Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Realistically, how long would it take to build brand new fossil fuel infrastructure to take advantage of an uncertain and likely limited supply of gas and oil? How much would it cost the state? How much civil service time and energy would have to be poured into this endeavour? We won’t have anything anywhere near ready before this latest fossil fuel crisis ends. 

And why would all that time, money, and effort not be better spent on establishing renewable energy (+- nuclear) that would have insulate us from the wild swings in global markets and the whims of unstable states to which fossil fuel dependence has so seriously exposed us? Exempt offshore wind farms and their land-side infrastructure from planning just like the LNG terminal, and private companies will build them at scale and speed.

Fossil fuel dependence is the problem, not the solution. The panic is because of reliance on fossil fuels. The only way to avoid future fossil fuel panics is to aggressively and single-mindedly reduce our reliance. Wasting resources and worsening that reliance by drilling for oil or gas rather than knocking down barriers to renewables is the most self-defeating and unrealistic response to this crisis.

I would very much doubt that Eirgrid look on the abysmal emission percentage reductions by 2030 or the ever increasing electricity imports attempting to mask emissions, as well as their highlighting of our lack of energy security, as "going the right way". They may be a state owned body under the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment but that doesn`t mean they are numerically illiterate.

Do you honestly believe that Eirgrid came up with this plan as the only alternative after examining other possibilities when from what we have seen in the past where proposals were only allowed if they complied with Irish Green Party ideology ?

As far back as 2021 both Eirgrid and the CRU were warning the then Minister Ryan that without LNG our energy security was under threat. Ryan and the greens dragged their heels on that until finally being forced to commission a report by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPS) that included the inane and bizarre stipulation that it could not recommend a LNG facility in the country. In fairness to CEPS they recognised the stipulation for the idiocy that it was by recommending a floating LNG terminal in November 2023. One year later Ryan and the greens were out of government without him doing anything to comply with that recommendation.

So do you or anyone else really believe that this 37GW/Hydrogen plan, that appeared under the same Minister, didn`t come without similar restrictions that only proposals in compliance with Irish Green Party ideology were allowed ?

You post ream after ream of data, stats and minutia as regards nuclear, but bewilderingly you somehow cannot come up with a single figure as to the real capital costs of this plan you favor or what the price of electricity to the consumer would be if it was ever implemented. The more you refuse to do that, the more it shows you know that both are so financially insane that calling it La-La Land economics would not even come close.

The only way we are going Nuclear is if SMRs prove viable. Ultimately the approach should be a mix of renewables + nuclear to ensure energy sustainability but one big reactor doesn't really make sense as it would be way above 10% of grid capacity. If we build one large reactor we would need major grid upgrades as well so it's not just the cost of the reactor, so it's either SMRs or nothing.

This present 37GW plan is supposed to fulfill our projected 2050 requirements. Eirgrid estimate ~15.5 GW, Wind Energy Ireland around 50% higher. Eirgrid`s projections do not include AI requirements.

Finland has the same population as here and their current demand is 15.5 GW. 40% of that demand is provided by nuclear. There appears to be a bit of a misnomer on how much nuclear a grid should carry. The rule of thumb is that no generating unit should generally exceed 10% - 15% of the total system peak demand regardless of what the generation resource is. Not that it should be only 10% -15% of a resource.That applies to every generating unit. Be it nuclear or renewables.

We do not have a grid problem with nuclear. It`s flowing through our grid every day and more of it will be when the Celtic Interconnector with France becomes operational. Our grid problems are renewables scattered all over the country having to be transported to where the electricity is needed by a grid that was not designed to do so in the first place. It also doesn`t help that solar is direct current generation and we use alternating current so solar also needs huge numbers of inverters to convert DC to AC as well.

Would you ever cop yourself on.

Your nonsense that the 13% of electricity generated by wind and solar are the reason that France has such low emissions are the same nonsense you were peddling here repeatedly that French electricity exports were due to renewables.

It had to be pointed out to you that the French renewable companies were buying 100 TWh from French nuclear since 2011, which French nuclear were compelled to sell to them at a rock bottom price of €42 per MWh, when French highest ever net exports of electricity were last year of 92.3 TWh.

French renewable companies were exporting the grand sum of swa. They were using that cheap nuclear for base load that renewables could not provide. French nuclear was keeping them in business and costing money to do so. 2025 French nuclear exports earned them €5.4 Bn, (€58.50 per MWh). That €58.50/MWh is €40.22/MWh (70%) cheaper than our strike price for offshore wind.

Had they exported that 100TWh they supplied renewables the total would have been €7.05 Bn. French nuclear subsidized French renewable companies in 2025 to the tune of €1.65 Bn. and have been subsidizing them every year since 2011.

And you are missing that renewables cannot get to zero emissions either. Even Denmark has recognizes that and are now looking at nuclear.

The very simple matter you have been running away from constantly is that we will never get anywhere close to zero emissions by 2050, or anytime else, because the plan you favor would leave us bankrupt long before 2050 while still leaving Irish consumers paying the highest prices in the world when they are regularly in the top three highest priced in Europe following a plan that will not even get us to 23% of the 51% required for 2030.

The last point has been explained to you ad nauseam to be just ignored because it didn`t suit your narrative. Same with turbine prices that were going to drop dramatically, French nuclear would be as low as 40% in 2022, France was only exporting renewables, and your latest that France have bugger all emission due to wind and solar. So go do your own calculations on where a 50/50 split of this 37GW offshore plan would leave us by 2050.