Nuclear - future for Ireland?

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121671908#Comment_121671908

I cannot see anything to say the French tax payer picked up any of the tab for OL-3 other than the two companies involved in the construction, Avera and the German company Siemens paid €450m. for their part in the project being delayed. In the grand scheme of things small peanuts that would do well to get you 75 MW of electricity from wind, even at a capacity factor of 50%.

€10 - €12 Bn. is in the middle compared to OL-3 which would mean our needs could be supplied for €5 Bn. less or €5 Bn. more than. still a bargain compared to wind which nobody other than the consummer here is financially taking the risk on where we are guaranteeing the price plus all the offshore providers can supply. Even if we do not need it or use it.

I don`t see the problem with 15 yrs. Lets be honest, we are not going to have 80% of our electricity supplied by wind by 2030 with a wind/hydrogen plan that is financially the equivalent to how long is a piece of string or even if it will work to scale. We are still going to be relying on gas to a major extent long after 15 years. What is being proposed is that we burn through a collosus amount of money based on hopium, compared to a system of supply where we know the costs.

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672318#Comment_121672318

Hydrogen is not needed to meet the 2030 80% target. The govt has set a target of 8GW of solar by 2030, so it's not going to have to be all wind.

I think that we would have had a chance of hitting 80% by 2030 if demand remained the same as 2023, but I think data centres and heat pumps will drive that demand up by way more than savings that can be made by improving the quality of the housing stock.

I always find the nuclear to and fro on here interesting. I fully support nuclear continuing for any country that has a history of nuclear power. But it will be at least another generation before nuclear can be even contemplated in Ireland. Our national nimbyism aside, anyone who grew up in Ireland in the 70s and 80s will have an inbuilt aversion to nuclear power courtesy of Sellafield being on the news every other week with a new leak or discharge into the Irish Sea. Only when that generation is gone, will there be a chance of changing the legislation. And by then, any business case for nuclear on this island will be gone.

bk

I don`t see the problem with 15 yrs. Lets be honest, we are not going to have 80% of our electricity supplied by wind by 2030 with a wind/hydrogen plan that is financially the equivalent to how long is a piece of string or even if it will work to scale. We are still going to be relying on gas to a major extent long after 15 years. What is being proposed is that we burn through a collosus amount of money based on hopium, compared to a system of supply where we know the costs.

I'm sorry, but you are simply factually incorrect here.

There is no major plan to use hydrogen for 2030 (outside of small scale experiments). The plan for 2030 is just wind + solar + interconnectors backed up with natural gas. All very doable with existing technologies that are already deployed in Ireland and all technologies that we know well and know the cost of.

We got renewables to 40% of our electricity generations with relative ease, I don't see why scaling that up to 80% will be overly difficult, it is just building more of what we have already done.

Nuclear, we honestly have no idea how much that would cost in Ireland. We have zero experience in it. Hinkley Point C would be the closest comparator being our neighbours, with the same legal system and largely the same construction companies targeting our market.

I really don't know how you can claim "compared to a system of supply where we know the costs."? When every Nuclear project runs wildly over budget!

Realistically the only Nuclear power we will get in Ireland is the Interconnector we build to France and to a lesser degree to the UK.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121667187#Comment_121667187

That's the other part of this that is absolutely bone-headed. Getting everyone to use electricity for things like transport, home heating etc, when Ireland has among the most expensive electricity in the world, if not the worst, and many of these electric things are insanely inefficient. Take for example electric heat pumps, they're supposedly up to 4 times more efficient than electric convection heaters, but even that isn't great at best. By contrast, I know a man who built his own house and included a solid fuel range, and he can heat his whole house, heat water for a shower, cook a meal and boil water for tea all for the cost of a couple of pieces of firewood. That is dramatically more efficient than using electricity.

The same thing is true of electric cars - they got to be more expensive to run than petrol cars because idiotic energy policies made our electricity so stupidly expensive. Meanwhile French energy costs are about half of those here - and it's nearly an order of magnitude cleaner in terms of CO2.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121670010#Comment_121670010

Most of that 18% from Wind only came on line in the last three years. It's nearly half what Finland gets from the nuclear power plants they stated building fifty three years ago.

Finland should have three nuclear plants working now.

OL-3 was 13 years late.

Hanhikivi was originally supposed to have come on line this year. It got cancelled.

Loviisa is the hostage to fortune. Russian state-owned Rosatom fuel company TVEL supplies fuel for Loviisa's two reactors. "no quick change of fuel supplier was possible as its current supply contracts are valid until 2027 and 2030."

