Nuclear - future for Ireland?
Comments
-
Importing timber from outside the EU is a disgrace and should be banned. Between Diesel Gate and the Mercusor Deal the EU had a lot to answer for.
Now about that 60% figure. Solid biomass to electricity is approx 3% of the renewable mix. Look at the text below from the 2023 report.
"Electricity production from solid biofuels was stable,
representing around 3% of total electricity production (2.9% in 2020 and 3.1% in 2021). Combining energy
for the generation of electricity and heat, the main renewable energy source in the EU remains bioenergy
(around 60%). In total, the share of renewable energies in the energy mix has increased considerably over
the course of 2022 and 2023 and the EU agreed to speed up the deployment of renewable energies, with a
target of 42.5% in the EU energy mix by 2030, and the ambition to reach 45%"My read of that is 60% of Combined Heat & Power (CHP) is biomass. A.k.a. 60% of f*ck all, the rest of CHP is probably burning rubbish and biogas burning in sewage treatment plants.
0 -
This thread only exists because of people's interest in nuclear in the context of it being a viable energy source for this country.
To make the case for nuclear you need to at least acknowledge that the technology has been struggling with some serious and fundamental issues for many decades now.
Here's a slightly updated version of the graph I posted earlier that includes the global number of reactors and capacity:
I'd be genuinely interested if you, @cnocbui or other proponents of nuclear power, would attempt to provide a cogent explanation why this stagnation and relative decline happened and why it happened when it did?
And if you believe that nuclear is a viable energy source and worth considering now in the mid 2020s, what is it that has changed about the technology recently that has made so?
0 -
-
There's no need to say, from your own post, like that and then copy in the bold when that text and image is from a link in your post that I quoted.
"Then it follows that bioenergy is supplying more than any other renewable source. Higher than wind at 16%"
No it does not! Absolute nonsense. That's why I included a picture for you the last time. That's it below again. If it was higher than wind it would be on the donut chart.
1 -
France consumed 445.7 TWh in 2023. Their nuclear power generation was 338.2 TWh, which is 75.8% of the amount they consumed. Given they have 61.4 GW of installed nuclear capacity, they could in theory generate 537.86 TWh in a year with all reactors up and functioning at capacity.
France theoretically has enough nuclear capacity to meet 120.7% of their 2023 consumption.
As I have mentioned previously, you don't care about CO2 one jot, just being anti nuclear and pro renewables for the sake of tech bias. If you cared about CO2 you wouldn't dare to posit us following Germany in favour of France, because it's an absolute no-brainer!
France's CO2 generation in 2023 was 32g per KWh - You'r beloved renewables besotted idiot Germany generated 303g per KWh - 947% as much as France - and you want us to follow those idiots.
The emission intensity of French production, in 2023, remained much lower than that of most of its European neighbours, at 32 gCO2eq/kWh (against 53 gCO2eq/kWh in 2022). By way of comparison, the carbon intensity of electricity generation reached 303 gCO2eq/kWh in Germany and 270 gCO2eq/kWh in Italy.
France is only ramping up renewables to placate the morons in the EU Commission who will try to fine them if they don't, their main intent is to build more nuclear capacity.
Trying to make it sound like they have abandoned nuclear for renewables is laughable. As I said, their renewables efforts are a smokescreen and are only to placate the mad EU commission.
Actually, you remind me of the EU commission a lot.
In what LSD fuelled mind trip did the EU Commission think it appropriate to FINE a country when it produces more zenergy (zero carbon energy) than the total amount of energy consumed?
The EU Commission doesn't give a shit about CO2 either, they like you are only concerned with renewables for renewables sake, not the actual emission of CO2.
Try and and get your head around this: in 2023, France generated 473.96 TWh of zenergy - they consumed a total of 445.7 TWh
They have already exceeded the 2050 goals that we and Germany are going to miss - not because they have some token renewables, but because they have a lot of nuclear generation capacity that doesn't fall over every time it's cloudy, or the wind drops to near nothing.
3 -
Advertisement
-
-
I don`t know what you are being so tetch about. I only highlighted what you did in your post to me.
It is a direct quote from the EU 2023 State of the Energy Report, as are all the statistics I quoted and the diagrams below which show all renewable energy, and all the biomass and renewable waste that is part of that renewable energy broken down by percentage which shows solid biofuels (excluding charcoal) made up 70.3% of the 58.9% of biomass and renewable waste. 41.3% of this so called renewable energy came from burning solid fuel.
I posted the link to that report earlier today if you want to read it for yourself. If you have a problem with it then question the EU about it. It`s their report.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
You need to keep up Paddy.
I was not "called out" for being rude to another poster. I called out another poster for being rude and condescending, so I would appreciate you acknowledging your mistake.
I wan`t being a bit condescending of your donut charts. I could not understand how you missed the earlier donut chart that clearly showed the level of biomass and renewable waste that made up the total for renewable energy and the percentage that came from solid fuels. 43.1% of the total renewable energy.
I do not see how it is being somehow disingenuous to point out that burning solid fuels like wood is not carbon neutral and are only classified as such by the EU because the distort the true figure on emissions. Especially with the large percentages that are being included as being carbon neutral.
As to posting about it on this thread, are we not being told that by those opposed to nuclear, ( a much more carbon neutral energy source than wood burning which is no better than burning coal as far as emissions go), that we need to get to EU emissions targets or we will have heavy fines imposed. Especially when we are getting into burning wood here in plants in both Mayo and Offaly and classifying the whole exercise, including shipping wood half way around the world, as carbon neutral. Drax wood burning plant in the U.K. has also been used here by posters as a negative for nuclear where electricity generation is concerned.
I do not see what difference it makes if wood for burning comes from within the E.U. or elsewhere. Like cows the world over that belch methane whether here or in Brazil, wood is no different. Nor do I see what difference it makes if it is used for generating electricity, home heating or industrial heating, the emissions are the same regardless of what it is burned for. Willow died a death here years ago with farmers who planted it in good faith now looking for state aid to rip it out so they can use the land for something of economic benefit to them
It`s a scam that has nothing to do with emissions, just masking what the true emissions levels are which would allow the largest practitioners to walk away scot free while others are threatened with the big stick of fines.
Post edited by charlie14 on1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
