"Green" policies are destroying this country

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119700566#Comment_119700566

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119700566#Comment_119700566

Your acting the maggot there Akrasia. Just to clarify.

1. An bord pleanala giving planning to the Bess in kildare does not guarantee it going ahead ( you have seen what is going on with an bord pleanala atm ? ) but I will guarantee that it ends up in court. As I said, John Malone, sheikh Mohammed, etc have deep pockets.

2. where did I ever say that there would be no objections to nuclear? What I said was it was a more preferable solution than the green agenda.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119701760#Comment_119701760

On the news they had a lad explaining the more Green you go the more gas you need as a backup. Also suggesting rationing of gas from the Uk will affect Ireland. Said this year is not the bad one next year will be. Already talk of rationing this year imagine how bad it will be next year.

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119701760#Comment_119701760

Are materials used to make solar panels , wind turbines , electric cars , Bess etc infinite and pollution free ?

namloc1980

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119701865#Comment_119701865

It's grand. Bit of wind and we'll be laughing 👍

Pa ElGrande

Tensions flare over the EU’s new irresponsible big spender: Germany

Dissent is growing in the EU — particularly in heavyweights such as Italy and France — about Germany’s massive €200 billion package announced last week to cushion consumers and businesses from the full effects of the energy crisis. These grievances now look likely to flare at Friday’s EU summit in Prague, when leaders will tackle the issue of rising energy costs and their economic ramifications. 

“Germany has shown a big middle finger to the rest of Europe with this package,” said one EU official. “That has really raised the temperature with the other countries.”

Now that the Irish establishment has an excuse for not having to be the best boys in Europe. It is time for pragmatism on the energy strategy for this country. First order of business, the decks need to be cleared and the energy brief must be removed from the bicycle tour operator currently holding the post. Second order, with the Germans down there is no free money from Europe, we have to solve the problem of energy security and availability. Third order the existing system took 100 years to build, you are not going to change it in the space of 8 years, it will take as long again to change it.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119701774#Comment_119701774

If the construction of a small scale BESS plant is delusional (having already been granted planning) then what is Nuclear?

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119701437#Comment_119701437

Nuke fuel will never run out. We have many decades worth of conventional uranium, centuries worth of thorium, and an unlimited supply of uranium from seawater.

The cost of uranium is a small fraction of the cost of running a nuclear power plant. A significant increase in fuel price would have little effect of the economics of nuclear. Uranium currently trades in the $100-$150/kg range. The cost of uranium extraction from seawater is ~$1000/kg. It could be reduced to $300 with advances in adsorbents, but it doesn't really matter. $1000/kg is affordable -- it's 1% of the price of coal per unit energy (and that's before recent steep coal price increases).

Seawater uranium content is an equilibrium ion concentration. When you extract it, more simply leaches out from the seabed and/or riverine silts. The supply is effectively unlimited. Unlike with renewables which require green policy incentives, private sector commercial interests can be expected to expand the supply of uranium as needed.

namloc1980

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119702738#Comment_119702738

Oooh I know. A clean and reliable energy source independent of oil and gas.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119702772#Comment_119702772

If you consider all energy sources then nuclear is the obvious top one in terms of input to output. It has and can develop improved technology which replaces coal and gas fired power stations in the most efficient way. Ironically it was the Greens/Greenpeace who objected to nuclear power which lead to the explosion of coal fired power plants and more Co2 in the atmosphere, especially after the 3 mile island and Chernobyl incidents which basically stopped new nuclear tech from developing for decades. I took a look at the new hyped scare fest doc about the 3 mile island incident on Netflix. It is clear to me that most Greens are super scared about nuclear and would do anything to hype the fear just like they do with Co2 which needs to be curtailed. More irony here as we are likely to experience a shortage of fertlizer for growing food which mainly comes from (russian)natural gas . We are not going to have enough Co2 which is the opposite problem. So, the Greens should relax. Less people on the planet, less Co2 in the atmosphere. Everybody wins but for the dead poor people.

Some talk about hydrogen power but if you take a closer look there are multiple issues with it, the biggest one the extreme cold conditions it has to operate in and transported which costs a lot of energy. We are not there yet similar to wind and solar so will/might be additional.

