Nuclear - future for Ireland?

But that is exactly the situation Ireland is aiming for - all energy, including transport and heating, is supposed to be coming from zero CO2 sources by 2050.

Nope. The aim is NET ZERO - not to eliminate all fossil fuels. You understand the difference? Because it's a pretty fundamental one.

Most plans include a role for fossil fuels in a net zero situation, but it will be niche/contingency instead of doing the heavy lifting in terms of primary energy.

It's never clear with your arguments whether they are founded on ignorance of the fundamentals or are disingenuous straw-man set-ups.

Is the poop deck really what I think it is?

It looks like SMRs are starting to gain traction , a lot yet to be seen ,

But to be produced at scale ,they're still decades away ..

We are not going to achieve net zero by 2050, or anytime else, by burning non-renewable fossil fuels. The 2030 target was a reduction of greenhouse gases by 51%. The EPA in May this year have us achieving less than half that figure, 23%, by 2030. Net zero by 2050 under our current plan is pie in the sky.

The question here has always been how are we going to achieve it in a country when, for solar our peak demand is at a time in Winter when our capital city averages 17.5 hours of darkness, or when wind generation drops off the scale for long extended periods, at a cost that will not bankrupt the state economy.

Other than hopium and vague predictions of costs falling for alternative sources and storage - predictions we had previously for wind generation priced falling that proved very much wide of the mark - I have yet to see actual figures for.

What we presently have is a 37GW offshore wind energy/hydrogen production plan that will not alone generate our projected demand for 2050, but with the 50/50 split in generation and production will double the strike price for for the consumer even before all the other add-ons of hydrogen production are taken into consideration. A strike price that would be over 50% more expensive than Hinkley Point that some here were once holding up as an example of why we should not even consider nuclear.

Presently nuclear is very much on par with the cost of wind generation. Especially when you consider the capital costs involved for both and their capacity factors. We are also very much into all the eggs in a wind basket that is not going to give us the capacity factor from Atlantic offshore that was heralded up until quite recently anytime soon, if ever.

I have no problem with a non-nuclear solution that will see us achieving net zero using nothing but renewable sources that will provide the generation as and when we need it. But that does not include Drax like generation or importing nuclear when the wind goes to sleep for a number of reasons. What I have a problem with is vague hopiums and uncosted proposals that if implemented would leave us with the most expensive electricity on the planet and a resulting economy in ruins.

When you say never going to be near a city how far from a city could a nuclear power station be - in an Irish context - we're not that big an island , and in grid terms there's a finite number of locations it could go ,

Geographically near Athlone area would be logical , with the Shannon for cooling , but closer to Dublin from a power usage perspective ,

I presume the same batteries and fly wheels that would be needed for wind and solar for the next 20 to 30 years while waiting for nuclear would provide the spinning reserve,

Ah ffs, where are you going to get 95% renewables to fulfill the estimated 14GW demand for 2050 when wind and solar like today were supplying less than 12% combined for a demand of 4.9GW that would not turns us into a third world economy ?

You have at least given up on the insanity of battery storage and pumped storage. So that leaves the current hydrogen plan, which even before all the add-on costs, would leave us with a strike price 50% more than that of Hinkley, the most expensive nuclear you could find which was your bogeyman as to why nuclear generated electricity was financially unviable.

The only thing coming through those inter connectors when wind and solar are doing nothing is not going to be renewables. It`s going to be nuclear.

The eye-watering stand out from Hinkley C - the most expensive electricity you could find - is that under the proposed offshore 37GW wind/hydrogen plan we would have a strike price of double that of Hinkley C for a system that would have less than half the capacity factor and would require 3 further stages of capital investment during the lifespan of Hinkley C.

Trump may cause chaos and an increase in interest rates, but interest rates are not what caused the 60% - 70% increase in costs for offshore wind. Not that there is anything I agree with Trump on, but when you see current offshore with a lifespan of 25 years costing €15 Bn. to deliver I GW ……

That 7 GW we have connected to the grid is currently supplying less than 0.6 GW. I would do the mathematics for you on what the installed capacity required to get your 95% of demand from wind and solar would be if it wasn`t so obvious just how ridiculous your 95% idea is.

Stop worrying yourself over French nuclear. They are doing just fine exporting nuclear power to all those countries that have much greater installed renewables than France when wind and solar go for those prolonged little naps. Over €22 Bn profit from the last two years and most likely the same level of profit for this year. Especially now that they do not have to subsidise French renewable providers with up to 30% of their nuclear generation at €42 per MWh with the price now being €70 per MWh.

It doesn`t matter where you store gas. Storing it in disused gas fields is not going to get you less emissions when you burn it. As we are missing that 2030 target is going to cost ~€28 Bn in fines and a further ~€8 Bn a year ever year after 2030 well beyond 2050 following the current path we are on.

Seriously, your proposals for producing hydrogen for storage are so financially crazy there is no need to add to that by throwing in green iron production to store it.

"Zero carbon things" is not an energy plan. More a sequel to the Netflix series "Stranger Things" That you are now hitching up to the bio-methane wagon is an exercise in desperation rather than reality.

We currently produce 0.001% of our gas needs from bio-methane. The plan for 2030 is raising that to 0.075%. Hamsters on running wheels level of generation. If you know anything about farming then you know that even reaching that 0.075% is highly unlikely. Reps visiting farmers when farmers see how some have been stung by willow planting and cutting cattle numbers as the great green hopes are being ran out of farmyards faster than they entered on price offered for grass that do not come close to what they can sell hay or silage for with contracts to be signed before the growing season starts guartanteeing the volume they would supply and the quality of the grass with penalties being applied.

If you somehow believe that farmers are going to sign up to providing grass for electricity generation then you really need to have a re-think because it is just more green pie in the sky thinking. It would require 250,000 acres of grassland to generate 1GW of electricity.

Nuclear is not the reason we will be paying €28 Bn. in fines in 2030 and at least €8 Bn a year for every year after that until the end of time. The reason is the lack of nuclear and a failed generation policy on renewables that has not only left us with being along with Germany and Denmark - two others in the wind basketcase - having the most expensive electricity in Europe, but also the reason we are facing those fines.

Throwing more good money after bad at an astronomical level on renewables, you will not even give a figure for, is not going to change that. All it will do is bankrupt the state and turn our economy into that of a third world.