Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A Nuclear Power Plant in Ireland?
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89859
- 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.- 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.0 -
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.0 -
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!0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
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/yearCurly Judge wrote: »A few hundred MW out of a total capacity of 63,000 MW?
Not bad, I'd say!
from 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2018871/postsCountries 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 1968.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
-
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 up0
-
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.0 -
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?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-.pdfThe 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!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.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"?- 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.- 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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
Cost ?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.
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.cfmCriticality 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.htmlInstead 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.0 -
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.
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: »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-.pdfnogoodnamesleft 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.0 -
energy prices are dropping in america theres an oil and petrol glut0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
propably a knock on effect from the really cheap gas from frackingbelcampprisoner wrote: »energy prices are dropping in america theres an oil and petrol glut0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
CCGT is hitting 60% efficiencyMore 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.
But geothermal is the most reliable , predictable energy source , until we can better store energy from renewables
It's telephone noiseMax 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
http://www.eirgrid.com/eastwest/news/
https://amp.eirgrid.com/Daily_And_Intra-Day_NTC.asp does this mean it's on 250MW ?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.
Anyway via Norn Iorn we've another 500MW to Scotland
something like half of all US nuclear reactors have had unplanned outages of over a month.Problem here is mainly to do with security when a major generation source trips
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 fruitI 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.
300MW of Tidal is being earmarked up North0 -
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.0 -
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?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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Interesting facts and opinions here and I personally would tend to support nuclear for Ireland but I can't even imagine the scale of resistance from the NIMBYs. It would put the campaigns for / against "Shell to Sea", fracking, sewage plants, inter-connectors, natural gas pipelines, traveller halting sites, mobile phone masts, etc., etc. into the shade.
- The "irrefutable, scientific fact" factories, on both sides, would go into overdrive / meltdown(?) with infallible experts being imported en masse;
- Do we have any suicidal TDs willing to suggest nuclear in his / her constituency?
- I vaguely remember (and open to correction) a successful campaign to prevent a mining company REMOVING radioactive rock from Donegal and sending it to Canada because we were all going to die horrible deaths if it went ahead.
0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
So you haven't heard about that tree that fell on a power line between Switzerland and Italy ?Turbulent Bill wrote: »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.
A lot of the power problems in the US were caused by the likes of Enron rigging the market. They'd block-book power out of California for peak times so that later on at peak time when blackouts were imminent they could "re-import" at a profit.0 -
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.
Emissions from Nuclear are effectively zero (although this depends on what journal you read :-p) on a MW scale. However they still do contribute some CO2 emissions when you consider GWs but it’s in the region of 0.022 tonnes of CO2/MW compared to 0.9 tonnes of CO2/MW with Coal.
I still can’t envisage many Irish people not opposing a planned nuclear plant in their area knowing that there is a risk associated with it (due to bad publicity from Japan and Chernobyl.)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.
Ill will expand on my earlier comment regards voltage support and increase efficiency. Voltage decreases with increasing line length thus the voltage the end of the feeder will be lower than at the start of the feeder. With the renewable generation source when it is generating it will contribute power to the grid and also support the voltage at the end of the feeder. Additionally due to a local generation source feeding the local source lines that would feed the load traditionally now have additional capacity to carry current mitigated by the renewable generation source. Obviously provision would have to be made to have the necessary infrastructure in place to regulate voltage (SVC’s for example) and have enough capacity to feed to load when the wind stops blowing thus this is a far more complex problem than it first appears (i.e. optimized power flows for different scenarios, with renewable, without renewable, N-1 etc). Obviously from a protection design perspective the protection that was designed was most likely designed with the assumption that the power would be uni–directional and thus may have directional protection relays what will trip taking into account bi-directional power flow.
Thus I disagree with you regards it being a red herring unless you can point me in the direction of a load flow analysis from a reputable source (such as the ESB or Eirgrid) to disprove otherwise.
In my opinion smart meters are part of the overall solution and should not be discounted from the discussion. In this future Irish hypothetical model we are considering renewable generation (be it from a wind turbine on an individuals land or PV cells on an individuals roof not just exclusively commercial wind farms). The utility will have to have some control associated with this these distributed assets in order to regulate the network (voltage, frequency etc) and control generation (periodic maintenance, faults etc). Smart metering could provide visibility of voltage levels and fault occurrences and aid in locating the fault on the distribution network. I see this as a positive attribute of the evolving grid.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.
