Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Options
13468952

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,346 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    They made some improvement in Nuclear Fusion back in December, we're still a good bit away from it being viable. But im wondering if thats what Ireland should focus on rather than Fission



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,028 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    renewables backed by gas are not zero carbon, and will only increase in price from here on out.

    So unless you want electricity prices so expensive that all irish industry is no longer viable, you cannot rely on renewables + gas reserve.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,028 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Fission is viable now - fission reactors have been working for half a century.

    Fusion reactors have never worked - to date they have been putting in more energy to the reaction than they get out. There wont be any fusion reactors in Ireland in this century



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    There is the option of keeping gas longer term where CCS is used for the emissions. Without CCS I can't see any gas power generation lasting past 2050



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,049 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    renewables are decreasing in price all of the time and will continue to decrease.

    gas will get more expensive certainly but the decrease in cost of renewables will offset it.

    not 0 carbon but low carbon, and cheap compared to nuclear, nuclear isn't 0 carbon either as it's waste is it's equivelant of carbon.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Are Ireland dependent on Putin? How much of our gas comes from Russia? Would love to see some numbers on that if you have as you've eluded to Ireland "funding authoritarian dictatorships" in another post. I didn't think any of our gas came from Russia but I might be wrong



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,049 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    and it's still cheaper then nuclear.

    that's how poor value for money nuclear is, that the coal and gas generators can charge high prices for ramped up production and it's still a fraction of the cost of nuclear.

    at least they can ramp up production, nuclear can't, at least not quickly.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,662 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yes, those Norwegian authoritarian dictatorships 🤣

    Most of our gas comes from Corrib, the rest via the interconnectors to the UK. The UK supply is mostly from the North Sea (Norway and Scotland), followed by Denmark. A tiny percent, I remember it being 2% but would have to double check, comes from LNG import facilities. LNG could come from US, Middle East or yes Russia, though Russia is more focused on pipeline supply then LNG.

    I'd be confident in saying that WAY less then 1% of our supply comes from Russia.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Is gas zero CO2, all of a sudden? You seem to have forgetten the underlying aim of this farce. Your logic is up there with that of the lunacy of the governments, which is to keep buying and insalling ever increasing amounts of gas generating capacity, a waste of money considering the final 2050 aims. Sticking plasters and pain killers istead of an operation to permanently solve the underlying problem.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    They are much older than that. Multiple breeder reactors were in operation in 1944. Hundreds of small modular reactors have been used by western navies safely since the mid 1950's. Molten salt, pebble bed, thorium, they've all been researched to death by the best people during the cold war when money was no object and failure wasn't an option. ( Hint: they failed. )

    Fission is simply not economically viable anymore in the face falling costs of renewables.

    It's not even technologically viable because they seem to have forgotten how to build them. AFAIK every single nuclear project that doesn't involve the Russians or Chinese is both late and over budget, as are multiple projects involving them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Nuclear waste is not an equivalent of carbon, it has no bearing on the anthropogenic CO2 fraction in the atmosphere.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Storage has a risk of it all coming bubbling back up again. Better to chemically bind it. Exposing powered bed rock in central Asia or using fertilizer or iron to cause algal blooms are other ways to capture carbon, if you could link them to carbon credits.

    Biomethane, Hydrogen, Ammonia are all storable gases that could be used. Maersk are looking at renewable fuels that cost only twice the price of marine diesel by 2040. So liquids are an option too.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah its wide open as to what will be used. Its great to see so many potential options though



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    How do you propose to reduce CO2 levels over the next decade and beyond ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 26 Mr shmar



    Very short answer is some. Probably around 20%.

    Not sure how much Brexit might have affected this matter! Note that we have to pay addition tariffs to cover costs for gas to be imported through the UK so that is just an extra cost unrelated to the country the gas is imported from.


    Here are some numbers, hope it can be a little helpful.

    For the UK gas market:

    <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032260/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2021.pdf>

    Looking at page 12 of above source, gives numbers on the UK gas market, which suggests that at most around ≈20% of the UK's gas supply is sourced in Russia. Same would apply for Ireland as we just feed from the same tube so to speak.


    Here are some numbers for Russia to Ireland via EU. Again in that 0-25% bracket:

    https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Share_of_Russia_in_national_extra_EU_imports_of_each_Member_State,_first_semester_2021.png


    Note that while ≈20% might not seem to be a whole lot, Russia is the largest supplier of LNG, the top quality gas. And the US and the EU intend to increase regulation around their own gas induustries. So there is a need to factor in quality and future availability as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26 Mr shmar


    Single main exporter into the EU and the UK is still Norway I believe.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,049 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    correct horse battery staple5:14 pm

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118616891#Comment_118616891

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058232542/net-zero-electricity-generation

    here is your chance


    reactors are not going to be built for 10 billion in ireland or any other european country.

    it will be 20 or more billion for a lot less capacity at an absolute best case.

    it's just not viable, storage in the likes of the old kinsale gas field would go a long way to cover the gap left along with more renewables, all will be an extreme tiny fraction of the cost of the cheapest nuclear installation.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight



    Invite the South Koreans to build 2x APR-1400 reactors which takes them only 10 years to do (They built multiple in S. Korea and UAE) at a cost of

    10.5 billion euro [4] and if they start next year we are net zero by 2033

    Since we'd need to power the whole grid from nuclear on calm winter nights if there's no gas, you'd need 4 reactors (5.60GW) to meet today's peak demand 5.355GW. So your cost has just doubled to 21 billion euro which in construction terms is $32 Bn!

