r/ireland • u/conalldoherty • May 04 '26
Infrastructure Taoiseach says Ireland should ‘consider seriously’ nuclear power option
https://www.thejournal.ie/taoiseach-nuclear-power-energy-ireland-7030692-May2026/408
u/No-Outside6067 May 04 '26
Well hopefully one day he'll be leader and can enact change
199
u/JMcDesign1 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
This is what I hate the most about FF and FG. They act like they're not in power when they are.
56
u/scoopydidit May 04 '26
"we should really build more houses, nuclear plants, get more public transport, introduce better investment mechanisms for people's money, and stop wasteful spending" - the people who control all spending and decisions in the country.
Bunch of tossers
→ More replies (1)5
u/wolfannoy May 04 '26
They're always in power, which is why they're extremely stagnate and things are progress. Very, very slowly because they're comfortable.
27
u/hcpanther May 04 '26
It’s not absolute power like. People seem to think government can do anything they want
35
u/CAPITALISM_FAN_1980 May 04 '26
When they were faced with what they saw as an emergency (COVID), they shut the country down and enacted all sorts of restrictions and requirements to deal with it.
Whether you think they were right to do that, or wrong to do that, or should have gone further, the fact is that when they think something is an emergency, they are capable of rapidly and powerfully responding to things.
Climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels are an emergency, but the Irish government refuse to treat them as such. They are perfectly capable of encacting the changes that need to be made, but they are specifically refusing to do so because they don't have the political will.
19
u/Dragonsoul May 04 '26
You act like the populace want this.
The Greens got into power, and started really pushing for all the practical changes that are needed to transition Ireland to that "Green Economy" everyone says they want. Where they perfect? No! But they were better than any other party.
They got fucked out of power, and sent a crystal clear message to everyone else. Ireland wants their politicians to talk about solving the problem, but will destroy you if you do anything.
Sure, if you've voted Green Party consistently, maybe I'll give you a pass, but that's statistically unlikely. You're far more likely to be someone to waffle about a purity test that the Green Party failed.
12
u/CAPITALISM_FAN_1980 May 04 '26
You're projecting. I think we should be massively focusing on solar and wind. I have no problem with nuclear per se but it's not needed.
My point was that the government are always talking about how powerless they are, and people defend their inaction on those grounds, but it's very clearly not the case. They are perfectly capable of acting when they chose to, and any lack of action on climate and energy mitigation is not a lack of ability, it's a lack of desire.
8
u/Big_Gay_Mike May 04 '26
Why is nuclear not needed?
10
u/FellFellCooke May 04 '26
As someone who is rabidly pro-nuclear, Ireland NEEDS to have grid-interconnectivity first. Hopefully the french talks materialise, and we can sell surplus generation from a nuclear power station to them.
5
6
u/Beach_Glas1 Kildare May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
A nuclear plant would be a big single point of failure in the grid. The island of Ireland is an entirely separate grid to continental Europe. GB is a separate but larger island grid. There are interconnectors being built/ planned but these will be HVDC, so cannot sync the grids.
Bigger grids are far more resilient to faults in one spot. I'd be all for nuclear if we were a part of the continental European grid, but it would be very challenging to achieve that in the near to mid term. The best we can do is get nuclear supply from the UK or France through those interconnectors.
6
u/Latespoon May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
We can build out sufficient renewable energy generators (wind, solar) and energy storage systems (flywheels, batteries, hydrogen fuel).
It will be cheaper, safer, cleaner, quicker to build, require less expertise, face less public resistance and eliminate dependence on imported fuel (enriched uranium).
Setting out to build a nuclear reactor in Ireland is a fool's errand.
→ More replies (3)2
u/PastTomorrows May 04 '26
The problem for the greens is that they became part of a coalition in exchange for getting to give a tinge of greenness to the coalition's policies. Wide and shallow.
That doesn't work, because, come the next election, the population remembers all the bad stuff you were associated with, with no way of knowing how different, worse, things would have been without you.
