"Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all"

djpbarry · 10-05-2011 7:35pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

My apologies, I will try to clarify my argument as follows:

In response to using inter-connectors to “sell our excess wind to the UK, and buy from them when the wind isn't blowing”(post 89)
I wrote (post 90)
“Generally areas of high and low pressure cover most of Europe i.e. winds are high over most European countries at the same time.

Yes, you did say that, but you have still not provided any evidence to support this statement.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

In post 96 Captn.Mid. asked for links to support my posts on the matter of weather conditions across Europe.

I provided two links and three quotations in post 116. They are more eloquent than my posts. They look at the weather patterns across Europe and how these limit the effect of interconnectors in Europe in mitigating against the intermittancy of wind generated electricity.

But this is arguing a point that nobody has made – who is arguing that wind is not intermittent? Who is arguing that areas of low wind (i.e. high air pressure) can not extend right across Europe?

Capt'n Midnight · 10-05-2011 10:39pm

http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/press

The six renewable energy technologies reviewed are:

* Bioenergy, including energy crops; forest, agricultural and livestock residues and so called second generation biofuels
* Direct solar energy including photovoltaics and concentrating solar power
* Geothermal energy, based on heat extraction from the Earth’s interior
* Hydropower, including run-of-river, in-stream or dam projects with reservoirs
* Ocean energy, ranging from barrages to ocean currents and ones which harness temperature differences in the marine realm
* Wind energy, including on- and offshore systems

...
The most optimistic of the four, in-depth scenarios projects renewable energy accounting for as much as 77 percent of the world’s energy demand by 2050, amounting to about 314 of 407 Exajoules per year.
...

with the lowest of the four scenarios seeing renewable energy accounting for a share of 15 percent in 2050, based on a total primary energy supply of 749 Exajoules.

...

Under the scenarios analyzed in-depth, less than 2.5 percent of the globally available technical potential for renewables is used—in other words over 97 percent is untapped underlining that availability of renewable source will not be a limiting factor.

Chloe Pink · 11-05-2011 8:07am

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, you did say that, but you have still not provided any evidence to support this statement.

“... there would still be extreme peaks and troughs in wind output”

“... similar weather patterns can extend across much of the continent of Europe and the UK and Ireland."

“weather systems… can extend for 1000 miles... ”

The third quotation says “in particular” not “only”:
"This heavy reinforcement of interconnection doesn’t appear to offset the need for very much backup plant, however. This surprising observation comes from the fact that weather systems – in particular high pressure ‘cold and calm’ periods in winter – can extend for 1000 miles, so that periods of low wind generation are often correlated across Europe."

I wrote an example scenario: “Generally areas of high and low pressure cover most of Europe i.e. winds are high over most European countries at the same time.”
I could have written an example scenario: “Generally areas of high and low pressure cover most of Europe i.e. winds are low over most European countries at the same time.” After all, it is during cold and calm periods that countries are more likely to be hitting peak demand.

djpbarry wrote: »

But this is arguing a point that nobody has made – who is arguing that wind is not intermittent? Who is arguing that areas of low wind (i.e. high air pressure) can not extend right across Europe?

I don't think anyone is arguing that wind is not intermittent. It seems accepted that it is hence the reference to inter-connectors as the quote in post 89. Post 89 then goes on to say, “Goodness - are you suggesting that we sell our excess wind to the UK, and buy from them when the wind isn't blowing?” (This same point was raised earlier in posts 74 and 75).

I am simply pointing out that weather systems across Europe don't particularly support this scenario and have provided links as such.

djpbarry · 11-05-2011 10:17am

Chloe Pink wrote: »

...winds are high over most European countries at the same time.

Can you not see that nothing you have posted thus far supports this statement? Let’s make it real simple...

The average wind speed here in London is about 8 – 10 knots, depending on the time of year. The average wind speed in Donegal, however, is about 11 – 17 knots. What gives?

Chloe Pink · 11-05-2011 5:47pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The average wind speed here in London is about 8 – 10 knots, depending on the time of year. The average wind speed in Donegal, however, is about 11 – 17 knots. What gives?

Wind turbines operate from between 6 to 49 knots. Depending on the number and size of turbines in either of the locations you cite, they would both be generating at the lowish end of the scale.

