"Green" policies are destroying this country

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121344525#Comment_121344525

Right so Ted 🙄

machiavellianme

Since you still haven't figured it out, REFIT never had any auctions. It was a scheme processed on date order (and qualifying criteria). I asked two questions to highlight the absurdity of your post by querying what "REFIT auctions" posed a de facto brake or specified locations for grid connections as claimed by Shoog. I then stated that the answer to both questions is "none" , because (a) there was no such thing as a "REFIT auction" and (b) no location specific auctions of any kind took place to encourage build out for 2020 targets. RESS was the first auction based approach for renewable support and is focused on 2030.

You obviously have no clue about what you have posted and are now trying to brush it off with some lame Father Ted quotes. A simple admission that you were mistaken and just posted something for the sake of posting would get you a lot more kudos. Instead you'll no doubt chalk it down as another victory in disinformation, but woe betide any "denier" who posts something other than what a few climate disciples view as gospel.

On the plus side, at least I didn't have to wait until 2030 to see you wrong on something.

I didn't realise the numbers working on wind were so high here at 5,000, and it looks like the numbers could double over the next few years. Awesome opportunity from the looks of it

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/mayo/news/mayo-based-engineer-leading-campaign-to-encourage-young-people-to-work-in-wind-energy/a1961770714.html

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121342296#Comment_121342296

Great. Let's say comparative numbers for an all-renewable grid. Pointing at the worst case numbers and going "Oooh, expensive!" when it somes no-one can (or will?) give comparative figures for even a best case all renewable grid is utterly meaningless.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121344525#Comment_121344525

The gates were a restriction on who could get a grid connection and they did restrict the amount of renewables which were allowed onto the grid. They also were only offered where the ESB had capacity, which as i said placed many projects in suboptimal locations.

Any claims that the gate system was demand driven by the renewables industry is rubbish, it delayed projects in queues, and placed no pressure on the network to put capacity where it's was most efficient. It slowed down the roll out of wind and left ESB firmly in control of strategic planning with very little will to achieve the national goals.

ESB/Eirgrid have been foot dragging since day one and the fact that buy back tariffs only arrived last year, a decade after the UK and most of the rest of Europe is testimony to their underlying attitude.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121341814#Comment_121341814

Whatever the reason for why breeders are not viable, (and it's way more than just proliferation fears) the fact is they have been tried for over 60 years and every attempt at commercialising them has failed, meanwhile the wind industry is growing h faster than it ever has before, and the nuclear industry really is collapsing, as the only SMR project has just been cancelled as its not viable despite huge subsidies

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/small-modular-nuclear-reactor-that-was-hailed-by-coalition-as-future-cancelled-due-to-rising-costs

Shoog

I am actually in favour of building just one breeder reactor. Undoubtedly it would be hugely expensive and unprofitable, but the crazyness of an industry producing huge stockpiles of deadly plutonium with no proposal of how to dispose of it could be addressed with a single breeder plant configured for eating down the plutonium.

It would bring its own issues such as how to safely move all the waste plutonium to the plant, but doing nothing is also hugely risky.

Breeder reactors will not be the nuclear industries knight in shining armour and it will not solve the energy crisis, but it could have a functional roll if you accept it will be a financial disaster.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121343336#Comment_121343336

If only there was a proposal, oh, let's call it 'Grid West's, that would have strengthened the grid on the west coast, it would have been great planning. Alas, the NIMBYs and Wally's got in the way demanding underground cables and all sorts of nonsense so it was binned.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121344964#Comment_121344964

The gates weren't only offered where ESBN had capacity. Nor were they an auction as you suggested previously. Since you don't know anything about what you are talking about, I suggest you look back at the detail.

They were based on a date order queue and were merely a batch processing of connection offers to stop developers from building multiple connections from neighbouring locations in a spiderweb of overhead lines. Instead, Esb and Eirgrid proposed clusters (based on the developer proposed locations) with cooptimised development, minimising the amount of overhead lines required (thereby lowering costs and impact on the environment). It also meant that interactions between adjacent projects could be analysed and understood (reactive compensation, power quality and harmonics etc). Firm grid access (FAQ) was then allocated to the projects based on their associated grid reinforcements. Those who needed little transmission or distribution development were prioritised ahead of those requiring expensive connections but every project, no matter where it was located, was considered up to a Dept enforced cap on that technology type.

Are you really proposing that due process should have been eschewed and that the thousands of speculative applications should have been allowed connect to the grid any which way they saw fit, even if it meant overspend and over installation on grid connection infrastructure? Look at the list of projects, lots of them were the same places but different developers (see Sliabh Callan mountain). All you had to do was pay a modest fee and pray someone bought your Connection Offer out. If there was no central coordination, there'd apparently be 3 overlapping windfarms in the same site. It was the wild west and the CER (now CRU) rightly instructed Esb and Eirgrid to establish an appropriate process to separate the genuine projects from the chancers and ensure that the electricity customer was not overexposed.

