Wind Farms

BuilderPlumber

Can anyone explain what is REALLY behind all this anti-wind farm movement? I see it in several parts of Ireland where there is very professionally marketed opposition to wind farms and engineered hatred results. I don't get it at all.

Rigor Mortis

A number of things tend to be behind it.

Some people don't want to live beside wind turbines.
Some People are legitimately concerned that the presence of a wind turbine near their home will impact on the value of their home.
Some people feel that the turbines create a noise which they do not wish to live near.
Some people feel that the issue of shadow flicker will cause problems for them.
There is clearly an issue with the accompanying energy infrastructure, such as pylons, which tend to go with the windfarms.

Macha

It's a good list, Rigor Mortis.

[*]Ironically, the more noise the anti-wind farm lobby makes, the more the presence of a wind turbine will affect the value of their home. 
[*]You cannot 'feel' turbines make a noise: either they do or they don't.
[*]Fair enough on the shadow flicker issue but this can be resolved by turning the turbines off at certain hours during the day.
[*]Pylons are needed for the supply of electricity, full stop. Being anti-pylon is being anti-electricity and I guarantee every single anti-pylon person has a fully electrified home.
To answer the original question, BuilderPlumber, I do feel Ireland has gone for a utility-led renewables development model that doesn't include or really respect local communities. At the same time, individuals and local communities are not really given the support to invest themselves if they wanted to. 

Added to this, Ireland doesn't just have urban sprawl, it has RURAL sprawl. Many people who live in the countryside don't work in the countryside and so have a very strange idea of what the countryside is supposed to look like (rolling green hills, etc). It's meant to be nice to look at and wind turbines mar the view, in their opinion.

Rigor Mortis

Macha wrote: »

It's a good list, Rigor Mortis.

[*]Ironically, the more noise the anti-wind farm lobby makes, the more the presence of a wind turbine will affect the value of their home. 
[*]You cannot 'feel' turbines make a noise: either they do or they don't.
[*]Fair enough on the shadow flicker issue but this can be resolved by turning the turbines off at certain hours during the day.
[*]Pylons are needed for the supply of electricity, full stop. Being anti-pylon is being anti-electricity and I guarantee every single anti-pylon person has a fully electrified home.
n.

Part of the problem is that you can feel turbines make a noise. Subjectivity is a huge issue in terms of this kind of development. I am opposed to them, so i begin to perceive that that they are noisy, or that they are making me unwell. These things become real for the person who believes they are an issue.

Macha

Yes but the great thing about noise is that it's independently measurable

Bigus

If I was in the oil business or such like , I'd be helping the funding of professionally made, anti renewable propaganda.. worldwide .

Rigor Mortis

Macha wrote: »

Yes but the great thing about noise is that it's independently measurable

But that's the problem, the perception of the problem can bring on the problem.

Macha

Then the perception is the problem, not the noise.

Rigor Mortis

Macha wrote: »

Then the perception is the problem, not the noise.

Yep, i'd largely agree with you. Although there are some instances where that's not entirely true. However, in most cases, it is a perception issue.

Ultimately, beyond everything else, its a property value issue.

Decline in property value is the main concern, but that doesn't work so well as a reason to object to a planning application. Thus you need to look to issues like noise, shadow, impact on Natura sites etc

