"Green" policies are destroying this country

We need gas. where do we get it from?

1. The coal generation plant is due to be shut down in 2025 (I doubt they will)
2. Nuclear generation is not allowed politically (Carnsore protests) and a large baseload plant take time to build if allowed, unless SMRs can get going. I have an idea we may ultimately have no choice but to settle on SMRs.
3. Hydro generation in Ireland is maxxed out
4. Extension leads have limited capacity and our neighbours are facing constraints of their own. Under extended very low temperature conditions there may not be any surplus to export.
5. LNG terminal is not allowed, that leaves only Moffat.
6. Corrib peaks in 2026
7. Batteries are only good for dealing with local stability problems, not the extended wind outages or darkness hours.
8. Without gas wind and solar cannot maintain an efficient or reliable grid.
9. Diesel is expensive and useful for short term or local site outages.
10. The plan for transport & heating calls for more electricity consumption.

We are going to have to get gas somewhere, or accept there will be times when electricity is not available and adapt to those conditions.

This is a classic case of "Frackenstein's Monster". There is nothing intrinsically bad about fracking compared to any other form of fossil fuel extraction. Each and every point of concern can and has been addressed (with the sole exception of water use in arid areas, not applicable to Ireland).

"The beds are so near the surface that as soon as you frack them they would start to leak methane and chemicals into every water course and aquifer."

No. The fracking proposals for Ireland would have used zero chemicals whatsoever. Fracking can be achieved with no fluids other than pure rainwater. The methane has already been there for millions of years without leakage. Fracture lengths are a couple of hundred metres, much too small to connect the shale bed with overlying aquifers. Engineered steel and cement casings prevent any leakage from vertical shafts. Fracking in Ireland would have used electric compressors -- no acres of diesel trucks belching fumes.

You do realise that essentially all hydrocarbon wells use artifical stimulation including fracturing (not necessarily hydraulic)? Did you read the Environment Impact Report for Corrib? Section 10.4.5 Additional Processing Chemicals: corrosion inhibitor, scale inhibitor, well intervention fluids including packer brine fluids, mud acids (HCI/HCF) and stimulation fluids, anti-foam, mineral/lubrication oils, descaling fluid, degreasing fluids. The hydrocarbon industry has been managing this stuff for decades. Irish fracking wouldn't have used any of the normal fracking fluids.

"They have so much fugitive emissions from every part of the process that they would undermine every effort we are making to reduce CO2."

"Worldwide, onshore conventional gas is responsible for the largest amount of estimated indirect and fugitive methane emissions whereas. In Europe, downstream gas accounts for the largest proportion of emissions". (Source: EU presentation on fugitive methane emissions, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/energy_climate_change_environment/events/presentations/speaker_intervention_-_european_university_institute.pdf). There is nothing about fugitive emissions that is intrinsic to fracking. "Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that fugitive emissions are largely caused to a number of ‘super-emitters’, i.e. sites and infrastructures that, due to abnormal processes or conditions, emit high amount of unintended fugitives GHG emissions" (ibid, cf. Zavala-Araiza, D., Alvarez, R., Lyon, D. et al. "Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructure are caused by abnormal process conditions". Nature Communications 8, 14012 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14012 ). Again, fracking is not responsible for fugitive emissions.

"They are marginally economically viable as you require multiple wells at roughly 1km intervals to draw the same amount of gas as a conventional well, and they need multiple refracks at a few year intervals - each costing 100's of thousands to perform. The outcome would be an undermining of the agricultural sector - who sell themselves on a clean environment. The only people who make money out of shale gas are technology and chemicals companies who sell the whole ponzy scheme to the gullible."

I can't help noticing that concerns about cost and economic viability only surface when it's a disliked technology. Costs from commercial hydrocarbon extraction are borne by private companies. Malinvestment tends to get weeded out pretty quickly in the private sector. In the current economic cycle the US fracking industry has focused on paying down debt from previous operations in response to criticisms that it was profligately drilling new wells and ignoring cash flow and profitability concerns. Now? Now it is criticised for hoarding "super-profits" from well operations and not bringing enough new production online. Hard to win against the bureaucracies who do nothing but sit back and let private enterprise keep the lights on.