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121342472#Comment_121342472

1. We are told the biggest obstacle to wind gaining traction here is the amount of objections and judicial reviews hampering progress. The most common suggestion given to overcome that is to allow projects in the interests of climate change prevention to be allowed to fast track, or even outright bypass, the planning system. However, as the phrase goes, be careful what you wish for.
2. See 1.
3. See 1.
4. See 1.
5. When we have pricing of a fully functioning, all renewable grid, to compare against, then we can make that conclusion. Anything else is personal opinion.
6. See 1.
7. See 5.
8. From "we would have to build too many" in the case of nuclear to "we can't build enough" in the case of wind/solar. Which is it?
9. Same as for any typical large scale power plant really. I'd love to know what the maintenance period on a large scale hydrolysis plant and suitable storage and piping facilities might be, along with suitable generation plant, but unfortunately no-one has actually built one anywhere close to the scale that would be required to know that even for a grid of our size.
10. We have until 2050. I'd dread to think what situation we'd be in if we reach 2050 and an all renewable grid is still way off, costs have spiralled out of control and we start to have inevitable conversations then.
11. There is a risk of nuclear contamination indeed. Whether we like it or not our nearest neighbours are close enough that a problem for them will be just as much a problem for us and no amount of extension leads to tap into their nuclear derived power can distance us from that risk.
12. My biggest concern to be honest is a functioning grid that can reduce it's carbon output as close to zero as possible in as quick a time as possible. If we literally cannot keep the lights on then we are done as a country and a society.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121344725#Comment_121344725

Often times posters here with opinions of their own have been schooled on what the reality is. Or have said stuff in throwaway remarks only to be pulled up on it and corrected. Never have they the balls to hold the hand up and admit they were wrong, or even add a little thanks to a post indicating that they accept the correction. It's pitiful and childish. The response is often to switch to some other tangent and move away from the discussion.

Happens on both sides of the argument too. Really childish

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121344964#Comment_121344964

Ah, I see you have doubled down and retrospectively edited your post after being corrected in mine to really highlight how little you know on the topic.

You state that claims that the Gates were a result of demand driven by renewables are rubbish? At one point over 28GW of prospective projects was in the queue for a 5GW system. This was roughly 60:40 in terms of a renewable to conventional split. The CER rightly called a moratorium on all offers until a plan led approach could be established to allow any viable project connect based on feasibility and priority was linked to the the date they submitted their application. Had all 28GW proceeded, there wouldn't have been sufficient resources to deliver (on any side: manufacturer, installer, commissioner, operator), hence a sensible coordinated approach was adopted. Given that a significant proportion of the queue was speculative, this pause and coordinated process was welcomed by all sides. Your revisionism that somehow we'd have significantly more installations had the gate process not existed is the only rubbish posted here.

I suppose it is akin to suggesting we'd have a lot more houses and infrastructure in optimal locations if only the planning authorities hadn't done their jobs and instead turned a blind eye. Surely the developers would have just delivered every notional project they ever conceived in ideal locations on existing motorway and rail lines, with fiber preinstalled beside hospitals, schools and libraries and definitely not on flood plains or the likes. All this against a backdrop of a global recession but aforementioned developers had unlimited funds and certainly wouldn't result in ghost estates as they folded.

You might also want to understand the structure of the electricity industry before making derogatory remarks about the likes of Eirgrid or Esb. The Dept lead on policy but the CRU determine how and when things happen since they control the purse strings. Eirgrid and Esb can only act within their licence and regulatory obligations based on instructions and financing from CRU. There aren't unlimited budgets and it is all underwritten by the electricity customer. It's amazing that Eirgrid and Esb are held in such high regard in Europe at being world leading for the successful integration of renewables but you seem to think that they have failed spectacularly and only served to delay heroic developers and rob them of their profits?

Last time I checked, the national goal of 40% electricity produced from renewables by 2020 was met, so your entire argument that Esb and Eirgrid intentionally dragged their heels is undermined. I suppose it's their fault too that the renewables have failed to meet this 40% since?

roosterman71

Couple of biomass conferences happened lately in a bid to try promote more biomass use across the board, but in particular for heat. There seems to be good grants available for industry to move towards it, but it has a bad rep due to historical reasons. One point that was made is that the intake of biomass into Bord na Móna’s Edenderry plant is set to double over the next decade. No sign of that plant closing in the medium term then.

Also on that plant, the unelected Minister of State for Land Use and Biodiversity, Pippa Hackett, has refused to comment on Bord na Móna’s importation of thousands of tonnes of woodchip from Brazil, saying it's not her place to comment. Ya'd think her being the minister and all she'd be publically against the madness. Then again, the plant is in the constituency that didn't elect her so maybe she's trying to get some brownie points for the next election.

m2_browning

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121344324#Comment_121344324

That’s what really sad about these green types

On one hand we are told Climate Change is the most important issue ever and if we in Ireland don’t make major changes the whole world burns

Only for same posters to just shrug when one points out that these major changes are pie in the sky at best, disingenuous and will hurt this country and its citizens and taxpayers at worst

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346016#Comment_121346016

I am a big fan of biomass in the right place, I intend to use it to do most of the heavy lifting of heating my house where I can expect to get 90% efficiency.

