Nuclear - future for Ireland?

The government would have borrowed the cost of a NPP back then, repaying that loan with money saved by not needing to import oil. North Sea gas did not come into the energy market until the early 1980s, so at this time we were dependent on oil for our electricity. Financially, there wasn't a problem, especially as this is the early to mid 1970s, when the economy was growing, if slowly: the pit of despair only opened around 1981 or so…

The plan to build two of a potential four reactors at Carnsore Point in Wexford dates back to 1968, and got going after the 1973 Oil Crisis, but it was hugely unpopular, and the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 made it impossible to sell to the electorate. The plan was canned in 1981. Moneypoint, which began construction in 1979, was Plan B for reducing our dependence on oil.

I wouldn't want one anywhere near me or my family, even though I know the stats are that overall they're safe ,

That's kind of a thing with everything though, there's a reason why the ESB built a CCG turbine at their existing aghada power station , ( aside from already having a facility there, ) or that Bord Gais did the same a couple of Kms up the road at the refinery site ,

Once people are used to something we tend to run with it , all the new nuclear power stations planned in the Uk and France are on the sites of existing nuclear power stations..

If money point was a particularly economically deprived area and relatively isolated, then the total shut down of the existing power station would possibly spur many in the area to protest for a nuclear power station if it was offered,

We can afford it now. 10 billion surplus last year and another 14 from Apple.

This plant size you keep on about couldn't be more wrong, we just set an all time consumption record a week or so ago.

Six 1.4 GW reactors would be a starting point. Funny how 37 GW of OSW doesn't raise an eyebrow, but one or two reactors is an upper limit.

You build infrastructure for future needs, not the current ones.

Just googled the polish project

In Nov 22,it was estimated at 20 billion us dollars for a 3 reactor station ,

By spring 23 it was estimated at 30 billion US ,

April 24 it's estimated at 37 billion US,

By November 24 the estimate is 40 billion ,

Obviously all those numbers would be subject to inflation , as would anything else built , but that could be extreme on a 10 to 15 year build ,

The good news is that Poland intends funding building the by direct government borrowing, so government bonds , which would be far cheap than commercial interest rates ,

We could have afforded it. The cost in the 1970s was much lower than today, in terms of buying power, and international finance for this kind of project was easy to come by.

It was lower but it was still not cheap and project failure was just as common back then. France's nuclear program was turbo charged by the oil crisis - with no fossil fuel resources at all, the crisis shocked the French deeply and they saw it as a potential threat to the very survival of the state. It was made a national priority and pursued on a "money is no object" basis.

There was also considerable cross-subsidy between military and civilian nuclear spending as a civilian program was seen as strategic.

I really doubt Ireland could have afforded a nuclear program. The debt crisis of the 1980s was just around the corner (fun fact - the highest debt/GDP ratio ever experienced by the country occurred in 1983 - which just beats the peak during the IMF years - around 2013). Unemployment and emmigration were rising, given the only energy source on the Island was turf, the oil crisis hit particularly hard and caused rising inflation. Borrowing money was insanely expensive (fancy paying 16% interest for a mortgage?) and the value of the punt fell against Sterling after the peg was broken.

Another biggie - the state was had to deal with the spill-over of sectarian violence and terrorism that had erupted that decade.

This was a country with basically no real road infrastructure - not a single km of motorway, one of the lowest life expectancies in Europe, crumbling schools with 30+ kids per teacher, etc.

I don't see where the money could have come from. The country was already borrowing as heavily - between 1973 and 1980 the national debt nearly doubled - just to pay for day-to-day running.

I think you are misconstruing the Polish situation and pricing, which is not your fault as the reporting is usually rather bad with journalists not getting references in Zloty, US$ and €, not to mention translation issues.

As of Nov 2024 the Polish government is allocating 60 billion zloty to the Westinghouse 3 reactor deal, which is €14 billion.

Cost confusion also arises because there is a second deal for another NPP with 2 reactors from S Korean KHNP, estimated in july this year to cost €16.46 billion

So €30.5 billion in total for 5 reactors. The Korean units have a higher output than the westinghouse ones, at 1.4 GW per unit.

If you take the Korean price of €5.87 B per GW, that's 46% cheaper than ESB Networks €8.63 Billion per GW for utility scale solar. That's without even considering all the extra costs like interconnections and grid stability measures needed for intermittency and having half the lifespan.

Even the French designed Finnish Ol3 reactor, which cost 6 times the original estimate, works out cheaper than ESB utility solar.

The start of Europe's first new nuclear plant in 16 years has helped bring down electricity prices in Finland by more than 75 percent. The Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear plant began operating in April and is capable of meeting up to 15 percent of the country's power demand. Nuclear power made up a third of Finland's total electricity generation in 2021.

