A Nuclear Power Plant in Ireland?

Bigfellalixnaw

I don't need to tell you that the price of fuel has gone to extortionist levels or that soon enough within the next couple of decades we might very well be coming face to face a full blown energy crisis, and that we in Ireland, a small nation, will be facing the same fate. Currently we're doing our best (or some might say we could do better) to develop the renewable energy market to comply the demands of current times. But still we are a nation still dependent upon the burning of fossil fuels. Eventually, we are going to have to consider the inevitable and build a nuclear power (or perhaps a small to medium sized one to start with). However, if we were to build a nuclear power plant in Ireland within the next couple of years, how would we manage to go about it? What obstacles need to be overcome?
I know that first off the use of nuclear energy in Ireland would need to be legalised by the government before such a venture can be entertained.

666irishguy

I'd support it. One nuclear plant would solve a huge amount of energy needs. We could always use increasing amounts of renewable's and introduce them gradually. We are going to be held hostage energy wise by the middle-east when there is a major war there (and there will be) and once the oil demand from India and China reaches western levels in proportion to their population there is not going to be enough to go around.

Bigfellalixnaw

Economic security, a valid point my dear man.

KerryRed

I believe that Ireland should look into any options which would offer independence on the question of energy. I do believe though, that prior to any other investigation into the project, Ireland should first affirm her right to control her own resources and end the EU's stranglehold on national resources. We have for centuries battled imperialism and again we are at the will of a foreign invader, the EU. Ireland has to produce much of her own energy, whether it be oil or gas, renewable or nuclear, and they must ensure that all means of energy production are the sole property of the Irish people through the state. An end to corporations taking over Irish energy and charging criminal rates to the people in this country is essential

breadmonkey

This doesn't look even slightly suspicious...

Bigfellalixnaw

A constructive discussion on how nuclear power may come to be in Ireland would be nice instead of vague comments like the one made by breadmonkey.

Curly Judge

As a first step we should immediately develop a world class faculty of nuclear engineering in ......probably Limerick.
The former head of Limerick university held a doctorate in that subject and its proximity to Moneypoint might be useful.

nogoodnamesleft

Nuclear power in Ireland is going to be fraught with political and planning difficulties. With the stigma attached to nuclear power which was compounded even further by the Fukushima disaster (Germany cancelled its nuclear program) I cannot envisage many Irish people letting a nuclear facility being built in their locality never mind spent nuclear fuel being transported to a suitable facility abroad for disposal using Irish roads and ports.

Other challenges include technical factors as to where to site such a facility, transmission asset upgrades required as well as now many MW of nuclear generation would be required. Nuclear power is a non dispatchable generation source so significant consideration would be required regards generation capacity. It is a tricky technical challenge due to Irelands dispersed population (voltage control issues) and relatively small population.

What could have been a much better solution (provided the last government did not sell gas reserves off the West coast of Ireland) would have been for the Irish government to build modern CCGT (combined cycle gas turbines) to generate electricity and to sell off excess energy to the UK and Continental Europe via the new 500MW East - West and future inter-connectors thus generating revenue while keeping possession of the resource.

Has the op considered these technical and non technical challenges?

Turbulent Bill

Bigfellalixnaw wrote: »

A constructive discussion on how nuclear power may come to be in Ireland would be nice instead of vague comments like the one made by breadmonkey.

I'd love to see a constructive debate on Ireland's entire future energy policy (not just pro/anti-nuclear), with all sides chipping in. AFAIK there's no long-term plan from the Government, CER etc. on this, though I'm not in the industry. At the very least it would flush out proper demand estimates, cost/benefits of various options and get the public involved in the compromises needed. It's easy to pitch it just as a pro/anti-nuclear debate but the actual issue is much wider.

I haven't voted in the poll, simply because (along with probably 99.9% of the public) I don't have enough information to make an informed decision.

ted1

Why reinvent the wheel?

Sellafield is closer to Dublin than some parts of the west coast. Why not build a reactor to supply direct to Ireland??


it'd make the build and whole project cheaper, as well as avoid plannning hassles over here

Capt'n Midnight

How much would a nuclear power plant cost over it's life including decommissioning and financial costs ?

Would that money give a better return on investment and more reduction in imported if it was spent on insulating buildings ?

What is the storage cost €/MwHr for renewables that would render nuclear obsolete ?
(How much storage capacity can be mitigated by the use of smart meters and appliances ?)

With the current trend of reducing renewable costs , wind -14% every time capacity doubles, solar -7% per year and a reduction of demand for electricity as insulation usage goes up and LED prices drop by a factor of 10 every decade, what are the chances that our electrical demands will start to level off ?

nogoodnamesleft

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How much would a nuclear power plant cost over it's life including decommissioning and financial costs ?

Would that money give a better return on investment and more reduction in imported if it was spent on insulating buildings ?

What is the storage cost €/MwHr for renewables that would render nuclear obsolete ?
(How much storage capacity can be mitigated by the use of smart meters and appliances ?)

With the current trend of reducing renewable costs , wind -14% every time capacity doubles, solar -7% per year and a reduction of demand for electricity as insulation usage goes up and LED prices drop by a factor of 10 every decade, what are the chances that our electrical demands will start to level off ?

In the UK at present rockwool insulation is subsidised to encourage people to insulate their homes better.

Storage of electrical energy from renewable is in infancy and is not currently feasible on a large scale. There has been suggestions that electrical vehicles plugged into the grid to charge at night time could also have an ancillary use as a storage device. However many EV vehicles plugged into the grid could be represented as a large capacitor banks which could lead to over voltages on distribution lines. Intelligent smart meters will be required to report voltages throughout the distribution network in order to ensure voltages remain within nominal levels as per the IEC 60038 standard.


