Nuclear - future for Ireland?

The only difference between turbine suppliers warranty and a service charge is that for the first 3 -5 years for "full wrap" coverage you pay nothing as it is already baked into the price of the turbine as a warranty. After that if you want to maintain "full wrap" you pay the supplier an annual service charge or extended warranty whichever you wish to call it.

From the end of the "free warranty" annually up until year 10 that would cost ~€45,000 per turbine. From year 11 to year 15 ~€55,000 per turbine per year, and from year 16 to year 25 €70,000 per turbine per year, although at year 20 the supplier would most likely look for major refurbishing with new blades, gearbox etc.before extending "full wrap" coverage. Nothing free warranty about that when you consider it would require 160 15MW turbines to generate 1GW at a capacity factor of 42%.

A good indicator as to why a company would seek a new fixed contract price for a new offshore wind farm after 20 years rather than paying out for those refurbishing costs and still having to pay out €11.2 million annually for for those 160 turbines giving diminishing returns.

Do you ever answer anything you are asked ???

On the posts between myself and another poster you decided to jump in on, do you believe the other poster was correct that for 2025 we used 16.264 TWh of gas to generate electricity or the 25.2 TWh that I posted, the relevant Minister stated and numerous government officials stated ?

With you being an engineer and us having used 25.2 TWh of gas to generate electricity in 2025, where the average efficiency for OCGT, (peaker plants) is 40% and for CCGTs (base load) is 60%, then from the electricity generated by gas it should be a simple matter for you to determine how much gas each used.

You can include how much of each with the plan you favour and it`s cost.

I have the prices in front of me for various wind farm and you are incorrect

Not all OCGT are peakers.

just admit you were wrong about peakers.
OCGT aren’t just baseload or peakers. Are you an engineer ?

Service agreements cover major components.

Has anyone said continue burning gas? Ireland is getting a FRSU which will offer some reserve How much gas does Europe get via the strait ?

Project Kestrel is looking at longer storage For Ireland

people have asked

1.) how much will nuclear cost?

2.) where will it go ?

3.) how long would it take to commission one?

Indeed they are not, but using them in any other role decreases their thermal efficiency factor of 40%. It does not increase it to the 60% thermal factor of CCGT plants.

It`s actually none of your business as to what my qualifications are as I am not the person claiming on here to be an engineer who yet cannot, knowing the percentage of electricity generated and the volume of gas used, answer the question of how much electricity was generated by OCGT plants with a thermal efficiency factor of 40% and CCGT plants with a thermal efficiency factor of 60%.

So do warranties, but only for the first 3 - 5 years.

After that, with age related incremental increases to keep that major components cover, the owner of the turbines will have to pay the supplier via a service agreement/warranty call it whichever you wish. It`s standard practice for major plant in all areas of business. Again, surprised an engineer would not be aware of that

But that is not what you believed in your post now was it ? Your belief that the original 3 - 5 year warranty covered the lifetime of the turbines is completely incorrect.

the Guardian and FT reporting on risks of being wholly reliant on China

The report said Europe was heavily dependent on Chinese green technology, with China supplying 98% of the continent’s solar panels; 88% of imports of lithium-ion batteries, which are used in smartphones, electric vehicles and large-scale energy storage; and 61% of imports of inverters, which integrate renewable energy with a power grid. Chinese EV brands are also increasingly popular across Europe.

The report said potential threats included China using “kill switches” to remotely disable solar panels, EVs or power grids. However, the report said such an attack was “very unlikely” unless China was at war or near conflict, given the risk of inciting retaliation.

And right after that

Ukraine had to black start its whole grid from nuclear about a dozen times in this war as those are just about the only power plants left standing providing 80% of country’s power

Meanwhile how the hell will we start up our grid with only wind/solar/interconnectors and batteries as is the current path we are being taken down

Has anyone ever suggested that we do. ?

I do believe that it would be possible especially with BESS and hydro. But remember that the larger picture involves hydrogen and other green fuels.

Have you a source for your claim about Ukraine ?

Other sources say they use BESS, hydro and strategically placed temporary generators…… the grid is so damaged that they need to decentralise generation

like most thermal plants Nuclear can’t start on its own

do you know how to do a black start? Island the grid. Bring it back a bit at at time ensuring supply meets demand.

To little generation and you’ll get under voltage trips. To much and you’ll get over voltage trips

Irradiated country of Belgium that looks like Fallout 76

done a uturn on shutdown of their nuclear plants

Well then it shows neither the government nor the population are serious about actually reducing CO2 to zero

Enjoy handing over 28 billion to EU, which coincidentally is what Korean option would cost

Over in the nuclear wasteland that is California

Diablo Canyon (which supplies 10% of the state electricity) given permission operate another 20 years

https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2026/U-S--Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission-Approves-License-Renewal-Application-for-Extended-Operations-of-Diablo-Canyon/default.aspx

it has been operating for 40 years already

Not being, like some here, a believer that finance can be provided by money trees, I have posted extensively on the comparative cost of nuclear - the majority of which based on the most expensive nuclear plant those opposed could find- in relation to wind, solar, green hydrogen, storage pumped and batteries, the abject failure of the current regime to meet emission demands as well as the farcical idea that hauling wood half way around the world then long distance by road to be burned here is carbon neutral.

For much of that you will not have to go back the "30 something pages" here to find, like you did on another thread accusing me of being wrong in some mystery post that you still have not provided me with the post number that I asked you for.

For the entirety of this thread as well as others I have asked multiple times off anyone who supports this present plan, or even any alternative plan they may have, to post it with costings, but to date not a single reply with as much as a single figure. No shortage of waffling replies, but not as much as a single figure. Perhaps you will be the first to do so ???