Should we go Nuclear?

Measure Twice

yawnstretch wrote: »

I'm so glad boards isn't representative of normal society.

You do realize that nuclear waste doesn't go away right? We're basically stealing from our descendants. It will get in the atmosphere and will be impossible to get rid of in a few thousand years when the mess gets out one way or another.

Id make an analogy but nothing compares to nuclear. If you want this "easy" option you shouldn't be allowed to live IMO. You're a disgrace to the human race.

I'm sorry, yawnstretch, but you are completely wide of the mark here.

The very point about nuclear waste is that it does go away. That is what makes it radioactive - the fact that it is breaking up and becoming something else.

Before you pontificate on who should and should not be allowed to live, perhaps you should do a litttle research first?

dowlingm

yawnstretch wrote: »

If you want this "easy" option you shouldn't be allowed to live IMO. You're a disgrace to the human race.

Serious playing of man not ball there.

yawnstretch

We should be getting all our energy for renewables and improving our efficiency (reducing our high energy needs).

Nuclear arguments are fashionable because they seem to be easy and they are motivated by profit. You simply don't realize that the scientific and political data you love to quote is provided by revenue generating entities.

Now, let me "break it down" for the sheep (of which there are many). Radioactive material takes thousands of years to decay during which time it is highly toxic. Yes, you can reuse it but it's still bloody toxic at the end.

The timescales of radioactive decay ar incomprehensible socially because so much changes in human terms over a few decades (politically, behaviorally etc.). We are making a dangerous assumption that civilization as we know will still be around in a coupe of centuries to track down and handle this waste - much of which is hidden.

Judgement Day

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110312/twl-japan-quake-nuclear-power-emergency-3fd0ae9.html


I love nuclear power and all the old ****e about how clean it is. Heard one of its proponents on the Mooney programme yesterday repeating the old mantra about how many people die in coal mining accidents in China every year and by comparison nuclear power is safe. Sad and all as the deaths are they don't affect anybody outside the immediate family and friends, whereas nuclear power and its waste threaten us all. The Japanese earthquake should, but won't, alert people here to the folly of having nuclear power plants situated in an area of North Wales which is prone to earthquake activity. Don't worry I'm not going to get drawn into a rant here because I haven't the knowledge or time but I thought that it was worth a mention given the day that's in it.

ei.sdraob

its an an 8.9 earthquake ffs 1000 times stronger than new zealand one several orders of magnitude more than anything we ever get here

the story is still developing and we have econuts crying Chernobyl already :rolleyes: the country has been devastated by a tsunami with everything swept in some coastal area, hell a whole refinery has exploded sending god knows what into the air, yet the obsession here is a nuclear plant which they are trying to shut down fast (all others already shutdown) but are having trouble with cooling
you have to remember this is also an older generation plant, new ones have less parts to break and have passive cooling systems.

the fact that Japan are an advanced economy (now 3rd largest down from 2nd) living on an island with no natural resources (sound familiar) and yet have a large and successful nuclear programme of 50+ plants in the worlds most seismically active area
cheap and reliable electricity is vital to a modern economy, it is not a difficult concept to get your head around, it is dissapointed that there are still people whose vision for Ireland are maidens dancing on crossroads and peasants toiling in the muck

---

yawnstretch wrote: »

Nuclear arguments are fashionable because they seem to be easy and they are motivated by profit. You simply don't realize that the scientific and political data you love to quote is provided by revenue generating entities.
.

I am business owner which has to send dozens of servers every months to US and EU to collocate since electricity is much cheaper there in part thanks to nuclear, in places like Georgia, US (which is a very nice place with friendly people and southern hispitality ), mostly thanks to nuclear.
I am quite literary creating and maintaining jobs abroad, couped with expensive fibre connection Ireland is a nogo area for me. That is one direct consequence of the ****ups this country made in communications and energy infrastructure.
One can only hope for a better future.

yawnstretch wrote: »

Now, let me "break it down" for you sheep (of which you are many). Radioactive material takes thousands of years to decay during which time it is highly toxic. Yes, you can reuse it but it's still fcuking toxic at the end.

The timescales of radioactive decay ar incomprehensible socially because so much changes in human terms over a few decades (politically, behaviorally etc.). We are making a dangerous assumption that civilization as we know will still be around in a coupe of centuries to track down and handle this waste - much of which is hidden.

sheep :cool:

see the video posted on previous page, and since you are being rude, invest in a physics book.

dubhthach

--Mod!--

dowlingm wrote: »

Serious playing of man not ball there.

