"Green" policies are destroying this country

A recent poll here showed 43% in favour of nuclear with 43% opposed and 60% of those 18 -24 were in favour. Here just a day or two ago showed the change in the numbers in Poland from being opposed to being in favour. a change in legislation is just a stoke of a minister`s pen. Design would not take years. The basic plans are there already from others that are being built, so rather than a few tweeks it should not be a problem. Greens have changed the permission for offshore and have changed it onshore as well for solar, so if the will is there then permission does not seem to be a problem.

I`m not saying we will eventually go down the nuclear road, but the one we are talking about now with offshore, even from the little we know is horrendously expensive and no guarantee it would even work. I believe it makes more sense to put the figures for both offshore and nuclear out there and let the people decide rather than being 10 years down the road with the economy in bits and electricity prices through the roof.

How often do I have to point out that the strike price it is not going to be double. it`s going to be much higher.

The ESB plan is 50% domestic, 50% hydrogen to ensure we have 100% of our needs from renewables. There is no figure in the ESB plan for the sale of hydrogen.

renewables, similar to your point about oil platforms, have reached the economy of scale where costs are concerned. You have only to look at Siemens, Vesta and General Electric end of year reports to see that. General Electric is predicting a loss of $2 billion from their renewables unit and Vestra are selling turbines for 8% below cost.

If nuclear costs without the financing are meaningless, where does that leave the 30 Gigawatt offshore plan that isn`t even costed ?

Of again I see on everything associated with green plans will come in on cost, even though we do not know the cost, on time and do exactly what it is being guessed at to do, while anything else is the complete opposite. No wonder a poster here termed it hopium.

Completely oblivious to the fact that a far more dangerous idealogue in Rip Van Ryan is running around the country trying to tax the shïté out or ban anything he can get his hands on that doesn't argee with his world view. A world view I may add that would have landed someone in the loony bin not so long ago. That fella thinks the world is literally going to go up in flames.

Is it just the ESB doing renewables in Ireland?

Whats the finite bit with renewables?

The sun?

The wind?

The sea?

Your objections?

Do you know of any plan other than that of the ESB 30 Gigawatt offshore plan for 100% renewable energy ?

He absolutely is part of the problem. He even admits to objecting to projects he just doesn't like.

So we have a ridiculous situation where we are looking to build incredible amounts of new infrastructure due to a climate and environmental "emergency" yet it's environmental regulations that are grinding everything to halt. Make that makes sense.

Nuclear plants are pretty much standard design as are reactors nowadays. A 1.1 Gigawatt reactor here would be no different to a 1.1 reactor in Poland

We can come much closer to knowing the price of nuclear here than we can for a totally un-costed ESB plan. Poland`s 6.6 Gigawatt nuclear from Westinghouse is $31.1 Bn. The offshore section alone of the ESB plan to deliver the same domestic supply is anywhere between €83 - €120 Bn. A nuclear plant will operate for 60 years, whereas the offshore plan will have at least one total replacement of turbines during that time, so in today`s money a further €83 - €120 Bn. And that is without all the associated costs of hydrogen, again unknown, that would not be required with nuclear

I do not get why this whole mad rush to spent unknown billions on something we do not know if it will actually work to the scale required, where financially we have only one shot at getting it right.

Neither of which will generate a lick of electricity.

When its built and operational we can compare its cost vs its output you mean.

A nuclear plant might exist for 60 years, it certainly wont be operational and producing its designated output for 60 years, as evidenced by pretty much every nuclear plant there has ever been.

Look, I’m not going to pretend to know everything there is to know on the technology side of both nuclear and renewables.

But, taking your Poland example, tenders were received on that in late 2021 (according to the internet), and it is scheduled to be completed by 2033. So that’s a best-case 12 year process from the project going up on OEJU for procurement to construction. It doesn’t take into account any delays in construction, which have been documented throughout this thread as being common.

Given where we stand currently with zero legislative and regulatory infrastructure in third country for nuclear, do you honestly think the price you’ve quoted (31m) would be anyway comparable to what an actual cost might be if we ever to even get to a tender process? What are we supposed to do in the meantime while we wait for this nuclear reactor to be built? Keep on burning coal? We have actual targets for 2030 that we have to meet. If we go down the nuclear route 2030 will be long gone before we’re even out of planning. We might not even have a regulative body operational in that time.

The lifetime of a nuclear plant nowadays is 60 years. the lifetime of an offshore turbine is 27 years. A nuclear plant has a rolling capacity of 95%. an offshore turbine on U.K. data has an average rolling capacity of 43%

You do not have to wait until either is operational. From the little we do know about this offshore plan we know how much the minimum cost will be for just the Turbine section alone to generate 6.6 gigawatts for domestic use, and we know the price for the same nuclear generation that Poland is going to pay and nuclear is one third the price.