Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Capt'n Midnight · 04-09-2022 11:50am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567940#Comment_119567940

Nuclear behaves like a hard drive. Sometimes you get warnings that all isn't well, other time it dies without warning.

Nuclear is not dependable no matter how good cherry-picked up-times appear. It's about the only power source where you can loose large parts of your fleet to "black swan" events like Politics, tsunami's, incidents overseas, fraud, jellyfish, global warming, drought etc. (unpredictable even though they've happened time and time again elsewhere). And unlike renewables you don't expect and plan for variable output.

You can only get 68% if you ignore imports. (and note 2.5GW of imports was going to pumped storage for later on, and solar is higher this year because it's quick and cheap to add more)

Nuclear 21.107 (out of 64GW installed is only 33%, for shame ) other French Generation 8.563GW. IMPORTS 6.718GW

Here is the same day last year. Exports (below the line) were 13.333GW because nuclear was producing 43.061GW , over TWICE what it produced yesterday.

Spin it anyway you want , this is abject failure caused by corner cutting. Was it because they didn't take the time to check for corrosion in a vain attempt to improve up-time ? or was it because €'s ? , it doesn't really matter because it just displays yet again the hubris in the nuclear industry.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-09-2022 12:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567940#Comment_119567940

Assuming the unit carries on operating until that time, it would have run continuously for 941 days.

With nuclear the more you look the worse it gets. No exceptions.

That reactor Hayshem 2-2 was up from Feb 18 2014 so that part of the claim looks valid. But does it prove reliability of nuclear power in general ? NO. Does it prove reliability at that site ? NO. Does it prove reliability there during that time ? NO. Does it even prove reliability there during the first half of the first year ? Again that's a big NO.

Another Hayshem reactor (1-1) was down from June 2014 to at least December 31st and reactor 1-2 had an outage extended by 9 days to at least Nov 9th (ie. two reactors at the site with unplanned outages at the same time). Also 1-2 dropped offline again on Jan 27th 2015.

So 3 years up-time vs. at least 6 months unplanned down-time in the first year alone which means that plant was only at 75% of capacity and dropped to 50% at times during the first year.

Cherry-picking nuclear up-times tells you nothing about how likely you are to need backup to keep the lights on.

That unit is also known as Hayshem 2-8 had an unplanned outage 8 months before the record run.

Here's a list of outages of UK power plants, it goes back to 2010 so you can't use the "ageing plant" excuse. Since the refuelling cycle are more than a year then if nuclear is reliable then no reactor should average more than 1 outage a year should it ? https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/92006/heysham-2-power-station-power-failures

NB it doesn't include times when they are running at reduced capacity. Nuclear is baseload only so all or nothing. ie. if it isn't producing most of the power it's supposed to be it's leaning heavily on backup.

Ireland doesn't have enough backup to handle a nuclear plant's maintenance window extending by two weeks. Because if we did then Dunkelflaute (dark calm days) wouldn't be an issue would it ?

Markcheese · 05-09-2022 6:13pm

https://twitter.com/dorfman_p/status/1566721237358968832?t=TzbMUZ8rzJX71-PHAoFogg&s=19

This just came in on my feed -

josip · 07-09-2022 9:35am

Some posters seem to be only in favour of nuclear and are critical of all other forms of generation: gas, wind, solar, biomass, coal, hydro.

Out of curiosity, and ignoring the economics, could a country have only nuclear for its electricity generation? Would it require interconnectors to offload the surplus during low demand?

Capt'n Midnight · 07-09-2022 7:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119582948#Comment_119582948

The rule of thumb with nuclear used to be that you needed to be selling power 80% of the time or you aren't breaking even. It's strictly baseload only. There's also cooling issues so at times nuclear power plants in the US have paid the grid to take their power.

https://www.smartgriddashboard.com/#all/demand - this time of year peak demand during the day is 5GW and at night it falls to 3GW (and that's with Turlough Hill clipping off nearly 0.3GW off the top and bottom ) So in theory you could have 3GW nuclear and 2GW of peaking plant. Except that in winter you'd need another GW or 2 GW for peaking demand. And another GW spare to cater for plant being down for maintenance. Besides renewables are way cheaper for the the 3GW so the 80% time gets eaten into.

You need interconnectors AND a way to create demand around the clock. Night rate electricity was a way to subsidise nuclear. Fossil fuel plants don't need to provide a constant output.