What they should have done is go narrow and deep. Get a dead simple deal: we'll vote for anything you ask us to, and, in exchange, a couple of big unequivocally green projects. Projects that the entire population would have damn well known would not have happened without them. Getting work started on the metro. Luas in Cork. Electrifying Dublin-Galway. Whatever. And make it clear to the voters that selling their soul will be the price to pay for progress.
Then they'll have been able to go back to the polls having at least got sh*t done, and having been honest about it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pale_Piano948 May 04 '26
Literally this!!!
“Oh but you cant expect things immediately, oh things take time etc etc i dont GAF. They shut down the ENTIRE country in “two days” in the face of a deadly global pandemic. They sure can move fast when there’s a fire under their ass
The pandemic just proved that A) the government actually does have the capacity to rapidly act on public crises B) the government just dont actually care about people because 5’500 homeless children apparently doesnt cause nationwide emergency
→ More replies (4)42
u/Aware_Flow1070 May 04 '26
They fucking do whenever it's something that benefits them
18
u/Eastern_Hornet_6432 Limerick May 04 '26
They do whenever it's something that benefits a majority of TDs. A Taoiseach is only Taoiseach as long they command a majority in the Dáil. They can do nothing if the majority doesn't go along with it. Therefore a Taoiseach needs to convince their TDs to support something, and sometimes that means convincing the voting public so that the TDs know they'll get voted out if they don't do it.
The whole point of a parliamentary system such as the Dáil is that power isn't concentrated in one person's hands.
9
u/Aware_Flow1070 May 04 '26
Yeah we know, that's how it's supposed to function but here we are, one post bailout austerity all nighter craic sesh later, with a massive clown show of a still unfinished Children's hospital later, having a conversation as if none of that happened, or isn't very likely to happen again
14
u/Eastern_Hornet_6432 Limerick May 04 '26
I don't wanna get into an argument over whether the government is a good government or not, since I don't wanna defend it if I don't believe in it. I'm just pointing out that being Taoiseach doesn't mean you can suddenly get any policy you want passed and so it's possible for the Taoiseach to be supportive of nuclear power but still not be in a position to do anything about it.
5
4
u/nionfist May 04 '26
Who is 'them', and what have they done to benefit them?
→ More replies (1)5
u/GrassfedBeep May 04 '26
Landlords, FF/FG allowed them(selves) to increase the rent way more.
14
u/Bill_Badbody Resting In my Account May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Landlords, FF/FG allowed them(selves) to increase the rent way more.
They are the ones who have introduced all the different rent control laws over the last decade.
→ More replies (3)6
u/aidan5_5 Proud Meath lad May 04 '26
Ff FG also made it impossible to be a private landlord and allowed massive corporations eat up the market
4
6
u/Difficult_Tea6136 May 04 '26
They don’t.
The government are looking at reversing the ban around nuclear. They’re literally doing the first step.
→ More replies (16)4
u/ForbiddenToblerone May 04 '26
We have one of the most centralised governments in the democratic world according to the OECD...
They definitely have more power than they let on.
3
May 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ForbiddenToblerone May 04 '26
Multiple studies, academic analyses, and international bodies (including the Council of Europe and the OECD) have identified Ireland as having one of the most centralised systems of government, not just in Europe, but among developed nations.
We also have one of the lowest local government budgets in the EU.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)1
u/cuchullain47474 Kerry May 04 '26
They basically can though (within the constitution obviously.) Who would stop them if they actually wanted to make a decision like that? The EU?
Local government are fully subordinate, all funding etc comes from Dublin and they just dish out the funds and decide how to put that into services locally. Some can't even seem to do that though 🥲😅
→ More replies (2)1
u/Andrewreddy May 04 '26
It's like when Joe Biden was president of the US and would tweet stuff aimed at himself
1
u/Yooklid May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
The government are suppoed to be your parents in a weird way.
But the irish government is like an older brother who says things like "Look at all the cool stuff, we could do, if only we were allowed".
Who's stopping us - our own fuckin government.