However, just like peat, it's not energy dense enough to be worth putting into a power station - efficiencies of at best 40% means most of the energy is been emitted to atmosphere as waste heat which is the last thing we need.

It's just a quite stupid idea to use biomass where the primary output is anything but heat.

It would make more sense as combined heat and power district energy systems.

The perceived need to recycle a redundant peat power station is a wasteful mistake.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121339022#Comment_121339022

I get why you are confused since we do not see main culprit often here in Ireland. It is usually covered by the clouds.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346107#Comment_121346107

Yeah district heat from the "waste" of burning would be great. Pity the plant isn't situated near an urban centre to make use of it. I guess 40% though is better than 0%, and biomass is considered green. On paper then, at least, all is hunky dorey. I'd disagree with the last line. At the very least it can be used as backup when renewables aren't providing enough power, and biomass would be better than oil/coal for that job.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346171#Comment_121346171

Lol.

(Not laughing at your hilarious joke btw)

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346713#Comment_121346713

My friend is still earning significant money from his solar install in Nov up here in the cloudy North West.

A good indication of what we can look forward to once we get the rest of the load balancing infrastructure in place

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/11/09/portugal-sets-important-new-renewable-energy-record-as-production-outstrips-demand

One example of what we're rolling out, I think the plan is for 7 or 8 of these flywheels. One is already up and running

https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/stories/irelands-great-grid-stabilizer.html

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346553#Comment_121346553

In America they would call this a pork barrel project. I wonder who's constituency it's in ?

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346838#Comment_121346838

I mentioned this earlier (maybe you missed it, dunno). Laois-Offaly where they have 1 minister, who happens to be from the Green Party, and wasn't elected to the Dáil

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346938#Comment_121346938

Such is corruption.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346938#Comment_121346938

A Minister can be appointed from the Dail or the Seanad. Up to 2 Senators can be ministers at any given time. Ireland currently has one.

Its not the first time a Senator has been a Minister and it is unlikely to be the last time.

Examples, in 1954 when the former Fianna Fáil Minister Sean Moylan lost his Dáil seat and was nominated to the Seanad and then appointed to the cabinet in de Valera’s last government and in 1981 when Garret FitzGerald nominated Senator Jim Dooge as Minister for Foreign Affairs

ginger22

Cutting peat in the Falklands.

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=6437506769708199

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347028#Comment_121347028

I know that. Doesn't mean I'd agree. If you put yourself up for election, and don't get elected then I don't think you should be serving around the cabinet table. It's my own opinion and a major gripe I have with the setup

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347265#Comment_121347265

Maybe it'll be addressed when the Reform the Seanad but god knows when that'll happen

Some additional details emerging on the retrofit scheme

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41266006.html

Some of the main points

• avg cost for a full retrofit to achieve an A rating is approx 40k
• there has been a sharp increase in the number of property upgrades this year as well as the number of grant applications from households
• SEAI grants have been increased in line with market prices increase
• avg wait time for fully funded work is now 20 months
• there are currently 12,000 homes waiting to be surveyed to determine work to be completed
• the low cost loans are likely to see an even further expansion of demand for works

In terms of inspections

• inspections are not across the board and are targetted based on risk
• initial inspection pass rate is low
• the majority of fails are minor issues and quick fixes
• inspections are meant to act as a deterrent against poor behaviour and reduce the risk of abuse of schemes or unintended outcomes
• All contractors are subject to certain minimum rates of inspection
• 31 contractors have been de-registered for poor performance

All in all there s a lot of good news here, especially as regards demand. The numbers around inspections are also very encouraging with all contractors subject to inspection without exception. Its also great news to see that they are following through as de-registering poor performing contractors.

All very encouraging for the future of this scheme

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346171#Comment_121346171

Indeed. And the fact that he actually posed the question makes me think he skipped quite a few elemental classes in (climate) school.

There is a list of possible answers to the question which is part of a proper debate. I name a few: sun activity, directly and indirectly via oceans, ocean oscillations, underground volcanoes, reduced carbon particles (clean air) reflecting incoming sunlight, natural variability (ignored by the IPCC), Earth's axis changes, solar flares, changes in albedo and feedback systems. And for good measure (and by all means, Co2).

We do not know exactly which cause-effect mechanism is at play. Physics wont give you the answer because it only deals with steady calcuable parameters. We are at a loss concerning fluid dynamics for instance, H2o in all its forms, clouds. We can observe and measure. We cannot deduce and model the climate with ANY confidence. Period. End of.

If anybody really wants to gain some insight in climate i strongly recommend Judith Curry's site Climate etc https://judithcurry.com/

and/or read her book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Uncertainty-Risk-Environment-Sustainability/dp/1785278169

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347597#Comment_121347597

Until you can show a statistically significant correlation with any of your proposal your just playing fantasy football. I will predict you will fail since real climate scientists ( not the armchair cranks) have been looking for them for a few decades now. Zip, nada, zilch had been the result.

Good luck hope your dream team wins 😀