Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Seeing as you appear to agree with that other poster on figures I have posted here on our projected 2050 demand and the expense of achieving that level of supply being incorrect due to, "glaring and obvious mistakes", then it should be no problem for you to also point out these glaring and obvious mistakes.

But then, similar to that other poster we both know that is not going to happen and we both know why don`t we Paddy !

I dunno claiming that 60% of renewable electricity in Europe came from bio, when the true number is under 13% seems like a fairly glaring mistake. But maybe that's just me being picky?

You've never retracted that claim have you, despite being challenged by numerous posters?

No worries.

With projected demand and the different capacity factors of different proposed sources to achieve that level of demand it`s an error easily made.

The basic thinking behind SMRs as I understand it would be that they would be mass produced in a factory setting and those that wanted them would buy whatever they required rather than build their own.

Building a nuclear plant is a whole different ball game. The average build time is 6 - 8 years. Other than that the total length of time it would take would be up to us getting our act together, and that is something we are particular poor at doing. But that said, I don`t believe we have any other options because the financial costs of doing otherwise are just not feasible and made even more so by the capital investment required being on a 25 year roll-over.

For myself I believe that both the authorities and Eirgrid have recognised for some time that the present plan will not meet our 2050 demand or emission requirements. Between 2016 and 2020 our emissions fell year on year. 2021 they increased by 1.4 million tonne and by 2022 1.6 million tonne. 2023 we imported 9.5% of our total demand, 2024 14% and for the first half of this year 17.1%. Source : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The current thinking on more interconnectors from the U.K., France and the latest Spain with a 1,000 Km cable, to me at least would suggest that importing electricity is now the plan to get our emission to the required 2050 level rather than generation using renewables. I would have doubts about the value of a Spainish interconnector though. Spain has a lot of solar during the Summer months, but when our demand is at it`s highest in Winter, supplying their own demand is tight. They generate 20% from nuclear and are planning to shut down their nuclear plants which would leave it even tighter to supply their own demand in Winter let alone export to us. But that plan could change as after the recent blackout there it has re-opened the debate on the wisdom of shutting those nuclear plants.

As I said, I do not have all the answers on us building our own, but when it comes to the finances and energy security then I do not see any other options. Denmark alone should be a clear warning to us. They have been the major advertisement for wind power, but even they have said renewables alone will not power the grid, and have changed their law governing nuclear. Added to that they recently could not get a single bid for their largest ever offering for offshore and are now extending licenses for wind turbines beyond their lifespan years until they literally fall apart.

Since 1985 Denmark prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. In May two third of Denmark`s members of parliament supported a motion for the government to launch an official investigation into the potential use of nuclear in Denmark to generate electricity. That was the same month that Lars Aagaard Climate, Utilities and Energy Minister said that an electricity system based on wind and solar is not sufficient and needs "something else". You could look on that whichever way you wish, but I would find it difficult to credit that both events aren`t related.

Coincidentally Belgium in the same month passed the Bihet Law which reversed it`s 2003 nuclear phase-out law which opens the possibility of the life extension of their existing reactors and the construction of new nuclear plants by a vote of 102 in favour, 8 opposed and 31 abstaining.

The life of nuclear reactors have indeed been extended, but for a specified period. That is not what is happening with Denmark and wind turbines at the moment. You could again look on that as not being related to Denmark not getting a bid for it`s largest ever offering of offshore or the two ruling parties in Norway last year pledging to cut the two interconnectors with Denmark when they come up for renewal next year due to Denmark draining so much electricity from Norway when renewables were doing little or nothing that resulted, according to the Norwegian Energy Minister, in Norway`s electricity price being 6 times the E.U. average I suppose. Personally I would find it difficult not to see them as related

The present capital cost of Sizewell with a 60 year lifespan is £38Bn.

Sizewell`s two EPR2 units will deliver 3GW. Based on the offshore contract Orsted walked away from for being financially unviable, the capital cost for offshore to deliver the same would be £45Bn.

Offshore lifespan is 25 years, so now with the U.K. giving cfd`s for 20 years, that capital cost would be rinsed and repeated twice more during the lifespan of Sizewell. The capital cost of offshore increased by 60% - 70% over less than two years, but even without including inflation, the total capital cost of offshore for 60 years would be £135Bn. compared to Sizewell`s present cost of £38Bn.