Renewable alone will not be able to meet demand on their own as by their very nature they are a variable resource. To meet demand Ireland would have to have a certain percentage of dispatchable and non dispatchable generation to keep the lights on.


From looking at the EU load statistics even with increased technology inefficiencies the load profiles remain roughly the same. The ENTSO-E publishes many statistics regards generation and load in an annual report.


Regards cost per Mwh Mott Macdonald compiled a report for the UK generation costs taking into account present technology as well as future advances. It also complies operational costs per generation technology as well as the capital required to build the asset. The link is

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/projections/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf

Capt'n Midnight

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

In the UK at present rockwool insulation is subsidised to encourage people to insulate their homes better.

very heavily subsidised

Storage of electrical energy from renewable is in infancy and is not currently feasible on a large scale. There has been suggestions that electrical vehicles plugged into the grid to charge at night time could also have an ancillary use as a storage device.

I think using EV's is a non starter unless it can be shown that it won't shorten battery life. Othewise you are using an €8,000 battery to store a few euros worth of electricity.

Renewable alone will be be able to meet demand on their own as by their very nature they are a variable resource. To meet demand Ireland would have to have a certain percentage of dispatchable and non dispatchable generation to keep the lights on.

I haven't looked at the figures in detail but CAES + CCGT looks good, using renewables to compress the air. Would a mechanical air compressor and pipes be significantly cheaper than generator and motor ?

nogoodnamesleft

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

very heavily subsidised

I think using EV's is a non starter unless it can be shown that it won't shorten battery life. Othewise you are using an €8,000 battery to store a few euros worth of electricity.


I haven't looked at the figures in detail but CAES + CCGT looks good, using renewables to compress the air. Would a mechanical air compressor and pipes be significantly cheaper than generator and motor ?

Development is on going into less developed technologies such as tidal range and tidal stream. A very interesting project in the South west of the UK is the Severn barrage however is it at a standstill due to the capital cost required to built the asset (It is estimated to cost in the region of £10 - £34 billion). The scheme was unsuccessful in securing governmental funding and is relying on private investment at present.

CAES may be a proven concept however it would be difficult to roll out on a commercial scale as its under developed at present and many countries are under pressure already to meet their energy and carbon reduction requirements by 2020 (i.e. the ETS).

I personally think that with Ireland being fortunate to have some of the highest wind speeds in Europe should capitalise on this natural asset. If further gas exploration on the west coast of Ireland is fruitful. The Irish government should learn from their past mistake and retain control of this asset ensuring energy security. CCGT plants built (ay hypothetically on the west coast) near load centers for instance (e.g. near Galway and Limerick). Waste heat from the generators could be used in order to head local homes and increase efficiency of the generator (i.e. district heating) whilst also reducing electricity demand for space and water heading.

Bigfellalixnaw

One possibility to factor in the location of a nuclear reactor in Ireland would be splitting Ireland into sectors that will house particular energy types. My reckoning would be to have the west coast of Ireland designated for the purpose of renewables (wind energy, wave and tidal energy, etc) and a have the east coast of Ireland (well a patch of the east coast if we are to only have one nuclear reactor) designated for the purpose of nuclear energy.

Turbulent Bill

Bigfellalixnaw wrote: »

One possibility to factor in the location of a nuclear reactor in Ireland would be splitting Ireland into sectors that will house particular energy types. My reckoning would be to have the west coast of Ireland designated for the purpose of renewables (wind energy, wave and tidal energy, etc) and a have the east coast of Ireland (well a patch of the east coast if we are to only have one nuclear reactor) designated for the purpose of nuclear energy.

This would necessitate separate grids, with backup power supplies for each, otherwise it's a political non-starter. Imagine what would happen if a Dublin nuclear station was being used to supplement Galway's renewable supply (for example), giving the West 'clean' energy without having nuclear on their doorstep.

It would need to be a nationwide (maybe all-Ireland) solution.

nogoodnamesleft

Bigfellalixnaw wrote: »

One possibility to factor in the location of a nuclear reactor in Ireland would be splitting Ireland into sectors that will house particular energy types. My reckoning would be to have the west coast of Ireland designated for the purpose of renewables (wind energy, wave and tidal energy, etc) and a have the east coast of Ireland (well a patch of the east coast if we are to only have one nuclear reactor) designated for the purpose of nuclear energy.

Separate sectors? How would a utility manage such an infrastructure? Separate control centers for each sector?

The EU has proposed plans to construct a EU wide "supergrid" interconnecting all electricity grids both existing AC and by the construction of HVDC links to transfer bulk power not separate them. An interconnected grid would mitigate more Co2 emissions and allow more efficient energy utilization by capitalising on renewable resources such as offshore wind in the North Sea, Hydro resource in Sweden etc.

Bigfellalixnaw

The project would die its death in planning applications anyway.

dvcireland

http://www.bene.ie/Home.html

http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-r1-todaywithpatkenny-2011-06-24.smil

BENE’s Philip Walton and Mark Deary of the Green Party had a 26-minute interview with Pat Kenny on his RTE Radio1 show on 24 June 2011 concerning the UK’s plans to replace their nuclear fleet with newer, safer nuclear plants. Starts at 04:10.

from rte / pat kenny website

".....As Germany decides to close all its nuclear power plants by 2022, in the wake of growing public opposition following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, Britain have gone the opposite way and have published plans to build eight privately built nuclear power plants in England and Wales, including 2 at existing installations in Sellafield. What will this mean for Ireland? Minister Phil Hogan has said that it is a matter for the UK to decide on its energy policy.
Pat was joined by Philip Walton, Professor Emeritus of Applied Physics from NUIG and Mark Deary, Green Party member and resident of Co. Louth....."

shanered

Like I've always said, we built port tunnel...leaks
we built national aquatic center.....leaks
I just feel like a trend could be continued if we go nuclear!

