A Nuclear Power Plant in Ireland?

Chloe Pink

Curly Judge wrote: »

Swedish recycling is now so efficient they have to import waste to keep their plants going.
Radiation versus dioxins?

Could waste to energy fill the role of nuclear in Ireland?
How much energy could it provide or would nuclear be needed / sensible as well
It is a form of renewable generation, it provides despatchable generation i.e. not intermittent and therefore not requiring backup and it could be presented as many smaller plants rather than one big one so alleviating issues with plant down time.
Patrick Swords is challenging Ireland's renewable energy policy in High Court and citing engineering options other than wind turbines as more cost effective e.g. replacing landfill sites with waste to energy plants.

Patrick Swords says the government did not undertake the legally-required environmental assessments or seek public input before establishing its policy.
http://www.tcetoday.com/latest%20news/2013/january/chemical-engineer-fights-irish-energy-policy.aspx

"Swords disagrees with Ireland’s policy of building wind turbines to cut carbon emissions. By his own calculations, he says the government is forcing the public to fund a €15bn (US$19.6bn) building programme for wind turbines that have an operational lifespan of just 15 years and save only €5m worth of carbon emissions per year."

"Cheaper routes for Ireland to reduce emissions and generate renewable energy include replacing landfill sites with waste-to-energy plants. The methane produced by waste degrading in landfill is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
“The point is that when one looks at both the potential to prevent the downstream methane emissions from landfills and the renewable energy which can be obtained, then clearly the annual emission savings are in excess of the 1.1m t derived from the wind energy programme,” says Swords.
He calculates that this option would cost just €1.5bn and the plants would last for 35 years."

gbee

Chloe Pink wrote: »

"Swords disagrees with Ireland’s policy of building wind turbines to cut carbon emissions. By his own calculations, he says the government is forcing the public to fund a €15bn (US$19.6bn) building programme for wind turbines that have an operational lifespan of just 15 years and save only €5m worth of carbon emissions per year."

Wind is never going to work, it might work on an individual farm and small communities with smaller turbines, but this massive scale wind farms are not the answer and were known to have problems before they were commissioned.

Similar findings are mirrored around the world.

Curly Judge

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

which part of Norwegian hydro would be cheaper than Spirit of Ireland have you failed to understand ?.

All of it!
The Norwegians, when they can spare the power, will transmit it to us via undersea cables, through Scotland and Northern Ireland?
To me it's up there with the Third Secret of Fatima.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Interconnectors, Moneypoint on standby, large industrial customers shedding load, in future smart meters would also help.

Now there's a great idea!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

and lots of insulation grants for houses/appartments/businesses that rely on electrical heating ( do other homes later on).

With insulation as with a lot of other things in life, a law of diminishing returns sets in after a certain stage has been reached. Conservation should be encouraged but will be of limited value unless the renewable brigade want us to go back to stoop labour. I came from stoop labour and believe me, I don't want to return.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Negligable annual dioxins from a properly managed waste to energy plant compared to what happens at Halloween.

Neglibable radiation from nuclear power stations too.

Leidenfrost

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Geothermal is the most reliable , predictable energy source , until we can better store energy from renewables.

we will run out of cheap uranium in 40 years give or take...

This is just two of a number of cases of complete fabrications and misinformation I've noticed you've been spreading.
(1) claiming that geothermal is the most reliable and predictable energy source, and (2) claiming uranium is going to run out in 40 years.

(1)
The Geothermal power capacity factor(how consistent it is in producing power) is globally lower than the capacity factor of Nuclear power.

Geothermal power: world average is ~75%
Nuclear power: is ~90%

http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch04.pdf see page 404 Geothermal powers capacity factor is ~74.5%.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/
In 2011 the US nuclear power capacity factor was 89%. The US runs 104 of the 400 and odd nuclear reactors worldwide. So it serves as a good benchmark for nuclear's global average capacity factor.

Therefore nuclear power is globally more reliable, predictable and furthermore it produces less total life cycle CO2 emissions than geothermal, again according to the IPCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Furthermore the only sizable geothermal power plants(greater than ~100 MW) in Europe are in Iceland and Italy. Both of which have active volcanoes and earthquake faults. So unless you have the power to dredge up some volcanoes in Ireland, geothermal will remain of niche use only for electricity generation in Europe.

