Is it time to go nuclear?

TimeToShine · 10-06-2019 10:15am

Markcheese wrote: »

On the grid point.. Nuclear (when it works well is designed to provide steady output, (hopefully for years at a time) which is great... But our grid is small, so one reactor would pretty provide our base load, all good there... Except whats backing up that reactor? (ie. What's available at literally a seconds notice to replace your nuclear power in the event of a problem) ,( Google spinning reserve) you'd pretty much need a second reactor just spinning away to back up the first... (it HAS to be as big as the first...) and you're going to need to be able turn on back up to that second turbine too... (that doesn't need to be as instant, so our current generating plants could probably do most of that)
Basically they're too big (proportionally) for our grid...

Nuclear plants are fitted coupled a backup generator which can handle the loss of the largest unit - usually an emergency diesel generator. If our demand is roughly 6GW and a 1800MW nuclear plant is built you could expect it to be 4 units of roughly 450 MW and a backup diesel generator of 500MW or so. They are also connected to an offsite power grid which is used to power the plant and will have batteries fully charged from the AC system through inverters & chargers. We would also hope to have another 2GW of interconnector capacity available if the plant ever were to be built, which although don't provide inertial response can cover the power output loss and leave other units to provide FFR. Considering modern PWR units can refuel at 2/3 capacity the likelihood of multiple units going down is miniscule compared to that of an OCGT/CCGT unit.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-06-2019 6:20pm

TimeToShine wrote: »

Considering modern PWR units can refuel at 2/3 capacity the likelihood of multiple units going down is miniscule compared to that of an OCGT/CCGT unit.

The likelihood of multiple units going down ? Happens a lot more than you'd admit.

Korea - fake parts scandal

Japan - tsunami , actually they got lucky* only one plant had a meltdown - but unaffected plants were closed down too for an extended period.

Germany / Italy - political decision to close plants.

Belgium - six of seven reactors off line in last winter.

Climate change means cooling water and flooding issues will be more common. Reactors in five different European countries were offline during last summer's heatwave. In the US it was freezing temperatures. And jellyfish outages keep happening.

Design or construction flaws can take multiple rectors of the same design offline , like the cracks in the graphite. Or possibly cracks in the EPR's. It's like grounding aircraft.

AFAIK cyber attacks haven't taken out multiple reactors at the same time but it's possible given the attacks on standard control systems like those used on Iran's enrichment program.

* https://news.usc.edu/86362/fukushima-disaster-was-preventable-new-study-finds/

At the four damaged nuclear power plants (Onagawa, Fukushima Daiichi, Fukushimi Daini and Toka Daini), 22 of the 33 total backup diesel generators were washed away, including 12 of 13 at Fukushima Daiichi. Of the 33 total backup power lines to off-site generators, all but two were obliterated by the tsunami.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-06-2019 7:22pm

TimeToShine wrote: »

Nuclear plants are fitted coupled a backup generator which can handle the loss of the largest unit - usually an emergency diesel generator. If our demand is roughly 6GW and a 1800MW nuclear plant is built you could expect it to be 4 units of roughly 450 MW and a backup diesel generator of 500MW or so. They are also connected to an offsite power grid which is used to power the plant and will have batteries fully charged from the AC system through inverters & chargers.

The backup generators you suggest answer your own question about how to supply power during the predictable low wind periods.

Commercial rectors don't come in 450MW sizes.
Either you go for something about 1.5GB because economies of scale
or you wait for the mythical modular 300MW reactors which haven't been commercialised yet despite hundreds of the things being in everyday use on subs , carriers and icebreakers since the 1950s.

"If our demand is roughly 6GW " There's no if. It isn't.

6GB - installed capacity
5GB - record demand
4GB - normal winter peak demand
3GB - summer day / winter night
2GB - summer night
1GB - baseload. Actually it's less because 65% is the target for asynch generation on the grid.

Rule of thumb, Nuclear isn't economic unless you are averaging 80% of maximum capacity. And that's just not going to happen on the Irish grid for a typical reactor.

antoinolachtnai · 10-06-2019 8:09pm

Maybe we should just get a few of these new 500 MW diesel gennies to cover peak loads on calm days?

