"Green" policies are destroying this country

Jarhead_Tendler · 04-12-2022 1:20am

Maybe Mr Ryan would allow nuclear plants if they were placed facing south on his windowsill

Capt'n Midnight · 04-12-2022 2:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119954371#Comment_119954371

Neither can nuclear on it's own.

Japan still has 80% of it's nuclear offline 11 years later, France lost 50% this summer, Finland waiting for 12 years for 50% of it's nuclear. The UK closed 6 reactors early and the two under construction are 10 years late. Renewables might be low for a week or two and there's usually advance warning, 10 years late or offline is a nuclear speciality. For most countries nuclear means importing for decades where a week is a long time in politics.

Both nuclear and renewables need dispatchable plant when demand exceeds supply. Using nuclear without access to lots of hydro like Sweden and France means reliance on fossil fuel and/or imports.

Installing extra renewables reduces the times you need dispatchable plant and produces excess power that can be stored or exported.

SlowBlowin · 04-12-2022 3:25am

Interestingly west Kerry power has been down more than up in the last 4 hours.

xxxxxxl · 04-12-2022 3:28am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119954658#Comment_119954658

And water too.

PommieBast · 04-12-2022 5:20am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119954658#Comment_119954658

As much as I am on the anti-Green side can you give me an authorative source of this information?

SlowBlowin · 04-12-2022 10:01am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119954705#Comment_119954705

Well all the lights went out in the village, and when I got home I checked ESB and there were multiple faults affecting 2500 homes, as I write this morning ESB power check is still showing over 1300 homes with no power.

antoinolachtnai · 04-12-2022 12:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119954445#Comment_119954445

The IAEA writes:

“There is a practical limit to the rate at which a generating unit can increase its output when operating in automatic frequency control mode, and there is a limit to the maximum increase that can be achieved. As a consequence there is a practical limit to the size of the largest generating unit that can be installed, if system frequency is to be controlled reliably after a trip of that generating unit. This practical limit is around 10% of the system load, unless it is acceptable to disconnect a large amount of demand immediately after a reactor trip. This is demonstrated by the results of a simulation presented in Appendix II. “

https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1542_web.pdf , p24

Your idea for a 1.6 GW nuclear plant on a 4 GW grid is just that, an idea, an unworkable one. You should be embarrassed now, but you will probably become more brazen and explain to us how the International Economic Energy Agency doesn’t know what it’s doing or some such

tom1ie · 04-12-2022 12:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955118#Comment_119955118

Can the 1.6GW nuclear plant not be separate smaller reactors such as Zaporizhzhia? This contains 6x1GW reactors which can operate independently like moneypoints 3 generators.

So is there a smaller 800MW reactor size that would be similar to say huntstown or something so you could have 3x800MW reactors?

Also you still haven’t said what your alternative to fossil fuels is post 2039/2050- unless I missed it!

antoinolachtnai · 04-12-2022 12:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955164#Comment_119955164

Doesn’t work like that. You could build three smaller reactors but the economics wouldn’t make any sense. Today’s nuclear technology only makes economic sense with very large 1 GW+ reactors.

Yes, you missed it.

tom1ie · 04-12-2022 12:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955194#Comment_119955194

So are there smaller nuclear reactors-700-800MW generating power somewhere on earth now?

How much did they cost?

How much would it cost to build 2 of these reactors in Ireland compared to 30GW of offshore plus hydrogen storage?

I think previous posters have a cost of €120bn for the 30GW +hydrogen plan.

Also would you mind repeating what your plan is for not depending on fossil fuels post 2030/2050- I can’t seem to find it

thanks

antoinolachtnai · 04-12-2022 12:45pm

Nope. Never said that.

(700 MW is still too big for this grid though. )

tom1ie · 04-12-2022 12:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955218#Comment_119955218

Sorry I reworded my post.

Have another look if you get a chance.

tom1ie · 04-12-2022 12:51pm

I see the largest generator we currently have on the system is 463MW (poolbeg) so does anyone know is there such a thing as a 500MW nuclear reactor?

antoinolachtnai · 04-12-2022 1:06pm

We started with an example of a reactor that could be built for an acceptable price per MW.

