Nuclear - future for Ireland?

You are such a spoofer, you have no idea what plan you are talking about. You keep referring to a plan but can't name it.

The Climate Action plan, is the one that drives policy but doesn't support any of your posts, so if you can't name the plan i assume you are just making your own one up.

The national Hydrogen strategy (not plan) has a 50/20 split, far from 50/50

once again you can’t name your plan.
its 5GW and 2GW. But the push is on for the 5GW the 2GW is secondary

what clean on hydrogen?

it may eventually be hydrogen. But it’s still a good bit away. We will continue with gas for the foreseeable future. Maybe with a 20% mix but that only has 1/3 of the calorific value as gas. So it’s lit as simple as saying 80/20. Batteries are developing into 12 values but we’ll never have enough to run the grid.

so you think Over night we are going to switch to Hydrogen. not a chance its 20 way down the road.

the strategy is still 5 GW and 2 GW.

I'd be happy with a very turbine that installed in the last 20 years lasting 30 years, maintenance costs increase significantly after 20 years, and then you struggle to get support. e.g Vestas won't support sub 2 MW turbines.

Newer turbines get less support, many of the new wind farms entre straight into a PPA with a data centre.

Nuclear is expansive to build, and very expensive to decommission. Yes its once off. But the simple fact you keep ignoring is that it we started today, it would take 50 years before its commissioned.

what do we do between now and 2076?

Something which due to their relative lifespans will occur at least three times during the lifespan of a nuclear plant,

The windfarm in the article mentioned a lifespan of approx 32 years.
Would a nuclear power station get a life span of approx 100 years?

According to the IAEA, nuclear plants have a lifespan of approx 40 years, and may be extended depending on upgrade works, maintenance, etc..
So no, a Nuclear power plant doesn't have a life span of 100 years .

I am enjoying this debate, but…

For the pro Nuclear folks, how do you make a business case to build a Nuclear power plant in Ireland, a plant that will cost anything from €40Billion to €60 Billion

This may have been talked about before, but in Australia, nuclear was a big talking point in the last election. It was put forward by the Liberal Party who had an anti-renewable streak in them.
Anyway, the analysis came back, and for the 7 nuclear plants they wanted to build, it would cost them from $116 - $600 Billion.

https://smartenergy.org.au/nuclear-fallout-116-600-billion-to-build-7-nuclear-reactors/

The electorate looked at the argument from both sides and roundly rejected the Liberals, ushering them to their 2nd biggest electoral defeat since WWII. Nuclear in that country is now dead, given it was examined and roundly rejected due to costs.

Nuclear may have been a good deal in the 60's right up to the 90's, but costs, regulations, and a boom in wind/solar/batteries have put a death knell to the idea. SMSRs may be a game changer, but it's entirely unproven yet if they can be delivered as cheaply as some think. We have to wait a decade or two to see that come to the fore.

You didn't read the article, did you?

In 2022, they suffered a price shock just like everyone else, and they had Nuclear then.
What has changed was that they doubled down on renewables, thus nuttering the latest shock. They didnt build any new nuclear plants.

Are you proposing Ireland build one, for at least €40 Billion, and we would wait, about 20 years before we can use any of the power it would generate?

That isnt the smart play here.

The live span of nuclear reactors have a lifespan of 60 years with even older nuclear power plants now having their lifespans extended by 20 years.

The data from our close neighbours in the U.K. shows that wind turbines lose 1.6% of their capacity year on year. So do you somehow believe that the owners of offshore wind farms who have a 20 year strike prices are going to happily continue supplying electricity for one third less of the price than they were getting 20 years earlier, where they can scrap those wind farm after fulfilling these 20 year contracts and apply for a new 20 year contracts with a better strike ?

If you do I have a lovely second hand bridge that has only suffered one major collapse I can let you have at a bargain price.

My data is based on the peer review findings of Dr.Ian Staffell and Professor Richard Green of Imperial College London based on their 10 year study of 300 U.K. wind farms.

Not that scientific or economics analysis has every mattered to anyone that supports this present plan where both are looked upon by them as two distant planets in some far of galaxy, but seeing as I have give my analysis, with verifiable data provided, on where this present policy is taking us in comparison to nuclear financially on many occasions, perhaps you would be good enough to be the first to give us the long requested and ignored financial breakdown of this present policy you appear to favour. Yes or no ?

And the only offshore farm we build couldn’t last 20 years without burning down … at sea

Lol

They also have no predictability of production with a crappy 30% capacity factor pushing the country to rely on gas leading to worlds most expensive electricity while still producing 6x co2 compared to countries with mostly nuclear

Would you buy a car that randomly slow down on motorway to walking speed and last 5 years instead of 15?

Wind has a fuel cost, the cost of gas most of the time wind is not blowing and needs backup, which is why we have such expensive electricity

What’s your plan for a low carbon grid that can meet our energy needs for the next 5@ years.

what’s the alternive toner the country. Keep burning fossil fuel For 50’ years till We build nuclear. ?

I’ve no issue with nuclear other than the cost and duration. It would take to build.

Offshore is 50%, and its is actually predictable

we are an expensive country. Compare out welfare to other counties , our minimum wage.

If we didn’t care about health and safety, pad our employees less etc. we’d be cheaper

wind is just a smokescreen and a distraction for burning gas back here in the real world for producers who needed to greenwash coal with something more palatable

Result is 5x more co2 produced at 2x the prices to consumers and grid instability compared to nuclear