"Green" policies are destroying this country

That may be the exception, most of these projects are being mandated ahead of the development curve, government unrealistic deadlines and subsidising unproven technology. As a consequence the design and manufacturing errors are out in the field in much greater numbers than would have occurred in a normal take up as Siemens have now found out. Expect carbon capture schemes and hydrogen production to have exactly the same outcome.

In other news, and very loosely related to this country and green policies, this is some cool ass research

I suppose the only benefit is that when wholesale prices increase the consumer prices increase.

as they rarely go down even if wholesale prices drop.

never say never, we have no way of knowing exactly what will or wont be in our future, we simply have no way of knowing this, but if we continue to have growing periods of just meeting our energy needs, you can be damn sure the arguments for nuclear will become more so, as theres sufficient evidence globally of what happens when you start to run out of meeting your power needs, i.e. this generally leads to a breaking down of critical social and economic structures, which in turn leads to other highly complex and in some cases dangerous outcomes, so never say never....

thankfully pro nuclear voices are now increasing, and from respected domains, engineers ireland, etc, some of us just know its truly the only way to guarantee our energy needs, current and future needs, i do think a lot of this is coming from primarily younger generations, who dont have as many hang-ups on the negatives of nuclear, and we all know they truly are serious negatives, but theres also a lot of evidence globally on the positives of nuclear, many within the confines of europe itself, some of which we already use here in ireland, and with the plans of further interconnects, this is set to increase....

theres clearly a moral dilemma with this approach, why should we out source the risks involved in nuclear, yet continue to increase our dependency on it, will relationships be maintain with the countries currently happy to supply us with their nuclear power, i.e. by becoming more energy dependent on others, this in turn increases our overall system vulnerabilities, we also become highly vulnerable to geo political instabilities by having these dependencies...

...again there is research from respected sources, globally, we simply may not have enough resources on the planet for completely renewable systems, if this is true, which i suspect is the case, nuclear is simply the only option, and i suspect many, in particular younger generations are starting to realise this to.....

...this is a major short coming in particular political entities, in particular green based ones, theyre simply ignoring these potential political facts and realties, yes even getting a reactor up and running in todays ireland is currently at a zero chance, but again, if we continue on our current path of growing precariousness of supply, and those arguments will quickly change to a maybe, to a......

Not directly relevant to Ireland but an analysis of why Europe needs nuclear power to ensure energy sufficiency:

https://brussels.mcc.hu/publication/why-we-need-nuclear-towards-a-future-of-plenty

New Hunga Tonga research study (in peer review). Proposes the need to consider the volcano as an unexpected, decade-long, natural warming spike. The greenhouse warming effect of 40 trillion gallons of water vapor in the stratosphere may have just kicked in recent months and will persist and peak for 3-7 years.

Large areas of additional 1.5°C regional warming on top of El Niño and whatever else is going on.

https://essopenarchive.org/users/304243/articles/657090-long-term-surface-impact-of-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-like-stratospheric-water-vapor-injection

1. Can be overturned. Change in law and boom
2. Country is huge. Plenty of space for a power station
3. Yer right there. Though, if there starts to be power outages and the like, where nuclear could fill a gap, then it will start being talked about. I'd say it already has just not with much traction yet
4. Would be covered in #3
5. Would be covered in #3
6. Ya could build one, and with the proposed interconnectors then the other could be somewhere else. We could team up with one on the continent for example
7. Same as any infrastructure i.e renewables!
8. It would be a backup to the renewables which don't perform well in summer. Nuclear would replace coal/oil/gas
9. Neither did anyone when they started out. Being in the EU would be a huge advantage here. We could bring in someone like EDF to do all that, the same as we bring in a Spanish firm to run the NCT, or an English firm to paint road markings

What I'm saying is, it's currently very unlikely to happen, but may in future.

Most are on a fixed tariff for a year?

Have you data to support that?

I would’ve thought most would be on a standard rate that fluctuates with the prices charged at a given time.

and again, what if the research that actually exists today, right now, and from respected sources, actually comes true, i.e. what if we actually dont have the resources on this planet to create 100% renewable energy systems on a global level, what happens then!

and again, yes i fully embrace renewables and its tech, but what if......

