Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Still no answer as to what the "something else" required to fill the gap in generation due to the intermittent and unreliable nature of renewables. I thought even for you the penny would have dropped at this stage when Denmark who have spent years lecturing everyone else on wind power were confronted with the reality that they would no longer get to treat Norway like a battery when wind dropped off to nothing, very quickly changed their laws on nuclear. Sweden are feed up being treated in the same manner as regards their nuclear power by Germany. A country that shut down their own reactors based on nothing more than a political ideology. In fact if it wasn`t for the massive export of French nuclear power many others would have seen their lights by relying on renewables go out during those periods when they decide to have a prolonged snooze. Yet here you are still backing a plan for here that would have us with a strike price many multiples of that of the U.K. when even there Orsted have pulled out of one of the U.K. largest wind project for it being financially unviable and Denmark could not even get a single bid for its largest ever offering for offshore.

Even for a blind man it is patently obvious that the the cost of wind power we see from Taiwan`s, Hai Long and the U.S. Revolution Wind projects are unsustainable in even a mixed energy grid let alone for what you are still backing. Virtually 100% wind powered here.

If that boat you keep mentioning is sailing away from anything it`s not nuclear. It`s wind.

On your mention of investments.

A report from Carbon Brief 24th. April 2025 highlighted how investors had pulled $8.6 Bn. from sustainable funds in Q1 2025. While some of this was due to Trump those investors were not rushing to put it into other such funds worldwide. Europe since the first time tracking began in 2018 recorded net outflows of $1.2 Bn. for the quarter. As did Asia (excluding Japan) with redemptions of $918m., and Japan saw negative flows compared to the previousquarter falling below $900m.

Not only have European-domiciled sustainable funds experienced net outflows for the first time in at least 7 years, many of these funds are now finding the terms "ESG" "sustainable" or "sustainability" now toxic when it comes to attracting investors with 180 of them in Q1 2025 alone dropping those terms from their names.

If that along with the present insane costs of wind generation does not show you where this is going then nothing will. Wind had its day and has been found very wanting, and before you start off rambling again about solar, mid Winter sees our capital city experiencing on average 16.5 hours of darkness daily.

We do not have short gaps where renewables go for a snooze. We have long extended periods where wind generation drops to 6% or less. It`s why the proposed plan of 50% of that offshore 37GW is for hydrogen production.

That propsed 37GW alone based on Taiwan and U.S. wind farm construction costs would be €645 Bn. - €673 Bn. for a life span of 25 years. It would see the consumer, for generation alone, with a strike price of at least double that of the U.K., and with hydrogen included, 3 times that of the U.K. Easily double the strike price for Hinkley C, the most expensive nuclear you could find.

Not only is the construction cost so crazy for a population of 5 million that it is laughable that anyone would even consider it let alone propose it, it would also leave us with the most expensive electricity charges in the world by so much of a country mile it would wipe out our economy in jig time.

I have already posted here what battery storage would cost to cover those extended period when wind is asleep and it`s financially as bat shlt crazy as the proposes 37GW offshore wind/hydrogen plan. Geothermal, tidal and wave only exist in your head as a hopium with not the first clue of how or if they would work, or what the costs would be..

So that leaves you with just gas as your "something else", but not just until 2030. With the projected demand for 2050, the proposed 37 GW plan would see us still burning the same volume of gas until 2050 and beyond as we are now, with us having paid out €170 Bn in fines by 2050.

One thing I do find entertaining is your contradictions when it comes to nuclear. It`s "over my dead body" until your proposal hits the skids when renewables go to sleep, then it "interconnectors". Unless you haven`t realised it yet, there is nothing going to be coming through those interconnectors during those extended periods other than U.K. or French nuclear.

Over those prolonged periods nuclear, mainly French, is keeping the lights on in Europe because everywhere else that is relying on renewables is in the same boat as us.

Not Belmullet, middle of nowhere. I'd let the experts do site selection.

I just said I'd let the experts do the site selection!