Nuclear power in Ireland

TimeToShine · 04-05-2019 4:17pm

Nuclear is the way forward but trying to build one here at the moment would be a disaster. We can barely get a children's hospital built without going miles over budget, a nuclear plant would require a huge amount of very specialized, external knowledge and consultants from many different companies and countries - I wouldn't trust anybody here to be capable of co-ordinating that. Look at EDF being bailed out constantly by the state in France and Hinkley in the UK, if the British are having this much trouble we really would struggle.

Maybe in 15/20 years when the technology is "mainstream" our hand might be forced but as it stands we should let the big players work out the niggles and piggyback off that and ensure all planned interconnectors go ahead so we can benefit from this power in the interim.

Danzy · 04-05-2019 4:20pm

No problem with Nuclear power stations as they are bar the cost.

The electricity is cheap but the tax payer gets screwed in building, subsidy decommissioning and waste disposal.

Nuclear is not viable cost wise and that gap grows each year.

Market forces have killed it, except where political objectives mean cost does not matter.

orourkeda1977 · 04-05-2019 4:37pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

We can.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/more-than-1bn-in-irish-data-centre-investments-in-second-quarter-1.3576002

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/anger-and-disappointment-as-apple-leaves-the-fields-of-athenry-1.3490382

ToddyDoody · 04-05-2019 4:40pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

riffmongous wrote: »

Give us some numbers

423800421679084225789906553228886328874223365878882215524533398875225886633.

No, I'm not liking the look of those numbers.

bob mcbob · 04-05-2019 5:17pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No, they are only about 300MW each , our installed capacity is 6 GW, so we'd need 20 of the things.

They've had hundreds of such reactors in active service since 1955 so there is no question that they work. There's no shortage of statistics on safety and reliability (at least for those privy to military secrets) so presumably the only issue is cost.

And the "breakthrough" to commercialise them will happen any day now ?
That one's been doing the rounds since they started using them.

Yes it is not that the reactor works it is the different operating conditions that is the goal for a small civil reactor (SMR) and those for a nuclear sub.

SMRs could be used to power significant users of energy, such as large vessels or production facilities (e.g. water treatment/purification, or mines). Remote locations often have difficulty finding economically efficient, reliable energy sources. Small nuclear reactors have been considered as solutions to many energy problems in these hard-to-reach places.

Some of these are -
- staffing - if these are located in rural areas, the level of operational expertise is likely to be lower than on a submarine
- security - once again if rural, the threat associated with terrorists, etc stealing the material is much higher than on a submarine

04-05-2019 5:26pm

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

Is your metric of 'one major death', really very different to say 10's of thousands of increases in cancer related deaths, directly due to events surrounding the vicinities of Nag/Fuk/Cher and even Sellafeild?

It’s too big of a debate for here but even the number of cancer deaths are not as high as would be portrayed. We have a very high chance of getting cancer, a very high release event like Chernobyl only marginally increases the risk of cancer on an individual level. Even among the liquidators who were exposed to far higher dosage rates than the general population and are estimated to have something like a 3% increase in cancer rates in this group. Across the general population it is estimated at something around 0.5%. In other words a mans baseline cancer risk increases from approximately 45% to 45.5%.

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

As already mentioned Chernobyl was 10days from turning the entire European continent into wasteland for 500,000yrs. No other single incidence, since the Cuban crisis, posed close to such a threat to humanity.

Firstly Chernobyl is not a good yard stick to use as I mentioned earlier, it was a total basket case from a horrifically designed reactor, badly built and designed facility and staff that weren’t given the proper training etc etc. Then add in the way it was managed (both the plant and the disaster response) by the soviets and you end up a real mess.

The biggest danger of mass contamination during the accident was if there was a melt through the foundations of the plant and into the ground and ground water. This would still have had some pretty bad consequences but still would have been nowhere near rendering the entire contienent a wasteland. It turned out that even the risk of this “china syndrome” was not as high as was believed during the accident. Now that’s not to say that the things could have been worse than they turned out but talk of 10 days from rendering Europe uninhabited is highly exaggerated.

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

Ah, but you would be: "First in the queue for a job" (as you already stated).

So, actually yes, a direct fiscal benefit would indeed be a factor and great self-incentive for you to push such a notion.