Hibbeler

shanered wrote: »

Like I've always said, we built port tunnel...leaks
we built national aquatic center.....leaks
I just feel like a trend could be continued if we go nuclear!

Would a nuclear plant built today not be over-engineered to the max?

I'm sure many other countries have had some minor issues such as these with public works projects? Happens all the time I'd imagine, so I don't see why Ireland should be any different in that regard, it certainly should not be a main reason to discount what could be a viable energy solution.

Bigfellalixnaw

I am not aware of any problems concerning the safety of Ireland's current power generating facilities. Therefore, the safety of a nuclear power plant in Ireland might yield the same results. Of course, if there are any problems concerning Ireland's power facilities do inform us.

martomcg

Generation IV Nuclear power plants are the way forward. Just one of these could generate enough electricity to cover the entire country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

I actually did my thesis on Pebble Bed Reactors and they are pretty much meltdown proof.

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/how-to-make-a-n.php

China currently has one in operation (HTR-10) and is scaling it up.

HTR-10 is a 10 MWt prototype pebble bed reactor at Tsinghua University in China. Construction began in 2000 and it achieved first criticality in January 2003.
In 2005, China announced its intention to scale up HTR-10 for commercial power generation. The first two 250-MWt High Temperature Reactor-Pebblebed Modules (HTR-PM) will be installed at the Shidaowan plant in Shandong Province and together drive a steam turbine generating 200 MWe. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2009 and commissioning in 2013.

Capt'n Midnight

martomcg wrote: »

Generation IV Nuclear power plants are the way forward. Just one of these could generate enough electricity to cover the entire country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Come back when they've been commercialised and and a consistent uptime of more than 80%

I actually did my thesis on Pebble Bed Reactors and they are pretty much meltdown proof.

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/how-to-make-a-n.php

China currently has one in operation (HTR-10) and is scaling it up.

While that article does mention the dust problem it didn't mention the jamming problem where all the pebbles got wedged in real tight. Like most nuclear technologies introduced since the 1950's this is still under development.

miss no stars

martomcg wrote: »

I actually did my thesis on Pebble Bed Reactors and they are pretty much meltdown proof.

Just like the titanic was unsinkable? Statements like that make me worry... What's been missed?

martomcg

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

While that article does mention the dust problem it didn't mention the jamming problem where all the pebbles got wedged in real tight. Like most nuclear technologies introduced since the 1950's this is still under development.

I'm aware its under development, but now would be the time for Ireland to start looking into these technologies. Renewables here don't have the potential for energy independence and we're on borrowed time with fossil fuel.

Wind Energy isn't worth a salt, yet it seems to be the 'go-to' solution to the problem.

Just like the titanic was unsinkable? Statements like that make me worry... What's been missed?

They've induced melt-down (i.e removed the cooling rods) on multiple occasions in the Chinese reactor mentioned above with no consequence. The pebbles dont start to sublimate untill nearly 4000C which is over twice the temperature a nuclear reactor can achieve.

nogoodnamesleft

martomcg wrote: »

I'm aware its under development, but now would be the time for Ireland to start looking into these technologies. Renewables here don't have the potential for energy independence and we're on borrowed time with fossil fuel.

Wind Energy isn't worth a salt, yet it seems to be the 'go-to' solution to the problem.



They've induced melt-down (i.e removed the cooling rods) on multiple occasions in the Chinese reactor mentioned above with no consequence. The pebbles dont start to sublimate untill nearly 4000C which is over twice the temperature a nuclear reactor can achieve.

So you propose for Ireland to embark upon a intensive R&D program in order develop this particular nuclear solution to a commercialisation stage.....even though we are in the midst of a recession and as a country have no background, education facilities to enable us to carry out the task.

Wind energy not worth salt.....you obviously are not aware of the developments within electrical engineering at present in order to optimise wind energy across EU (e.g VSC HVDC, HVDC cables, HVDC CB development, existing transmission infrastructure upgrades etc).

Granted wind energy is intermittent and Ireland as well as other nations rely upon traditional fossil generation (primarily natural gas) to meet future demand. However from analysis of wind statistics of the North Sea. Wind has an average capacity factor of 40% (offshore). Essentially free energy negating the capital and maintenance cost.

In future it is likely that the EU will be one Supergrid, the NSCOGI released a report last month backed by many European bodies of an offshore grid study which exploits wind, hydro etc nuclear across the EU which includes grid proposals that siting capacity ratings of HVDC as well as potential substations which would provide a means to interconnect the countries involved.

http://www.benelux.int/NSCOGI/NSCOGI_WG1_OffshoreGridReport.pdf

The report also gives a breakdown of generation technologies per country to 2030. In this study or any others that I have researched has determined that Ireland would not require Nuclear generation. Ireland has a relatively small electrical load compared to other EU countries and Ireland has an abundance of wind (be it variable). In future we will import or export electrical energy as required rather than embarking on a nuclear development scheme or commission a nuclear plant like the one you propose.

pljudge321

martomcg wrote: »

Wind Energy isn't worth a salt, yet it seems to be the 'go-to' solution to the problem.

Interesting fact. This year we generated the same % of our total electricity demand from wind as the UK did from their nuclear plants. Wind has problems related to it, as any generation source does, but the argument that it is useless has well and truly been squashed by this stage.