Macha · 10-06-2019 8:30pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Maybe we should just get a few of these new 500 MW diesel gennies to cover peak loads on calm days?

Diesel!! No way.

What people STILL don't seem to understand is that an energy system is made up of more than just generation capacity. There is also all of the infrastructure and the consumers/appliances at the end.

We need a porfolio of energy resources that fit together in all of the system, not just choose X or Y generation technology.

Markcheese · 10-06-2019 10:41pm

Don't we already have a share of diesel peaking plants? And I'm pretty sure that both the newer aghada generator and whitegate power station (and I assume any newer gas stations have to be able to run on diesel for a couple of weeks (without major damage) in case of an emergency...
There are new fast start peaking stations which are basically a 500mw station that can get up and going in 30 mins, coupled to a huge battery that can chuck out aprox the same,in 30 mins or so... Instead of spinning reserve...

Markcheese · 10-06-2019 10:50pm

Is the nuclear station that time to shine has described a commercial reality? Or a wish list...? Those big batteries are out there but relativly new. Haven't heard of one attached to a nuclear reactor... we'd probably have less issue with summer cooling temperatures, as sea temps are low all year, (at the moment),

TimeToShine · 15-06-2019 12:25pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The backup generators you suggest answer your own question about how to supply power during the predictable low wind periods.

Commercial rectors don't come in 450MW sizes.
Either you go for something about 1.5GB because economies of scale
or you wait for the mythical modular 300MW reactors which haven't been commercialised yet despite hundreds of the things being in everyday use on subs , carriers and icebreakers since the 1950s.

"If our demand is roughly 6GW " There's no if. It isn't.

6GB - installed capacity
5GB - record demand
4GB - normal winter peak demand
3GB - summer day / winter night
2GB - summer night
1GB - baseload. Actually it's less because 65% is the target for asynch generation on the grid.

Rule of thumb, Nuclear isn't economic unless you are averaging 80% of maximum capacity. And that's just not going to happen on the Irish grid for a typical reactor.

The rule of thumb doesn't apply to a country which could theoretically have interconnector capacity equalling installed capacity by the time the nuclear project is finished. A concerted nuclear program in conjunction with interconnector capacity policy will let us do what France have been doing for years all while comfortably meeting our directive targets. I think the rest of your argument is attacking my numbers (although they were rough estimates I concede that they may have hurt my credibility) without any real substance - the backup generators suggested need to be phased out before 2050, the UK have already committed to net zero carbon and we will be following suit. We're too small scale for a hydrogen revolution and that leaves nuclear as technically bring the best option.

Having said that, I agree fully with AngryHippie in that we simply do not have the co-ordination ability, expertise or technical knowhow to pull it off. A nuclear program isn't like wind, solar or battery storage. It won't take off if you approach it in a piecewise incremental fashion, it needs a policy upheaval and full commitment (and most importantly funding) which I can't see happening.

Harry Palmr · 15-06-2019 12:28pm

Just hook up the grid to France and pay them to run a bit of a nuke station for us.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-06-2019 3:09pm

TimeToShine wrote: »

The rule of thumb doesn't apply to a country which could theoretically have interconnector capacity equalling installed capacity by the time the nuclear project is finished. A concerted nuclear program in conjunction with interconnector capacity policy will let us do what France have been doing for years all while comfortably meeting our directive targets.

Moneypoint has been off line recently. And looks likely to shutdown in 2025. Gas turbines can be practically ordered off the shelf from Siemens or GE. Nuclear wouldn't be ready in time even if you could start construction tomorrow.

Roughly speaking Gas has half the CO2 emissions as coal AND CCGT turbines can get twice the thermal efficiency of coal fired steam so you could save 75% of the emissions from Moneypoint with cheap to buy , use as needed gas. This leaves capital to invest in renewables. And you start saving on emissions now.

Nuclear could , in theory, save more CO2 but it won't be ready by 2025, can't be dispatched as needed so can't share load with renewables and not that there'd be any money to invest in renewables because of the huge up front cost of nuclear.

