Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Options
1…78101213…47

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Hinkley C. Another delay and price increase.

    The last round in January added £500 million and six months delaying it to June 2026.

    In a note to its 2021 annual report, EDF said that risks to schedule and cost at completion targets had increased, citing the ongoing impact of the pandemic and Brexit, lower-than-expected civil performance and tensions in global building materials markets. In addition, permit delays have slowed progress on offshore marine works. And my dog ate my homework etc.

    This time they are blaming the war in Ukraine. Any guesses how much they'll try and squeeze out this time ?



  • Options
    #273
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    "Plans for new reactors at Vogtle in Georgia are reportedly behind schedule and overbudget"

    Major construction on Vogtle began in 2012 with a $14 billion price tag and expected startup dates of 2016 and 2017. It's now close to £30Bn and with startup dates of 2023. It's 2.2 GW


    The latest delay is because workers noticed that “tens of thousands” of critical inspection records were missing or incomplete when they were preparing to send them to the federal safety regulators. It's going to cost $920m because no one heard of ISO 9000 or no checked the records before ?



  • Options
    #274
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭gjim



    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118885807#Comment_118885807

    The funny thing is that while Vogtle is an epic disaster, arguably it's actually the least worst disaster of all the few nuclear plant projects in the US over the last 3 decades. At least it might eventually actually produce some electricity - 3 times over budget and years late - although each kWh will be the most expensive in the western world.

    Have a look at V. C. Summers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal - South Carolina's unfortunate electricity consumers are on hock for $9 billion for an abandoned project - as a result South Carolina has the HIGHEST electricity prices in the US.

    Or Bellefonte - $6 billion down the swanney - another completely abandoned project that has and will never deliver a single joule of electricity.

    In fact the only reactors to come online in the last 30 years in the US is Watts Barr 1 and 2 and Comanche Peak 2 all of which started construction in the 1970s!! All decades late and multiple times over budget.

    And.... that's it. That's the complete story of the last 3 decades of nuclear power in the USA. Not one single success story in 30 years.

    Nuclear is dead because the industry is fundamentally incompetent, is incapable of delivering and is in fact in many cases is championed by criminally corrupt companies (couple of Westinghouse executives are serving prison time). But no, we're expected to believe if it wasn't for those damned hippies and misguided Green politicians, nuclear would deliver us energy nirvana.

    And given all this history, we're expected to swallow the line that this forms of generation is a solution that Ireland should embrace. It's beyond daft - it's complete away-with-the-fairies stuff. Remember unlike the yanks, we have zero infrastructure for fuel handling, zero infrastructure for securing facilities, zero technical expertise, zero supporting grid infrastructure, zero anything required to support nuclear generation.



  • Options
    #275
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Also, do not forget the Russians were shelling a huge nuclear reactor site in Ukraine which was never built to withstand such attack. If they are forced to retreat from that area, will they boobytrap the reactors, or worse blow them up?

    Nuclear is just too dangerous to be seen as anything other than the environmental disasters as the part played by asbestos, DDT, glycophosphates, and other chemical wonders that have left a lasting imprint of the planet.

    Even the modern wonder of plastic that has transformed much of manufacturing is now being shown to generate micro-plastics that insinuate every aspect of life on earth and existance. Their long term impact is not known and can only be assumed - that is they can only be assumed to be bad.



  • Options
    #276
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,654 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Even if it never comes to pass, this is a great read. The numbers in it are hard to grasp, Mach 204 and 100 terapascals.

    https://newatlas.com/energy/first-light-nuclear-fusion-projectile/

    Plus I now know about the Pistol Shrimp.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,491 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    "Also, do not forget the Russians were shelling a huge nuclear reactor site in Ukraine which was never built to withstand such attack. If they are forced to retreat from that area, will they boobytrap the reactors, or worse blow them up?"

    Fortunately the Russians have exited the Chernobyl region and returned the site to Ukrainian control, though they still control another working power plant (6 reactors) down South East of Ukraine.

    But not before digging trenches in the Red Forest, one of the most irradiated places on earth. Seemingly one Russian soldier has already died of radiation and hundreds more are getting treatment for radiation in Belarus.

    But worse, they drove most of their armour and trucks in the region through that forest and now there are serious concerns of those vehicles carrying radioactive soil and dirt all over Belarus and Russia!

    Interestingly it seems many of the Russian soldiers had never heard of Chernobyl or what had happened there! Which brings into the question the entire concept of how you safely store radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years. Chernobyl was just 35 years ago, yet these Russians didn't seem to even know about it or the dangers involved and just ignored all the danger signs that are every where there.



