Energy infrastructure

Markcheese

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Apparently thorium reactors could potentially be far more efficient that their counterparts, but as far as I'm aware, an industrial reactor doesn't exist yet.

Apparently it's just around the corner , still.
One of to those technologies that always just 10 years away ..

Wanderer78

Markcheese wrote:

Apparently it's just around the corner , still. One of to those technologies that always just 10 years away ..

Yea I suspect having a fully functioning industrial reactor is indeed well off, but our resistance to such developments isn't helping, renewables are the darling at the moment, so it's getting all the attention, and the majority of the funding, understandable, but potentially dangerous to.

Markcheese

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Ultrasupercritical coal you mean anthracite.

Come up with all the figures you want fossil fuel and coal is one form is toxic to the environment. Nuclear doesn’t put out CO2, end off

Exactly , as long as you don't include the uranium mining ,milling and refining , and the vast amount of concrete used in construction , add in the waste fuel handling , ( usually a lot more concrete) .
Oh and the decommissioning could be a bit intensive as well... I say could be because there are lots of plants that are not operationional .. but not many have been fully decommissioned

Banana Republic 1

Markcheese wrote: »

Exactly , as long as you don't include the uranium mining ,milling and refining , and the vast amount of concrete used in construction , add in the waste fuel handling , ( usually a lot more concrete) .
Oh and the decommissioning could be a bit intensive as well... I say could be because there are lots of plants that are not operationional .. but not many have been fully decommissioned

Nothing humanity does doesn’t lead back to digging up the earth to extract resources. Burning that resource to inefficiently harness energy and then be left with with millions of tons of waste.

Markcheese

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Nothing humanity does doesn’t lead back to digging up the earth to extract resources. Burning that resource to inefficiently harness energy and then be left with with millions of tons of waste.

That is true , but there are degrees of inefficiency , and a 10 year construction , plus using diesel to extract a very dilute ore ...
It's likely that combined cycle gas has lower emmisions than nuclear ,

Markcheese

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon

I just googled co2 and nuclear power , and got this ..
It's published in the ecologist so expect some bias ,

And it's long ..

Wanderer78

Markcheese wrote:

That is true , but there are degrees of inefficiency , and a 10 year construction , plus using diesel to extract a very dilute ore ... It's likely that combined cycle gas has lower emmisions than nuclear ,

Our overall energy supply is slowly moving towards alternatives, but fossil fuels will and are being required to do so, but as this process continues, fossil fuel requirements should also be reducing

Sam Russell

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Our overall energy supply is slowly moving towards alternatives, but fossil fuels will and are being required to do so, but as this process continues, fossil fuel requirements should also be reducing

Except our use of energy is increasing. That is a major problem that needs tackling as well as better generation of electricity.

I used to drive to the local shop regularly but for the last number of years I cycle, but neighbours still drive. It is less that 1 km. Children used to walk to school, but are now conveyed in armoured four wheel drive mammy taxies.

I also now use the bus and Dart to go the 5 km into the city centre rather than drive. (Since Covid, I do not go anywhere). With Busconnects, I could eliminate more of my car journeys.

We live in a temperate climate - never very cold, never very hot. We could make all our houses near passive if we invested in insulation and heat recovery ventilation in public and private buildings. But have we?

Wanderer78

Sam Russell wrote: »

Except our use of energy is increasing. That is a major problem that needs tackling as well as better generation of electricity.

I used to drive to the local shop regularly but for the last number of years I cycle, but neighbours still drive. It is less that 1 km. Children used to walk to school, but are now conveyed in armoured four wheel drive mammy taxies.

I also now use the bus and Dart to go the 5 km into the city centre rather than drive. (Since Covid, I do not go anywhere). With Busconnects, I could eliminate more of my car journeys.

