tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post114469341637944877..comments2023-10-29T14:44:07.458+00:00Comments on The Dossing Times: Should Ireland go Nuclear?Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13851386083389876851noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1172889719078761482007-03-03T02:41:00.000+00:002007-03-03T02:41:00.000+00:00I thought I would leave my thoughts on this post a...I thought I would leave my thoughts on this post as are because I have my thoughts made but considering i have been zingered a few points.<BR/><BR/><EM>If nuclear power was more expensive than all other types, 31 countries would not have built 441 nuclear plants.</EM><BR/><BR/>Many were built for military reasons,and many stem from the 1977 oil crisis. When alternatives were not available.This can be seen by the fast rise of uranium prices in late 70s early 80s. Also many reactors were built in the 50s when they thought they would be the fuel of the future. While finding it was not what they thought <BR/><BR/><EM>As for future uranium supplies being in a new middle east, it's hard to see how that would be more problematic than the middle east we have right now.</EM><BR/><BR/>You are dead right with what you say. How could it be more problamitic then the current middle east. So do you really want a second one. on your hands?<BR/><EM>Nuclear is not perfect. But the one question i ask you, with demand for electricity here expected to increase by 20% over the next 10 years, which is the better choice for a new power plant; Oil, coal or nuclear?</EM><BR/><BR/>I would refer to you thing about the christian dems in Germany as the answer to that questions. In conjunction with flow batterys. Remember you also need base load with nuclear power due to it down time. I quiet like clean coal technologies. <BR/><BR/><EM>And Finland, with one quater the population density that we have</EM><BR/>1 they are all grouped together the none of them live in lapland. and also they used 80.79 billion kwhr we use 23 billion.<BR/><BR/><EM>a country which can't be accused of giving government subsidies to the buiding of power plants</EM><BR/>from 1948 on. about 2/3 of US federal research subsidies went to nuclear. It is massive they also underwrite liability. Many experts say that the nuclear industry in america would not survive without subsidies. Sos you really can.<BR/><BR/><EM>The fact that they have embraced nuclear energy the way they have should say something about the energy they have chosen. </EM><BR/>They also embrace high tax. Just because they chose it and it is fit for them to use does not mean it is fit for us. <BR/><BR/>I am off to bedSimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13851386083389876851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1172858916737522442007-03-02T18:08:00.000+00:002007-03-02T18:08:00.000+00:00You, sir, have been ZINGERED! At least a reply wou...You, sir, have been ZINGERED! At least a reply would be nice for that chap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1155300650997610562006-08-11T13:50:00.000+01:002006-08-11T13:50:00.000+01:00Thank you for your reply.As for the issue of cost,...Thank you for your reply.<BR/><BR/>As for the issue of cost, there are many things which have to be considered, a proper cost analysis needs to be done to establish if a nuclear plant would be economical compared to using oil/coal. The Finnish nuclear plant will cost around the €3 billion mark, however any power plant is a huge initial cost. Moneypoint cost £700 million in 1979. That's €900 million plus 27 years of inflation. And it goes through 2 million tonnes of coal every year, with 2/3 the output of an EPR. French electricity, though heavily subsidised, is the cheapest in the EU. 90% of it is generated by nuclear and hydro. If nuclear power was more expensive than all other types, 31 countries would not have built 441 nuclear plants. Nuclear power generates 17% of the worlds electric power. The cost of energy from oil is well known, but it's also high. Despite uraniums price hike of 400%, it is still a cheap commodity.<BR/><BR/>As for future uranium supplies being in a new middle east, it's hard to see how that would be more problematic than the middle east we have right now. Bearing in mind we don't where a new supply of uranium might turn up (like the Saudi Arabian oil deposit in the 50's), China and Russia, while not the friendliest countries, are both trading countries, with Russia soon to be in the WTO. India are pouring money at thorium nuclear research, which can already be used in some types of reactor. Thorium deposits are 4 times that of uranium, so once this technology become mainstream, the product used for nuclear fission will be both cheap and plentiful.<BR/><BR/>I'm uncertain if the Dublin and East region uses 1/3 of the electricity generated in the country, however, given that just over 1/3 of the population is in this area, along with all the commerce and industry in county Dublin, i have no doubt a 1600 MWe nuclear plant would not be sending electricity a long distance to be used. The plant in Finland will make around 1600 MWe, Ireland uses just under 5000 MWe, therefore one of these nuclear plants would make 1/3 of the electricty we need.<BR/><BR/>Your point about Irelands population density makes no sense. Many countries with lower population densities have nuclear plants. The US (a country which can't be accused of giving government subsidies to the buiding of power plants) have 104 nuclear stations. Sweden generate almost half their electricity with their 10 nuclear plants. And Finland, with one quater the population density that we have, has 4 nuclear plants, with 2 on the way. Finland and Sweden are liberal countries with impeccable environmental records. The fact that they have embraced nuclear energy the way they have should say something about the energy they have chosen. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>According to the Transmission Development Plan published by Eirgrid, capital expenditure for the 2006-2010 period will be in the region of €520 million. This is to add new transformers, build new lines for new sources of electricity and to upgrade existing lines. If a new power station was built to service the East, with a 20 kilometer radius of lines, I can't see why this would fall out of the scope of what Eirgrid has already planned for. If it will cost half a billion euro to service the entire grid for 5 years, building infrastructure for 1 power plant in a relativly confined area could not be prohibitivly expensive.<BR/><BR/>A plant up north would be best of both worlds; less electricity from fossil fuel, and no capital expense of building and decommissioning a reactor.<BR/><BR/>Every passing day, with oil rising in price and falling in volume, makes nuclear a logical alternative to using coal or oil. The best policy was being pursued by Germany's last environment minister, shutting down many nuclear plants and building hydro and wind instead. This is the real long-term solution, which unfortunatly is not being pursued by the christian democrats with the same enthusiasm.