France got the closest at 70%. But that was by using less efficient reactors that could ramp up/down over a five hour period and having a massive push to electrical heating to keep a 24/7 demand for nuclear power. They also load balanced with Germany, Italy, the low countries, Spain, Italy and Switzerland. Italy usually import lots of hydro from Switzerland so some it may be re-exporting, most of the other links are bi-directional. France also has lots of hydro.

https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electricity-trading# - compare winter/summer and now/previous years

Wind is not dispatchable, but thanks to computers it's fairly predictable so can be balanced with dispatchable generators. Nuclear can drop offline without warning or not startup on schedule. 32 reactors offline out of 56 is what happens when all your eggs are in one basket.

cnocbui · 08-09-2022 7:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568933#Comment_119568933

"Two ESB power plants facing closure over corroded pipes" May 10 2006

"Eirgrid said this week that outages at the older fossil fuel plants were due to scheduled maintenance .

However, the MoS has learned that all four of the turbines at Tarbert power station were shut down this week - but only one was for planned maintenance work."

Keep on with spinning your little yarn about relative reliabilties, cherry picking at every opportunity because not doing so would expose the lie.

When the US Department of Energy states that nuclear power generation is the 'most reliable, and it's not even close', they are not cherry picking, they are giving an overview of a technology, which when talking about national infrastructure, is how such a topic should be approached, not the falacious nonsense you endlessly spout.

Capacity factor encapsulates reliability. Nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of any technology we currently use: 90% in Sweden, 92% in the US and 96% in South Korea.

When you claim that this is not the case, you are lying, just as the ESB were lying about unsceduled maintainance due to breakdowns as being 'scheduled'.

cnocbui · 08-09-2022 7:15pm

In answer to: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119589702/#Comment_119589702

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560964#Comment_119560964

Capt'n Midnight · 08-09-2022 8:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119591647#Comment_119591647

It's now 32 out of 56 nuclear reactors off line in France. (they say they'll be back by winter) 90% up time is of no use when more than half your country's power sources go offline and stay off line at the same time. Paradoxically because nuclear can have long uptime there can be longer gaps between inspections.

Korea had 10 out of 23 reactors off line during peak summer demand for air con in part because of amongst other things fake safety certs, that's not 96% availability, not even close. Again uptime is no use if the plant isn't there when you need it.

If your train isn't running the last thing you want to hear is that there won't be a replacement bus because "the trains have been so reliable until now we didn't have a plan for one".

History has shown time and time again that you can't rely on nuclear unless you have massive backup on the grid. In other words you aren't relying on nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-09-2022 12:48am

You can't do nuclear on the cheap. Maintenance costs will come back and bite you.

In 2011 EDF announced a €55Bn life extension program for it's reactors. That's about €1Bn per existing reactor to get a 10 year extension on the original 30 year lives. On the other hand the Cour des Comptes (Court of Audit) said it estimates that almost double this amount would have to be spent by 2030. So that's close to €2Bn per reactor.

In January 2012, the Cour des Comptes said that investing in new nuclear generating capacity or any other form of energy would be too expensive and come online too late. Extending the operating lives of its existing nuclear power reactors would be its best option.

They had over 10 years to find and fix things like the corrosion issues that have now cost them €29 Billion so far this year and less than 50% output from the entire fleet since April.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-09-2022 12:54am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119565669#Comment_119565669

Exclusive: EDF contractors relax radiation exposure limits to speed up reactor repairs. Workers should still be below legal limits but it's not a good look.

EDF has said it expects to meet its schedule to restart the 29 reactors currently offline by Feb. 18, though some analysts say that is too optimistic. Read the article for more details on delays.

bk · 28-09-2022 3:50pm

cnocbui wrote:

"The cost of offshore wind plus storage is prohibitive - more than double that of the unmentionable alternative proven zero CO2 tech in the short term and 5 times the cost in the long term. It's the consumers that foot the bill for energy infrastructure."

But Nuclear reactors currently available technically can't work on the Irish grid, they are simply far too large for a grid as small as Irelands, so they just aren't an option for us at all.

Also I don't know where you get the idea the new Nuclear is cheaper then wind + hydrogen, new Nuclear is vastly more expensive. Specially when you take into account that those Nuclear reactors would need to be backed up by Hydrogen as well. After all you need to have backups for when the Nuclear plants go offline, like in France at the moment with over half their plants currently offline.

