Nuclear power

MLM

Won't it be a bit hypocritical if we do opt for nuclear power, considering we've spent the last 50 years trying to shut Sellafield down?

Lennoxschips

I know somebody will mention renewables, but their merits have not yet been realised.

I wouldn't dismiss renewables so quickly. Renewables have been improving at a much faster rate than Nuclear in the last 20 years, with much less government subsidy. The price of renewables continues to tumble year on year with innovation, what's to say that trend won't continue? Despite nearly half a century of pissing about with research in fast breeder reactors and fusion technology, these technologies have yet to materialise on a large scale, or at all. People forget that we already have fusion power in the form of a big huge yellow fusion reactor in the sky.

nesf

Lennoxschips wrote:

I wouldn't dismiss renewables so quickly. Renewables have been improving at a much faster rate than Nuclear in the last 20 years, with much less government subsidy. The price of renewables continues to tumble year on year with innovation, what's to say that trend won't continue? Despite nearly half a century of pissing about with research in fast breeder reactors and fusion technology, these technologies have yet to materialise on a large scale, or at all. People forget that we already have fusion power in the form of a big huge yellow fusion reactor in the sky.

But renewables don't look like they will be able take the bulk of our energy demands any time soon. They might be improving faster than nuclear but nuclear had a very large head start. They will have to form some part of any energy solution but we essentially have to look at technologies that are available now since we need to make drastic changes in the relatively short term.

bk

MLM wrote:

Won't it be a bit hypocritical if we do opt for nuclear power, considering we've spent the last 50 years trying to shut Sellafield down?

No, it wouldn't, there is nothing hypocritical about wanting to shut down a badly run reprocessing plant (or at least getting it up to modern standards) and also wanting a modern safe power plant being built here.

Actually that is why I'd like to see the UK build new modern (and pretty standardised) nuclear reactors to replace their pretty old, outdated and experimental Magnox reactors.

Lennoxschips wrote:

I wouldn't dismiss renewables so quickly. Renewables have been improving at a much faster rate than Nuclear in the last 20 years, with much less government subsidy.

I fully support the use of all renewables possible. But they are a 20% solution, not a 80% solution. They are all unreliable and highly variable (except for hydro which is great) and they will never be able to produce more then 20% of our energy needs. We will always need a reliable and stable energy generation source for the other 80%, this is called base load energy. Base load energy can only be generated by hydro *, fossil fuel burning (coal, gas, peat) or Nuclear.

If you reject Nuclear, then you are damning us to continue to burn fossil fuels for 80% of our energy needs.

* FYI hydro is great, but we are already using the reasonable locations for dams in Ireland. So unfortunately there is little potential for growth in it.

mike65

Just to keep the anti-nuke paranoia going a very poorly written piece from the examiner (whoever wrote this should be sent back to school).

21 February 2007

Down Syndrome cases - Time for full Sellafield fire investigation

IT has long been feared that a nuclear accident in Britain would have dire consequences for Ireland.


Bringing a chilling sense of reality to that scenario, the spectre of an accident which happened 50 years ago is today haunting the daughters of girls who attended one of the country’s top convent boarding schools.

In the autumn of 1957 fire broke out at the notorious Sellafield atomic station. The incident was swept under the carpet by Britain and remained an official secret for 40 years. Now called Windscale, it is still notorious despite the name change.

Coincidentally, several pupils at St Louis’ convent secondary school in Dundalk became ill at the time and were taken to hospital. It subsequently emerged that a number of girls from the school later had Down Syndrome children.

Ireland has the world’s highest rate of Down Syndrome but it is alarming that a cluster has now emerged among daughters of women who attended the school.

This highlights the need for a full investigation.

Hardly a cover-up, the Windscale fire has been public knowledge for decades.

