? 6gw, a lot more than we regularly use now, times lets say four assuming a rather below par 25% efficiency, comes to 24gw of installed wind power. That costs in the region of €20 to €25 billion, due to economies of scale. Add another €5 billion for infrastructure and so on, and you get €30 billion, which as mentioned you could cut down by promoting domestic industry.

    That's the cost for 24gw of installed wind, about half what the UK is planning to put just offshore in the near future.


  • #134
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    You want to take lessons in nuclear power plant construction from the same country that gave us lead-filled children's toys? China has a full blown command economy, here in the west the cost would be a great deal higher, as the western figures indicate. I'm quite sure you could make nuclear cost competitive once you dispose of all those pesky insurance, safety, and financing costs. Of course you might lose a chunk of your population and useable land area from time to time, but Thats Progress!

    I posted before you did, 30 billion for 40% of the countries needs is a **** investment especially when some of the money is being borrowed from IMF and another chunk is stolen from the economy which badly needs capital now.

    Anyways dont you admire those Chinese :P I seen to remember you giving them praises several times, 14 of these plants are being planned/build in US now, of course we dont have to use brans spanking new 3rd gen technology, im sure the French be happy to come in and build some.

    the 20 billion left over would more than cover any recommissioning costs especially if put into a fund for the duration of the plants life. the NPRF seemed to do ok with 20 billion before that piggy bank was raided.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Why do the Danish bother? Oh yes, four billion in exports annually and thirty thousand jobs.
    Ah the Danes decades head start in the wind area and still reliant on imports when the wind doesn't blow and sometime export for free and have the highest electricity costs in Europe. A model we should emulate :rolleyes:.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    After the infrastructure is built out, we can at times export energy to offset any import costs, removing the full five to six billion annual costs for energy import we currently face. In addition to our favourable tax regime, I would expect total energy costs to drop, especially once the minimum pricing rules are relaxed.
    there's over 1500MW build already, where is the corresponding drop in prices, i am waiting, and these are the low hanging fruit.


  • #135
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    And you were complaining about the maths of wind? 6gw, a lot more than we regularly use now, times lets say four assuming a rather below par 25% efficiency, comes to 24gw of installed wind power. That costs in the region of €20 to €25 billion, due to economies of scale. Add another €5 billion for infrastructure and so on, and you get €30 billion, which as mentioned you could cut down by promoting domestic industry.

    That's the cost for 24gw of installed wind, about half what the UK is planning to put just offshore in the near future.


    At 600 million for 500MW interconnector that be another 24 billion to export most of this added to the cost :rolleyes:

    And of course when its night here its night in UK and Europe as well, sure we export it for free, or why not just build a cable all the way to China


  • #136
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    At 600 million for 500MW interconnector that be another 24 billion to export most of this added to the cost :rolleyes:

    And of course when its night here its night in UK and Europe as well, sure we export it for free, or why not just build a cable all the way to China
    You're practically quoting Richard Tol word for word.


  • #137
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    You're practically quoting Richard Tol word for word.

    I don't like the guy and often disagree with his points, but he is onto something, the people of this country are being shafted yet again.


  • #138
    Richard Tol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Richard Tol


    Last time I checked, fossil fuels (other than peat) are taxed in Ireland while selected renewables (and peat) are subsidized.


  • #139
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I don't like the guy and often disagree with his points, but he is onto something, the people of this country are being shafted yet again.
    What I think he missed with that comment is that we don't need to build our own personal cable to China to be able to sell our renewable energy. We just need a cable into the European market, which means a cable to France really or depending on how the single energy market evolves in the EU, just to the UK.

    We won't just be satisfying their need for electricity, we'll be satisfying their needs for renewable electricity. There are massive electricity demand centres across Europe and many countries that will struggle to hit their targets. In the UK, their % share of renewables is actually going down. Germany is another country that will struggle as they don't actually have a lot of sea within their territory in which to build offshore wind.


