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
-
I used to think that it would be the best option for Ireland. The more I think about it though it seems like a bad idea. With Ireland being so small, even a small problem with a reactor would mean that we would have to move off the Island. Seeing that Norway is using 100% renewable energy, it doesn't seem too hard for Ireland to follow that. We have an abundance of coast that could be used for wind / wave energy.
BTW I'm no hippy and fully understand nuclear energy.0 -
Would a nuclear plant built today not be over-engineered to the max?.
No, not at all. Arnie Gunderson explains how most of the world reactors have built in flaws, reactors can be made safer, but most are made cheaper.
Chernobyl had no containment, Fukushima had containment flaws which lead to the detonations.
Reactors can be built fail safe, fuel storage pools can be enclosed and spent fuel rods contained in dry containment, some were thus at Fukushima, some were not. Diesel and water pumps can be submersible, none were so at Fukushima.
It can be done, but current built regulations are just enough, these needed changing from the very beginning and was argued over prior to the building of the nuclear stations.
Also the use of MOX fuel only adds to the already unsafe practices, Arnie explains that too.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »So you haven't heard about that tree that fell on a power line between Switzerland and Italy ?
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.
What happened with the tree?
I'm well aware of Enron's market rigging and greed, but there are definitely infrastructure/control problems with the large-scale grids. The IEEE Spectrum did a whole series of articles on this, see here for example.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89859
and not using the French system of relying on the other reactor to provide backup power. (one of the reasons why €250 million €25Bn will have to be spend on European reactor safety updates that were agreed in 1990)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).
Next generation reactors are ~ 1.5 GW , 3GW is more than our base load.
Edit - it's €25Bn that needs to be spent :eek:0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
Let's be very clear about this.Chernobyl had no containment, Fukushima had containment flaws which lead to the detonations.
Reactors can be built fail safe, fuel storage pools can be enclosed and spent fuel rods contained in dry containment, some were thus at Fukushima, some were not. Diesel and water pumps can be submersible, none were so at Fukushima.
It can be done, but current built regulations are just enough, these needed changing from the very beginning and was argued over prior to the building of the nuclear stations.
What happened at Fukushima was that they ignored the lessons that should have been learnt after
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennilis_Nuclear_Power_Plant
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant_flood
also
http://deciphering-fukushima.blogs.sciencesetavenir.fr/tag/monique%20sen%C3%A9
Blayais was exactly the same as Fukushima. The French were lucky.
The sea defences weren't high enough to withstand a combination of the largest surge recorded at the site on top of a high tide. ( yes there were historical records of Tsunami flooding at the Fukushima site )
Point here is that the Nuclear industry doesn't appear to learn as much from near misses as you'd expect them to.
Also since the Blavais incident could have been avoided had implemented the 1998 recommendation ASAP. The attitude of the Nuclear industry to safety can be summed up by this
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/eu-nuclear-tests-idUSL6E8L2BJS20121002BRUSSELS, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Europe's nuclear reactor fleet needs investment of 10 billion to 25 billion euros, a draft Commission report said, following a safety review designed to ensure there is never a repeat of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
Turbulent Bill wrote: »What happened with the tree?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+tree+that+fell+on+a+power+line+between+Switzerland+and+Italy :pac:0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »and not using the French system of relying on the other reactor to provide backup power. (one of the reasons why €250 million €25Bn will have to be spend on European reactor safety updates that were agreed in 1990)
Next generation reactors are ~ 1.5 GW , 3GW is more than our base load.
Edit - it's €25Bn that needs to be spent :eek:
0 -
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.
Apologies, yup its a typo.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.
Im not aware of how the ESB manage wind farm connections in Ireland so I cant comment on this as I havent the schematic drawings.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.
Almost certainly load flows and any analysis will never be made public but from an curiosity point of view I would be interested to see them.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.
Protection will trip but it may take a while in order to determine where the actual fault is as more than one protection device may trip. The consumer will always be the one of the 1st to notice a fault :pac:
Smart meters are being developed with increased functionality that report periodically to the utility via existing GSM networks. The aim among other things is to get meter readings (thus no longer the need for some to call to your home to read the electricity meter as the utility will have access to real time information). They also allow the utility to remotely switch off supply to a premises say for example a consumer didnt pay their bill (saves some one going out to the house to pull the main fuse!)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.