The cluster argument has been dismissed by one research body and accepted by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland as trustworthy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11077007

http://www.rpii.ie/press/pr200103.html

Mike.

caff

nesf wrote:

But renewables don't look like they will be able take the bulk of our energy demands any time soon. They might be improving faster than nuclear but nuclear had a very large head start. They will have to form some part of any energy solution but we essentially have to look at technologies that are available now since we need to make drastic changes in the relatively short term.

what about kite gen??

http://www.sequoiaonline.com/blogs/htm/progetto_eng.htm

It uses existing technologies and the timeframe to put it into production would be the same as the proccess for getting permission for a reactor to be built here.

SeanW

MLM wrote:

Won't it be a bit hypocritical if we do opt for nuclear power, considering we've spent the last 50 years trying to shut Sellafield down?

We could always contract our reprocessing needs to the French.

mike65

Ah La Hague (in Normandy not that far away), the place the Irish greens/government/shinners have never heard of it seems.

Mike.

MLM

Rabies wrote:

If Ireland developed a nuclear power station would G. Bush put us on his hit list like Iran and N Korea. After all, we do have a terrorist organistion in the country.

If it gets built near the Intel plant I wouldn't worry!

SeanW

Rabies wrote:

If Ireland developed a nuclear power station would G. Bush put us on his hit list like Iran and N Korea. After all, we do have a terrorist organistion in the country.

Ireland is guaranteed by international law, the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes as a non-Nuclear Weapons State under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which, ironically, Ireland introduced to the UN.

A lot of countries are known to have no interest in nuclear weapons whatsoever, but have peaceful nuclear power programmes, Canada, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Germany, most of the Eastern European countries, etc. Ireland would merely be joining a very large club in this regard.

Victor

SeanW wrote:

A lot of countries are known to have no interest in nuclear weapons whatsoever, but have peaceful nuclear power programmes,

Canada

Was an intergral part of the American defence system, with nuclear weapons through NORAD and NATO.

Sweden

Had its own nuclear weapons programme.

Germany

One of eight European NATO members who had nuclear weapons through NATO under American key.

SeanW

Victor wrote:

Had its own nuclear weapons programme.

Well it Obviously doesn't have one now

WorldNuclearAssociation wrote:

Sweden is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state. Its safeguards agreement under the NPT came into force in 1975 and in 1995 it came under the Euratom safeguards arrangement. In 1998 it signed the Additional Protocol in relation to its safeguards agreements with both IAEA and Euratom.

One of eight European NATO members who had nuclear weapons through NATO under American key.

Yeah, they just let the Americans park their weapons there. They don't have a programme of their own.

purple'n'gold

Was watching the news just now, seems like the old “Irish solution to an Irish problem” is alive and well. It’s ok to use nuclear generated power as long as we don’t generate it ourselves. Wouldn’t it be just great to see the British build a nuclear power station just inside Northern Ireland? The amount of hot air it would generate from our politically correct paddies south of the border would heat a small town.

1huge1

We can;t sustain our energy needs the way we are going, we have to go nuclear in my opinion but there are to many narrow minded conservative people in this country to make it happen

SeanW

I wouldn't say narrow-minded, just mis-informed.

aliveandkicking

If you forget about the worries people have about going nuclear and the general nimbyism in this country how does nuclear fare on economic criteria? I've heard it mentioned that the cost of nuclear is prohibitive for a country of our size. How much does it cost to build, maintain and run a nuclear power plant?

SeanW

I'm not that familiar with the economics of the thing, but I'll answer in general terms.

There are a wide variety of nuclear fission technologies, to the old and archaic that noone would ever think of building again, to a sliding scale of new and evolving technologies ranging from a tiny 10MW "Micro Nuke" to massive 1600MW reactors.

The newest reactor closest to us, the 1.6GW EPR (European Pressurised water Reactor) at Flamanville-3 in France, is being built at a cost of 3.3 billion. A similar project is underway in Finland. However, it would not be practical for Ireland to try to do this because the grid controller requires that the transmission system be able to cope with the unexpected loss of any one power plant including the largest. That would mean running running 1.6GW either of another EPR or fossil fuels or keeping same on standby, considering that our total power demand ranges from 2.5GW to 5GW that would be rather pointless.

