"Green" policies are destroying this country
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think we have to be careful not to end up with essay long posts because those are too much work for everyone 😉
1 My points on CO2 emissions stands and you have shown nothing to to show otherwise.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the inaction of others is not a justification for inaction on our part. Regardless of what others are doing we need to get our emissions to zero. If others choose to do the same more slowly or not at all does not give us an excuse to do the same. I fail to see the logic in asserting that it does. "they are polluting so we should too", how does that make any sense?
2 The story was being sold that renewables would provides with cheaper electricity. It has not, nor will it be while electricity is being priced using the green favoured marginal model. Presently under that pricing regime if 90% of our electricity came from renewables we would still be paying the same as if 100% came from natural gas.
Again who said that about renewables? Maybe it was pushed at some point but I have no knowledge of it nor could I find any evidence of it. As regards your other point, does it not hold true that if non-renewables are removed, then whatever remains, if it has a lower cost model, would not suffer from the same issues that are being caused now by the increase in gas and oil prices? What i mean is this would lead to stable prices at least, no idea what the end cost would be though but it would be less likely to suffer from the peaks and troughs that plague fossil fuels.
3 Our indigenous gas fields will be depleted by 2025. We will not have 100% renewable energy by then, or anytime in the foreseeable future. We will continue to need a non-renewable source to fill the gap of unreliable wind energy. As we are the only option is natural gas due to other than gas fired plants being shut or downgraded. Our options for natural gas are, a pipeline from a none E.U. country, (and we see how that can work out), or the capability to source and buy our own LNG which would require a LNG terminal something. Greens have shown they are opposed to not just a LNG terminal but LNG.
So no natural gas, liquefied or not, and no nuclear, recognised by the E.U as the only other transition energy source, what do Irish greens think is going to be the energy source that is going to fill that gap ?
The target for 100% is 2050 though its likely to be hit well before then.
Our non-renewable source until then will be gas. Further to that end, we're building new gas plants to meet our needs for the next 25+ years while we transition.
This gas can be supplied through the Moffat lines to meet 100% of our requirements so we have no need of a LNG terminal, whether one gets built or not is up to ABP, but we will have no need for it.
The only increase in consumption for gas will come from the above gas plants, as new gas boilers for homes are to be ruled out for new builds by 2024 I think (don't quote me on the exact year). Virtually all new homes now are built with heat pumps and A2+ ratings so there is simply no requirement for gas to heat these homes as gas is overkill so there are feck all gas boilers installed these days anyway.
4Greens will not even consider the possibility of re-opening two turf burning plants that have just been shut for 15 months.Be that with a further application (where the most vociferous opponent to the previous application as far as I know is employed as a Green Party researcher in the Seanad) or by legislation with us facing a national energy crisis.
Nor should they. We discussed Moneypoint & Tarbert, and we agreed both were terrible polluters. There are no peat facilities in Ireland that are not several magnitudes worse in terms of emissions than those 2 and thats emissions from the burning of peat, emissions from the extraction and stripping of peat. BnM have already moved on from Peat and are investing billions into renewables. This is a dead duck in terms of power generation.
5 My mention of nuclear, (even if greens for years have been part of the problem rather than the solution regarding an adult discussion on nuclear), was again to emphasis that when it came to filling the gap of wind energy the greens have no answer other than going scrounging of others hoping they have a surplus when we need it. That`s not a policy. It`s crossing your fingers and hoping every time you need it will work out.
I'm guessing you are referring to interconnectors here. Electricity is electricity once its flows through lines. The source doesn't really make much difference. The power we get over the various connectors comes from a multitude of sources, nuclear being one of them. We export power, we import power. In that sense, an interconnector is really no different than any other part of the grid.
Having an interconnected grid is one of the primary requirements for a stable grid as it allows for distribution of generation across a huge geographical area and mitigates against risks and its on of the reasons the EU is planning massive investment in interconnectors over the next few decades as it makes total sense.
One prime example of how beneficial interconnectors are was seen recently when the EU connected Ukraine to the EU grid, thereby eliminating one of Russias major holds they had over the Ukraine after they started to capture the likes of the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power stations. By hooking them up via an interconnector, the Russians could turn off the power plants and the Ukrainians should barely notice.
I believe I answered your point #6 already through all of the above
3 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