Nuclear means construction materials, lots of concrete and steel, lots of energy used in mining and processing the initial fuel load, So it would take a long time for a nuclear plant to catch up with the 75% saving that gas gives.

I think the rest of your argument is attacking my numbers (although they were rough estimates I concede that they may have hurt my credibility) without any real substance - the backup generators suggested need to be phased out before 2050, the UK have already committed to net zero carbon and we will be following suit. We're too small scale for a hydrogen revolution and that leaves nuclear as technically bring the best option.

With nuclear the numbers don't add up.

Hydrogen revolution ?
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It's just a way to store energy.
And it's not easy to store or transport because by volume it's low energy, it's leaky and hydrogen embrittlement. The latter means you can add some hydrogen to the existing gas mains but only up to 20% so while it can reduce natural gas demand it can't replace it.

To dumb it down lot big problem with Hydrogen is that when you split water with electricity half the energy goes into the oxygen, and we already have oodles of that. The other main source of hydrogen is from natural gas so no carbon savings down that route.

Having said that, I agree fully with AngryHippie in that we simply do not have the co-ordination ability, expertise or technical knowhow to pull it off. A nuclear program isn't like wind, solar or battery storage. It won't take off if you approach it in a piecewise incremental fashion, it needs a policy upheaval and full commitment (and most importantly funding) which I can't see happening.

All or nothing, too big to be let fail. Nuclear is a money pit. And no guarantee it won't be a white elephant if/when it's produces power. And besides you'll most likely need gas anyway because of the high probability of years of construction delays.

France is reducing nuclear from 75% to 50%. They already export surplus power to their neighbours, the UK is a nett importer of a few GW, and our peak demand is the same time as theirs, even down to putting the kettles on after Corrie. No amount of interconnectors will produce power that isn't available at the time.

The UK who've been buildig nuclear power stations since the 1950's are having major problems starting 5 of the 6 power plants they are trying to build. The other one has ballooned in cost and needs Chinese and French state subsidies so is a political hostage for the foreseeable future. We don't need to go down that road.

Besides piecemeal renewables means there isn't a single point of failure. And most break even in less time than it takes a nuclear plant to get built if you include the protests and legal challenges. And you can mix and match with gas , except of course the gas plants won't be operating as much so they have a lower return on investment.

Markcheese · 17-06-2019 11:32am

I wouldn't worry too much about the profits of CCG plant operators... If the plants are needed to back up wind, (and they are) they'll be billing for availability as well as production, the good thing from the owners point of view, is the economic life of their asset will be a lot longer... Their electricity generation will likely be scheduled days in advance, decided by the weather forecast, hopefully with grid level battery taking care of the peaks and troughs..
The sheer number and dispersed location of wind turbines should reduce the amount of thermal spinning reserve needed..

I don't really see where nuclear fits (economically or grid wise) into our energy mix for the foreseeable future, maybe in 10 or 20years time

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2019 8:00pm

Markcheese wrote: »

I don't really see where nuclear fits (economically or grid wise) into our energy mix for the foreseeable future, maybe in 10 or 20years time

When you consider the hassle Intel and Apple have had you can imagine how long it would take to get planning permission here.

Finland has been using nuclear power since the late 1970's so fewer planning issues.

14 years ago construction started on the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland. It's nearly built but there are vibration issues. It might start producing power next year.

In the meantime Finland ordered a Russian plant. It's construction has been pushed back four years already.

mickuhaha · 25-06-2019 10:25am

Newstalk radio station is about to have a section on the nuclear options if anyone wants to tune in now to listen.

antoinolachtnai · 25-06-2019 11:29am

mickuhaha wrote: »

Newstalk radio station is about to have a section on the nuclear options if anyone wants to tune in now to listen.

RTE had this yesterday. It seeks to be pointed at the Small Modular Reactor option if snd when that becomes available.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1047031/?__twitter_impression=true

mickuhaha · 25-06-2019 5:35pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

RTE had this yesterday. It seeks to be pointed at the Small Modular Reactor option if snd when that becomes available.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1047031/?__twitter_impression=true

True unfortunately the suggestion is that it would be 15 to 20 years before you could implement one in Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-06-2019 8:46pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

True unfortunately the suggestion is that it would be 15 to 20 years before you could implement one in Ireland.

