# Nuclear Power



## Purple (15 Sep 2022)

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.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> is it time to look at clean, safe, sustainable and reliable nuclear power?


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


----------



## losttheplot (15 Sep 2022)

Our best bet would be to pay for 
one in France and use the interconnector.


----------



## Peanuts20 (15 Sep 2022)

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.?


----------



## ClubMan (15 Sep 2022)

losttheplot said:


> Our best bet would be to pay for
> one in France and use the interconnector.


An Irish solution to another Irish problem - export it?


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2022)

losttheplot said:


> Our best bet would be to pay for
> one in France and use the interconnector.


Why?


----------



## RichInSpirit (15 Sep 2022)

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.


----------



## Zenith63 (15 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Even if we have renewables with the potential to deliver 100% of our requirements





Purple said:


> We are not part of the mainland's power network as we have no connection to it





Purple said:


> We also get most of their gas from them.



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.


----------



## losttheplot (15 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Why?


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.


----------



## arbitron (15 Sep 2022)

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.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2022)

arbitron said:


> The technology has moved on but that has not trickled down to public trust.


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.


----------



## PMU (15 Sep 2022)

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.?


'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.


----------



## Protocol (15 Sep 2022)

I am a fan of nuclear power, but the capital costs are huge, and the timescales very long.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2022)

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.


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.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2022)

Protocol said:


> I am a fan of nuclear power, but the capital costs are huge, and the timescales very long.


There are major advances in the US and Japan at the moment. Link.


----------



## fidelcastro (15 Sep 2022)

losttheplot said:


> Our best bet would be to pay for
> one in France and use the interconnector.


No, just install many DC interconnections.  As far as the Irish power consumption is concerned, the French power grid is an infinite current source.


----------



## fidelcastro (15 Sep 2022)

Protocol said:


> I am a fan of nuclear power, but the capital costs are huge, and the timescales very long.


You need 2 reactors, in case 1 is unavailable.

Cost is c. 10Billion for one,  20yrs to develop, I dont think we are in the league of countries such as https://yle.fi/news/3-12618297


----------



## fidelcastro (15 Sep 2022)

ClubMan said:


> An Irish solution to another Irish problem - export it?


Yes,  you dont want to have to pay the massive clean up costs.  Let the french state do that, they are much more wealther than the irish state is.


----------



## Zenith63 (15 Sep 2022)

fidelcastro said:


> I dont think we are in the league of countries such as https://yle.fi/news/3-12618297


Ironically we have a similar population and double the GDP (cough cough) of that country, maybe we are in that league?


----------



## cremeegg (15 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> New technology is intrinsically safe with zero chance of a meltdown


It's this kind of over the top boosterism that is the main enemy of rational discussion of the issue.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2022)

cremeegg said:


> It's this kind of over the top boosterism that is the main enemy of rational discussion of the issue.


I'm talking about TWR technology. Yes, I should have been clearer; there is no chance of a meltdown and associated explosion but there is always the chance of other issues.  should have said that it is intrinsically safer though it is true to say that there is zero chance of a catastrophic meltdown. It uses existing nuclear waste as a fuel source so the net effect is no CO2 and less nuclear waste.


----------



## VonHohenzollern (16 Sep 2022)

Yo, so this page shows the flow of electricity around the EU. As we can see with historic data we need to get tied into the EU supergrid. While the idea of one nuclear plant to sort Ireland seems great it's like having 1 supplier of a key ingredient for your business,  a massive weakpoint for failure. The french have been struggling all year with corrosion in their plants which is wreaking the EU grid just as bad as the lack of Natural Gas. Plus we would need to regulate and implement an entire industry with a very single powerful actor that controls the whole baseload grid, this could be a very asymmetric relationship and may lead to poor regulations. 

I think getting the celtic interconnector will be a gamechanger and we should be integrating ourselves into every grid as much as possible to capitalise on wind and import other energy sources. We should look at a wide array of baseload production including; anerobic digestion, hydrogen storage, tidal, burning of wood waste and maybe micro nuclear production. A strong combination of all three could easily supply the baseload for when the wind isint blowing, while ensuring our grid is resilient to a shock in any of the systems.  

