Nuclear - future for Ireland?

“Nuclear+Renewables+Storage.”

we have 128 pages of arguments against any nuclear

Facts don’t matter

Real world examples and results don’t matter

It’s like arguing with some sort of organised religion practitioners who don’t realise their beliefs have been hijacked by those who want us burning fossil fuels well into the next century, Big Oil and Gas (and now Chinese) must be absolutely laughing themselves to the bank at how easy it was to hijack and repurpose the “green movement”

or you can buy a car that actually works all the time, or a bus if you wish

what’s this I wonder what the countries in the bottom left have in common

we don’t have the same level connectivity being only connected to UK with Celtic interconnector to France delayed another two years

Speaking of interconnections nuclear France is keeping their nuclear for their baseload while exporting solar on their neighbours whom have double the prices

https://archive.is/Pwbq6

Sanchez will be gone before nuclear. His poll ratings are no better than Trump and his wife has just been charged with corruption.

The Iberian blackout focused Spanish minds on what renewables could and could not do. Solar will not provide the 20% electricity base load nuclear does. Nor will it provide electricity at night. Especially on Summer nights when their demand is at it`s highest.

The Iberian blackout completely flipped public opinion on nuclear and now has two thirds favoring. Even the E.U. believes that it would be nuts for Spain to phase out nuclear. In an about face for them, they now believe Europe needs more nuclear to keep the lights on, not less.

Loads of wind and solar that does **** all most of the time hence requiring gas?
while not having any green, clean and cheap nuclear like modern countries do??

lol it’s gotten so embarrassing that Eirgrid dashboard is now blank

Some of that i agree with -

but where are we likely to get cheap nuclear - ?

Neither in 20 years time when it'd be in production,nor 40 years after that when its cfd expires..

Its only economic if it gets favourable funding rates , but then so is everything else ..

according to the greens in this thread and one in CA forum we will have to handover 28 billion in penalties to EU overlords in carbon fines

That’s enough right there for funding

And yes nuclear is cheaper compared to wind and solar, that has been repeatedly illustrated

What i mean is - if we decided (hypothetically ) to go all in on nuclear today .. we wouldn't be getting french levels of cheap power - for 55 to 60 years - if ever ..

France subsidised nuclear power construction in the 70s to 80s , those stations are producing cheap electricity now .. the cost got absorbed into frances national debt ..

On a cfd scheme the cost is index linked and firmly attached to the individual project ,

in Polands case it looks like the US is doing most of the financing and underwriting - the polish gov is "only" fronting about 14 billion-in return for equity , and the other 70+ % is US and international funding.. .… The crucial thing is the strike price - and what its index linked to ..

In frances case , nuclear is balanced by existing hydro - and backed up by massive interconnection -

We'd likely have to balance with batteries+ some pumped hydro .. and back up with Gas ..

Probably have to have large grid investments too to connect nuclear stations to the grid

And suddenly - this is starting to sound like the expensive bits of having a lot of renewables on the grid ..

The positive thing about nuclear is after 15 to 20 years of design and build costs - then 40 odd years of running - it should then be relatively cheap ( a couple of billion per reactor) to refurb to run for a further 10 to 20 years .. maybe more , the longer you go the higher the bill.. and more risk ..

80 years, that’s 4x wind

The strike price is expected to be under €120 per MWh for 40 years. Poland wanted to set it for 60 years but the E.U. insisted on 40. Why I have no idea seeing as it should have been none of their business as they are not investing anything. It`s a good rate when you consider that is the strike price for wind generation currently in Poland on 25 year contracts and that nuclear can deliver over twice the capacity factor and not be intermittent due to weather.

Poland is "only" fronting €14 billion for 3.75 GW of nuclear which will be owned by the state. Something that, as Hungary and others have shown can actually make electricity cheaper for consumers.. We would have to front ~ €20 billion to upgrade our grid due to renewables, which would not be needed with nuclear, as unlike renewables with nuclear generation would be dispatched in the manner our grid was designed for.

And who is going to "front" that €20 billion - nobody other than the Irish taxpayer and the consumer. Not a single red cent from renewables and to add insult to injury, not only is that €20 billion close to half what Poland is paying for state control of 3.75 GW, the consumer here will be paying for generation supplied to our grid by renewables when we neither want or need it.

I-SEM may have started out as a policy of liberalising electricity charges by taking them out of the hands of monopolies, but it quickly changed to a policy of zero emissions with quotas, timelines and penalties for non compliance. All of which have now resulted in nothing more than replacing the old monopolies with a new one. A handful of renewable companies knowing the pressure governments are under with those timelines, quotas and penalties who will refuse to bid on any offering unless it is on their terms. They have done this in the U.K., Denmark and Germany with the result all three counties had to scrap their proposal and re-offer on the terms those companies wanted.