"Green" policies are destroying this country

You can't replace nitrogen with 'other' fertiliser. Nitrogen is non replaceable only an alternative source is possible

The goverment makes the law they can tell employers what to do any time they want

IMHO it’s much worse than that, the likes of Stop Oil, bizzare obsession with taxes on everything, the crusade against tech that help reduce CO2 like nuclear and datacenters, and the constant quasi religious apocalyptic end of days nonsense that gets trotted out with increasing frequency

All of this ads up to turn people away from the issues and get pissed off altogether

I am still scratching my head as to how these brains think agriculture can survive without nitrogen

I have already shown you that when over 20% of demand tripped out here the grid didn`t fry, as has @machiavellianme when 25% tripped out, so to use your own term, your 10% guidance on nuclear is an irrelevance. A useful little bit of information for you though is that the International Energy Agency projections are that unless nuclear generation doubles globally net zero emissions by 2050 is not possible.

Where did you pull this €20 Bn. figure for 1.4 GW of nuclear from. Another case of those who back this offshore/hydrogen 2050, that will not even provide our projected needs, not being able to put a single figure to what they favour while pulling figures for nuclear out of thin air ?

Our projected grid by 2050 is not going to be "tiny". It will be ~14 GW, and where did you get the idea from that wind farms would be "small units impact on the grid"? The plan is for 37 GW offshore wind plus the already close to 5 GW onshore impacting the grid.

The only people believing that "things that don`t work elsewhere will work here in Ireland because we are special" are those backing this all eggs in the one basket nonsense on wind. I neither love or hate wind or nuclear, but I can do the maths on an energy source that is intermittent and unreliable, that has a 42% capacity factor which would require further massive capital costs ~20 years compared to one that will generate at a capacity of 94%+ no matter the weather and for capital cost has a life span of 60 years.

Neither is it the case that wind will provide us with cheaper electricity than nuclear. Our own recent ORESS strike price for offshore, when you consider that it is for 50% consumption of generation and 50% hydrogen production, plus all the add-on costs there will be from hydrogen, even without the guarantee that we will pay them for whatever they generate even if we neither need or use it, will leave us with a higher strike price than those backing this plans of their nuclear bogey man Hinkley C. As do the recent renegotiated offshore fixed turnine strike prices for Equinor and Orsted in the U.S. of $205 per Kw/hr.

Do you understand the difference between regulations and guidance ?

Following the IAEA regulation on building a nuclear plant has nothing to do with guidance as to how you operate it. In real world terms you have been shown examples where here that 10% guidance went as high as 25% and the lights stayed on.

So now the price for nuclear has dropped from your €20 Bn. to €11 Bn.!! But I suspect I know where you got both figures from. The €20 Bn. figure you got from Poland before realising that it was actually $20 Bn for a plant housing 3 APR1000 nuclear reactors which leaves the price per GW at €6 billion not €20 Bn. You then jumped to the latest nuclear reactor in Europe to go on line, Finlands Olikiluoto 3, for your €11Bn, but OLK 3 is a 1.6 GW reactor which even after delays and budget overruns still cost €6.87 Bn per GW, So not only are both your figures incorrect you have still not provided a single figure for this 37 GW plan you favour.

You keep harping on about our "tiny" grid while ignoring that the plan you are backing is for a projected demand of ~ 14 GW by 2050. Is that because Finland with the same population as Ireland has a current demand of ~14 GW where 42% is being supplied by nuclear, where not only are they self sufficient since OLK 3 came on line, their domestic electricity charges are less than half those of Ireland ?

Ironically

Up to €11 billion per gigawatt is where Europe is at for costs, in today’s money

Your figure is correct but it's for wind. Seagreen just commissioned at a cost of €3.6 Billion for 1GW with a life of 25 years at 50% capacity factor

€7.2 Billion for 100% capacity

€10.8 Billion for equivalent life to nuclear

The median (50% above and 50% below) age of a nuclear plant is 37 years, expected life is 50 years so I'm being overly generous to wind, correctly

€14.4 Billion would be the actual wind figure

The Finnish plant only cost €7 Billion per GW and will have a 60 year life, even Hinkley will only cost €10 Billion per GW and will have a 60 year life too

The correct thing for us to do would be to go joint venture with EDF on a second plant at Hinkley and put in additional inter connectors, we would get

1. Zero Carbon Energy
2. Long term low cost power
3. Benefit from 1st project experience
4. Lower 2nd project cost
5. Ability to export wind production
6. Irish solution to an Irish problem

Seagreen's costs

https://www.sserenewables.com/offshore-wind/operational-wind-farms/seagreen/

I know, I was purposly being generous to wind

Again, it isn’t that the IAEA guidance is irrelevant. It’s just that you don’t agree with it, and nobody cares about your opinion. They are the global authority on atomic energy. You are not. If you want to do something productive you can try to convince them to change the guidance. (Though they won’t because there is a gaping technical problem in your argument).

All this other stuff is waffle and a lot of it is misinformed.

Nuclear may well be great but it isn’t going to get built in ireland because the technology just isn’t suitable. You keep wanting to talk about wind farms for some reason. But we aren’t talking about wind farms. We’re talking about nuclear.

Nobody is going to merchandise, design, permit, finance or build a plant contrary to IAEA guidance. It’s a pipe dream.

You cant blame this one on the Greens, its a return oc the PSO levy thats been on every bill since 2001. It waz reduced to €0 fof last few yrs as part of the cost of living support measures

It`s nothing to do with me agreeing with it or not. It`s a guideance on operating a nuclear plant. It has nothing to do with financing or constructing a nuclear plant. We know from past trip outs here that a trip out of 25% of generation demand does not fry the grid and we know that Finland is generating day in a day out 14% of its generation demand from their OLK 3 nuclear plant for the past year. Four times great than that guideance, and their grid hasn`t fried either and I haven`t heard anything about the the IAEA threatening to do anything about it.

But for the fun of it I`ll play along with your latest effort at dodging.

Lets say that we rule out nuclear. What is your solution to us reaching net zero generation emissions by 2050 and how much will it cost to finance ?

You have been quoting figures on nuclear that you have been plucking out of thin air while calling me misinformed when I have been providing you with verifiable figures, so you must have a figure for an alternative source of generation that will provide us with 14 GWs by 2050 that will be net carbon zero. Or is it the case that you do not give a fiddlers about emissions ?

That makes sense and explains why countries like Finland, France, Sweden …etc are not having the IAEA rolling up and knocking down their nuclear plants.

APR1000 reactors, (or even larger), which the Poles have done a deal on for €6 Bn, would also work.

India are building a fleet of CANDU reactors of just this size currently, I even think the second one was commissioned and is now operational with full grid integration

Reactor size has increases has been possible as power demand has increased, this is common to all plant.

Nuclear also has the advantage that it can be ramped up or down by 0.5%/minute according to demand, so reactor size would not be that big a consideration. Especially with demand predicted to rise.

With wind or solar you cannot ramp it up so your only options are to massively overbuild to the level of their lowest capacity factor.

I have? Which Canadian companies are involved in building these plants?

No one builds small reactors anymore. Can you give me a list of 5 sub 500MW plants that commenced construction in the last 5 years?

Surprising you’d want anything to do with these plants.