Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
11501511531551561062

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    You mean the green party 🤣.

    Bizarrely less than a couple of posts ago you were agreeing that Natural gas was essential. You said.

    No argument there, its widely acknowledged that NG is the least polluting of all the polluting fossil fuels so is a transition fuel. Makes total sense.

    You seem to have forgot that already lol. Renewables are simply not a reliable energy generation method. We also need Natural gas to complement that and we need a secure supply. Crossing our fingers and scrounging off our European neighbours, hoping they might spare us a cup of gas is not a viable model to keep the lights on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭paddyisreal


    anybody who refers to that prick gibbons should look into him first. A bullshitter of the highest order. When questioned on china burning coal he said they should be allowed because they werent around during the industrial revolution and it was only fair! an absolute spoofer like all the greens. Rich boys with **** all else to worry about



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Not at all, I acknowledge that gas is a transition energy source, transition being the important word.

    Renewables are where all policies are heading and more importantly its where all investment, public and private, is heading also.

    That being said it will take time to "transition" to a fully renewable grid therefore an alternative source is required during that transition period.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,893 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Looks like John Gibbons is living rent free in your heads folks.

    Those sort of ad hominem attacks on someone for holding a different view just undermine your own cases.

    It's a broad topic, you have some good points to make and so does JG.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    Renewables are not reliable as a source of energy generation in our climate. They were not reliable this winter all over Europe winter despite their widespread geographical distribution.

    Until we have change of policy and or technology, the period of transition is going to be well beyond any of your personal optimistic projections. A fully functional transition will not happen overnight. It won't even happen in the next decade

    In the meantime we need a secure and reliable source of natural gas. We have existing gas fields, we have the potential to find more to ensure a continuity of supply and to ensure we keep the lights on, or at least we did before the eejits decided that the closing off of gas exploration here was the somehow a good idea. It's not. It's was a fcuking stupid idea.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    A fully functional transition will not happen overnight.

    Obviously

    It won't even happen in the next decade

    It's not planned to.

    The plan is 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2050.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    Pedantism doesn't help your argument.


    You forgot this bit

    Until we have change of policy and or technology, the period of transition is going to be well beyond any of your personal optimistic projections. A fully functional transition will not happen overnight. It won't even happen in the next decade

    Even allowing for your 20% by 2030 - wwe would still need a safe, reliable and secure supply of natural gas. How is this difficult to understand?

    Relying entirely on other countries to provide our natural gas needs is a bullshit policy, locking up our own natural gas reserves by stopping all exploration is lunancy.

    The most likley scenario is that the 80% and 100% will only happen with advancements in technology or a change to the current renewable energy generation policy because renewable energy generation is inherently unreliable as has been demonstrated in Europe this winter.

    These green plans are the stuff of fairy tales or your worst nightmare. Take your pick.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    You done similar over on the weather forum when you and another regular or two on this thread got roasted for making false claims about climate change, even trying to convince people that storms in Ireland were becoming more and more severe, yet the data from Met Eireann showed the complete opposite. Spoofers.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Not doing too bad




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The longer this conversation goes on the more it shows just how little greens here know on the subject of LNG, the problems with the supply of natural gas via pipelines due to the war in Ukraine, the manure we are in because of it and our overdependence on natural gas to fill the gap of unreliable wind energy due to the downgrading and closure of energy plants capable of using other resources. It`s not even a matter of how little they know. It`s the complete unwillingness to learn by doing even basic research and the determination to stick to the party line, even when the nonsense and hypocrisy of the party line is so evident.

    Germany have just signed a memorandum of understanding on the first of their planned LNG terminals, that even after overcoming the hurdles of licencing, domestic and E.U regulations, they expect to have operational by 2024, so this whole "years upon years to build" and "not before 2030 if we started tomorrow" is horse manure.

    We have no idea what indigenous supplies we may have or how economically viable they may be. If the greens are so confident that they are not there or viable, then why the determination not to grant exploration licences ?

    We could use nuclear if there is a surplus available and it is there when we need it, but both are looking increasingly unlikely as any country we can get this supply from will also be feeling the squeeze due to a gas shortage.