And lest you forget, geothermal energy is energy produced by nuclear decay, and the extraction of energy from nuclear decay processes emits a fair amounts of radionuclides into the environment all on its own.

So just so we know and understand your position correctly, you're an advocate of extracting energy from nuclear decay(aka ''geothermal'' energy) yet anti-nuclear energy?:rolleyes:

A Swiss flirtation with geothermal energy resulted in numerous earthquakes, and therefore a complete abandonment of that geothermal power plant, with large payouts to households which were damaged due to the earthquakes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/15/swiss-geothermal-power-earthquakes-basel


(2)Uranium will not run out in 40 years. This is just more of your nonsense.

In reality, there is over a century(100+ years) of uranium in known reserves according to the OECD in 2012*. Assuming we continue to use uranium at the same rate that we are right now, i.e there is no improvement in LWR breeding ratios, and we don't discover any more uranium. Both unlikely assumptions.

The OECD have also noted that we have 670 years of economically recoverable uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ores, while also using present reactor technology**. i.e again assuming we don't improve on efficiency before then or begin economical extraction from seawater.

Lastly, the OECD have also determined that with the widespread implementation of a pure fast reactor fuel cycle with a burn up of, and recycling of, all the Uranium in present known reserves, there is 160,000 years worth of Uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ore**.

** https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf figure 4.10 and page 271

This is to say nothing about the potential to use Thorium nor of Uranium extraction from seawater, a technology, that despite being in it's infancy right now will surely be mature by the time we need it.(If we will need to do so at all, what with fast reactors becoming more and more common like the BN-600 reactor in operation since 1980)

In sum, nuclear fuel is cheap and secure for at least the next few centuries, i.e it's not an issue.

We could also have the potential for complete energy security if we permit uranium exploration in Ireland. Preliminary exploration of Donegal has turned up a few uranium concentrations^. With in-situ leaching this could generate substantial numbers of jobs and revenue with little to no environmental disruption in Donegal. In-situ uranium leaching means that no digging, or conventional mining is necessary.

^http://www.irishexaminer.com/story/Ireland/eysneyojql/rss2/

Moreover, presently Ireland has the hypocritical position of having no qualms about saving lives by using medical radio-isotopes such as Tc-99m, produced from uranium, yet we simultaneously make uranium exploration illegal because it might be sent to power reactors to produce electricity in our neighbors reactors.
Moreover, what exactly are we saying with this policy? that we'll take the life saving isotopes but we won't allow exploration for the very uranium material necessary to produce Tc-99m?

This is the sort of nonsense policies charlatans, such as yourself, have created.

Meanwhile Tc-99 prices are going up, electricity prices are going up, CO2 emissions are still causing global warming and there is nothing but hot air in regards to reversing these trends and providing cheaper medicines, cleaner air and stemming the tide of energy poverty in our own country and the world. Instead we are harassed by dogmatic anti-nuclear types saying ''what do we need the energy for anyway'' and spreading FUD with ''there is only 40 years of uranium left''.

I'm an advocate of cheap, safe energy producing technologies, so that means I'm an advocate of Hydro, wind and nuclear power. They all have their own advantages and disadvantages, it's about time we recognize that fact and start stamping out the misinformation spread about them. For example, wind turbines do produce net energy(contrary to a lot of misinformation) and there is no solid evidence that deformity rates increased after the Chernobyl disaster. Yet each year 'Chernobyl kids' are plastered on RTÉ. They're just naturally deformed kids, which as sad as it is, deformed kids are born everywhere, including the 8 limbed baby in India a few years ago, ''Elephant man'' born in 1862, and so on. Before chernobyl and after the accident deformed children have been born at the same rate, and have continued to be born at the same rate after the accident. There was no increase that is linked with the Chernobyl accident. Only a link to Thyroid cancer has been determined.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/26/1/M01/pdf/0952-4746_26_1_M01.pdf

Furthermore Wind power causes more deaths than nuclear power in deaths per unit of electricity generated*** which is presented as deaths/TWh. That includes the potential latent deaths from cancer due to Chernobyl which are ~30,000 total, predicted to occur by 2065. Hydro power and nuclear power have the best safety record. Despite hydro power instantly killing 40,000-100,000 people and possibly causing another 100,000 deaths due to the following famine after the massive dam disaster in Banqiao China of the 1970s.
http://theenergylibrary.com/node/13072

http://incandescent.ca/banqiao-hydro-dam-disaster-vs-chernobyl/

So for everyones sake, cut out the FUD!