Folks if people have issues with posts -- be they in breach of forum charter etc. -- then please hit the Report Post button

I will admit I had scanned through this thread and missed the fairly obvious personal insult that dowling is alluding to. Please read the charter or I will be forced to hand out further infractions.

dowlingm

The notion that nuclear waste doesn't go away is simplistic. Long lived nuclear waste tends to be of low radioactivity - if its radioactivity was high, it would decay to stable isotopes more quickly. Second, we have no idea what future generations will be able to do to handle the waste and possibly reuse it. There are technologies like Integral Fast Reactors which were taken off the table for political reasons, not necessarily because they couldn't "burn" in a nuclear sense the waste from conventional reactors.

Any industrial accident has implications and lessons for the world but those are tempered by how comparable the situations really are. Japan is technically suited to high tech generation like nukes but cursed with poor seismology and few inland lakes forcing placement on ocean coasts. Meanwhile it is poor in fossil fuels so can't fall back on that. The Fukushima site is a 40 year old design and the world has learned a lot of extra ways to make reactors safer since then, but in a lot of the world it has been politically easier to approve a coat of paint and new pipes on old reactors than build new - Japan's plans include some reactors to run 60 years of life.

Obviously we need to crack energy storage to make full use of renewables and to make ITER a reality so we can move off fission but to indulge in generalities while the full facts are not yet known is premature. I'm appalled to see a "radiation map" produced by a private company called Australian Radiation Services being retweeted all over with a big red splodge on Alaska and northern British Columbia and a yellow splodge over the rest of the US Pacific coast. No background data, no assumptions given, just a nice bright coloured map for people to retweet.

yawnstretch

dowlingm wrote: »

The notion that nuclear waste doesn't go away is simplistic. Long lived nuclear waste tends to be of low radioactivity - if its radioactivity was high, it would decay to stable isotopes more quickly. Second, we have no idea what future generations will be able to do to handle the waste and possibly reuse it.

Simplistic but true. The waste is extremely hazardous for longer than you will live.

Future generations may find it more difficult to live in a contaminated world than you seem to expect. Will the magical fairy dust sprinkle the toxic rivers away?

ei.sdraob

yawnstretch wrote: »

Simplistic but true. The waste is extremely hazardous for longer than you will live.

Future generations may find it more difficult to live in a contaminated world than you seem to expect. Will the magical fairy dust sprinkle the toxic rivers away?

Arghggh weve been thru this, the reason for the existence of waste is political not technical

if it makes you feel any better that large coal burning plant on Shannon is injecting into the irish environment 100 times more nuclear material than a nuclear plant would

look at the bright side wind power will save us all, only 100MW being generated at time of this post :rolleyes: less than 5% of whats installed, oh look at those shiny UK nuclear electrons flowing thru my computer as i type this post :P

yawnstretch

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Arghggh weve been thru this, the reason for the existence of waste is political not technical

if it makes you feel any better that large coal burning plant on Shannon is injecting into the irish environment 100 times more nuclear material than a nuclear plant would

look at the bright side wind power will save us all, only 100MW being generated at time of this post :rolleyes: less than 5% of whats installed, oh look at those shiny UK nuclear electrons flowing thru my computer as i type this post :P

You want to talk politics? Maybe if people like you would support alternative energy it would have a chance.

You just want the big easy fix all but you don't care about the long term consequences.

ei.sdraob

yawnstretch wrote: »

You want to talk politics? Maybe if people like you would support alternative energy it would have a chance.

I have no problems with alternative energy if you have own money to waste go right ahead.

I have a problem as a taxpayer and business owner of having to subsidize another industry and pay high electricity charges due to politicians leading the country yet again on a an expensive one way bet (from the same crowd who brought us NAMA and deep recession)

yawnstretch wrote: »

You just want the big easy fix all but you don't care about the long term consequences.

There would be no long term consequences if reactors are build to use all of the fuel, not just 3% of it

Instead the country will endup with an energy generation composed of unreliable wind and backup gas, at great cost to the economy all while the wind industry laugh all the way to the bank with their guaranteed profits.

