Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Why doesn't Ireland have a nuclear power plant?

  • 11-02-2011 11:16AM
    #1
    Irish Slaves for Europe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 235 ✭✭


    Is it due to our inability to defend it from terrorist attack?


«13

Comments

  • #2
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    No its due to our hypocritical and conservative (in the backward sense of the word) attitude towards science and technology. long thread here.


  • #3
    EoghanConway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭EoghanConway


    Cheap power is great but I don't want dangerous nuclear whotsits in my back yard <- Something I would not be surprised to hear


  • #4
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Christy Moore doesn't like it.


  • #5
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    EoghanConway wrote: »
    Cheap power is great but I don't want dangerous nuclear whotsits in my back yard <- Something I would not be surprised to hear

    Most of the population along the east coast already lives close to several plants, we also regularly import energy from UK which is partly nuclear.
    Certain large coal plant on the Shannon, already produces MORE radioactive materials and mercury and inject it straight into the air we breathe.
    Like I said, hypocrites.


  • #6
    apoeiguq3094y
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 414 ✭✭apoeiguq3094y


    Most nuclear power plants are fairly large typically each reactor is about 1000MW and you would usually see 2 or more reactors in one plant. Irelands total usage is in the 3000MW to 5000MW range depending on time of day / season etc.

    That would mean if for some reason we had to shut down a 2000MW plant we would loose half our supply. The ESB favours smaller plants so it can balance the load easier and do maintenance without limiting supplies.

    There are smaller reactors from a company in South Africa that uses pebbles of fuel instead of rods and can therefore work in smaller sizes.

    The other side of the argument is it would cost a lot of money to develop our own nuclear agency. Especially if we were just running one plant. France has loads of power plants, so they have economies of scale - especially in waste management. Noone wants a nuclear waste storage facility in their back yard. We would also have to assure the international community that we would prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials.

    In order for nuclear power to be feasible here, we would have to completely outsource the operation to the French or Russians. That would seriously impact our energy security.

    I have no problems with nuclear power, but it has to be cost effective. We are ideally placed on the west of europe to harvest wind and wave energy if we make some infrastructure investments.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Whiskeyjack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 277 ✭✭Whiskeyjack


    Look at the uproar from some morons about fecking windmills and multiply that by eleventy billion and you'll have some idea of the kind of opposition you'd face.


  • #8
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    I'm not altogether convinced we need it. I've heard the argument that wind is cheaper and I've heard the argument that nuclear is cheaper.

    Of course the real reasons why it isn't popular are, as always in Ireland, the NIMBY problem - Not In My Back Yard.
    And also because of Ireland's admirable tradition of fostering children from Belarus, and of donating to their cause, there seems to be an unusually large level of fear about nuclear power throughout the country which I don't really think one finds very often elsewhere.


  • #9
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    apoeiguq3094y wrote: »
    Most nuclear power plants are fairly large typically each reactor is about 1000MW and you would usually see 2 or more reactors in one plant. Irelands total usage is in the 3000MW to 5000MW range depending on time of day / season etc.

    That would mean if for some reason we had to shut down a 2000MW plant we would loose half our supply. The ESB favours smaller plants so it can balance the load easier and do maintenance without limiting supplies.

    There are smaller reactors from a company in South Africa that uses pebbles of fuel instead of rods and can therefore work in smaller sizes.

    The other side of the argument is it would cost a lot of money to develop our own nuclear agency. Especially if we were just running one plant. France has loads of power plants, so they have economies of scale - especially in waste management. Noone wants a nuclear waste storage facility in their back yard. We would also have to assure the international community that we would prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials.

    In order for nuclear power to be feasible here, we would have to completely outsource the operation to the French or Russians. That would seriously impact our energy security.

    I have no problems with nuclear power, but it has to be cost effective. We are ideally placed on the west of europe to harvest wind and wave energy if we make some infrastructure investments.

    Most of those arguments are moot considering the likes of Finland with similar parameters such as economic devlopemnt/size and population to Ireland can and do use nuclear energy.


  • #10
    3DataModem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,192 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    Whiskeyjack wrote: »
    Look at the uproar from some morons about fecking windmills and multiply that by eleventeen billion and you'll have some idea of the kind of opposition you'd face.

    Fixed your post.


  • #11
    apoeiguq3094y
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 414 ✭✭apoeiguq3094y


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Most of those arguments are moot considering the likes of Finland with similar parameters such as economic devlopemnt/size and population to Ireland can and do use nuclear energy.