 However, some use of micro-nuclear plants that are being developed could have an essential role also in the baseload. I just feel like putting all the money on a large nuclear project that is reliant on importing fuels from either north Africa or Australia is not the best option.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2022)

VonHohenzollern said:


> Yo, so this page shows the flow of electricity around the EU. As we can see with historic data we need to get tied into the EU supergrid. While the idea of one nuclear plant to sort Ireland seems great it's like having 1 supplier of a key ingredient for your business,  a massive weakpoint for failure. The french have been struggling all year with corrosion in their plants which is wreaking the EU grid just as bad as the lack of Natural Gas. Plus we would need to regulate and implement an entire industry with a very single powerful actor that controls the whole baseload grid, this could be a very asymmetric relationship and may lead to poor regulations.
> I think getting the celtic interconnector will be a gamechanger and we should be integrating ourselves into every grid as much as possible to capitalise on wind and import other energy sources. We should look at a wide array of baseload production including; anerobic digestion, hydrogen storage, tidal, burning of wood waste and maybe micro nuclear production.


I agree that integrating ourselves into the mainland's energy grid is essential. It is only after that that building nuclear stations makes sense. 
I'm not a fan of Hydrogen, it's just not energy dense enough. Burning stuff isn't the future. 
The potential for generating power through anaerobic digestion is huge. Each household in Ireland produces around a ton of food waste a year. That should be enough to power that home for the year. The problem is gathering the waste and getting it to the anaerobic digester.



VonHohenzollern said:


> I just feel like putting all the money on a large nuclear project that is reliant on importing fuels from either north Africa or Australia is not the best option.


I agree completely. It would be a terrible idea. That's why we should wait until the TWR technology is on stream. Small nuclear is also worth looking at but the fuel source and waste issues are significant.


----------



## Blackrock1 (16 Sep 2022)

I take it you aren't familiar with the rapidly evolving battery storage technologies out there. Thats the long term answer to flattening out renewable production.


----------



## joe sod (16 Sep 2022)

losttheplot said:


> Our best bet would be to pay for
> one in France and use the interconnector.


David McSavage has a very funny skit of that on his show a decade ago. It showed the ESB rowing into a French beech with a giant 3 pin plug and cable, Mcsavage in Napoleon pose, all patriotic music playing in the background.  Then he strides onto the beech pulling the cable from the boat only to reach the French continental 2 pin socket and being unable to connect onto the French socket.
Was hilarious but alot of truth aswell seeing that we are still not connected well over a decade later


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> I take it you aren't familiar with the rapidly evolving battery storage technologies out there. Thats the long term answer to flattening out renewable production.


Not really, other than the prospect of Lithium-metal batteries and the breakthrough that the problem with the formation of dendrites in those battery types seems to be fixable.
I'm looking at energy supply in work at the moment. I'm getting 87kW of Solar in and I'm looking at Industrial battery storage as an alternative to having Generators on site for back-up so I've done a bit of research but nothing in depth.

I do know that if this country a move to 100% electric vehicles will necessitate a more than 100% increase in our generation capacity. I don't see how we can do that using renewables. Given the need for 40% extra capacity that's a serious amount of battery storage.

Ireland's total consumption is 25.68 billion kW hours a year. The biggest battery storage system in the world at the moment is the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California. It has a capacity of 1,600,000 Kw hours.  With everyone running as EV we'd need around 50,000,000,000 kW hours. Batteries aren't going to help.


----------



## Blackrock1 (16 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Not really, other than the prospect of Lithium-metal batteries and the breakthrough that the problem with the formation of dendrites in those battery types seems to be fixable.
> I'm looking at energy supply in work at the moment. I'm getting 87kW of Solar in and I'm looking at Industrial battery storage as an alternative to having Generators on site for back-up so I've done a bit of research but nothing in depth.
> 
> I do know that if this country a move to 100% electric vehicles will necessitate a more than 100% increase in our generation capacity. I don't see how we can do that using renewables. Given the need for 40% extra capacity that's a serious amount of battery storage.
> ...


Batteries arent going to help, i disagree, they will become a major factor on our grid over the coming decade once eirgrid get their ass in gear and make the revenue stack viable.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> Batteries arent going to help, i disagree, they will become a major factor on our grid over the coming decade once eirgrid get their ass in gear and make the revenue stack viable.


How will they help?
How many do we need? 
Where will we put them?
Lithium-Ion battery systems are by far the most common for large scale storage. How do we overcome the risks associated with them such as safety as they age, reuse/recycling of them and actual state of health determination? As they degrade they can overheat and burn and, as the smoke defective cells generate is combustible, they can explode. 
Other technologies are being developed but they are a long way off and have many of the same problems and, crucially, batteries don't generate power, they just store it.