Donalde

In West Clare we are in the process of being crowned by wind turbines. The Mount Callan wind farm will be clearly visible from all West Clare and much of Galway and Kerry. The area is already seriously scarred by 400kv pylons erected 30+ years ago (with a lifespan of 25 years!).
Local access to our county town, Ennis, was blocked for over a year while cables were being laid. No attempt was made to keep us informed of what was going on, causing major delays and frustration locally. Even now, 3 months after the diggers have departed from the roads, the road markings have not been reinstated and temporary speed limits are still in force today.
The environmental damage from the turbines, now in course of erection is greatly exacerbated by the preparatory work, leveling forestry and mountainside to make access roads of motorway proportions. There has been serious damage to other county roads by cement and other trucks using detours. Those who have not witnessed it, might be surprised at the level of damage caused by the preparatory work.
Are not those who live in the countryside, whether they work there or not, entitled to assume that the environment that their ancestors occupied for thousands of years will remain substantially unchanged? and that their holy mountain where people have celebrated the passing seasons since pagan times will not be given the appearance of an activated pincushion. Many in rural Ireland believe themselves to be part of the natural world, rather than masters of it.
Despite the 'bribery' approach of the turbine developers - and in my view all the bribery is by them, not by oil companies, there has been serious disruption of the local communities - neighbours disputing the location of proposed turbines.
Many of the people who will have to live in the view of these turbines are modest country people who do not have the ability or inclination to organise effective protest. As shown in Mayo, our government cares little about the right of people to live quietly and safely in there own homes and environment. The rights of multinationals to trample over the plain people of Ireland are supreme.
If we need wind energy, and there are many who have grave doubts, based on its seasonality, about this, then why not encourage farmers to develop appropriate scale turbines and PV? The money would then give a badly needed boost to rural economies rather than international finance companies. By generating and using the electricity locally the need for pylons would be reduced.
The ability of modern engineers to move mountains is stunning, but some of us believe that the mountains are best left where nature put them and without the additional ornament.

Water John

Read that post. Won't get into a debate with OTT language. Just to point out one instance. The roadway on a wind farm is normally 4/4.5 metres wide. It is not a motorway.
BTW the felling of any Spruce, I'm delighted. The ugliest monoculture on the landscape.

Neon_Lights

My girlfriend is a windfarm, honest, no matter what she eats, wind, may as well harness that energy

Oldtree

Large scale wind farms built with the sole intention if selling subsidised by the irish renewable energy to the UK dosn't benefit us at all., other than beeing able to say x% renewable energy was produced here. Imo large scale on shore wind farms take away from the aesthetic of our countryside that our perfectly viable tourist industry needs.

And yes I am aware that our countryside is an industrial landscape, but with an aesthetic that is expected by the millions of visitors.

Wind farms should be offshore if that agenda is to be pursued, but I really can't see a subsidised wind energy market being successful. Being subsidised is supposed to assist an industry to start up, not to be its financial raison d'etre.

I'm all for small scale turbines on houses and farms etc complemented by solar panels and other renewal ideas, but that would need a competitive rate to be paid to the home producer, simply an offset would be very fair, but the esb and their fellow large energy producers have no intention of ever doing that.

I understand it's viable in the UK for homes to produce renewable energy. And has been for some time Hmmmmm

Rigor Mortis

Couple of things here.

Although i am not against exporting energy, god knows we have imported it for long enough, we have a long way to go before we turn into a net exporter. The whole midlands export fiasco did the wind industry huge harm and oversold the potential that is there.

I'm all in favour of offshore. With recent cost reductions it and solar definitely need to be part of the mix in the coming years.

Secondly, all energy types are subsidised. Oil and gas are subsidised. Peat is subsidised. Nuclear is subsidised. Renewables are subsidised.

The level of subsidy to fossil fuels is fairly suprising. 300bn per annum excluding any question of implied subsidy for environmental, health and other property damage done by fossil fuel burning.

On the tourism thing, i genuinely think this is overplayed. Most studies show there is a very positive response from tourists to green energy. It is nowhere near as valid an issue as property value.

Absolutely agree with you that we need to allow home owners to become part of the solution in terms of micro generation. But that wont come anywhere near solving our problems.

windnoiseinfo

You might like to look at www.windnoise.info

You might like to read https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/news/2017/07/14/wind-farms-noise-report

in the above - Gibbet Hill report - house 3

This is 1000M from a wind turbine and exposed to circa 50db and significant tonal noise

Also note that AM (Amplitude Modulation) is called out as annoying, a nuisance, an present at all sites

ganmo

windnoiseinfo wrote: »

You might like to look at www.windnoise.info

You might like to read https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/news/2017/07/14/wind-farms-noise-report

in the above - Gibbet Hill report - house 3

This is 1000M from a wind turbine and exposed to circa 50db and significant tonal noise

Also note that AM (Amplitude Modulation) is called out as annoying, a nuisance, an present at all sites

What's the expected db level in an urban house?

windnoiseinfo

ganmo wrote: »

What's the expected db level in an urban house?

