Nuclear Power

Calibos

No

I'm for Nuclear power but against it in Ireland, not for any NIMBY reasons but purely economies of scale. We should concentrate on Wind and Wave because we have a lot of that. France, UK and Germany should concentrate on Nuclear. The Scandanavians on Hydro, The Spanish on Solar etc. Large Europe wide interconnector network and we all benefit from everyone elses speciality

andrew

No

This article provides a brief overview of how many reactors are on their out, and how many are on their way in, and where. There's more out than in, but still a decent amount will be coming on line.

Gbear

No

Calibos wrote: »

I'm for Nuclear power but against it in Ireland, not for any NIMBY reasons but purely economies of scale. We should concentrate on Wind and Wave because we have a lot of that. France, UK and Germany should concentrate on Nuclear. The Scandanavians on Hydro, The Spanish on Solar etc. Large Europe wide interconnector network and we all benefit from everyone elses speciality

We'd still need baseload power and wind is **** at that (not sure what wave is like).

twinytwo

ted1 wrote: »

yes, but they exploring ways of cotaining the heat, magnetic fields are being explored.

Is this even even possible though? i though that excessive heat destroys magnetic properties, and even if id did work the energy required to maintain such a magnet would be astronomical

NTMK

No

twinytwo wrote: »

Is this even even possible though? i though that excessive heat destroys magnetic properties, and even if id did work the energy required to maintain such a magnet would be astronomical

Its possible magnetic fields contain heat very well. the energy to maintain them is pretty huge but the idea is that once fusion occurs the magnets would get their energy from the reactor itself

Calibos

No

Gbear wrote: »

We'd still need baseload power and wind is **** at that (not sure what wave is like).

I didn't mean we switch all our power generation to wind and wave. I meant the interconnectors allow us to export the bulk of it to other european countries to fill their renewable requirements and a small bit of our own, we import nuclear from them to fullfill some of our baseload etc. Spain imports our wind when its cloudy there, we import some of their solar when its windless here to fulfill our renewable requirement etc etc.

ted1

No

Calibos wrote: »

Spain imports our wind when its cloudy there, we import some of their solar when its windless here to fulfill our renewable requirement etc etc.

We could email it to them. Seriously what kind of line losses would we get over that distance, seen as how we subsidise our wind energy via PSO levies AMD given them priority over cheaper energy, what kind of price would we sell it for.

Capt'n Midnight

twinytwo wrote: »

even if id did work the energy required to maintain such a magnet would be astronomical

you'd need some sort of fusion reactor to provide that much energy :pac:



actually this is true. we've achieved short bursts of fusion , but haven't yet got back as much energy as was put in

Gbear wrote: »

We'd still need baseload power and wind is **** at that (not sure what wave is like).

There are two 500MW interconnector linking this island to Scotland and Wales
Eirgrid have proposed a third one to Wales.


Wave is intermittent like wind. And like wind it's predictable. We tend to get wave power arriving after wind. Storm generates waves, storm gets here before the waves. Also in general our ability to predict weather grows by one day a decade.

Todays three day forecasts are as good as 48 hr forecasts a decade ago, and with the satellites and supercomputers as good as four day forecasts will be a decade hence.

Tidal power is generally predictable years in advance, of course you have to allow for storm surges but I'm guessing that any time tidal power is reduced because of the weather that wind and wave will more than pick up the difference. I still don't have definitive info on the 300MW tidal planned for Northern Ireland. But we could power our island from tidal barrages on a few estuaries on GB east cost, Severn and a few others. I don't have figures for a Shannon barrage but it would be pretty big too. http://www.irishtimes.com/weather/tides.html Limerick Docks will have a tidal height of 6m twice today.

Capt'n Midnight

ted1 wrote: »

We could email it to them. Seriously what kind of line losses would we get over that distance, seen as how we subsidise our wind energy via PSO levies AMD given them priority over cheaper energy, what kind of price would we sell it for.

Line losses don't really matter if it's better to sell some of the electricity than have it go to waste.

Here is a real world example - this cable would get to France from here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed

NorNed is a 580-kilometre (360 mi) long HVDC submarine power cable between Feda in Norway and the seaport of Eemshaven in the Netherlands, which interconnects both countries' electricity grids.
...
After two months of operation, the cable generated revenues of approximately € 50 million, meaning that in two months’ time, 8% of the total costs of the cable have been recovered.