  • #140
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    What I think he missed with that comment is that we don't need to build our own personal cable to China to be able to sell our renewable energy. We just need a cable into the European market, which means a cable to France really or depending on how the single energy market evolves in the EU, just to the UK.

    We won't just be satisfying their need for electricity, we'll be satisfying their needs for renewable electricity. There are massive electricity demand centres across Europe and many countries that will struggle to hit their targets. In the UK, their % share of renewables is actually going down. Germany is another country that will struggle as they don't actually have a lot of sea within their territory in which to build offshore wind.

    Why would the French buy from us? they have plenty of cheap and reliable nuclear :rolleyes:

    Transmission losses across large distances are diabolic, we loose something like 20% getting energy from one side of the country to the other. DC might help somewhat but this aint cheap, and superconductors are ultra expensive.

    At 600 million per 500MW line to UK we go broke very quickly, hell we cant even build them cheaper, our East-West connector came out more expensive than the UK<>Netherlands one which is longer


  • #141
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Richard Tol wrote: »
    Last time I checked, fossil fuels (other than peat) are taxed in Ireland while selected renewables (and peat) are subsidized.
    Richard, (if that is you..!), fossil fuels benefit from a variety of subsidies in Ireland. Just one example is the subsidies granted to internal aviation. There are other agreements that ensure no tax is paid on aviation fuel.

    There are plenty of other examples.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Why would the French buy from us? they have plenty of cheap and reliable nuclear :rolleyes:
    Nuclear does not qualify as renewable under EU agreements.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Transmission losses across large distances are diabolic, we loose something like 20% getting energy from one side of the country to the other. DC might help somewhat but this aint cheap, and superconductors are ultra expensive.
    HVDC offers relatively small transmission losses. Yes it's expensive but what of the cost of relying on fossil fuels? Even nuclear, which you propose, is not a cheap option.


  • #143
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ...there was one in Germany running without issues for 20 years during 70s and 80s...
    The AVR? My understanding is that there were serious operational problems and local contamination of soil and groundwater. If this prototype was so successful, why have no full-scale pebble-bed reactors been built anywhere in the world in the 22 years since the AVR was decommissioned?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    nuclear seems like a cheap, low risk option...
    You’ve yet to demonstrate that nuclear is in any way a cheap option.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    those are 3rd gen reactors, there are plenty of 2nd gen reactors running in UK and France, last I checked both countries are doing rather well and are not nuclear wastelands
    At what point did I voice opposition to nuclear power on safety grounds? Can you demonstrate that construction of second-generation reactors in Ireland would reduce the cost of electricity?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    the amount of carbon used in construction of the plant and mining of the ore is minimal...
    Lower than wind? I doubt it.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ...breeder reactors can make better use of the fuel and reprocess it over and over
    Yes, but once again, this a largely untested technology.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    windmills are not carbon free either...
    I never said they were.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ... the rare earth elements needed for the magnets require stupendous amounts of ore to be processed at great harm to the environment...
    Whereas high-grade uranium grows on trees.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ...in China of course...
    This is the same China who’s nuclear programme you claim Ireland should be using as an example to be followed?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    considering that the country now has a target of generating most of its energy from wind, its scary to see that there is no studies or cost/benefit analysis's done, and the likes of Eirgrid cant even tell the people how much of their money they will waste over coming decades on new connections
    I’m seeing quite a lot of figures on this thread in relation to wind generation. Not seeing too much for nuclear though.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    but we are not paying anywhere near 4c
    Again, I never said we were. I’m just totting up based on the apparently “shocking” figures that you provided. Surely it’s obvious that Irish electricity costs far more because it’s mostly based derived from imported fuels?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ...with the number of turbines installed in Ireland there has been no corresponding decrease in prices...
    I wouldn’t expect there to be an immediate reduction in prices due to the front-loading of costs.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ...the only decreases we seen was due to gas price reductions but even then regulator keeps the price high to subsidiese wind
    Nothing else gets subsidised?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Arguing with environuts nowadays is like arguing with FFers...
    Referring to other posters as “environuts” only serves to weaken your own argument.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Yes really