    In December 2009, a KEPCO-led consortium was awarded the contract to build four APR-1400 reactors at Barakah, United Arab Emirates - Only one of the four reactors is fully operational, #2 is testing, #3 is to start testing next year, #4 will be later.

    As it would take us a wee while longer to secure a site than an authoritarian regime in a desert. 2033 is a complete fantasy.


    In fact you'd really need a fifth reactor to cater for peak demand of 6.878GW, and a sixth if you want to have backup for the largest unit on the grid - so that €10.5Bn is looking like $48B.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Ireland will be importing plenty of nuclear power to keep the lights on now that France has strongly committed to it - meanwhile the greenwash brigade here will still be faffing around with the wind scam while issues like energy poverty, damage to natural heritage etc, continue to escalate



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Yeah, you won't find those eco norse shooting themselves in the financial foot and not exploiting their fossil fuel energy sources. That stuff is for this clever country.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,662 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    “Ireland will be importing plenty of nuclear power to keep the lights on now that France has strongly committed to it”

    Err.. what Macron actually promised is:

    • Build 50 offshore wind farms proving 40GW of power
    • Double onshore wind from 18GW today to 36GW
    • Increase solar to 100GW

    By comparison they have announced up to just 14 reactors which would add 22GW, however France needs to decommission at least 14 older reactors by 2050, so this will just be about breaking even on Nuclear power.

    Which btw I’m happy to hear France is keeping up Nuclear, I’m glad they aren’t following Germanys lead on this.

    However you do have to be realistic about what is happening here, Frances Nuclear energy mix will drop from 70% today to 50% by 2050, with most of the rest being wind and solar.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    So on a scale of 0-25%, you plucked 20% out of thin air ? It's close to 0%

    We import gas from Scotland who get gas from the north of the North Sea which and from Norway. Look at the pipelines that go from here to Scotland and the ones that land near Aberdeen.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    News just it. Solar doesn't work at night.

    Such scaremnongering is needed because nuclear needs a guaranteed demand because nuclear is so inflexible. In the US there are times when the price of electriciity is negative and nuclear pays to put it's electricity on the grid rather than shutdown and restart the reactors later.

    I've always said that both wind and nuclear absolutely depend on having dispatchable plant or storage to load balance. Neither are dispatchable. Wind needs it during calm weather. Nuclear needs it during working hours and evening mealtime every single day of the year. And all the day in winter, because it can only do baseload.


    #Baseload doesn't exist on the Irish grid anymore. It's role has been taken by having at least one large generator on load at all times near each large city to provide dynamic stability, load flow control and voltage contro eg: "during an outage of EWIC there must be at least 3 large generators on-load at all times in the Dublin area."

    How do you propose planning permission for 3 nuclear power stations near Dublin ?

    The need for these generators to be on at all times allowed extra wind power to be put on the grid. That's how we got up to 86% of demand from wind last week. The surplus was exported and offset fossil fuel in the UK.


    UAE 4 reactors in 10 years for €21B was the fantasy. The reality is so far it's 1 reactor in 13 years for $32Bn. Makes the people doing the Children's Hospital look competant. Even if there are no surprises they are still years away from that plant becoming fully operational. Luckily they have plenty of fossil fuel to keep the lights on.

    Again 4 reactors barely covers our current usage. You'd need a fifth reactor to cover peak demand and a sixth to provide redudancy and price is $48Bn , not including overruns.


    Yes in theory fewer reactors could supply the missing Energy TWh. But not the missing power GW. You would need massive storage such as 3TWh of hydrogen in the old Kinsale gas field. But if you have that much storage then renewables have won as they are ridiculously cheaper than nuclear.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,913 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Why i wonder does advocacy of Nuclear walk hand in hand with climate denial ? Sort of destroys their credibility for impartial analysis.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26 Mr shmar


    I was using 20% as a likely upper limit based on the % coming from the UK being around 20%–so not based on much but not quite from thin air either. I didn't claim it to be 20%.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Most of that ~20% would be via the connections from the continent to England where 90% of the population lives.

    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/transparency_platform/map-viewer/main.html



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    What a brainless post - I suggest yo do some research on what grids in Europe have the lowest Carbon footprint before you go posting rubbish like that🙄



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://app.electricitymap.org/map

    Right now we are greener than than any European country, even those with nuclear, other than Iceland, France, Sweden and Norway and they all have lots of hydro.

    We are beating most other countries world wide except those with lots of hydro. So it looks as if a lot of the other countries are using nuclear to offset emissions so they can burn more fossil fuels. Because they'd be lower than us wouldn't they ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    So if you ignore the long list of exceptions Ireland is great, your map is also flawed as it is a snapshot that just happens to concede with storm Dudley🙄 - must be why we've recently announced the building of half a dozen gas plants to keep the lights on.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The exceptions are some of the countries that have a much greater % of hydro than us.

    We will be doubling and tripling the amount of wind power over the next few years too. And we will be using more offshore wind with it's higher capacity factor. So what we get in windy weather now is what we'll get in calmer weather in future.


    A little earlier the numbers were SYSTEM GENERATION 4,968 MW, THERMAL 31.2 %, RENEWABLES 87.47 %, EXPORT -18.67 %

    At present thermal is needed for local grid stabiliy so we still need on-load generators near the big cities. Nuclear simply cannot do that.



Advertisement