ESB Engineer: Ireland should go Nuclear

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,790
Nukes are regarded as base load primarily for economic reasons, rather than any inability to ramp up or down. They cost so much to build, they need to be run at full output to maximise the return on investment.
 


soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,122
The Czech Rep which is a small enough country too, relies primarily on nuclear - been there a few ago and unlike Germany its wonderfull countryside is not destroyed by giant useless windfarms. Their energy prices are also just a fraction of Germany's(and here!!)
I have travelled a lot in Germany and I can assure you that its wonderful countryside is not destroyed by windfarms.

As for German windfarms being "useless", I'm wondering if you can come up with any evidence.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,906
Nuclear power is clearly the way forward but I don’t think Ireland is capable of it. Some politician’s friend would be in charge or somebody who got straight Bs in their leaving cert. It’s a small country, there isn’t enough smart people to run such a device.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,307
As it is, Ireland is largely an isolated grid, which means system transients are a big issue that must be accounted for to ensure reliability of supply.

If Ireland had a nuclear plant, I do not believe that plant could instantaneously lift load due to the need to control the rate of fission.
It could quite easily do so. There are load following nuclear plants in existence for the last 20 years. They are not as fast as gas or PSH facilities, and doing so affects their economics but then, we currently pay for curtailment.

Put simply, if it made economic and engineering sense, Ireland would already have nuclear plants.
Perhaps. But the real reason is we had a load of fake greens providing support for Moneypoint in the 1970's-1980s, and this plant is slated to continue for quite some time albeit perhaps not with coal.

But what are the alternatives if one goes low carbon? Renewables with batteries is un-costed and does not provide itself to reducing transients and rapid ramp rates. However what we do know that works in Ireland (and most island grids), is having a large base load element coupled with peakers.

Ireland will very soon face issues, unless extensions are granted. There is approx 1000MW of firm, dispatchable capacity due to come off line by 2025.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,989
Put simply, if it made economic and engineering sense, Ireland would already have nuclear plants.
That's not correct, its a political decision not to consider nuclear, nothing to do with engineering or cost. The ESB had considered nuclear 40 years ago, one of the reasons they built the pumped storage plant in Wicklow, when it was cancelled, Moneypoint had to be built.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,759
i'm certainly in favour of nuclear power and i'd build stations in arklow, mullingar, all of tipperary and cork :D
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,522
It could quite easily do so. There are load following nuclear plants in existence for the last 20 years. They are not as fast as gas or PSH facilities, and doing so affects their economics but then, we currently pay for curtailment.



Perhaps. But the real reason is we had a load of fake greens providing support for Moneypoint in the 1970's-1980s, and this plant is slated to continue for quite some time albeit perhaps not with coal.

But what are the alternatives if one goes low carbon? Renewables with batteries is un-costed and does not provide itself to reducing transients and rapid ramp rates. However what we do know that works in Ireland (and most island grids), is having a large base load element coupled with peakers.

Ireland will very soon face issues, unless extensions are granted. There is approx 1000MW of firm, dispatchable capacity due to come off line by 2025.
Before we destroy our power generating capacity, bring in untried and possibly insufficient renewables or dally with nuclear (the expense of which would be my greatest concern), shouldn't we know why we are potentially turning our world on its head?

The evidence strongly suggests co2 is not a global warming gas and in fact the world may be cooling or is at least in a hiatus period.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,989
The evidence strongly suggests co2 is not a global warming gas and in fact the world may be cooling or is at least in a hiatus period.
Policy can only be based on the best information available and currently, the scientific consensus says that CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,573
i'm certainly in favour of nuclear power and i'd build stations in arklow, mullingar, all of tipperary and cork :D
Starting in 2019, with nothing, when do you think the first one would go online? 2021? 2025? 2030?
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
11,203
I'd live next to a nuclear power plant if I knew it was going to be run correctly.

As this is Ireland, I probably wouldn't feel safe though.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,989
Science doesn't work on the basis of consensus. Politics does.
No, science is based on accepted knowledge until someone proves something different - Newton's explanation of gravity was accepted until Einstein proposed his and for most practical purposes, Newton is still accepted.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,307
Before we destroy our power generating capacity, bring in untried and possibly insufficient renewables or dally with nuclear (the expense of which would be my greatest concern), shouldn't we know why we are potentially turning our world on its head?

The evidence strongly suggests co2 is not a global warming gas and in fact the world may be cooling or is at least in a hiatus period.
I did say if.

Either way there is a fair bit of capacity up for grabs in the near future. Some of this is industrial but there is a fair amount of peat capacity spread across 3 units. Add Moneypoint that is set to have a decision in 2025, and there will be a need for capacity. Gas seems a good bet except that European gas is in decline, and the environment is against fracking. That means exposure to international LNG, which even with a glut, is a good bit more expensive than locally delivered gas.
 

greencharade

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
104
No, science is based on accepted knowledge until someone proves something different - Newton's explanation of gravity was accepted until Einstein proposed his and for most practical purposes, Newton is still accepted.
Ah now. Even Newton and Einstein weren't accepted without proof.
Models built to support quests for money and power aren't proof.
 

greencharade

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
104
I did say if.

Either way there is a fair bit of capacity up for grabs in the near future. Some of this is industrial but there is a fair amount of peat capacity spread across 3 units. Add Moneypoint that is set to have a decision in 2025, and there will be a need for capacity. Gas seems a good bet except that European gas is in decline, and the environment is against fracking. That means exposure to international LNG, which even with a glut, is a good bit more expensive than locally delivered gas.
What is the difference between the price of electricity from wind and that from gas, in the Republic of Ireland, just now?
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,989
Ah now. Even Newton and Einstein weren't accepted without proof.
Models built to support quests for money and power aren't proof.
Individuals are free to think what they like but govts should base policy on best available information and currently, the best available information points to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That is the context in which engineers advocate using nuclear power to produce electricity.
 

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,844
Individuals are free to think what they like but govts should base policy on best available information and currently, the best available information points to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That is the context in which engineers advocate using nuclear power to produce electricity.

AFAIK this government or the previous one has done no CBA on current energy policies which seem to be about endless supports for wind/solar no matter if this approach does any good for the environment and seem completely oblivious to the growing energy poverty issues in the state as a result of such a policty
 

greencharade

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
104
Individuals are free to think what they like but govts should base policy on best available information and currently, the best available information points to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That is the context in which engineers advocate using nuclear power to produce electricity.
Policy on the basis of best available information would mean that the significant issues with respect to the so called in this area would be fully considered. Ignorance is not a defence here.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top