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
1505152535456»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 897 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Lets not forget that almost every part of a wind turbine is recyclable, vastly reducing the resource footprint of replacement turbines. Additionally much of the infrastructure will last multiple turbine generation so won't need to be replaced apart from basic servicing.

    The life cycle costs of a wind farm are largely predictable unlike a NPP which is open ended.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Oh, maybe because our laws (including company law and tax laws, torts, civil law etc. ) and civil service are based on theirs. We use most of their large construction and consultancy companies too. So it's by far the closest framework.

    They have a 70 year head start on us in commercial nuclear power plant construction, operation and waste handling.

    They have a head start on decommissioning and reprocessing.

    They have multiple pre-existing sites to choose from.

    They have an electricity market an order of magnitude larger than ours and have a plan to acquire a series of nuclear plants and so could benefit from both loss-leaders and volume discounts which would never be given to us.

    Unlike ours their defence forces need nuclear materials for weapons (including depleted uranium) and submarine reactors so nuclear power can be subsided from the defence budget.

    The UK looked everywhere before signing with EDF for Hinkley C , the list of companies that walked away or went bankrupt since the tenders started is impressive.

    Unless and until you can explain in detail how we could beat the UK on every single one of these points there's a snowball's chance in hell we could get nuclear power cheaper than the UK could.

    In the end the UK needed the French and Chinese government to provide financial guarantees. The Chinese government are not the sort of people you want to owe the smallest amount of money to if you can't pay because you will get screwed (cf. the number of military bases ports they have acquired, including one in Greece) and the UK government is in hoc to eye-watering amounts.

    Meanwhile the UK didn't buy into Rolls Royce's SMR even though they were offered at a fraction of the price of Hinkley-C and promised thousands of job , instead they continued to import 4 GW of renewables from France.

    At this point Hinkley's fixed price contact looks like it'll extend until 50 years after generation was supposed to start. Any number of solar or storage innovations will happen over that course of time.

    For example a roll of self adhesive flexible thin film solar would use a tiny fraction of the material currently used for cells (saving > 99% of silicon) and no support needed (saving 99% of aluminium and glass) Today's improvements in overlapping cells and higher voltages are already reducing the usage of silver and copper.

    IIRC for ORESS the clock starts from when generation was supposed to start, not from when it actually does.

    €86.05/MWh (2023) = £72.52 (2023) = £52.69 (2012)



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    IIRC the last time someone checked how much material from the blades of a 20 year old recycled wind farm went into landfill, it worked about the same as a weeks worth of coal ash for the same power.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,729 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    I seriously doubt that given loss of carbon storage from peatland and forest, plus dramatically increased methane emissions from such damaged peatlands, not to mention issues with water quality in these areas which has been highlighted in the media here in North Mayo on a number of occasions



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,729 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    FA are recycled - most end up in landfills. They also generate a vast amount of micro plastics during their lifespan, especially in Marine Environments



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    And you have evidence that all turbines are dumped in landfill at end of life, I assume...?

    And it's funny how some people suddenly care about peatland and drainage when a windfarm is being built, when for over a century before they've been draining it and cutting out turf. I smell BS.

    I also know a couple of people who made that same argument about the bogland drying out due to a windfarm at a site in Co Cork, and a year later were complaining that rewetting of a neighbouring turf bogland would cause armageddon...

    Still, at least nobody has tried the "dead birds" excuse yet...



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Still no answer to when a NPP starts saving emissions.

    It seems that the conservative coalition in Australia is proposing to divert all energy investment into NPP mainly as a means of locking in coal generation for the next 20 years. Favors for their mates.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,127 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Hornsea 3 was €10.2Bn. which at the time would have left that 37 GW for just the turbines alone €130 Bn. Prices since have risen by over 80% in recent cases. But even at 60% that 37 GW is €208 Bn. Taiwan just agreed terms with Canada`s Northland and others for their Hai Long 1 GW fixed offshore wind farm for 9 Bn.Canadian dollars (€6.02 Bn) which would leave that 37 GW offshore section on its own even more expensive at €222 Bn.

    But that is not the full story either on Hornsea where the CfD price is concerned.

    Not only could the U.K. not get a single offer for 5 GW of offshore in their 2023 AR5 auction, all of the companies that were successful and awarded CfD contracts in their previous AR4 auction reduced their committment of what they were contracted to supply, waiting for it to be re-offered where they will get a higher CfD price. Orsted for Hornsea being one such case afair.

    You are also still rattling on about Hinkley while ignoring what is happening in the real world today.