    At least if we went bankrupt from building a nuclear power plant we would have light and heat. Following this mad agenda we will end up bankrupt anyway without either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    oh we know the realities alright, you are just unable to deal with them.

    and as i said lng is natural gas so the issues with natural gas effect it just as much and then you have the liquifying and regassifying process which is more cost.

    renewables across multiple sources are reliable, cheap, mean, green, clean, efficient, modern and value for money and have been proven so, ireland is not going to ever be relying on wind energy alone, this is just a myth propagated by the do nothing brigade who's arguments have all failed.

    germany expect to have their lng terminal operational by 2024 however there is a massive difference between expect to be operational and will actually be operational, the likely hood is it won't be operational by 2024, so the won't have it built before 2030 is actually potentially accurate.

    we have a fair idea of what indiginous supplies we have and their economic viability as exploration has been happening here for decades and yet we have only had limited success.

    if we went bankrupt from building nuclear we wouldn't have light and heat as we would be unable to pay the hundreds of billions that nuclear requires in subsidy and payments from the consumer, which are extremely disproportionate compared to every other energy source, hence why indiginous nuclear in ireland just isn't viable and will not happen, the costs discount it, it's not socially economically or efficiency viable.

    as pointed out renewables are where the money is going, cheap, reliable, mean, green, clean, efficient, modern, value for money, will ultimately be subsidy efficient or even not require it at all.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Not only do you and the green`s not only appear to not know the realities, when they are staring you in the face not a single one of you has a single idea on how to deal with them.

    I know at this stage how slow you are to comprehend what is being said to you, (be that just due to you or strict adherence to the party dogma), but I would have thought you would have understood by now that the lack of natural gas flowing through pipelines is the reason LNG will be needed by Ireland, Germany and practically every country in Europe to make up for the shortfall. God knows I`ve explained it too you often enough.

    Renewable energy here is not reliable. It is the reason we have needed natural gas as a failsafe and will continue to into the future. Christ you should know that by now at least.

    Germany has signed a memorandum of understanding on having the first of their LNG terminals operational in 2024. Your 2030 is bull manure. It`s not as if they are building a rocket to go interstellar travelling. The cost is 500m. To put that in a perspective, that hopefully even greens can understand , the cost of building 14 miles of motorway.

    Again if you and the greens are so sure on there being nothing to find with any value, why the stonewall refusal to grant exploration licences.?

    As we are going to go bankrupt anyway if we keep following this Irish Green party policy agenda due to our economy being decimated, (along with our countryside), your thoughts on a nuclear power plant are moot

    As has been pointed out by many at this stage, while a lot of money has gone to renewables (wind energy) it has been shown to be unreliable and we are one of the four most expensive countries in Europe for electricity. Not much efficient, reliable or value for money in any of that.

    What "modern" has to do with anything I have no idea. Other than it often being used to describe shiny new things by those that confuse glitz with functionality and practicality.

    Post edited by charlie14 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Ya none of that is true. What actually happened there was the OP and king pin of false hoods MT Cranium flipped his opinion re climate change and turned completely pro the IPCC and in fact doubled down on their predictions with his own more disastrous ones. After that all the “skeptics” who previously liked everything he posted to the point being lickspittles abandoned him, going so far as to deny the flip flop ever happend and like the USSR it collapsed overnight. Cause you and the anti cohort boycotted it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    You can’t just unplug or switch on nuclear plant whenever it’s needed and if you knew anything you d know that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    Be grand. The Earth always finds a way. I'm not worried.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    lng is natural gas, it relies on the same sources to provide that natural gas hence if piping is difficult then getting it in the first place is also difficult, not to mention that it still relies on the same market prices and thus wholesale price, so it is going to be difficult and expensive to get it whether in liquified or gassified form.

    renewable energy here is reliable, you need something like natural gas as a backup for now no matter how reliable other energy sources are because equipment can fail, particular things can go down etc, however we will be at a stage eventually where renewables will exist in such force that they will be over reliable and able to back each other up all of the time, every time, and for much cheaper then everything else.

    germany signing a memorandum of understanding to have something operational by a certain date, is simply signing a memorandum of understanding to have it operational by a certain date, that does not equal delivery by that date as with all big infrastructure projects, issues can and will arrise that can push that date back, in some cases by quite a margine, therefore the 2030 date has very much the potential to be accurate.

