Nuclear - future for Ireland?

bk

cnocbui wrote:

"The cost of offshore wind plus storage is prohibitive - more than double that of the unmentionable alternative proven zero CO2 tech in the short term and 5 times the cost in the long term. It's the consumers that foot the bill for energy infrastructure."

But Nuclear reactors currently available technically can't work on the Irish grid, they are simply far too large for a grid as small as Irelands, so they just aren't an option for us at all.

Also I don't know where you get the idea the new Nuclear is cheaper then wind + hydrogen, new Nuclear is vastly more expensive. Specially when you take into account that those Nuclear reactors would need to be backed up by Hydrogen as well. After all you need to have backups for when the Nuclear plants go offline, like in France at the moment with over half their plants currently offline.

The choice for Ireland isn't Wind + Hydrogen versus Nuclear, it is Wind + Hydrogen versus Nuclear + Hydrogen.

It doen't matter if you go Wind or Nuclear, with a disconnected, small grid like ours, both require a backup, in the short term it will be gas, but in the medium to long term it will need to transition to Hydrogen, with the hydrogen either produced with excess wind or Nuclear power.

The reality is it will be vastly faster and cheaper for us to build out more Wind power, then it ever would be to build Nuclear power plants even if they were technically feasible, which they currently aren't. It would simply impossible to reach our 2030 goals with Nuclear.

specialbyte

I suspect it would also be faster and cheaper to build another 700MW interconnector to France than try to build a nuclear reactor in Ireland. The interconnectors are passing through the planning process fairly smoothly. The same would not be true for a nuclear power plant. Added advantage of an interconnector is that we can export wind energy to France when it is blowing a gale here and import nuclear energy from France when it isn't.

Sam Russell

[Quote BK] The reality is it will be vastly faster and cheaper for us to build out more Wind power, then it ever would be to build Nuclear power plants even if they were technically feasible, which they currently aren't. It would simply impossible to reach our 2030 goals with Nuclear.

It is already too late to build a nuclear reactor for 2030, and probably for 2050. Hinckley C started construction in 2017, with a target completion of 2027 - now delayed to Sept 2028. It was originally announced in 2010. So, if we announced a nuclear plant today, it would not be ready by 2040 n that timescale - assuming it was as 'successful' as Hinckley C, but the current estimate for that one is €30 billion, and rising.

Now, if we could identify a site, we would still have to get a lot of approvals from environmental and planning bodies etc. before it could even be announced, plus some company prepared to build it - no chance.

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676756#Comment_119676756

2030 targest, nuclear is not the answer. If it's the only answer to hit out 2050 targets, then it needs to be in planning NOW, not after 2030.

First off - nuclear is too big for our grid. Currently, yes.

We plan to transition all transport and all heating over to the grid by 2030 and carry on to see a full transition off fossil altogether by 2050. Everything will ultimately be powered from an electrical source.

Where is all that power going to come from AND have sufficient excess to produce hydrogen as well?

Second - nuclear reliability.

Yes, their reactors are undergoing significant downtime. In much the same way as we face blackouts in the coming years, because like us with Shannonbridge, Lanesboro, Tarbert and Moneypoint (over one third of our peak midweek demand generation capacity), France let many of it's reactors head towards natural retirement and didn't plan long term replacements, didn't plan overhauls to extend their lifetimes and didn't have sufficient alternative generation sources to take their place now they suddenly find themselves having to rely on them in the absence of other sources of energy. Some of these reactors are older than fossil plant which we've long since retired! Both ourselves and the French have made drastically poor decisions and a complete lack of sustainable plans around our grid in recent years, regardless of the ultimate fuel source.

Third - nuclear backup.

I keep seeing nuclear being ruled out because it needs backup. What's the backup for wind?

The high pressures that are known to bring us extended periods (weeks) of heat and cold, also naturally coincide with extremely calm, still days and nights for extended periods of time which is when our power demand tends to peak. What's the plan for those events? How much nameplate wind capacity do we actually need to take into account the real world capacity factor, being ready to meet future grid demands as we electricify transport (1m EV's would alone add ~2GW of additional sustained demand during 2300-0800 hours) and heating, being able to produce hydrogen in sufficient quantities to be viable and be able to have significant excess during the windiest times to keep the grid live whilst also sufficiently replenishing our energy storage stock for those extended periods when the wind is barely blowing at all?