I have a job so it’s not because I need a job I would simply like to work there. But that’s only beside the point the fact is that short of fusion nuclear fission energy is the only answer to our future electricity needs and it’s nothing but a poorly though out knee jerk reaction pandering to the clueless masses that counties are phasing out nuclear power as they will just have to go back again in future and reintroduce it. It’s a clean, safe unlimited source of energy it would benefit in so many ways and the fact it’s expensive to build a plant shouldn’t really matter.

ted1 · 04-05-2019 6:33pm

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

Chernobyl at one stage had only 10days before it would have rendered Ukraine, Europe & parts of Russ into wasteland, for 500,000yrs (or thereabouts).

Would rather take the chances with an the odd seagulls swerving into a lash of windfarm propellers off the coast.
Better yet, free(ish) energy by the way of cold fusion could be on the cards in a decade (or two).

Look up how Chernobyl happened and why.

Had a poorly maintained Aeroflot jet crashed Bach then would you rule out flying in a modern jet ?

Twenty Grand · 04-05-2019 6:43pm

ToddyDoody wrote: »

No, I'm not liking the look of those numbers.

There's a lot of "shoulds" and "maybes" in this thread from people promoting nuclear.

I'll hold my hands up and say my knowledge is limited, but some people haven't a notion.

04-05-2019 7:14pm

ted1 wrote: »

Look up how Chernobyl happened and why.

Had a poorly maintained Aeroflot jet crashed Bach then would you rule out flying in a modern jet ?

There is a dramatised mini serious by HBO/Sky on the Chernobyl accident and aftermath starting this month. Really looking forward to it, be interesting to see what angle they go for with it.

theguzman · 04-05-2019 7:14pm

Irish people are too irresponsible and alcohol dependent to run a Nuclear Power Plant. The typical attitude of "shur it will be grand" just won't cut the mustard with Nuclear Energy. One accident would irradiate the entire island.

md23040 · 04-05-2019 7:43pm

Wind, solar and hydro are the future for renewable energy requirements and given technology advancements these are much cheaper generation options than Nuclear.

There are 2 or 3 cancelled Nuclear projects recently in UK as a result of these renewable developments. The worlds largest sovereign wealth funds namely Norway and Saudi ($1 trillion each) are now investing heavily in wind, solar and hydro projects as the return on investment is substantially higher than fossil fuels, which are finished by 2040, apart from gas to 2050.

Floating offshore wind turbines at 10MW are coming on stream and nuclear cant compete on cost. Someone mentioned traction on tidal and although it’s continuous energy it is too expensive on MW produced to cost (levelised cost of electricity- LCOE). But IMO the future driver within the RES will be residential micro generation with battery backup and smart grids these are rolling out very quickly already in some countries.

CrankyHaus · 04-05-2019 9:01pm

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

There is a dramatised mini serious by HBO/Sky on the Chernobyl accident and aftermath starting this month. Really looking forward to it, be interesting to see what angle they go for with it.

I recommend you visit, it was one of the most interesting places I've been.

s7ryf3925pivug · 04-05-2019 9:22pm

I was under the impression that storing power is problematic at the scale of national grid requirements. [I remember being told about research where it might be achieved by pumping water uphill to store it and then opening a weir to generate hydroelectricity when it needed to be consumed.] I guess we wouldn't be talking about Li batteries at least as they would be expensive and degrade relatively quickly... This is why I understand that we need a reliable continuous source and can't rely upon wind and solar alone. Is this no longer true then..?

04-05-2019 9:58pm

It’s fantasy stuff thinking renewables such as wind and solar can meet the demands required now never mind going forward. They absolutely have their place and will contribute a significant amount of generation capacity but without fossil fuels nuclear the only option to give the required reliability and capacity to meet our needs.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I recommend you visit, it was one of the most interesting places I've been.

Oh it’s a place I very much intend visiting. I suspect it’s very difficult if not impossible to actually get into the plant though and while visiting pipryat etc would be fasinating without getting into the plant it would just be frustrating.

md23040 · 04-05-2019 10:06pm

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

It’s fantasy stuff thinking renewables such as wind and solar can meet the demands required now never mind going forward. They absolutely have their place and will contribute a significant amount of generation capacity but without fossil fuels nuclear the only option to give the required reliability and capacity.

I suggest you look at the generation stats for Denmark and Scandinavian countries.

Battery technologies and other storage solutions are improving immensely and price dropping like a stone since 2010. Some power stations are using batteries at present for balancing the grid.

Nuclear is no longer being considered as an energy solution due to LCOE from wind/solar.

Twenty Grand · 04-05-2019 10:12pm

Annabelle Muscular Wrestler wrote: »

It’s fantasy stuff thinking renewables such as wind and solar can meet the demands required now never mind going forward. They absolutely have their place and will contribute a significant amount of generation capacity but without fossil fuels nuclear the only option to give the required reliability and capacity to meet our needs.

