Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
nuclear
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89205
Nuclear power is more stable then politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_StatesOf the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable
A nuclear plant will need to run for many decades to break even on construction cost. Look at how politics and the economic climate has changed here in the past two decades.Chemistry and Physics will always be the same but our understanding of them will change. e.g cars, airplanes, power plant, computers, phones and rockets will they might have built off the old model there safer more efficient.
So we will have to wait until diesel hybrids arrive to get an improvement on regular diesel (except in the case of stop-start rush hour traffic, and public transport is the proper fix for that)
Yes we have electric cars. The only real changes there are better batteries and cheaper control systems. LEAP still use the Lead Acid battery invented in 1859 because it's so much cheaper than lithium - the only battery with a lower power to weight ratio is the iron nickel battery and it was only invented because of patents on nickel cadmiumI believe it was you who mention Moore's law in term of solar plane in the desert
Which FYI will never work0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89205
I have seen zero evidence that energy storage is going to improve, unless that fellow from CalTech perfects his solar > liquid chemical fuel gizmo (video posted on here a while back).Again, I have no reason to believe it will.
There are no new proven nuclear technoligies on the horizon to be commercialised.
There are lots of improvements in renewables awaiting development.
biomass through improved strains of crops
mangroves will provide biomass in areas without fresh water
very efficient multi layer solar panels exist again the problem is to commercialise them (one way is to focus sunlight on them so you only need 1/1000th the area , but cooling is an issue)
energy can be stored and transported as aluminium (IMHO not very efficient, but it can be done)
Also there are many renewable breakthroughs that are possible and haven't been ruled out by 70 years and billions of dead end research
If you can figure out a way of reducing bio-fouling then maybe it might be possible to reduce the cost of harvesting uranium from seawater, but it would mean that we could harvest energy from the osmotic pressure between rivers and seawater
If you can figure out a cheaper battery then the internal combustion engine is history.
[quoteThat's because virtually every form of power has its issues. With regards to be putting "filthy" before everything, I make no apology for condeming coal, peat and oil power as, yes, filthy, nor for my questioning the environmental prudence of weather based renewables that depend on "rare earth" metals. Or that have a potentially devastating effect on birds and bats as wind mills do.[/quote]please stop with that chestnut
hydro electricity does not use rare earths
it would be more efficient if it did. Same is true of wind , at present the cost benefit means that rare earths can be used. If you take a small hit on efficiency or use other materials or if new sources come on line the rare earth materials aren't a limiting factor. Think of them as being like lead in leaded petrol. Leaded petrol had a higher octane rating than unleaded. But not a problem any more is it ?
Natural gas, we should have better security of supply than for Uranium[*]By virtue of our size, the purchase of a strategic stockpile of fuel would probably be little more than a blip on the uranium market.
nuclear won't work if everyone else wants it , we can't compete
if few others want it then what do they know that we don't ?
Granite - uranium , not exactly rocket science. It's more valuable than gold so massive mineworks,
TBH I'd rather see a mountain covered in windmills than have leachate from a uranium mine0 -
I think someone is forgetting that nuclear power plants provide HOT STEAM, not electricity.
Einstein (1946). “Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water!"
The electricity from any nuclear power station is generated by the steam going through a steam turbine and driving a synchronous generator, which contains.. wait for it.... RARE EARTH MAGNETS, just like a wind turbine (only on a vast scale)
A nuclear power plant also requires, vast amounts of concrete, lead shielding, extra thick pressure vessels cast from expensive metals, lead cladding on pipes carrying coolant ... the list is endless.
You'd really think from the way that it's being talked about by some posters here that you just put the nuclear fuel into a reactor and electricity magically comes out the other end!