We live in a temperate climate - never very cold, never very hot. We could make all our houses near passive if we invested in insulation and heat recovery ventilation in public and private buildings. But have we?

i will agree to a degree, we have become accustomed to our own private vehicles, but i suspect this is for a lot more complex reasons that just convince, i personally believe people are actually largely using these to save time, as more and more of our time is being spent working, and doing work related activities, commuting etc. by having and using a personal vehicle, this saves an enormous amount of time, and of course, its also convenient. its also important to realise, many regions have poorer public transport, compared to major cities such as dublin, some simply have little or no public transport options at all, this effectively leaves only one true option, for daily needs, a personal vehicle, period.

theres no question we could and absolutely should be investing heavily in creating more efficient homes, but the reality is, many homeowners simply cannot afford this, unless its heavily subsidised. even though there is and has been incentive programs, this critical need has been largely directed towards the individual to do so, this is largely politically ideologically motivated, and its clearly failing

Banana Republic 1

Sam Russell wrote: »

Except our use of energy is increasing. That is a major problem that needs tackling as well as better generation of electricity.

I used to drive to the local shop regularly but for the last number of years I cycle, but neighbours still drive. It is less that 1 km. Children used to walk to school, but are now conveyed in armoured four wheel drive mammy taxies.

I also now use the bus and Dart to go the 5 km into the city centre rather than drive. (Since Covid, I do not go anywhere). With Busconnects, I could eliminate more of my car journeys.

We live in a temperate climate - never very cold, never very hot. We could make all our houses near passive if we invested in insulation and heat recovery ventilation in public and private buildings. But have we?

No one is saying we should go back to pre industrial revolution energy, that would be monumentally ignorant. The issue is since the industrial revolution C02 has been building up in the atmosphere at a rate that is beyond the planets ability to cope with it. This is because humanity has become addicted to fossil fuels and because there’s so much money in them that detrimental effects reports and alternatives have been knifed in the neck.

The reason people drive to the shops as you say is done to pure ignorance because fossil fuel money insidiously permeates right through society.

gjim

Wanderer78 wrote: »

theres no question we could and absolutely should be investing heavily in creating more efficient homes, but the reality is, many homeowners simply cannot afford this, unless its heavily subsidised. even though there is and has been incentive programs, this critical need has been largely directed towards the individual to do so, this is largely politically ideologically motivated, and its clearly failing

I'm not sure that it's clearly failing - the standard of new housing is incomparably better than existing/older stock in terms of thermal efficiency. As a result of improved standards, the average efficiency of housing stock is improving all the time.

I grew up in a 1970s "new build" and distinctly remember winter mornings where there was frost on the _inside_ of windows and when your breath would condense.

The only problem is that construction has recovered slowly after the bust so the number of new homes being build has been pretty low for the last 10 years but I think 20-30k units a year going forward is realistic.

I don't think a massive government program of trying to retro-fit existing homes would be money well spent - particularly on anything over 100 years old. The easy wins - insulating attics and installing better windows - have mostly been done anyway but can only achieve so much. There are about 1/2 a million homes in Ireland, spending 20 or 30k on each would cost over 10B - if the government were to commit such an amount to housing, I'd rather see them build 50,000 brand new energy efficient homes.

Wanderer78

gjim wrote: »

I'm not sure that it's clearly failing - the standard of new housing is incomparably better than existing/older stock in terms of thermal efficiency. As a result of improved standards, the average efficiency of housing stock is improving all the time.

I grew up in a 1970s "new build" and distinctly remember winter mornings where there was frost on the _inside_ of windows and when your breath would condense.

The only problem is that construction has recovered slowly after the bust so the number of new homes being build has been pretty low for the last 10 years but I think 20-30k units a year going forward is realistic.

