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
Ireland and nuclear power?
Options
-
27-08-2009 2:56pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
ei.sdraob wrote:fud, yes it can be done safely, nuclear waste would not be a problem if it wasn't for politics, there is technology to reprocess waste over and over, the problems are not technical/engineering they are political as reprocessing equipment can also be adapted to make weapons grade plutonium
heres some reading for you ,please do read up > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor
FBR's can reduce quantity and toxicity of nuclear waste, but remaining waste must be disposed of and this can't be acheived safely without high costs.
The SuperPhènix, built in France has over 5,500 tonnes of radioactive sodium coolant which must be integrated with 70,000 tonnes of concrete -- tax payer will pick up the tab.
This alone is nuclear waste.
History of Superphènix published in NUKEM journal, 1997
Date of Event |Description
April 1987|Commercial operation begins.
May 1987|Shut down due to sodium leak.
June 1989|Returns to 100% power.
October 1989|Shut down due to impurities in the primary circuit.
June 1990|Returns to 100% power.
July 1990|Shut down due to impurities in the primary circuit.
December 1990|Roof over the turbine hall collapses due to heavy snowfall.
August 1994|Restarted but at low power.
September 1996|Returns to 90% full power.
December 1996|Shut down.
June 1997|Prime Minister announces project will be abandoned.
If FBR's are the solution to nuclear waste, why was the SuperPhènix closed in 1997?
How was its closure political?
From what I can tell, it was simply too expensive to operate due to its constant technical problems.
France have chosen the town of Bure to dump nuclear waste at a geologic storage site 500M underground.
It will cost hundreds of billions of euro, again all passed on to the stupid taxpayer...who else?
Areva who operate most of France's 59 reactors bought a 51% stake in Multigrid, a company who is researching/developing
renewable energies using offshore wind turbines.
wonder why?you are talking about decommissioning plants that are 50-40 years old, the problem here are economics and politics again, if the operator is forced to save a % of income towards decommissioning and keep this money with state/swiss bank/third reliable party its not a problem
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2009 expressed concerns that certain companies operating nuclear power stations were not saving a percentage of income towards decommissioning because of the economic recession.
Is it so hard to imagine these very same companies in future claiming bankruptcy and shifting responsibility of decommissioning and waste management onto the taxpayer?
Currently, 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation plants may take up to 100 years to decommission.
So while you may have a plant for 40-50 years, it will take 100 to get rid of it, and again, you're still left with the waste created by the reactor - Conventional waste having a life of 24,000 years.
Initially, the UK NDA reported in 2005 the total cost of cleanup operations for 7 sites over a 100 year period would cost £55.8 billion, in 2006 this rose to £72 billion and no doubt by the end of decommissioning it will be exponentially
higher..we'll probably be kept in the dark about final costs of course, much too boring.then keep it semi state like ESB and I call fud on that again, the French do quite fine in that area, the only major incident in history involves a soviet reactor (that was designed primarily to create weapons not electricity) that had no shielding (like all western reactors) and was operated by puppets who decided it was a great idea to run tests on a system AND disable all safeties > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Once again a coal plant such as one in MoneyPoint releases a **** load more radioactive material (mercury, **** in the ash) than any nuclear plant
It's simply false to state: "only major incident in history involves a soviet reactor"
Anyone who does some quick research on nuclear accidents will be spoiled for choice.
Japan built an FBR in Monju.
PNC, a semi state organisation were responsible for its commercial operations which commenced in August 1995.
In December of 1995, there was a sodium leak and the plant had to be shutdown.
PNC tried to cover up the extent of damage by falsifying reports and editing video footage taken after the accident.
Employees were obviously instructed not to discuss the incident.
Eventually, the following video of the accident surfaced on youtube.
When incidents such as this are covered up, do you really blame people for not trusting the safety of nuclear energy or the companies involved in running the plants?
Should we discuss history of Sellafield and the Windscale fire, the leaks, or the discharge of nuclear waste, accidental and deliberate into the Irish sea? -- which some argue is the most polluted in the world.compared to what? and at what cost??
Wind, Wave, Solar, Tidal and Geothermal are completely FREE sources of fuel for creating energy which nobody has to pay for.
The technology costs money, of course..but the fuel is free.
Oil, Gas, Coal and Uranium, Hydrogen..etc all cost money which are usually imported making us dependent on other countries for our energy supply.
If enough research and development into improving and deploying renewable technologies were made, we could generate limitless amounts of clean energy for everyone in Ireland.
In Denmark, they use wind to produce ~25% of electricity requirements and are aiming for 50% by 2030.
The EU identified 42 UK coastal sites which, with tidal turbines installed could generate 33% of the UK's electricity requirements.
Why not invest in tidal energy instead of nuclear which is obviously problematic regarding disposal of waste?
If the UK could in theory produce 33% of its electricity requirements from tidal turbines, why couldn't Ireland generate 100% requirements from wind,waves and tides together?
Maybe we could even export energy, who knows?1. IF
2. by your reasoning then theres no reason not to have a plant on irish soil since we are already exposed to same "risk"
If all governments were determined enough to create sustainable clean and efficient renewable energy, we could do it.
