Nuclear - future for Ireland?

You know as we as everyone else that new reactors have a capacity factor greater than 90%, but if you want to go with the global weighted average capacity factor of 84% I have no problem with that and I will do the same for fixed bottom offshore wind turbines where the global weighted average capacity factor is 34%.

Not that it would make a blind bit of difference. I have already shown you that if the most expensive nuclear plant you could find was operating at a capacity factor of 50% it would still generate every GW of electricity for less than Empire 1 at a capacity factor of 42% because of the capital cost required for offshore wind.

Best case scenario for reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions is 23% rather than the 51% required by 2030. Nobody that can add 2 + 2 and come up with 4 as the answer believes we will have zero emission by 2050 without bankrupting the state and everyone in it. We will be paying fines from 2030 and well after 2050 because this current plan - even if it was financially feasible - would have us still burning gas in 2050, at the very least at the same volume we are now.

For 20222 of the 42 U.K. fixed bottom offshore wind farms 20 had a capacity factor of less than 35%, with 10 0f that 20 being less than 30% and 6 struggling to make 25%.

We can all nit pick numbers, but it doesn`t change the facts. The most expensive nuclear plant you could find, Hinkley C, when capacity factor and lifespan are taken into account will generate a GW of electricity for less than half the price of Empire 1. And that does not even include inflation for the further capital expenditure Empire 1 will require to bring it up to the lifespan of Hinkley.

By 2030 at very best our emissions under the current wind plan will be 23%. Miles off the 51% required so from 2030 we will be paying fines. That is where putting all our eggs in the renewable basket has got us. It has certainly done nothing to lower charges with us year on year in the top three most expensive countries in Europe, and it has definitely done nothing for our energy security where last year we imported 14.6% of our requirements. A % that has been rising year on year.

It`s not even the case that if we found a forest of money trees that would pay for this current 2050 plan it would prevent us being fined. We would be burning as much, if not more, gas in 2050 as we are now. Sticking with this plan is just throwing good money after bad until we go bankrupt and would achieve nothing other than increasing our strike price by between 2 and 4 times what it currently is, and you have not shown a single figure that it will do otherwise.

Alternatively had we gone with the wishes of the ESB in the 70s and not chosen parish pump politics, we could now be like the French. No problem with emissions and earning billions annually from exporting electricity.

Both scenarios are off the your aunt being your uncle if she grew testicles variety, whereas reality now is what it is.

There are times when the government for the overall national good of a country`s future needs to make unpopular decisions and stick with them. The French 1974 Messmer Plan was highly unpopular but the French government pressed ahead and are where they are now as opposed to where we are.

You are getting either forgetful or confused. I have already explained this to you.

From 2010 until this year EDF have had to supply their renewable competitors with up to 100 TWh @ a bargain basement price of €42 per MWh under ARENH to keep them in business. 2022 this was increased by 20% to 120 TWh at that bargain basement price. That is over 25% of the electricity Frances consumes annually.

What failed to shine in France in 2022 was renewables when getting a virtual handout of cheap electricity to supply over 25% of the market, it still resulted in an increased use of fossil fuels. Since then the French government have revisited the ARENH and from this year the price will be €70 per MWh which will most likely result in an increase in EDF bottom line larger than even than that of 2025.

Good to see a bit of common sense. Floating Offshore Wind in the West coast is a fantasy.

The few test bed SPAR systems off Aberdeen you mentioned has been a failure, remember, that region of the north sea is a mill pond in comparison to our Atlantic conditions, seabed conditions/geology for mooring & cable trenching also very different. The semi-sub ones off Portugal, like the one in the gulf of Leon cannot survive west coast wave heights.

The Coreo Generation one off Carna is a perfect example of sustaining the fantasy. The most basic of desktop studies years before, with open source data, would have shown it to be technically unfeasible. Gravity Base Foundations on a reef area that's breaking white water well over 300 days a year, FFS.

The current proposed fixed bottom OSW on the South coast are little better, sure we'll just go deeper than any others (deeper than what is considered feasible), in sea conditions many orders of magnitude worse than has ever been attempted to build in, on crap geology, by developers with no experience in offshore construction. Gonna be interesting.

State is betting our future on a fantasy.

Stop with the pejoratives. I know you seemingly can't help it as your acerbic personal put downs are a characteristic of your nasty style, but still, knock it off.