This is not my opinion it's the EU's. Nuclear power causes less deaths than Wind, Coal, gas, biomass etc.
***http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml


** https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf figure 4.10 and page 271

* http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?lang=EN&sf1=identifiers&st1=978-92-64-17803-8

* If you're unwilling to pay for the red book. Here is a quick free summary. Uranium will last for at least a century. http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/2012/2012-05.html

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

With insulation as with a lot of other things in life, a law of diminishing returns sets in after a certain stage has been reached.

True

only a fraction of the house build during the boom meet the insulation level now required in Part L Building Regulations 2011

we've a few hundred excess deaths in the elderly every winter, the problem is that bad.

Neglibable radiation from nuclear power stations too.

when all goes well

the problem is all doesn't go well because of cost cutting or not applying the lessons learnt the hard way

Capt'n Midnight

Leidenfrost wrote: »

This is just two of a number of cases of complete fabrications and misinformation I've noticed you've been spreading.
(1) claiming that geothermal is the most reliable and predictable energy source, and (2) claiming uranium is going to run out in 40 years.

interesting that, most of the stuff I've looked at gave higher figures. And like solar , geothermal isn't as economic as fossil fuel here. Yes you would have to drill down very far to get temperatures high enough to get good Carnot Efficiency. It's possible that the cost of drilling will decrease in future, but for us wave and wind and tide are easier. BUT if we are going to dig big holes in the ground for a repository (or pay for foreign holes) we might as well invest in geothermal.

http://thinkgeoenergy.com/archives/9644

Higher resource temperatures statistically increase capacity factors at a rate of around 1% per 10 degrees Celsius. The performance of the different fields varies widely, with Iceland, Mexico and Indonesia representing the highest capacity factors. The age of the plants in Japan and the Philippines is mentioned as a reason for the lower capacity factors in both countries, through decreasing productivity of geothermal fields over time.
...
In an interview with Mark Taylor the Head of Geothermal at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, he said, that “the findings might not be ideal for the industry, but geothermal energy is still base-load given its 90% availability. Also utilities in the U.S. still favor Geothermal and consider it a viable base-load option. This means that developers can still secure healthy power purchase agreements (PPA) and capital should be available for good projects.”

The Geothermal power capacity factor(how consistent it is in producing power)

that's the 1% per 10 degrees above, and the smaller the temperature difference the worse it is - as always higher temps are better

In 2011 the US nuclear power capacity factor was 89%. The US runs 104 of the 400 and odd nuclear reactors worldwide. So it serves as a good benchmark for nuclear's global average capacity factor.

I could dig out the 2012 figures for unplanned outages.
I could dig out the billions needed to be spent on making European nukes safe, stuff agreed but not implemented.

Furthermore the only sizable geothermal power plants(greater than ~100 MW) in Europe are in Iceland and Italy. Both of which have active volcanoes and earthquake faults. So unless you have the power to dredge up some volcanoes in Ireland, geothermal will remain of niche use only for electricity generation in Europe.

drill deep,
again the argument is not that geothermal is wonderful but that when you take into account stuff like it's going to cost the UK €78Bn to clean up Sellafield - one site - and that doesn't include the final storage for the waste, geothermal doesn't seem as daft.

And lest you forget, geothermal energy is energy produced by nuclear decay, and the extraction of energy from nuclear decay processes emits a fair amounts of radionuclides into the environment all on its own.

Oh Crap :eek:
I'll stay indoors for the rest of my life to avoid that big fusion reactor and those cosmic rays.
Are there any figures for radon from geothermal ?

So just so we know and understand your position correctly, you're an advocate of extracting energy from nuclear decay(aka ''geothermal'' energy) yet anti-nuclear energy?:rolleyes:

The military (and I don't mean the Russians or Chinese) are perhaps the only people prepared to spend the proper amount to get safe, clean nuclear power, and they've lost subs. Everyone else has cut corners on safety for cost reasons, as even a cursory look at nuclear plant outages will show.

(2)Uranium will not run out in 40 years. This is just more of your nonsense.

cheap uranium

and it's not going to get cheaper if there more rectors. And is defo won't get cheaper if we try to get more than 15% of power from nuclear in the future.

