Nuclear Power

Capt'n Midnight

dolanbaker wrote: »

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG-update2013_long_18_03_2013.pdf

Recent report about Fossil Fuel / Uranium. Peak nuclear and all that.

Interesting bit on the actual working lives of reactors and then based on that how many plants are likely to be phased out in the next 20 years (90%)

Global electricity demand is on the increase, nuclear would have to expand rapidly just to cover the closure of existing plants, never mind grow at demand rate (ie. stay at current % of generation capacity) nevermind actually grow in the % of electricity delivered.

Baring new technology or major cost reductions nuclear will be at best a niche power source. There hasn't been any new technology in a long time, and some say that the reason that Asian reactors are on schedule compared to the delays/cost overruns in "the West" is that the latter are subject to safety changes.

Page 13 according to our analysis, the risk of a uranium supply gap for
nuclear reactors within the present decade is high.

Page 14.The energy contribution of nuclear fuels is too low in order to have any significant influence
at global level

Page 117 The average service life of reactors, which were brought into and (up to date) were taken out
of operation, is about 23 years (see Figure 104). This number is biased by a few reactors in
Germany and the USA which were taken out of service shortly after being brought online.
Not considering those reactors, the service life for most reactors was between fifteen and forty
years.
...
Page 118 - Figure 104 Shutdown age , also Figure 105 shows the age distribution of the nuclear power plant fleet. The blue bars show the
number of reactors of a certain age and the red squares indicate the net electrical capacity of
those reactors. Today the majority of the reactors (and capacity) in operation are more than 25
years old. Only 10 percent of the net electrical capacity is below 20 years of age. Considering
the age structure of reactors in Figure 105, the majority of operating reactors will be shut
down permanently within the next two decades.
...
Page 122 The new category defines resources recoverable at costs between 130 $/kgU – 260
$/kgU. Including the category added in 2009, the identified resources in the latest NEA 2011
report add up to a total of 7,097 kt uranium. That amounts to an increase of 50 percent
compared to the report of 2005 (all cost categories). When only counting resources
recoverable at <130 $/kgU, the increase between 2005 and 2011 is 12 percent.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh dear , strawman.

Of course it's a strawman argument.
Anything that challenges your overweening dominance on this site becomes, ipso facto, a strawman argument!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

50% of actual demand from wind happens
I've posted before that we have the backup already with over 6GW on this side of the border. With the new plants being built we'll peak at something just over 10GW dispatchable capacity by 2016.

Of course we have the backup to step in when wind lets us down. If we didn't we would end up lighting candles and praying.
It's no credit to wind that the backup is there. It was there before wind came on the scene and it will be there after it's gone.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Spinning reserve just isn't an issue. And while spinning means using some fuel it's nothing close to the amount used when you are generating.

Of course spinning reserve is an issue!
It's an issue because you have to have two machines to do the job one and one fifth machines would do otherwise.
Admittedly you'll save some fuel when wind decides to show up but when these conventional machines come to the end of their useful life they'll have to be replaced [and it will take slightly more than pin money to finance them] with the same again because wind, or any other conceivable rewnewable, still won't be able to cut the mustard.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

100% wind :rolleyes: - not unless we have ridiculous storage / interconnectivity AND denounce all other renewables including the contractually obliged waste to energy stuff and the CHP that's going to happen anyway

If you burned every scrap of waste this country produces you still are nowhere near the output needed to replace conventional fossil fuelled generation.
And I fail to see how CHP is going to add to the generating mix.
At most it'll do away with a few cooling towers.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

what if we had a nuke and it was offline for six months ?

How long was Turlough Hill down for recently?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Can you accept that nuclear needs spinning reserve for 100% of the power it is supplying ( one 1.6GW reactor + hydro would provide our summer night valley ). Can you accept that wind doesn't suddenly die off country wide. ( In general we've 4 days to prepare for new weather fronts )

No....I can not accept it.
This is the oldest trick in the anti nuclear arsenal!
Propose that we can only build a 1.6 GW reactor and then bore holes in that proposal.
Let us, for the sake of argument, say that the government were to decide to provide all of Ireland's base load requirements with nuclear.
You would have to design a nuclear set up to cater for this requirement of about 3,000MW.
Only a lunatic, or someone paid by the anti nuclear lobby, would propose building two 1,500MW reactors to cater for this base load.
If one reactor was to go down, or need to be shut down for servicing, it would throw the whole grid balance to the wolves.
This design of conventional fossil fuelled plant would not be even contemplated and neither would it's nuclear equivalent.
What you would need to design is a modular cluster of reactors of about 300 MW each. Say 12 by 300 MW giving a total of 3,600MW.
The extra 600MW could be used to cater for CM's famous tripping and routine servicing and refuelling.
So... nuclear power would not need 100% backup like wind, but 20% or there about, much the same as conventional fossil fuelled plant.

SeanW

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That's the point, normalising the exception is unacceptable.

