Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Did you miss the Anthropogenic Global Warming question Charlie?

Indeed. If Charlie turns out to be a denialist, we're looking at perfect 100% correlation amongst the pro-nuclear crowd here, I believe?

Seems a little harsh to ask this question directly instead of directly engaging with Charlie's "arguments". On the other hand life's too short - it's like "debating" the archeology and history of the Middle East with a believer in Young Earth Creationism. Science, facts, evidence, statistics will just be like water off a duck's back.

Do you know what would make a pleasant change ?

You answering a question for once.

In relation to emission/global warming/electricity generation, which European country has the lowest emissions and what is their predominant fuel source for electricity generation ?

Eh buying nuclear fuel from the U.S. is not self sufficiency.

Eh Finland is producing all their wind turbines and solar panels from their own resources !

When did that happen Paddy ?

How much emissions does Ireland save once we decide to commission a wind or solar farm ?

The relevant fact you and others here are jumping through hoops trying to avoid is that we have a 37GW plan for 2050 that will not provide anywhere close to our projected needs, that will cost in excess of €250 Bn. in total, will require further capital investment every 20 years. It would result in conummers paying twice the strike price because of the hydrogen element, with consummer also having to pay for all the desalinisation, electrosis, storage and distribution relating to the hydrogen on top, and still have to pay on top again for any hydogen burned (emitting NOX in the process) to generate electricity rather than even attempt to seriously look at nuclear as an alternative.

Did you miss that I linked AGW to emissions and electricity generation #1626

Actually what it looks like is the fall back position of the poster it appears you are replying to when unable to debate their point comes up with "Are you a Sinn Fein supporter" that has had him ran out of numerous threads.

Is not an answer to the question how long till a nuclear poweplant starts to reduce immissions. AGW sets time limits on useful reductions to immissions which nuclear power plants simply speed past.

Your diversion tactic are a little sad.

Norway, Sweden and Romania have a luxury that we do not have or are ever going to have. A high level of generation from hydro. Sweden and Romania respectively generated 47% and 32.5% of their electricity from hydro in 2023. For Norway it`s practically 100%. Sweden also generated 34% of its electricity in 2023 from nuclear as did Romania with 19.9% from nuclear. For both wind played a very minor part in their overall generation with Sweden at 10% and Romania at 13.4%.

Where you came up with Romania and Malta as low emitters I have no idea. From LowCarbonPower Romania`s generation mix.

which has Romania emissions for 2023 at 240gCO2/KWh and Malta is another strange one as their generation mix is 62.5% gas, solar 16.9% and imports 19.7% with emissions for 2023 at 460gCO2/KWh.

When you consider the generation mix it`s not difficult to see how their emissions are so high and would be even higher in Malta`s case without the imports.

If you were seriously looking for European countries with low emissions then perhaps you should have looked at France as well as Sweden. But then with France at 56gCO2/KWh due to their high generation from nuclear that didn`t suit your narrative. Not that it matters, at the the end of the day none of those you mentioned can credit your preferred wind power with much if anything for their emissions.

As I said already Paddy, a pedantic post when you consider the €250 Bn cost of the total infrastructure with further capital spends every 20 odd years to use that "free" intermittent fuel not to mention the cost of electricity to the consummer afterwards.

From your posts J have often wondered that with this total fixation you have on Hinkley do you ever even look look at or consider anything else.

For ORESS indexation has been introduced for operation and maintenance costs and the contracts are for 20 years, more or less the lifetime of the turbines, with a guarantee that we will pay for everything they generate even if we do not need or use it.

I doubt the ones in North Mayo are given the vast destruction of peatland and forests during their construction, plus hauling endless loads of stone etc. via heavy lorries from quarries up to 50km away!!