If we have to keep, say, 90 days storage, then we have to meet our demand AND have sufficient excess to generate, for example, hydrogen as our storage. Given typical round trip efficiency of hydrogen is ~40%, we need over 2.5 times the amount of power in as we get back out, so over triple our demand in sustained generation output for 90 days to keep the grid powered and be generating hydrogen. If we then get a two week lull and have to use two weeks worth of hydrogen storage, then we need at least two weeks of over triple our demand in generation output to replenish stocks back to 90 days.

Fourth - cost. Costs often omitted when comparing wind against other sources is the backup needed for when it's not online:

Who is going to build the excess wind generation capacity that will only be used to its maximum when it's replenishing hydrogen storage?

Who is going to build the hydrolisis plants that can only run and produce hydrogen when there's excess wind available to be used?

Who is going to be build the hydrogen backup plants to generate the electricity that will only be used when the wind doesn't blow?

Fifth - hydrogen.

Hydrolisis plants can't ramp up and down in line with wind availability. They need a stable, secure electricity supply at all times they are expected to be run - a baseload generation source if you will. What's that stable baseload to be, if it's not fossil based?

And if all countries are going to bank on hydrogen as the new fossil, what's to say we don't end up in the exact same scenario with hydrogen as we are with gas, traded as a commodity on a highest bidder basis?

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676809#Comment_119676809

Interconnectors cost billions and they don't generate a single watt of power, so you have a huge expenditure and then have to pay someone for the power you get from it - if they have the spare capacity and are willing to let you have as much as you need, which is a stupid assumption.

They are a daft idea as a source of energy. That investment should be put into energy generation assets. The current energy crisis in Europe should have made everyone thinking about national energy supplies realise that national self sufficiency is the only sensible option. An interconnector can be severed, as the Nordstream ruptures should have made pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.

The celtic boondoggle is projected to cost €1 billion, so expect it to be higher, for a capcity of 700 MW. That's a cost of €1.3 billion per GW, with no energy generated, you have to pay more for that. At slightly more than 3 times that price, you could get a GW of nuclear generation capacity that will deliver for 60 years.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676756#Comment_119676756

I got the idea by working it out.

The UAE Barakeh nuclear power plant cost $4.54 Billion per GW with a Korean capacity factor of 96%. East Anglia One wind farm in the UK cost $3.27 Billion per GW with a capacity factor of 47%, so times 3, gives you $9.81 Billion per GW, but then there's the little matter of OSW having about a third the lifespan of a modern nuclear plants 60 years, so your cheap offshore wind ends up costing you somewhere around $26.5 billion per GW over 60 years vs $4.54 plus a bit for fuel and maintenance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119598416#Comment_119598416

Why would it be technically impossible to build APR-400 reactors that each have a capcity of 1.345 GW? Minimum system demand is about the same as two such reactors output. You do know that our grid is projected to soon need to be able to supply a lot more than it currently does due to the extra burden of EVs, heat pumps and data centres? The currenet minimum demand will be way higher in the ten years or so it might take to build them due to overnight EV charging, let alone data centres.

Busman Paddy Lasty

Planning omnishambles and NIMBYism. There is surely no chance of a nuclear plant being approved in Ireland.

Should an interconnector be the only method of getting nuclear power into the grid then it's the best possible solution.

MV33

Ireland should build a nuclear plant, how much does it cost to build?

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder that nuclear is a dependable power source right up until it isn't and then you're in deep doggy do do.

Right now in North West Europe.

Sweden : Ringhals 4 nuclear outage extended another two months to end of January "Ringhals 4 was stopped for annual routine maintenance in August, but was not able to restart after the pressure vessel surrounding the reactor core was damaged during tests." - Tests ? Didn't they watch Chernobyl ?

Germany : Isar 2 will need to be taken offline for "a week" for repairs even though the operator previously said they could keep going. "According to Preussen-Elektra, the standstill must take place in October because the fuel elements of the reactor core would have had too little reactivity in November to start the plant up again from the standstill, the BMUV announced." This is a nuclear physics thing, reactors can't be turned off and on again like other generators.

France : Cruas 4 had an automatic shutdown, it's a thing with nuclear they can go offline at the drop of a hat.

UK : Out of 5 nuclear power stations only one has both units reactors at nominal full load. Two at reduced load due to leaks. Heysham 2 Reactor 8 - Expected return to service October 6 / Hartlepool Reactor 2 - Expected return to service 28 September 2022 - am adding dates so you can see if/when they drift. Note they will still be listed as "planned outages" even though extending outages is not part of any plan.

