Energy infrastructure

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117807616#Comment_117807616

The fact that your comparing conventional nuclear power to nuclear bombing during WW2 shows just how detached from reality the anti-nuclear pro wind bluffers are when it comes to designing and operating a functioning, reliable and modern grid.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117808969#Comment_117808969

https://www.dw.com/en/desert-large-solar-plants-also-pay-off-in-countries-with-less-sun/a-58284114

Solar costs as little as $0.01 / KWh in Saudi. Siemens have run long distance power cables in China so it's doable. Heck at that price you could just lay a hydrogen pipe , and the Saudi's have plenty of old gas fields to store the stuff.

New coal at $0.112/kWh, while natural gas cost $0.059, nuclear $0.163, and wind $0.04/kWh. AND nuclear can ONLY provide BASE load. It's MUST be backed up by other generators for peak daily and peak seasonal demand.

antoinolachtnai

The most likely solution seems to be having a lot of offshore wind, then storing a months-worth of surplus energy as hydrogen which can be called on during calm, dark periods. Natural gas would still be there as a backup

this won’t be cheap because of the round-trip losses in storing energy as hydrogen and the large amount of capex required (as well as storage and wind turbines we would need hydrogen-capable gas turbines to cover our entire load).

But there is no reason it won’t work, assuming the electrolysis, floating platform and storage technology advances as expected

dubhthach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117808834#Comment_117808834

Naval reactors use enriched Uranium though, a key difference from civilian ones. The more compact the reactor needs to be the higher the enrichment of Uranium-235.

Good overview of US naval reactors can be found here:

https://media.nti.org/pdfs/Replacing_HEU_in_Naval_Reactors_Report_FINAL.pdf

As you can see they range from 93.0% to 97.3% U-235. Which in a non-military context poses a major Nuclear proliferation risk (U-235 is essential for nuclear weapons).

Civilian reactors on order of 3-5% enriched for Uranium-235 see:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-fuel-facts-uranium

As a result given the very different fuel profiles it's quite easy to build a compact military reactor, however the fuel mix is only available for military use and thus can't be used in Civilian context.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117807459#Comment_117807459

Given RR have experience making compact nuclear reactors for UK submarines, I really don't think there is any 'research' they need to do. I find your constant negative attitude to nuclear really odd. Western Europe's grid in many countries is essentially being propped up by the cheapness and reliability of Frances 70% nuclear energy supply, yet you are always going on about it being prohibitively expensive and >insert several excuses here<.

Every third post here bangs on about the wonders of a potential French interconnector so Ireland can be it's trypically hypocritical self and suck off the cheap and reliable French nuclear teat, making contented goo, goo, schloop noises, with an Irish accent.

Fully a quarter of Europe's power comes from nuclear, but now we have become such a bunch of whiney, nimby, politically gutless children, we supposedly can't build nuclear power plants anymore? The problems are artificial and of our own making; the fact nuclear power plants were built in the past tells us this.

Current Renewables generation in Ireland - 2.6%, 1.8% less than yesterday. Lots of countries are building these big batteries you can run the entire grid off for 10 days straight, every time a blocking high wanders in and decides to set up camp, so they must be the answer. I can't name any, but I am assured they are real. Stuff all wind for two days and more to follow - I know, lets go suck up to the French and latch on to the nuclear teat, while patting ourselves on the back for being green and raising our sanctimonious hypocritical voices and making up endless sh​it about how nuclear energy is impractical and not something anyone would want because of all the made up problems, which magically didn't exist in the past, or were god forbid; overcome; or when the magic wind wand is refusing to work.

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117808969#Comment_117808969

I've read the original source of the Forbes article (from Agora Energiewend), and they make clear that the huge surge is nearly all due to a post-Covid boom.

The overall trend, in Germany, Europe and the entire world is absolutely clear - thermal generation has been in serious decline for the last 5 or 10 years and what's more, what is being generated thermally these days is generally done by legacy plant as little new thermal is being added, which means the trend will accelerate as old plant is retired.

Globally, over 80% of electricity generation capacity added last year was renewables, and an even higher share is expected to added this year. Nobody is expecting this to change anytime soon.

There are two ways for you to react to this fact: ignore it completely (which seems to be your current approach) or accept that either you, Birdnuts, have a view of the electricity generation, transmission and distribution which is at odds with nearly every energy grid operator, government, private investor and analyist on the planet. Would that not make you consider there may be a tiny chance you could be wrong about any of this?

