Nuclear power in Ireland

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118456371#Comment_118456371

Point 3 is just an indication of how dirty and inefficient coal/turf are producing 21% of the remaining emissions from just 5% of the supply. Wind provides 29% of the supply so it's displacing gas. It could displace a lot more but our wind rollout is slow.

At the start of summer the UK could have expected 15 reactors working in January. Only 5 were on nominal full load on Friday. Nuclear absolutely requires backup and if it's soaking up the capital then you can't invest in fossil fuel free alternatives.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118457393#Comment_118457393

Meanwhile nuclear power plants are mushrooming up all over the place.

At least 1 in 4 of nuclear plants where construction started aren't producing power because they were cancelled, delayed or have been offline for years.

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118457535#Comment_118457535

If they start "mushrooming" then we're in deep sh1t altogether😲

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118457350#Comment_118457350

At the start of summer the UK could have expected 15 reactors working in January. Only 5 were on nominal full load on Friday.

That's not an argument against nuclear, it's an argument against the AGR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor which the British blew billions on in the 70s but never got it working economically or sufficiently reliably. They did this because reliable and cheaper French and American designs were "not invented here".

cannonballTaffyOjones

Nuclear is the future ... thorium reactors are safe, not chance of meltdown ...

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118457674#Comment_118457674

It's an argument against EDF's ability to run nuclear power plants and the hubris of the nuclear industry in general. "This time it'll be different" etc.

A few of those reliable and cheaper American designs are offline in France right now because of welds on safety systems. So European gas prices are up and EDF shares are down.

EDF's new designs are still having teething problems even though they started building them 17 years ago.

It's not just old English designs that are having problems.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118457754#Comment_118457754

There you go again, cherry picking problems while ignoring the accomplishments. One of those French power plants, I haven't checked the others, is Civaux Nuclear Power Plant. It was commissioned in 2002, so after 20 years of pouring out CO2 free power, it needs some pipes welding. OMG, how terrible.

It's like me doing this:

Or:

They will fix the cracks and then the plant will continue to churn out 21,458 Gwh of green electricity per annum - which all the greenies will wet themselves over in excitement at the prospect of tapping into via an interconnector.

My 16 year old car had to have new shock absorbers, how shocking, must be a pile of sh*t. Don't buy a car, it might need spare parts after 20 yeas of use.

It's amazing in recent years how much crossover there is between massive supporters of nuclear and bird and bat preservation. Like they really, really seem worried about the birds.

OneEightSeven

I was in favour of going nuclear until I saw the astronomical cost of building a nuclear power plant and there's also the issue of disposing of the waste.

Britain is building a 3.2 GW plant for £23bn, which works out to be £7,187,500 per MW.

We're planning for a 360 MW hydroelectricity plant in the Silvermines for €650m, which works out to be €1,805,555 per MW

Nuclear power isn't profitable, which is why there aren't any billionaires jumping at the opportunity to invest in nuclear here to capitalise on the high demand, but the Silvermines plant will be privately funded. If there are any more suitable locations for hydropower, our money would be better spent there instead.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118456371#Comment_118456371

You disregard astronomical environmental cost of disposing and storing spent fuel and cooling water nuclear waste. Also huge cost of dismantling decommissioned plants.

Again, anyone who say that nuclear is the cleanest energy needs to have their head examined.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459222#Comment_118459222

Hinkley C is £23Bn + increases up front. There's also up to £80Bn in increased lifetime bills. £100Bn gets you a lot of renewables, grid upgrades and storage.

Hinkley C had an agreed strike price of £89.50/MWh (2012 prices) for a 35 year term from the date of commissioning. Current strike price is 106.12£/MWh because it's index linked and will keep going up. And there's another £3.10 to add to that if Sizewell C doesn't get the go ahead before Reactor 1 starts (the "possible" 15 month delay will keep that option open)

To give you an idea how insane this is The Nuclear Energy Financing Bill to prevent this happening again is on it's second reading in the House of Lords "Furthermore, the lower cost of financing nuclear power is expected to lead to savings for consumers of between £30bn and £80bn per project"

From that link start date for Reactor 1 is 2026 with a possible COD delay 15 months, reactor 2 in 2027 with a possible delay of 9 months so I'd expect construction and financing costs to go up. Also looks like the UK would need something like our annual output of electricity to cover those delays.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118462413#Comment_118462413

Only if by "fine" you mean burning coal and gas since 2009 because 1/3rd of their nuclear power has been offline.

