Why Not Nuclear Power?

andrew

marcsignal wrote: »

My point exactly, would you, your children, or grandchildren be prepared to take that risk with the Nuclear industry, considering ?

In the beginning in England, everyone was told, "It will be so cheap, it will be impossible to meter"

It's not a wreckless risk, it's calculated. Yeah the govt messed up with HSE, but that doesn't mean that the govt. is entirely inept, so much so that they'll kill people through nuclear mismanagement. I think our govt. could handle a nuke station.

Kama

When said energy problem, was in reference to the States btw.
If the tech was developed and scaled up earlier places like where I am now (texas) photovoltaics work pretty nicely. However the EROEI is pretty poor, for all that its improved a lot, as the tech has been funded and production scaled up. Obviously the wrong tech for Ireland tho, for the obvious reason, even before intermittence problems.

Our comparative advantage in power generation is imo most likely in wave-tidal, SEI have tests ongoing. Wave-tidal wins to the extent that it is pretty regular, unlike wind/solar.

Most energy advocates aren't pushing a 'Magic Bullet', unless they are paid to...I reckon the payoff from throwing a lot of different darts at the board will pay off better than making one big bet on unproven nuclear tech that most people regard as anathema. I'd rather be a late adaptor on that technological curve, thank you very much.

Interesting article from Newsweek in Worldchanging on why venture capital won't touch nuclear, even with subsidies, favouring decentralised renewables instead. Nuclear is a bit of a Welfare Queen tbh, been suckling on the taxpayers teat a bit too long.

Um, and Sean...

A: I didn't say 'Chernobyl', so I don't get why you have to.

B: Entschuldigen Sie bitte? Herr Goebbel's? So early in a thread? Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

marcsignal

andrew wrote: »

It's not a wreckless risk, it's calculated. Yeah the govt messed up with HSE, but that doesn't mean that the govt. is entirely inept, so much so that they'll kill people through nuclear mismanagement. I think our govt. could handle a nuke station.

Well, ok, I'd certainly accept that the Irish Government wouldn't wantonly do anything wreckless, with regard to nuclear power, but that word 'risk' is still there, albiet a very small one. The problem with nuclear is, 'if' something goes wrong, the consequences have the potential to be extremely hazardous, and I can't help feeling uneasy about that.

I also can't help getting the feeling that, it's as if the pro nuclear lobby are cryptically saying 'well guys, we've come this far, invested billions in this technology up to now (much of the cost, initally, unforseen, I might add) so we may as well just forge ahead with it, and hope to bejeasus nothing goes pear shaped'

It seems to be hugely expensive, and always seems to be draining more and more cash and resources as it goes along. It generates waste which is put in places that nobody wants to live near, and the situation doesn't seem to be getting any better. I'm really beginning to think, that if any other system was creating as many problems as nuclear, it would have been ditched years ago.

SeanW

Kama wrote: »

Interesting article from Newsweek in Worldchanging on why venture capital won't touch nuclear, even with subsidies

You are aware that the UK government is expecting considerable private interest in its renewed nuclear programme? (So much so, that a bunch of enviro-loonies took the UK government to court over this issue to stop new builds, but thankfully lost ) Evidently some venture capitalists like the idea.

Nuclear is a bit of a Welfare Queen

Wind energy is given a "guaranteed price" here in Ireland (this price being higher than the per unit cost of electricity) and the fact that wind requires a fossil fuel backup for grid stability is not factored into anyones calculations. Ireland subsidies a quotient of both wind energy and peat-fired power by a PSO levy on ESB bills.
Germany also forces its utilities (and subsequently customers) to pay an extortionate charge of 50c per kw/h of energy from solar, all the while embarking on the greatest splurge on coal fired power since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

favouring decentralised renewables instead.

Requires base line backup plants be kept on line ... can't be done on the scale required ... requires a lot of subsidies ... some wave and wind technologies distrub wildlife too ... forget it and move on.

