Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Lets just repeat this, since it got such a good reaction last time - the majority of Nuclear Advocates are climate change skeptics.

If you want to object state your position on climate change in your reply.

But lets just state my position, in the time and with the money available, multiple times the generating capacity we need could be brought online before a single watt of nuclear was released to the grid. The advantage is that over that time our carbon footprint would be gradually reducing making our position better year on year. If we went Nuclear all that capitol would be tied up in the nuclear project and we wouldn't be accruing a single benefit until the first nuclear plant came online - 10-20 years down the line.

Nuclear answers no questions that are relevant to the Irish situation.

Pity none of that corresponds to reality anywhere in the EU - I suggest you read up at what Germany alone has spent on wind/solar in the last 10 years, yet is still heavily dependent on fossil and outside grids to keep the lights on. 24 billion Euros in RESS money was paid out in 2020 alone there!! and thats before you go counting all the other hidden costs wind power adds to a grid due to its dispersed and sprawling nature

there are no hidden costs with wind, the costs are the costs.

anyway, 24 billion to pay for excess electricity from other grids is still a fraction of the cost of nuclear.

you are twisting what he said.

he didn't say nuclear was unreliable because 25% of it is down in france, he said it is unreliable because large percentages of it can go down at any time and for anything from months to years at a time, and that percentage could increase at any second for any reason.

the fact 75% of it is just about working currently in france can change rather quick, that is not something you get with other, cheaper more efficient options.

the claim that nucler is the most expensive option has been shown time and time again and plenty of figures to back it up have been provided.

wind requires subsidy because harvesting it at scale is a new technology and it needed to be tried and tested, we already knew small scale harvesting of it which had been a norm a couple of centuries ago worked but at scale was an unknown at first and now it has proven itself cheap and efficient.

it may not require subsidy as time goes on but then again i would be surprised if other sources like gas don't require some either currently.

but either way, subsidies for most power sources are a fraction of that which nuclear requires and that is, along with the other issues mentioned, why it can't compete especially for a small country like ireland.

Really?? Can you post that in terms of what Germany gets compared to other conventional based grids for energy exports

Targets my ar$e - as I mentioned earlier this state is decades behind on targets for water quality, habitat protection etc. In any case building more useless wind farms isn't going to achieve much in the way of any targets since the government is now having to scramble to find extra conventional power capacity to keep the lights on thanx to their own clueless developer led greenwash energy policies.

I know a lot of people with solar installs, solar with battery supplies 100% of their electricity in the summer and about 50% or more in the winter. In the summer many are giving their surplus to the grid. A substantial amount of the housing stock could do the same and this maximises the efficiency of the installed solar capacity.

Any discussion of renewables vs nuclear that ignores solar is not an accurate picture. The ambition set by the Irish state for solar is very low and doesn't seek to install solar on every house where it is viable meaning it will fail to make a useful contribution unless more money is invested in it and more ambitious target are set.