----------



## Blackrock1 (16 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> How will they help?
> How many do we need?
> Where will we put them?
> Lithium-Ion battery systems are by far the most common for large scale storage. How do we overcome the risks associated with them such as safety as they age, reuse/recycling of them and actual state of health determination? As they degrade they can overheat and burn and, as the smoke defective cells generate is combustible, they can explode.
> Other technologies are being developed but they are a long way off and have many of the same problems and, crucially, batteries don't generate power, they just store it.


there is a raft of information out there, educate yourself








						Grid-scale battery storage development
					

Over 2.5GW of grid-scale battery storage is in development in Ireland, with six projects currently operational in the country, four of which were added in 2021. […]




					www.energyireland.ie
				




And im sure the risks will be managed just fine, we have run coal and gas plants for decades so im sure managing to run a battery storage dacility safely wont be beyond the realms of possibility.

Of course batteries dont generate power, but they do allow for more efficient use of renewables which is the whole point.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> there is a raft of information out there, educate yourself
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm aware of that stuff. It doesn't answer my questions. I haven't read anything that does. 


Blackrock1 said:


> And im sure the risks will be managed just fine, we have run coal and gas plants for decades so im sure managing to run a battery storage dacility safely wont be beyond the realms of possibility.


It certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility but we need to tie it down better than that. The lifespan and the environmental costs of production and disposal are also unclear. 


Blackrock1 said:


> Of course batteries dont generate power, but they do allow for more efficient use of renewables which is the whole point.


They allow for the more efficient use of power generated from any source but our problem is lack of generation capacity and that's going to get far worse as we move away from ICE vehicles. Even if we had enough batteries to level out our demand, and that would be hundreds of acres of batteries, we still won't be producing enough power.


----------



## Blackrock1 (16 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> I'm aware of that stuff. It doesn't answer my questions. I haven't read anything that does.
> 
> It certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility but we need to tie it down better than that. The lifespan and the environmental costs of production and disposal are also unclear.
> 
> They allow for the more efficient use of power generated from any source but our problem is lack of generation capacity and that's going to get far worse as we move away from ICE vehicles. Even if we had enough batteries to level out our demand, and that would be hundreds of acres of batteries, we still won't be producing enough power.


there are GWs of renenewable projects being developed, what we need is improved grid infastructure, supply wont be the constraint grid capacity is.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> there are GWs of renenewable projects being developed,


Yes, but we need far more than they will ever provide.


Blackrock1 said:


> what we need is improved grid infastructure,


I agree 100% on that. Our grid infrastructure is dreadful, but according to Eirgrid they'll have that sorted out within the next decade without causing an increase in electricity prices. As with most products making the stuff is more of a problem than transporting it. 


Blackrock1 said:


> supply wont be the constraint grid capacity is.


Do you mean that supply won't be a constraint or that grid infrastructure will be more of a constraint than supply?


----------



## Blackrock1 (16 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Yes, but we need far more than they will ever provide.
> 
> I agree 100% on that. Our grid infrastructure is dreadful, but according to Eirgrid they'll have that sorted out within the next decade without causing an increase in electricity prices. As with most products making the stuff is more of a problem than transporting it.
> 
> Do you mean that supply won't be a constraint or that grid infrastructure will be more of a constraint than supply?


grid infastructure is what is limiting supply at the moment, greater access to grid will allow more renewable projects to be built out, battery tech will improve the efficiency of this generation, we should get to a point where 70/80% of supply is renewable with a few start of the art ccgts to support in the background in the next 15 years.


----------



## ryaner (16 Sep 2022)

The grid infrastructure is already limiting renewables in places. A number of wind farms have to stop turbines at times as the connections can't take the load, and there have been other projects stopped in planning due to the lack of connections being available.


----------



## fidelcastro (18 Sep 2022)

Zenith63 said:


> Ironically we have a similar population and double the GDP (cough cough) of that country, maybe we are in that league?


I dont see how the turnover of Apple computer &  reported by  a complex accounting exercise to Cork  has any reflection of the wealth of the Free State, which reflects how much income/wealth is available for taxation purposes and allows the state to embark on a nuclear power plant expense.