Rather, I would say that the defences of the other plants in Japan were appropriate to the event. Though if it would increase safety, lessons learned from Fukushima, such as the placement of diesel generators, could be applied to other plants where needed.

Hindsight is a precise science. At which US plant did they build one of the two retrofitted walls backwards ? Captain Obvious could earn his pay in the nuclear industry.

Precisely, as it is in many industries - you repeat what worked and learn from what did not.

That is very important to remember. In a lot of cases the decision to use nuclear power has nothing to do with economics.

Not only was your decision to post about the accident in Kyshtym somewhat bizarre considering the accident had nothing to do with nuclear electricity whatsoever, it also seriously bolstered my central argument, which is this:
The former Soviet Union provides a textbook on how NOT to run a nuclear programme of any kind. Virtually everything they did was the exact opposite of how any kind of nuclear programme should be run, whether civilian or military.

What research ? They closed the last full scale one 30 years. All the basic research was done by the 1960's.
It's reinventing the wheel

BENE suggests a Babcock & Wilcox mPower until, projected to be ready in 2022, which will be available in increments of 180MW. Research into small-scale nuclear energy is ongoing.

Back in 2008 the 10MW version power costs were estimated at 15 cents to 25 cents per kWh in the study, Chaney said. Toshiba has estimated the cost of the 4S reactor at $25 million and that cost is with Toshiba picking up all the tabs.

I am assuming that the 50MW version would have economies of scale and be more suitable for mainstream use.

Lets remember that the UK are paying 10p (not 10c) a KWh because of economies of scale you get with a 1,600 MW reactor and thats still nearly double the market price.

Then the UK have obviously made an error somewhere because the RETAIL (i.e. delivered to the customer) price of electricity in France is less than €0.13 per unit, and that includes a nuclear decommissioning levy.
BTW the French electricity mix is ~90% non-fossil.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Can you accept that nuclear needs spinning reserve for 100% of the power it is supplying ( one 1.6GW reactor + hydro would provide our summer night valley ).

Funny you should accuse other people of making strawman arguments, when you seem to be the most prolific user of that tactic. Remind me again what they say about people in glass houses throwing stones? In case you failed to notice:
Noone is suggesting building EPRs in Ireland!!

Can we finally dispense with this myth falsehood?

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

If you burned every scrap of waste this country produces you still are nowhere near the output needed to replace conventional fossil fuelled generation.
And I fail to see how CHP is going to add to the generating mix.
At most it'll do away with a few cooling towers.

Half the time you complain that I want to keep fossil fuel, and the rest that I haven't found a way to replace it. You can't have it both ways.

Non wind Renewables are starting to scale up too.
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island%20GCS%202012-2021.pdf

Estimates give a current installed CHP capacity (mostly gas-fired) of roughly 141 MW in Ireland (not including the 161 MW centrally dispatched CHP plant operated by Aughinish Alumina).
38 MW of landfill gas powered generation
A new incentive (REFIT 3) for Biomass-fuelled CHP plant aims to have 150 MW installed by 2020.
It is estimated that there is currently 21 MW of small-scale hydro capacity installed in rivers and streams across Ireland,
There are also 77 MW of Waste to
Energy projects connected or due to connect over the next few years./QUOTE]

How long was Turlough Hill down for recently?

Do you mean the entire system or one of the four turbines ?
How many times do I have to remind you that like wind, nuclear relies a lot on pumped storage.

Let us, for the sake of argument, say that the government were to decide to provide all of Ireland's base load requirements with nuclear.
You would have to design a nuclear set up to cater for this requirement of about 3,000MW.
Only a lunatic, or someone paid by the anti nuclear lobby, would propose building two 1,500MW reactors to cater for this base load.

more straw
The reality of the situation is that there are a limited number of people who sell reactors and most are in 1GW+ size.
The new UK plant is 3,200MW

If one reactor was to go down, or need to be shut down for servicing, it would throw the whole grid balance to the wolves.
This design of conventional fossil fuelled plant would not be even contemplated and neither would it's nuclear equivalent.
What you would need to design is a modular cluster of reactors of about 300 MW each. Say 12 by 300 MW giving a total of 3,600MW.
The extra 600MW could be used to cater for CM's famous tripping and routine servicing and refuelling.
So... nuclear power would not need 100% backup like wind, but 20% or there about, much the same as conventional fossil fuelled plant.

I keep pointing out that no one makes commercial reactors that size anymore. This means we'd have to get one specially designed, specially made. And we'd be the guinea pigs for it's economics.


But lets' pretend we can get a kids size one, and that the R&D costs are zero and economies of scale don't apply. The UK reactors cost £12Bn for 3.2GW , the electricity costs 10p a unit, and total lifetime spend will be £88Bn and then you have to clean up. And that's if everything goes smoothly.


Or are you saying the UK couldn't get as good a deal as we're going to get ?