<BR/><BR/>Nuclear is not perfect. But the one question i ask you, with demand for electricity here expected to increase by 20% over the next 10 years, which is the better choice for a new power plant; Oil, coal or nuclear?<BR/><BR/>(Please don't say you would build more hydro and wind instead of choosing one of these 3, our government's target for renewable energy for 2010 is still only 13.2%, and a baseline power station is still needed, so make a choice and say why.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1155050036373014702006-08-08T16:13:00.000+01:002006-08-08T16:13:00.000+01:00thanks for your comments. I notice you didn't resp...thanks for your comments. I notice you didn't respond to my points on the cost of nuclear at all. <BR/><BR/>as for the uranium supplies i did ackknowledge that their will be other finds but they will be in africa and china creating a whole new middle east and we all know how stable that is.<BR/><BR/>as for the point of powering dublin you are right there would be a lot of power in a confined area there. but whether it is 1/3 of the power. i have no idea. remember the largest user of electricty in ireland is in limerick and the pharmacetical plants in cork would be big as well. <BR/><BR/>the eirgrid is managed seperaratly but the design of the grid is goping to be such as to accomadate the larger plants. you don't simply hook into the grid you know.<BR/><BR/>as for a plant up north i wouldn't mind really as long as we don't have to pay for itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1155043447029948202006-08-08T14:24:00.000+01:002006-08-08T14:24:00.000+01:00It's a pity yet another simplistic article has bee...It's a pity yet another simplistic article has been written about nuclear power.<BR/><BR/>- "main point being nuclear would mean fewer stations thus higher losses"<BR/><BR/>Nuclear power plants typically generate electricity in the range of 0.6 to 1.6 GWe. If we followed Finland's suit, we would generate a third of Ireland's electricity with a nuclear plant. <BR/><BR/>If a nuclear plant was constructed in Dunfirth or Blake, it would cover more than a third of the population (Dublin and commuter belt) with an 18 kilometre radius. Power loss on this scale would be insignificant.<BR/><BR/>If the plant had to be taken offline, the country would still be at two-thirds capacity. This often happens with Moneypoint, which burns coal; capacity is reduced to around 10% from midnight to 6am.<BR/><BR/>- "Nuclear power plants will lead to a centralised National grid which will make it difficult for competition to enter the market."<BR/><BR/>Our electricity transmission grid is owned and managed seperately from the electricity generating companies (see http://www.eirgrid.ie/). <BR/><BR/>Current supplies of uranium are expected to last for the next 50 years, however the expected discovery of uranium is many times the current stockpile. The same sceanario happened in 1890 and the 50's with oil, but discoveries such as Texas and Saudi Arabia increased the supply of oil greatly. Also, research into using thorium as an alternative to uranium for nuclear fission fuel is promising, and thorium is significantly more abundant than uranium. This technology will come online long before fusion.<BR/><BR/>- "However I am not 100% convinced by the dangers of global warming. But I am convinced of the dangers of radioactive waste."<BR/><BR/>The pollution from oil and coal burning plants kill thousands of people every year from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Radioactive waste is low volume and containable, unlike the waste from fossil fues power plants. The Finns are constructing boreholes, in which their nuclear waste will be contained until it is safe.<BR/><BR/>I support wind energy for Ireland first, but with wind turbines being built in a linear fashion, which would you choose to build; an oil plant, a coal plant or a nuclear plant? The real issue for getting nuclear is cost and safety. France is laughing at the rest of the world, safe and cosy with their cheap and guilt-free electricity. People like you who dress up your narrow-minded opinions in politically correct clothes, starting with an unjustified opinion and work your way backwards, do more harm to our society than you think. It's you who are keeping us stuck 20 years behind the rest of Europe.<BR/><BR/>You and your irrational, outdated opinions are the reason Ireland will never have a nuclear station. I'm looking forward to when we have to import nuclear energy from Britain. Hopefully they will build a plant up north too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1151102546175566032006-06-23T23:42:00.000+01:002006-06-23T23:42:00.000+01:00Ever since I posted that I regreted adding the 66%...Ever since I posted that I regreted adding the 66% thing it was stupid.<BR/><BR/> But anyway. main point being nuclear would mean fewer stations thus higher losses. Thus more electricty need to be generated. Thus needed to be accounted for in price per kw comparisionsSimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13851386083389876851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1151102282241989102006-06-23T23:38:00.000+01:002006-06-23T23:38:00.000+01:00I know you said not to correct you on the transmis...I know you said not to correct you on the transmission calculations but I think I have to. We might have 5,000km of transmission line but not every piece of current travels every line. My understanding is that the total loss is about 2%, not 66%.<BR/><BR/>Apart from that it's a good piece, thanks.<BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1144768935968219292006-04-11T16:22:00.000+01:002006-04-11T16:22:00.000+01:00the transmission doesn't matter for wind quiet as ...the transmission doesn't matter for wind quiet as much as it is possible to localise wind somewhat especcial outside dublin. the outskirts of every town could have a small wind farm. <BR/><BR/>But thanks for the compliment :)Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13851386083389876851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13722343.post-1144768494175628752006-04-11T16:14:00.000+01:002006-04-11T16:14:00.000+01:00This is quite possibly the most objective, intelli...This is quite possibly the most objective, intelligent and considered piece I have read yet nuclear in an Irish context or indeed electricity. No it is absolutely the best. Further I couldn't agree more. I'm also impressed that you covered all aspects of the chain, things which are usually ignored, like transmission hugely impact on the answer you get, although they apply as much to wind as nuclear (but for different reasons). One possible weakness is your focus at cost of production and not price, but then only a couple of insiders can really comment on that. Nuff said, keep up the great work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com