Nuclear power in Ireland

99nsr125 · 15-03-2021 4:03am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FFS stop believing the lies.

wind only contributed to 1/6th of the power shortfall in Texas.
and only because it wasn't winterised to the standard of the other US grids. It wasn't a 100 year weather event. It was a 10 year event.

5/6 of the power shortfall was from stuff like nuclear plants cooling water icing up or gas turbines that didn't work because the gas pumps didn't work because there was no power. ALL because deregulation. Plant up to other national grid standards would have kept going.

The solution was to increase the prices of electricity and screw the consumers.

Wind output was at -71% of same day in feb 20
Gas output was at. 191% of same day in feb 20

Yesh there wasn't enough gas but it's because of the failures of wind

cnocbui · 15-03-2021 4:28am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And nuclear waste will become Magical Moon Dust ?

Bottom line Nuclear can't compete with renewables + peaking gas.

Better tell the French. And I've seen a mention or two of a french nuclear powered interconnector to give us 'cheap baseload electricity'. I think I saw that in France, gas costs 50% more than Nuclear. In Korea, gas is 4 times the cost of nuclear.

Don't Chute! · 15-03-2021 11:23am

I’m currently reading Midnight in Chernobyl by Adam Higginbotham. I certainly do not want some “Anto” in charge of something like that!

15-03-2021 1:03pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

Follow the money.

What PROVEN advantages are there to Nuclear / It's almost always late and over budget. It is a sink hole.

Please list the nuclear plants in countries with proper health and safety that were on-time and on budget. Then comment on the lessons not learnt.

That’s a lot of research. Maybe instead you can explain why France is so successful. Also why do you think that nuclear is more likely to be delayed than any other plant?

If the idea is zero carbon emissions then a few things have to happen. Firstly we need to move the bulk of heating and transport to electricity because other sources are not carbon free. That’s tripling the existing grid. Then we need that grid to be reliable and to not be intermittent.

Maybe gas is the solution for Ireland but it needs carbon capture. Is that the plan?

15-03-2021 1:08pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What I find interesting is the "right-wing" people tend to advocate for it some much despite the massive state subsidies required. Almost like they're just taking up a position in opposition to the crusties they hate so much.

I reckon the ideology works the other way. Left wingers who should be happy with a reliable carbon free energy source reverting to unscientific type.

do right wing people believe in climate change and that we need to get to zero emissions? No. I do though.

And I don’t see how gas gets to zero emissions.

micosoft · 15-03-2021 1:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That’s a generalised ad hominem. Can you be more specific?

Did you actually read the thread?

Most of the rebuttals on this thread have raised significant specific economic and grid stability reasons for not building Nuclear on the Island of Ireland and realistic alternatives.

The argument for nuclear seems to be unproven future technologies and based more on fantasy than reality.

micosoft · 15-03-2021 1:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hinkley Point C will cost around £20 billion just to build.
There are around 2 million households in Ireland. So that would be ~€11k per household. Tesla Powerwalls cost less than that and can hold 13.5kW, which is more than the average Irish household usage. It could be done cheaper, especially in bulk. Even at current market prices (batteries will keep falling) we could pay for every home in Ireland to be able to store enough energy to get through each day. Charging overnight from wind excess. Importing from France the odd time it's necessary. All very doable compared to building a nuclear plant.

Tie that in with rapid electrification of the vehicle fleet like Norway and you've delivered a real solution that suits Ireland and benefits everyone and the balance of trade.

15-03-2021 2:03pm

micosoft wrote: »

Did you actually read the thread?

Yes but I was responding to one guy.

Most of the rebuttals on this thread have raised significant specific economic and grid stability reasons for not building Nuclear on the Island of Ireland and realistic alternatives.

The argument for nuclear seems to be unproven future technologies and based more on fantasy than reality.

Actually there were sourceless claims. Or references to one build ie Hinckley. Or claims that we couldn’t do it even if the French can.

Also while some people are claiming that nuclear won’t work at all, others are saying it won’t work here specifically, and even others are claiming that we do have nuclear via the interconnector with France. Those claims are contradictory.

I’m interested in zero emissions and to get to zero emissions we need technology we don’t have now. Better solar panels and bigger wing turbines, an updated grid, a replacement for cement, a replacement for meat or something to stop cows benching and many many more.

