Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121803198#Comment_121803198

Trench 94 contains a lot of SMR's. Hundreds have been used by the military since the mid 1950's. And you still think they'll suddenly figure out a way to make them faster and cheaper and better ?

Even if they do there's still the problem that there's only enough economically recoverable uranium to provide 90 years worth of current demand. And since nuclear provides less than 10% of electricity that's now 9 years. Add in other fossil fuel uses like electric vehicles and heating, and consider that the initial loading of a reactor takes about three years of normal use and you've gone through most of recoverable reserves already.

Fuel costs are a minor proportion because there isn't much demand for nuclear power. Prices and supplies have been skewed by Megatons to Megawatts programs which burnt through the US and USSR's stockpiles but they are gone now.

Nuclear fuel will become exponentially more expensive if it's usage goes up. It's a finite supply, they aren't making anymore of the stuff. We still haven't sorted out a breeding cycle. Even stretching out uranium by recovering plutonium takes a lot of messy reprocessing.

Capt'n Midnight

https://yle.fi/a/74-20077205 Olkiluoto 3 is taking a 37 day break. It will be years and years before it can go above 90% uptime even if you ignore unplanned outages and construction delays.

Nuclear means you still need 100% replacement cover. You still need to have the other generators. In theory you schedule downtime for periods of low demand but in practice ...

In the UK - 4 reactors are working but 1 of those, Torness is due to go offline in April. Of the rest 1 is on a planned outage and 4 have unplanned outages and 2 that should be have been working years ago keep getting delayed. And that's not counting the projects that didn't start.

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121851352#Comment_121851352

Yet Finland still has plenty of very low CO2 generation of its own and access to plenty of nuclear + hydro imports from Sweden, as of this writing. They're doing fine.

Yet for all the talk about natural gas storage, not only does Ireland have exactly zero storage for gas (us being one of the few in this predicament) but the plonkers over at Friends of the Earth are trying to sabotage a plan to build gas storage for Ireland near the Shannon. Which is ironic because if it weren't for the eco-types we would likely have built nuclear plants like Carnsore Point and as such would need a lot less gas.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121910170#Comment_121910170

Finland gets as much power from wind as from Olkiluoto 3 and half that wind came on line in the last three years.

They will have more wind in the next three years. They won't be getting another nuclear power plant up and running any time soon.

Excluding Russia (sanctions, politics), China (not exporting, politics), India (not exporting) and South Korea (safety standards , fake parts etc) there are very few reactor providers actually building stuff at present.

If you exclude companies on the verge of bankruptcy or who have gone bankrupt there's even fewer. Or you could eliminate them based on delivering on time, on budget.

We've to hit 80% low CO2 by 2030 which is doable as Northern Ireland is already at 50% without much in the way of solar and nothing offshore.

SeanW

The above is amusing fantasy, but back in the real world, the use of coal across the world has reached new, unprecedented heights - virtually all of it for thermal power generation. In particular, Germany is now the worlds 4th largest consumer of coal - again, to power their eco-friendly, nuclear free electricity grid. This is despite them spending wasting Lord knows how many hundreds of billions of euros on renewables. We still don't have a solar panel that produces power during the night nor a wind turbine that produces power during calm conditions. Wind turbines remain little more than a great way to kill endangered bats and birds, gobble money and produce nothing but a small, unreliable stream of electricity. Energiewende was a fantasy in 1980 and it remains so today.

If you truly believe we're in a "climate emergency" then what we're doing isn't working.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FfIfvcM7So

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054169#Comment_122054169

What would you rather do? Use coal or gas, or will you ever be convinced that Nuclear is not going to fix Irelands energy problems in the next 30 years.

From a purely practical standpoint if we all agree that we want to shutter Coal and Oil power plants, then renewables which can be built quickly seem vastly preferable?

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054792#Comment_122054792

The average time to build a NPP is about 7 years. East Anglia One OSW farm in the Uk took 3 years to build to deliver a 714 MW project. Barakah NPP took 8 years to build the first reactor, but that reactor delivers 4.3 times as much actual energy as EA1, adjusting for capacity factor, whose build time vs actual output capacity works out at 100MW per year, whereas Barrakah NPP was 162MW per year of construction. Your speed criteria is erroneous and fundamentally irrelevant considering a 60 year design life for the NPP - double that of an OSW farm.

In addition, Korean built APR-1400 reactors are considerably cheaper to build in terms of their actual energy output, than UK OSW.

In other good news, an analysis has conclude that China will not be joining the party any time soon, so anyone who thinks there is some urgency to construct zero carbon energy sources, should reassess that idea.