Is there a problem with the information in the links in post 116?

djpbarry · 11-05-2011 6:56pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Wind turbines operate from between 6 to 49 knots. Depending on the number and size of turbines in either of the locations you cite, they would both be generating at the lowish end of the scale.

Is there a problem with the information in the links in post 116?

There is a problem with your ability to answer questions and/or address points raised. Have a week away from the forum to consider why repeating “I’ve already copied & pasted an answer to that in post #x” is unlikely to result in a flowing discussion.

joeborza · 03-08-2012 10:35am

[mod]What is with all the shilling lately?[/mod]

Niamh Allan · 03-08-2012 1:18pm

It is mistake that wind and wave energies are really renewable . Efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun. In effect, he says, we will be depleting green energy sources.

djpbarry · 03-08-2012 1:57pm

Niamh Allan wrote: »

Efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun.

As far as we're concerned, the sun represents a source of essentially infinite energy, so I don't really take your point?

pljudge321 · 03-08-2012 2:14pm

djpbarry wrote: »

As far as we're concerned, the sun represents a source of essentially infinite energy, so I don't really take your point?

I've heard a lot of arguments against renewables but this one really takes the biscuit.

pljudge321 · 03-08-2012 2:21pm

SeanW wrote: »

Take for example the really cold spell: power demand surged because the temperature plummeted to record lows, I was back down the family home for Christmas and EVERYONE we knew lost either their water supply, or their main central heating, or in some cases both. My mother and I had to stock up on electric heaters and run them all at max just to stay alive.

It just so happened that the wind wasn't blowing ... Now, I'm sorry, but paying a fortune for a power supply that is going to let you down when you need it most, just doesn't make any sense to me. It is because weather based renewables can never be controlled or relied on that they will never replace traditional thermal or nuclear power stations. This (nuclear vs. thermal) is the choice.

No one (who knows anything about power systems) has ever proposed not having a power system with sufficient capacity to meet peak demand so this argument doesn't hold. The argument isn't that we can replace traditional plants but rather that by having both we can significantly reduce both our fuel usage and emission levels whilst keeping the cost of electricity at the same level, something which we have achieved so far.

I wouldn't be anti-nuclear at all even though I'd be pro-wind once a reasoned approach is taken, rather than the loony plans some people come out with. I'd question both the economics and engineering difficulties in installing a nuke in a system as small as ours though. Also no government will ever give it a green light here because it would give the opposition a massive stick to beat them with come next election.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-08-2012 12:13am

Niamh Allan wrote: »

It is mistake that wind and wave energies are really renewable . Efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun. In effect, he says, we will be depleting green energy sources.

We get about 1KW / m2 from the Sun.

At the equator and in the doldrums , and up in the jet stream where the air is rarified , the energy density is pretty low. For most of the planet the density of wind / wave energy is pretty low. In the centre of the Med there is almost no tidal power either.

Locally in Ireland we have something like 40Kw of wave power per meter of shoreline. We also have an awful lot of wind.

SeanW · 05-08-2012 12:45am

pljudge321 wrote: »

No one (who knows anything about power systems) has ever proposed not having a power system with sufficient capacity to meet peak demand so this argument doesn't hold. The argument isn't that we can replace traditional plants but rather that by having both we can significantly reduce both our fuel usage and emission levels whilst keeping the cost of electricity at the same level, something which we have achieved so far.

The environmental-left likes to paint a picture of nuclear vs. renewables, which I find highly disagreeable.

But I don't think wind turbines are helping much as they have to be subsidised with P.S.O. levies, so I'm dubious of claims that they've saved us money.

Also no government will ever give it a green light here because it would give the opposition a massive stick to beat them with come next election.

You're right about this: the environmental-left knows that frightening ignorant people is easy and they've done this egregiously WRT nuclear power. I have no idea why, considering nuclear power's proven ability to safely combat climate change and give our people a way around carbon taxes etc, but cest la vie.

As a 100% direct consequence of this, we are now hopelessly dependent on fossil fuels. This is the point that really grinds my gears.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-08-2012 1:22am

SeanW wrote: »

nuclear power's proven ability to safely combat climate change and give our people a way around carbon taxes etc, but cest la vie.

given the trend towards higher temperatures, higher pressures, longer lives this is a hard claim to justify.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nuclear+reactor+corrosion
the key point here is that you'll see that there are lots of different types of corrosion being detected, boric acid , hydrogen and neutron embrittlement, construcion workers urinating in holes use for rebar , whatever, and it's across a variety of plant types in different countries and over many decades. And corrosion in a vessel under pressure is not all that desirable.