Capt'n Midnight

martomcg wrote: »

I'm aware its under development, but now would be the time for Ireland to start looking into these technologies. Renewables here don't have the potential for energy independence and we're on borrowed time with fossil fuel.

Under development. The technologies you are talking about are 20-40 years in the future. At best. And that estimate is from the same sort of guys who still haven't commercialised breeder reactors despite large scale plutonium production having started in 1944. And if they go ahead then current economic reserves of uranium will have run out by then.

Thorium is basically a breeder reactor except in that case it wasn't until 1946 that the cycle was made public.

Meanwhile wind and solar are dropping in price and a good storage solution is all that's needed for energy independence.

Geothermal is also interesting, not sure how it compares with the economics of nuclear but it more reliable and controllable.

mandrake04

I am Pro-Nuclear energy myself (I also work in Nuclear Medicine/Diagnostics so have a good grasp on safety issues) but I don't think Ireland is developed enough to handle NP at the moment or in the near future.

eoghan_85

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Under development. The technologies you are talking about are 20-40 years in the future. At best. And that estimate is from the same sort of guys who still haven't commercialised breeder reactors despite large scale plutonium production having started in 1944. And if they go ahead then current economic reserves of uranium will have run out by then.

Thorium is basically a breeder reactor except in that case it wasn't until 1946 that the cycle was made public.

Meanwhile wind and solar are dropping in price and a good storage solution is all that's needed for energy independence.

Geothermal is also interesting, not sure how it compares with the economics of nuclear but it more reliable and controllable.

Nuclear energy has been proven to be the safest and cleanest form of electricity generation over the last 30 years. The Fukushima "disaster" shows just another case of overreaction by the ultra liberals who are too quick to kick up at the mere mention of Nuclear energy based on the Chernobyl meltdown.

Could you please explain how wind and solar are dropping in price? The entire Irish grid (and every other grid) was designed and developed to facilitate radial transmission and distribution from centralised generation sources. The trend towards wind energy in the last ten years has seen the entire grid completely rebuilt to facilitate small pockets of undependable and expensive (yes, expensive) renewable generation. This rebuilding of the network is not and has not been cheap and is certainly not getting any cheaper. Furthermore it is a primal cause in driving up the cost to the end consumer of electricity.
Also, a good form of storage "is all that's needed" for energy independence? And 100 billion euro is all that's needed for financial independence from the current economic quagmire! Currently, we have Turlough Hill with an output of approx 280 MW which is really only used as backup. To develope a storage facility where we could get any relative amount of energy independence would require at least another few GW of wind energy and at least a similar amount of GW available in storage - all in all it's a non runner and the longer our govt. and Eirgrid insist on the facile run towards green energy, the more money the electricity consumer will be paying.

Just to highlight a few other myths that really annoy me about this debate:
- The East west interconnector will only be used as an effective power station by Eirgrid with power only ever flowing one way, to compensate for the lack of investment in power stations over the last ten years. (not that it really matters much at the moment, as with the countless millions poured into it, it's currently operating on a max through flow of 40MW due to the interference it's causing in North Dublin!).

- Denmark is hailed as the successful business model in the wind energy debate. Every night Denmark dumps a few hundred MW onto the European grid per gratis. Wind energy hits it's peak at night time when demand is at it's least. Wind energy also hit's it's trough at the coldest days when demand is at it's highest.

- As I mentioned already, the Irish grid was developed in a radial nature with centralised generation points. The trend towards pockets of generation spread across the country has actually destabilized the entire network to the point where Ireland has seen more frequency dips in the last 5 years than it did in the previous 15 years. Due to our island network we are already fragile as we are not supported by the larger European grid like other countries. The likelihood of a blackout in Ireland is probably 5 times more likely than any other country in the Western world.

Rant over - needless to say I'm not a fan of wind energy and I do believe that Nuclear is the best way forward - Carnsore is the greatest travesty ever to hit the Irish electricity generation sector! What could have been the perfect place for a nuclear facility now stands some poxy windfarm!

Capt'n Midnight

eoghan_85 wrote: »

- Denmark is hailed as the successful business model in the wind energy debate. Every night Denmark dumps a few hundred MW onto the European grid per gratis. Wind energy hits it's peak at night time when demand is at it's least.

- France is hailed as the successful business model in the nuclear energy debate. Every night France dumps a few hundred MW onto the European grid per gratis. surplus nuclear energy hits it's peak at night time when demand is at it's least.

eoghan_85

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

- France is hailed as the successful business model in the nuclear energy debate. Every night France dumps a few hundred MW onto the European grid per gratis. surplus nuclear energy hits it's peak at night time when demand is at it's least.

Nuclear generated electricity has a virtually constant output and is typically used as to supply baseload in most countries that use it. Your statement here "surplus nuclear energy hits it's peak at night time" therefore makes no sense.
The reason France would dump MW onto the grid is down to the country having around 95% of its energy generated by nuclear which reduces its flexibility in this regard. The difference between it and Denmark however, is that Denmark imports a massive amount of it's electrical energy while France is pretty much a continuous exporter.

Curly Judge

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

- France is hailed as the successful business model in the nuclear energy debate. Every night France dumps a few hundred MW onto the European grid per gratis. surplus nuclear energy hits it's peak at night time when demand is at it's least.

A few hundred MW out of a total capacity of 63,000 MW?
Not bad, I'd say!