Hundreds of small modular reactors have been in everyday use since the mid 1950's.

The technology works but it's very expensive.

Every few years the suggestion to use them for power gets rolled out again. First there's no mention of cost. Then the story changes to niche applications like Alaskan towns cut off by ice. And then it goes quite for a few years before the sales pitch is dusted down and reused.

The Russians use nuclear powered icebreakers and oil powered aircraft carriers. The US does the reverse. For everyone else apart from one French carrier the only remaining use is for submarines.

Markcheese · 25-06-2019 10:41pm

The Russians have a few newish barge based nuclear power stations...for use in the high artic, not sure how cost effective they are..
Sure if anything goes terribly wrong they'll just sink... Whats one more radio active hulk...

cnocbui · 02-09-2019 2:51pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

When you consider the hassle Intel and Apple have had you can imagine how long it would take to get planning permission here.

Finland has been using nuclear power since the late 1970's so fewer planning issues.

14 years ago construction started on the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland. It's nearly built but there are vibration issues. It might start producing power next year.

In the meantime Finland ordered a Russian plant. It's construction has been pushed back four years already.

Don't believe what Apple says. The planning stuff was just a convenient excuse on their part. They also cancelled all plans for their data Centres in Denmark, only there, the convenient excuse was labour/builder problems. The real reason Apple cancelled the data centres was because they no longer wanted them as peak iPhone changed their predictions for future demand or they figured it was just cheaper to buy capacity off Amazon/Google/Microsoft.

Korea seems able to build nuclear plants in about 5 years. It seems the only sensible technology if lower CO2 is your goal. PVs are a useless sop without cheap storage, and even then, there is a ticking bomb regarding disposal of panels at the end of their life. There are periods of weeks when the wind turbines are effectively becalmed. The Germans have even invented a word for the uselessness of renewables: dunkelflaute. Meaning dark and still.

Benny mcc · 10-09-2019 10:35pm

F*#k off with nuclear. We don t want it and it has no place here .

False Prophet · 10-09-2019 10:46pm

Nuclear is a pipedream, we couldn't implement evoting machines or install basic water meters without government backing down.
And looking at the costs of the children hospital or rural broadband we would only end up with sky high costs anyway.

mickuhaha · 10-09-2019 10:47pm

Benny mcc wrote: »

F*#k off with nuclear. We don t want it and it has no place here .

Speek for yourself. I would love a plant around here, it might help reduce the smog.

Danzy · 10-09-2019 10:53pm

Nuclear power will never take off because it isn't viable without massive state incentives, tax break and supports.

Even then it is a dodgy proposition, economy wise.

Countries like China were cost or economic considerations are secondary to growing the economy quickly, can run with it but even they have their doubts.

Nuclear isn't cost effective now and it is losing that game more each day.

Other than that id have no problem with it.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-09-2019 10:55pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Korea seems able to build nuclear plants in about 5 years.

Let's roll the clock back 5 years shall we ?

One of the amazing things about nuclear is the many ways different countries can screw it up. Fake parts and fake safety certs ? Just one more way to have multiple reactors shut down for an extended period without warning.

It seems the only sensible technology if lower CO2 is your goal. PVs are a useless sop without cheap storage, and even then, there is a ticking bomb regarding disposal of panels at the end of their life.

Nuclear is totally dependent on hydro or fossil fuel to load balance every day. And relies on fossil to carry the increased load in winter even when you schedule refuelling cycles for the summer.

PV lasts. So probably no need to recycle. Older panels would use silver for contacts so very recyclable. Even panels using exotic materials wouldn't use much of it. And most panels use silicon so essentially purified sand.

mickuhaha · 10-09-2019 11:03pm

I think we need electricity at nearly a third of the cost it is now to pull people away from fossil fuels and for people to use more of it. I don't think we can go solar, wind power and battery storage fast enough to do that. I think we need nuclear sooner rather than later.

Danzy · 10-09-2019 11:06pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

I think we need electricity at nearly a third of the cost it is now to pull people away from fossil fuels and for people to use more of it. I don't think we can go solar, wind power and battery storage fast enough to do that. I think we need nuclear sooner rather than later.

