Is it time to go nuclear?

Phileas Frog wrote: »

What happens when there's no wind? Or too much wind?

What happen when a nuclear plant goes off line because of jellyfish or a transformer fire , or the river for the cooling water ices over or is too warm ? You may have to wait for days longer than any other thermal plant before you can restart.

Or has to be taken off line with no notice for months to years to address a design flaw or poor construction. Cracks in the concrete, graphite, pressure vessel, heat exchanger, storage tanks.

There's also the costs and delays associated with retro fitting safety features that should have been part of the original design. Like backup generators and sea walls and earthquake shields, and earthquake shields because they installed it the wrong way round first time.


If there is no wind you can use the same generators that nuclear would rely on for backup and peaking. Or use the pumped storage that nuclear is associated with.

Of course since wind is predictable and unplanned nuclear outages aren't, wind doesn't need the same huge levels of 24/7 burning of fossil fuel to provide spinning reserve.

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.

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 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 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.