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

A few hundred MW out of a total capacity of 63,000 MW?
Not bad, I'd say!

it's a lot more than a few MW, you can only scale a reactor back ~ 50% at night and demand varies by more than that across the day/week/year

from 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2018871/posts

Countries highly reliant on nuclear power, in effect, are in turn reliant on having large non-nuclear-reliant countries as neighbours. If France’s neighbours had power systems dominated by nuclear power, they too would be trying to export off-peak power and France would have no one to whom it could offload its surplus power. In fact, even with the mammoth EU market to tap into, France must shut down some of its reactors some weekends because no one can use its surplus. In effect, France can’t even give the stuff away.
Not only does France export vast quantities of its low-value power (it is the EU’s biggest exporter by far), France meanwhile must import high-value peak power from its neighbours. This arrangement is so financially ruinous that France in 2006 decided to resurrect its obsolete oil-fired power stations, one of which dates back to 1968.

eoghan_85

Capt'm Midnight - the only points against nuclear you seem to be making in response are based on France's over-reliance on it as it's energy source. Using nuclear to supply only the baseload is the optimum situation that is in use in most Nuclear-using countries.
France is correctly lauded as being at the forefront in the nuclear energy debate - this is based on the excellent track record France has regarding it's nuclear power stations. How France manages it's national grid and plans for it's generation capacity is a seperate argument.

miss no stars

eoghan_85 wrote: »

Capt'm Midnight - the only points against nuclear you seem to be making in response are based on France's over-reliance on it as it's energy source. Using nuclear to supply only the baseload is the optimum situation that is in use in most Nuclear-using countries.
France is correctly lauded as being at the forefront in the nuclear energy debate - this is based on the excellent track record France has regarding it's nuclear power stations. How France manages it's national grid and plans for it's generation capacity is a seperate argument.

I agree that it'd be good to supply a baseload in Ireland, but I used to share an office with an engineer from France who had very skeptical views, not so much on how good their track record has been, but moreso that they're going to be facing bigger and bigger problems as the stations age, some of which he reckons they're already seeing, and that he doesn't know if they'll properly cope/deal with them.

It's just one guy's opinion, but he's also the guy who said to me "Solar panels in Ireland? But you don't have enough sunshine to grow grapes to make wine!" (referring to the environmental credentials, rather than the ability to heat water). So I dunno, it's very hard to judge the situation from the outside.

Capt'n Midnight

eoghan_85 wrote: »

Capt'm Midnight - the only points against nuclear you seem to be making in response are based on France's over-reliance on it as it's energy source.

Might be worth reading the thread then.

eirekielthy

Who cares about the price of fuel compared. To our life's and as radiation poisoning is a big factor if any of the nuclear reactors f##k up

miss no stars

eirekielthy wrote: »

Who cares about the price of fuel compared. To our life's and as radiation poisoning is a big factor if any of the nuclear reactors f##k up

Of course nuclear reactor safety is a huge concern - just read this thread. Cost is ALSO a concern. Additionally, we aren't the only living beings with a right to inhabit this planet. Wind farms can be catastrophic for birds and bats.

nogoodnamesleft

eoghan_85 wrote: »

Nuclear energy has been proven to be the safest and cleanest form of electricity generation over the last 30 years. The Fukushima "disaster" shows just another case of overreaction by the ultra liberals who are too quick to kick up at the mere mention of Nuclear energy based on the Chernobyl meltdown.

Have you a source to back up the safest and cleanest form of electricity generation? "Clean" in what sense as with nuclear you have reduced emissions but have the disadvantage of spent nuclear fuel and the cost of processing it so that it wont be a hazard to health?

eoghan_85 wrote: »

Could you please explain how wind and solar are dropping in price?

I can answer that for you.... Wind and solar are dropping in price due to technology evolving and further development being carried out by manufacturers in order to make these sources of renewable generation more efficient. Manufactures improve the manufacturing process methods and make better use of materials (composites etc) such that the cost to manufacture decreases over time. Added to that economy of scale (i.e. large wind farm developments are more profitable as the generation produced requires less capital investment per kWh compared to a smaller wind farm).

If you wish you can read the following report compiled by Mott MacDonald which is a projection of costs going forward for a number of technologies such take note of the price of 1st of Kind and Nth of Kind.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/projections/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf

eoghan_85 wrote: »

The entire Irish grid (and every other grid) was designed and developed to facilitate radial transmission and distribution from centralised generation sources. The trend towards wind energy in the last ten years has seen the entire grid completely rebuilt to facilitate small pockets of undependable and expensive (yes, expensive) renewable generation. This rebuilding of the network is not and has not been cheap and is certainly not getting any cheaper. Furthermore it is a primal cause in driving up the cost to the end consumer of electricity.

As you stated traditionally electricity networks were uni-directional (i.e flowing from the power station to the consumer via transmission and distribution networks. However since mass connection of distributed generation the power flow in networks is now bi - directional. Grid reinforcement, network re-design, protection re-design etc is required however there is significant advantages with increasing renewable generation being connected to the grid. Some of which are voltage support on the feeder, more efficient utilisation of the utilities assets and more transparency of the electricity network at distribution level. One of the method at which utilities at present know there are consumers without supply(excluding protection devices activating) is because of complaints being lodged! This will slowly change as smart meters are installed across the country which will allow utilities to immediately know when consumers are without supply. The electricity grid as we know it is evolving!

eoghan_85 wrote: »

Also, a good form of storage "is all that's needed" for energy independence? And 100 billion euro is all that's needed for financial independence from the current economic quagmire! Currently, we have Turlough Hill with an output of approx 280 MW which is really only used as backup. To develope a storage facility where we could get any relative amount of energy independence would require at least another few GW of wind energy and at least a similar amount of GW available in storage - all in all it's a non runner and the longer our govt. and Eirgrid insist on the facile run towards green energy, the more money the electricity consumer will be paying.

