Nuclear - future for Ireland?

6 to 8 hours is all the storage you're going to get for the near future - largely wind generation is dependant on the existing generation equipment as back up - and that'll continue , batteries and grid level storage will bring more ability to plan and reduce spinning reserve , but fossil fuel is planned to be a good chunk of our electrical mix going forward - so yes we'll be paying for wind turbines - for storage - for transmission - for interconnectors - and for fossil back up and it's fuel -

But if we went nuclear we'd be paying for the nuclear stations themselves , the storage to balance out the peaks - the transmission costs and interconnectors and spinning reserve as well as back up generation too...

So none of it is just simply this or that -

Add to the mix that even if we decided to go nuclear in the morning the first reactor would likely be 10 to 15 years out ( if we're lucky) ..

So guaranteed prices via the state is "Capitalism"?? No wonder our energy market is screwed up🙄

Half as cheap as nuclear, but only available 40% of the time. WTF is it with people not getting that cheap randomly available electricity is not cheap and that such claims are inherently dishonest?

I am with Airtricity - you know, those wind farm people, and the electricity charge in my most recent bill skyrocketed from 17.c per Kwh to 20.5c.

Cheap some of the time is expensive.

The capacity factor for nuclear in the US is running at about 93%

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

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

COP26 has been a wake up call and there has been renewed interest given the realisation that net zero emissions by 2050 are not achievable without it.

"the International Energy Agency say that the nuclear industry, which has been shrinking for years, will need to nearly double in size over the next two decades in order for the world to meet net-zero emissions targets."

France has announced it will increase it's nuclear generation capacity this month - do you nuclear hating ostriches not read anything current?

"November 10, 2021 — 9.56am

• President Emmanuel Macron has just announced that France will build several nuclear plants to achieve its net-zero emissions targets. 
• Up to 14 new next-generation nuclear power plants could be built. "

London: France will construct a series of large nuclear power plants for the first time in decades, as the nuclear powerhouse seeks to neutralise carbon emissions by 2050 and reduce its reliance on unreliable gas imports." https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/macron-backs-nuclear-power-to-meet-france-s-net-zero-ambitions-20211110-p597kk.html

And it's not just France:

"In the midst of the COP26 climate talks yesterday, U.S. and Romanian officials stepped aside for a session in the conference’s Blue Zone, establishing an agreement for U.S. company NuScale to build a new kind of modular nuclear power plant in the southeastern European country. The company’s plants—designed to be quickly scaled up or down based on need—are intended to be quicker and cheaper to build than the traditional kind, with some considering them to be a promising alternative for countries seeking to wean themselves off fossil fuels."

The UK:

"UK to invest in low-cost nuclear reactors to reduce dependency on fossil fuel"

They announced joint government/private financing of RR to design their SMR in detail which could lead to up to 16 reactors being built in the UK. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59212983

Poland: "Mr Guibourgé-Czetwertyński also said the government is working on new legislation for enabling and streamlining investment in the country’s ambitious nuclear programme. The nuclear investment legislation is being finalised and should be ready in the first quarter of 2022 for approval by the council of ministers.

In July, press reports said the new legislation could speed up the country’s first commercial nuclear project by 18 months. Poland is planning to choose a supplier of nuclear plant technology next year, with the supplier becoming a partner with a stake of up to 49% in the country’s nuclear project company PGE. Mr Guibourgé-Czetwertyński said this “shared risk” was crucial and because of the complexity of investment any partnership will be a long-term one.

...

Poland wants to build from 6,000 to 9,000 MW of installed nuclear capacity. Commercial operation of a first nuclear reactor unit in a proposed set of six is planned for 2033." https://www.nucnet.org/news/warsaw-aiming-to-complete-eia-and-site-report-by-end-of-year-11-3-2021

Sweden: Instead of phasing out 4 reactors by 2024, they have extracted the digit on spent fuel storage, expanding their facilities allowing the reactors to continue operation.

Czech Republic:

The Czech Republic is building two new nuclear reactors

March 9, 2021

Two new nuclear reactors will be built at a power plant near the village of Dukovani. Their construction was approved by the Czech nuclear energy regulator, which worked on a detailed assessment of this project for a year, the agencies reported...

According to the national plans of the Czech Republic, a large increase in the use of nuclear energy is planned for 2060. "https://tekdeeps.com/the-czech-republic-is-building-two-new-nuclear-reactors/

And so on for several other countries.

This stuff is easy to check, I suggest you stop living in the past and do some checking yourself.

I admit to being wrong about French electricity prices being the cheapest, which are only slightly below the EU average but are still 24% cheaper than Ireland: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics

Nuclear is not more expensive than renewables when you factor in the other costs associated with their low capacity factors and unreliability. You can't even cost grid scale multi-day storage as it doesn't even exist, it's just uncosted wishy-washy hopium at the moment.

Nuclear will continue to decline.

The French nuclear sector is massively subsidized.

Nuclear energy is the most toxic option from the point of view of private investor.

Strip out all allowance and Govt money and nuclear is still the worst from economics.

China and India are expanding nuclear and have even bigger plans in the area over the coming decades - even the German EU commissioner who up to last year was following the old tired line about the likes of wind powering a giant Euro grid, is now saying Nuclear will have to be a major part of the equation if we are to de-carbonise. I guess the sorry state of the UK and German Grids in terms of increasing dependency on coal and Russian gas has softened alot of coughs on that one

Well, your chart and associated comment shows that the failure to build more nuclear power plants since 1979 has more to do with erroneous public perception than reality. (Hint: Three Mile Island had no radiological consequences beyond the reactor site).

