Time for Ireland to introduce Nuclear..?

Brief_Lives

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are defined as nuclear reactors generally 300 MWe equivalent or less, designed with modular technology using module factory fabrication, pursuing economies of series production and short construction times.

• There is strong interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat.
• This interest in small and medium nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce the impact of capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems.
• The technologies involved are numerous and very diverse.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-cabinet-to-reveal-plans-for-new-nuclear-power-plants/

Brief_Lives

An interesting company in the States, NuScale (I wish I had invested in these lads)..

https://ir.nuscalepower.com/overview/default.aspx

NuScale Power Corporation is the industry-leading provider of proprietary and innovative advanced nuclear small modular reactor (SMR) technology with a mission to help power the global energy transition by delivering safe, scalable and reliable carbon-free nuclear power.

Each NuScale Power Module (NPM) is capable of generating 77 megawatts electric (MWe) of electricity and can serve as a reliable, carbon-free source of baseload power that complements renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydropower generation.

In 2020, NuScale’s NPM became the first and only SMR to receive Standard Design Approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The advanced design of the NPM eliminates the need for two-thirds of the safety systems and components found in today’s large commercial reactors, which significantly improves the economics of NuScale plants compared to traditional nuclear power plants.

NuScale’s scalable technology and diversified business model are designed to drive exceptional financial results and create long-term value.

Brief_Lives

There's also companies setup to handle the waste that will be produced in a very safe method...

https://www.deepisolation.com/

ted1

No, it’s take 30 odd years before it would be commissioned.

planning consultation would go on for years.

Brief_Lives

this is the biggest problem..... Archaic old goats that just remember chernobyl and Sellafield....

PommieBast

Maybe if they bring out SMRs that can be shipped and installed as a single unit rather than needing on-site construction then they might be the answer for Ireland. Won't happen though due to Ireland's planning system.

Brief_Lives

If they are small enough to run a ship or submarine, surely companies like NuScale mentioned above would install as a single unit....

More reading for me needed...

Irish_wolf

In my opinion we'd be better off taking all that time and money needed to; set up a nuclear engery board/department, fill it with experts, pay all the consultants, sort out the legal aspects, plan, commision, and build a nuclear plant somewhere where no one would object to it (good luck!), and instead use said resources to build a **** load of wind turbines and a massive power interconnect to France who already have all that stuff set up. When it's windy as **** here port off some of our wind power to mainland Europe to top up their supply and when it's not windy buy back the excess power from France.

Brief_Lives

Thats a good idea, but relying on someone else, as we have seen recently, isn't always the best idea..

Yesterday I think Ireland nearly ran out of electricity, not a puff of wind for the last 2 days, and 75% of electricity produced was from gas alone...

I'm currently doing research into Geothermal, but modern safe small nuclear reactors are such a win win situation...

PommieBast

@Brief_Lives

Yesterday I think Ireland nearly ran out of electricity, not a puff of wind for the last 2 days, and 75% of electricity produced was from gas alone...

The thread on "Green" policies is covering this in painfully repetitive detail. 94% from thermal sources (gas+coal+oil).

El Tarangu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119458563#Comment_119458563

I'm not sure you have been watching the news lately, friend

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-03/edf-to-curb-nuclear-output-as-french-energy-crisis-worsens

Irish_wolf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119458866#Comment_119458866

That's not good news all right. However the article states that to make up the shortfall they will be importing energy from abroad, in particular the UK, which is currently producing 1.7GW of wind energy with much the same weather conditions. If we had comparable off shore wind farms like the UK does we would also be prdocing a lot more wind power even in a calm day like today which we could sell to france to help them in situations like today. Off-shore is much more reliable in that sense.

There is no prefect solution. I just feel that as it stands we have much more to offer in the current climate by exploiting our wind resources than we do planning to go nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119458646#Comment_119458646

Modern safe small nuclear reactors exist. Hundreds have been in use since the 1950's. There's a huge market for them, or rather there would be in they weren't still seriously expensive even after 70 years of optimising them. Lots of snake-oil merchants selling computer generated images and unicorns. Rolls Royce who are actually in the reactor business want £32Bn contacts for 7.04GW total reactors delivered sometime around 2040. Too little, too late to have any impact. Over the timescale of nuclear power solar, wind, batteries and other storage prices are in freefall.