Assuming we continue to use uranium at the same rate that we are right now, i.e there is no improvement in LWR breeding ratios, and we don't discover any more uranium. Both unlikely assumptions.

like I've pointed out we've been breeding in multiple reactors since 1944 so I wouldn't hold out any hope of a significant improvement any time soon..

Lastly, the OECD have also determined that with the widespread implementation of a pure fast reactor fuel cycle with a burn up of, and recycling of, all the Uranium in present known reserves, there is 160,000 years worth of Uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ore**.

Yes we waste most of the fuel. Uranium is a disaster 0.7% usable fuel and we only use a fraction of that the rest being waste.

and HWR mean less fuel processing and can burn up more stuff too

It's a no brainer the US or the USSR could easily become energy independent with 160,000 years of fuel reserve, but guess what ? They don't.

This is to say nothing about the potential to use Thorium nor of Uranium extraction from seawater, a technology, that despite being in it's infancy right now will surely be mature by the time we need it.

we've have molten salt reactors in the 1950's
we've had production of U233 for bomb testing in the 1950's (it worked)

Thorium, like any technology where there hasn't been any significant advances in 60 years, isn't likely to enter mainstream anytime soon.

Yes I do like the idea of an Acnticide Burner and I'm coming around to the idea that there won't be much U233 left over because of the lack of spare neutrons but I just can't see it happening any time soon.

(If we will need to do so at all, what with fast reactors becoming more and more common like the BN-600 reactor in operation since 1980)

In sum, nuclear fuel is cheap and secure for at least the next few centuries, i.e it's not an issue.

like I've pointed out we've been breeding in multiple reactors since 1944 so I wouldn't hold out any hope of a signifigant improvement any time soon..

Moreover, presently Ireland has the hypocritical position of having no qualms about saving lives by using medical radio-isotopes such as Tc-99m, produced from uranium, yet we simultaneously make uranium exploration illegal because it might be sent to power reactors to produce electricity in our neighbors reactors.

I have no problems with using nuclear power on space probes or using that ONE reactor in Canada that makes 1/3 of the medical radioisotopes BECAUSE I know they will do it properly and won't be depending on Homer Simpson and the bean counters.

For example, wind turbines do produce net energy(contrary to a lot of misinformation)

[Jackass]

I definitely think we should invest in nuclear power.

It is millions of times more efficient than any other fuel source known, and a small to medium sized plant would secure energy for the island for the next couple of centuries.

I think a cost / benefit analysis would suggest that it would be a no brainer in terms of return on investment.

The problem would be the political opposition it would face and where to put it.

I think main considerations would be to not put it in a densely populated area, not to be an eye sore amongst natural beauty where it can be avoided and safe from natural disaster, so right on the coast would be ruled out, but on the west coast there is a lot more natural protection (mountain ranges and high coast line) than on the east coast.

Looking at population density also, I would suggest Donegal would be the ideal location for the plant, to the west of the river Finn in the North West corner of the island.



High mountain ranges protecting it from the elements to the west and low lying land between mountain ranges and also a secure coast from flooding and rising tides.

Upgrading of the grid would be required, but all energy for the entire island (including N.I. - export energy) could be sourced and supplied from the plant.

Capt'n Midnight

[Jackass] wrote: »

It is millions of times more efficient than any other fuel source known, and a small to medium sized plant would secure energy for the island for the next couple of centuries.

Citation needed

Solar is more efficient, good for another 4 Billion years or so, you can make solar panels with no moving parts.



Solar technology is getting nearer the point where you could make a breeder. ie. you have a solar powered solar panel factory out in the desert somewhere busy converting sand, seawater and coal ash into panels (it's not quite that simple - but nearly)

I think a cost / benefit analysis would suggest that it would be a no brainer in terms of return on investment.

please give examples of cost
including projected cost of uranium in 60 years time (when you have to rebuild the plant)
include cost of financing construction and cost of decommissioning


also please explain how we'd avoid the one point of failure problem ?

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

also please explain how we'd avoid the one point of failure problem ?

The same way you suggest coping with the failure of renewables

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Interconnectors, Moneypoint on standby, large industrial customers shedding load, in future smart meters would also help and lots of insulation grants for houses/appartments/businesses that rely on electrical heating ( do other homes later on)

(admittedly not a single point of failure but the suns asleep and the winds low so a lot of plants down leaving only tidal, biomass and waste to energy (hydro being more accurately a storage mechanism not a generator))

Or the electricity stored in car batteries could be used to cover the outage

Or the viable storage mechanisms that are just around corner

Or the interconnectors to the solar generators in the desert in Ireland

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The same way you suggest coping with the failure of renewables

The point is that renewables don't have a single point of failure.