Sweden has nuclear too so Finland could rely on it in theory. In practice it's not dependable either. - November 29 2024 unplanned outages in both Sweden and Finland at the same time. The Ringhals plant that had outages during winter 2022/23 too. And it's not the only Swedish plant that's had outages in the last few years.

The thing about is, the deeper you dig into nuclear the worse it gets.

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672647#Comment_121672647

A solid fuel range is 60-70% efficient. It might be cheaper to purchase and be jack of all trades, but that wont ever make it more efficient than a heat pump which will be at least 200% efficient.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672573#Comment_121672573

Eirgrid are predicting our electrical consumption to double between now and 2050. If, and it is a big if, the 3GW contracts for offshore are honoured at the price accepted, then that would result in just 1.2 GW delivered by 2030. That would be doing well to just keep our energy emissions at the level they are at present. So that is the 80% target by 2030 out the window on that alone. Add in that from 2020 to present the share of generation from wind has fallen from 42% to 35% (17% drop)and has been at that level since 2020, expecting it to increse from 35% to 80%, an increase of 228%, as I`ve said already is pie in the sky.

I do not know where you got the "we know the cost of" for offshore seeing as nobody can give a figure for even I GW of fixed turbines let alone the 26% that are meant to be floating. We do now know the cost for our closest neighbours with the same legal system and largely the same construction companies targeting our market, but then rather conveniently for some we cannot mention it without getting a threadban. We did get a figure of €100 Bn from Eamon Ryan off the top of his head, or another part of his anatomy, with no breakdown what so ever.

Factually it is intended that we would generate 2 GW of offshore to produce hydrogen to ensure zero emissions by 2050, Strange thing about that is Eirgrid, who I would expect are very knowledgeable in their field, produced a plan where 50% of generation was for consumption and 50% for hydrogen to use to fill the gap when wind generation falls to 6% or even lower for extended periods. With hydrogen now seemingly being kicked to touch what is going to fill that gap ?

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672874#Comment_121672874

Finland is getting 41% of its electricity from nuclear where we know, even with being years delayed and over budget, that 14% of that supply, the equivalent of at least 21% here,was delivered for €11 Bn. Offshore wind costs for the same would not be within a country mile of that.

Wind isn`t the most dependable or predictable of energy sources as well as it having half or less the capacity factor and up to one third of the lifespan of nuclear. We have seen it, not just here, but European wide dropping off the scale (6% and lower) for extended periods.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672543#Comment_121672543

Solar has a capacity factor here of around 11%. That is over a year. Our peak demands are during the Winter where the capacity factor would be much less. As a grid supply solar is in the meh catagory.

Eirgrid is predicting our needs to double beween now and 2050 so demand is not going to remain the same in 2030.

I would have said the same on nuclear a few years ago, but attitudes here have changed, especially with the present generation and especially the younger section. A few years ago an Ireland Thinks survey found 43% in favor 43% opposed with 60% of those aged 18 - 24 in favor.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121673621#Comment_121673621

The economics for nuclear. You're claiming a completed cost of €11Bn when the actual under construction cost in the UK is €27Bn per reactor with years more scope for more ratcheting up the price yet again. And the initial cost was supposed to be £3Bn / €3.3Bn depending on which plant you look at.

In 2012 prices, compare UK offshore wind at £37.50/MWh for 15 years vs. Nuclear at £92.50/MWh for 35 years. And nuclear has already had penalties for delays waived and needs massive hidden subsidies too.

Wind isn't dispatchable but neither is nuclear. In both cases you can only use the supply at the time regardless of how much demand there is.

Nuclear is cheaper than solar at night [Citation Needed!].

But future solar will completely undermine it during daylight hours, when most electricity is used, and prices are at their highest. You can't justify the capital and long term interest costs of Nuclear when the only long term market for nuclear power is on windless nights. Adding bio-methane or green-hydrogen to the gas mains means we can get more than 20% of electricity with less than 20% of emissions.

And until 2050 nuclear would have to compete with peaking plant and interconnectors and storage and hydro on those windless nights. Nuclear is a solution that's looking for a problem that will already be solved.

Given the 1GW difference between summer and winter, and another 1GW on top of that for record demand it's possible that spending €27Bn on retro fitting insulation on homes and water tanks would remove the electrical demand equal to a 1.6GW reactor. And save a lot of imported fossil fuel for heating. And provide loads of jobs. Actual cost €28Bn

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672573#Comment_121672573

French Nuclear will be keeping the lights one here soon enough via that new interconnector in Cork

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121673781#Comment_121673781

I've no problem with us using French Nuclear. I'm not opposed to Nuclear at all in general. But to be clear and perfectly accurate, we will be keeping French lights on. We export twice as much electricity as we import and that is expected to continue with the new Interconnectors.