Also

Ukraine : has shutdown reactors for reasons. It's a reminder that nuclear is susceptible to kinds of outages that other generators aren't.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677310#Comment_119677310

About $4.54 Billion per GW of capacity, roughly.

tom1ie

With regards to the argument about nuclear being too big for our grid, how is that?

Can we not build a couple of smaller reactors- won’t this help when one reactor is offline for Maintainence?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677249#Comment_119677249

Even if you could build two APR-400 reactors that each have a capcity of 1.345 GW you would need a super flexible grid to cater for their inflexibility.

Able to add 1GW at peak times daily, as well as adding another 1GW baseload in winter and be able to provide another 1GW of backup within 5 seconds and the full 1.345GW within 15 seconds and keep it up for as long as the outages last. And be able to provide 2.7GW during the years of inevitable construction delays. And it can't cost anything because of there won't be much cash left after the billions invested in nuclear. And it can't use fossil fuel can it ?

96% average is cherry picking. You don't even need to tell us the worst case scenario , just tell us what's the worst that's happened so far and how you'd plan for it. A reminder that Korea had multiple reactors off line for months during summer a while back for various reasons including fake parts and fake safety certs.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676851#Comment_119676851

A reminder that the cost increase (£3bn) for Hinkley-C so far this year is close to the original cost of an EPR power plant. And interest rates in the UK are climbing so there's more pain to come. Long construction times make nuclear particularly vulnerable to economic changes.

MV33

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677625#Comment_119677625

How much capacity do we need on this island?

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677688#Comment_119677688

Of course we can, the argument is specious and contrived. If we have too much energy from wind or solar, why, then it's Irelands oil, to quote a moron, and we can be clever clogs and export it to France or the UK and make lots of money. But if we had excess energy from any other source, why then that would be a terrible burden, we wouldn't know what to do with it all, it might even go to waste, proving we should build offshore wind farms because they make oil we can export and grow rich from.

The mental gymnastics turbine shaggers go through to spin the BS is head wrecking.

The Korean APR 1400 produces 1.4 GW. The load on the grid at 04:00 seems to be 3.225 GW, so two APR 1400 reactors could supply most of that baseload.

josip

Where would we build a nuclear power station in Ireland?

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119679032#Comment_119679032

Moneypoint, as that would suit Dub nimby's and fit in with existing infrastructure. Somewhere on the East coast with suitable geography and existing HT power lines, as that would be closer to the main market and would reduce transmission losses. The possibilities are likely numerous if you add a willingness to run HT lines to a suitable site.

Busman Paddy Lasty

Greenore up in Louth if there isn't some SAC on the estuary. Prevailing wind blowing away from Ireland :-)

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119679306#Comment_119679306

If you think running HT lines will the biggest reason for the objections to nuclear power in Ireland you might be mistaken. Also the East Coast is reasonably populated and you would be hard pressed to find a location far enough away from dwellings as to not attract objections. Unlike Australia for example, which with large swathes of unpopulated coastline and a domestic supply of uranium, is very well suited to nuclear power.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119680020#Comment_119680020

There are no unpopulated stretches of coastline in Australia near population centres that aren't national parks. Ocean views have long been highly prized. I didn't say I thought HT lines were anything to do with objections, it just is a practical consideration that saves on costs. I'd agree, Australia is incredibly well suited to nuclear, however, it's the world's largest exporter of coal, so there have historically been far cheaper options, hence the high carbon footprint.

One or two houses shouldn't be enough to stop a national infrastructure project, it's not a valid excuse, you CPO if necessary, obviously. With EU fines for CO2 reduction non-compliance running to hundreds of millions, there should be a fair sized kitty to buy a couple of farms out. In the UK, the town of Leiston is 2km from Sizewell, which only takes up 245 acres. There would be no problem finding a suitable place on the East coast.

This country can not build a NPP without changing the the imbecile's law banning it and either reforming the planning system or exempting it from the planning regime. The latter is of course what the country would do, if it did anything.

Markcheese

If Korean nuclear power is so cheap and wonderful how come they're not in the running in the UK for the 4 or 5 remaining nuclear stations that the UK wants to build .. ?

I think edf are heading for 28 billion for 2 reactors , (3.6 gw or something) in hinkley point C ..