And a lot of them were obvious in hindsight (like a lot of nuclear industry snafu's). Like this one http://www.ne.anl.gov/capabilities/cmm/highlights/sgt_integrity_program.html

Various forms of degradation have resulted in the plugging of well over 100,000 tubes to date around the world. In addition, 68 steam generators in 22 U.S. plants had been replaced by the end of 1998 at a cost of about $100 to $200 million each, and more replacements are underway or planned. Environmentally induced degradation through intergranular SCC and intergranular attack is the most serious degradation process at present. This degradation commonly occurs in crevice regions at tube support plate and tube sheet locations or under sludge piles, although intergranular SCC has also been observed in the free span of the tubes. Because of its variable and often complex morphology, this cracking can be difficult to detect and size by conventional inspection techniques, and the failure pressure and leak-rate behaviors of degraded tubes are not readily predictable.

djpbarry · 05-08-2012 1:51am

SeanW wrote: »

The environmental-left likes to paint a picture of nuclear vs. renewables...

Please stop constructing that straw man.

SeanW wrote: »

But I don't think wind turbines are helping much as they have to be subsidised with P.S.O. levies...

Show me a form of electricity generation that has never been subsidised.

pljudge321 · 05-08-2012 9:21pm

For reference REFIT cost €36 million this year, less than the subsidy given to the peat plants and about 2% the value of the yearly market.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-08-2012 11:08pm

SeanW wrote: »

But I don't think wind turbines are helping much as they have to be subsidised with P.S.O. levies, so I'm dubious of claims that they've saved us money.

It was done to death a while back

wind gets roughly the same total subsidy as peat & some older private plants
and there is a hell of a lot more wind

dig up the document showing ALL subsidies to all generators and then show where wind takes the lions share

Macha · 05-08-2012 11:38pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

But I don't think wind turbines are helping much as they have to be subsidised with P.S.O. levies, so I'm dubious of claims that they've saved us money.

It was done to death a while back

wind gets roughly the same total subsidy as peat & some older private plants
and there is a hell of a lot more wind

dig up the document showing ALL subsidies to all generators and then show where wind takes the lions share

Plus the benefits of current market rules and existing infrastructure.

SeanW · 07-08-2012 11:56pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Please stop constructing that straw man.
Show me a form of electricity generation that has never been subsidised.

Wow. NEVER been subsidised? Ever? Ever ever ever? That's quite a high bar you've set. But you'll have to forgive me if I don't take it all that seriously. Question is, what is subsidised today?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

wind gets roughly the same total subsidy as peat

Which I oppose.

& some older private plants

If an "older private plant" is inefficient, the case to subsidise it, imo cannot be very strong.

and there is a hell of a lot more wind

But at least you can rely on the older private plants and peat - for example in a Siberian anti-cyclone when ALL renewables fail, at least you can throw more peat or whatever on the fire!

djpbarry · 08-08-2012 12:10am

SeanW wrote: »

Question is, what is subsidised today?

Well, no, it isn't, because the whole point of subsidies is to influence the future. In that context, it is pertinent to consider what has been subsidised in the past and how that has influenced the present. Considering what is subsidised today in isolation is pointless.

SeanW wrote: »

But at least you can rely on the older private plants and peat - for example in a Siberian anti-cyclone when ALL renewables fail, at least you can throw more peat or whatever on the fire!

Thanks for enlightening us once more.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-08-2012 12:34am

SeanW wrote: »

But at least you can rely on the older private plants and peat - for example in a Siberian anti-cyclone when ALL renewables fail, at least you can throw more peat or whatever on the fire!

You'll be disappointed when you see how little energy we actually get from those plants.

In reality we could get more over the interconnectors if large industries in the north of England reduced consumption. And averaged out over a year probably cheaper.

http://www.greenparty.ie/news.html?n=92

Last year fossil fuels were subsidised worldwide by more than $500bn, six times the level of support for renewable power. Ministers Phil Hogan and Pat Rabbitte will now have to show how we will arrange an end to our own remaining fossil fuel subsidy," concluded Ossian Smyth.

