Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it time to go nuclear?

Options
24567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    get a grip lads.

    Ye can't even build a hospital.


  • Options
    #33
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,700 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    the_syco wrote: »
    The sooner molten salt comes to all countries, the better. Can we build anymore hydroelectric dams? If not, we'll need to plant wind farms around Ireland with CPOs. It's either a fcuktonne of windfarms, or nuclear, IMO, and the former produces less waste to bury.
    Molten salt been done not commercialised yet. Been around forever. My 1957 book on nuclear power pretty much covers all the "latest tech"

    Molten salt breeders, still only at the PR stage. Because no one's done breeders with decent breeding ratios, never mind ones that are remotely close to the costs of using uranium yet.


    Hydro ? We'd need a new Ardnacrusha ever year. So not going to happen here.


    Windfarms are getting cheaper all the time, Arklow bank and Codling and Kish and .. there's a load of East coast windfarm projects waiting for a few subsidies to go ahead. And sticking tidal turbines there would be a nice add on. Once fossil fuel gets too expensive it'll happen.


    A Shannon barrage or other tidal plants might worth looking at but they won't be cheap.

    More here - lots of tidal races between Scotland and NI and some off Wicklow
    https://www.seai.ie/resources/publications/Tidal_Current_Energy_Resources_in_Ireland_Report.pdf

    It's not even new tech
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/harnessing-water-and-wind-1.1133005
    Amazingly, Ireland today boasts two historically important 7th-century mills: the world's oldest recorded tidal mill, built in AD 617 on Mahee Island in Strangford Lough; and the oldest recorded twin-flume mill (also tidal), built at Little Island, County Cork in AD 630


  • Options
    #34
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    get a grip lads.

    Ye can't even build a hospital.

    Thankfully, the HSE doesn't build power plants! Although, the AGRs in the UK would make the Children's Hospital overrun look very minor.


  • Options
    #35
    mickuhaha
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭mickuhaha


    So what I have gathered from the posts is AMRs are not developed yet but if work would suit Ireland. A big reactor is too expensive and no company would probably build it without considerably running over budget. Were better off buying gas and importing electricity from France not Britain. Is that about right. A bit of a sad affair. If I can save a few pennies I will stick a wind turbine on the roof of the house.


  • Options
    #36
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Molten salt been done not commercialised yet. Been around forever. My 1957 book on nuclear power pretty much covers all the "latest tech"

    Molten salt breeders, still only at the PR stage. Because no one's done breeders with decent breeding ratios, never mind ones that are remotely close to the costs of using uranium yet.
    Sorry, I meant using molten salt for power storage. Although I don't know if CSP would be that useful in Ireland due to our cloud cover, having multiple wind farms off the west coast could use it?

    One example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

    Used to keep an eye on Nevada, with Las Vegas's power in mind. Although they could rely on solar power during the say, companies have been trying different things to store power for the night. Molten salt was seemingly a main contender a while back, and it seems more companies have gone for it since I last looked at it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    Spain actually has some pretty world leading stuff done with solar energy too.

    Also connecting to the European grid isn't actually "foreign imports" in the sense that it's really a single energy market.

    We may well be able to connect to potentially vast solar resources in Spain and France.

    Energy storage here is going to be key. I'm wondering about the potential for flood defences being combined with significant pumped storage and tidal. You could also solve Dublin's water issues by combining with a large scale pumped storage development.

    Battery storage and hydrogen storage and so on may become viable soon.


  • Options
    #38
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    The requirements of Environmental Assesments as part of the planning process has made it virtually impossible that we would ever build any further pumped storage or hydro in this country.


  • Options
    #39
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,633 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Molten salt been done not commercialised yet. Been around forever. My 1957 book on nuclear power pretty much covers all the "latest tech"

    Molten salt breeders, still only at the PR stage. Because no one's done breeders with decent breeding ratios, never mind ones that are remotely close to the costs of using uranium yet.


    Hydro ? We'd need a new Ardnacrusha ever year. So not going to happen here.


    Windfarms are getting cheaper all the time, Arklow bank and Codling and Kish and .. there's a load of East coast windfarm projects waiting for a few subsidies to go ahead. And sticking tidal turbines there would be a nice add on. Once fossil fuel gets too expensive it'll happen.


    A Shannon barrage or other tidal plants might worth looking at but they won't be cheap.

