"Green" policies are destroying this country

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121067618#Comment_121067618

Who's magically generating energy from thin air?

Have you ever considered the vast amount of energy stored in the atmosphere, oceans, and land? A single hurricane holds 200 times the energy produced by all human sources worldwide. And what's interesting is that hurricanes don't deplete this energy; they merely redistribute a significant portion of it.

Consider this: Every hour, our planet receives 10,000 times more solar energy than the total electricity we generate from all sources throughout an entire year.

It's not necessary to blanket the entire world with solar panels – that would be impractical and unattainable. So, how much land would we need to cover? Well, approximately 1/10,000 of the Earth's surface area is around 51,010 square kilometres, including oceans.

Around 5% of the land in the US is dedicated to medium to high-density urban spaces, and of that, 10 to 30% comprises roads and parking lots, mostly parking areas.

By taking the lower estimate, this results in approximately 49,000 square kilometres of parking spaces in the US alone. If we were to cover all these parking spaces with solar panels, assuming an average 10% capacity factor, we could generate the same amount of energy that all the world's electricity generators produce in a full year within just about 11 hours.

Remarkably, this potential energy source lies right above the vacant spots in every American parking area. You might think it's unrealistic to cover these spaces with solar panels. Yet, remember that we've already paved them with concrete and asphalt...

But that's not all – there's the other 90% of urban land. Many of these spaces are buildings with roofs. In the US, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated a solar potential of 1.1 terawatts across domestic, industrial, and commercial buildings.

Factor in the 500 terawatts of global onshore wind capacity, along with offshore wind potential that's multiple times greater, plus hydro and geothermal sources. This energy is more than sufficient without challenging the laws of thermodynamics or even approaching the upper limits of available renewable energy. Furthermore, consider the role of nuclear power, energy efficiency measures, heat pumps, and repurposing waste heat from industrial activities for municipal water heating....

The energy is there, the technology is there, there is no need for us to continue to burn fuel for energy into the 21st century. We just need to increase the speed at which we transition away from fossil fuels

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121068068#Comment_121068068

I realise that when needs must people attempt to take solace from anywhere they can get it, but from the weekend political poll report card there was nothing near a C+. for the greens especially. FG were the only party to improve their rating. Why that is I have no idea. It`s not as if they have done anything much since the last public report card to justify it, but then Varadkar did have a problem with the rewetting proposals and he pointed out the major hole in the railways report so who knows.

On the mention of tillage by the three wise men, how much of world CO2 emissions are due to tillage ? I seem to recall a figure of 15% - 20%. I do not know what they hope to achieve by organic farming either. It would raise the cost of food, and as we have seen already, promoting it as some sort of wide scale save the planet idea would be a disaster.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121068518#Comment_121068518

Tillage is more a nitrate thing than CO2, though allowing air into the soil via tillage work reduces organic matter content over time. Min-till is one way to combat it and always ensuring there's cover on the ground and not leaving it bare helps. It's one of the reasons this sort of thing is being promoted with cover crops, straw incorporation measures, etc

The report from the most recent National Youth Assembly on Climate has just been released

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/efbcb-report-of-the-national-youth-assembly-on-climate-2023/

The key recommendations from the assembly

I'm very impressed by the results of this latest assembly. These young folks give me hope for the future

I've said it many, many times, that the sooner Ireland moves away from fossil fuels in our power generation, the better. Good to see I'm not the only one who comes to this (obvious) conclusion

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/09/04/failure-to-plan-for-future-electricity-needs-will-carry-a-heavy-price/

Through the European energy market, Ireland is committed to a competitive retail electricity market which, until recently, has yielded an extended period of sustained low electricity prices to the benefit of society and the economy.

The root cause of the more recent volatility is Ireland’s dependence on fossil fuel for electricity generation (48 per cent) and the exposure this has involved to increasingly unstable gas prices and geopolitical sources of fossil fuel. The sooner that Ireland can wean itself off carbon and be the master of its own energy destiny, the better it will be for customers.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121068553#Comment_121068553

Far as I recall there was a report by a New Zealand soil expert a few years ago - not exactly sure when - that gave the global emissons from tillage at between 15 - 20%. I know min-till etc is being promoted and is being carried out by tillage farmers, but for all the credit they will get from these anti agriculture articles they might as well not bother.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121067618#Comment_121067618

That's a bullshit statement of pure ignorance. The energy is there in superabundance, you just need mechanisms to access it.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069053#Comment_121069053

I stand to be corrected on it. I'll have a read around. No one in ag will get credit. One of the only areas to reduce emissions last year and FotE pissed all over that achievement yet applauded transport which increased emissions. Tillage lads can thank their lucky stars they don't have cows. Cows are enemy #1 at the minute. Tillage should be grateful they are flying under the radar. Tillage isn't even considered when it comes to nitrates, once again it's the cow despite tillage being a bigger leacher of N, a higher user of *icides and chemical fertiliser.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069344#Comment_121069344