If you want cheap electricity why go for Nuclear?

Given how loaded the state is wirh debt, nuclear is unlikely to be allowed, ultimately it is the State and the taxpayer who carries the can for the Nuclear Plant.

Private industry won't touch it otherwise and who can blame them.

cnocbui · 10-09-2019 11:27pm

Benny mcc wrote: »

F*#k off with nuclear. We don t want it and it has no place here .

Nah, I'll continue to say what I think.

10-09-2019 11:49pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's roll the clock back 5 years shall we ?

Nuclear is totally dependent on hydro or fossil fuel to load balance every day. And relies on fossil to carry the increased load in winter even when you schedule refuelling cycles for the summer.

PV lasts. So probably no need to recycle. Older panels would use silver for contacts so very recyclable. Even panels using exotic materials wouldn't use much of it. And most panels use silicon so essentially purified sand.

Just about everything in the quotes above is incorrect. Nuclear provides a good base load. PV requires a load balance and the panels last about 20 years after which time most of the materials cant be recycled. Also takes up enormous space.

Danzy · 10-09-2019 11:56pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just about everything in the quotes above is incorrect. Nuclear provides a good base load. PV requires a load balance and the panels last about 20 years after which time most of the materials cant be recycled. Also takes up enormous space.

Who will pay for Nuclear though?

That is the reason it isn't the dominant power source.

It is going to have to be the State as no one else will invest their money unless some one else has agreed to take the cost hit, always the taxpayer.

It had massive potential as an energy source, has a part to play for some countries energy but it's viewed as the past.

mickuhaha · 11-09-2019 6:19am

Danzy wrote: »

Who will pay for Nuclear though?

That is the reason it isn't the dominant power source.

It is going to have to be the State as no one else will invest their money unless some one else has agreed to take the cost hit, always the taxpayer.

It had massive potential as an energy source, has a part to play for some countries energy but it's viewed as the past.

A nuclear rebound did get started a decade ago. However, the global financial crises of 2008-’09 softened energy demand, and the comeback took another blow when three reactors melted down at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in 2011.
Rising public concerns over safety shifted energy policy away from nuclear just as green policy is now shifting away from high co2 sources like coal and peat. Equipment costs have risen 20 percent since 2010, in part because of heightened safety requirements. The other a reduction in bulk production. The promise that a more advanced technology breakthrough is around the corner hampers the reality that there is no other environmentally friendly option out there to provide a base load. The choice is to keep the gas powered stations going or use nuclear.

SlowBlowin · 11-09-2019 8:10am

Deleted User wrote: »

Just about everything in the quotes above is incorrect. Nuclear provides a good base load. PV requires a load balance and the panels last about 20 years after which time most of the materials cant be recycled. Also takes up enormous space.

Do you know how much space a nuclear plant takes up ? Not just the foot print, the area around it where no one wants to/should live ? Do the maths its quite eye opening, if you cover the same area with current efficiency PV you get close (50-75%) to the name place capacity of the plant.

What do you think is cheaper/cleaner to recycle, PV or a nuclear power plant, without adopting the nuclear industry method of digging a hole, burying it and a waiting for another generation to deal with it ?

Markcheese · 11-09-2019 9:49am

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Do you know how much space a nuclear plant takes up ? Not just the foot print, the area around it where no one wants to/should live ? Do the maths its quite eye opening, if you cover the same area with current efficiency PV you get close (50-75%) to the name place capacity of the plant.

What do you think is cheaper/cleaner to recycle, PV or a nuclear power plant, without adopting the nuclear industry method of digging a hole, burying it and a waiting for another generation to deal with it ?

Its a bit difficult to give you the cost of recycling a nuclear power station,
No one's actually done it yet, there are many stations closed down awaiting demolition, or deconstruction... There are even some that have been started but I don't think anyone has actually done it yet.. But how hard could it be? Yeah?

cnocbui · 11-09-2019 10:34am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's roll the clock back 5 years shall we ?

One of the amazing things about nuclear is the many ways different countries can screw it up. Fake parts and fake safety certs ? Just one more way to have multiple reactors shut down for an extended period without warning.

