Nuclear power in Ireland

s7ryf3925pivug

The state planned to build a nuclear power station in Wexford in the late 70’s. This would have been capable of providing more than our total electricity requirement, with zero emissions. However, the activitism of a large protest group against it resulted in the plans being scrapped. Moneypoint coal power station was constructed instead, which is the backbone of our electricity generation infrastructure, and our biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. It reaches end of life in 2025 and will need to be replaced by that time.

In 1999 it was made illegal to generate power via nuclear fission in Ireland. We have significant uranium deposits, but licenses to mine these have been declined on the grounds that they would be used to generate electricity via nuclear fission elsewhere, which would be hypocritical.

Renewable energy such as solar and wind generation cannot replace Moneypoint because they are unreliable sources. They can only supplement a core reliable system. A low emitting source is required because we are badly failing to meet our existing emission targets, and these targets will get more challenging, not less.

A nuclear plant is the glaringly obvious solution to an urgent problem. This would achieve a huge reduction in our carbon emissions - along with the fines and carbon credits for which I understand we have already paid over 120 million since 2007. We would also be able to export large quantities of electricity .

The first step towards this solution would be the legalization of electricity generation via nuclear fission. I feel this should be done without delay.

biko

We should build one, and put it in D4 (in case it blows up).

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

A single station would more than suffice but the ancillary costs render a single station scenario uneconomical.

riffmongous

Steven Tight Week wrote: »

The state planned to build a nuclear power station in Wexford in the late 70’s. This would have been capable of providing more than our total electricity requirement, with zero emissions. However, the activitism of a large protest group against it resulted in the plans being scrapped. Moneypoint coal power station was constructed instead, which is the backbone of our electricity generation infrastructure, and our biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. It reaches end of life in 2025 and will need to be replaced by that time.

In 1999 it was made illegal to generate power via nuclear fission in Ireland. We have significant uranium deposits, but licenses to mine these have been declined on the grounds that they would be used to generate electricity via nuclear fission elsewhere, which would be hypocritical.

Renewable energy such as solar and wind generation cannot replace Moneypoint because they are unreliable sources. They can only supplement a core reliable system. A low emitting source is required because we are badly failing to meet our existing emission targets, and these targets will get more challenging, not less.

A nuclear plant is the glaringly obvious solution to an urgent problem. This would achieve a huge reduction in our carbon emissions - along with the fines and carbon credits for which I understand we have already paid over 120 million since 2007. We would also be able to export large quantities of electricity .

The first step towards this solution would be the legalization of electricity generation via nuclear fission. I feel this should be done without delay.

Give us some numbers

McMurphy

riffmongous wrote: »

Give us some numbers

423800421679084225789906553228886328874223365878882215524533398875225886633.

Skyfloater

Thorium molten salt reactors could well be the future of energy production. The Indians are doing some great research on it at the moment.

ILoveYourVibes

Steven Tight Week wrote: »

The state planned to build a nuclear power station in Wexford in the late 70’s. This would have been capable of providing more than our total electricity requirement, with zero emissions. However, the activitism of a large protest group against it resulted in the plans being scrapped. Moneypoint coal power station was constructed instead, which is the backbone of our electricity generation infrastructure, and our biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. It reaches end of life in 2025 and will need to be replaced by that time.

In 1999 it was made illegal to generate power via nuclear fission in Ireland. We have significant uranium deposits, but licenses to mine these have been declined on the grounds that they would be used to generate electricity via nuclear fission elsewhere, which would be hypocritical.

Renewable energy such as solar and wind generation cannot replace Moneypoint because they are unreliable sources. They can only supplement a core reliable system. A low emitting source is required because we are badly failing to meet our existing emission targets, and these targets will get more challenging, not less.

A nuclear plant is the glaringly obvious solution to an urgent problem. This would achieve a huge reduction in our carbon emissions - along with the fines and carbon credits for which I understand we have already paid over 120 million since 2007. We would also be able to export large quantities of electricity .

The first step towards this solution would be the legalization of electricity generation via nuclear fission. I feel this should be done without delay.

We can only import nuclear power. Our grid is so small that any nuclear power plant would have to be really inefficient to suit it.


We can import or buy it. We're too small to have our own.

Even SMRs are too large.

The question is why though? We can just buy it from somewhere else it might work out cheaper. And we don't have to deal with the waste etc.

VinLieger

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We can only import nuclear power. Our grid is so small that any nuclear power plant would have to be really inefficient to suit it.


We can import or buy it. We're too small to have our own.

