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?

191012141545

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭Shoog




  • Registered Users Posts: 19,545 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    That is exactly the cause. Wind failed, more gas was needed to compensate so demand and price rocketed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭Shoog


    The problem with interpretation is that the outcome would be the same wind or not.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Wind is variable - short term, that is day to day, week to week - not even month to month.

    The average for wind generation in Ireland mid term is 40% or so. Gas prices have risen, not for day to day variation, but because of global issues - the Ukraine way being the major one, and that has little to do with renewables.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Why have gas prices been rising for over a year and a half though, after several years of steady prices? Has wind "failed" everywhere all over the world for over a year, causing a worldwide increase in gas prices?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,545 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Wind is variable, all right. Unfortunately demand isn't. The gas price cluster duck was in full swing before the invasion of Ukraine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    That doesn't show failure - it shows that we've a wind AND gas system...

    If we had a nuclear reactor backed up with gas that went off line for a month we'd have had the same result ...

    2 of the newer power stations on our grid both went off line for approx a year , it happens ..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birmingham has industry too.


    In 2011 the UK decided to build some nuclear power plants. The timeline goes something like this .... in 2012 EDF want £165/MWh .... After seven years of negotiations and revisions, the British government decided in 2016 to execute the Hinkley Point C project .... EDF said £16 Bn on their site which is nowhere near "less than £2bn a pop" .... the first reactor unit will start operating in June 2027, a year later than planned and costs are now estimated in the range of £25bn to £26bn.


    £165 per megawatt hour in 2012 sterlings isn't remotely cheap. The fact they could ask for it should convince anyone that nuclear isn't cheap.

    5 years of haggling and sorting out planning before they even signed off on construction. Nuclear isn't fast.

    And the way nuclear can drop off the grid without warning isn't good as it would require us to have spinning reserve able to replace 85% of the reactor's output within 5 seconds.


    From the first link. This is why nuclear is expensive. "Destination of the price that will be paid per MWh (1 MWh = 1000 kWh) for HPC power. About two thirds is paid to investors, only one third is needed for the construction, operation and dismantling of HPC."


    The 95% of renewables is a peak figure not average. If you use creative accounting then we've already hit ~96% of electricity consumed on the island from renewables (the electricity fossil fuel used for grid stability being exported)



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    "There are 5 million people in the Republic of Ireland and 2 million more in Northern Ireland."

    I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. 7 million people in rural India will use far less electricity then us, while 7 million people in Texas will use far more more then us.

    And that tells us nothing about the reality that we are an almost completely isolated relatively tiny island grid.

    You can talk all you want about population size, but the reality of our grid, is that a Nuclear reactor in the 1.1 to 1.6GW size is technically far too large for our grid. You understand that such a reactor would need almost the same amount of either gas stations or interconnectors as spinning reserve in case the reactor went offline. That is just how grids work. Currently our largest single point of failure is 500MW. We simply couldn't handle such large reactors.

    Small European countries get away with building Nuclear power plants because they are part of the wider synchronous mainland European grid, so if their reactors go offline, they can just rely on their neighbours, they don't need the same amount of spinning reserve. Unfortunately we don't have that luxury.

    Even the most pro-Nuclear in Ireland supporters admit that the current Nuclear reactors are simply too large for our grid and instead their focus is on SMR's.

    "That is exactly the cause. Wind failed, more gas was needed to compensate so demand and price rocketed."

    I'm sorry this is nonsense. The price of wind power hasn't fundamentally changed since 2019, what has changed is the price of fossil fuels, including gas. Mostly because of the terrible war in Ukraine and the scramble to replace Russian oil and gas.

    You know that when the wind blows strongly in Ireland, the price of wholesale electricity drops to €0 or close to it, yes ZERO! It is when the wind isn't generating and we are relying on gas that the price peaks way up. In other words, having wind keeps our bills from being vastly more expensive.

    If we didn't have wind, we would be totally reliant on coal and gas and our electricity bills would be basically twice as much!

    And no Nuclear doesn't solve that, as mentioned above, any Nuclear plant we build, would need to have a similar amount of gas plants as spinning reserves, so you are back to having to use gas.

