Nuclear - future for Ireland?

You have been on here telling all and sundry that it takes 17 years to build a nuclear plant. Longer if it was for a countries first plant. Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) have built 4 with a combined capacity of 5.6 GW in a little over 8 years from start of construction to commissioning in a country that previously had none, for a cost of €27.44 Billion. That is €5.21 Billion per GW. One third of the cost of the same from offshore wind at face value, but with further capitalization required during the lifetime of a nuclear plant for offshore turbines, reality is closer to one quarter of the cost.

There was a poster on here at one stage who said something along the lines of electricity generation being basically simple in that it was just science and engineering, and they were correct to a point. But like any engineering project it also has to be financially feasible.

You have been campaigning for a 100% grid from renewables generation. Something even the Danes do not believe is achievable. So I see your analogy and raise you a conundrum.

How do you propose to achieve it at a cost that would not be so insane that it would not just bankrupt the state but also have consumers paying the highest electricity charges on the planet when we are consistently in the top three most expensive in Europe ?

No surprise that you have yet again made no attempt to answer what you were asked on how you plan to achieve a 100% renewables grid with what and at at what cost.

Do you even read what is posted ?

A few days ago (#post 2550) I showed you that even if by some miracle we did manage to produce 3TWh of methane by 2030, in 2024 we produced 0.075 TWh of bio-methane, - 0.001% of the gas we consumed. That 3TWh , even if we had produced it for last year instead of 2030, would only have represent 0.04% of the gas we consumed for a year where our consumption of gas rose by 2.5%.

Bio-methane even if we did get to that 3 TWh by 2030 would not even be running to stand still, let alone reduce our consumption of natural gas.

I have already shown you how and why bio-methane is due to the huge areas of grassland that would be require for electricity generation is as crazy as hydrogen, pumped storage, battery storage, offshore wind farm costs, solar with it`s Winter capacity factor etc. yet you still persist with these hopiums that are so financially and impractical to us ever getting to net zero they are verging on the insane.

Where did you get the idea that I believe we should have nuclear to make up for the intermittent unreliable nature of renewables ?

Rather than chasing and throwing good money after bad on an unachievable 100% renewables grid we should be following the French example rather than the German one we have been, which has them in as big a hole as we are on emissions and fines.

You are increasingly coming across as a crusader that would happily mortgage the country into insolvency while leaving us with the most expensive electricity in the world rather than even consider nuclear. While at the same time being happy to import it to get us out of holes as long as somebody else is doing the heavy lifting.

I also said I believe we should be following the French example which has French generation emissions the lowest in Europe. Rather than the German example which we have been doing.

France is generating ~70% of its electricity from nuclear and has no problem with fuel during maintenance. Especially as maintenance is scheduled for times of low demand. Along with supplying that 70% domestically they also exported 101.3 TWh which left them with net exports of 89 TWh and a profit of over €5 Billion.

Maintenance of nuclear plants is scheduled, so unlike renewables their output does not suddenly disappear. And before anyone suggests French nuclear maintenance is only possible due to renewables. Last year 35% of our electricity came from wind/solar. France 12%, and as far As I can see, we are more or less locked into increasing the installed capacity of onshore and solar from the present 6.7 GW to 17GW by 2030.

If three times our current demand from renewables installed capacity could not cover for maintenance then it is very questionable as to what their benefits are. It`s not as if they have given us reasonably priced electricity or emissions levels that will not see us paying untold billions in fines.

The percentage of our demand that we have been importing over the last few years has been increasing year on year. Going from 9.5% in 2023 to i4% in 2024. This has been from the U.K. who themselves are net importers so I do not see that continuing unless on a quid pro quo basis. They have nuclear, so I would not see it as inconceivable that had we nuclear we could come to an understanding with both the U.K. and France on scheduling maintenance that would suit everyone.

There is also the theoretical that we could plan for a 100% nuclear powered grid. The capital costs of offshore are now 3 - 4 times that of nuclear so we could go for that, gold plate all the plants and we would still be quids in compared to the present plan.

Wake up to the real world. Offshore has priced itself out of the market compared to the cost of recently built nuclear plants and the contract prices recently agreed leave nuclear per GW delivered at a fraction of offshore.

With the present plan we would be throwing good money after bad on a plan that has clearly failed as well paying fines forever and a day, and having the most expensive electricity on the planet after bankrupting the state in the process.

…. and we are back to hydrogen. It`s like playing whac-a-mole. How often has it to be shown to you by posters just how insane the idea of hydrogen storage is to compensate for intermittent renewables ?