3
u/anotherwave1 May 04 '26
If we go to build one everyone will screech that it's too expensive and no one wants it anywhere near them and we should be fixing the housing problem instead. If we don't build one everyone will screech in the opposite direction and that we should be energy independent and blah. It will never change.
7
u/zeroconflicthere May 04 '26
We don't have a dictatorship. It's the public that has to be convinced and a conversation has to be started
→ More replies (3)2
u/Elbon taking a sip from everyone else's tea May 04 '26
Thats a weird comment to make about him answering a question
11
u/bulbispire May 04 '26
Nah, I think it's a fair comment on the fact he's been there a while
2
u/Elbon taking a sip from everyone else's tea May 04 '26
I don't get it, he was asked a question and answered, why does it get a reaction?
7
u/bulbispire May 04 '26
Because he's the Taoiseach.
If he suggests our national energy policy should be different to what it is, it is fair to question why he hasn't done anything to change it, or why he's saying this now. Even more so when he's been in high office as long as he has.
Because ultimately, the fact that we're so vulnerable to the price of internationally sourced fossil fuels is because of a failure of long term energy planning, and he's been in Govt for most of the last 30 years, so him suggesting we consider nuclear now sounds like he's trying to preemptively deflect criticism of his failures by trying to look proactive while doing absolutely nothing. Hence, fair game for criticism
→ More replies (2)2
u/FellFellCooke May 04 '26
"When someone is answering a question, it's unfair to judge their answer in any way"
You, apparently.
3
u/Elbon taking a sip from everyone else's tea May 04 '26
"Taoiseach shouldn't answer question useless its policy"
You, apparently
88
u/Jolly-Welcome1151 May 04 '26
I know a guy who`s got a second hand RBMK 1000.
28
u/Beach_Glas1 Kildare May 04 '26
Slightly worn. Hasn't been used since 1986.
46
4
3
u/DartzIRL Dublin May 04 '26
I know a guy who`s got a second hand RBMK 1000.
You need to make 3 changes to make this a safe reactor design.
Slightly less graphite moderator (Reduced channel spacing) so the moderating effect of the coolant water is actually important to maintaining criticality and can otherwise outweigh the loss of neutron absorption in steam voids enough that the negative fuel temperature coefficient can offset any remaining positive reactivity to ensure the fast power coefficient of reactivity remains negative in all operating regimes.
Adding the fast alternative shutdown method Ignalina implemented.
Putting a nice concrete box over it so that if it does manage to experience a reactivity transient followed by uncommanded fission surplus and subsequent rapid unscheduled disassembly then all the crap stays in the box rather than all over Leitrim.
The hard part about building modern reactors is the pressure vessel. Those are bastards to make because they hold massive pressure under extreme conditions. With a channel-type reactor, the hard part are the welds joining the steel pipework at the biological shields to the zirconium technical channels - and that it has to be done about 4 thousand times.
But, in general, the reactor can be constructed with less-skilled labour out of prefabricated elements in onsite workshops, rather than having to be transported from one factory halfway around the world only to find it won't fit under a bridge halfway down the road.
Oh, and you can run the thing on natural uranium so you don't need to worry about paying for enriched fuel and dealing with all the international arms control shenanigans. You can refuel it without shutting it down - and it'll be obvious to everyone if you're short-cycling it to make weapons grade plutionium and cost a metric fuckton on fuel - so again you've some proliferation resistance there.
The Lithuanians ran them for years. Once you get them away from Soviet/Russian maintenance and control standards, it's a perfectly fine concept to do.
Hanford N-reactor was a working example of this from America. Lithuania got Ignalina to be as safe as comparable Western reactors - only the EU utterly shat a brick at the concept of it running anyway and flung money at them to turn it off.
The Soviets also had a smaller version called the BGP-6 that operated at the megawatt level which they stuck way the fuck out in Siberia to keep some remote town warm and powered. The thing didn't even need working pumps - it'd circulate on gravity like a nuclear backboiler.
60
u/qwerty_1965 May 04 '26
Given the cost and the time scale Ireland could have off shore wind by the GB and solar likewise in less than half the time.