Last year, the lights would have gone out in France if it wasn't for their interconnectors with the rest of Europe and a massive amount of imports due to half of their Nuclear power plants being off line.

bk

Factually it is intended that we would generate 2 GW of offshore to produce hydrogen to ensure zero emissions by 2050, Strange thing about that is Eirgrid, who I would expect are very knowledgeable in their field, produced a plan where 50% of generation was for consumption and 50% for hydrogen to use to fill the gap when wind generation falls to 6% or even lower for extended periods. With hydrogen now seemingly being kicked to touch what is going to fill that gap ?

Just to be clear, you claimed we would be using Hydrogen in 2030, you are now saying 2050, which is a very different timeline and goal.

Also to be clear, the Hydrogen plan is a plan put forward by the ESB. The government have not signed off on it and others have put forward different plans. Realistically what technology we use to fill the gap in 2050 won't be decided until after 2030. Partly because we already have lots of work to do already to meet the 2030 goal and partly because 30 years is a long time, when new technologies will be developed and we need to wait and see how it all plays out, how different technologies develop and perhaps more importantly their economics and scalability play out.

Come 2030+ I'm quiet happy to look at how Nuclear is doing, in particular SMR's which really are the only possible Nuclear option for us.

However keep in mind, that any Nuclear we build, still needs to be backed up too. Nuclear plants go offline all the time (see France the past year) and being an isolated grid, we would need to have backups to take over if a Nuclear plant went offline. So what backup technology do you use in 2050 to backup your proposed Nuclear power plants?

Ironically, the answer for Nuclear is hydrogen! You use excess Nuclear power to generate hydrogen, store it and then use it when needed. That is what the Japanese are planning to do, another Island nation with a more extreme isolated grid.

Basically the question isn't Nuclear v Renewables. It will be Nuclear + Backups v Renewables + Backups. The Backups will largely be the same for both.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121674480#Comment_121674480

Just to be extra extra clear from Energy Ireland four months ago (9th October 2023) verbatim "The Climate action plan to 2020 has set an ambition of at 7GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, with 2GW of this production being earmarked for the production of renewable hydrogen".(highlight mine)

It goes on to say that 3GW of offshore was accepted under ORESS1, not 5GW as some here seem to believe. If that 3GW is in place by 2030, (and it is a big if from what we have seen of companies walking away from contracts due to the huge increase in costs), and with even the extra 2GW for supply added by 2030, with the Eirgrid prediction of our needs doubling between now and 2050, due to winds capacity factor providing 2GW it would be doing well just to keep our wind generation at 35%, by 2030 because there is not a hope in hell of increasing it to 80% by then.

I don`t see where there is presently any other plan to back up wind generation for the extended periods it drops off the scale other than hydrogen. But then even more so than the offshore costs, hydrogen is another ball of string where we know even less on the cost, if it will work to scale, how or where it will be stored and how it will be delivered to where it would be required for generation. You are not going to do that with the normal gas pipelines and it isn`t exactly emissions free either. But if you want to go with hydrogen as a back-up then the efficiency from using nuclear to produce it is much higher than using intermittent wind.

It not just nuclear that will suddenly let you down. Wind has shown it is well able to do the same. As to seeing France the past year, a poster here was predicting nuclear there to drop from their usual high 60% range to a low 40% range. From lowcarbonpower.org nuclear generated 66.1% of French electricity last year.

I really do not get this why we should wait until after 2030 to have a discussion on other options. WE are clearly not going to reach the 2030 target so is it not past time that all cards were put on the table as to what the options are, and most importantly what the costs will be.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121674394#Comment_121674394

I don`t see the French lying awake at night worrying how much electricity we can supply to keep their lights on.

From Montel news.com 5th Jan 2024. " France exported 50 TWh more than it imported last year, after becoming a net power importer for the whole of 2022, at around 17TWh, for the first time in more than 40 years."

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121673781#Comment_121673781

The reality is that French nuclear lost 50% of output when it was most needed during the gas shortages. Germany was exporting gas to France to keep their lights on. Japan still hasn't restarted 80% of it's reactors.

In the UK 55% of reactors are currently offline. The UK will have only ONE operational rector in 2028.

Sizewell B. Hartlepool and Heysham 1 are scheduled to shut in March 2026, Heysham 2 and Torness in March 2028. Hunterston B closed two years ahead of schedule so there's that too.

Nuclear has demonstrated that it isn't dependable.

