Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Lets not forget that almost every part of a wind turbine is recyclable, vastly reducing the resource footprint of replacement turbines. Additionally much of the infrastructure will last multiple turbine generation so won't need to be replaced apart from basic servicing.

The life cycle costs of a wind farm are largely predictable unlike a NPP which is open ended.

FA are recycled - most end up in landfills. They also generate a vast amount of micro plastics during their lifespan, especially in Marine Environments

Still no answer to when a NPP starts saving emissions.

It seems that the conservative coalition in Australia is proposing to divert all energy investment into NPP mainly as a means of locking in coal generation for the next 20 years. Favors for their mates.

You must be confusing me with someone else so spare me your "fantasies" - currently I'm rewetting an old cut-over bog on my own land in North Mayo as part of an EU scheme

It`s a pity you stopped reading at that sentence.

Had you read just a few more lines you would have seen that the reality is because of the 50/50 split of this 37 GW offshore plan between consummer generation and hydrogen, the strike price for the consummer doubles to €172.10 with all the costs of hydrogen production, storage, distribution etc. on top of that. Plus the cost of any hydrogen subsequently burned to generate electricity, plus the guarantee that the consummer will pay for all electricity generated even if we do not need or use it. And all index linked. At the very minimum €200 MW/h compared to Hinkley`s €152, the most expensive NPP strike price you could find.

Seems the Czechs at least are capable of basic mathematics.

We have a 37 GW offshore plan for 2050 that will not even meet our projected 2050 needs of 14 GW that will initially cost in excess of €250 Bn. At $8.6 Bn./GW (€7.89 Bn.), 14 GW for the Czechs is €110 Bn. Less than half what is proposed here for a plan that will not even meet that 14 GW, and have a lifespan of 25 years compared to the Czechs which will, and have a 60 year lifespan.

Not sure how you became the nominated spokesperson, but frankly it doesn`t matter. Ignoring facts doesn`t change them.

You've actually identified the very attraction of the idea for the Charlies of this world.

Do nothing for 30 years because you know, climate scientists are lying to us.

Also we'd have to go back to candles and turf until the thing was eventually switched on as the "plan" - unlike continuously rolling out wind, solar and batteries each year - is missing a vital part. While waiting for this marvel, how do we meet increasing demand for electricity as more and more of the primary energy sector is electrified (transport, industry and domestic heating/cooking) never mind the organic growth in demand for electricity?

The answer of course, is to build more fossil-fuel storage as these cranks have convinced themselves that wind, solar and batteries are "too expensive" and "make no sense" despite the entire global electricity investment having switched to renewables.

Nuclear isn't a "plan" - it's just a bunch of trolling by people gullible enough and silly enough to align themselves with US culture war BS thinking they're "owning the libs". It's pathetic.

Private PV Solar panels may be cheap and getting cheaper, but currently due to the way Ireland 'licences' wind farms, wind is far from cheap and new wind farms coming on-board won't make it cheaper in the short term.

I'm not so confident that "renewables backed by gas" is the solution here, but nuclear stations are not exactly cheap to build so it feels a bit like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario because:
1. My understanding of the grid is that power must be generated in sync with consumption. Solar can be reasonably steady but it isn't always windy where and when you want it to be so renewables are a challenge but undoubtedly useful.
2. We don't have vast gas reserves of our own, we import it from the UK and (indirectly from) Norway and the high demand for gas is why we're paying 30-ish cent/kWh vs the 17c/kWh we were used to
3. We want to move away from fossil-fuel stations, Nuclear should be a practical short-to-middle term option (MSRs for example)

Hes just saying it as it is.

I don't think you understand the mechanism or market.

Wind farm operators can bid in regular auctions for a 14 year CFD (Contract-For-Difference). If their bid comes in at under the settlement auction price, they are guaranteed to get paid the difference between the auction settlement price and the wholesale price for the next 14, but ONLY IF the wholesale price is lower. The downside is that if wholesale prices are higher, the wind farm operators have to pay the difference. In 2023, because of high wholesale prices, the operators had to hand over approx. 250m euro.

But wind farm operators do not HAVE TO operate under a CFD - hence it's "not a license". Notably, recently Oriel Offshore, have decided not to bid and will finance, build and operate a 375MW facility themselves - having decided that they would prefer to compete directly in the day-ahead market auctions to supply electricity. Yes they don't get a rebate when wholesale prices are low, but they do get to keep all the profits for selling at high wholesale prices.

There is no such thing as short to middle-term nuclear, you're either in for 50 years or the economics/finances are impossible.

MSR practical? Are you mad? There has never EVER been a commercial molten-salt reactor. It's been tried in Oak Ridge, first as a small scale experimental reactor in the mid 1950s which was shut off after a few days having shown worrying signs of instability.

Later significant funding was secured for a longer term "large" (15MW - minuscule by modern standards) reactor was funded which went critical in in 1964, it never managed more than 7MW output, was offline for 60% of the time before being abandoned after 4 or 5 years. Clean-up costs were astronomical.

Despite what the nuclear fluffers will try to convince you, all these technologies - thorium/molten salt/SMR/etc. - have been tried (many times) during the early days of civilian nuclear power and all failed to show any promise - which is the reason the industry settled on PWR as the only feasible commercial reactor design.

But, but China have built a working thorium molten salt reactor, you'll hear them claim. What China have built is a science experiment - a 2MW mini-reactor - and is only operating intermittently for the next 7 years as they try to figure if they can get such a reactor to operate continuously.

MSR a practical solution for Ireland? After the cream of yank physicists and engineered failed to even get a pilot reactor to work? After the economic behemoth that is China will only commit to a tiny prototype. It's about as feasible as an Irish manned-Mars mission.

Hey I stopped reading your posts about a fortnight ago, so as I say it's just calling it as it is.