"Green" policies are destroying this country

Your effort at avoiding answering what I asked is a bit more imaginative than the usual suspects here, but still no less transparent.

There is no shortage of natural gas reserves worldwide. There is a shortage of gas in Europe due to the war in Ukraine. where Europe gets 40% of it`s gas from Russia via pipelines. The E.U. and many other countries in Europe recognise that and are looking to LNG to fill that gap. Our great geniuses in the Irish Green party are doing the opposite attempting to ensure we will never be able to avail of a recognised transitional source.

The U.K. presently is importing over 50% of it`s natural gas requirements and their own fields are becoming depleted. Our supply of gas comes from Norway via the U.K. The U.K. is no longer a member of the E.U. and when it comes to their Brexit nationalist jingoism and sabre rattling with their present attitude towards an internationally recognised protocol, not that far removed from Russia that could easily escalate to a trade war between the U.K. and Europe. Does that sound to you like a country that we have a secure energy supply source from ?

If it does, then it does not to our own regulator or based on the E.U. directive the E.U. either.

no i am correct on why europe have recognised nuclear as a transition source, it is to allow countries with existing facilities to keep them open until life expirey.

the plant in finland was committed to years ago and is being opened years late, by the time we finally started growing up and realising we have to deal with climate change it was to far to go for finland to cancel the plant, it would have cost them dearly, they are also lnly using turf temporarily as they don't have much of a supply.

france isn't having great luck with their designs for nuclear plants so they may want to build more but realistically they won't or will build a hell of a lot less.

the report that claims nuclear is cheaper then renewables does not tally with the actual evidence, which shows on expensivity that nuclear costs multiples of the cost of using each of the other energy sources as the only energy source to power a country.

i am correct on everything else also, i just read the facts and the evidence and it all destroys your arguments and points which don't tally with reality.

lean mean green efficient reliable cheap renewables are going to be our energy source which will bring full energy security and until then our existing strategy of piping gas will be our transition source.

Good, you've established there is no shortage of supply.

So your considered risk assessment is that the chance that the UK will turn into a hostile state and vindictively shut off Irish gas is so high that we should spend years and over a billion euros building a LNG terminal.

OK.

The EU does not care that we are in technical breach of the regulations because the risk of the above is very low probability

The regulator confirmed that the EU are not pursuing this

Do yourself a favour and stop digging. You have not got a single thing right so far.

You were wrong on both the U.S. natural gas reserves and on them supplying the E.U. with 15 billion cubic meters of LNG severly depleting their reserves. You are also wrong on your ramblings on the E.U. and "allowing countries with existing facilities to keep them open until life expiry". The E.U. have no such policy which is clear from Finland only 2 months ago opening a new nuclear plant and France announcing 3 months ago they intend building as many as a further 14 such facilities.

The report commissioned by the ECR and Renew Europe Group of the European Parliament on the Netherlands and the Czech Republic on nuclear for them being cheaper than renewables, even by 2050, is what it is. If you do not like it then take it up with the E.U.

Contrary to my posts, of all these facts and evidence you have supposedly read, you haven`t posted a single thing to back up your claims, or to counter the view by our own regulator on our energy security or on our not being in E.U compliance. It has all been nothing other than your own rambling ideas and suppositions that have all been show to be incorrect.

When you consider the financial outlay that other E.U. countries are prepared to spend on LNG terminals to ensure their energy security and that 3 proposed wind farms will cost 10 times as much without any guarantee of doing the same, 1 billion is relatively small pennies.

The E.U. may not be presently pursuing us on none compliance, but there is no guarantee they will continue not too. They can get very tetchy if you remain in none compliance of their directives without making at least some effort to comply. hich is what we are doing, and I doubt they have missed that while they are attempting to ensure E.U. energy security with LNG our wooden-top are attempting to ban it.

i'm not digging at all and i am correct on all i have stated, unlike you who continuously has to be corrected by multiple posters but continues with the same incorrect statements.

LNG in ireland isn't happening and neither is nuclear, it doesn't matter who you insult and call names they are not happening, ever.

Off again in dreamland years upon years down the road totally ignoring the real world of here and now.

Whether you wish to admit it or not we have a present day problem with a secure energy source that is coming via a none E.U. country with the same jingoistic nationalist traits as Russia, and we see what that is causing in the real world of not just here and now, but the real world for years to come. And our Green Party woodentops answer.... cross your fingers and hope for the best. That is not a policy on energy security, it a quasi-religious belief in the God of renewable energy as a savior when the sh*t hits the fan.

your arguments have been destroyed by multiple posters including myself, darcore and others, and the facts and evidence provided across the thread in relation to the efficiency and VFM of various energy sources.

Your not doing yourself any favours posting this kind of nonsense.

All you are doing is highlighting you chanced your arm on the U.S. reserves of natural gas, your idea that the U.S. would greatly deplete their reserves by shipping 15 Billion cubic meters to the U.S. (a drop in the ocean of their reserves), as well as being caught out chancing your arm on E.U. nuclear policy. You also chanced your arm on Barryroe stating there was little or nothing there without any data to back that up, and when it came to energy security the best you could come up with was you being able to read the energy regulators mind while ignoring what she actually said. On E.U. compliance as to whether you believed it was a cause of just picking what directives suited and ignoring those that did not, nada.

Just do yourself a favour, move on, but if you are going to post whatever comes into your head in future without anything to back it up then do not be surprised that you will be challenged on it by other posters. A little bit of research before posting can save a lot of embarrassment later.

Strange what you will respond to. Asked an inconvenient question and not a creep, yet you then pick up on a mistyped letter in relation to that same question. That really is pretty weird.

Well you have certainly been attempting to decimate it with some dodgy claims, but in fairness to the poster that is not what he was saying. He was saying that basically there was nothing there. Nobody knows how much is or isn`t there and we are not going to know unless Ryan gets his act together and we can all know for sure.