The GNI of the Free State  is c.290Billion,  ~same as GNP of Suomi , so ~ same wealth & population, both countries 100yrs independent.  Suomi has 5 reactor sites around the country since the 1970's and a new 1600MW new plant is going on-line this winter. Needless to say we have much higher Gov debt, while for Suomi they live beside the world worst neighbours, the terrorist Russian state.  So not all rosy over there.

In  Suomi, there is almost free childcare, free public health for all,  true free education until third-level, and little homelessness.  .These are all of the liabilities the Free state hasnt quite got round to or accomplished in 100yrs, and I think they should take priority over further indebtness to fund a minimum c.20Billion power plant, when the French nuclear dominated grid looks as an infinite current source since we are not even the size of Paris.  All we have to do is connect/plan/construct as many DC connections as necessary and let the French pay for the clean up for the next 1000 yrs, and supply excess wind power as req'd to them.


----------



## fidelcastro (18 Sep 2022)

ryaner said:


> The grid infrastructure is already limiting renewables in places. A number of wind farms have to stop turbines at times as the connections can't take the load, and there have been other projects stopped in planning due to the lack of connections being available.


Location of turbines off the Arklow banks would have been the logical answer, where the Elec demand (Dublin) is, and as a child knows the wind blows at a higher velocity at see than over land.   Additionally E=1/2 mv2, so a factor of 2x in wind velocity translates to a 4x increase in energy, so small differences matter.

But once again , as a nation we have fannied around for 20yrs admiring the few turbines which were installed off Arklow , rather than getting on with the job as per Scotland & Englands vast installation of offshore in the meantime.


----------



## joe sod (18 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> grid infastructure is what is limiting supply at the moment, greater access to grid will allow more renewable projects to be built out, battery tech will improve the efficiency of this generation, we should get to a point where 70/80% of supply is renewable with a few start of the art ccgts to support in the background in the next 15 years.


but "battery tech" will never get to the position of being able to store days and days of electricity, that is restricted by the laws of physics and the inability to store large amounts of electricity as electric energy. The battery storage facilty at poolbeg can only supply 2 hours power at full load, (admitted by the ESB on a report about energy security) it really is just a way to smooth out the variabilty of renewables when the wind is blowing but cannot step in when the wind is not blowing for days.
During the whole of August during the drought there was virtually no wind power for the whole month, where was the power then coming from ?
of course from the conventional power stations that are getting old and are not being renewed with new generating capacity quickly enough.
The peat power stations were originally supposed to continue generating until 2025 but were closed down prematurely not by Eirgrid or BnM but by An Bord Planeala the organisation now under scrutiny due to corruption and dubious decisions and planning decisions in other areas.
We need to get real and stop making silly decisions and remove the bureacracy that is hampering effective energy planning


----------



## Blackrock1 (19 Sep 2022)

joe sod said:


> but "battery tech" will never get to the position of being able to store days and days of electricity, that is restricted by the laws of physics and the inability to store large amounts of electricity as electric energy. The battery storage facilty at poolbeg can only supply 2 hours power at full load, (admitted by the ESB on a report about energy security) it really is just a way to smooth out the variabilty of renewables when the wind is blowing but cannot step in when the wind is not blowing for days.
> During the whole of August during the drought there was virtually no wind power for the whole month, where was the power then coming from ?
> of course from the conventional power stations that are getting old and are not being renewed with new generating capacity quickly enough.
> The peat power stations were originally supposed to continue generating until 2025 but were closed down prematurely not by Eirgrid or BnM but by An Bord Planeala the organisation now under scrutiny due to corruption and dubious decisions and planning decisions in other areas.
> We need to get real and stop making silly decisions and remove the bureacracy that is hampering effective energy planning


i wonder if it incredibly warm and there isnt much wind blowing, what form of renewable would be producing lots of energy in that scenario .....


----------



## joe sod (19 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> i wonder if it incredibly warm and there isnt much wind blowing, what form of renewable would be producing lots of energy in that scenario .....


Don't believe there is any, that's why nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution.  Electricity by its nature cannot be stored in huge quantities even though it can be generated in large quantities it basically needs to be consumed in real time.

