Nuclear - future for Ireland?

What serious debate are you bringing to the conversation?

You make a point that the issues with nuclear are solvable problems? The French, Finns, Brits and Americans have all failed to "solve the problems of nuclear" - just read about the projects underway over the last decade in the US and EU - 6 in total and every single one have been if not total disasters (google V.C. Summer - abandoned after spending $9B) then complete failures in terms of meeting deadlines (Olkiluoto in Finland was 13 years late) or busting through construction cost (Flamanville's current estimate is €19.1B instead of €3.3). Countries with vastly more experience with nuclear power haven't solved this problem, so I wouldn't back Ireland to do so. It's an industry that has 70 years to sort out problems in delivering actual working reactors and it's worse than it ever was.

Cap-ex for nuclear is not large - it's astronomical compared with the other options for electricity generation. Op-ex is only small relative to nuclear's cap-ex - relative to the alternatives, running a nuclear power plant is incredibly expensive:

"A nuclear power plant has fixed operating costs 8x larger per kW than a natural gas combined cycle power plant and 2-3x a coal-fired power plant. Higher fixed costs come from a workforce that nuclear plants require to satisfy regulators, maintain higher safety standards, and manage the extra complexity nuclear technology brings."

The idea that you'd suggest a coal plant would suggest that you've missed out on 2 decades of news regarding electricity production. Whatever about nuclear, coal is absolutely finished. Existing coal plants are being shut down early at an accelerated rate because they can't compete. Even with the Trumpian political support for coal in the US, its use has declined from 39% of the electricity in the US to 21% in the last 7 years. The last new coal plant was built in the US over a decade ago - Longview Power Plant - has already gone into bankruptcy twice. Gas turbine technology has made thermal (coal and nuclear) obsolete decades ago. It's the same picture in Europe. Suggesting a new coal plant is like suggesting we re-introduce steam locomotion for passenger trains - it's dead as disco.

The problem with nuclear advocates on this thread is that they seem to know little about the economics or practicalities of electricity generation in the modern world, have no numbers to back up their claims and haven't actually looked at what's happening globally in the last 3 decades with respect to the nuclear power industry and why it's happening.

In some sort of 1950s sci-fi fairyland, nuclear is the best source of electricity, in the real world of 2022 where decisions are based on finance, engineering and costs vs benefit analysis and there are a multitude of other options, nuclear is up there with the likes of Concorde - seemed like a cool idea back in the day, we tried hard to make it work, but it just didn't pan out.

If your point is that Germany has the highest prices and you're implying some sort of causal relationship with renewables, then you should have a look at, say, the 1990 figures for electricity prices. You'll see that back then that Germany - before having any wind or solar capacity and when nuclear was peaking - also had the highest prices in the EEC. So clearly these high prices have nothing to do with the generation mix. In fact, the reason is well understood - Germany has taxed and taxes electricity consumption very highly - in terms of wholesale prices, Germany is bang on the EU average.

Back on topic, if anyone wants an overview of the current state of the nuclear power business in the US, here's an interesting summary. While the headline covers the criminal charges in a number of states to do with nuclear industry racketeering and bribery, a large part of the article is about the more mundane way that the industry has achieved state/government/political capture and how this is the only way it's surviving. Interestingly, the article lists a number of functioning nuclear reactors have been retired early in the last few years for economic reasons which is pretty bleak news for those hoping for an expansion of nuclear capacity. Even existing plants, where you can consider the massive capital expense construction as a sunk cost, cannot compete in modern wholesale electricity markets because of their high day-to-day operational costs.

The industry is on its last legs - it's losing more capacity through retirement than it's gaining through new plant construction globally. Its share of global electricity production has been dropping for 3 decades. It's yesterday's solution which cannot compete in a modern economy against modern technology - Ireland jumping on this sinking ship would be madness.

The only viable generation technologies that can compete at scale these days are gas turbine, wind and solar.

The primary reason for the reason for avoiding nuclear power is financial and a history of failed project delivery in recent history. Why do nuclear-advocates avoid addressing these absolutely fundamental issues?

These are the reasons that it's a dying tech globally - nuclear's share of global electricity has halved to about 8% since its 1996 peak - which is how far you have to reach back to claim Sizewell B as a success. They are shutting down functioning reactors in the US - like Indian Point - years before their end-of-life because even if the construction cost is considered sunk, operating and fuel costs alone make them uncompetitive in the modern world. Just to keep some plants operating requires massive subsidies (see https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2019/12/07/nuclear-power-plants-require-significant-subsidies-to-keep-operating-experts-say/#sthash.0gwVoQvC.dpbs). It's not a German or European phenomena - it's a global one.

Believe it or not, technology, economics and grid engineering have advanced considerably in the last 3 decades. And unfortunately nuclear tech has simply been left behind.

There hasn't been a successful (on-time/on-budget) nuclear power project in the west in the last three decades. And some of the failures - like JC Summers and Flammenville have been absolutely epic disasters. No sane person, having looked at the data and history of the nuclear power industry over the last 3 decades would choose to bet the the energy future and security of their country on constructing new nuclear plants.

And unfortunately, the case for nuclear is about to get much, much worse in a world of rising interest rates. Nearly 50% of the cost of Hinkley C will be in the form of finance costs - and that's in a low-interest environment. We're now looking at a sustained period of higher interest rates - and the huge front-loaded cap-ex associated with nuclear means the death of nuclear. My prediction is that we won't see a single new nuclear power plant begin construction anywhere in the West for at least a decade. In fact, I doubt we'll ever see another new nuclear plant developed - the nuclear power age is over and has been for decades.

No it doesn't. Lazard's 2021 report give $83 per MWh for off-shore wind and $167 per MWh as the average for nuclear. And the nuclear figure specifically excludes decommissioning costs and "maintenance related" capital expenditure, which from other studies I've read could add $30 to $40 to the per MWh price.

It's a daft claim - if nuclear was cheaper, then companies owning nuclear generation facilities would be making money but instead they're going bust left, right and centre. Or being propped up by massive nuclear specific government subsidies ($200m to $300m per year in the US). Nor would paid-for nuclear plants like Indian Point be prematurely mothballed well before end-of-life. Nuclear has the highest cost per MWh of any of the major generation technologies and only worked when electricity generation was a government monopoly. Electricity market de-regulation in the US and Europe over the last 2 decades has killed nuclear.