"Fine" also covers a fixed price €3.2Bn nuclear power plant that's now costing €11Bn. On top of that the nuclear waste repository will cost billions to complete.

Finland already gets most of it's power from renewables

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459171#Comment_118459171

So what your saying is that nuclear power is reliable until it goes offline weeks or months in the middle of winter.

The problem isn't the welds, it's the entire system that missed them for so long and on so many plants.

Especially given EDF's history on welds Out of the 148 inspected welds, 33 have quality deficiencies and will be repaired

grassmoon

Nuclear fission energy is the only source of zero carbon, safe and reliable baseload power.

Fossil fuels cause far more deaths per year. Coal and oil are 1230 and 263-times more deadly respectively.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Nuclear energy has prevented over 1.84 million deaths from air pollution.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es3051197

The nuclear waste produced takes up a miniscule amount of space with the majority being stored on site at power plants.

Newer 4th generation reactors will be able to recycle this waste as fuel.

A Chernobyl like accident, that occurred with an RBMK reactor, is impossible in any other reactor design as they are water moderated and have containment buildings.

The challenges facing nuclear power are political rather than scientific.

Hitting climate change targets is impossible without it.

It should be used in tandem with renewables.

Nuclear energy will also give Ireland energy independence and insulate us from volatility of oil and natural gas prices.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118463446#Comment_118463446

nuclear is not 0 carbon because it has waste product which requires storing for generations at huge cost, and it is also not reliable as it requires serious back up to support it and it goes offline at various times for long periods for maintenence/refueling etc, and of course the various issues with construction that are being found.

the challenges facing nuclear are down to the nuclear industry itself and the fact that nuclear is not cost effective or value for money when examined against all other energy generation sources.

hitting climate change targets can be done without it, and at a fraction of the cost, and those energy sources which are a fraction of the cost will give even stronger energy independence.

nuclear power in ireland is a dead duck as there are ultra-cheaper, more modern alternatives available.

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118463446#Comment_118463446

Who are the unfortunately few poor auld divils getting killed by solar power? How do they die?

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118465344#Comment_118465344

You don't seem to know what is meant by zero CO2. Nuclear waste is carbon in the form of CO2?

Such is the astonishingly falacious reasoning powering anti-nuclear energy wokes.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118465363#Comment_118465363

In terms of worker deaths, the solar power industry is 10 times worse than the nuclear industry, mostly due to rooftop accidents involving installers, who are not generally old people.

The wind industry is worse, also.

"What are the most dangerous jobs in the energy sector?"

...After coal mining comes...

"Wind turbine maintenance

While wind energy is growing in favour due to it being a low-carbon and relatively low-cost process, the height of turbines – with the typical GE 1.5MW model consisting of 116ft blades atop a 212ft base – means it can also be a dangerous sector to work in.

Turbine-associated accidents were relatively unspoken about until a 2011 turbine fire killed two mechanics in the Netherlands, leading to increased awareness of other such incidents. Caithness Windfarm Information Forum compiled a summary of wind turbine accidents in June, highlighting that the trend is (unsurprisingly) rising as more turbines are built.

Numbers of recorded accidents reflect this, with an average of 33 accidents per year from 1998-2002, 81 accidents per year from 2003-2007, 144 accidents per year from 2008-12, and 167 accidents per year from 2013-17, inclusive.

Solar panel maintenance

Solar is a rapidly growing sector for green energy, with rising numbers of projects planned in the coming years. The placement of panels on roofs and in remote locations means workers face a range of potential hazards in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of solar energy. Such risks include arc flashes (which include arc flash burn and blast hazards), electric shocks, falls, and thermal burn hazards.

The Asian Correspondent says that due to the high numbers of solar sites springing up, solar is three times more dangerous than wind power and over 10 times more dangerous than nuclear power, by comparison to the amount of power produced.