As the west is determined to get off oil, coal and gas innovation concerning these techniques have halted. With the increasing global crisis overall investments go down, even for wind and solar, uncertainty collapses the global supply chain and investment further and a race for resources is the traditional route. Watch out for Germany in that regard. Right now they are both begging other countries to give some of theirs and borrowing humungus amounts of money, like everybody else. This is a momentary stop gap. It is going to make things worse. Is everybody familiar with the concept of hyper inflation and what happened to Germany in the 1930's? I hope so. You'd think the Germans would be super aware (economists usually are) but the current politicians seems to have no clue as to why the nazi fascists took over. The politicians will be the last ones to find out and can only point to the fascists coming for them instead of wondering why that happens. Just like mainstream media warning about upcoming 'right wing' parties.No clue as to why. Same thing happened with the democrats in the USA and Trump. Cause and effect, people!!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119702772#Comment_119702772

Which countries are currently extracting uranium from seawater at a level sufficient for power generation?

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703059#Comment_119703059

They German hyperinflation story also involves a shortage of energy, specifically coal. The Prussians had seized Alsace–Lorraine in 1870. France took Lorraine back in 1918. Guess where the steel plants were, coal is needed to make steel and it was in short supply for 5 years after WW I. The Germans needed coal for heating and their industry, but reparations, it had to be shipped to France, the Germans started forcing up the price of shipping by rail. Also going on in the aftermath of WW I, the Russian civil war, the Polish-Ukraine war, followed by the Polish Soviet war (1919-21). There was an expectation among the communist party in Germany (KPD) that international communism would be the way forward following the success of the Soviets. The Weimar republic had been inflating the currency, the currency became worthless for exchange and the French occupied the Ruhr, keeping the coal supplies going for their steel plants. In Germany during December 1922, the last straw that broke the back of the German economy was a forced loan of 10% of all assets (Schuldverfchreibung (Debenture Bond)). This destroyed the confidence that remained in the Weimar Republic and thereafter people withdrew the money from banks in the expectation a Soviet style wealth confiscation was coming and started to convert to other currencies and to buy whatever tangible assets they could. Hyperinflation took off in 1923.

Situation looks similar to today in some respects, shortage of energy (gas) to power German industry and homes, monetary inflation, war in Eastern Europe. Similar to Weimar republic, the Germans even have been run by various coalition governments with the  leftcentrist traffic light coalition (SPD-FDP-Alliance 90/The Greens) currently in power. As Mark Twain once said history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703173#Comment_119703173

I know you Greenies have difficulty understanding the capitalist system, but read the last sentence of my post and try to comprehend. Nobody's going to pay $1000/kg when they can get it for $150/kg. It's called a price signal. I realise this is a difficult concept for fans of renewables where the seller doesn't have to worry about being cheaper than the competition.

ginger22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=qadWRkPkKus&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0zwfBG_SpE8DGBLvpAw-zB3elsBnHwq_ah74ACy3rEBKiLOvPmqBfBl6Q

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119701379#Comment_119701379

I`m not sure German political incompetence fully explains it.

Green narrow minded ideology and hypocrisy as well as Russian money swirling around the top of the political food chain had a lot to do with it. And it doesn`t seem as if they have fully learned the lesson yet on nuclear. Either way, when it came to their economy, (and saving their own political skins), the ideology wasn`t long being thrown into the back seat.

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703173#Comment_119703173

You're a funny one!

We should completely write off any further consideration of nuclear based generation now because as of today it's not 100% guaranteed that it will be able to meet our global needs going forward and that even if it could, that it can do it a cost that is not prohibitively expensive.

Instead, we should focus solely and exclusively on wind and sun, despite the fact that as of today it's not 100% guaranteed that it will be able to meet our global needs going forward and that even if it could, that it can do it a cost that is not prohibitively expensive.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119701760#Comment_119701760

Wind and solar is dependent on gas, oil plus plethora of other minerals which needs to be mined at high environmental cost with associated pollution and all. Why do you guys always try to pretend that "green" energy or "renewable" energy is some miracle when in fact it is just as dirty as fossil fuels.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703842#Comment_119703842

There is more greenwashing than that where Drax is concerned.  Drax are the biggest recipients of renewable obligation support in the UK. Lots of snouts in the renewables through in the UK.

Government Whitewashing Lord Deben’s £600,000 Green Scandal

Self-evidently Deben was not telling the whole truth given that £600,000 has now found its way to his company from big green businesses that Deben uses his powerful position as Climate Change Committee Chair to persistently lobby for handouts of vast sums of taxpayers’ cash to.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703328#Comment_119703328

I dont want to delve too deep into history and parallels are usually off to some degree. There are both elements of the Weimar republic and the situation prior to the first world war. A new war will be very different. Right now Putin continues to attack the West on several fronts none of which are nuclear weapons based. He does the classic terrorist thing. A multitude of disruptive attacks, mainly on pipelines.

