France-Ireland electricity inter-connector

embraer170

The European Commission has awarded €4m to build an electricity inter-connector linking France with Ireland.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/ec-awards-4m-to-build-france-ireland-electricity-inter-connector-broadband-may-improve-795640.html

Atlantic Dawn

I was expecting something like this to happen with Brexit, the €4 million isn't going to go far though the cable from Meath to Wales cost €560 million. I'd say it's about 4 times the distance to France going from the south coast of Ireland so with inflation could be €2.5 billion plus, you might need it coming in to Dublin instead which will add more cost.

https://fora.ie/greenlink-interconnector-2676495-Mar2016/

embraer170

It has been in planning well before Brexit.

The preferred route option landing on the Irish side is the Cork coastline.

If all goes well, should be in service by 2025.

gctest50

Be a better idea to cover the side of a few mountains or bogs that are good for nothing else with solar panels


[url]
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-chinese-province-just-ran-on-100-renewable-energy-for-7-days[/url]

[url]
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/china-worlds-largest-floating-solar-power/
[/url]


.

Harry Palmr

Will the Greens want the nuclear generated watts filtered out?

ted1

The Celtic interlink has been planned for years and the sun sea survey was conducted over the past few years. Indeed several sub stations have been built in the southwest with it in mind

ted1

gctest50 wrote: »

Be a better idea to cover the side of a few mountains or bogs that are good for nothing else with solar panels


[url]
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-chinese-province-just-ran-on-100-renewable-energy-for-7-days[/url]

[url]
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/china-worlds-largest-floating-solar-power/
[/url]


.

No it wouldn't

ted1

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I was expecting something like this to happen with Brexit, the €4 million isn't going to go far though the cable from Meath to Wales cost €560 million. I'd say it's about 4 times the distance to France going from the south coast of Ireland so with inflation could be €2.5 billion plus, you might need it coming in to Dublin instead which will add more cost.

https://fora.ie/greenlink-interconnector-2676495-Mar2016/

Why do you think you would need it to come into Dublin?

Atlantic Dawn

Nuclear by the back door.

Atlantic Dawn

ted1 wrote: »

Why do you think you would need it to come into Dublin?

They would need it to come in connecting to heavy duty connections, could work out much cheaper at sea with no moaners ashore to accommodate.

Oldtree

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Nuclear by the back door.

Already doing that from the UK via the East West interconnector. About 7.6% of our overall total came from UK in 2014.

BlinkingLights

€4m doesnt sound like very much for a project that scale.

Also why would you bring it ashore in Dublin!? It's coming from the south and there's more than adequate grid connectivity In Cork and Ireland's largest power plant group at Whitegate and Aghada, just outside Cork City.

There's absolutely no logic whatsoever in bringing it ashore in Dublin.

embraer170

The €4 million is not actually construction costs but still planning related matters.

ted1

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Why do you think you would need it to come into Dublin?

They would need it to come in connecting to heavy duty connections, could work out much cheaper at sea with no moaners ashore to accommodate.

The transmission system between Cork and Dublin is up to the job.

ted1

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Nuclear by the back door.

We get Nuclear from the EWIC and Moyle interconnected.

And so what ? Nuclear is a clean substainable energy source.

Harry Palmr

ted1 wrote: »

We get Nuclear from the EWIC and Moyle interconnected.

And so what ? Nuclear is a clean substainable energy source.

Nothing wrong with it but Ireland used to make a big play about being nuclear free.

gctest50

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Nuclear by the back door.

Breeder reactor - renewable ( kinda)

Makes fuel for it's little buddy over the road

ted1

Harry Palmr wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

We get Nuclear from the EWIC and Moyle interconnected.

And so what ? Nuclear is a clean substainable energy source.

Nothing wrong with it but Ireland used to make a big play about being nuclear free.

Cork did, Ireland didn't. But we still don't have nuclear in Ireland 🇮🇪, we have some energy that is derived from nuclear that's all.

Sure we had one if the first nuclear lighthouses in the world

BlinkingLights

Ireland did. Cork, despite the signage about it being a nuclear free zone is one of the places in Ireland to have hosted a nuclear reactor, albeit a research one.

ted1

https://mattshanks.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/screen-shot-2010-03-05-at-15-57-01.png
I can't recall seen these outside Cork.