A: I didn't say 'Chernobyl', so I don't get why you have to.

Most anti-nuke arguments work on a base, scaremongering level and Chernobyl is usually exhibit A, B and sometimes C. Just do a Google Image Search for "Nuclear Power" and much of what I've said will be proven right. Actually, I'll pick a few choice pieces for you:
Nuclear Power: Some "Facts"
|From Greenpeace
|From a cartoonist for George Galloway's RESPECT coalition
|From a protest reported by Indymedia

B: Entschuldigen Sie bitte? Herr Goebbel's? So early in a thread? Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

Yes, I am familiar with the Reducto Ad Nazium fallacy, but I believe I have not committed it. The comparison is valid because the level of scaremongering, propogandising and general truth-twisting by the anti-nuke campaigners is such that a comparison is valid.

I used to be in your camp, like everyone else in this country I used to stick my head up my backside in fear every time anyone even mentioned the dreaded N-word. Oooh scary. But a couple of years ago I started digging deeper, and I found that the substance of my past beliefs to be, to put it mildly, unsound. Partly for that reason I know all about the fallacies, baseless scare stories and twisted half-truths needed to make an anti-nuclear argument appear cogent.

turgon

Kama wrote: »

unproven nuclear

Now Im not trying to takes sides but the way I see it is that France produces 70% of its energy from Nuclear, so I would imagine it is pretty proven.

There are other concerns raised in the thread about the actual cost effectiveness of it, which is fair enough. Maybe the best idea would be to start a Dail committee investigating it (that is until Coir, Sinn Fein and Kathy Sinnot et execute the members).

I think some serious throught has to be put into it. It is the only renewable energy on the planet that has worked on a large scale. Wind and Solar require back up systems, or supplemental fuels, as my Engineering Exam termed them today. Wave is still in research and wood burning requires and immense amount of land. Maybe if we took over Iceland....

Kama

On the new wave of nuclear plants in the UK, note that:

Public funds would only be provided in the "very unlikely circumstances of an emergency at a nuclear plant"

from BBC News

In other words, their ass is covered by the taxpayer in the event of a f*ckup, because it is impossible for them to cover it themselves. This is not due the irrational ramblings of an incoherent green facism, this is due to risk analysis of the possible costs. So, if you want to call that unsubsidised, we need to agree on some basic definitions...

The government has also yet to decide how much new nuclear operators should pay towards the cost of building underground caverns as a permanent storage site for Britain's nuclear waste. Until a suitable site can be found, waste will continue to be stockpiled above ground at "interim" facilities at Sellafield, in Cumbria, it has said.

In other words, capital finds it a plausible investment if the costs of waste storage and decommissioning are externalised onto the public. Which are the primary economic and political issues with nuclear.
Which was my original point.

Requires base line backup plants be kept on line

Base-line backup is an engineering problem rather than a knock-down argument. A diverse basket of power sources, on-site microgeneration and storage, microgrids and selling power back onto the main grid all reduce load on the fossil fuel system.
Microgrids also have an added advantage of system resilience in case of 'Black Swan' type accidents.

can't be done on the scale required

Saying renewables isn't scalable doesn't necessarily make it so, btw.
There's a healthy debate on this very question.

requires a lot of subsidies

A: Infant industries often do, to develop them to a point where they are competitive. What is highly objectionable is granting similar massive subsidies to large developed industries.

B: Subsidy can be a social choice; since we are discussing this in politics, its pretty clear that (rightly or wrongly) the public tolerance for nuclear is very low, and appetite for renewable is higher.

C: Would the real unsubsidised industry please stand up?

some wave and wind technologies distrub wildlife too

I agree, they can. They can also suffer nimbyism, just like almost any kind of development. Equally, they can be well integrated into environments, incorporated into design principles, etc.

forget it and move on.

Right back at you with the nuclear.
Its more than clear people don't want it, so either:

A: we are all ignorant idiots who won't accept your enlightened truth

B: 'omfg nuclear=nazi chernobyl-chernobyl'

C: there's an active debate on nuclear which neither side has won convincingly.