    The only mistake we have made is not moving to wind even faster! If we had 80% renewables today rather then 40%, we would be using half as much gas and our electricity bills would be much cheaper. If we were at 100% (hydrogen, etc.) we wouldn't even notice what is happening with fossil fuel prices.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    we're still no closer to having solar panels that produce power during winter nights or windmills that produce power during an anti-cyclone.

    What a bizarre statement lol its akin to "we're still no closer to having oil-fired turbines that produce power without fuel"



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,214 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Your say Nuclear is not for us.

    What is? Another few gas burners?

    Sorry. That came across as glib. I'm actually being serious, what is our way out of dependence on imported gas?

    Could Ireland ever achieve energy independence?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    UK made a firm commitment to build 6 nuclear power plants in 2011. Sixteen years later, if there aren't yet more delays they will start commissioning the first half of the first one. That'll take about 6 months which easily sees us into 2028. At best it's 50:50 that that first plant will be fully up and running by 2030.

    If you want nuclear power you'll still have to keep they lights on while it's being built. But you won't have money because of the capital tied up or the insane interest payments. ( compare the % EDF & Co. get compared to what HMG pay for loans or bonds, the difference is pure profit ) Also our 2030 targets mean we can't use coal or oil for baseload.


    Gas is the least worst in the interim. Low capital cost, can ramp up/down to load balance with renewables so lower average emissions. By 2030 hydrogen turbines will be a thing (they are already but by 2030 they'll be available across the whole range) and you can store months worth of the stuff in old gas wells. And that's the worst case scenario. Cheaper storage or better rememberable or better insulation or demand shedding would all play a part too.

    Nobody is suggesting that nuclear can compete with renewables on price to make hydrogen. And you can export hydrogen in pipes so nuclear here would be competing with summer solar in Spain.


    Unlike the UK we haven't been doing civil and naval nuclear power since the 1950's and there's no incentive for the nuclear power companies to give us a good price or treat us well to get further orders, we'd be in a rubbish bargaining position because they'd be holding us to ransom because it would be "too big to fail".



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    "Could Ireland ever achieve energy independence ?"

    It kind of depends on definitions - we could very quickly become a net energy exporter , if the off-shore wind sector gets to their stated aim .. and we're heading towards using a lot more electricity for home heating and for cars ,

    But we'll still need some fossil fuels as a back up to wind , for the foreseeable future ..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,545 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Which bit ? The turbines or the grid ?

    Well we're likely to find out soon , because offshore wind is coming to Irish shores ..( in a limited fashion )

    Actually we could just compare the costs of UK offshore wind to hinkly C , although the projected costs for sizewell (if it gets built) should be lower because it'll be almost identical ,obviously adjusting for inflation .

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim



    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    thats a 2017 one but there are many newer articles ,

    Added to that many of the future offshore schemes refered to in the article are already producing power by now ... Hinkleys a while off yet ..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,545 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    2027 LCOE cost of nuclear per MWH: $88.24 for nuclear vs 136.51 for offshore wind - I'm ignoring the tax credit nonsense.

    This can be confirmed via real world actual costs by comparing the recently commissioned nuclear plant in the UAE against the most recent larg scale offshore wind farm off Scotland, which I have detailed earlier in this and other threads.

    And the difference is considerably greater than the broken and dishonest LCOE model, which favours intermittent renewables to a ridiculous extent because it only looks at the cost of electricity that is generated by the systems when they are functioning and doesn't factor in the additional costs arising from having to meet demand when renewables fail, which for offshore wind is an immense 47 % of the time.

    This failure of renewables is characterised by their low availability rating. I can't understand why the energy market and technologies are so dishonestly represented and costed. I think the real LCOE should include the gas generated energy cost for the extended period of unavailability of renewables.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm ignoring the tax credit nonsense.

    Its possible to make data say anything you want when you're selective about which parts you choose to ignore

    comparing the recently commissioned nuclear plant in the UAE against the most recent large scale offshore wind farm off Scotland

    Again, being selective. You are not comparing like with like. If you were you would compare offshore wind UAE with Nuke plants in UAE or the same in Scotland.

    Given the UAE would have lower salary levels, less stringent environmental regulations, less strict safety regs etc, its apples to oranges



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    I'm shocked this thread has made it to 13 pages.