If the cost of Sizewell increased by three fold it would still cost less than offshore.

Two years ago you were telling us that in the short term the capital cost of offshore would fall dramatically. It rose by 60%. Now it`s "For renewables the long term trend is lower real prices" when Orsted just ran away from a renewed CFD taking into account that 60% rise in capital costs because it was not financially viable.

No company operating an offshore wind farm with a 25 year lifespan on a 20 year CFD contract is going to be refurbishing. No more that your example of the Galloway refurbishing of an onshore wind farm. Same as Galloway, it will be an application for a new offshore wind farm and a new capital cost. Three of them during the lifespan of a nuclear plant.

This bait and switch idea is your own theory, and as far as I can see so is this rule of thumb of the cost of nuclear doubling every 10 years. The agreed price for nuclear supply is index linked and I would very much doubt inflation will double over cover the next 10 years. If it does it would do so for everything. With offshore creating it`s own inflation bubble of 60% in a little over a year, then the chances of an increase of that magnitude would leave offshore more likely than nuclear.

I have said this to you before. You really need to stop worrying about French nuclear. Their exports have earned then over €5 Bn in profit for each of the last two years, They have got the ARENH monkey off their back where they had to supply renewable providers with up to 30% of their generation for €42 per MWh to keep them from going bust and will now be getting €72 per MWh with the max required restricted to 100TWh.The likelihood is France will be exporting the same electricity they exported last year, which was an all time record. So stop worrying about French nuclear. The`re not. They are adding 6 new plants and considering adding a further eight. With the profits they are making from nuclear it`s not difficult to see why.

Nuclear can provide it`s own spinning reserves, and with the capital cost difference between offshore and nuclear for our 37GW plan we could over build nuclear, gold plate the lot and still be billions in. You on the other hand have not provided any costs for your 100% grid, - something even Denmark the poster country for renewables - say is not possible and "something else" will be required. Nor have you provided any cost for the back-up - or even what those back-ups would be when renewables go for a prolonged sleep - or indeed what spinning reserves your 100% renewables grid would have or at what cost.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/reducing-nuclear-energy-strategic-mistake-eu-chief-says-2026-03-10/

Reducing Europe's nuclear energy sector was 'strategic mistake', EU chief says

…

PARIS, March 10 (Reuters) - Reducing Europe's nuclear energy sector was a "strategic mistake", European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday, as governments grapple ‌with an energy crunch from the Iran war. Europe produced around a third of electricity from nuclear power in 1990 but that has fallen to 15%, she told an event in Paris, leaving it reliant on oil and gas imports whose prices have surged in recent days…

The EU budget does not directly ‌fund nuclear ⁠energy projects because they are not unanimously supported by its 27 member governments.In a sign of the EU's increasing acceptance of the technology, von der Leyen said the executive Commission would offer a 200-million-euro guarantee for private investments in innovative nuclear technologies.

The tide is turning, but incredibly slowly.

It’s a shame that Europe (France in particular) took the foot off the nuclear pedal. If they had continued adding nuclear capacity at the same rate as the 70s and 80s, how much carbon would we have kept out of the atmosphere? And how close to a decarbonised grid would we be?

France are putting their foot back on the nuclear pedal building more plants and it`s not difficult to see why. In 2024 due to nuclear their net export of electricity was a new record at 89 TWh. This year they set a new record of 92.3 TWh for which they received €5.4 Billion.

You keep looking in the mirror telling yourself that France, which generates 70% of its electricity from nuclear and who year-on-year are the largest net exporter of electricity in Europe because of renewables, and one day you might actually convince yourself it`s true.

I haven't gone looking for sources , but i think by the late 80s frances new nuclear power stations had gotten ridiculously arduous and expensive to build - what was in essence the same design that they were knocking out in the late70s 80s , ( a modified Westinghouse design??)

The newer epr (? ) , that the French worked on with siemens, was supposed to fix the increasing complexity and bespoke nature of their older plants, as well as being more efficient, flexible and safer , thats olkilouto in Finland, flamaville 3 ,and the 2 reactors in Hinckley

So far not so great

But theres 2 operational in france , quicker build , maybe on budget ..

And edf are working on epr 2 -