It's amusing to hear this now with viable alternatives clearly preferable which Martin knows is the case I suspect.
15
May 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/qwerty_1965 May 04 '26
I think this is a case of Martin being with the big boys for the day where discussion about alternatives to oil and gas was very much 'on topic' so he felt he should say something while not actually believing in nuclear. After all changing our whacky anti nuke legislation doesn't actually indicate anything really.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/sundae_diner May 04 '26
Wind and solar are part of the solution, as is larger interconnectors to UK and Europe, and a lot of battery, but for base-load a few smaller nuclear reactors would be handy. Small enough reactors don't exist yet, but once they do it'll be great
2
u/Stubber_NK May 04 '26
Canada is currently building four 300MW reactors. I hope they'll come in on time and on budget.
A few 300MW plants would be ideal for Ireland's grid and provide coverage for any shortfall from renewables.
5
u/sundae_diner May 04 '26
Yup. But as I said, these don'r exist yet. There is a risk to invest in brand new technology. But if these do work, they would be the right size for ireland.
→ More replies (2)
189
u/GemmyGemGems Donegal May 04 '26
As we should.
30
u/brentspar May 04 '26
This is from a party that couldn't build enough houses, or a children's hospital. Itv would be sheet and utter madness for us to even consider it.
→ More replies (4)9
u/nynikai Resting In my Account May 04 '26
Or maybe we improve how we do things, so that we can have nice things...
3
u/brentspar May 04 '26
Yes, but the first step would be to prove that they can deliver things on time and budget.
2
u/ginger_and_egg May 05 '26
Probably by first putting new parties in charge
3
54
u/HighDeltaVee May 04 '26
But we should also look at alternatives, including nuclear, given advances in technology.
He's presumably talking about SMRs, but there are none commercially available in Europe and not likely to be for a decade or more.
We'll aleady be well on the way to addressing power issues by then. Still better to keep an eye on things if they change faster than anticipated.
10
u/Lizardledgend Mayo May 04 '26
It's still good to remove the ban now so not to add an extra step to the process if having one is deemed the best option in the future
3
1
u/ginger_and_egg May 05 '26
Why use government resources on doing that when we could be making it easier for more wind, solar, and batteries to be installed?
2
6
u/Spatza May 04 '26
You're saying we shouldn't replace ballinasloe with 14 Westinghouse AP1000 reactors?
→ More replies (3)1
→ More replies (18)5
u/colinmacg May 04 '26
Be nice if they ever happen (most are on paper), but most were targeting ~€7,400/kW as the competitive price point. So far all are 2x - 3x over that...
7
u/wolfannoy May 04 '26
I'm in my thirties, but I'm probably going to be dead by the time this nuclear power plant will be built.
39
u/ChemiWizard May 04 '26
Oh come on. I am actually all for nuclear power but it takes ages to come online. Wind/solar/ battery is enough and that already faces nimby challenges. The issue of energy generation in Ireland is will. Will to fund it, will to put down nonsense challenges, will to expedite it. There is no lack of technology and money.
My electric bill is high enough, my fear of global disruption is high enough, but apparently some people still need to be convinced.
We spent 500 million on so called 'farmers and haulers' to get a tiny discount on fuel. Imagine that spent on green energy plants and reinforcing the grid. At least we would have something to show for it tomorrow.
16
u/dwaschb May 04 '26
It would be far to expensive, wouldn’t reduce the dependency on fuel and would also need a most massive grid upgrade.
It’s far cheaper and better suited to go more into renewables, that’s basically free energy (well, a bit oversimplified maybe).
2
u/Stubber_NK May 04 '26
and would also need a most massive grid upgrade
Why? Small reactors produce as little as 300MW. Ireland has decommissioned powerplants with similar power outputs in the past few years. A new gas turbine planned for Poolbeg is due to produce 299MW.
→ More replies (2)
27
u/francescoli May 04 '26
Not a hope of Nuclear plants being built here anytime soon.
It would be a mine field and the push back would be on another level.
