Nuclear - future for Ireland?

charlie14 · 04-07-2023 8:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120803118#Comment_120803118

SAme could be said for hydrogen storage and distribution which is all the rage with greenies these days.

Birdnuts · 05-07-2023 1:35am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120803118#Comment_120803118

Wait till the reality of the toxic waste generated by so called Green power via rare earth metals etc. hits...

Markcheese · 05-07-2023 10:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120806779#Comment_120806779

Ah dont worry about that - most of it's in china , or australia ... Miles away ..

On a closer note , if we can't quickly and cheaply build and run things in ireland , like wind farms , the grid , gas power plants , how would we quickly and cheaply build a couple of nuclear power stations, ( and its necessary grid improvements , energy storage and back up too )

The offshore wind and hydrogen storage is currently pie in the sky , you cant really put a price or timeframe on it , because it doesnt exist , yet. .

charlie14 · 05-07-2023 1:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120807527#Comment_120807527

That is not exactly correct. Finland with the same population as Ireland from its Olkiluoto 3 reactor alone will be generating one third of our present requirements even with time-frame and budgetary over-runs for a cost of €11 Bn.

From the U.K. and U.S. we know what the price for the proposed offshore turbines will cost, either fixed or floating, and it`s not within an ass`s roar of that €11 Bn. And that is without the cost of hydrogen production, storage, distribution, (and if it will even work to scale), plus the repair/replacement of those turbines every 20-25 years at a maximum. If you compare Finland`s nuclear to Ireland`s offshore wind/hydrogen plan Ireland` doesn`t really have a plan as such, just an open chequebook where nobody has a clue as to what the cost wil be.

I`m not saying that nuclear is 100% the answer, but like Finland, Sweden, France etc, then it makes sense to spread or options over a number of energy sources rather than placing all our eggs in the wind basket with the only backups being to beg for supply from others, when or if we run short, and they have a surplus when we need it, (a surplus which most likely will be nuclear anyway), and gas via a state that is not even an E.U. member and which has the right to ration what we receive into the bargain.

This offshore plan neither makes sense financially or on energy security.

Busman Paddy Lasty · 05-07-2023 2:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120805628#Comment_120805628

Yes indeed a 1:1 between renewables and nuclear was my point exactly. Both were equal contributors. Now that Olkiluoto 3 is online nuclear should be the greater contributor, if it can stay online. So long as we are dealing with a useful dataset, such a minimum 1 year, mature debate can take place.

I agree we dont have enough security of supply and that's why Moneypoint was fired up again. However unlike Finland, Sweden and France we are not part of a continental grid, which is a structural weakness acting against nuclear plant suitability for Ireland. Fair play to the Finns but they have a geographical advantage.

Find me a similarly sized country on an island (not literally you Charlie) with no military, no existing nuclear plants, no native nuclear industry, no nuclear fuel deposits, that has a single nuclear facility supply one third of their electricity - which is also run by clowns who can't plan a hospital and a Metro railway in their capital city. Then we can compare that island to ourselves.

Finland have Norway and Sweden as virtual spinning reserve and export customer. We don't. Finland had Russia as a supplier but that relationship is a little bit frosty now.

This also represents a further externality regarding Olkiluoto security. Is it a good idea to have several nuclear plants and a waste depository on the same island when your neighbour has hypersonic guided missiles and isn't afraid to use them. NATO is an obvious retort to that but the risk is still present and will cost the Finnish taxpayer via increased military spending.

Can Ireland even build a nuclear plant without paying for French or British defence?

Podge_irl · 05-07-2023 3:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808258#Comment_120808258

I`m not saying that nuclear is 100% the answer

Ultimately nothing is 100% the answer, which is why I've never understood why these arguments always devolve into such comparisons. We are not decarbonising fast enough, so everything needs to be on the table. Wind and nuclear provide two very different types of energy generation.

Build wind farms and nuclear. Or just extend our interconnector capacity with Europe so we can pretend we don't use nuclear energy but let others do it for us. Pretty classic Irish approach after all.

SeanW · 05-07-2023 8:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120800391#Comment_120800391

I disagree, I post stats from Electricity Map even though they are live and don't take total figures over time. The reason is the data identify trends and I can be fairly certain of what someone clicking on an EM link will see, even if they click on it hours or days later after my post. For reference, ElectricityMap rates a country or regions electricity cleanliness on a scale from solid green (for near zero CO2) to yellow, to brown, to dark brown for the "dirtiest" grids, e.g. those entirely reliant on oil or lignite. They also break down not just what is being used, but in grey bars, what is theoretically available. This is all useful.