Gbear

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wave is intermittent like wind. And like wind it's predictable. We tend to get wave power arriving after wind. Storm generates waves, storm gets here before the waves. Also in general our ability to predict weather grows by one day a decade.

Todays three day forecasts are as good as 48 hr forecasts a decade ago, and with the satellites and supercomputers as good as four day forecasts will be a decade hence.

Tidal power is generally predictable years in advance, of course you have to allow for storm surges but I'm guessing that any time tidal power is reduced because of the weather that wind and wave will more than pick up the difference. I still don't have definitive info on the 300MW tidal planned for Northern Ireland. But we could power our island from tidal barrages on a few estuaries on GB east cost, Severn and a few others. I don't have figures for a Shannon barrage but it would be pretty big too. http://www.irishtimes.com/weather/tides.html Limerick Docks will have a tidal height of 6m twice today.

I know you were just giving an example but storms are no good for wind power. If it gets too windy, they can be damaged if they're not turned off.
I'm not sure if the same applies to wave.
With advances in wind turbine design and materials technology and even more importantly, efficient and cheap energy storage I can easily see wind eventually being useful, but right now I have serious doubts about it's efficacy and certainly it's cost-effectiveness.




I have a few problems with the anti-nuclear stance based on waste.

For starters, even though we can hear alarming figures of the amount of waste that exists uranium is not an everyday material.
Uranium has a density of about 19g/cm3. Something the size of a fridge weighs about 20 tonnes! That means it takes up **** all space.

Finding somewhere to dump it really shouldn't be an issue. There's a whole lotta world and very little in volume of waste.

Additionally, the "it has to be able to be stored for 100 thousand years" line just strikes me as nonsense. In this case, I'm all in favour of kicking the can down the road if needs be.
We have or nearly have the technology to use waste as fuel. I would imagine that, while it's more expensive to use reprocessed fuel than freshly mined stuff, it's probably cheaper to use reprocessed fuel than having to dig a big hole and bury it safely.

Technology is going to change in unimaginable ways in the next 100 years. We don't need to be planning for such ridiculous lengths of time.


The only valid arguments I've really encountered against nuclear power in general are ones of economics. I don't know if nuclear power is economically viable. If we take fossil fuels out of the equation (because we have to) I think nuclear seems to stack up pretty well against what's left. The problem seems to be the large capital expenditure.

I would imagine though, seeing as capital expenditure is a good way of jump-starting the economy in times of recession, something like replacing fossil fuel with nuclear would be one way to do that.

Capt'n Midnight

Gbear wrote: »

I have a few problems with the anti-nuclear stance based on waste.

For starters, even though we can hear alarming figures of the amount of waste that exists uranium is not an everyday material.
Uranium has a density of about 19g/cm3. Something the size of a fridge weighs about 20 tonnes! That means it takes up **** all space.

BNFL were dumping two million gallons of low level radioactive waste into the Irish sea every day.

Also the density changes with temperature, when the fuel decays to other elements you have to take into account their densities and chemistries, it puts a limit on how hot you can run your reactor. It also explains the problems had over time with fuel rods. And since a reactor is essentially just used to boil water the overall efficiency depends almost entirely on the temperature. ( this is why CCGT fossil fuel plants are nearly twice as efficient as older fossil fuel plants )

IF the thorium cycle were to be got working and you could make an actinide burner and there was no reprocessing and you ignore all the material that it comes into contact then maybe , just maybe you might be talking about a fridge

But barely 0.5% of natural uranium is used so lots more radioative material

Finding somewhere to dump it really shouldn't be an issue. There's a whole lotta world and very little in volume of waste.

We should dump it in the Amazon rain forest. Because the radiation wouldn't be as bad as the loggers, gold miners and ranchers.

Additionally, the "it has to be able to be stored for 100 thousand years" line just strikes me as nonsense. In this case, I'm all in favour of kicking the can down the road if needs be.
We have or nearly have the technology to use waste as fuel. I would imagine that, while it's more expensive to use reprocessed fuel than freshly mined stuff, it's probably cheaper to use reprocessed fuel than having to dig a big hole and bury it safely.