For the 10 billion that is expected to be spend on wind (by you and me of course) and new grid connections for these farms to bring the country to the government target you could built 4 or so 1000MW ap1000 new gen reactors and remove carbon from our electricity generation

it is i who is thinking of the future in which you will continue to emit co2 and have wasted billions setting back the economy and ensuring more jobs are sent abroad

yawnstretch

It may be expensive today but at least we are not creating very dangerous waste that will be more expensive for humanity to deal with in the long run.

The jobs would be here (as would the investment) if we showed other countries a template that worked. The technology and infrastructure is expensive and complex. That's why people don't want to do it. But that's exactly the reason why it will be so valuable in the future.

Ireland is in a unique position to succeed as a template because we are so small. We could roll out an EV power network faster than the US for example.

ei.sdraob

Sigh repeating the same Green brainwashing doesnt make it so.

The country is bankrupt and the population is stretched, we need cheap and reliable energy to help the economy not another white elephant project "for the sake of it"

Considering there is no wind generator manufacturing in Ireland, all we are doing is creating jobs in China who are poisoning the environment and their people so we can get shiny windmills, and of course we can not manufacture them here since electricity is expensive (and wages are high) to make concrete, steel and refine the rare earths.

For all the jobs the so called Green economy claims to create other jobs are destroyed as they ship to countries with lower costs such as cheaper energy

yawnstretch

There's always an excuse for not being sustainable it seems! Humanity only makes it harder on itself by procrastinating.

You say jobs would be created but then dismiss that by looking at the side effects of Chinese manufacture. Do you think that the Chinese will stop manufacturing if we don't ask them to make windmills? Do you think they will stop polluting? May as well get them to make something that improves sustainable tech.

Maybe we wouldn't be bankrupt if we generated more of our own energy using our own natural resources like the abundant wave energy all around the island. Fossil fuel energy costs (including nuclear) will only go up. I promise you this.

ei.sdraob

yawnstretch wrote: »

There's always an excuse for not being sustainable it seems! Humanity only makes it harder on itself by procrastinating.

going down the wind route means burning fossil fuels the 80% of time when the wind doesnt blow
going nuclear means no co2 and reliable production

which option is better for the environment?

yawnstretch wrote: »

Do you think that the Chinese will stop manufacturing if we don't ask them to make windmills?.

If there are no customers then why would they keep making the things

yawnstretch wrote: »

Do you think they will stop polluting?

They will and they are now starting a next gen nuclear programe including thorium reactors, and are the main partner in fusion research.

not because they care about the planet but because they realise that cheap energy helps employment, and employment of their people is top concern, something the crowd here could take a note of.

yawnstretch wrote: »

May as well get them to make something that improves sustainable tech.

no matter the cost? whether human, environmental or capital ??

yawnstretch wrote: »

Maybe we wouldn't be bankrupt if we generated more of our own energy using our own natural resources like the abundant wave energy all around the island. Fossil fuel energy costs (including nuclear) will only go up. I promise you this.

It wasnt energy prices that bankrupted the country (tho it does make doing business and keeping people employed here more expensive) but politicians directing the country off a cliff,
hey we are now being directed again down a dead end with concerns from engineers and economists being dismissed, what could possible go wrong

yawnstretch wrote: »

Fossil fuel energy costs (including nuclear) will only go up. I promise you this.

just like we where told that that houseprices can only ever go up and we can never have enough homes?

fuel costs are small portion of running costs of a nuclear plant, most is safety and security

dubhthach

I'm abit amused to see Nuclear classed as a fossil fuel. I didn't know Uranium (or Thorium even) was made up of the compressed ancient remains of fossil lifeforms (ala coal, oil, gas etc.) :rolleyes:

Needless to say Ireland has know sources/reserves of Uranium, however the government has banned any development of such reserves.

yawnstretch

dubhthach wrote: »

I'm abit amused to see Nuclear classed as a fossil fuel. I didn't know Uranium (or Thorium even) was made up of the compressed ancient remains of fossil lifeforms (ala coal, oil, gas etc.) :rolleyes:

Needless to say Ireland has know sources/reserves of Uranium, however the government has banned any development of such reserves.

Thanks for proving your bias for the infraction you gave me earlier. There is no convincing people in this thread. They've made up their minds.

Amhran Nua

Reposted from another thread...

Couple of simple facts to throw things into perspective here folks: nuclear is at least as expensive as wind, coming in at around €3 per watt minimum. Wind is about €1 per installed watt, but you need three of them to produce the same amount of power.