Our problem is that we weren't able to import from the UK. Probably because EDF have 27 reactors down out of 56 in France because of corrosion which is a common complaint of that sort of nuclear reactor. They also have another 5 or so running at reduced load because rivers are too warm. Last year they were exporting up to 15GW ( three Ireland's worth ) now they are importing an Ireland or two depending on how much wind and solar they have. The UK have to keep them happy because the UK is a nett importer of an Ireland's worth of power from them.

We knew renewables were intermittent, that's why we have backup and interconnectors. It's unreliable nuclear that's let us down.

UK has 6 reactors out of 11 at nominal full load after recent issues at multiple plants. But the long delayed Hinkley C gets some new water intakes.

https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c/news-views/new-images-show-Hinkley-Point-C-biggest-lift-at-sea

Yellow_Fern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119458478#Comment_119458478

The implication of your post seems to be that in 2050, Ireland will have solved its energy needs, but is that really true? If so why not export it? Or use it to decommission environmentally catastrophic power generation like Ardnacrusha, or wind power which although environmentally catastrophic has a larger impact than nuclear. Germany's new high speed train line from Berlin to Munich took about 30 years. I am glad they went ahead with it.

ted1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119469547#Comment_119469547

No thats not the best implication at all.

we need energy now, but. Nuclear isn’t available firv30 yard is the implication

hope in 30 years we will have viable wave and tidal

Yellow_Fern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119470457#Comment_119470457

Right fair enough. I think tidal is not viable. We are around 18% wind today (in total energy, not just electricity) yearly now. That drops well below 5 in good weather. So there is a long way to go.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058258395/time-for-ireland-to-introduce-nuclear

Thorium and molten salt etc aren't new. They dust down the plans every generation and go looking for investors to hoodwink. Shills are useful.

No hard questions are ever answered. Neutron economy with thorium ? , doubling time for thorium ? nevermind that no one has built a reliable over-unity breeder even though we've been trying since 1944 on an industrial scale and most of that time with huge "I can't tell you what that 14,000 tons of silver is for" type budgets.

The cold war and the oil shock of 1973 meant that every possible nuclear technology has been tried, repeatedly by the best most motivated people. The technoloies involved are either proven to be too expensive or unworkable to use. Anything new is totally unproven and best case scenario will be in development hell for ages.

Hundreds of small modular reactor have been used safely since the 1950's by Western navies in submarines and aircraft carriers. They have never been commercially viable. Unlike lots of startups with no real experience Rolls Royce are a company that have been making reactors for submarines forever, their SMR's plans actually have some basis in reality. £32Bn in orders and they'll deliver 7GW by 2040 (excluding the almost mandatory delays and cost-overruns of nuclear)

Nuclear provides only 10% of gobal electricity. I can't see how you can ramp up to provide energy for transport and heating as well as decarbonising the cement, steel and fertilizer industries and replace the end of life reactors too. Most of the stuff accumulated for weapons during the cold war has been burnt up so there's no cheap uranium source anymore. Uranium deposits can be picked up by low flying aircraft with gamma ray detectors. Or just use lots of fossil fuel to process granite which kinda defeats the whole carbon thing.

Yellow_Fern

Be very cognisant when an environmentalist tells you the problem with nuclear is that it is not commercially viable, as if environmentalism ever believed in commerce in the first place.

Brief_Lives

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119471162#Comment_119471162

well, get off the wall, why don't you..😁

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474366#Comment_119474366

Be very wary of anyone who claims nuclear is reliable when French nuclear output is running at less than 40% during a fossil fuel shortage. Japan , Italy and Germany have also lost most of their nuclear power at very short notice.