Fantasy based on what?

There's no statistics to show that renewables can't supply the grid, in tandem with energy storage.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a13820450/wind-farm-cheaper-than-coal/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/amp27347375/renewables-outproduced-coal-power-in-the-us-for-the-first-time-ever/

Ubbquittious · 04-05-2019 11:21pm

theguzman wrote: »

Irish people are too irresponsible and alcohol dependent to run a Nuclear Power Plant. The typical attitude of "shur it will be grand" just won't cut the mustard with Nuclear Energy. One accident would irradiate the entire island.

What a load of sh!t

theguzman · 04-05-2019 11:50pm

Ubbquittious wrote: »

What a load of sh!t

We look at responsibility as how do I blame someone else when TSHTF. There is never accountability in anything here.

McDermotX · 05-05-2019 2:56am

KABOOM !!

Bring it on.

05-05-2019 8:30am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe we could generate power from the homeless? Kill two worms with one bird.

Give the homeless a break. Put the fatties on the hotseat instead.

ted1 · 05-05-2019 8:58am

md23040 wrote: »

I suggest you look at the generation stats for Denmark and Scandinavian countries.

Battery technologies and other storage solutions are improving immensely and price dropping like a stone since 2010. Some power stations are using batteries at present for balancing the grid.

Nuclear is no longer being considered as an energy solution due to LCOE from wind/solar.

I’d suggest that you look at what those countries import over inter connectors. And see what their fuel mix really is.

https://www.energidataservice.dk/en/dataset/a6e2ea74-a0ca-49e9-be58-1a6ec816f869/resource_extract/02356e88-7c4e-4ee9-b896-275d217cc1b9

Ubbquittious · 05-05-2019 9:54am

theguzman wrote: »

We look at responsibility as how do I blame someone else when TSHTF. There is never accountability in anything here.

There are still plenty of people who do an honest day's work and would do all they can to prevent an accident

We had a few watts of nuclear power of our own back in the day
https://www.irishlights.ie/tourism/our-lighthouses/rathlin-obirne.aspx

as well as a small reactor in UCC that never used to generate electricity

YFlyer · 05-05-2019 10:40am

We can have biomass, wind, solar, hydro and hydro gravity (both similar), water wave, tidal energy sources. When the others are running low biomass and hydro gravity can kick in. They have a power station in Samó, Denmark that runs on wind, solar and biomass.

El_Bee · 05-05-2019 10:56am

It will always cost more energy to store energy than what can be stored. That said, I would never trust any Irish government with the building and running of a nuclear power station, as we cannot even get a children's hospital built without it turning into a disastrous boondoggle.

fryup · 05-05-2019 11:08am

if we did have a nuclear plant where would we base it??....the centre of ireland.. athlone?

Phileas Frog · 05-05-2019 11:19am

fryup wrote: »

if we did have a nuclear plant where would we base it??....the centre of ireland.. athlone?

Carnsore Point

Capt'n Midnight · 05-05-2019 11:32am

Ubbquittious wrote: »

There are still plenty of people who do an honest day's work and would do all they can to prevent an accident

In fairness there's not much they can do if there are major design flaws*, construction issues, fake parts, or fake materials.

* just look at how many nuclear plants had to have sea walls or backup systems upgraded after Fukushima , even ones under construction. Fukushima was far from the first or last plant flooded.

Because nuclear plants need a lot of cooling water they are susceptible to flooding as well as having to shut down when there's no cooling water due to dought, rivers being too hot or frozen over or intakes blocked by jellyfish. All totally preventable at the design stage by putting the plant on higher ground or using bigger intakes or just looking at historical records or natural disasters in the region.

Building higher costs more, bigger and better intakes and higher sea walls cost more, larger cooling ponds cost more.

Also for some strange reason transformers at nuclear power stations seem to attract fires. Maybe it's older the average age, or the higher average load. Every electrical power station uses transformers to connect to the grid so there's no real excuse for getting this wrong so often.

05-05-2019 11:49am

Miguel Hollow Bobcat wrote: »

Chernobyl at one stage had only 10days before it would have rendered Ukraine, Europe & parts of Russ into wasteland, for 500,000yrs (or thereabouts).

Nonsense. Chernobyl was the worst possible nuclear reactor accident. Literally melted down and sprayed radioactive steam all over Europe.

05-05-2019 11:57am

Steven Tight Week wrote: »

Tidal energy has the benefit over wind and solar that it is a reliable source, and therefore it actually could replace Moneypoint as things are now. our islandness means we could generate a similar or greater quantity than moneypoint can.