As for the "roughly 1km intervals" -- yes, that's over twice the spacing between 2.5 MW wind turbines which have a far, far greater above-ground visual impact and are four times the height of a drilling rig (not to mention a hectare of rotor disc). Twelve to twenty-four production strings can be operated from a single wellpad. Anyone with concerns about visual amenity has never visited a wind farm.

"Anyone who advocates for shale shows their political tribalism because if they had have spent half an hour honestly assessing the available information on the techniques they would quickly realize that it cannot be rolled out in Ireland."

I've spent a lot more than half an hour assessing it. There's only one reason it can't be rolled out in Ireland -- cultish greens spinning "Frackenstein" fairytales banned it.

Where is this "draw down a lot of foreign nuclear" going to come from ?

We have one interconnector to draw on and that is from the U.K. Not a source you would bet the farm on considering their emergency plan of shutting off gas pipelines and their position on the NI protocol. The proposed interconnector to France only received planning permission 6 weeks ago and is years away. Even when operational with the energy crisis in Europe it is very questionable what surplus France will have. Especially when most needed during peak usage periods.

It`s not a case of "if we accept that domestic gas is going to become essential" the E.U. has accepted that it will be essential for many years to come, and you only have to look at the SEAI interim report for last year to see how essential it is to keep the lights on due to the unreliability of wind .

And what is this Norway model. The one that is throwing around exploration licences like snuff at a wake while our Green party has banned exploration. Or is it the model where their government stepped in this week to end a strike by oil workers which would have left us without any gas within days because we have no back-up storage facilities or would have been able to use LNG, a recognised E.U. transitional, source because we do not have a LNG terminal. Which if the Irish Green party get their way with their proposed legislation, that along with exploration (other than bizarrely for gold and silver, where environmentally when it comes to extractions are far from friendly) will also be banned.

Fracking is a major contributor to climate change, it cannot be part of any solution to climate change or energy security:

"Methane has been rising rapidly in the atmosphere over the past decade, contributing to global climate change. Unlike the late 20th century when the rise in atmospheric methane was accompanied by an enrichment in the heavier carbon stable isotope (13C) of methane, methane in recent years has become more depleted in 13C. This depletion has been widely interpreted as indicating a primarily biogenic source for the increased methane. Here we show that part of the change may instead be associated with emissions from shale-gas and shale-oil development. Previous studies have not explicitly considered shale gas, even though most of the increase in natural gas production globally over the past decade is from shale gas. The methane in shale gas is somewhat depleted in 13C relative to conventional natural gas. Correcting earlier analyses for this difference, we conclude that shale-gas production in North America over the past decade may have contributed more than half of all of the increased emissions from fossil fuels globally and approximately one-third of the total increased emissions from all sources globally over the past decade."

The point regarding the Norway model is that industry will not invest in Irish gas unless it is state owned and the initial development is state funded - that is the Norway model.

Cherry pick that conclusion to ignore the the fact that the report attributes 50% of Americas methane emissions to Fracking and it does it with the same methodology that allows us to attribute anthropogenic CO2 emissions to fossil fuels.

In Ireland the fugitive emission from each well would be even higher because of the locally unsuitable geology.

The idea that Fracked gas represents any form of transition fuel was always a lie hidden from the public by the gas industry. Fortunately the lie was found out before the industry spread widely outside of the USA.

The reality with regard to conventional gas is that the industry has been searching for viable fields in Ireland for over 40years - and they have only ever found a tiny amount of economically viable reserves. The industry is prepared to sink a few million Euros into speculative exploration every so often just in case they hit the jackpot - but the chances are vanishingly small.

When there is no energy to run the machine, production stops. The producers immediately notice, us consumers get the message 5 days later when the shelves are empty. Over the past few decades our system of production is built around just in time supply and that all depends on reliable energy supply. What happens when there is no energy? Something neither Healy-Raes nor the urban green voter, nor any anyone one elses constituency has had to reckon with for a long time. People in Sri Lanka are currently dealing with this reality and it is not pleasant.