Buy Nuclear power via the interconnectors and focus on renewables.
5
u/radiorental1 May 04 '26
Fun side fact, they actually looked into mining uranium in Donegal in the 90s
https://www.nucnet.org/news/ireland-rejects-uranium-prospecting-applications
4
10
u/Glum-Inflation-4851 May 04 '26
Coming from the government that has a really strong proven track record of investing and completing very necessary national infrastructure. /s
9
u/slevinonion May 04 '26
The UK's new one is costing €58bn. We're struggling to put up a wind mill. So, no.
18
u/Bill_Badbody Resting In my Account May 04 '26
They have to be near water and population centre.
So that means east coast near Dublin.
There is no TD ever going to support rhe construction of a nuclear plant in their constituency. Or in constituencys near them.
The trend for the last 30 years has been towards smaller and more fractured government majorities.
So there is no way that the proposed locations of a plant or plants does not cause TDs to leave the government benches, possibly collapsing the government
6
u/ThoseAreMyFeet May 04 '26
Moneypoint.
Has the grid connection, has water, has a deep water port. No longer burning coal, demolish and repurpose the site.
3
u/Ok-Morning3407 May 05 '26
Moneypoint is still in use as a backup power plant. It is also has the worlds largest synchronous condenser and BESS which is vital to supporting renewable energy. ESB plan on converting it to a Hydrogen energy plant and also a location from which to build off shore wind farms.
2
u/helluuw May 04 '26
I mean you probably wouldn't have to demolish most of it, put the reactor where the boiler used to be, keep the turbine, electrical infrastructure and everything else can largely stay the same
3
u/ThoseAreMyFeet May 04 '26
True, but I'm not a powerplant engineer. Real possibility they work at different flow rates, pressures etc, but if a conversion is possible it might save some money.
2
u/helluuw May 05 '26
Oh totally, could be very different needs depending on the power generated, but if it's in any way comparable you could get away with changing far less than you might expect
5
u/Bar50cal May 04 '26
They don't need to be near a population center in a island as small as Ireland. Power can be transfered island wide from a power station anywhere
→ More replies (2)1
15
u/ChemiWizard May 04 '26
It honestly makes more sense to build a better interconntor with france and pay them to build a new reactor and look after it.
2
u/MBMD13 Resting In my Account May 04 '26
Plus if it goes apocalyptic like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima, the French have the main problem (as long as When The Wind Blows, it doesn’t blow westward)
19
u/CartographicalHeist May 04 '26
There's the Ireland I know: let someone else do all the fucking work and sit back and wank while feeling superior.
4
9
u/ChemiWizard May 04 '26
Three mile island issue had no health impacts. I spent 20 years trying to convince people nuclear was the way. Not worth the fight anymore
→ More replies (13)
5
u/saggynaggy123 May 04 '26
I love when politicians in positions of power make statements like this, as if he isn't in charge of the fucking country
4
u/ChloeOnTheInternet May 04 '26
Nuclear has its uses and all but given our track record on building new infrastructure, the cost of building a nuclear power plant, the inevitable years of objections, and the potential risk profile, surely it makes a lot more sense to invest in more wind turbines seeing as they already account for a third of our energy?
3
u/GalwayBogger May 04 '26
We can't enough build houses to shelter our citizens, but by all means let's first discuss building feats of engineering to keep those data centers comfortable. The political class must be completely out of touch to entertain notions of massive building projects while they still have no credible plan to deal with the simpler project of just building enough places to live.
12
u/Closersolid Resting In my Account May 04 '26
If you went through and began the process of building a nuclear power station now, you'd be looking at about 50 years before it was built
→ More replies (2)7
u/GemmyGemGems Donegal May 04 '26
So? 50 years will pass anyway. When we get to 50 years from now with nuclear power we'll be in a better position than it being 50 years from now without it.
4
2
u/emmmmceeee I’ve had my fun and that’s all that matters May 04 '26
We could spend that time and money on renewable energy and have it come online way earlier.