    More here - lots of tidal races between Scotland and NI and some off Wicklow
    https://www.seai.ie/resources/publications/Tidal_Current_Energy_Resources_in_Ireland_Report.pdf

    It's not even new tech
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/harnessing-water-and-wind-1.1133005



    Still spinning this codology:rolleyes: - Amazing how some still want to follow the likes of Germany into this costly and wastefull mess

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germany-faces-a-gigawatt-scale-loss-of-onshore-wind-power#gs.2kmvf3

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/09/german-energy-expert-shreds-wind-power-everyones-loses-with-wind-energy/

    Meanwhile in the real world India plans to triple nuclear power output by 2024

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/build-nuclear-power-plants-india-190314072408714.html

    PS: Has the EIA been done for offshore wind or will it be an afterthought when problems start emerging like the onshore industry??


  • Options
    #40
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Meanwhile in the real world India plans to triple nuclear power output by 2024

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/build-nuclear-power-plants-india-190314072408714.html
    Timing is suspect. From the Americans not being able to build them, to suddenly being able to build them after "Last October, India and Russia signed a pact to build six more nuclear reactors at a new site in India"?


  • Options
    #41
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ower#gs.2kmvf3

    The point of this article appears to be that offshore wind turbines installed 15 years ago are no longer competitive without subsidy. A 15 year gas power plant is not competitive and will generally only be brought on line in case of massive demand.
    Meanwhile, Turbines which are 2-3 more powerful are being installed based on competitive auction at prices below conventional energy.

    If you are going to argue that the price of offshore has not fallen in the last decade and write that off as spin, you are not helping your credibility.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Poulgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Poulgorm


    Building a nuclear reactor is one thing, decommissioning it after 30 to 40 years is another. It seems to be a huge problem and costs billions.

    I often wonder about the French: 70% of their electricity is nuclear generated and you never hear about decommissioning issues there. Do they export the toxic waste to a colony somewhere, or what?


  • Options
    #43
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Still spinning this codology:rolleyes: - Amazing how some still want to follow the likes of Germany into this costly and wastefull mess

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germany-faces-a-gigawatt-scale-loss-of-onshore-wind-power#gs.2kmvf3

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/09/german-energy-expert-shreds-wind-power-everyones-loses-with-wind-energy/

    Meanwhile in the real world India plans to triple nuclear power output by 2024

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/build-nuclear-power-plants-india-190314072408714.html

    PS: Has the EIA been done for offshore wind or will it be an afterthought when problems start emerging like the onshore industry??

    Off shore the main "foreseeable" problem would be bird strikes, which should be overcomable( to some extent), in fact if fishing is restricted around the turbines (because of undersea cables, it could be very good for the environment,)
    Obviously dredging and clearing under the turbine base would have to be carefully controlled...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #44
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    France is cutting their nuclear energy production by a third by 2035


  • Options
    #45
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    EIA's would have been completed on any of the offshore wind farms which are consented or in the consenting process. Passage of time would probably require some updating.


  • Options
    #46
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I'd be surprised if there wasn't huge decommissioning of older wind turbines,as their contracted subsidy ends...
    They're 20 years old which is probably close to their design life, so they'll either need refurb or replacement...
    And the cost of providing off shore wind has dropped significantly... As well as turbines being significantly bigger...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #47
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    mickuhaha wrote: »
    Lifespan of wind turbine is 25 years and a nuclear plant upto 70.

    Sorry if this was asked before but why is wind turbine lifespan so short? I take it you can replace the turbine without dismantling the whole structure?


  • Options
    #48
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    The planned life for nuclear power plants was 30-40 years. The life can be extended with re-investment. You can have a similar impact with a brush if you replace the head and handle.

    The planned life of most power plants is 20 - 30 years. Technology moves on. Moneypoint, which through investment has had its life extended is 34 years old now and will close in the not too distant future.

    Power plants such as wind turbines can be decommissioned easily and relatively cheaply. The cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant safely is billions.


  • Options
    #49
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I'm not really sure about the economics of wind energy, on or off shore, its not a field I'm expert in, and to be fair it's complicated...
    Its probably no where near as good as its fáns say, and not nearly as expensive as its detractors make out...
    How ever nuclear ain't gonna cut it in Ireland...
    It IS staggeringly expensive, and out of sync with our grid,
    Maybe the Indian government or the Hungarians are building them, but I doubt if EDF, or the japanese would offer to build and fund one here,

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #50
    mickuhaha
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭mickuhaha


    https://futurism.com/china-floating-nuclear-power-plant/amp/

    China building floating nuclear power plant. We could have them float one here. I have not read this on any credible sites.


  • Options
    #51
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I think the Russians are (or were) doing a floating nuclear power station, up in the artic

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    mickuhaha
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭mickuhaha


    Markcheese wrote: »
    I think the Russians are (or were) doing a floating nuclear power station, up in the artic


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/952573/akademik-lomonosov-launch-russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/amp
    Link , doesn't say power output


  • Options
    #53
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    This is the sort of thing that could make a difference.

    https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/licensing

    The thing that might make this work on an island grid like Ireland is that the reactors are relatively small. (50MW or so).