€70m subsidy for turf from PSO levy from CER Decision paper July 2011:
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/E6189EC8-BA3F-4E41-82BF-C4A4A93E5447/0/PSO20112012decision.pdf

SeanW · 09-08-2012 4:52am

djpbarry wrote: »

Considering what is subsidised today in isolation is pointless.

That's a very wild claim, for one thing subsidies are often, nay usually, used to support an activity that is financially unviable but provides socio-economic benefit. For example railways (which I agree with) are subsidised on a long term, prepetual basis because of their value to society. It is my view however, that renewable energy, while requiring subsidies on the same basis, do not offer the same utility, and that money spent on them might be better used to finance or save up for railway projects like the Dublin Metro or DART Underground (the latter of which I actively campaigned for in ~2005)

Thanks for enlightening us once more.

I'm sorry, but we've seen from Christmas 2010 that when we need power the most, renewables simply will not be there. I question the wisdom of subsidising power plants that you have no clue when they will produce power, only that they WILL fail when you need them the most.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You'll be disappointed when you see how little energy we actually get from those plants.

Quite likely. But at least they can be controlled.

http://www.greenparty.ie/news.html?n=92

Because the Green Party is a reliable source of information about energy issues :rolleyes:

The Green Party is the problem, not the solution. But for the pinheads that caused the Carnsore Point NPP to be scrapped (before Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island), Ireland would now be less dependent on fossil fuels and peat.

At least one of you has admitted that renewables are not a solution in and of themselves, and I expect they may not necessarily ever displace a single baseline power plant, save for perhaps Iceland or Norway. So the question of nuclear vs. fossil fuels arises.

The Green Party, Greenpeace and other elements of the environmental-left have clearly chosen fossil fuels, despite the immense costs (chiefly environmental!) of doing so and despite feeble claims to be anti-fossil fuels as well.

So for Ossyan Smith to start complaining about subsidies to fossil fuel fired power, is to say the least a bit rich and frankly more than a little bizarre. It's your side the supports fossil fuels, not mine.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-08-2012 11:39am

SeanW wrote: »

Because the Green Party is a reliable source of information about energy issues :rolleyes:

please comment on the references they use.

The Green Party is the problem, not the solution. But for the pinheads that caused the Carnsore Point NPP to be scrapped (before Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island), Ireland would now be less dependent on fossil fuels and peat.

you forgot to mention the UK scares too. Or the other Japanese ones , or the jams in the German pebble bed reactor, or the contaminated Indian plant etc. Stories that would be far more prominent if we had one on our doorstep.

A white elephant whose future depended on there not being a nuclear incident before the next election. And that's if it worked. Something like half of the plants in the US of that vintage had an unplanned outage of a year or more.

I expect they may not necessarily ever displace a single baseline power plant, save for perhaps Iceland or Norway. So the question of nuclear vs. fossil fuels arises.

We are indirectly connected to Norway.

Renewables don't give constant power.
Renewables don't have a constant fuel bill.

Trick is to match power and demand.

Smart meters properly setup and a web site advertising prices over the next 24 hours. you adjust the delay on the washing machine / drier / dishwasher / immersion to match - simple load balancing

as I've pointed out ad nauseum it can be cheaper to pay big customers to not use power at peak times than provide peaking plants to match.

and yes the big investment in energy should be in insulating houses / hot water tanks. if we can double the time a house stays warm then you don't need to turn on the heating on so often and load balancing becomes easier

djpbarry · 09-08-2012 12:39pm

SeanW wrote: »

That's a very wild claim, for one thing subsidies are often, nay usually, used to support an activity that is financially unviable but provides socio-economic benefit.

They’re also used to build market share more rapidly and/or to reduce barriers for competition to enter an industry.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm sorry, but we've seen from Christmas 2010 that when we need power the most, renewables simply will not be there.

Great. Let’s just ignore the fact that Ireland is one of the windiest (if not the windiest) place on the planet and we can literally harness electricity from thin air at very low cost. Let’s also ignore the fact that Ireland gets about 10% of its electricity from wind, on average.

Continuously pointing out the mind-numbingly obvious fact that wind generation is dependent on wind is just. Plain. Stupid.

SeanW wrote: »

The Green Party is the problem, not the solution. But for the pinheads that caused the Carnsore Point NPP to be scrapped (before Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island), Ireland would now be less dependent on fossil fuels and peat.

