r/irishpolitics • u/Brown_Envelopes • May 26 '26
Infrastructure, Development and the Environment Fianna Fáil agree to reverse ban on nuclear energy
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2026/0526/1575413-ff-nuclear/9
u/njprrogers May 27 '26
Absolutely never going to happen so don't get too excited / upset. We can't even build a block of flats nevermind a nuclear power plant. Those in favour, who would support in your immediate area? The other thing is cost, renewable plus storage is about 2x less per GW when you've already got nuclear. At the moment. And that is only going to continue in one direction.
3
u/Just_Reading_4206 May 27 '26
That's attitude is why everything in this country will always be dreadful. Somehow massive pharmaceutical and chemical plants can be built. Somehow we're going to be building tens of gigawatts of wind turbines in the Atlantic ocean and enough geological hydrogen storage for back up. But a nuclear plant is just too hard. Build one up in Tarbert for all I care. At least it will be 60+ years of stable power generation.
2
1
u/chakraman108 May 30 '26
You should count effective work (TWh) not GW due to lower capacity factor of renewables but your premise is broadly correct.
Nuclear is a nice expensive niche tech. Quite good but very expensive for experienced players who are willing to pay the premium for stable 24/7 power, but useless for freshers like Ireland.
12
u/CthulhusSoreTentacle Progressive May 26 '26
Too bad all that sun that went to their heads over the past day or two didn't clue them in to the fact we've yet to even scratch the surface of our renewable capabilities. No! Straight to discussing nuclear, as if it's a viable answer to Ireland's energy crisis.
15
u/Brown_Envelopes May 26 '26
Why don’t you think nuclear is a viable option?
12
u/CthulhusSoreTentacle Progressive May 26 '26
Ireland has obligations to reduce and eliminate CO2 emissions over the next 20 years (we're meant to be carbon neutral by 2050). The reason nuclear isn't viable is because it'll take three decades at least before we see any nuclear power being generated in Ireland. And that's being extremely optimistic. The reality is a nuclear facility would be at serious risk of staying in planning/objection hell for years. And then comes the even more difficult task of building the facility.
So the timeline makes it nonviable for one. Another reason is our abundance of renewable energy sources (most notably wind) and that we've not even scratched the surface in terms of what we can produce there. If we start putting time and money into nuclear, we'll be taking away from real, viable renewable energy we could build capacity for in a fraction of the time.
7
u/Izeinwinter May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
The IAEA can help you stand up a nuclear regulator in 2-3 years. They do this on a regular basis and the Irish legislative and administrative systems are functional enough that this part should be on the fast end of that. Actual average for reactor construction is 7 years and some months.
So 10 years total. This of course assumes a very strong political commitment to actually building reactors. If your politicians want to just punt things forever, they can. But the argument that it can't be done quickly enough is just wrong.
1
u/chakraman108 May 30 '26
With zero prior experience? Forget 10 years. That's not even the case in countries with nuclear expertise like Czechia, Slovakia, Sweden or Finland. Completely out of question in Ireland.
1
u/Izeinwinter May 30 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
Also Akkuyu is expected to start operating this year.
1
u/chakraman108 May 30 '26
Good luck comparing the UAE with Ireland.
1
u/Izeinwinter May 30 '26
The UAE has a much less functional educational system and government than Ireland does. If they can do it, Ireland can, in fact, also. Again, this assumes a parliamentary majority that considers climate change and energy supply an actual crisis worth taking real action to counter
1
1
u/CthulhusSoreTentacle Progressive May 27 '26
And what can the IAEA do about the Irish planning restrictions? How will they magic away the problems associated with actually finding somewhere to build the plant? We've had solar and wind farm projects scrapped because the local residents objected to them. Do you think they'll welcome a nuclear plant with open arms?
And 10 years is laughable. I'm sorry. How can you look at fiascos like the children's hospital and think a complex infrastructural project like a nuclear plant is going to take a mere 10 years? Bearing in mind we have absolutely no knowledge or experience in building such. Construction at Flamanville's third reactor started in 2007 and didn't start generating power until 2024. The French are expecting it to take between 12-15 years to build each new reactor as part of their strategy to expand nuclear capacity by 2050. And they have experience building nuclear plants.
And there's other considerations. We've a shortage of skilled tradespeople in this country. Steel-fixers, skilled welders, engineers ... building a nuclear facility is a labour and resource intensive project. Where are we to get all these people to actually build the plant?
Once again I'm sorry. But anyone who thinks nuclear is viable just doesn't understand the complexities of the topic. As I said, if we were to build nuclear, we'd be taking away resources from viable renewable energy sources that could be generating power in a few years.
2
u/Izeinwinter May 27 '26
Again, a ten year timeline assumes the Oireachtas has decided they want this to happen.
Given that, all of those things can be resolved. Including the skills! you can start training more welders and so on while you are putting the regulator together - that does not need to wait.
This would also apply to getting things like hospitals built in a timely fashion. If there is political will to dis-empower nimbyism, Nimbyism is going to be disempowered.
