Nuclear power in Ireland

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118649768#Comment_118649768

So the nuclear plant costs $30bn for 2.2GW, if we theoretically had this $30bn burning a hole in our pocket, how many GW of offshore wind could we get for $30bn.

Surely the answer to that question would decide this debate one way or the other?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118649850#Comment_118649850

Probably 28.4GW by 2030 as costs are still falling.

The problem with nuclear is even if there was political will and general public support it would stlll take 15-20 years to roll out.

Which means you need wind in the meantime. Which means you will be comparing the price of nuclear power plants with the cost of refurbishment of those wind farms whose original costs were paid off during those 15-20 years.

Spend a bit more and reblade the turbines with bigger/better blades and you could capture up to 20% more energy for 20 more years.

RainInSummer

When the wind is blowing, or not blowing too much. It's a cute concept, but at it's best it's still at the whim of the weather gods.

Are ye the type of people to leave your house burn down with everyone in it because water costs too much, because it definitely sounds like that.

Arguing the toss over money while we're already seeing people impacted by climate change?

But fumble in a greasy till

And add the halfpence to the pence

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118649850#Comment_118649850

Going by the Scottish pricing for their latest offshore wind farms, the GW price of offshore wind is $4.634b. The most recently built reactors are in the UAE, where the price is $4.357 per GW. But it is of course not the full picture, because the capacity factor of Scottish offshore wind is 53% while that of a Korean nuclear is 96%, so your gas cost of filling the wind holes is also far higher for offshore wind, making it all round considerably more expensive than the latest nuclear plant - which has a design life of 60 years.

That above graph does not take into account the cost of hole filling.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118671930#Comment_118671930

Haven't seen lcoe broken out by region like that before, nice. What's the source of the graph?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118671930#Comment_118671930

That UAE reactor is a loss leader being built in a desert by an autocratic regime using cheap labour.

Costs are ~$20Bn for construction, nearly $5bn for financing, and $49.4bn on top of that because KEPCO get to keep 18% of future revenue for the next 60 years. And they are getting paid extra to have techs on site for 10 years. Then there's the cost of fuel and decommissioning and cost overruns and construction delays. Not sure who pays for insurance etc.

And it's also being subsidised by cheap "clean" coal with funding from the Silk Road Fund which allows them to export more natural gas. It would cost billions more to pay 17,000 labourers EU wages and living costs for 3,000 Koreans.

I don't know how much it would cost to build here but I do know that the UK who have been in the market for 5 nuclear power plants since 2011 and are willing and able to pay top dollar aren't biting.

"That above graph does not take into account the cost of hole filling." - Because nuclear has no hole filling costs ? (Scaremongering would be to look at cost increases on the Sellafield clean up. TBH just make it a no-go nature reserve until the next Ice Age )

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118672466#Comment_118672466

When u think about it twould be no harm if a few more places became no-go nature reserves like Pripyat. Especially if you could get one in a sprawling metropolis like the BosWash or the Pearl River delta

Capt'n Midnight

Storing hydrogen in disused gas wells is a cheaper solution for backing up wind on dark calm days than building nuclear and running it at maximum 20% capacity factor. Especially when nuclear is up against the costs of solar and re-importing over interconnectors.

The UAE plant started construction in 2010 and won't be fully operational for years by which time we will have reduced emissions by 80% because were are legally obliged to do. Nuclear arriving after that can't displace existing wind or solar. Because it's cheaper to keep a wind farm running than build a nuclear power plant and finance it and pay for alternative power sources during the build and pay for decommissioning.

Also nuclear takes too long to roll out to play much of a role in decarbonisation. Energy to fuel, production of ammonia, heating, cooling, charging electric cars are all loads that can be scheduled to when electricity is cheap. Nuclear has constant costs so can't compete with demand shedding. Fertilizer and fuel production can be seasonal too.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118672343#Comment_118672343

The International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118672800#Comment_118672800

Nobody knows what a Hydrogen cycle would cost, so you are stating your wishful thinking, not facts.

The UAE reactor started construction in march 2011. The first reactor was commissioned and started feeding power to the grid in August 2020, the second reactor was commissioned in Sep 2021, so two to go, both of which should be commissioned next year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant

Nuclear has done more decarbonising than any other power source except hydro. Would you just stop with the rampant dishonesty.

Yes nuclear takes longer to build than offshore wind, but it lasts a decade longer and is far cheaper and you don't have to worry, year to year, whether there is going to be enough wind, like the past year.

Ubbquittious

When they first invented nuclear power they horsed up a working power station within about 10 years. Now they spend 10 years doing a small feasibility study to see if the big feasibility study is worth it. Hydrogen storage has never been done before so they'll be feasibeasibiliting the absolute feck out of it till the end of the century before anything actually gets done. Humans are much more risk averse in the modern age.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118673180#Comment_118673180

Teeside in the UK goes through roughly the same TWh of hydrogen energy a year as our electrical grid so the only unknown is exactly much cheaper the future cost of producing green hydrogen in those quantities will be. Hydrolysers are falling in price as volume goes up and new factories open and while surplus wind energy is cheap it may be stored or exported or used in other ways, market forces etc. Gas turbines are already on the grid so generation costs are know.

