Energy infrastructure

What a clueless analysis of the situation - if wind and solar are so cheap and reliable than the likes of Germany and here would not be so impacted by rising gas prices. The reality is that every MW of wind needs backing up by conventional power sources and simply adds to the overall costs of running a grid. I would also point out that BNM holdings in the likes of Kildare and Offaly are some of the most biodiverse areas in there counties as evidenced by places like Boora and Lullymore.

Sheep glazing under PV would work but I can't see any other type of agri working under it in this country. It works great in countries with strong sun where the PV panels give some relief to the ground below which allows for growth which would otherwise be scorched. Given our limited sun, PV farms would only return low value agri but we also have plenty of marginal land for that too.

In our case, proper agricultural use is more desirable than PV because it allows for more added value, job creation economic gain through processing and export. There are other sources of electricity generation which don't have such opportunity costs. Large scale PV should be limited to the likes of cut away bogs and roofs. On productive agricultural land, it might make sense on an individual level where the landowner gets a return without much input, but on a wider level it limits other economic activity and job creation.

A farmer can decide to cover a field in sitka pine trees, or grow cabbage, let cattle graze on it, spread gravel on it to park machines, cover it in concrete to make a "yard" with sheds/sillage and hay storage/etc., cover it in glasshouses, etc. Why would you need to specifically ban farmers from installing PV panels on THEIR own land? Unless there are environmental or social externalities, then a farmer surely has the right to choose what economic activity they want to put their land to?

The idea that land is too precious a resource to be used for solar generation is ludicrous. Ireland is one of the least densely populated countries in Europe and nearly a quarter of its land area is deemed "unproductive". The amount of land required to support utility scale solar PV is actually tiny - less than 0.2% of the island's land would provide more than enough area to support the 2030 objectives. About 8% of Irish land has already been given over to low-tech, low-return uses like growing Sitka pine - the idea that we can't afford to use 0.2% on solar electricity generation makes no sense.

A farmer needs permission to build houses on his land, why would building solar PV arrays be any different?

Sitka spruce, while not great for our nature, provides an important resource in this country - wood. You cannot get it any other way than by growing and felling trees. Electricity can be got in other ways than solar PV farms, many of those other ways are far more efficient in terms of capacity and land use. I'm not advocating for planting sitka per se, but the idea that it is low-value or low-return and that the land would be better spent as solar farms is nonsense.

What you're talking about is the increased capital costs of building and maintaining dual infrastructure (dispatch-able fossil fuels + intermittent renewables). This is a disadvantage of our current approach but a necessary evil to make the transition to stop climate change. Capital costs are very different from the operational costs. For fossil fuel plants it is the fuel costs (operational costs) that dictate the price. The price of energy on the grid is always the last generator to enter the market, which is frequently gas in Ireland. Higher gas fuel prices higher energy costs for customers.

The current energy price rises are because of gas prices skyrocketing in the last 18 months. We've been building dual infrastructure for decades and prices were stable. It's disingenuous to blame renewables for rising energy prices.

Those uses are or will be influenced by wider policy objectives, a farm can't decide all these things themselves. Buildings require planning permission, Sitka is currently encouraged but that might not always be the case, if it is decided to reduce the national herd cows/cattle may not be an option. There are many reasons why something is encouraged or discouraged. Saying a farmer, or anyone, has the right to choose what economic activity they want to put their land to isn't quite that simple.

You can't just look at the area of the country in its totality and say PV only needs such a percentage so its grand. Much of the area of the country is not suitable for a start, it is under water or susceptible to flooding, is developed as urban/suburban areas, is under forestry, is protected for ecological reasons, is simply poorly orientated, etc. Much of the suitable land is also well suited to agriculture, relatively flat, dry, good orientation, etc. Large scale PV is likely to have a disproportionally greater impact on productive agricultural lands.

Agriculture offers more in terms of employment, added value, exports, etc. There are other ways to generate electricity which are more efficient. By all means use cut away bogs for PV but using productive agricultural lands is not a good idea.

Instead of grass could it be wildflower?

Is what is the carbon sequestration rates for grass vs wildflower?

The wildflower wouldn’t overgrow the solar panels and would be great for biodiversity plus you don’t need sheep or mowers to control them.

The only thing is the rates of carbon sequestration, for example grass is much better than wildflower in this regard so it’s worth getting the sheep in if you look at the Enviromental net impact of that acre of land.

The idea that using land for solar PV adds "less value" than agricultural use or is less "productive" is bizarre. The numbers are stark.

A hectare of solar PV plant costs under €1m euro fully installed. With lowish Irish capacity factors of around 10%, that will generate about 1GWh in a year, or about €80,000 or €90,000 worth of wholesale electricity. Conservatively assuming a margin of at least 10%, that's nearly €10,000 euro of "value" created by this hectare of what would be unusably bad agricultural land. This value can be exported and building and maintaining PV plant also creates employment.

Try telling a farmer that earning €10,000 a year from a hectare of bad land is an "unproductive" use of the land. They'll laugh in your face. Even with good agricultural land, it's hard work to earn a tenth of that.

This is why everyone else in northern Europe is installing solar PV as fast as they can buy the panels - simple economics - even in far more densely populated countries. Utility scale solar PV is the fastest growing generation method globally - for Ireland to turn its back on the advantages of this incredible new technology would be an act of great self harm.

I was going to say something similar - these are contracts for capacity - the gas burned to provide either power or spining reserve is extra -

Otherwise we'd have had no general electricity increases so far , and loads of bankrupt generation companies -

This is the sh*te we have been listening to for a decade now from your type - and yet costs and grid issues continue to spiral. The facts are that the likes of wind continues to fail on pretty much every front for the needs of a modern grid and economy