"Green" policies are destroying this country

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065044#Comment_120065044

So who decides there’s a shortage of oil?

Does ER get to decide there’s a shortage using his own context and hence have the power to ration diesel and petrol as he sees fit due to there being a shortage in his estimation?

Hmmmmm dangerous territory.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065475#Comment_120065475

They secured that funding on Nov 22nd, so only a few weeks ago

They also have no plans to start work until 2024 and its for an appraisal well only, so really won't make any difference if it ever comes to pass.

Given their history I expect nothing to come of it. Interesting to see them changing their name to try distance themselves from their own poor record too. I guess the Dept was right to insist on them adhering to the financial requirements as everyone else doing offshore work as they did not warrant special treatment despite the assertions of some.

The markets aren't fooled though with the company still trading as a penny stock. I wonder would that explain the reason for the Chief Financial Officer resigning 2 weeks before Christmas

https://www.oedigital.com/news/501577-barryroe-offshore-energy-cfo-resigns

How long they can actually stay viable is another big question hanging over them given the rate of cashburn

https://simplywall.st/stocks/ie/energy/ise-bey/barryroe-offshore-energy-shares/news/will-barryroe-offshore-energy-isebey-spend-its-cash-wisely

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065697#Comment_120065697

They also have no plans to start work until 2024 and its for an appraisal well only, so really won't make any difference if it ever comes to pass.

They first have to produce an Environmental Impact Statement which will take a year, and then they need yet another permit from Ryan so the timeline is as aggressive as it can be. They'll also need to build in time for lawsuits from Ryan's cronies in Friends of the Irish Environment and An Taisce -- basically the litigation wing of the Green Party. One of the reasons they are still at the appraisal stage is that prior to the current application, Ryan took 14 months to approve a routine two-day seabed survey.

It's clear Ryan wants to kill the project and I'd be unsurprised if the next step is for BEY to preemptively sue the government for failing in its commitment to honour existing licenses. If the project is as doomed as you say, why doesn't Ryan just let them at it and watch it fail on its own? His modus operandi is little different from what's happening at European level where the European Investment Bank's panel of advisers includes people like Johan Rockström who has made a career out of scaremongering on climate "tipping points" and now gets to set European policy on acceptable investments. All part of the iron fist of the Greens that has wangled its way into European policy.

Given their history I expect nothing to come of it. Interesting to see them changing their name to try distance themselves from their own poor record too.

And that continues to give me a chuckle as their main incompetent is the guy you are now depending on to deliver Ireland's hydrogen hopium.

namloc1980

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1610731543101673472?t=huy4232S-Ens2kdKY7IFeA&s=19

More of this please.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065044#Comment_120065044

"This will include the minister being able to determine how much diesel or petrol people can be given at service stations.

However, the exact details of what he would do in the case of an emergency are not set out in the legislation."

This is the bit that scares the bejaysus out of me. Giving Rip Van Winkle and his fossil fuel hatred I wouldn't trust him with this type of power.

JRant

https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38

This is the type of technology that could really move the needle by 2050. The improvements in power electronics and material sciences mean this is actually a very exciting project. Still years away from production but it's a step in the right direction.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066291#Comment_120066291

Maybe you're looking at different details to me but as far as I can see the seabed survey (SEL 1/11) application went in Jan 2020, new govt formed end June 2020, application approved Feb 2021 (8 months to approval), survey completed Nov 2021 (8 months later). If there's another seabed survey that "Ryan took 14 months to approve" let me know.

So it took them as long to complete the survey after getting approval as it was under the scope of ER's time in office. Doesn't seem like they were in that much of a hurry.

Now they'll go do this appraisal in 2024, then apply for something in 2025/2026, get permission in 2027 and do something in 2028. Anything to keep the gravy train chugging along

Not really anything to get excited over except for the lads milking it but I don't know how much longer they have as the company seems to be burning through its cash at a horrific rate.

Maybe they'll get good results and the share price will double.......to 6p

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120064986#Comment_120064986

Lol You don`t see any viable plan for nuclear, yet you support a plan for wind+hydrogen that you cannot even give a cost for as too its viability. Pull the other one, there`s a big bells on it.

I-SEM post 2018 does not make a single cent difference to the wholesale price. That is dictated by the marginal pricing policy which has nothing to do with pre or post 2018 I-SEM.