The choice for Ireland isn't Wind + Hydrogen versus Nuclear, it is Wind + Hydrogen versus Nuclear + Hydrogen.

It doen't matter if you go Wind or Nuclear, with a disconnected, small grid like ours, both require a backup, in the short term it will be gas, but in the medium to long term it will need to transition to Hydrogen, with the hydrogen either produced with excess wind or Nuclear power.

The reality is it will be vastly faster and cheaper for us to build out more Wind power, then it ever would be to build Nuclear power plants even if they were technically feasible, which they currently aren't. It would simply impossible to reach our 2030 goals with Nuclear.

specialbyte · 28-09-2022 3:59pm

I suspect it would also be faster and cheaper to build another 700MW interconnector to France than try to build a nuclear reactor in Ireland. The interconnectors are passing through the planning process fairly smoothly. The same would not be true for a nuclear power plant. Added advantage of an interconnector is that we can export wind energy to France when it is blowing a gale here and import nuclear energy from France when it isn't.

Sam Russell · 28-09-2022 4:10pm

[Quote BK] The reality is it will be vastly faster and cheaper for us to build out more Wind power, then it ever would be to build Nuclear power plants even if they were technically feasible, which they currently aren't. It would simply impossible to reach our 2030 goals with Nuclear.

It is already too late to build a nuclear reactor for 2030, and probably for 2050. Hinckley C started construction in 2017, with a target completion of 2027 - now delayed to Sept 2028. It was originally announced in 2010. So, if we announced a nuclear plant today, it would not be ready by 2040 n that timescale - assuming it was as 'successful' as Hinckley C, but the current estimate for that one is €30 billion, and rising.

Now, if we could identify a site, we would still have to get a lot of approvals from environmental and planning bodies etc. before it could even be announced, plus some company prepared to build it - no chance.

KildareP · 28-09-2022 4:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676756#Comment_119676756

2030 targest, nuclear is not the answer. If it's the only answer to hit out 2050 targets, then it needs to be in planning NOW, not after 2030.

First off - nuclear is too big for our grid. Currently, yes.

We plan to transition all transport and all heating over to the grid by 2030 and carry on to see a full transition off fossil altogether by 2050. Everything will ultimately be powered from an electrical source.

Where is all that power going to come from AND have sufficient excess to produce hydrogen as well?

Second - nuclear reliability.

Yes, their reactors are undergoing significant downtime. In much the same way as we face blackouts in the coming years, because like us with Shannonbridge, Lanesboro, Tarbert and Moneypoint (over one third of our peak midweek demand generation capacity), France let many of it's reactors head towards natural retirement and didn't plan long term replacements, didn't plan overhauls to extend their lifetimes and didn't have sufficient alternative generation sources to take their place now they suddenly find themselves having to rely on them in the absence of other sources of energy. Some of these reactors are older than fossil plant which we've long since retired! Both ourselves and the French have made drastically poor decisions and a complete lack of sustainable plans around our grid in recent years, regardless of the ultimate fuel source.

Third - nuclear backup.

I keep seeing nuclear being ruled out because it needs backup. What's the backup for wind?

The high pressures that are known to bring us extended periods (weeks) of heat and cold, also naturally coincide with extremely calm, still days and nights for extended periods of time which is when our power demand tends to peak. What's the plan for those events? How much nameplate wind capacity do we actually need to take into account the real world capacity factor, being ready to meet future grid demands as we electricify transport (1m EV's would alone add ~2GW of additional sustained demand during 2300-0800 hours) and heating, being able to produce hydrogen in sufficient quantities to be viable and be able to have significant excess during the windiest times to keep the grid live whilst also sufficiently replenishing our energy storage stock for those extended periods when the wind is barely blowing at all?

If we have to keep, say, 90 days storage, then we have to meet our demand AND have sufficient excess to generate, for example, hydrogen as our storage. Given typical round trip efficiency of hydrogen is ~40%, we need over 2.5 times the amount of power in as we get back out, so over triple our demand in sustained generation output for 90 days to keep the grid powered and be generating hydrogen. If we then get a two week lull and have to use two weeks worth of hydrogen storage, then we need at least two weeks of over triple our demand in generation output to replenish stocks back to 90 days.

Fourth - cost. Costs often omitted when comparing wind against other sources is the backup needed for when it's not online:

Who is going to build the excess wind generation capacity that will only be used to its maximum when it's replenishing hydrogen storage?

