Nuclear Power

Funk It

Curly Judge wrote: »

Curiouser and curiouser!

If wind is available most of the time why is it that wind turbines are only able to achieve, at most, 30% of their rated output?

One of the main problems with wind is it's foot print!
When you have x of Ireland covered with wind turbines you have no choice but to cover 2X of the landscape when consumption doubles.

Tidal? Where?
Where is it even proposed in the Republic?

Show me one MW of energy generated by any company in the Republic of Ireland?
We hear about game changing developments in wave and tidal but all we get are fatter Quangos who are "looking into it"

We all know the limitations of wind as a resource is to traditional wind turbines, but what about kite power?
http://www.kitenergy.net/

Also your 30 % maximum capacity factor is incorrect, it might have been a ballpark figure 10 years ago though. I was assessing a site today which had a 500 kW wind turbine operating at a 55 % capacity factor. I wasn't too sure that this even made sense at first, but the HH export data backed it up.

The other point about wind turbines is whether you design the turbines to be able to operate at full capacity for a few parts of the year, or at a lower capacity for a lot longer over the year. As power is related to the cube of the wind speed, it is a balancing act when picking a wind turbine to fit a site. Capacity factors for wind in China is a lot less than other countries, but they intend to build a lot more.

Also, with respect to tidal power, it has been around for the best part of a century, if not longer. The La Rance project is an incredible success story in France, there are plenty opportunities in the UK for barrages, and even the Swansea Tidal Lagoon (different link below than what I have already posted):
http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

Although not in the Republic, Strangford Lough was the first location for the Marine Current Turbines SeaGen device, which showed potential. Ok, the first iteration of the device did have its problems, but the first iteration of any device seldom is (just ask Pelamis).

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The price of renewables is irrelevant if other technologies haven't come through to replace our use of fossil fuel.

So what happens in your plan if fossil fuels get used up and other technologies haven't come through

The only reason we aren't using Renewables + Pumped storage is the cost.

So running out of fossil fuel is not going to be a problem if you don't mind the cost.

The goal is to find a better solution before then.

Capt'n Midnight

Funk It wrote: »

Also, with respect to tidal power, it has been around for the best part of a century, if not longer. The La Rance project is an incredible success story in France,

Yes it works
No the economics may not be so good
But at this stage the capital costs have been paid so it's free energy (well except for maintenance )



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23214-us-nuclear-dump-is-leaking-toxic-waste.html

Waste from the production of US nukes is on the loose. Toxic cargo is escaping from six of the 177 ageing tanks at the Hanford site in Washington state where the nation stores two-thirds of its high-level nuclear waste, most of it from the production of nuclear bombs.

The site houses 200 million litres of radioactive and hazardous waste, and 67 tanks have leaked waste before. The new leaks undermine recent reassurances that the dump is now secure.

"trust us, this time it'll be different" :rolleyes:

Funk It

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes it works
No the economics may not be so good
But at this stage the capital costs have been paid so it's free energy (well except for maintenance )

The main issue that they didn't take into account of was that the structural loads from the overlying motorway on the top of the barrage would have. But I think we can safely say that engineering has advanced a bit since the 1960's.

If I remember correctly, one third of the cost at the time of the build was for the construction of cofferdams which wouldn't be required for modern engineering practices. I think it was something mad, like they built 2 or 3 dams at the time to allow for the construction to go ahead.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The only reason we aren't using Renewables + Pumped storage is the cost.

So running out of fossil fuel is not going to be a problem if you don't mind the cost.

The goal is to find a better solution before then.

So to recap, you're 'more or less' saying no nuclear because other technologies might come through

Until then we keep using fossil fuels and if other technologies don't come through before we run out of fossil fuel, then we can just use renewables (the ones we know of now) and pumped storage although this would be expensive.

And to clarify, although we're just talking about Ireland in this scenario, if fossil fuels run out, the rest of the planet will be in the same position and we're talking about more than just electricity generation if fossil fuels run out because we'll also need to be supplying power to replace the lost gas, coal, peat and oil used for heating (including cooking) and the lost transport fuel.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23214-us-nuclear-dump-is-leaking-toxic-waste.html"trust us, this time it'll be different" :rolleyes:

With all due respect, most of this waste is the result of nuclear bombs not electricity generation

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

With all due respect, most of this waste is the result of nuclear bombs not electricity generation

And that makes their waste management OK ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't most of the plutonium used in bombs produced in electrical generating reactors ?