For example, in France, I am reasonably certain that someone looking at EM data will see France in "green" because their grid is almost entirely nuclear powered and that means their grid is virtually zero CO2. I can also be certain that countries like Ireland and Germany will be a shade of yellow-brown as our CO2 stats are not really all that impressive tbh. As for Finland specifically, before they opened their latest reactor, they appeared in yellow as their stats were good but not great, generally between 100g/kwh and 200g/kwh. Now, they will almost always appear in a green with a tint of yellow as their stats are almost as good as France. And it's clear to me that them having more than 4GW of nuclear that they can use is a key part of that.

charlie14 · 06-07-2023 12:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808912#Comment_120808912

I really wish people would stop including this "If it can stay on line" type statements when it comes to nuclear. Our electricity generated by wind dropped by 20% in the past two year from 42% in 2020 to 34% in 2022, but that is rarely if ever mentioned.

The fact that we are not part of a continental grid is even more of a reason we should have at least some control over our energy security rather than a plan which is so expensive that nobody will even put a price on it, and hydrogen that nobody has a clue as to how or even if it will work to scale.

Our energy security is basically all our eggs in a horrendously expensive wind basket, 100% of our gas shortly having to come via a non E.U. country that has the right to ration it as they see fit, and begging for electricity (which is highly likely to be from nuclear generation anyway) through interconnectors in the hope they have something to supply when we need it. It is so shambolic that Ryan, the Minister with resonsibility, is still burying his head in the sand on LNG even after his own comissioned and paid for report as well as the CRU and Eirgrid having told him on numerous ocassions over the last few years it is needed.

I don`t know what connection the military would have to a nuclear plant, and not every country that has a nuclear plant has nuclear fuel deposits and no country had a nuclear plant until they built their first. Which is what Egypt, Turkey, Bangladesh and Poland etc are now doing,and those "clowns" you mentioned are the very same "clowns" we are expecting to get hydrogen production, storage and distribution right rather than blow the place to smithereens.

If a neighbour decided they want to subject you to a nuclear fallout then they would not need to go tricking around with hypersonic guided missiles to hit a nuclear plant. Hitting you with a nuke anywhere within your borders will do it.

06-07-2023 8:23am

I wonder who will get the blame when Ryan is not the Minister over energy anymore yet we still won't have nuclear

06-07-2023 8:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120803118#Comment_120803118

People are constantly using this as a boogeyman to argue against nuclear. It's not a big an issue as you think. In terms of energy security we need to be looking at SMRs at least.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-report-presents-global-overview-of-radioactive-waste-and-spent-fuel-management#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20overall%20volume,%2Dlevel%20waste%20(HLW).

06-07-2023 9:32am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811904#Comment_120811904

It's not a big an issue as you think.

and yet it seems so very difficult to resolve.

For that high level waste we're talking about safe, secure storage for a multi-millennial period of time.

At present there are 32 countries with nuclear plants.

How many of them have "safe, secure storage for a multi-millennial period of time" for their waste?

charlie14 · 06-07-2023 3:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120812022#Comment_120812022

One of your more weird or inane posts. It`s diffcult to decide which.

Irish greens are constantly telling us that the world will end tomorrow if we do not follow their eye-watering costly offshore wind+hydrogen plan that they cannot even put a price on, or that it would even work to scale, as one of the main reasons that nuclear should not even be considered as we do not have the time to build nuclear plants. Yet here you are are worried about "safe, secure storage for a multi-millennial period of time" for nuclear waste.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-07-2023 11:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811904#Comment_120811904

What low carbon source should we use until commercial SMR's become available in volume ?

Russian fuels are off the menu which has resulted in several SMR startups using that as an excuse to announce delays of 2+ years.

Hundreds of SMR's have been used for submarines since the 1950's. They aren't cheap. They have a very low capacity factor. They use enriched fuels that can't be used in civilian reactors.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-07-2023 11:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811904#Comment_120811904

High level waste is not an issue. It's really nasty but it's short lived so it can be watched for the foreseeable future. (Unless there's major budget cuts or it's in a war zone like Ukraine)

Huge volumes of low level waste were continuously dumped into the Irish Sea while reprocessing spent fuel. BNFL is a good argument against nuclear power.

Europe alone will produce a lot more waste than spent fuel. And how much waste did Fukishima generate ? (Like Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl it won't happen again, until the next time.)