The Next Big Future estimates that there are 100-150 deaths in the solar roofing industry worldwide each year."

https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/

end of the road

none of that changes the facts that nuclear just isn't cost effective/value for money, and that is the reason why it won't happen in ireland.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118467221#Comment_118467221

Horse shi​t. Nuclear is cost competeitive if you want energy without producing CO2. Intermittents only look cheap because of the dishonest accounting used to promote them.

It's impossible to argue costs with people who think we have a thriving hydrogen storage power industry and that i'ts as cheap as chips. Nothing is as cheap as pie in the sky. You can feed millions on it for a tenner.

A huge problem with nuclear is you can actually cost achieveing net zero emissions using it, whereas net zero based on renewables can be made to appear as cheap as you like because the costs are whatever fiction you care to spin.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459222#Comment_118459222

Silvermines is pumped storage, not hydro. It requires excess power to store. Its closer to a battery, not a power source. We still need to generate power from another source just to get it working!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118460636#Comment_118460636

Environmental cost? Do you know how dense (and therefore small) nuclear waste actually is? The area requirements are miniscule.

Add to that, the fact that most waste products can be reused in other reactor types as fuel inputs - the totally unusable stuff is very small, and can easily be stored with no worries about running out of space. As I said, its dense not large.

How is any of that stuff not "clean"? The plant runs with 0 carbon emissions - thats clean & green energy. As for carbon used in construction, well the same applies to wind turbines & gas plants & solar panels etc - except each of those produces vastly lower power outputs

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118468615#Comment_118468615

the facts show nuclear is not cost competitive when examined against all other energy sources.

it is multiples of the cost of the next expensive energy source for less then half the efficiency of that energy source.

it's over, it's not going to happen, it just can't compete, we can get multiples of the generation for a fraction of the cost.

real clean green cheap energy vs a hugely expensive not so efficient red energy source that requires a large source to back it up anyway.

cnocbui

An allegation of 'fact' from someone who alleges: "nuclear is not 0 carbon because..."

Speaking of nuclear waste, which is always a problem and is so serious, scarcely anyone can be bothered dealing with it these past 80 years and yet I am unaware of anyone dying from it - ever.

I don't understand the Finish and other such approaches to dealing with nuclear waste, that involve digging huge expensive tunnels you can drive large trucks through, winding down to great depths where you have a relatively tiny cavern where you actually park the stuff.

I'd convert the stuff to cylindrical slugs of synroc as per the CSIRO process. Drill a series of deep bore holes a few km deep into geologically stable salt beds, drop a string of synroc cylinders down the hole, then drop in 400m of salt cylinders then backfill with a 1.5km of concrete.

If nuclear energy were used to power a person's entire life's consumption of electricity, the waste produced would be about the size of sliotar.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118463446#Comment_118463446

Nuclear fission energy is the only source of zero carbon, safe and reliable baseload power.

First off nuclear isn't reliable. On Friday only 5 of the UK's 13 reactors were on Nominal full load. Another two were retired early. France also has reactors offline. Germany retired half it's reactors a fortnight ago. Belgium will be shutting down it's reactors in the next two years. You can't rely on a fleet of nuclear power plants being available in the future. Multiple plants have been taken offline by because they hadn't been prepared for historical levels of flooding or icing or drought.

The problem is that you can't do nuclear on the cheap.

Hydro, Biomasss, and Geothermal all provide dispatchable zero carbon power as opposed to nuclear which can't be dispatched as all it can do is baseload. Our grid can handle up to 75% of non-synchronous generation so minimum baseload only represents 25% of demand and Turlough Hill has been eating into that since 1974 both load balancing and as a synchronous condenser.

Besides for grid stability you must have at least 5 high inertia devices on load at all times spread around the grid so minimum baseload is already covered. The new Static Compensator / synchronous compensator will reduce the need for thermal generators to provide this.

So there isn't enough guaranteed demand for the output of a typical 1.2-16GW reactor, besides the costs of providing spinning reserve 24/7/365 for such a white elephant would be enormous.

The challenges facing nuclear are many. Politics can't be avoided.

For a start there's a history of delays and cost overruns and failing to deliver on the promises especially "this time it will be different". If you exclude plants being built by Russian or Chinese companies then ALL of the other projects are running late.

