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
12972983003023031062

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    You're gas

    Ireland 'could' see an operational LNG plant in 2 years only if the planning process was ripped up and the project got railroaded

    But if we're in favour of this, the foremost offshore wind farm project manager says they can build 5gw of offshore wind in 2 years if planning wasn't so slow. So given that either project would require planning to be massively sped up, why would we prioritise a LNG terminal rather than offshore wind?

    Offshore wind can actually boost fish stocks btw, they can act like reefs providing nurseries and biodiversity that boosts marine food webs and they provide shelter from predators (especially fishermen). Compared with gas terminals that provide (very) short term security for long term harm, I know which I would prioritise

    https://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/offshore-renewable-energy-improves-habitat-increases-fish/



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    In the Committee hearing the regulator was asked if the Commission had contacted us in relation to this matter and she said no. If the commission haven't even enquired about it then its a non issue as they do not think the UK are at all likely to cut off Irelands gas supply

    Post edited by Akrasia on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Asking you as you are obsessed with the issue of non-compliance. Personally I'm not worried as we'll come into compliance over time as we ramp up renewables and set up more electricity interconnectors.

    On the flip side, we have actually had to pay out 50 million in fines for missing renewable energy targets


    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I have no idea what off shore project managers believe, but I`ve told you that as far as Energy Ireland for them if they can get their ducks in a row they say 6 years. I have also pointed out that Phase 2 of Arklow bank is now delayed by 3 years due to a new consenting regime so I would imagine with murmurings from fishermen and wildlife conservationists their is a high possibility of the same being required of other proposed wins farms.

    I would have thought the prioritising of an LNG terminal was obvious on two levels. One it would be operational much sooner than the off-shore wind farms, and two we need LNG same as we need natural gas now. To fill in for the unreliability of wind. Wind is not going to be 100% reliable off-shore, whereas LNG is basically the throwing of a switch.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The fact that the E.U have not contacted the regulator today does not mean they will not tomorrow. It`s nothing to do about what you or I believe as what the E.U. may or may not be thinking. The regulator made it clear that as far as the directive is concerned we are not in compliance. Personally i have the feeling that with the E.U. putting so much effort and emphasis on LNG as a transitional energy source to fill the Russian gap, they may not be over-pleased to see that not only are we not in compliance, we are trying to ban LNG.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Time is relevant. The E.U. could notify us in the morning that we are not in compliance and start the clock on daily fines. Not being worried is much the same as not being worried about a secure energy source. Crossed fingers and hope for the best.

    LOL. Those fines for missing renewable targets are on par for the E.U. policy on electricity charges using marginal pricing. Take the money of those that are not doing well and give it to those that are doing well and keep widening the gap.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wait, you're worried about a warning that we might get? We haven't gotten anything yet? Your basis for this is a comment by the Irish regulator only and nothing from the EU itself?

    Ah hear

    Given that anything coming from the EU would be along the lines of "lads this is an issue, what are ye doing about it" followed by years of back and forth, the term "we'll cross that bridge...." applies.

    Jesus wept, I thought there was actual threat of legal action (ECJ) or fines, hanging over us.

    Storm, teacup

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Right so you just admitted you have no idea about how long it takes to build an offshore wind farm, but you're certain that an LNG terminal could be built way faster.

    With normal Planning an LNG terminal takes at least 4 years in Ireland. Offshore Wind turbines come online from 2026 not to mention the dolar and onshore wind and interconnector to France. Plus we have a secure gas supply for all this time. Your entire argument is hinged on your alarmist opinion that the UK will become like Russia and openly engage in resource wars with the EU.

    It's a complete red herring. We need to accelerate renewable infrastructure if only to stay competitive and position ourselves for the coming decades

    You are not living in the real world, you live in the version of the real world promoted by the oil and gas industry



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    But the EU won't do that. So we can ignore that as a red herring.

    What is independent of hypothetical political shenanigans, is the physical reality of climate change. Its a ridiculously expensive mistake to do anything that prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels

    No matter what metric you choose, political, economic, social, environmental. Biodiversity etc. It costs more to delay the transition from fossil fuels, than to act faster now even if it takes more upfront investment



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Whats with the poor effort at attempting to be humorous by replying to a post to another poster when I have already said to you that the E.U. could inform us in the morning that we are not in compliance and start the clock on daily fines ?

