"Green" policies are destroying this country

A million likes, they need to decouple the price of wind from gas and then there might be much less opposition to wind from local communities - there is zero point being in favour of a wind farm as you will still pay the high price based on gas anyway, even if the wind power is "free" or at least has zero marginal cost.

This can be done by providing developers with a risk free return of say, double the current Irish govt 10 year rate, so if the return on that is currently 3%, say the developments can earn an IRR of 6%.

Under the current system, we are all being ridden rotten by the owners of the windfarms.

Cheers for that, but I would not see any reason to double the rate. The latest strike prices here for wind and solar rose by 33% over the last two years and are now the same as the U.K. strike price for nuclear

I meant double the return, the IRR, not double the absolute amount guaranteed. Off pension funds a 6% return on a 20 year project based on €40/MWH and expected load factors (they keep telling us costs are falling and the marginal cost is zero) so they should be all over this when 3% is all they can get on govt bonds.

I certainly would not be guaranteeing twice the power price or anything like it.

What are you on about? That's totally incoherent.

The E.S.B. 30GW plan based on the U.K average rolling capacity would produce around 10 -12 GW, but that is not all for electricity supply. 50% is for green hydrogen production, so just 5 -6 GW is for direct electricity supply. Hinkley will by population size supply our needs and we also have 80% renewables nameplate capacity of our needs at present.

I have already pointed out that on your figures of Hinkley being paid 150 Billion by year 35, even using your dubious imo costing for a sticking plaster and string job to keep those turbines going after their lifespan that did not include the cost of carrying out that work or the very real possibility of power electronics or even tower replacement making it more viable to just replace the complete unit, that by year 35 the equivalent of our population will have received and paid for their electricity from Hinkley for 150 Billion while we will have sunk, from this plan, at least that amount into construction costs alone.

You continue to ignore that over a 40 year period the mean construction time for nuclear plants is 7.5 years, with some even recently constructed in less, but seeing as you wish to just stick with the U.K. and ignore averages why do we not take a look at a recent U.K. offshore wind farm operational since only 3 years ago. Hornsea 1.

Construction cost 5 Billion for 1.2 GW. 4.17 Billion per Gigawatt. That would leave the E.S.B. plan costing 120 Billion just for the turbine Capex. Add your sticking plaster and string 12.5% refit and at year 35 CapEx alone is 135 Billion for turbines. Add the Capex for green hydrogen and storage and you are well in excess of the 150 Billion by a wide margin for construction costs alone. While Hinkley will have supplied and been paid for, by population size, the equivalent of our needs for 35 years,while we will have spent more on just construction costs with nothing paid back via electricity charges which will be at least double the price per unit as 50% of the electricity produced under the E.S.B. plan will be for hydrogen. There will also be a total refit before those 60 years lifespan of Hinkley costing at least another another 150 Billion. The 50 year refit is not going to work with another round of sticking plaster and string.

The E.S.B. plan is unviable economic insanity.

Uranium isn`t that particularly rare, so I would not lose ant sleep over it. It makes up 0.00018% of the Earth`s crust. For perspective tin makes up O.OOO22%. At present prices for Uranium it probably costs less to fuel Hinkley than it would cost for fossil fuel lubricants for the E.S.B. offshore turbine plan.

But but but as you well Europe links energy price (no matter how it is produced) to the dearest generation fuel in given mix. Currently that's gas - the price of which has been inflated by (amongst other things) increased demand due to the unreliable nature of renewable energy sources and shutting down / restricting other forms of energy generation.

So regardless of how much or how little "wind or other renewable energy sources" people gonna get skrewed with energy prices under the current setup

We all know this so why the constant cheerleading?

We presently have renewables nameplate capacity of 80% of our needs. Add that to your 3.2 nuclear and your home and dry..

The fact that mean construction time for those 40 years was 7.5 years and that of the 441 constructed in that time 374 (85%), were constructed in 10 years or less is what it is.

You keep coming up for timelines for nuclear plant construction, and I have given you the stats on construction times, so where are your construction time stats (as in operational ready) for this E.S.B. plan for offshore, green hydrogen and hydrogen storage ?

Edit :

Where are you getting this 150 Billion that Hinkley will be paid for the electricity it supplies over 35 years ?

In 2017 when the contract for difference was agreed the figure was £81 Billion. In today`s terms that is £96 Billion not £150 Billion. In today`s money the offshore construction alone for the E.S.B. plan based on the U.K. average is €83 Billion. Based on Hornsea 1 it is €120 Billion.

Are you not comparing apples with oranges and in today`s terms the E.S.B. plan is in reality even more horrendously expensive.

With that crowd we are always "doomed". They have to come up with something to keep the gravy train rolling.