Even with that, nuclear is the same cost or quite often a lot higher, up to three times as expensive as wind. People often talk about Finland having a nuclear rennaissance and so on, but that's largely PR, their latest and greatest reactor is years overdue and billions over budget - and that's being put together by a French company. Its the same story everywhere, people the US are paying taxes for nuke plants before construction even began.

Secondly, Ireland has more than enough wind flowing over it to cover our normal useage, and thats before you look at our offshore resources. Back that up with the interconnector, and you have an excellent source of reliable, renewable power. Wind scales up really well, the more of it you build the better. Our existing wind infrastructure is patchy at best, its not very efficient. The you get to the economies of scale when you build lots of anything, further pushing down the price.

Also, you want lots of jobs created? We can start manufacturing them, first for the Irish market, then for European and other markets. Denmark employs 30,000 people and has exports of €4 billion annually from its wind industry. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like a piece of that pie.

I dunno, somewhere down the line nuclear power seems to have joined the hipster trendy mindset as de rigeur for a well balanced individual. Anyone against it must be a backward religious nut or a green zealot. People need to put that aside and look at the hard numbers. They don't stack up. Nuclear is great if you have very limited alternatives, France for example has very few natural native energy generating resources, but it's really the last port of call, and not particularly because its that dangerous.

ei.sdraob

@Amhran Nua

from our very own Eirgrid who used the figures from Finland's nuclear programe (which include long term disposal facility costs)



now here comes the rub each MW of installed wind only produces 20% at any time on average during the year as can be seen if you download last years data
that means the other 80% of time you need to have gas or oil backup as is the case now here in Ireland
of course a nuclear plant on the other hand produces same output rain or shine except for plant maintenance

oh and as an added bonus you can place them close to where the electricity is required, removing transmission losses and not wasting billions on building new pylons.

so go ahead and "look at the hard numbers" above

Imagine that I've been looking for a forum debating Nuclear in Ireland lol and I only found this now!


Thorium when it's more researched would be the perfect solution for Ireland, A tiny amount of Uranium is need to make it go critical, but that's not really an issue!

1 tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium or 3.5 million tonnes of coal! It can burn old waste from uranium reactors, and nuclear weapons!

They can make them in 1 MW sizes rather than have a massive 2 GW +
They could have several in various sizes, much work is being done in research and development, and molten salt reactors (msr's) I think would be suitable for Ireland because of their safety advantages and no need for emergency cooling!

And there is no possibility of a melt down.

I'm not really interested in C02 emissions, rather keeping our reliance of imported fuel to the minimum. I am also interested in eliminating Diesel fuel as the recent ridiculous co2 emissions regulations means more people are driving Diesels in towns and cities which is an outrage given the fact that diesel emissions if far more damaging to human health!

Ireland has a very high particle matter emissions in our towns and cities, the air is poisoned and this anthropogenic global warming is a farce, it's a theory and far from being proven!

Now back to Nuclear, and forgive my maybe emotional and rather long posting on this issue but It's something I feel very strongly about.

1 Thorium reactor was commissioned in the 1960's I in the U.S and 1 I think in Russia. Research and development was abandoned because the Americans and the Russians couldn't make Nuclear weapons to kill each other during the cold war from Thorium reactors, so instead they chose Uranium.

Sad really to think Chernobyl, three mile island etc needn't have been !

I am all for Nuclear provided we sort out our own waste and do NOT ship it abroad, if that can't happen then I don't want it.

Hydrogen will be the fuel for out transport not batteries as I once thought it might. It will be the stepping stone to hydrogen, and I believe we will have the option of plug in hydrogen so we can run on very cheap electricity for shorter ranges then run on more expensive hydrogen for long trips.

The Nissan Leaf Gen II will have a range of around 200 miles, batteries are progressing so fast. However it takes 8 hours to charge form empty, 16 hrs for twice the range and so on, basically batteries will become so good that even fast chargers will be too slow.

Mercedes F-cell will be available in 2015, more will soon follow, 350 miles range, refill in 5 mins or less. Perfect !

The Past Irish Government along with the ESB who have tremendous revenue to gain from everybody changing to E.V's, I don't have a problem with an Irish company getting the money, but I do have a problem that our money is being invested in an infrastructure that is not going to be of much use. That is extremely Typical of the Irish Government and it's a very dangerous bet to make!