All a nuclear reactor is does is produce heat.0 -
I have seen zero evidence that energy storage is going to improve...Again, I have no reason to believe it will.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/2011-renewable-energy-recap-tides-turbines-and-big-thinkingI would like to believe that we can just build windmills and solar panels and live happily ever after enjoying a 1st world way of life and no downsides.That's because virtually every form of power has its issues.With regards to be putting "filthy" before everything, I make no apology for condeming coal, peat and oil power as, yes, filthy, nor for my questioning the environmental prudence of weather based renewables that depend on "rare earth" metals.As for natural gas, if we accept that it's squeaky clean...It's a very finite fossil fuel...
Methane is actually renewable to an extent (you’re producing it right now) and there’s a lot of research interest in biogas – the UK (for example) had its first biogas facility start feeding into the gas network a couple of years ago.We use gas for building heating as well and could potentially use it to fuel cars instead of Middle Eastern oil.
...but we can fuel cars with them? Care to fill in the gaping hole in that argument?By virtue of our size, the purchase of a strategic stockpile of fuel...0 -
Have you? Been using any portable electronics lately?
15 years ago I had a portable cassette player. Needed audio tape and it had a lot of mechanical parts IIRC.
Nowadays, you can fit many times the music of a cassette tape onto an SD card the size of your thumbnail.You have no reason to believe that there will be any advancement in renewable energy technology ever again? I’m beginning to find it very, very difficult to take you seriously:
I don’t think you’ll find too many people sharing that belief, so please stop constructing nonsense arguments and attributing them to others.
Renewables will do what they will, they'll either get better or they won't, or more likely just continue sucking up subsidies, killing wildlife and producing an unreliable energy supply.
But since a 100% renewable scenario is more or less of the table, the choice still has to be made between fossil fuels (e.g. coal) and nuclear.
That is the choice that has to be made and we've seen it Germany, where they've gone mad on a coal fired power spree and simultaneously made the country an economic vassal of Russia via Gazprom.
And now we're seeing it in Japan where there will be power shortages, an increase in electricity costs to pay for imported fossil, the economic subjugation of that country to Russia, a first in 30 years trade deficit, oh and the big one, all the environmental damage that will be done burning all those filthy fossil fuels, like oil and coal.Two words: uranium mining.We don’t.Hang on there now just one cotton-picking minute – you’re telling us that we can’t stockpile fossil fuels...
...but we can fuel cars with them? Care to fill in the gaping hole in that argument?- For one thing, we're already doing it with oil.
- I'm just saying its an option, they're looking at it in the United States (The Pickens plan).
- If we accepted as a given that Ireland will always import X amount of natural gas, would it make more sense to burn it in power stations, or divert it to cars, displacing oil?
Ireland’s size is completely irrelevant. How much is this stockpile of uranium going to cost? How long will it last? What happens when Ireland needs more but, because a bunch of other nations have also gone nuclear, the price has gotten so high Ireland can’t afford another stockpile?
May I also remind you that 2 energy companies thought there was uranium in Donegal?Oh that’s right, I forgot, thorium and breeder reactors will sort everything.Capt'n Midnight wrote:we aren't going to win a bidding / influence war with China.Capt'n Midnight wrote:figure out how much steam you could store in a billion euro worth of underground resevoir
I'm sorry, but after reading this I just couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advances in portable electronics are primarily due to improvements in micro-circuitry.Renewables will do what they will, they'll either get better or they won't, or more likely just continue sucking up subsidies, killing wildlife and producing an unreliable energy supply.I don't know enough about it to comment...
...and in all that time you never bothered to read up on the damage that uranium mining does? Are you kidding me?If we accepted as a given that Ireland will always import X amount of natural gas, would it make more sense to burn it in power stations, or divert it to cars, displacing oil?Yes, I believe the Indians are going to get it...I'm sorry, but after reading this I just couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.0 -
Fueling cars with it implies stock-piling – you said we can’t do that with fossil fuels. Are you suggesting now that we can?Great – that doesn’t answer my question. How much will it cost for Ireland to build up a uranium stockpile to meet its energy needs, how much will that stockpile cost and how long will it last?