French Wind and Solar vs. exports. They aren't exporting nuclear because it's only used for baseload.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121677526#Comment_121677526

Wind and solar provided over 70TWh in 2023. That's about one overdue EPR more than the 50 TWh of exports.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121677709#Comment_121677709

On the basis of a picture being worth a thousand word .... Source : lowcarbonpower.org

I think it`s very clear why France has been the top exporter of electricity for over 40 years barring one, and for that year Sweden, who generate 41% of their electricity from hydro and 29% from nuclear, and who plan to add two further nuclear plants by 2035, took the top spot. They also plan to have 10 new reactors in place by 2045.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121677886#Comment_121677886

The French are exporting wind and solar. Before that they were exporting hydro.

At no point in the last 28 years did hydro dip below their record export of 50TWh.

What's changed is that increased in demand are being met with previously exported hydro instead of unbuilt nuclear. Their newest working nuclear power plant is CIVAUX-2 which started construction in 1991. The people who built them aren't going to rock up in the morning and continue where they left off.

The UK had similar plans to build a whole fleet of plants back in 2006. By 2008 there were proposals for 16GW. What happened sice is that there's one plant that keeps getting delayed and the cost is only going one way. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-summary.pdf

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121677886#Comment_121677886

Where did you read this? According to the numbers I've read, France have only been top exporter once in the last ten years - 2018. Germany were top exporter in the other 9 years. These are OEC numbers: https://oec.world/en/profile/hs/electricity

Markcheese

Statistics , damn lies and statistics,

Quoting the costs of a windfarm from 5 years ago , or a nuclear power station that started construction 15/ 20 years ago doesnt have much relationship to now ..

What the UAE arranged the koreans to build , isnt the same as what the outcome of building similar in poland ,

With any large scheme , the commodity price at time of construction counts , the interest rate really counts , and who's bearing the risk, plus the cost of design and planning ,

Theyre all reasons why Hinkley point is heading for 25 billion , edf and the french gov have assumed the risk , ( that risk costs in itself ) ,like wind farms here EDF will get paid only for energy produced,and have preferential access to the grid, so breakdowns or unreliability ,premature closure,or a nessesary multibillion refit to get it to 40 year life , would make this a loss maker ,

, interest rates are high , on 25 billion ,for 30 to 40 years thats staggering , a one year delay on a project this size costs a fortune,

Planning+ development seem to have been reasonably smooth - a major plus ,

EDF took this gamble - to get preferential access to the UK market , and the french gov want to spread the cost of Areva's EPR reactor design ,

The british offered them the same type of deal for a potential sizewell c , ( a direct copy of hinkley point ) ,EDF have politely declined , the world has changed since they signed the original deal ..

Markcheese

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_C_nuclear_power_station

The bit to look at is financing , the Uk gov is up to 50% ownership , financing and risk , EDF isnt willing to take more than 20 %,

Plus the uk gov has announced an extra 1.3 billion pounds of infrastructure improvements to allow the thing to be built , if it gets off the ground ,

Expectation that it'll cost 30 billion , but that doesnt mean a lot depending on the inflation rate...

Markcheese

Incidentally,the uk is having the same issue with off shore wind , they had zero takers for their last round offering for off shore wind .. ,it was essentially the same deal they been offering previously and got loads of interest and, and windfarms built -

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121679769#Comment_121679769

I have read it in numerous reports and articles over the years, but the quote of France being a net importer of electricity over the last 40 odd years bar one is from montelnews.com who have since 1997 have been providing news and data on the European energy market.

From the link you provided OEC does not appear to even cover the last 10 years with nothing since 2021 that I can see. The other anomily is tha OEC translates as the Observatory of Economic Complexity which as it`s name suggests is only concerned with rhe economic value of imports and exports at years end without the complexity of quantities and how much those quantities cost which would have fluxuated greatly over that year for any of numerous reasons. Montel reports the quantities.

For example for OEC`s last year 2021 they have Germany as the top exporter based on prices bought and sold over the year leaving Germany looking like the top net exporter witn $9.88 Bn. compared to France with $8.46 Bn. but when you look at the actual import and export quantities in TWhs it`s a very different story.

France exported 21 more TWh than it imported in 2021 whereas Germany exported 6.1 more than it imported which leaves France by far the largest exporter of electricity in Europe with Sweden in second place.