Around 2.5 million m3 of low- and intermediate-level waste has been generated in Europe. This is a partial estimate as it excludes waste from Slovakia and Russia. Around 20 percent of this waste (0.5 million m³) has been stored across Europe, waiting for final disposal. This amount is constantly increasing with no full disposal route anywhere. Around 80 percent of this waste (close to 2 million m3) has been disposed of. However, this does not mean that the waste is successfully eliminated for the coming centuries. For instance, the Asse II disposal site in a former salt mine in Germany suffers from continuous inflow of groundwater. The 220,000 m3 of mixed disposed waste and salt need to be retrieved, which is a complex and very costly task. The quantities are now five times the original amount of waste due to the mixture of salt and radioactive waste. Therefore, the term final disposal should be used with caution.

The decommissioning of nuclear facilities will create additional very large amounts of nuclear waste. Excluding fuel chain facilities, Europe’s power reactor fleet alone may generate at least another 1.4 million m3 of nuclear waste from decommissioning. This is a conservative estimate as decommissioning experiences are scarce.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2023 12:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811507#Comment_120811507

I really wish people would stop including this "If it can stay on line" type statements when it comes to nuclear.

80% of Japanese reactors are still offline 12 years later.

Italy and Germany stopped nuclear plants. Nuclear power can't avoid politics or other non-technical risks no matter how much you ignore them.

France lost 50% of nuclear output last year. And are shutting down power plants way faster than they are building replacements.

20% of nuclear projects that survive until construction starts get cancelled later on. If you include projects cancelled before construction and delays then the risk of power not being available when forecast is very high, to the point where I'd insist insurance to cover the costs of providing power in the meantime.

All of the EPR plants built so far have had extended outages during their first year of operation.

And then there's the cost overruns and all too common multi-year delays which IMHO should be counted too. ( A plant that was 12 years late can't possibly meet 50% uptime until at least 24 years have elapsed , because you've had to provide backup and budget around it. )

Global capacity factor for nuclear is 77%. However, that includes a lot of older previous generation plants where lessons were learnt about the operation of that particular type of plant and major survivor bias where the poorer performing plants got culled.

There is an argument that building more standardised reactors will make them cheaper, but it's been debunked focusing on standardized designs doesn't really help matters, as costs continued to grow as more of a given reactor design was built. If you read between the lines it's largely due to delays though safety is also costing more.

Podge_irl · 07-07-2023 10:07am

Nuclear power can't avoid politics or other non-technical risks no matter how much you ignore them.

Obviously no one is ignoring these issues, they are a huge part of why more nuclear power isn't being build in the first place.

However, I don't think one should make their own energy policy on the basis of German stupidity.

charlie14 · 07-07-2023 12:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120816171#Comment_120816171

So yet aain here we are with you rambling away on France and Japap two legs bad for using nuclear with Germany and Italy somehow being four legs good for not.

Looking at the facts at this point I can only conclude that your sole concern is an attempt to ban nuclear world wide and you could care less if you tried about emissions. Germany the good, closed it`s last remaining nuclear plants while re-opening coal plants, is back to strip mining coal and importing coal to feed them. Even Greta Thunberk thinks they are nuts. Italy the good having shut it`s nuclear plants in 2021 imported 5.2% of its total demand from France the bad.

9.30 today France was supplying its grid with 72% nuclear, 10% hydro, 8% wind, 7% gas and 1% solar. It`s emissions were 41g CO2eq/kWh. For anyone worried about emissions then I do not know where else you would come close to finding that figure for a large industrialise nation. It doesn`t say much for your prediction of French nuclear being in the low 40% range this year either. Neither is it any great mysery as to why France have been the largest European exporter of electricity and have announce they are building a further 6 nuclear plants and are considering adding a futher 8.

Probably no point in repeating this yet again as it will again just be ignored. Japan has reopened 10 of their nuclear plants, have 15 others at various stages of restart approval, have announce the addition of next generation reactors and aim to increase their present 7% generation output to 22% by the end of the decade. But then perhaps you would prefer they completely shut down their nuclear programme and just added to the 22 coal burning plants on 17 different sites they have already operational or will be operational by 2025.

But these are not the only countries that are increasing their numbers, or building their first nuclear power plants. China in 2021 had 51GW nuclear installed capacity. 2022 they added a further 6GW, have 22 new plants under construction that will add a further 24GW and have approved (many being fast tracked) a futher 88 which will bring them up two 170GW. Countries building their first nuclear plants are Poland (3 reactors) Egypt, a country not short on sun or wind (4 reactors) Turkey ditto (4 reactors) Bangladesh (2 reactors) Saudi Arabia (16 reactors etc. plus the many more that are adding to thir present fleet.