The EU is the driver behind renewable energy which is why I posted the link. However I have no idea regards why Eirgrid have set such an ambitious target it could be down to attract interest in Europe (due to publicity from being the 1st country in the EU to have 50% installed capacity from renewable). Obviously if such a target was achieved it would do wonders for generating business interests in the company.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 link
Being honest I would have thought it would have been more embarrassing for ABB as its they are one of the leaders and most established firms for HVDC followed by Siemens and Alstom. The presence of destructive RF interference would most likely have been a clause in the contract which is probably the reason for the delay in the asset being handed over to Eirgrid.
In my opinion you are correct that 99% of the time it will import energy but I feel it will ensure security of supply. However the utilities in Ireland should be looking at reserve capacity to be installed in the event the the East-West interconnector becomes unavailableFrequency 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.
What I was attempting to convey was one of the most likely reasons due to the frequency variations is due to the decommissioning of older fossil fuel derived generation. Obviously the ancillary service they provided to regulate frequency is not longer available rather than Wind turbines causing frequency disturbance.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
Norway, Iceland are already over 50%, if they join.nogoodnamesleft wrote: »(due to publicity from being the 1st country in the EU to have 50% installed capacity from renewable)
Sweden are very close too.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/29/sweden-imports-garbage-for-energySweden plans to import nearly 800,000 tonnes of waste each year to satisfy its waste-to-energy plants -- waste conscious Swedes have been recycling so efficiently, the country doesn't have enough of its own trash to burn.
...
Currently, 20 percent of Sweden's heat supply is produced by incinerating garbage -- that's 810,000 homes -- with the remaining energy providing 250,000 homes with electricity.0 -
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!
I take the point about going off on a tangent but:
1. France is currently a net importer of electricity from Germany - i.e. the country whose abandonment of nuclear power has been most prominent. In terms of pure megawatts, it's a figure that hovers close to the neutral point, but France pays a huge cost for its nuclear power, dumping summer over-production cheaply into central/Mediterranean Europe, while importing premium priced, mostly renewable, power all through the winter. (net 7500 GWh imported for year to Oct 2012)
2. France's "good" nuclear safety record is a political fiction. The reality is that France's reactor stock is not in a good state, minor incidents are increasingly frequent, and recent "stress tests" found varying levels of failures in every single one of the country's 58 reactors. What a surprise to learn that the provisional report delivered by the European authorities had been sanitised when it was formally published a few weeks later, but it doesn't say much for a country's nuclear expertise when it has to almost completely rebuild a brand new "safest, most modern" facility.
By all means debate the pros and cons of nuclear power for Ireland - just don't use France as a point of reference!
(Oh and btw, EdF is proposing a 30% rise in the price of French electricity over the next 5 years to make up for losses incurred as a result of government-fixed rates)0 -
Advertisement
-
CelticRambler wrote: »I take the point about going off on a tangent but:
1. France is currently a net importer of electricity from Germany - i.e. the country whose abandonment of nuclear power has been most prominent. In terms of pure megawatts, it's a figure that hovers close to the neutral point, but France pays a huge cost for its nuclear power, dumping summer over-production cheaply into central/Mediterranean Europe, while importing premium priced, mostly renewable, power all through the winter. (net 7500 GWh imported for year to Oct 2012))
Again, like I said already - this relates to poor infrastructure planning as opposed to nuclear technology development and implementation.
The purpose of a stress test is to find the point of failure - one would expect a varying level of failure in each reactor. I'm quite sure you will easily locate plenty of articles that will discredit the French nuclear programme but based experience, most utilities and power companies do regard them as being at the forefront.CelticRambler wrote: »2. France's "good" nuclear safety record is a political fiction. The reality is that France's reactor stock is not in a good state, minor incidents are increasingly frequent, and recent "stress tests" found varying levels of failures in every single one of the country's 58 reactors. What a surprise to learn that the provisional report delivered by the European authorities had been sanitised when it was formally published a few weeks later, but it doesn't say much for a country's nuclear expertise when it has to almost completely rebuild a brand new "safest, most modern" facility.)CelticRambler wrote: »By all means debate the pros and cons of nuclear power for Ireland - just don't use France as a point of reference!
(Oh and btw, EdF is proposing a 30% rise in the price of French electricity over the next 5 years to make up for losses incurred as a result of government-fixed rates)
I'm advocating the pros of nuclear so I will use whatever I see fit as a point of reference!
