Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Imagine spending a trillion on renewables with the result being

• not a single day of year being greener than nuclear neighbours whom spent a quarter of that amount and now an energy giant in Europe with yearly average of 5-6x less co2
• Begging the neighbour to ramp up and down nuclear dispatch to balance their grid
• dumping own nuclear and going to coal
• Having one of the highest energy prices in Europe leading to destruction of previously one of the best industrial economies

Thanks for highlighting that wind has only 20 years lifespan compared to 60+ for nuclear

And capacity factor that’s a third of nuclear

And that’s how nuclear European countries endup witch cheaper, greener and more stable grids, they base decisions on science, engineering and not marketing spin from wind lobbies

Remind us again the lifespan of the now gone

one and only offshore wind farm in Ireland

It’s fascinating how nuclear proponents use actual historic real world figure and facts for their arguments while wind proponents use marketing figures and slogans based on dreams, and when presented with repeated failures in places like Germany compared to France, just double down on the almost cult like arguments that ignore science, engineering and economics

It not repowering anything ted because there will be nothing there to repower. It’s been torn down, turbines, bases and everything else to be replaced by a brand new wind farm at a new capital cost and a new strike price.

A wind farm will require at least three such capital costs for the one off capital cost of a nuclear power plant. Even disregarding the extra inflation costs that would entail, when their respective capacity factors are taken into account nuclear will generate electricity cheaper than wind over its lifetime than wind would in the same period.

But you are not finished there when comparing like for like. Our current plan is a 50/50 split of generation for domestic use and hydrogen production. That halves the generation to the consumer while at the same time doubling the strike price, plus a strike price for hydrogen three times that of wind when this hydrogen would be required due to the undependable intermittent nature of wind. Wind is not even at the races when compared to nuclear.

As to strike prices doesn’t necessary increase. I have not seen it decrease or even increasing in line with inflation. Within a recent 18 month period for wind strike prices increased by 60% to 70% and even then companies walked away from renewed contracts as being uneconomically viable. Here over the last two years the strike price for offshore wind has increased by around 14% as far as I recall.

The idea that we learned anything in the realm of engineering from that one offshore wind farm gave me the best laugh I have had on this thread.Green wind fanatics do not take engineering or financial considerations into account.

They are ignored in favour of fantasy and even when the realities of these fantasies are no longer deniable, rather than acknowledge them, they are off on another tangent even more financially insane or infeasible than their original fantasies without a single figure to back them up regardless of how often they are asked.

We were sold the original pup on wind that there were going to be this huge array of floating turbines of our west coast with high capacity factors that would pay for all these fantasies and provide us with cheap electricity due to Europe waiting with open arms happy to pay us for this Klondike of wind energy we were going to export. It was a complete engineering nonsense that anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of our west coast recognised, and was shown as nonsense by the U.K. floating turbines wind farm that had to be towed in its entirety to Norway after a few years in operation due to extensive weather damage that was unsafe to carry out on site. it finally took the debacle of Sceirde Rock to show how this proposed array was a fantasy and Éamon Ryan having to admit it was not an engineering possibility and would likely never be.

And yet here we are still talking about what we have learned from engineering and economic viability. Or more accurately what some of us have learned while others are still looking to plough ahead with the same old same old which has been consistently shown to have failed that would achieve nothing other than insolvency.

The site or the grid connection are not “repowering” anything. The repowering is going to be provided by the new wind farm with a new capital investment and a new strike price that is going to replace the old wind farm that has been torn down and scrapped. That is going to happen at least three times for a wind farm capital investment compared to the once off capital investment of a nuclear power plant.

How in the realm of sanity is the strike price irrelevant ?

It’s the price the consumer will pay for the electricity generated. For the generation alone under this present plan the strike price would double due to 50% of the generation going to produce hydrogen, and increase by threefold when that hydrogen was reconverted to electricity.

I have no idea what point you are making on a wind farm having a PPA that expired. If it is expired then it’s expired and the operator will look for a new PPA. The idea that would be looking for a lower PPA than the previous is not borne out by previous experience of such.

The site is been repowered, and if you build a wind farm today and start panning a nuclear plant you’ll probably go through 2 iterations of the wind farm before you get any power out of the nuclear plant

who is making hydrogen ? Whose plan is 50/50? The like of Tonn Nua is for the grid with no hydrogen element

Green Atlantic has a hydrogen element. But the reality of that happening in the next 2o years isn’t great.

Lessons were learnt from Sceirde Rocks and ORESS2 had a different setup. At the time it was highlighted by other bidders that they couldn’t deliver at that price.

what supporters of the current plan ?

I’m saying that other companies who submitted an offer who weren’t successful because they were underbid. Knew that the project couldn’t be delivered.

do remember most of the plants were built in the 80s and 90s. When things were a lot cheaper. Look at how much it’s costing to build a hospital here.
we really missed the boat on Carnsore

if we started to build one today. We would still be one of the dearest

no such things as impossible. I assume you meant to say not feasible.

I'm asking you what current plan are you referring too. There are plenty of plans out there.

Be specific. Do you know what plan you are thinking about?

You are clearly not aware of the plan, can you name it?

The climate Action plan is pretty important as it drives policy. There's nothing about 50/50 in it, in fact hydrogen barely gets a mention

Wind farm developers plans are important, they don't look at hydrogen. As is I said, there are many different plans out there, that are all relevant, depending on what area you are in.

So once again name the plan you are referring too, or have you just made it up? you keep saying I don't know the plan, i'm making it up, but you cant even name it…..