I'm more C than B, so I'd rather not be 'rebutted' by saying how terrible and irrational 'someone else on the internets' argument is, or how they photoshopped a picture. I have an admitted bias against the tech, for a couple of reasons, historical, economic, and political, but am expressing quite honestly concerns that exist about nuclear. Saying 'ignorant' or 'Goebbels' doesn't help allay, or even address my concerns.

As to France, I would contend there is a significant difference in context between nuclear power in a state with a strong commitment to nuclear weapons, where civilian nuclear developed as a positive externality of a massive military-status investment, and a small non-nuclear country with no such military program, aka us.

Kama

There's an article on The Oil Drum that I regard as an objective appraisal of the current state of nuclear, and other energy sources. It deals with most of the arguments we have been having in this thread; uninsurability, financial or energy return on investment, reduced carbon footprint, waste disposal, and the generally poor status of the debate, and tendency to bias of its participants ^_^

We have found the information about the EROI of nuclear power to be mostly as disparate, widespread, idiosyncratic, prejudiced and poorly documented as information about the nuclear power industry itself. Much, perhaps most, of the information that is available seems to have been prepared by someone who has made up his or her mind one-way or another (i.e. a large or trivial supplier of net energy) before the analysis is given. As is usually the case, the largest issue is often what the appropriate boundaries of analysis should be.

There are great potential gains and great potential costs with nuclear power. Existing reactors seems to work well and mostly safely although waste disposal problems remain. If the uranium resource limitation people are correct then we cannot go much further without a new technology, perhaps based on thorium. Various issues related to terrorism are more important than they used to be...there is no free lunch with nuclear......Nevertheless it is possible that nuclear fission should be considered as a transition fuel on our way to solar or something else simply because the cycle emits far less CO2 than does any fossil fuel. In our opinion we need a very high level series of analyses to review all of these issues. Even if this is done it seems extremely likely that very strong opinions, both positive and negative, shall remain. There may be no resolution to the nuclear question that will be politically viable.

Nermal

None of the antis have addressed the example of France (70%) and Japan (40%). If they can do it, so can we.

Kama

Nermal wrote: »

None of the antis have addressed the example of France (70%) and Japan (40%)

.

French civilian nuclear power is an offshoot of their military-prestige nuclear armanents program, and has a tradition of support for nuclear power.

The Japanese experience includes the accidents at Tokaimura, Monju etc, and the subsequent falsification/cover-up scandals, which significantly reduced public trust in the industry.

In both cases, there is broad and strong government support for a nuclear industry, which is absent in Ireland.

If they can do it, so can we.

Can? Yes.
Should? Imo, no.

Arguing pro-nuclear, I'd prefer the Finnish example; 30% of their power needs, high safety standards, and deep disposal, in a fair regulatory environment for energy.

'Unlike other energy providers, the nuclear industry does not require state subsidies, which means the public doesn't have to pay for it through taxes.' Mikko Elo, SDP MP

SeanW

France (approximately 90% non-fossil electricity grid) just happens to have both a civilian and nuclear sector. However these are not mutually inclusive, some countries (Canada, Finland etc) have large civil nuclear systems but no nuclear weapons. On the other hand Israel has maybe 150 nuclear missiles, but has no civilian reactors of any kind.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are in most cases two completely different issues. Please stop trying to cause confusion.

In other words, their ass is covered by the taxpayer in the event of a f*ckup, because it is impossible for them to cover it themselves.

The odds of a Chernobyl style accident (and let's be honest, that's what you're talking about here) happening at a modern 1st world Western nuclear reactor are so remote as to be barely worth considering. The odds of something like that happening would probably be similar to that of the country being wiped out by a meteor.

So, if you want to call that unsubsidised, we need to agree on some basic definitions...

Ok, so I will be pedantic and call it "effectively unsubsidised." Deal?

