"Green" policies are destroying this country

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892465#Comment_119892465

People wont need energy wasting white goods like fridges when they are eating local produce that is in season. Dishwashers and washing machines are vain luxuries that are dooming us to self destruction when there is the option for hand washing.

People well off dont need to stress, your mud hut dwelling servants will do it for you ;)

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119889902#Comment_119889902

"Nuclear would provide 90+% day in day out with no need for hydrogen."

How ???

Civilian nuclear reactors are designed to run at more or less full power more or less constantly. Naval reactors run at low most of the time with short dashes at full power. It's very like the difference between deep discharge lead acid batteries for storage and ones for car starter motors.

Our demand changes during the day and during the year. Nuclear can only provide baseload and it can't be relied on.

It's the "Do Not Pass GO!" question. If you can't explain how nuclear can power a grid with highly variable demand then why are you proposing vendor lock-in for several generations ?

Nuclear is a bad solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist anymore.

Offshore in the UK is £37.35/MWh for 15 years. A windfarm that had it's contract awarded in July will be in production by 2027 based on the recent ones there. Hornsea is a smidgen under 50% capacity factor. So installing excess means you need a lot less storage. Even at a 40% round trip efficiency the cost of the electricity from stored hydrogen would be £93.375/MWh ( assuming the CfD also applies to electricity to make hydrogen and not the electricity made from hydrogen, otherwise it's 0/MWh in and £37.35 back out )

Hinkley-C is multiples of the wind price for 35 years and probably won't be in production in 2027 and produces no excess power for storage so all backup, load balancing and storage costs are extra.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892379#Comment_119892379

The battery systems on our grid for fast frequency have kicked in within 180ms. A blink of an eye takes longer.

As well as that inertial is used. Generators are big spinning metal things like flywheels. The current Operational Limit for Inertia is at least 23,000 MWs. Having storage means you can easily divert surplus or load shed, just as is done with Turlough Hill already.

As well as that there's a €50m synchronous compensator project being setup down in Moneypoint 130 tonnes spinning in a vacuum. It's one of the things that will allow us to increase from 75% non-synch to 95% non-synch.

Transformers are one of the many Achilles heels of nuclear. They are a frequent cause of nuclear outages. Probably size related.

Have a look at the Operational Constraints here https://www.sem-o.com/publications/general-publications/

Nuclear is probably not fast enough to use for Ramping Margin even if it had spare capacity which it wouldn't. And forget about Operating Reserve, 5 seconds - 15 seconds - 90 seconds - 5 minutes - 20 minutes. Nuclear can't react on those time scales especially if the Xenon is building up after it's recently been taken offline.

If a reactor went offline the rest of the grid would have to replace 75% of that output within 5 seconds. Nuclear would be a millstone needing to be dragged along by the rest of the grid.

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892370#Comment_119892370

As I said it reads as lowering living standards across the board except for privileged.

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892470#Comment_119892470

You say it in jest. But the funny thing is by the sounds of the green movement its so true.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892503#Comment_119892503

There are no perpetual motion devices. So after that is drained you pretty much put back in what you got out if not more due to entropy Again your dumping a large amount of power into the system. You also have to power it spinning via a constant push. I'm no expert here but can we point to a case where large portions of a grid went dark due to Nuclear having issues.

On the battery end that's just a fools errand expensive and not environmentally sound.

Mr. teddywinkles

Talk of ups systems with 180ms kicking time. Oh wow. The real question is how long can said imaginary ups system hold up the grid.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892557#Comment_119892557

I could try the math but no where near a large scale gravity system. It's supposed to smooth but again suffers from large amount of power being introduced in that time. so from 50 hz to god only knows. Power lines don't like that.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892476#Comment_119892476

Now you have moved from comparing apples to oranges to being disingenuous.

It was poor enough form when you were comparing the most expensive nuclear generation plant you could find to compare to offshore, you are now using the cheapest U.K. offshore contract for difference price you can find quoting Hornsea 3 at £37.35/MWh and conveniently ignoring that Hornsea 1, its next door neighbour, has a contract for difference price of £164.76/MWh (€184.44) or that Hornsea 2 contract for difference price is £57.50 (€66.11).

You are also conveniently overlooking that those contracts for difference are for 15 years whereas nuclear is for 35 years. During those 35 years offshore will have gone through another 2 rounds of contracts where you or nobody else knows what the price will be and offshore will have gone through another round of construction cost and half way to its second round in an environment that has turned anything we have ever placed in it to mush.