Inside and urban house would be circa 30db

ganmo

windnoiseinfo wrote: »

Inside and urban house would be circa 30db

Using Decibel Meter® FREE by Byounghun Jang
https://appsto.re/ie/hZAzE.i
I was getting ~35db in a rural house with me the only occupant, no heating/water pumps, no traffic...no noise other than my breathing. I tried screen shorting the result but the click of the button made the noise level jump.

windnoiseinfo

Unfortunately iphones are not accurate sound meters as they are designed for capture of voice at close range and not free field measurement of environmental noise.
Here is an example of the impact of a wind farm on rural Ireland



And here is an example of Amplitude Modulation - note the depth and frequency of the noise change

Sam Kade

Bigus wrote: »

If I was in the oil business or such like , I'd be helping the funding of professionally made, anti renewable propaganda.. worldwide .

But you're not and you aren't

windnoiseinfo

From the Wexford report

The IoA methodology provides (since August 2016) a reliable method for quantifying AM(amplitude modulation). The nature of AM noise is such that it is recognised internationally as the type of noise that is likely to give reasonable cause for annoyance. Analysis of a sample of WAV files for AM found variable presence
of excessive AM during night hours.

ganmo

Would this design of windmill give rise to the same noise profile ?

http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54cfc87b15f81_-_quiet-revolution-470-0709.jpg

Or is there a way to modulate the noise like more fins on the windmills or would just multiple windmills aliaviate that problem?

MayoSalmon

The myth of free energy/power.

In fact the very opposite is true and wind is actually increasing the cost of energy due to the current structure of the power grids across Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#/media/File:Electricity-prices-europe.jpg

Rigor Mortis

There is no such thing as free power. Just as there is no such thing as free water, free waste or a free lunch.
One thing that is changing though, is that the acceptance that you can exclude the cost of environmental damage from the cost of energy. At some stage, there has to be a price paid for heavy emitting fuels. This is going to drive up energy costs and significantly levelise that imbalance referred to in those costs. That is going to annoy people, but the alternative is significantly worse.

Also worth noting, Ireland was always at the wrong end of that table. About 10 years ago, Deloitte published a report for whatever DCENR was called then. It identified the key drivers of our overly high energy costs as being, over reliance on imported fuels, lack of diversity of energy supply and the high wages in the ESB.

Macha

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The myth of free energy/power.

In fact the very opposite is true and wind is actually increasing the cost of energy due to the current structure of the power grids across Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#/media/File:Electricity-prices-europe.jpg

Um..the graph you linked to doesn't back up your claim at all. In every electricity bill there is the energy part, the networks part and then the taxes/charges part. Then add in subsidies, industry exemptions, etc etc, The graph you linked to doesn't break that down at all.

In fact one of the main drivers of Irish electricity prices, as indicated by Rigor Mortis above, is the fact that most of our electricity is still generated using imported gas. Most of it comes from the North Sea via the UK so you can think about currency fluctuation risks on top of the actual fluctuations in the price of the gas itself. Are you suggesting we remain dependent on this supply, given Brexit plus the fact that North Sea reserves are generally declining?

MayoSalmon

Macha wrote: »

Um..the graph you linked to doesn't back up your claim at all. In every electricity bill there is the energy part, the networks part and then the taxes/charges part. Then add in subsidies, industry exemptions, etc etc, The graph you linked to doesn't break that down at all.

In fact one of the main drivers of Irish electricity prices, as indicated by Rigor Mortis above, is the fact that most of our electricity is still generated using imported gas. Most of it comes from the North Sea via the UK so you can think about currency fluctuation risks on top of the actual fluctuations in the price of the gas itself. Are you suggesting we remain dependent on this supply, given Brexit plus the fact that North Sea reserves are generally declining?

I am very aware of how electricity bills work. Over 60% of the cost of Danish electricity bills is due to renewable subsides and carbon taxes a similar situation applies in German.

We should diversify our supply and not remain dependent on North Sea

Oldtree

Macha wrote: »

is the fact that most of our electricity is still generated using imported gas.

According to the fuel mix disclosed

Electric Ireland Fuel Mix Disclosure Label
Applicable Period: January 2015 to December 2015

Electricity supplied has been sourced from
the following fuels Electricity supplied by
Electric Ireland (All Island)
(% of total)

Coal 16.5
Natural Gas 52.2
Renewables 24.6
Peat 6.1
Other 0.7
Total 100%

https://www.electricireland.ie/business/help/efficiency/fuel-mix-disclosure

Not sure what they give all island figure and not roi.

