Ireland and Nuclear Power

Consonata

GarIT wrote: »

Consonata wrote: »

Apart from the cost, is there any significant arguments against us having a Nuclear Plant.

Ireland's power grid isn't capable of transporting large amounts of power long distances. If we wanted one main power source for the whole country we would need to spend billions on underground cabling or deal with pilon protesters on a huge scale.

It might be time to remedy that. If we are going to be the gold standard in wind energy, as people seem to be determined to do, we need to improve our power grid generally. It is going to need to be done sometime in the near future as our power usage goes up and our population.

EDIT: and until we get that new upgrade grid up and running, we could export our power to the UK for that time and fund the new grid off the back of it.

Consonata

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A country surrounded by the sea and never a day goes by where it's not blowing a gale and we want to build a Nuclear reactor?

I'm suggesting this mainly because Wind only provided for a small percentage of our energy needs even though we have 126 wind farms nationally. We'd need to heavily invest in off shore wind farms if we were going to truly head in that direction, and I think thorium nuclear energy is a much more beneficial option generally. We need to get over our backwardness about seeing Nuclear as being the great Boogie Man of 90s politics. Plants built now are orders of magnitude different to what they were like when built in the 60s

Wanderer78

I think we may need to look at this again. I'm not convinced our future wind, solar and wave approachs to power supply will actually be sufficient for our needs

armaghlad

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think we may need to look at this again. I'm not convinced our future wind, solar and wave approachs to power supply will actually be sufficient for our needs

Yes. A small island nation of under 5m inhabitants clearly needs nuclear power...

I'm very much convinced the aforementioned would suffice for this country's energy needs, with the right investment.

hsilgnede

1) We don't need it. We should be focusing on the renewable energy that's available to us and developing the tech for the stuff that's nearly there and promising.

2) Show me the politician who will plan it and back it in his own constituency? It's a political non-runner.

3) It's not worth the risk if it all goes tits up. Fukushima.

4) 50 billion? Where's that going to come from. We've already maxed out the national credit card.

cgcsb

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A country surrounded by the sea and never a day goes by where it's not blowing a gale and we want to build a Nuclear reactor?

We can't run 100% on wind power, if we did, we'd need a massive amount of power storage capacity. Nuclear is a good solid option. We could combine wind and nuclear and cease importing energy but the average Irish voter is not intelligent and will just scream chernobyl. Remember FF has gained seats because they decided a few weeks ago they're opposed to water charges, despite their long standing policy of charging for water. Effectively we're an incompetent people.

ted1

Consonata wrote: »

The fact that you are so sceptical of Thorium shows that "you have no real idea what you are talking about" as you so eloquently put it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx#References

This details it's abundance, it's positives in relation to how difficult it is to turn into a weapon. How it's waste ,U233 can be used again further as a fuel source until the waste quantity is negligible. I'm sure I don't need to quote you the whole article, nor support the validity of the 'World Nuclear Association' as a source.

I've actually studied it , can you tell me how many thorium reactors there are in the world ?

Don't include prototypes , only include full scale operational ones

cgcsb

ted1 wrote: »

We import primary fuel. If we built a nuclear plant it would be about 2GW . If that shut down we could have a brown out or black out. What does importing have to do with my comment?

We would still need to import uranium , plutonium or thorium and more than likely export the waste at a huge cost. Then after several years no one will import the waste and well either need to shut it down or build a waste processing plant

The waste is stored in barrels underground. We can easily store it here. The imported uranium would be much less bulky, much cheaper and have 0 green house gas emissions.

ted1

cgcsb wrote: »

The waste is stored in barrels underground. We can easily store it here. The imported uranium would be much less bulky, much cheaper and have 0 green house gas emissions.

And can you put a cost to that bearing in mind it's simply a hole in the ground

cgcsb

ted1 wrote: »

And can you put a cost to that bearing in mind it's simply a hole in the ground

Are you asking me to quantify the actual cost? my point was there's no reason why we can't store waste here, provided we're willing to splash cash on such a plant.

