Should we go Nuclear?

Dinarius · 15-01-2010 11:54am

I'm guessing we'll have the usual 'Irish solution to an Irish problem' and export it (export the problem, that is).

i.e. We'll end up importing electricity from a nuclear plant (e.g. in Wales) and that will be that.

But, look at France with its 40 (I believe) nuclear power stations. Anyone getting their knickers in a twist over them? Not that I'm aware of.

D.

rubensni · 28-01-2010 5:32pm

fraz1971 wrote: »

If we couldn't not build the Bertie Bowl without going over budget then I would be at great pains to trust the government on this.

What are you on about? The "Bertie Bowl" was the planned national stadium in Abbotstown which was abandoned by the government after the PDs refused to give approval for it in cabinet due to the lack of need of two 80,000 seater stadiums (the other being Croke Park). The government decided to rebuild Lansdowne Rd instead.

So not only did we not run over budget on the Bertie Bowl, we didn't even build it.

fraz1971 wrote: »

If Ireland does build a nuclear power station then I hope they build it in Kerry, about as far away from me as possible.

N.I.M.B.Y.

Zubeneschamali · 28-01-2010 6:00pm

rubensni wrote: »

N.I.M.B.Y.

BANANA!

Amtmann · 06-01-2011 2:29am

Lots of discussion about energy generation on the forum lately. Just thought I'd bump this and maybe get the debate here going again.

Odaise Gaelach · 06-01-2011 3:05am

GeneHunt wrote: »

I saw this on Euronews today, I didn't realise there would be opposition to close a Chernboyl type plant, I can understand why - nobody wants higher prices - but safety first, you would think! I would pity any NIMBY groups that would try to stop the new plant there!

The BBC had a few articles on when the last electricity-producing reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was shut down on December 15th 2000.

Chernobyl shut down for good
In pictures: Chernobyl's final moments
Mixed feelings as Chernobyl closes

One thing that they don't mention is that the plant's workers put a wreath of flowers on the lid of the shut-down reactor.

dubhthach · 06-01-2011 12:47pm

Personally I think we need Nuclear power. However I don't think there is a chance in hell that our "trumped up County Councillors" (TD's) will ever grasp that nettle. Of course ironic thing is we will be importing electricity from Britain over the Internconnector that was generated in Nuclear plants. :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob · 06-01-2011 5:14pm

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

The BBC had a few articles on when the last electricity-producing reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was shut down on December 15th 2000.

Chernobyl shut down for good
In pictures: Chernobyl's final moments
Mixed feelings as Chernobyl closes

One thing that they don't mention is that the plant's workers put a wreath of flowers on the lid of the shut-down reactor.

The main function of Chernobyl was to produce weapons grade materials for the USSR in their arms race, its design is flawed and none of the western reactors use anything remotely close to it

Odaise Gaelach · 06-01-2011 6:49pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The main function of Chernobyl was to produce weapons grade materials for the USSR in their arms race, its design is flawed and none of the western reactors use anything remotely close to it

The main purpose of the Chernobyl NPP was to produce electricity.

professore · 06-01-2011 7:07pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

As someone with a background in physics who actually understands how nuclear power works: NO.

I also have a background in physics and understand how it works and I say YES.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Nuclear power, as much as people like to present it as "safe", is as unsafe a power source you can get. Yes, we're getting desperate and scrambling for energy resources, but until someone builds a working fusion reactor, this option should be off the cards.

The other alternatives are not safe either ... coal oil and natural gas all produce pollution and mining them has caused thousands of deaths worldwide (think Chilean miners) and major ecological damage (BP oil spill). There have been only a few deaths from nuclear power. Not to mention climate change.

BluntGuy wrote: »

(Fission) Nuclear waste has an enormous half-life. It can take up to 10,000 years (or much longer) for it to reduce its radioactivity by a factor of 2. Waste that was dumped into the sea (in a "secure" container) less than 50 years ago has already leaked. Somebody tell me how we plan to keep this waste from leaking for 10000-20000 years?

Store it somewhere safe. Blast it into space.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Nuclear energy is something that has potential, but not in its present form. We should boost research on trying to find a viable fusion reactor and go with whatever forms of green energy we can in the meantime. Now I'm not going to sit here and lie to you and say fusion is perfect. We don't know yet how much radioactivity would be released on a small-scale in a hypothetical workplace. But we do know that with fusion is zero chance of a runaway reaction, or large-scale release of radioactivity into the environment. The reason? Well, that's a little complicated, but it's to do with the specific level of pressure, the magnetic field and of course temperature required to actual generate the energy.