Rigor Mortis

Oldtree wrote: »

According to the fuel mix disclosed



https://www.electricireland.ie/business/help/efficiency/fuel-mix-disclosure

Not sure what they give all island figure and not roi.

Because it is a single market. In electricity terms the border doesn't matter.

We have reasonable diversity and certainly much better than in previous years. We will be losing the coal and peat elements in the next decade. To be replaced with, biomass, offshore and solar and more onshore Some of the gas will be replaced by renewable gas.

On the question as to diversifying supply of gas, it doesn't really work that way. We're buying on price not on location. A new LNG plant might make things interesting in that regard and is probably a good idea.

Again back to your chart. You are right, Denmark does pay a subsidy for wind. However, as earlier indicated, the increasing charge for the external cost of fossil fuel generation will see that balance re-adjust significantly. It should also be noted that Denmark would be importing energy anyway and paying a heavy price for that anyway.

In an Irish context, can we all remember that 100m of the PSO is going to Peat - an incredibly inefficient and dirty source of energy. There was an argument for subsidising it 30 years ago, now the only argument is the seats in the midlands. The greatest disgrace of energy policy is that it is contradictory. We are subsidising both peat and wind. Only in Ireland.

Macha

MayoSalmon wrote: »

I am very aware of how electricity bills work. Over 60% of the cost of Danish electricity bills is due to renewable subsides and carbon taxes a similar situation applies in German.

We should diversify our supply and not remain dependent on North Sea

Diversify to what? US shale LNG? Russian piped gas? We're on the other end of a very long pipeline there. Qatari LNG? All of these solutions are risky, expensive and carbon intensive.

As for electricity bills, then I can only assume you intentionally left out points like:
- France, Romania and other countries still regulate their retail prices, keeping them artificially low for political reasons;
- industry, also in Denmark and Germany, benefit from massive exemptions that leave households and smaller business footing most of the bill of supporting renewables.
- err what carbon tax? The ETS price is at about €5/tonne. That's nothing.

What about the €1.6 billion that is being paid as a retirement fund for 2 GW of old lignite plants in Germany? Where's the outrage about that? Where's the outrage about the fact that the German nuclear industry has just paid off its nuclear liabilities for a miserable €23.2 billion, leaving the German tax payer to pay for the rest? Why aren't people up in arms about that? Why is no one getting angry about the German netz reserve that costs about €150 million/year or the proposed capacity strategic reserve that will cost even higher - about €260 million a year??

Oldtree wrote: »

Not sure what they give all island figure and not roi.

Ah, thanks for sharing the numbers. Gas has come down a bit in the past few years - it used to be closer to 2/3 of the mix but I see renewables is slowly but surely increasing. The peat and coal use is outrageous.

BloodBath

Wind is the biggest waste of money and resources ever. This country has invested billions into it already and we're only at 2.3GW of average power production from them. They have a 20-25 year life span at best and will barely pay for themselves over their lifetime.

Not to mention the massive amount of space they take up in a small country like Ireland. Thousands of acres for small energy returns. The noise they make, the scenery they ruin and the massive amount of materials they use.

France recently completed a dual nuclear reactor plant with 2.6GW of power output for around €8.5 billion. It was way over budget but still represents way more value than these wind farms. It will make a profit of around €250 million a year and has a 70-80 year life span. Do the math.

As usual though we're backwards in this country. Our leaders are idiots and the majority of the public are idiots so we will never have nuclear when it is the only thing that makes sense. Even just 1 of those 2.6GW reactors would be enough for the majority of Dublin. Service the rest of the country with renewables.

With the push for full EV vehicles by 2040 we will need more electricity than ever and we're doing nothing about it. Instead we'll spend billions importing it instead of being self sufficient and getting our own reactors which will pay for themselves within 30 years with another 40 years of profit to cover decommission costs and the building of any new reactors.

Rigor Mortis

BloodBath wrote: »

Wind is the biggest waste of money and resources ever. This country has invested billions into it already and we're only at 2.3GW of average power production from them. They have a 20-25 year life span at best and will barely pay for themselves over their lifetime.