    there is no stonewall refusal to grant exploration licenses, but rather a recognition that viability isn't there, and with little interest previously in licenses there is no point in wasting time on having a process available for something there has been little interest in previously.

    we aren't going to go bankrupt with ultra-cheap, efficient, modern, reliable, mean, clean, green renewables and neither is our countryside going to be decimated because only a small part of it is going to be used and better it be for that then being left a wasteland or built over.

    fictional bankruptsy of the state would not be justification to build a nuclear plant which will require costs that are multiples of the cost of every other energy source put together to both the provider and consumer, it's not viable, it's not happening, the state is not going to bare that cost and the private sector aren't interested anymore, only russia and china who we cannnot trust, and france who's recent designs have had reliability issues.

    we are not one of the most expensive countries in europe for energy, not even near it, and that is dispite the huge rise in the wholesale price of oil and gas.

    other countries will be cheaper due to huge subsidies which this government are not going to pay.

    lean, mean, clean, green, reliable, efficient, modern, cheap renewables are where the investment is going due to the low upfront cost but high returns and that trend is going to continue.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    the earth always finds a way when it was operating in a state pre-humanity, it's not anymore so this statement ranges from hugely unreliable to inaccurate.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,519 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    The statement was 100%. Humans are harming life on the planet, not the planet itself. The planet has and will go through much more severe changes than is going on now.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Transition is over 30 years, with various interim targets. That’s perfectly achievable



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    For any transition we need a reasonably priced, secure and reliable source of Natural Gas. Unfortunately those pushing their own unique green ideology in this country have done their absolute best to ensure that won't happen.

    And then even allowing for current targets, there is no current model which allows for 100% renewable energy generation. We're currently on a wing and prayer considering what is happening to natural gas supplies in Europe.

    Post edited by Mecanudo on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    No idea what you are attempting to say, other than perhaps you have some vague idea that nuclear is being used as back-up, similar to gas, when wind power fails.

    Those that have nuclear power use it as a primary source, not a back-up. It only goes off- line for scheduled maintenance and re-fueling. Normally in Spring and Summer when demand is lower. If you knew anything about nuclear power you would know that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭Mecanudo


    What's with the constant stream of misinformation in this thread? It's like something out of Putins Russia.

    Tbh I'm not even going to bother going into most of that ramble of nonsense but I'll highlight two things which stand out like sore thumbs

    First you say

    "there is no stonewall refusal to grant exploration licenses, but rather a recognition that viability isn't there, and with little interest previously in licenses there is no point in wasting time on having a process available for something there has been little interest in previously."

    Complete and absolute hogwash. The greens have endlessly pursued and lobbied for legislation to ban all licences for new natural gas exploration in Ireland despite the fact Irelands need gas to help stabilise inherent problems with renewable energy generation.

    We already have two natural gas fields which between them supply the bulk of natural gas in this country, but which only have a set lifetime with regards extraction. There is no reason to believe we do not have other significant reserves. And if the greens are so confident that there is no natural gas - then why the move to ban all such exploration? None of it makes any sense whatsoever

    This "stonewall refusal" for natural exploration is taken from the greenpartys own website

    "Green Party welcomes immediate ban on new oil and natural gas exploration

    Green Party Climate Action Spokesperson Brian Leddin TD has welcomed the move to introduce legislation to ban licences for new oil and natural gas exploration. The move to end new licences for oil and gas exploration has been a Green Party policy for many years and was a key commitment in the Programme for Government.

    The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and Green Party Leader, Eamon Ryan TD,today secured Cabinet approval for the inclusion of this legislation in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Amendment Bill, which is due to go before the Oireachtas in the coming weeks. This commitment has been given effect immediately, meaning no new applications will be now accepted by the Department"

    https://web.archive.org/web/20210202155316/https://www.greenparty.ie/green-party-welcomes-immediate-ban-on-new-oil-and-natural-gas-exploration/

    You also claim that

    "we are not one of the most expensive countries in europe for energy, not even near it, and that is dispite the huge rise in the wholesale price of oil and gas."