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

So to recap, you're 'more or less' saying no nuclear because other technologies might come through

No

I'm saying nuclear isn't economic. And it's costs are rising.

I'm saying it leaks.

I'm saying that apart from the Finns hardly anyone has a decent long term waste storage solution

I'm saying the litany of cost cutting / bad management / culture in the nuclear industry doesn't inspire confidence

I'm saying that renewable costs are falling

I'm saying that there hasn't been any significant improvement in nuclear technology for a very long time. Seriously why do we have to wait for Generation 4 reactors to have the promise of "fail safe" built in.

Hitchens

In the event of a nuclear catastrophe on the west coast of Britain, and if weather conditions were unfavourable to us, the island of Ireland could become uninhabitable.

Where would the population of Ireland go?

Chloe Pink

"So to recap, you're 'more or less' saying no nuclear because other technologies might come through.....

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No

Well forgive me if I'm more hacked off with your pages of waffle than normal but it's taken a few posts to get this far.

In the first of these posts you said 'more or less' to the question:
"So CM, if've understand you're saying no nuclear because other technologies might come through even though we have no idea of the costs of them.
And if they haven't come through or have but are financially out of reach we can just do more fossil fuels"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83663852&postcount=530
This question was based on your post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83662326&postcount=526

Through the subsequent posts your stance hasn't changed and now, you've decided that you weren't 'more or less saying no nuclear because other technologies might come through.'

Instead you give a list of ridiculous reasons as to why you're saying no to nuclear, ones that I cba to even respond to because it would be like shooting fish in a barrel - cruel and boring.

Your posts don't even follow your own arguments, let alone anybody elses so there's very little chance that your posts can offer a comprehensive view on energy.

Please stop wasting everyones time with your contradictory, illogical and ill thought through opinions.
As I said earlier, what is knowledge without reason.

Jester252

No

I think all energy sources should just be friends

Curly Judge

No

Hitchens wrote: »

In the event of a nuclear catastrophe on the west coast of Britain, and if weather conditions were unfavourable to us, the island of Ireland could become uninhabitable.

Where would the population of Ireland go?

In the event of a nuclear catastrophe on the west coast of Britain what people should do is stay calm and, if possible, stay indoors for the first 24 hours.
Panic and anxiety would cause far more damage than any possible fallout.
Take your iodine tablets and don't drink milk until it has been passed as safe.
You will more than likely live to a ripe old age.
By the way, by what mechanism do you envisage such a disaster taking place.

Capt'n Midnight

for nuclear to work it has to be at least economic

am still waiting for costs

still claiming that the clean up and safety costs will keep increasing

Hitchens

Curly Judge wrote: »

By the way, by what mechanism do you envisage such a disaster taking place.

Earthquake or anything that would make Ireland uninhabitable because of radiation.


We have nowhere to go. Could we function as a country and whatnot afterwards?

Curly Judge

No

Hitchens wrote: »

Earthquake or anything that would make Ireland uninhabitable because of radiation.


We have nowhere to go. Could we function as a country and whatnot afterwards?

Just so I'm understanding you properly... what sort of nuclear explosion do you envision taking place in the UK that would make Ireland uninhabitable?
Can you explain by what mechanism that might take place?
Genuine question!

spankmemunkey

Curly Judge wrote: »

Just so I'm understanding you properly... what sort of nuclear explosion do you envision taking place in the UK that would make Ireland uninhabitable?
Can you explain by what mechanism that might take place?
Genuine question!

We already have problems in Ireland because of Sellafield, using facts figures and reports please disprove this!

Sometimes policians and governments keep things secret so as not to cause public alarm an all sure it will be grand attitude, a passing the buck attitude!

I dont know how anybody could defend the mess that is Sellafield and the waste they are exposing the Irish sea to and in turn Irish people! Theres no level of Radio Active leakage that is acceptable!

People are only happy when they have what they want consume at all costs forget about the planet, We will render it inhabitable by our consumption.

Hitchens

Curly Judge wrote: »

Just so I'm understanding you properly... what sort of nuclear explosion do you envision taking place in the UK that would make Ireland uninhabitable?
Can you explain by what mechanism that might take place?
Genuine question!

I suppose there are ways it could occur that I don't know about, something maybe not noticed until too late.

I was just wondering how our population would fare out if something did go wrong, would we all have to evacuate or would it be feasible to stay.

Curly Judge

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

We already have problems in Ireland because of Sellafield, using facts figures and reports please disprove this!