Good thing you mentioned France, it currently emits (although it fluctuates) 4-10 times less CO2 per kw/h than its next-door neighbour, Germany. https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE Not only that, it is much more energy independent than Germany. They also kill way fewer threatened bats with barotrauma and other windmill related causes than Germany. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-are-bats-affected-wind-turbines

All of this despite the fact that Germany has been following a Cold-War era policy known as Energiewende. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende That is, the current strategy of "replacing" fossil fuels and nuclear energy dates back to 1980 and originated in the former West Germany. By all objective measures, it is a failure. Cost? Trillions of euro and Germany has among the highest energy prices in Europe. Ecologically? Germans in their mad dash bid for "Green" energy seem content to literally drive bats to extinction. Saving the climate? 4-10 times worse CO2/kwh than their nearest neighbour indicates that they've got their work cut out for them. Geopolitical concerns? Up until recently, the German Greens seemed to be very keen on getting more gas from Russia. Maybe Russia's actions in and around Ukraine will focus minds ...

or not. The Greens need insane amounts of gas because wind mills and solar panels are not reliable. Full stop. And that applies no matter the cost of the panels/windmills. I don't know why the mainstream environmental movement wants to waste obscene amounts of money, drive all the bats to extinction, carpet bomb every coastline and hilltop with ugly bird chomping bat killing monstrosities, cause mind-blowing levels of needless CO2 emissions, and leave Europe wholly dependent on Vladimir Putin to keep the lights on, but that seems to be where they're taking us.

"Solar and prices keep dropping" maybe, but we've been promised that for decades. It was BS during the Cold War and it's BS now.

Falsehoods? It's a fact that Germany emits dramatically more CO2 per kwh than nuclear powered France. It's a fact that windmills paralell only White Nose Syndrome as existential threat to world bat populations. https://wildlife.org/mortality-survey-shows-leading-causes-of-bat-deaths/ It's a fact that Germany's energy policy, the Energiewende was first conceived during the Cold War. It's a fact that German electricity prices are at the high end of things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing It's a fact that windmills and solar panels only produce power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, and thus require backup.

We've been promised that renewables will be awesome for decades. It was BS during the Cold War era and it's BS now.

Though I do admit there is some personal opinion here. I regard those godawful wind turbines as being ugly monstrosities spoiling what would otherwise be a nice sea or mountaintop view, and I'm not keen on industrialising our environment in this way. Of course, to the large soaring birds and bats, the problem is a lot more ... life and death.

So much nonsense, deflection and evasion I don't even know where to start.

Firstly, the link between TMI and the subsequent fall off in new nuclear wasn't made by me, it was made your fellow anti-nuke, and I responded to that. And yes, AFAIK some reactors were cancelled in the wake of TMI and Chernobyl. Secondly, the laws of physics haven't changed since the Cold War, wind and solar radiation are still low-density, unstable "fuels" so any attempt to harness them on a large scale will always be a massive undertaking with severe economic and ecological consequences.

Thirdly, as to your source that showed a graph of German electric carbon intensity having gone down to 200g/kwh and change, I honestly have no idea where that comes from as the live data usually shows German electricity being much more carbon intense than that, i.e. 400g/kwh and over https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE see attached pic for this time today, which despite costs of at least €100bn (and counting) is still 4-10 worse on average than France. Even if I accepted that German intensity cuts were a big deal (which I don't) it would still be a pathetic reduction compared to what France achieved in the 20th century, in their case by accident as they started their nuclear buildup in the 1970s when no-one cared about carbon emissions. Yet their correct decision all those decades ago is still bearing fruit, as carbon intensity data demonstrates.

As to your claim that sky high electricity costs in Germany are not related to the Energiewende, that too is at variance with reality, at least 1/5th of it is explicitly renewable-subsidy related and the rest indicates that the German grid is really, really inefficient for some reason. Taxes like VAT in Germany are not at variance with global norms, costs are. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power BTW Denmark which has similar policies also has ridiculous energy costs.

And your supposed response to my claims about large birds and bats (I was very specific) your response was both evasive of the point actually raised, misleading and just plain false:

• I was very specifically referring to large birds (such as eagles) and bats. I could not have been clearer in that respect. For some reason, you responded by attacking an imaginary strawman argument about "birds" as a general, homogenous group.
• Cats may kill more birds than windmills overall, but the former generally can only kill small birds whereas windmills kill a much wider variety of birds including large birds such as eagles. That's kind of a big deal for a variety of reasons.
• Most of the birds killed by cats are killed by feral cats, not housecats.

https://www.kcet.org/redefine/4-reasons-why-its-a-bad-argument-to-say-cats-kill-more-birds-than-wind-turbines

Ireland wont have Nuclear, they cant even be trusted to run a decent Health system and the European Neighbours wouldn't have a Nuclear risk like that on their door step. Ireland will have a bit of renewables and like the Germans who are already running down Nuclear and committing to go Green Hydrogen they will probably buy in the G Hydrogen from middle east or further afield and will pay through the nose for it. The Germans will give you a good pat on head like good boys for all your good work.

Its not really nonsense at all, you are partly correct the cost and such a small population not feasible. The reason why Health system is basically a joke is because Ireland cant really afford it... some will say its because its mismanaged etc which is partly true but if they threw enough money at it it would definitely improve it. Its like Metro North etc its all for show makes the gaff sound more cosmopolitan, Ireland is the great pretender. The future is G Hydrogen lads.