I don't think a massive government program of trying to retro-fit existing homes would be money well spent - particularly on anything over 100 years old. The easy wins - insulating attics and installing better windows - have mostly been done anyway but can only achieve so much. There are about 1/2 a million homes in Ireland, spending 20 or 30k on each would cost over 10B - if the government were to commit such an amount to housing, I'd rather see them build 50,000 brand new energy efficient homes.

yea i do see many of your points, i actually currently live in a 70's home, but the reality is, the most modern technologies and techniques of insulation are truly only available to more wealthier entities in society, for example, i know someone that built a passive home a few years ago, i havent seen the inside, but from the outside, the house looks stunning, the house is astonishingly efficient, but it more than likely cost in excess of a million.

we regularly forget the human element of buildings and homes, we have a tendency to create an emotional connection with our homes, this is a fundamental element of being human, even though i understand your logic of rebuilding, this would only work for those willing and able to, particularly emotionally

loyatemu

gjim wrote: »

I'm not sure that it's clearly failing - the standard of new housing is incomparably better than existing/older stock in terms of thermal efficiency. As a result of improved standards, the average efficiency of housing stock is improving all the time.

I grew up in a 1970s "new build" and distinctly remember winter mornings where there was frost on the _inside_ of windows and when your breath would condense.

The only problem is that construction has recovered slowly after the bust so the number of new homes being build has been pretty low for the last 10 years but I think 20-30k units a year going forward is realistic.

I don't think a massive government program of trying to retro-fit existing homes would be money well spent - particularly on anything over 100 years old. The easy wins - insulating attics and installing better windows - have mostly been done anyway but can only achieve so much. There are about 1/2 a million homes in Ireland, spending 20 or 30k on each would cost over 10B - if the government were to commit such an amount to housing, I'd rather see them build 50,000 brand new energy efficient homes.

zero-cost loans for retrofit would see a lot of houses upgraded - the govt is able to borrow at negative rates. Under the old scheme you needed to find 50K+ upfront and only got the grants back at the end - that's not a runner for a lot of people.

However, going back on-topic, a big retrofit program would increase demand for electricity as most old houses use gas or oil, and retrofits tend to go for electric heat-pump systems.

Banana Republic 1

Markcheese wrote: »

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon

I just googled co2 and nuclear power , and got this ..
It's published in the ecologist so expect some bias ,

And it's long ..

Notice they don’t quote the same range or any figures for that matter on gas or any other fuel. Solar pc panels use toxic materials in there construction for example. My point is everything that energy is extracted from has some negative effects, it’s about which is the less ****ty stick.

Wanderer78

loyatemu wrote: »

zero-cost loans for retrofit would see a lot of houses upgraded - the govt is able to borrow at negative rates. Under the old scheme you needed to find 50K+ upfront and only got the grants back at the end - that's not a runner for a lot of people.

However, going back on-topic, a big retrofit program would increase demand for electricity as most old houses use gas or oil, and retrofits tend to go for electric heat-pump systems.

the reality is, your first statement is ultimately the topic, our governments have been unwilling to take on the debts required to do whats been required, we ve managed to convince ourselves that rising public debt is bad, but rising private debt is somehow okay! the mind boggles!

bk

loyatemu wrote: »

However, going back on-topic, a big retrofit program would increase demand for electricity as most old houses use gas or oil, and retrofits tend to go for electric heat-pump systems.

It is important to keep in mind the difference between energy and electricity.

Our energy usage of course includes Electricity, but it also includes gas/oil/coal to heat our homes and oil for cars, amongst other areas.

The goal is to get to carbon neutrality across all energy usage. As part of that we will almost certainly see a big increase for electricity demand as cars go EV and homes get insulated and switch to heat pumps, etc.

But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, if we move from relatively high carbon coal/oil/gas to lower carbon emitting forms of Electricity generation using wind, solar or even just more efficient centralised gas plants with carbon capture and storage technology.

An overall increase in electricity use is not necessarily a bad thing if it leads to a significant reduction in carbon released.

BTW Also keep in mind, that EV's and home heating tend to lend themselves well to curtailment, so combine them with smart meters and they can become a solution for helping fill the gaps in electricity supply and allowing more wind to be added.

tom1ie

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I agree with you except Ireland has to substantially upgrade it grid to facilitate wind power and also we are far behind when it comes to allowing people to sell there excess power back to the grid. For example there is a steadfast refusal by the ESB to allow biofarms to connect with the grid.

Interesting.
What’s a bio farm and how does it generate electricity?

loyatemu

bk wrote: »

It is important to keep in mind the difference between energy and electricity.