Yeh CB is right, wind is very low today. We won’t really know about the viability of wind in Ireland until we go offshore for most of it.

bob mcbob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117808978#Comment_117808978

Radiation and nuclear waste is produced as a by-product of nuclear fission. Both nuclear power and atomic weapons operate using the principles of nuclear fission.

Or to keep it simple for you - nuclear waste radiation does not know where it was produced from.

Getting back on topic - I had a look to see how many nuclear reactors are currently being built, there are 50.

In Western Europe there are 6 (2 Slovakia, 2 UK, 1 France & Finland). In US there are 2.

So no western countries are really pushing ahead with nuclear.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

The one country into nuclear power big time is China - they have 18 reactors under construction. Going forward, they may have the only up to date reactors. This would raise a completely different concerns.

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117808995#Comment_117808995

I would really hope that with modern renewable energy technologies we can become independent of primitive, medieval countries like Saudi Arabia.

It really is worth paying a little extra for.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810128#Comment_117810128

With that we go from being dependent on oil rich countries, to being dependent on the manufacturers of this green technology (namely China)

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810029#Comment_117810029

Work on those 2 Slovak reactors started in 1985, makes Hinkley Point look like Mini Sky City.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The Finnish one is going well in comparison, only 13 years behind schedule and 3 times over budget.

Flamanville, 14 years and counting behind schedule and 6 times over budget...

bk

"Although It doesn't directly answer tom1ie's question, you can see live capacity factors separately for on-shore and off-shore wind in Europe here: https://windeurope.org/about-wind/daily-wind/capacity-factors"

Thanks gjim, very interesting. Looking at it now, onshore (EU wide) is 21%, while offshore is 80%

But it also shows another important point. At the moment, Ireland is just 1.7% onshore, but Norway is 57% onshore, while Sweden and Finland are an impressive 75% and 70% onshore. It shows that the wind is always blowing somewhere and how affective interconnectors can be, if we look at it at an across Europe level.

For me the key is building lots of offshore + interconnectors to mainland Europe. Hydrogen and batteries are likely to play a smaller part.

josip

What percentage loss could you expect from Scandi power by the time it arrives in Ireland vs being used domestically there?

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810503#Comment_117810503

Just for Ireland's grid, losses are 42.3% of the energy generated. I'd imagine interconnector losses would be greater than that, or if not, pretty substantial. It would be far greener to have more power plants and shorter distances and stop trying to move the stuff hundreds, or thousands of km.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810503#Comment_117810503

HVDC is pretty low loss, about 3.5% per 1,000km

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810148#Comment_117810148

The west doesn’t have to hand over critical manufacturing to China. That was a choice made by neo-liberals. Anyway I’m pretty sure we can or do manufacture the materials in the west.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810875#Comment_117810875

Not only that, but Chinese solar panels are currently being made using Uyghur slave labour. No price too high for those cheap green electrons.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810617#Comment_117810617

The cost of the 600 Kv HVDC submarine cable between Scotland and Wales was £1.2 Bn. You'd be better off buying a £2 Bn modular nuke from RR than paying for an HVDC cable to Norway and then for the electricity flowing through it. Self sufficiency is better than paying large sums to be vulnerable.

dubhthach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117810595#Comment_117810595

HVDC cuts down hugely on losses (by about 50%) compared to AC. This is reason why the planned North-South Interconnector is HVDC as well as the abandoned 'Grid West' scheme.

Submarine cables by default are all HVDC which aside from the lower losses makes it easier to connect two grids which aren't synchronized together.

As a history lesson Grid West was about reinforcing Grid system in Northern Connacht given plans for large scale renewables in Mayo (Wind).

It would have been a 400kV system compared to existing 110kV circuits in area which are somewhat overload, especially as more generation is added.

dubhthach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117809817#Comment_117809817

The interconnector is really about improving overall European level grid stability. This is why the EU are funding 53% of cost, we are actually getting it as a bargin as total Irish contribution is on order of 12 % of cost. The more interconnection you have between EU countries the better cause it allows to offset local conditions. eg. cloudly weather in Ireland can be offset by Solar generated in Greece or in event that 700MW of generation goes offline in France (while wind conditions are ideal in Ireland) then technically they can buy 700MW directly from us without affecting the stability of Continental wide grid. The end goal is to turn the current setup into a Pan-European SuperGrid:

Interesting. When is that expected to be finished.

dubhthach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117811345#Comment_117811345

Ongoing work, here's a map from Hitachi report on HVDC market in Europe

https://www.hitachi.com/rev/archive/2020/r2020_04/gir/index.html

The large number of operating/under construction links in the North sea are due to offshore windfarms been connected via HVDC back to land. But notice plans for major North South Interconnectors in Austria/Germany.