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Rather, I would say that the defences of the other plants in Japan were appropriate to the event. Though if it would increase safety, lessons learned from Fukushima, such as the placement of diesel generators, could be applied to other plants where needed.

Precisely, as it is in many industries - you repeat what worked and learn from what did not.

Fukushima only happened because of lessons not learnt from what happened in Blayais back in 1999 and even that would have been prevented had the 1982 report been acted upon or if someone had asked the simple question of "what's the worst that could happen what's the worst that has already happened"

It's like the space shuttle O-ring seals. You can treat damaged seals as meaning the seals protected you and so everything is fine but don't be surprised when you loose a shuttle. And then don't be surprised when later on you loose a second shuttle because you still have the "it'll be all right" culture. Engineers made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. ... NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting.

If you ignore the warnings then safety is a matter of luck and you can only be lucky for so long.


And the mantra of "we've learned the lesson it won't happen again" rings hollow when it's clear that the learning is reactive at best. Proactive safety would be nice. Explaining that Generation four reactors will have passive safety features is simply acknowledging how long it takes for the nuclear industry to react to events.

Not only was your decision to post about the accident in Kyshtym somewhat bizarre considering the accident had nothing to do with nuclear electricity whatsoever, it also seriously bolstered my central argument, which is this:
The former Soviet Union provides a textbook on how NOT to run a nuclear programme of any kind.

If you include the economics (and you have to) including the failed reactors (again you have to) then
UK , US , Japan , France , India also stand out as examples not to follow.
Countries that have ditched nuclear power are also examples not to follow.
Countries where the nuclear weapons are a major reason for having nuclear reactors are also examples not to follow

There are aren't many countries left and it's a simple matter of drilling down to find out the scary stuff.

BENE suggests a Babcock & Wilcox mPower until, projected to be ready in 2022, which will be available in increments of 180MW. Research into small-scale nuclear energy is ongoing.

2020 :rolleyes:
Until they build one it's vapourware.
Even then you'd have to wait to see the reliability and economics.
New reactor designs do not have a history of on time, on budget and reliable.


The B&W mPower™ reactor is a 180 MWe integral Pressurized Water Reactor (iPWR) that finds its beginnings with the prototype we built in 1968 for the Otto Haan merchant vessel
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreakOutTheMuseumPiece



This bit is wishful thinking. Membranes are more efficient and the lab stuff that is waiting to be commercialised uses far less energy.

Is B&W open to designing mPower plants which supply not only electricity but process steam for industrial use or for heat?

Yes. We don’t see that need as much in the U.S., but abroad there is definitely interest in process steam for heat as well as desalinization.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Half the time you complain that I want to keep fossil fuel, and the rest that I haven't found a way to replace it. You can't have it both ways.

Non wind Renewables are starting to scale up too.
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island%20GCS%202012-2021.pdf

Estimates give a current installed CHP capacity (mostly gas-fired) of roughly 141 MW in Ireland (not including the 161 MW centrally dispatched CHP plant operated by Aughinish Alumina).
38 MW of landfill gas powered generation
A new incentive (REFIT 3) for Biomass-fuelled CHP plant aims to have 150 MW installed by 2020.
It is estimated that there is currently 21 MW of small-scale hydro capacity installed in rivers and streams across Ireland,
There are also 77 MW of Waste to
Energy projects connected or due to connect over the next few years./QUOTE]


Do you mean the entire system or one of the four turbines ?
How many times do I have to remind you that like wind, nuclear relies a lot on pumped storage.




more straw
The reality of the situation is that there are a limited number of people who sell reactors and most are in 1GW+ size.
The new UK plant is 3,200MW


I keep pointing out that no one makes commercial reactors that size anymore. This means we'd have to get one specially designed, specially made. And we'd be the guinea pigs for it's economics.


But lets' pretend we can get a kids size one, and that the R&D costs are zero and economies of scale don't apply. The UK reactors cost £12Bn for 3.2GW , the electricity costs 10p a unit, and total lifetime spend will be £88Bn and then you have to clean up. And that's if everything goes smoothly.


Or are you saying the UK couldn't get as good a deal as we're going to get ?

So now we have it in a nutshell: every new development in nuclear is straw and vapour ware?
Micky Mouse developments in renewables are ground breaking technological achievements?

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

So now we have it in a nutshell: every new development in nuclear is straw and vapour ware?
Micky Mouse developments in renewables are ground breaking technological achievements?

What new development ?

The reactors that SeanW is promoting will be descended from a design that was up and running in 1968.





Most of the renewables stuff you've just quoted are on our grid producing energy. And they are dispatchable. So neither vapourware nor depend on the weather.



I've never made any bones that many of the new renewable technologies still have to be commercialised. The point is that even if most of them fail there is a good chance that the ones that succeed would be useful.