Ireland is not going to develop a fusion reactor any time soon. We don't have the money for a start for a project like ITER. We need a base energy supply.

BluntGuy wrote: »

But yes, I don't believe fission is safe. It only takes a mass of a several kg of radioactive material to start a chain reaction, and once that starts, it's over. We shouldn't consider it. It isn't safe, we don't have the nuclear expertise, and we have an array of the other options we can consider first.

Wind, tidal, offshore... they're all there waiting to be exploited and researached.

All fission is a chain reaction. I don't see your point. Nuclear reactors are as safe as anything else.

ei.sdraob · 06-01-2011 7:41pm

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

The main purpose of the Chernobyl NPP was to produce electricity.

It wasn't, the RMBK1000 reactors where build at height of cold war with the main aim of producing weapons grade materials for the nuclear arms race, the design of the plant was optimised for this process and on the night of the disaster large amounts of plutonium where in the plant. The Soviets preferred grand projects for generation of energy such as large dams, and Ukraine has plenty of coal as well.

These obsolete Soviet plants (some of these type reactors are still running) have several flaws not present in western designs, such as not having a containment dome (would have stopped the spread of the material) and allowing the engineers to switch off the safeties as they did on the night of the disaster (modern designs have passive safety features) and finally the design suffers from a 'positive void coefficient', where an increase in steam bubbles ('voids') is accompanied by an increase in core reactivity.

Anyways I hope you sleep well tonight considering majority of population of Ireland lives close to several UK plants and at the time of this post we are importing some of this.

finnegan2010 · 06-01-2011 7:43pm

YES YES YES
Next oil crisis watch us squirm on our little island
Sooner the better. Maybe an inter-connector to sellafield so if it blows we
wont be TOO affected te he he

Odaise Gaelach · 07-01-2011 1:29am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It wasn't, the RMBK1000 reactors where build at height of cold war with the main aim of producing weapons grade materials for the nuclear arms race, the design of the plant was optimised for this process and on the night of the disaster large amounts of plutonium where in the plant. The Soviets preferred grand projects for generation of energy such as large dams, and Ukraine has plenty of coal as well.

I've never come across plans about the plant being used to generate weapons-grade material. Do you have a source on them? I'd love to read them.

ei.sdraob · 07-01-2011 2:10am

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

I've never come across plans about the plant being used to generate weapons-grade material. Do you have a source on them? I'd love to read them.

Its the design of RBMK reactors allows for on fly refuelling, and all Soviet RMBK reactors where dual purpose, see here

The RBMK was the culmination of the Soviet program to produce a water-cooled power reactor based on their graphite-moderated plutonium production military reactors

....

The refueling machine is mounted on a gantry crane and remotely controlled. The fuel assemblies can be replaced without shutting down the reactor, a factor significant for production of weapon-grade plutonium and, in a civilian context, for better reactor uptime. When a fuel assembly has to be replaced, the machine is positioned above the fuel channel, mates to it, equalizes pressure within, pulls the rod, and inserts a fresh one. The spent rod is then placed in a cooling pond. The capacity of the refueling machine with the reactor at nominal power level is two fuel assemblies per day, with peak capacity of five per day.

or see DOE document from 1988

Chernobyl did not have a containment building which completely enclosed the reactor and
coolant pressure boundary as do all U.S. commercial light water reactors. Containment walk
were provided around and underneath the lower half of the reactur, but the top half is
essentially uncontained (except for the core pressure boundary) and surrounded by an ordinary industrial building.
Fig. 3 shows the RBMK reactor and contrasts it to typical U.S.
reactor containment buildings which are constructed of thick steel-lined concrete structures.
The layout of the Unit 4 reactor and adjacent turbine hall is shown in Fig. 4. A cross-sectional
view is shown in Fig. 5. The RBMK design evolved from the military plutonium production
reactors and were first constructed when soviet technology did not permit construction of large
steel reactor pressure vessels and concrete containment structures. Currently there are about
15 RBMK type reactors in this size range operating in the Soviet Union.

mgmt · 07-01-2011 4:00am

Would building a nuclear plant balloon the Irish Defence Forces? Obviously a plant would need high levels of security.

TBH nuclear has not delivered on its promise of 'too cheap to meter electricity'. I am leaning towards its a risk too great for Ireland.

Sponge Bob · 07-01-2011 1:25pm

I would not build it in Ireland at all, build it near Holyhead instead and let the highly competent UK Nuclear Inspectorate regulate its construction licencing and operation .