    Is it because I found it funny that the E.U policy of fines on missing renewable targets and then giving those fines to those that hit their targets was doing nothing much other than widening the gap and was pretty much on par with their marginal pricing policy ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Eugene Linden explains where we came from and why we are where we are. We can fix the problem but it requires investment. The fossil fuel industry successfully blocked uptake of renewable technologies for decades, but we are seeing now a rapid shift away from these dinosaur attitudes



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Neither me, you, or the people next door knows what the E.U. will do about none compliance to a directive. Especially one where they are attempting to plug the gap of Russian gas with LNG and our wooden-tops are trying to ban it. They have not been exactly ignoring any of our commitment failures in the past when it came to slapping on the fines either.

    No matter what metric you wish to choose, we are not going to reach 100% dependable renewable energy in the morning. It will take time and a transitional energy source. For us that is gas, and even if we were in compliance, attempting to ban LNG, which is an E.U. recognised transitional source, if it wasn`t so insane it would be laughable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    You keep saying that we aren't going to reach 100% fossil fuel independence 'in the morning'

    Nobody said that we can

    We have a transitional source. Moffat.



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


    lng is dead in ireland, it's not going to happen, it is not reliable and it is not secure.

    mean green lean cheap reliable efficient modern renewables are the future and are what we are getting.

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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭paddyisreal


    Juat reading back over a few of posts here by the greenies and you have to laugh at the idea where we all live in a fantastic future where all our energy is from renewables.... What drugs are ye smoking?, FACT is we will still be using gas here and in the rest of the world in 20,30 years and thats in a best case scenario so we should be securing that future through more exploration and lng. Sure renewables have a part to play but as far as i can make out all the greens are happy to get their electricity through interconnects and ye dont give a **** what they burn to make it once its not in your back yard. Hypocrites of the highest order.



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


    The only reason LNG in Ireland "isn't happening at this moment is because of the abject stupidity of the green party who have not only sought to block the building of essential LNG terminals but also their attempts to ban all LNG regardless of source.

    Thankfully the greens are on the way out and LNG facilities and natural gas exploration and extraction will go ahead considering that Ireland needs l safe, secure and reliable sources of Natural gas for the period of transition to renewable energy generation and beyond. And no the Moffat pipeline doesn't cut it with regard to those conditions.

    But more importantly, It doesn't matter whether you insist that you're "correct on everything" despite providing no evidence for that belief or indeed continue to use inverse name calling by referring to the green party as "non-morans and "non-muppets" and by inference that anyone else is a "moron" or a "muppet" because neither backs up anything you've tried to claim so far

    Eitherway manic flag waving for the green party is irrelevant regardless.



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


    To be be fair DaCor you and broken rabbiting on and making some unsubstantiated allegations against the company responsible for the Barryroe oil and gas field don't amount to a hill of beans.

    Your own ramblings on that subject have already been blown out of the water by any number of posters in this thread. Trying to pretend otherwise would be a bit like a kid in a creche having a tantrum tbf



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


    No "you're gas"

    Either you're a johny come lately to this thread or you're ignoring the issue of planning for the LNG terminal has been endlessly already gone over in this thread many times.

    The timeline for the development once planning permission is secured for the proposed Shannon LNG terminal has been determined to be max 2 years. Its not a complicated build with many of the components being shipped in already assembled. And the terminal won't cost the state a penny as the costs are covered by the developer.

    Regardless of how many wind turbines are in place in the short to medium term - if the wind don't blow then we need a safe, secure and reliable source of non renewable energy generation backup. And this is natural gas. And no the Moffat gas pipeline doesn't cut the mustard in that regard as outlined by our Energy Regulator.

    And that's where we're at.



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


    lng is dead, gas exploration in ireland seems to be unviable and renewables will be our energy source.

    that's not my opinion, that is the strategy we have been told and whether the greens are re-elected or not won't change the reality of what is going to happen.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,069 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Why is LNG neither reliable or secure. Is this just another of those baseless thoughts or can you provide anything to back that claim up ?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    By all means, choose any part of anything I've said regarding Barryroe and refute it. Everything I've stated is verifiable and I've linked to sources for everything.