Regardless it's s pretty backward thing to be proud off

Oldtree

ted1 wrote: »

And so what ? Nuclear is a clean substainable energy source.

Clean???? Fukushima, Chernobyl, don't think so!

Even the sheep in Wales know it's not "clean"
It took 26 years for the FSA in the UK to lift restrictions on sheep, who were 1,700 miles away, after the Chernobyl disaster.

Ireland isn't nuclear free and there are about 8 nuclear power stations over the water on the west coast of the UK within spitting distance.

Macha

[mod]Let's try to stay away from a purely pro/anti nuclear debate.[/mod]
It's a feasibility study, nothing more. But Ireland has a real problem with Brexit potentially cutting it off physically from the rest of the European electricity market so it's understandable that this option is being considered.
By the way, France is planning to reduce its share of nuclear, even potentially shutting down up to 17 reactors, according to the new Energy Minister.

Oldtree

Macha wrote: »

[mod]Let's try to stay away from a purely pro/anti nuclear debate.[/mod]
It's a feasibility study, nothing more. But Ireland has a real problem with Brexit potentially cutting it off physically from the rest of the European electricity market so it's understandable that this option is being considered.
By the way, France is planning to reduce its share of nuclear, even potentially shutting down up to 17 reactors, according to the new Energy Minister.

If Brexit cuts us off and France closes 17 reactors won't that just increase the price of the currently "cheap" French energy?

Macha

France doesn't have particularly low wholesale electricity prices. Prices in countries with higher shares of renewables like Denmark and Sweden are lower. France had low retail prices but they're set by the government and don't reflect the true cost of running France's power system.

The cost of electricity flows from France to Ireland would also have to reflect the cost of the interconnector used to transport it so I'm not sure it would end up with many flows. As for closing reactors increasing French wholesale prices, not necessarily because renewables tend to put downward pressure on wholesale market prices so if they replace them with renewables, wholesale prices could actually drop further in France.

Capt'n Midnight

gctest50 wrote: »

Breeder reactor - renewable ( kinda)

Makes fuel for it's little buddy over the road

In theory.

Few reactors are breeders and in practice the breeding ratios achieved are too low to do more than stretch the fuel a bit. Japan spent €20Bn on a breeder. It provided grid power for one hour.


Interconnectors generally work both ways so we could be exporting wind and solar to France.

Impetus

The GBP has turned into a very volatile currency, falling against the EUR - due to balance of payments deficits and lack of confidence in the Brexit idea internationally. Brexit also brings the risk of access by Britain to plutonium for its nuclear reactors.

Volatile forex rates could put Irish power suppliers at risk if Ireland replicated its dumb idea of interconnecting with Britain as sterling rises and falls against other currencies. Connections with France are connections with most of Europe - because France has connections to many states. Connections that use the same currency.

A previous poster called French grid links nuclear by the back door. Britain has incompetently designed and managed nuclear reactors. At least French reactors work and are standardized so staff can more from one to another and all the controls and management issues are familiar to them. Ireland can install say 20 GW of wind turbines, with commensurate inter-connectivity to France and neighbourng countries to use the continent as a battery where excess wind power can be used, and the 5 or so GW required by Ireland can be imported when needed - a minor blip on the power generation capacity of mainland Europe. Ireland can sell green electricity, which will help mainland Europe meet its green targets. Iceland has lots of geothermal and hydro power, but is too far from another country to dispose of excess generation. Electric car charging will create a big demand for electricity. Between 50 and 100 MW+ at each 'pump'. Car owners can store power and buy it when it is cheapest. The typical commute is probably 20 km a day. Which is buttons to an EV with a capacity of 300km or over.

Impetus

ted1 wrote: »

https://mattshanks.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/screen-shot-2010-03-05-at-15-57-01.png
I can't recall seen these outside Cork.

Regardless it's s pretty backward thing to be proud off

Agreed. A national embarrassment of dumbness. And a reflection of the incompetence of the local authority in question. They might as well put up an "Bacillus anthracis" (Anthrax-free) zone in your face. Or a no lions or tigers roaming the streets here sign...... Just like Cork's €100 million traffic light control system which is so dysfunctional that it creates traffic jams. Traffic lights running on roundabouts and gyratories 24h per day showing red lights when there is no other vehicle on the road, and pedestrian crossings creating red light conditions for road vehicles when nobody is crossing.

