Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Nothing personal in my post. I just fail to see how otherwise anyone cannot see that excluding VAT, other taxes or rebates that the actual cost of our electricity to generate is twice that of Finland and over 60% more expensive than the E.U. average.

If you take those IEA figures and convert every country in Europe`s megawatt hours figure to kilowatt hours you are still going to be pissed off as other than moving the decimal point it will change nothing and still show that the cost to put one unit of electricity, plus the generators profit, onto the Irish grid is still by far the most expensive in Europe.

Again with "The cost to install renewables is lower than nuclear" without as much as a single figure to back up that claim.And where are you getting this that building out renewables will have us exporting electricity when the current 37GW 2050 plan was not going to even provide our own requirements before Eamon Ryan admitted that 25% of the turbines required for that 37GW could not be constructed within the next 20 years or more.

If you are interested in exporting electricity truly concerned over costs, and a sudden drop off from nuclear, then for the price of a much delayed and over budget Finnish nuclear plant for €44 billion you could build four. Three of which would cover our projected needs for 2050 where the 4th. could be used as a spare while providing all this hydrogen greens are so enamoured with much more efficiently than renewables could. You could gold plate all four and still be quids in compared to renewables.

As to do we have uranium deposits in Ireland. The greens, and especially Eamon Ryan, are very determined to ensure we never know. As far back as 2007 as Minister for Natural Resources he refused exploration permits to two companies in regards to Donegal, where as far as I recall, along with Wicklow there were strong indications we did.

You didn`t simply ask me to justify about 37GW of offshore achieving what we are supposed to believe it would.

Do you actually read any posts here before you jump in with the first thought that comes into your head ?

You said you were " absolute confident" that the cost of offshore would be cheaper in 2024 than it was in 2023. Had you read anything here or anywhere else in relation to that, then you would have seen it is complete fantasy. In 2023 myself and others posted that from the number of turbine manufacturers alone operating at a loss and going out of business that was not going to happen.But it is even worse than even we imagined with offshore having created it`s own inflation bubble with companies refusing to even tender bids and refusing to honor existing contracts claiming that to do either would result in heavy financial loses as costs have increased by 60% or more.

You found it "Hilarious…. beyond parody" that I was so concerned about not being able to predict a cost for this 37GW offshore proposal being the reason why I favoured nuclear. Had you bothered to read back in this thread you would have seen that I have posted the costs of just the Capex for the offshore part of this proposal on many occassions using U.K. costs for both before the recent massive jump in costs and after. Even without the cost of the proposed hydrogen part of this proposal and the added expense to consummers for this hydrogen never mind the committment by Eamon Ryan that we pay for everything these companies could produce even if we did not use or need it the costs are insane and financially unviable. What is "hilarious and beyond parody" is that those opposed to nuclear come up with the most exaggerated claims on the cost of nuclear, yet when challenged cannot put a cost to their own favour proposal.

AS to my claim about this proposed 2050 37GW proposal regarding our 2050 needs and that it would result in our electricity generation cabon neutral I have already posted those figures which show a major hole in our requirements. And that was before Eamon Ryan admitted that the floating turbine part of that proposal for our South and West coasts was not even going to be technically possible for the next 20 years or more. Something hilarious in its own way as that is the claim by some here as to how long it would take us to build a nuclear power plant. So rather than me wasting my time reapeating what I already have posted here on the short-comings of this proposed plan in relation to our 2050 requirements read back, factor in the nothing from floating turbines, and if you have a problem understanding what I posted get back to me then.

I noticed in some of your earlier posts that you mentioned you could not ramp up or down output from a nuclear power plant.

As far as I understand nowadays reactors have the capability to regularly vary their output between 30 - 100% of their rated power up or down by 2 - 5%/minute during load following. If there is maximum demand, as we have seen here during prolonged periods when wind is providing 6% or even less, then when you do not have enough capacity to fill the demand we are predicted to have by 2050, which under this proposed 2050 plan we will not have, then there is nothing to ramp up with other than gas.

Nuclear has a capacity factor of 92%. For Ireland onshore wind 27% offshore 42%. When needed, especially during periods of maximum demamd nuclear can be ramped up to that 92%, wind you have what you have and as we have seen during prolonged periods when demand has been high wind has dropped to 6% and less.