Not sure you looked at what that scorecard is actually measuring

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121068242#Comment_121068242

Will Happer a nut job? Maybe have a look at his scientific credentials and his actual papers. Or simply watch the many youtube videos w him as a guest and/or presentations. My guess is you won't for obvious reasons. Nobody will debate him. There seems to be a blacklist of people nobody invites because they actually are experts in their field and considered too dangerous to the alarm narrative. To name a few: Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry. All pretty much out of the claws of the establishment.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069758#Comment_121069758

I wonder if there's a reason climate denier whacko's don't get invited to serious debates

I'm sure there's one, I just can't think of it

Coolcormack1979

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121068728#Comment_121068728

All Greta devotee’s.they’ll soon realise the real world is different.and I’m sure they will not want to jump on a plane to head off to find themselves in Oz.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069758#Comment_121069758

lve followed Linzens career for over a decade at this stage. None of his ideas about climate have stood up to scrutiny or been published as scientific papers, which is the test of a scientific theory as it allows others to confirm or disprove an assertion. He held onto his academic position simply because he had tenure and they couldn't sack him.

He's frankly an embarrassment to his institution and science in general, and he's a fundamentalist Christian - which is where I suspect his errors begin.

If you think he has anything meaningful to say about climate you obviously know squat about the field.

The following is an example of the horse sh*t peddled by Greens. Martha O'Hagan, Associate Professor of Finance at TCD opined on forestry in Ireland. She claims that Sitka Spruce matures and is harvested at 15 years, and the land replanted with Sitka, and seems to imply that the landowner is given a second bite of the cherry with new planting grants and yearly income. Total nonsense. I hope her business ability is better than her forestry knowledge.

SSitka Has a rotation of between 30-45 years., and no, there are no replanting grants or 15 to 20 year premia for the second rotation.

To my mind, nobody has called her out on this

https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0902/1402977-score-card-plan-to-bring-back-irelands-native-forests/

prunudo

Probably getting confused by thinnings after 15 years.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069200#Comment_121069200

There are only so many rare earths, lithium, etc that's needed for the capture and/or storage.

There's also the issue that if the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, your green basket hasn't any other eggs. It doesn't matter how much energy exists in the cosmos if you cannot harness it as required. But you can live in your world of superabundant energy (and darkness without hydrocarbon backup) all you want.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069883#Comment_121069883

If you want to over simplify things to make your point go ahead and be my guest.

Sodium batteries are entering production - no need for lithium or rare elements. They are approaching the energy density of Lithium but at a fraction of the material cost. They are capable of rolling out massive battery storage using one of the most abundant elements on the planet. This is just one of the promising battery technologies currently in active development.

It is rare that their is both no wind and no solar - and as more offshore wind comes on line that becomes even rarer. Interconnects spread the load sharing even further and make the grid even more robust as on a continental scale there are always sources of renewables. Guess what - that is the long standing strategy of the EU to create a continental wide HVDC grid moving renewables all the way from Iceland (geothermal) to Spain (massive solar). All with technology that is mature and implementable right now.

Meanwhile solar has reached 30% conversion rates and there is no reason to claim that it will not go higher as it is still an active area of fundamental research.

But here's the kicker - the big energy suppliers know this, they have known all this for decades - and you know how you can tell - because they stopped investing in their stranded assets at the point when their own research revealed the game was up for them.

None of this claims to be the only options available - these are just the ones available now today - research is making breakthroughs in every field of alternative energy and so the limitations of the technology as they stand today are not the limitations of the technologies tomorrow and the next year.

You gave away your utter cluelessness when you let your little thermodynamics quip slip - better retire and stop embarrassing yourself.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069858#Comment_121069858

No she said it matures at 15 and is replanted and that landowners get replanting grants and another round of premia.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069702#Comment_121069702

I did. I see they gave ag 4, transport more yet ag is painted as being the laggard. There's bias there

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069820#Comment_121069820

https://twitter.com/HaroldKingston1/status/1697882834524897671?s=20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121070180#Comment_121070180

Again, I'm not sure you understand what the scorecard is actually measuring.

It's a grading of the progress of the govt in relation to the commitments made in the program for Government.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069927#Comment_121069927

I'm not too sure what you find wrong with my comment, but it isn't incorrect. Technology is always telling us the next big thing is just around the corner. Small modular reactors have been promised for decades. Hydrogen has been the great green hope for the last 5 years, yet nothing commercial has materialised at scale. It takes time for these things to come to market. Especially when conversion and storage losses start stacking up and someone has to pay for them.

If you are putting all your backup eggs on proven technology like interconnectors, then you truly are deluded. The UK suffers similar weather patterns as ourselves so won't have capacity to spare. What's the incentive for France to share it's excess nuclear in times of crisis? Even if they wanted to, we're joining a pan European market and flows will be scheduled from France to it's AC connected neighbours long before anything comes across Celtic due to the losses. In this case, it's the laws of economics as much as thermodynamics. That's As for Spain and Iceland - the distances are astronomical even for HVDC, that's before you factor in the extreme depths and the state of the seabed floor. If the Celtic Interconnector is costing over €1.5B, going to either of those two will be many multiples of that. Neither Spain nor Iceland are particularly affluent so who pays for it, especially when there's very little benefit for them?