Some renewable technologies like solar can be tested in the lab and the problem becomes one of cost of production. Others like power towers need large scale pilot plants. With stuff that works like wind/tidal turbines it's an optimisation problem trying to get more value for money. Geothermal here is very expensive, but if someone figures a cheaper way of drilling holes and the fossil fuel industry is trying to do that every day.


Storage is the Holy Grail of renewables. While it's unlikely that anyone will figure out anything much cheaper than Hydro or CAES if they do then things get very interesting.



Nuclear on the other hand means we'd have to spend billions to get expensive electricity at some unspecified time in the future and that's if there are no problems or delays.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What new development ?

The reactors that SeanW is promoting will be descended from a design that was up and running in 1968.





Most of the renewables stuff you've just quoted are on our grid producing energy. And they are dispatchable. So neither vapourware nor depend on the weather.



I've never made any bones that many of the new renewable technologies still have to be commercialised. The point is that even if most of them fail there is a good chance that the ones that succeed would be useful.

Some renewable technologies like solar can be tested in the lab and the problem becomes one of cost of production. Others like power towers need large scale pilot plants. With stuff that works like wind/tidal turbines it's an optimisation problem trying to get more value for money. Geothermal here is very expensive, but if someone figures a cheaper way of drilling holes and the fossil fuel industry is trying to do that every day.


Storage is the Holy Grail of renewables. While it's unlikely that anyone will figure out anything much cheaper than Hydro or CAES if they do then things get very interesting.



Nuclear on the other hand means we'd have to spend billions to get expensive electricity at some unspecified time in the future and that's if there are no problems or delays.

Just in case any of you are mislead by CW's puff pieces, here is a list of some of the research and development going on in the nuclear world.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UVQD_hyjcuM

SeanW

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Explaining that Generation four reactors will have passive safety features is simply acknowledging how long it takes for the nuclear industry to react to events.

Whatever about the rest of your contributions (and that stuff about osmosis membranes sounds like wishful thinking twaddle, far more than you can accuse any nuclear advocate of), this part is particularly egregious. If there's a nuclear reactor design with passive safety features, it only makes sense to use it regardless of how good or bad the nuclear industry is.

Consider: you're building a house and you really treasure your belongings so you want to make the house fireproof. You can use two methodologies to achieve this:
Active safety:
You don't necessarily pay attention to materials so the house gets built of untreated wood and festooned with cheap fabrics everywhere. However, you install a commercial fire alarm system, a high pressure sprinkler system and put fire blankets and fire extinguishers all over the place, as well as an intercom to the local fire station.
Passive safety:
You build the house entirely out of stone and metal. The walls are cement block, the ceiling is precast concrete and the roof beams are made of steel. You do not allow wood flooring and any textiles (carpets, curtains, furniture etc) are treated with flame retardents.

If you chose to depend solely on Active safety, you basically followed the route of the Soviet Union in building RBMK reactors. And, like the RBMK works until someone screws it up really badly, your house is going to be "fireproof" until your chain smoking granny comes to visit, the power fails (taking out your sprinklers etc) and she falls asleep with two cigarettes falling out of her mouth onto your guest bed. After that you're going to be roasting marshmallows over the charred remains of your house and posessions.

If you include the economics (and you have to) including the failed reactors (again you have to) then
UK , US , Japan , France , India also stand out as examples not to follow.
Countries that have ditched nuclear power are also examples not to follow.
Countries where the nuclear weapons are a major reason for having nuclear reactors are also examples not to follow

That's a fairly broad brush you have there. Yet, if you do not see how the Soviet Union was a particularly special case, you either don't know what you're talking about, or more likely don't care.

2020 :rolleyes:
Until they build one it's vapourware.
Even then you'd have to wait to see the reliability and economics.
New reactor designs do not have a history of on time, on budget and reliable.

Even if I accepted that I'd still consider it more likely to solve energy problems than any of your renewables stuff including anything that currently exists today or your osmotic membranes or whatever they are.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

Just in case any of you are mislead by CW's puff pieces, here is a list of some of the research and development going on in the nuclear world.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UVQD_hyjcuM

Again what is new ?

Did you read the dates ?

The first paragraph says it all. Big reactors have economies of scale. So small reactors will cost more than the 10p per unit the neighbours are paying. And more importantly despite having hundreds of reactors of different types in warships since the 1950's none of them are commercially available. Most other military transport tech has filtered into civilian use, gps, jet engine families, satellite technology, helicopters. The only stuff that hasn't is the stuff that's too dangerous , expensive or of no use to civilians.

As nuclear power generation has become established since the 1950s, the size of reactor units has grown from 60 MWe to more than 1600 MWe, with corresponding economies of scale in operation. At the same time there have been many hundreds of smaller power reactors built for naval use (up to 190 MW thermal) and as neutron sourcesa, yielding enormous expertise in the engineering of small units.