I should clarify. Globally carbon emissions have to be reduced to slow and hopefully prevent global warming. To achieve this the EU devised the ETS. One of the goals in which to lower EU emissions which is legally binding specifically states that EU as a whole will have to reduce 20% of emissions, that 20% of the energy it consumes has to be from renewable by 2020. The 20-20-20 plan. There will more than likely be similar strategies for 2030 and 2050 milestones.
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htmA 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.
Eirgrid have released a press release regards the RF interference issue near the converter station (most likely due to the high switching frequency required for HVDC transmission).
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Media%20Release%20-%20East%20West%20Interconnector.pdf
As I mentioned in my previous post I suggested that Eirgrid were possibly testing the asset and this is when this particular problem arose and this is exactly what they (Eirgrid) were doing. From an engineering perspective you cannot just max out a new asset so early after it being only recently commissioned there will be a run in period to ensure it behaves the way it was designed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/power-link-not-in-use-since-it-was-switched-on-215871.html
From the above article Eirgrid have not taken possession of the asset from the contractor (ABB) until these issues have been addressed (as per contractual terms –one would hope!). Thus the asset is not yet in commercial service until Eirgrid signs off on the acceptance agreement.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...
Ah I wouldn’t take any statistics posted on http://www.windwisdom.net/ as gospel even if I was into flying a hot air balloon! Your previous statement regards wind behavior is simply untrue.
Wind varies at different heights, for example at 1m you might have a wind speed of 2m/s and at 10meters it might be a wind speed of 5/ms. Wind maps are published based on metrological data collected over a years sometimes at very high resolution (i.e. in mins or seconds). It is also dependant upon weather fronts hence there will be slight variation on the power produced by the many different wind farms geographically dispersed around the North Sea will experience variations of weather (dependant on the size of the weather fronts)
I am assuming if you are flying your weather balloon you would be higher than 100 meters (as at this height 100m is considered a large turbine of a few MW)!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.
Regards the ancillary benefit of synchronous machines ability to regulate grid frequency the problem is not confined solely to that of wind turbines but also to that of the decommissioning of older synchronous (fossil derived) generation due to emissions regulations and of life. The frequency response of induction based wind turbines is still a work in progress however the ENTSO-E is assessing how this can be addressed such that all generators through control can emulate the frequency response of synchronous machines by future grid regulations.
https://www.entsoe.eu/major-projects/network-code-development/requirements-for-generators/0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
Low hanging fruit.We need to be connected directly to France with bigger pipes.
We have connections to the UK, they have connections to France, cheaper than a direct connection.
NorNed interconnector (Norway to Holland) shows that it can be done. Links from Norway to England and Scotland are in the pipeline. The Scottish link would be used to sell energy to England too.
Talk of 4GW of wind/tidal on the Channel islands, and multi GW links via them to France and England.
Norway has huge hydro resources and it's probably cheaper to build interconnectors from here to England and from Norway to Scotland than build Spirit Of Ireland type pumped storage. It would certainly be quicker.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Low hanging fruit.
Norway has huge hydro resources and it's probably cheaper to build interconnectors from here to England and from Norway to Scotland than build Spirit Of Ireland type pumped storage. It would certainly be quicker.
I have the same theory that in future there will be more inter connectors to Europe specifically France (to their nuclear resource) as its the french are less opposed to Nuclear and they will probably have about 80% of their installed capacity in Nuclear technology.
However I recon the inter connector to Norway would be fraught with political problems and bureaucracy since Norway opposed the proposition of a inter-connector in 2003 (due to the fact that they enjoy low electricity prices due to the abundant hydro resource and there was the risk that if an interconnector was built the price would go increase.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
ESB are replacing some power lines with a different aluminium alloy containing IIRC some zincronium, this means they keep more strength at higher temperatures. In other words you can put more current through them at peak times.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »Ill will expand on my earlier comment regards voltage support and increase efficiency.