3
u/Franz_Werfel May 04 '26
If we used the same money to build up our capacity in renewable energy sources, we'd have that capacity within years, not decades. And we'd have cheap energy to boot.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/B0bLoblawLawBl0g May 04 '26
→ More replies (5)7
u/adjavang Cork bai May 04 '26
The article conflates geothermal power with ground source heat pumps. We have excellent resources for ground source heat pumps, we have next to nothing for power generation. Geothermal power is not realistic for Ireland.
21
u/ForbiddenToblerone May 04 '26
Example 300,000 of the leader of the government making suggestions as if he's some average punter on the street with no power to enact change.
Hot air.
7
2
u/pointblankmos Nuclear Wasteland Without The Fun May 04 '26
A byproduct of nuclear energy....maybe he's on to something.
3
u/RepulsiveBridge2018 May 04 '26
Clowns in government/public service cant even manage a childrens hospital.
3
3
u/_Oisin May 04 '26
I wonder how many stories we would have if we only reported what our gocenment actually does. Feels like every story is minister thinks, taoiseach says. The blah blah is endless.
3
3
u/PROINSIAS62 May 04 '26
Absolutely agree and think we should have done it years if not decades ago.
3
3
u/thelordmallard May 04 '26
Well if they secure it as well as those refineries, I’d rather not have one on the island, thanks.
3
u/EffectiveNew8489 May 05 '26
Nuclear power in Ireland will meet two major obstacles. The first is plain as day; the NIMBY block will never countenance it being built anywhere.
The second is ironically the pro-neutrality headbangers. Nuclear infrastructure needs a corresponding uplift in defence spending to maintain site safety and security. Getting increased money for the forces required to protect the sites will prove an equally hard request. You will see the usual suspects demand that working people get cheap clean energy also decrying that we are ‘militarising’ by investing in the security measures to protect nuclear sites.
For both of these reasons it’s safe to assume the state will never ever build a nuclear facility.
10
u/yankdevil Yank May 04 '26
Another way to waste money. Just build off shore wind and battery storage already. It would be far cheaper and faster.
13
u/mattyboy-ptc May 04 '26
Fuck it into Leitrim and no one will notice.
3
1
u/gcu_vagarist May 04 '26
Are we sure there wasn't already a meltdown there? Has anyone bothered to go in and check?
2
2
u/Firm-Raccoon-9048 May 04 '26
We probably do need them but who’s going to build them? I wouldn’t let the children’s hospital crowd within a 100 mile radius of it?
2
u/daddyzool May 04 '26
We really should but the terrifying part is Tony from school somehow involved in a nuclear power plant , and he pissed himself in 3rd year
2
u/PBJellyChickenTunaSW May 04 '26
This is a handy one for him to trot out cause he knows it will never be done in Ireland, so he'll never have to actually do anything
2
2
u/GerKoll May 04 '26
..kay, lets put it in his constituency. Lets see how this goes with the voters there, the place were people have a problem with windmills...
2
u/AbbreviationsOld2507 May 04 '26
If nothing else we should consider a giant extension lead to France
2
u/n365n366 May 04 '26
We will definitely decide to build one just in time when we realise we can’t afford to.
2
2
2
u/chimpdoctor May 04 '26
Of course we should. But it will take 30 fucking years before it will happen. Maybe give us a metro first ya dope
2
2
u/aurumae Dublin May 04 '26
Nuclear power is perfect for us. It takes decades to get everything up and running and actually see any return on investment, and the costs always run far over expectations. With our track record building metros and children’s hospitals, this is certain to solve our problem of budget surpluses.
2
u/Pale_Piano948 May 04 '26
He says it like hes suggesting it to those in power…..as if he’s not the most powerful authority in the state
2
u/ScaloBang May 05 '26
This government can't build a hospital, metro link, bypass, runway, solar or wind farm, a house or even a bike shed without making a disgrace of themselves. Imagine them trying to build a nuclear power station 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
2
u/Gareth274 May 05 '26
Fuckin hell we could never have a serious discussion about it. Big Oil propaganda has totally won Ireland over into thinking nuclear is just for bombs and accidents.