"Government fixed rates"? A bit like how ESB have been obliged by our govt/energy regulator to ramp up the cost it's product over the last 5 years to help create our false electricity market.0 -
On a high level for Ireland to have a fully sustainable electricity grid for generations and generations to come would it not be more worthwhile investing the billions of money now available into renewable infrastructure - wind, wave, tidal, hydro. Invest the money into Irish universities and Irish owned companies to develop the infrastructure that once installed and developed will cost minimal. A nuclear reactor is not necessary in Ireland and when engineering projects are led by economics rather than actual requirements it will only lead to trouble. I for one am 100% opposed to nuclear energy being used in Ireland when the possibility is now there to develop energy sources that would cost practically zero to the customer0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
Implementation has been historically poor right across the board, even at the design phase never mind when Homer Simpson is let loose.Again, like I said already - this relates to poor infrastructure planning as opposed to nuclear technology development and implementation.
Look at the corrosion problems in US plants.
The accident at Chernobyl was caused by not correctly managing a fundamental feature inherent in the physics of reactors that was belatedly found in 1944.
A lot of stress tests can be done on paperThe purpose of a stress test is to find the point of failure - one would expect a varying level of failure in each reactor. I'm quite sure you will easily locate plenty of articles that will discredit the French nuclear programme but based experience, most utilities and power companies do regard them as being at the forefront.
Basic stuff like not relying only on the other reactor to provide backup cooling power. Or building reactors in area that have a seismic history.
Or in the case of the USA making sure the earthquake reinforcement for the opposite reactor was built the opposite way around.
Fixed rates ?I'm advocating the pros of nuclear so I will use whatever I see fit as a point of reference!
"Government fixed rates"? A bit like how ESB have been obliged by our govt/energy regulator to ramp up the cost it's product over the last 5 years to help create our false electricity market.
Imagine you took out a mortgage on a house.
You are paying interest from day 1
now imagine you can't make the first payment for at least 10 years, possibly more (The UK won't have their new reactors until 2025 and they are much further along than we are )
How much interest will have accumulated by then ??
One of the big problems with nuclear is that the cost depends on interest rates spanning decades. You get woolly figures on the the costs, but not on the cost of financing or what the costs of the alternatives are likely to be by then.0 -
A cleaner and safer alternative to nuclear power would possibly be the Spirit of Ireland plan to build several large pumped storage hydro stations along the coast. I don’t know the current status of this plan but the last I heard was that they were in serious talks with the local community at one suitable site in south Donegal.
From memory I think that they were looking at 1,000 MW + for each of three or four sites but I could be wrong about that. A side benefit of the project is that it would create a night-time market for wind energy, thereby making the wind farms more economical. The idea would be to create a huge reservoir by putting a dam on a V-shaped valley close to the sea and pumping sea water up into it during the night, using output from the wind farms when it was available. The water would then be used to generate during the day or when there was a peak in demand. Something like Turlough Hill but on a vastly larger scale.
The wind generation could be largely off shore so that it would not annoy the Germans, Italians, English, French etc. who have taken over the Irish countryside and who insist that they know best when it comes to planning as well as everything else. I have seen some of these guests of our nation in action when there was a plan to build a wind farm in a particular area and I can imagine that the mere mention of a nuclear station would have them producing enough high pressure steam to keep the turbines turning at Moneypoint for years to come.
Does anyone have an update on the Spirit of Ireland project?0 -
While I am not anti nuclear in any way the introduction of a single generating plant to produce so much of the country's requirement would require a total overhaul of the supply grid also. The grid was developed in line with the power plants that were built in various parts of the country. Current renewable developments provide relatively small outputs and feed into the grid at their various locations and usually only require minor gridwork to link up with the nearest suitable point.
The grid probably does need a serious overhaul anyway to allow some of the older ESB power plants be decommissioned but it can only be updated as new (relatively) sustainable generation plants are built.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
Probably cheaper for the UK to use Norway instead of building pumped storage here.A cleaner and safer alternative to nuclear power would possibly be the Spirit of Ireland plan to build several large pumped storage hydro stations along the coast
Interconnectors would have to be built from the West of Ireland to the UK and perhaps improvements in their national grid too so there wouldn't be much difference in linking to Norway. Also undersea cables cost more they don't have to worry as much about NIMBY's0 -
No, this relates to the promotion of nuclear power as a cheap source of electricity. France has 58 reactors - the most "nuclear" European nation - and has promoted electricity consumption on the back of the "cheap power" argument for decades. This has led to a huge increase in demand, only to be revealed in these last few years as a great con. There isn't sufficient demand in summer to use all the cheap nuclear power available so it's sold off at or below cost to the east; and then in the winter, France can't cope with the demand it created and has to go looking for energy from non-nuclear sources from its neighbours. And as if that wasn't bad enough, we're now told that cheap nuclear power isn't that cheap after all and would we mind paying a realistic price from here on, and a bit more to cover the earlier losses.Again, like I said already - this relates to poor infrastructure planning as opposed to nuclear technology development and implementation.