The World Nuclear Association estimates the cost of obtaining 1kg of nuclear fuel at about US$2700. Of which US$1300 comes from the price of U308 and the rest from processing costs, leading to, in their estimate, a fuel cost of US$0.0077, thats .77 of one cent, per kilowatt-hour, assuming that the fuel yielded 360,000 kw/h.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Ireland used just under 27 billion kw/h of electricity last year,
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ei&v=81
so our fuel requirements would be 75,000 kg per year, (360,000 * 75,000 = 27,000,000,000) or 75 tonnes if you prefer. Total cost for the year would be $202,500,000 (or 75,000 X US$2700), which is entirely reasonable IMO for a national annual electricity fuel cost.
That's assuming every single kw/h was generated by nuclear power plants which is not what I would be after, I'd be happy with say 50%. The rest to be generated by renewables (which I'm not totally against, just skeptical of) and some fossil fuel backup generators, used in emergency or on an as-needed basis.
So we're down to $101,250,000. Or €78,372,562.50, for a years nuclear fuel @ 50% of national demand.
http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert/?Amount=101250000&From=USD&To=EUR
Assume that we have spent fuel reprocessed on our behalf and that number goes down again, but I don't know by how much.
And since Donegal may have Uranium there's a good chance a lot of that money would stay in Ireland.
After that, calculating the cost of a strategic uranium reserve depends on how long you want to stockpile for, and what assumptions you make about future energy demand.Oh, you believe the Indians will crack it, do you? Based on?
For India and China it's another story. Between them they have well over 2 billion people and their governments intend to give them all a Western lifestyle. They also have massive reserves of the stuff, should they ever find use for it.
In summary:
If cracking the Thorium nut is simply a matter of doing enough research, they will do so because it is a national imperitave and that guarantees they'll put in the necessary effort to do it.[MOD]Posters have entertained plenty of nonsense from your good self – you are in absolutely no position to play any “I can’t take you seriously” cards.[/MOD]0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89205
Advances in portable electronics are primarily due to improvements in micro-circuitry.
I'm sorry, but after reading this I just couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.
You can use renewables to improve the stored steam by increasing the pressure. (mechanical vapour recompression etc.)
The only query is whether it would be economic to store energy in the form of steam.
http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_storage.htm - for liquid oxygen the boil off rate is 0.49% per month. Steam / superheated water would have similar temp differences and heat transfer rates.
Unlike Thorium reactors it's something that can be done with 19th century technology. Reliable breeding Thorium reactors is something we haven't done with 21st century technology. And even if the Indians get it working it will take a long time to ramp up the technology.0 -
...so our fuel requirements would be 75,000 kg per year, (360,000 * 75,000 = 27,000,000,000) or 75 tonnes if you prefer.
That also assumes that Ireland's demand for electricity will not increase over that 50-year period, which seems rather unlikely considering it's increased by almost 50% in the last decade (economic boom not withstanding).If cracking the Thorium nut is simply a matter of doing enough research, they will do so because it is a national imperitave and that guarantees they'll put in the necessary effort to do it.0 -
Let's assume you want to build a stockpile for, say, 50 years (the approximate lifetime of a nuclear plant). That means you need 3,750 tonnes of uranium, which represents about 6% of global annual production - hardly a blip, as you suggested.
That also assumes that Ireland's demand for electricity will not increase over that 50-year period, which seems rather unlikely considering it's increased by almost 50% in the last decade
I gave you figures only for Irelands energy use for 2011, and the amount of nuclear fuel and the cost of same that would be required to supply all of that with nuclear electricity, with backing for the calculations. Everything else, I said, depended on the assumptions.
But I further suggested that I saw an objective of 50% nuclear for Ireland, not 100%. Your assumption was for 100%, which doesn't even happen in France, where its about 75%.
You also assumed that a hypothetical stockpile would have to be built over a single year. Again, a rather poor assumption.Capt'n Midnight wrote:SeanW wrote:Advances in portable electronics are primarily due to improvements in micro-circuitry.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89205
I'm not being smart but I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that micro-circuitry has not improved since the era of of analog mobile phone & Sony Walkman? And who said anything about "fundamental breakthroughs?"
