@Dr Alison O’ Connor: They’re main worry is political currency and Nuclear energy cost alot of that. It’s as big a fight as they would have to make and I don’t think any of them have the appetite for it maybe the change in minds on climate change might send us down that road, but opposition or the not in my back yard lobby would be massive.

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: I don’t want to pay for this. EDF Hinckley Point £92.50/MWh for 35 years with a guaranteed annual escalation rate. I’d rather pay the £39/MWh for the latest UK offshore wind tenders. That is subsidy free and below average wholesale market price. You would have to focus on renewables and energy efficiency first. You have to consider everything before nuclear. Even decommissioning data centres. On an associated note, you can’t insure a nuclear plant. The tax payer picks up the bill in the event of an accident. Although that’s probably the least of your concerns at that point.

@C: I understand your point re cost but Hinckley Point C is being created with future UK energy consumption in mind hence the price point. Ireland has a much much lower energy requirement in comparison and the type of reactor (modular SM) suitable for use in Ireland is of completely different design. The price point is comparably much lower than that you’ve quoted making it comparable with that of renewables. With regards to costing for renewables yes it is lower but it cannot by its very nature provide a constant reliable source of energy.

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Biomethane plants can be built all around Ireland and can provide the renewable gas to back up electrical generation from wind. Another nice thing is that the renewable gas can be stored or used for thermal or transport when wind and solar is available. Win win

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: We need to go Nuclear and we will go Nuclear it is just a case of when.

Minister Bruton is from the “nuclear is explody stuff” generation as is Ryan and are clueless on SMRs & nuclear tech.

None of the politicians have the stomach for a political fight on this and would see no votes in it. They would see Nuclear as an issues hotter potato than Irish Water.

Furthermore the Tinfoil Brigade loons like G’OD would have a field day with invented nonsense and would be given equal access to media for “balance” as it would bw great clickbate.

So Ireland will continue to dig ourselves into a CO2 hole until the fines become intolerable.

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Intermittency of generation doesn’t need to be an issue at all let alone a reason to write it off. Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen can be carried out during times of high production. Then the hydrogen can be used as an extremely clean fuel to generate power during low production periods, smoothing out supply. There are numerous other storage systems such as hydro gravity stores and of course batteries. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t meet all of our energy demands through renewables. Britain has 2000 offshore wind turbines, while Ireland has only 7. We’re way behind the curve.

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Costs for nuclear rarely seem to include decommissioning, storage of radioactive waste and an estimate of insurance cost. The last one is unquantifiable as it is so large. What insurance company would insure or is capable of insuring an accident that left Dublin uninhabitable and destroyed Leinster’s food production for hundreds of years? Why should shareholders get a free pass on that cost? There are no easy answers to the energy question but no matter which way I look at this, nuclear is the technology of last resort.

@Paraic: you misunderstand me Paraic I’m not writing off renewables at all – I’m actually a big fan! However if the conversation is around energy security and given that energy demand will rise and the disparity between generation and demand will continue to increase we need to begin discussing additional options to fill the gap between renewables and fossil fuels. IMO nuclear is the only current technology that makes significant returns on investment where energy generation is concerned.

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: and how much and where will we dump the nuclear waste? It would have to be built on high ground especially if we get flooded every winter. Good luck with planning permission. Unless it’s cold fusion nuclear at least that waste is only 150yrs toxic but we are not there yet with that are we? How are Japan coping with their nuclear disaster? Christ all the poop we produce both animal/human in this country we could turn it methane some of it still going into the sea untreated! I suppose it’s not as sexy as nuclear… There are negatives for even oil/gas but nuclear has more cons than pros. It needs uranium that is not infinite so that hoping from one sinking ship to another…..

@C: Now now don’t be talking sense to these people……all nuclear plants world wide should be decommissioned, natural disasters do happen and when they do if one of these plants is in the area well lets just say its game over…..nothing is worth that risk, its only a matter of time before we have another catastrophe at one of these plants around the world……I say no thanks!

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: “Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022″ Not for no reason are Germany and many other countries phasing out nuclear power generation. You can read all about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

@Paraic: thanks but I don’t need a link to Wikipedia to know about the industry I have experience in it. Yes Germany have said they’re closing down nuclear plants on the basis of the Fukushima accident. They’re also purchasing nuclear energy from the french to fill the gap between supply and demand! Make of that what you will.

@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Aaand France is running into major budget overruns with respect to it’s nuclear plants. In November 2018, President Macron announced the 50% nuclear power reduction target is being delayed to 2035, and would involve closing fourteen 900 MWe reactors. The two oldest reactors, units 1 and 2 at Fessenheim, will close in 2020. But then you knew that right?

@Paraic: I didn’t know that actually but I do know they’re preparing to build at least six more over the next two decades.

@C: You really show yourself up talking about Hinkley and the other old types. No one in their right minds is suggesting going that way. Modular molten salt types are the name of the game. If they got a tenth of what has been put into wind power over the past while, our climate problem would already be half solved. $2bn in the US , €2bn in Germany. Moltex are a good example but there are ten others worldwide, with China and India in the lead.

@Dr Alison O’ Connor:

The article is about a report that conclude our best options for obtaining carbon neutrality in terms of electricity generation.

I’m sure nuclear will be mentioned, and if not then they will have had to come up with a robust solution in its absence.

It sounds like the preffered solution will be a mixture of biogas, pumped storage (hydro), battery storage, interconnection and smart grid demand reduction.

@Nicholas Grubb: Neves mind those companies. There’s a guy called Zefram Cochrane who is developing an energy source that will solve all of our problems. Google him. He’s a genius. Light years ahead of everyone else.

@Dow Dubrov: Redundancy in that sense is always costly but efficiencies will be found. I reckon the original argument is a bit reductive.

@Nicholas Grubb: Well I live in North Cork and the wind never stops blowing. We rarely use our garden furniture as its too breezy. We live near a wind farm but there should be far more of them. Yes it changed the look of the mountain but it’s an impact I can see rather than breathing the fumes from oil and solid fuels that I can’t see.

@C: Yes, I admit you are total right. We can do all that with LNG, which is the present plan. But that isn’t a fossil fuel is it.? Anyone who would like to see a very Alt view on all this, drop me a line to ndecg@yahoo.ie and I will send you a two pager that no one will publish.

@Dow Dubrov: Fair points but remember the grid operator and plant operators will rely on weather forecasting to schedule plants so conventional plants are run as efficiently as possible. It’s in their interest to minimise costs. Also, for reliability reasons, the grid has to be able to cope with the loss of the single largest generating plant and keep going without disruption. It has generating plant turned on and in reserve. Therefore a grid will have capacity for wind to a certain level without any changes to the grid or costs to us.