In intelligently run countries, traffic lights flash on amber or are switched off, unless the system detect long waiting times on an approach road, which it turns the 'offending' approach road to red for some time, to clear the problem and then returns to flashing amber. Ireland has a hugely wasteful and incompetent government system, and the 'real capital' is probably the king of administrative incompetence.

zetalambda

Impetus wrote: »

Agreed. A national embarrassment of dumbness. And a reflection of the incompetence of the local authority in question. They might as well put up an "Bacillus anthracis" (Anthrax-free) zone in your face. Or a no lions or tigers roaming the streets here sign...... Just like Cork's €100 million traffic light control system which is so dysfunctional that it creates traffic jams. Traffic lights running on roundabouts and gyratories 24h per day showing red lights when there is no other vehicle on the road, and pedestrian crossings creating red light conditions for road vehicles when nobody is crossing.

In intelligently run countries, traffic lights flash on amber or are switched off, unless the system detect long waiting times on an approach road, which it turns the 'offending' approach road to red for some time, to clear the problem and then returns to flashing amber. Ireland has a hugely wasteful and incompetent government system, and the 'real capital' is probably the king of administrative incompetence.

You'll find those signs all over the world. The UK, US and Canada amongst others.

some examples

ted1

Oldtree wrote: »

Macha wrote: »

[mod]Let's try to stay away from a purely pro/anti nuclear debate.[/mod]
It's a feasibility study, nothing more. But Ireland has a real problem with Brexit potentially cutting it off physically from the rest of the European electricity market so it's understandable that this option is being considered.
By the way, France is planning to reduce its share of nuclear, even potentially shutting down up to 17 reactors, according to the new Energy Minister.

If Brexit cuts us off and France closes 17 reactors won't that just increase the price of the currently "cheap" French energy?

Our peak hours are different than France so it'll be a two way system covering each others peak loads

Macha

Ah, do you have a source on that? I'd be interested to see a comparison also throughout the year.

One significant problem is that France had problems covering its own demand in summer and winter. They have a lot of electric heating that causes a crazy high peak. The French grid operator says that for every degree colder it gets, 2.3 GW is added to the winter peak. That's nuts. They often rely on imports from Germany to cover this. Then during hot summers, water levels in rivers run too low and many nuclear plants don't have access to sufficient water to cool themselves and therefore cannot operate. During the 2003 heat wave, I think they had to shut down about 4GW of nuclear and relied on imports again to cover demand peaks.

Something similar happened in Poland in August 2015 but there it was about coal plants. They actually had blackouts because they're so poorly interconnected.

Moral of the story is having loads of so-called baseload is no guarantee of security of supply. And interconnection is a big part of the solution.

Impetus

Macha wrote: »

Ah, do you have a source on that? I'd be interested to see a comparison also throughout the year.

One significant problem is that France had problems covering its own demand in summer and winter. They have a lot of electric heating that causes a crazy high peak. The French grid operator says that for every degree colder it gets, 2.3 GW is added to the winter peak. That's nuts. They often rely on imports from Germany to cover this. Then during hot summers, water levels in rivers run too low and many nuclear plants don't have access to sufficient water to cool themselves and therefore cannot operate. During the 2003 heat wave, I think they had to shut down about 4GW of nuclear and relied on imports again to cover demand peaks.

Something similar happened in Poland in August 2015 but there it was about coal plants. They actually had blackouts because they're so poorly interconnected.

Moral of the story is having loads of so-called baseload is no guarantee of security of supply. And interconnection is a big part of the solution.

I was living in that that general area (FR) in 2003 during its "trop chaud trop long" period. In the South East however, (eg Cote d'Azur) they rely on hydro - about 26 hydro power stations. The greenest part of France. Monaco turns all waste into energy (aside from glass bottles and similar) and pumps the heat/refrigerated water from the incinerator system back to the apartments and offices - so they can do with heat exchangers rather than air con. A heat exchanger uses about 30w of electricity to turn the fan. Nothing more. An efficient air con unit (eg Daikin using R32 refrigerant with A+++ rating uses from about 200W to 600W per hour depending on the temp difference between inside and outside), and creates about 6x the energy consumed in terms of heat or air con.