Dismissing future advances in nuclear seems naive. In any case it’s a strawman argument since most pro nuclear posters here haven’t mentioned the future technologies.

micosoft · 15-03-2021 2:06pm

99nsr125 wrote: »

Wind output was at -71% of same day in feb 20
Gas output was at. 191% of same day in feb 20

Yesh there wasn't enough gas but it's because of the failures of wind

No it wasn't. Bringing your QAnon/GOP/Fox fake news and disinformation over here won't work.

Wind was forecast to product 10% of Texas's energy iin Jan. Gas produced 60%.

The lack of any winterisation of any of the Texan grid caused all of it to fail but claiming the collapse was due to 10% is utter nonsense.

15-03-2021 2:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon the ideology works the other way. Left wingers who should be happy with a reliable carbon free energy source reverting to unscientific type.

do right wing people believe in climate change and that we need to get to zero emissions? No. I do though.

And I don’t see how gas gets to zero emissions.

But the science (and economics) simply aren't there. Part of the left (thanks Greens for putting everyone onto Diesel 13 years ago!) is obsessed with Carbon as the single and only thing to worry about. Others are holdovers from the anti-war days.
There's simply no economic argument in favour of nuclear either. As I said above, Hinkley Point could pay for batteries for every single dwelling in the country. Add the ongoing subsidies and it's about 4x as much. Every house could have batteries to last 2 days along with micro-generation (almost an oxymoron at that scale) and we'd still have €10 billion left over to put in more solar, more wind and an interconnector or 2.

micosoft · 15-03-2021 2:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but I was responding to one guy.

It seemed more general than that. It's a thread...

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually there were sourceless claims. Or references to one build ie Hinckley. Or claims that we couldn’t do it even if the French can.

It's not a thesis. No requirement to source claims though people are welcome to call out. Conversely none of the Nuclear proponents included any sources - do you only require sources for one side of the argument?

It was pretty clear that there is an objective difference between France and Ireland wrt to number and potential number of Nuclear plants that would determine viability. Strawman?

Deleted User wrote: »

Also while some people are claiming that nuclear won’t work at all, others are saying it won’t work here specifically, and even others are claiming that we do have nuclear via the interconnector with France. Those claims are contradictory.

They are not in the slightest bit contradictory. It's possible to say all:
- Nuclear energy is not economically viable (and a strong basis given all the evidence out there)
- That Ireland does not have the scale, expertise or grid to support Nuclear.
- If we want Nuclear the most effective way of getting it is via an interconnector with a state that has already made that sunk investment (France/UK) and has a scale advantage

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m interested in zero emissions and to get to zero emissions we need technology we don’t have now. Better solar panels and bigger wing turbines, an updated grid, a replacement for cement, a replacement for meat or something to stop cows benching and many many more.

Dismissing future advances in nuclear seems naive. In any case it’s a strawman argument since most pro nuclear posters here haven’t mentioned the future technologies.

Lots of us are interested in Zero emissions. What we aren't interested in are vastly expensive, risky and frankly downright irresponsible suggestions. Furthermore there is a Venn diagram of anti-wind/grid protestors and pro-Nuclear (i.e. make it someone else's problem as this thread started out) within this country as the army of Nimbys will literally grab onto any technology in order to avoid any personal cost of living a modern lifestyle.

What's the strawman? It's demonstrable that we have been talking about alternative Fission plants for many decades. As one poster pointed out there have been micro fission plants for decades. The incontrovertible evidence over decades is that most of this future tech does not work in practice and that betting on it for a small country with no history in nuclear power generation is plain dumb when there are many cheaper, more certain and more effective ways to getting to zero carbon. A lot of folk that know a lot about generation get that and even the biggest proponents of Nuclear who know what they are talking about would never suggest dropping fission in Ireland.

biko · 15-03-2021 2:32pm

JJayoo wrote: »

Look at the bs involved in building the children's hospital....now imagine them trying to build a nuclear power plant.

We'd get the German or Swedes in to do the work properly.

cnocbui · 15-03-2021 2:44pm

biko wrote: »

We'd get the German or Swedes in to do the work properly.

Or Rolls-Royce.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-03-2021 6:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Dismissing future advances in nuclear seems naive. In any case it’s a strawman argument since most pro nuclear posters here haven’t mentioned the future technologies.

Many of the existing nuclear plants have systemic problems.

Poor designs poorly built , fake parts (Korea), fake certs (BNFL).