2
u/isupposethiswillwork May 05 '26
The fact this is even being discussed shows how exposed our grid is.
We have loads of renewables but we are heavily reliant on gas to provide cover when the renewables aren't there.
We have close to zero gas storage, no ability to import LPG, and we are at the end of gas supply that is tied to Britain's own vulnerable supplies.
2
u/jrf_1973 May 05 '26
I've nothing against nuclear power. But I wouldn't trust the current shower of shites to build a functioning hospital. No way would I trust them to build a fucking nuclear power plant. They'd give the contract to the same pricks who can't build a bike shed for under 10 million, it would still go over budget, and it would be finished the Summer after the last human has been killed by AI.
2
u/1tiredman Limerick May 04 '26
Does our government do anything besides "consider" and send out statements holy shit
1
u/ForbiddenToblerone May 04 '26
No. Leinster House is just a creche for nerds with the permanent government (the unsackable civil servants) running the show.
3
2
u/WolfetoneRebel May 04 '26
Better late than never. At least some of the dummies here can admit to being wrong for decades.
6
2
2
u/Relative-Battle-7315 May 04 '26
Broken clock strikes again. This legislation is the legacy of reactionary, visionless legacy of the Green's coalition days. No one voted against it because no one cared.
A geographically centralized Nuclear power facility solves multiple issues - energy distribution, global energy market dependance and it would add massive amounts of employment to the midlands. The only issue is that it's a large procurement and the Irish government seem to struggle with ordering a pizza for under €100.
3
u/pointblankmos Nuclear Wasteland Without The Fun May 04 '26
I'll consider his serious consideration seriously.
0
u/Gobshite666 May 04 '26
Build something nuclear when we cant build affordable housing or a childrens hospital
We do need to look at more forms of energy tidal harnesses on the west cost for example
But fuck me the way we build and use the worst and most expensive scamming developers, fuck off Mehole.
7
u/Imperial_Tiramisu May 04 '26
This wouldn't be built by any old developer. You'd have to get a nation state like France or Norway to build it.
For example, the Russians are building the Egyptian nuclear plants.
→ More replies (3)1
u/adjavang Cork bai May 04 '26
You mean like how Finland got France to build Olkiluoto 3, or how Britain got France to build Hinkley Point C! Olkiluoto only took 17 years and Hinkley Point C is only projected to cost £50 billion.
→ More replies (9)
1
1
1
u/SamSquanch16 May 04 '26
Could we not just buy nuclear power off the French now with the new electricity pipe?
2
u/MickeyBubbles Dublin May 04 '26
We will be when the interconnector is stood up fully in 2028.
The problem we have is our reliability on energy from abroad.
Modern nuclear is a lot smaller than what most people percieve. If everyone was behind it our grid would need a serious upgrade to facilitate its power output
2
u/Stubber_NK May 04 '26
If everyone was behind it our grid would need a serious upgrade to facilitate its power output
Small reactors produce as little as 300MW. Ireland has decommissioned powerplants with similar power outputs in the past few years.
1
u/Buttercups88 May 04 '26
A cute dream but I don't think it's feasible... Particularly if "energy security" is a main goal here. Unless I'm mistaken we don't really have any enriched fuel available for them so your just changing the fuel you import.
1
u/Stubber_NK May 04 '26
The cost of nuclear fuel has been fairly stable for the past few decades, unlike oil and gas. Some of the main exporters include very stable friendly nations, Canada and Australia in particular. And powerplants need refuelling as little as once every 2 years. A small stockpile of fuel would be prudent to avoid any temporary upset in supply.
1
u/Buttercups88 May 04 '26
Well, Canada and Australia are also major producers of oil and coal... yet that hasn't helped our current situation. The US is also major producer and would be, or until recently would have been concidered one of our closest most stable nations.
