National endeavour in projects like this really translates as we can't make the economics of this project to work so we want the taxpayer to pay for it.

Our energy prices are amongst the highest in Europe and it is hurting business and costing jobs. Crackpot projects like this only work with major subsidies which will only push the price up even more.

In reality the future is most likely going to involve nuclear power. However it will be nuclear power generated in France or the UK. I wouldn't be surprised to see Irish investment in one of EDF's proposed new plants in the next few years.

A picky-point in that blog article. Land area usage. That 3.5%. How much land area is technically unusable, for housing or farming? I've seen these glacial valleys and they aren't what could be called high value land. Unless you know how to farm on a 70 degree slope of rock.

As posted by another, if the locations of the proposed sites were revealed now, every nimby would crawl out of the woodwork and make the idea dead before it's fully figured. The SOI thinking seems to be to get the community involved at the base level, as "shareholders" in the system, giving them an interest in it.

All the sub-systems for this are existing technologies that have been seen to work. The full system is already in existence in Japan on a local level.

My only quibble with SOI is that they aren't thinking big enough. They have identified 50 sites suitable for this system with a plan to set up two stations. I'd go for more sites, 5 to start with and going up to maybe 20 overall.

I think this idea would be a very workable one. Workable enough for me to seriously think of investing in the system, and I am not a gambling man. Ignore any hype, look at the idea coldly and it is as close to a "wreave bet" as you can get.

__________________
The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

There are lies, damn lies and debatable points. "I'm not shouting, I'm making an assertive point." M. Martin

Importing power, via fuel or as electricity is still importing power, ie money leaving the State. Having our own power sources minimises this and with sufficient generation, we could export electricity, ie money coming into the State.

On one of the interviews, probably the Pat Kenny one, there was mention of the financing of the system. A certain amount is wished to be from investment by 'locals' with returns on that investment. The greater amount of investment is proposed to be from foreign investment/loans, oddly enough from some of the oil producing bodies/States. Apparently some interest is there for this type of investment.

I have no real problem with nuclear but the scale of economy makes them unviable for Ireland itself. Any such increases in nuclear would be better done as a pan-EU system/funding.

I'm in favour of wave-power development as well, the more* systems of power generation we have the less point-source failures we'd have. (*Less of fossil fuel power systems.)

__________________
The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

There are lies, damn lies and debatable points. "I'm not shouting, I'm making an assertive point." M. Martin

The only way this becomes viable for private investors is if the price of electricity to the customer is increased to make it so thereby placing an unnecessary financial burden on both domestic and business consumers. On the business side this will put all Irish businesses at a commercial disadvantage compared to their EU counterparts. The only other way to make it viable is direct subsidies from the taxpayer. Either way we need to fiddle the market as the expense of the consumer to make it commercially viable.

As for investing in a nuclear plant in a foreign location we would not be importing energy as such as we would be part asset owners. Say for example and nuclear plant is jointly owned by the ESB and EDF. Those companies would finance the project and fund the operating costs. Those companies would also receive the revenue derived from selling the power, i.e. the ESB would collect their share of the revenue. How does that constitute money leaving the country? The money leaving the state argument seems facile to me - money leaves the state where renewable plants are not owned by Irish companies. Whether it is nuclear or renewables we're looking at the isolationist vision makes no sense. The fundamental issue is the provision of energy to consumers at the cheapest price possible. This proposal flies in the face of that.

How much would the scheme cost?

It all depends on how much power we're talking about. A nuclear plant could be anything from 500 to 4,000MW typically. Then what % share would we take and how much would the interconnection cost?

Plans for an interconnector to France have been drawn up with a view to a partnership with EDF and the economics of various models are being explored. In terms of capital spend on the plant itself EDF probably have more experience that anyone else when it comes to nuclear so value for money will be as good as can be achieved with them as partners.

At the moment neither this option nor renewables can come close to the price setting plants like Moneypoint, however this will not be the case forever. The question is when this starts to change will nuclear or renewables provide the cheaper option to the consumer. Within the industry general opinion seems to favour nuclear. However whichever way we go we need to reform the crackpot manner in which the energy market is regulated in this country as at the end of the day it is you, me and everyone else that are currently paying over the odds as a result of this.

Seeing as the source of the power is 'free', the cost of electricity could actually fall for the consumer while the investment still gets serviced. With imported fuels, the price will increase as fuel costs increase.

__________________
The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

There are lies, damn lies and debatable points. "I'm not shouting, I'm making an assertive point." M. Martin

Is this scheme for real?
I heard the guys on Pat Kenny about a week ago and they said they'd had positive conversations with the Govt.
So I couldn't figure out why Eamon Ryan wasn't all over the media like a rash to claim credit and promise millions of jobs - as he usually does when he thinks of some new blueskies scheme.

Then on Newstalk(?) within the past 48 hours, I heard Gormless say that they would be looking into it - but clearly had done SFA about following it up. He said Ciaran Cuffe had spoken to one of the promoters, and that Eamon Ryan would meet with them - but clearly nothing definite had been planned.

This whole proposal is so far up the Green Party agenda that you have to ask
(a) why the promoters haven't been actively engaged with Green mininsters long before now
and
(b) why the Green Ministers haven't been proactive in following up on the proposal.

So is it for real or just a publicity stunt/joke?

No, you must realise that people have an ideological opposition to "Free" - they'd rather pay for it. And if they have to pay for it for a very long time, like Nuclear, so much the better.

myksav/joel, it's not free and to be honest it's ridiculous to even attempt to portray it as such. Fuel is only one of the many costs that goes into the price of electricity. Depreciation of assets is another major cost and what they are suggesting here involves huge capital expenditure in terms of both the facilities themselves and the national grid. That's all going to feed into the price of a unit of electricity.

If this were free what's stopping them from blasting ahead using private finance only and undercutting the likes of Moneypoint?