Insulators have to take the peak voltage. By using DC the same current (same heating effect / same transmission loss) can carry 41% more power than using AC. Yes there are other losses in conversion and you can't switchover at 0V, but the other advantage of DC is that you don't need to synchronise the frequencies. Also you could imagine large capacitors or batteries storing small amounts of DC.
not sure if a separate DC grid for wind farms would be more efficient ?
Our peak demand for power is the hour when everyone gets home from work. By shifting this peak (washing machines / driers / dishwashers , pre heat ovens / water / water pumps for central heating / putting chargers etc on standby ) we could reduce infrastructure needed by 10%In my opinion smart meters are part of the overall solution and should not be discounted from the discussion.
Didn't that happen on Dec 21st ?Thus the asset is not yet in commercial service until Eirgrid signs off on the acceptance agreement.
It's now running at 250MW http://www.eirgrid.com/eastwest/eastwestflowgraph/0 -
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.
Incorrectly lauded. France is as good at containing bad news as it's regular radioactive leaks. It's older nuclear reactors are in a fragile state and being kept operational only because the government prefers to balance the risk of a major nuclear incident against the certainty of job losses. In the 2007 presidential debate, the defeated candidate raised the question as to why France was pushing ahead with building a 3rd gen reactor when it would be obsolete technology by the time it was completed. "Just because" was Sarkozy's answer (okay, I'm paraphrasing a bit). Well, whaddyaknow, five years later, they had to rebuild a large part of the facility to bring it up to post-Fukushima standards.
As for being a continuous exporter ... since when??? Every year - and with increasing regularity - France suffers blackouts due to insufficient supply and has to import electricity from Germany, Spain and Italy. A few years ago, someone cut the cable to Germany and around 10 million of us were left in the dark for several hours.
The most popular and recommended domestic hotwater system in this country is ... the immersion heater. How very 1970s. Simple electric heaters are promoted as the best form of homeowner's space heating.
Never, ever use France as an example of good management of electrical generation or consumption.
Besides, a "rational discussion" on whether or not nuclear is a good source (bearing in mind that Ireland does not have its own source of fuel so will still be in competition with other countries for the raw material) distracts from the real issue: why do we need so much electricity, and why does it have to be generated in huge remote plants? Our millions of electronic gadgets do not need megawatt supplies when most of them run at well under 12V and fractions of an amp. We don't need electricity for heating, we don't need it for locomotion (a real waste of non-storable energy if ever there was one), we certainly don't need to boil water in giant kettles to produce energy so that we can boil water in small kettles a few minutes later with a huge loss in energy in the meantime.
A mixture of "green" electricity generating systems and sensible use of fossil/other renewable fuels could allow great swathes of the country to be come energy-autonomous. Bring the point of production close to the end user and make the user responsible for the waste in transmission and you'd soon see our total energy consumption drop - without any noticeable impact on our quality of life.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »ESB are replacing some power lines with a different aluminium alloy containing IIRC some zincronium, this means they keep more strength at higher temperatures. In other words you can put more current through them at peak times.
The large multinational I work for is also looking at aluminium conductors to replace copper since copper is after getting so expensive. A larger cross sectional area is required on an Alu conductor compared to Cu for they same power transfer its also lighter per meter even with the lighter cross sectional area. However due to the larger cross sectional area insulators mechanical strength will have to be revised to ensure they dont fail due to wind loading.Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Insulators have to take the peak voltage. By using DC the same current (same heating effect / same transmission loss) can carry 41% more power than using AC. Yes there are other losses in conversion and you can't switchover at 0V, but the other advantage of DC is that you don't need to synchronise the frequencies. Also you could imagine large capacitors or batteries storing small amounts of DC.
not sure if a separate DC grid for wind farms would be more efficient ?
It is more efficient from a technical perspective (less electrical losses and no skin effect) but HVDC is expensive especially if radial connections are required (such as offshore HVDC) using VSC technology as the older CSC type is point to point.
From memory most offshore wind schemes have a threshold of somewhere in the region of 50km anything less connected back to shore as its cost prohibitive. Projects over 50Km should consider HVDC.Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Didn't that happen on Dec 21st ?