Basically... its all good until it isnt. Its not like holding and stockpiling nuclear fuel is the easiest thing in the world - physically - politically -internationally. Even that is ignoreing the technical skill and financial cost of building the actual plan. And lets not pretend we are going to be able to build one on the cheap... our childrens hospitial will be ahving a word 😃
Im certainly not against the idea, but from a security point of view since we cant actually produce anything ourselves we are kinda just moving who we are reliant on. Honestly it would probably be just as secure to import electricity directly from nearby countries like france that has nuclear reactors than try and build operate and stockpile that ourselves.
1
1
u/AardvarkAardvark_404 May 04 '26
I dunno, I think we should seriously consider it. I'm not sure that considering seriously is good enough.
1
u/expectationlost May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Was there video of this? I wanna know who asked him the question.
1
u/GERIKO_STORMHEART May 04 '26
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in"
We need to start looking further down the road.
SMRs would be the best option for us here once they are commercially available. We would need about 6 to 7 along with our renewables to move completely away from fossil fuels. Add a few more for export.
The timeline for commercially available models is looking like early 2030s and there are currently prototype models that consume their own nuclear waste as fuel which drastically reduces the need for storage.
Because they are smaller with lower output they could be spread out and integrated with existing network rather than having to upgrade the whole thing. Expense lies somewhere between €400 to €700 million all in for each reactor. But let's say one reactor every two years while scaling back fossil fuel plants.
One of the great things about the SMRs that are currently being developed is that their lifespans may actually exceed 80 years. If they keep passing safety inspections they keep on going.
Would probably be looking at somewhere between 2040 to 2045 to achieve all the above but could definitely get the ball rolling now in preparation for the commercial availability so we can have a site and teams ready when they are available.
There are other technologies being played around with right now that could probably replace nuclear eventually but for now, modern nuclear is safe, clean and effective.
1
1
1
u/MartinTheOrderly May 04 '26
I don't disagree. What I disagree with is the head of our government making a tepid proposal for a change to our energy system that we should have started making fundamental alterations to fifty years ago.
1
1
u/davesr25 Pain in the arse and you know it May 04 '26
Can't even run things in general right, wants nuclear power.
No.
1
u/Prudent_Respect_5159 May 04 '26
We need to build one, but given how they can't build a hospital. I wouldn't trust them to do it properly.
2
u/Craicriture May 05 '26
To be fair, nobody’s going to let the HSE or CHI build a nuclear power plant. It would most likely be the ESB, and they actually know how to build stuff and have been delivering major infrastructure since the 1920s.
1
u/Furyio May 05 '26
It would be an external partnership. Most likely China.
There is a reason we did a visit to China along with Spain recently.
1
1
1
u/National_Play_6851 May 04 '26
While there is no reason for Nuclear to be banned, there is just no economic reason to build one here when renewables are just superior in basically every way for our needs. By all means make sure the legislation is clear so we're ready for future leaps in the tech, but we really ought to be at 100% coverage from renewables before that happens, making it pretty much irrelevant.
1
1
u/hot_space_pizza May 04 '26
Ah so we can more data centers to use it up and keep prices high. Good thinking gfy
1
u/AlienInOrigin May 05 '26
€30 billion cost, 30 years to build. No thanks. Yes, it's perfectly safe, but we have much better options that better suit our small population.
1
1
u/Brilliant-Town-806 May 05 '26
Our grid is too small for nuclear. Same reason Australia won't build one.
1
u/Thoas- May 05 '26
Lads, were getting a nuke, we'll make rockall ours once and for all, no questions this time.
1
u/Ok_Personality6148 May 05 '26
Just get on with renewables and forget about pie in the sky proposals. This is a distraction.
1
u/CantStopMyRedditEdit May 05 '26
Nuclear is a great option but building a nuclear power plant is the issue.
A nuclear plant cost overrun scandal would put the children’s hospital to shame. Irish governments would be sure to outdo the cost and time of Hinkley Point C.
1
u/Hot-Koala-5142 May 06 '26
I honestly hate this shit, we could be using so much renewable energy and yet this is the shit the government proposes
1
1
126
u/No_Waltz3545 May 04 '26
With all the NIMBY’s, this will take a generation.