Nuclear - future for Ireland?

renewable energy is cheap and getting cheaper and hugely reliable as has already been shown in the thread by a multitude of sources.

the only expensive unreliable energy is nuclear, who's costs have been out of control for decades.

yes there probably could be better protections implemented as part of wind turbines to try and protect birds and bats, and that should happen but bird and bat deaths are not an argument against cheap reliable efficient modern clean energy.

this is just clutching at straws and refusing to face the reality.

the fact is renewables have proven practical in ireland as well as cheap and not needing ridiculous levels of subsidy unlike nuclear which gobbles subsidy like it is going out of fashion as well as costing a ridiculous amount of money outside it.

germany has a sensible energy policy and will ultimately deliver cheap electricity without the high levels of subsidy that nuclear requires, even more subsidy if you want it to deliver cheap electricity because it can not deliver it economically.

the netherlands are only building reactors that were committed to years ago, they have already sunk costs in them such that it would be even more expensive to go back now then to keep going.

ultimately nuclear just can not compete with modern efficient cheap forms of energy, maybe it might get there in the next life but i wouldn't bank on it.

france heavily subsidizes nuclear.

those who buy electricity from them really pay for it (and to be fair quite rightly so)

This is a political show - Macron has an election coming up and needs a "story" to prevent being damaged by high energy prices.

Markcheese, the EPR is now unsellable given its track record. After the UK finish the 2 they've planned for Hinkley point, there will be a grand total of 4 such reactors in Europe. The two close to completion are coming in at between 3 and 6 times over-budget and a decade or more late. The other (Hinkley Point C) is years more off and the project is into year 8 already. For the rest of the world, there are 3 in China but these have been troublesome from the start and one of them has been down since last year to investigate fuel rod damage.

In fact the entire design is a bust from what we know publicly - but it also seems that just operating these plants at full power (not yet done in Europe) has revealed fundamental flaws - https://thediplomat.com/2021/12/safety-concerns-mount-over-damaged-fuel-rods-at-chinas-taishan-nuclear-plant/ - and even EDF have given up trying to flog it to others and have said that it needs a re-design.

Remember this design - the EPR - is the most modern design in the world - and was to be the "showcase" for the dying nuclear industry. In fact, it is the only modern design, having been in development since 1990. Macron has promised to support the development of EPR2, which I guess if it follows the path of the original, means we might have one up and running in Europe by 2060.

I guess the first point of order will be to come up with a better name than "EPR2" as you don't want the new reactor design to be tainted by association with the EPR which has turned out to be a complete turkey.

What are the advantages of the unproven EPR design over the proven PWR reactors?

Why don't they just repeat what they know will work and avoid years of uncertainty?

In comparison, it doesn't matter what solar costs given it barely delivers anything useful. A cheap car that will only travel at 20% of the speed limit on 310 days of the year, isn't drivable from dusk till early morning, and which requires you to buy a good reliable car that you use every night most days, is bloody useless.

There is no workable plan for a zero CO2 24/7 grid - none. 2030 targets are your typical plan B Irish long finger approach to difficult problems - plan A being to sweep them under a big carpet and hope no one comments about the dirty great bumps and the smell of decaying flesh. 2030 is just a great green hope that someone else can make hydrogen workable, as it currently looks stupidly complicated, inefficient and costly. Batteries are a complete non starter cost wise and at least nobody is pretending otherwise, for a change.

For countries that don't have the geography and precipitation for hydro or convenient geothermal, nuclear is the only proven zero CO2 grid scale energy source, and in the US, it's only $2 per MW more expensive than solar when the sun is shining and not factoring in storage infrastructure or costs. The endless disinformation about high cost and the pretence that only Hinkley B and a French experiment, gone awry are the only relevant models is tiresome. They are carefully chosen because the quiet successes are an embarrassment when trying to spin an anti-nuclear stance. The Korean built reactors in the UAE have a projected operational life span off 60 years! This longevity and the relatively low fuel costs, means that the long term cost of nuclear energy is low, despite the seemingly high initial capital cost.

The endless claims of renewables being cheap are a lie, as they aren't measuring the total system cost of providing reliable power, 24/7/365, which is the real and honest criteria. NG will probably never be cheap again and it's certainly not CO2 free. Given the UAE example, we could have nuclear up and running by 2031 and have an almost zero CO2 grid, almost a decade ahead of schedule. If you are going to be so stupid as to declare a 'climate emergency' at least pretend you actually believe it.

Consider that €20 Billion in light of this:

"The Irish Academy of Engineering has estimated data centre expansion will require almost €9 billion in new energy infrastructure and add 13% at least to Ireland’s carbon emissions by 2030."