"Green" policies are destroying this country

France the poster boy for Nuclear power. It is building ones since the 1960s. Costs there too are rising per recent Bloomberg article.

Fossil fuel is becoming rarer and will definitely cost more including the carbon costs the other side never wants to mention here. As for nuclear here it's a dead duck, probably ok to build an interconnector from France and take theirs when needed. By the way Germany is forging ahead with wind power (strange when it's such a bad option)

https://orsted.com/en/media/news/2024/06/first-wind-turbine-installed-at-borkum-riffgrund

Can we move on from wind/nuclear? We need legislation changes and a massive campaign pro nuclear before even considering building one. Probably 20/30 years away if ever. Wind is a known and has many drawbacks as discussed to death at this stage. Offshore increases the challenges and costs. Hydrogen production is a fantasy from excess wind. Selling excess wind via interconnectors is another fantasy when power is generated cheaper elsewhere. In addition, the wind projects aren't costed. Comparing Ireland Inc. building wind/nuclear/sandcastles with other countries is another fallacy. We'd never compete on price as we're expensive as **** to do anything in.

THat post was too a poster who keeps plugging his ears on the cost of wind while pulling costs out of his behind on wind and nuclear.

Based on U.K. prices pre the jump in costs I calculated the cost of this 37GW plan based on all turbines being fixed and did not include the 25% of turbines that are supposed to be part of it, the 50% more expensive floating variety, and the capital cost was €166 Bn.

Equinor won a contract for the Empire 816 MW wind farm for New York in 2019 for a strike price of $118, but pulled out because of the increase in costs. They recently renegotiated and got it raised to $155. (Ironically the present strike price for Hinkley C that greens are fond of calling "the most expensive power plant ever built") The estimated cost in 2019 was $3 Bn. Just going by the two strike prices the cost per GW is now €4.52Bn. 37 GW would be €167 Bn.

Mitsui and Northland Power have just signed a deal with Taiwan to build a 1GW fixed offshore wind plan where Northland has said will cost $6.5 Bn. (over €6 Bn per GW)

It`s time those that are coming totally unrealistic fantasy figures started dealing with reality and recognised the complete financial insanity of what they are supporting.

If it is so unrealistically expensive then why are Governments around the world still pursuing it at all? Are they all blind? Or does it make sense down the line.

Nuclear won't be an option here (based here)

That's a great question and there's no simple answer as has been demonstrated for pages and pages. We should invest in wind, but we should know the costs before doing it. Eamon Ryan gave an estimated €100bn cost a few months back. That seems low to me, and many others here would agree. And that 100bn was only for the turbines, no costs for getting the power from them, the land infrastructure, the ongoing maintenance. We cannot, 100% rely on wind power for the country. We must have reliable backups. Currently that's gas and there's no reason we shouldn't continue with that. We probably do need to look at nuclear as another source. The more sources we have, the better.

One of the problems with offshore wind will be the maintenance. Just the sea salt alone would destroy gears/bearings/etc in the turbines. The maintenance costs are way higher for offshore, and the lifetime is 20/25 years. Then you have to start again so it's an ongoing capital cost. Unlike Turlough Hill, or Moneypoint, or reactors where there's an initial capital cost and maintenance then for decades.

My own position is we spread the generation across many forms, build a bigger grid with reliable sources (primary & backup) and not be holding our country back by curtailing energy to users. But first and foremost, we need to see the maths

How many Governments around the world are planning what we are for 2050, a national grid that would be reliant on nothing other than wind power and hydrogen that would not even come close to providing our projected 2050 requirements ?

I have posted the figures from verifiable sources around the world on how the cost of the offshore section of that plan alone makes no sense, either presently or anywhere down the line. You nor anyone else, and that includes the Government Minister driving this plan or anyone else in Government, have all failed or simply refused to give any realistic verifiable costs.

Esentially what the Irish Government is doing, and they are not alone in this globally, is kicking the can down the road by privatising our electricity generation where they will all be living comfortably off state pensions before their citizens realise just how much it is costing them with a supply that is intermittent and unreliable. The only plus from this plan is that the country will be so bankrupt that we will not be able to pay those pensions. But then they are probably so protected by law we will still end up having to fork out using borrowed money to do so.

No idea how you believe "Nuclear won`t be an option here" If you intended putting up a link then it didn`t work,

Prices from all energy sources are rising

'Sir, – In response to Dr Pat Morrissey's letter (March 3rd),
I would agree that nuclear power has a part to play in addressing
climate change. I agree that countries that have a nuclear programme
should keep their nuclear power stations working as long as possible as
they are a low-carbon source of electricity.

However,
I only see nuclear playing a relatively small role. Price and delays in
construction still are common; for example, the Olkiluoto reactor in
Finland was planned to start working in 2009 but now the target date is
the end of 2018. The original estimated cost was €3.2 billion but in
2012 the cost had risen to €8.5 billion at least.

The
planned Hinkley Point C reactor in the UK is planned to start operating
in roughly 2025. This is unlikely given the usual delays with nuclear
power station construction. If it is built on time and within budget
(£20 billion) the cost per kWh (unit of electricity), which is
guaranteed for 35 years, will result in consumers paying more than £30
billion over market price over the 35-year life of the contract. This
cost per unit of electricity is more than wind and solar power.'

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/true-cost-of-nuclear-power-1.3415825

It`s not a good option for any number of reasons, even outside of whether it would work to scale, and no costs for what it would entail. If you want to produce hydrogen then the most inefficient way of doing so is by using intermittent energy sources for electrolysis. Even then producing it results in a 25% drop in energy (53 KWh of electricity is required to produce I Kg of hydrogen which holds 39.4 KWh of electricity). A futher 10% is lost in compression and storage and a further 30% when burned to convert it back to electricity.

It is highly volatile and rusts pipes and seals and leaks from it result in water being trapped in the upper atmosphere raising methane levels. Maybe that is why greens wanted cattle culled, to make room for methane from hydrogen. Anyway it cannot be pumped through the present gas pipilines

Burning it is not exactly environmentally friendly either. That produces NOx which along with causing smog, not great for public health, also causes acid rain. Nasty stuff.

There is also the consideration that half of the electricity from that 2050 plan is supposed to go to hydrogen production, with the other half towards domestic consumption. Nobody other than the consummer is going to be paying for that, which would not only double their electricity bills at a single stroke, but result in them having to pay for any of the electricity they used generated from hydrogen on top