I dont see why you have fixated on the government and Eirgrid as its it global energy policy that is the driving force behind the revolution of renewable energy ever since Kyoto in 1997 and with the each country having their own ETS targets to achieve by reducing carbon emissions to 2020 (if a country contributes more than their allocated they have to pay a penalty which in turn becomes a bonus to those countries who are under their allocated carbon credit. Thus countries that perform well can benefit by selling their surplus credits. BTW Ireland is doing quiet well by all accounts due to our above average wind speeds, lack of heavy industry compared to Germany for example etc.

eoghan_85 wrote: »

Just to highlight a few other myths that really annoy me about this debate:
- The East west interconnector will only be used as an effective power station by Eirgrid with power only ever flowing one way, to compensate for the lack of investment in power stations over the last ten years. (not that it really matters much at the moment, as with the countless millions poured into it, it's currently operating on a max through flow of 40MW due to the interference it's causing in North Dublin!).

The east west inter-connector was only commissioned in July/August 2012 its quiet likely that there are grid reinforcement works being carried out. Regards the capacity of the link 40MW? Source please? Its max capacity is rated at 500MW so its running at approx 10% it could be testing, analyzing how this new asset affects the existing grid with reference to the model Eirgrid compiled during the consultancy state. Can you clarify what you mean by "interference"?

eoghan_85 wrote: »

- Denmark is hailed as the successful business model in the wind energy debate. Every night Denmark dumps a few hundred MW onto the European grid per gratis. Wind energy hits it's peak at night time when demand is at it's least. Wind energy also hit's it's trough at the coldest days when demand is at it's highest.

Have you any source for this? Is it considering onshore, offshore or both?

I have personally looked at wind statistics for the North Sea and wind does not sporadically start blowing gales when the sun sets or on a cold day! Granted there are times that wind is blowing during the night when demand is low but the inverse is also true that wind blows when there is demand.

eoghan_85 wrote: »

- As I mentioned already, the Irish grid was developed in a radial nature with centralised generation points. The trend towards pockets of generation spread across the country has actually destabilized the entire network to the point where Ireland has seen more frequency dips in the last 5 years than it did in the previous 15 years. Due to our island network we are already fragile as we are not supported by the larger European grid like other countries. The likelihood of a blackout in Ireland is probably 5 times more likely than any other country in the Western world.

Again can you specify a source and to how this is attributed to renewable generation? Can you be most specific? frequency dips in relation to synchronous wind generators? As induction driven machines are actually used for frequency support! In fact commercial wind farms have sophisticated frequency control equipment as per IEC regulations.


I am neither pro wind or pro nuclear but I am interested in knowing what the best engineering solution to Ireland energy's needs are (which is one of the reasons i am contributing to this thread but in my opinion Ireland does not need a nuclear power station due to reasons already stated in my previous posts.

eoghan_85

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Might be worth reading the thread then.

I read some of it. And like many of the others that commented on it, disagree with parts of it. One editorial by a journalist would hardly be considered an accredited paper that has stood up to peer review though would it?

Capt'n Midnight

miss no stars wrote: »

Of course nuclear reactor safety is a huge concern - just read this thread. Cost is ALSO a concern. Additionally, we aren't the only living beings with a right to inhabit this planet. Wind farms can be catastrophic for birds and bats.

Cost ?

Nuclear power is fixed cost , in the sense that you are more or less throwing money into a hole in the ground for up to 20 years before you get full power. By then even if the cost of uranium hasn't gone up you are likely to pay ever increasing costs to comply with the ever increasing safety and decommissioning costs.

There is plenty of evidence that most local and many migratory species are able to adapt to windmills. And the numbers killed are only a tiny fraction of winter die off or cat predation.

People have proposed to dump nuclear waste and heavy metals in the Amazon and other wildlife areas to keep humans out. Point being humans are the big problem. If people live away from wind farms then it's better for the animals there, look at how military firing ranges work out.


Nuclear power is very simple
if you put enough fissionable / fertile material in one place it gets hot (1943) and you can use steam turbines to generate electricity (1884 - used for virtually all fossil fuel and nuclear electricity )
The main change since those dates is that new metal alloys can run at higher temperatures and so have a higher Carnot efficiency.
Large scale plutonium production was under way in 1944 so don't hold your breath for breeders, and I include Thorium (cycle publicised in 1946) in that.
Pebble bed (300MW) and molten salt reactors have been demonstrated. The pebble beds have problems with dust and jamming. Molten salt was done 50 years ago.

Even if there was a promising nuclear technology waiting in the wings then it would still have to be commercialised and debugged , each generation of nuclear plant has revealed new risks in operation design and execution.

(in 1943 General Groves asked them to run the test reactor continuously , they didn't and Xenon poisoning was the result - if you believe the A bomb shortened the war then you have to wonder how many died because of the three month delay caused by the "we know best" attitude the nuclear industry still maintains. .)

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201001/potter.cfm

Criticality was achieved with only 1,500 tubes loaded on the evening of September 26. As is well-known, the reactor shut itself down within a few hours due to Xenon poisoning, a situation which necessitated a significant delay in order to add fuel to the additional process tubes and to plumb the tubes into the cooling system. Full 2,004-tube criticality was achieved on December 28, 1944

As for PV and wind getting cheaper ?
there are many different PV technologies and anyone of which could be THE breakthrough.

china doesn't have a monopoly on "rare" earths any more, even if it did and even if copper was scarce you can make motors/generators out of aluminium , bit bulkier , not quite as efficient but doable

google PV dollar per watt
now google PV 50c per watt


Sails might make wind twice as efficient - this just can't happen with Nuclear !
http://www.scidev.net/en/middle-east-and-north-africa/news/sail-inspired-turbine-promises-cheaper-wind-energy.html

Instead of rotating blades, the Saphonian's sail-shaped body collects the kinetic energy of the wind, Anis Aouini, the Saphonian's inventor, told SciDev.Net.