LeinsterDub · 07-01-2011 3:42pm

professore wrote: »

Store it somewhere safe. Blast it into space.

Getting it into Space and keeping it there would be a near guarantee of spreading radioactive material across the surface of the Earth. Space flight has a massive catastrophic failure rate when compared to an other means of transport

Measure Twice · 07-01-2011 3:54pm

There is no need to send the spent nuclear fuel into space.

The original radioactive ore from which the fuel was made came from the ground. All that needs to be done is to return the spent fuel into a stable rock formation where it would stay safe for as long as necessary. Preferably in a manner that would allow future generations to recover the fuel for further use in advanced reactors that could extract much more energy from it than was extracted the first time around.

SeanW · 08-01-2011 2:29am

First of all, I used to be in the anti-nuclear camp, a long time ago now, so with the benefit of hindsight and a clear understanding of how the environmental extreme left has hijacked the debate about nuclear energy (but with only speculation as to why), I do not disrespect anyone who genuinely feels that nuclear power is not a good idea, be it specifically for Ireland or anywhere else. Between the natural tendency to fear the unknown, and the ruthless exploitation of same by environmental far left, it's easy to see how someone can get the wrong idea about one of humanity's most undervalued assets.

And as a nuclear energy proponent, I wholeheartedly agree with the move to decommission the 3 remaining RBMK reactors at the Chernobyl site and wherever else such reactor designs were/are still in service.

When you look at the Chernobyl accident coldly, logically, and in the context of the manner in which the Soviets ran their nuclear programme, in addition to the many flaws in the RBMK reactor type alluded to by ei.sdraob, you begin to see the issue nuclear safety, specifically the threat of a nuclear accident in the 1st world, in a more realistic light. For reference, a BBC documentary detailing the events leading up to the catastrophe can be found online here: http://pripyat.com/en/media/

With regard to the alternatives, the picture is regretfully rather grim. Despite all the talk of renewable energy it is largely hot air as hydroelectricity and to a lesser extent geothermal are the only types of renewable power that can actually be depended on, the rest are either intermittent and unpredictable (solar and wind) or are still experimental (tidal power) and in any case the problem of how to displace all that fossil fuel is so immense as to require large scale solutions.

In the absence of nuclear electricity and the inadequacy of renewable electricity, the main source of the worlds electricity supply comes from fossil fuels. They currently supply about a very large majority of the worlds electricity demand, with the bulk of that, 38% of total, coming from coal.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ueg.htm

Pollution caused by coal use is responsible for at least 25,000 premature deaths each year in the United States alone: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2004/update42
and the mass contamination of the environment with mercury threatens countless unborn babies with brain damage.

In fact, the list of noxious nasties emitted by coal combustion reads like the recipe of a witches brew from a horror movie - the toxins mercury and arsenic, the acid rain forming compounds of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides (none of which come from nuclear plants), in addition to radiological emissions greatly exceeding that of a comparable nuclear installations.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

There is one thing that anti-nuclear proponents, especially the environmental extreme left will never acknowledge, and that is that humanity has a choice, broadly speaking, between using coal to generate electricity, and using nuclear reactors to generate electricity, and the madness I've described above will never be ameliorated while we reject the nuclear option - save for the prospect of a major technological breakthrough in renewable power or energy storage or a new power source altogether. All of which we have been banking on since the environmental far left derailed the plan to build power plants at Carnsore Point and have been hoping for - in vain - ever since.

Nuclear power checks all the boxes. It is safe, clean, large scale, easy to control, and is cost effective. It could provide user nations with energy security, highly paid jobs, save natural resources and divert a large amount of pollutants in addition to an extraordinary amount of CO2 from the environment at large.

Measure Twice · 08-01-2011 9:52am

I fully agree with SeanW.

I would add that nuclear power actually offers Ireland a great opportunity, rather than the threat that some people consider it to be. The opportunity is in the area of small and medium sized reactors that are about to launch on the market in the next 5 to 8 years. As Ireland is a nation with a well-respected technical ability internationally, we could play a leading role in helping other small nations develop their own nuclear power using these smaller reactors. Most western nations are sitting on their current nuclear stock and our opportunity is to be one of the first to make a move into the modern era of nuclear power, and to use that position to gain contracts for training, operation and maintenance, regulation, finance and other consultancies abroad and at home.

One of the most promising is the IRIS 335 MW machine from Westinghouse http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/iris.html which would suit our Grid perfectly. This requires a steel containment that could be fabricated in the shipyards in Cork. An estimated 60% of the equipment could be sourced here, and then manufactured here for foreign markets. We could install the first IRIS simulator using our IT skills and bring in foreign trainees. We could develop a nuclear engineering college to train nuclear engineers and technicians.