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119680141#Comment_119680141

Sizewell was built back in the days before Nuclear Power became a dirty two words. Anyone who lived in Ireland during the 70s and 80s would remember at least 2 recurring themes on the six and nine o'clock news. Someone else getting killed in Northern Ireland and another leak/accident at Sellafield. The generation that grew up with that dominating the news cycle, will never vote for nuclear power. It is not going to happen. You can present all the supporting facts you like, it is not going to happen. It's career terminating for any politician to propose or even discuss a nuclear power station in their area; it is not going to happen.

And it's a bit unreasonable to justify not building a coastal NPP in Australia because you'd have to cut down a few eucalyptus trees or it would ruin someones views, but yet it's ok to demolish people's homes in Ireland.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119680810#Comment_119680810

Asking why the Uk do stupid things, like Brexit, is like asking why Ireland does them. However...

Britain turns to South Korea in scramble to boost nuclear power

Kwasi Kwarteng in talks over new generation of reactors as UK seeks stronger energy security

2 May 2022 • 7:00pm

South Korea is in talks to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK as ministers scramble to boost the country's energy supplies. ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/02/britain-turns-south-korea-scramble-boost-nuclear-power/

So someone has copped on.

Markcheese

Thanks for that , all the international providers except edf had pulled out prior to hinkley ..

And this panic turnabout, looking towards Korea is brought about by edf pulling out of the second station "sizewell ".

Sam Russell

isn't Kwasi Karteng in serious rouble as Chancellor of he Exchequer at the moment for mini budget that has the Uk£ going off a cliff and the borrowing rates shooting up, mortgage offers being cancelled, and Labour shooting in the polls?

Is it that KK that is proposing S Korea Nuclear Power Plants?

I can see his nuclear future now - and there will be a lot of fall out.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118220755#Comment_118220755

Fusion has no fuel source.

https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nuclear-fusion-is-already-facing-a-fuel-crisis

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119681181#Comment_119681181

"A century from now maybe we can talk about something else."

The "years to viable fusion" just got hit by inflation, C is the new L.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119680915#Comment_119680915

That may be true of a certain age group, but an Ireland Thinks survey October 2021 found 43% in favor and 44% opposed. In the 18 -24 year age group 60% were in favor, so attitudes have changed since the 70s and 80s.

With the present energy crisis, and it looking to be a problem for quite some time to come, I imagine the percentage of those in favor has more likely increased than decreased.

It might make problems for an individual T.D. or two but that is hardly new here. We have had it with hospital closures and down grades in the past and it didn`t prevent them, We even had a problem for the Irish Green Party with the Poolbeg incinerator when John Gormley was a government Minister.and that went ahead.

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119681804#Comment_119681804

I'm sure if you'd done a survey in Ireland back in 1975 after the first energy crisis, you would have had at least similar levels of support for nuclear power, probably more. I remember sitting in my father's car doing my homework while we queued for a couple of hours to buy half a tank of petrol. And even at that it was 'regulars only'. Everyone was worried about oil and power cuts back then .But Carnsore crystalised something in the Irish psyche, probably wasn't hard when Haughey was involved. Objection was broad and diverse, and Three Mile Island's timing killed it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040629151838/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/talks/carnsore2002.html

I'm sure more young people are in favour of nuclear power. Young people tend to be in favour of a lot of things. As long as they don't have to make the effort at election time to go out and actually vote for someone who is aligned with their viewpoints. That's something us old folk are very good at.

Have you ever been down Carnsore way? It's a lovely spot. If you're religiously inclined, you can do a lap of Lady's Island. If you've got kids, it's hard to beat Carne beach on a summer's day. You can get chips afterwards at the caravan park entrance. And guess what they have now on the proposed site of that nuclear power plant?

https://goo.gl/maps/9NLkFLjPRi1P9rey8

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119681932#Comment_119681932

That survey that showed a 50/50 split on nuclear had nothing to do with the present energy crisis. As I said it was carried out in 2021.

Young people in general are not great at turning out to vote at general, local or E.U. elections, but when it is something in particular that they are interested in various referendums have shown they do vote. With them being 60% in favor of nuclear from that survey, nuclear does appear to interest them. Same as environmental issues interests them, and coincidentally the largest age group in that survey favoring nuclear are the same age group from which the Irish Green Party got the highest percentage of their vote in the last G.E.