Sometimes policians and governments keep things secret so as not to cause public alarm an all sure it will be grand attitude, a passing the buck attitude!

I dont know how anybody could defend the mess that is Sellafield and the waste they are exposing the Irish sea to and in turn Irish people! Theres no level of Radio Active leakage that is acceptable!

People are only happy when they have what they want consume at all costs forget about the planet, We will render it inhabitable by our consumption.

You may well be right about destructive consumption destroying the planet but how has that got anything to do with nuclear power.
By the way Sellafield is a nuclear reprocessing plant , not a nuclear power plant.
And could you point to any measurable effect anything that has happened there has had on us. Apart,that is, from helping to get Arthur Morgan elected
several times.:D

Capt'n Midnight

Hitchens wrote: »

I suppose there are ways it could occur that I don't know about, something maybe not noticed until too late.

I was just wondering how our population would fare out if something did go wrong, would we all have to evacuate or would it be feasible to stay.

During Chernobyl the wind was blowing the wrong way.

The FUD answer is
The restrictions on upland sheep in the UK were lifted nine months ago

In 2012, consents were issued to lift controls from all farms remaining under restriction in England and Wales. These consents permit farmers to move sheep without the need for monitoring from 1 June 2012.

The realistic answer is to superimpose the exclusion / fallout zones from Chernobyl / Fukushima on top of the UK site. We won't have to evacuate.

It might affect tourism , it might affect farming exports. It's very unlikely that it would affect the pharmaceutical industry here. It's very unlikely that high levels of beta emitters could affect semiconductor manufacturer .

--Kaiser--

No

Some good, reasoned, non-hysterical debate going on in here. Keep up the good work

Capt'n Midnight

Finally some real costs on Nuclear in the UK

€5Bn per GW

€11.6c / KWh "nearly double the current market rate"

It's also likely to be delayed too

if after a preliminary investigation the EC's competition directorate decides to launch a full-scale investigation, that would last at least 18 months and probably two years or more.
...
A delay imposed by Brussels would cast new doubt on the £14bn project as it would be likely to make it harder for EDF to raise the capital needed until its contract with the government was fully approved.

€5Bn / GW is from £14bn for 3.2 gigawatt
€11.6c /KWh is from £100/MWh - compare that to http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx which shows our current market prices.


This is truly insane. Our wholesale only covers £100/MWh for about two and a half hours a day
http://imgur.com/ORrgmJe


The floor price for small wind here is €68.681 MWh so the €116/MWh for nuclear is nearly double the current market rate




Also financing the project will be harder.

Also I don't know if the price includes decommissioning or waste storage.

Curly Judge

No

Hitchens wrote: »

I suppose there are ways it could occur that I don't know about, something maybe not noticed until too late.

I was just wondering how our population would fare out if something did go wrong, would we all have to evacuate or would it be feasible to stay.

A very reasonable question and one I’ll try to answer to the best of my [limited] ability:

Apologies if this comes across as trying to teach you to suck eggs, but the first thing to get out of the way is the fact that a nuclear power station cannot explode like an atomic bomb. [Unless of course you bring your own atomic bomb in with you]
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were all chemical explosions.
While these were undesirable, unnecessary and strictly to be avoided, they were of limited power and consequence and did not leave any permanent scorched earth behind them that one could describe as the end of days.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other hand were nuclear explosions and killed thousands, disabled thousands more and left two cities devastated.
The first used uranium and the second a plutonium core.
One cannot imagine much worse happening to any place on earth but if you visit either of these two cities today you will find two thriving communities getting on with their lives rather than scenes from an apocalyptic Mad Max movie.
Not that I wish to downplay the dangers of radiation, we should always strive to keep it to a minimum, but it is possible that an unfounded fear of radiation is a far greater malaise than the actual stuff itself.
Some experts think that the stress and upheaval caused by evacuation of Chernobyl and Fukushima did more harm, especially to older people, than anything the radiation did, or might, do.
If, I was on the London Underground and it was announced over the emergency address system that terrorists had injected plutonium into the tunnels my initial reaction would be, “Thank God it isn’t Sarin.
Plutonium, while always to be treated with caution, at least is slow acting, only dangerous when ingested and amenable [to some extent] to decontamination.
It’s not the devil incarnate of substances, as proposed by some people.
It is actually a very valuable fuel!
Radiation is a complex phenomena: for instance, the maximum radiation experienced in the worst effected areas around Fukushima is only slightly more than half what the people of Ramsar in Iran experience. A place the locals refer to as “Paradise on Earth”.
People have been living there since time immemorial and have not been reduced to walking around with three heads and there are no reports of any fish from the Caspian glowing in the dark.