Even SMRs are too large.

The question is why though? We can just buy it from somewhere else it might work out cheaper. And we don't have to deal with the waste etc.

Completely missing the point that if we buy power it also means we could sell any excess we would have from a nuclear plant

98q76e12hrflnk

VinLieger wrote: »

Completely missing the point that if we buy power it also means we could sell any excess we would have from a nuclear plant

That would be even worse, the cost to connect to europe or where ever would not be profitable within a reasonable time or if ever.

s7ryf3925pivug

declan2693 wrote: »

That would be even worse, the cost to connect to europe or where ever would not be profitable within a reasonable time or if ever.

We are already connected to the UK. Creation of a connection to France is already underway.

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/the-grid/projects/celtic-interconnector/the-project/

archer22

The winning bid to build it would probably be 2 Billion...this would then have spiralled to 25 Billion a year later.

After it was finished cracks would appear on it because the contractor had used Pyrite and the whole thing would have to be knocked down and rebuilt.

That's of course if it hadn't blown up and made half the country uninhabitable.

After the tribunals costing another Billion or so were over...it would be concluded that
"mistakes were made but lessons had been learned...going forward".

I think a nuclear power plant is something best forgotten about in Ireland!

s7ryf3925pivug

Wrt generation vs consumption, our electricity consumption will increase greatly as it replaces petrol, diesel, oil and gas as forms of power for automobiles and heating.

Junkyard Tom

Maybe we could generate power from the homeless? Kill two worms with one bird.

Fr_Dougal

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We could get generate power from the homeless? Kill two worms with one bird.

At least give them a roof over their head.

dxhound2005

archer22 wrote: »

The winning bid to build it would probably be 2 Billion...this would then have spiralled to 25 Billion a year later.

After it was finished cracks would appear on it because the contractor had used Pyrite and the whole thing would have to be knocked down and rebuilt.

That's of course if it hadn't blown up and made half the country uninhabitable.

After the tribunals costing another Billion or so were over...it would be concluded that
"mistakes were made but lessons had been learned...going forward".

I think a nuclear power plant is something best forgotten about in Ireland!

I don't think there are any Irish builders in the business. Just get the contractors over from France. They built loads of them there, and none of them blew up yet that I heard of. Also "the French" so famous for protesting don't seem to have protested very much.

SEPT 23 1989

It would be the Rolls Royce of power plants the most expensive the world has ever seen

Twenty Grand

Nuclear is a great idea until you look at the costs involved.

Also going by Irish planning, it would probably take 15 years to build the thing, by which time renewables would probably be a safer,more economic option.

Richard Hillman

I don't trust us with nuclear power

4068ac1elhodqr

Chernobyl at one stage had only 10days before it would have rendered Ukraine, Europe & parts of Russ into wasteland, for 500,000yrs (or thereabouts).

Would rather take the chances with an the odd seagulls swerving into a lash of windfarm propellers off the coast.
Better yet, free(ish) energy by the way of cold fusion could be on the cards in a decade (or two).

Miguel Hollow Bobcat

We can only dream, I’d be top of the queue to work there if we had a nuclear power plant. Absolute king of energy production, safe, clean, limitless and massive capacity.

Wind and solar etc are like p*ssing into the wind in comparison. If people were really serious about reducing emissions then nuclear is the answer regardless of the high upfront costs (the costs balances out somewhat over the life time though compared to fossil fuel plants but that rarely gets mentioned).

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

Chernobyl at one stage had only 10days before it would have rendered Ukraine, Europe & parts of Russ into wasteland, for 500,000yrs (or thereabouts).

Would rather take the chances with an the odd seagulls swerving into a lash of windfarm propellers off the coast.
Better yet, free(ish) energy by the way of cold fusion could be on the cards in a decade (or two).

Nuclear is the safest form of energy production by a distance.

Captain Red Beard

Where would it be built? Nobody wants a nuclear plant on their doorstep.

4068ac1elhodqr

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

Nuclear is the safest form of energy production by a distance.

{ Until something goes wrong }

Guesstimate you might be a stakeholder in the industry, something fiscally to gain from expansion perhaps?

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

I’d be top of the queue to work there if we had a nuclear power plant.

Twenty Grand

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

We can only dream, I’d be top of the queue to work there if we had a nuclear power plant. Absolute king of energy production, safe, clean, limitless and massive capacity.

I still don't think they're cost effective, and definitely not on a scale like Ireland. People talk about selling excess, but do other countries need to buy it?