Nuclear power costs multiples of offshore wind. The capital cost of the equipment to convert water to hydrogen is only 1.5 times the price increase so far this year for Hinkley-C. The Rough storage facility cost about £70m a year to run and could store about 10% of UK annual gas supply as hydrogen.

But the BIG problem with nuclear is that it takes too long to build. It won't arrive in time to help with out 2030 targets. Or 2035. So we will need low carbon sources in place and if we have them we don't need nuclear. Hinkley-C was to have started in 2017 but will miss that target by 10 years (or more) Luckily it's place in UK baseload was taken by Drax which burnt up to 10 million tonnes of coal a year. And luckily the UK government has a magic money tree to pay for the extra interest on billions in loans over the extra decade.

Danzy

Nuclear power is crazy expensive, it's one redeeming feature, is vast output of low emission energy.

What carbon Europe and North America put out is small globally and falling rapidly.

Net zero in those 2 regions won't matter because any elimination of carbon only cancels out a few years of carbon output in Asia.

Europe and North America being empty bar nature isn't going to change that.

So there is a question, should Western focus be on creating cheap scalable nuclear for Asia because that's Where it will be won or lost and pretty much no one in Asia has any interest in preventing climate change.

Zero interest not zero emissions.

Go for a win and

not a narcissistic approach about what we must do locally.

Whatever Europe and North America domestically do will not change the outcome. Our tech might.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474366#Comment_119474366

The private market have made it clear on nuclear being unviable, for a very long time.

That's just hard business. I'm sure many of them hate environmentalists but no one is going to put their money in based on that.

There are good arguments for nuclear power on low carbon grounds, on strategic energy reasons, as a job creation boondoggle in many economies.

You could not force private capital in to investing in nuclear at gun point. Even with the jaw dropping support it gets in America, its non stop business disaster story after another.

Akrasia

It takes decades to build the new carbon free grid. If we don't do it now, we'll be at the mercy of increasingly volatile oil and gas markets

If we do commit now, our dependence on fossil fuel imports will fall every year until we become net exporters

It's not just altruism that means we need to escape from the grip of OPEC and Russia and America. It's in our own long term strategic interests.

I'd love if Nuclear was viable for Ireland but we don't have the time or money to spend experimenting l. We have one of the best off shore wind resources on the world. We should build where we have a natural advantage.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478208#Comment_119478208

French nuclear is only producing 25GW out of 64GW installed capacity. Vast amounts of power that were being exported this time last year have been replaced by imports. The only thing nuclear can do is baseload and it's failing miserably.

China is deploying way more wind and solar than nuclear. 1000GW vs 50GW.

There is no cheap scalable nuclear. When you scale up you increase the demand for uranium, double the demand and you double the price because of extraction costs from poorer ores. And if you don't have enough uranium to keep the plants running for decades you will end up with lots of white elephants. Actinide burners ? Over unity breeders ? No one's gotten one working properly yet. And even if they do it will take a long time to debug and roll out.

Reducing demand would be a better option. Insulation. Low energy lights. That sort of thing.

Strumms

There is no energy shortage in Ireland.

the country is simply over populated. And the rate of population growth due to unnatural forces that we are not permitted to control..

our population growth breakdown.

2022 : 5.12 million

2016 : 4.76 million

2011 : 4.58 million

Our population is almost 70% larger compared to 1961..

Between 2011 and 2022 our population grew approximately 11.79%… in a very short time.

those levels and rates of growth are dangerous… it’s why our services are struggling to provide for the population.

other examples besides power..longer waits for ambulances, fire services, Gardai, less attainable healthcare especially rehabilitative treatments…

now, we are even beginning to struggle to power the country… the fix for that will be €€€€€€€. To provide upgraded, power infrastructure, will take serious time, huge investments of public money and ongoing associated costs…they cost billions to build and maintain and run.

Wind energy is currently the largest contributing resource of renewable energy in Ireland. It is both Ireland’s largest and cheapest renewable electricity resource. In 2020 Wind provided over 86% of Ireland’s renewable electricity and 36% of our total electricity demand. It is the second greatest source of electricity generation in Ireland after natural gas. Ireland is one of the leading countries in its use of wind energy and 2nd place worldwide in 2020, after Denmark..