However I don't think it is being considered as a replacement. I read that the options being looked at are biomass and nuclear. Since nuclear is illegal and would be obstructed even if not then the biomass one is most likely. Biomass is carbon neutral if done right, but emits a lot of particulate, which has a major health impact.

Does anyone know why tidal power is not being looked at then? If not then perhaps it should be suggested?

Open Hydro, a Louth based company was selling tidal turbines all over the world except here - including the Scotland one - has commercially viable tech, got bought out by a French company who shuttered it a year later.

Their turbine is one of the few dependable ways of generating electricity 24/7 in a renewable way. And it sits on the bed of sea inlets, do no BS about obstructing views etc. Also the turbine turns slowly so fish etc are not harmed, unlike wind turbines.

There are plenty of Irish renewable startups.

Maybe if the government actually worked with them instead of against them we could have a world leading industry here?

Biomass is a TERRIBLE idea as it involves using vegetation for fuel. Also it isn't green at all.

ted1 · 05-05-2019 12:05pm

YFlyer wrote: »

We can have biomass, wind, solar, hydro and hydro gravity (both similar), water wave, tidal energy sources. When the others are running low biomass and hydro gravity can kick in. They have a power station in Samó, Denmark that runs on wind, solar and biomass.

Who’s we?
What commercial wave and tidal is there?

Where can we put hydro in Ireland ? Our mountain range is to low.

ted1 · 05-05-2019 12:08pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Open Hydro, a Louth based company was selling tidal turbines all over the world except here

That’s a bit of a tale , how many commercial tidal did they ever sell or install?

As for making foreign companies rich. I’d say they made a loss on open hydro, about 280 million euro worth of losses

https://fora.ie/openhydro-liquidation-2-4257250-Sep2018/

Discodog · 05-05-2019 12:28pm

ted1 wrote: »

Who’s we?
What commercial wave and tidal is there?

Where can we put hydro in Ireland ? Our mountain range is to low.

Galway Bay has up to 5 metre tides

Dempsey · 05-05-2019 3:27pm

I think the ban on nuclear energy production should be removed to allow a proper discussion on its role in Ireland/Europe etc

Reality is that the Irish State has a very poor track record of large infrastructure projects and any economically viable project would swiftly become a disaster multiple times that of the childrens hospital. Add to that the complete lack of expertise in this country in running such facilities.

We should just complete the Celtic Interconnect with France and leave the nuclear option as an import.

dxhound2005 · 05-05-2019 3:50pm

Dempsey wrote: »

I think the ban on nuclear energy production should be removed to allow a proper discussion on its role in Ireland/Europe etc

Reality is that the Irish State has a very poor track record of large infrastructure projects and any economically viable project would swiftly become a disaster multiple times that of the childrens hospital. Add to that the complete lack of expertise in this country in running such facilities.

We should just complete the Celtic Interconnect with France and leave the nuclear option as an import.

Apart from the hospital (which is not even built yet), which other large projects do you mean?

El_Bee · 05-05-2019 4:54pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Apart from the hospital (which is not even built yet), which other large projects do you mean?

Didn't most of our road network coming in way over budget and past deadlines? Otherwise we just don't have the experience with building besides throwing up houses ins the 00's and even there there's problems across the board.

ted1 · 05-05-2019 5:23pm

Discodog wrote: »

Galway Bay has up to 5 metre tides

And how will you harness the tides.

Dempsey · 05-05-2019 7:08pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Apart from the hospital (which is not even built yet), which other large projects do you mean?

Port Tunnel, Luas, Motorways, National Stadium, PPARS etc

There is a well defined pattern of failure when it comes to large infrastructure projects in this country

Capt'n Midnight · 05-05-2019 9:51pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Apart from the hospital (which is not even built yet), which other large projects do you mean?

Doesn't really matter because most governments fail when it comes to nuclear. People will be safely retired before the plants are completed and their successors will be caught in the trap where the only to pay back the loans is to keep throwing money into the pit until it comes online.

The UK had similar regulations and culture to ourselves, are a much bigger customer and have been doing nuclear power since 1956. It's also worth their while subsidising nuclear power so they can reprocess fuel into weapons, that's something we can't afford. And the only plant being built depends on Chinese money and French government support to a "too big to fail" company. And a guarantee of paying twice the market rate for the power.

Watts Bar 2 started construction in 1976.

It came online in 2016. And then 5 months after that it had to offline for 4 months for repairs despite the old kit having been refurbished.