Solar and wind are still the way to go for Ireland.
Be different if we had a large population.
If you can do the sums and make them work id support it, but I highly doubt anyone can.

Thats before you run into planning and construction issues.

Twenty Grand

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

{ Until something goes wrong }

Guesstimate you might be a stakeholder in the industry, something fiscally to gain from expansion perhaps?

You can say that about anything though.

Air travel is the safest until something goes wrong.

Capt'n Midnight

Skyfloater wrote: »

Thorium molten salt reactors could well be the future of energy production. The Indians are doing some great research on it at the moment.

ALL of the evidence says NO.

The Canadians were using thorium in the Zeep reactor in 1946/7 It's not new technology. The nuclear physics is very similar to that used to make plutonium during WWII.

The laws of physics haven't changed much since.

Also in the 70 years since.
No one has used molten salt reactors for anything other than research.
Multiple full size thorium reactors have been built and shut down. One power plant was converted to gas. And the US downblended all it's U233.
( submarine reactors aren't remotely commercial )

And no one's built a commercial plutonium breeder power reactor yet. And we've been building them since 1944. And they are easier than thorium because more neutrons.

Japan alone has spent more on it's breeder project than the world has spent on the ITER fusion research.

Nuclear is competing against renewables. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper , renewables are.

ILoveYourVibes

VinLieger wrote: »

Completely missing the point that if we buy power it also means we could sell any excess we would have from a nuclear plant

We can't compete with France.

Nuclear power rarely makes a profit. Its why its usually govt owned.

You have huge costs in comparison with renewals and fossil fuels.

Capital costs ,Cost overruns, Operating costs, Fuel costs, Waste disposal costs, Decommissioning, Proliferation and terrorism, Safety, security and accidents Insurance.

Capt'n Midnight

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It would be the Rolls Royce of power plants the most expensive the world has ever seen

Fukushima could have a lifetime cost of a trillion dollars that represents an overhead of $2 Billion per nuclear power station word wide.

Chernobyl will cost similar.


Hinkley C will cost about £50 Bn , £20Bn in costs and £30Bn in subsidies.

Nuclear costs are insane due to the times and costs of financing the costs over decades..


The UK has been doing nuclear power since 1956. They have a bigger grid than we do so more clout with the suppliers. 5 of the 6 proposed plants have stalled. The 6th is late, over budget and there are questions on the companies ability to build the things, EPR welds cracks etc. Also most reactor companies are fragile they literally have to bet the company on each new project the stakes are so high. If France or China or Finland pull the plug or discover worse defects then the UK reactor won't get finished.

If the UK can't do it then we'd have no hope.

4068ac1elhodqr

Might be worth watching CF developments in France.

ITER (€10bn) is scheduled to generate it's first plasma by 2025. A demonstration reactor will then be built, with the aim of creating 500 megawatts of power from just 50 megawatts of input, a tenfold return on energy.

The Chinese are targeting 2040 to go online with their cold fusion plant (a bit tricky to build and contain plasma at 100 million degrees Celsius). They managed it for 60seconds last year, and now all sport drawn-on eyebrows.

If you're surrounded by sea, something small like Scotlands (24/7 constant) 2MW, tidal turbine might prove handy.

ILoveYourVibes

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Fukushima could have a lifetime cost of a trillion dollars that represents an overhead of $2 Billion per nuclear power station word wide.

Chernobyl will cost similar.


Hinkley C will cost about £50 Bn , £20Bn in costs and £30Bn in subsidies.

Nuclear costs are insane due to the times and costs of financing the costs over decades..


The UK has been doing nuclear power since 1956. They have a bigger grid than we do so more clout with the suppliers. 5 of the 6 proposed plants have stalled. The 6th is late, over budget and there are questions on the companies ability to build the things, EPR welds cracks etc. Also most reactor companies are fragile they literally have to bet the company on each new project the stakes are so high. If France or China or Finland pull the plug or discover worse defects then the UK reactor won't get finished.

If the UK can't do it then we'd have no hope.

We should just buy it off them and let them mess their country up!

Oh wait no ..it comes over here if that happens! :mad:

Capt'n Midnight

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

If you're surrounded by sea, something small like Scotlands (24/7 constant) 2MW, tidal turbine might prove handy.

There's a 300MW project in he pipeline for NI.

And a similar sized pumped storage scheme using an old mine down in the Silvermines.

There's a research station in Galway bay , because the waves there are a third the size of out in the Atlantic.

But yeah, let's scrap all of the above and spend the next 15-20 years fighting the environmentalists and NIMBYS while funding a Nuke that won't be on time or on budget.