Akrasia

We're not over populated we've one of the lowest population densities in Europe. FF/FG have failed to plan or maintain our infrastructure

Ramasun

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478696#Comment_119478696

Can't build any kind of renewable infrastructure without nimbys though.

Raven1221

I think the HT energy is far superior. No pollution, low upkeep, low cost in various thing such as money, food and more.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478696#Comment_119478696

We are certainly overpopulated, population isn’t a sole measurement barometer.. is relation to the services we have and as they can expand and improve to meet to overburdening demand,

Brief_Lives

Holy moly

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478750#Comment_119478750

Not too many nimbys living 10km offshore

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119458563#Comment_119458563

Then Irish foreign policy and EU voting behaviour will be for the French president to decide.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479036#Comment_119479036

French president can't magically restore the missing 40GW of nuclear power that isn't there right now.

The French put their eggs in one basket and they are reaping the rewards. They've spent billions nationalising EDF already, on top of the cost of importing electricity, and there'll be a good few repair bills too.

EU policy is to roll out interconnectors. That's why they are subsidising them for Malta and Cyprus and ourselves.

unkel

Portugal has the lowest cost of electricity production per unit (mostly solar PV), France has the highest cost (mostly nuclear). Ireland is somewhere in the middle and can bring down the unit cost considerably by installing more wind.

Nuclear is simply put not economical.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478661#Comment_119478661

Wind is not cheap, hence why our power bills have been going up. The government incentivises wind farm developers by contracting to purchase the energy at very high costs, making it very profitable for the wind farm operators. In another thread, someone said that the agreed strike price for Irish onshore wind generated energy is higher than the exorbitant strike price the Uk government agreed for Hinkley point nuclear PP.

That's just onshore wind, which is cheap to construct. Offshore wind is considerably more expensive. It's actually very hard to find out what offshore wind farms do cost to build, but from what I have found, it appears that offshore wind easily costs more than nuclear power when you account for it's low capacity factor.

It puzzles me why accountant and engineering bodies haven't called out governments over the false claims of renewables being cheap, when they are actually very expensive when you factor in their low capacity factor.

Leaving aside the artificial and unnecessary planning issues which can be removed via appropriate legislation; If Ireland started building a 6 GW nuclear power plant a year from now, using a Korean design and contractor, the entire grid could be essentially zero CO2 and emissions free in 11 years - 2034 instead of 2050, which is unachievable as it's based on false assumptions - allowing for delays. The two most recent Korean built nuclear power plants, both in Korea and the UAE, have taken about 10 years to construct, including delays. Without delays, they would take 5 years, and some NPPs have taken only 3. About 85% of NPPs built globally took 10 years or less to construct. If SMRs live up to their designers expectations, the construction time would be far less than for an offshore wind farm. RR believe an SMR production line would deliver one every 6 months. The problem then would more likely be the length of the queue of orders.

Ireland is hardly overpopulated, ranked 146th out of 248 territories by density.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479125#Comment_119479125

Your anti nuclear ranting is based on only two themes: France and the Uk. They are always your go-to for examples, never the US or South Korea. The French reactors you are criticising for needing maintainance have been churning out massive amounts of zero CO2 electricity for 30 years, but all you can do is rant at how they are currently in need of a service. I seem to recall some of Ireland's gas turbines have recently been out of action for cosnsiderable times for unscheduled maintainance because the wheels fell off and the crashed. Never a peep from you about that fiasco.

After 30 years, arguably underinvested French nuclear is needing some investment. That's what you tend to get when you don't pay the piper.

You obviously would prefer that the French nuclear industry had never existed and that for the last 30 years, they had been powering the whole of France using coal fired power plants, like everyone else.

I can't begin to understand the mental processes that drive what passes for thinking in the minds of people who supposedly are concerned by anthropogenic CO2 and yet are vehemently opposed to zero CO2 nuclear. Here you are wishing nuclear didn't exist and that the atmosphere be filled with way more CO2 than it has been. Nuclear energy has produce far more zero CO2 energy than renewables. The only energy source that has generated more zero CO2 energy is hydro.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479136#Comment_119479136

Source?

