Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Options
1…1415171920…55

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399810#Comment_119399810

    Random wholesale spot prices mean FA when it comes to average retail prices in the real world - apparently was have loads of cheap installed wind power, yet the consumer here is being rode more than nearly anywhere else in the EU!! Also wholesale prices do not cover the vast amount of money needed to build and maintain the vast grid infrastructure needed to support wind on the grid due to its extremely dispersed and distant nature from areas of main power demand



  • Options
    #483
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119401991#Comment_119401991

    Also wholesale prices do not cover the vast amount of money needed to build and maintain the vast grid infrastructure needed to support wind nuclear on the grid due to its extremely dispersed and distant nature from areas of main power demand

    FYP



  • Options
    #484
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Looks like Small nuclear reactors produce '35x more waste' than big plants for the same power. It's a size function rather than a specific technology

    Watt for watt, the paper claims, SMRs with water, molten salt, and sodium-cooled reactors "increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal by factors of 2 to 30," with the wide range attributed to different designs and materials. 

    Much of the waste can be attributed to chemically reactive fuels and coolants used in SMRs to catch stray neutrons, the researchers wrote. Neutrons that are lost in the fission process interact with the material surrounding the fuel assemblies, which generates radioactive waste. In essence, the smaller size of SMRs leads to them generating more waste.


    Doesn't matter as they won't be here in time to meet our carbon emission reduction targets so the alternatives we'll have in place by then means we won't need nuclear.


    UK - 4 out of 11 reactors at nominal full load. https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses

    France - is still importing 24/7 https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source

    If you include the plants offline because of political, planning and construction delays and those retired early then it's worse than it looks.



  • Options
    #485
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    It looks like nuclear is not as reliable as all the fans on here say.

    The French energy supplier EDF has signalled it is likely to reduce output at its nuclear power stations on the Rhône and Garonne rivers as heatwaves push up river temperatures, restricting its ability to use the river water to cool the plants.

    EDF estimates that its power output this year will be the lowest in more than three decades, which is also a result of plant shutdowns for maintenance and checks. This means that France, traditionally an energy exporter, is relying on imports from neighbouring countries including the UK.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise




  • Options
    #486
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119424238#Comment_119424238

    It doesn`t seem to be a worry for France. They have scrapped the decision to shut down a dozen or more of their nuclear plants by 2035 and now intend building up to 14 more.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119425449#Comment_119425449

    How many GW of new plants are they planning for?



  • Options
    #488
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119425449#Comment_119425449

    Since the start of 1986 France has started and completed the construction of ONE working nuclear power plant so I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Currently nine reactors have been shut down and are being decommissioned: Brennilis, Bugey 1, Chinon A1, A2 and A3, Chooz A, Creys-Malville, Saint-Laurent A1 and A2.



  • Options
    #489
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119425684#Comment_119425684

    Why, do you think they are planning on building 14 plants to end up with less GW than they have now.?



  • Options
    #490
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426193#Comment_119426193

    I would not be holding my breath on off-shore and solar being the answer to us getting to 80% renewables let alone 100%, but there you go.



  • Options
    #491
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    image.png


    Nuclear plants are subject to politics. The current situation in the Ukraine is IAEA says Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant out of control. Nuclear power plants need MW of cooling after they've been turned off so you can't even hit the trip switch and abandon the place like other power plants.

    Given that construction times approaching two decades is not unusual and it takes another three or four to break even on construction and interest costs nuclear power is a huge gamble over human lifetime scales. Even if you have political stability the nuclear industry is rife with bankruptcies.

    Imagine if a nuclear waste repository or power station was setup in Northern Ireland before reunification. "Good luck, goodbye"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426195#Comment_119426195

    Eh? No, I'm asking how many GW are going to be added from those 14. I don't have details, you seem to, hence the question.



  • Options
    #493
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426236#Comment_119426236

    I don`t see what your point is unless you believe that building up to 14 new plants will result in less. From read what Macron had to say that wasn`t the impression I got.