Who is going to build the hydrolisis plants that can only run and produce hydrogen when there's excess wind available to be used?

Who is going to be build the hydrogen backup plants to generate the electricity that will only be used when the wind doesn't blow?

Fifth - hydrogen.

Hydrolisis plants can't ramp up and down in line with wind availability. They need a stable, secure electricity supply at all times they are expected to be run - a baseload generation source if you will. What's that stable baseload to be, if it's not fossil based?

And if all countries are going to bank on hydrogen as the new fossil, what's to say we don't end up in the exact same scenario with hydrogen as we are with gas, traded as a commodity on a highest bidder basis?

cnocbui · 28-09-2022 5:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676809#Comment_119676809

Interconnectors cost billions and they don't generate a single watt of power, so you have a huge expenditure and then have to pay someone for the power you get from it - if they have the spare capacity and are willing to let you have as much as you need, which is a stupid assumption.

They are a daft idea as a source of energy. That investment should be put into energy generation assets. The current energy crisis in Europe should have made everyone thinking about national energy supplies realise that national self sufficiency is the only sensible option. An interconnector can be severed, as the Nordstream ruptures should have made pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.

The celtic boondoggle is projected to cost €1 billion, so expect it to be higher, for a capcity of 700 MW. That's a cost of €1.3 billion per GW, with no energy generated, you have to pay more for that. At slightly more than 3 times that price, you could get a GW of nuclear generation capacity that will deliver for 60 years.

cnocbui · 28-09-2022 5:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676756#Comment_119676756

I got the idea by working it out.

The UAE Barakeh nuclear power plant cost $4.54 Billion per GW with a Korean capacity factor of 96%. East Anglia One wind farm in the UK cost $3.27 Billion per GW with a capacity factor of 47%, so times 3, gives you $9.81 Billion per GW, but then there's the little matter of OSW having about a third the lifespan of a modern nuclear plants 60 years, so your cheap offshore wind ends up costing you somewhere around $26.5 billion per GW over 60 years vs $4.54 plus a bit for fuel and maintenance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119598416#Comment_119598416

Why would it be technically impossible to build APR-400 reactors that each have a capcity of 1.345 GW? Minimum system demand is about the same as two such reactors output. You do know that our grid is projected to soon need to be able to supply a lot more than it currently does due to the extra burden of EVs, heat pumps and data centres? The currenet minimum demand will be way higher in the ten years or so it might take to build them due to overnight EV charging, let alone data centres.

Busman Paddy Lasty · 28-09-2022 5:51pm

Planning omnishambles and NIMBYism. There is surely no chance of a nuclear plant being approved in Ireland.

Should an interconnector be the only method of getting nuclear power into the grid then it's the best possible solution.

MV33 · 28-09-2022 6:02pm

Ireland should build a nuclear plant, how much does it cost to build?

Capt'n Midnight · 28-09-2022 7:07pm

Just a reminder that nuclear is a dependable power source right up until it isn't and then you're in deep doggy do do.

Right now in North West Europe.

Sweden : Ringhals 4 nuclear outage extended another two months to end of January "Ringhals 4 was stopped for annual routine maintenance in August, but was not able to restart after the pressure vessel surrounding the reactor core was damaged during tests." - Tests ? Didn't they watch Chernobyl ?

Germany : Isar 2 will need to be taken offline for "a week" for repairs even though the operator previously said they could keep going. "According to Preussen-Elektra, the standstill must take place in October because the fuel elements of the reactor core would have had too little reactivity in November to start the plant up again from the standstill, the BMUV announced." This is a nuclear physics thing, reactors can't be turned off and on again like other generators.

France : Cruas 4 had an automatic shutdown, it's a thing with nuclear they can go offline at the drop of a hat.

UK : Out of 5 nuclear power stations only one has both units reactors at nominal full load. Two at reduced load due to leaks. Heysham 2 Reactor 8 - Expected return to service October 6 / Hartlepool Reactor 2 - Expected return to service 28 September 2022 - am adding dates so you can see if/when they drift. Note they will still be listed as "planned outages" even though extending outages is not part of any plan.

Also

Ukraine : has shutdown reactors for reasons. It's a reminder that nuclear is susceptible to kinds of outages that other generators aren't.

cnocbui · 28-09-2022 7:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677310#Comment_119677310

About $4.54 Billion per GW of capacity, roughly.

tom1ie · 28-09-2022 7:44pm

With regards to the argument about nuclear being too big for our grid, how is that?

