Nuclear Power

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,990
There have been discussions here before about Nuclear Power but now that the scale of our energy supply vulnerability has been exposed is it time to look at clean, safe, sustainable and reliable nuclear power?
A look at the Eirgrid Dashboard shows the actual percentage of our energy requirement that renewables fulfil. As the time of writing it's around 8%. Even if we have renewables with the potential to deliver 100% of our requirements we'll still need hydrocarbon based stations available with the capacity to provide 40%of our needs. That's because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. That's why the oil and gas companies push solar and wind but not nuclear.
We are not part of the mainland's power network as we have no connection to it. We have a single connection to Britain. We also get most of their gas from them. Even if/when we do get a connection to the mainland the same issues apply in relation to extra capacity.

We, as in the EU, is facing increased deindustrialisation due to energy costs. That is unforgivable.
 
Purple said:
is it time to look at clean, safe, sustainable and reliable nuclear power?
Click to expand...
Definitely. In fact, probably way beyond time. But what are the chances of having a measured, facts based discussion/analysis of that topic in this country? Slim I would imagine. These guys have been trying for several years but don't seem to have made much impression unfortunately.

Nuclear Power Ireland | 18for0

18for0 are starting a conversation on future Ireland electricity generation. Adding 18% nuclear power to Irelands electricity grid could achieve Net Zero targets by 2037. All options need to be considered as part of climate change policy options for Ireland.
www.18for0.ie www.18for0.ie
 
When I looked at that dashboad, it showed renewables at just under 17% and SEAI reports it as being 13% in 2020. I recall reports of days where renewables provided all our power this year. The target is to get that figure up to 70% by 2030.

Planning and foreshore licences for the Celtic Interconnector to France are now in place so if that gets done (target 2026) and we get renewables even up to 50% by 2030, why would we need nuclear power.?
 
Rather than build a dedicated nuclear plant in a specific location with all the associated planning objections I suggest buying a secondhand nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier off the US and park it in a port with good existing electricity infrastructure. Maybe Moneypoint or Dublin port.
 
Purple said:
Even if we have renewables with the potential to deliver 100% of our requirements
Click to expand...

Purple said:
We are not part of the mainland's power network as we have no connection to it
Click to expand...

Purple said:
We also get most of their gas from them.
Click to expand...

I’d love to think we could build full scale reactors, but realistically between public protests, planning, the courts, financing and just pure expediency I believe it’s just a pipe dream. If small reactors become a thing that would change things, but even for these you’re talking decades before they are ready, the Irish people become willing, they get planning, they get financed and then get built.

Seems to me you’ve suggested some of the best solutions above though? You over build renewable sources, say 150-200% so even when the wind is not blowing strongly it covers a significant portion of our requirement, when it’s blowing strongly you export it. You rapidly build more connectors to the UK and France, no idea why it is taking so long and we’re not putting in more wire/infrastructure while we’re going to the effort. And you build LNG terminals and start exploring for gas sources off the Irish coast. These can all be bearing fruit in less than a decade.
 
Purple said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Look at the objections to planning for data centers and even houses. Even if it was agreed to build a nuclear plant trying to locate it without objections would be tough. No politician would accept it in their constituency.
 
Some criticisms of nuclear are legitimate and but many are imagined/exaggerated.

Main pros are reliability, efficiency, low carbon cost, and overall safety.

Main cons are high costs of construction/maintenance/decommissioning, long lead-in time from design to delivery, risk of nuclear weapon proliferation, target for terrorism, single point of failure, and most importantly public perception that Chernobyl or Fukushima would be on their doorstep.

The technology has moved on but that has not trickled down to public trust. Considering the inexplicably frothy reactions to wind turbines, it would be a hard sell.
 
arbitron said:
The technology has moved on but that has not trickled down to public trust.
Click to expand...
That's the key point. New technology is intrinsically safe with zero chance of a meltdown since it uses a different process. Existing waste can be used as a fuel source so the net result is less risk of nuclear weapon proliferation and less waste to store.
The good news is that since the 1950's Nuclear Power has saved over 2 million lives.
Fukushima is a great example of panic and fear overriding facts and reality. A grand total of zero people died at the time as a result of the "disaster", though one man died of cancer 4 years later. 2313 died as a result of the evacuation. Japan is, thankfully, turning back on their nuclear reactors and is open to building next generation plants such as those based on the travelling wave reactor technology.
 
Peanuts20 said:
When I looked at that dashboad, it showed renewables at just under 17% and SEAI reports it as being 13% in 2020. I recall reports of days where renewables provided all our power this year. The target is to get that figure up to 70% by 2030.

Planning and foreshore licences for the Celtic Interconnector to France are now in place so if that gets done (target 2026) and we get renewables even up to 50% by 2030, why would we need nuclear power.?
Click to expand...
'Renewables' is more of an advertising slogan. A more technically correct description is 'weather-dependent energy generation'. So you need back-up for when the (variable) weather cannot meet energy requirements. You could use gas, but a more environmentally friendly and secure solution is nuclear.
Also weather-dependent energy can never meet overal energy requirements as there are a limited number of locations that are suitable for, wind, solar, etc. It really is more of a vanity project and we should just go for safe, clean, nuclear, with gas in the interim and as a backup.
 
I am a fan of nuclear power, but the capital costs are huge, and the timescales very long.
 
PMU said:
'Renewables' is more of an advertising slogan. A more technically correct description is 'weather-dependent energy generation'. So you need back-up for when the (variable) weather cannot meet energy requirements. You could use gas, but a more environmentally friendly and secure solution is nuclear.

Also weather-dependent energy can never meet overal energy requirements as there are a limited number of locations that are suitable for, wind, solar, etc. It really is more of a vanity project and we should just go for safe, clean, nuclear, with gas in the interim and as a backup.
Click to expand...
But Nuclear is a constant output so it's not a suitable back-up option. Burning Hydrocarbons is more suitable since it can also be turned on and off.
Nuclear is the real enemy of the oil and gas companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top