In other words, capital finds it a plausible investment if the costs of waste storage and decommissioning are externalised onto the public.

But the costs of this, are nothing compared to nuclear power's main competitor, fossil fuel fired power, particularly coal. Did you not read my link about the Earth Policy Institute's estimate of the number of deaths, asthama, bronchitis cases, hospital visits, sick days off work in the U.S. which that organisation attributes to the burning of coal? Who pays for that? That's right, the public. Whos going to pay for the CO2 emissions from thermal fired power? The destruction of forests, lakes and rivers caused by the acid rain compound emissions from coal fired power? That's right, the environment, or the local government that has an endless supply of cash to treat watercourses with lime every year.

And MY point was the "invisible" and "public risk" subsidies given to the fossil fuels sector dramatically exceeds anything given to the nuclear industry. So far, you have done little to address this.

And please don't give me this "renewables" nonsense again - as infant as these renewbales are now, they were even more so back in 1979 when a firestorm of protests forced our government to abandon plans for nuclear electricity and sentenced us irrevocably to decades of fossil fuel dependence in the electricity sector.

Noone - with the exception of Iceland - has ever managed to build an electricity grid without either nuclear power or thermal fired power. Every respected energy analysis I've ever seen predicts further growth in demand for energy, most of that to be supplied by fossil fuels.

Its fossil fuels and nuclear for the vast bulk of the world's energy demand. Opposing one, under most realistic analyses, necessitates supporting the other.

In that circumstance, my choice is clear.

Kama

Again, I didn't say Chernobyl. I can say 3 Mile Island, I said Tokamura and Monju. But as an ex-anti-nuclear I'm sure you are familiar with tham all, so its redundant. My point was not to cite a specific accident, repeated sloganistically. It was the general risk of a serious accident; which while low can have exceptionally high damages. If the risk so low, why is it not insurable? While you consider the risk so remote, evidently risk analysts do not. If it truly was 'barely worth considering', why would the industry repeatedly seek to externalise that risk?

Sends the wrong messages neh?

On the matter of coal, I agree its dirty, and I agree that it is dumping costs on the public. No argument there. Even in the more modern 'clean coal' carbon sequestration or gasification scenarios it's still pretty dirty. And yes, this is more publicly acceptable because it is slower, and less monumental, and isn't as vulnerable to protest politics.

As to which is cleaner, I don't know.
I agree with your point that coal is dirty. What I am not convinced by is that nuclear is A: clean and B: safe. Nuclear isn't exactly carbon-free:

Officials in the nuclear power industry say references to carbon-free energy in their promotions refer only to the power-plant operation – and are not intended to describe carbon emissions during the entire nuclear life cycle.

"Yes, absolutely there's carbon," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear power industry in the US. "Most studies have found life-cycle emissions of nuclear to be comparable with renewable. Some show nuclear to be extremely high, but we do not find those credible."

As to the coal-nuclear dilemma, i don't think the world is that black-white. Realistically we are using, and will continue to use, coal and nuclear, and every other available energy source, by force majeure. This is a given, not a choice. I'm asking what we have a productive advantage in, such as the advantage in nuclear waste disposal that the Finns have by virtue of geology, or Norway has for hydro, or Iceland for geothermal, and critically, what is politically feasible. A mixed basket of energy goods is inevitable; the proportion of that basket is what is in question.

That or I'm a paid shill for Big Coal like Al Gore...

PS:
Apologies for Turgon for my 'unproven' rhetoric, i retract my tendentious statement.

nesf

sink wrote: »

The answer to the energy crisis would seem to me to be a decentralised energy network where the majority of energy consumed is generated on location through a variety of sources (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, ground heat transfer). If every new building that's built is as energy efficient as possible and generates it's own heat/electricity we would be able to meet most of our energy requirements in no time. Excess electricity generated by private citizens can sold to the national grid, so people will stop paying for electricity and instead be paid for electricity. This would be far cheaper and far more sustainable than nuclear power.