Consonata

armaghlad wrote: »

Yes. A small island nation of under 5m inhabitants clearly needs nuclear power...

I'm very much convinced the aforementioned would suffice for this country's energy needs, with the right investment.

126 Wind Farms nationally, providing less than 15% of our energy needs. Gas is beating it overwhelmingly. We need to take a realistic look at Nuclear.

Water John

I would be for looking at the full range of solutions in the energy field.
The key driver is for the country to become carbon neutral in a safe manner.

From D Connolly's study, Aalborg University, Denmark this means increasing our electricity generation by a factor of 4.

I am not saying it should be nuclear or indeed Thorium. What I am saying is, we should not rule it out.

No doubt we should maximise renewable energy. This has the benefit of reducing our dependence on imported fuel as well as greenhouse gas emissions at zero.

We need an open mind. Who would have said PV Solar would become a real player in Ireland, as it now clearly is going to be.

We have to come up with an integrated system of supply from various sources.
Thorium, variable gas turbines, pumped water storage, new battery tech, can all have a role and tied in with various RE sources, to provide a stable supply.

Consonata

Water John wrote: »

I would be for looking at the full range of solutions in the energy field.
The key driver is for the country to become carbon neutral in a safe manner.

From D Connolly's study, Aalborg University, Denmark this means increasing our electricity generation by a factor of 4.

I am not saying it should be nuclear or indeed Thorium. What I am saying is, we should not rule it out.

No doubt we should maximise renewable energy. This has the benefit of reducing our dependence on imported fuel as well as greenhouse gas emissions at zero.

We need an open mind. Who would have said PV Solar would become a real player in Ireland, as it now clearly is going to be.

We have to come up with an integrated system of supply from various sources.
Thorium, variable gas turbines, pumped water storage, new battery tech, can all have a role and tied in with various RE sources, to provide a stable supply.

+1, I think the fact that we are still burning turf as an electrical energy source, we can all agree is ridiculous. Plus that big dirty coal plant in Shannon.

Water John

One of the prime tasks is either to make Moneypoint almost clean, with newer tech or shut it down.

gctest50

cgcsb wrote: »

The waste is stored in barrels underground. We can easily store it here. The imported uranium would be much less bulky, much cheaper and have 0 green house gas emissions.

There should be a nice bit of uranium in Ireland, well worth mining it

http://i.imgur.com/U44xxEs.jpg


.

K.Flyer

ted1 wrote: »

I've actually studied it , can you tell me how many thorium reactors there are in the world ?

Don't include prototypes , only include full scale operational ones

The reason for the lack of Thorium reactors was due to the U.S. mililtary brass pushing for the development of the Uranium reactors with W.M.D. in mind. So all the R&D financial investments were pushed in that direction, leaving Thorium on the sidelines.

Carawaystick

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A country surrounded by the sea and never a day goes by where it's not blowing a gale and we want to build a Nuclear reactor?

The week leading up to xmas in 2007 was totally calm as was the year before

cgcsb

Carawaystick wrote: »

The week leading up to xmas in 2007 was totally calm as was the year before

Our little patch of the Atlantic Ocean is constantly wild. This resource is currently going to waste.

Jakey Rolling

Carawaystick wrote:

The week leading up to xmas in 2007 was totally calm as was the year before

Ditto during the extreme cold winter of 2009/10 - Eirgrids own data showed one day where there was only 20MW average wind generation out of almost 2000MW installed capacity.

This due to the extended high pressure system over the UK and Ireland causing both cold temps and lack of wind. So the answer is to import (nuclear generated ) electricity from UK via the interconnector?

Even look at last week, where wind generation was as low as 6MW on the 16th, and less than 10% of total capacity for a number of days.

If we are to rely so heavily on renewables, we really need a large scale storage facility to smooth the peaks and troughs in generation.

ted1

K.Flyer wrote: »

The reason for the lack of Thorium reactors was due to the U.S. mililtary brass pushing for the development of the Uranium reactors with W.M.D. in mind. So all the R&D financial investments were pushed in that direction, leaving Thorium on the sidelines.

