Nuclear Power For Ireland?

fishfoodie · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:28 pm

metalmike wrote:

Nuclear power doesn't cut it economically whatever about the politics.

Every country that has nuclear power has subsidised it to the hilt - usually from the military budget. This is why we only have fission based nuclear power.

The original reason for constructing Fission plants was to create Fissile products for weapons manufacture. So naturally Military funds were involved. Military funds were also naturally used when it came to Reactor design, because the Military were eager to develop smaller & more efficient reactor designs, for use in Subs & Surface vessels.

Sub reactor designs are probably the most advanced designs today.

Quote:

The problem with fission is waste - the trouble is you have to store it somewhere.

Quote:

Decommissioning n-power plants is also extremely expensive

Now to the nub of the problem, waste disposal.

The reason waste is a problem is because at the moment there is no agreed method for disposal, & research is effectively banned. If International agreement could be gotten around disposal, then the one real remaining argument against Nuclear would be gone.

The reason decommissioning is expensive is because of the storage costs. So if disposal was available, storage would no longer be necessary for the majority of waste.

The main issue is political / environmental blocking of real research into long-term waste disposal methods. The most promising method proposed was to process waste into vitrified blocks & then lay the blocks in deep-ocean subduction zones, so the waste gets hoovered into the earths crust & back to whence it came.

rock3r · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:50 pm

InForADime wrote:

mikewest wrote:

A question on wind being too high for turbines: on a sailing ship reefing can be used to reduce the area of the sail exposed to the wind; if you had some kind of adjustable props on the wind turbines could this be used to reduce the negative effects of high winds, and continue to allow the turbines to work at maximum efficiency? (I'm guessing it would take less energy than using brakes but would obviously have cost and maintenance implications.)

Any recommendations for further reading on this thread?

Modern wind turbines have sails that turn on their axis to face high winds with less surface area, and increase the surface area exposure to wind when it´s lighter. Those wind engineers are smart.

As for usable wind (over 7mph and less than the speed that is too fast for windmills) AFAIK there is literally always usable wind blowing somewhere in the national territiory, it´s never blowing too fast or too slowly in ALL spots simultaneously, that I know of (normal caveats apply: if a meteorologist has contrary evidence, then trust him before me!).

Naturally, it would be the sub-optimal solution for Ireland to "go it alone" regarding wind capture. The wisest course would be a mega-network comprising Spain, Portugal, us, Iceland and Scotland. I know for a fact that, when you expand the area that far, you are certainly, definitely, never left without massive amounts of usable wind power.

Combine that with solar from southern Iberia, Sicily and Greece & Albania (ideally north Africa would get in on the game, but getting that done feels like there would be problems ...), hydro from Scandinavia, and geo from Iceland, and you can replace ALL non-renewable energy in Europe. Transport, heating, the works. It just requires political will to stop the addiction to the filthy liquid sold to us by cruel religious fanatics.

fishfoodie · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:56 pm

rock3r wrote:

As for usable wind (over 7mph and less than the speed that is too fast for windmills) AFAIK there is literally always usable wind blowing somewhere in the national territiory, it´s never blowing too fast or too slowly in ALL spots simultaneously, that I know of (normal caveats apply: if a meteorologist has contrary evidence, then trust him before me!).

And how much would we need to spend to take advantage of the usable wind ?

Even if there are always areas where the wind is in the velocity sweetspot, are there sufficient locations suitable for putting turbines in those areas ?

I can only go on intuition without data, but my intuition says that to provide any significant percentage of Irelands power, on a predictable, consistent basis; absolutely vast numbers of turbines would have to be built.

I would like to see some actual detailed studies, but I seriously doubt wind power is viable as anything other than a minor contributor.

Quote:

Naturally, it would be the sub-optimal solution for Ireland to "go it alone" regarding wind capture. The wisest course would be a mega-network comprising Spain, Portugal, us, Iceland and Scotland. I know for a fact that, when you expand the area that far, you are certainly, definitely, never left without massive amounts of usable wind power.

Combine that with solar from southern Iberia, Sicily and Greece & Albania (ideally north Africa would get in on the game, but getting that done feels like there would be problems ...), hydro from Scandinavia, and geo from Iceland, and you can replace ALL non-renewable energy in Europe. Transport, heating, the works. It just requires political will to stop the addiction to the filthy liquid sold to us by cruel religious fanatics.

Do you know how far Iceland is away ?

Too many people think you can just transport power like you do potatoes. The further you transmit the power, the greater the losses & the more expensive to construct the links. The capital costs alone for assembling that kind of network would probably build nuclear power plants to override the necessity of the links.

Not to mention the fact that poor ould Ireland would be the most expensive part & I doubt our neighbours in Europe are inclined to pay for links that benefit Ireland disproportionately.

Interesting Fact for people. If all the Nuclear plants that were in the planning & approval loop when Three-Mile Island happened, the US would now, today, be able to able to totally supply its own power needs without any foreign oil.

Blindjustice BATONEFFECT · **Joined:** Nov 6, 2006 **Posts:** 4928

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... los-alamos

Quote:

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. 'It's leapfrog technology,' he said.

The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. 'We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor.'

The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. 'They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,' said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. 'We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas.'

The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year.

'You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts,' said Deal. 'You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands.'