A 2009 assessment by the IAEA under its Innovative Nuclear Power Reactors & Fuel Cycle (INPRO) program concluded that there could be 96 small modular reactors (SMRs) in operation around the world by 2030 in its 'high' case, and 43 units in the 'low' case, none of them in the USA.
...
it points out that detailed engineering data for most small reactor designs are only 10 to 20 percent complete, only limited cost data are available, and no US factory has advanced beyond the planning stages.
...

96 units world wide was the high case before Fukushima. That's less than 6 a year. And they are small. This is at best a niche solution for places with high fossil fuel transport costs. It is not going to replace base load electricity generation.

20% of a design is vapourware, especially when you are basing it on existing military reactors most of which generate electricity.



mpower at least now has a price of Overnight cost for a twin-unit plant is put by B&W at about $5000/kW. which I think is a morketing cost at this stage of the development cycle. Regardless the main cost is the price of electricity. The UK are paying €5000/KW for their plant =£12Bn but they'll actually pay £88Bn over the life of the plant.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

If there's a nuclear reactor design with passive safety features, it only makes sense to use it regardless of how good or bad the nuclear industry is.

You are completely missing the point.

You can't bolt on safety. It has to be in the original design and in the industry culture. I might feel more good will to the passive safety features offered in the next generation of reactors if they actually showed that safety was a concern by sorting out the known problems in the existing ones.

Even if I accepted that I'd still consider it more likely to solve energy problems than any of your renewables stuff including anything that currently exists today or your osmotic membranes or whatever they are.

Look back and you'll see that I've only claimed that if commercialised it would provide a step increase in our hydro electric. But every little counts.



Nuclear is a way to make something hot and then you've to extract energy from it. Geothermal is similar but at present drilling costs here are OMG. In Kenya and Ethiopia it's far more attractive, and the market for nuclear shrinks a bit. Molten salt has been mentioned before as a panacea. But an easy way to get molten salt is with sunlight and mirrors. Bonus points because you can store the heat for night time electrical generation.

Meanwhile in Ireland we have world class wind, wave and tides to extract energy from.


Tidal power works, Korea are investing in it. They now have the worlds biggest tidal power station.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/03/25/korea-tidalpower-idINTOE62O04K20100325

And yes tidal power stations only have a ~25% duty cycle ( unless you have a handy dual bay like New Zealand) but over here our tides don't all happen at the same time and besides you can predict tides yonks in advance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amfidromieen.JPG - white lines are an hour apart

This is a very interesting article as it basically says that nuclear in the UK should come in at 9p a unit to be competitive with wind / gas + carbon storage. Thing is the subsidy for wind runs out in 20 years but the contract for nuclear is AFAIK 35 years.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/column-wynn-nuclear-cost-idINL6N0BJ9JW20130314


Here is the kicker
German solar is inefficient except for one little fly in the ointment, it reduced peak demand, and so reduced the price utilities could charge so overall it benefits consumers. It's this effect that erodes the market price.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/energy-renewable-idINL5E8E11VV20120302


If we were to insulate apartments and offices to reduce electrical demand it would almost certainly be cheaper than going nuclear. It is a criminal shame that the recent housing standards (and shared ducting) weren't introduced during the boom.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You are completely missing the point.

You can't bolt on safety. It has to be in the original design and in the industry culture. I might feel more good will to the passive safety features offered in the next generation of reactors if they actually showed that safety was a concern by sorting out the known problems in the existing ones.


Look back and you'll see that I've only claimed that if commercialised it would provide a step increase in our hydro electric. But every little counts.



Nuclear is a way to make something hot and then you've to extract energy from it. Geothermal is similar but at present drilling costs here are OMG. In Kenya and Ethiopia it's far more attractive, and the market for nuclear shrinks a bit. Molten salt has been mentioned before as a panacea. But an easy way to get molten salt is with sunlight and mirrors. Bonus points because you can store the heat for night time electrical generation.

Meanwhile in Ireland we have world class wind, wave and tides to extract energy from.


Tidal power works, Korea are investing in it. They now have the worlds biggest tidal power station.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/03/25/korea-tidalpower-idINTOE62O04K20100325

And yes tidal power stations only have a ~25% duty cycle ( unless you have a handy dual bay like New Zealand) but over here our tides don't all happen at the same time and besides you can predict tides yonks in advance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amfidromieen.JPG - white lines are an hour apart

This is a very interesting article as it basically says that nuclear in the UK should come in at 9p a unit to be competitive with wind / gas + carbon storage. Thing is the subsidy for wind runs out in 20 years but the contract for nuclear is AFAIK 35 years.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/column-wynn-nuclear-cost-idINL6N0BJ9JW20130314


Here is the kicker
German solar is inefficient except for one little fly in the ointment, it reduced peak demand, and so reduced the price utilities could charge so overall it benefits consumers. It's this effect that erodes the market price.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/energy-renewable-idINL5E8E11VV20120302


If we were to insulate apartments and offices to reduce electrical demand it would almost certainly be cheaper than going nuclear. It is a criminal shame that the recent housing standards (and shared ducting) weren't introduced during the boom.

