Nuclear power in Ireland

s7ryf3925pivug · 03-05-2019 09:56PM #1

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

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

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

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

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

biko · 03-05-2019 09:58PM

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

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 03-05-2019 09:59PM

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

03-05-2019 10:08PM

Steven Tight Week wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Give us some numbers

McMurphy · 03-05-2019 10:12PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Give us some numbers

423800421679084225789906553228886328874223365878882215524533398875225886633.

Skyfloater · 03-05-2019 10:13PM

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

ILoveYourVibes · 03-05-2019 10:28PM

Steven Tight Week wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even SMRs are too large.

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

VinLieger · 03-05-2019 10:47PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

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

Even SMRs are too large.

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

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

98q76e12hrflnk · 03-05-2019 10:52PM

VinLieger wrote: »

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

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

s7ryf3925pivug · 03-05-2019 11:00PM

declan2693 wrote: »

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

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

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

archer22 · 03-05-2019 11:03PM

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

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

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

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

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

s7ryf3925pivug · 03-05-2019 11:03PM

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

Junkyard Tom · 03-05-2019 11:05PM

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

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSptSPg8XKyPQo6Y7ReSAkytIwKKJPGHNSn7d9SwJMOfbMrGrKB

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSptSPg8XKyPQo6Y7ReSAkytIwKKJPGHNSn7d9SwJMOfbMrGrKB

Fr_Dougal · 03-05-2019 11:38PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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

At least give them a roof over their head.

Ultimate-bike-umbrella.jpg_350x350.jpg

dxhound2005 · 03-05-2019 11:45PM

archer22 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEPT 23 1989 · 04-05-2019 12:00AM

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

Twenty Grand · 04-05-2019 12:10AM

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

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

Richard Hillman · 04-05-2019 12:14AM

I don't trust us with nuclear power

4068ac1elhodqr · 04-05-2019 12:14AM

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

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

04-05-2019 12:15AM

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

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

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

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

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

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

Captain Red Beard · 04-05-2019 12:17AM

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

4068ac1elhodqr · 04-05-2019 12:21AM

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

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

{ Until something goes wrong }

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

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

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

Twenty Grand · 04-05-2019 12:21AM

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

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

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

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

Thats before you run into planning and construction issues.

Twenty Grand · 04-05-2019 12:27AM

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

{ Until something goes wrong }

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

You can say that about anything though.

Air travel is the safest until something goes wrong.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-05-2019 12:41AM

Skyfloater wrote: »

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

ALL of the evidence says NO.

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

The laws of physics haven't changed much since.

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

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

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

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

ILoveYourVibes · 04-05-2019 12:49AM

VinLieger wrote: »

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

We can't compete with France.

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

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

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

Capt'n Midnight · 04-05-2019 12:54AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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

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

Chernobyl will cost similar.

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

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

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

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

4068ac1elhodqr · 04-05-2019 12:54AM

Might be worth watching CF developments in France.

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

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

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

ILoveYourVibes · 04-05-2019 12:56AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

Chernobyl will cost similar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capt'n Midnight · 04-05-2019 01:12AM

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZeroThreat · 04-05-2019 01:15AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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

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

Nuclear power in Ireland

Comments