Battery cars will be mainly used for short trips and will be charged mainly at home, so why bother spending hundreds of millions investing in an infrastructure that will have no use?

Now solar, wind etc is not going to supply our energy needs unless we have every square mile of land full of turbines and solar panels. It's just not going to happen and recent winters have seen much reduced wind !

Now rather than waste all that money, why not invest it in a HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE ??? WE need Nuclear to make it and we won't have to Import it, we have excellent universities that can train the people needed.

Nuclear scientists and engineers, Just imagine the job creation??

Why doesn't the Government say to the IMF and E.U go stuff your fcuking money and stick it where the sun doesn't shine ??

Just think what the 100 Billion could actually do for us? you and me the tax payer!

We could make nuclear to heat our homes, make hydrogen for transport, it could meet most if not all of our energy needs and most of the money will stay in Ireland.

I also want an end to the massive amounts of tax on petrol and diesel, anyone commuting to Dublin from the likes of Carlow, Kildare, Wicklow, Wexford etc is paying 70-over 100 euros a week on fuel. Oil is not that expensive it's the TAX !

Thorium MSR reactors is the only Nuclear power I want to see in Ireland!

A huge investment that will pay off in the future and Create JOBS!

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Amhran Nua

from our very own Eirgrid who used the figures from Finland's nuclear programe (which include long term disposal facility costs)

I would seriously dispute that chart based on the real costs of actual nuclear installations, as linked previously: "2007 estimates have considerable uncertainty in overnight cost, and vary widely from $2,950/kWe (overnight cost) to a Moody's Investors Service conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe (final or "all-in" cost)." Even the minimum there is equivalent to the same energy produced wind cost. And really, Finland is no poster child for nuclear power.

The first license application for the third reactor (EPR) was made in December 2000 and the original commissioning date of the third reactor was set to May 2009. However, in May 2009 the plant was "at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget". The commissioning deadline has been postponed several times and as of June 2010 operation is set to start in 2013 at a fixed price of €3 billion ($4.1 billion). The reactor pressure vessel was installed on 21 June 2010.

The project was started by Areva NP, a joint venture of AREVA and Siemens, but Siemens withdrew and sold its share to AREVA.[11] Work began on the Olkiluoto EPR in 2005, but various problems with workmanship have created delays:

First to come to light were irregularities in foundation concrete, which caused work to slow on site for months. Later it was found that subcontractors had provided heavy forgings that were not up to project standards and which had to be re-cast. An apparent problem constructing the reactor's unique double-containment structure has also caused delays...

According to Professor Stephen Thomas, "Olkiluoto has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors". Areva and the utility involved "are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default". The project has also been criticized by the Finnish nuclear safety regulator, STUK, because "instructions have not been observed in the welding of pipes and the supervision of welding." STUK has also noted that there have been delays in submitting proper paperwork. Olkiluoto 3 was supposed to be the first "third generation" reactor which would pave the way for a new wave of identikit reactors - safe, affordable, and delivered on time - across Europe. The delays and cost overruns have had knock-on effects in other countries .

ei.sdraob wrote: »

now here comes the rub each MW of installed wind only produces 20% at any time on average during the year as can be seen if you download last years data
that means the other 80% of time you need to have gas or oil backup as is the case now here in Ireland
of course a nuclear plant on the other hand produces same output rain or shine except for plant maintenance

I've already factored that in, using a base of 30% efficiency, rather than the 20% you are using. Check the post again. The more sites you have covered, the better it gets, but it usually tops out at around 1 watt per 3 watts installed. Wind scales up really well.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh and as an added bonus you can place them close to where the electricity is required, removing transmission losses and not wasting billions on building new pylons.

Transmission losses are essentially nil with HVDC lines, and you'd have to build some amount of infrastructure to come near the cost of nuclear. The article linked above indicates quite clearly that using existing transmission infrastructure we could cover most of our power usage with wind.

Besdies all of the above, are you really saying that putting nuclear power plants close to population centres is a benefit?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so go ahead and "look at the hard numbers" above

Done and done.

mrsoundie

Having read and followed this Topic for a while, can I add something.

Transport other than Cars needs attention in the next couple of years, mainly our rail network requires urgent electrification. This should cover passenger and rail freight.