    The Hinkley CfD of £92.5/MWh in 2012 is today allowing for infalation £128/MWh (Bank of England) which is €152/MWh. Of the companies that pulled out of agreed CfD contracts two of the largest worldwide, Orsted and Equinor, did so for the Empire Wind and Sunshine Wind offshore projects in the U.S. and have now renegotiated a CfD with tax breakes included of $205 (€188.2). 80% higher than their original CfD contracts and 25% higher than the Hinkley CfD. Others are lining up renegotiating their previously agreed CfDs and it would be naive imo to see those new CfDs being any less than the benchmark set by Orsted and Equinor.

    Even looking at Ireland the last ORESS average weighted strike price of €86.05 is greater than Hinkley. This 2050 37 GW plan, a that will not even provide our projected 2050 requirements, is a 50/50 split of generation between consummer usage and hydrogen production. Nobody other than the consummer is going to be paying for all the generation, so that doubles the strike price for the consummer to €172.10 index linked. And that is without the added costs of hydrogen, the cost of any electricity generated by burning hydrogen and the guarantee that we will take and pay for all they generate even if we neither need or use it.

    You can rattle away all you like on Hinkley, but in the real world today those are the costs of offshore wind, be it for CfD contracts or the capital cost of 37 GW offshore with no hydrogen add-ons.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Never.

    We are on the path to reduce emissions from to 0 by 2050. That's an average of 10% emissions from 2030-2050.

    With nuclear we'd still be using fossil fuel for backup as even a super optimistic 95% capacity factor for nuclear would mean 5% of the time we'd need fossil fuel or excess nuclear to cover scheduled outages.

    (Note countries like the US, France, Korea, India, China etc. can use an 18 month fuelling cycle as they have both summer and winter peak demands, countries with peak winter demand like the UK and Germany are no longer in the reactor business, so we couldn't assume fuelling would only be in the summer)

    Unless we installed enough nuclear to meet record demand we'd still need fossil fuel for peaking and 'Dunkelflaute'.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,627 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    "Even looking at Ireland the last ORESS average weighted strike price of €86.05 is greater than Hinkley. "

    Czechia's seemingly anti-renewables ODS (Civic Democratic Party) party has arranged that the country will be entering contract negotiations with KHNP for two APR1000 reactors 1055 MW at an existing nuclear site. Cost has been rounded to CZK 200 billion per unit.

    The tender procedure was launched on 17 March 2022. Initial bids from
    EDF, KHNP and WEC (for one unit at Dukovany with a non-binding option
    for three more units – EDU6 and ETE 3 + 4) were received by 30 November
    2022. The amended bids were submitted by the bidders as of 31 October
    2023. In January 2024, the government decided to invite two bidders (EDF
    and KHNP) to complete updated bids for a binding option to build up to
    three additional nuclear units (EDU 6 and ETE 3+4). The contacted
    bidders submitted them by 30 April 2024. EDU II submitted the evaluation
    report to the Ministry of Industry and Trade on 14 June 2024 as a basis
    for the final government decision on the preferred bidder.

    Negotiations with the preferred contractor will now follow, among
    other things, on the option for more units, but also on the involvement
    of Czech industry. The contract with the contractor will be signed in
    the first quarter of next year. It is planned to secure a building
    permit by 2029 and start trial operation by the end of 2036, with
    commercial operation starting in 2038. Adherence to the construction
    schedule is subject to contractual penalties.

    From tender to power is minimum 16 years. On a site that already has nuclear power.

    Price is $8.65 billion per GW. On a site that already has nuclear power. And negotiations will go on for another year. ( pro rate cost for the 3.2 GW of Hinkley C would be €27.68 Bn )

    Fun fact this project has already had three years added since January. Was 2035 now 2038.

    "Westinghouse did not fulfill the required [tender] conditions," the government said in a statement without giving further details. " … Construction work on the first new Dukovany reactor was expected under the initial tender to start in 2029, with the reactor being ready for operation in 2035.

    And it needs state aid

    The whole project is a political decision and Westinghouse are suing KHNP over rector technology.

    EU regulations now insist that a deep radioactive waste repository (DWR) must be built by 2050 in order for new nuclear energy projects to qualify as sustainable investments. - You also need to add in the decommissioning costs.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,729 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    You must be confusing me with someone else so spare me your "fantasies" - currently I'm rewetting an old cut-over bog on my own land in North Mayo as part of an EU scheme



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    My "Its funny that..." was not intended to refer to you. Apologies.

    I was remarking on the tendency of certain protest groups and populist politicians to dramatically switch their position on things like bog preservation to suit whatever the current hot-button issue is. When people moaned about wind turbines "spoiling their view", those people leapt to the defence of the boglands; now you're probably starting to hear from them about how rewetting is "causing floods"...



Advertisement