I gave you a figure, but all you seem to do in this thread is soapbox about how bad renewables are, nuclear is great, but you don't want to defend nuclear with anything rational or reasonable.
If 7GW of wind can’t provide more than 1GW on a day like today (with majority falling back to gas) why do you think an extra 2GW of more wind would help
Wind is steadier and more consistent offshore. https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/onshore-vs-offshore-wind-energy That is why you get approx 45% average offshore efficiency in the East Coast compared to approx 25-30% onshore. The West Coast capacity is more like 50%. Even on quieter days you will generate more than onshore. Are you saying that 2GW of offshore wind would do nothing to help? Please explain, and with some data.
In schools they still teach that something multiplied by zero is still zero right?
Zero? Well, there is wind generating now, even on a very calm night. Has there ever been ZERO wind in Ireland where not a watt was being generated? Maybe you should go back to school.
When this is build are we gonna have cheaper and greener electricity than France or Finland, yes or no?
I cant predict the future, but it will certainly reduce our gas usage over all, wont it? Are you saying that having 2GW of offshore wind wont do anything? It will surely reduce our gas usage, which is the aim.
in all fairness you talk a lot of nonsense.
if we build a nuclear plant. We still won’t have cheaper electricity, we’ll have significantly dearer electricity. if we were to build a nuclear plant you realise we’d have to build another plant of equal Size to meet the N-1 requirements, and possibly a second backup to meet N-2.
20-40% of 13.3 trillion euro up to 2050 (rest is on fuels like gas) to complete the Energiewende transition just for wind/solar/grid/batteries
2024 report https://www.pwc.de/en/private-equity/private-capital-for-financing-the-energy-transition-in-germany.html
Total French investment up to now on nuclear adjusted for inflation is 230 billion with 70 billion planned up to 2050 for modernisation
result is not a single day of year Germany has greener electricity than France and they are also much more expensive and hilariously enough heavily reliant on France
you are the one off by an order of magnitude
France spent hundreds of billions after readjusting for inflation while Germany spent trillions with a lot more to go while burning gas and being reliant on France
And still not greener or cheaper
I see my report of a clear breach of forum rules (which you don’t realise you done as you didn’t read the rules) has not acted upon yet, will be raising in help desk
Where have you given the total figure for
37GW offshore by 2050
+ 10 GW more onshore and solar that’s planed
+ Batteries for all this for zero gas backup and no blackouts
+ Interconnections needed to send the random overproduction and still have weeks where can’t fullfill demand with no wind
Link to the post please
if 33% capacity factor wind can’t meet our needs why would 40% be radically different? Let’s check what wind doing again on this nice sunny breezy morning
oh look at all that gas being burned again
that’s 18x co2 per kWh this morning compared to France!
The cheek of ye! You've been spamming here anti renewable tripe instead of discussing the actual topic.
Every time you compare the island of Ireland to France or Finland make you look incredibly stupid.
Stop the trolling and discuss how get nuclear in Ireland.
I was banned for a week for posting much less than he has done, hard to have a discussion when it one set of rules for some and another set for others
And I did give him a heads up
So are you gonna stop trolling sh1te about France and Finland and actually discuss nuclear for Ireland?
I have provided plenty of facts and figures and references and graphs higher up the thread, the path we are being pushed down by the wind and gas lobby has already led electricity that is not co2 free like those countries and given us one of highest electricity prices (2nd right behind Germans) in Europe and world
As I said earlier to continue to double down on this is stupid especially when there is a cheaper and cleaner alternative as seen from other European countries every day in the data
I noticed you havent posted any figures or graphs or references to backup any assertions or claims
Your doubling down on off topic trolling. I can put loads of off topic data. You not realising it counterproductive means you're the one doubling down on stupid and not realising it.
Where have you given the total figure for37GW offshore by 2050+ 10 GW more onshore and solar that’s planed+ Batteries for all this for zero gas backup and no blackouts+ Interconnections needed to send the random overproduction and still have weeks where can’t fullfill demand with no windLink to the post please
Perhaps you will like Breakfast in bed as well?
Anyway, I did a rough estimate here https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124404697/#Comment_124404697 Since you are spamming this thread with pro-nuclear talking points, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us how much a nuclear power plant in Ireland would cost? The fact that you are so evasive comes across as terribly insecure in your argument, and he can be seen a mile off. As I said, if you showed me a way to implement nuclear that is realistic and cost-effective, I would agree with you. Im here to be convinced, but I fear your style is actually alienating your position.
The Austrslian CSIRO has an anti nuclear, pro renewables person who did the same nonsense we see on this thread where he cherry picked the worst examples he could find and declared them to be the true cost basis of nuclear, he did not use the cost of newly built nuclear reactors in South Korea or the UAE, for instance.
OL-3 in Finland had a huge cost overrun and is a terrible example of cost and time to build compared to anything KHNP builds. Even at €11 B, it shows the lies the CSIRO engaged in. Even using this very expensive experimental reactor French balls-up shows up the nonsense behind that report 7*11=77 which is AU$126 B, not within cooee of $600 B.