He explained that the resulting mechanical energy moves pistons which generate hydraulic pressure that can be stored in a hydraulic accumulator or converted into electricity.

....
also promises to be more environmentally friendly than existing wind turbines that produce noise and kill birds through their blade rotation.

eoghan_85

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Have you a source to back up the safest and cleanest form of electricity generation? "Clean" in what sense as with nuclear you have reduced emissions but have the disadvantage of spent nuclear fuel and the cost of processing it so that it wont be a hazard to health?

I agree that nuclear has the disadvantage of spent fuel but compared with the spent CO2 emissions from fossil fuel generation plants, it is pales in comparison. Latest developments in the sector means that only about 4% of the total spent fuel cannot be recycled and does have to be disposed of. CO2 emissions from nuclear stations are effectively zero. The safety record of nuclear stations tend to be far better than conventional plants. Only three major nuclear incidents have occurred since their inception and only one of them saw the leaking of radioactive elements to the environment.

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

I can answer that for you.... Wind and solar are dropping in price due to technology evolving and further development being carried out by manufacturers in order to make these sources of renewable generation more efficient. Manufactures improve the manufacturing process methods and make better use of materials (composites etc) such that the cost to manufacture decreases over time. Added to that economy of scale (i.e. large wind farm developments are more profitable as the generation produced requires less capital investment per kWh compared to a smaller wind farm).

If you wish you can read the following report compiled by Mott MacDonald which is a projection of costs going forward for a number of technologies such take note of the price of 1st of Kind and Nth of Kind.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/projections/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf

Maybe I should have been more concise here - the cost I was referring to was the massive associated cost of backing up the grid to support the amount of wind farms being developed. Will not dispute the cost of the technology itself getting cheaper.

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

As you stated traditionally electricity networks were uni-directional (i.e flowing from the power station to the consumer via transmission and distribution networks. However since mass connection of distributed generation the power flow in networks is now bi - directional. Grid reinforcement, network re-design, protection re-design etc is required however there is significant advantages with increasing renewable generation being connected to the grid. Some of which are voltage support on the feeder, more efficient utilisation of the utilities assets and more transparency of the electricity network at distribution level. One of the method at which utilities at present know there are consumers without supply(excluding protection devices activating) is because of complaints being lodged! This will slowly change as smart meters are installed across the country which will allow utilities to immediately know when consumers are without supply. The electricity grid as we know it is evolving!

I do not understand what you are saying here - could you please elaborate? In particular "Some of which are voltage support on the feeder, more efficient utilisation of the utilities assets and more transparency of the electricity network at distribution level".
What voltage support and more efficient utilisation? The way in which wind generation is implemented in this country is not conducive to this. This is a red herring in the argument.
More transparancy?
The discussion on smart meters is a seperate argument and is unrelated to this debate.

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

I dont see why you have fixated on the government and Eirgrid as its it global energy policy that is the driving force behind the revolution of renewable energy ever since Kyoto in 1997 and with the each country having their own ETS targets to achieve by reducing carbon emissions to 2020 (if a country contributes more than their allocated they have to pay a penalty which in turn becomes a bonus to those countries who are under their allocated carbon credit. Thus countries that perform well can benefit by selling their surplus credits. BTW Ireland is doing quiet well by all accounts due to our above average wind speeds, lack of heavy industry compared to Germany for example etc.[

The global energy policy does not dictate to the use of increased wind generation - only the reduction of carbon emissions. More efficient use of thermal plants along with renewable generation and the use of nuclear generation in my opinion would provide similar carbon savings as well as a more secure network.

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

The east west inter-connector was only commissioned in July/August 2012 its quiet likely that there are grid reinforcement works being carried out. Regards the capacity of the link 40MW? Source please? Its max capacity is rated at 500MW so its running at approx 10% it could be testing, analyzing how this new asset affects the existing grid with reference to the model Eirgrid compiled during the consultancy state. Can you clarify what you mean by "interference"?[

A bit of a tongue in cheek comment! Max capacity of the interconnector is 500 MW but is currently limited to 40 MW due to the interference the switching station was having with radioes and phones in North Dublin at higher outputs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with testing - it is a highly embarrassing climbdown from Eirgrid who have acknowledged that they did not foresee the level of interference. Presumably they will just build a bigger Faraday cage around the station but until then, it will run at 40MW max.

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Have you any source for this? Is it considering onshore, offshore or both?
I have personally looked at wind statistics for the North Sea and wind does not sporadically start blowing gales when the sun sets or on a cold day! Granted there are times that wind is blowing during the night when demand is low but the inverse is also true that wind blows when there is demand.[

Basing this statement on what I was thought but unfortunately from a quick google search this is the first place I could find of any mention to it:
http://www.windwisdom.net/
Not sure if it's the most reliable but...

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Again can you specify a source and to how this is attributed to renewable generation? Can you be most specific? frequency dips in relation to synchronous wind generators? As induction driven machines are actually used for frequency support! In fact commercial wind farms have sophisticated frequency control equipment as per IEC regulations.[

Problem here is mainly to do with security when a major generation source trips - large synchronous generators would be able to make up for the short fall traditionally by compensating for the frequnecy dip associated with the generator trip. This effect is being eroded with the onslaught of asynchronous (most of our wind generators are asynchronous) generation as well as the reduced large synchronous generation at certain periods. It is not the continuous voltage and frequency output of teh wind farm that is the problem but more their lack of flexibility when faults do occur.