    3 years from permission being granted building begins
    Yeah – IN CHINA. Let’s also not forget that this is a reactor design which has yet to be approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission due to safety concerns.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    $8 billion is €6 billion euro, not bad for 4x1154MW units!
    In China.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    All the Green policies are doing is exporting the pollution and jobs elsewhere...
    ...whereas mining and refining nuclear fuel would be a domestic industry?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I posted before you did, 30 billion for 40% of the countries needs is a **** investment...
    Can you demonstrate that nuclear would be a cheaper option for Ireland (I’m not sure why it’s a binary choice, by the way)?


  • #144
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    Nuclear does not qualify as renewable under EU agreements..

    Its carbon free, aint helping the planet whats all of this about, no?

    Macha wrote: »
    HVDC offers relatively small transmission losses. Yes it's expensive but what of the cost of relying on fossil fuels? Even nuclear, which you propose, is not a cheap option.

    Its 3x cheaper than the wind option we are pursuing


  • #145
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Its carbon free...
    No it's not.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Its 3x cheaper than the wind option we are pursuing
    Prove it.


  • #146
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    @djpbarry

    its interesting that I have to prove things, yet the greens and their wind buddies who are actually wasting billions of our money dont

    no double standards no?


  • #147
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    In fairness, nuclear is about on par with other renewables in terms of its carbon emissions depending on the studies. No form of energy is entirely carbon free. The main issue with nuclear is disposal of the spent fuel.

    But in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, ei.sdraob, I appreciate that you would want to see some figures.

    The other very challenging area is transport. Unless we electrify all transport, which has it's own issues in terms of batteries and rare earth metals, we need to sort out our land use planning and public transport.


  • #148
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    In fairness, nuclear is about on par with other renewables in terms of its carbon emissions. No form of energy is entirely carbon free. The main issue with nuclear is disposal of the spent fuel.

    And this is addressed mostly via breeder reactors, which unlike @djbarrys assumptions have been running in various countries since the 60s by now

    thorium reactors being build in India (who have 360,000 tones of the stuff enough to power them for 2500 years) of all places on the other hand move away from uranium altogether, thorium is much more plentiful than uranium, doesnt produce weapons grade materials and less waste, and as added bonus we have thorium in the rocks in the north west of the country

    most of the problems with nuclear energy to date has been the dual use of these reactors to produce weapon grade stuff as well as energy.

    of course we want to be "smart" and pioneering and copy the Danes while not learning from their mistakes but apparently we are not smart enough to research and construct plants based on decades old technologies that are being build in so called third world countries, yet here in our "smart green" utopia all smartness extends as far as importing turbines with "made in china" text printed on its sides and then turning around and making all the consumers of electricity pay guaranteed <high> prices for the this cute whoorery


    the smell of hypocrisy from the Greens is amazing.


  • #149
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    its interesting that I have to prove things, yet the greens and their wind buddies who are actually wasting billions of our money dont

    no double standards no?
    You’re absolutely right – you’re being quite hypocritical. You chastise the Green Party for not providing figures to justify the country’s investment in wind power (nothing wrong with seeking justification for public expenditure), but at the same time suggest that nuclear is a far cheaper option while producing absolutely no data to back up such a claim.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    And this is addressed mostly via breeder reactors, which unlike @djbarrys assumptions have been running in various countries since the 60s by now.
    It’s not an assumption – I know of just one breeder reactor currently operational today (in Russia, I believe).
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    thorium reactors being build in India (who have 360,000 tones of the stuff enough to power them for 2500 years) of all places...
    Yes, they’re building a prototype fast breeder.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    most of the problems with nuclear energy to date has been the dual use of these reactors to produce weapon grade stuff as well as energy.
    Not to mention cost, waste, security and the challenges associated with decommissioning.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    of course we want to be "smart" and pioneering and copy the Danes while not learning from their mistakes but apparently we are not smart enough to research and construct plants based on decades old technologies that are being build in so called third world countries...
    Dude, they are not decades-old technologies - the sort of nuclear technologies you keep referring to are largely untested. I agree that, in the future, nuclear is likely to be a major player in the global energy market and there are certainly some interesting technologies under development. I’m just not at all convinced by your argument that Ireland should never have built any wind turbines and should have instead invested in nuclear generation.