Presently we consume 33 TWh, Eirgrid are predicting that to increase to somewhere between 73 TWh and 86 TWh by 2050. Our latest maximum demand 15th Jan. was 5.58 GW. From Eirgrid predictions that would mean we have to plan for maximum demand for 2050 being around 13.5 GW. (12.25 - 14.4 GW)

I have said before I could see the logic behind the 37 GW offshore/hydrogen plan in principle. What I could not see, especially with the hopium that hydrogen would work to scale, was how even if it did work as planned and cover demand how it was financially viable. Seeing as nobody who favours this plan can give a cost for it then it seems neither can they make a case of its financial viability.Now we see that from Eirgrid`s projections it is not going to fulfill the 2050 demand either.

Our installed capacity for solar is presently 1GW. Increasing that x20 would give 20 GW with a capacity factor of 11%. Annually 2.2 GW. But by the nature of solar that is the annual average. In Winter, where we have maximun demand, that will have dropped to around half that, 1.25 GW, and now way of ramping that up either. That is not going to fill the gap in the 37 Gw proposed plan.

As to the cost of solar dropping due to the law of supply and demand. The same was being said about wind less than a year ago here, and even in that short time it hasn`t aged well. There are other serious etnical issues with solar panels. Biomass is nothing more than a carbon emissions accountancy con that we have now joined in on where even green advocacy groups have declared it producing more CO2 than coal. Interconnectors during prolonged periods of little or no wind when demand is highest will be supply nothing other than nuclear and we will be at the end of a long line hoping. Carbon neutral like gases are hopiums, not a plan, like hydrogen when it comes cost and to working to scale where nobody has a clue.

The average system demand here is 5 GW. Even today at 9 am for a very mild day at the end of May it was 4.9GW.

5GW from 33TWh is 13GW from 86TWh. Currently 38% of that 5GW (2GW) is provided by all renewables not just wind, so that leaves 11GW to get by 2050 not 8GW.

The current proposed 37GW offshore/hydrogen plan is not about 2030. It`s about Ireland being carbon neutral in electricity generation by 2050 and it is not going to come anywhere close to that after a spend that nobody in favor of can put a figure too. The plan is for a 50/50 split of that 37GW between hydrogen and consumption. !8.5GW for each.

We now know from Eamon Ryan that the 25% of those planned floating turbines will not be technically possible within at least the next 20 years. so that 18.5GW is now 14GW. Less in fact as those floating turbined were meant to have a capacity factor of 50%, so in reality 13GW. At 42% capacity that leaves just 5.6GW, but lets for handieness call it 6GW. add that to the 2GW that we are already generating from all renewable sources and you have 8GW. 5GW less that we will require by 2050. So after all that unviable financial spend on this current plan we will be left worse off. 5GW from fossil fuels and greater carbon emissions than we have now.

Hydro is tapped out, and biomass is a con where emissions are concerned. Even greens have seen through that one, Hydrogen other gases or hot stones are just hopiums so the only answer for you other than nuclear is to throw good money after countless billions of bad with 20 times the solar we currently have that on average would provide 2GW but which by it`s nature would only provide at best 1.25GW during Winter when our needs would be at their greatest. Even after throwing added on, again uncosted "solutions" , at this 2050 plan it would still come up short.

A good rule of thumb with these charitable organisations that are funded by "global philanthopic organisations and individuals" is whose ass that funding puts them up.

Influence Watch analysis is that they are a think tank that is heavily funded by left-of center and/or environmentallt-focused foundations which has repeatedly opposed the use of nuclear energy.

The U.K. Heysham 2 NPP operated by EDF stayed on line for 895 consecutive days of operation, as did Canada`s Darlington Unit 1 for 1106 days, to name just two. Both with a capacity factor over 90% compared to onshore winds 28% and solars 11%

Germany`s Grohnde NPP between 1984 and 2020 generated over 400TWh at a capacity factor of 92% with zero carbon emissions. Using gas, which Germany is now investing €30 Billion in for LNG terminals and plants, would add 400 million tonnes of carbon emissions to generate the same.

Germany shut down reactors that were providing 14% of their electricity for green ideological reasons that were counter to reduction of carbon emissions and to add insult to injury are now spending €30 Billion on LNG terminals and gas fired plants. Japan are re-opening nuclear plants and are planning to build more. Italy after shutting their NPP`s are keeping their lights on importing nuclear power from France.

Meanwhile we have a all egs in the one basket 2050 offshore wind/hydrogen plan where 25% of the turbines cannot be constructed and there will be around a 6GW gap between what it would provide and what our projected demands for 2050 are and all for the princely sum of north of €200 billion.

If it wasn`t so insanely financially unviable it would be, as a clusterfcuks go, funny