Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Again the problem with solar at this latitude is that it does not match up well with peak demand ie. night and winter time. Still probably better than wind overall though cos at least it is "predictable" and not as environmentally damaging if done in a sensible way via rooftop installation

From someone else's gas burning or nuclear ffs

If we're going to have this level of ostrich-ness or reliance on pies in the sky there's little point being here in a serious debate, its the same old echo chamber of do-nothing and spurious arguments/reductive ( if we do this it'll be useless arguments )

Salient points : Nuclear = large Capex - yep. Do you need power till Nuclear stations come online - yep. Both solvable problems

Its either this or reopen Moneypoint and build another coalfired baseload , at least to have the honesty to face up to the stark choices

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.

The latter will be coming in via the new interconnector to France - good thing too given the current car crash energy policies here

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.

There is also a strong connection between energy prices and the number of Grand Slam titles won by Rafal Nadal; since 2005 both have been increasing steadily. But also zero causation.

No I don't think its ok and wind has its fair share of vested interests, cheerleading a small cohort of Musk-like fanboys who only see free electricity with every turn of the blade without considering the total hard and soft costs of wind. SSE will use whatever marketing they can to try and improve their profits, I would expect the regulator, especially under a Green minister, to rein them in if they are overstepping the mark.

But I do think that our best option in Ireland for CO2 reduction is offshore wind coupled with solar. It won't get us to net zero without a storage solution but it will reduce our CO2 production. Nuclear is so financially unsound I can't see any way that a country like Ireland would be able to build 3 nuclear power stations in a timely and cost-effective manner. Our public procurement isn't great, eg. look at how the likes of BAM bend us over for the children's hospital and other infrastructural projects.

Do you think there's enough rooftop in Ireland to support a multi-GW solar capacity ? From an environmental point of view, I'm guessing that rooftop solar has zero impact (locally) and so is the favoured option for people for whom the environment is the main concern? Is offshore wind acceptable or does it vary from location to location? How does someone with strong environment concerns weigh up the benefit of longer term CO2 reduction vs a short term (potential) impact on the local environment. Is it black and white or are there sleepless nights so to speak?

(Mods - please delete the last paragraph if you think it's irrelevant to the nuclear thread)

Sorry but there is zero evidence for your last paragraph, in fact the rise in energy prices here has been actually faster than pretty much anywhere else in the EU. Whats needed is a proper energy regulator that isn't a patsy of the wind developers and instead defends consumers and looks at stuff like a profit tax on the parasites that infest this space, in fat the UK only last week announced the latter

Neither solar or wind were producing much 2nite so your last paragraph is moot

Does seem a bit odd that the renewable firms agree a minimum strike price - and get a subsidy (Pso ) if that isn't reached , they get preferential access to put power on the grid , and then get to charge the max rate if other power prices are higher..

I would have thought the agreed Ress rate , (topped up as necessary by the PSO,) AND the preferential access would be a fairer deal for the nation ..

Even if that was changed in the morning It'd take up to 15 years to fully change ..

But a windfall tax on high profits could be achievable ..

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.