Nuclear is cheaper than renewables and is the most reliable source of power there is. It requres far less backup than renewables.
It’s going up by 10 years in every post of yours, hysterical
Meanwhile on current path we are guaranteed to be burning gas in 40 years
Whats your estimation? Based on actual timelines which have been completed in Europe.
10 years Koreans have shown, the Poles are aiming for 8 years from first concrete pour. French are aiming for 6 years now that they know exactly how to build new EPR plants
But hey stop pretending you actually care about reducing co2
I'll ask again
Based on actual timelines which have been *completed in Europe*
Don’t worry the Chinese are building a 1000mw+ coal plant every single week to sell us greenwashed slave labour derived “green” tech
At the rate they are emiting nothing we do matters
Keep shilling for the gas industry who are laughing all the way to the bank while we pay the highest electricity costs in Europe and remain one of the dirtiest
How much capital now would that be compared to say offshore wind turbines over the lifespan of a NPP ?
If you know how much for an NPP surely you know how much for what you are trying to sell. If not then I do not see what, if any point you have, posting about NPPs
So you actually can't provide an example?
Oddly enough because, as I have said before, I'm not anti Nuclear.
For someone who is not anti nuclear you sure are doing everything that pushes us more towards unreliable, expensive and ever more dependent on gas future while rewarding likes of China burning coal and using slaves
Unfortunately we can’t build more hydro but we sure can build nuclear, Ukraine a country with a third our gdp is building and maintaining a mostly nuclear grid in middle of an active war ffs
Meanwhile the alternative the Greens pushed this country down is gonna cost an additional 200bn+ (per the figures the anti nuclear lot posted earlier in thread) and still not be ready by 2050, that’s on top of our already most expensive electricity in world
Nothing remotely odd about me, or indeed anyone who has read your posts, not believing you.
Graph sourced from a pro-fracking dude with a substack account.
So again, no even approximation of how long it would take for us to build even one single nuclear power plant based on actual timelines of completed NPPs in Europe?
My bad. It seems I may have misunderstood and you know when, how, with what and with what cost to both our economy and consumers we will get to a 100% renewables zero emission grid.
Have I got it right this time ?
Yourself and @bored65 have challenged the length of time that I have said it will take to build a NPP in Ireland.
My question for the fourth time, is what time it will take in your estimations, once again, based on actual Nuclear Power Plants which have been **completed in Europe**
When will the 37GW of offshore wind be ready and how much
Extra funny as all this unreliable wind and solar is leading us to become more reliant on gas in perpetuity unlike nuclear Aside, which of the EROIE figure he posted are wrong
Yet again the anti science and engineering crowd is disputing basic physics, what’s next Covid denial and flat earthering?
So still no answer.
Scotland build an Offshore wind farm in 1-2 years, 8years or so when accounting for grid upgrades and planning on each side.
These are also able to be built in parralell so there is a relatively steady amount of new capacity year on year, something which isn't possible with Nuclear.
So I ask again,
How long would it take to build one (1) nuclear power plant in Ireland based on actual completed timelines of NPP's in Europe
These offshore farms last 20 years, that’s a quarter of a nuclear plant lifetime
So that’s 4x the cost right there
They also at best produce 35% capacity factor that is mostly random and not dispatcheable requiring gas as backup, so not co2 free ( not to mention all that steel and concrete and rare earths and lubricants)
That you persist on comparing wind to nuclear is the height of hilarity, talk about grapes and watermelons
Btw that’s Scotland a country with a long history of offshore construction and experience, we in meantime have zero working offshore farms and no experience
Are you going to persist in ignoring the question?