That's wholly irrelevant , the earlier poster was saying we should build thorium reactors , he neglected the fact that thy are not developed yet.

Consonata

ted1 wrote:

That's wholly irrelevant , the earlier poster was saying we should build thorium reactors , he neglected the fact that thy are not developed yet.

They are currently testing the technology in Scandinavia and the US, but God forbid we lead the world in anything. Are our memory's so short that we forget Ardnacrusha Power station. One of the first of its kind and size in Europe.

Wanderer78

There's no question we should be putting our focus into renewables but at our current rate of expansion in these technologies, I fear we will simply run out of power. Our energy needs are growing rapidly, but I suspect the development of renewables will not meet our future requirements. As far as I see it's either coal or nuclear for our long-term needs but both of these would be next to impossible to implement particularly nuclear. but you would be surprised what changes occur when push comes to shove, us humans tend towards the easier, cheaper option, even if It's to our detriment. It 'll be interesting to watch this one develop.

Interesting point, why don't we create our own 'credit cards'!

ted1

Consonata wrote: »

They are currently testing the technology in Scandinavia and the US, but God forbid we lead the world in anything. Are our memory's so short that we forget Ardnacrusha Power station. One of the first of its kind and size in Europe.

Testing, they have being testing for years and it's still years away, we don't have the billions required to do the R and D. Also when it comes to nuclear technology I'd rather we use proving technology than be a Guinea pig/ leader

Sam Russell

Rather than spend muliple billions of Euro on a big nuclear reactor (or even a small one), we should spend a lot less on insulating our homes, and making sure all new builds are at least to B standard on the BER. We live in one of the mildest climates in the world - no highs and no lows, so a well insulated home will be near passive.

I]I do not know what percentage of power consumption is used for space heating, or of imported fossil fuels.[/I

K.Flyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rather than spend muliple billions of Euro on a big nuclear reactor (or even a small one), we should spend a lot less on insulating our homes, and making sure all new builds are at least to B standard on the BER. We live in one of the mildest climates in the world - no highs and no lows, so a well insulated home will be near passive.

I do not know what percentage of power consumption is used for space heating, or of imported fossil fuels.

Insulation certainly is a huge factor when it comes to energy saving, especially when it comes to heating homes and premises. Also energy conservation on a grand scale still needs to be addressed. Take a drive around Dublin City, and most other Irish Cities and Towns and see the amount of places, especially office spaces, lit up like christmas trees long after everyone has gone home.

Water John

Ted, Certainly I did not say we had to build Thorium Reactor.
I said at 10.39 am that we should not rule it out. We need to look at the over all issue of both energy and greenhouse gases. On that basis formulate a framework plan based on a range of technologies.

ted1

Water John wrote: »

Ted, Certainly I did not say we had to build Thorium Reactor.
I said at 10.39 am that we should not rule it out. We need to look at the over all issue of both energy and greenhouse gases. On that basis formulate a framework plan based on a range of technologies.

Consintona keeps going on about it

I would rule it out till at least gen 3 is out

Water John

I don't think you need have any worry. The first ones are suggested for the Far East.
But their construction would take a much shorter time frame as their is no need for the large containment shell. There is no fear of 'china syndrome' or running out of control with a Thorium reactor.

We should start our conversation on zero carbon (green house gases).

ted1

Water John wrote: »

I don't think you need have any worry. The first ones are suggested for the Far East.
But their construction would take a much shorter time frame as their is no need for the large containment shell. There is no fear of 'china syndrome' or running out of control with a Thorium reactor.

We should start our conversation on zero carbon (green house gases).

Well 40% of our energy is used in transport, converting to an electric fleet would increase electricity usage, but it would result in less NOX, sox and co2 as its more efficient than having an ICE fleet

BrownTrout

Zebra3 wrote:

How close to your house are yourself and other supporters of this project prepared to have this nuclear plant?

I always thought it would be a good idea to put a nuclear power station or incinerator or any other thing with that kind of stigma on the Blasket island or something, away from population centres.