No time to waste on going nuclear

[soubresauts]

eVoting was the clincher for me.

It never worked. Every IT person who took a look at it said it could never work. The studies conducted by the DOEHLG showed that it didn't work.

But doesn't John Gormley still want it?

And don't quite a few of the Greens want nuclear power?

Meanwhile, if you go down south:

Portugal is set to become the first country to produce energy from floating offshore wind farms following an agreement between the country’s dominant power utility and a US technology company...

The project is part of an ambitious plan by Portugal to become a world leader in clean energy, producing more than 60 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The equivalent European Union target is 20 per cent.

[MacO'velli]

There is no time to waste indeed. The best place IMO is Donegal, there is suspected Uranium deposits there. Also it is not densely populated. If and its a big if, if an accident were to happen the gulf stream would blow the waste north-eastwards away from the island. Also EDF could send in technicians to train up the people in the local IT in Letterkenny. I am assuming EDF would build it as they are the best. Also Killybegs port has been modified, fuel can be brought through there.

Ah,but I think the Greens/Eamonn Ryan decided to cancel/not award mining/exploration licences for this about 12 months ago?.

[myksav]

I thought nuclear weapons required enriched Uranium, not depleted uranium.

Shane.

Yep, slightly different process.

The (now retired) A-10 Warthog used some kick-ass shells in its trademark cannon which contained depleted uranium (Because of its insane density). But that was a purely ballistic usage of depleted uranium.

Shane.

Hehe, one of the few combat aircraft that could run out of airspeed just by firing it's main gun. Guy I know flew them, said they were a stone b1tch for recoil.

Maybe this forum could set up a hot air power station? Must be something in that? we could set it up next to the Dáil.....

Shane.

With the amount of hot air we produce we shouldn't put it near the Dáil, might tip the country over into the Atlantic.

[cropbeye]

Are not the building of Nuclear power plants extremely expensive


how the hell will we get the money to pay for something like this.


Can you give examples of countries who have gone down that road where the
Government involved have recouped all the costs in a reasonable period of time.

[FrankSpeaks]

Are not the building of Nuclear power plants extremely expensive


how the hell will we get the money to pay for something like this.


Can you give examples of countries who have gone down that road where the
Government involved have recouped all the costs in a reasonable period of time.

All power stations are expensive to build and nuclear is the most expensive, however the are the cheapest and cleanest to run and that's where the savings are made.

[eskerman]

The Dutch have been and are mainly supporting biomass. Their major research centres (of which I am part of one) have no group involved specifically for biogas but they do for biomass. Biogas has found a resurgance but applications are very limited.

To show you why biogas is not viable here is a very quick economic claculation on the Skinnerup plant (data in last link for SPN).

Biomass case:
Assume best case scenario: Highest product amount at highest retail value for listed investment.
Production
Dec 20000 m3gas
Price max 0,7 DDK/kWh
KWh from gas 36700 kWh
Revenue gas 25690 DDK
Electricity per year 308280 DDK/yr
Heating per year 112500 DDK/yr
Capital cost 2100000 DDK
Assume no operating cost other than labour (OC will be as much as 20-50% of capital mainly due to maintenance of vacuum systems of which there are three. Plant will also require major overall/reinvestment every 6 years.)
Labour cost 125000 DDK (5*25000 DDK is a large underestimation, manager/senior engineer and safety personell get paid much more)
Payback on new green site plant 5.3 years minimum.

Compare this to the previous operation.
Oil burning: Worst case
Use (we will double use): 160000 L/year
Cost of oil: 0.02 DDK/kWh (high even at todays prices)
Cost per year: 38400 DDK/yr
Capital: 50000 DDK

Total cost: approx 20 times lower than biogas assuming similar maintenance costs and periods.

Biogas plant is not sustainable even with a grant of 600,000 DDK a year.

Clearly you are quoting from stats from a particular reference site, and I will not challange the figures you have quoted here. I have been referring to the resurgence on Biogas within the marketplace, where the likes of Kreig & Fischer and Biogas Nord are two of the more respected design houses in this particular field. I do know that Rabobank have funded many AD/Biogas projects in the Neitherlands/Belg/Germany etc and this is also being looked at here in Ireland. I understand there are a couple of private plants about to be built this year in Irl.

Technology will have come a long way with solutions, its governments that havnt...they continue to protect vested interests to the last day...or until the carbon credits really start to bite.

Interesting thread mind you

[Glennshane]

There is no time to waste indeed. The best place IMO is Donegal, there is suspected Uranium deposits there. Also it is not densely populated. If and its a big if, if an accident were to happen the gulf stream would blow the waste north-eastwards away from the island. Also EDF could send in technicians to train up the people in the local IT in Letterkenny. I am assuming EDF would build it as they are the best. Also Killybegs port has been modified, fuel can be brought through there.

No, not Donegal - too close to me. I suggest Dublin - preferably Dublin 4. With a bit of luck - (just thinking).

[Earnest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddleydoo
I thought nuclear weapons required enriched Uranium, not depleted uranium.

Shane.

Yep, slightly different process.

There's a slight misunderstanding here. Diddleydoo was responding to a post by Quizmaster who pointed out that spent nuclear fuel is used for nuclear weapons. Spent nuclear fuel is quite different from depleted uranium. Spent nuclear fuel is what you have when the power station has finished using it. Depleted uranium is what you have when uranium has been enriched: the process of enrichment, which is needed for nuclear power stations and, enriched still further, for nuclear weapons, divides the uranium into two parts, enriched and depleted. So the process is:
(1) Uranium, divided into
(2) Depleted uranium
(2) Enriched uranium, used in
(3) Nuclear weapons
(3) Nuclear power stations, resulting in
(4) Spent nuclear fuel, needed for
(5) Nuclear weapons (as well as the enriched uranium)

[diddleydoo]

There's a slight misunderstanding here. Diddleydoo was responding to a post by Quizmaster who pointed out that spent nuclear fuel is used for nuclear weapons. Spent nuclear fuel is quite different from depleted uranium. Spent nuclear fuel is what you have when the power station has finished using it. Depleted uranium is what you have AS A WASTE PRODUCT when uranium has been enriched: the process of enrichment, which is needed for nuclear power stations and, enriched still further, for nuclear weapons, divides the uranium into two parts, enriched and depleted. So the process is:
(1) Uranium, divided into
(2) Depleted uranium
(2) Enriched uranium, used in
(3) Nuclear weapons
(3) Nuclear power stations, resulting in
(4) Spent nuclear fuel, needed for
(5) Nuclear weapons (as well as the enriched uranium)

Don't mean to e anal (I can't help it) but AFAIK this is incorrect.

Made a small correction to clear up any possible misunderstandings.....

Shane

[Fear Dorcha]

All power stations are expensive to build and nuclear is the most expensive, however the are the cheapest and cleanest to run and that's where the savings are made.

I'd suggest a read of this article especially for those who tend to hod France's nuclear industry up as a model of success.

Harvey Wasserman: The Crash of France's Nuclear Poster Child