We don't need nuclear energy, we really don't..about risk of a meltdown
Pebble Bed reactors can not meltdown
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
They can't meltdown based on what practical evidence?
What commercial Pebble Bed Reactors are currently in operation?
Note I said commercial because that's usually when mistakes occur.@Martyr some reading for you
Ten myths about nuclear power
article above contains further reading and references
Yes, the mysterious Robert Johnston.
Some of his other worthless contributions include:
Organic produce is better for you? Robert Johnston explodes five myths about its benefits
The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford
They're not healthier or better for the environment – and they're packed with pesticides.
In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods are an indulgence the world can't afford,
argues environmental expert Rob Johnston.
A harsh wind for economic recovery
An article by him about why wind power is useless.
And of course, his myths about Nuclear energy..
Who is he?
Doctor, science writer. Worked in London,
New York and Los Angeles in science and art journalism,
medical education, health and news documentary television.
He's described as "a doctor and freelance journalist" an "environmental expert" a "science writer"
and of course from what you believe, ei.sdraob - an expert on Nuclear Energy and Organic Food.
..an executive producer for Lifetime Television in New York and medical advisor for the Millenium Dome Body Zone
A Jack of all trades..
He claims that the Green Party has "fascist roots, fascist policies" and i quote "shares significant objectives
with neo-fascists and religious fundamentalists"
He labels people concerned about the environment "dumb", "Nitwits" and "Fascists" -- yet he's an expert on environmental issues himself.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
There is a lack of understanding on how electricity works here.
The main reason there is no nuclear power in Ireland is that the amount of electricity we use, approx 5GW, is small in comparision to the smallest commercially viable nuclear power plant 1GW.
The the grid code states that we would require to have cover for this power plant which essential means that we would need to built 2 nuclear plants and have on acting as spinning reserve in the event of a fault/trip.
There are a host of other reasons not to have a nuclear power plant in Ireland. If our electricity usage grows to a point were it feasable to build a nuclear plant than we should do it. I cant see that happening in the near future.
With regard to wind, this is not free energy. The ESB has invested large sums of money improving the grid in order to allow the irish system cope with the pressures wind exerts on it. There is a requirement for spinning reserve exactly as explained above to cover the system in the event of a tripping/fault event. This spinning reserve is usually open cycle gas turbines which have very low efficiency factors. These are built because they can react the quickest to an event.
Other countries in europe can have a higher percentage of wind on their system because their systems are all part of the grid, so that even though Denmark may have 50% wind, it still only constitutes a small fraction of the overall system.
Ireland may have a high percentage of wind in the future but this will result in higher electricity prices due to the cost of building more open cycle gas turbines/wind farms and the cost of the maintaining the equipment and the debt that has been used to improve the system in order to cope with the many pressures wind puts on it.
oh dear firstly yes i worked in power generation
secondly the largest plant in Ireland is ~1GW down in money point, an interesting place to work from engineering point of view, but a dirty dirty place that burns mountains of coal from environmental point of view
we can build a small nuclear plant and shutdown likes of moneypoint and a couple of turf plants and the grid will handle it well
tho the problems are political, such an occurrence would put alot of esb staff out of business
heres the countries demand today > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/
and wind generated today > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/ (notice the fall from 600MW down to 180MW as winds stopped blowing, if there were no other plants such as gas ones to back this up it be a disaster)
and here are the system records > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemrecords/
nuclear, coupled with wind and sprinkled with more pumped storage and another interconnected would be the perfect scenario for Ireland, with huge chunk of carbon emissions from this country cut, and literary billions in savings per year, we would be truly green then0 -
-
Don't forget wave farms, anyone whose spent any time by the coast in Donegal will have had the impression the sea there could probably power Ireland + China and the United States combined xD
i hope wave power becomes a bigger player too
but this technology and all is in the realm of vapor ware about now
on different topic theres a great article on ngm > http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/solar/johnson-text
mind boggles how Germany a country with barely any sun is now a world leader in solar power0 -
mind boggles how Germany a country with barely any sun is now a world leader in solar power
That's what you get when you think about the long term situation rather than just the short term one
When people in english speaking countries are whining about "benefit bums" and resisting tax hikes - positive, intelligent planning and the acceptance of it's costs are taking Germany into the future...0 -
-
-
ei.sdraob wrote:no waste as the reactor is shipped back to manufacturer for recycling
That's a lie.
ei.sdraob, do you want your grand kids to inherit a planet covered in toxic nuclear waste from these miniture reactors?
Judging from your posts, you don't seem too concerned.
First of all, you claim that FBR's can get rid of nuclear waste which is completely false.
They can reduce it, but ultimately, you're still left with radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere and this costs alot of money.
And as you can see in France, they're having difficulty finding suitable sites to store the waste in.
You also claim that pebble bell reactors can't meltdown, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Now you're claiming these nuclear hydride batteries by Hyperion are the solution, yet still can't answer the ultimate question - How do you dispose of the waste?
I'm still waiting for an answer 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSqW6pFuR8
Advertisement