"Wind blows away fossil power in the Nordics..."

Iwasfrozen · 17-10-2014 4:06am

WILL NEVER LOG OFF wrote: »

undertake some very basic research

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Low%20Carbon%20Generation%20Options%20for%20the%20All%20Island%20Market%20(2).pdf

You haven't read your own link, only three paragraphs below:

The two main types of unit being advanced for UK deployment before 2025 are, the ‘European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR)’ and the Westinghouse AP1000 are 1,600 and 1,100MW respectively, and we have considered these as the most likely candidates for the island in this report.

Clearly it is not "experimental", "uneconomical" or "totally ridiculous" to have nuclear power in Ireland.

WILL NEVER LOG OFF · 17-10-2014 4:14am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You haven't read your own link, only three paragraphs below:

Clearly it is not "experimental", "uneconomical" or "totally ridiculous" to have nuclear power in Ireland.

This is going to be embarrassing.

You're having a comprehension problem.

Those are the larger unit-size reactor candidates determined to be impractical.

Iwasfrozen · 17-10-2014 4:23am

WILL NEVER LOG OFF wrote: »

This is going to be embarrassing.

You're having a comprehension problem.

Those are the larger unit-size reactor candidates determined to be impractical.

Danger of a single plant going offline is certainly an obstacle to be overcome but it isn't the insurmountable problem that you seem to think it is. If you re read the passage you will see the 1,600 MW plants are considered by the report to be too large. While the Westinghouse AP1000 being developed in the UK is 1,100 MW.

I still haven't seen anything from you that suggests Ireland is too small to have a nuclear power plant.

WILL NEVER LOG OFF · 17-10-2014 4:28am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Danger of a single plant going offline is certainly an obstacle to be overcome but it isn't the insurmountable problem that you seem to think it is.

Not me. A leading European energy consultancy comprising 250 energy specialists, citing international research.

Your last comment has made you appear quite foolish. You don't understand the evidence. Maybe stop digging.

Iwasfrozen · 17-10-2014 4:30am

WILL NEVER LOG OFF wrote: »

Not me. A leading European energy consultancy comprising 250 energy specialists, citing international research.

Your last comment has made your argument appear quite foolish. You don't understand the evidence. Maybe stop digging.

You left out most of my post. I don't doubt the accuracy of the research, which seems to be what you're suggesting in this post, I'm doubting your interpretation of it. No where does it say nuclear power is unsuitable for Ireland.

WILL NEVER LOG OFF · 17-10-2014 4:33am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No where does it say nuclear power is unsuitable for Ireland.

stop wasting mine and others' time and read the report carefully.

Commercially available nuclear stations are large for the size of the electricity system on the island of Ireland and we have assumed that a high system cost is required to integrate nuclear generation. More detailed technical feasibility studies and a full project risk assessment will be needed to develop this option. Nuclear feasibility could be re-examined in a different light at a future date if smaller nuclear generators become commercially available.

While recognising that such an option is not possible in Ireland at the moment, this
portfolio includes 2,200MW of nuclear plant. This would be possible using two
Westinghouse AP1000 reactor designs.

Iwasfrozen · 17-10-2014 4:39am

WILL NEVER LOG OFF wrote: »

stop wasting mine and others' time and read the report carefully.

" More detailed technical feasibility studies and a full project risk assessment will be needed to develop this option."

That reads as pretty inconclusive. It certainly doesn't back up the assertions you were making.

I would like to see further research done on the feasibility of introducing a domestic supply of nuclear power though knowing this government that issue will be kicked down the road for future generations to deal with.

EDIT: Just seen the bit you added.

" While recognising that such an option is *not possible in Ireland at the moment*, this
portfolio includes 2,200MW of nuclear plant."

They're obviously saying a 2,200MW plant is the unsuitable option. Not nuclear power in general.

WILL NEVER LOG OFF · 17-10-2014 4:42am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That reads as pretty inconclusive.

seriously, read the report.

any amateur with a vague interest in irish nuclear power will already be familiar with and capable of understanding this report, and you evidently are not in that category.

jill_valentine · 17-10-2014 4:45am

I like the turbines. They're like giant, elegant daisies.

Also, LSPD helicopters can't really follow you into them, so they've been very good to me.

Iwasfrozen · 17-10-2014 4:45am

WILL NEVER LOG OFF wrote: »

seriously, read the report.

any amateur with a vague interest in irish nuclear power will already be familiar with and capable of understanding this report, and you evidently are not in that category.

You haven't shown me one piece of evidence to back up your earlier assertions that nuclear power is totally unfeasible for Ireland. That report is, by your own quotes, and certainly by what I've read completely inconclusive.

old_aussie · 17-10-2014 4:51am

Ireland should continue to expand wind farms.

Off shore is a good option, low noise and attracts marine growth attracting fish.

There should also be a small nuclear plant built to remove the need for imports of fossile fuels to power the existing plants.

Should something arise to prevent imports, or if the cost of imported fuel becomes super expensive, there would be the wind farms and nuclear power to fall back on.

enda1 · 17-10-2014 8:34am

Why isn't Europe more of a common energy market? Put the wind turbines where it's windy, the solar where it's sunny, and the nuclear where there's the skill and expertise? Then just sell power to each other. Build proper backbone energy inter-connectors, build many more pumped storage facilities to utilise otherwise wasted surplus in solar/wind/nuclear and use these to offset expensive Russian gas. Incinerators too should be a priority as waste management and secondary power generation.

The obsession of nations to each have a complete portfolio of power is a folly and should be discouraged for efficiency and safety reasons.