The Green Party is solely responsible for the lack of nuclear generation in Ireland? I had no idea they were so influential.

SeanW wrote: »

At least one of you has admitted that renewables are not a solution in and of themselves...

I’m reaching for my mod hat here – nobody has argued that renewables are the silver bullet. Stop constructing straw men.

SeanW wrote: »

So the question of nuclear vs. fossil fuels arises.

As has been pointed out to you countless times before, that is a ridiculous over-simplification. It’s a question of finding the best mix of all elements, be they renewable, nuclear, coal, gas or whatever – it is not a binary choice.

SeanW wrote: »

It's your side the supports fossil fuels...

Just because someone disagrees with you on a particular point, doesn’t mean they reside on the opposite side of some imagined dividing line that you have constructed.

pljudge321 · 09-08-2012 3:31pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Let’s also ignore the fact that Ireland gets about 10% of its electricity from wind, on average.

Its higher than that actually, 16% last year and on track for around 18% this year.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

if we can double the time a house stays warm then you don't need to turn on the heating on so often and load balancing becomes easier

One of the interesting things that people doing demand side management research have told me is that the more efficient buildings become the less scope there is to manage the load so its kind of a catch 22. A lot of people in the industry are highly skeptical about whether domestic DSM will work at all.

If you take the value of the ancillary services market that DSM makes its money from and split it up between a few hundred thousand houses there isn't all that much money there to incentivise people. Fridges & freezers are one of the devices that might be practical to use because they are always on and they can deal with being shut off for 30 minutes or so.

SeanW · 10-08-2012 11:23pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

please comment on the references they use.

I'm sure they're in order. Doesn't change the fact that the Green Party is far from objective.

Trick is to match power and demand.
...
as I've pointed out ad nauseum it can be cheaper to pay big customers to not use power at peak times than provide peaking plants to match.
... load balancing ...

Yes, among other things you mentioned the heavy industry in the Northeast of England.

About the "load balancing" stuff, I have two questions/comments:

During the anti-cyclone of 2010, my family and I lost our oil fired central heating, we had to turn on everything electric (oven, multiple electric heaters and the immersion and pour large amounts of fuel into the fireplace to stop from freezing over, as temperatures plunged to below -15C. Power demand surged over the end of that December as wind speeds dropped to a dead calm over the period of the anti-cyclone.
If I understand your "windmills and load balancing" scheme correctly, we would have had a €1000 eletric bill that month, assuming the grid stayed online.
You do realise that industry requires a RELIABLE energy supply? What you are proposing is to simply dump the problem of unstable renewables onto the backs of what's left of the European industrial base.
Question: how can a factory plan production for the next week or so when according to your plan they'd be at the mercy of the weather? How should the factory workers fare in all this? Should they be "on call" i.e. only come into work each day if the wind is blowing? Who should bear the cost of idle days? The workers or the employer?
Finally, how much of this nonsense do you think these industry owners would put up with before deciding "This crap is Reason #236 to pack up and feck off to India?"

djpbarry wrote: »

They’re also used to build market share more rapidly and/or to reduce barriers for competition to enter an industry.

You have evidence that this is the case? Is there a schedule for the phasing out of the subsidies?

Continuously pointing out the mind-numbingly obvious fact that wind generation is dependent on wind is just. Plain. Stupid.

I wouldn't have to if the environmental-left would stop going on about how nuclear power is evil and windmills are the best thing since sliced bread.

I’m reaching for my mod hat here – nobody has argued that renewables are the silver bullet. Stop constructing straw men.

Again, don't tell me, tell your friends at Greenpeace and the rest of the environmental-left.

As has been pointed out to you countless times before, that is a ridiculous over-simplification. It’s a question of finding the best mix of all elements, be they renewable, nuclear, coal, gas or whatever – it is not a binary choice.
Just because someone disagrees with you on a particular point, doesn’t mean they reside on the opposite side of some imagined dividing line that you have constructed.

With all due respect, I think it really is that simple. When the oil crisis of 1970 whatever it was came, France went down the road of nuclear energy wholeheartedly. As a result, its power system is 90% non-fossil.

Ireland's response was drafted by hippy pinheads at Carnsore point and as a direct consequence our power system is 90% fossil fuel and peat. With all the bog destruction, pollution and CO2 emissions that this entails.