It's now running at 250MW http://www.eirgrid.com/eastwest/eastwestflowgraph/
I was replying to eoghan_85 comment regards the interconnector commercially operating at 10% capacity which I found strange to say the least. :cool:
Thanks for the link none the less. Interesting to see the demand profile.0 -
nogoodnamesleft wrote: »Emissions from Nuclear are effectively zero (although this depends on what journal you read :-p) on a MW scale. However they still do contribute some CO2 emissions when you consider GWs but it’s in the region of 0.022 tonnes of CO2/MW compared to 0.9 tonnes of CO2/MW with Coal.
I still can’t envisage many Irish people not opposing a planned nuclear plant in their area knowing that there is a risk associated with it (due to bad publicity from Japan and Chernobyl.)
I acknowledge that the emissions are not zero but when compared to fossil fuel burning plants it is virtually negligible.
Presume the second part was a typo as I can't envisage planning being granted for any nuclear station in this country because of the local opposition it would draw.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »Ill will expand on my earlier comment regards voltage support and increase efficiency. Voltage decreases with increasing line length thus the voltage the end of the feeder will be lower than at the start of the feeder. With the renewable generation source when it is generating it will contribute power to the grid and also support the voltage at the end of the feeder. Additionally due to a local generation source feeding the local source lines that would feed the load traditionally now have additional capacity to carry current mitigated by the renewable generation source. Obviously provision would have to be made to have the necessary infrastructure in place to regulate voltage (SVC’s for example) and have enough capacity to feed to load when the wind stops blowing thus this is a far more complex problem than it first appears (i.e. optimized power flows for different scenarios, with renewable, without renewable, N-1 etc).
You're spot on here in what you are saying - however, practically every windfarm connected to the grid at the moment has it's own dedicated line to the windfarm from the ESB substation. Therefore, whatever mitigating measures being taken by the windfarm to regulate it's voltage will be already be mitigated by the AVR's on the substation trafo. So technically the local consumers do not have their voltage impacted in any positive sense by the windfarm in 99% of cases.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »Obviously from a protection design perspective the protection that was designed was most likely designed with the assumption that the power would be uni–directional and thus may have directional protection relays what will trip taking into account bi-directional power flow.
Thus I disagree with you regards it being a red herring unless you can point me in the direction of a load flow analysis from a reputable source (such as the ESB or Eirgrid) to disprove otherwise.
The only protection redesign required is the removal of rudimentary busbar protection schemes as well as polarizing the protection on overcurrent relays on the generator bay. A bit of work in it but it's not anything that couldn't be overcome and it's currently pretty much standard to cater for it at the moment. The red herring I was referring to was the smart metering - nothing to do with protection. Don't see what the load flow analysis has to do with it. Also, any potential file prepared by the ESB/Eirgrid which will conflict with their current agendas will never see the public light of day - no different to most companies I'd imagine.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »In my opinion smart meters are part of the overall solution and should not be discounted from the discussion. In this future Irish hypothetical model we are considering renewable generation (be it from a wind turbine on an individuals land or PV cells on an individuals roof not just exclusively commercial wind farms). The utility will have to have some control associated with this these distributed assets in order to regulate the network (voltage, frequency etc) and control generation (periodic maintenance, faults etc). Smart metering could provide visibility of voltage levels and fault occurrences and aid in locating the fault on the distribution network. I see this as a positive attribute of the evolving grid.
I dont see what this smart metering can provide that is not already there. NCC and DCC already have all this information available to them from meters in each substation. Regarding faults - meters do not inform anyone about faults, alarms from protection relays do. Also, seeing as the protection will have tripped in most cases for the fault, the voltage will be zero so I dont see where meters are useful in this case for fault locating.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »I should clarify. Globally carbon emissions have to be reduced to slow and hopefully prevent global warming. To achieve this the EU devised the ETS. One of the goals in which to lower EU emissions which is legally binding specifically states that EU as a whole will have to reduce 20% of emissions, that 20% of the energy it consumes has to be from renewable by 2020. The 20-20-20 plan. There will more than likely be similar strategies for 2030 and 2050 milestones.
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm[/QUOTE]
The link you're pointing to stipulates 20% renewable. Why so have Eirgrid made it their mission to have 50% from renewable by 2020? As I said before, I do not have a problem with renewable energy. I have a problem with the way that it is being installed and I feel this overambition is an inefficient route to take.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »Eirgrid have released a press release regards the RF interference issue near the converter station (most likely due to the high switching frequency required for HVDC transmission).