  • Options
    #278
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118888129#Comment_118888129

    "offers a pathway to a very competitive Levelised Cost Of Energy ("LCOE") of under US$50/MWh."

    Can't compete with wind or solar so probably non-starter if storage costs continue to fall.



  • Options
    #279
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    What is the cost of solar and battery in Ireland ? Cos solar without a battery is going to be really heavily weighted to the few hours around noon - and obviously summer months ( no battery for that )

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #280
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    I see Johnson has a plan to build 8 new nuclear power stations in the UK.

    That should help power the new airport he was planning and the trains planned across the bridge/tunnel between Scotland and NI

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61010605


    .



  • Options
    #281
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118893412#Comment_118893412


    "The government hopes to have a new reactor approved each year until 2030 with the aim to have them up and running by 2050"

    By which time all the decision makers will have safely retired. On a completely unrelated topic there is a high correlation between corrupt countries and nuclear power.

    "On 18 July 2011 the House of Commons debated and approved the 6 NPSs". (Nuclear Power Stations) Since them Hinkley C is both late and over budget at £23Bn and delayed to 2026. And lots of the exiting nuclear power stations closed down they are looking for 8 instead of 6.

    2050 is far enough away to justify building new gas or wind or solar now



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,761 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Ah yes, nuclear corruption correlation: US, Sweden, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Japan...



  • Options
    #283
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/French-Power-Prices-Spike-To-3000-Per-Megawatt-Hour-Following-Cold-Snap.html

    As many as 25 of state-run utility Electricite de France SA’s 56 nuclear reactors are offline, just as overnight temperatures in most of the country are set to fall below freezing.

    Wow , that's spectacular.

    The promise of nuclear is that the insane costs will provide guaranteed continuity of supply. Instead you get multiple failure modes in units that are large enough to affect the grid significantly.



  • Options
    #284
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Always a bit wary of those Enron style ridiculous spot prices - I assume theres an upper level where all available generation is online ( and its not 3grand a kwh ) - and a level where anybody who can easily not use power is going to do that ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #285
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Will they not import electricity over the various interconnectors they have?



  • Options
    #286
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118902932#Comment_118902932

    Further on it mentions €551/MWh which is extortionate but believable but that's not the price the consumer sees as it's averaged out. Unless you live n Texas and have a really awful contract.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118903232#Comment_118903232

    That's the easy bit. It's finding 11GW to import that's not so easy.



  • Options
    #287
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭gjim


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118902834#Comment_118902834

    I see wind is doing ok at the moment in Ireland - with net exports of about 400MW.

    Thankfully in a few years, when the Celtic Inter-connector is up and running (hopefully the first of many) and the newly licensed wind and solar PV has been installed, Ireland would be in a position to help dig our French friends out of the hole they find themselves in (and earn money at the same time).



  • Options
    #288
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,654 ✭✭✭✭josip


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118905581#Comment_118905581

    Although Tesco would claim otherwise, our 700MW interconnector would be only able to provide 1% of French system demand. So we're going to need a bigger interconnector if we truly want to help.

    I'm curious why you think the French have dug themselves into a hole? Is it because of their current or future nuclear strategy? I also think that they're in a good position to pivot to solar if they wanted. Large parts of the unfarmable south could be plastered with the latest gen solar panels in a relatively short time frame.



  • Options
    #289
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭gjim


    Ah I wasn’t really being serious - more a response to the constant veneration of the French electricity strategy by the nuclear fan club here.



  • Options
    #290
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,761 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    "Japan will take firm steps to restart idled nuclear power plants to make maximum use of nuclear power to stabilize energy prices and supply, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said on Friday.

    “With priority in safety, we will take concrete steps to restart (plants), while the government is not considering to replace” existing nuclear power plants with newer facilities, Kishida told parliament." https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/27/japan-to-restart-idled-nuclear-power-plants-says-its-prime-minister.html

    Someone seeing sense, which can't be said for the Putin fanboy Germans.



  • Options
    #291
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭gjim


    The case for extending the life of existing nuclear reactors which have reached the end of their design life has always been far more reasonable than the case for building new ones. It's not amazingly cost-effective in LCOE terms compared to solar/PV but, to be fair, it is competitive. I've no problem with it at all as a carbon emission reduction strategy. It's building new ones that's daft given the costs/time/project risks and the modern competition.

    However even if fully perused as an energy strategy (refurbing existing plants), the contribution to carbon reduction in electricity would be minor in the medium term and negligible in the longer term. It's not going to do anything to arrest the relentless expansion of wind and solar and battery storage.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,638 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119123859#Comment_119123859

    We would need some concrete evidence soon on your claims about wind/solar - repeating the old mantra that such things will be cheap and an effective element on a grid is starting to wear rather thin for many, not least the hard pressed energy users here and on other "windy" grids



  • Options
    #293
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,761 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119124805#Comment_119124805

    We currently are in an energy cost crisis with the failure of renewables being a core plank in that, but it's still being touted as a solution even after such a massive failure.