You have also recently started this attempt to somehow wedge in bits and pieces from the U.K. into the E.S.B. plan to make it look more viable. The E.S.B. plan is not a pick and mix. It is very clear what it proposes. Offshore wind to generate 30 Gigawatts which from average U.K. rolling capacity, U.K.because nobody knows what Ireland`s is) will result in 50%, 6.3 Gigawatts (your own figure) for domestic use and 50% for hydrogen generation. That is the proposed plan. No if, buts, maybes or anything else shoe-horned in.

On that I have shown you even best case scenario based on U.K. construction costs and using your worst case Hinkley costs that Hinkley could supply the same at half the construction costs for the offshore alone. Most likely a third by the time onshore construction costs are added for a hydrogen.

There is no "assuming" that the electricity for producing this latest hopium of hydrogen will be paid for by the consumer. It`a as plain as the nose on your face that it will be, because those investors are not going to provide it free and there is nobody else going to pay for it other than the consumer. That leaves the consumer paying double the strike price plus the cost of hydrogen generation,plus storage, plus distribution on top. And distribution costs will not be cheap either. You cannot use gas pipelines because hydrogen eats through welds, and compared to gas its properties leave it much more permeable with a much higher risk of leaks.

I have already shown you even best case for offshore compared to your worst for nuclear that offshore is insanely financially unviable. I have shown you that for the consumer the E.S.B. plan for electricity, even from what little we know, is also insanely financially unviable. If you do not want to accept that then that is up to you, but I really do have better ways of spending my time than continually filling in rabbit holes while you are hopping off down another one. So on that basis we are done.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892622#Comment_119892622

That is what you get if an advocate for the prosecution is trying to make a case, Charlie. Trying to bamboozle the judge with numbers that only point to one direction. Usually the defense will point out the many anomalies but it seems the prosecution has managed to silence the defense and not allow them in the room to state their case. And that is what we have within the EU/UN/WHO who will enforce the most draconian laws on its citizens, overruling individual countries, based on questionable data.

Edit: one might also bring in comparisons between states that do use nuclear as part of their energy system. They usually have a better balance and some leeway to move. Those without either have fossil fuels like Holland and Norway or hydro power like Switserland and Norway. Germany has been on a no nuclear path w imported gas fr an unreliable source (Russia). They have been thoroughly shaken as has Holland since their halting of their own natural gas production. A reversal seems to be on the books. Again, the reality wall hits hard.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892557#Comment_119892557

Don't confuse BESS with UPS systems. Although both use similar technology they don't serve the same purpose. Battery systems and UPS can respond much quicker than 180ms as well. A large scale industry UPS can respond in single digit ms timescales. BESS can respond to fast frequency dips on a grid level.

The hold up time is the crux of the problem though. BESS take up large amounts of land and a LOT of batteries. They also require a lot of maintenance.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892141#Comment_119892141

The ETS is certainly expanding to individuals. It is like rationing and coupons. You can only get x amount of butter if you have x amount of carbon points. Maybe that is an absurd hypothetical example but i can see it being used for energy allowance. And a remote controlled smart meter will fix it for you.

Not only that. The EU is discussing plans to tie carbon emissions to every company and will include the complete supply chain from production to the people using the products. In order for that company to survive they have to pay for an expensive carbon report. Bank loans and insurance will depend on that report whether it is the amount of money loaned or money paid out. It will not take into account any benefit derived from a product, like energy. And here's the thing: green tech will largely be excluded. Only the windmill blades will factor in, not the poles nor the concrete, nor the production and its elements (like mining). See how this works? Green label and you are largely off the hook for carbon footprint. No wonder they are so against nuclear branded green. Unfair or should i say fair competition..

I can just see this going to include individuals. Insurance companies who do not produce anything will be laughing: accident with your diesel car in which the other party was driving an electric car? Sorry, you dont deserve proper compensation, you were driving the devil's vehicle..

Pa ElGrande

While the UN, politicians, NGOs and media are sunning themselves at a sunny resort for the last few weeks. It is time to turn our attention to the fact that we live in the North East Atlantic and have to survive Winter. More people die of cold than heat, these are excess Winter deaths. A cumulative succession of stupid energy and monetary policies have crippled the availability of cheap reliable power in Europe, that has created a cost of living crisis.

It is time to remind those pushing for expensive, unreliable generation and expensive energy to consider what effect the cold climate has on us. It will not be warming up again until April/May time frame, typically January and February are the coldest months here in Ireland with temperatures between 4 to 8 C during the daytime. Can't afford heating? here is what happens. . . .

Staying warm: What does an unheated room do to your body?

He's invited me to his laboratory to explore the impact of cold homes on our bodies and why such seemingly mild temperatures can become deadly.

"Ten degrees is the average temperature that people will be living in, if they can't afford to heat their homes," said Prof Bailey.