You make a lot of noise on timescale, output and costs for nuclear, but when asked the same for your preferred wind+hydrogen plan not a peep. Why is that, is it because neithe you or anybody has a clue as to the cost, the timescale or even if it will work to scale ?

Nuclear delivers 90+% of its installed capacity. Wind here we have seen for long periods in Winter delivering as little as 6%. Winter months in Ireland, solar will will be below even that. This offshore wind plan, when you include onshore and solar would provide around 6 times or maximum need. I doubt if they are planning that just for the giggles.

Cost for that unknown, but is not going to be below €200 Bn. Finland, even with all the delays etc you are fond of highlighting, have just added a reactor that cost €11 Bn. that would provide 33% of our requirements and there is no way of hiding from those two figures.

SeanW · 08-07-2023 2:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120816171#Comment_120816171

And Italy and Germany now have energy that not just among the most expensive in Europe, but the dirtiest. (while countries like France, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland etc have energy that is dramatically cheaper and cleaner). See my links in an earlier post. https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120792564/#Comment_120792564

Should we continue to mirror their stupidity?

Busman Paddy Lasty · 09-07-2023 10:14pm

Very interesting video on nuclear...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gF9kkB0UWYQ

charlie14 · 10-07-2023 2:16am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821947#Comment_120821947

Italy closed their nuclear power plants in 1990.

2022 Italy imported 13.6% of it`s electricity from France and Switzerland (which generated 40% of it`s electricity from nuclear) in 2022.

Basically while shutting down their own nuclear programme, they are importing 13.6% of their electricity needs from nuclear generation.

Sam Russell · 10-07-2023 10:35am

This whole argument about nuclear generation is strange.

If a country opts for nuclear generation, it is doing so using a generation system that cannot be turned on or off based on demand. It is a constant supply. This gives certain benefits but it also causes problems if the supply exceeds demand. If they can export the surplus, then fine, but otherwise .....

It is all about cost to supply vs price it is sold at.

charlie14 · 10-07-2023 12:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120828890#Comment_120828890

No country has 100% electricity supplied by nuclear and I don`t know of any country that is hoping to do so, so I would not see it as a problem.

Prior to the 2012 elections in France 75% of their electricity was supplied by nuclear and it was not a problem There is more flexibility with nuclear than people think. Operators can reduce output by limiting the amount of steam going through turbines to create electricity, or the can slow down the nuclear reaction in the reactor.

France have been using this flexibility when required, as has the U.S. NorthWest and Canada each Spring to accomodate hydro.

Excess electricity, similar to this Irish offshore plan, could also be used to produce hydrogen which is also used for a variety of applications including fertilizer production.

Shoog · 10-07-2023 12:54pm

Simple economics means never, if they can't build a childrens hospital on time and on budget think what a catastrophy building a nuclear plant would turn into. Lets be honest as well, how many of the Nuclear advocates would be happy building such a plant in the outskirts of Dublin where the current and future demand is ?

Its all very peachy in theory until you suggest they build one in your backyard.

charlie14 · 10-07-2023 1:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120829541#Comment_120829541

If we look at just the simple economics, Finland just added a nuclear reactor to their fleet that cost €11 Bn that would provide one third of our needs. The equivalent here for this offshore wind+hydrogen plan nobody can give a cost for has the best estimate being €70 Bn. And that does not include the cost of onshore or solar already installed.

Similar to any other power plant ,nuclear would supply the national grid, and as such could be built anywhere in the country. The theory is no less peachy on a wind or solar farm being welcomed with open arms by those with backyards where they are proposed.

Offshore wind farms are now offering financial incentives to communities to reduce objections. Give everyone within a certain radius of a nuclear plant free electricity and you would more than likely have competition rather than objections.

10-07-2023 2:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120829714#Comment_120829714

Offshore wind farms are now offering financial incentives to communities to reduce objections.

Eh?????

Do you mean the community benefit funds? If so those are part of the auction requirements and have been around for many years or are you referring to something else?

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/5f12f-community-projects-and-benefit-funds-ress/

charlie14 · 10-07-2023 4:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120830368#Comment_120830368

Call them whatever name you want.

It will not change the fact that they are attempts to lessen public objections.

Shoog · 10-07-2023 5:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120829714#Comment_120829714

You mean the one delayed by 12 years and experiencing massive cost overruns. Not really a solution to a pressing climate crisis. The much touted Hydrogen economy is still largely a fantasy and a convenient red herring inflate cost estimates and to bolster the Nuclear advocates dubious positions.