Nuclear industry still has pipedreams
everyone is protecting their own fiefdoms, there isn't a roadmap saying where the technology will be in 18 months time , or five years time.
India and China are spend vastly more on uranium than thorium
China is spending more on solar than thorium , they may have an expirimental 5MW reactor in 3 years (I won't keep them to that) and even if they do there is a lot of scaling up to do. And then you may have one first generation station. India hope to have one reactor running by the end of the decade.
In short the semiconductor industry will produce more efficient chips that will require less power and this will reduce energy demand by far more than thorium reactors will produce in the next 20 years. Considering that a fab costs about the same as the cradle to grave costs of one reactor, it's probably cheaper to invest in reducing electricity demand that way than to try to supply extra needed by obsolete tech.0 -
There were actually very considerable breakthroughs and changes in battery technology in the last 30 years.
The mobile device industry, rather than the car industry or power industries, have driven those.
We've gone from lead-acid batteries and Nickel–cadmium in early portable computers and phones that were the size of a large brief case, to Nickel–metal hydride battery in the late 1980s / early 1990s to commercially usable lithium ion batteries in the mid to late 1990s which are what power all laptops / mobile phones these days.
The amount of power stored per KG of battery is vastly better than what it was 20 years ago.0 -
These are all your assumptions ... and as you point out they're rather poor.I gave you figures only for Irelands energy use for 2011...But I further suggested that I saw an objective of 50% nuclear for Ireland, not 100%. Your assumption was for 100%, which doesn't even happen in France, where its about 75%.You also assumed that a hypothetical stockpile would have to be built over a single year.
So how long will it take to build your stockpile then?0 -
-
Is that right? So AAA batteries are still powering everything, are they?So, just to clarify, you have been arguing on here for several years now that nuclear is way, way cleaner than everything else...
...and in all that time you never bothered to read up on the damage that uranium mining does? Are you kidding me?
and everything I've read suggests that the indirect lifecycle CO2 costs of nuclear energy are comaprable with wind and hydroelectricity. Those lifecycle emissions include those of mining and processing fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IEA.PNG
As for any other issues, as I said I suspect it's a case of there being a right way and a wrong way to do it, just like with a wide variety of other industries.
So yes, I stand over my claim that nuclear way cleaner than coal and oil, likely also solar PV which has severe manufacturing costs, less so gas, the CO2 stats for one clearly back me up on that.So how long will it take to build your stockpile then?
It would be a very good idea if we could do this for gas considering that in future we'll have to feed and placate an increasingly wealthy and aggressive Russian 'Bear' to keep the lights on, the way we're going. Germany is already there, thanks to its anti-nuclear movement.
But yes, you could build Ireland's stockpile over 3 years, taking 1% of annual production each year. And you could probably fit it all into a large warehouse. Likely side effects would be short term increased mining/exploration and and very small price increases consistent with supply and demand.
I wonder what would be involved in building a 30-50 year stockpile of gas? I'm guessing it would be more difficult.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89205
So yes, I stand over my claim that nuclear way cleaner than coal and oil, likely also solar PV which has severe manufacturing costs, less so gas, the CO2 stats for one clearly back me up on that.Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells.
materials costs are dropping, anti-reflection coatings are improving. There is plenty of scope for improvement.
Semiconductor industry is moving to 450mm wafers, with 22nm feature size, that's less than one inch if sized up to Ireland. And this technology will trickle down to solar panels. ( and the whole GeAs on Si could be a game changer never mind nanotubes and graphene - solar panels have many , many paths for improvement. Thorium research started in 1946 ) 22nm is smaller than the wavelengths of light in use, this means it may be possible to make fractal rectennas as in completely new ways of converting light into useful energy.