Other companies are known to be designing micro-reactors. Toshiba has been testing 200KW reactors measuring roughly six metres by two metres. Designed to fuel smaller numbers of homes for longer, they could power a single building for up to 40 years.

fishfoodie · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:29 am

Blindjustice BATONEFFECT wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

Quote:

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. 'It's leapfrog technology,' he said.

The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. 'We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor.'

The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. 'They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,' said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. 'We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas.'

The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year.

'You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts,' said Deal. 'You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands.'

Other companies are known to be designing micro-reactors. Toshiba has been testing 200KW reactors measuring roughly six metres by two metres. Designed to fuel smaller numbers of homes for longer, they could power a single building for up to 40 years.

Sounds a lot like what the Chinese are working on, Pebble Reactors

People need to remember how young the Nuclear industry is, before deciding we should give up on it.

The first set of traffic lights killed a Police Constable when they blew up. If the populace decided, right then & there, that the technology was too dangerous, where would we be ? Thousands would have died unnecessarily because a technology that was not mature was judged without waiting for it to mature.

metalmike · **Joined:** Mar 17, 2008 **Posts:** 213

Quote:

'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Hope their engineers have better maths - I make this $2500 per home (which to be fair is still pretty affordable)

yoganmahew · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:40 am

metalmike wrote:

Quote:

'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Hope their engineers have better maths - I make this $2500 per home (which to be fair is still pretty affordable)

bungaloid · **Joined:** Apr 23, 2007 **Posts:** 1801

Blindjustice BATONEFFECT wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

Quote:

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. 'It's leapfrog technology,' he said.

The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. 'We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor.'

The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. 'They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,' said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. 'We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas.'

The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year.

'You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts,' said Deal. 'You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands.'

Other companies are known to be designing micro-reactors. Toshiba has been testing 200KW reactors measuring roughly six metres by two metres. Designed to fuel smaller numbers of homes for longer, they could power a single building for up to 40 years.

Cool, I want one. Use the natural warmth of mother earth (Uranium) to provide power to your local community. 40 years fixed cost, zero carbon, wow!

The problem .. our shit-for-brains politicians have made nuclear energy illegal here.

Possible solution .. stick a wind turbine on top of the buried reactor and tell shit-for-brains thats where the power is coming from?

AnarchistDriver · **Joined:** Sep 23, 2008 **Posts:** 46

fishfoodie wrote:

The main issue is political / environmental blocking of real research into long-term waste disposal methods. The most promising method proposed was to process waste into vitrified blocks & then lay the blocks in deep-ocean subduction zones, so the waste gets hoovered into the earths crust & back to whence it came.

I assume that a subduction zone is one of the places where the ocean floor releases magma? If so that's an excellent idea.
Where is the nearest such area to Ireland.

If it was done regularly in small amounts the risks would be minimal.

conor_mc · **Joined:** Mar 15, 2007 **Posts:** 1734

AnarchistDriver wrote:

I assume that a subduction zone is one of the places where the ocean floor releases magma? If so that's an excellent idea.
Where is the nearest such area to Ireland.

If it was done regularly in small amounts the risks would be minimal.

I'm no geologist, but I think subduction zones are where one "plate" slides beneath another.

AnarchistDriver · **Joined:** Sep 23, 2008 **Posts:** 46

conor_mc wrote:

AnarchistDriver wrote:

I assume that a subduction zone is one of the places where the ocean floor releases magma? If so that's an excellent idea.
Where is the nearest such area to Ireland.

If it was done regularly in small amounts the risks would be minimal.

I'm no geologist, but I think subduction zones are where one "plate" slides beneath another.

Even better go out to the gap between the north american and european plates carefully dispose of material

mikewest · **Joined:** Sep 26, 2008 **Posts:** 1337

The problem with using subduction zones or indeed any geologically unstable area for disposal of nuclear waste is just that the areas are unstable and may eject matter i.e. magma or rock as well as subsume material. If we find a stable constantly moving subduction zone somewhere on the earths surface then we have a perfect disposal system for all radioactive waste. Until then we have to rely on storage and continue to try to develop a technology that can treat the waste before nuclear can be accepted by the majority of the people.

fishfoodie · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:15 pm

mikewest wrote:

The problem with using subduction zones or indeed any geologically unstable area for disposal of nuclear waste is just that the areas are unstable and may eject matter i.e. magma or rock as well as subsume material. If we find a stable constantly moving subduction zone somewhere on the earths surface then we have a perfect disposal system for all radioactive waste. Until then we have to rely on storage and continue to try to develop a technology that can treat the waste before nuclear can be accepted by the majority of the people.

The first thing to do would be to agree that storage isn't a viable long-term solution & that Nuclear Power isn't just going to, go away.

We're spending Billions of Dollars a year on storage facilities of waste. A fraction if this would fund surveying every square meter of the oceans floor around subduction zone.

Bostonorberlin · **Joined:** Jun 17, 2008 **Posts:** 1490

TipsyMcStagger wrote:

Anyone remember Carnsore Point?

No way will there ever be a nuclear plant here - too many tree-huggers and spineless politicians.

universities in Ireland have had miniture nuclear reactors for years... your lucky a few areas of dense population in Ireland , back in the early 80s, didnt end up unihabitable for 10,000 years

mikewest · **Joined:** Sep 26, 2008 **Posts:** 1337

Shhhh....

Nuclear Power For Ireland?

Who is online