No. If you have a highly decentralised network like you speak of it doesn't remove the central problem of an electricity grid, electricity is needed at different levels at different times and solar, tide and wind are not like coal, nuclear, oil and gas where you can completely control the output from the power source.

The central problem of the majority of green power sources is that even when they are mature they are going to be erratic and/or uncontrollable. As part of a large grid where we have stable forms of power, say gas stations for the sake of argument, you can get around this by essentially "turning up the gas" to make up for the gap between the renewable output and the demand. But this gas "backup" needs to be very large relative to the renewables "just in case" it's a bad day for solar/tidal/wind power. So, honestly, the power sources you mentioned will never be able to take over power generation, only supplement it (which they very much should, and that's where they are both viable and useful in my opinion).

Another issue, usually not known, is how spiky power demand can be, it isn't a smooth cycle between night and day but a jumpy animal where power needs can spike extremely high for short periods of time (i.e. when factories turn on all their equipment in the morning, which interestingly enough is how they used (and possibly still do) calculate industrial electricity bills, the rate you are charged depends on the biggest spike in demand you draw on the system). This means while your average capacity need is say 10GW, you might actually need a system that's always capable of giving out 20GW to cover for the short periods of extremely high demand in the day. This is problematic enough when you're dealing with conventional power plants where you can control their output with a strong degree of certainty.

The third issue is cost. Electricity grids are expensive, and they aren't "uniform". At the moment we've a centralised grid that's designed to take power from a handful of places and transport it efficiently to a broad range of places. A change over to a fully decentralised network would not be a simple matter of hooking up your windmill onto the local line. It would be expensive to rearrange the entire system when you're just considering physical lines, when you throw in the enormously more complex task of monitoring such a system you're talking about serious amounts of cash.


Contrast the above to nuclear power.

a) It'd fit right into our present network with minimal jigging about.

b) It's controllable and reliable so it can form the base of the power supply, versus green alternatives that require by their nature a large conventional supply to be in place to "fill the gaps" in the power generation.

c) It's already a mature technology that has been implemented on massive national scales with little hassle, none of the green alternatives have. For all the success stories we have of tidal and wind power, there is no country in the world of size that gets 50% plus of its power needs from renewables, never mind 70%.

Black Swan

turgon wrote: »

And DO NOT pull the Chernobyl card, I don't want to hear a word of it. The Chernobyl plant was built using dodgy Soviet technology that didn't work properly, and was manned by workers from closed coal mines. They were running an unsafe test, and the reason for the meltdown was because the safety features were not working. You can imagine that all other plants in Western Europe are immensely better than this.

Naaaaa, I would never ever want to discourage anyone from the latest Three Mile Island fashion statement! Glow in the dark kids! Stay ahead of your neighbors who only have a couple petrol-guzzling Humvees! Pfffffft! I can beat that! I'll have Three Mile Island kids that glow in the dark (in case they run off and I lose site of them... I can just whip out my Gigercounter, and buzz, buzzz, they must be over there!), thanks to proven, safe, efficient USA nuclear energy technology, staffed with the best scientists and technicians (unlike those sloppy has-been Soviets!).

If the risks are so bad, why are you not out protesting at sellafield everyday then?

This is the Irish mentality that voted NO in the lisbon treaty. The idiot vote. The Pat Kenny viewer vote. We really are the rednecks of europe.

A small nuclear plant could provide most of dublins electricity. Wind energy is far from being perfected but technology is evolving all the time. The people calling on us to continue with oil/gas plants are the same people in 5 years time who will be parking cars in the middle of O' Connell st. to protest against the rising cost of electricity..

And to all the conspiracy people who think that NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS cant be trusted...Good lord...

Kama

nesf wrote: »

If you have a highly decentralised network like you speak of it doesn't remove the central problem of an electricity grid, electricity is needed at different levels at different times and solar, tide and wind are not like coal, nuclear, oil and gas where you can completely control the output from the power source.