The U.K. cfd price for green hydrogen alone is £241 (€278). Twice that of Hinkley C. Which not long ago was your reason why we should not even consider nuclear. For storage and transporting it`s the devil`s own soup. Highly volatile, leaks like a sieve and highly corrosive. Even the company you cite who substituted 2% of hydrogen for natural gas does not appear to have a lot of faith in it when it comes to it being the answer. In July they invested £1.30 Bn. (€1.50 Bn.) of their own money for a 15% stake in Sizewll C.

Another reason you should take note of that investment is that it means the capital investment for Sizewell C, a 3.2 GW nuclear plant is €10 Bn. Allowing for it`s capacity factor that is €3 Bn. per GW compared to the current U.K. price for offshore of €6.5 Bn. that Orsted recently pulled out of for Hornsea because it was not financially viable. When you factor in their relative lifespans, Hornsea would have required at least two more capital investments which would have left it as near as makes no difference to 3X that of Sizewell.

Face facts, even if everything else in renewables came on stream by 2030, with Sceirde Rocks gone we would not even make that 23% reduction in emissions that was supposed to be a 51% reduction. There is no way we will reach the emissions target for 2050, or any time in between, with renewables that would not bankrupt the country several times over and still leave us with the worlds most expensive electricity plus paying fines on top until the end of days.

You have been making predictions here that have fallen one after the other like dominoes. The latest to drop was your prediction that a nuclear plant could not be built in less than 17 years. More for a country that was building it`s first. KEPCO recently built 4 in the UAE, a country that had no prior nuclear plant, in 8 years. If you were to put financial cost to what you are championing I might possibly take your predictions seriously, but at this stage we both know that is not going to happen.

That half the time spent building the plant, 8 years, just further shows how wildly inaccurate your predictions are, when according to you for a country building their first nuclear plant it would take 20+years. You have also rather conveniently ignored that they were completed at a fraction of the cost of offshore wind, which you continue to champion, without a single figure to even suggest otherwise.

That €10 Bn. did seem a low figure to me, but then it was based on the investment from the company you linked, Centrica, announced in July on the 15% stake they had taken in Sizewell C for £1.3 Bn.

A company incidentally that doesn`t appear to favour your idea of using hydrogen for electricity storage, instead substituting it for a percentage of natural gas for domestic use. Which in itself, even ignoring the strike price, is very questionable when even small percentages have a corrosive effect on gas pipelines. As to the construction cost of Sizewell C, even at £38 Bn. it will be a lot cheaper than offshore wind costing €60 Bn.or more for the same when at least two further capitalisations would be require.

You are like a magpie chasing after shiny useless objects. The current plan here for green hydrogen, even ignoring its volatility, storage and distribution problems, is financial lunacy.

The CFD that Orsted walked away from for Hornsea was €98 per MWh. The CFD for green hydrogen in the U.K. is €276. Even if we got the strike price that Orsted walked away from, the strike price here for the consumer when that of greent hydrogen was included would be €98 x 2 + €276 = €472 per MWh. That is over three times the CFD for Hinkley of €148.50.

How many times do you have to be shown this before the penny drops that even as we are - being scalped on electricity charges with us consistently in the top three in Europe - what you are backing would set a world record for a strike price and sink our economy ?

The cost of offshore wind are not my figures based on speculation and pulling numbers out of nowhere with nothing to back them up.

They are based on present U.K. prices - that Orsted walked away from as being non-viable - and the capacity factor of offshore wind turbines being €16 Bn per GW. That has also been shown as the price for wind farms contracts in Taiwan and the U.S. The current Capex for Sizewell C is £38 Bn (€43.6 Bn.). For offshore wind farms that would require at least two more capital investments during their comparative lifetimes where the cost would be, even ignoring inflation, at the very least €60 Bn. 38% (€16.4Bn.) more expensive Every other figure you have quoted is again based on speculation of a contingency plan that those involved in the project do not believe will be needed. It`s not as if contingency plans are unique to nuclear. Corio Generation and the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund I imagine had one to cover their €60.4 million loss due to Sceirde Rocks. As would Orsted and all the other wind companies that walked away from contracts worldwide that were financially non-viable.

Why do you keep repeating a lie when you know it`s a lie ?

It has been pointed out to you before that consumers do not pay for nuclear "all day everyday whether it`s needed or not". They pay, same as they do for renewables, for what they use at the relevant strike price. Unlike green hydrogen which I will get too later.