Can you name me two places in the Republic of Ireland which are suitable for tidal?

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

Can you name me two places in the Republic of Ireland which are suitable for tidal?

Love the way you add ROI because you know NI already has tidal turbines in Strangford Lough And plans to add lots more. This one by Bord Gáis

From the UK maps, because tides don't magically stop at the border
Blue areas near Malin head - Inishstrahull Sound.
http://www.detini.gov.uk/rlg_-_figure_6.3_-_tidal_1_key_interactions.pdf

This would suggest the Arklow bank (room for lots of offshore wind there too)
http://www.detini.gov.uk/part_3_-_page23-37.pdf

More on Arklow / Codling bank
http://www.marine.ie/home/services/operational/oceanenergy/Tidal+Energy.htm


More here too


http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Renewables_Publications_/Ocean/Tidal_Current_Energy_Resources_in_Ireland_Report.pdf - Page 6 for likely locations / power outputs , says that perhaps 6% of our electricity from tidal turbines.


Page 80 gives the costs and with the present technology it's much cheaper to do it in NI. But note that the UK is paying 11.8c/kWh for nuclear which is above most of the schemes identified down here



Page 28 gives an idea of the heights available for barrages , but that's another story

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Love the way you add ROI because you know NI already has tidal turbines in Strangford Lough And plans to add lots more. This one by Bord Gáis

From the UK maps, because tides don't magically stop at the border
Blue areas near Malin head - Inishstrahull Sound.
http://www.detini.gov.uk/rlg_-_figure_6.3_-_tidal_1_key_interactions.pdf

This would suggest the Arklow bank (room for lots of offshore wind there too)
http://www.detini.gov.uk/part_3_-_page23-37.pdf

More on Arklow / Codling bank
http://www.marine.ie/home/services/operational/oceanenergy/Tidal+Energy.htm


More here too


http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Renewables_Publications_/Ocean/Tidal_Current_Energy_Resources_in_Ireland_Report.pdf - Page 6 for likely locations / power outputs , says that perhaps 6% of our electricity from tidal turbines.


Page 80 gives the costs and with the present technology it's much cheaper to do it in NI. But note that the UK is paying 11.8c/kWh for nuclear which is above most of the schemes identified down here



Page 28 gives an idea of the heights available for barrages , but that's another story

So .... the short answer is.... you can't.
Even the puff piece by the well endowed SEAI couldn't produce anything in their conclusions [page 80], except holding the hand out for more funds so that they could root around in the hope of turning something up.
Not one MW has been created in this country from either tide or wave.
That's real vapour ware for you!

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

So .... the short answer is.... you can't.
Even the puff piece by the well endowed SEAI couldn't produce anything in their conclusions [page 80], except holding the hand out for more funds so that they could root around in the hope of turning something up.
Not one MW has been created in this country from either tide or wave.
That's real vapour ware for you!

Love it

tidal won't work in ROI :eek:

conveniently skipping the bits that it's twice as cheap across the border and we have an single market on the island and it's a southern company doing one of the tidal schemes

so yes some of the energy on the grid comes from tidal

moving goalposts much ?

Page 80 gives the costs and with the present technology it's much cheaper to do it in NI. But note that the UK is paying 11.8c/kWh for nuclear which is above most of the schemes identified down here

Anyway it's one of many technologies and they all add up. Like it or not increasing renewables are the future. Tidal isn't going to solve our energy needs (unless we can persuade the neighbours to let us build and run a Severn Barrage)


Nuclear is a one trick pony. Base load at a huge price. 70 years of economically extractable uranium at current usage rates. If usage goes up then the price will too.


Any argument about the price of fossil fuel going up don't matter because that just makes renewables more attractive.



http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-faces-fines-over-lag-in-renewable-energy-29159864.html

Taxpayers could face a bill of hundreds of millions of euro per year if we don't ensure that 40pc of our electricity demand comes from renewable sources by 2020.
...
But he said failure to meet the deadline will result in non-compliance costs potentially amounting to between €100m and €150m per year, for each percentage shortfall in renewable energy, and a further €250m in emissions permit purchases.

Capt'n Midnight

The myth is that renewables need backup, the reality is that renewables will have to pay a surcharge to provide backup for nuclear. Because the new UK nuclear plant is so big there is going to be a £160m a year surcharge on everyone else for standby generation.


And in yet another "you couldn't make it up" the article mentions that in 2011 the EDF plant in Torness went off line because of .... jellyfish



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors

National Grid said its decision to charge all generators for the cost was because "increasing costs on larger users could delay the commissioning of large nuclear plants by a number of years".

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The myth is that renewables need backup,

Is English your first language?
If so, could you please explain what that sentence means?

SeanW

No

Curly Judge wrote: »

Is English your first language?
If so, could you please explain what that sentence means?