In short I cannot envisage a situation whereby a nuclear power station accident in the UK would cause anything more than a barely measurable rise in our cancer statistics together with some inconvenient [and unwelcome] effect on our food exports.
Now .. if one of their nuclear subs hit the Tusker and accidentally fired off all their tubes at us...that would be a horse of a different colour.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

Apologies if this comes across as trying to teach you to suck eggs, but the first thing to get out of the way is the fact that a nuclear power station cannot explode like an atomic bomb.

Not like an atomic bomb, but yes they can explode.

It's also worth noting that the promises that we get about the next generation of reactors being inherently safe are over 50 years over due.

It's also worth noting that this the time for the reactor to go critical was 1/250th of a second, far too fast for any intervention once it had started. So I'm taking the fusible plugs and thermal expansion stuff with a large pinch of salt. Yes the possibility of all the control rods being removed at the same time are very small.

Unless you don't have mechanical interlocks and someone's got a rootkit on your industrial controllers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

The SL-1, or Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, was a United States Army experimental nuclear power reactor which underwent a steam explosion and meltdown on January 3, 1961, killing its three operators.
...
this rod was suddenly withdrawn too far, causing SL-1 to go prompt critical instantly. In four milliseconds, the heat generated by the resulting enormous power surge caused water surrounding the core to begin to explosively vaporize
...
Today this is known as the "one stuck rod" criterion and requires complete shutdown capability even with the most reactive rod stuck in the fully withdrawn position.
...
The accident also showed that in a genuine, extreme accident, both the melting of the core and the water to steam conversion would shut down the nuclear reaction. This demonstrates in a real accident one aspect of inherent safety of the water-moderated design against the possibility of a nuclear explosion.

At the very worst a reactor would just be in nuclear bomb terms a fizzle and the China Syndrome isn't the worst thing that could happen.

Hitchens

Curly Judge and Capt'n Midnight, thanks for the above!

old hippy

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Assuming that was before the tsunami that damaged the nuclear site, I was wondering if Japan's use of nuclear power had put you off.
I have friends living in Japan and they love it as does my brother's wife who is Japanese and of course, like all of us, was devasted by the whole disaster, her family live there.

My earlier post was blunt and I apologise; the whole thing is appalling and a bigger protecting wall should have been built as recommended and it must be horrible for many, in particular for those who have had to leave their homes and can't yet return.
However, hard as it is, I still think it is important to try and look at things as they actually are and the sad fact is that coal takes an even bigger toll on us and the planet.

Ta. I first visited Japan around 10 years ago. There's plenty about it, I don't agree with. The death penalty, the patriarchal dominance, the US bases in Okinawa and yes, nuclear power. But it hasn't put me off. The good outweighs the bad.

I realise our reliance on fossil fuels is finite, I just worry that swapping it for nuclear power is creating another problem.

spankmemunkey

old hippy wrote: »

Ta. I first visited Japan around 10 years ago. There's plenty about it, I don't agree with. The death penalty, the patriarchal dominance, the US bases in Okinawa and yes, nuclear power. But it hasn't put me off. The good outweighs the bad.

I realise our reliance on fossil fuels is finite, I just worry that swapping it for nuclear power is creating another problem.

Just watching Sky News there on Fukashima, looks like its still leaking into the sea there and the fish now are all unedable due to the amount of radiation in them, yeah Nuclear power is great!

morlock_

Most supporters of Nuclear Energy don't seem to factor in the amount of energy invested and how much is returned EROI, much like the supporters of Oil Fracking and Tar Sands.

They don't understand that no matter how much oil there is, it is significantly more expensive to produce a barrel of oil from unconventional sources (fracking, tar sands, offshore) than pulling from the ground in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and other conventional sources.

Nuclear Energy isn't cheap, it never has been and never will be. Building reactors is an extremely energy intensive process. Uranium is a finite resource so it doesn't solve the worlds energy problem if we're all using Nuclear Energy, it's only a temporary solution.

Waste disposal is still a major problem and it's one the private sector wash their hands of. You can see this in US and UK where disposal costs are passed on to the tax payer. Hanford site in US is one example, proposed geological site in Cumbria, UK is another.