At the other end of the scale, there is another emerging technology called Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. These are small reactors, ranging from Toshiba's 10MW Micro Nuke, for which the town of Galena, Alaska already has or is drafting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to install, to larger PBMRs that have in the range of 24-35MW.

These can be arranged into a PBMR farm to provide more MegaWattage when needed, and this, or other existing small-nuclear technologies, would obviously be a much more sensible idea for a country like Ireland, than building high-end EPRs which would be a waste of time.

I'm coming around to the view that Ireland should in fact not build a nuclear plant (too much FUD and nimbyism) but instead build an interconnector from Cork to the French grid and buy nuclear generated energy from EdF in France, where they've made efficient, clean power, and the cheap export of same, into a well mastered science.

No dealing with the usual incompetence from government project adminsitrators, no mass protests and civil disobedience from badly misinformed people who think the horrible evil nuclear boogeyman is going reach out a hand from the ground and steal their children at midnight and very little capital cost. No having to invent a whole new nuclear policy on waste disposal, reprocessing, nuclear regulators and regulatory procedures etc.

We'd get most of the benefits of nuclear power, without any of the downsides.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote:

I'm coming around to the view that Ireland should in fact not build a nuclear plant (too much FUD and nimbyism)...

When I'm king, FUD and NIMBYism will be capital offences.

bk

SeanW wrote:

I'm coming around to the view that Ireland should in fact not build a nuclear plant (too much FUD and nimbyism) but instead build an interconnector from Cork to the French grid and buy nuclear generated energy from EdF in France, where they've made efficient, clean power, and the cheap export of same, into a well mastered science.

No dealing with the usual incompetence from government project adminsitrators, no mass protests and civil disobedience from badly misinformed people who think the horrible evil nuclear boogeyman is going reach out a hand from the ground and steal their children at midnight and very little capital cost. No having to invent a whole new nuclear policy on waste disposal, reprocessing, nuclear regulators and regulatory procedures etc.

We'd get most of the benefits of nuclear power, without any of the downsides.

Unfortunately that is what will likely happen.

If we do this, we will all need to get use to our electricity bills being 20 - 30% higher then our European neighbours as you will always pay higher prices to import then generate it ourself.

SeanW

Not necessarily. I read on a thread in Green Isssues that:

probe wrote:

France has massive solar capability – almost totally unused because nuclear at 2c per kW has killed off the alternative market for anything else.

Not sure how accurate that is, but if it were true and we could get it over via a dedicated interconnector in an efficient way, it wouldn't be that expensive at all. For reference, Italy imports a lot of its juice from France too, other countries also do to a smaller extent.

Don't get me wrong, I'd still like to see us taking the bull by the horns as it were, and building some kind of small plant nuclear programme, using either small conventional reactors or a PBMR farm. I just doubt it will ever happen.

aliveandkicking

Cheers for the detailed and informative reply Sean. I've been doing a bit of research into the whole power generation topic recently and I really don't see any other practical option apart from nuclear. It's basically a case of replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. Wind, solar and hydro will never generate 100% of our energy needs so nuclear is the only way to go. Won't happen here for at least 15 years though.

Victor

SeanW wrote:

These are small reactors, ranging from Toshiba's 10MW Micro Nuke, for which the town of Galena, Alaska already has or is drafting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to install

Isn't this really more about keeping ice off the runways at the Air Force base?

SeanW

Victor wrote:

Isn't this really more about keeping ice off the runways at the Air Force base?

Nope. Civilian operations only.

The full skinny here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant

weeder

we could set up a few S4 reactors around the country, ive been silently folowing this thread and before reading it I was one of those who was against it however now after seeing the facts(or so i hope) nuclear power seems like a very goood idea

purple'n'gold

I honestly think that we don’t have any other real option, going forward. Windmills etc. are fine but they will not generate enough power to make us independent of fossil fuels. And its nonsense to imagine that we can sustain economic growth by conserving energy.