 Even when Electricity is generated by nature it cannot exist in a stored state for very long it needs to discharge as lightning. For example you would never see a charged storm cloud hanging around for days after a storm it always discharges quickly. When nature stores up electric energy it is in the form of a vast rain cloud not something that can easily be replicated artificially


----------



## Blackrock1 (19 Sep 2022)

joe sod said:


> Don't believe there is any, that's why nuclear energy needs to be part of the solution.  Electricity by its nature cannot be stored in huge quantities even though it can be generated in large quantities it basically needs to be consumed in real time.
> 
> Even when Electricity is generated by nature it cannot exist in a stored state for very long it needs to discharge as lightning. For example you would never see a charged storm cloud hanging around for days after a storm it always discharges quickly. When nature stores up electric energy it is in the form of a vast rain cloud not something that can easily be replicated artificially


solar Joe, the answer is solar, so the wind doesn't blow hopefully your solar can bridge the gap. And we all have loads of devices that store energy for days and weeks on end so i don't follow your analogy. 

We are very unlikely to ever have nuclear in ireland nor do we really need it if we properly plan out our grid capacity, renewable projects and have a few flexible ccgts as well.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> i wonder if it incredibly warm and there isnt much wind blowing, what form of renewable would be producing lots of energy in that scenario .....


During cold spells in January and February we often experience periods of low to no wind. The "big freeze" was an extreme example of this. We'll never have enough solar to cover periods like that and the environmental impact of solar is yet to be fully realised but recycling them is very energy intensive and burying them is dangerous as they contain heavy metals (lead and cadmium) which can leach out into ground water.

Batteries have their own issues when it comes to recycling.
Nuclear is much cleaner, consistent and reliable.


----------



## Salvadore (28 Sep 2022)

Purple said:


> Nuclear is much cleaner, consistent and reliable.



It’s increasingly difficult to understand the blanket refusal to consider nuclear. 

Ultimately, the potential risk of a nuclear disaster is a lot less threatening to the survival of the planet than the continued use of gas and fossil fuels.

We can’t wait much longer for other alternatives to get to the level where they offer a viable alternative.


----------



## argolis (29 Sep 2022)

A bit off-topic but for anyone interested the EC published an interactive map of all the power plants in the EU:






						Energy and Industry Geography Lab
					






					energy-industry-geolab.jrc.ec.europa.eu


----------



## TinyChamp (3 Oct 2022)

argolis said:


> A bit off-topic but for anyone interested the EC published an interactive map of all the power plants in the EU:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great resource, thanks for sharing.

NINE nuclear power plants in the UK.  
And, none in Ireland.

Where do you think we'd locate ours if we went ahead and began building one?


----------



## argolis (3 Oct 2022)

Not necessarily where Ireland would put it, but offshore nuclear plants are possible. I heard Sarah Cullen from 18for0 mention that there's at least one of these in production use already:



			https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/21/07/iaea_webinar_marine-based_smrs_ofnp_m_golay_18may2021.pdf
		


Float it just off the coast of Britain and wire it back to the pigeon house?


----------



## newirishman (6 Oct 2022)

Here's some interesting news.
It'd probably be the first thing I'd lobby for to get into my estate once these are ready for public deployment.









						This micro molten salt reactor is designed to fit on a truck
					

Small, safer vessels could be 'silicon chip' that ushers in new nuclear age




					www.theregister.com


----------



## Firefly (6 Oct 2022)

_Small modular reactors can be mass-produced at relatively low cost and pose less risk_









						Ireland needs to bite the bullet on nuclear energy
					

Small modular reactors can be mass-produced at relatively low cost and risk




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## ClubMan (25 Nov 2022)

I guess we're going to be using more nuclear generated electricity soon?








						Taoiseach signs off Celtic Interconnector plan in Paris
					

Final construction and finance arrangements for the Celtic interconnector have been signed off in Paris this morning.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## jpd (25 Nov 2022)

Soon ? 
Won't be operationel before 2025 at the earliest


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2022)

jpd said:


> Soon ?
> Won't be operationel before 2025 at the earliest


That's soon in the context of energy infrastructure.


----------



## Zenith63 (25 Nov 2022)

Cannot help but feel that in light of everything going on this year we should be at least doubling the capacity of that interconnector while we're going to the effort of building it?


----------



## jpd (25 Nov 2022)

The total project cost is estimated a t € 1.6 billion with the cable itself cost € 0.5 billion so doubling it will require a lot of money


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2022)

Zenith63 said:


> Cannot help but feel that in light of everything going on this year we should be at least doubling the capacity of that interconnector while we're going to the effort of building it?


It leaves us very vulnerable to sabotage. Not as vulnerable as we are now with only one interconnector from outside the EU but if we want energy security we need Nuclear.


----------

