"Green" policies are destroying this country

Climate change will be the least of my worries if sf get in.

Just looked at like clowns to be honest

Wrong. Politics is consensus. Look at the history of electrical energy as produced from nuclear rectors and it's usage in Ireland. Importing nuclear produced electricity by running extension leads to Britain and France (future 575 KM long extension lead Celtic inter-connector) is just fine, producing it on this sacred green island, this is banned.

Setting up an LNG terminal in Ireland has been stymied by politicians, importing LNG gas into Ireland using the Moffat pipeline is just fine.

Subsiding the build out of unreliable generation, while phasing out reliable generation and in parallel driving up consumption of electricity for transport and heating is just fine by today politicians.

Irish governments energy policies are not driven by evidence, they are driven by a combination of ideology, political consensus and what market pricing will allow, evidence that contravenes the current consensus is ignored and put on the long finger to be used when political consensus changes.

Wait for it, its an ill wind that blows no good. The onshore Markbygden turbines are in northern Sweden. The reason they are in financial trouble being the wind farm is obliged to pay the costs of its own intermittency, i.e. power purchase agreement (PPA) buying high and selling low.

It’s a great question and the question Nuscale and others are supposed to answer. The answer so far is that it can be done but the cost of production for small scale nuclear is just too high.

It's amazing how costs and efficiency only seem to matter when you are talking about competing technologies to renewables?

The main issue with nuclear powered submarines is the lack of space required for cooling (which wouldn't be a problem for grid connected reactors). They are highly reliable given they can stay at sea for significant periods, which is a lot more than can be said for intermittent technologies like wind and solar.

I don't know about anyone else but I find it weird that putting a small nuclear gizmo in a submarine to go around the oceans is deemed more cost effective than having one on land generating a bit of power for consumers to buy. There's a payback with that which isn't there with a submarine.

Repeat it any way you like. They only person appearing to have trouble understanding the debate appears to be yourself.

They are just as likely to happen as a 100% renewables based grid. In fact, they may be an enabler yet. Know one knows what the technology mix in the future will be, not the industry itself, not the Dept, not Eirgrid - yet you (who doesn't appear to have a grasp of how we've arrived where we are given your complete misunderstanding of the offer process and auctions to date) can say with certainty that a particularly technology has been shelved everywhere, forever and no one is considering it anywhere?

Why then, did this article publish last month suggesting the contrary and that nuclear may still have a role?

Or to your insightful argument on cost and no one wants to pay? Why is that OK for renewables and their spiralling costs?