    While finland has similar sized population and economy, it uses about 4 times the energy we do (probably due to climate etc). Power consumption is in the 13000MW to 15000MW range. Finland has 2 nuclear power plants, with 2 reactors each giving them 2X500MW + 2x800MW, giving them around 2500MW from nuclear sources. this would represent more than half our usage, but for finland its only about 20%

    ekul_2009_2010-12-10_kuv_001_en_001.giftaken from http://www.stat.fi/til/ekul/2009/ekul_2009_2010-12-10_kuv_001_en.html

    Finland has a wide variety or sources. If we were to use nuclear power (which i'm not against by the way) it would have to be in a similar proportion to our total usage.

    Also the big elephant in the room is what we do with the waste. Ireland should be open to ALL alternatives and continue supporting research in wind, wave, solar, and new nuclear technologies.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Nuclear power plants are expensive to build and once set up, require constant and careful supervision. A single mistake and the result could be a total disaster. If ever Ireland has a nuclear power plant, it would have to be run by a private enterprise from outside the country as, quite simply, the expertiese needed just isn't here.

    I am in favour of nuclear power. A few plants would be able to provide the energy needs of the whole island but right now, the money just isn't there to build them.


  • #13
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    We should move to nuclear or some other renewable source for 100% of our energy.

    Sure, we may need back up stations in case of a supply loss or maintenance.

    I actually find it quite hilarious that no-one has an issue with a massive coal burning plant, but adamantly oppose nuclear power.

    Its the usual story of ignorance-derived fear.

    Peopl fear what they don't understand. They think a nuclear powerstation will blow up if we get one.

    We really do live in a backward community in this regard.


  • #14
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    apoeiguq3094y wrote: »
    While finland has similar sized population and economy, it uses about 4 times the energy we do (probably due to climate etc)

    Cheap and reliable energy leads to more industry, more industry leads to more jobs, we need more jobs

    apoeiguq3094y wrote: »
    Finland has 2 nuclear power plants, with 2 reactors each giving them 2X500MW + 2x800MW

    Finland are building another LARGE reactor (5th), should be completed soon with permission given for another 2 (6,7) last summer.

    as for waste they factor the cost into construction, and have build a world class waste storage facility
    Finland has two nuclear power plants, each with two
    reactor units. The power plants are at Olkiluoto in
    Eurajoki, on the Finnish west coast, and at
    Hästholmen in Loviisa, on the Finnish south coast.
    The combined output of the two reactors at
    Teollisuuden Voima Oy’s power plant at Olkiluoto is
    1,680 MW and that of the two reactors at Fortum
    Power and Heat Oy’s power plant in Loviisa is 976 MW.
    Finland made a decision in principle in 2002 to build
    a fifth reactor unit. The new reactor unit (OL3) being
    built at Olkiluoto will have an output of 1600 MW.

    ....

    Under the Nuclear Energy Act, funds for nuclear
    waste management are collected in advance in the
    price of nuclear electricity and paid into the State
    Nuclear Waste Management Fund. In 2005, the
    Fund stood at some EUR 1400 million, which will
    also be used to cover the cost of decommissioning
    of the plants.
    Under the Government’s decision in principle,
    the spent nuclear fuel generated by Finland’s existing
    nuclear power plant units and the new unit (OL3)
    can be finally disposed of at Olkiluoto. A maximum
    of some 6,500 tonnes of uranium will have
    accumulated for disposal at Olkiluoto.

    more about the facility here


    its interesting how Scandinavian countries are always held as an example here on boards...


  • #15
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    Nuclear power plants are expensive to build and once set up, require constant and careful supervision.


    Full details of the 2010 Powering the Nation update can be downloaded here (PDF, 258Kb).
    The following illustrations are also available:
    Range of costs - all technologies (PDF, 67Kb).
    Cost breakdowns - all technologies (PDF, 66Kb).

    2nrhmk4.png


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    A single mistake and the result could be a total disaster.

    Technology has long moved on, new generation reactors of the kind being build have passive safety systems, less parts and unlike Chernobyl have containment buildings for worst case scenarios.

    RichardAnd wrote: »
    If ever Ireland has a nuclear power plant, it would have to be run by a private enterprise from outside the country as, quite simply, the expertiese needed just isn't here.

    Whatever happend to our well educated workforce :P

    RichardAnd wrote: »
    I am in favour of nuclear power. A few plants would be able to provide the energy needs of the whole island but right now, the money just isn't there to build them.

    They cost less than the Wind+Gas backup direction the country is being pushed in

    Eirgird have a study examining an option of adding 2GW to the mix by 2035 they used Finland's high costs for their figures, but these costs include waste disposal and building of such a facility.


  • #16
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    ei.sdraod, technology has moved on but a nuclear power plant going haywire is still a disaster. I agree about our workforce though which is why I hold to my statement that any such plant can not be run by the state. I'm not saying there aren't Irish people with the intelligence and ability to work in the nuclear industry but a nuclear plant can't be run by the ESB or any other quango/state body.