Yellow_Fern

Great news. Germany sees some sense. Woohoo https://www.forexlive.com/news/germany-to-extend-the-life-of-its-last-three-nuclear-plants-report-20220816/

Yellow_Fern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119478661#Comment_119478661

This is true but the power demands of Brazilians in Dublin or Ukrainians families in Carlow, is dwarfed by data centres. A single data centre can use more power than 130,000 people. Even if you built a million turbines, there they still needs huge amounts of expensive and environmentally harmful storage to be net zero.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481569#Comment_119481569

Families require peaking plant because they have variable demand and nuclear can't do variable output.

Data centres have more stable demand and use more baseload which means they subsidise grid upgrades.

They are actually one of the few use cases for nuclear when it's not offline. But data centres have backup batteries and some are looking to sell spare capacity back into the grid and can do demand shedding and a good few go out of their way to use green electricity. Another big problem is data centres like cheap electricity which nuclear cannot do.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481543#Comment_119481543

Magenta line is electricity consumption. The non-steady line at the bottom is German nuclear output this year. Nuclear is simply not as dependable as claimed. It's reliable until it isn't and has a much bigger knock on effect than smaller generators.

Also like in Italy nuclear was voted out by a public referendum. There's no technical fix for that. Even if nuclear was good, cheap and fast.

Sure looks like Biomass (green) is a more dependable source of power doesn't it ?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479151#Comment_119479151

Source ?

That 11 year build is in an autocratic desert state with more or less indentured labour and as you say there are massive delays (standard with nuclear). The $18.6Bn deal that cost $30Bn and there's $20Bn deal to run it so it's $50Bn not counting other deals. But that $50Bn is turnover? , nope, Kepco said the deal will bring it about $49.4 billion in profits over 60 years. Over here things like human rights would mean we wouldn't get it that cheap.

You may be confusing it with the Doosan $3.9Bn deal to supply a reactor which sounds cheaper all right. But you still need the whole nuclear island and other works and all that lovely profit.

It took the UK 6 years to negotiate the price for Hinkley C. And then it went up another £3Bn this year. Besides 2034 is TOO LATE.

SMR's taking less time than offshore wind - source ? Hint : many GW of offshore wind will be delivered this year and next year and the year after that and ... non-military SMR's not so much.

RR won't lift a finger until they get orders for 16 at £2Bn each. Then they'll start serious R&D and who knows what problems they'll find? Even then the bait and switch price is half that of Hinkley-C and the UK government isn't biting despite loosing all but one of the existing nuclear power plants by 2030, and coal is on the way out too.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479176#Comment_119479176

Suck it up. Nuclear isn't dependable.

South Korea had that fake parts scandal that took out a huge chunk of their power. Not the first time you've been told that either.

USA , look at corrosion history there, French reactors have been and will be down for months, because newsflash - everything about nuclear is fricking expensive and takes bleedin' ages. Look at all the US plants closed by cheap fracking gas. Look at their efforts to build a new plant and how much it's costing billpayers. Look at their history of thorium in power plants from the 1960's, it's all been done before.

Japan got lucky with the Tsunami. One power plant only just survived because one engineer stood up to the beancounters and got a proper seawall. Another one lost local cooling power and several backups and was very close to melt down. Other reactors that weren't directly affected were taken offline for an extended time. Nuclear isn't dependable. Japan spent $20bn on a breeder program, it produced electricity for the grid. For ONE hour.

France has been investing in new nuclear for 20 years. But still haven't delivered a single plant even though they have thrown four times as much money at it as originally billed. By rights they should have 4 working reactors by now paying for the construction of a series of them, in practice EDF are virtually bankrupt. France had one of the better attempts at a breeder. Better, but still not much use.

Germany took a different path and should be carbon free by 2035, that's sooner than nuclear could arrive.

The Swiss tried putting a nuclear rector in a cave. There's now a sealed cave in Switzerland.