Already first phase of interconnecting Crete to mainland grid has gone live, there are plans to connect this to Cyprus and onwards to both Israel and Egypt.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117811197#Comment_117811197

The Western HVDC interconnector cost £1.2 Billion and has a capacity of 2,200MW versus a theoretical SMR 10 years from now delivering 440MW of power at a cost of £2 billion.

Your nuke is basically 8 times as expensive as this inter-connector!

And importantly this interconnector is actually built and running, one of many similar around the world, with well known construction costs. By comparison the RR SMR is 10 years away from the first one actually being built, they don't even have a factory yet. They claim 2bn cost, but that is for the fifth reactor, the first few will be much more expensive. Who knows if it will really end up costing that, Nuclear technology has a poor track record in this regard. And it hasn't actually gotten approval yet, it is still in the design and planning phase.

Also you have to look at our planned French interconnector will be mostly financed by the EU, making it even better value for money.

Also, I disagree with your point on self sufficiency. We have zero Nuclear experience, nor do we mine Uranium, I don't see how relying on a British company to build and most likely operate and fuel Nuclear reactors for us is being self sufficient.

Look I do hope it is successful, but it is still very early days and the costs look very poor for it even if they do hit that cost.

dubhthach

I wouldn't mind but the whole point of the Western HVDC in Britain was about strengthening the British national grid and mitigating any risks with existing two AC circuits between Scotland and England. It also means it's lot easier to dispatch Scottish pump storage and offshore wind to meet demand in England.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117811493#Comment_117811493

So the 2,200 MW is free electricity that needn't be paid for? The nuke makes 440 MW of electricity for that £2 Bn, the HVDC cable makes nothing for that £1.2 Bn.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117811680#Comment_117811680

Free, no, but wind power has become so cheap, it is getting ridiculous. Scotland obviously has a massive amount of wind power (and hydro) and vast more potential. They already curtail a lot of wind. £1 billion worth in 2020 alone, enough to power 1 million homes. Such interconnectors allow you to reduce such curtailment, allowing you to get the power where it is needed for a very low cost.

cnocbui

Risible, on every level. I'll tell you what, how about you give me a 40l container of perol every 2 weeks, and I'll send you a 2m length of plastic tubing through which you could put 200 times as much petrol in a single day. Clearly this arrangement will benfit you hugely, but I am prepared to make the sacrifice.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117811798#Comment_117811798

Sure and your magic fantasy SMR's will get built!!

15 years ago we were promised the EPR reactors would cost 3 billion and be operating by 2012 (Flamanville). The cost has ballooned to €19 billion, still not open and not due for 2022 (maybe)!

RR tell us they will deliver the first SMR in 10 years for 2 billion. But will they? Will it slip and become 3bn, 4bn, 5bn? And will delivery slip, 2035, 2040?

Genuinely I hope I'm wrong, I hope they deliver what they are promising. But I've been following the Nuclear industry for the past 30 years and I've seen so many promises like this come and go, the best case scenario is the EPR's, where they come in 5 times over the cost and decades late, worst case scenario they never get off the ground (see pretty much all previous SMR projects).

I leave a small bit of hope open that this time it will be different. But you would be a fool to plan Irelands future energy needs around the promises of the Nuclear industry.

Leave the UK play around with it and leave them see if they can actually deliver on the promise this time, if they do, great, we can look at it as an option to reach our 2050 goals and compare the costs against other options.

But in the meantime, we need to be focusing on our 2030 goals, which are very achievable with the standard technologies we already have and which are proven.

bk

And also, we have only been talking about the capital costs of building these. The operating cost is a whole other story. Your 2bn to RR only gets you the reactor, it doesn't actually pay for the electricity either. The British government are paying an outrageous £95 per MWh for Hinkley Point C, I'm sure RR will be looking for a similar figure for their reactors.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117811967#Comment_117811967

Actually it was £92.50. But that was the 2012 price. It's gone up by CPI ever since so up to £111.7 in 2020 and it's index linked for 35 years.

"In its July 2016 report Nuclear Power in the UK, the NAO said these projected top-up payments had increased from £6.1 billion to £29.7 billion since DECC and EDF agreed the strike price in 2013."