Hard Larry

I don't think we've (our country) even sowed the seeds of this debate yet. I don't think our current government (or the next!) want to touch this topic with a barge pole.

I'm all for nuclear power as some other posters have said it seems to be the answer to our "energy crisis"

I'm not 100% but I thought I saw a report on Newsnight that they had managed to make Nuclear Power Stations more efficient and cleaner than current ones in operation. I'm sure somebody somewhere is researching this anyway.

My only gripe with the whole thing is IF we do go through the debate and referendums etc. etc. that I wouldn't be happy at all if our Government had any input into a nuclear power plants construction. Time and time again they've proved that large scale projects aren't their forte.

Get foreign contractors in to build the whole thing.

I just have horrific visions of 2 Irish labourers pilfering vital components or leaving a half ass job behind

Just Imagine this scenario

Foreman: Now, Deco did you remember to insert the lead lining in the reactor wall?

Deco: Of course I did Boss. (Me bollix I brought that lead straight home and I'm gonna make a mini bar from it...use the rest to make a spoiler for me jammer...it'll be animal)

or even 3 o'clock on a sunny Friday before a Bank Holiday weekend

Technician 1: 'This bleedin' pressure gauge is in the red again?'

Technician 2: 'Ah I don't give a rats I'm off down the boozer before all the seats are gone in the beer garden...it'll be grand'



These are the things that keep me awake at night.

Victor

purplengold wrote:

And its nonsense to imagine that we can sustain economic growth by conserving energy.

lol. You don't need nominal "economic growth" to improve peoples lives. Just because one would end up spending less on energy doesn't mean you are going to produce a recession - the money gets spent on something else (something that will have to be imported less than say the 100% of oil that is imported).

What you are saying is tantamount to saying oil at $6 a barrel would crash the Irish economy. Sure it'll hurt oil companies and the like, but Ireland's economy isn't dependent on them.

bk

Victor wrote:

lol. You don't need nominal "economic growth" to improve peoples lives. Just because one would end up spending less on energy doesn't mean you are going to produce a recession - the money gets spent on something else (something that will have to be imported less than say the 100% of oil that is imported).

The problem is Ireland already has the second highest industrial electricity prices in Europe. This will likely get worse as renewable electricity and importing electricity from UK/France tends to be expensive.

Therefore companies that use a lot of electricity will likely move to countries like France and Finland which have much cheaper electricity due to their use of Nuclear power. This will have the effect of Irish people losing jobs.

Think of all the data farms in Ireland of the likes of Microsoft, Google, etc. They use a lot of electricity in those data farms. Our high prices could push them out of Ireland.

philologos

Nuclear seems like a very good idea. By the by, how many nuclear powerstations would be required to power the whole country without the use of any coal etc stations? It seems the way to go when the other clean energy seems so expensive. There is an issue with uranium waste. However it could be a changeover plan from fossil fuels by going to nuclear and waiting till the Government get enough money to go ahead with other environmentally clean power options.

SeanW

Jakkass, how many nuclear powerstations would be needed would depend on the reactor types chosen and the level of power that you wanted to cover - which is not static at all. If you go to Eirgrid Portal, you will see how much electricity Ireland has used or is using at any given time. It ranges from 2500 - 4900 MW, though I've seen it go as low as 1900.

It will also tell you how unreliable the wind plants are. Hence building a wind turbine does not negate the need to install the same capacity of something else.

In both demand and supply side, there are a lot of variable to consider so I can't just come out and say "We would need X nuclear power plants" though I can give a reasonable explanation.

As for supply, if you go back a couple of posts you'll see I gave a brief summary of the most modern reactor types. But because it's not enough to just build plants, the grid must be able to tolerate the unexpected loss of any one plant (including the largest) so building higher end EPRs would be pointless, because you'd need to have 1.6GW of plant on standby at all times. To reliably and efficiently banish fossil fuels from the grid forever, would require building multiple nuclear power plants, I think 1000MW per power plant is the most we could get away with to maintain some level of energy efficiency. AFAIK there are some standard plant types that go as low as 600MW. Using something in this range would be one way of doing it.