I didn`t post that 10% in relation to the IAEA and our grid collapsing if there was a sudden loss of !0% of demand. You did as being some kind of proof that nuclear would not be possible here because none of our generation could be more than 10% from nuclear. I simply asked if that was the case, then why did our grid not collapse on a Monday night in November just over a year ago when due to two plants tripping out within seconds of each other, with a resulting drop of 20% of demand, how come our grid didn`t fry. Or how come France regularly generate up to 70% of their demand from nuclear over all time periods and their grid hasn`t collapsed. So far you have not answered either.

I am asking you questions because, for someone who regardless of what you now say, from your posts you are very much opposed to nuclear. Your judgement on nuclear is that it is unviable, yet when it comes to your own favored wind+hydrogen, for someone that professes to know so much about nuclear viability, you, like all others here who support it, cannot answer even the most basic questions on the viability of this wind+hydrogen.Rather running away from verifiable data or attempting to ignore it is the norm. That I find very strange.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066397#Comment_120066397

Based on whats happened in other countries where shortages occurred, it would likely be something along the lines of priority of need. So the likes of essential personnel would be top priority (Gardai, medical, logistics, food producers etc) whereas the likes of Karen in her Chelsea tractor driving 1km to the school to drop off the kids would be very low on the list.

The emergency powers would be for use in emergency situations similar to how the 1947 Health Act emergency powers were utilised during covid by the Health Minister

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066427#Comment_120066427

Definitely promising but still decades away from commercial viability

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066511#Comment_120066511

Mustn't forget the public floggings

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065075#Comment_120065075

What strike price have they received for that and how long is it guaranteed for. ?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066556#Comment_120066556

See O-RESS1

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066397#Comment_120066397

He could be a sleeper cell for just stop oil activist group and decide to ration us off the stuff so that we all take on 50k+ debt to get a poxy EV

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066607#Comment_120066607

So would I be correct in assuming there is no strike price nor guaranteed time period for a strike price ?

If they do not get either of those then what are the chances of them going ahead?

Personally somewhere between zero and none would be my guess.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066533#Comment_120066533

Giving priority to essential services makes perfect sense. Giving any single minister "emergency" powers without oversight should worry everyone. Look at the COVID response and the serious curtailment of civil liberties by a single minister for prolonged periods of time under an "abundance of caution " approach.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066668#Comment_120066668

All joking aside but what would stop him from deciding this climate "emergency" is reason enough to limit supplies.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066710#Comment_120066710

Exactly.

I think it’s a very dangerous step tbh.

No politician should have that power except in a clearly outlined scenario- which by the sounds of it this isn’t.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066718#Comment_120066718

I mean, it can't be that hard to have well defined legislation making essential services a priority in a time of crisis. There's is no reason I can see why Eamo or any other minister for the environment should have such wide range powers that they can't even be defined.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066698#Comment_120066698

I find its best to avoid commenting on your assumptions as it tends to lead to an endless loop of illogical fallacies

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066743#Comment_120066743

Call me suspicious but it would seem to me that’s the idea.

The minute the oil reserves fall below 50 days for example rationing kicks in and stays in due to the climate emergency.

Its dangerous territory and if this kind of power is given to a politician with a vested interest- who wouldn’t need computer approval- I think people should be onto their local representatives voicing concern.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066538#Comment_120066538

It hasn't produced a single watt yet but looks like the latest model under development is set to test this part.

I would love to see another project like warp speed or Manhattan to really get things moving on a range of different technologies.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066838#Comment_120066838

I've been following Helion for years including, most recently, the construction of Polaris which is the successor to Trenta featured in that video. They are still aiming to demonstrate net fusion energy in 2024. But unlike most other fusion startups they have been separately working on a range of other engineering challenges that are needed for commerciality and establishing the component supply chains. Their plan is to license the technology rather than manufacture it themselves, but to ensure that it can be produced and deployed at a very high rate.

One of the things that tends to get lost on this thread in the bickering about nuclear versus renewables and the parochial concerns of Ireland, is that achieving global net zero by 2050 would require the deployment of about 2 GW of low-carbon generation per day between now and then. We're going to need a ton of renewables and nuclear and new technology, and we still need to invest a ton of money in fossils for decades as well. Green attempts to cripple the economy don't bode well for such a future.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065075#Comment_120065075

Was having a look out at the Kish lighthouse from Killiney the other day, and thinking how a wind turbine array on the Kish bank would look. A quick Google says the lighthouse is around 100 ft high (30 metres in new money). The new Codling Bank plan will be 100 x 1.4 GW turbines. The only ones I'm aware of are the largest version of the GE Haliade-X, whose rotor tips are 850 ft above the water line. The Kish, Bray, and Codling bank arrays will be right in the eyeline of Dunlaoghaire-Rathdown's leafiest suburbs. No doubt it's where some of the strongest Green party support resides, but I can't help wondering how they'll feel about hundreds of turbines each nine times higher than the Kish lighthouse.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066520#Comment_120066520

Hydrogen storage is one option. But because it's cheaper , faster and more flexible than nuclear it means that the nuclear option is not worth considering.