    If is was, I guess we'd have something like this:


  • #17
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    ei.sdraod, technology has moved on but a nuclear power plant going haywire is still a disaster. I agree about our workforce though which is why I hold to my statement that any such plant can not be run by the state. I'm not saying there aren't Irish people with the intelligence and ability to work in the nuclear industry but a nuclear plant can't be run by the ESB or any other quango/state body.

    If is was, I guess we'd have something like this:

    I worked a period in ESB Power Gen, the workers are nice and the engineers very capable :) Neither am I advocating a state body doing it (tho we could follow the Finnish example of state body collecting money and building a disposal facility) removing the law preventing nuclear in Ireland would be a start, if there is demand then and capital available private companies can do the rest, maybe then we can join other civilised countries like UK and France.


  • #18
    Tech3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    The lifetime of moneypoint will reach an end in 10 years time. At the moment it is the base load for our energy in this country. It produces just over 900MW of the 5000MW we need daily. We need to decide now what will be our energy base load past 2020. It can take up to a decade to design and build a nucleur reactor plant and a waste management facility. It will have one main advantage over another coal burning plant - our C02 levels will be met if nucleur power become our base load for energy in the future. However it would be very expensive to develop and build the first one, we would need to bring in people with experience from France probably. Also we would have serious NIMBYism problems if we decide to go and build one of these. We were going to build one at Carnsmore point in Wexford during the 70's only for it to be scrapped due to consistent protests against it. Look at the Wyla plant in Wales which is only 100km from Dublin!

    As regards to safety many will always bring up the disaster which happened at Chernoybl. We cant ignore what radioactive materials can potentially do but Chernoybl was a disaster which would never happen in the Western world. It was a badly thought out design which had no containment building around it, also the safety procedures were non existent to the most part. In the lead up to the fatal diaster the operators manage to turn off the safety system which would have inserted all the control rods and ramped down the reactor to a safe level. The other RMBK reactors have subsequently been shut down at the Chernoybl site.

    In my own opinion I think nucleur power should be explored and cost benefit analysis should be undertaken soon rather than later. Wind and wave energy wont be enough to power the entire country but will provide power to several regions. One of the bigger wind farms produces 50-60MW nowhere near what we need for our base load.


  • #19
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Tech3 wrote: »
    In my own opinion I think nucleur power should be explored and cost benefit analysis should be undertaken soon rather than later. Wind and wave energy wont be enough to power the entire country but will provide power to several regions. One of the bigger wind farms produces 50-60MW nowhere near what we need for our base load.

    Wave and offshore wind is extremely expensive as illustrated on graph on previous page and the linked Eirgrids own document.

    Onshore wind on the other hand is unreliable out of the 1500MW average installed capacity in 2010 we where on average generating only 300MW at any time from this, about 19% in fact (15% in December during the cold snap when we needed it most), the data can be downloaded from here

    Considering that all these farms are spread thru the country generating only ~20% of the time is terrible.

    We could triple the installed onshore wind we have and still only about manage to replace Moneypoint sized plant, never mind cope with new demand.


  • #20
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,636 ✭✭✭maninasia


    apoeiguq3094y wrote: »
    Most nuclear power plants are fairly large typically each reactor is about 1000MW and you would usually see 2 or more reactors in one plant. Irelands total usage is in the 3000MW to 5000MW range depending on time of day / season etc.

    That would mean if for some reason we had to shut down a 2000MW plant we would loose half our supply. The ESB favours smaller plants so it can balance the load easier and do maintenance without limiting supplies.

    There are smaller reactors from a company in South Africa that uses pebbles of fuel instead of rods and can therefore work in smaller sizes.

    The other side of the argument is it would cost a lot of money to develop our own nuclear agency. Especially if we were just running one plant. France has loads of power plants, so they have economies of scale - especially in waste management. Noone wants a nuclear waste storage facility in their back yard. We would also have to assure the international community that we would prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials.

    In order for nuclear power to be feasible here, we would have to completely outsource the operation to the French or Russians. That would seriously impact our energy security.

    I have no problems with nuclear power, but it has to be cost effective. We are ideally placed on the west of europe to harvest wind and wave energy if we make some infrastructure investments.

    So we don't outsource 90% of our energy raw materials already? Besides, you are talking about apples and organges here, renewables could not provide a stable baseload to power the county at any time of year. Tidal power, clutching at straws. Wind power, too unreliable. Both also have major effects on the environment, especially if you wanted to ramp up energy production.
    They are not practical and you would have a severe and deserved backlash if you wanted to cover the whole island and it's coasts with these machines. Bascially one nuclear power station would pretty much do away with the need for renewables anyway. And renewables will never do away with the need for a stable power supply.