A single solar panel of average efficiency produces about 300W of power.

A new housing development close to an incinerator, could consume the waste of the region and pipe the heat and chilled water to the houses in the new housing development. Monaco has been incinerating waste since the 1850s, and has one of the longest life expectancy in the world. They started the waste to heat production process about 1860 by providing hot showers to the incinerator workers. And it spread from that concept. Despite the fact that Monaco's incinerator is going 24h/24 - and is not intermittent as a source, they still take power from the French grid.

The SMA incinerator synoptic picture: http://www.sma.mc/nos-activit-s-2/usine-de-valorisation-des-dechets-urbains-et-industriels-5/synoptique-de-l-usine-18

Click on the centre of the object to drill down into the individual components.

So networking is the key. Not only between countries - but also between the people who have rubbish to recycle and an incinerator company, and donors of waste getting cheap energy back.

BloodBath

Impetus wrote: »

The GBP has turned into a very volatile currency, falling against the EUR - due to balance of payments deficits and lack of confidence in the Brexit idea internationally. Brexit also brings the risk of access by Britain to plutonium for its nuclear reactors.

Volatile forex rates could put Irish power suppliers at risk if Ireland replicated its dumb idea of interconnecting with Britain as sterling rises and falls against other currencies. Connections with France are connections with most of Europe - because France has connections to many states. Connections that use the same currency.

A previous poster called French grid links nuclear by the back door. Britain has incompetently designed and managed nuclear reactors. At least French reactors work and are standardized so staff can more from one to another and all the controls and management issues are familiar to them. Ireland can install say 20 GW of wind turbines, with commensurate inter-connectivity to France and neighbourng countries to use the continent as a battery where excess wind power can be used, and the 5 or so GW required by Ireland can be imported when needed - a minor blip on the power generation capacity of mainland Europe. Ireland can sell green electricity, which will help mainland Europe meet its green targets. Iceland has lots of geothermal and hydro power, but is too far from another country to dispose of excess generation. Electric car charging will create a big demand for electricity. Between 50 and 100 MW+ at each 'pump'. Car owners can store power and buy it when it is cheapest. The typical commute is probably 20 km a day. Which is buttons to an EV with a capacity of 300km or over.

How do you propose Ireland installing 20GW of wind farms? We have been at it for well over a decade now, investing billions and we're only at 2.3GW. They have a lifespan of around 20 years and barely pay for themselves over their lifespan.

It's the biggest con and waste of money ever. It's not clean or green. Each turbine weighs around 165 tons with over a thousand tons of concrete and steel rebar required per turbine. Do you think that's green? Do you know how many acres of land would be needed for 20GW of wind farm? Literally hundreds of thousands. Do you realise how small Ireland is?

We could have a 2.6GW nuclear reactor for around 8 billion that would make a profit of €250 million+ a year with a 70-80 year lifespan and it would be far greener and cleaner and would only use a few hundred acres at most.

dr.fuzzenstein

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it but Ireland used to make a big play about being nuclear free.

Hypocrisy is something Ireland does well. Burn turf, build a few turbines and import nuclear on the sly. Then engage in vigorous verbal masturbation about being nuclear free and oh so green.
Also, export all abortions to the UK and **** on about having no abortions in Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

BloodBath wrote: »

How do you propose Ireland installing 20GW of wind farms? We have been at it for well over a decade now, investing billions and we're only at 2.3GW. They have a lifespan of around 20 years and barely pay for themselves over their lifespan.

They can be refurbished at a fraction of the original cost to go for another 20 years.

Do you know how many acres of land would be needed for 20GW of wind farm? Literally hundreds of thousands. Do you realise how small Ireland is?

Wind farms share the land. So you can still have bog or forest or crops or mountain. How much land here is set aside ?

We could have a 2.6GW nuclear reactor for around 8 billion that would make a profit of €250 million+ a year with a 70-80 year lifespan and it would be far greener and cleaner and would only use a few hundred acres at most.

LOL

Worst case is to put the Fukushima or Chernobyl exclusion zones on a map of Ireland. :P

Realistically where do we store the waste ? How big is the mine, look at the areas devastated in Canada and imagine what it's like in places with looser regulations.

