"Green" policies are destroying this country

To this Immediate Action list I would add an Immediate programme to INCREASE our National Herd of Cattle,Sheep & Pigs and incentives to return fallow land to grazing.

If this disturbs the Green Party so be it.

This country and Europe itself simply cannot continue to appease the likes of Eamon Ryan just because he's a bit of a dose,but sure'n he's a nice chap n'anyway.

The Immediate future is bleak,but only because we have sacrificied commonsense & reason on the altar of attempting to influence the inevitable behaviours of a planet doing as it has done for 4.5 Billion years.

It is Irish survival we need to focus upon now,rather than depending upon a European Union which will prioritize it's own majors before it looks to us...We KNOW this already ! 😨

As I said before, I'm very familiar with those documents. I've also seen several of their technical presentations over the years which are not on the website. I've also been very interested as an "educated layperson" in the physics and economics of hydrocarbon exploration for more than 20 years, ever since becoming acquainted with how scarily dependent we are on fossil fuels. (It was around the same time I became aware of how out of touch the Greens are with physical reality).

So I can quite confidently tell you that whatever you've inferred from Providence's statements is irrelevant. The economic value of resources in the ground is not a fixed quantity, and it's viability is not solely determined by geophysics. Price changes have a large impact on the classification of reserves, as do other non-physical criteria such as the cost of finance. The value of natural gas (at least since the shale revolution) compared to oil has typically been very low per barrel of oil (energy) equivalent. Back in 2014/15 that ratio changed by a factor of three when oil prices crashed. It changed again as oil prices recovered, and changed completely again when European natural gas prices spiked by 700% in the past year. You can see several different field development concepts from Providence over the years based on these non-physical factors.

The thing is, all of them are just concepts until a final investment decision is taken. And that will be based on the factors that prevail at the time. The current high price of gas is a material factor, so I say again: the viability of any gas reserves in Barryroe is not some sort of "law of physics" that is fixed forever, and what you think the documents say is irrelevant. Even the physical factors aren't fixed across the field. The Lower Cretaceous horizon includes an upper sequence of gas rich sands and a lower sequence of oil rich ones. The only appraisal well that Providence have drilled was optimised for testing oil and ran into technical problems even at that. There are several other sand layers that haven't been appraised, and at least two older horizons at greater depth that are completely untested.

Neither a geologist nor an economist could share your apparent level of confidence in the viability of Barryroe gas. And the company's own statements don't change that. The only thing that can change it is appraisal drilling followed by a financing plan, both of which have been held up at Eamon Ryan's whim for nearly a year and a half now.

Don't wait, the perfect storm is coming, you need to buy a boat today, learn how to sail, navigate and survive extreme weather™. You will be able to visit me at my beach front property (admittedly its currently 200Mtr above sea level), however, I'll have the last laugh all those billionaires who own beach front property today and preach about climate change, will need a mooring place for their super yachts and I have the diesel supply (even better its green) and I have a generator in place today for electricity generation, plus a few acres of land, and a box of shutgun shells, access to turf and timber for heating, I'm all set. I'm ready today for the climate apocalypse, or is that the zombie apocalypse?, there are so many apocalypses now I can't tell, but I'm prepared.

We are currently on the RCP 8.5 pathway. The IPCC only says its unlikely because governments have committed to reducing emissions. You're on here saying we should break those commitments. If everyone's doing that then we're right back on the worst case scenario

Nope.

You are imagining that the renewables that get built will be operating at their full capacity all the time.

When the wind stops off for a prolonged period there is nothing to fill the void bar fossil fuels- until green hydrogen or some other mass storage gets invented.

No we're not. You are making the same mistake that the media (and more than a few scientists) have continually made. RCP 8.5 was never the business as usual case. It was a no-climate-policy high emissions scenario based on high population and/or economic growth and a vast expansion in coal use by a factor of 6.5. Coal use peaked in 2014, and high population growth is already extremely implausible (and even more so under a high economic growth scenario). The IPCC itself has already been at pains to point this out. Please stop spreading confusion.

We don't have to imagine. We know. And the answer is -- not at all. Did you read the figures in your own article (despite it being a puff piece by the spokespeople for "Big Wind")? The wholesale cost of electricity was four times what it was two years ago. And that's because prices are not set by wind availability. You really should read up on this.

And here's another thing. If fossil fuel prices went back to "normal" we would then be paying our new onshore wind providers twice the wholesale cost of gas-fired electricity, because that's the minimum they're guaranteed. Renewables are not saving us money either in a high- or low-price fossil fuel environment. We are being scalped.

Wind Energy Ireland generate so much hot air, they could nearly drive their members turbines using their press releases, which also fail to explain how the grid runs when their members turbines could not generate sufficient power. Who generated 79% of the power? All wind turbines do is defer when the gas must be burned, they don't save any money and I have an electricity bill to prove it. The press release made no mention of the balancing costs incurred as a consequence of the turbines unreliability.

And in the magical green world all this solar and wind power can be stored in the fairy storage land where the wind always blows and the sun always shines. Crock of shite more like it

Because wind and solar are variable installed capacity is meaningless. As is the average percentage of installed capacity generated over a period. If you want 100% reliable dependable electricity from renewables then the installed capacity required is determined by the lowest percentage of the variables involved.

We saw for long periods that on-shore wind was only contributing 6% and even lower of our daily requirements where we had installed wind capacity of 75%. That made the installed capacity meaningless as we would have required 16X that to achieve 100% of our needs. Now presumable someone has taken note of that in determining just what installed capacity we will need from on-shore, off-shore and solar to reach this 100% so what is it and how much will it cost ?

As far as I can see nobody knows, and there is no plan other than to keep throwing money at it hoping to somehow, at some undetermined time in the future, get to a 100% dependable reliable supply of electricity from renewables. That`s not a plan, that`s a Hail Mary. And a money pit Hail Mary to boot.