"Green" policies are destroying this country

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641394#Comment_119641394

Your addressing the wrong poster.

If it`s a problem for you take it up with DaCor.

I was using the figures he provided in his post.

Nabber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119640944#Comment_119640944

I support all forms of energy generation. In my opinion the time we get to renewables as 100% of the grid will be a fantastic achievement. Currently renewables lack effectiveness in comparison to coal, gas, and oil, destroy habitats and are undermined by the lack of reliability.

We are however a long way off, and our 2050 plan should include Nuclear as the alternative to renewables, any surplus sold back to the European market. I'm over simplifying energy generation and surplus sales. A critical infrastructure like energy should not be in the hands of governments with short sightedness and a propensity to pander to their support base for votes.

Frances issues are mostly due to available water for cooling. Ireland has somewhat more protection from that than France. It's also poor water management.

In perfect harmony a hydro power station run off would cool a nuclear plan. Such a set up would make it the prime target in the event of war.

Nabber

https://time.com/6213666/amazon-renewable-energy/

Yay for data centers?

Also worth nothing that Data Centers are 10s if not 100s of times more efficient than their alternative.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641296#Comment_119641296

Lithium Ion is still the preferred choice for most grid scale BESS at the moment, but this is a matter of economics, Lithium Ion has been very cheap and prices were falling. There are other chemistries, like Iron Flow, and Vanadium Flow that are not too far behind and offer some benefits that I believe make them better suited to large scale grid storage in terms of the abundance of raw materials and the numbers of cycles they can endure, their thermal stability and fewer ethical considerations

Lithium Ion is very energy dense, but with Battery storage for utilities, there usually is plenty of space to store the batteries, they don't need to be mobile and light like a car or phone battery needs to be. And with grid scale,

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641388#Comment_119641388

I know we lost some gas turbines. The difference between losing a gas turbine or two, is that a single gas turbine is only one small part of the grid. A nuclear plant could be our entire baseload

Multi year performance is well and good, but what do we use to power the country when the reactors go down?

Would we need to keep a dozen thermal power plants and all the infrastructure ready to go at a moments notice in case the reactors have to be shut down

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641384#Comment_119641384

Ammonia is the Hydrogen, just stored in a more convenient and more energy dense form

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641402#Comment_119641402

yeah

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641433#Comment_119641433

Have you ever tried to breath the air in any of these cities?

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641395#Comment_119641395

Wind has note been blowing much over the past 30 days. Wonder how the DOE are getting on with Project DARA war gaming excercise?

For all to see, you system demand can be compared with wind generation.

You have to commend the Killybegs fishermen for the proactive approach to offshore wind.

https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2022/09/19/killybegs-fishermen-back-3bn-offshore-floating-wind-farm-plan/

A planning application for a floating offshore wind farm costing up to €3 billion off the south coast of Donegal is set to be lodged in the next 18 months with the support of Killybegs fishermen.

The planned offshore wind farm is a joint venture by Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation (KFO), Sinbad Marine Services and Hexicon, a Swedish firm that specialises in offshore wind farm technology.

KFO chief executive Sean O’Donoghue said his organisation had approached Hexicon, rather than the other way around. “We call this a new approach, and probably a first in the world. The fishing industry here joined forces mainly because we were aware of all the issues on the east and south coast and the fishermen and the wind developers were at loggerheads.”

The 200MW emergency plant for North wall is delayed, won't be operational until end of next year

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2022/0919/1324269-temporary-esb-plant-wont-be-ready-until-end-of-2023/

Friends of the Irish Environment weigh in on the publication yesterday, saying it pretty much kills Shannon LNG and most other gas options with a few exceptions

https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/climate-crisis/2022/09/19/friends-of-the-earth-hails-energy-security-review-as-death-knell-of-shannon-lng/

FoE head of policy Jerry MacEvilly said: “This expert report provides a clear signal that Government is starting to finally recognise the real dangers of Ireland’s overdependence on fossil fuels, as well as the risks of locking Ireland into polluting gas if long-term infrastructure is allowed.