To get back to the topic with a few more backdrop thoughts concerning the Greens in Germany. The Greens made a coalition deal under Schroder's leadership in the late 90s/early 2000s. Their main demand: NO nuclear power. That could be done because it also made the powerful coal lobbies (which included the coal unions!) very happy. They built new coal powered energy plants, wind and solar parks and stopped plans for liquid gas terminals and of course stopped anything developing nuclear. The coal and oil was seen as a transitional energy that would be quickly replaced by wind and solar. Anyway, that is how the Greens perceived it. Schroder's SDP probably knew that wouldnt happen but hoped for the best. In time it became clear that powerhouse Germany wasnt going to transition any time soon as German people also have calculators. Enter Angela Merkel. East German, spoke russian, getting very friendly with Putin (Schroder also has big links with Russia via their oil companies).A deal was made and Germany tied itself to Russian gas. Problem solved. The idea was that business would put sense in Putin. Economic ties, no more wars. You know, the standard Western way of thinking. But Putin totally played them. He plays the geo-political power game that we, nice westerners have forgotten because we are comfy under the USA umbrella. And here we are..

My take away is: if it weren't for the Greens we would have reduced our Co2 emissions by at least 50% in Europe by going Nuclear back then in the early 2000s.Most are still opposed. It is like putting all your cracked eggs in one basket...

deholleboom

let me clarify: the current politicians seem to have very little technical (let alone scientific)background in order to make good decisions. It is easy to spot idealogically driven policies in former (and current)politicians. The german word 'realpolitic' is solely based on what you consider 'real'. For coalition politics that means making a deal that the involved parties can live with. They can at least be competent in that regard even though it might have serious complications for the future of the citizens. Politicians are by nature short term (read political term) thinkers. But they need at least some competent back ground for them to see the bigger context in which they operate outside of their own parties. But i do know for a fact that politicians who are too competent in their field are often seen as a threat as it makes the others look bad. In that way Grey is the preferred format and bureaucratic language a prerequisition. Is a minister really competent in his role? Move him or her to another department, quick.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703842#Comment_119703842

Now that is one serious and very expensive green-washing scam.

Chopping down forests, turning them into pellets, transporting them half way around the world with all the carbon footprint entailed, to then burn them where they omit more CO2 than the energy source they are supposedly negating.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119702914#Comment_119702914

... and wind and clouds and night and day.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703173#Comment_119703173

Probably the same amount as the hydrogen for grid scale storage countries?

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703059#Comment_119703059

Some talk about hydrogen power but if you take a closer look there are multiple issues with it, the biggest one the extreme cold conditions it has to operate in and transported which costs a lot of energy. We are not there yet similar to wind and solar so will/might be additional.

Start 6 minutes in. Discusses hydrogen, most of it is going to come from steam methane reforming (SMR), the costs of "green" hydrogen make it a non runner. The interview discusses the considerations for hydrogen in laymans terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlOCS95Jvjc

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119705216#Comment_119705216

The capacity that would be required to just use it for electricity generation alone makes it a non runner.

To use it as a heat or cooking source, regardless to the dangers to life and limb and the transport problems doubles up on it as being even more a non-runner.

Goes a long way to explaining why greens will not put a figure on the capacity that would be required and the subsequent cost to fulfill their green energy wet dreams.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119700995#Comment_119700995

Was looking back over that ESB video. As you say, the potential costs are nuts. They reckon we need 66 TWh of additional renewable generation from offshore wind to electrify everything. (Although, as they point out, it isn't actually "everything". It doesn't include aviation fuels, fertilisers, any additional demand, new industrial uses etc. It's basically 66TWh extra just to stand still). If we hazard a guess that offshore wind costs 50% more than onshore, based on this years RESS auction it's about €10 billion extra per year. Of course, that will offset a big chunk of the €5 billion we are currently spending on imported fossil fuels. But some of that €5 billion goes toward current electricity generation which itself will have to be replaced by renewables, and there's an unmentioned elephant in the room -- the amount of excise revenue that the government currently garners from fossils. That has to be made up somewhere.

If these were the only costs it would be hard not to see general energy prices going up by a factor of "several". It would need much more than a back-of-an-envelope calculation to get closer than that, and you'd hope that someone somewhere has crunched the numbers. Though I have my doubts -- if the answer has to be "net zero" you'd have to worry that people like Miss ESB scuttle off to calculate the energy requirements regardless of cost. I would really dearly like to know who is responsible for calculating these costs and presenting them to the Irish people, because I haven't seen any sign that it's being done.

