Sir, – John FitzGerald considers that Irish electricity supply would not benefit from nuclear power (“Ireland is still too small for a nuclear power plant,” Business, April 13th). There is no doubt the 600MW plant under discussion in the 1970s would have been too large, for the reasons outlined by FitzGerald.
However, the emergence of small modular reactor (SMR) designs in recent years offers a low-carbon alternative to fossil-fuelled generation. SMRs are based on nuclear technology used in electricity supply worldwide since the 1950s. They will be factory-built to enable module assembly on site. Crucially, they will have a typical rating of 300MW, similar to gas-fired units currently supplying the Irish grid.
It should be possible to locate them in existing power stations, availing of existing infrastructure. They are well suited to supplying base load but can also regulate output to accommodate surges in wind or solar power.
Nuclear power is often criticised for being too expensive. The cost is dominated by the capital cost of the plant rather the fuel, the reverse of gas-fired generation. We will soon be connected to the French system through the Celtic Interconnector. It might be noted that French consumers pay about 20 cents per kWh for electricity that is 70 per cent nuclear. The price in Ireland is about 35 cents.
READ MORE
Perhaps Ireland should consider a repeal of the ban on nuclear power contained in Section 18(6) of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999. That would at least encourage discussion of SMR deployment, which will be an option within the next decade. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN FOX,
Professor emeritus,
Queen’s University Belfast.
Sir, – John’s FitzGerald claims Ireland is “too small for a nuclear power plant” (April 13th). What he fails to mention is that Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Armenia, Switzerland and several other countries relatively similar in size to Ireland use nuclear power. So what makes Ireland so exceptional that we can’t use it too?
FitzGerald also says we shouldn’t use nuclear as we would also need “huge emergency backup capacity in case that plant failed”.
This argument could be made about any type of power plant. In fact, renewable energy, given its highly intermittent and variable nature, requires a constant “emergency” backup for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. This leads to higher costs for consumers as we must pay for the cost of the renewable grid as well as the cost of the backup grid. And the more wind and solar that we bring on to our grid, the bigger the backup we need.
Finally, FitzGerald says “nuclear, being so expensive, needs to run full-time to recoup its costs – switching up and down to match the wind would not make sense”. However, this is what we have to do already with wind.
Often, the wind is blowing in the wrong place, at the wrong time, meaning we have to pay wind farms to shut down (curtailment costs) and pay gas plants to fire up closer to where the electricity is needed. Again, this leads to higher costs for consumers.
Perhaps there are valid reasons why Ireland should not use nuclear. But FitzGerald hasn’t articulated them. – Yours, etc,
Daragh Cassidy,
Head of communications,
Bonkers.ie,
Donnybrook.
