Nuclear - future for Ireland?

I`m not being in the least bit confrontational josip :). I just didn`t see the logic in waiting 25 years for a piece of land to be lease free before using a compulsary order before even starting the planning process, as the likes of Sweetman are going to object anyway be it tomorrow or in 25 years time. Why you believe it would take over 50 years to submit a planning application I have no idea, but no matter.

Unlike you I was once opposed to nuclear, but in recent years on the basis of needs must I have changed my mind. Especially when seeing how financially unviable this proposed 2050 wind/hydrogen plan is that would not even get us to zero emission by 2050, if ever. And that is before, due to the intermittent nature of renewables, the cost storage is taken into account and we would end up with the most expensive electricity charges in the world.

As to the site, like Busman Paddy Lasty I would leave that up to the experts, but with the caveat that whoever the geniuses were that came up with the wood burning plants in Offaly and Mayo with wood being transported by lorry from Killybegs and Foynes to feed them after it being shipped halfway around the world would not be involved in any way.

I wouldn`t see much chance of French nuclear going bust. In the two years since they have made an operational profit of over €11Bn.

That ARENH millstone I mentioned would not have helped their balance sheet in 2022 where they were compelled to sell 41% of their generation to competitors (120 TWh) for €42 per MWh. A price that those competitors could not generate at themselves or they would have done so, and a price that had remained unchanged since 2011. An indication of just how low a bargain basement price that was is that it is now being increased by 66% to €76 per MWh.

That incident with jellyfish was in August not April was it not ?

I would have thought for someone so concerned over the safety of nuclear you would have been happy that the safety protocols automatically kicked in automatically, but no matter. It was a storm in a teacup that didn`t result in anyone losing power and where one of the reactors was back on line within a day it appears.

The short answer under the present proposed plan is never because from projected demand by 2050 we will still be emitting the same volume of emissions we are now. From 2030 that will result in fines of around €7 Bn. a year annually. When you factor in that we imported 9.5% in 2023 of our electricity it leaves it nearer €8 Bn annually.

The quote "In 2024, electricity emissions fell by by approximately 7% relative to 2023" do not tell the real story.

In 2024 we imported 14% of our electricity compared to 9.5% in 2023. We imported those levels from the U.K. who are themselves net importers and I cannot see them continuing to take the hit on emissions for our sake.

In general I agree that the E.U. targets were a green agenda driven overreach and there was never a chance of many reaching them. But then again, that same green agenda on who these fines would punish and who they would favour by classifying the burning of biomass as carbon neutral, have given a financial incentive to those countries that use the burning of biomass to provide a large percentage of their energy needs to see fines being imposed.

Either way it highlights just how insane our present plan is in being financially ruinous attempting to reach these target, which even if by some miracle we did, would leave us with the most expensive by miles electricity on the planet.

You really should consider getting the poles and czechs to hire you as a consultant. Would have saveed them millions before signing the contracts. Imagine both countries missing that little detail of EU compliance not being met.

The Netherlands very recently looked at the APR-1400 design and concluded it met EU safety expectations and could be built there.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/proposed-reactor-designs-seem-suitable-dutch-regulator-concludes

The Netherlands have extensive offshore wind, yet they are going to build two reactors to supply 9-13% of their power by 2035. Now why would that be? Apparently they are unaware of Captain midnights 17 years forecast, because they are planning on these being operational by 2035. Somehow they are going to manage to solve all of russels's riddles and get them constructed, inside of 10 years. Looks like not being able to extract your entire arm from your own arsehole is a uniquely Irish limitation.

That first article expressly confirms what I said, a modified design is needed for the EU. This will cost more and take longer to build verus the existing ones in Korea. You've been parroting on about cost and delivery times for something that won't be built.

We had this exact interaction about 6 months ago and you've been telling filthy shill lies since then.

Look at the second article

Although KHNP has now withdrawn its APR-1400 design, ANVS said the design "appears to meet the expectations that (Western) European countries, including the Netherlands, have for nuclear power plants". It added that KHNP's intention to rely heavily on the supply of components from South Korea "entails challenges with regard to the on-site quality assurance assessment and supervision by the ANVS during manufacturing". 

Leave the low class comments about the Irish, read your own links and stop being a filthy liar for the nuclear industry.

I have seen this before and it made as little sense then as it does now.

KHNP have been building all their reactors in Korea for over 50 years before shipping them to where they are installed. Where else does whoever wrote that article envisage they should get components from ?

A backstreet knock-off shop in Afghanistan perhaps !

I cannot see that doing a lot for quality assurance

These thing happen in all sectors of business Paddy. A few people see a chance of making a quick buck and go for it. The Korean themselves discovered what was going on and the people involved were prosecuted so fair to say I believe that oversight on certification has greatly increases since 2012.

Substandard materials has`nt been confined to KNPH when it comes to the energy sector. We have seen cracks in onshore wind turbine bases due to inferior steel and concrete being uses, as well as wind farms here passing inspections where they then floated off taking mountains and bog with them. We have seen cracks developing in wind turbine casing that came with 25 year guarantees, and just two years ago Siemens turbines with widespread blade and bearing defects that had passed certification.

I presume you and the author are as concerned over those certifications as you both are over KNPH.

Good to know that you will now be posting any and all quality control issue regarding all sectors of the electricity supply business and not just those relating to nuclear.

Where there have been bids for new nuclear plant offering by various countries, what makes you believe they are post and pastes of previous projects ?