However, my numbers for offshore wind generation are based on onshore strike prices achieved at auction. As we know, they are the prices at which the provider can turn a profit. They do not currently include the costs of providing backup generation or any of a number of externalities. In the brave new world all of that will include the cost of electrolysers, hydrogen handling, underground storage and all of the new infrastructure that goes with the hydrogen economy. Yet another elephant in the room is the cost of finance for all these capital intensive projects (including the wind generation itself). We're moving from an era of borrowing costs falling for four decades to one in which that is about to dramatically change. It's really not hard to see the cost of energy going up by a factor of five or ten. Who the hell knows? Nobody's telling us. But I'm pretty sure our high-tech economy cannot sustain that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703594#Comment_119703594

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119703906#Comment_119703906

It was a simple question, no need to be so sensitive

The farce that is the protection of peatlands in Ireland is getting more coverage

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/outdoors/arid-40975448.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/world/europe/ireland-peat-burning-carbon.html

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119706323#Comment_119706323

One of the most recently commissioned and state of the art windfarms off Scotland - East Anglia One - cost £2.5 Billion for 714 MW - so £3.5 billion per GW: https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/lines-business/flagship-projects/east-anglia-one-offshore-wind-farm

The annual operating expenses are £76,000/MW, so that alone is a further £76 million per year per GW, which is a further £2.05 billion over that windfarms expected life of 27 years.

At those costings, that 30 GW of offshore wind, over it's lifespan, is going to cost £166.5 billion for something that only has a capacity factor of 40-50%, so more realistically it's not 30 GW, it's more like 13.5 GW compared to a 90% capacity factor baseload source, which brings our spinning great white hopes effective cost, compared to baseload, of £12.33 Billion per GW, including maintainance. Of course it's likely to be more than that because we don't have the head start of a north sea platform servicing infrastructure.

I really don't want to know what sort of strike price you would need to offer to get investors interested in that scale of investment. Investors don't pay for this stuff, the customer does. You'd think some industry heavyweights like IBEC would cop on and do the calculations and come out swinging at the government loudly, angrily and publicly.

So how does that compare to the current cost of onshore wind, per GW?

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119706801#Comment_119706801

lol colonial clearance. err If I remember Irish history most of the clearance happed in 12th-13 century to raise bogs and farmland.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119706889#Comment_119706889

£166.5 billion over the lifetime of 30 GW of offshore wind would actually be pretty good. That 30 GW is what the ESB has sized to produce 128 TWh of electricity per year. That works out at a 50% capacity factor. Over 25 years a £166.5 cost would work out to £51/MWh. That might be what some UK offshore wind is bidding, but the most recent onshore for Ireland was €97/MWh.

But again, the per MWh cost includes only what a provider would charge for electricity output from turbines. The cost of all the electrolysis, storage and handling of hydrogen, distribution, grid infrastructure, fuel cells, and the whole rest of the hydrogen economy ... that's all on top of the basic wind power costs.

Bear in mind those referenced UK projects are fixed foundation turbines. To get a 50% capacity factor from OSW I presume we are talking about turbines floating in the Atlantic, not the fixed foundation turbines in the Irish Sea that are expected by 2030. That all adds to the over-optimism: floating offshore wind is still a technology in its infancy. There are no projects of this scale anywhere in the world, not even close. And both Equinor and Shell have pulled out of what would have been large scale Irish projects. Right now, the push to scale up our renewables efforts seems to be in a shambles.

The cost of finance for renewables projects is likely to increase dramatically in the near future. Ironically, that's because of interest rates hikes due to inflation which in turn is caused in large part by high energy costs. Those are partly the result of underinvestment in fossil fuel development due to green policies. The whole thing is a vicious circle that could unstick the world economy.

Meanwhile back at home the government's sectoral carbon budget ceilings published last week imply that we are way behind emissions reduction targets for 2025. We have to start reducing our electricity emissions by 18% every year from next year, residential emissions will have to fall by 15 per cent a year, industry emissions by 14 per cent, agriculture by 5 per cent, services by 5 per cent and transport by 1 per cent.

It's all completely batty and not going to happen. There are no major wind projects scheduled to come online next year. I'd say it's going to be pretty obvious within a year that we are not within an ass's roar of 2025 or 2030 targets. By the time Eamon Ryan leaves office, his renewables forecasts will have crashed and burned. That is, they will be a failure on their own terms. Even had they been successful they would be a disaster due to the amount of malinvestment they represent.