Nuclear is totally dependent on hydro or fossil fuel to load balance every day. And relies on fossil to carry the increased load in winter even when you schedule refuelling cycles for the summer.

PV lasts. So probably no need to recycle. Older panels would use silver for contacts so very recyclable. Even panels using exotic materials wouldn't use much of it. And most panels use silicon so essentially purified sand.

You have it so totally arse about backwards and plain wrong, it borders on comedy.

As you can see, nuclear energy has by far the highest capacity factor of any other energy source. This basically means nuclear power plants are producing maximum power more than 92% of the time during the year.

That’s about 1.5 to 2 times more as natural gas and coal units, and 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable than wind and solar plants.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

It does not need duplication of generation capacity to reliably provide power due to downtime - that's Solar PV and wind you are thinking of. Solar doesn't work at night and barely works when there is significant cloud cover. Likewise, there are entire weeks when there isn't enough wind to boil a few kettles. If wind was the only power source, we would be breaking out the candles and shivering without heating for days at a time.

PV's don't last, they steadily lose generation capacity as they age and are kaput by 30 years at the outside. Some panels have a significant cadmium content and are expensive and difficult to deal with in terms of recycling.

lawred2 · 11-09-2019 10:34am

work wrote: »

The Irish are adverse in general. I completely agree it should be avoided at all costs just because of the waste material. There has been global accidents that prove it is not safe.
Let's just sort out green energy

not to burning solid fuels we're not

lawred2 · 11-09-2019 10:35am

Benny mcc wrote: »

F*#k off with nuclear. We don t want it and it has no place here .

Says who?

cnocbui · 11-09-2019 10:48am

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Do you know how much space a nuclear plant takes up ? Not just the foot print, the area around it where no one wants to/should live ? Do the maths its quite eye opening, if you cover the same area with current efficiency PV you get close (50-75%) to the name place capacity of the plant.

What do you think is cheaper/cleaner to recycle, PV or a nuclear power plant, without adopting the nuclear industry method of digging a hole, burying it and a waiting for another generation to deal with it ?

There are people on boards who cheerfully talk about the great benefits to be had of building dams and flooding several valleys to provide pumped storage to make PV and wind not look like they suck as much as they do.

You talk of footprint - that madness is a real footprint.

SlowBlowin · 11-09-2019 11:09am

cnocbui wrote: »

There are people on boards who cheerfully talk about the great benefits to be had of building dams and flooding several valleys to provide pumped storage to make PV and wind not look like they suck as much as they do.

You talk of footprint - that madness is a real footprint.

That's terrible ! You would probably get a complete nuclear power plant in that space, and when the plants finished with, none of that nasty cadmium to get rid of.

SlowBlowin · 11-09-2019 11:31am

cnocbui wrote: »

PV's don't last, they steadily lose generation capacity as they age and are kaput by 30 years at the outside.

Sorry that is not correct.

Its a bit like the old "windmills take more power to build than they will ever produce in their lifetime". Its nothing more than a myth, truth is no one knows, but its looking like its a lot longer than the 25 year warranties (no surprise there).

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/12/10/solar-module-lifetime-predictions-are-getting-better/

This is backed up by measurements on my own systems.

AngryHippie · 11-09-2019 1:25pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

I think we need electricity at nearly a third of the cost it is now to pull people away from fossil fuels and for people to use more of it. I don't think we can go solar, wind power and battery storage fast enough to do that. I think we need nuclear sooner rather than later.

That is pretty much the first rule of Nuclear.
It takes decades to do built it safely.
It takes Millennia to dispose of the toxic waste left behind.