This is all in the context of an existing infrastructure - so (comment below notwithstanding) if a country said to be at the forefront of the nuclear industry and an established network can't make it work in 2010, 2011, 2012 what chance is there for a start-up nation like Ireland?
If being at the forefront includes having to practically rebuild your newest facility because it's so far behind current technology being built in other countries, I think I would seriously question the judgement of "most utilities and power companies" that think the French are there. The Chinese decided they didn't want to be saddled with out-of-date French technology and walked away from the negotiations a few years ago in favour of 4th gen reactors.The purpose of a stress test is to find the point of failure - one would expect a varying level of failure in each reactor. I'm quite sure you will easily locate plenty of articles that will discredit the French nuclear programme but based experience, most utilities and power companies do regard them as being at the forefront.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Probably cheaper for the UK to use Norway instead of building pumped storage here.
Interconnectors would have to be built from the West of Ireland to the UK and perhaps improvements in their national grid too so there wouldn't be much difference in linking to Norway. Also undersea cables cost more they don't have to worry as much about NIMBY's
Was involved with the Norway to Holland and Holland to England HVDC interconnectors, (NorNed and BritNed) a few years back. Believe plans are already well underway for interconnectors from Norway to Scotland and England as part of the European Trans European Networks Program, coming ashore around Peterhead (landing secured I think) and Easington.“Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”
0 -
How come that, to the anti nuke renewable church, any mention of game changing improvements in nuclear power prospects are poo -pooed as unrealistic pie in the sky?
On the other hand they believe that a solution to the energy storage problem, [without which renewables are a busted flush] is just around the corner and, like the second coming, will be with us any day now.
The other, much relied upon mantra, is that we will run out of uranium in 40 years time and so there is no point in building new nuclear plant.
I would suggest that you renewable chappies will have run out of countryside to despoil long before we run out of uranium or thorium. When you have trampled every last bit of heather underfoot building your monstrous whirly-gigs what are you going to do for an encore?0 -
Advertisement
-
CelticRambler wrote: »No, this relates to the promotion of nuclear power as a cheap source of electricity. France has 58 reactors - the most "nuclear" European nation - and has promoted electricity consumption on the back of the "cheap power" argument for decades. This has led to a huge increase in demand, only to be revealed in these last few years as a great con. There isn't sufficient demand in summer to use all the cheap nuclear power available so it's sold off at or below cost to the east; and then in the winter, France can't cope with the demand it created and has to go looking for energy from non-nuclear sources from its neighbours. And as if that wasn't bad enough, we're now told that cheap nuclear power isn't that cheap after all and would we mind paying a realistic price from here on, and a bit more to cover the earlier losses.
This is all in the context of an existing infrastructure - so (comment below notwithstanding) if a country said to be at the forefront of the nuclear industry and an established network can't make it work in 2010, 2011, 2012 what chance is there for a start-up nation like Ireland?
If being at the forefront includes having to practically rebuild your newest facility because it's so far behind current technology being built in other countries, I think I would seriously question the judgement of "most utilities and power companies" that think the French are there. The Chinese decided they didn't want to be saddled with out-of-date French technology and walked away from the negotiations a few years ago in favour of 4th gen reactors.
I'll say it for the 3rd time to you, your first point relates to infrastructure planning and not technology development. At least in your second point you have addresses the technology factor.
However, while you seem to have some serious issues with the French power industry it is worth pointing out that the world energy council have consistently ranked France in the top 10 in the world for energy performance so they must be doing something right!0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
what game changing improvements ?Curly Judge wrote: »How come that, to the anti nuke renewable church, any mention of game changing improvements in nuclear power prospects are poo -pooed as unrealistic pie in the sky?
what new nuclear technologies have been demonstrated recently ?
what old technologies that didn't work 50 years ago have been debugged recently ?
what major discoveries have there been in the physics of fission recently ?
any improvements in metalurgy also benefit fossil fuel plant - todays CCGT plants have twice the thermal efficiency as older coal plants
Commercial breeder reactors haven't appeared even though breeding plutonium in multiple reactors was happening back in 1944 (remember fission was only discovered in December 1938)
Most of the people who worked on the early molten salt / thorium reactors have died of old age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 - Pebble bed with some thorium in the mix. decomissioned nearly a quarter of a century ago and left in a state of safe enclosure (ie. sealed with concrete)
and a request to defer decomissioning for a further 25 years was rejected on financing grounds http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0147:FIN:EN:HTML
IF a cheap form of energy storage becomes available then renewables win.On the other hand they believe that a solution to the energy storage problem, [without which renewables are a busted flush] is just around the corner and, like the second coming, will be with us any day now.