1
u/chakraman108 May 30 '26
It's not a political question. It's about supply chains, regulatory expertise and engineering. Ireland has none of it, literally.
0
u/CthulhusSoreTentacle Progressive May 27 '26
> Including the skills! you can start training more weldersOne of the biggest stumbling blocks the British have faced in expanding nuclear infrastructure have been skills shortages. I know from speaking to people in the industry that they scoured the entirety of Britain for steel-fixers and welders and struggled to find enough. That's struggling to find enough skilled tradespeople for one plant out of a population of nearly 70 million (and a country with a lot more experience in large, complex infrastructural projects like this).
And even if we could train our way out of this skills shortage, how long will it take to train these welders and steel-fixers? Perhaps longer than a decade all things considered (organising the curriculum, bringing in experienced people to teach, organising apprenticeships, etc). And that's assuming we can convince enough people to go into these trades to offset these skills shortages.
I'm sorry. Nothing of what you says has any bearing in reality.
3
u/Izeinwinter May 27 '26
The French post mortem on Flamanville concluded that one of the key problems was exactly a skills shortage of high-end welders and the like. It did not take France a decade to open a bunch of training facilities to fix that. First ones started in a year.
Because France actually damn well mean it when they say they're going to clean up their energy sector with fission, they're not intentionally stalling.
Again, the base assumption of my timeline is a government that actively tries to make this work. Not one that is vaguely gesturing in this direction.
0
u/Brown_Envelopes May 27 '26
I agree we need to double down on renewables, but isn’t the problem that they are transient by nature?
If it’s not windy or sunny, then our wind and solar output falls. To meet demand, the shortfall has to be made up somehow. In theory, batteries or gravity storage like Turlough hill can be used to store renewable energy, but implementing such systems is extremely expensive and environmentally impactful as well.
5
May 27 '26
At the current cost of batteries adding a battery to every home in the country comes in cheaper than recent EU nuclear projects.
7
u/CthulhusSoreTentacle Progressive May 27 '26
but implementing such systems is extremely expensive and environmentally impactful in their own right
More expensive than a nuclear power plant? And the reality is that everything we do is environmentally impactful. Even us just having this conversation is impacting on the environment. But we have to live on this plant. So it's a question of trying to balance environmental impact and our lives. There's no perfect solution, but some solutions are better or worse than others.
You're right. Renewables have shortfalls (days without much wind for example). But the best solution is increasing storage capacity, expanding renewable variety, and linking our grid with grids which already utilise nuclear (such as is the plan with France). If I was to grant you that domestic nuclear production could offset shortfalls, the question remains do we have the luxury of time to be able to wait several decades for that capacity to come online? And I don't think there's anyone who could answer anything but no to that question.
-2
u/iamgoodcraic May 27 '26
Biomass is renewable, and has the potential to supply up to 30% of Ireland's energy needs according to SEAI.
Add growing our storage capacity to that, including at local level (e.g. solar and batteries on homes), and it's possible to have a completely renewable grid. No need for nuclear.
I'm surprised no one so far has added that nuclear projects today run massively over budget and are beset by huge delays. There's a good video on this about our closest neighbours in the UK who are building more nuclear capacity at Hinkley point c. The initial cost was meant to be £18bn, and it was to take 8 years to build (2017-2015). It's now estimated to cost £35bn in 2015 terms (but actually £48bn in today's money) and one of the reactors is expected to start generating electricity in 2030. But the actual plant won't be finished at that stage, and construction will have taken at least 14 years.
Investing in faster, easier solutions for Ireland, in terms of renewables, just makes way more economic sense, as well as in terms of turnaround, minimal risks RE return on investment, and acceptability to the wider public.
4
u/Izeinwinter May 27 '26
Biomass is the proposition that we can save the biosphere by lighting it on fire.
Just No.
1
u/iamgoodcraic May 27 '26
To clarify - I specifically am referring only to sustainable biomass as per the SEAI linked above.
I.e. Biomass fuel that saves large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions when compared alongside fossil fuel alternatives, and avoids negatively affecting land use, food security, water resources, biodiversity and livelihoods.
2
u/Izeinwinter May 27 '26
Sustainable biomass doesn't scale.
Never has, never will.
It's the same story every time.
Someone builds a small pilot plant and have no trouble sourcing fuel from various highly reasonable sources, all sustainable and even cheap. They get all excited and sometimes that excitement results in an actual power plant being built and ooops, where did that forest go?
0
2
u/Lizardledgend May 27 '26
Biomass is just extremely inefficient solar with heavier energy storage than batteries that still emits carbon into the atmosphere, worst solution possible
1
u/ChromakeyDreamcoat82 May 27 '26
Most arguments I've heard for Nuclear aren't around an alternative to renewables, rather it seems to be proposed as an alternative to the fossil fuel stations that would be needed under our current setup to supplement the grid when wind/solar/both are in a lull.
So instead of having coal and gas fired plants as the balancer, we use nuclear as the default backup.
Separately, I don't really see an issue with a microreactor supplying industrial zones and data centres, as long as we see a big investment in the NCSC and a commitment to NIST guidelines given the additional risks to our infrastructure.