Blue Energy and GE Vernova Unveil 2.5 GW Gas-Plus-Nuclear Plant https://share.google/hHzyEoCb4zREADwna
Not sure is this good or bad ..
they are building more RES, so in their overall energy mix, coal makes up a smaller %age
We need to start thinking like our republics first government when we had nothing and had big ideas such as turloch Hill, blessington and ardnacrusha.…only nuclear this time
that's a lie, offshore WF have deign life of 35 years which will be extended.
the costs aren't 4 time, the LOCE remains the same.
we have experience in offshore.
if you squint really really hard you might see the overall percentage of wind and solar in China
they managed to quite effectively utilise social media to paint themselves as green, when they are anything but here in the real world
they added more coal last year alone than India in a decade
78GW of coal in 2025 alone!!!
with another 291GW under construction
China’s 1,052 GW solar and wind fleet, the largest on earth contributes 3.3% of China’s total energy supply. Coal contributes 58%.
Not really - well at least not fully,
The irish state doesnt really build power generation any more - private companies do - wind ( and likely nuclear too ) is done on contracts for difference - private investor gets a licence to provide power - and get paid an agreed fee per unit supplied -
Irish government doesnt put its hand in its pocket - to design, build or operate wind or solar , they just agree to buy the electricity produced for the next 20 to 25 years .. at a set rate ..
With something as big as nuclear its likely that the developer / funder would want the government to make a substantial up-front payment - likey to cover a good chunk of the design, sote selection,planning ect .. - so the polish government are putting up €14.2 billion ish - ( i dont know is that all front loaded ) on a €45 ish billion project for 3 reactors ..
Assuming a likely best case scenario of 20 years to build a NPP in Ireland, Theres not much stopping the state also contracting wind and solar for 20 to 25 years. .
As a former scientific researcher, I can tell you that what he’s doing is not science - it’s cherry-picking without proper attribution in order to make an argument. (I do know where the chart is from, but he doesn’t bother to cite it properly). And yes, the “plus battery” figures are wrong because they’re from a 2016 paper, and thus at least ten years out of date - a lot has happened in battery production within that ten years. Not least moving away from cobalt and nickel, which have enormous embodied energy.
My background is in electronic engineering and computing - I wouldn’t have got very far by being “anti-science” and “anti-engineering”. I’ve been interested in this field long enough to know that a lot of stuff published that downplays renewable energy is nothing but American oil-industry lobbying - this dude’s other writings put forward the crazy idea that shale-gas is an answer to climate change. As I said before, if anyone suggests Nuclear+Fossil as a viable future energy system, they are being paid to do so, or parroting someone who was.
I’m not saying renewables are perfect, but they’re a whole lot better than being wholly dependent on fossil fuels. Nuclear would be great… if we already had it, but until the nuclear industry can provide a right-sized reactor (around 500MW) for our our grid, and also until it gets its **** together around predictable build time and build cost, we’re better off buying nuclear energy from our neighbours than trying to make it ourself. Financially, we’re better off paying our neighbours to extend their existing sites than build it ourself, but nobody would take us up on that offer until the cost to build a nuclear reactor becomes a known quantity again.
wind and solar made up 9% of the energy mix in 2020, in 2025 its up to 26%
Since 2020 for every 1 GW of coal added China added 7GW of wind and solar….
also rather than screen shots you should add links, the graph is for energy used not electricity. so it includes, Petrol, Diesel, HFO etc used for transportation. but I guess misrepresenting data is what you do.
you mixing up the electric grid vs total Chinese energy consumption which is what the graph shows
One can’t make concrete for example with electricity
Eitherway wind and solar remains a tiny fraction of both their grid and their total energy use which is still held up by coal of which they are building gobs off
But silly westerners fall for their tick tock greenwashing propaganda and don’t engage their brains and look at the real figures
What do you make concrete with?
26% up from 8% 5 years ago is not and a tiny fraction?
why are you looking at the energy consumption and not the electricity mix?
you may look at tic toc for your information. But others are more intelligent.
I would not say challenging.
More questioning the sincerity of someone who is supposedly not anti nuclear but whose posts show the virulence of their opposition while refusing repeatedly to give as much as a single figure for their alternative.
Do you not know, or do you know but realise that to do so would be laughably inane ?
Because we are told China are green and their slave and coal produced solar and wind equipment is green when it’s anything but
It’s a great peace of marketing that China is now viewed as green when they add more additional co2 than this country produces in year in a few weeks