Seriously look at how long the Apple datacentre was held up by someone who lived a hundred miles away and AFAIK whose only interest was to blackmail them into using his site.

ZeroThreat

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We could get generate power from the homeless? Kill two worms with one bird.

lol a particular episode from Black Mirror comes to mind with that pic

s7ryf3925pivug

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's a 300MW project in he pipeline for NI.

And a similar sized pumped storage scheme using an old mine down in the Silvermines.

There's a research station in Galway bay , because the waves there are a third the size of out in the Atlantic.

But yeah, let's scrap all of the above and spend the next 15-20 years fighting the environmentalists and NIMBYS while funding a Nuke that won't be on time or on budget.


Seriously look at how long the Apple datacentre was held up by someone who lived a hundred miles away and AFAIK whose only interest was to blackmail them into using his site.

Tidal energy has the benefit over wind and solar that it is a reliable source, and therefore it actually could replace Moneypoint as things are now. our islandness means we could generate a similar or greater quantity than moneypoint can.

However I don't think it is being considered as a replacement. I read that the options being looked at are biomass and nuclear. Since nuclear is illegal and would be obstructed even if not then the biomass one is most likely. Biomass is carbon neutral if done right, but emits a lot of particulate, which has a major health impact.

Does anyone know why tidal power is not being looked at then? If not then perhaps it should be suggested?

freshpopcorn

Can I be safety inspector?

bob mcbob

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

ALL of the evidence says NO.

The Canadians were using thorium in the Zeep reactor in 1946/7 It's not new technology. The nuclear physics is very similar to that used to make plutonium during WWII.

The laws of physics haven't changed much since.

Also in the 70 years since.
No one has used molten salt reactors for anything other than research.
Multiple full size thorium reactors have been built and shut down. One power plant was converted to gas. And the US downblended all it's U233.
( submarine reactors aren't remotely commercial )

And no one's built a commercial plutonium breeder power reactor yet. And we've been building them since 1944. And they are easier than thorium because more neutrons.

Japan alone has spent more on it's breeder project than the world has spent on the ITER fusion research.

Nuclear is competing against renewables. Nuclear isn't getting cheaper , renewables are.

They aren't commercial yet.

Rolls-royce who make all the reactors for British submarines are working on commercialising the technology. These are called small modular reactors.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-programme-updates

orourkeda1977

If we bare in mind that the Irish government have difficulty arranging broadband and children's hospitals, is nuclear power a good idea in Ireland?

If you forget the relative pros and cons of nuclear power for a moment, the number of obstacles that you would have to overcome would be monstrous. And that would be before you'd even start a project. Add to that the Ireland has no track record or expertise in the area then it becomes unfeasible from an economic standpoint.

We cant even build a data centre in Ireland without years of objections and litigation.

On this basis alone Nuclear power in this country in a non starter.

Beasty

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I don't think there are any Irish builders in the business. Just get the contractors over from France. They built loads of them there, and none of them blew up yet that I heard of. Also "the French" so famous for protesting don't seem to have protested very much.

I'd do it for €1.9m (initial estimate)

Sure, what could go wrong. I did A-level physics

Hamsterchops

Apparently, a nuclear powered submarine would have enough power/output to cater for the entire countries electrical needs! I wonder can such a small reactor be bought from one of the Navies by the ESB?

dxhound2005

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

I

We cant even build a data centre in Ireland without years of objections and litigation.

We can.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/more-than-1bn-in-irish-data-centre-investments-in-second-quarter-1.3576002

Franz Von Peppercorn

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We can't compete with France.

Nuclear power rarely makes a profit. Its why its usually govt owned.

You have huge costs in comparison with renewals and fossil fuels.

Capital costs ,Cost overruns, Operating costs, Fuel costs, Waste disposal costs, Decommissioning, Proliferation and terrorism, Safety, security and accidents Insurance.

Surely most of these are the same as any other energy plant. Fuel costs would be less. Operating costs surely lower too. Decommissioning would be at an end of life project. Only insurance and security might have o copy’s higher costs.

Poor_old_gill

A correction on the opening post:

Moneypoint used to be the backbone of our energy infrastructure, however the extreme jump in Carbon price seen over the last 2 years has moved the 3 MP units out of merit and none of them are currently running economically.