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Media%20Release%20-%20East%20West%20Interconnector.pdf
As I mentioned in my previous post I suggested that Eirgrid were possibly testing the asset and this is when this particular problem arose and this is exactly what they (Eirgrid) were doing. From an engineering perspective you cannot just max out a new asset so early after it being only recently commissioned there will be a run in period to ensure it behaves the way it was designed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/power-link-not-in-use-since-it-was-switched-on-215871.html
From the above article Eirgrid have not taken possession of the asset from the contractor (ABB) until these issues have been addressed (as per contractual terms –one would hope!). Thus the asset is not yet in commercial service until Eirgrid signs off on the acceptance agreement.
Eirgrid have taken ownership of this asset and the load reduction was nothing to do with testing or commissioning. I also do stand over my comment that it was a highly embarrassing incident for Eirgrid.
My initial point on this is after getting lost. Like I said the comment on the 40MW output was tongue in cheek and it is inevitable that it will eventually get up to the 500MW when the issues are resolved. The point I was making is that the interconnector was not built to export green energy, etc... The interconnector is a de facto new generation plant for Eirgrid to mask the complete lack of investment in electricity generation in this country over the last number of years. All the yak about it providing a platform to export our clean energy is political speak.
clearly they've since increased it to 250MW. Thanks Captn Midnight for that linknogoodnamesleft wrote: »Ah I wouldn’t take any statistics posted on http://www.windwisdom.net/ as gospel even if I was into flying a hot air balloon! Your previous statement regards wind behavior is simply untrue.
Wind varies at different heights, for example at 1m you might have a wind speed of 2m/s and at 10meters it might be a wind speed of 5/ms. Wind maps are published based on metrological data collected over a years sometimes at very high resolution (i.e. in mins or seconds). It is also dependant upon weather fronts hence there will be slight variation on the power produced by the many different wind farms geographically dispersed around the North Sea will experience variations of weather (dependant on the size of the weather fronts)
I am assuming if you are flying your weather balloon you would be higher than 100 meters (as at this height 100m is considered a large turbine of a few MW)!
OK until I can produce a more reputable source I'll not argue with you here! To be fair I did say that it was from one quick google search to support what I have been told and took on face value by people in the industry.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »Regards the ancillary benefit of synchronous machines ability to regulate grid frequency the problem is not confined solely to that of wind turbines but also to that of the decommissioning of older synchronous (fossil derived) generation due to emissions regulations and of life. The frequency response of induction based wind turbines is still a work in progress however the ENTSO-E is assessing how this can be addressed such that all generators through control can emulate the frequency response of synchronous machines by future grid regulations.
https://www.entsoe.eu/major-projects/network-code-development/requirements-for-generators/
Frequency response of induction generators is a constant work in progress but at least they can provide a response. What I pointed out is that most of the wind generation on out network is from asynchronous machines which cannot provide any response. I don't know see what impact the decommissioning of synchronous machines has to do with it. We're talking about the immediate response of generators on the network to an unforeseen event.
Celtic Rambler - I was referring to France having a very good track record regarding it's nuclear generation which it does. As I stated, how it manages it's grid planning is another matter and clearly, as you point out, it's planning is clearly poor. Think you went off on a bit of a tangent regarding the rest of your post and maybe you should set up a new thread on why we need so much electricity and how we should all go back handwashing, stove cooking, etc!0 -
Advertisement
-
A nuclear power plant could only be financially viable (that is if it could be financially viable at all) if it were to provide power to satisfy almost all of the country's needs. However, such plants require regular maintenance which involves downtime hence if nuclear power was to be adopted a minimum of two plants would be required (would theoretically double the cost of generating each kW).
When it comes to wind energy, unfortunately immediate generation backup is required in case the wind drops / fluctuates. This backup is generally provided by fossil fuel generators. The gas generators that provide a lot of this backup are CCGT plants which are slow to start and run very inefficiently unless cranked up fully hence the use of wind turbines becomes almost redundant as the backup providers are running at full power anyway. The cost of this double generation is paid through our electricity bills so it is difficult to argue that wind energy benefits the consumer financially. However, it is true to say that wind turbines have become vastly more efficient for the operator in recent years but grants and financial incentives for building wind farms have been reduced also.0
Advertisement