    Actually you are a major fan of off-shore wind and solar. Installed capacity means little or nothing for either as we saw days last month that from around 4,500MW installed capacity of renewables we were getting as low as 360MW for extended periods. Third time in the last year in fact, so what further installed capacity will we need to add to get to just the 80% and how much will that cost



  • Options
    #494
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426265#Comment_119426265

    It was a straightforward question but regardless I did some digging to get the info. As it turns out it doesn't seem to exist, not that I could find anyway.

    What is available shows that it's not 14 plants, it's actually 6 to be built by 2050 with the option to commission another 8.

    There also doesn't seem to be anything beyond an announcement so even those 6 may not come to pass especially when you look at the last one they tried to build.

    Flamanville in northern France, is expected to cost around four times the initial budget of 3.3 billion euros ($3.8 billion) and will not be loaded with fuel until next year at the earliest -- 11 years later than expected.

    As you mentioned renewables here's a look at the French plans.

    Renewable generation accounted for over 25% in 2021, the 2030 target is 40%

    Offshore wind - 2030 20 GW target, 2050 40GW target

    Onshore wind - 2050 37 GW target

    Solar - 47GW 2030 target, 100 GW 2050 target

    So, when I was asking about the plant outputs it was to see how it compared and how it would fit in to the 2030/2050 numbers



  • Options
    #495
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,936 ✭✭✭✭josip


    I’m still missing something about nuclear power in France

    France in the 70s and 80s was able to cost effectively and on time build 50+ PWR nuclear power stations?

    Most of those are still operating 40 years later, so they must be safe and cost effective to run?

    So why doesn’t France/the world just go with the proven tech again instead of persisting with the over budget and behind time EPRs?



  • Options
    #496
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426316#Comment_119426316

    Apologies if I wasn`t clear. I wasn`t asking what the French targets were for wind and solar. There really not much concern to me or anyone else in Ireland as we won`t be paying for them.

    My question was how much installed capacity of wind/solar will be required in Ireland when outputs are as low as the levels we have seen 3 times alone in the past year, (6% and even less), to maintain a dependable 80% or 100% of our requirements and how much that will cost.

    For wind and solar installed capacity means little or nothing and the average percentage output over a year even less. For long periods, as we have seen, output drops to virtually zero for wind and solar is not going to provide anything by moonlight.

    If we are talking about 80% or even 100% dependable supply, it`s the output at the low level not the installed capacity or the average output that determines the number of turbines or panels required. Knowing that we could then have a clearer idea on costs where presently nobody seems to know and it s operating on a blank cheque basis.



  • Options
    #497
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426577#Comment_119426577

    EPR's are just slightly updated PWR's, they aren't radically different.

    What has changed from the 70's is Chernobyl and Fukushima. The results of those accidents has vastly increased the cost of building new nuclear power plants.

    Up until the 70's the Nuclear industry was pretty cowboy'ish, you had many companies churning out reactors, similar to how say gas power plants are built today, sort of no big deal.

    But Three Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima completely upended the industry. Most of these companies went bust or decided to refocus on other areas (renewables). To be honest, Wallstreet killed it. Many of these companies saw 90%+ of their value wiped out overnight, wallstreet/investors/banks/insurance companies decided they were a bad investment and weren't worth the risk.

    As a result, you are basically left with less then a handful of companies which are basically state owned, like EDF. Being state owned and having a monpoly basically leads to spiralling cost increases.

    Add to that, due to these accidents, regulation of the industry became much more stringent, with much more stringent safety requirements. That greatly increases cost of building plants.

    Basically it has largely become uneconomic to build new reactors and plants.



  • Options
    #498
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,691 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    You are forgetting Windscale, renamed Sellafield after an accident, which was the first such accident.

    Then of course, Sellafield went through a decade of 'minor' accidents and leaks of nasty stuff into the Irish sea. Either they have sorted their problems or are stricter at keeping quiet about such things.