Can we not build a couple of smaller reactors- won’t this help when one reactor is offline for Maintainence?

Capt'n Midnight · 28-09-2022 8:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677249#Comment_119677249

Even if you could build two APR-400 reactors that each have a capcity of 1.345 GW you would need a super flexible grid to cater for their inflexibility.

Able to add 1GW at peak times daily, as well as adding another 1GW baseload in winter and be able to provide another 1GW of backup within 5 seconds and the full 1.345GW within 15 seconds and keep it up for as long as the outages last. And be able to provide 2.7GW during the years of inevitable construction delays. And it can't cost anything because of there won't be much cash left after the billions invested in nuclear. And it can't use fossil fuel can it ?

96% average is cherry picking. You don't even need to tell us the worst case scenario , just tell us what's the worst that's happened so far and how you'd plan for it. A reminder that Korea had multiple reactors off line for months during summer a while back for various reasons including fake parts and fake safety certs.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119676851#Comment_119676851

A reminder that the cost increase (£3bn) for Hinkley-C so far this year is close to the original cost of an EPR power plant. And interest rates in the UK are climbing so there's more pain to come. Long construction times make nuclear particularly vulnerable to economic changes.

MV33 · 28-09-2022 8:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677625#Comment_119677625

How much capacity do we need on this island?

cnocbui · 28-09-2022 10:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119677688#Comment_119677688

Of course we can, the argument is specious and contrived. If we have too much energy from wind or solar, why, then it's Irelands oil, to quote a moron, and we can be clever clogs and export it to France or the UK and make lots of money. But if we had excess energy from any other source, why then that would be a terrible burden, we wouldn't know what to do with it all, it might even go to waste, proving we should build offshore wind farms because they make oil we can export and grow rich from.

The mental gymnastics turbine shaggers go through to spin the BS is head wrecking.

The Korean APR 1400 produces 1.4 GW. The load on the grid at 04:00 seems to be 3.225 GW, so two APR 1400 reactors could supply most of that baseload.

josip · 29-09-2022 9:09am

Where would we build a nuclear power station in Ireland?

cnocbui · 29-09-2022 10:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119679032#Comment_119679032

Moneypoint, as that would suit Dub nimby's and fit in with existing infrastructure. Somewhere on the East coast with suitable geography and existing HT power lines, as that would be closer to the main market and would reduce transmission losses. The possibilities are likely numerous if you add a willingness to run HT lines to a suitable site.

Busman Paddy Lasty · 29-09-2022 10:28am

Greenore up in Louth if there isn't some SAC on the estuary. Prevailing wind blowing away from Ireland :-)

josip · 29-09-2022 12:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119679306#Comment_119679306

If you think running HT lines will the biggest reason for the objections to nuclear power in Ireland you might be mistaken. Also the East Coast is reasonably populated and you would be hard pressed to find a location far enough away from dwellings as to not attract objections. Unlike Australia for example, which with large swathes of unpopulated coastline and a domestic supply of uranium, is very well suited to nuclear power.

cnocbui · 29-09-2022 12:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119680020#Comment_119680020

There are no unpopulated stretches of coastline in Australia near population centres that aren't national parks. Ocean views have long been highly prized. I didn't say I thought HT lines were anything to do with objections, it just is a practical consideration that saves on costs. I'd agree, Australia is incredibly well suited to nuclear, however, it's the world's largest exporter of coal, so there have historically been far cheaper options, hence the high carbon footprint.

One or two houses shouldn't be enough to stop a national infrastructure project, it's not a valid excuse, you CPO if necessary, obviously. With EU fines for CO2 reduction non-compliance running to hundreds of millions, there should be a fair sized kitty to buy a couple of farms out. In the UK, the town of Leiston is 2km from Sizewell, which only takes up 245 acres. There would be no problem finding a suitable place on the East coast.

This country can not build a NPP without changing the the imbecile's law banning it and either reforming the planning system or exempting it from the planning regime. The latter is of course what the country would do, if it did anything.

Markcheese · 29-09-2022 3:03pm

If Korean nuclear power is so cheap and wonderful how come they're not in the running in the UK for the 4 or 5 remaining nuclear stations that the UK wants to build .. ?

I think edf are heading for 28 billion for 2 reactors , (3.6 gw or something) in hinkley point C ..

Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Comments