Not to mention the massive amount of space they take up in a small country like Ireland. Thousands of acres for small energy returns. The noise they make, the scenery they ruin and the massive amount of materials they use.

France recently completed a dual nuclear reactor plant with 2.6GW of power output for around €8.5 billion. It was way over budget but still represents way more value than these wind farms. It will make a profit of around €250 million a year and has a 70-80 year life span. Do the math.

As usual though we're backwards in this country. Our leaders are idiots and the majority of the public are idiots so we will never have nuclear when it is the only thing that makes sense. Even just 1 of those 2.6GW reactors would be enough for the majority of Dublin. Service the rest of the country with renewables.

With the push for full EV vehicles by 2040 we will need more electricity than ever and we're doing nothing about it. Instead we'll spend billions importing it instead of being self sufficient and getting our own reactors which will pay for themselves within 30 years with another 40 years of profit to cover decommission costs and the building of any new reactors.

You cite one country as leading on nuclear. Where are the others. If nuclear was the panacea you think, then surely everyone would be adapting it. Or perhaps the french investment is more along the lines of propping up a nuclear industry that is as important politically as their car industry. The subsidies received by the nuclear industry in Europe would leave renewables in the hapenny place.

Interesting to note also that France is developing substantial onshore, offshore and tidal programmes. Which clearly are unnecessary because of all the great nuclear they are building.

BloodBath

One country? I'm sorry but the majority of the civilised western world is nuclear with more countries looking to join the party. It is by far the cleanest and most economical way of producing electricity. With the world pushing for full EV adoption by 2040 that electricity demand is going to massively increase.

Nuclear is the only answer to this demand currently. Especially in a small country like Ireland. A country like Australia might be the poster boy for large scale solar farms but Ireland certainly isn't.

The push for solar and wind is an EU directive that will harm Ireland and others. I'm not completely against it but we simply do not have the land or money to support massive solar and wind farms to meet our energy needs.

They are still very inefficient ways of producing electricity. Short lifespans, large land usage, and terrible returns on investment. They aren't even green.

It's a complete waste of money. We should be building at least 1 large nuclear plant to service Dublin.

Water John

Who do we get to build this nuclear plant for us? The Chinese, like the UK?

5 acres of land will produce 1Mw solar and can still be used to graze sheep. Build cost is just over €1m at present and falling.
If you're proposing looking at Thorium Salt Reactor, I'm with you. Diff baby.
Hope Indonesia constructs one soon, proven technology.
Great flexibility to be integrated with RE.

Rigor Mortis

BloodBath wrote: »

One country? I'm sorry but the majority of the civilised western world is nuclear with more countries looking to join the party. It is by far the cleanest and most economical way of producing electricity. With the world pushing for full EV adoption by 2040 that electricity demand is going to massively increase.

Nuclear is the only answer to this demand currently. Especially in a small country like Ireland. A country like Australia might be the poster boy for large scale solar farms but Ireland certainly isn't.

The push for solar and wind is an EU directive that will harm Ireland and others. I'm not completely against it but we simply do not have the land or money to support massive solar and wind farms to meet our energy needs.

They are still very inefficient ways of producing electricity. Short lifespans, large land usage, and terrible returns on investment. They aren't even green.

It's a complete waste of money. We should be building at least 1 large nuclear plant to service Dublin.

Ok, we probably arent going to agree on this, but here goes.
There are circa 27 operating nuclear countries at the moment, 4 will shortly join. 4 are in the process of decommissioning their plants. The majority are giving no firm commitment to their ongoing nuclear programme. Strong advocates in the past, such as the UK are having significant difficulty in developing, despite offering very high subsidies.

I was glib in my remark about saying France are the only people driving this. Actually four countries, Russia, Saudi, India and China are driving the real growth. Two, India and China have very specific needs, building capacity from a near standing start in one case and desperately trying to get off coal dependency in the other. But yes, we could if we chose to, model ourselves on India and China.

The push for wind and solar is a global phenomenon. While it has unquestionably been driven in Europe by the EU, that does not mean it is an EU phenomenon. Most socially responsible legislation in this country had its origins in the EU. It should be noted the EU (Largely to keep the French happy, is a big backer of nuclear).