....do you really think the transition to nuclear will go smoothly if this realisation actually comes to be, do you really think far more powerful countries such as the major super powers will simply allow an orderly redistribution of the resources required for more nuclear energy systems, or will they simply just give everyone the big fcuk you, in regards access to these resources!

..this is one of the many reasons why entities such as engineers ireland, 18 for zero etc are advocating for a lifting of the prevention of nuclear in ireland, they realise this could be an extremely serious problem for future generations, cause if these issues truly do come to be, ireland would more than likely experience serious problems....

again, the existence of these preventions is completely understandable, we re all aware of the major failures of nuclear, but again, these are now serious hang ups by mainly older generations, again, all understandable, but we ve moved on, the tech is now far safer, its time for us to be big grown ups, i.e. what if this research actually ends up being our reality, what about your kids and grand kids futures!

But the issue was found, and fixed right? Like people are there inspecting things and fixing things all the time. Saying we came close to a potential problem but was fixed in all instances isn't a solid argument against a technology

And that's unique to nuclear?

It's not our schedule that will determine anything but our actual trajectory. And that is going to be nothing like our schedule because the schedule is cockeyed. I'm sure you noticed how our target for 950k EVs by 2030 quietly slipped off the schedule, allegedly in favour of "active travel" (what a euphemism for miserable inconvenience). We've already got electric buses sitting idle without the infrastructure to charge them. Our departmental annual CO2 plans are mostly box-ticking exercises that can be achieved by rustling a few papers around. We have half-baked aspirational plans for massive grid infrastructure enhancement and a hydrogen economy. I firmly believe the people coming up with them have been told about our "transition schedule" and are going through the motions without actually believing they can be achieved. And this is all in a country whose unachievable energy transition would make the square root of diddly squat difference to climate change anyway.

A genuine global energy energy transition would require two gigawatts of new low carbon power EVERY SINGLE DAY from here to 2050. The EU would need 0.5 GW every day to 2030 to meet targets. Globally it would need $35 trillion by 2030. The IEA reckons it is $0.6 trillion annually just for grid upgrades. The IMF reckons there would be a two thirds shortfall of metals required, with new mines taking decades to come online and existing suppliers concentrated in just a handful of countries.

Green lobbyists continue to peddle the story of falling renewables prices, ignoring that this has come to a screeching halt. The era of cheap venture vulture money chasing guaranteed public funds is already in the rear view mirror. Last year's much touted offshore wind at UK£37/MWh -- remember "nine times cheaper than gas" -- has already come unstuck. Those projects can now not be delivered. I have no doubt that Ireland's much more expensive projects will also run into trouble.

Given that the timelines were crazy even without the constraints of both materials and money, it's very puzzling that the greenies are not wholeheartedly cheering nuclear on. Every MW of nuclear power would substitute for wind turbines with fifteen times the metal requirements. The timeline for nuclear is only a problem if you think we're going to arrive at 2050 having not needed it. Given you believe climate is an existential threat, why would you put all your eggs in a renewables basket that major world bodies predict have a good chance of failing? It's not a question of either/or, we need both and more. Right now there are hundreds of disused coal-fired thermal plants around the world with extant grid connections and cooling water supplies. A nuclear plant is just a glorified water boiler that can be hooked up to the same infrastructure.

Nuclear needs no new innovation (though that should be pursued too). There are proven ready-to-go large modular reactor designs. Yes it's expensive, but there is scope for dramatically reducing the price by not redesigning both the wheel and the associated regulations with every build. Where there is a will there is a way. The problem is there is no will, which is something that the greenies are going to have to answer for because it makes no sense whatsoever in a warming world. Germany is the poster child for this nuttiness.

This is completely missing the point. We don't need new nuclear technologies. We have passively safe existing designs ready to go. The Westinghouse AP1000 PWR is it. There are ten of them already online or under construction. It is certified 100 times less likely than any previous plant to have a core accident (with an estimate of one accident per two million years!). It is tried and trusted technology with outstanding new safety additions. And yes, before anyone says it, two of its implementations were project disasters from a cost and timeline point of view. But those were under way during design. That is water under the bridge -- someone else has paid the cost. There are no issues with the design itself, and the latest unit came online literally last week.

New reactor trechnology would be nice, and we should pursue it because there are even more promising designs. But we do not need them! Safe nuclear is available right now. Renewables at a scale that can achieve an energy transition on their own are not.