Of course if there is a substantial improvement in photo-hydrolysis efficiency then all bets are off. Sunlight + water = hydrogen (and oxygen)
Multijunction cells can already provide the voltage.
and plenty of research on electricity + sunlight to break down water, the technology needed is like the difference between making Red LED's and Blue ones, except that we already have all the pieces, it's just a matter of fitting them together.
full costs of nuclear are around $10 per watt, our government would be doing well to get 7% loans to build a nuclear plant.
solar $1/watt and falling at 7% a yearBut yes, you could build Ireland's stockpile over 3 years, taking 1% of annual production each year. And you could probably fit it all into a large warehouse. Likely side effects would be short term increased mining/exploration and and very small price increases consistent with supply and demand.
I wonder what would be involved in building a 30-50 year stockpile of gas? I'm guessing it would be more difficult.
Enriched uranium is far more expensive and limited by capacity of processing. So if we had a warehouse of natural uranium we still at the mercy of market forces for processing costs and timescales. We could use CANDU reactors with natural uranium but probably need an extra €2Bn per reactor to pay for the Heavy Water, and there is the whole proliferation problems.
I hope you aren't suggesting we store enriched uranium in a warehouse even if we could afford it.
PS.
Don't we already have 30-50 years gas off Mayo ?0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »also TBH
Wow ... an American umbrella group (Nuclear Energy Institute), promotes nuclear power as an American solution for American people to solve American problems, in an American newspaper intended to be read by citizens of ... the United States of America.
But according to the 'artist' who FYPed the ad, it's inevitably a cover for a secret nuclear weapons. Did you know that the U.S.A. has nuclear weapons? Because according to the person who "fixed" the ad, this is some deep, dark secret that you would have to infiltrate the CIA to find out!
Civilian nuclear power has not historically provided a good cover story for nuclear weapons development - Israel is widely considered to have nuclear weapons but it has no nuclear electricity whatsoever,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel#Energy
Pakistan, another nuclear armed nation, has only a small percentage of its power supplied by nuclear reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Pakistan
All of the 5 Nuclear Weapons States as signified by the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty have both nuclear weapons and nuclear electricity.
I have no idea what your pic has to do with a hypothetical Irish nuclear programme. Or the American nuclear energy infrastructure for that matter.and I am tired of pointing out that there are many developments waiting to be commercialised, the best panels are 4 times as efficient as generic ones.
materials costs are dropping, anti-reflection coatings are improving. There is plenty of scope for improvement.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
You do realise that Ireland has a Northern climate right? We get very little solar radiation and our peak energy demand is on cold, dark winter evenings? In short, in Ireland, solar PV, whether they be your multijunction hifalutan whatever they are or not, will be about as useful as a chocolate fireguard (made by Godiva) most of the time. Particularly on the long cold winter evenings when they'll be needed most.
Cap'n Midnight is right in saying the costs of nuclear don't stack up. No one has ever been able to show me a falling learning curve for nuclear, basically because it doesn't exist. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper, it's getting more expensive.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89205
pljudge321 wrote: »I've done cost benefit analysis of domestic PV installations before for a college assignment and it came out as pretty dire.
PV is nonsense here in winter.
In summer when we have up to 18 hours of sunshine so it is one to keep an eye on, especially when prices will drop.
We have a glut of wind and wave/tidal so not having PV isn't a problem.
In Morocco / Tunisia it makes sense and interconnectors mean there will be a knock on effect. NorNed is a 580-kilometre (360 mi) long HVDC submarine power cable between Feda in Norway and the seaport of Eemshaven in the Netherlands The trend is for longer interconnectors too.
Like I said if they get photolysis working - and that might be as difficult as getting thorium working - then it's game over as you just setup a hydrogen pipeline to distribute the energy.
The economics aren't there yet to build a breeder. In the case of solar this has already been proposed, a solar panel factory powered by solar. Unlikely to happen soon, but it's a matter of time.
Bottom line, under ideal conditions PV should cost less than the interest payments on the loan for nuclear.
What is the break even time for nuclear , including paying for finance ?