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

I am neither pro wind or pro nuclear but I am interested in knowing what the best engineering solution to Ireland energy's needs are (which is one of the reasons i am contributing to this thread but in my opinion Ireland does not need a nuclear power station due to reasons already stated in my previous posts.

I am not anti wind as I do feel it serves a purpose - however our country is heading into dangerous territory in believing that it is a silver bullet to solve our reliance on imported fossil fuels. It most certainly is not and our over reliance on it could prove very costly in the future.

belcampprisoner

energy prices are dropping in america theres an oil and petrol glut

Capt'n Midnight

belcampprisoner wrote: »

energy prices are dropping in america theres an oil and petrol glut

propably a knock on effect from the really cheap gas from fracking

Capt'n Midnight

eoghan_85 wrote: »

More efficient use of thermal plants along with renewable generation and the use of nuclear generation in my opinion would provide similar carbon savings as well as a more secure network.

CCGT is hitting 60% efficiency

But geothermal is the most reliable , predictable energy source , until we can better store energy from renewables

Max capacity of the interconnector is 500 MW but is currently limited to 40 MW due to the interference the switching station was having with radioes and phones in North Dublin at higher outputs

It's telephone noise
http://www.eirgrid.com/eastwest/news/

EirGrid and its contractor have been working cooperatively with the telecommunications network providers to address this reported telephone noise interference.

The Interconnector has been operating in an interim mode since December 1st 2012 which has demonstrated a considerable reduction in the reported telephone noise interference. Subsequent to 20 days of operation, commercial trading on the Interconnector commenced on Friday 21st of December.

The development of a permanent solution to allow the interconnector to operate in its intended mode at full capacity is underway with our contractor and is expected to be in place by the end of Q1 2013.

https://amp.eirgrid.com/Daily_And_Intra-Day_NTC.asp does this mean it's on 250MW ?

Anyway via Norn Iorn we've another 500MW to Scotland

Problem here is mainly to do with security when a major generation source trips

something like half of all US nuclear reactors have had unplanned outages of over a month.

I am not anti wind as I do feel it serves a purpose - however our country is heading into dangerous territory in believing that it is a silver bullet to solve our reliance on imported fossil fuels. It most certainly is not and our over reliance on it could prove very costly in the future.

no one is suggesting wind will provide all our power (unless it could be stored) , at present it's being developed because it's low hanging fruit

300MW of Tidal is being earmarked up North

GarIT

I think that one of the first things we need to look into is incineration, because incinerated waste does less harm than landfill. If we incinerated 100% of our waste we could take a fairly large chunk out of the energy demand. The next part of the plan should be a mix of renewables and inter-connectors. It would be fairly easy for us to produce enough renewable energy to power all of Ireland but not when we need the power, we could end up with too much electricity at night and too little during the day, thats why we need more connections into the European grid so we can sell our excess energy when we have it and buy electricity when we need it to ensure an even supply.

I don't like the idea of nuclear power because of the risk to life. Generally nuclear is safe, but when it goes wrong it kills people and an infinite amount of power isn't even worth one life. Gas and Coal are still much cheaper than nuclear power and we should milk them until we can establish better connections with Europe.

People here keep saying wind can't power Ireland and over the course of a year it actually could. We could harness enough wind energy to power Ireland just not when we want it, a buy and sell method would help to even it out. France has plenty of power. Why can't we buy from France when we need it and sell as much as we can through England when we don't.

Del2005

GarIT wrote: »

I don't like the idea of nuclear power because of the risk to life. Generally nuclear is safe, but when it goes wrong it kills people and an infinite amount of power isn't even worth one life. Gas and Coal are still much cheaper than nuclear power and we should milk them until we can establish better connections with Europe.

What about the hundreds of miners killed every year in coal mines or the people with serious illnesses from the gas/coal exhaust plant gases? We know how many people are killed and injured from nuclear, do you have any idea how many are killed and injured from fossil use?

GarIT wrote: »

People here keep saying wind can't power Ireland and over the course of a year it actually could. We could harness enough wind energy to power Ireland just not when we want it, a buy and sell method would help to even it out. France has plenty of power. Why can't we buy from France when we need it and sell as much as we can through England when we don't.

We need to be connected directly to France with bigger pipes.

miss no stars

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cost ?

Nuclear power is fixed cost , in the sense that you are more or less throwing money into a hole in the ground for up to 20 years before you get full power.

Ah I wasn't commenting with my own opinion, as is very clear from the fact that I quoted this:

Originally Posted by eirekielthy


Who cares about the price of fuel
compared

I was actually referring to the fact that you can't consider one thing in isolation. Sure, safety is going to have a far bigger weighting than other things but cost also comes into it. Then I gave the example that just because one thing is safe for us doesn't mean it won't affect other creatures' environments.

Turbulent Bill

GarIT wrote: »

It would be fairly easy for us to produce enough renewable energy to power all of Ireland but not when we need the power, we could end up with too much electricity at night and too little during the day, thats why we need more connections into the European grid so we can sell our excess energy when we have it and buy electricity when we need it to ensure an even supply.

People here keep saying wind can't power Ireland and over the course of a year it actually could. We could harness enough wind energy to power Ireland just not when we want it, a buy and sell method would help to even it out. France has plenty of power. Why can't we buy from France when we need it and sell as much as we can through England when we don't.

From what I know, large-scale electricity grids are extremely difficult to manage technically - it's not just a matter of adding more cables. Add multinational management into it and the problem is compounded. The US had a miniature version of this issue a few years ago when lack of infratructure investment and poor management led to blackouts in New York.

It's certainly possible to do a pan-European grid, but would need very careful design and management, probably at EU level.