Just look at the number of plants that had construction delays or needed early life retrofits.

Cooling systems that can't cope with ice or drought or water that's too warm in the summer or jellyfish. And then there's the ones affected by flooding.

It's throughout the industry. Not limited to any country or time period.

Nuclear has such long build times that higher ups can be safely retired before there's consequences.

It's almost like the wads of cash attract pigs to a trough.

AndrewJRenko · 15-03-2021 6:26pm

touts wrote: »

No. I'm referring to the well known chancers who win most large government contracts in Ireland by putting in an impossibly low bid to win the contract and then upping the price every time it rains. Don't want to name them because they are famously litigious but safe to say this Kier group has no chance of actually winning a multi billion contract in Ireland against them. Experience doesn't matter. Just low bids and knowing the right people.

So you're talking about BAM, working on that nuclear power station development with Kier?

Mules · 15-03-2021 7:08pm

biko wrote: »

We'd get the German or Swedes in to do the work properly.

Hopefully

suicide_circus · 15-03-2021 7:46pm

Build the nukes, fire the missiles

15-03-2021 9:41pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But the science (and economics) simply aren't there. Part of the left (thanks Greens for putting everyone onto Diesel 13 years ago!) is obsessed with Carbon as the single and only thing to worry about. Others are holdovers from the anti-war days.
There's simply no economic argument in favour of nuclear either. As I said above, Hinkley Point could pay for batteries for every single dwelling in the country. Add the ongoing subsidies and it's about 4x as much. Every house could have batteries to last 2 days along with micro-generation (almost an oxymoron at that scale) and we'd still have €10 billion left over to put in more solar, more wind and an interconnector or 2.

Hinkley point seems to be a particularly badly run project.

I’m still not sure how we are expected to get to zero emissions, eventually. Are people suggesting that the gas be carbon captured at source?

Strumms · 15-03-2021 10:16pm

Look at Wyfla in Wales. A huge nuclear power station... 108.5 kms from Dublin port..

Residential property within 3 kms of it... decommissioned now I think but when it was operational..

They are applying to recommission it.

Capt'n Midnight · 16-03-2021 12:36am

biko wrote: »

We'd get the German or Swedes in to do the work properly.

Germany is phasing out nuclear because of a public vote. Italy got rid of theirs for the same reason.

The Swedish Oskarshamn nuclear power plant had to shut down because of jellyfish. As did ones in Scotland, California and Florida, Japan , Israel and South Africa. For plant on the lakes it's algae that's the risk, ask the Canadians or the Yanks.

micosoft · 16-03-2021 2:07am

biko wrote: »

We'd get the German or Swedes in to do the work properly.

Germans are out of that game.
The Swedes don't have a great record.

The last Nuclear power plant ordered in Europe was in Finland. It did not go well.

I appreciate it's a boards tradition to place Ireland as the 193rd worst country for everything, but Ireland does have a pretty decent history of infrastructure projects starting with Ardnacrusha. It's as if no other country have cost overruns on what are usually incredibly complex projects. The National Childrens Hospital is grossly misunderstood. As with a lot of these things the blame lies with an electorate that does not do trade-offs or pick the wrong one.

micosoft · 16-03-2021 2:22am

Deleted User wrote: »

Hinkley point seems to be a particularly badly run project.

I’m still not sure how we are expected to get to zero emissions, eventually. Are people suggesting that the gas be carbon captured at source?

Just to be clear - Nuclear is not a zero emission fuel source either.

Gas is an interim solution. It only emits when the wind is not blowing. It's also a relatively low carbon emitter - certainly compared to Coal. Alternatives to gas are...
1. Interconnectors to give access to wind in other parts of Europe where the wind will be blowing.
2. More stored energy - batteries and the myriad of new developments in that space. More Turlough hills probably not acceptable to general public at this point.
3. Alternatives such as Solar which often are best when Wind is not blowing (High pressure).
4. If needed, Nuclear via an interconnector.
5. Not ignoring the cheapest, most effective way of reducing Carbon emissions is to change the way we build our housing and infrastructure (low carbon concrete or alternatives), increase public transportation and build more energy efficient homes and vehicles.

cnocbui · 16-03-2021 9:38am

micosoft wrote: »

Germans are out of that game.
The Swedes don't have a great record.

The last Nuclear power plant ordered in Europe was in Finland. It did not go well.