    Again complete balderdash

    European countries with the highest electricity prices

    The highest residential electricity prices within Europe are paid in Germany [30.34 cents] and Denmark [28.33] for many years in a row now. The price per kilowatt hour is more than three times higher than in Bulgaria [9.97 cents]. Belgium [27.92 cents] and Ireland [24.13 cents] are competing for the 3rd and 4th position in the electricity price ranking. Spain follows in fifth place with 22.39 cents per kilowatt hour.

    There should be no issue with discussion of future energy generation in this country. However the constant regurgitation of misinformation pushed by the greens in an attempt to pull the wool over other peoples eyes is truly sickening. The sooner those ideologists are turfed out on their ear the better.

    Post edited by Mecanudo on


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,076 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    The Greens may not be openly telling the public to go out and buy EVs but they are implementing taxes and policies that are actively pushing people in this direction by making older vehicles more expensive. Just like they did with diesels - same old story.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    You have immersed yourself so much into this whole Irish Green Party ideology that you cannot either see the reality or you do and just refuse to accept it, so I`ll do this again for you in baby steps.

    War in Ukraine, 40% of Europe`s natural gas needs gone. No pipelines into Europe capable of making up that shortage so natural gas will have to be sourced from elsewhere. Those elsewhere`s are all overseas. Natural gas in its liquid state has around 600 times less it`s volume than in its gaseous state, so it is not viable to ship natural gas in its gaseous state. Liquified it`s as easy and safe to ship as petrol or diesel.

    If renewable energy here was as dependable here as you keep saying it is then we would not need natural gas. The reality is it has been shown not to be reliable and as we have shut or downgraded all other sources we need, and will continue to need, natural gas for long into the foreseeable future. With a cut of 40% in the European supply of natural gas, then that is going to be from LNG. For that we have two choices. We can go like Ryan`s ramblings on nuclear on energy from another E.U. country, and get LNG piped in from a none E.U country, or we can build our own LNG terminal and source our own. Those are the choices.

    Your "Germany will not have an LNG terminal before 2030" is just a load of nonsense you have been spouting with nothing to back it up. Germany says their first terminal will be operational in 2024 and as I have already told you it`s nothing much more than a large storage warehouse costing 500m. costing the same as 14 miles of motorway and as a build less complicated than building a motorway. Are you seriously saying you believe nowadays it would take 8 years to build 14 miles of motorway ? It`s a nonsense.

    Your waffle on the refusal to even consider granting exploration licences is nothing other than attempted avoidance. If there is nothing there then it is not going to cost the state a red cent in time or money to grant them. So what are you and the Green Party afraid off, that there just may be viable deposits of natural gas or even oil ?

    As has already been many times pointed out to you, and which is blindingly obvious, we do not have reliable dependable energy from wind power, nor do we have cheap energy from renewables.

    Do a bit of research, or even scroll back through this thread and you will find a post of mine that shows data from Eurostat showing that ourselves, (and until recently the country we slavishly followed on renewables who were the shining light for Irish greens, Germany, until biting the bullet on LNG became in Irish greens eye a bunch of Healy Rae`s) has both of us in the top 4 having the most expensive electricity charges in the E.U.

    Unfortunately it is most likely to late and too much has been wasted on this renewable pipedream of greens for us to build a nuclear plant. If the Irish Green party had been serious about green energy they would have acknowledged what the E.U. commission does that there was the same role for nuclear as natural gas "to facilitate the transition towards a predominately renewable-based future" and supported nuclear rather than fighting it all the way based on nothing other than their own misplaced ideology.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah nuclear is never going to happen here for many, many reason, no argument there



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Far too broad a generalisation. I recently sold a house where the upgrade cost might be north of €400K and most people would see the sense in it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The main one being that unfortunately we have left it too late and have wasted too much money.

    You do realise don`t you that the E.U. looks on nuclear the same as it does natural gas as being a transition energy source. ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Given that woth the announcement that gas is going up 40% and electricity 30% and heating oil is already up 50% can they please fcuk right off with their carbon tax. There is absolutley no excuse for a carbon tax now. Peoples nuts are being squeezed enough for their energy needs now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭brokenangel


    If you google "when would shannon lng be completed"

    You get the following. Which seems to be in an article on Limerick Leader which is closed

    In a best case scenario, Shannon LNG would be constructed and operational by 2027 – this would result in the facility becoming a stranded asset by 2040; a lifespan of a mere 13 years,” the statement continued.



Advertisement