2.6GW is more than our base load.
And we'd need 2.6GW of spinning reserve burning fossil fuel 24/7 in case it keeled over. The combined amount 5.2GW is more than our peak load. "White Elephant"
And if it was off line for months or even years, which happens far too often with nuclear, we're screwed.


Hinkley C has jumped to just over £20Bn for 7.2GW so your 8 billion figure doesn't sound completely crazy on first inspection. But if you include the strike price subsidy it's over £30Bn which is a rather large jump from the £12Bn it was costed at in 2012. Nuclear accounting is a bit too much like Hollywood accounting for my taste.

Look at how the UK are making a dogs dinner of costs and delays for Moorside and Hinkley C. Both EFD and Toshiba are tittering on bankruptcy and there's years and years to go. The UK have 70 years experience with nuclear power stations and we have none so don't expect us to do better especially when they are the bigger client and thus have more clout. Unlike us they can at least pretend to be in the market for more later.







At the end of the day it boils down to economics.
Look at the blue line here - wholesale price now, varies from €25 - €65
the strike price for Hinkley C is £92.5 or thereabouts - that's the only way nuclear could make a "profit"
http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

dr.fuzzenstein

So let's cover Ireland in turbines.
On windless days everyone will be obliged to go outside and blow...

BloodBath

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They can be refurbished at a fraction of the original cost to go for another 20 years.

Wind farms share the land. So you can still have bog or forest or crops or mountain. How much land here is set aside ?

LOL

Worst case is to put the Fukushima or Chernobyl exclusion zones on a map of Ireland. :P

Realistically where do we store the waste ? How big is the mine, look at the areas devastated in Canada and imagine what it's like in places with looser regulations.

2.6GW is more than our base load.
And we'd need 2.6GW of spinning reserve burning fossil fuel 24/7 in case it keeled over. The combined amount 5.2GW is more than our peak load. "White Elephant"
And if it was off line for months or even years, which happens far too often with nuclear, we're screwed.


Hinkley C has jumped to just over £20Bn for 7.2GW so your 8 billion figure doesn't sound completely crazy on first inspection. But if you include the strike price subsidy it's over £30Bn which is a rather large jump from the £12Bn it was costed at in 2012. Nuclear accounting is a bit too much like Hollywood accounting for my taste.

Look at how the UK are making a dogs dinner of costs and delays for Moorside and Hinkley C. Both EFD and Toshiba are tittering on bankruptcy and there's years and years to go. The UK have 70 years experience with nuclear power stations and we have none so don't expect us to do better especially when they are the bigger client and thus have more clout. Unlike us they can at least pretend to be in the market for more later.







At the end of the day it boils down to economics.
Look at the blue line here - wholesale price now, varies from €25 - €65
the strike price for Hinkley C is £92.5 or thereabouts - that's the only way nuclear could make a "profit"
http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

Nuclear reactors are profitable and produce large amounts of energy using small amounts of land. The same can not be said for wind or solar.

Fair enough refurbishment extends their lifespan but it ain't cheap and they still need to be replaced eventually. Did you know each turbine uses over 250 gallons of oil a year as well?

We wouldn't be building a 60 year old gen 1 design like Fukishima and Chernobyl. Nor are we sitting on the most dangerous fault line in the world with earthquakes measuring up to 9 on the Richter scale.

Waste can be reprocessed and even used as fuel and Thorium is an option which is far cleaner and safer.

What mining? We won't be mining Uranium. We don't have Uranium to mine. We would be buying it. You are worried about mining but ignoring the fact that each one of these wind turbines requires over 1000 tons of concrete and steel rebar at its base. Not to mention the road and wire network required and the 165 tons of material per turbine. The offshore numbers are way higher. It's not blending in with nature like you seem to think.

Most modern plants consist of multiple smaller reactors. Do you think all of them will be down at the same time?

I suggest you do your research. I don't have all the answers either but I do know nuclear is leaps and bounds ahead of solar and wind in terms of cost/energy production and has by far the lowest carbon footprint of the 3. You seem to be forgetting the cost of land to build these massive solar/wind farms as well.

Capt'n Midnight

BloodBath wrote: »

Waste can be reprocessed and even used as fuel and Thorium is an option which is far cleaner and safer.
...

Most modern plants consist of multiple smaller reactors. Do you think all of them will be down at the same time?