Mr.David · 17-10-2014 8:44am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actually what happens in the real world is that both wind and nuclear are backedup by idling gas turbines because they can ramp up in seconds.

If a nuclear power plant has to be scramed because of a transformer failure , sensor failure or jellyfish* then you have very short window of time to get it back on line before xenon poisoning means you have to stay offline for at least three days.

Gas is about the only thing that can backup unpredictable nuclear. Korea , UK and Belgium currently have reactors offline for extended unplanned outages. I'd nearly say unpredictable but it's the same old story of nuclear industry cost cutting / mis management.

Gas turbines are cheap , but the fuel is expensive so every watt you can get out of wind results in less fuel to buy. Anyway here we have way loads of gas turbines already.

You can't mix wind and nuclear because the costs of nuclear mean you can't invest in wind too. You can't mix them because nuclear takes hours to change the power output up and down , and even then you need to design a different and slightly inefficient reactor. So even though you can forecast wind 5 days in advance, nuclear can't efficiently follow the load.

Our minimum demand is 1/3rd of peak demand and nuclear can't follow that change or even the difference between night and day

*Korea , UK, Sweden, South Africa, California, Florida and IIRC Japan.

Sure, gas is the most responsive and can change load profile quickly and easily. Of course you can use Nuclear and Wind power.....as per the French and Germans?!

You are incorrect about base v peak demand, peak is approx 40% more than base, not 200% more as you assert.

1.5GW of nuke in Ireland could run at full output all the time and not have to ramp up or down to meat the fluctuating demand curve.

What's required is a sensible mix of nuclear, thermal and renewables not just one in isolation.

circadian · 17-10-2014 8:49am

I'd rather a badly built wind farm than nuclear plant. I like the idea of fusion but I wouldn't trust our government to oversee a nuclear plant properly. There was far too much cronyism during the boom to ensure good quality construction all the time.

stoneill · 17-10-2014 2:04pm

If decision makers are serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels then nuclear power should be seriously considered.

Mr_Red · 17-10-2014 3:49pm

I vote for a Thorium Reactor

Lets experiment. Pop it in the "knowledge box"

dxhound2005 · 22-10-2014 7:42pm

In the UK just for a day and due to a coincidence of factors, wind turbines produced more electricity than nuclear. It has to be one of major elements of future energy supplies. Like other technologies it will probably improve as time goes by. And offshore installations will not offend people as much as those on land.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29715796

The UK's wind farms generated more power than its nuclear power stations on Tuesday, the National Grid says.

The energy network operator said it was caused by a combination of high winds and faults in nuclear plants.

But for a 24-hour period yesterday, spinning blades produced more energy than splitting atoms.

Wind made up 14.2% of all generation and nuclear offered 13.2%.

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/1202906/rwe-innogy/sites/wind-offshore/under-construction/gwynt-y-mr/

El Weirdo · 23-10-2014 8:49am

Xios wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/nordicpower-windfarm-idUSL6N0S530M20141015

I just don't understand why we're not the leading investor/innovators in wind energy, like just look at this wind map and compare the wind off our coasts with the wind on mainland europe and the nordics.

Not sure that it's been mentioned, but I'm pretty sure that Norway's renewables success has largely been built on subsidies provided by the money they get from their fossil fuel operations in the North Sea.

Egginacup · 23-10-2014 9:53am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

Then why has Japan shut down all of its nuke plants? Germany too?

I'll bet the farm that you wouldn't live within 50 miles of one.

Gbear · 23-10-2014 10:01am

Egginacup wrote: »

Then why has Japan shut down all of its nuke plants? Germany too?

I'll bet the farm that you wouldn't live within 50 miles of one.

Populism in the case of Germany.

It's a huge blow to the fight against climate change.

Replacing all their nuclear plants with coal plants is reactionary, mindless, selfish nonsense.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 23-10-2014 10:05am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nuclear reactors are cheaper, make less noise and produce way more energy. They've also become much safer over the past number of decades.

Nuclear waste will never be safe...

smoking_kills · 23-10-2014 10:16am

Salma Quick Oatmeal wrote: »

Nuclear waste will never be safe...

Well after a few million years it would be.....

blaze1 · 23-10-2014 10:18am

Would I F**k trust anyone in any position of power linked to this government with nuclear powerstations. We'd be dead within a year.

BoJack Horseman · 23-10-2014 10:20am

Salma Quick Oatmeal wrote: »

Nuclear waste will never be safe...

As it stands coal power plants kill about 100,000 times more people than nuclear power plants do each year.

Is there a safer form of power generation than nuclear?

Its Only Ray Parlour · 23-10-2014 1:44pm

Salma Quick Oatmeal wrote: »

Nuclear waste will never be safe...

False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

It can range from a few days for very short-lived isotopes to millions of years if one choses to waste the unspent portions of "spent nuclear fuel".

Capt'n Midnight · 25-10-2014 8:09pm

Mr_Red wrote: »

I vote for a Thorium Reactor

Lets experiment. Pop it in the "knowledge box"

Oddly enough there's enough of them built and decommissioned to debunk the question of " why don't they build thorium reactors ?" The answer is they did and they had technical and economic problems

shipping port - very low conversion rate and lots of extra labour
thtr-300 / avr - pebble bed reactors, which jammed
and that one in the america mid-west that was converted to a gas power plant because of economics

thorium has been tried in reactors since the 1940's so the physics is well understood, a lifetime later and the engineers still haven't delivered the promise.

to get the thorium cycle working you need to breed a lot of extra fuel and breeder reactors aren't commercially viable, even though we've been doing it in multiple reactors since 1944

"Wind blows away fossil power in the Nordics..."

Comments