  • #21
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    Irish Slaves for Europe wrote: »
    Is it due to our inability to defend it from terrorist attack?

    you cant even erect a mobile phone mast without a local campaign being formed overnight and all the subsequent vomit inducing self righteous faux concern that accompanys it


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,227 ✭✭✭Solair


    Given the utter fiasco that most Irish public bodies make of almost everything, would you really want them to have nuclear power plants under their control?!?!


  • #23
    srsly78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    ei.sdraod, technology has moved on but a nuclear power plant going haywire is still a disaster. I agree about our workforce though which is why I hold to my statement that any such plant can not be run by the state. I'm not saying there aren't Irish people with the intelligence and ability to work in the nuclear industry but a nuclear plant can't be run by the ESB or any other quango/state body.

    If is was, I guess we'd have something like this:

    You do realise that our ESB is highly regarded abroad when it comes to construction of thermal power stations? http://www.esbi.ie/our-businesses/our-businesses.asp

    One of the few success stories in this country, go do some reading.


  • #24
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    Irish Slaves for Europe wrote: »
    Is it due to our inability to defend it from terrorist attack?
    It's because of brainwashed Greens with peabrains who think the best way to generate power is from windmills. That's you Eamon Ryan TD - poor misguided fool.


  • #25
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    Solair wrote: »
    Given the utter fiasco that most Irish public bodies make of almost everything, would you really want them to have nuclear power plants under their control?!?!

    excellent point


  • #26
    maninasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,636 ✭✭✭maninasia


    I imagine the building and operation would be by a private contractor in the nuclear industry, the ESB would just have some oversight and purchasing contract responsibilities. It woudln't make sense for the ESB to take part in the running of such a facility nor would it be cost-effective.


  • #27
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    srsly78 wrote: »
    You do realise that our ESB is highly regarded abroad when it comes to construction of thermal power stations? http://www.esbi.ie/our-businesses/our-businesses.asp

    One of the few success stories in this country, go do some reading.


    Well if you read so much, point me in the direction of some documentation that shows the ESB have experience in nuclear power?


  • #28
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    Well if you read so much, point me in the direction of some documentation that shows the ESB have experience in nuclear power?

    few things really bug me about the attack on ESB in this thread

    1. who says ESB has to run such a plant, as I said remove the law preventing nuclear energy plants in Ireland and let the market do the rest if there is demand and profit to be made and if any company (such as the british or the French who have the expertise) wishes to tackle our planning/political minefield in light of the incinerator fiasco.

    2. the ESB for decades have run and operated a plants + network (until recent years when it was broken up and eirgrid established) which could be highly dangerous to the public if not run professionally as they did/do. You are talking about employees who quite literary had the power to blackout the country, or blow every fuse or worst case scenario if a turbine from the likes of moneypoint breaks the bloody thing would land few dozen kilometers away

    3. there was talk in ESB about nuclear power but it was about buying a plant in wales and piping it here, anwyays the ESB are being prevented from building any plant so its unlikely they ever build anything here again whether conventional or nuclear


    and it might come as suprise to people but a portion of the electrons yee used to type these messages came from nuclear power imported from UK, handled by an evil state company called Eirgrid :rolleyes: /sarcasm


  • #29
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,242 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    2 nuclear plants with 2 reactors each , CPO a f*ck load of land out the west and put up turbines and put some tidal turbines in sligo / mayo direction between all that I think it would cover 90% of Irelands energy needs and fill out the rest with natural gas burning stations placed near that pipeline that those idiots also object to , The west is sparsly populated, used a fraction of that land to build different power stations and maybee even export a bit of electricity over an interconnector

    Pros : Cleaner energy than coal fired stations by a long shot , we can take the carbon tax off petrol as we'd probably be under our EU targets , jobs both temporary and permanent, use all these builders and electricians we have around the country that are jobless, Use the latest technology and become an example to the rest of europe , start an alternative / nuclear energies college course in a college in the west (UL or somewhere) as we'd have the facilities to train people in actual plants, price of electricity possibly cheaper, sustainable for the forseeable future

    cons : a few people miffed and uprooted out of their homes in the west, hippys hating it , the coal mines not happy


  • #30
    ro09
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭ro09


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    No its due to our hypocritical and conservative (in the backward sense of the word) attitude towards science and technology. long thread here.


    Nuclear Power is in the past . in a few years to come there will be much better and safer solutions to powering the planet and we Ireland wont have any nuclear waste to clean up.

    Nuclear Power is useless. Its past tense.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Sergeant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,362 ✭✭✭Sergeant


    ro09 wrote: »
    in a few years to come there will be much better and safer solutions to powering the planet

    And they are?


Advertisement