....

I suggest you do your research. I don't have all the answers either but I do know nuclear is leaps and bounds ahead of solar and wind in terms of cost/energy production and has by far the lowest carbon footprint of the 3. You seem to be forgetting the cost of land to build these massive solar/wind farms as well.

Thorium has been tried multiple times. It had it's chance.
Shipping Point, Fort St Vrain, AVR, THTR , PMBr-400 etc etc.

It needs an extra neutron for the breeding so your neutron efficiency has to be way, way up. And no one's produced a reliable high ratio power producing breeder yet.


Modern plants don't have smaller reactors. 1.2GW is rough average of Gen IV reactors.


Nuclear isn't leaps and bounds ahead of anything. In 1943 they put a lot of radioactive material in one place. And it got hot. Use the heat to boil water and add on a nineteenth century steam turbine and 70 years later it's pretty much the same.

One definition of an engineer is someone who can do for a dollar what any fool can do for two. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper, it's engineered out. Solar and wind are, because the technology is improving all the time and because production costs are dropping as volume is growing.

Markcheese

I'd worry about the price we'd pay per kW over 30 years with nuclear. (as I worry about how much we pay for wind over 15)
. . . And what happens if who ever builds it goes bust (especially halfway through what'd be a 10 year build..)
. . .
. . . Good luck getting planning permission without blood being shed, for anywhere in the country.. How many election cycles would we go through during the planning, building process nightmare
. . . Funnily enough the advent of electric cars, smart grids and power walls strengthen the case for nuclear..
. . .
. . . Who'd be responsible for the nuclear clean up..

Impetus

Markcheese wrote: »

I'd worry about the price we'd pay per kW over 30 years (as I worry about how much we pay for wind over 15)
. . . And what happens if who ever builds it goes bust (especially halfway through what'd be a 10 year build..)
. . .
. . . Good luck getting planning permission without blood being shed, for anywhere in the country.. How many election cycles would we go through during the planning, building process nightmare
. . . Funnily enough the advent of electric cars, smart grids and power walls strengthen the case for nuclear..
. . .
. . . Who'd be responsible for the nuclear clean up..

The price per kW/h falls with inflation for renewables – eg wind and PV solar - which are largely capital cost platforms.


The fixed investment cost back in the day -v- the ever rising price per kWh for electricity. The price per kW/h rises (especially if one takes into account the government subsidy for long term storage of waste / processing costs in the case of nuclear).

Electric cars (eg the new ‘low cost’ Tesla ($45k) has a range of 500 km per charge) and will complement intermittent sources of renewable energy by acting as a quasi networked storage platform. What is needed is intelligent metering with tariffs that vary based on production and demand, allowing the electric car owner to charge-up ‘on the cheap’ when renewable surplus energy is available on the system.

Capt'n Midnight

I don't buy electric cars as grid storage anytime soon.


Oh yes they could easily be used for demand shedding. But not at peak demand because that's when people come home from work and not everyone can recharge at work..

BloodBath

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thorium has been tried multiple times. It had it's chance.
Shipping Point, Fort St Vrain, AVR, THTR , PMBr-400 etc etc.

It needs an extra neutron for the breeding so your neutron efficiency has to be way, way up. And no one's produced a reliable high ratio power producing breeder yet.


Modern plants don't have smaller reactors. 1.2GW is rough average of Gen IV reactors.


Nuclear isn't leaps and bounds ahead of anything. In 1943 they put a lot of radioactive material in one place. And it got hot. Use the heat to boil water and add on a nineteenth century steam turbine and 70 years later it's pretty much the same.

One definition of an engineer is someone who can do for a dollar what any fool can do for two. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper, it's engineered out. Solar and wind are, because the technology is improving all the time and because production costs are dropping as volume is growing.

Wow do your bloody research.

I mean the plants operate usually 2-4 smaller reactors rather than 1 large one so downtime is less of an issue than you make out. You seem to ignore the face that wind farms on calm days produce feck all power. Hardly something you can rely on as the backbone of your grid.

I didn't mean nuclear is an advanced technology. I meant as I stated that it is leaps and bounds ahead in terms of cost vs energy produced and pollution vs solar and especially wind. It might be getting more expensive and wind and solar might be getting cheaper but it's still magnitudes ahead of both of them in terms of cost vs power produced.