BEIJING,
April 23 (Reuters) - China's coal consumption will fall by just
one-third by 2040, according to a report by a European consultancy
published on Tuesday, threatening climate targets that call for phasing
out much of global coal use by 2040.The
International Energy Agency has said that global coal power capacity
has to be eliminated by 2040 to keep average global temperature rises
within the key threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees
Fahrenheit).However,
Norwegian risk assessment firm DNV said in its report that its findings
indicate China's coal consumption - the world's biggest - will see a
"minor uptick" in the next two years and then fall by one-third by 2040,
ending up at around 25% of its peak in 2050.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-cant-quit-coal-by-2040-researchers-say-despite-global-climate-goals-2024-04-23/

gjim

Is there any possibility you could raise your game a bit?

Contribute a little more to the conversation or argument than "solar panels don't produce electricity in the dark" or "wind turbines don't produce electricity when there is no wind". I'm sorry to say it, but quips like these just make you sound like a moron even if you fondly imagine that it makes you sound insightful.

"Lord knows how much" - indeed, nobody could possible know the actual figure 🙄, so why try to find out the true number, just throw a few random numbers big numbers out there with no basis in anything.

Here are some numbers regarding German coal consumption and the "increase" last year you're so excited about:

• Lignite 77.5 TWh - down 26% on 2022 - back to 1963 levels
• Hard coal 36.1 TWh - down 37% on 2022 back to 1955 levels
• Natural gas 45.8 TWh - down 1.6%

Now in contrast:

• Renewables in total: 260 TWh - up 7.6% and now providing 56.9% of the power coming out of the socket in Germany. This is your "small unreliable stream"?

Ffs man, will you let it go? Climate-denialism and renewable-skepticism lost any semblance of credibility over 10 years ago. It's purely the reserve of the cranks, conspiracy theorists, creationists and in some odd dark corners of the political scene these days.

Don't be a crank dude - it's not a good look

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055062#Comment_122055062

"Average time is 7 years"

Can you not understand that there might be slight difference in how new power plants are built in contrast to Abu Dhabi?

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055163#Comment_122055163

Still the 4th highest coal usage in the world, nearly half a century after the Energiewende concept was first floated in West Germany during the cold war. And German electricity is still generally at least an order of magnitude more carbon-intensive than their near neighbour France. And twice the cost too, at that.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055566#Comment_122055566

What is the alternative to the current plan for Ireland, given that we will not have a NPP online in at least the next 20 years, probably 30

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055163#Comment_122055163

I think u may be deluded given that Germany is on the very edge of recession, thanx in part to the high cost and unreliability of so called "Green" energy

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-29/high-energy-bills-force-german-industry-to-eye-production-abroad?embedded-checkout=true

https://apnews.com/article/germany-economy-energy-crisis-russia-8a00eebbfab3f20c5c66b1cd85ae84ed

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055575#Comment_122055575

Oh come on! Germany's energy crisis was pretty much all down to its dependence on cheap Russian gas, and when that tap closed...

Is a failure of energy policy, but not a failure that involves renewables.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055569#Comment_122055569

We don`t have a current plan. What we have is a proposal that nobody is able to give a cost for. Without that what we have is a wish list and a blank cheque. But even that blank cheque pales into insignificants when you consider that the present proposal will not even come close to providing the 2050 requirements it is supposed too.

Eirgrid have predicted that our domestic requirement by 2050 will increase from our present 33TWh to somewhere between 73 -86 TWh by 2050. An increase of 220% - 260%. Being generous to offshore wind capacity at 45%, under the proposed 37GW plan of 50% to hydrogen and 50% to domestic supply, that 37GW would supply 8.3GW domestically. Our current maximum requirements according to Eirgrid from their energy dashboard is 7.03 GW. An increase of 220% - 260% would bring that 7.03GW to anywhere bewtween 15.5GW and 18.3GW. At a bare minimum half of what the current 37GW proposal would provide.

Should the question not be what is going to fill this huge gap and how much will it cost by staying on this proposed road ?

SeanW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055846#Comment_122055846

"but not a failure that involves renewables." LOL Renewables have been literally at the very core of German energy policies for at least two decades now.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122057384#Comment_122057384

Must be why Natural gas makes up half of Germany's home heating energy. 80% in 2008! You really do not have a clue what you are talking about do you.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122057457#Comment_122057457

27% of German homes use wood as a supplementary heat source. In 2022 due to Germany`s misadventure with Putin`s gas demand became so high that wood pellets and firewood prices increased by a whopping 85.7% compared to the previous year. In 2021 12% of newly build homes in Germany included an indoor fireplace.