You can build a 500 MW, but it will cost a fortune per MW. There is a very good reason the Koreans didnt build a load of small reactors for the Emiratis.

it’s not worth doing. That’s why no one will do it.

antoinolachtnai · 04-12-2022 1:21pm

you want to solve all these problems with today’s technology. It won’t work.

All we can do is use the best available technology today to make as much progress as we can.

In five years there will be new technologies on all fronts. Some will work for our situation, some won’t, to solve more of the problems.

At the moment the most viable option is wind and solar. That’s why it’s being pursued.

in a few years when another technology is ready and viable we will no doubt pursue it.

tom1ie · 04-12-2022 1:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955269#Comment_119955269

Compared to €120 Bn how much is it?

antoinolachtnai · 04-12-2022 1:40pm

Why are you asking me?

Wanderer78 · 04-12-2022 1:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119954831#Comment_119954831

expecting some small scale power outages across Europe this week, gonna be a rough one!

tom1ie · 04-12-2022 2:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955372#Comment_119955372

Well you seem to be so against nuclear and so for renewables I presume you know what the exact cost of each would be.

Unless you actually don’t know as much as your letting on…..

Capt'n Midnight · 04-12-2022 2:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955210#Comment_119955210

There are lots of smaller Gen II reactors still in use. The average US reactor is 41 years old (the problem ones were culled over time). But the past is a different country, they do things differently there. Newer designs have newer safety standards and so called economies of scale.

Here's an overview of current models - https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx We won't be buying the Russian ones so it's a minimum of 1.1GW (The Chinese HTR's are using 1980's German pebble bed technology and it took 15 years to construct , the Germans had the AVR running in 1966. The Chinese model is only for use in remote areas. All other SMR's are vapourwear)

As to the cost , £20Bn is being mentioned for Sizewell C. BUT the secrecy and money for nothing has already started.

£100m in January. AND "The RAB model will see will see households paying an upfront levy through their bills to help lower overall costs. Press reports in the UK have put this at between £10 and £15 a year on the average energy bill for 35 years."

Last week In its usual less-than-straightforward way, the government declined to say how much of its £679m fresh funding for Sizewell (giving the UK state a 50% stake now) will be directed at buying out CGN. (China General Nuclear)

So the guts of a billion so far. And they've still to raise funding before they can decide if it's actually going ahead.

Also

In 2016 the National Audit Office said that figure for project cost for Hinkley-C has risen to £29.7bn, and if you calculate that per household per year then you get to £25 per household per year. And the cost has increased billions since. So £40 a year per bill payer for 35 years between the two nuclear plants that would provide just 14% of today's demand.

charlie14 · 04-12-2022 2:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955118#Comment_119955118

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955218#Comment_119955218

AP 1000 reactor are 1.1 Gigawatts, not 1.6. At 95% of capacity that is 1.04. Moneypoint provided 0.915 Gigawatts, which as far as I recall was said to be 25% of our requirements in 1987 and the world didn`t end. Where you got the idea from that 700 MW is too big for this grid I have no idea. 915 MW 35 years ago was not a problem for this grid.

On your 10% maximum from nuclear, Sweden this year generated 40% of their electricity from 3 nuclear plants. Would that not mean that even to average that out between the 3 it is over 13% for each plant ?

You may not know this, but China`s Three Gorges Hydro-Electric plant generates 22.5 Gigawatts and the world hasn`t ended there, and Hinkey C will provide 3.6 Gigawatts, and I`dont expect the U.K. to be plunged into darkness either. Are you not perhaps looking at the wrong end of the horse when it comes to nuclear ?

Capt'n Midnight · 04-12-2022 2:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955323#Comment_119955323

€120Bn is the current costs for the contract for difference price for 35 years of Hinkley-C at 90% capacity factor. ie. 3GW average capacity.

Rolls Royce priced their nearly 500MW "small" modular reactors £32Bn for the first 7.04GW (£4.54Bn/GW)

But the UK govt is importing foreign tech instead at an advertised price of £20Bn/3.2GW (£6.25/GW) Which should give you an idea of much confidence they have in RR's ability to deliver on-time and on-budget.

Unless the design is actually in use the real costs are unknown. Even then Boeing's 737 had been in production since 1957 and they still screwed it up with design changes that took 737 Max's out of service for an extended period such that it can't ever hit 99.7% dispatch reliability.