These facilities are becoming seriously lacking in western nations while the current lull in nuclear development continues. But this lull will inevitably end, and we could position ourselves to take maximum advantage of this and truly be part of a smart (or knowledge) economy.

ei.sdraob · 08-01-2011 10:43am

SeanW wrote: »

And as a nuclear energy proponent, I wholeheartedly agree with the move to decommission the 3 remaining RBMK reactors at the Chernobyl site and wherever else such reactor designs were/are still in service.

Apparently the remaining Chernobyl reactors are closed '91, '96 and '00 but cleanup work will continue for a long time with many people still working on site
Yes these designs are highly unsafe, and remaining ~11 reactors need to go. Also more importantly the EU and international community better cough up the money they promised for a new sarcophagus.

The fact that people still bring up Chernobyl everytime there is a discussion on nuclear shows how little people know or understand.
And its a pitty since nuclear is one of few technologies we have today that can help the world meet the carbon targets and address growing energy need, until fusion comes along.

godwin · 08-01-2011 11:07am

Would one nuclear power plant supply enough power for the whole of Ireland?

Sponge Bob · 08-01-2011 12:52pm

godwin wrote: »

Would one nuclear power plant supply enough power for the whole of Ireland?

No, however a plant is a set of reactors. If we took 1000Mw units as the standard and built 2 plants with 2 1000Mw reactors each we would crudely max out the demand that could be filled by nuclear baseload capacity on the grid.

One plant of 1000Mw x 2 near Dublin would likely do, hence my Wylfa argument. Finland has all its nukes at two sites producing around 30% of its electricity. They are up 90% of the time on average. ( see ) France can produce 80% of electricity peak demand from nukes but finds itself dumping surplus at night.

Nukes must run all the time ( baseload) and cannot be spun up to meet spikes. Moneypoint is the single primary baseload provider in Ireland today.

One plant would be in or near Dublin, arguably the other should be in Cork not Clare like Moneypoint. Maybe we would put 3 reactors in the Dublin plant and one in the Cork plant. Spreading 4 reactors across 4 plants is not very economic.

That is because modern nukes would run all winter and one would be out for servicing every summer giving us 4000mw base load in winter and 3000mw in summer.

Measure Twice · 08-01-2011 1:02pm

godwin wrote: »

Would one nuclear power plant supply enough power for the whole of Ireland?

No. But then again it is not a good idea to depend on any single source for your entire electricity supply.

What would be ideal, imho, would be to have around 2400 MW of nuclear power (sourced from say seven 335 MW IRIS reactors in 2,3 or 4 stations) in conjunction with

an increased pumped storage capacity of around 1500 MW (perhaps Spirit of Ireland type if it ever comes about)
up to 2000 MW of renewable energy (wind, tidal, wave as it becomes available)
250 MW of hydro as exists now
1000 MW of interconnection as already built or under construction
Some peaking open cycle gas turbines
perhaps a coal-fired carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant if it becomes economic and
Remainder as combined cycle gas turbines (to be determined by system modelling).

This would give a diverse fuel supply, lower electricity costs and an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the current system.

The new small reactors are built with load following in mind, so we could fit these units on during the summer load valley of 1800 MWs as well as meet the peaks of over 5000 MW. The interconnection with pumped storage would give a certain dispatchable export potential would could be a good earner, and may allow for even more renewables in time.

I think Moneypoint would actually be a good location for a CCS or nuclear station as the electrical and other infrastructure is already there. Another location would be Carnsore Point where the original plant was to be located. The wind farm there now will reach its end of technical life in about 15 years.

The IRIS machines have a dramatically increased safety by design and so are suitable for location close to cities, but the precautionary principle would dictate that they would most likely be in slightly remote locations.

Pete_Cavan · 08-01-2011 1:31pm

I also think incinerators have a role to play in energy production in this country. Landfill is a disgusting practice and we spend a fortune every year maintaining landfills in an attempt to prevent an ecological disaster. Producing energy from the waste is more environmentally friendly than throwing it in a hole in the ground, but of course for John Gormley environmentalism takes a back to NIMBYism. The first thing into the Poolbeg incinerator should be John Gormley for his attempt to introduce levies that would promote landfill. Waste is also a renewable resource in the sense that we will always produce a certain amount of it and incinerators are a way of recycling it in the sense that you are taking something that would otherwise be useless and producing something useful from it, ie. electricity.