Furthermore, OL-3 wasn't actually expensive as it's still considrably cheaper than building solar, with the same energy output in a year, in either Finland or Ireland. Reactor designs that are not experimental with an established construction chain are cheaper than OL-3, such as KHNPs APR-1400S, where the seventh example is currently being built in S Korea and more will be built in the Czech Republic.
Speaking of building: There are 75 reactors under construction world wide, with a further 120 planned. If nuclear was actully uneconomical, no one would be building reactors or planning for them. The Chinese are building lots of reactors, yet it's blindingly obvious that they can build out renewables at scale more cheaply than anywhere else on Earth, so why are the bulding so much nuclear if it's uneconomical?
The answer is simple, really… it's not.
LOL, breezy.. You are trolling now.
The only offshore wind in the world that has ever demonstrated a capacity factor 50% or greater is floating. How about you go analyse the economics of wind with >49% capacity factor and get back to us with the numbers.
I await your results with baited breath.
That post does not include the costs of interconnectors nor BESS (I keep asking but you are unable to offer any figures) and would still leave us reliant on gas, I posted the figures for Germany which runs to 13 trillion only a few posts up and they already are well connected at center of Europe unlike us
And is already multiples of nuclear option given whether Koreans or even the new gen tech Finns and French recently added
from met.ie
Note the use of the word breeze
You want to dispute what our national forecaster is reporting on their site and can be checked by anyone who can go to met.ie or erm step outside?
and from Eirgrid wind is doing nothing on a breezy day
20MW out of 6500-7000MW shocking stuff, why would 2000 more of almost as low capacity factor make a change?
11.2% imports too, solar is doing 900 out of about 2000MW due to finally us getting a sunny day this year
Light breeze is not the same as breezy. Instead of arguing over terminology, it would be a better use of time to refer to something like Windy App to get an accurate, unambiguous view of wind speeds around the country.
Own goal. Your recommended app shows a light breeze over the entire country and all prospective offshore wind farm locations. An article posted some months ago highlighted that Ireland has a bit of a problem with OSW in that the amount of sea floor shallow enough for turbine foundations is very limited, meaning you can't build far from shore before it gets too deep.
The poster took offence with terminology that met.ie used and called me a troll for stating facts, which seem to shatter his incorrect world view that was build on clever marketing and lies
looks like we peaked at 1000MW solar, 100MW wind and 4500MW demand
That’s fairly terrible for 8 to 9GW of installed wind and solar
That’s a 100,000 MWh gap being filled by 11-12% imports and … gas for last 24 hours
That’s 66 Turlough Hills worth of storage would have been needed just for one day, Turlogh hill is half a billion inflation adjusted, so a cool 33 billion in storage needed just to cover one day to be co2 free
Nice 👌
Not much wind in UK either today, they importing 8GW at moment which is a quarter of their demand 🤯
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
Yes, very little wind today. I don't think anyone is claiming that wind alone could meet all our needs. That 1GW peak of utility solar would have been matched by 1GW of domestic rooftop and non-utility solar. Solar deployment is increasing approx 40% year on year (happy to be corrected if that 40% is incorrect) so in 4 years time on a day like this there could be almost 4+4GW of solar being generated.
only a few posts up you have someone claiming an extra 2GW of offshore wind will solve all our problems
As per your own post and map there is not much wind at sea either, UK too
I even asked him to confirm that does he insist we will have cheaper and greener electricity then than nuclear powered European countries
higher electricity prices coming your way due to this dependence on gas due to all this unreliable wind
Historical French investment isn't a good measure since the costs on nuclear reactors outside Asia keep dramatically increasing, rule of thumb double every decade of construction.
That link is to a PwC blog that refers to a report that I can't find. (Source: PwC Study “Investment and Energy Costs of the Energy Transition”, 2024)
https://energiewende.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/EWD/Redaktion/EN/Newsletter/2025/05/Meldung/direkt-finds.html to …. € 0.0032 Trillion
Source :
Is it? 7 hours later look how that situation has changed. Almost the same negligible wind overland. But large parts of the south Irish and Celtic Seas already have wind speeds at sea level above turbine cut in speed.
You mean the oceans which are too difficult to develop due to "once in a hundred years" storms that come more regularly than that. Irish sea looks quite still.
Not the Ocean, that's to the west of Ireland.
The placemark above is in the South Irish Sea and Celtic Sea.
Celtic sea enjoys force 10 and 11 storms. Engineer your way out of that.
SEM-O https://www.sem-o.com/publications/general-publications includes things like System Margins Outlook IE - 17042026 Page 3 shows the margins for the days ahead so there's no surprises.
Here's the wind generation forecast for the week ahead. Predictably intermittent, Unlike a SCRAM / unscheduled outage which are unpredictably intermittent.
