"Green" policies are destroying this country

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there only something like 20 installation vessels world-wide and the vessels themselves take about 5 years to build...

The point is that you are ignoring the fact that renewables are relatively new technology that are improving and getting cheaper and more efficient all the time in favour of the literal nuclear option, an option that has proven time and time again, even when implemented by countries that have decades of experience with it, to be subject to massive overruns of time and cost and to be very unreliable in terms out promised output.

Despite what you say, we have zero idea how much it might cost to build nuclear plants in Ireland, no idea where to build them and no idea how to regulate or run them.

The real point which yoy are at pains to avoid is that for just the offshore section of this ESB plan, even without all the hydrogen cost add-ons the cost is three to four time more expensive than Poland`s nuclear price to provide the same generation.

If you think renewables are getting cheaper then you need to take a look at Seimens, Vestra, and General Electrics end of year results and see what they have to say on turbines.

Whether you like it or not it wont generate diddly squat when its turned off for one of the myriad of reasons that nuclear reactors are currently taken offline.

You have been given examples in this thread where plants have been out of action and been net consumers of energy for multiple years.

btw its interesting that we lost 5% in the space of 1 post...

Stop with your constant codology.

You were just recently directed to the ESB video, and were forced to admit you had already seen, but somehow or other had completely slipped your mind.

For someone that cannot provide a single figure for this 30 gigawatt plan you, are very quick to question verifiable prices.

Why is that ?

Whether you like it or not that 6% is very relevant, It`s the reason this crazy amount of spend is being proposed under this 30 gigawatt plan.

As regards Poland even is the price doubled due to delays it would still be, just for the offshore section of this plan nuclear would still be between a third and a half less expensive.

I really do not get this mad rush to spend an absolute fortune before 2030 on something we do not even know the total cost of, or even if it will work, where financially we have just one shot at getting it right, and every chance of getting it wrong and bankrupting the country. Even for what it would cost even getting it right could easily bankrupt the country. .

We are told this is a global problem but the world and it`s mother knows that globally that 2030 hasn`t a hope of being a reality. You only have to look at the major emitters to see that .

China at number 1 are building coal powered plants and smelting plants to beat the band. For the first 8 months of this year there coal output was up 332 million tonnes (13%) compared to last year, and 520 million tonnes (22%) compared to pre pandemic 2019.

At number 3 is India and at number 5 Japan, who both made it very clear at COP26 last year where they stood when it came to their economies and burning coal. Even Germany at number 6, the force behind these E.U`s percentages are now back strip mining and buying coal from one of the most environmentally unfriendly strip mines on the planet in Columbia.

Ryan and greens seem to still believe that these 2030 figures are globally achievable based on nothing other than the rest of the world is following our example. Reality is that the world could not care less what we do.

ER new fleet for council road gritting.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3423995064540128&set=a.1387605034845818

I am saying that you are comparing foreign costs for something that we have never had anything to do with (Nuclear) with Wind Turbine costs which we are experienced in and using that to shout at clouds.

I still haven`t a clue what point you are trying to make. Nobody had anything to do with nuclear until they did.

France`s first nuclear plant came on line in 1962 and nuclear regularly provides 70% of their needs as well as being year on year Europe`s top exporter of electricity. Sweden`s first plant went on line in 1971 and that plant for the next 46 years generated 110,000,000 MWh of climate friendly electricity as well as Sweden becoming Europe`s top exporter of electricity this year.

The UAE connected it`s first nuclear plant to its grid in 2020, its second in 2021, its third in 2022 and their fourth is under construction. Bangladesh, Egypt, Poland and Turkey are building their first nuclear plants with a number of others either considering or further down the line on their first. Countries who already have nuclear plants like France, Argentina, India etc are either adding to their numbers or have committed to. .

If, as you say we are so experienced with wind turbines then I assume you can easily tell me the cost of just the turbine section of this 30 gigawatt offshore plan. Yes or no ?

No idea. But it doesn`t appear to bother the U.K as they seem happy enough to go ahead with EDF on Sizewell C.

Hydrogen has not been operating to the scale that would be required with this proposed offshore plan, and still no costings for construction, production, storage, distribution or desalination of seawater construction and operational costs. In fact if you look at the hydrogen part of the ESB plan on storage (especially who their partner is for storage), along with the distribution it is a bit all over the place.

Not that ethanol has anything to do with this ESB plan, but ethanol is not carbon neutral. It does emit 40% - 50 % less GHG than petrol, but per gallon produces 35% less energy which would leave that reduction around 12% rather than 40%-50% .

Still, every little helps. How keen Eamon and green would be on ethanol is another matter. Everything that is noot carbon neutral is a no no no way. Even for some that are like nuclear.