Replacing conventional power generation isn't feasible, for the reasons nesf and others have outlined; a increased degree of supplementation and load displacement onto renewables definitely is. I believe sink was arguing in the direction of a system on microgrid lines. Again, I'm ideologically biased; peer-to-peer power production? Yes Plz!

Microgrids are among other things designed for the issue of intermittence and spikes; having a local power infrastructure that can take up load in the event of a brown/blackout for system-critical needs, a networked extension of having a backup generator. Technical overview on them here.

Has the advantages that:

Can be introduced organically, on a site-by-site basis, with benefits at each point.

Reduced changeover costs, no delinking.

Greater resiliency in the event of power shortages, spikes, or utility failure.

Less power loss from from transmission distance.

Can help create a market for local power production on P2P basis.


Not a Magic Bullet, but an interesting direction in power infrastructure; towards distributed energy storage and transmission, with local production reducing overall grid load, selling excess power back at excess production side of intermittence, and providing backup/redundancy power. Microgrids have got most attention not from ecologists, but from the military-security angle, as less vulnerable to system disruption.

While intermittence of wind is a significant structural constraint, tidal, if scalable, is highly predictable.
Against that, the price per kilowatt is higher from a peaking-responsive plant than from a baseload plant, requiring a manouevreable energy source.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Replacing conventional power generation isn't feasible, for the reasons nesf and others have outlined; a increased degree of supplementation and load displacement onto renewables definitely is. I believe sink was arguing in the direction of a system on microgrid lines. Again, I'm ideologically biased; peer-to-peer power production? Yes Plz!

I like the idea of microgrids, they are a step in the right direction for the use of solar/wind in my opinion. As supplements to a base system these technologies show the most promise and microgrids are a very effective way of implementing clean power generation I think.

At a very small scale, smaller than microgrids, something I'd like to see implemented in this country would be changes in metering. Essentially at the moment, if you have a windmill or solar panels and you're generating with them more energy than your house actually uses, it's "lost". Ideally, the meter would be able to "tick back" during times like these when the home is giving power back to the grid. Small changes like this, combined with tax breaks for people setting up windmills (I think they had a system of tax breaks for landlords putting in solar and/or wind in the UK for a bit), are a lot more feasible than large windfarms I think.


That said, the nuclear question is a question about the base supply not supplementary "on-site" generation. I do honestly think nuclear is a viable option for base supply versus coal, gas or oil.

turgon

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

This is the Irish mentality that voted NO in the lisbon treaty.

Not appreciated. Although I agree with the rest, all those who voted NO werent ignoramuses.


The way I see is that Ireland is a small enough country to sustain a national grid, and that should not be changed. SeanW's post made an excellent point, if you anti-nuclear then you are pro-fossil fuels. IMO, theres just no two ways about. All the other renewable's are just not economically viable:

Hydro-Electric: IMO, the greatest form of electricity production: generally reliable and free. However you need lots of big rivers, which we dont have. Additionally hydro isnt constant either, it emits a greater amount of energy in Spring.
Wind Power: Well first of all, clearly not constant. The wind doesnt blow all the time. And secondly a lot of the people who are against nuclear would be the same ones to cry havoc if even one turbine was built in their vicinity,fact.
Solar Cells: Are good in isolation but cannot realistically be of any economic value to a country that receives as little sunlight as Ireland.
Wood Burning: I personally think that Ireland does not have a lot of land. And I know the carbon emissions technically cancels out, but how much fumes would the locals be breathing in?
Wave Energy: Still in development. Lots of people advocate this one but realistically it will take a hell of a lot of time before this can be used, if ever.

So I would fully agree with SeanW. Those who are so keen to shout down Nuclear have a responsibility to find a economic alternative, which I dont see as being present. I dont know a load, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Solar Cells: Are good in isolation but cannot realistically be of any economic value to a country that receives as little sunlight as Ireland.