Renewables are intermittent and unreliable. Our electricity generation last year from renewables fell by 17% compared to the previous year, and for three times in the last year for prolonged periods they contributed 6% and less from a nameplate capacity of 80% of our total capacity requirements. The greens answer to that is add more renewable capacity, but no one can say what this added capacity needs to be or how much it will cost. Hydrogen and batteries are the other hope, but really that is what they are just hope, and again no idea what they wiould cost even if they were developed to the level required.

There are no easy answers,but a blank cheque approach based on hope is never a great plan. There has always been this effort to shut down having an adult discussion on nuclear by greens, but now no problem availing of it as long as somebody else is doing the lifting. That to me at least is just abject hypocrisy

gjim

What "blank check approach" are you talking about?

The Irish government has spent feck-all on electricity generation since the Europe-wide liberalisation of electricity markets was completed in 2007.

All the renewable generation has been privately funded - requiring no government money at all.

Renewables are intermittent but they're not unreliable. The last 10 years have shown that grid engineers can incorporate a significant proportion of intermittent sources of electricity without any decrease in reliability. The most reliable grids in Europe (almost the most reliable in the world) as measured by SAIDI (average number of minutes of service interruption) include the Danish and German grids which have very high rates of renewable penetration.

By deploying renewables in Ireland, the carbon intensity of each kWh of Irish electricity has been halved. This is the main imperative.

But also, wind turbines produce electricity much cheaper than the wholesale electricity price. As a result, we're looking at contract-for-difference rebates from the wind sector to the government for the foreseeable future. In 2021, it's expected that the government will receive about half a billion euro from wind generators because the way the contracts are set-up. About half of this money will be used so that the PSO levy is going to go negative - electricity consumers will actually get a rebate. Effectively we now have the bizarre situation where wind generators are subsidising fossil fuel generation.

At the same time, Ireland's energy dependence (reliance on imports for energy) has dropped from over 90% to 60% or so in 15 years.

If you think that this strategy is misguided, then ask yourself why it's not just Ireland but everyone from the Chinese, the Texans, the Germans, the UK, Japan, etc. are all pursuing this same energy strategy. Because it makes economic sense, it costs no government money, the technology is quick/easy to deploy, it increases a country's energy independence, it does not decrease grid reliability, and it has already achieved huge reductions in the carbon intensity of electricity.

Maybe in 10 years, the limits of more renewables will become apparent. So far, it's been all good - and I don't see any need to mess with a successful formula. We're a long way from hitting 70% or 80% carbon-free electricity production, where the intermittency becomes a problem for grid stability.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119682758#Comment_119682758

Shell have pulled out of two off shore wind farms off Cork and Clare so it is looking likely that to reach the levels and timeframe being talked about then more than likely the State will have to step in. It is difficult to know how much we have spent, but last year Forbes estimated that Germany, who were following the same approach as here and whose share of renewables were similar to ours, had spent 150Bn. The latest strike price for on shore was 30% more expensive than two years previously and was the same as the latest U.K strike price for nuclear. For the next off shore strike price I would not have seen it as going to be any cheaper. And that was before Shell pulled out. I would also have serious doubts as to how interested private companies would be in the green plan to throw so much unknown extra capacity at the problem hoping it works, especially as it looks as if the E.U may finally be getting around to doing something about their marginally pricing policy.

Renewables are unreliable because they are intermittent and need constant backup on standby. If the wind does not blow, then they provide little or nothing. We have seen this numerous times for long periods when they were adding 6% and less from a nameplate capacity of 80% of our requirements. For last year alone according to SEAI that intermittency resulted in our use of oil and coal trebling.

Renewables are not providing cheap electricity. Of the two countries you mention Germany and Denmark,Germany is the most expensive country in Europe for electricity, with Denmark second and Ireland fourth and few of the countries you mention are following the same strategy we are.

China, one of the top 5 global emitters is building more coal burning plants and are boosting coal production by 300 million tons.

Another of that top 5 Japan refused to sign COP26 stating they intended keeping their option open on energy sources.

India, another of that top 5 refused to sign until the wording on coal was changed from "phase out" to "phase down". They also refused to have anything to do with the deal on methane gas we signed up for where we are supposed to cut our cattle herds by up to 2 million while the Brazilians alone are increasing theirs by 24 million.

Germany, whose strategy we were following closely are just outside the top 5 global emitters at 6th. are now burning anything they can get their hands on. Back to strip coal mining, buying coal from the 69,000 Colombian strip mine El Cerrejon (The Monster) that gulps down 30 million gallons of water a day, building and leasing LNG terminals and back exploring for oil and gas.