Our energy usage of course includes Electricity, but it also includes gas/oil/coal to heat our homes and oil for cars, amongst other areas.

The goal is to get to carbon neutrality across all energy usage. As part of that we will almost certainly see a big increase for electricity demand as cars go EV and homes get insulated and switch to heat pumps, etc.

But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, if we move from relatively high carbon coal/oil/gas to lower carbon emitting forms of Electricity generation using wind, solar or even just more efficient centralised gas plants with carbon capture and storage technology.

An overall increase in electricity use is not necessarily a bad thing if it leads to a significant reduction in carbon released.

BTW Also keep in mind, that EV's and home heating tend to lend themselves well to curtailment, so combine them with smart meters and they can become a solution for helping fill the gaps in electricity supply and allowing more wind to be added.

these are all fair points, but the thread (certainly the last few pages) has been mostly concerned with electricity generation and storage; if we're using extra electricity and it's being generated in a low/no-carbon manner, great.

bk

loyatemu wrote: »

these are all fair points, but the thread (certainly the last few pages) has been mostly concerned with electricity generation and storage; if we're using extra electricity and it's being generated in a low/no-carbon manner, great.

Yes that is the goal. Our electricity generation is far cleaner already then our home heating and transport usage, so moving them to today's grid would already be a net benefit.

We have a clear plan forward on how to make our electricity generation even cleaner over the next 10 years, going to 70% renewables, etc.

Other then converting those to electric (+insulation) there really aren't any good ideas on how to decarbonise those.

Getting all our energy sources to 70% de-carbonised, is more important then just getting Electricity alone to 100%. Of course we want to get to 100% eventually too, but we can't lose sight of the carbon produced by all sectors.

Global warming doesn't care if the carbon came out of the top of a coal plant our out of the back of a car. They all need to be reduced.

Part of that process is likely to be increases in electricity generation, but resulting in lower overall carbon emissions.

Banana Republic 1

tom1ie wrote: »

Interesting.
What’s a bio farm and how does it generate electricity?

Well the word I used gave the wrong impression perhaps but essentially its a process involving anaerobic bacteria breaking down animal waste, slurry, and or other materials, eg straw, into two parts methane gas and sludge. The methane gas powers an electrical generator, the same as natural gas, and the electricity is then fed to the grid.

The benefits: Amongst other things animal waste is renewable
The Negatives: If plant material is the only thing used land that would otherwise be used for food production is taken out of the system.

riddlinrussell

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Well the word I used gave the wrong impression perhaps but essentially its a process involving anaerobic bacteria breaking down animal waste, slurry, and or other materials, eg straw, into two parts methane gas and sludge. The methane gas powers an electrical generator, the same as natural gas, and the electricity is then fed to the grid.

The benefits: Amongst other things animal waste is renewable
The Negatives: If plant material is the only thing used land that would otherwise be used for food production is taken out of the system.

Can you clarify your negative? Is it making the assumption of switching away from animal production to a predominantly tillage scenario? In that scenario you will still have plenty of bio-waste, stalks and stems of cereal crops etc will all be waste material.

Banana Republic 1

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Can you clarify your negative? Is it making the assumption of switching away from animal production to a predominantly tillage scenario? In that scenario you will still have plenty of bio-waste, stalks and stems of cereal crops etc will all be waste material.

Not necessarily as many crops are chopped using silage harvester which effectively mulch the entire crop. Even sugar beat is often just put into these things and are not processed for its sugar content. In the end profit is king and people don’t alway do the morale thing, think of cash for ash. there are many pros and cons and angles.

If Irish farmers had a the ability to connect bio plants to the network they could supplement there income and also eliminate some of the problems they have with excess nitrogen in groundwater and such but there are risks for example German family farms are being bought up left and right by big companies that are in it for pure profit.

riddlinrussell

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Not necessarily as many crops are chopped using silage harvester which effectively mulch the entire crop. Even sugar beat is often just put into these things and are not processed for its sugar content. In the end profit is king and people don’t alway do the morale thing, think of cash for ash. there are many pros and cons and angles.