Many nuclear plants have gone off line in the past.

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2012/11/05/nuclear_outages_above_normal_in_2012_106764.html

- Southern California Edison's San Onofre, Units 2 and 3, where a steam tube leak last January led to the discovery of excessive wear in the plant’s new steam generators. The station's 2,159 megawatts (2.15 GW) have been down all summer and may not reopen until well into 2013.

- Progress Energy’s Crystal River Unit 3 (860 MW) has been offline since September 2009 because of cracks created when the containment was breached in order to install a new generator. Duke Energy recently acquired Progress and has not yet decided whether to try to reopen the plan.

- The Omaha Public Power District’s Fort Calhoun reactor (478 MW) has been offline since April 2011 when it was flooded by a rise in the Missouri River. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has refused to allow reopening because of additional issues. In August OPPD hired Exelon to manage the plant.

- Turkey Point Unit 3 in Miami (693 MW) underwent repairs through the spring and summer and only returned to service in October.

solas111

[Jackass] wrote: »

I definitely think we should invest in nuclear power.

It is millions of times more efficient than any other fuel source known, and a small to medium sized plant would secure energy for the island for the next couple of centuries.

I think a cost / benefit analysis would suggest that it would be a no brainer in terms of return on investment.

The problem would be the political opposition it would face and where to put it.

I think main considerations would be to not put it in a densely populated area, not to be an eye sore amongst natural beauty where it can be avoided and safe from natural disaster, so right on the coast would be ruled out, but on the west coast there is a lot more natural protection (mountain ranges and high coast line) than on the east coast.

Looking at population density also, I would suggest Donegal would be the ideal location for the plant, to the west of the river Finn in the North West corner of the island.



High mountain ranges protecting it from the elements to the west and low lying land between mountain ranges and also a secure coast from flooding and rising tides.

Upgrading of the grid would be required, but all energy for the entire island (including N.I. - export energy) could be sourced and supplied from the plant.

Had to laugh at this one. Yep, Donegal has been deprived of just about every piece of infrastructure that would be taken for granted elsewhere but let’s dump our nuclear s**t there. Why do you think Donegal keeps voting no to the rubbish that is thrown out by the corrupt ‘Dublin’ government?

There may be some merit to your suggestion but here is another idea. Why not build the plant close to where the power is needed, i.e. along the east coast. It’s not that you don’t have nuclear power there already, being so close to dirty Windscale / Sellafield. Ringsend would be an ideal location as much of the required infrastructure is already in situ. Failing that, you could stick it in the Phoenix Park, north of the River Liffey, no mountain ranges but plenty of trees protecting it from the elements and secure from flooding and rising tides. Give the lads a few brown envelopes and the Park would be rezoned before you could pronounce ‘radiation’.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Many nuclear plants have gone off line in the past.

This is not being disputed

miss no stars

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Citation needed

Solar is more efficient, good for another 4 Billion years or so, you can make solar panels with no moving parts.



Solar technology is getting nearer the point where you could make a breeder. ie. you have a solar powered solar panel factory out in the desert somewhere busy converting sand, seawater and coal ash into panels (it's not quite that simple - but nearly)

Genuine question - how efficient is it in Ireland? Take winter here, about 6 hours of proper daylight, albeit with very little sunlight or intensity. I don't get how solar could possibly be efficient in those situations at all. Which means that at least 4 months of the year it can be ruled out.

Capt'n Midnight

miss no stars wrote: »

Genuine question - how efficient is it in Ireland? Take winter here, about 6 hours of proper daylight, albeit with very little sunlight or intensity. I don't get how solar could possibly be efficient in those situations at all. Which means that at least 4 months of the year it can be ruled out.

Not very , because our peak electrical demand matches our shortest days


but for a fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant we could run an interconnector to Spain and then it starts to get interesting



Just an aside he's another step change in lithium battery capacity. I don't think they will be cheap enough for grid storage.