So no, those countries you mention plus some of the other major global emitters, are not following anything even close to the same energy strategy we are.We are very much outliers even in Europe. They are looking out for their economies while Irish Greens are doing their utmost to flush ours down the toilet.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119681168#Comment_119681168

I think Kwasi possibly got his lead from a think tankish group in the UK who had a web page where they were floating a proposal/suggestion that the uk should be getting SK to build Hinkley point, not EDF or the Chinese. This was before EDF pulled out. I can't find it now. As with almost all politicians, it's very unlikely to be his idea.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119682758#Comment_119682758

There is so much wrong with that its hard to know where to start - from Ireland having some of the highest energy prices in the EU to state backing of wind companies via investments in NTR and other funds. All the countries you mentioned have generous RESS for wind energy speculators, which is the only reason these white elephants get built. Thats before you talk about the price gouging energy companies up to their neck in all of this like SSE and their BS about supplying 100% green energy to consumers

Markcheese

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/05/unproven-small-nuclear-reactors-would-raise-energy-costs-and-delay-renewable-uptake-report-says

I assume if it's an Aussie conservation group it's in reaction to proposal for Australia to join the nuclear power club ..

( As well as the nuclear submarine club )

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119704120#Comment_119704120

"Promoters of nuclear energy, the report claims, were pinning their hopes on technology that was “uncertain and unproven”.

So lets pile into renewables which rely on hydrogen storage to deliver, because as we all know, the full costs and practicality of hydrogen are fully known and proven.

"delay renewable uptake" If you ever wanted greater proof that Greens are religious ideologues, you could scarcely ask for better proof. I thought CO2 was supposed to be the core issue. It seems it isn't - big surprise; not. The real concern of greens is turbine and panel shagging.

If you have zero CO2 power generation, ther is nothing further that needs to be done, if AGW is the agenda.

That article is trite. No one in their right mind should take Russian cost blowouts to mean there is an inherent problem with SMRs, it seems to be more of an incapacity of Russia to function when it comes to large complex projects, not to mention the corruption. Just take a look at the extortion India is experiencing with a Russian shipyards retro fit and modernisation of an aircraft carrier they bought: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lemon-laws-don%E2%80%99t-apply-meet-bad-russian-aircraft-carrier-india-bought-183497

Markcheese

In honesty there is a history of serious cost and time overruns in a lot of jurisdictions .. not just Russia .

Which is one of the things the smr is trying to over come , the theory being if you can make the reactor units small enough to be transportable , they can be factory produced , upping productivity ,quality control , and hopefully dropping the price..

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705552#Comment_119705552

It's one theory.

This is trench 94. It's over three hundred miles from the sea. SMR's in series production have been transported here at end of life.

Large image - https://i.redd.it/2ul0egtoh4q41.png Itemised image - https://i.imgur.com/G8ddYdx.jpg

In production for 70 years. Most of it during the cold war in competition with the Reds. Do not expect any technical breakthroughs any time soon.

Do not expect significant economies of scale either until you start producing significantly more, like thousands of SMRs, which will cost trillions on the off-chance that this time will be different to the last 70 years.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705823#Comment_119705823

Those are the steel and lead housing compartments, each from a U.S. nuclear submarine that had been operational for up to 30 years and more without incident, and are classified as low level waste are they not ?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119708503#Comment_119708503

Construction of the USS Nautilus began in 1952. 70 years ago. That's how long people with big budgets and niche requirements have had access to mobile SMR's.

We've had jet airliners for 70 years. An Airbus 231 Neo will still set you back $100m. Even if you get a cheaper Chinese Comac you still have to burn more than the cargo's weight in fuel on long flights.

Jet aircraft won't ever compete with ships on raw cost no matter how good they get.

<cough> then there's the story of Nukey Poo

Markcheese

Wasn't there a few nuclear powered cargo ships on the past ..

It'd likely be a good test bed for smrs .. (although security could be an issue)

the biggies would prob need 2 or so reactors ,but would be able to run at very high speeds.. ( energy costs wouldn't be as important,but capital cost would be massive so utilization would be important)

, the biggest bulk carriers and container ships largely travel set routes, so should be able to agree which ports will serve nuclear powered ships ..

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119710698#Comment_119710698

Yes but lots of countries and ports and Suez and Panama canals banned them.