As I have said to you before, stop worrying yourself over French nuclear. It`s doing just fine. Generating 70% of what they use and earning them over €5 Bn. a year in profits for the past few years from exports. Even when they were compelled to provide their renewables competitors with up to 30% of their generation at a bargain basement price of €42 per MWh to keep them in business. This year doesn`t look any different other than with ARENH now increased to €70 per MWh from €42 per MWh the likelihood is even higher profits.

You could also give your head a rest on these convoluted ifs and maybes on green hydrogen. It`s really not that complicated. The plan for offshore wind generation is for 18.5 GW for hydrogen production due to the undependable nature of renewables where they drop to 6% or less for extended periods. That generation we would be paying for whether we used it or not. We would be paying a strike price for that alone over 2.5 times greater than Hinkley C, plus more if we did use it.

Using batteries instead is even more cuckoo land economics than hydrogen, pumped storage is not just a negative energy exercise, its a one shot deal and it`s done, and for those extended periods when wind is doing nothing all over Europe, the only thing coming through those inter-connectors would be nuclear. And even that would depend if due to demand we could get it when we needed it. Which does not say much for our energy security.

The reason you haven`t seen 60 yr old nuclear plants is because in the past in general they were only licensed for 40 years, but that is changing with many countries now extending those licenses. Nuclear plants being built nowadays have a lifespan of 60 years at least.

Nine Mile Point nuclear plant went on line in 1969 and is still going strong with no time set for decommissioning. Beznau, operating also since1969, with it`s license now extended until at least 2033. Pickering operating since 1971 has generated 1 million KWhs to date, and will operate until the end of 2026 after which time it will be refurbished to operate for a further 30 years.

I haven`t seen much of this refurbishing of wind turbines you keep talking about. Or what it would cost either. Far as I recall didn`t you post on another thread that a Scottish onshore wind farm was being refurbished (Galloway?), which was far from the reality. There was no refurbishing. Not only were the old turbines scrapped with new turbines replacing them, but the concrete bases were also ripped out and replaced as was the road into the site.

The idea that offshore turbines would be any different I find a bit fanciful with them having operated in an environment that has turned anything we have placed in it into less than scrap. Equinor`s Hywind had be towed from Scotland to Norway for heavy maintenance repairs after just 7 years in operation.

Unlike renewables nuclear can be ramped up and down. Renewables cannot be ramped up so when wind generation drops to 6% or less for extended periods to compensate for that with more renewables - especially in Winter when our demand is at it`s highest - or storage is simply not financially practical no matter the metric.

For a nuclear plant that has been operating for 55 years, for at least the last 20 the output has been very consistent. For all you know any drops in generation could just be demand related, But even if they were due to refueling, they would have been scheduled unlike renewables which drop off the scale with little or no warning.

The trajectory we are on will end up in a South Africa situation where the power is off up to 12 hours a day everyday because there is not enough generation.

That unfortunately is what it will take for governments to wake up.

Those people promoting wind turbines and the rest of the green nonsense that are driving us to disaster will need to see their own homes go dark before the heads come out of the sand. My god will the hypocrisy be exposed because they'll be the first ones crying (not at themselves of course, they'll blame someone else).

When you are dealing with cult like ideology those people are not open to logic or reason until the consequences hit them suddenly and hard.

France has been ramping up and down their reactors for decades. Modern reactors are built to operate in a load following mode where they can adjust their output by 5% per minute. That can also be used if needed for scheduled maintenance and refueling.

The problem with spending money today is that you will not have it tomorrow or any time in the future to spend on anything else.

That the cost of offshore wind is now up to twice for what it will deliver compared to nuclear, and that is not going to improve by continuing to spend money on offshore wind. Wind generation will require at least two further massive capital spends in the life time of a nuclear plant. This idea that at the end of its lifespan a wind turbine will continue on indefinitely with just a sticking plaster cost is not happening onshore, so the chances of it working offshore are zero. Some appear to believe that is what re-powering is when they hear these companies using the term. It`s not. It`s the scraping and replacing of turbines, their bases and often the road into the site. It`s a complete new development costing more than the original.

There is also the fact that continuing as we are - with the highest electricity costs in Europe - that price will would only be a fraction of what this current plan would leave us with. We would also still be paying billions in fines over emissions and no end in sight.

There is also the real danger that continuing with this plan would kill more people here than climate change would. With the prices we have for electricity there are constant warnings in Winter of people cutting back on heating, especially the elderly. Large increases in electricity charges are not going to help in that.