Now you, similar to the E.U. may look upon wood burning as carbon neutral but many green advocacy groups disagree with you and the E.U. Both the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and Ember, the energy and climate think tank, have both stated that wood burning emits more CO2 than coal.

Sam Russell

Well, coal is just wood that is a bit older - quite a bit older.

If you burn either, then CO2 is released into the atmosphere. More green washing.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122058489#Comment_122058489

Indeed, it's why the idea that Germany is somehow a bastion for renewable energy is extremely foolish. It's certainly not whats tanking their economy as @SeanW seems to believe it is.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055846#Comment_122055846

The dependence on Russian Gas was due to their catastrophic decision to turn their back on nuclear back in 2011

Capt'n Midnight

Very roughly on our grid there's a "baseload" of 2GW on summer nights.

There's extra demand during the day which nicely matches when solar produces most.

Likewise the extra demand in winter which is when wind produces most.

Right now renewables could provide up to 75% of that 2GW "baseload" so there is no guaranteed demand that isn't covered by the need to have high inertia generators near the cities for stability.

Nuclear can't ramp up for day/night, can't ramp up in winter, can't be near enough a city to provide local stability, can't ramp up to provide reserve for other generators.

Nuclear requires spinning reserve in case it goes offline. For a 1.6GW reactor you have FIVE seconds to restore the first 1.21GW (and you'll need to provide the rest in less than a minute and a half) and then keep that reserve up until something else takes over. You'll need something like 1.6GW capacity of gas turbines running at 2/3rd's power the whole time. That's 1.06GW of emissions 24/7 which is already over our 2030 emissions target, not that nuclear could arrive by then. (The undersea interconnectors ramp at 10MW/minute.)

That's for 2.66GW (one reactor and it's spinning reserve) which isn't enough for winter nights or daylight hours in summer. So you will still need other generators.

The good news is that adding other reactors doesn't mean more spinning reserve but it also means that supply exceeds demand for more of the time. Two 1.6GW reactors and their reserve is 4.26GW , still above emissions and you still have to provide other high inertia devices near the cities.

In theory you could avoid gas spinning reserve if you had 1.06GW of battery storage to keep you going until 1.6GW of pumped storage could kick in for a few hours. But if you had that 1.6GW of pumped storage then you could get 1.6GW all day for half the year by powering it from solar.

Capt'n Midnight

https://techxplore.com/news/2024-04-germany-ditched-nuclear-coal-wont.html

motivations included: a distrust of technocracy; ecological, environmental and safety fears; suspicions that nuclear energy could engender nuclear proliferation; and general opposition to concentrated power (especially after its extreme consolidation under the Nazi dictatorship).

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122059318#Comment_122059318

Germany`s green energy policies are what is tanking their economy, and they are now so all over the place even the Germans do not know what that policy is anymore.

Germany`s economy is based on high energy usage companies, and their electricity prices are 42% above the E.U. average. They basically bet the bank on Putin`s cheap gas and got badly burned. Not happy to just get burned they then decided to shoot themselves in both feet closing down nuclear plants that were providing 14% of their electricity with zero emissions until as late as 2021, and have now just announced they are to spend €16 Billion on four massive natural gas fired energy plants on top of the €9.8 Billion they had budgeted, (and now admit it will not be enough) for liquefied gas terminals to feed them.

Even before any of that their green energy plans were a mess. Their wind terminals are in the north whereas their industrial demand in in the south which meant that it would require expensive powerlines to transport this green electricity. The plan was for overland towers at a cost of €10 Billion and completed by 2022. What has actually transpired is costly delays due to political resistance and the likelihood of these power lines now having to be buried underground at massive additional expense and not now expected to be completed until 2028.

This is the country that Irish greens believed, (and even now it seems some still do), as the example we should follow.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122059909#Comment_122059909

Their Green energy policies which are them reopening coal power plants and half of their home heating being powered by gas? You seem to have a rather unusual idea of what counts as "green energy"

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122059914#Comment_122059914

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Is it not obvious thar reopening coal powered plants and the now €16 Billoin spend on gas fired plants, plus the now recognition of the €9.8 Billion spended on liquefied natural gas terminals not being enough, along with their electricity charges 42% above the E.U. average not testimony as to just how screwed up their green energy policies have now been shown to be ?

And that`s not even including their shutting down of a carbon neutral source during an energy crisis that was providing 14% of their electricity or their greenwashing on wood burning.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122059936#Comment_122059936

For feck sake, you literally listed the cause of Germanys high electricity prices right there!