The other, much relied upon mantra, is that we will run out of uranium in 40 years time and so there is no point in building new nuclear plant.
I would suggest that you renewable chappies will have run out of countryside to despoil long before we run out of uranium or thorium. When you have trampled every last bit of heather underfoot building your monstrous whirly-gigs what are you going to do for an encore?
Anyone suggesting that renewables = wind just doesn't get it.
hydro is the biz, 'cept we've already maxed that out
wind = cheap, proven and doable, and until we hit 30% of energy from wind (or get more interconnectors or storage) the predicted outages aren't really a problem (prediction accuracy improves 24hrs ahead per decade)
tidal is more expensive but predictable so expect it to be used more as our % of renewables grows
waste to energy - this will grow steadily
biomass - not huge but every MWhr means less fuel imports and better balance of payments
we will run out of cheap uranium in 40 years give or take
at present nuclear provides 15% of the worlds power
if you want to make 50% of the worlds power for the 50-60 years life of a new nuclear power station you are going to have to find a lot more uranium - and you'd need a lot of petrochemicals to try extracting it from sea water, admittedly it's easier to recover than the gold dissolved in sea water
we've used up all the decommissioned Soviet missiles
next generation schemes and better reprocessing promise maybe 50% more efficient use of natural uranium (at a huge cost in processing and energy use) and yes thorium might be used to stretch the mix a bit (it's fertile if you a surplus of neutrons), but if we haven't got plutonium breeders working then it's unlikely we'll get thorium breeders working0 -
If wishes were fishes...................?Capt'n Midnight wrote: »[/url]
IF a cheap form of energy storage becomes available then renewables win.
Cheap energy storage is at least as far off as a well running commercial fast breeder reactor and may well prove to be impossible.
How much would it cost to have 3 weeks energy storage in Ireland and how do you propose to do it?
A 3 week anticylone in winter time is not unheard of!
Oh, I get it all right!Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Anyone suggesting that renewables = wind just doesn't get it.
At the moment renewables is wind.
Renewables is a one trick pony!
Then why mention it?Capt'n Midnight wrote: »hydro is the biz, 'cept we've already maxed that out
Prediction won't turn a turbine! You can have all the prediction you like but whether it's a 5 day or a 10 day forecast you still have to install expensive back up plant to keep the lights on when the wind drops.Capt'n Midnight wrote: »wind = cheap, proven and doable, and until we hit 30% of energy from wind (or get more interconnectors or storage) the predicted outages aren't really a problem (prediction accuracy improves 24hrs ahead per decade)
Who in their right mind would buy two cars to go to work whe one good one would do the job in the first place.
Name two places in Ireland that are suitable tidal candidate sites?Capt'n Midnight wrote: »tidal is more expensive but predictable so expect it to be used more as our % of renewables grows
How many MWs have our well paid boffins at either of our two universities involved generated from either tidal or wave?
Swedish recycling is now so efficient they have to import waste to keep their plants going.Capt'n Midnight wrote: »waste to energy - this will grow steadily
Radiation versus dioxins?
You can pay too much for gold same as anything else!Capt'n Midnight wrote: »biomass - not huge but every MWhr means less fuel imports and better balance of payments
Keeping the fires lit with Chippendale furniture would probable be cheaper!0 -
I'll say it for the 3rd time to you, your first point relates to infrastructure planning and not technology development. ... it is worth pointing out that the world energy council have consistently ranked France in the top 10 in the world for energy performance so they must be doing something right!
And I'll reply again that the original question was whether or not a nuclear power plant would be appropriate for Ireland. You insist that France is a world leader, and I don't dispute that they are the most "nuclear" European country (and do a great job of covering up their deficiencies, like in so many other sectors) but despite this reputation and decades of experience, they are importing increasing amounts of electricity with every passing year, most of which is coming from renewable sources.