There are also, as I mentioned, the PBMR, very small reactors that use pebble-shaped fuel assemblies, which can be grouped together to provide more juice when needed. These range in per-unit capacity from 10MW (Toshiba MicroNuke) to 165MW(A South African design) and there is a considerable variety in between. These claim to be safer and more efficient than more traditional forms of large water based reactors, and the lower MW output per modular reactor has obvious grid-efficiency benefits for a small market like Ireland. The best thing to do in a PBMR strategy would be to have a bunch of them scattered around the country in groups.

However, if we include the variable renewables, and assume that it's OK to use fossil fuels at peak times or when the weather doesn't fuel renewable power installations, or as grid cover, then you could use 3GW - this and the output of our windfarms, hydroelectric dams etc would cover the bulk of our energy needs most of the time, especially if there was more investment in the green energy sector.

Victor wrote:

lol. You don't need nominal "economic growth" to improve peoples lives. Just because one would end up spending less on energy doesn't mean you are going to produce a recession

The problem is that the kind of people who oppose nuclear power normally also give a token opposition to fossil fuels to play make-believe that their position is not totally contradictory and fallacious. Lennoxschips and Lou.M argued this point with me before and lost. The reality is that we will always need at least one of the two options of nuclear and fossil fuels, and more likely a mix of each. Our economies simply could not survive without fossil fuels in some form, and it cannot progress without nuclear. This reality seems lost on some anti-nuke people.
The argument about opposition to everything but renewables and conservation as policy goes something like this.
Me: I support Nuclear power.
Anti-Nuke arguer: I oppose nuclear power.
Me: So you support the de-facto alternative, coal?
Anti-Nuke arguer: No, I don't support those either.
Me: So where are we supposed to get all our energy from if we rule out both nuclear and fossil fuels. Remember Coal presently provides 30% of all world energy usage, contributing to a total of 65% by fossil fuels.
Anti-Nuke arguer: We need major lifestyle changes.
Me: Efficiency is great, but how are we supposed to save enough energy to render both nuclear and fossil energy unnecessary
Anti-Nuke arguer:(One of two responses)
1: Clean Coal? (Lennoxschips old argument)
2: I live like a pauper, wear 2 coats in the house, don't own a car and haven't used a boat or plane in the last 10 years.
Me: Every energy analysis I've ever seens predicts more fossil fuels usage in the years ahead, especially in the emerging world. We can at most hope to consign either fossil fuels or nuclear power to history, being optimistic, and fossil fuels are a lot stronger. It's an either or situation for a lot of energy demand that the more environmentally destructive fossil fuels seem to be winning.
Anti-Nuke arguer ... Ummm ... Uhhhh .... I don't support either. Your "Coal vs Nuclear argument is a straw man. (This while making a number of real straw man arguments of his own).
Me: To a certain unavoidable extent, the situation is fossil fuels esp coal, vs nuclear.
Anti-Nuke arguer: No it's not! You're wrong! Stop whacking that straw man!

I just have horrific visions of 2 Irish labourers pilfering vital components or leaving a half ass job behind

Just Imagine this scenario

Foreman: Now, Deco did you remember to insert the lead lining in the reactor wall?

Deco: Of course I did Boss. (Me bollix I brought that lead straight home and I'm gonna make a mini bar from it...use the rest to make a spoiler for me jammer...it'll be animal)

Would be caught by even the most dysfunctional nuclear regulator before the reactor was put into operation. Hopefully though it would never get that far, the construction company itself would catch this long beforehand.

or even 3 o'clock on a sunny Friday before a Bank Holiday weekend

Technician 1: 'This bleedin' pressure gauge is in the red again?'

Technician 2: 'Ah I don't give a rats I'm off down the boozer before all the seats are gone in the beer garden...it'll be grand'

A group of retarded alcoholics? It's highly unlikely that such people would all find work in the same nuclear plant as technicians. This isn't Springfield!