And as I was about to find out, 10C has a profound impact on the heart, lungs and brain. source

The Lancet has more: Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study

Winter Cardiovascular Diseases Phenomenon

There is a clear seasonal trend of cardiovascular diseases, with the highest incidence occurring during the colder winter months, which have been described in many countries. This phenomenon likely contributes to the numbers of deaths occurring in winter.

In reality temperatures drop much further in a cold spell. Consider a 24 hour power outage with heavy snow on the ground I hate to think how cold things become without a fire to heat a room. More remote areas can be without power for several weeks after a Winter storm. Most people in Ireland are prepared for the Winter, however, this year more people find themselves between a rock and a hard place due to the cost of living struggling to feed and keep themselves warm.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893894#Comment_119893894

a lot of what you say is already embedded into the financial system. If you Google Citibank’s TCFD report you will see what they are increasingly asking of their customers so they can hit net zero financed emissions by 2050.

but like I said here before, the clue is in the name….”net” zero. It has been raised as a concern at this COP that the focus is shifting away from actual technology driven reductions to carbon credits and offsets….ie. accounting emissions reductions rather than actual emission reductions.

So what will happen is that progress will be reported over coming years in terms of reducing net emissions, but actual emissions will continue to rise. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

i am involved in the ESG reporting side of things in financial services, and some of the deductions and offsets are not robust. There is little governance around double counting of offsets and whether the money from carbon credits actually goes to what it is intended

and even if it does, you’ve got a massive time mismatch between emissions now and future offsets.

1.5 degrees is gone. Every climate scientist will agree at this stage and there have talks about setting a new target. The only reason it is still in the agreements is because to drop it looks like the politicians have given up, and it would trigger automatic payouts to certain vulnerable countries

we are now looking at probably low 2 degrees. Perhaps 1.8 if quick action

but it’s all about carbon accounting now, not real world impact.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119881168#Comment_119881168

I did indeed.

I'll give you an example of the pernicious effect of urban people with Green leanings in France.

In 2016/7 the TGV or rapid train from Paris to Bordeaux was opened. This made the province of Aquitaine very accessible to Parisians. 92% of the department is under forest, almost all of that is Maritime Pine. These were protection forests planted in the 1850s to stabilize sand dunes, and to protect the land and create employment. However these monocultures angered the Parisian self-appointed tree experts who began to push for broadleaf planting and some felled pine forests were thus left to "rewild" a phrase much used by Irish Green idiots. The massive fires that hit France this summer started in the dried grass and vegetation of these same rewilded areas. Some were man-made be it accidentally or otherwise, and the high temperatures also caused the dead grass to ignite.20000ha alone were burned in Gironde. One million tonnes of CO2 have been released this year in France from burning forests.

We await the calculation of Carbon not sequestered since Hacker and her pals collapsed the production forestry sector and the additional cost to the exchequer and taxpayer as we fail to meet our targets.

Green fanaticism is destructive.

Is this forest really unappealing?

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895763#Comment_119895763

Native trees are always much nicer. Was Ireland affected by Dutch elm disease for example ?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892541#Comment_119892541

Japan 80% of reactors have been down for 11 years.

Finland 50% of nuclear power delayed for a decade.

France 40% of nuclear offline since April.

Any grid that can survive that sort of abject failure will have no problem with calm days in winter.

Hydrogen storage is just 40% efficiency. That means it's still cheaper per MWh than nuclear even if the wind electricity at the start used for storage got the strike price rather than real-world economics where the electricity produced at the end get it. In the real world you would use other sources, demand shedding and interconnectors depending on price and availability.

Hydrogen can be stored underground in the same way that natural gas is.

The Netherlands is a small country. They have 127,380 GWh of gas stored. That's nearly 800 times the capacity of the global production of lithium batteries in 2019.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892541#Comment_119892541

Texas is not connected to the rest of the grid because then power plants would have to meet Federal standards, like winterising and having a reserve margin.

In Feb 2021 a reactor at the South Texas Nuclear Power Station shut down because it the feedwater pump wasn't winterised.

Most of the grid power loss was due to gas plants knocked offline. But a lot of that was because the rolling blackouts took out the gas compressor stations that didn't have backup. So the loss of nuclear was magnified. Some wind turbines also froze.

News analysis shows the catastrophic failure of Texas’s power grid in February killed hundreds of medically vulnerable people. And the gas companies made a fortune charging for what little gas was available.

Yet again when needed most nuclear failed to deliver.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895921#Comment_119895921

The entire system failing pretty much would be massively rare. So cold gravity storage would not have worked to well. Feed water pumps not winterised seems stupid. Google says it has got as cold as -23. Sound more like incompetence than a nuclear problem.