Renewables do have their place for us but as always not enough research is being carried out by our government, even making all renewable technologies VAT free for a period of two to three years, so as ensure every house gets some kind of assistance for heating etc.

But (and there is always a but) a sustainable base-load electricity generation is required whether it be Nuclear, Corrib Gas (?), and pumped storage has to be contemplated. Research however is the key and burying our collective heads in the sand will not help or we can say goodbye to our collectives derrieres.

Amhran Nua

Actually upon looking at that chart again, its probably not far off the truth, since it does support that onshore wind and nuclear are approximately the same cost (note that nuclear can stack up to three times higher, and usually does). That's not cost to install, that's cost per real energy produced. I would once again refer to the project manager of SEI who stated

Studies show that onshore and offshore wind turbines located in the republic could deliver approximately 5,000 megawatts of power over both parts of the island, he added. This figure takes into account only sites where it would be somewhat practical to put wind turbines, wind speeds, the geography, and the transmission grid. If Northern Ireland is counted, the figure jumps to 6,000 megawatts. In all, the wind blowing over the island contains 8,000 megawatts of power.

"There is enough onshore-accessible wind for about 100 percent of our electricity requirements," he said. "In terms of our accessible resources, the biggest and most successful so far is wind."

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I would seriously dispute that chart based on the real costs of actual nuclear installations, as linked previously: "2007 estimates have considerable uncertainty in overnight cost, and vary widely from $2,950/kWe (overnight cost) to a Moody's Investors Service conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe (final or "all-in" cost)." Even the minimum there is equivalent to the same energy produced wind cost. And really, Finland is no poster child for nuclear power.
.

Finland costs include plant decommissioning and long term storage levies paid into a central fund. And is at the highest end of the cost scale, also Finland's reactors are old tech now, Ireland would endup using new gen reactors, the Americans are building AP1000s in China and started construction in US at very competitive costs (4 reactors for 6 billion euro or so as compared to 10 billion that will have to spend on 3000MW of wind here + grid)

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I've already factored that in, using a base of 30% efficiency, rather than the 20% you are using. Check the post again. The more sites you have covered, the better it gets, but it usually tops out at around 1 watt per 3 watts installed. Wind scales up really well.
.

The 20% came from existing 1500MW average installed in 2010 installed all over the country , and these are the low hanging fruit at the best locations, doubling this wont make much of a difference to the average availability

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Transmission losses are essentially nil with HVDC lines, and you'd have to build some amount of infrastructure to come near the cost of nuclear. The article linked above indicates quite clearly that using existing transmission infrastructure we could cover most of our power usage with wind.

what HVDC lines? these would cost billions to build and will have to be paid for taxpayer of course
You can replace existing coal,turf, oil and gas plants with nuclear and use the same connections.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Besdies all of the above, are you really saying that putting nuclear power plants close to population centres is a benefit?

Considering that majority of Irelands population lives and works close to several plants already and uses their energy, yes I am.
I would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Finland costs include plant decommissioning and long term storage levies paid into a central fund. And is at the highest end of the cost scale, also Finland's reactors are old tech now, Ireland would endup using new gen reactors, the Americans are building AP1000s in China and started construction in US at very competitive costs (4 reactors for 6 billion euro or so as compared to 10 billion that will have to spend on 3000MW of wind here + grid)

Once again, from the article already linked:

The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant:[19]

• February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.

• March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.

• May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).

• November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.

• November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).

• April 2008 — Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[20] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.[21]

Now if you have a full blown command economy, pay your workers slave labour wages, don't care about capital costs, insurance, health and safety or any of that silliness, you can approach what China is claiming to have achieved. China by the way is one of the foremost countries in rolling out wind power and pumped storage hydro facilities.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The 20% came from existing 1500MW average installed in 2010 installed all over the country , and these are the low hanging fruit at the best locations, doubling this wont make much of a difference to the average availability

Yes, it will. That's how wind works. Reference for example the European supergrid concept. What we have at the moment is about as efficient as putting gas turbines on every roof and pumping gas to them to generate electricity.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what HVDC lines? these would cost billions to build and will have to be paid for taxpayer of course
You can replace existing coal,turf, oil and gas plants with nuclear and use the same connections.

Apparently you don't need much more infrastructure as it stands for wind, according to SEI.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Considering that majority of Irelands population lives and works close to several plants already and uses their energy, yes I am.
I would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

Good for you, I'd rather pluck the energy out of thin air myself.