Despite promises there is no new step change technology. Today's reactors are only 15% more fuel efficient (on paper) than the previous generation built 30 years ago. Over the same time the costs of solar have fallen 7% a year.

BTW all the talk of low volumes of radioactive material are smokescreens. Highly radioactive material is indeed produced in low volumes. It will decay relatively quickly so long term storage isn't a huge issue. Unless you start reprocessing in which case the volumes of nasty waste skyrocket, and to use more than 0.5% of the fuel you have to reprocess. Like breeders / thorium the actinide burners work on paper but no one's gotten them working reliably even with cold war budgets.

The real problem is the stuff with half lives of thousands of years. Much larger volumes and enormous costs to keep safe. If Neaderthals had been using reactors to keep warm during the ice age we'd be dealing with their mess today. If an ice age returns glaciers can rip through mountains. There's depleted uranium and huge volumes of contaminated processing equipment and structures and areas to clean too.

Once you can store renewables like the ESB's proposed 3TWh scheme there's no economic case for nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118468615#Comment_118468615

Eighty billion extra on a project that was supposed to cost eighteen billion is not honest accounting. It's so dishonest the UK is pushing a law through Parliament to prevent it happening again.

Our analysis has shown that using the RAB model should produce a cost saving for consumers of between £30 billion and £80 billion compared to funding it through a Hinkley Point C style CfD scheme.

cnocbui

Why do you lie about this at every opportunity?

"Which energy sources are the most reliable?

Currently, nuclear power is the most reliable. It has supplied the US with well over 20% of our yearly power needs for the last thirty years 1. Nuclear power plants have the ability to produce power during 93% of the year, which is more than 2 times more reliable than natural gas and coal, and 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable than wind and solar energy.

Of course, nuclear energy isn’t without its problems – namely, the waste it produces, which is highly toxic and requires careful storage and disposal. There’s also the risk of the damage power plants can cause if they encounter a major problem.

After nuclear, the most reliable sources are (in order):

• Natural gas
• Coal
• Hydropower
• Wind
• Solar
• https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/clean-energy-101/reliable-energy-sources/

"Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close

March 24, 2021"

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

Go on, post some links where this mythical unreliability is catalogued and reported, showing that engineers consider nuclear energy to be unreliable.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118469523#Comment_118469523

On Friday only 33% of the UK's nuclear fleet was at nominal power. That's pretty far from the down hill with the wind behind you cherry picked 93% for one particularly good year in the US excluding plants closing down or on long term outages. Even in France they've had times when half the fleet was offline.

Nuclear is not reliable enough to provide consistent guaranteed baseload by itself.

The problem with nuclear is that you need to cover for large generators falling off the grid with no advance warning. And no guarantee of when or if they'll come backup. Even if everything could be got right there's still fake parts, politics, and jellyfish to blindside those who ignore them.

It's not like hydro or solar or wind where you can plan ahead using weather forecasts. And we've had pumped storage for 48 years.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118469602#Comment_118469602

The lie is that nuclear is very dependable. It isn't. Besides wind has produced lots more power than nuclear so far this year.

Compare wind and the exports too most days the power exported was multiples of the amount nuclear produced.

If you check the power generation numbers you'll see that German nuclear started the year at 3.3GW (80%) and didn't get to 4GW until the 3rd and then dropped to 2.7GW (66%) early on the 9th for near enough two whole days, when wind had fallen from 31GW to 0.7GW and you'd imagine that power was needed.

So far this year nuclear had dropped below 4GW for days longer than wind and solar have.

So much for steady nuclear baseload.

Hotblack Desiato

Why do you keep banging on about the UK with their mostly obsolete reactor fleet which never worked properly? When much better and cheaper designs were already in service before the UK designed the AGRs? It was one of the many stupid and very expensive political decisions made in the 60s and 70s out of an idiotic sense of national pride, and completely irrelevant to any discussion today.

patnor1011

Ireland with abundance of water should invest in hydro - that would be the most logical solution plus wind which never quite stops on the west coast.

That way we would not be dependent on sourcing nuclear fuel plus bother with waste storage. I would love to see all nuclear enthusiast how happy they would be to have nuclear waste depot next door.