According to Nord Pool, a physical electricity exchange, average spot electricity prices in Finland fell to €60.55 (USD65.69) per megawatt hour in April from €245.98 per megawatt hour in December, a decrease of 75.38 percent.

Wouldn't want to see electricity prices fall here, 37 GW of OSW boondoggle will see to that.

Its definitely confusing,

It was announced by the polish president as a 20 billion US dollar project for the first 3 reactor station in November 22,

and was definitely up 34.6 billion euro for the first 3 reactor Westinghouse in April this year ,

The same 3 reactors being reported as 40 billion USD by November just gone , and due to be completed by 2040 ,

I'm not sure what's included in the price , but that doesn't include interest , and obviously regular inflation will be on top of that ..

How many billions in interest will the Polish Government have spent in interest by 2040, when the plant starts production, and starts paying for itself , assuming current polish government borrowing costs of 1,825%, on 10 year bonds ?

Just to give an idea , if the 40 billion had to be paid upfront, (which obviously it wouldnt ) , at 1,825%, (likely to be much higher in future ), and not accounting for inflation in Poland either (averaging 5% per annum over last 5 years ) anyway it"d be an extra 12.5 billion on top of the possible 40 billion construction price ,

Oh and all that annoying interconnector cost , grid build out ,grid level storage cost , spinning reserve cost ect ect for renewables In Ireland. ??? , ?

That's all needed for nuclear as well ,

plus we'd have to build out generating capacity to get us through the 15 year build process as well ,

As you never tire of pointing out, 37 GW of OSW doesn’t mean 37 GW of power at every moment. The real reason, though is the failure condition. Wind is very granular: a fault in a farm usually results in a drop in output, not complete cessation. Nuclear’s fault condition is always to shut down completely, and dropping even 1.4 GW of normally steady-state generation is a major shock to the grid. That needs a backup.

If you put 8+ GW of Nuclear on our grid, you’ll need nearly as much in interconnect to make sure that the lights stay on if those reactors fail or when they need maintenance or refuelling (also a complete shutdown).

If we’re building so much interconnection just to support Nuclear, then it’s better and cheaper build out wind, export that, and just import nuclear energy from our neighbours when needed.

We can’t afford it now. Look at the prices to extend existing facilities across Europe. Now, ask yourself: is Ireland a cheaper place to build than the UK, than Finland, than Poland? Any rationale using the words “Apple money” is bogus - I heard enough of it in the run-up to the election, and it’s all the same: like a kid trying to spend his Communion money over and over again.

If you take the Korean price of €5.87 B per GW, that's 46% cheaper than ESB Networks €8.63 Billion per GW for utility scale solar.

Perfect example of the denialist "math".

Pick the cheapest built nuclear reactors in the world* and compare their cost with a completely different tech in a high cost country.

1 GW of solar PV has been done in the US for example for about $1B - why not compare your Korean number with that?

Or since $1B worth of solar PV costs $9 in Ireland (according to yourself), then I expect a $10B Korean reactor would end up costing $90B, right?

And do you really want the "cheapest" nuclear reactor?

The Korean nuclear industry has a dreadful reputation - as the reactors they built involved "systematic malfeasance along the nuclear supply chain involving the falsification of reports of safety tests on nuclear parts and equipment" in the words of the Korean government. Then Kori 1 reactor suffered a major incident which the lads covered up and only admitted a month later when forced to because it's affects were detectable. In 2012, 2000 faked quality certificates were found -likely to be tip the iceberg. Toss in some bribery and corruption. This stuff had been going on for years but amazingly the Koreans only set up an independent nuclear safety body in 2010 - which is when all the rottenness was discovered.

The UAE is particularly pissed off with their "bargain" reactors built by Korea Electric Power Corporation - as all this stuff emerged after construction. It's not cheap to go back over every part in a nuclear plant and check whether it's genuine and has been properly certified or whether it came in the post from Alibaba. And of course, there is zero opacity on the cost or pricing of their 3 reactors with ranges from 25B to over 40B.

The problem is that you can spend an enormous amount of money on renewables - like Germany did - and still be hopelessly reliant on fossil fuels. Below was Germany two evenings ago. Hardly an impressive result for a policy that has been running for decades and consumed Lord knows how many hundreds of billions of Euro.

If I owned a coal mine, I would get behind anti-nuclear "environmentalism" because I would regard the below as a success.

demand reduction is the big win for solar here. I'm also not sure how viable it is for grid generation given how cloudy our weather can be, but there's no doubt that fitting solar panels at point of electricity use reduces daytime demand for electricity (and by being on site it has the advantage of near-zero transport loss)