This argument about the inefficiency of renewables doesnt hold water. What i would agree with you is that the subsidy systems are inefficient. Its time to move to auctions for all of the new build systems. This is happening in Denmark and Germany and the resulting fall in prices has shown that essentially onshore and offshore are now mature technologies. Wind where it is priced in auction is competitive with all other technologies.

As for the, we don't have the room argument, again it doesnt fly. we just need to plan development properly. Something we are spectacularly bad at in this country.

Nuclear, no matter how you cut it, is when it goes wrong, a horrendous risk that most of us are not willing to take. A wind turbine breaks and whats the worst that happens. Even if a gas or coal power plant has a major accident, the damage is awful but immediate and short lived. A serious nuclear accident on this island does untold damage for generations to come. We kill our two biggest indigenous industries, tourism and farming.

Then we come to the erroneous belief that nuclear is cheap. One of the biggest areas of subsidy for the nuclear industry is for insurance. because it is virtually impossible to insure against the full devastation that an accident like this would cause. The nuclear industry receives 100s of millions in insurance subsidies alone. This is before you consider subsidy on clean up and decommissioning.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency in the UK in 2007 estimated the cost of decommissioning the UKs nuclear fleet of reactors at £73bn. That figure is now reckoned to be a gross underestimation. Sellafield currently costs 1.6bn per annum to maintain and clean up. These are numbers that are always left out of calculation of running cost of nuclear and allowing it to look competitive.

Nuclear power is the landfill of energy. It looks easy, it looks cheap and if there are any problems that's a bill and clean up that someone else will have to worry about in 50 years.

One final point though, as unpopular as wind is at times, people in the round are broadly supportive of it. That is not the case with nuclear. Irish people do not want nuclear, rightly or wrongly, they have shown no appetite and indeed strong dislike of the idea.

I don't think we are going to agree on this. But thank you for taking the time to debate on a Saturday morning. I'm off to get the kids up. See you round the thread

BloodBath

Water John wrote: »

Who do we get to build this nuclear plant for us? The Chinese, like the UK?

5 acres of land will produce 1Mw solar and can still be used to graze sheep. Build cost is just over €1m at present and falling.
If you're proposing looking at Thorium Salt Reactor, I'm with you. Diff baby.
Hope Indonesia constructs one soon, proven technology.
Great flexibility to be integrated with RE.

Yes the Chinese are exactly who I had in mind and Thorium is the future. If they can perfect the technology then we should be looking at what they can do for us.

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

Ok, we probably arent going to agree on this, but here goes.
There are circa 27 operating nuclear countries at the moment, 4 will shortly join. 4 are in the process of decommissioning their plants. The majority are giving no firm commitment to their ongoing nuclear programme. Strong advocates in the past, such as the UK are having significant difficulty in developing, despite offering very high subsidies.

I was glib in my remark about saying France are the only people driving this. Actually four countries, Russia, Saudi, India and China are driving the real growth. Two, India and China have very specific needs, building capacity from a near standing start in one case and desperately trying to get off coal dependency in the other. But yes, we could if we chose to, model ourselves on India and China.

The push for wind and solar is a global phenomenon. While it has unquestionably been driven in Europe by the EU, that does not mean it is an EU phenomenon. Most socially responsible legislation in this country had its origins in the EU. It should be noted the EU (Largely to keep the French happy, is a big backer of nuclear).

This argument about the inefficiency of renewables doesnt hold water. What i would agree with you is that the subsidy systems are inefficient. Its time to move to auctions for all of the new build systems. This is happening in Denmark and Germany and the resulting fall in prices has shown that essentially onshore and offshore are now mature technologies. Wind where it is priced in auction is competitive with all other technologies.

As for the, we don't have the room argument, again it doesnt fly. we just need to plan development properly. Something we are spectacularly bad at in this country.

Nuclear, no matter how you cut it, is when it goes wrong, a horrendous risk that most of us are not willing to take. A wind turbine breaks and whats the worst that happens. Even if a gas or coal power plant has a major accident, the damage is awful but immediate and short lived. A serious nuclear accident on this island does untold damage for generations to come. We kill our two biggest indigenous industries, tourism and farming.