Barakah was approved in Dec. 2009 and while it may have been connected to grid in August 2020 commercial operation didn't start until 06.04.21 and as of Jan 19th "Unit 2 is to start operations within months" For full operations "Hammadi last week said ENEC was set to produce 85 percent of Abu Dhabi’s clean electricity by 2025." (ENEC = Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation)

Also it's 'greenness' is offset by the new 'clean' coal power plant.

LED's play a bigger role in global electricity than nuclear. Nuclear provides 10-11% of global electricity. Incandescents used to account for 15% of global electrical consumption. And there's still gains to be made even moving from sodium can save 50%

nuclear reactors generated 2553 TWh of electricity worldwide in 2020 (slightly up from 2524 TWh in 1990 when the global population was 1/3rd smaller) and yes it's more than wind or solar, today. But is it more than wind and solar ? And it will be considerably less than either wind or solar before you could build a new plant.

Nuclear power takes a decade longer to build than offshore wind. That's a decade's more interest accruing on the loans and funding alternative power sources.

It's not cheaper, especially against the 2035 cost of renewables.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118673769#Comment_118673769

Please use wholesale prices to compare actual costs of providing electricity.

Please contact your supplier about the difference between those prices and your bill.

And ask them why the smart meter tariffs don't follow the wholesale price.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118671607#Comment_118671607

It is always about the money. We should argue about the cost otherwise what is the point?

If you are not in cute concepts and demand something reliable then there is nothing more reliable than ocean. Go for tidal if wind reliability scare you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118673855#Comment_118673855

This is one of the main drivers behind the development of tidal energy projects. Unfortunately tidal power is a very niche option as there are so few places, globally, where it works well. If you are talking about tidal flow, you need very specific conditions to make it work well.

There are other options e.g. wave energy capture, but these do not offer any real prospect of large scale energy generation.

Tidal looks like a total no-brainer, but its incredibly difficult to do on a large scale.

I'm really hoping that changes at some point and some breakthrough is made, because it really would be an excellent option for Ireland if that particular nut could be cracked

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118673769#Comment_118673769

Maybe you missed where that question was already answered for you today. I've linked below

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118673508#Comment_118673508

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118673981#Comment_118673981

Respectfully I do not agree. Ireland actually do have quite a lot of possibly ideal localities. Two of the biggest five are pretty much next door.

Safety is also one of the best arguments for tidal over (current) nuclear.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674039#Comment_118674039

Again, it depends on the type of tidal power generation you are talking about as to how suitable various locations are. My comments about location are in relation to the type of generation done in the likes of Strangford Lough. There's only a handful of locations suitable for this type of generation and even then they are relatively small in terms of output.

Just to note, I'm not dismissing this type of generation, quite the opposite, I think it will be a fantastic generation source once it achieves large scale generation capability over large areas. What I mean is something akin to the scale of offshore wind installations as thats the only kind of scale that I think will be capable of providing a large amount of power from tidal.

There is a large variety of options on offer though, where wave and tidal are concerned, so its anyones guess as to what method will be the most successful.

Might be worth taking the discussion over to the main energy infrastructure thread as thats more of a "catch-all" thread.

Safety is also one of the best arguments for tidal over (current) nuclear.

Safety is one of the best arguments for anything over nuclear.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674193#Comment_118674193

Its interesting that you think that

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674676#Comment_118674676

Still, its unlikely to have any bearing on the prospect of nuke plants being built here or do you see it effecting a change?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674193#Comment_118674193

Wind can be predicted further ahead than the day ahead auctions or the intraday auctions. Complete non-issue. Backup can include solar, storage and interconnectors. Gas plant is cheap especially because it's already there. And we are allowed a fifth of our current emissions until 2050. And gas turbines can run on hydrogen.

Backup for wind is easy, easier when have three times as much wind and can power the grid from fractional amounts of wind.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674776#Comment_118674776

did you find a explanation for ever increasing electricity prices despite constant claim of renewables being so cheap??

yeah, but you keep ignoring it for some reason, even though you quoted the link to the answer.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674845#Comment_118674845

Asked and answered. Many times. Yet you keep ignoring the answers, strange

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674871#Comment_118674871

Not at all, I wholeheartedly acknowledge the increase in gas prices has had a horrific effect on energy bills.

The sooner we remove fossil fuels from the grid, the better. As you rightly point out, having to continue using gas is leading to higher energy costs. Its something I hope to see addressed over the next few years as we move to 80% renewables by 2030.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118674871#Comment_118674871

Can you please explain how using 80% less gas will lead to higher prices ?

Speaking of (white) elephants can you also explain how peak power could be supplied by nuclear and how you'd provide spinning reserve ?

All island demand is ~40TWh/year average so 4.6GW but peak is 50% more at 6.9GW

Ubbquittious

The UKian and EU dash for gas was a terrible idea. Pewtin has everyone by the balls now