Here is the reality behind the wind turbines (Same applies to solar). In terms of watt hours produced per annum they are unreliable. Take a look at this graph over the course of a month, the number of turbines available is relatively constant (some will be off-line for repair and maintenance). The output in terms of watt hours produced can go anywhere from (-2MW to ~+4000 MW). No way does this grid run without gas peaker plants.

The demand for electricity is predicable. The watt hours produced by base load power stations is predictable, the difference between unreliable is made up by gas. The Irish Wind and Solar energy generators are getting a free ride, they are not penalised for this, the gas and coal generators are, by means of carbon taxes and higher operating expenses which are ultimately passed to us in the price to us electricity consumers.

The people planning the grid are suffering delusional visions if they think they will get 70% of the grids watt hours from wind, solar and water by 2030.

How much electrical energy do you need to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysers? Is hydrogen and oxygen production yet load on the grid on top of projected demands fro heating and transport? Not to mention a new demand for water resources. You can see why the wind industry lobby is pushing for it, keeps the subsidies going longer. There is a company putting in a planning application to build electrolsers in Mayo for the purpose of hydrogen production. I have yet to find any costings for all these plans, but straight away I have a question how do you produce a product in sufficient scale and volume with an unreliable energy source? You don't is the short answer! You will need coal or nuclear to supply the reliable electricity for the process.

Ultimately the pressure to frack will come from the wind and solar power generators, they are not viable without a reliable supply of gas. When the voters can no longer depend on cheap, reliable energy they too will come on board.

...by any chance would the fact, we will be receiving a proportion of energy from fossil fuels and nuclear, would that offset any issues brought by a heavily reliant renewables supply?

Not enough capacity in the interconnectors to keep the lights on when the wind drops for a prolonged period in the winter.

Many of the European countries that have banned fracking have the same hypocrisy on it as Irish greens have on nuclear. When in a pinch happy to avail of it as long as somebody else is doing the heavy lifting. Same with Europe and LNG. Glad to have it and happy to ignore it`s provenance now that they need it

From the planning application for that interconnector until approval was not a long and labourious process by Irish standards. The application was lodge on July 9th 2021 and granted 9 months later on the 22nd. May 2022. Unlike Barryroe when it comes to granting licences it`s amazing how quickly it can be done when greens and their associates are on board. Serious questions need to be asked in this country on the often frivolous objections lodged to delay planning permissions.

How is it that all these projects that greens favour can be completed in the time estimated whereas those they do not will take years more. Are they being carried out in some alternate reality ?

Here we have had claims on how much longer it would take to build a nuclear power plant than the estimated time based on nothing much more than guess work. Of the 441 nuclear reactor built between 1980 and 2016 the mean construction time was 7.5 years from build start to grid connection.

The same has been claimed here by those apposed to LNG, in that it would take years longer to build one. Yet we have had both a private company here saying 2 years and Germany saying roughly the same.

You do not need large tracts of pipeline for a fixed or floating LNG terminal, and where Barryroe is concerned it is close to the Kinsale Head pipeline that the owners of which applied to have remain in place, so it would not be as if a new pipeline would have to be laid to shore if required.

@Pa ElGrande

I knows Rolls Royce is doing something with SMRs but I get the impression that the nuclear industry as a whole is addicted to mega-projects such as the EPR.

Do as I say, not as I do...

Chasing Yankee dollars, I'd like to see the return on investment. You missed their biggest hypocrisy - how exactly do Americans get to Ireland? and how many bikes do they hire to use our extensive network of bike paths? especially considering the demographic they are aiming? (retirees and business conferences). American workers don't get much in the way of paid holidays and it is often better value for them to take their children to Disney than come to Ireland. The Greens are cloaking themselves in green for marketing purposes.

Really what is important to ecologists is the measured 60% decline in biodiversity over the last 30years, a rate of decline not matched in millions of years and gathering pace every day. Ecology is the basis of all life including our own and if we continue to destroy it we destroy the basis of our own survival. There are no engineering fixes to ecological collapse.

Ecologists are not idealist dealing in "sinful" behaviour, they are realists dealing with fundamentals which engineers imagine we can ignore and sidestep. Ecology trumps engineering every single day of the week and we would do well to remember this.