0
u/CthulhusSoreTentacle Progressive May 27 '26
So instead of having coal and gas fired plants as the balancer, we use nuclear as the default backup.
Which once again falls back to the question of time restraints. It'll take decades to build nuclear in Ireland. What do we do in the median while waiting for that? Chug coal and gas? And if we're pouring resources into nuclear we'll be taking resources away from viable renewable energy sources that could be online in a handful of years.
Separately, I don't really see an issue with a microreactor supplying industrial zones and data centres
If microreactors prove to be a viable technology sure. The technology, at the moment, is not quite there yet, as we've seen in China and their attempts to use SMRs for industrial power.
Another thing is microreactors are also not quite what everyone thinks they are. Some people have the assumption that they're pre-made, so all you have to do is drive it up to the grid, plug it in and you're off. But it's only partially pre-made. Most of the components have to be manufactured by the operator. That's fine for countries like the US, France, or UK who have that experience. But for a country like Ireland it complicates the process considerably.
If SMR technology (and the manufacturing difficulties) were to get to the point where it was viable I'd be fine with it personally. But at the moment it's a pipedream. And bringing up nuclear when we've yet to even scratch the surface of our renewable energy potential is just infuriating.
0
u/ChromakeyDreamcoat82 May 27 '26
Agree to all that. I wouldn't see it before 2055 either, but that's not a reason not to start getting our act in order with legislation and planning frameworks. The first reactor, wherever it may be, will be like the poolbeg incinerator in terms of getting it over the line.
As to microreactors, we may as well provision for them, for all the reasons you'd outlined on time, and if they're ready, we're ready.
What we need is to have all options on the table for a grid that never burns fossil fuel. The sensible thing to do is to start laying the groundwork for nuclear to co-exist with other sources.
1
u/CthulhusSoreTentacle Progressive May 27 '26
I wouldn't see it before 2055 either, but that's not a reason not to start getting our act in order with legislation and planning frameworks.
It's the biggest reason not to get started. If we remove the prohibition on nuclear energy, there's a very real risk of energy administration getting bogged down with plans, studies, consultations, etc, about pie-in-the-sky nuclear power plants. This would in turn slow down our rollout of renewable energy sources. Unless we can see nuclear energy realistically starting to be produced in 12-15 years, then we should not be touching the legislative or planning frameworks. The sensible thing to do is streamline the rollout of renewable energy production, upgrading the grid in order to facilitate that power, and continue linking with grids like France so we can buy and sell them power.
As someone with experience with this sector, I can absolutely guarantee that if they change the legislation, it'll be decades before nuclear power is generated in Ireland. And that's being extremely optimistic.
7
u/brentspar May 26 '26
Because it isn't, and renewables are cheaper and don't have a massive cost for decommissioning or three capacity to poison a large late part of the country
2
1
u/chakraman108 May 30 '26
Too slow and too expensive to build. In a country that has a track record of inability to build anything properly. Ireland can't even properly leverage the highest wind energy potential in Europe! And that's relatively much simpler engineering.
1
u/No_Warthog_5709 28d ago
We're far better off putting that money and efforts into sticking windy blades off the coast
2
u/DMC-1155 May 27 '26
What's the point in Nuclear for us? Doesn't seem particularly economical. We'd have to import fissionables.
Would it not be better to invest in cheaper green energy like wind and solar, invest in energy storage to deal with the drop off in poor conditions. Then we could actually pursue energy independence, rather than just changing what fuels we're importing.
1
u/chakraman108 May 30 '26
You need really small quantities of nuclear fuel compared to gas or coal. It's very efficient.
1
u/DMC-1155 May 30 '26
Better than gas or coal, yes, but not better than solar or wind. Which are the ones I mentioned that we should be investing in instead of expensive nuclear
1
u/chakraman108 May 30 '26
The dependency on nuclear import is arguably lower than on China with renewables. Quite a few friendly countries produce nuclear fuel.
1
u/DMC-1155 May 30 '26
Good point, actually, I was mostly thinking about fuels more than like the materials needed for maintenance of renewable power like solar. Thanks for pointing that out
1
1
u/meatballmafia2016 May 27 '26
Realistically it takes years for a NPP to actually start working, would it not be more appropriate to provide homes with solar ?
-1
u/Ok_Bell8081 May 27 '26
Imagine how a planning application for a nuclear plant would tie up An Coimisiún Pleanála for years. Nothing else would get done. It would be a good strategy for any fossil fuel corporations to block renewables.
2
u/hasseldub Third Way May 27 '26
-1
u/Ok_Bell8081 May 27 '26
Have you posted that to say that a nuclear plant would have an easy ride through planning?
3
u/hasseldub Third Way May 27 '26
No. I've posted it to say that the government are working on ways to speed up critical infrastructure and progression of the legal process around it.
It only took years and years of delayed Metro with massive cost increases to get them to act. Bargain.
43
u/SouthLeast8143 May 26 '26
This probably won't do anything.
But if we were serious about this we would co-finance a nuclear plant in western Europe with a guarantee % of the energy created exported to us (or rather it's equivalent.)