I was also fairly sceptical about the value of solar in this country but my parents installed a pair of solar panels where they heated water rather than generated electricity (i.e. heat exchange from panels to hot water tank). It actually works very well and I was genuinely surprised by how efficient the system was once you put very good insulation around the tank and pipes.

I would genuinely see some economic value in the system in that it cuts a fair amount off the oil/gas bill for home heating. They won't heat a home on their own but they do nudge up the water temperature by a fair margin and with proper insulation you can mitigate much of the loss of that heat over the night. Ten years ago with oil prices as they were then they wouldn't have been viable but with the present cost of home heating oil, they actually are worth installing.

Thirdfox

You should see in places like China - nearly everyone has the solar powered water heaters - great initiatives and exactly what's needed to ensure that billions of people can get "free" energy (at least for their showers).

turgon

nesf wrote: »

my parents installed a pair of solar panels

Sorry for not being specific, I was on about solar cells to produce electricity. The ones for heat work all year around, the same is not true of the electric one.

Kama

I'm fully in agreement that those who trash nuclear without providing a coherent argument for a practical alternative are being dangerously self-indulgent and irresponsible.

I agree that nuclear has strong technical efficiency arguments as a susbstitute baseload generator once established. I'm also unsure on the relative economic viability of nuclear vs renewable; agreed figures on projected cost efficiency/EROI would be a start. But for capacity in a grid, the scale and quality of power that can be supplied provides a strong pro argument.

Many on the 'alternative' power side view nuclear as the necessary changeover technology; given step-costs of changing the infrastructure to a greater renewable base, nuclear is necessitated in the medium-term. Other Green's, like Lovelock, view it as the only way out of the carbon crunch.

Against this, on the economic side:

Exceptionally high capital and energy costs to establish.

Risk externalization and waste disposal problems.

Long time to come on-stream, typically (?) 10-15 years, exacerbates the problems below.


On the political side:

Siting difficulties and planning problems.

Political acceptance, proposal-support risk for politicians, esp. with electoral cycle.

Extreme lack of public tolerance, low appetite compared to renewables.


Given likely energy scenarios, with both strong demand growth and likely supply constriction, pursuing all possible sources is obligatory. Implementing any available options isn't a choice, or is a heavily constrained one. But scaling microgeneration has an advantage in diversity and palatability, compared to attempting to place all eggs in the basket of nuclear.

An organic-decentralised production model, which the Green's made a start towards in their recent pilot scheme for selling power back from domestic production, has an advantage in implementation not just in political feasibility, but avoids the step-problems of medium-to-long term payback on nuclear.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Sorry for not being specific, I was on about solar cells to produce electricity. The ones for heat work all year around, the same is not true of the electric one.

Yeah, I meant to say that other forms of solar were more feasible in this country. I agree fully with you about solar cells. They may improve over the next decade to the point to make them viable perhaps.

Kama

You should see in places like China - nearly everyone has the solar powered water heaters

Not quite nearly everyone, but China has been world-leading in this.

More than 30 million Chinese households rely on the sun to heat their water. Over the last six years, the number of solar consumers has grown sixfold. The motivation is simple. A solar water heater in China costs less than $200. Without one, a family wishing for hot water would have to buy an electric water heater for about the same price and pay up to $120 per year for electricity. The payback is almost instantaneous...
Miller-McCune

Didn't know they had got efficiency quite this high, or got around the intermittence problem to quite this extent:

With technology so efficient they can work at temperatures well below freezing and under cloudy or smog-choked skies, they soon pay for themselves, he says.
"Even in winter when the temperature is minus 20, and with this kind of pollution, they can produce hot water," Huang says, gesturing to the city's grey skies Reuters.

Thats pretty impressive energy capture, in conditions I wouldn't have thought solar viable.