The units will prob remain off for the entirety of the summer but might see some running come Nov/Dec once the gas capacity charges start to be increased for the winter period. Over the course of the last 12 months I would imagine that MP has accounted for less than 2% of total island generation as opposed to the 15-20% that it would have been accounting for 5 years ago.

dxhound2005

Beasty wrote: »

I'd do it for €1.9m (initial estimate)

Sure, what could go wrong. I did A-level physics

Armed with that stupendous knowledge, what do you think is likely to go wrong with the French nuclear stations?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

CrankyHaus

Ireland has an abundance of renewable energy sources: lots of wind, sea and space.

Ireland is so small that a nuclear plant would exceed our needs.

Ireland has a governing culture characterised by irresponsibility, long fingering and buck passing: which is Ill suited to safety critical, extreme severity of accident, nuclear power.

The estimated costs of nuclear power plants are never correct and always rise sharply : think Children's Hospital cost overruns only much more so.

France's decision to rely on nuclear power was a strategic one made in response to the 70s oil crisis and was proven by history to be unnecessary, as oil supply expanded and prices stabilised.

Poor_old_gill

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

We can't compete with France.

Nuclear power rarely makes a profit. Its why its usually govt owned.

You have huge costs in comparison with renewals and fossil fuels.

Capital costs ,Cost overruns, Operating costs, Fuel costs, Waste disposal costs, Decommissioning, Proliferation and terrorism, Safety, security and accidents Insurance.

Added to this our Gove has no interest in investing anymore €€ in generating units. It is much more likely that the PGen section of ESB will be sold in the next 10 years than the Gov sanctioning investment in another thermal unit

Miguel Hollow Bobcat

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

{ Until something goes wrong }

There has only been one major death causing nuclear accident Chernobyl and even that doesn’t even come within multiple orders of magnitude of other power generation method accidents and overall across the decades the numbers killed by nuclear are tiny compared to pretty much every other generation method including the renewables such as wind.

4068ac1elhodqr

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

There has only been one major death causing nuclear accident

Is your metric of 'one major death', really very different to say 10's of thousands of increases in cancer related deaths, directly due to events surrounding the vicinities of Nag/Fuk/Cher and even Sellafeild?

As already mentioned Chernobyl was 10days from turning the entire European continent into wasteland for 500,000yrs. No other single incidence, since the Cuban crisis, posed close to such a threat to humanity.

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

Not at all, as a physicist....

Ah, but you would be: "First in the queue for a job" (as you already stated).

So, actually yes, a direct fiscal benefit would indeed be a factor and great self-incentive for you to push such a notion.

Beasty

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Apparently, a nuclear powered submarine would have enough power/output to cater for the entire countries electrical needs! I wonder can such a small reactor be bought from one of the Navies by the ESB?

Do the Army and Navy Store not stock them?

Capt'n Midnight

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Apparently, a nuclear powered submarine would have enough power/output to cater for the entire countries electrical needs! I wonder can such a small reactor be bought from one of the Navies by the ESB?

No, they are only about 300MW each , our installed capacity is 6 GW, so we'd need 20 of the things.

bob mcbob wrote: »

They aren't commercial yet.

Rolls-royce who make all the reactors for British submarines are working on commercialising the technology. These are called small modular reactors.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-programme-updates

They've had hundreds of such reactors in active service since 1955 so there is no question that they work. There's no shortage of statistics on safety and reliability (at least for those privy to military secrets) so presumably the only issue is cost.

And the "breakthrough" to commercialise them will happen any day now ?
That one's been doing the rounds since they started using them.

Capt'n Midnight

Beasty wrote: »

Do the Army and Navy Store not stock them?

If you want a second hand one check here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors#/media/File:Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford,_WA.png

Capt'n Midnight

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Armed with that stupendous knowledge, what do you think is likely to go wrong with the French nuclear stations?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

The French are rolling back from 75% Nuclear power to 50%.

Like the UK many of their nuclear power stations are vulnerable to flooding. They've had to spend billions retro fitting safety features because the original plan was to have two reactors at each site and use the other reactor to supply cooling power , because you'd never have both reactors go off line at the same time :rolleyes:


Construction on the Flamanville 3 reactor started in 2007 and it should go on line any day now...

silverharp

4th generation nuclear is the way to go, smaller reactors, use nuclear waste as fuel, cant meltdown.

Twenty Grand

silverharp wrote: »

4th generation nuclear is the way to go, smaller reactors, use nuclear waste as fuel, cant meltdown.

And what research is that statement based on?

Small reactors were pitched 20 years ago. Have never happened.
Nuclear bucks the trend of technology getting cheaper. It's only getting more expensive while the cost of renewables plummets and efficiency increases.