Sceptical? World wide their are 75 nuclear reactors under construction and 120 planned. Ursulla von der Leyen just admitted that Germany and European opposition to nuclear was wrong-headed; it signals a massive shift in the EU stance to nuclear and is a clear signal that the EU apparatus now realises intermittents are not the solution they thought they were. which is no surprise as the grid scale storage problem is insoluble.

This small grid large reactor misfit argument is a sick joke. Intermittent sources require hundreds of grid connections, and they are very, very expensive. There are 300 or so wind farms, all of which have required grid connections/enhancements.

Given the grand plan of all transport and all domestic heating and most industrial energy requirements all being made electricity dependent before 2050, the 'small grid' is going to have to grow up fast anyway. The grid can't handle any of the multitude of intermittents plonked down on every hill top and farm either, but it's modified every time to cope. The same can be done if you go for two nuclear power stations, one on the Shannon estuary and one on the east coast. Two to three 1.5+ GW reactors each, 600 acres of land, instead of the hundreds of thousands intermittents gobble; upgrade the grid to fit - duh.

You can back up nuclear with nuclear and solve the downtime problem with simple over capacity, which is what France has essentially done, which is why they can export so much. When a reactor needs to be off lined, you just export less. Alternatively to export, it might more likely be the case that excess capacity would be used to generate fossil fuel replacements for transport and industry. This is probably a better strategy as you don't have to waste huge sums on interconnectors.

2025 France consumed 451TWh. French nuclear provided 69% = 311TWh. Their net export was 92TWh and they provide renewable companies with 100TWh to keep them in business at a rock bottom price of €42 per MW. That is a total of 503TWh. That was 52TWh (11.5%) greater than the total French domestic demand.

Now seeing as according to you, all this electricity France exported in 2025 (92TWh) was all from renewable companies, the only way they could have done that is by exporting the cheap ARENH electricity they got from nuclear, which I doubt they were allowed to do under the terms of ARENH. Or if they did it was nuclear anyway. What makes your exports all being from renewables even more ridiculous is that the €5.4 Bn. for that electricity went into EDFs account.

Did you miss the part of my post that from a total of 42 U.K. offshore wind farms 20 failed to reach a capacity factor of 35%, 10 of which didn`t reach 30% with 6 struggling to make 25% because you were off again, similar to Hinkley C, searching for the worst possible capacity factor you could find on nuclear. As I said to you already, two can play that game.

2022 France consumed 464TWh of electricity of which nuclear provided 63%. Your figured pulled out of very thin air was that it would be in the low 40% range was it not ??😅

63% of 494 = 292TWh. 2022 French nuclear was compelled to provide renewable companies with 120 TWh at a rock bottom price of €42 per MW. A 20% increase on the previous, and since, maximum threshold. That it has now been changed from €42 per MWh to €70 per MWh, a 66% increase, shows just how rock bottom that €42 per MWh was.

Without being compelled to keep renewable companies in business, French nuclear would have provide domestic demand with 292TWh + 120TWh = 412 TWh in 2022. 83.5% of total French domestic demand.

It wasn`t nuclear that caused EDF to make a loss in 2022. It was keeping renewables in business.

Do you ever actually read posts or do you just ignore them and reply with what suits you ?

I just showed you that in 2022 French nuclear provide 63% of domestic demand. Not the low 40% you were predicting at the time. Had they not been compelled to sell to renewable companies 120Twh, at a ridiculous price that has since been increased by 66%, That 63% + the 120TWh would have supplied 83.5% of total French domestic supply in 2022.

Again with the picky capacity factors and reliability when I have shown you half the U.K. offshore wind farms could not reach a 35% capacity factor, 25% did not reach a 30% capacity factor, with 17% struggling to make 25%.

I have also shown you where even compared to the most expensive nuclear plant you could find that the U.S. Empire 1 offshore fixed bottom wind farm will cost over twice as much to generate a GW. And that was without including inflation where if applied relative to their lifespans, for Empire 1 it will cost at least three times more.

Instead of wasting both our times, post what you believe will see us achieving zero emissions by 2050 and at what financial cost. Heaven knows it`s not as if you haven`t been asked for that enough times already, but rather than answer you have just ignored and gone off on another of your nuclear rants.