Nuclear has a massive CO2 overhead. Hinkley C being 10 years late means one Drax worth of baseload fossil fuel for a decade. That's about 100 million tonnes of coal wasted. I can't see how it could possibly be carbon neutral until 2040. Tens of billions of pounds could have been invested in renewables, public transport (local, not HS2) and insulation, but let's feed the money pit.

Finland has ben missing half it's nuclear power for over a decade.

Also jellyfish.

Yellow_Fern

@Capt'n midnight,

Would you be interested in taking a bet about Germany being carbon free by 2035?

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479151#Comment_119479151

Population densities are not barometers of overpopulation.

population vs resources on the other hand.

.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482398#Comment_119482398

Nuclear is the most dependable energy souce used to generate electricity.

" Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close

March 24, 2021" https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

The rest of your tripe is on par with your initial massive lie.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119479151#Comment_119479151

Wind is not cheap, hence why our power bills have been going up. The government incentivises wind farm developers by contracting to purchase the energy at very high costs, making it very profitable for the wind farm operators. In another thread, someone said that the agreed strike price for Irish onshore wind generated energy is higher than the exorbitant strike price the Uk government agreed for Hinkley point nuclear PP.

Wind energy is actually cheap, it's the price of the backup fuel of gas that is sending everything skywards. With working alternatives just not there at present it's likely to stay that way for quite some time. Additionally our offshore capacity is still in the planning stage and most of that will not come online for 5-8 years.

KildareP

"Nuclear is not dependable and is exhorbitantly expensive" - so this thread outlines as reasons we shouldn't even consider it.

Instead, we should bank our energy security on offshore wind, where it has been largely not done at scale to date, no-one knows what the real world capacity factor will actually be, thus no-one knows how much nameplate capacity we'll need to provision and thus how much it's going to cost nor how long it will last in the highly corrosive environment of the ocean.

The closest we have to go on is onshore wind, where the capacity factor at times is nothing short of abysmal, we've all had to pay special tarriffs (PSO) on our bills to subsidise it and we're still held entirely at the mercy of fossil fuel availability and price for the extended periods where the wind doesn't blow.

But no, it is nuclear that shouldn't be considered because it's undependable and expensive.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483829#Comment_119483829

Over 60% of French nuclear has been offline for months.

UK currently has 5 out 9 reactors at nominal full load.

New builds in UK, US, France and Finland are at least a decade late.

You can't ignore that sort of stuff if you need to keep the lights on.

When nuclear goes down it places massive strain on the rest of the grid so it gets massive subsidies for infrastructure and spinning reserve.

Watts Bar unit 2 started construction on 23 January 1973 and after many delays including a transformer fire it started commercial operation on October 19th 2016. It then went offline from March 23, 2017 until August 1, 2017. On December 12, 2018 there was a small earthquake with it's epicentre 3km from the plant. There's 15 US nuclear plants located in the New Madrid Seismic zone.

France, Japan, Italy, Germany and Korea lost huge chunks of nuclear with little warning.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483630#Comment_119483630

Of course not you've moved the goal post. Carbon free is not the same as carbon neutral. Germany's Biomass (green) produces more power and is more reliable than nuclear (grey)

Also Germany has moved the goal post too. They are going for 80% carbon neutral by 2030 and aren't stopping there.

Achieving this target requires an annual increase of 22 GW of solar capacity, according to the European Solar Energy Industry Association’s plan, 88 GW will be installed by 2024, 128 GW two years later, 172 GW by 2028, and the 2040 target of PV installations Capacity 400GW.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119486564#Comment_119486564

"France, Japan, Italy, Germany and Korea lost huge chunks of nuclear with little warning."

I lost my bedroom lights last night, without warning, when I flipped the switch to turn them off.

These two engineers burnt to death when this wind turbine caught fire and killed them.

From this we can clearly conclude that all wind turbines will catch fire killing people.

Once again, you are characterixing all of the nuclear industry by cherry picking incidents.

"Over 60% of French nuclear has been offline for months." And before that, over 60% of French nuclear was online for the past 30+ years.