My thoughts exactly.

Frankly CM, if it is your contention that the fact that wind, solar etc require backup is a "myth" then TBH I am going to have a very hard time taking you seriously.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

My thoughts exactly.

Frankly CM, if it is your contention that the fact that wind, solar etc require backup is a "myth" then TBH I am going to have a very hard time taking you seriously.

Of course they need backup

but they need less backup than is already needed for other power sources on the grid so no additional backup is needed.

I've been saying all along that nuclear and wind need backup. The difference is that nuclear needs online backup to cover 100% of the power produced. I hadn't realised that it could add another billion £ in just over six years for ONE plant. It possible that that one EDF plant will cost more than all the UK renewable subsidies over it's lifetime, add it's clean up and the Sellafield one and it's very likely.

Wind only needs back up for the largest output of the largest windfarm. The largest windfarm here is less than 90MW, and we know four days in advance what fraction of it's nameplating rating it'll be outputting. Until we get huge farms the backup we need to cover other generators will be much larger. So covering for wind farm failure is essentially zero cost.


yes we need thermal or other plants to cover for low wind times but we have loads of that and when we use it it's producing power.

Not like the spinning reserve for nuclear which is just wearing out the turbines on the off chance that power plant will get taken off line by birds or rats or jellyfish or a transformer failure or a flood or sensor activated SCRAM or the effects of corrosion or whathave you




Just to restate my recent posts.
UK nuclear is still nearly twice the market price
EDF will get something like £88 bn over the life of the plant
AND it's getting another £160 million a year subsidy form the other suppliers
So nuclear is not cheap.


AND we could get hit with a couple of hundred million euro in fines if we don't meet our renewable targets.
So renewables look more attractive.

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Of course they need backup

but they need less backup than is already needed for other power sources on the grid so no additional backup is needed.

I've been saying all along that nuclear and wind need backup. The difference is that nuclear needs online backup to cover 100% of the power produced. I hadn't realised that it could add another billion £ in just over six years for ONE plant. It possible that that one EDF plant will cost more than all the UK renewable subsidies over it's lifetime, add it's clean up and the Sellafield one and it's very likely.

Wind only needs back up for the largest output of the largest windfarm. The largest windfarm here is less than 90MW, and we know four days in advance what fraction of it's nameplating rating it'll be outputting. Until we get huge farms the backup we need to cover other generators will be much larger. So covering for wind farm failure is essentially zero cost.


yes we need thermal or other plants to cover for low wind times but we have loads of that and when we use it it's producing power.

Not like the spinning reserve for nuclear which is just wearing out the turbines on the off chance that power plant will get taken off line by birds or rats or jellyfish or a transformer failure or a flood or sensor activated SCRAM or the effects of corrosion or whathave you




Just to restate my recent posts.
UK nuclear is still nearly twice the market price
EDF will get something like £88 bn over the life of the plant
AND it's getting another £160 million a year subsidy form the other suppliers
So nuclear is not cheap.


AND we could get hit with a couple of hundred million euro in fines if we don't meet our renewable targets.
So renewables look more attractive.

This is like arguing with a Jehovah Witness.
The whole thing is becoming increasingly ridiculous, incoherent and convoluted.

ryanch09

I remain neutral on this, as we should also take into account the two main types of nuclear energy:

1. The one that's mainly used, nuclear fission, is the one that has the most potential to cause harm if an accident were to occur.

2. Nuclear fusion, less known, is different to fission in that instead of splitting an atom, you're fusing them together, its altogether very safe as there is no chance of an out of control reaction and if there is any damage to reactor parts, such as disruption to power, the heat just dissipates. Also, there is little to none nuclear waste produced from this type of energy. I don't know too much about this but the reason we don't use nuclear fusion as much is because it's still in early development as a source of energy.

So if you were to ask me whether I was for or against it? I'd say if it were nuclear fusion, then I'm fine with it, but nuclear fission? Then I'd be a bit uncomfortable living anywhere near it.

Note: I don't claim to be knowledgeable in nuclear physics, so I may be slightly wrong on the above

Funk It

ryanch09 wrote: »

I remain neutral on this, as we should also take into account the two main types of nuclear energy:

1. The one that's mainly used, nuclear fission, is the one that has the most potential to cause harm if an accident were to occur.

2. Nuclear fusion, less known, is different to fission in that instead of splitting an atom, you're fusing them together, its altogether very safe as there is no chance of an out of control reaction and if there is any damage to reactor parts, such as disruption to power, the heat just dissipates. Also, there is little to none nuclear waste produced from this type of energy. I don't know too much about this but the reason we don't use nuclear fusion as much is because it's still in early development as a source of energy.

So if you were to ask me whether I was for or against it? I'd say if it were nuclear fusion, then I'm fine with it, but nuclear fission? Then I'd be a bit uncomfortable living anywhere near it.