Comparing those numbers a car battery with 540A cranking power would weigh 120g (quarter pounder - 4 cells for the voltage) and have a capacity of 40Ah (60Ah) - that would save about 1% of the weight off the average car so saving fuel economy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/14/doped_nanotubes_lithium_battery/

A team from the University of Southern California (USC) has built a lithium battery that provides three times the power capacity of conventional designs, with a recharge time of just ten minutes and a predicted long life-span.
...
"Even after 250 cycles, the capacity remains stable above 2000, 1600, and 1100 mAh/g at current rates of 2, 4, and 18 A/g, respectively. Our best battery has recorded 2000 cycles with a capacity remaining above 1000 mAh/g.

Link http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl300206e

[Jackass]

solas111 wrote: »

Had to laugh at this one. Yep, Donegal has been deprived of just about every piece of infrastructure that would be taken for granted elsewhere but let’s dump our nuclear s**t there. Why do you think Donegal keeps voting no to the rubbish that is thrown out by the corrupt ‘Dublin’ government?

I did mention the mass amount of oppisition it would face, regardless of where it is put, but the point of my preferred loacation is that it would cause minimal disruption to local business and not be blocking development in highly densely populated areas.

I can assure you there is no "Dublin Government", it's just an easy excuse to make when you don't get everything you want.

In terms of why Donegal aren't first on the list for every peice of infrastructure is the same reason they would be first on the list for this piece of infrastructure - it is the lowest densely populated region of Ireland and one of the most remote.

solas111 wrote: »

There may be some merit to your suggestion but here is another idea. Why not build the plant close to where the power is needed, i.e. along the east coast. It’s not that you don’t have nuclear power there already, being so close to dirty Windscale / Sellafield. Ringsend would be an ideal location as much of the required infrastructure is already in situ. Failing that, you could stick it in the Phoenix Park, north of the River Liffey, no mountain ranges but plenty of trees protecting it from the elements and secure from flooding and rising tides. Give the lads a few brown envelopes and the Park would be rezoned before you could pronounce ‘radiation’.

Well, the reason it wouldn't have to be "put in the east coast, where the electricity is needed" is because generated electricity, depending on the quality of the grid, can travel at up to 90% the speed of light - so whilst the East Coast might need it more, I'm sure they would be ok in waiting for the delays in transport of that electricity from the west to east coast. (considering Ireland is about 200 miles wide and speed of light is about 200,000 miles per second).

There's no question of corruption here, as none of us are part of the Government and none of us stand to gain anything from our suggestions, but it would generally just be considered smart to put such a facility in a remote location, with lots of natural protection without dense population. It absolutely would not suit the population of Donegal, but independently, if it was chosen as the ideal location for such a facility, then I don't see why not.

Capt'n Midnight

[Jackass] wrote: »

Well, the reason it wouldn't have to be "put in the east coast, where the electricity is needed" is because generated electricity, depending on the quality of the grid, can travel at up to 90% the speed of light - so whilst the East Coast might need it more, I'm sure they would be ok in waiting for the delays in transport of that electricity from the west to east coast. (considering Ireland is about 200 miles wide and speed of light is about 200,000 miles per second).

It's a lot slower than that because of inductance and capacitance, transformers and stuff.

yes Eirgrid have upgraded a few lines by just replacing the cables , Aluminium with more Zirconium in it so it can run hotter before it starts to sag, but upgrading a national grid to take a few GW is a big job.

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's a lot slower than that because of inductance and capacitance, transformers and stuff.

yes Eirgrid have upgraded a few lines by just replacing the cables , Aluminium with more Zirconium in it so it can run hotter before it starts to sag, but upgrading a national grid to take a few GW is a big job.

Not half as big as your suggested interconnector to Spain.

Capt'n Midnight

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Not half as big as your suggested interconnector to Spain.

LOL - that was just pointing out what you could get for the same money as a nuclear plant

and yes that proposed nuke would have needed just as big a connection
and yes it's planning permission would be far harder to get than for an underwater link

Chloe Pink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL - that was just pointing out what you could get for the same money as a nuclear plant

Let's just ignore the fact that the nuke supplies electricity for Ireland whereas the Spanish interconnector only supplies a route for buying electricicty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

and yes that proposed nuke would have needed just as big a connection
and yes it's planning permission would be far harder to get than for an underwater link

But of course, anything to do with renewables is fine and anything to do with nuclear is not fine.

Bigfellalixnaw

The polls are closed and the results are that 73% of the people who viewed this thread felt that Ireland needs at least one nuclear power plant in the future.
Well that was fun!