The waste is created by the private sector who then pass the problem on to the government, do you really want that in Ireland? Do you think we could trust any Irish government to deal with these problems? Don't even mention legislation...please, has it worked so far?

I've often laughed at the belief Fast Breeder reactors can solve that problem which is again another misunderstanding from the pro-nuclear camp.

Curly Judge

No

morlock_ wrote: »

Most supporters of Nuclear Energy don't seem to factor in the amount of energy invested and how much is returned EROI, much like the supporters of Oil Fracking and Tar Sands.

They don't understand that no matter how much oil there is, it is significantly more expensive to produce a barrel of oil from unconventional sources (fracking, tar sands, offshore) than pulling from the ground in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and other conventional sources.

Nuclear Energy isn't cheap, it never has been and never will be. Building reactors is an extremely energy intensive process. Uranium is a finite resource so it doesn't solve the worlds energy problem if we're all using Nuclear Energy, it's only a temporary solution.

Waste disposal is still a major problem and it's one the private sector wash their hands of. You can see this in US and UK where disposal costs are passed on to the tax payer. Hanford site in US is one example, proposed geological site in Cumbria, UK is another.

The waste is created by the private sector who then pass the problem on to the government, do you really want that in Ireland? Do you think we could trust any Irish government to deal with these problems? Don't even mention legislation...please, has it worked so far?

I've often laughed at the belief Fast Breeder reactors can solve that problem which is again another misunderstanding from the pro-nuclear camp.

I have worked out, to my own satisfaction, that the Fast Breeder Reactor is the way [or at least one of the ways] to go.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the misunderstanding I am labouring under that causes you such mirth?

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

I have worked out, to my own satisfaction, that the Fast Breeder Reactor is the way [or at least one of the ways] to go.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the misunderstanding I am labouring under that causes you such mirth?

Just a reminder, we've been producing plutonium in reactors since 1944 so there's bound to be a breakthrough any time soooon. Fast breeders have been around since 1951.

No one has got a fast breeder working economically/reliably yet.


EROEI was mentioned earlier, many of the alternative sources of uranium fall down on that too, especially if you want to ramp up nuclear power and provide fuel for decades.


But the critical factor in nuclear technology is Neutron Economy. If you aren't getting as many new neutrons as you consume then the reactor don't work. AFAIK it's one of the BIG problems with the thorium cycle.

It looks like thorium-232 could be converted to U-233 by both thermal and fast neutrons.

Some suggest using accelerators to provide the neutron deficit , but that totally scuppers the economics. And eats a lot of power.

My feeling is that thus far Thorium could be used to extend nuclear fuel in some reactors that produce an excess of neutrons. It's kinda like water injection used on some aircraft. You get more power, up to a point.

Capt'n Midnight

More on UK nuclear costs from the NY times.

It doesn't mention the investigation into competition so add another 2 years to the dates listed.

The political fallout is that it depends on giving a French company loads and loads of money and a guarantee of double the market price for the electricity. EDF want a 10% return on investment, the UK wants it closer to 8% and the deal could fall apart in the next month. If someone wants to explain how a difference of 2% could reduce the electricity costs to the market price I'd like to know.

There is little financial risk operating a nuke in the UK.
In the UK, the current maximum that a nuclear operator is liable is still only £140m.
That's 1% of the £14Bn price of the proposed plant. It's less than the £200m Centrica wrote off when they walked away from the project. It's a lot less than the £1Bn that EDF have already spent, and they are still spending £1m a day. Fukushima will cost 500 times this amount.

As of October 2012, approximately £9.4bn (1,335 bn yen) had been paid out in compensation as a result of the Fukushima accident and this is expected to double in the next year. At this stage the final cost can only be roughly estimated, but the utility company, Tepco, has suggested that cost for compensation and decontamination maybe in the order of £70bn (10 trillion yen).

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/energy-environment/britains-nuclear-plans-at-a-critical-point.html?pagewanted=1&ref=atomicenergy&_r=0

little has gone according to plan in this ambitious project, which is already more than four years behind schedule.
...
two big German utilities, RWE and E.On, decided not to proceed with construction of a plant that had been planned for Wales. The companies cited the costs and the uncertainty of getting a return on their investment.
...
EDF executives have complained that they are spending £1 million a day on a project that may never happen, which is why they are threatening to walk away if there is no deal by the end of the month.
...
The first two Areva E.P.R. plants, under construction at Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland, have been plagued by technical problems and huge cost overruns.