We needed to start before the qualifiers for Italia '90

Then there is the space issue. If you can't get permission for a microchip factory next door to an existing microchip factory, how in the name of blazes to you think permission will be forthcoming for a Nuclear power plant..... It will never happen. Nimbys, My Field, protected Flora, protected Fauna, special areas of conservation, protected waterways...There is nowhere to put it unless putting the entire thing underground is an option. (and its not)

Then there is the mindblowing level of incompetence, senseless greed and corruption that prevails in all of the current political parties in the country,
It would have to be a 20 year minimum duration government backed and funded project with quality and safety up the wazoo, thereby dispensing with any semblance of value, transparency or program. Completely ignorant junior ministers having a hand in exploration licenses, known (dog on the street) bent politicians having influence on zoning laws, fraudulent insurance claims, TDs hiring plant and equipment to the local council for the love of god, you couldn't make the stuff up. The only hope of switching on a bloody lightbulb would be to outsource the whole kit and kaboodle to Bechtel, Aecom or Hochtief and just double the national debt every 5 years.

The solution must either be multi-faceted, or a scientific break-through equivalent to sustained cold fusion (which cannot be counted on)

It requires modifying human behavior.
Grid spikes at ad breaks in the world cup and Corrie are beyond stupid and are totally avoidable.
The expectation that 2 million homes can turn on their kettles at the same time has been fostered by a Western consumer entitled attitude and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
There are solutions, there is no magic bullet and a massive education program from primary schools onward is required to get the importance of it into the human consciousness to modify adult behavior. A smart grid, small scale residential storage, competitive feed-ins are all parts of the solution.
The biggest and hardest challenge is for the entire population to genuinely give one fcuk per day about the impacts of their behavior.
(He says, as he types out a message on the dual screen of a plastic laptop in a flouro lit room - Just to highlight how little information is actually put out about our lifestlye impacts because if it was consumer behavior would drop off, and sure you can't be doin that.)

11-09-2019 1:34pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

That is pretty much the first rule of Nuclear.
It takes decades to do built it safely.
It takes Millennia to dispose of the toxic waste left behind.

A small amount of easily contained waste as opposed to thousands or millions of tonnes of toxic waste.

AngryHippie · 11-09-2019 2:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A small amount of easily contained waste as opposed to thousands or millions of tonnes of toxic waste.

A what amount of what.......

yeah, we need to build a sarcophagus to keep the solar panels from belching out isotopes...nope
We have run out of storage space from the contaminated groundwater from the wind farm and have to release it untreated into the ocean....nope

And that is without even looking into the mining processes involved in creating fuel grade material in the first place.....have you heard of yellowcake ?
Natural uranium contains 99% U238 and only about 0.7% U235 by weight.
for the 27 tonnes give or take of Fuel grade U235 a 1000MW reactor will need per year, that means somewhere in the world (Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia or Namibia probably) there will be 385t of U238 lying around. Extracted but unwanted. Then there is the reality that this combined Uranium is at a very low percentage (0.07% at Olympic Dam for example) within the extracted ore. All of a sudden you have 964,285t of ore extracted to power a 1000MW reactor for a year.
All of which was extracted, transported, processed and finally delivered to the other side of the world using HYDROCARBON FUELS.

Do you know what the Hanford site is ? (586 square miles) - It would be the 7th largest Irish County

53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste[4] stored within 177 storage tanks, an additional 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste, and areas of heavy Technetium-99 and uranium contaminated groundwater

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story you saw on a pamphlet sponsored by General Electric or Dupont or whoever.;)

Capt'n Midnight · 11-09-2019 6:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A small amount of easily contained waste as opposed to thousands or millions of tonnes of toxic waste.

Just a reminder that "low level" waste is still being discharged into the Irish Sea.

https://www.epa.ie/radiation/monassess/sellafield/

The discharge of low level liquid wastes from the Sellafield site in the north west of England is the most significant source of artificial radioactivity in the Irish marine environment.
...
Liquid radioactive waste is discharged from the plant into the Irish Sea via a pipeline, about 3 km from land. Gases are released from the plant via a number of chimneys (referred to as ‘stacks’)

Capt'n Midnight · 11-09-2019 7:05pm

cnocbui wrote: »

It does not need duplication of generation capacity to reliably provide power due to downtime - that's Solar PV and wind you are thinking of. Solar doesn't work at night and barely works when there is significant cloud cover. Likewise, there are entire weeks when there isn't enough wind to boil a few kettles. If wind was the only power source, we would be breaking out the candles and shivering without heating for days at a time.

Let's pretend nuclear power works as advertised.

Our peak demand is 5 times the baseload.

