Nuclear - future for Ireland?

They made some improvement in Nuclear Fusion back in December, we're still a good bit away from it being viable. But im wondering if thats what Ireland should focus on rather than Fission

Fission is viable now - fission reactors have been working for half a century.

Fusion reactors have never worked - to date they have been putting in more energy to the reaction than they get out. There wont be any fusion reactors in Ireland in this century

renewables are decreasing in price all of the time and will continue to decrease.

gas will get more expensive certainly but the decrease in cost of renewables will offset it.

not 0 carbon but low carbon, and cheap compared to nuclear, nuclear isn't 0 carbon either as it's waste is it's equivelant of carbon.

and it's still cheaper then nuclear.

that's how poor value for money nuclear is, that the coal and gas generators can charge high prices for ramped up production and it's still a fraction of the cost of nuclear.

at least they can ramp up production, nuclear can't, at least not quickly.

Is gas zero CO2, all of a sudden? You seem to have forgetten the underlying aim of this farce. Your logic is up there with that of the lunacy of the governments, which is to keep buying and insalling ever increasing amounts of gas generating capacity, a waste of money considering the final 2050 aims. Sticking plasters and pain killers istead of an operation to permanently solve the underlying problem.

Nuclear waste is not an equivalent of carbon, it has no bearing on the anthropogenic CO2 fraction in the atmosphere.

correct horse battery staple5:14 pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118616891#Comment_118616891

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058232542/net-zero-electricity-generation

here is your chance

reactors are not going to be built for 10 billion in ireland or any other european country.

it will be 20 or more billion for a lot less capacity at an absolute best case.

it's just not viable, storage in the likes of the old kinsale gas field would go a long way to cover the gap left along with more renewables, all will be an extreme tiny fraction of the cost of the cheapest nuclear installation.

Ireland will be importing plenty of nuclear power to keep the lights on now that France has strongly committed to it - meanwhile the greenwash brigade here will still be faffing around with the wind scam while issues like energy poverty, damage to natural heritage etc, continue to escalate

What a brainless post - I suggest yo do some research on what grids in Europe have the lowest Carbon footprint before you go posting rubbish like that🙄

So if you ignore the long list of exceptions Ireland is great, your map is also flawed as it is a snapshot that just happens to concede with storm Dudley🙄 - must be why we've recently announced the building of half a dozen gas plants to keep the lights on.

Lets just repeat this, since it got such a good reaction last time - the majority of Nuclear Advocates are climate change skeptics.

If you want to object state your position on climate change in your reply.

But lets just state my position, in the time and with the money available, multiple times the generating capacity we need could be brought online before a single watt of nuclear was released to the grid. The advantage is that over that time our carbon footprint would be gradually reducing making our position better year on year. If we went Nuclear all that capitol would be tied up in the nuclear project and we wouldn't be accruing a single benefit until the first nuclear plant came online - 10-20 years down the line.

Nuclear answers no questions that are relevant to the Irish situation.

Pity none of that corresponds to reality anywhere in the EU - I suggest you read up at what Germany alone has spent on wind/solar in the last 10 years, yet is still heavily dependent on fossil and outside grids to keep the lights on. 24 billion Euros in RESS money was paid out in 2020 alone there!! and thats before you go counting all the other hidden costs wind power adds to a grid due to its dispersed and sprawling nature

there are no hidden costs with wind, the costs are the costs.

anyway, 24 billion to pay for excess electricity from other grids is still a fraction of the cost of nuclear.

you are twisting what he said.

he didn't say nuclear was unreliable because 25% of it is down in france, he said it is unreliable because large percentages of it can go down at any time and for anything from months to years at a time, and that percentage could increase at any second for any reason.

the fact 75% of it is just about working currently in france can change rather quick, that is not something you get with other, cheaper more efficient options.

the claim that nucler is the most expensive option has been shown time and time again and plenty of figures to back it up have been provided.

wind requires subsidy because harvesting it at scale is a new technology and it needed to be tried and tested, we already knew small scale harvesting of it which had been a norm a couple of centuries ago worked but at scale was an unknown at first and now it has proven itself cheap and efficient.

it may not require subsidy as time goes on but then again i would be surprised if other sources like gas don't require some either currently.

but either way, subsidies for most power sources are a fraction of that which nuclear requires and that is, along with the other issues mentioned, why it can't compete especially for a small country like ireland.