Is it time to go nuclear?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The amount of money being spent annually on the ITER by Europe, USSR, US and Korea is less than the ongoing cost overruns of Hinkley C.
£1.7Bn announced in 2017
£2.9Bn announced yesterday, and another 15 months delay likely.

Oh yeah there's been actual breakthroughs in fusion. Confinement and temperature improvements.

I fully agree we should pump a lot more money into fusion research but dont except any miracle. We are a long way away from a commercial reactor, if we ever get there. Even with the advances, the technical and material challenges are immense. In addition tritium and deuterium are needed as primary resources. Deuterium is easy but tritium is very limited on earth and would need to be bread in the lining of the reactor (tokamak). Nobody knows will this work.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'm hearing a lot about thorium reactors, being potentially one of the best kind of nuclear reactors, what are opinions here?

3 times more abundant than Uranium, most of which exists in an Isotope we can use (No refining)

But we've never used it, all the cold war research money went into Uranium (For obvious reasons)

The fact that we now have cheap (Getting cheaper) solar panels and wind farms means there isn't much point in investing heavily in it at this stage.

cnocbui wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Since when did nuclear generation (or any other form) not need back up...

Not this utter 5hite again! Nuclear is the most reliable power source.

Of all the pro and con arguments bandied about every time this topic gets discussed, this one annoys me the most.

Most people accept that of all the countries in Europe, France is the most dependent on nuclear (responsible for providing about 80% of the country's consumption IIRC). Every year France has to import electricity during the winter, mostly hydro-electric from Switzerland and Italy, because their nuclear capacity is insufficient (by value, France has a trade deficit in respect of electricity imports/exports).

Furthermore, in recent years, those plants that aren't shut down for longer-than-planned maintenance are increasingly being forced off line during the summer because ... it's too hot. This year, there was real rationing of power in the regions most served by nuclear when they were taken out of service during the series of heat waves we experienced here. It's not just for "green" reasons that the French government is pushing the installation of renewable energy infrastructure: over the last fifteen years, nuclear has needed to call on a back-up supply more and more often.

Beta Ray Bill wrote:

You can get Solar Systems with batteries now

I'm aware of the development of battery technology, it's very interesting to follow, but I'm still not convinced renewables can do it, the gap is too great, hence why I think a multitude of types are required such as nuclear

Beta Ray Bill wrote:

Nuclear is cheap once you get the basics down. Problem is we have no experience in it.

Oh there's no question, nuclear is extremely complicated and costly, and when it goes wrong, it really goes wrong. Many countries have successful nuclear programs online, we could of course ask them for help. I do suspect economist Steve keen could be right, we won't consider alternatives such as nuclear until it's too late, when we ll start experiencing regular power rationing, he's also not convinced renewables can fill the gap of fossil fuels alone

Markcheese wrote: »

Luckily we more less already have our back up, our current generation system... Which if we don't use it much will last for decades longer than originally planned, and if only brought on stream as back up will use very little natural gas, (and emit little carbon..)

That's a good point!

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

The fact that we now have cheap (Getting cheaper) solar panels and wind farms means there isn't much point in investing heavily in it at this stage.

How long do solar panels last, and are they much use in Ireland where the sun doesn't shine that much?

the_syco wrote: »

How long do solar panels last, and are they much use in Ireland where the sun doesn't shine that much?

As far as I know theres no commercial solar in Ireland ,yet... Plenty of planned schemes though ..

unkel wrote: »

Solar panels last many decades. Their performance will degrade somewhat, but that's fairly marginal



Common misconception that you need sun shine for solar PV to work. Also a common misconception that Ireland is not really suitable for solar PV because we are simply too far North. Solar PV works very well in Ireland. We still get about 50% of the production of a solar panel placed in the best location in the world where the sun always shines.

The average house in Ireland consumes 3,500 kWh per year. If you place 12 solar panels (cost about €100 each for just the panels) on a south facing roof of that average house, that household will produce more electricity per year than it consumes.

It will.

The issue is that it won’t produce it at the times when it is most needed. Electricity demand is highest on winter evenings, when there is no daylight whatsoever and no PV generation.

PV on a large scale makes some sense if we are to build a lot of large data centres because it will give us an industrial base that an consume the daytime power.

mickuhaha wrote: »

The question of nuclear energy arises again because the coal burning station at Moneypoint, which provides our baseload electricity since 1985, approaches its end of life in 2025. It is possible that the Irish could accept that new nuclear plants are far safer and less damaging to the environment / people then the rest of the options available. We have our own stock pile in the hills of Donegal of plutonium. One nuclear plant could cover all the output of all the wind energy made in Ireland at the most optimal wind making times but constantly. It would make for cheap electricity and push us into hitting our CO2 targets with the EU.

Nuclear power, No thanks.

They tried this in 1979 at Carnsore point in Wexford, a proposal was put forward by the then Government.

See link :https://www.rte.ie/archives/2014/0818/637809-anti-nuclear-rally-at-carnsore-point-1979/

I would not trust Irish companies or contractors to built a Nuclear power plant.