“The technical analysis correctly rejects risky commercial fossil fuel projects, including Shannon LNG. We now call on the Government to make the existing moratorium on commercial LNG permanent in light of this analysis,” he added.

The growth of offshore wind continues, this time its the Dutch who have released details on massive plans.

Firstly they are aiming for 21GW of offshore wind by 2030 and 50GW by 2040, with a further 20GW by 2050 for a total of 70GW of offshore. The excess will all feed into green hydrogen production.

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/09/19/the-netherlands-sets-70-gw-offshore-wind-target-for-2050-plans-large-scale-green-hydrogen-production-and-energy-hubs/

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641402#Comment_119641402

In the case of ClimateGate, they were caught out getting their "pals" to review their papers (i.e. peer group bias review). You must realise that peer review is not some sacred unquestionable scientific testimony, it's more akin to a English teacher correcting a pupils homework. They are supposed to check that what is written follows the established convention and that the work meets minimal scrutiny to support the conclusions made.  It is not the reviewers task to make sure of absolute truth and contradictory papers can and do co-exist without either necessarily being held to be correct. See the example of J Hendrik Schön.

In the linked paper the author David Horrobin documents some of the discoveries almost suppressed by peer review, and he points out, he can’t list the discoveries that were in fact suppressed by peer review, because we don’t know what those were.

• The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation (1990)

there are also quality control problems with the peer review process, most notable, the British Medical journal did a test where they deliberately inserted errors, most of which were never picked up by the peer review process. And there was the infamous grievance studies affair, described in the following video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k

In the context of this forum, peer review is just a favourite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science. Using this simple strategy, they excuse themselves from the need to know anything about the science, and at the same time seek to discredit skeptic arguments on the grounds that, not having been published in peer reviewed journals, they may be dismissed out of hand.

A more obvious example of failed peer review are climate models, the results are consistently wrong and have no demonstrated skill in predicting future temperatures.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641472#Comment_119641472

Nope, on Over capacity. In Ireland, we have a peak demand of about 7gw and our lowest demand is in the middle of the night at around 2gw. Having said that, we will ultimately have about 15gw of installed renewable capacity if we want renewables to cover most of the baseload, so for much of the time, we'll have a surplus generation capacity and using that to make hydrogen is a great way to utilise that energy

If its windy we could have several GWs of energy that would simply go to waste as nobody wants to use it. The marginal cost of this electricity is close to zero, and this could be used to create the green hydrogen. Even if the round trip efficiency is low, the energy would have been wasted so 20-30% is better than 0%, and this is using century old technology to make the ammonia. Using modern tech, this efficiency is much higher

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641527#Comment_119641527

Ignoring your claims about cost, You're talking about getting carbon neutral 16 years before 2050 - so you think it could be built by 2036. or 14 years from now

That means you are advocating 14 more years of relying almost exclusively on fossil fuels before flipping a big switch and having 100% of our energy provided by a single nuclear reactor/or a complex of reactors

We don't have 14 more years to wait before we begin reducing our carbon emissions. We have made international commitments, and as the dogs on the streets know, a nuclear facility would not be delivered from absolutely zero plans in place to a fully commissioned and operating facility in 14 years. Someone might promise this, but it would take a lot longer than that, during which time what are we using to power our economy? Oil gas and Coal? or do we continue to build renewables? At which point we'll be left with either a white elephant nuclear plant. or a bunch of white elephant renewable generators plus the backup infrastructure we'd need because no system is 100% reliable all of the time

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642519#Comment_119642519

And for reference Offshore wind is much less variable than onshore wind. A windfarm off the coast of Donegal would be be generating close to it's maximum capacity on a day like today, even though onshore wind is not producing very much at all.

And it's not windy off the coast of Donegal, it's windy off the south coast or along the Irish sea

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642793#Comment_119642793

Not forgetting the fuel source for nuke plants is not sustainable so would run out eventually.