I appreciate it's a boards tradition to place Ireland as the 193rd worst country for everything, but Ireland does have a pretty decent history of infrastructure projects starting with Ardnacrusha. It's as if no other country have cost overruns on what are usually incredibly complex projects. The National Childrens Hospital is grossly misunderstood. As with a lot of these things the blame lies with an electorate that does not do trade-offs or pick the wrong one.

There is nothing 'misunderstood' about the children’s hospital. It is one of the best examples of the dysfunction that is Ireland. The need for that hospital was first identified around 1993, I believe. Didn't take long at all - of, it's not finished yet, is it? Go look at the state of the art children’s hospital recently built in Western Australia. That had some serious snafus cost overruns and delays itself, but the speed of construction and cost even with those problems just show what a mess this country is.

My view on nuclear is that everyone is assessing it from the old school reactor perspectives. What's needed is someone to have the guts to commission Rolls-Royce or others to build their factory built, modern design reactors that are not bespoke behemoths. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/rolls-royce-mini-nuclear-reactor

I have trusted my life to their engines more times than I can count so I suspect they know what they are doing and talking about.

SeanW · 16-03-2021 10:05am

Reading some of this thread frankly requires the suspension of disbelief if it were to be taken seriously.

micosoft wrote: »

Just to be clear - Nuclear is not a zero emission fuel source either.

This part is correct. Due to "lifecycle emissions" nuclear power is widely accepted as having a CO2/KWH figure of 12g/kwh. This puts it on par with wind power at 11g/kwh, and dramatically better than solar at 45g/kwh and streets ahead of any fossil fuel including gas. As to the rest, well, some of the nonsense about nuclear not being needed as been trotted out since the 1950s. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. It's clear at this point that claiming to favour action on climate change while simultaneously opposing the use of nuclear energy is like claiming to be against house fires while trying to prevent fire departments from using water.

Gas is an interim solution. It only emits when the wind is not blowing. It's also a relatively low carbon emitter - certainly compared to Coal. Alternatives to gas are...

And yet, countries that have tried to do clean energy without nuclear have got little for their efforts except sky high electricity costs and limited reductions in CO2 output. Whereas countries that have gone nuclear, have both dramatically lower electricity costs and dramatically better CO2/kwh figures. You might like to have a look at the electricity map.
https://www.electricitymap.org/ which follows, in real time, the electricity usage by source in various regions and power flows between regions and countries. It also provides CO2/kwh readings for each country/region in real time, from green for figures closer to 0, to dark brown for figures over 500. A few trends are clear: firstly, that the more hydro and nuclear a country uses (like Iceland, Sweden, France etc) the "greener" its rating because less CO2/kwh is being emitted. At this moment in time, Ireland is emitting 354g per kwh while France is only emitting 78. Germany is emitting 296g/kwh of CO2 while Ukraine is only emitting 224, despite the fact that Ukraine is much more heavily reliant on coal. Sweden, owing to its good mix of nuclear and hydro, is currently among the best at 45g/kwh. All figures as of the moment of posting. In addition, countries like France often export their mostly nuclear electricity to some or all of their neighbours, which means that France is also lowering the CO2/KWH of their neighbours. Not just itself.

But the lunacy of claiming that nuclear energy is bad/unnecessary doesn't end with CO2 statistics. Costs are vastly different as well. According to a Eurostat 2017 survey, it cost a householder €0.31 to buy a kilowatt-hour of electricity in Germany. In Ukraine, that same kwh cost a Ukrainian householder €0.04 (both figures rounded up to the nearest cent.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

So, 8 times the cost, for still worse CO2 figures. And all of this despite the fact that the Energiewende was first devised as a concept in West Germany in 1980.

I could go for several pages about just how insane this is, by quoting statistics for bats killed by windmills, birds fried by solar power installations, metals consumed to generate 1kwh of electricity for various power sources, land used per kw of various generation types, human lives lost per terawatt hour of electricity generated by source, the opportunity costs of wasting gas in power plants when it has so many other uses, the absolute unreliability of solar and wind power, radiation emissions from fossil fuels vs. nuclear, the need for new transmission lines to support renewables, e-waste from life expired windmills and solar panels, and so on and so forth. But it would be much of a muchness, with all the same results. An absolutely apocalyptic waste of money and resources, environmental destruction on an unimaginable scale, all for sod-all benefit.