LOL
We've been separating out uranium isotopes and extracting plutonium and separating waste since 1944. You are dreaming if you think that the process will suddenly become more efficient. We've used up most of the easy uranium, including the ex-Soviet nuclear warheads. Reprocessing is very energy intensive and generates lots of low level waste, despite all the waffle about breeder reactors no one has made one with an uptime of more than 8%. Reprocessing is a example of diminishing returns. It's like a hybrid car. You do get a higher mpg but it's not that much higher than the best alternatives expecially if you factor in the extra inputs.

Technology is going to change in unimaginable ways in the next 100 years. We don't need to be planning for such ridiculous lengths of time.

Unless you have a neutron accelerator you can't do much about radioactive waste other than pretend it won't be a problem.

To be blunt nuclear reactors are based on the principle that if you have more than the critical mass of a fissile material in one place it gets hot. You have a moderator to make it go faster and control rods to make it go slower. A circulating fluid takes the heat away. We've had this technology for 69 years and despite billions being pumped into improving it there have been few improvements of note since.

As I keep saying solar panels costs are decreasing 7% every year.
LED's are falling in price by a factor of 10 every decade so less power needed ( If only we had insisted on good insulation on buildings built in the boom )

The only valid arguments I've really encountered against nuclear power in general are ones of economics. I don't know if nuclear power is economically viable. If we take fossil fuels out of the equation (because we have to) I think nuclear seems to stack up pretty well against what's left. The problem seems to be the large capital expenditure.

I would imagine though, seeing as capital expenditure is a good way of jump-starting the economy in times of recession, something like replacing fossil fuel with nuclear would be one way to do that.

No one knows if Nuclear is economic because there aren't any reliable whole life mine/repository/decomissioning figures

IMHO many of the arguments for long term nuclear are based on external energy inputs. Economically recoverable uranium is good for 70 years at 14% of the worlds electricity demand. Or 14 years at 70% demand... Other schemes like nuclear from seawater require lots of fossil fuel inputs for adsorption mats.


Nuclear power costs a lot of money because big companies charge a lot.


Oddly you rarely hear about the cheapest form of concentrating uranium known. Bio accumulation, we know it works because it happened in Oklo. But there is far more money in selling gas centrifuges and such.


We know they aren't economic in the UK
We know that about half the plants in the US have each had repairs measured between tens and hundreds of million, in some cases billions
We know they aren't able to compete with fracked gas in the US

Neewbie_noob

No

People PLEASE stop "fission" for thanks

Calibos

No

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

People PLEASE stop "fission" for thanks

Isotope when I feel like it, not when you say. OK!!

Bigfellalixnaw

No

Couldn't Ireland be separated into an east and west zone when it comes to energy production; for example my reckoning is that the west of the country can cater for renewables (we have the best wind resources in Europe there) while the east of the country (admittedly a small corner of the east if one reactor would be sufficient for Ireland's energy needs) can cater for nuclear power? It is an interesting proposal in my view.

Capt'n Midnight

Bigfellalixnaw wrote: »

Couldn't Ireland be separated into an east and west zone when it comes to energy production; for example my reckoning is that the west of the country can cater for renewables (we have the best wind resources in Europe there) while the east of the country (admittedly a small corner of the east if one reactor would be sufficient for Ireland's energy needs) can cater for nuclear power? It is an interesting proposal in my view.

Irish National Grid 1930

We now have 1000MW of interconnectors to this Island.

Get out your map and pick any point on the east coast, now get a compass and draw a 30Km exclusion zone around it.

Bigfellalixnaw

No

I don't suppose that map is a current representation of the electrical grid, is it? It does look old.

Raiser

Yes - Lets allow the proven efficiency, diligence, intelligence and ethically sound might of the Irish public service run a nuclear power plant.

We could start out by sending 5,000 clerical officers on a 15 year all-expenses paid 'nuclear basics' training course in Athlone......

- I can already imagine the crafty tenders being rigged by our arsehole politicians with local dodgy developers to win the contract to clean up the inevitable nuclear shíthap.

andrew

No

andrew wrote: »

Fission power has been 30 years away for a lot more than 30 years. There are still massive hurdles preventing fission power from becoming viable any time soon.