  • Options
    #294
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The energy cost crisis is caused by the manipulation of the energy market, and by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the resultant sanctions against Russia. There is no reason why renewables are more expensive except opportunism by those suppliers.

    However:

    1. Nuclear cannot be a solution in Ireland unless the law is changed.
    2. Even so, it would take at least a decade for a nuclear plant to be built and commissioned - assuming it could be built in time as most under construction are suffering massive delays, not to mention massive cost overruns.
    3. Whatever about renewable energy being unreliable, if we have many forms of it, it is unlikely they would all fail at the same time. Even wind will probably be more reliable once we get offshore arrays on the west, east and south coasts.
    4. It would be necessary to have a backup that can cope with a shutdown of the reactor. Perhaps that might mean two reactors, but that would be more than we need, unless they were small modular reactors that have not been built anywhere yet.




  • Options
    #295
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119125663#Comment_119125663

    Point of information : Hundreds of small modular reactors have been built and operated safely since the 1950's by NATO. They have had higher production runs, standardisation and economies of scale that the people trying to sell power station reactors can only dream of. But they aren't remotely close to being cheap. The French ones use lower enrichment ~10% so that's not even an issue. The commercial ones only exist only on paper and aren't proven and won't be proven until there's a good few of them reliably in service.


    Our grid can take 75% of non-synchronous electricity. The kit to take it to 95% is slowly being rolled out. That leaves us with a minimum 5% baseload demand which can be fulfilled with hydro, waste to energy, CHP, biomass etc. As Nuclear can only supply large amounts of steady baseload (while it's working) there will be no guaranteed demand for it's output by the time it's constructed. It would have to compete on the wholesale price at the time.

    We can use fossil fuel for grid stabilisation near the large cities or for peaking or backup to renewables, up to an annual total of 20% of current emissions, until 2050. Nuclear can't do any of those things. And fossil fuel can be replaced by bio-fuels and hydrogen in the future.

    It costs about £30 - $60 million to build hydrolyser factories per GW of annual production. That's at the level of the rounding error on the annual cost increases of Hinkley C. And as volume increases the costs of the hydrolysers is falling like solar or lithium batteries.

    Hydrogen storage may not be the best or cheapest solution. Months of storage mean that even at an efficiency of 40% from solar or wind it completely undermines nuclear costs. Target for Spain is €1/MWh contracts in the foreseeable future for solar while nuclear is near €13/MWh (Hinkley C)



  • Options
    #296
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119125550#Comment_119125550

    53% of electricity from wind in Feb.

    I'll let you work out if we would have needed to use double the amount of fossil fuel then if we hadn't have had renewables.



  • Options
    #297
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,761 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Change the law. Passing such a law in the first place is, like, banning LNG terminals wholesale because ... what was the reason again?

    So it takes a decade, which is how much longer a nuclear power plant is likely to be operational for than an offshore wind farm, at the best estimates.

    Dunkelflaute - the Germans even have a word for the fact renewables frequently fail coincidentally.

    Gas turbines can back up nuclear, but with a 96% reliability/availability, you might have a problem finding and dusting off the manual on how to start them up when you need them.



  • Options
    #298
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,860 ✭✭✭trellheim


    wind right now is currently generating far less than 10% of all electricity used, Natural Gas is at 75%

    https://smartgriddashboard.com/#all


    Even if we doubled the turbines we had right now it would be less than 20%. If it was windy that number would go up, but its not windy.


    Nuclear is needed, and we would need two plants for when one is out for maintenance.



  • Options
    #299
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,654 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Today would be a good day for solar though. Nuclear is never going to happen in Ireland. We're too small and it's too unpalatable.



  • Options
    #300
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119126137#Comment_119126137

    96% reliability ? Across a full fleet, including construction delays, refuelling and early end of life ?

    I'll remind you again that France had 26 nukes offline recently out of 56.

    Excluding renewables our baseload is 2GW and our peak usage is 6GW. That other 4GW is a huge cost for fossil fuel for peaking or a huge cost having idle nuclear plants.

    Dunkelflaute - the German word for we can use gas for one fifth of the time and still remain within our 2050 target. But we'll have interconnectors and storage and other generators too.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119126295#Comment_119126295

    And what's acting as spinning reserve for the one reactor when the other is being maintained ? A third reactor ?

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



Advertisement