The market for it has only been going one way for the last few years too, making it even less sense, financially speaking

Thats before we look at the waste issue

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642675#Comment_119642675

I know Pa won't learn anything. But those allegations were investigated several times and the CRU were absolved of any wrongdoing

"Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. 14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. 15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. "

https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/37888/5451712/The+Independent+Climate+Change+Email+Review.pdf/149f3621-df1c-d051-eeab-86e83f9cd2e8?t=1627485035193

The lack of openness relates to their handling of the many many FOI requests that were maliciously sent in to the CRU by climate change deniers who were waging a campaign of disinformation (that continues to this day)

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642519#Comment_119642519

I`ll say one thing for the Killybegs Fishermen`s Organisation, if the spot a gravy train coming they have always been quick at getting aboard it.

Looking at the latest strike prices for onshore, they most likely have drawn the conclusion that offshore is going to be lucrative for the pension fund.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642305#Comment_119642305

Large NPPs don't usually have a single reactor, but multiple. These tend to be taken offline one at a time for maintainance, so yes, you have a thermal power station for these times. When they are being built, the reactors tend to be completed and started at different times so they have a staggered start which feed into the refueling and maintainance cycles. If you choose a proven design, and builder, it's likely to be multiple decades before any large scale maintaianance is required.

Why do you consider this such a problem? Wind or solar falls over and has to be backed up more than 50% of the bloody time, and this results in huge expense at current gas prices and a lot of CO2 output. Surely having to only backup with gas 0.5 - 10% of the time is better in terms of CO2 output, and every other respect?

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642955#Comment_119642955

Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data

It was more than lack of adherence to freedom of information (FOI) requests. They were actively lobbying publishers to suppress sceptic papers, and then there is the matter of Michel Manns hockey stick fraud.

Shortly before the release of MM03, Mann was passed details of the paper’s release by an unidentified source. This source had apparently been provided the information by a third party. Amusingly, the third party included the following statement:

Anonymous: October 2003: 1067194064

Personally, I’d offer that [McIntyre’s conclusions that there were problems with the Hockey Stick’s robustness] was known by most people who understand Mann’s methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries. Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past . . .

Clearly then, as far back as 2003, the knowledge that the Hockey Stick was flawed was not restricted to just sceptics. More Details from Steve McIntyre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642845#Comment_119642845

How deep is the water there? I'll give you a clue, it gets deeper, more rapidly than anywhere else in Ireland. If you were eyeing up those bits yellow tinged, you can forget it. The sea floor topography is why current offshore wind farms have been targeted off the SE coast, where there is a sort of shelf that's relatively shallow.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119643198#Comment_119643198

The first west coast wind farm is already on the way, off the coast of Connemara. Up to 2050, its where most of our offshore wind is planned. Short term, East coast has a load planned, long term, west coast will far exceed

From this post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171147#Comment_119171147

There's a good presentation on the topic

https://www.sfpc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/20163-R-001-Shannon-Estuary-Offshore-Wind-Rev2.pdf

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642372#Comment_119642372

Your display of ignorance continues to astound.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119641456#Comment_119641456

I didn't know you were Norwegian - figures.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119640115#Comment_119640115

Undergraduate texts on physics, planetary science, or astrophysics.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119642883#Comment_119642883

You seem unaware that if the planet is warming long-term, wind speeds will drop considerably if the models are correct, so yeah, back atcha on that one.

Besides, there is thorium, and there is a lot of that.

"Scientists are excited about an experimental nuclear reactor using thorium as fuel, which is about to begin tests in China. Although this radioactive element has been trialled in reactors before, experts say that China is the first to have a shot at commercializing the technology.

The reactor is unusual in that it has molten salts circulating inside it instead of water. It has the potential to produce nuclear energy that is relatively safe and cheap, while also generating a much smaller amount of very long-lived radioactive waste than conventional reactors...

“Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium and so it would be a very useful technology to have in 50 or 100 years’ time,” when uranium reserves start to run low, says Lyndon Edwards, a nuclear engineer at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in Sydney. But the technology will take many decades to realize, so we need to start now, he adds." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119643330#Comment_119643330

The Norwegians, a great bunch of lads

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119643370#Comment_119643370

The most egregious bunch of eco hypocrits on the planet - yeah, great bunch.