  • Options
    #499
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119427463#Comment_119427463

    Also Dounreay which was possibly the worst nuclear accident in the UK

    The accident is the most serious ever at Dounreay, and the particles it spewed out perhaps the most dangerous ever released by the British nuclear industry.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619830-600-lid-blown-off-dounreays-lethal-secret/




  • Options
    #500
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119427463#Comment_119427463

    Speaking of names, Calder Hall was the first nuclear power station at Sellafield and Moorside is the name for the proposed new one.



  • Options
    #501
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426577#Comment_119426577

    The EPR's were to be 15% more fuel efficient. Any possible gains there were lost when the construction costs trebled in real terms.

    There are people who say rent is dead money. Delays in nuclear power plant construction is akin to having to keep paying rent for years after you start to pay for a mortgage



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,691 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    It should not be forgotten that the nuclear industry in the UK was an arms-race industry primarily involved in making atom bombs and H-bombs.

    The power stations were just a by-product of that industry. They built them in very remote places because they were so safe (!).

    Of course Sellafield is not that far from Ireland, but it is much further from most places in the UK that might be affected by an unlikely and rare accident that occurred on the same site when it was called Windscale, so that was all right.



  • Options
    #503
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,053 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119428772#Comment_119428772

    It's a good thing no one has ever died or been injured in the windfarm industry.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh



  • Options
    #504
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119429815#Comment_119429815

    Allow me to include that graph so that readers can see how silly that argument is.

    A 0.01 difference between the bottom 3 is not worth even talking about

    image.png




  • Options
    #505
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,936 ✭✭✭✭josip


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119429815#Comment_119429815

    Although they include accidents on windfarms in that graph, the only nuclear deaths that are considered are those arising from Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    Data on death rates from solar and wind is sourced from Sovacool et al. (2016) based on a database of accidents from these sources.


    We estimate deaths rates for nuclear energy based on the latest death toll figures from Chernobyl and Fukushima as described in our article here: https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima



  • Options
    #506
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119430266#Comment_119430266

    A lot of the solar deaths would be from working at height. Safer to install on buildings during construction rather than later on. Biomass would include lumberjacks, a very dangerous job. Harvesting biomass crops by machine is much, much safer. So expect deaths in these sectors to drop.

    Ireland uses about 40TWh per year.


    With climate change it might be nice to shade walkways. Solar panels could do that and when it's raining they'd provide shelter too. Wouldn't solve the energy crisis but I'll all for not having to have hats and umbrellas outdoors if it can be avoided.



  • Options
    #507
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,691 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Do the death rates for nuclear include Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those deaths certainly were caused by nuclear radiation.

    Or those British soldiers that had to watch the nuclear tests in Australia and got irradiated and suffered from many cancers? Or the use of spent uranium bombs in Iraq? One way of dealing with nuclear waste - make a bomb out of it and drop it on your enemies.

    I am sure there have been many deaths during construction of these nuclear plants - just normal construction deaths should be counted, and there must be quite a few of those.

    Counting deaths is not a very clear argument.



  • Options
    #508
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,053 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119430674#Comment_119430674

    Very few of those killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima died from ionising radiation, most died from the physical blast effects and from being burnt by the heat and the fires ignited.

    As neither event was connected to the commercial generation of electricity, one would hope those figures weren't included.



  • Options
    #509
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,691 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119431676#Comment_119431676

    Quite a few died afterwards from radiation sickness. Commercial electricity generation was just a way of generating plutonium, so related to the arms industry, and nuclear weapons.



  • Options
    #510
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119429815#Comment_119429815

    Ok let's look at another metric - how about the clean-up costs after an accident occurs. You supply the costs for the wind farm accidents and I will supply them for nuclear. Here is a start

    Fukushima alone - 1 Trillion dollars estimate

    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119432330#Comment_119432330

    Sellafield is about £100Bn to do properly and keeps rising as they are only doing the minimum to keep it contained.

    Now do land area. Fukushima means an over 300 km2 exclusion area. How much have property values changed there ? A similar area covered in solar panels would provide enough power to run our country, and still allow grazing.



Advertisement