Danno · 04-12-2022 3:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955316#Comment_119955316

At the moment the most viable option is wind and solar.

If you have one wind farm with ten turbines within and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have two wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have three wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have four wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have five wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have six wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have seven wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have eight wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have nine wind farms with ten turbines within and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have ten wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have eleven wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

If you have twelve wind farms with ten turbines within each and the wind doesn't blow, you get zero power.

It really must be spelled out this clearly for the intellectually challenged wind energy fans.

charlie14 · 04-12-2022 3:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955316#Comment_119955316

Greens keep saying that wind and solar are the most viable option, but cannot even give an estimate when asked how much it will cost. I just cannot get my head around how people can state it`s our most viable option when they cannot even show its viability financially

If we were to piss away anywhere between €150 - €200 Bn. on options that proved to be ineffective over the next few years then with a population of 5 million we can rule out any other technology that may become ready because by then we would not have the resources to make it viable.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-12-2022 3:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955634#Comment_119955634

When you have 26 nuclear power plants offline for months or 40 offline for 11 years they give zero power.

When you have 12 year construction delays at plants they give zero power.

When you start and then abandon construction of 92 plants they give zero power.

When you shutdown 3 nuclear plants years early they give zero power.

When scheduled shutdowns at plants extend for month they give zero power.

When have automatic SCRAMs at plants they give zero power.

Nuclear, wind and solar all need support from dispatchable plant. Installing more sources means you need to use dispatchable plant less often.

Wind and solar don't fall off the grid without warning.

Wind and solar can produce excess power to be stored or exported and reimported later. Nuclear electricity is just too expensive for that.

Wind and solar mean you don't have a Single Point of Failure for the entire grid.

Pa ElGrande · 04-12-2022 4:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955690#Comment_119955690

Solar power appears and disappears from the grid rapidly every day, which leads to a phenomenon called the duck curve, it means fossil fuel plants must be kept spinning in the background, bought online and taken offline this is expensive. In addition the yield varies on weather conditions (temperature, cloud cover, snow and ice), and is seasonal being practically useless from November to February in Ireland, just for fun throw in the occasional solar eclipse. Aside from the land area needed, that is a lot of capital spend for an 11% capacity factor.

Wind does fall off the grid without warning, this has been a problem for South Australia in particular and required them to build an inter-connector to neighbouring states to supply load, they put a battery system in place whose function is to hold up the grid long enough for the diesel generators to kick in.

Battery installations have to be installed to short peaks in demand. Siemens are also building a synchronous compensator for the ESB to be installed at Moneypoint. In order to deal economically with the storage problem, gas and coal will continue to be required at scale in Ireland. That plant capital has to be maintained and the fuel has to be stored when it is needed.

Given the intermittent nature of solar and wind (just another form of solar), us electricity consumers can expect price volatility to match.

PommieBast · 04-12-2022 4:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119954831#Comment_119954831

Whatever the cause suspect we'll just have to sit and wait for the newspapers to catch up.. 😕

04-12-2022 5:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119955890#Comment_119955890

Network faults don't generally make the papers as they are a regular occurrence as evidenced by their twitter

https://twitter.com/ESBNetworks

tom1ie · 04-12-2022 6:03pm

Why would you want to spend 120bn on a power source that is offline when nature decides there is no wind? 🤷‍♂️

Pa ElGrande · 04-12-2022 6:45pm

Europe's largest energy storage facility begins operations in Belgium

The 40 lithium-ion mega-batteries allow for stable energy distribution across the public grid even when wind or solar power inputs fluctuate.

Given the current energy crisis, stocking up on electricity could be key for Europe’s energy independence, according to Michael Coudyser, CEO of solar energy company, Corsica Sole.

"Today we have a clear understanding that energy is a sovereignty issue...and we can envisage [the new site] allowing us to rely even less on external sources of energy," he told Euronews.

The centre can store 100 MWh of electricity. Each battery costs around €800,000 and should last for around ten years, after which they will be recycled by the manufacturer.

I've been looking for costings, that's €32 million for 100MWh. I assume 100MWh is under optimal conditions, the efficiency of the batteries will vary with temperature and age and there are limits on discharge.

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Comments