The Otto Hahn and Mutsu both got converted to diesel. The NS Savannah was used to get the foot in the door for ports to accept nuclear powered warship later. And had a special barge for the waste and still dumped waste at sea.

Apart from those three there's the Sevmorput which is mostly used by the military. It's a Russian ice breaker like every other civilian nuclear ship, a niche application even though the Russians have no shortage of oil back on land.

USS Enterprise had 8 reactors.

Speed isn't a biggie. Slow steaming is a thing again after the urgency of the pandemic. It's more economic as Reducing speed by 20% allows for a 40% decrease in the amount of fuel consumed. Instead of 10 ships taking 10 week voyages you have 12 ships taking 12 weeks, it's still a ship a week but a lot less fuel.

Besides the train from China to Germany takes two weeks so relatively high value , low volume stuff can go that way.

One future option for large ships is ammonia which would be a way to use excess renewables. Ammonia is very storable. CIE used to ship the stuff from Arklow to Sligo by train.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119710334#Comment_119710334

Thanks for that but not what I was asking, but no matter.

From your reply safe to say that the photo of trench 94 you posted shows it contains steel and lead housing compartments from U.S. nuclear submarines which had been in operation for the last 70 years without incident, and are classified, as I said, as low class waste.

I have no idea what the reference to airliners or indeed ships is in relation to on cost, but I did find it strange that when it comes to nuclear greens are never short on providing figures, but when asked the same for their own proposals their is an awful lot of silence. A recent presentation from Dr Meadhbh Connolly Future Opportunities Manager, E.S.B. Generation and Trading does go some way to addressing that.

In that presentation she outlines what she believes will be require for Ireland to become carbon zero by 2050. This is based on demand increasing by 50% in that time, which in itself looks pessimistic where Eirgrid are predicting a 37% increase in demand by 2031 and where last year alone we saw an increase of 4.6% according to SEAI.

Bit that aside and just going on her figures to achieve zero using green hydrogen, which excludes shipping and aviation, would require an off shore wind capacity of 30GW. In the U.K. off shore wind CAPEX cost is £2.37 million per MW, equivalent here roughly to 2.85 billion euro per GW. That would entail a spend of 85.5 billion euro for off shore alone based on U.K. figures, and that is only for the cost of generation capacity. There is also the unknown cost of producing the hydrogen, storage and transportation (with transportation especially being high risk and precarious) and the fact that our latest on shore strike price is the same as the U.K.s latest for nuclear would in no way suggest that off shore here will come anywhere close to being similar to the U.K.`s. Especially when you see the likes of Shell no longer interested.

On a very conservative estimate I cannot see 30GW of off shore here costing anywhere less than 100 billion just based on those E.S.B. figures that are even optimistic to begin with. Compared to nuclear, that is just insane money. Especially when nuclear will have 3 times the life span of those off shore turbines and would negate all the costs and problems with hydrogen as well.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119717207#Comment_119717207

The point is that only the military can afford to do SMR's safely. They aren't remotely economic for civil use despite 70 years of serial production. They aren't even cost competitive with standard nuclear.

The strike price for Hinkley C is £92.50 per MWh for 35 years index linked to CPI from 2012. With a 90% uptime it's 3.2GW becomes 2.88GW on average. Using the Bank Of Englands CPI figures it works out at a guaranteed income for Hinkley-C of £104 Bn in today's money, even if a cheaper source becomes available.

Or (using your figures) we could spend €100Bn and get over ten times as much offshore wind. Except the wind rollout is from now to 2050 and wind and storage will get cheaper and the payback time is a lot quicker.

Capt'n Midnight

€3.5Bn gets you the 3GW 1,373Km long GREGY interconnector project. Greece to Egypt via Crete. "Approximately one third (of the electricity that will come from Egypt) will be consumed in Greece, and mainly in Greek industries, another third will be exported to neighbouring European countries and one third will be used in Greece, for the production of green hydrogen. The majority of this hydrogen will also be exported to neighbouring European countries"

The same money wouldn't quite cover the Hinkley C price rise earlier this year.

Nuclear doesn't just have to be cheaper than renewables, it has to be cheaper than renewables in a different time zone or on a different continent.

1,000Km would get you from Ireland to Spain leaving some cash for link from Spain to Africa. China already uses an 11GW 3,000Km link on land so links into the Sahara are doable.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119717295#Comment_119717295

The point you are avoiding is that with nuclear we would not need 30GW capacity from off shore plus on shore wind and solar capacity, plus all the associated cost of hydrogen production and storage etc. Based on the E.S.B. figure of demand increasing by 50% by 2050 we would only need a total capacity of roughly 12 GW in total.