Pity we lack the climate for concentrated solar...Roll on global warming? :rolleyes:

turgon

So, anyone have any viable alternatives to nuclear? That would be the next stage in the argument. Of course all the TDs would be too scared to do anything so drastic.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Thats pretty impressive energy capture, in conditions I wouldn't have thought solar viable.

Capturing solar to heat water is actually relatively easy. What you do is have a loop running through the panels and down to an "element" in the water tank. Into this tube you use a gas or liquid that's extremely efficient at transporting heat, similar to the technology used in refrigeration from my understanding of it. By insulating this tube extremely well, you can transfer the heat relatively simply a short distance to the tank.

It's a very different engineering problem to generating power from solar cells. Heat transfer is a mature, mass produced and well researched area meaning that widespread implementation is rather viable.


I wouldn't buy into the claims of extreme efficiency but certainly it is true that as a technology it's far more viable and efficient than using the solar panels to generate electricity and then using this electricity to heat the water. Solar is a rapidly growing industry, along with wind, in China. There is a very large market for mature technologies in this area developing worldwide and the market is responding. Higher oil prices will just reinforce this.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

So, anyone have any viable alternatives to nuclear?

Coal, there's plenty of it, it's relatively cheap, we just need to accept a large amount of pollution for the power. Gas is cleaner but prices are higher and supply is a pan-European problem (i.e. Russia). I'd prefer nuclear to either of these, but they're safer politically due to the irrationality of people's attitudes to perceived risk.

Kama

Oil is trending in only one direction, and Ireland is over-reliant anyway, even before recent price shifts.

Dirty coal is cheap, comparatively cleaner coal in terms of is a lot more expensive. Additionally, classic net exporters such as the States and China are becoming net importers, so supply might not be in a position to take up the slack.

Renewables in general aren't in a position to scale up, suffer a mismatch with the current grid system, and tend to have a generally better rep than their efficiency justifies.

Gas...um, remind me why we are giving ours away again?

Nuclear is viewed as a radioactively hot potato, for all its advantages.


Leaving aside the (imho near-insurmountable) domestic opposition to nuclear, and whether it's rational or not, what would be viewed as an ideal nuclear model for Ireland?

turgon

Kama wrote: »

Leaving aside the (imho near-insurmountable) domestic opposition to nuclear, and whether it's rational or not, what would be viewed as an ideal nuclear model for Ireland?

How do you mean?

Kama

Leaving aside the (imho near-insurmountable) domestic opposition to nuclear, and whether it's rational or not, what would be viewed as an ideal nuclear model for Ireland?



Well, for the sake of the argument, rather than any of us indulging in a pro-anti, yes-it-is no-it-isn't manner on the economics and efficiencies, the rationality or irrationality of public risk appetites, whether the industry can be trusted and transparent, and so forth, which I don't see as something can be settled satisfactorily, I was curious...

Scenario - Nuclear Ireland.

Assumptions are:

Oil and FF's continue to deplete, energy supply is constricting.
Nuclear becomes more palatable, with cross-party political support in face of energy crisis.
Protests and planning delays are unlikely.
Government takes partial liability for possible damages and EU funds are available for a percentage of the capital costs.


Which seems close to a best-case scenario for nuclear advocates.
Change the assumptions as you like, I'm curious as to what nuclear regime would be regarded as optimal.

Hypothetically, what nuclear model would you advocate?
(thorium, uranium, breeder, pellet-bed, etc)

Is there a country comparable to Ireland whose nuclear program you would regard as best practice? France was mentioned repeatedly, but France is an outlier with highest total share of nuclear. Is their model transferable?

What would you envision as the waste transport and storage system?
(deep sequestration, shallow, re-use, what?)

What location would you regard as most suitable?
(efficiency, nimbyism, likelihood to annoy the UK etc)

Trying to put a little more meat on the hypothetical bones of an imagined nuclear Ireland.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

What location would you regard as most suitable?
(efficiency, nimbyism, likelihood to annoy the UK etc)

Where the Corrib Pipeline was originally routed would a good choice I think.

/glib