Nuclear - future for Ireland?

They were relative enough to be discussed here when they were being used as a reasion for not building a nuclear plant, and I may be wrong but I do not remember you having a problem with them then ?

What I posted was verbatim from the EU report which was in Mtoe. But really what does it matter. It shows that 59% of EU energy classifies as renewable came from biomass and waste, and 70% of that total was solid fuels. Whatever unit of measure that is in will not change the percentages.

I see you could not find the grace to rectify your false claim that I was "called out on being rude to another poster recently" but no matter.

Coupling Data centres with useless windfarms is making these fines alot worse

It has indeed, and not just here, it is was being used by the lunatic fringe in the E.U. for the same.Well now you know that the EU claim on the level of energy being provided by renewables is a sham where 59% is from biomass and 41% of the total claimed is from burning solid fuels.

That you cannot admit you got it wrong when you accused me of being calling out by that other poster you now mention for being rude, when it was me who called him/her out by suggesting they might have a bit of manners when posting, is not going to have crying tears being ignored by you.

Here’s each nuclear-equipped country’s nuclear share (highest to lowest) against their 2024 power transfers (from your map).

Having lots of nuclear power does not by itself imply that you will be a large exporter of energy.

Statistically speaking, it is co-incidence. There’s only a very weak correlation between installed nuclear capacity and net energy transfers. Feel free to do the correlation yourself - the figures are there; without France in the data, it comes out at r=0.27 or so.

France is a major exporter of electricity, but there’s no evidence that the reason for that is the size its nuclear fleet.

There are too many confounding factors to make any kind of judgement based on the data you presented. The biggest confounder is good old politics: some nations have simply made a decision that it is better to buy energy than make it themselves. Hungary is in this boat (maybe not by choice: Orbán’s clownshow might be good at spite, but they couldn’t run a **** bath without stealing the taps), as is the UK and Italy. Others have embarked on a policy of exporting electricity for profit: Norway, Sweden, France are in this basket. Then you have arrangements that look like deficiencies, but are there for geographical convenience: generators in the Netherlands provide power to parts of Belgium and Luxembourg because it’s easier. It’s a single grid, and a single market.

You don't understand me. Statistically speaking, as in: looking at how the figures are related, rather than trying to fit them into a pre-decided opinion, there's no correlation.

You're dangerously close to arguing that Plato is a dog.

Where, exactly, did I say that they were exporting renewable energy? If you want to argue with your own imagination, please don't drag me into it…

In some cases I know that the transfers are mostly of fossil electricity. When I said that you were on shaky ground to correlate high nuclear adoption with high exports, that was the beginning and end of what I wanted to communicate.

What has any of that to do with our projected peak demand to increase to 14 GW, or higher, by 2050 when generation is supposed to be at net zero ?

Nuclear energy future is now a must so we can start our nuclear weapons program sooner rather then later!

You never know when a future US president insists we join as a state. By then it'll be the US of CUM (Canada, US, Mexico) and after we join it'll be CUMGI ( Greenland/Ireland).

Really?

There are usually several ways to do things - some of them often the wrong way. We would no more have to do nuclear the UK wrong way than we have to leave the EU because they did. S Korea know how to build nuclear reactors fairly efficiently and have done so in the UAE and at home.

Nuclear done the non UK way is cheaper than solar or offshore wind, based on the amount of energy actually produced.

Those opposed to even concidering nuclear here, not only select the most expensive capital cost nuclear plant the can find, they run a mile when questioned as to how much the generation plan they favour will cost.

Based on U.K. capital costs for just the offshore turbines now, that 37 GW offshore wind/hydrogen plan would cost €160 Bn. And that does not include the capital cost for the hydrogen. That plan would generate for consumption, with a capacity factor of 40%, 7.4 GW. That is €21.6 Bn per GW. Hinkley C at $57 Bn with a capacity factor of 94% would be €18.5 Bn per GW.

Even for the most expensive nuclear plant some here can find, Hinkley is still cheaper, and that is not even including the hydrogen costs. If we cannot afford nuclear then we certainly cannot afford this 2050 37 GW plan that would not even provide our 2050 requirements.

Basing generation on the average electricity people pay for over a year is a recipe for disaster.

What happens when demand rises about this 9GW average to reach peak demand (or anywhere in between) of 14GW. Shutting down one third of the grid ?

Why would you need 18GW of nuclear to provide this 14GW. With the capacity factor of nuclear at 94% less than 1GW would do it. We already have 5.5GW of installed renewables, with a further 3GW contracted under ORESS 1. At the very least if that 8.5GW is going to do anything it should be sufficient to cover that. There are also those interconnectors you keep reminding us that would stop our grid shutting down when wind drops off to providing little or nothing.

The idea that with renewables we would not need spinning reserves is a nonsense where we have a 37GW offshore wind plan for 2050 as our largest single generator where wind has fallen to below 6% and less for extended periods. Especially when that 37GW is going to bring us nowhere close to to fulfilling our 2050 demand.

The eye watering difference in capital costs between nuclear and renewables, even with you using the most expensive you can find with Hinkley, is that of renewables.

It's just repeating the same mistakes made in earlier articles linked to.

It doesn't pass any sniff test.

South Korea built Shin Hanul units 1&2 at a cost of €2.44 B per GW. They are currently building units 3&4 - budgeting for €2.77 B per GW.
The same company building those - KHNP - built 4 of the same units in the UAE for €5.54 B per GW

EDF built OL3 in Finland for €6.87 B per GW

They built Flamanville 3 in France for €8.09 B per GW

I do not believe any article claiming the Poles are prepared to pay €12.66 B per GW, which is near 4.5 time what Korea are currently building them for, particularly when Korea are reported to have offered to build them six reactors at €3.08 B per GW

KHNP had reportedly offered to build six APR1400 reactors with a capacity of 8.4GWe for $26.7 billion. The Westinghouse offer was $31.3 billion for six AP1000 reactors with a total capacity of 6.7GWe, while EDF’s bid for its EPR technology was for $33-48.5 billion for four to six reactors. Polish media reported that KHNP had also proposed post-construction technology transfer to Poland and media speculation was that the contract would go to KHNP.

The Czech republic is also going with Korea's KHNP for 2 reactors at Dukovany NPP at an estimated cost of €5.75 B per GW

€12.66 B per GW - Does..not..compute..