You mean fusion (the fusing of atomic nuclei). Fission (the splitting of atomic nuclei) is the current method by which nuclear power is generated.

Capt'n Midnight

Bigfellalixnaw wrote: »

I don't suppose that map is a current representation of the electrical grid, is it? It does look old.

Today's http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island%20Transmission%20Map.pdf
Compare the Red 400KV and Green 220KV to the old map

Hasn't changed all that much when you take into account how much generating capacity we've added since.

http://www.esbelectricmail.com/_archives/em_archive/archives/index600a.html?id=21&cat=1

After the establishment of the ESB in 1927 and the commissioning of the first 20MW hydro unit at Ardnacrusha in 1929, the demand for electricity in Ireland steadily began to increase. The system peak demand in 1930/31 was 47.6MW

Peak wind production last year was 1474MW , 31 times the peak demand in 1931
- gives you an idea of how much we are addicted to leccy

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemrecords/ Peak demand of 5090MW, so well over 100 times growth since we got the grid.

Kirby

No. It's dangerous.

For all it's benefits, Nuclear power relies on a number of variable factors that make it ultra safe 99% of the time. But we can't control everything all the time and that is way there have been several accidents surrounding nuclear power. That rare time where everything isn't perfect, leads to disaster.

What happens if nobody mans or operates a wind turbine? Nothing. Natural or man-made disaster occurs? Solar panels just sit there not hurting anybody.

Safety has to come first. The alternatives may be less efficient, but they don't have the potential to blow a hole in your country or irradiate it's population.

Gbear

No

Kirby wrote: »

No. It's dangerous.

No, it really isn't.

Kirby

Yes it is. And the rest of my post explained my reasoning on why.

Gbear

No

Kirby wrote: »

Yes it is. And the rest of my post explained my reasoning on why.

Lot's of reasoning and no facts.

Nuclear power is incredibly safe.

Read back about 1 or 2 pages where I go into it at length.

shedweller

Our modern reactors will be old in the future. We'll still have to deal with scrapping them. And what to do with all the nuclear waste??

And when a reactor goes boom, like one just did, the mess will be untouchable for, oh, 25,000 years? Thats the half life of the fuel isnt it?

Grudaire

shedweller wrote: »

Our modern reactors will be old in the future. We'll still have to deal with scrapping them. And what to do with all the nuclear waste??

And when a reactor goes boom, like one just did, the mess will be untouchable for, oh, 25,000 years? Thats the half life of the fuel isnt it?

Even if it doesn't go boom you end up with a load of crap which you can't do anything with...


Yay - lets bury it :mad:

Kirby

Gbear wrote: »

Lot's of reasoning and no facts.

I could list every nuclear disaster but it would be tedious to do so and you have the internet at your disposal.

Gbear wrote: »

Nuclear power is incredibly safe..

So a bunch of mad arabs or some natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake damages a wind turbine and millions of people die.

Oh no wait.....thats what happens with a nuclear power plant. Sounds incredibly safe to me.

Besides, any "solution" to our energy problem that produces lethal waste that has to be buried....is not a solution at all.

shedweller

My take on it is there are lots of vested interests with regards to nuclear power. Of that there can be no doubt.
So any discussion about nuclear safety is going to end up like this.

Gbear

No

Kirby wrote: »

So a bunch of mad arabs or some natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake damages a wind turbine and millions of people die.

Except that has literally never happened.

Wind is quite safe. It also doesn't work when it's not windy enough or too windy, doesn't necessarily provide energy when you need it and you need to have 3 times the installed capacity as nuclear to get the same amount of energy.

Chernobyl has killed something like 50 people.

Fukushima has killed 0.

And they're the worst nuclear disasters ever.

Gbear

No

shedweller wrote: »

My take on it is there are lots of vested interests with regards to nuclear power. Of that there can be no doubt.
So any discussion about nuclear safety is going to end up like this.

And there's none with renewable energy?

Do you think people are investing in wind power through the goodness of their hearts?

shedweller

So fukushima, chernobyl etc are ok then? We can all just move back in. Theres nothing to worry about?

Those places will be uninhabitable for a very long time!