  • #150
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I posted before you did, 30 billion for 40% of the countries needs is a **** investment especially when some of the money is being borrowed from IMF and another chunk is stolen from the economy which badly needs capital now.
    Again, you did the maths wrong.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Anyways dont you admire those Chinese :P I seen to remember you giving them praises several times,
    I certainly admire the asian tiger model they have used to achieve growth, I have no repsect for their system of government.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    the 20 billion left over would more than cover any recommissioning costs especially if put into a fund for the duration of the plants life. the NPRF seemed to do ok with 20 billion before that piggy bank was raided.
    Hold on - from the figures I linked, in the west with proper safety features, insurance, and costs of labour and finance, nuclear costs (factually) anywhere between one and three times the cost of wind. Its as expensive or more expensive. And that's before you start looking into the political shambles you'd run into.

    Again I'm not ideologically opposed to nuclear, it works in some situations very well, where no natural resources exist otherwise. We do have a massive natural resource swirling around our ears constantly, keeping northern Europe out of an ice age, so nuclear is not the best fit for Ireland.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Ah the Danes decades head start in the wind area
    This isn't brain surgery. The Chinese were able to start rolling them out almost on a whim.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    there's over 1500MW build already, where is the corresponding drop in prices, i am waiting, and these are the low hanging fruit.
    There's a minimum electricity price set by the government.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    At 600 million for 500MW interconnector that be another 24 billion to export most of this added to the cost :rolleyes:
    That's going to be built one way or the other, and is unrelated to wind costs specifically. Besides, how much was the sealed gas pipeline?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    And of course when its night here its night in UK and Europe as well, sure we export it for free, or why not just build a cable all the way to China
    The idea behind the supergrid is to use renewable sources to supplement each other, and ultimately phase out fossil fuel power, like for example DESERTEC, which wants to plaster the Sahara in solar cells. That'll work great, except at night.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Transmission losses across large distances are diabolic, we loose something like 20% getting energy from one side of the country to the other.
    No, they are not. Look up HVDC.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    At 600 million per 500MW line to UK we go broke very quickly, hell we cant even build them cheaper, our East-West connector came out more expensive than the UK<>Netherlands one which is longer
    Good thing we don't need more than a couple of them so - you don't plan on running an entire national grid off them. And once again, the HVDC interconnector would be a smart move even if we were burning peat or what have you. In the scenario outlined above, not only do you almost completely remove the five to six billion in fossil fuel imports into the country (something you haven't addressed yet), you end up selling power at least as often as you buy it, and on average in say ten years time, you could sell it three times as often as you buy it.

    That'll cover the maintenance quite handily.

    Which means you are left with a strong export industry, tens of thousands of jobs leading to hopefully billions in exports, net zero energy imports, decent energy exports, and very little reason to charge beyond the minimum after the capital installation costs are paid. And all of that is if you don't give a toss about the environment.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 718 ✭✭✭dynamick


    HVDC can transmit with around 3% loss per 1,000km
    http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-transmission/hvdc/hvdc-ultra/#content=Benefits

    It's strange to channel your anger into firm convictions on a subject you know little about. Why not use some of that energy to read up on the basics?

    Tol is a rare creature: an academic demagogue. Try to resist the urge to enlist in his monkey army.


Advertisement