You are the one embarrassing yourself at this rate, listing all these solutions that may never come to pass and even if they do, at what cost? The fundamentals are the same no matter what technology you pick. There's no magic tap you can just turn on and have safe, secure and economic electricity and there's unlikely to be one in the next 6.25 years for 2030 targets.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121070501#Comment_121070501

How much did the current electrical infrastructure cost in today's terms ?

The costs are comparable to the cost of renewables so your objections are simply more anti green hysteria. Whilst you cry the infrastructure is been built today.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121070228#Comment_121070228

Right. Let's have a look. What's in the PfG on ag that justifies a mark for 4, versus what is in it for transport that warrants a 6, despite transport increasing emissions and ag declining. Was the PfG saying they wanted transport emissions to rise?

There's also the possibility that things change once the government is in place and react to world events. Unfair to criticise them on such instances, even if the decisions made are against what was set out in the PfG

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121069927#Comment_121069927

The capacity factor for solar here is around 11%, Higher in Summer, lower in Winter so pretty much meh as far as the grid is concerned. We have had extended periods where wind generation here was as low as 6% when wind also dropped off all over Europe. Just 10% of Spain`s electricity is generated by solar (half of that generated by nuclear) and Iceland generates 29% of its electricity using geothemal, (71% from hydro), so you would be a long time waiting for either to make up the drop off from wind here. Let alone the rest of Europe.

We do not have plans here for sodium batteries to stop the grid from collapsing during extended periods of low wind. Our plan consists of 30 Gigawatts offshore and hydrogen storage with half for domestic use (6 Gigawatts) and the same for hydrogen. Not only would the capital costs alone be horrendous for that 30 Gigawatt, plus all the hydrogen add-on too the consumer, (as well as the cost of that electricity even if it`s not required or used), which would have to be paid for by the consumer, plus the operational costs of both the generation and hydrogen, plus the profit margin over the lifetime of the contract. After that we would be back on the never ending cycle of the same again for the capital costs of the offshore 30 Gigawatts.

The costs of that proposed plan are so horrendous that even for greens who believe in magic money trees know how insane it is and run away anytime when asked, yet somehow have no problem quoting chapter and verse on costs and timelines for any proposals their ideology does not like.

The High Court has granted FIE leave to take a legal challenge against the govt as they say the 2023 Climate Action Plan fails to show how legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be delivered.

The case is due to be heard on Nov 6th

FIE is taking the case in a follow-up to its landmark 2020 win when the Supreme Court ruled that the climate plan at that time was too vague and lacking in ambition. The court ruled at the time that failure to be specific about how climate action targets would be met meant the plan did not comply with the requirements of the 2015 Climate Act. It was only the second time globally that a government had been held to account by the courts for weak climate action.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/campaigners-get-high-court-nod-to-challenge-states-inadequate-climate-action-plan/a1577417399.html

2 interesting bits of news from the UK

First up, the effective ban on onshore wind is to be removed after a group of Tories challenged Rishi Sunak on the stupidity of it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66715141

The big push for more oil and gas exploration in the North sea has not materalised as most companies are not willing to invest

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/North-Sea-Oil-And-Gas-In-Jeopardy-As-Financing-Falters.html

One of the big reasons is they see the next govt being led by Labour and know the current pro-pollution stance of Rishi will be killed off

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121070522#Comment_121070522

Over the last 140 odd years? Who knows what the total was, but it was delivered incrementally, not in one big bang in 6 years. Or even in 26. It was largely centrally planned and delivered maximum social welfare returns for the investment, on top of the secure supply benefits.

I'm not sure why you think I'm crying, in fact, it feels the other way around. Things aren't going your way. Boo hoo. Meanwhile, I'm responsible for delivering and operating a huge part of the change (over 10% of the overall electricity demand in Ireland) which is why I'm more than aware of the costs and the supply constraints with very little economic justification beyond European Regulation and some political will. Those things can change once the general population realises that it's their pockets being plundered to line those of a chosen few. Because let's face it, the main beneficiaries are those paying Whinge Energy Ireland and ISEA big cheques. Why do lobby groups need 50+ staff when you and a few others do their bidding for free?

ginger22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121072212#Comment_121072212

And can they meet the court costs if it goes against them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121072679#Comment_121072679

I don't see how it can go against them given the Supreme Court ruling and the challenge they are mounting is in line with that ruling.

That being said, they have won and lost cases in the past and I've seen no issue with payments of costs but maybe you have more info you'd like to share

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121072679#Comment_121072679

Probably no costs if it's brought under "environmental" grounds. The taxpayer covers those cases