Another thing to consider is that Ireland is not necessarily a small market. The island of Ireland has about 7 million people (5 million in the Republic and 2 million in the North) and we are connected directly to Britain and will soon be connected to France. And the government wants us all to heat our homes with electricity and drive electric cars, use electric trains, trams and buses, so that will be yet more electricity that we will need. How will that be provided for?

tom1ie · 16-03-2021 1:45pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s a lot of research. Maybe instead you can explain why France is so successful. Also why do you think that nuclear is more likely to be delayed than any other plant?

If the idea is zero carbon emissions then a few things have to happen. Firstly we need to move the bulk of heating and transport to electricity because other sources are not carbon free. That’s tripling the existing grid. Then we need that grid to be reliable and to not be intermittent.

Maybe gas is the solution for Ireland but it needs carbon capture. Is that the plan?

How is the grid intermittent and are you saying it’s unreliable?

Capt'n Midnight · 16-03-2021 2:10pm

cnocbui wrote: »

My view on nuclear is that everyone is assessing it from the old school reactor perspectives. What's needed is someone to have the guts to commission Rolls-Royce or others to build their factory built, modern design reactors that are not bespoke behemoths. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/rolls-royce-mini-nuclear-reactor

I have trusted my life to their engines more times than I can count so I suspect they know what they are doing and talking about.

Snake oil.

How come they have suddenly commercialised small modular reactors which have been in everyday use since the 1950's for those could afford them ? This is the same company that tried to sell vertical take off engines for airliners. Dead weight during most of the flight and would have eaten into payload. They have solutions that are looking for problems.

ETOPS - engines turn or passengers swim. Very immediate. BTW Some Boeing's are grounded because of a particular jet engine.

Nuclear means you can get away with stuff for years. If we order an RR nuke today , how long would we have to wait before it's proven safe in service ?

It wouldn't be cheap and I doubt this Tory govt would bail out RR again. So no long term security. Nuclear companies aren't long term stable. Look at the finances of EDF or the others who have left the scene. How many of the initial bidders for the UK's new nuclear Hinkley - Moorfield are still in business ?

17-03-2021 4:02am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Snake oil.

How come they have suddenly commercialised small modular reactors which have been in everyday use since the 1950's for those could afford them ? This is the same company that tried to sell vertical take off engines for airliners. Dead weight during most of the flight and would have eaten into payload. They have solutions that are looking for problems.

ETOPS - engines turn or passengers swim. Very immediate. BTW Some Boeing's are grounded because of a particular jet engine.

Nuclear means you can get away with stuff for years. If we order an RR nuke today , how long would we have to wait before it's proven safe in service ?

It wouldn't be cheap and I doubt this Tory govt would bail out RR again. So no long term security. Nuclear companies aren't long term stable. Look at the finances of EDF or the others who have left the scene. How many of the initial bidders for the UK's new nuclear Hinkley - Moorfield are still in business ?

A Bitcoiner?

Capt'n Midnight · 11-01-2022 3:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118454750#Comment_118454750

We all know that wind and solar are intermittent. But during the 2105 eclipse Germany lost 15GW of solar from the grid and kept going.

Of the 13 reactors left in the UK only 5 were at Nominal Full Load on Friday. Since two other UK reactors were retired in December ahead of schedule it's really 5 out of 15 in the middle of winter. Muppets.

Nuclear simply cannot be relied upon to generate power when it's needed.

EDF run both France and the UK's nuclear plants. But France where you'd expect power to be imported from also has several nukes off line for unplanned maintenance of safety systems. It's why gas is really expensive now.

Note : other French reactors of the same type are likely to need to be taken off line for checks and repairs. And expect more UK reactors to end of life early because of graphite issues.

cnocbui · 11-01-2022 4:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118456074#Comment_118456074

Nuclear reactors have generated more CO2 free energy than any other source except hydro. And that includes wind, but all you will get here from that quarter and the other anti's is beat-ups about a couple months unscheduled maintainace after decades of relentless power generation, delays and cost overruns in France, but not a word about 4 reactors on time and on budget, built by Koreans, in the UAE.

Nuclear is acknowledged positively by the IPCC and they give it a ringing endorsement.

patnor1011 · 11-01-2022 5:06pm

Anyone who say that nuclear is the cleanest energy needs to have their head examined.

Nuclear power in Ireland

Comments