Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Projections, I suppose. ?

The current generation mix is likely to stay much the same ..

There's nothing radical going to be built or bought by 2030, ( could argue that the increase in electricity use by data centers , and their projected increase by 2030 is pretty radical )

So greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation is likely to be fairly predictable..

We are not going to avoid fines in 2030 or in 2050 following this current plan.

The EPA has made it clear that even if all present plans for 2030 were implemented we would only have 23% of the 51% emission reductions required. And that was before the Sceirde Rocks 450MW fixed wind farm debacle, so the fine will be highly likely to be even greater for 2023 than €28 Billion. Something anyone with even a vague knowledge of the West of Ireland had warned would happen, but was ignored by idiots dreaming of floating wind farms off the West coast.

The current plan is for 37GW of an offshore wind/hydrogen hybrid to get us to our projected demand of 14 -15GW for 2050 and I have posted here already how that would still leave us - after spending economically ruinous money with addition capital investment required every 15 -20 years - still burning the same volume of gas every year as we are now, paying fines of €8 Billion+ every year, and having the highest priced electricity on the planet from a strike price of double that of Hinkley c.

If you are then you must have some other plan in mind, or are you just in favour of continuing with the current plan that will not only leave us with the most expensive electricity on the planet and still have us paying fines forever and a day ?

To be clear, are you saying that you do not believe in the current plan that nobody that supports it can put a price too that will also have us paying at least €8.4 Bn. in 2030 and further billions for every year after that, but you have no ideas as to a possible alternative. ?

TBH I could not be bothered with wasting my time with the crap search facility on this site checking, but were you not at one stage all in favour of that plan.

The current plan is not just flawed and continuing with it is not just potentially fatal, it would be fatal for our economy spending money that nobody who supports it can put a figure to, that would leave us with a strike price twice that of Hinkley C, not even provide our projected demand for 2050 which would see us with the same emissions we have now and would require further capitalization every 15 -20 years.

Politicians are notoriously lazy and will not rock the ship. Especially if they have backed a plan that is not working. A survey a few years ago showed a 50/50 split of those that favoured or did not favour nuclear here, with a higher percentage in favour by those under 25. If there was a real open discussion on this current plan and the costs I believe the percentage in favour of nuclear would increase to the level where politicians would have no option.

If a nuclear plant can be constructed in 7 years I don`t see why it should take even up to 5 years to get through planning. Especially when there were no problems changing planning rules to speed up the installation of renewables.

No business keeps pumping money into a proven failed strategy - and less than 23% for a target of 51% that is going to cost at least €8.4 Bn. - is a failure. Not just for 2030 but for 2050 as well where it will not even provide our projected needs and will have us paying billions in fines forever for no discernible reason. At least by investing in nuclear there would be an end in sight on fines, as well as - even if based on the most expensive nuclear those opposed could find - provide electricity at half the price that this current plan would.

I used to be totally opposed to it in Ireland.

However, some are saying that an accident or leak at a fusion Reactor would not produce Chernobyl type affects.

If thats true, I would be more open to it.

France produced more zero carbon electricity in 2023 than the total amount it consumed, due to the large proportion of nuclear generation. That's the 2050 EU targets already exceeded. Ireland, Denmark and Germany haven't a hope, having bet on renewables.

Nuclear is cheaper than renewables. It's anything but a distraction. Even Italy has woken up and is about to legislate to allow for nuclear. The Netherlands, Poland and Czech Republic are all in the process of acquiring reactors.

Not suggesting that data being somewhat misleading is anything to do with you, but as far as I can see the year on year percentage is just for the month of July 2025 where nuclear generation was down 1 TWh.

Switzerland`s 4 reactors generate 24 TWh per year, so rather than the 46.8% the data suggests, that 1 TWh represents just ~4% of nuclear generation, and less than 1% of the total Swiss generation of 431.7 TWh in 2024.

These things happen. You have only to look at our own generation from renewables this week to see how we also needed a lot of backup and imports due to very little sunshine or wind.

Dunkelflaute gets mentioned here a lot. The last few days have been a bit dark and not windy. But if every July and August are going to be too hot for nuclear then "Sonnenschein heiß" will be heard quote often.