Germany’s entire energy policy for the past 20 years has been based around cheap Russian gas. Not just for themselves, but Germany planned to be a central hub to distribute the cheap Russian gas to neighbouring countries too.

The war ended that and now they have had to scramble to build the infrastructure to import LNG. LNG that is much more expensive then the cheap Russian gas and LNG infrastructure that has to be paid for. That is what is causing Germanys high prices.

You understand the concept of marginal pricing in the electricity market? You understand that the price of electricty is driven by the most expensive source used in any 30 minute period, which is now gas?

https://www.squeaky.energy/blog/understanding-power-markets-merit-order-and-marginal-pricing#:~:text=Pricing%20at%20the%20margin&text=Each%20generator%20is%20required%20to,is%20different)%20throughout%20the%20day.

These bids are based on the operating costs that each generator faces, taking into account the costs of starting up or shutting down generation. Wind and solar plants tend to have the lowest operating costs, followed by nuclear power plants, while natural gas-fired plants typically have the highest operating costs – and certainly do so given current gas prices.

The price bid by the marginal generator – the most expensive plant needed to supply power to balance the market – becomes the clearing price, which all generators are paid.

So Germany’s mistake was their over reliance on Russian gas, had they invested sooner and more heavily in renewables their would be less reliant on gas and have cheaper prices now.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122059785#Comment_122059785

No, it goes back to the 1990s. Energy deals were part of the reconciliation and normalisation process between former USSR and the united Germany. Over time, Germany became reliant on Russia for gas.

There's more to energy than electricity, and Germany has a lot of industrial heat consumers. The sharp cut in Russian gas shocked these industries, and it's that shock you're seeing. Grid Electricity isn't a big input for large factories, which tend to use onsite CHP. Datacentres are one of the few industrial users that need electricity, rather than "energy".

There was plenty of reporting about this in the German press, and nobody blamed wind or solar for rising gas prices for factories. The political backlash, contuining to today, was against the previous policy of being over friendly with Russia in exchange for cheap energy. (Those Nordstream pipelines. where did they terminate...?)

josip

Also , Germany's green movement across the political spectrum, has been well funded by Russia for decades. Russia was the biggest beneficiary of the decision to shut down nuclear.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/how-german-climate-fund-set-out-help-russia-dodge-us-sanctions-2022-02-10/

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122060439#Comment_122060439

Irish greens were lauding Germany`s approach as the example we should follow. Some it seems still are. Germany itself was doing the same for the rest of Europe. Even jibbing at France to shut down their emissions free nuclear power source supplying up to 70% of their requirements. That approch has now left Germany in the state it is standing on feet of sand.

I`m well aware of the marginal pricing policy. Especially a little detail you omitted. If as little of the generation mix was made up of 10% gas and the other 90% renewables, renewables get paid at the gas price. It`s no more than the old farmer attempting to con the starving horse tell it if it lives it will at no specified date in the future get oats. THe marginal pricing policy is not a policy to encourage private companies to strive for 100% renewables. It`s a policy that encourages the oppposite and no indication of when if ever that is going to change to give us this so called cheap green energy. We are being lauded on here with all the green enegy that is being produced both here and in Germany. In the middle of an energy crisis I haven`t seen any evidence of it making my electricity bill any cheaper, and with their electricity charges 42% higher than the E.U. norm Germans certainly havn`t.

But no need to despair. Their is a simple solution. We just play along with the E.U. con of wood burning being carbon neutral and drop all fossil fuels. That would leave us with 100% renewables with no longer any need for the marginal pricing policy and finally see just how cheap these other renewable energy sources really are.

You may look on that as a bit of a daft proposal, but is it any more daft than attempting to defend a "How long is a piece of string" marginal pricing policy ?

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122059254#Comment_122059254

It`s not just German greenwashing, it`s E.U. green washing on an industrial scale with dodgy bookkeeping that would have left Seanie and his pals in National Irish Bank in awe.

60% of E.U. "green energy" comes from burning biomass. We have even joined in with a former peat burning plant in Offaly importing wood from Brazil as an energy source and are now rolling ahead with another plant in Killala Co. Mayo that will burn 200,000 tons of imported wood shipped to Killybegs in Donegal to be then transported by road to Killala. And in E.U. accounting ledgers the whole caboodle will be carbon neutral.

I`m sure in bookkeping terms it will help to at least attempting to reach those 55% targets for 2030 and 100% by 2050, but in reality it is nothing other than a bookkeeping scam designed to disguise reality.