Your emperor has no clothes.

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Good for you, I'd rather pluck the energy out of thin air myself.

Your emporer has no clothes.

My emperor is a nuclear fusion reactor 150 million km away making your mills spin

Anyone who understands what E=mc2 stands for realizes just how much energy can be tapped, to ignore basic science and technology is a step backwards not forward.

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Anyone who understands what E=mc2 stands for realizes just how much energy can be tapped, to ignore basic science and technology is a step backwards not forward.

Ignoring basic science in favour of unneccessarily elaborate solutions seems to be the problem here.

Amhran Nua

Interesting to look at that chart, it seems that the annual fixed costs for wind are actually lower than nuclear. I think I shall be referencing that again!

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Interesting to look at that chart, it seems that the annual fixed costs for wind are actually lower than nuclear. I think I shall be referencing that again!

Thats if you use Eirgrids figures based on Finland and AP1000s, UK who have alot of experience in the area have this



Oh and there is only so much land with good wind resources in Ireland, mostly in scenic tourist areas who want to come here for scenery not a Don Quixotian safari.
what is the cost to the tourist sector and jobs of carpeting the country in windmills an pylons for these farms?

Amtmann

Japan's avoidable accidents make folly of nuclear energy clear

JOHN VIDAL

OPINION: There is no excuse for the latest nuclear nightmare

THE GUNG-HO nuclear industry is in deep shock. Just as it and its cheerleader, the International Atomic Energy Agency, were preparing to mark next month’s 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident with self-congratulatory statements about a safe age of clean atomic power, a series of catastrophic but entirely avoidable accidents take place in not one but three reactors in one of the world’s richest states.

Fukushima in Japan, site of (so far) two explosions and now meltdown fears following the tsunami, is not a rotting old power plant in a failed state manned by half-trained kids, but supposedly one of the safest stations in one of the most safety-conscious countries with the best engineers and technologists in the world.

Chernobyl blew up not because the reactor malfunctioned, but because an experiment to see how long safety equipment would function during shutdown went too far. In Japan, it was not the nuclear parts of the station that went wrong, but conventional ones. Pumps did not work because the power supply went down and the back-up was not there because no one thought what happened was possible.

Even though Japan had been warned many times that possibly the most dangerous place in the world to site a nuclear power station was on its coast, no one had figured on the effects of a tsunami and an earthquake on conventional technology. It’s easy to be wise afterwards, but the inquest will surely show the accident was not due to an unpredictable natural disaster, but by a series of highly predictable bad calls by human regulators.

The question now is whether the industry can be trusted anywhere. If this industry were a company, its shareholders would have deserted it years ago. In just one generation it has killed, wounded or blighted the lives of many millions of people and laid waste to millions of square miles of land. In that time it has been subsidised to the tune of trillions of dollars, and it will cost hundreds of billions more to clean up and store the messes it has caused. It has caused catastrophic failures and seen dozens of close shaves. Its workings have been marked around the world by mendacity, cover-ups and financial incompetence.

The future looks worse. The world has a generation of ageing reactors and politicians putting intense pressure on regulators to extend their use. We are planning to double worldwide electricity supply from nuclear power in the next 20 years but we have nowhere near enough experienced engineers to run the plants. We have private companies peddling new designs that are said to be safer but which are still not proven, and we have 10 new countries planning to move into civil nuclear power in the next five years.

It gets worse. More than 100 of the world’s reactors are sited in areas of high seismic activity, and many of 350 new stations are planned for the Pacific rim, where tremors, tsunamis and other natural hazards are certain to happen. We still have not worked out how to store waste, and we now know we cannot protect stations from all eventualities.

What the industry and governments cannot accept are the two immutable laws of life – Murphy’s law and the law of unintended consequences. If something can possibly go wrong, it will, eventually. It may be possible to design out technological weaknesses – but it is impossible to allow for unknown unknowns.

Next time, the disaster may have nothing to do with an earthquake or a tsunami, but be because of terrorism, climate change, a fatal error in engineering works, proliferation of plutonium or a deranged plant manager.

If there were no alternatives to nuclear power in order to light up a bulb or to reduce carbon emissions, the industry and governments might be forgiven. But when the stakes are so high, the scale is so big and there are 100 other safer ways, it seems sheer folly to take this road.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0315/1224292162745.html