Either you have to build way more nukes than you need or you need dispatchable generators to load balance them.

But here's the crazy thing, if you have dispatchable generators then there's no issue with renewables not being there 24/7.

PV's don't last, they steadily lose generation capacity as they age and are kaput by 30 years at the outside. Some panels have a significant cadmium content and are expensive and difficult to deal with in terms of recycling.

Only if by kaput you mean the output might drop to 80%.

Some thin film* panels contain cadmium. So do the batteries on pretty much any portable power tool that doesn't use lithium. There's lead in car batteries !

*It's very thin 10 µm or so.
About 2 hours of fingernail growth.

mickuhaha · 11-09-2019 8:01pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just a reminder that "low level" waste is still being discharged into the Irish Sea.

https://www.epa.ie/radiation/monassess/sellafield/

There is nothing wrong with minor amounts of radioactive liquid being dropped into the ocean the ocean natural contains radioactive material so does soil, in fact the only reason we get deposits is thanks to natural chemistry , when oxidized groundwater that had leached uranium from surface rocks flow's down into aquifers, it then is reduced into precipitate uraninite . That report also says even if you eat alot of sea food it would still be less than 1 percent of your normal everyday dose of radiation.

Eric Cartman · 11-09-2019 8:01pm

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If privately operated and built yes.

this is a very important condition

mickuhaha · 11-09-2019 8:22pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

cnocbui wrote: »

It does not need duplication of generation capacity to reliably provide power due to downtime - that's Solar PV and wind you are thinking of. Solar doesn't work at night and barely works when there is significant cloud cover. Likewise, there are entire weeks when there isn't enough wind to boil a few kettles. If wind was the only power source, we would be breaking out the candles and shivering without heating for days at a time.

Let's pretend nuclear power works as advertised.

Our peak demand is 5 times the baseload.

Either you have to build way more nukes than you need or you need dispatchable generators to load balance them.

But here's the crazy thing, if you have dispatchable generators then there's no issue with renewables not being there 24/7.

Only if by kaput you mean the output might drop to 80%.

Some thin film* panels contain cadmium. So do the batteries on pretty much any portable power tool that doesn't use lithium. There's lead in car batteries !

*It's very thin 10 µm or so.
About 2 hours of fingernail growth.

Dispatchable generators need to be running all the time so that they can load balance , all our current ones run on fossil fuels and the more solar and wind you have the more flexible (I mean more) dispatchable generators you need.
A battery storage option is available but the cost and lifespan of the storage is about 15 years or so if it's the Tesla one. About 100mw at 90 million dollars to build and 4 million a year for associated maintenance costs. Moneypoint power stations output is 900 mw alone.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-09-2019 8:51pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

Dispatchable generators need to be running all the time so that they can load balance , all our current ones run on fossil fuels and the more solar and wind you have the more flexible (I mean more) dispatchable generators you need.

Nuclear needs LOTS of spinning reserve running ALL the time.

cnocbui · 11-09-2019 8:54pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear needs LOTS of spinning reserve running ALL the time.

Got a link for that?

mickuhaha · 11-09-2019 9:36pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear needs LOTS of spinning reserve running ALL the time.

You have made a mistake. The spinning reserve in a nuclear power station is the same as a coal and gas station . it's the giant spinning steam turbines.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-09-2019 10:48pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Got a link for that?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors

mickuhaha wrote: »

You have made a mistake. The spinning reserve in a nuclear power station is the same as a coal and gas station . it's the giant spinning steam turbines.

Spinning reserve is backup for when a generator goes off line.You need to be able to replace 75% of the largest generator on the system in FIVE seconds.

For a 1.6GW EPR this means you need 1.2GW in 5 seconds and Pumped storage can't respond that fast so it's fossil fuel or demand shedding.

you also need to replace the full 1.6GW in 15 seconds.

BTW compare that to wind forecasts a week ahead.

There are also local constraints.
http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/Operational-Constraints-Update-Feb-2019.pdf

JJJJNR · 11-09-2019 11:02pm

Surely we have enough waves between ireland and the states to power the whole of Europe. never mind nuclear power.

Is it time to go nuclear?

Comments