For the Nth time. Small scale production, storage and use of hydrogen costs £150m/100MW and will begin operation in 2026. That price will fall in real terms as the volume increases and technologies improve. There's 61GW of hydrogen production in the pipeline in the 13 largest projects.

Gas storage in gas fields is cheap £750m for 10 years usage in the UK, €800m in the Netherlanders both having near our annual gas demand. You'd have to derate storage to 30% eventually as hydrogen is less energy dense by volume. But in the early years you'd have a mix of NG and hydrogen coming out of the wells, easier to burn than Hydrogen, less CO2 than NG. Our gas network used up to 50% hydrogen in the past. Capital costs for hydrogen storage for our whole country are small compared to typical cost escalations at one nuclear plant.

Even at a 40% round trip efficiency ( 80% hydrolysis , 60% for CCGT or Fuel Cell) which would make the stored electricity 2.5 times as expensive as using unstored electricity. In the UK of the time you'd be using electricity from offshore wind at £37.35 (2012) for 15 years which would produce stored energy at £93.75 vs £92.50 for nuclear any any time for 35 years. The windfarms are producing, nuclear is already 10 years late. And as we've seen if the wholesale price falls enough it's cheaper to give windfarm electricity away for free than send it to the grid.

No new technologies are needed. You can get gas turbines that run on 100% hydrogen today.

Nuclear has a huge and unacknowledged overhead cost : abandoned and late constructions.

The history of new nuclear in the USA in the last 30 years is that Westinghouse went bankrupt leaving two reactors cancelled after £9Bn had been spent and two more taken over by the customer with $30Bn spent so far and still not finished. (The 3 reactors completed since 1990 had started construction in the 1970's)

France has oodles of grid synchronised AC interconnectors. Ours are DC and change at 10MW/min so it would take hours to respond to 1.6GW going AWOL

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067245#Comment_120067245

Couldn't agree more. Having a singular view and thinking one solution will solve our problems is a very human thing to do but it's lunacy when talking about energy production at the global scale.

We will have a mix of sources well past 2050 and anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional. It also shows the importance of sometimes taking a step back and asking the bigger questions. Should we go all in on one technology (in our case wind and hydrogen) or do we reduce emissions in the most economical way now by upgrading existing plants to cleaner fuels with an eye on the long game.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120060149#Comment_120060149

Not just nuclear and hydro

Any steam turbine generator relies on having abundant water supply

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120066792#Comment_120066792

Short version. You are correct, but I`m not going to admit it..

ps200306

Just thinking some more about those Kish/Bray/Codling Bank arrays, the DLR consultation website for the Kish Bank carries this cutesy picture, devoid of scale or reference:

But the correct scale compared to the 100-ft Kish lighthouse is something like this:

Imagine up to 300 of those from Dublin Bay down to Wicklow head. It's going to be quite a change of view.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067282#Comment_120067282

Back your hoses up there and rather going off on another of your wind+hydrogen is cheaper than nuclear and your continual posting of turbines and their construction going to become cheaper when from turbine manufacturers alone end of year financial reports that is not the case, show us these figures where wind+hydrogen would be cheaper.

Lets start with the Capex cost for the offshore section of this 30GW offshore plan with a 27 year lifespan, especially giving consideration to the fact that many of those turbines are planned as being floating, which we see from the recent U.K. CFD price is much more expensive than fixed turbines. How much ?

Next, the cost of the facilities require for hydrogen production, plus the annual operation cost.

Next hydrogen production is going to require the construction of desalination plants, which will also have operation costs as well as the cost of disposing of the residue which you cannot just dump back in the sea.

Next hydrogen is not as easily stored as natural gas.It has much more of a tendency to leak. Stored in disused gas chambers at sea may not be a problem, but running it through pipelines is, and it has a terrible tendency to rot seals and make metal brittle so using existing gas lines overland, especially through or to populated areas is not a great idea. So how do you intend to overcome that and at what cost

When you have come up with a cost for all that then we can compare prices. Until you can do that then your hydrogen+wind being cheaper than nuclear is nothing other than anti-nuclear ranting and guesswork.