Then we come to the erroneous belief that nuclear is cheap. One of the biggest areas of subsidy for the nuclear industry is for insurance. because it is virtually impossible to insure against the full devastation that an accident like this would cause. The nuclear industry receives 100s of millions in insurance subsidies alone. This is before you consider subsidy on clean up and decommissioning.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency in the UK in 2007 estimated the cost of decommissioning the UKs nuclear fleet of reactors at £73bn. That figure is now reckoned to be a gross underestimation. Sellafield currently costs 1.6bn per annum to maintain and clean up. These are numbers that are always left out of calculation of running cost of nuclear and allowing it to look competitive.

Nuclear power is the landfill of energy. It looks easy, it looks cheap and if there are any problems that's a bill and clean up that someone else will have to worry about in 50 years.

One final point though, as unpopular as wind is at times, people in the round are broadly supportive of it. That is not the case with nuclear. Irish people do not want nuclear, rightly or wrongly, they have shown no appetite and indeed strong dislike of the idea.

I don't think we are going to agree on this. But thank you for taking the time to debate on a Saturday morning. I'm off to get the kids up. See you round the thread

The majority of the problems you speak of are with old gen 1 and gen 2 reactors. The massive decommission costs you mention are from a large number of old plants near the end of their life. The reality is a good modern nuclear reactor will pay for itself within 30-35 years with another 40 years of large profit to cover decommission costs and even the cost of a new plant.

The dangers you speak of are also mainly associated with old gen 1 and gen 2 plants that were badly managed and/or build in dangerous locations. You do know how the Chernobyl disaster was caused right? And Fukishima?

Both were old dangerous reactors. Chernobyl was caused by a stupid test cutting off the coolant and it backfired. Fukishima by building on the coast of the most dangerous fault line in the world. We won't be getting 9 on the Richter scale earthquakes off the coast of Ireland.

These are just 2 of the hundreds of plants in the world. Modern reactors are far safer. Thorium salt reactors even safer again.

The arguments of the inefficiency of renewable does hold water. We don't have the climate or land to make good use of solar. 6-10 hours of poor light in winter and wind is unreliable. These methods are there to support the grid. Not be the backbone of it. That's where nuclear comes in.

I suggest you research how much land is required for solar and wind farms as well for any sort of decent power generation.

But you are right. I know it won't happen with this Irish mindset. Maybe we are just better off importing it all from France.

windnoiseinfo

always worth posting this

http://ireland2050.ie/irish-2050-calculator/

see what options you can come up with

Rigor Mortis

I don't know what the rules are about publishing behind pay wall articles on Boards.

There is a very interesting article in the London Times today which speaks to the nuclear debate we were having up top. Essentially it is a business review of the current environment in the nuclear industry. It points to a 7bn cost overrun on the development of Flamenville, the french new generation nuclear flagship. A 1.5bn overrun on Hinkley Point in the UK with substantial delays. The announcement on Monday that a new nuke plant in Sth Carolina is being abandoned mid construction. The project has already cost 4.7bn, completion will require another 7bn.

The thrust of the argument, penned by the Deputy Business Editor, is that nuclear is not a terribly safe bet, unless you are in the decommissioning game and then there is huge money to be made as over 1/3rd of the worlds nuclear capacity gets decommissioned in the next 20 years.
All prices are sterling.

Capt'n Midnight

BloodBath wrote: »

Yes the Chinese are exactly who I had in mind and Thorium is the future. If they can perfect the technology then we should be looking at what they can do for us.

Thorium has been the future since the U233 cycle was publically announced back in 1946.

Yes thorium can be used to stretch uranium. Add some to a reactor and you run for longer without refuelling. And that's about it.

Until you can get breeder ratios way up you aren't going to get a thorium cycle.


At present thorium is about as useful as bio-ethanol in that it isn't self sustaining and you can't increase production without considerable energy inputs.

https://www-nds.iaea.org/sgnucdat/a6.htm
For Uranium 235 you get 2.4355 neutrons per collision and you only need one (give or take)

For Uranium 233 you get 2.4968 neutrons, but you need one to convert fertile Th232 to U233 first so that's only get 1.49 left and U233 can take one (10% chance or so) become U234 instead of fissioning. So a lot trickier.

All public knowledge since 1946.