Big, big numbers for offshore wind development around Europe over the next few years

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Wind-Megaprojects-Are-Coming-Online-Across-The-Globe.html

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896046#Comment_119896046

Hywind Tampen, with a system capacity of 88 MW, is located in the North Sea. It will be used to power Equinor’s oil and gas operations in the region

Should probably read the articles.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895763#Comment_119895763

To play devil's advocate, there is some merit in planting broad leave trees. They usually have a better soil profile compared to conifers. The issue, like with everything else, is to get a balance not favouring one over the other. Broad leaves trees take quite a while to mature so i think they should be supported by the state. There is enough land in Ireland that would suit, although i also like conifers. They smell great but i am not in favour of a conifer mono culture just for commercial use. Because they are planted so close together it does not provide a nice ground growth. Plus they are not nearly as good for water quality in relation to soil management. Id love to see more birch, beech, oak instead of sycamore and ash as well. But maybe im biased coming from Holland and a very leafy area close to the dunes near Haarlem which has a great mix of trees and bushes, from typical dune flora and fauna which contain more conifers to broadleave areas where i was born. Holland is quite small but manages its green areas quite well. Ireland much less but i guess history has quite a bit to do with it. I'll leave it there..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896095#Comment_119896095

Fair points.

However your answer perfectly illustrates a lack of understanding of how and why conifers are planted for a commercial product. We need construction timber and that's why conifers are grown. The spacing used is the optimum spacing for efficient use of the site. What needs to happen is that when competition sets in among the trees, a thinning should be done to effectively respace the trees for their optimum continued growth. It doesn't matter what the plantation looks like. Some people find it distasteful but that is a subjective thing and of no import. To attempt to grow conifers mixed with broadleaves would produce less quality wood, and drive up the cost of timber. Management would be extremely difficult. Sitka which we grow here is a natural monoculture in the early portion of its natural life which lasts for up to 800 years. That pure forest will over time diversify. Thus a sitka plantation is effectively natural. Ground flora will evolve over time, especially if the trees are thinned early. Just because you cannot see visible life forms doesn't mean there is no life in that plantation. Most of it you cannot see.

We certainly need broadleaves, but to what end? Broadleaves are site demanding and oak and beech need the best soils to produce good quality wood. That great land is used for grass or crop production. I believe at on sites over 10ha, there should be 30% broadleaf, preferably native trees. The broadleaf component my produce some timber but the function will be mostly for biodiversity and aesthetics. However we have an out of control deer problem in Ireland and deer cause massive damage to broadleaves. So we need a strong and effective deer culling program. This to Greens is murdering Bambi and his mother. These are the same idiots who propose releasing bear, lynx and wolves in the west of Ireland, imagining that these animals will live and thrive in the mountains from Donegal to Cork. However there is no food there for them, except sheep, cattle and humans, because the deer don't actually live there but in the forests in the lowlands.....

As for conifers being bad for water qualty, why in continental Europe are conifers used to protect water courses? Is there something special about Irish water and conifers?

Jinglejangle69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896266#Comment_119896266

Great more taxes and more money out of the ordinary plebs pockets who are barely surviving from pay packet to pay packet.

All for some vanity project..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896266#Comment_119896266

good scam in fairness. Pakistan can blame the recent floods on rich countries instead of their poor planning and their societal problems that resulted in building shanty type towns along rivers etc. Now it`ll be the model to follow for all and sundry.

Mr. teddywinkles

How much more money will have to be printed for this. How will this affect inflation. Passed on to the ordinary joe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896266#Comment_119896266

Excellent news, there's been a lot of people looking for this a long time. Its not as good as it could have been, but its a good start

From what I can see all that has been agreed is to set up a fund. Nothing about who will pay and how much and the Americans have already said that they won’t contribute

it’s like my partner and i decide to save to buy a house and think that the work is done because we’ve opened a savings account

I have no doubt that some countries, in these austere times, would simply divert funds from their existing aid budgets.

But I guess it is correct to say that ‘opening the account’ is the first step

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895788#Comment_119895788

Very much so, I've never seen an elm tree that was wider than my fist or more than 10ft high ,even at that I can only think of 2 trees.

They often grew 80ft

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896390#Comment_119896390

Pakistan had 38 million in 1950, there is now 225mn.

The flooding in Pakistan is due to out of control population growth there, on top of that they have one of the largest dairy herds in the world, on poor soil, driven by massive abuse of fertilizer, as so common in all of Asia.

I'm not a climate denier but Pakistan's problems are mostly its own creation.

This fund is immoral.