If Irish farmers had a the ability to connect bio plants to the network they could supplement there income and also eliminate some of the problems they have with excess nitrogen in groundwater and such but there are risks for example German family farms are being bought up left and right by big companies that are in it for pure profit.

This doesn't really address my issue though, the silage produced would, in this case then be put into a bio-energy plant to generate electricity, so I don't see why not having animal waste as a component would be an issue?

Banana Republic 1

riddlinrussell wrote: »

This doesn't really address my issue though, the silage produced would, in this case then be put into a bio-energy plant to generate electricity, so I don't see why not having animal waste as a component would be an issue?

It isn't an issue but the majority of farms in Ireland are dairy, beef, sheep, what I am saying is one could mitigate at least two current problems with one solution. Also if land is used exclusively to grow energy crops then the can't grow food.

Capt'n Midnight

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Apparently thorium reactors could potentially be far more efficient that their counterparts, but as far as I'm aware, an industrial reactor doesn't exist yet.

Industrial reactors that used Thorium going back to the 1960's include Peach Bottom, Fort St Vrain, Shippingport, Indian Point, Elk River and THTR-300. It's not new technology waiting for a chance.

Like a lot of the PR from Nuclear Industry it can be summed up as "this time it'll be different" but if the past is any predictor of the future "this time it won't be any different"


The "how to do" Thorium was published in 1946. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5092663-high-pressure-water-heat-transfer-medium-nuclear-power-plants

The Canadians were using it 1947

Capt'n Midnight

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

if land is used exclusively to grow energy crops then the can't grow food.

:eek:

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

eg straw, into two parts methane gas and sludge

It's not black and white.

Wanderer78

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Industrial reactors that used Thorium going back to the 1960's include Peach Bottom, Fort St Vrain, Shippingport, Indian Point, Elk River and THTR-300. It's not new technology waiting for a chance.

Like a lot of the PR from Nuclear Industry it can be summed up as "this time it'll be different" but if the past is any predictor of the future "this time it won't be any different"


The "how to do" Thorium was published in 1946. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5092663-high-pressure-water-heat-transfer-medium-nuclear-power-plants

The Canadians were using it 1947

thank you for that, i was completely unaware of that, ah one of my favourite economists has been banging on about them for a while now, he mixes with nuclear physicists, im intrigued. ive never been convinced renewables can completely fill the gap of fossil fuels, i suspect hes right in that we ll have to have a mix, and nuclear really is the only other option, but i also think he might be right, we ll only do that when we start experiencing regular blackouts

Sam Russell

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thank you for that, i was completely unaware of that, ah one of my favourite economists has been banging on about them for a while now, he mixes with nuclear physicists, im intrigued. ive never been convinced renewables can completely fill the gap of fossil fuels, i suspect hes right in that we ll have to have a mix, and nuclear really is the only other option, but i also think he might be right, we ll only do that when we start experiencing regular blackouts

Nuclear will not be a solution in Ireland. First off, it would take a decade or more to get it into production - assuming we have politicians brave enough to go with it.

However, in the mix we have wind, solar for heating, PV for domestic electricity. Now add bio-gas and we begin to fill the gaps. Add a feed in tariff, and the ability to use the batteries of EVs to make up the shortfall, and that might do.

Well, of course the insulation of homes and business premises would cut demand, and expanded PT, and the gap might be manageable.

Banana Republic 1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

:eek:



It's not black and white.

Please read me previous posts

Capt'n Midnight

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thank you for that, i was completely unaware of that, ah one of my favourite economists has been banging on about them for a while now, he mixes with nuclear physicists, im intrigued. ive never been convinced renewables can completely fill the gap of fossil fuels, i suspect hes right in that we ll have to have a mix, and nuclear really is the only other option, but i also think he might be right, we ll only do that when we start experiencing regular blackouts

Nuclear power is a money pit.

For the cost of one nuclear power station you can provide 250,000 green jobs if you believe the UK govt.



BBC 2 gas power stations on now