BVG Associates (https://guidetooffshorewindfarm.com/wind-farm-costs) list the CAPEX for U.K. off shore at £2.37Bn per GW with a lifetime of 27 years. For here for 30 GW that is £71.1Bn. 82Bn. euro for half the lifetime generation of a nuclear plant where all the associated costs of hydrogen, plus the associated unknowns, would not be required.

There is nothing to indicate that wind is going to get cheaper either. The latest strike price in Ireland for on shore is 30% higher than just two years ago, and there is no point in expecting off shore to be cheaper than the U.K. either based on recent strike prices and the likes of Shell having no further interest in off shore here.

A proposed spend of well in excess of 100Bn Euro on off shore, with a lifetime of 27 years and hydrogen, which nobody knows if or even how it will, work is insane when compared to the know source and efficiency of nuclear with twice the lifetime is insane imo.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119717325#Comment_119717325

....and yet Egypt ave recently commenced the construction of their first nuclear plant which will house four 1,200 megawatt reactors and have recently been expanding their power generating capacity with gas fired plants built by Germany company Siemens.

Egypt has lots of sun and good wind potential as well, but unlike here are not following a green ideology of placing all their eggs in the one basket and hope for the best

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119717325#Comment_119717325

In an amazing coincidence, Egypt is building a 4.8 GW NPP just 75k away on the coast at Al Dabaa. Egypt currently has only 1.7 GW of solar, which could only produce that output for about 6 hours a day. So most of the power going down that fat pipe will be from a NPP.

So Greece is going to be another country hooking itself to a reliable and consistent nuclear teat.

Way to go with yet another genius display of your anti-nuclear warped reasoning capacity.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119717589#Comment_119717589

In 27 years you can refurbish the windfarms for a fraction of their initial cost. There's no guarantee that like France you won't have to close most of the nuclear plants after 30 years. And nationalise and subsidise the company.

And recent capacity auctions in UK have offshore wind at well under £40/MWh. Solar is way cheaper. Both are still falling in price with no sign of stopping anytime soon.

Hydrolysis plant is £1.5/watt based on a small 150MW pilot plant at Felixstowe port. New tech so will get cheaper, factories to make them are £30m/GW annual capacity. Storage in disused gas wells isn't much £75m a year for 10 TWh. They aren't unknowns compared to say the actual cost of a nuclear plant under construction, nevermind one that hasn't started yet.

We are comparing the cost of 3.2GW of nuclear with almost 10 times that amount of offshore wind. Solar or onshore wind would be way cheaper.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119718504#Comment_119718504

For onshore windfarms blades and turbines need replacing after that 27 years. For offshore, in an environment that has made mince of anything we have ever placed in it, if they survive for 27 years, then it will not be just blades and turbines, the whole unit will need replacing. So no, not a fraction of the initial cost, a very high percentage of the original cost.

The E.S.B. presentation that we would need 30GW of offshore has nothing to do with guessing what future capacity auctions will or will not be. It`s based on the cost of U.K. offshore where that 30GW alone would cost 82Bn. Euro and that is just for the generation. The production, transportation and storage of hydrogen would greatly increase that amount. You could cover the country in solar panels and not even get close to 30GW. Egypt isn`t short on sunshine, and even there they are building a nuclear plant. I keep hearing about all this new tech making wind cheaper, yet we are now paying a strike price for just onshore that is 30% greater than just two years ago.

You are not going to store hydrogen in our disused gas wells for the simple reason that you cannot just pipe hydrogen around the country like natural gas because of its physical and chemical properties. You have to manufacture it as close as possible to where you intend using it and that would require another vast investment on top of the 82Bn. Euro investment for 30GW.

What we are comparing is over 100Bn. for offshore and hydrogen to even the highest estimate for Hinkley`s 3.2GW of 26Bn. for a source that has twice the lifespan of offshore and no need for messing around with hydrogen.

Markcheese

You're right about the wear and tear on off shore turbines , but probably the best comparison is probably to floating oil platforms ,many of them are well over 30 years old , the blades will need restoring over their life time , the industry hasn't really settled on a common design for floating wind yet ..

Either wind or nuclear would have problems hitting 100 power with current tech by 2050