    It seems to me to have been well argued repeatedly throughout this thread, that nuclear is not a viable option for Ireland right now.

    The only nuclear power Ireland will have in the next twenty years is energy imported via France/UK (and so subsidising their reactors). Maybe a smaller scale nuclear reactor will become available, or maybe our energy needs will balloon, but otherwise it seems to be a done deal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    The EIA paper is about forward prejections. They talk about "advanced nuclear" - a hypothetical technology that has yet to be built. It's about as useful as providing LCOE for nuclear fusion. It's like the impressive numbers they used to predict for "advanced coal plants" about 10 years ago but of course nobody ever built one. Lazards' numbers are based on actual technology which has been built and is running. Lazards numbers represent the reality of nuclear power in the West at the moment, and given the pattern of early nuclear plant closures across the US over the last decade, the fact that nuclear generators are going bust, the fact that - it's clear that Lazard's analysis explains what is happening on the ground.

    Hypothetical nuclear plants are marvellous things altogether - when Hinkley Point C was being proposed, Areva estimated that it could deliver electricity at a price of £24 per MWh. The harsh reality is that in 2021 the price that they've been guaranteed is already at £106/MWh. This price is indexed linked to inflation, currently running at about 10%, so by the time the first watt comes out of the new reactor, it could well be costing the equivalent of $200 per MWh. Anyone proposing this for Ireland is surely on a wind-up.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Nuclear can't be ramped up for export. In the US there have been cases of negative prices for nuclear power where they paid to put power on the grid because nuclear is so inflexible they couldn't ramp it down and then back up again. France is reducing it's reliance on nuclear from 75% to 50% too.


    Smaller scale nuclear is snake oil. Rolls Royce have been making small modular reactors for the Royal Navy since the 1950's. The only real problem is the extortionate cost. RR's plan is to provide 2 Hinkley C's worth of power by 2045 for only £32Bn. Downhill with the wind behind you on a good day figures. Given the history of nuclear power for on-time on-budget and the fact that this reactor design only exists on paper or 3D images these numbers aren't optimistic they are blatant lies. The companies that don't have 70+ years experience with nuclear have even more unrealistic claims.


    https://energycentral.com/c/ec/rolls-royce-raises-%C2%A3405m-its-16-unit-fleet-470mwe-pwrs



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,545 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    It's even easier to post absolute tripe based on a fallacious assumption. Had you checked the link you could have spared yourself. The price difference relationship is maintained, whichever column you choose to use.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Germany on Tuesday - https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electricity-data/chart/power_generation/12.07.2022/12.07.2022/today/

    Nuclear is the the grey stripe above solar (yellow). Solar peaked at a smidgen under 40GW

    There is no way a nuclear power plant could catch up with renewables + storage + smart grid and they can be rolled out in a faction of the time. And renewables will cost less because you need to build them anyway while you are waiting for the nuclear plants to be delayed yet again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,603 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Isn't that what they have trying to do for the last 10 years plus, with little to show for it other than spiralling energy costs and heavy reliance on Russian Gas??. Some stink of failure from this latest move on that front


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliecoleman/2022/07/08/germany-reopens-coal-plants-because-of-reduced-russian-energy/?sh=778b806b7350



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    While I'd agree they've years of poor renewable performance , (not very well ltargeted incentives maybe ? ) Their electricity system isn't very gas orientated , -isn't it 15 % or near that ?

    Equally 40 gw from solar on a Tuesday afternoon -in mid July , during a heat wave while it's welcome doesn't really show much ... My old van got fantastic mpg , if it was going down a steep hill , the rest of the time it was a pig on fuel ...😂

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    It's 40GW that would otherwise have to be supplied by fossil fuel. It all adds up.


    Nuclear is a one trick pony. Constant baseload at multiples of the wholesale price. Except it's not constant

    Nuclear needs backup and or storage. So does renewables but they are much cheaper.

    Nuclear needs an awful lot more spinning reserve than renewables due to the way it can just drop off the grid without notice.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Two things about renewables (wind):

    1. It is very variable. It goes from 70% or 80% of demand to less than 5%.
    2. It is very predictable. It follows the prediction very closely.

    Nuclear is very predictable until it drops off-line. What happens then?



Advertisement