As Sponge Bob said, nuclear could be used to generate baseload capacity on the grid. Incinerators, which can produce energy on demand, should maintain a constant level of output and spun up to meet spikes. Incinerators can also reduce output during periods when wind is generating a lot of electricity in order to prevent waste. Wind farms can contribute whatever they can whenever they can but we should not be encouraging them through price guarantees. Wind will only ever be a supplementary energy source to the national grid and we should be looking to develop long term baseload and on-demand sources first before developing these supplementary sources.

Measure Twice · 08-01-2011 3:09pm

I agree, Pete. We should include about 250 MW of incineration in the energy mix. Excess energy could be diverted to the pumped storage overnight rather than shutting down the plant. The range is modified now to include waste and biomass as follows:

2400 MW of nuclear power (sourced from say seven 335 MW IRIS reactors in 2,3 or 4 stations)
an increased pumped storage capacity of around 1500 MW (perhaps Spirit of Ireland type if it ever comes about)
up to 2000 MW of renewable energy (wind, tidal, wave as it becomes available)
250 MW waste to energy
250 MW of biomass
250 MW of hydro as exists now
1000 MW of interconnection as already built or under construction
Some peaking open cycle gas turbines
Perhaps a coal-fired carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant if it becomes economic (to replace equivalent nuclear generation) and
Remainder as combined cycle gas turbines (to be determined by system modelling).

Carawaystick · 08-01-2011 11:45pm

SeanW wrote: »

Pollution caused by coal use is responsible for at least 25,000 premature deaths each year in the United States alone: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2004/update42
and the mass contamination of the environment with mercury threatens countless unborn babies with brain damage.

In fact, the list of noxious nasties emitted by coal combustion reads like the recipe of a witches brew from a horror movie - the toxins mercury and arsenic, the acid rain forming compounds of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides (none of which come from nuclear plants), in addition to radiological emissions greatly exceeding that of a comparable nuclear installations.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

There is one thing that anti-nuclear proponents, especially the environmental extreme left will never acknowledge, and that is that humanity has a choice, broadly speaking, between using coal to generate electricity, and using nuclear reactors to generate electricity,

There's also the amount of people killed mining coal per annum being more than have died from nuclear power,
And that Coal burning emits Thorium into the atmosphere which is radioactive in itself

ei.sdraob · 09-01-2011 1:10pm

Measure Twice wrote: »

I agree, Pete. We should include about 250 MW of incineration in the energy mix.

Yes burn it instead of burring it or worse shipping to China for (ahem) "recycling".
interesting how the countries held up by the same Greens as example such as Germany have no issues with incineration and go as far as importing waste to burn from countries such as Italy.

More interestingly with regards to incineration is the plasma incineration technology (trying to find the articles) which is so hot the end result is a block of glass which can be used in road construction.

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's also the amount of people killed mining coal per annum being more than have died from nuclear power,
And that Coal burning emits Thorium into the atmosphere which is radioactive in itself

Plenty of mercury too, lets just say I would rather live next to a nuclear plant than the likes of Moneypoint even after the expensive retrofit project.

mgmt · 09-01-2011 5:41pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

More interestingly with regards to incineration is the plasma incineration technology (trying to find the articles) which is so hot the end result is a block of glass which can be used in road construction.

They currently recycle incinerator ash by using it as mixture in concrete.

Pete_Cavan · 09-01-2011 6:22pm

mgmt wrote: »

They currently recycle incinerator ash by using it as mixture in concrete.

You are thinking of Pulverised Fly Ash, a by product of burning coal. The ash left from an incinerator is contaminated and would have to be disposed of in Holland.

ei.sdraob · 14-01-2011 12:47pm

From today's debate on the climate change bill which will tie us to a 30% target

Mark Dearey (Green Party) wrote:

“Some would argue that we should not be setting targets here that exceed our obligations, but this is being done in part in anticipation of the 30% EU target coming into effect in time.
…
The Confederation of British Industry chairman, Sir Richard Lambert, has stated that the CBI will not allow uncertainty of global targets to stop British industry from moving ahead. We cannot be left trailing behind Great Britain and Northern Ireland in our readiness for the low carbon future with which this Bill provides us.”

Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael) wrote:

“They have nuclear energy.”

We should embrace nuclear, just as UK are doing since its the cheapest and fastest way to reduce carbon emissions. UK are already well on their way to meeting their 30% target thanks in part to nuclear with more plants being planned.

Should we go Nuclear?

Comments