"Green" policies are destroying this country

Up until a few weeks ago not everybody knew. You were then cheering on a one man and hos dog protest in Galway against the opening of a gas fired plant there.

I`m not sure everybody even knows now. Ryan &Co. still do not appear to have got the message. Doing their utmost to ensure we do not get to know if we have untapped gas reserves, ignoring that 75% of the supply we are receiving is not secure, ignoring that we have little or no back-up storage facilities, beavering away at planning application level and attempting to legislate to ban LNG a recognised transitional fuel.

Now that you appear to have recently had your Road to Damascus moment on gas, maybe you could drop them a line and suggest they cop themselves on.

Eirgid have dashboard and you can download the data, last month on average we got 21.3% of our power from wind, at no time did it meet our energy needs and at no time was there any surplase to divert into battery storage. There were times where it meet 5 % of of our needs, others it was 50ish %

Hi dacor, you didn’t get around to answering this question?

You may have missed it?

You`re very much like the new lad to farming looking at a calf`s head and asking a neighbour did he thing it would make a good bull, to be told he was looking at the wrong end of the animal if that was his concern.

If you are looking for a 100% reliable dependable energy source the GWs needed are determined by the lowest level of input. Be that from on or offshore wind or solar. Talking about wind and solar installed capacity is meaningless. From on-shore wind where there is an installed capacity of around 4,500MW, and peak demand being around 6,000 MW, we have had for extended period due to low wind as little as 360MW of that 6,000MW being provided by on-shore wind.

So the question I have been asking is does anyone even have a vague idea of how much installed capacity from wind and solar will be required to supply the aimed for 100% of our needs, because as far as I can see there is no plan or costings other than throw money at both and hope that we will get it right. It`s a financial plan that your local bank manager would laugh you out the door if you approached him with it seeking a loan

So no answer to an important question then? 🧐

Ah the stock answer from a poster who recognises the flaws in his argument but just won’t admit to them.

Ah well.

Sure. Al Gore followed that science thing you mention. Then he wrote couple books and bought seafront land cheap for his mansion. Paid for by the people like you who follow that thing called science. Only that you choose to believe certain people who put great deal of fiction to that science.

Science hating seems big round here, unless its the science of nuclear and gas extraction. Why so selective ?

Stop bluffing attempting to either avoid or admit you have not the slightest idea what the answer is.

We already know that the on-shore wind installed capacity is around 4,500MW, 80% of our peak demand. For three prolonged periods this past year that installed capacity was supplying 6% and less of that installed capacity. Meaning had we 16 times more installed capacity from on-shore wind we would still have struggled to reach 80% of peak demand.

So...... taking into account the worst case scenario, (the one that would keep the lights on), based on the lowest off-shore wind what installed capacity will it take to make up the shortage of supply. 15 times that already installed on-shore, 15 times more, 10 times, 5 times, or is the only plan just to keep throwing money at it hoping it works out. ?

My personal concern would be the science is being hijacked to further an agenda.......the bits of the science used (most oft quoted etc) appear selective ...and when you ask for clarification or why the whole picture isn't being considered you are shut down/ignored/fobbed off with a hand wavey argument ...

Science to me never meant be selective to prove a point/railroad people.....

I make my points above in relation to what I've been listening to regarding farming over the last few weeks.....

Some of the "science" I've heard in that context has left a lot to be desired imo

Your attempts to avoid admitting that like any greens when asked you have no idea what installed capacity of renewables will be required to reach the 2030 80% is what I am finding funny.

Green hydrogen between now and 2930 or batteries that are capable of filling the gaps in input for long periods we have seen from renewables is just more green magic thinking. Pumped storage alone would be in the nuclear power price range, and adds extra amusement when we haven`t even storage for the energy source that is keeping the lights on, gas. Interconectors that will supply when we need it is not a plan. It`s crossing fingers and hope.

What is particularly amusing is your mention of logic where we are throwing good money after bad with no idea what installed capacity will actually be need and what that will cost. Logic, lol, greens would not recognise logic if it hit them between the eyes. There is no logic to the green ideology. The "all those emitters who are the real problem will see our example of crippling the country and do the same" is an example of greens logic. But then I do not know of any cults that operate on logic.

Aside from sending a dementia patient (Pelosi, 82) to try and start a war for no good reason. The Americans got the message last time the CCP dissed John Kerry on his visit to China. The CCP views climate change™ as just another tool of American imperialism, one which CCP are quite willing to use for their own 'discourse control'. Nobody moving to ban solar panels from China yet. China and India wrote their own agreement into the 2015 Paris agreement, they don't have to do anything.