While Germany winds down its nuclear production, the French gobble up costly German wattage from alternative sources and are desperately trying to reduce their imports by investing in renewables on their own soil, not by building more nuclear plants. So if the "best" nuclear nation in Europe depends more and more on green power to make up a persistent consumption deficit, how can nuclear possibly be a rational proposal for a country like Ireland whose experience with nuclear is zero, but whose progress in, and potential for developing, renewable power is considerable?0 -
Has the sun stopped shining in Ireland? :eek:Curly Judge wrote: »At the moment renewables is wind.
Renewables is a one trick pony!
I'll give you one to begin with: Strangford Lough (2008). "Our well paid boffins" will no doubt be aiming to beat the 5GWh that Siemens produced from that unit from Jan-Sep 2012.Curly Judge wrote: »Name two places in Ireland that are suitable tidal candidate sites?
How many MWs have our well paid boffins at either of our two universities involved generated from either tidal or wave?0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2012/0127/1224310600642.htmlEnvisaged for Scotland are 1.5GW of offshore wind capacity – involving up to 750 turbines, about 300MW of offshore wind in Donegal and about the same level in Northern Ireland combined with about 200MW of tidal energy and 500MW of interconnection to Scotland.
The second stage of the project will involve 3.4GW of offshore wind along Ireland’s east coast in addition to 2GW of interconnection with Wales.
http://www.energyireland.ie/northern-irelands-offshore-potentialThe Crown Estate, which owns the region’s seabed, launched the licensing process for a single 600MW offshore wind project off the south-east coast of County Down and multiple tidal projects up to 200MW off Rathlin island and Torr Head.
For the Rathlin Island and Torr Head strategic area, applications are being sought for commercial demonstration leases up to and including 10MW and full commercial leases (over 10MW and up to 100MW). These projects are expected to reach development stage from 2016 or 2017 onwards.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89859
which part of Norwegian hydro would be cheaper than Spirit of Ireland have you failed to understand ?Curly Judge wrote: »How much would it cost to have 3 weeks energy storage in Ireland and how do you propose to do it?
Interconnectors, Moneypoint on standby, large industrial customers shedding load, in future smart meters would also helpA 3 week anticylone in winter time is not unheard of!
Prediction won't turn a turbine! You can have all the prediction you like but whether it's a 5 day or a 10 day forecast you still have to install expensive back up plant to keep the lights on when the wind drops.
and lots of insulation grants for houses/appartments/businesses that rely on electrical heating ( do other homes later on)
Negligable annual dioxins from a properly managed waste to energy plant compared to what happens at Halloween.Swedish recycling is now so efficient they have to import waste to keep their plants going.
Radiation versus dioxins?0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
Would be interesting to see this happening, but whatever about the stuff on the north coast, I believe we are unlikely to see any of this happening in Ireland for many years if ever.
Seen this speech on TV by chance one night last year
http://www.feargalquinn.ie/index.php/What-I-ve-Said/Economy/Construction-Contracts-Bill-/-Permission-for-Wind-Farms
Ireland is chasing a potentially huge renewables industry elsewhere with red tape and ridicules planning policies.
We officially support renewables, regardless of which side of the argument what hope would nuclear have.“Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”
0 -
Would be interesting to see this happening, but whatever about the stuff on the north coast, I believe we are unlikely to see any of this happening in Ireland for many years if ever.
Seen this speech on TV by chance one night last year
http://www.feargalquinn.ie/index.php/What-I-ve-Said/Economy/Construction-Contracts-Bill-/-Permission-for-Wind-Farms
Ireland is chasing a potentially huge renewables industry elsewhere with red tape and ridicules planning policies.
We officially support renewables, regardless of which side of the argument what hope would nuclear have.
+ 1
From what I have heard most that have been proposed will spend a few years stuck in planning due to objections and bureaucracy.0 -
Advertisement
-
CelticRambler wrote: »Has the sun stopped shining in Ireland? :eek:
Please don't tell me you're proposing PV as part of an Irish solution.
The only areas in the world where PV has a hope of making any meaningfull contribution is a place like southern California where a demand for air conditioning happily melds with the suns power.
And even then it's going to be very expensive.CelticRambler wrote: »I'll give you one to begin with: Strangford Lough (2008). "Our well paid boffins" will no doubt be aiming to beat the 5GWh that Siemens produced from that unit from Jan-Sep 2012.
5GWh ?....are you sure about that ?
Beating that is certainly going to be a bit of a headache for our lads.
I'm off to buy shares in Siemens!0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cYgRnfFDA
Advertisement