It might also be worth noting as well that for last year France emidssions from electricity generation were 39gCO2eq/KWh where Germany was 354gCO2eq/KWh, nine times higher. But then if you have closed the last of your nuclear plants during an energy crisis (something even Greta Thunberg could not get her head around) and are using coal for 26% of electricity generation mix that is pretty much inevitable.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121681125#Comment_121681125

"France exported 21 more TWh than it imported in 2021" Solar on it's own generated more than 21TWh last year,

Nuclear hasn't displaced fossil fuel in France, renewables have. Flamanville 3 was supposed to have started in 2012.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121681515#Comment_121681515

With this continuous anti nuclear rant you appear to be unable to see the woods for the trees. France gets 27% of their generation from renewables, we get 35% from wind alone. France emissions 39gCO2eq/KWh Ireland 348gCo2eq/KWh. Higher than it was in 2020 which means we are burning more fossil fuel now than in 2020.

France gets close to 70% of it`s electricity generation from nuclear and has for decades. Without it they would not be the top exporters in Europe with the lowest emissions on top off those exports. I suppose it`s just sheer coincidence that the country that replaced them, when some of their plants were down for maintenance, was Sweden a country that gets close to 30% of it`s electricity from nuclear ?

In fact for France were you not predicting the share of their mix from nuclear would drop to the low 40% range then. How did that work out, around 64% was it not ?

I would not look on it as coincidence that France is adding 6 reactors and are going to decide on a futher 8 before the end of 2026 or that Sweden are adding 2 after recently altering their legislation to do so.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121673560#Comment_121673560

I was always told by engineering friend that efficiency was measured in the wallet. If it is cheaper, then it is more efficient.

My economist friend thought that externalities must be taken into account, but cost considerations were king..

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121682110#Comment_121682110

France has low CO2 emissions because they built nuclear reactors a long time ago. However nuclear output in France peaked in 2005. In 2023 fossil fuel was 32.2 TWh vs 130.3 TWh of Hydro , Wind and Solar. So their emissions would be way below ours even without nuclear.

Again French nuclear output peaked in 2005 and the nuclear plant they started in 2006 still isn't ready for full commercial operation. Since then it's renewables that have displaced fossil fuel.

"France exported 21 more TWh than it imported in 2021" - In 2023 France produced 20.8TWh more from wind and solar than in 2021 which gives you an idea of how quickly renewables are being rolled out. It also hints at how much more power they'd have had if the money spent on white elephants had been spent on renewables since 2006.

Finland's OL-3 should produce 13TWh a year. Finland's net imports of power averaged 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) over the last few years, which should drop by around half by 2025 with Olkiluoto-3 in operation. This is where we would be if we started building nukes. Having to import power AND pay interest costs during the inevitable delays and overruns.

Sweden has oodles of hydro. We don't. Sweden had multiple reactors outages last year.

Nuclear is not totally dependable. When it keels over you need to replace 75% of the lost output within 5 seconds. The Irish grid as is can't handle that.

KrisW1001

Without multiple direct connections to the European grid, Nuclear is a non-starter for Ireland. France has a couple of hundred interconnects with its neighbours, and we have exactly three. We aren't just in the hole for the cost of a station and the fuel infrastructure, but also the interconnect capacity to allow us to export its surplus: Nuclear is continuous output, and that is as much a problem as renewable energy being intermittent. The best way to run nuclear is as a way of filling your base load, and then sell the surplus to other countries that would otherwise burn gas, and if the nuclear capacity goes down, you can also source additional electricity easily from across Europe. That works for the French generators because they're an integral part of the European grid; it won't work for Ireland because we're not.

The economics don't stack up for us.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121683369#Comment_121683369

France has low emissions because of nuclear. They are even able to generate a surplus year on year which, to use your own term, they make oodles of money from and still have the lowest emission in Europe.

2020 France had 23.4% generation from renewables (Rte Electricity Report 2020). End of 2023 it was 26.6% (LowCarbonPower). An increase of 0.7% year on year. If France were to do what you favor and follow Germany`s example on nuclear, emissions would not be their problem. Sitting in the dark for the nexty 70 years would be. And even after that they would still be depending on unreliable intermittent energy sources.

I would have thought that for Finland cutting their imports in half by next year due to Olkilioto-3, was a major win for them. Not least of all financially, but it looks as if the will not have to wait even that short length of time. a

Wind and solar are also far from dependable. If you compare their capacity factors alone to nuclear that is clear. So what is going to happen your wind and solar powered grid when wind drops to 6% and lower for extended periods.

Far as I can see you have 3 choices. Burn fossil fuels, build 16 times the renewables you need to fill peak demand, or go with the ESB 50/50 plan on consumption/hydrogen. I use the word plan for want of a more appropriate term because without a costed plan in the real world of economics and engineering what you have is not a plan, it`s a wish list.