Studies have shown that renewables are up to 7x as effective at reducing carbon emissions - which is ultimately why we are moving away from fossil fuels

"In certain large country samples the relationship between renewable electricity and CO2-emissions is up to seven times stronger than the corresponding relationship for nuclear."

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3

As for the community supports, would anyone care to guess what level of bribe it would take to get a Nuclear power plant past the Irish public 🤣

charlie14 · 11-07-2023 12:27am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120831350#Comment_120831350

Yet even with all the time and cost overrun that particular Finnish nuclear reactor that wouuld provide 1/3 of our electricity needs still cost €11 Bn. whereas offshore+hydrogen, (which nobody proposing it can put a price on), with the best estimate being €70 Bn.for the same, with no idea if it will even work to scale or when it would be operational.

I agree that this hydrogen economy is still largely a fantasy, but it is not being touted by anyone other than those who favour it as being capable of providing 100% dependable supply of electricity, and I understand why they are. Without hydrogen as storage the offshore GW`s required would be many times higher, and the cost would be greater than even that €200 Bn. Hydrogen has it`s on drawbacks as well when it comes to emissions of ntrogen oxides.

That article you linked, far as I can see is around 10 years old, and I have never seen anthing else published claiming the same. Tbh, it looks as if it was written on the belief that correlation = causation.

As for community support for nuclear, according to a survey by Think Ireland the odds for and against are the same. 43% in favour, 43% opposed with the remainder undecided. Of the 18 -24 year group, the group most exercises by climate change and the age group that the Irish Green Party got the greatest share of their vote from in the 2020 G E, 60% were in favour.

Shoog · 11-07-2023 9:28am

No amount of wishful thinking will ever see a nuclear power plant built in Ireland, and the final nail in the coffin of nuclear will be the roll out of alternative battery chemistries such sodium. Nuclear technology is crawling along in development with new technologies taking many decades to come on line if at all, where as there are multiple lines of research and development in battery technology slashing prices on a yearly basis. Battery prices have followed the same downward trajectory of solar panels and will continue to do so for the forseeable future, lithium will be reserved for situations where high energy density is the top priority - everywhere else will use cheaper less energy dense alternatives. Sodium batteries will slash battery costs on an industrial level with a nearly limitless cheap supply of raw materials available, and the only thing needed is a ramp up of production infrastructure. Hydrogen is a red herring because batteries are still in their infancy and will outstrip hydrogens potential many fold at a fraction of the price. Hydrogen will be a niche technology for a limited range of use cases such as heavy haulage. The boggy man of storage is been solved right now whilst fast breeder reactors (the knight in shining armour for nuclear) remains just an expensive technically challenging dream just over the horizon.

charlie14 · 11-07-2023 1:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120833629#Comment_120833629

My posts have nothing to do with wishful thinking. They are based on economic reality.

Hydrogen, contrary to what you stated earlier, was not put forward by anyone to confuse the issue. It has been put forward by those who believe we should only have a national grid powered by wind, hydro and solar as a solution to the undependable and unreliable nature of all three.

In Ireland hydro is tapped out for any major contributions, solar with our geography and long winter nights will only ever be a fringe contributor, so basically that leaves wind. As I said, I can see why those favouring renewables providing 100% of our needs at all times favor hydrogen.

We have seen long extended periods here when renewables were providing as low as 6% of our needs when installed renewable capacity was 100%. The only way around that problem with wind is build enough turbines to negate it, (16X times more) or build enough that during the good days we would have enough excess generated that could be stored for use in the bad days by using hydrogen. That is the basis of the 30GW offshore (although I seem to recall that figure having incresed to around 34GW ?) plus hydrogen plan. I`m not questioning the mathematics of that plan, just the financial realities, even if hydrogen will have problems with storage, distribution, if it will actually work to scale and burning it isn`t exactly eco friendly.

I have yet to see any costing for it, but based on U.K. and U.S data it is not going to cost less than €200 Bn. That is over €100,000 for every household in Ireland, and that is before they even get to pay for their electricity which will be double the strike price for the electricity generated. Batteries may be cheaper for storage, but then again nobody has come up with a price as too how much, and while batteries come with their own problems, even if they are cheaper than the hydrogen proposal then that saving will only be on the storage side. The same amount of money will have to be invested on the generation side, so if there are any savings they would be minimal.Especially for household electricity charges.

The unavoidable economic reality is that even with all the time and cost over-runs, the Finns latest reactor would provide 1/3 of our needs carbon neutral day and night regardless of weather at 90+% of installed capacity for €11 Bn. whereas the offshore plan of wind + storage is not going to do the same for anything less than €70 Bn using hydrogen or batteries for storage

Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Comments