Sure look at all the apartments built during the boom years in the mid 2,000, lots of structural issues with these apartments now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/up-to-92-000-boom-era-apartments-may-have-defects-committee-hears-1.4075666

Im in favour of wind power and wind farms out at sea off the West coast of Ireland

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It will.

The issue is that it won’t produce it at the times when it is most needed. Electricity demand is highest on winter evenings, when there is no daylight whatsoever and no PV generation.

Same issue with by far the biggest renewable electricity source in Ireland: wind

That's why we need batteries (in the widest possible definition of the word)

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FYP

In the UK operators of wind and solar have to pay a subsidy to cover running reserve for nuclear because it's the largest point of failure on the grid.

Really?, have to wonder how France survives, given that the majority of it's power is generated by nuclear, currently 63.61%
Source https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=FR

unkel wrote: »

Same issue with by far the biggest renewable electricity source in Ireland: wind

That's why we need batteries (in the widest possible definition of the word)

Well the wind at least has a chance of blowing on a winter evening. There is no possibility whatsoever of the sun shining.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well the wind at least has a chance of blowing on a winter evening. There is no possibility whatsoever of the sun shining.

True the wind has some chance of blowing in the evening, just not this evening
Total System demand 3961Mw Total Wind Generation 286Mw
Source http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#roi

Birdnuts wrote: »

currently the French have the cheapest and lowest carbon energy system in the EU

In recent years wind has become far cheaper than nuclear.

unkel wrote: »

In recent years wind has become far cheaper than nuclear.

Where are you getting your data? The worlds largest offshore wind farm, due for completion next year, has the UK government forking out £158.75/MWh when the wholesale price average is £45/MWh. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/hornsea-offshore-wind-farm-opens-at-huge-cost-to-energy-customers/

People who trumpet supposedly low green energy production costs, usually forget to add on the cost of the backup energy infrastructure needed due to their woeful intermittency.

Here's the hourly average electricity generation for the UK Wind and Nuclear sectors last month"



The spiky blue one is wind, of course.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

The point of that article is to show the costs that are all too often ignored with nuclear, they just quote running costs and dont include development/accidents and decommissioning.

For an up to date example how about:

EDF unveils plan to ‘restore trust’ in French nuclear industry

"Flamanville is considered a litmus test for next-generation European Pressurised Reactor technology, which supporters say will be a bigger, safer and more efficient type of nuclear plant.

But the plant’s construction, which was supposed to last four-and-a-half years, is now expected to take 15 years to complete at about four times its originally projected cost of €3.3bn. This follows problems such as faulty weldings.

Once a leader in atomic power, France will not decide whether to build more EPRs until Flamanville is up and running.

To address the sector-wide issues identified in October’s damning report, EDF will seek to change how risks are shared with suppliers and set up a college dedicated to “nuclear disciplines” where there are shortages, such as welding."


https://www.ft.com/content/9a33d12a-1da5-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

The delays and cost blow-outs in the nuclear energy sector are almost entirely due to politicians and government regulatory quicksand.

cnocbui wrote: »

The delays and cost blow-outs in the nuclear energy sector are almost entirely due to politicians and government regulatory quicksand.

I agree with you, nuclear power is riddled with extra costs and delays, and these costs are seldom included in "running costs".

Unfortunately due to the potential extreme dangers involved with nuclear power generation, when done in a sloppy fashion, I can't see a way round regulation of the strictest kind.

Knowing Ireland, a plant would be costed initially at e6 billion, and end up costing 30billion.

unkel wrote: »

You being willfully obtuse? Poster asked if solar panels worked in Ireland even though we don't have that much sun. I tried to explain that solar panels don't need sun to work, just daylight.

You are just as guilty of that accusation. A light bulb that's producing 1/10,000th of it's rated output due to a voltage drop is 'working' but really it isn't.

Solar panels in this country don't produce a meaningful or useful output in winter. They might 'work', but if you need an entire football fields area of panels to boil a kettle, they aren't working.

They work well and are semi useful in Australia, but not here with about half the hours of direct sunlight per year.

To quote from met.ie:

December is the dullest month, with an average daily sunshine ranging from about 1 hour in the north to almost 2 hours in the extreme southeast. Over the year as a whole, most areas get an average of between 3 1/4 and 3 3/4 hours of sunshine each day.

pffft!

Solar will become useful if grid-scale battery systems ever become economically viable and competitive, but I'm not holding my breath.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

OK so I read your post, then checked the output from my panels in the field on this winters day to stay close to your analogy.

The screen shot shows your post over the output from that array, which is currently 250 watts. Notice the panels cover only the goal in your hypothetical football field.

Now say your kettle is 2.5 kw, and takes 3 minutes to boil.

That means just those panels are producing enough to boil a kettle every 30 minutes. I actually have 3 of those arrays around the place.

Now that might not work for you, but I do indeed boil my kettle off those panels in the winter in Ireland.

In my opinion they are working.

power.jpg
panels.jpg

Thank's, for making my point for me.

cnocbui wrote: »

Thank's, for making my point for me.

No worries I am glad that you conceed that this post of yours:

"Solar panels in this country don't produce a meaningful or useful output in winter. They might 'work', but if you need an entire football fields area of panels to boil a kettle, they aren't working."

Is 100% wrong as showed.