    But by all means go ahead, I'll wait



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


    No need to wait at all. As someone here used to would say - read the thread.

    Brokens and latterly your many attacks on the company responsible for Barryroe have already been well refuted by multiple posters and both your unsubstantiated allegations pointed out. With you noticeably failing to back up those various claims.

    And its not like you don't know that already. That's unless as you've seem to have been only selectively reading parts of the thread?

    Btw no need for the old trite "so you couldn't" or wtte bs. It's all there in black and white already.

    The last time you brought up the subject of Barryroe and why Mr Ryan was stonewalling the company, you copied and pasted a load of generic information about fairly normal investor activity for any company. And then threw in a bunch of copy and pasted environmental regulations on oil and gas exploration, which I had brought up prior to your comment as being a standard part of an exploration licence.

    But when asked about what these regulations specifically had to do with Mr Ryans stonewalling of the company you bizarrely failed to reply.

    You were also asked to detail your similar investigations into various disasterous renewable energy developments, but nowt a word in reply. Its like you were only interested in doing a hatchet job on one company or something

    And here you are again repeating yet more rubbish.

    Post edited by Mecanudo on


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


    "Thats not my opinion"

    Incorrect. That is "your opinion" only.

    But who is this entity who has told you of this bizarre "strategy" that LNG is "dead" and natural gas exploration is "unviable"?

    LNG already plays an important part of the EUs energy security policy and will continue to do do so for the foreseeable future

    Thing is you also mention the green party. Even their energy policy details that natural gas is needed for the move to renewable energy generation and beyond. Even if they haven't quite figured how to do that yet.

    As for Natural gas exploration - That is continuing apace across Europe and with rising gas prices and the need for secure sources of natural gas - our untapped gas reserves are now more viable than ever. Pity some greens seem to have their heads firmly stuck in the sand about that and seem to want to ignore the reality of the current situation with regard to keeping the lights on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The words 'once planning has been secured' are doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.

    The exact same thing can be said for offshore wind. The construction phase is about 2 years. But planning takes years

    And Moffat cut plenty of mustard until the oil and gas propaganda started going on about the technical breach back in 2020



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Ah, the old 'read the thread' response to a challenge. The last refuge of the person who hasn't a leg to stand on

    Up there with 'You never answered my question therefore I'm not going to respond' in the debating tactics of scoundrels.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The Russian situation has accelerated the planned rollout of renewables to replace gas infrastructure

    This was always about investment.

    "Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans said: “It is time we tackle our vulnerabilities and rapidly become more independent in our energy choices. Let's dash into renewable energy at lightning speed. Renewables are a cheap, clean, and potentially endless source of energy and instead of funding the fossil fuel industry elsewhere, they create jobs here. Putin's war in Ukraine demonstrates the urgency of accelerating our clean energy transition.”

    "Full implementation of the Commission's ‘Fit for 55' proposals would already reduce our annual fossil gas consumption by 30%, equivalent to 100 billion cubic metres (bcm), by 2030. With the measures in the REPowerEU plan, we could gradually remove at least 155 bcm of fossil gas use, which is equivalent to the volume imported from Russia in 2021. Nearly two thirds of that reduction can be achieved within a year, ending the EU's overdependence on a single supplier."

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1511

    The EU commission plan is to decrease Gas use in Europe. The LNG plants are purely to allow them to become independent of the Russian gas pipelines. Ireland are not importing gas from Russia, therefore LNG plants are not required for Ireland.



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


    Nope . You failed to back up any of your claims when challenged.

    Barryroe and other untapped gas reserves remain an important reserve for natural gas in this country. And once the greens are given the boot- those resources will be properly accessed to help provide a safe, secure and reliable source of natural gas in addition to LNG

    Post edited by Mecanudo on


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



    it's not my opinion, it's the reality. the green party aren't ignoring anything hence they are, along with the rest of the political parties here implementing a strategy to move away from foscel fuels.

    we don't have any untapped gas reserves that are viable to explore.

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



Advertisement