Note: I don't claim to be knowledgeable in nuclear physics, so I may be slightly wrong on the above

Only problem with Nuclear Fusion is that it seems to always be 30 years away. Once it is cracked it will undoubtedly solve a lot of energy problems on this earth.

With a lot of renewable technologies being dependent on intermittent resources the key is obviously energy storage, with solar storage systems due to peak after another few years
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/solar-storage-market-set-for-rapid-growth

Thought this was interesting as well
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/energy-storage-series-making-the-case-for-batteries

RandomName2

No

Pottler wrote: »

I know. All bollox as well. "As long as we control nature, eliminate terrorism, eliminate human error and accidents, It's all good". Hmm. Ok.:)

Chernobyl was a badly built, badly run, badly managed very large nuclear power station in a crumbling Soviet Union.

Fcukyoushima was hit by an earthquake. Then a tsunami. It then blew up and had a small meltdown. 1 person died.

I think the safety record of nuclear power over the course of over half a century actually speaks for itself.

RainboWarrior

The solution to the energy crisis is political not technological. Over 100 years ago, Nicola Tesla invented the technology to tap into the Earth's natural electrical power (which if not utilised, is wasted as lightning bolts). The blueprints for this and other Tesla inventions have been suppressed by the Global elite ever since. As their ultimate goal is a Global fascist system (run by themselves of course) with the population culled from around 6 billion to around 500 thousand brainwashed slaves, it is not in their interest to see man's problems solved.
Since Tesla was the greatest inventor of the 20th Century if not of all time, (Alternating current, radio, remote control and free energy) he would be more famous than Edison were it not for the suppression of his name and inventions.
For a brief overview of his life and achievements, here's the first of a 4 part biographical video off youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrjMjFROCU

Dude111

Its dangerous and should all be abandonend!!!!

Capt'n Midnight

ryanch09 wrote: »

2. Nuclear fusion, less known, is different to fission in that instead of splitting an atom, you're fusing them together, its altogether very safe as there is no chance of an out of control reaction and if there is any damage to reactor parts, such as disruption to power, the heat just dissipates. Also, there is little to none nuclear waste produced from this type of energy. I don't know too much about this but the reason we don't use nuclear fusion as much is because it's still in early development as a source of energy.

At present the reactor parts do get radioactive because tritium is used , compared to the amount of stuff that gets radioactive in a fission reactor or in reprocessing it's negligible. And besides tritium isn't the fuel of choice it's just easier to get going during the research phase.

but that's about it. fusion takes place in a plasma so the amount of material in the reactor is tiny

The main down side with fusion is that it's still a long time away

there is the other gotcha which the likes of Steorn and their Orbo "our model is trapezoid" hand waving device face, it still has to be cheaper than renewables when/if it eventually arrives

Curly Judge

No

Dude111 wrote: »

Its dangerous and should all be abandonend!!!!

A succinct and well balanced argument.
Thanks for contributing it.

Tomk1

No

Dude111 wrote: »

Its dangerous and should all be abandonend!!!!

Yeah cars should be abandoned, man more people have died from falling out of bed, beds shold be banned.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

This is like arguing with a Jehovah Witness.
The whole thing is becoming increasingly ridiculous, incoherent and convoluted.

You are just upset that after years of arguing real numbers have come from the UK and they completely undermine all your economic arguments.

Nuclear power is very easy to discredit, just dig around the story and some WTF will pop up.



You are upset because I can casually show large numbers of recent incidents worldwide that affect power production, many involving huge costs

You are upset that I keep pointing out that only the Scandanavians have a proper waste repository and that this will affect future economics

You are upset because when you play the new technology card I show that it was tried in the 60's. (btw. Oklo shows that reactor physics hasn't changed in two billion years so that breakthrough might take a while)




I've been providing specific examples of non-conformances at large numbers of plants. I've been showing that a lot of failures are not events out of the blue as near misses or similar faults have happened at other plants. There's less than 500 power reactors world wide. Look at how many I've named in recent events. Work out the stats. Also doesn't show them getting more reliable



Safety is a red herring because nuclear power isn't even economic or reliable. It's like claiming that coal powered trains are safe.

We can argue till the cows come whether SCRAMs are an indication of safety systems working or why it had to come to that, what we can't argue over is that they happen a lot and take the reactor offline. And you need to keep other turbines turning at £160m a year to cover for that.


Figure a cost of one million to preserve a human life in the HSE / road safety , multiply that by the fraction of government spending on them and you get a very rough figure for how many lives might be lost if funds are diverted. ( Yes I think those who are responsible for the economic mess indirectly have second hand blood on their hands )


As for safety - the attitude is blasé , Do I have to remind you how many tonnes of material BNFL "lost" for nine months ? (good thing there wasn't a leak in the sump) what counts more is that reactors can go offline at the drop of a hat.



Meanwhile renewable technology marches on.

fullgas

The inconsistent formatting of posts on this thread is making my head explode.