    The benefit over traditional nuclear stations is really that the reactor is built in a factory and to a standard design. This should mean that the quality and integration problems that beset nuclear projects should be avoided.

    They think they will be building these reactors in the second half of the next decade.


  • Options
    #54
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    Just to follow up on a post further up the thread: wind turbines can and regularly are updated. You can change the blades, the bearings, generators and other components without all that much difficulty as they’re normally totally modular.

    The difficult and expensive bit is the tower, wiring and grid connection systems which all remain intact regardless of what you’re spinning up on top


  • Options
    #55
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,700 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Fiorscéal on TG4 had a doc on nuclear recently. Greenpeace in France were able to track the Plutonium convoys across France. ( Four routes and particular service stations were they stopped for fuel) And what terrorist group wouldn't love to get their mitts on 150 Kg of Plutonium ?


    On Tuesday this happened.
    Gunmen have attacked a convoy of trucks carrying uranium fuel to a nuclear power plant near the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, police say.


    Nuclear power can't be done on the cheap.
    But if you do it properly it's not economic.


  • Options
    #56
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    mickuhaha wrote: »
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/952573/akademik-lomonosov-launch-russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/amp
    Link , doesn't say power output

    It says 70 megawatts of electricity , or 300 mw of heat, but Wether that's total or for each of 2 reactors I'm not sure...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #57
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,700 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    It uses KLT-40 reactors , considering the shape too it's not unlike a Taymyr class nuclear power icebreaker.

    Also remember, like the US suggestions for Alaska these mini-nuclear plants are only for niche areas where fossil fuel is very expensive because of remoteness and storage is out because of local conditions and temperature. Unless you live somewhere where you are likely to be cut off from supplies form the outside world for months at a time nuclear isn't viable.


  • Options
    #58
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    There were small reactors used to power remote villages in Russia and also in parts of Alaska. They were considered for Antarctic bases and so on.

    There was a very small nuclear generator used at Rathlin O'Birne light house in Donegal too. It wasn't a nuclear reactor in the sense, but an RTG just a radioisotope that generated heat which was used to generate electricity using a solid state generator - basically a thermocouple. It was in service from 1974 to 1989. The same basic technology is used on space probes like the Voyagers.

    The technology for small scale nuclear power plants is largely not being pursued though. The main reason is it's very difficult to control what's going on at a load of small scale plants and there are risks around being able to keep control of fissile materials and maintenance. It's become a significant security risk these days because of potential terrorist use of materials in dirty bombs and so on. Even simple RTGs would likely be considered a major security problems these days.


  • Options
    #59
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,700 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Begreffer wrote: »
    Reducing carbon emissions means we need to pay more and cant worry only about profit and most countries in Europe will not be able to go massively reduce emissions without nuclear..
    Any evidence to back that up ?
    In Europe there's a lot of wind and solar. Norway especially has lots of hydro. There are loads of interconnectors.

    France is reducing nuclear from 75% to 50%
    Germany is phasing out Nuclear
    Italy already has.

    You may remember an eclipse a while back ?
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-solar-heavy-europe-avoided-a-blackout-during-total-eclipse/
    Across Europe the quick loss of roughly 17 GW was followed by an even speedier reintegration of 25 GW of solar generation.


    Meanwhile the UK had planned for 6 new nuclear plants. Only 1 is being built and it's way late and way over budget and the type of reactor they've chosen is the EPR. The one in Finland that was supposed to be up and running by 2009 has been delayed , yet again , to 2020.

    So even if in theory a Nuke could be carbon neutral, you are looking at 20 years of carbon debt between ordering one and producing power reliably Not to mention years before that overcoming planning delays and protests. 20 years from now renewables will have become a lot cheaper.


  • Options
    #60
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    It would be a very flawed policy at this stage and with the relatively poor technology available for nuclear at the moment. Ireland's absolutely not in a position to innovate with nuclear power and we've a small, low density population with massive wind resources...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Dinarius
    Registered Users Posts: 3,395 ✭✭✭Dinarius


    Every time I fly from Dublin to Gatwick, the flight path takes us over the giant wind farm off the Welsh coast.

    Apparently, it produces enough electricity for about 400,000 homes.

    Clustered together as they are in a giant forest of windmills, they look quite beautiful.

    Wind energy is our free lunch. We need to get over ourselves about it.

    We don’t need nuclear.

    D.


Advertisement