Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Any country that has nuclear energy should be looking at extending it as long as possible, and in some cases, there's a good case for expanding that capacity. For the rest of us, it’s not likely.

Our problem as a nuclear “virgin” is that the global industry is only able to operate by building huge plants, which would create problems for us. Leaving aside the enormous costs of building a plant, once it’s up and running we need backup sufficient to cover any single plant failure - but if just one plant provides 20% of our demand, we need a hell of a lot more interconnection to make that work.

Speaking of oversized construction, there’s been a significant development in the world of SMRs:

Nuclear startups face new competition as energy giant Enel enters the ring | TechCrunch

Much as I’m loathe to spread links from such a bullshit-amplifier as TechCrunch, the companies involved in this are real and serious players in the global mega-infrastructure business, so maybe this is a little more to it than the usual gang of tech-bros trying to swindle billions out of VC funds.

For background: Enel is the world’s second largest electricity company by revenue (China’s state-owned grid operator is the biggest) and Ansaldo builds power stations, but what’s interesting here is the presence of Leonardo SpA in that consortium. They’re a major European defence conglomerate: SMR technology has been the preserve of military users since its beginnings.

Lambay island can get in the queue. Limerick and Belmullet have already called shotgun for an NPP.

No.

This thread exists as a safety valve for the broader energy infrastructure one. It being here means that people who have no desire to see the endless back and forth of the nuclear debate don't have the other thread polluted with those arguments.

Maybe I've missed something but why would a climate change denier promote nuclear energy?

If one rejects the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then it would follow on from such a view that we should continue burning coal. Today, a pro-nuclear view is the logical result of looking at the utter failure of policies like the German Energiewende where they spent Lord knows how many billions on it and still have an order of magnitude worse carbon emissions per kwh of energy used than what France has managed since the 1970s.

Climate-change denialiam isn't a scientific position, it's a political one: it's a form of reactionary Conservatism.

Similarly, the Green movement was at its outset, a political one. The Greens started as a radical, left-wing anti-pollution movement, and on that basis, they opposed Nuclear energy.

Conservatives, meanwhile, opposed the Greens on principle because the Green movement challenged their status quo. Thus, political conservatives supported Nuclear power mainly because it already existed and the Greens opposed it.

Later, as climate-change came to the fore, and more "ordinary" people became concerned about the environment, the Green position on Nuclear split, with the newer, more pragmatic, scientifically-minded members forming a Nuclear-tolerant wing alongside the more political "never nuclear" camp.

However, political conservatives have stuck to their position throughout this, and still cheerlead for Nuclear. To them it has nothing to do with CO2: it's purely an opposition to what they see as unacceptable change (renewables, demand pricing, polluter-pays policies) from the Greens. You'll find a strong crossover between Climate-change denialism and other strands of reactionary politics, like the perpetual "culture-war".

Before anyone starts a row: the question was specifically about climate-change deniers, so my answer is only about deniers. I am well aware that one can be sceptical about renewable energy without being a climate-change denier: while denialism almost always implies scepticism, that doesn't mean the reverse is true. (or, “p⇒q ⊬ q⇒p” if you prefer)

I can see nuclear in Ireland happening exactly as soon as modular off the shelf NPPs are being mass produced, which will be some time between now and the 12th of Never

Maybe I've missed something but why would a climate change denier promote nuclear energy?

Because they think it's some sort of checkmate intellectual move that will "own the greens/libs/whatever".

So they're not actually interested in nuclear at from what I've observed here - the deniers/nuclear promoters know little of the technical aspects or recent history of the sector and none that I can see have any kind of technical/engineering background or interest.

I think there's a significant intersection with the type that are into conspiracy theories. The personal type is typically convinced of their own unique abilities, intelligence and insights. When presented with the irrefutable fact that renewables have out-competed every other form of generation for investment for the last decade GLOBALLY whether in free liberal markets or command economies and at all sort of scales, it's mentally easier for many to cling to the belief that the world is full of "sheeple", hippies and fools who are too dumb to see or recognize how great nuclear power is.

If one rejects the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then it would follow on from such a view that we should continue burning coal.

It's not about logic or consistency, it's about a narcissistic need to look "smart" and denying AGW is not a "smart" look these days given all the widely available evidence. It will get you laughed out of the room.

Today, a pro-nuclear view is the logical result of looking at the utter failure of policies like the German Energiewende where they spent Lord knows how many billions on it and still have an order of magnitude worse carbon emissions per kwh of energy used than what France has managed since the 1970s.

To claim that Energiewende has been an "utter failure" is at least a gross exaggeration if not simply false. I don't mind conceding that it may have failed in some aspects if you can provide some fact-checkable numbers? It has been a success according a bunch of metrics: in terms of electricity supply security, Germany has gone from being the biggest importer of electricity in the world in the 1990s to being in the top three global exporters every year for the last 20 years. Coal use has declined by more than 60% since 2000, Lignite by even more, the reliability of the grid has improved significantly (look for SAIDI numbers), the amount of CO2 emissions involved in electricity generation has fallen by more than half, etc.

Comparing Energiewende to a French energy program from decades in the past makes no sense - the 1970s was a completely different world in terms of the energy sector. Not only was the decade dominated by the oil crisis, but many widely-used technologies we take for granted like natural gas turbines, HVDC, high-voltage transmission, batteries, wind turbines, PV panels either did not exist at the time or were niche/not commercially viable. That's before you consider the advances in the sophistication of grid management and grid planning.

We can no more use a program from the 1970s as a model for a modern energy policy than we could use Roman approaches to road building to build a modern motorway system. What "worked" 50 years ago will simply NOT work today - if it did France wouldn't have spent the last 17 years trying to construct a single reactor in Flammenville while in the 70s they were finishing multiple reactors per year.

So wind farms at any cost to the environment or sensitive landscapes despite their many limitations as reliable energy providers?? Your type then have a cheek to accuse others of not caring about the planet!! Also you appear to be suffering from something called "Carbon Blindness or Tunnel Vision" neatly illustrated below

Where have I accused others of not caring for the planet? I think everybody on here does care about it; we just have different opinions on how to go about it and there are a variety of opinions. I can appreciate people's concerns about wind and support of nuclear. I just think that Ireland is not the best country to be in to realise those ambitions in 2024. That's the unfortunate reality. Our situation would be a lot easier if we had built nuclear in the 70s. But maybe not everyone on here is old enough to remember that Ireland was an economic basket case in the 70s and 80s. I don't know where the money for an NPP would have come from at the time.

What are the main things stopping nuclear in Ireland now? Just no interested TDs? I can't imagine any TD or Minister allowing it in their constituency.