Do your research how much land would be needed to produce any reasonable amount of power with wind? The 2.6GW nuclear plant I mentioned would use maybe 1000-1500 acres. It would take roughly 1400 wind turbines to produce the same amount of power taking up roughly 140,000 acres.

We need a mix of power anyway. We can't rely on 1 or the other.

Impetus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I don't buy electric cars as grid storage anytime soon.


Oh yes they could easily be used for demand shedding. But not at peak demand because that's when people come home from work and not everyone can recharge at work..

Use of eCars as grid storage is another topic. I was simply suggesting that 'smart metering' and variable electricity pricing by time of day, would nudge eCar owners to charge up 'when the wind was blowing or the sun shining etc'.

Ireland could easily generate 20 GW of power by wind / solar over time. Much of this would have to be exported, as the economy only needs 5 to 7 GW over the next x years. The transition from hydrocarbon to cheap 'Tesla' driving would (a) reduce the SWIFT transfers from IRL to the Middle East by a few billion for energy and (b) turn the country into a net energy exporter over time. This is not like Norway exporting its last drop of oil. Renewables go on and on. And unlike Iceland with its renewables, Ireland is only 600 km from one of the biggest international energy grids in the world. The US does not have a 'national grid' like Europe does.

France's nuclear fleet is rapidly ageing. And aside from the Rhone Valley and French Catalonia, France does not get a lot of wind. And France has heavy duty connectivity to most of the rest of Europe. And it is in the same currency zone as Ireland, unlike Brexitland. And HVDC power can be combined with fiber optic cables for high capacity internet / telecommunications, all in the same pipe. Spreading the installation cost over two technologies / sources of revenue.

Capt'n Midnight

BloodBath wrote: »

I mean the plants operate usually 2-4 smaller reactors rather than 1 large one so downtime is less of an issue than you make out.

That's why I've mentioned transformers as an issue. Note also the French plants usually had two reactors and each was the backup cooling power for the other. Didn't work out for Fukushima and so the French are retro fitting backups.

You seem to ignore the face that wind farms on calm days produce feck all power. Hardly something you can rely on as the backbone of your grid.

Because nuclear only provides base load power it is reliant on backup too. The pumped storage, gas turbines and whatnot that's needed when nuclear is a large part of your grid also dovetails nicely with wind. And of course interconnectors help load balance too.


Places like the UK and US in the past have , in effect, used nuclear to offset coal emissions so nuclear could have been viewed as coal by the back door, except now that gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal.

The 2.6GW nuclear plant I mentioned would use maybe 1000-1500 acres. It would take roughly 1400 wind turbines to produce the same amount of power taking up roughly 140,000 acres.

We need a mix of power anyway. We can't rely on 1 or the other.

140,000 acres of which most are as economically productive as they were before wind. Bord Na Moan are installing solar on harvested bogs, hardly prime farm land.

And yes a mix is needed. eg France has 26GW of hydro and imports German solar on good days.

Impetus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That's why I've mentioned transformers as an issue. Note also the French plants usually had two reactors and each was the backup cooling power for the other. Didn't work out for Fukushima and so the French are retro fitting backups.


Because nuclear only provides base load power it is reliant on backup too. The pumped storage, gas turbines and whatnot that's needed when nuclear is a large part of your grid also dovetails nicely with wind. And of course interconnectors help load balance too.


Places like the UK and US in the past have , in effect, used nuclear to offset coal emissions so nuclear could have been viewed as coal by the back door, except now that gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal.


140,000 acres of which most are as economically productive as they were before wind. Bord Na Moan are installing solar on harvested bogs, hardly prime farm land.

And yes a mix is needed. eg France has 26GW of hydro and imports German solar on good days.

Nuclear power is also intermittent, as they know in Finland etc. A 1 GW nuclear plant might be 20% of the nation's power needs, and a computer algo can drop its output to zero in seconds - for safety reasons. At least with wind, HIRLAM and HARMONIE weather models can predict wind fairly accurately up to 10 days in advance.

Wind can be sea based - with wave and even tidal power generation on the same platform, using the same grid links.

Nuclear as a base load provider in a small country is an illusion. It only delivers base load in big countries with lots of plants. And even then, they need to be situated near the sea, rather on rivers, to cater for rainfall variability.