Costs increased a tad over that time.

Huge hidden costs in nuclear are the abandoned projects and plants decommissioned early because there's billions worth of loans still to be paid for and no income because there's no power being generated.

dxhound2005 · 05-05-2019 10:09pm

There is no chance of a nuclear power station being built in Ireland, so the discussion is irrelevant to reality. But it has prompted the usual claims that Ireland is some sort of third world banana republic, incapable of doing anything right.

Cost overruns in infrastructural projects is a well known international phenomenon, not something peculiar to this country, nor to this era.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.4476.pdf

Cost escalation and its causes
On the basis of the first statistically significant study of cost escalation in transport
infrastructure projects, in a previous article we showed that cost escalation is a
pervasive phenomenon in transport infrastructure projects across project types,
geographical location and historical period.

More specifically we showed the following (all conclusions highly significant and most
likely conservative):
• Nine out of ten transport infrastructure projects fall victim to cost escalation
(N=258).
• For rail average cost escalation is 45% (N=58, sd=38).
• For fixed links (bridges and tunnels) average cost escalation is 34% (N=33,
sd=62).
• For roads average cost escalation is 20% (N=167, sd=30).
• For all project types average cost escalation is 28% (N=258, sd=39).
• Cost escalation exists across 20 nations and five continents; it appears to be a
global phenomenon (N=258).
• Cost escalation appears to be more pronounced in developing nations than in
North America and Europe (N=58, data for rail only).
• Cost escalation has not decreased over the past 70 years. No learning seems to
take place (N=111/246).

ToddyDoody · 05-05-2019 10:09pm

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

At least give them a roof over their head.

But your dignity?

archer22 · 05-05-2019 11:08pm

Where would the waste from it be dumped?

In a Coillte forest somewhere at 3am I suppose!

Capt'n Midnight · 05-05-2019 11:36pm

archer22 wrote: »

Where would the waste from it be dumped?

In a Coillte forest somewhere at 3am I suppose!

Oddly enough that's a great way to protect a nature reserve from humans.

We could do what the Brits did and dump it in Beaufort's Dyke, along with the million plus tons of explosives left after WWii and sarin and tabun (both nerve gases) and phosgene, mustard gas and whatever you're having yourself. What could possibly go wrong ?

El_Bee · 06-05-2019 10:43am

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There is no chance of a nuclear power station being built in Ireland, so the discussion is irrelevant to reality. But it has prompted the usual claims that Ireland is some sort of third world banana republic, incapable of doing anything right.

Cost overruns in infrastructural projects is a well known international phenomenon, not something peculiar to this country, nor to this era.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.4476.pdf

Cost escalation and its causes
On the basis of the first statistically significant study of cost escalation in transport
infrastructure projects, in a previous article we showed that cost escalation is a
pervasive phenomenon in transport infrastructure projects across project types,
geographical location and historical period.

More specifically we showed the following (all conclusions highly significant and most
likely conservative):
• Nine out of ten transport infrastructure projects fall victim to cost escalation
(N=258).
• For rail average cost escalation is 45% (N=58, sd=38).
• For fixed links (bridges and tunnels) average cost escalation is 34% (N=33,
sd=62).
• For roads average cost escalation is 20% (N=167, sd=30).
• For all project types average cost escalation is 28% (N=258, sd=39).
• Cost escalation exists across 20 nations and five continents; it appears to be a
global phenomenon (N=258).
• Cost escalation appears to be more pronounced in developing nations than in
North America and Europe (N=58, data for rail only).
• Cost escalation has not decreased over the past 70 years. No learning seems to
take place (N=111/246).

Ah that's grand so, no reason to complain ever again.

06-05-2019 8:06pm

ted1 wrote: »

That’s a bit of a tale , how many commercial tidal did they ever sell or install?

None - but they had several contracts to install them. They also had several working prototypes at several locations in Scotland, France and Canada. One of the contracts was €600m from the Canadian government. Its a bit of a mystery why they were shuttered when they were. Literally pulled the plug overnight. I was working with one of their IT on a 3 month job on a Thursday and everyone was made redundant Friday morning.

As for making foreign companies rich. I’d say they made a loss on open hydro, about 280 million euro worth of losses

I was talking about their engineers and researchers, not OH themselves.

https://fora.ie/openhydro-liquidation-2-4257250-Sep2018/[/quote]

280 million is a drop in the ocean - pardon the pun. We are paying more than that in fines to the EU.

Their tech works. Some Irish government funding would have gone a long way.

Nuclear power in Ireland

Comments