I've made no secret of which I prefer - I'm primarily opposed to traditional thermal power and think we've got it wrong.

You could argue that it's a nuanced mix, as you do, that you could have more of one thing in one country and more something else somewhere else, potentially including nuclear under appropriate circumstances, but again, the environmental-left will never agree with that.

In objecting so strenuously - and with so little reason - to nuclear energy it's the enviornmental-left that has created the fossil fuels vs. nuclear divide that is anything but imaginary.

Waestrel · 10-08-2012 11:34pm

Sean W, do you have any policy on nuclear waste disposal for the material that an Irish plant would create?

SeanW · 11-08-2012 12:23am

Yes. Recycling would be a central plank: a typical cycle through a nuclear reactor uses only about 5% of the fissionable material. Some countries, like France, the U.K. and possibly Japan, have the facilities necessary to create new fuels from "spent" fuels.

A reactor design would be chosed firstly on its suitability for the Irish market size, but also based on its ability to produce and use reusable fuels, the contract for such reprocessing likely being offered to the French.

As for the transuranic elements that remain, we would lobby for a change to the laws of the sea to allow subduction zone burial of un reprocessable waste, failing that, we would commission a report to find the most geologically stable part of the Irish soverign territory and drill a hole deep down into that area to bury waste. In this case, the waste would be entombed in boroscilicate glass prior to being buried.

Waestrel · 11-08-2012 12:43am

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. Recycling would be a central plank: a typical cycle through a nuclear reactor uses only about 5% of the fissionable material. Some countries, like France, the U.K. and possibly Japan, have the facilities necessary to create new fuels from "spent" fuels.

A reactor design would be chosed firstly on its suitability for the Irish market size, but also based on its ability to produce and use reusable fuels, the contract for such reprocessing likely being offered to the French.

As for the transuranic elements that remain, we would lobby for a change to the laws of the sea to allow subduction zone burial of un reprocessable waste, failing that, we would commission a report to find the most geologically stable part of the Irish soverign territory and drill a hole deep down into that area to bury waste. In this case, the waste would be entombed in boroscilicate glass prior to being buried.

Hmm, well assuming Law of the sea could be altered, subduction zone burial is no easy task, and the cost of drilling and emplacement of canisterised waste in such could easily be in hundred of millions, and the nearest such zone is off Alaska , so we cannot provide domestic solution here.

Also, there is cratonic or stable geological terrane in Ireland that could be said to be stable for the million years required for safe storage. Ireland is prone to ice ages, high and fluctuating water tables and is geologically quite young and not really tectonically quiescent

Nuclear seems like the magic bullet to energy problems, but in reality, there is a whole load of nasty hidden charges that come in the fine print. And is not as reliable as you might think, due to the high amount of safety features of Nuke plants ( and with good cause) there is a lot more reasons for shut down than a standard thermal plant. A good mix of renewables - wind, wave, tidal , and if possible for irish geology - geothermal. This when mixed with some microgeneration, smart metering, supergrids ( all of which we will see in the next 20 years) , and increased domestic efficiency will make us energy independent and leaves fission power as a failed dream of the 1950's, where it should stay.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-08-2012 3:28am

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. Recycling would be a central plank: a typical cycle through a nuclear reactor uses only about 5% of the fissionable material. Some countries, like France, the U.K. and possibly Japan, have the facilities necessary to create new fuels from "spent" fuels.

Are they economic and safe ?
And if they are why aren't they being used more, and why do only countries who need reprocessing to separate out plutonium for their military have them ?

Fairly sure Japan does not have reprocessing due to the fuss over the UK having to provide an escort to the ship.

As for the transuranic elements that remain, we would lobby for a change to the laws of the sea to allow subduction zone burial of un reprocessable waste, failing that, we would commission a report to find the most geologically stable part of the Irish soverign territory and drill a hole deep down into that area to bury waste. In this case, the waste would be entombed in boroscilicate glass prior to being buried.

How much are Finland spending on waste disposal ?

Subduction is complete fantasy.

The big problem is that the subduction process happens at a few cm per year. It hasn't moved even a hundred meters since the last ice age. By the time the waste gets out of the seismically active region it's long decayed to background levels anyway.

"Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all"

Comments