It's like a mortgage except you are don't make any payments in the first 10 years because you are waiting for the plant to be finished. (each year delay would add say 7% or whatever the cost of financing a loan is to the overall cost)
you can see why once a nuclear plant is running there is a huge temptation to keep it running.
The idea of building such plants underground and then sealing them to decomission is so simple that it's very hard to believe that it hasn't been thought about long and hard by some very clever people in the 70 years we've had such plants. It can't be that simple or it would have been done. Places like Nazi Germany and North Korea have in the past moved all their vital industry underground to protect from air raids and an awful lot of hydro stations are built in underground cathedrals so the issues are obviously more difficult than just making a hole,0 -
The problem with putting a nuclear power plant underground would be astronomically huge costs.
For a military dictatorship like North Korea these kinds of things are possible because they simply do not use economic calculations for the costs involved. It's just done at the state's expense using cheap / free labour and military might.
Sadly, North Korea spends so much time and effort on crazy projects like this that a large % of its population are starving and dependent on food aid!
Putting a complex facility underground would also make maintenance extremely difficult too.
Also, just burring something underground does not guarantee it won't contaminate the ground water or cause a problem in the future. You'd have to pick extremely geologically stable and secure sites and those are fewer and further between than you might think!0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »In winter Donegal averages one hour of sunshine a day, and you'd need a weeks storage for the storms / rainy days.
PV is nonsense here in winter.
In summer when we have up to 18 hours of sunshine so it is one to keep an eye on, especially when prices will drop.
We have a glut of wind and wave/tidal so not having PV isn't a problem.
Its not great sunlight during the summer though. Inverter costs are also going to limit how low the price goes. Distributed pv does make a bit of sense though. Definitely more of a runner than any other distributed generation once the solar resources are there.
For the assignment we worked out the internal rate of return for a domestic installation on our houses. It came out at around 2.8% which is less then the return you can get on a good savings account. I redid it for the craic for my fictional holiday home in Spain and it came out closer to 8% which is a good bit better.0 -
pljudge321 wrote: »For the assignment we worked out the internal rate of return for a domestic installation on our houses. It came out at around 2.8% which is less then the return you can get on a good savings account.0
-
-
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89205
How does it compare to the return you'd get on a share in a new nuclear power plant (without subsidies)?
10 year Irish government bonds aren't popular. The Norwegians have sold all theirs. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0504/breaking16.html
you are talking 7% compound for 10 years and then you start paying the loan and the interest on the interest.0 -
The likelihood of Ireland building a nuclear power plant is incredibly small to be perfectly honest.
1) There's never been political support for them. This has been tried before and resulted in some of the biggest protests ever seen at Carnsore point and basically launched what was to become the Green Party.
If anything, the opposition now, post Chernobyl and post Fukushima would be a lot stronger.
2) Financially, it would just not add up. We couldn't come up with those kinds of funds even if the public were totally behind it!
3) Ignoring all of the environmental arguments for or against, we don't really have the scale to justify the use of nuclear and we would still be entirely dependent on imported fuel and imported technology too.0 -
pljudge321 wrote: »Hells if I know.0
-
Advertisement
-
It was a rhetorical question - I'm just making the point that comparisons to savings accounts are all well and good, but in the context of this discussion, comparisons to other forms of generation would make more sense. Considering that I've yet to see any costing of the lifetime of a nuclear plant that doesn't resemble a giant mound of burning money, then, given the choice, investing in solar looks like a wise decision.
Just because one investment is a poor one doesn't make another slightly less poor investment a good one. There are other areas in this country where the money could make a far greater impact in a far more cost optimal manner.
Just regarding the feasibility of integrating a nuclear plant into the Irish grid. I imagine it would be very difficult to integrate an inflexible 1GW+ plant into our relatively small system, especially with the level of wind we have. You would have to provide enough spinning reserve to cover its loss which would be quite difficult and we would have to have enough back up generation to cover it during outages. The network would also need a bit more re-enforcing would could instantly add another billion or so onto the capital cost.0
Advertisement