Macha

If nuclear is so profitable, why is Westinghouse bankrupt, the French government having to recapitalise EDF with €3 billion euro and TEPCO now a state owned company after being bailed out to the tune of €13bn?

Impetus

Macha wrote: »

If nuclear is so profitable, why is Westinghouse bankrupt, the French government having to recapitalise EDF with €3 billion euro and TEPCO now a state owned company after being bailed out to the tune of €13bn?

I suspect if one did a comprehensive audit of France SA, and took into account the future cost of nuclear waste etc + replacement of energy production platforms + the pension liabilities of the almost 60% of the French population who are French gov employees directly or indirectly, and the 'health service' which unlike the Swiss or Dutch systems are not insured on a regular underwriting basis, and added to that the debt of French gov owned 'businesses', the FR gov itself, and a few other similar issues, one might conclude that France SA is also bankrupt. And probably Ireland is even in a worse position, and certainly victims of Irish services are generally in a far worse position than their French neighbours, on the receiving end.

BloodBath

Macha wrote: »

If nuclear is so profitable, why is Westinghouse bankrupt, the French government having to recapitalise EDF with €3 billion euro and TEPCO now a state owned company after being bailed out to the tune of €13bn?

You could say the same thing for many more "green" energy companies. I'm talking about modern gen4 reactors. Not companies that own many older designs.

The cost of decommissioning should be manged during the lifespan of the reactor. A fund should be set aside with some portion of the profits being set aside to cover decommission costs. Bad management and greed will leave the taxpayer paying for it.

Macha

BloodBath wrote: »

You could say the same thing for many more "green" energy companies. I'm talking about modern gen4 reactors. Not companies that own many older designs.

The cost of decommissioning should be manged during the lifespan of the reactor. A fund should be set aside with some portion of the profits being set aside to cover decommission costs. Bad management and greed will leave the taxpayer paying for it.

Not really. No energy technology has taken off without serious government support and subsidies. The difference between renewables and nuclear is that renewables are getting cheaper while nuclear has the ignominy of actually getting more expensive. And that doesn't even include the externalities of decommissioning you mention plus waste storage and of course the fact that no nuclear plant pays its full insurance rate.

It's now emerging that even offshore wind is cheaper than the EPR planned at Hinkley Point C in the UK. What are the cost projections for thorium reactors and when exactly are they expected to be market ready?

Markcheese

Thorium reactors will be ready in just 10 years,
They've been Gonna be ready in 10 years for 30 or 40 years now. :-)
. . And don't worry about decommissioning and long term waste storage, that'll be grand, shur

Capt'n Midnight

BloodBath wrote: »

You could say the same thing for many more "green" energy companies. I'm talking about modern gen4 reactors. Not companies that own many older designs.

Come back when they've been debugged and in trouble free service for a few years.

Gen IV only exist on paper.






In contrast gains in renewables in many cases is a matter of commercialising technology that's been proven in the lab. Some cost cutting measures are simply a matter of scale and things like installation costs are falling as lessons are learnt.



BTW France has committed to reducing nuclear to 50% in the future.

The cost of decommissioning should be manged during the lifespan of the reactor. A fund should be set aside with some portion of the profits being set aside to cover decommission costs. Bad management and greed will leave the taxpayer paying for it.

Nuclear power plants have been running since 1956, and you are now saying "A fund should be set aside". That's aspirational, like saying we should build houses for the homeless but without actually promising to sort out the problem.

What you should be saying is that as part of a licence for a nuclear power plant a bond must be setup to guarantee all decomissioning costs, including a provision for typical historical overruns. Anything less is a subsidy.

Macha

There's another little-known subsidy to nuclear plants, which is basically the fact that they can't ramp up and down quickly. This means that they stay online even when wholesale prices are negative, pushing renewables out of the market.

Nuclear plants have tried to show that they're more flexible to fit the demands of the energy system in the future but it's starting to be apparent that this isn't possible. Last week, a nuclear plant in Germany was found to have highly oxidised fuel rods as a result of trying to turn up and down quickly: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/nuclear-renewables-unhappy-bedfellows-national-diesel-summit/german-nuclear-damage-shows-atomic-and-renewable-power-are-unhappy-bedfellows