"Green" policies are destroying this country

Why?

What will happen?

No. consensus has nothing to do with evidence.

• The energy crisis requires an urgent response from the Government.

The analysis and recommendations are aimed at the British government and may contain some measures that can be taken here to alleviate the energy crisis in Britain.

I don't know what earlier post you were talking about here.

I don't believe in good and bad investors, I know they invest to make a profit

It is in the public interest that investment goes into places that benefit society. That's why tax breaks and subsidies exist, to attract investment.

I don't care who the investors are, I care about what they invest in. If it's beneficial for society and the environment.

Water doesn't always boil at 100c. That's only at sea level under normal atmospheric pressure

We don't know if there aren't other undiscovered conditions that might change waters boiling point

e=mc² is true as far as we can tell. We can never know that we won't discover a scenario where e does not equal mc²

Proof is for Maths and Whiskey

Cunw said :"Greed is greed, and that applies to research as well. The money in climate change research is going to proving human-caused climate change and much of that research is conjecture based on computer modeling. If we learned anything from Covid, it`s how crap computer modelling actually is."

the scientists who were hired by the oil industry found the same results as those you claim are just chasing grant money.

Look the conspiracy theory that the vast majority of scientists are deliberately hiding evidence that climate change is being exaggerated is ludicrous. The tiny number of climate scientists who are critical of the consensus paid way more for their contributions to energy industry think tanks than any ordinary research scientist

The ihuman impact is likely greater 100% of the observed warming can be attributed to humans

If you had this conversation with me before, I would already have posted a link to at least one of the scientific papers that confirm this

So we have a shortfall based on levels at the moment before EV and storage heating etc

The news will cover a new study for a few hours or days if it even bothers at all, easy to miss if you don't look for it

There have been loads of studies which led the IPCC since AR5 (7 years ago) to conclude that Humans are responsible for all of the warming and this page here

gives links to lots of studies that show human warming is being offset by natural variability and negative feedbacks from Human emissions

The main reasons are

1. The planet is in a slight cooling phase
2. Human derived aerosols are causing 'global dimming' as we increase the Albedo of the atmosphere, so we're actually blocking some of the sunlight that is hitting the earth which is like an accidental geo-engineering program (this is where those 'we're going into an ice age' headlines from the 70s came from, but the ice age rhetoric didn't come from scientists, it was journalists over-reacting to science they didn't understand.)

Remove the aerosols by reducing particulate emissions, and when the earth goes back into a neutral or warming stage, and we begin to reap the full consequences of our GHG emissions that are no longer offset by the negative feedbacks of natural variability and particulate emissions, then we'll see the true impact of our GHG emissions

you've lost me again. I'm not talking about where the money comes from. I care about where the money goes to.

Why?

Because investment money is only relevant when it is used to build/make new things. The rest of it is not economic growth, it's 'transfer earnings'

If there is x billion dollars available to invest. If they invest in Oil exploration, the likely outcome is more GHG pollution for as long as the investment funding lasts

If they invest in renewables, the outcome is some increased GHG output at the start, but quickly transitioning to a long term reduction in GHG emissions.

Over time, the investments in renewable (infinite) power mean rapidly paying off the initial investment and making more sense than buying fuel to burn

Instead of buying the fuel from a despot who owns a mine, we're paying to transfer energy along dynamic energy systems

Big networks balance themselves organically. (when the infrastructure is in place)

If you think the electricity market cannot handle this because its too complicated?, the complexity required to send this message across the internet is much more complex. Individual electrons matter in this network, In energy trading, the individual electrons are agnostic of their source or destination.

You don`t really get it do you. Big business will do what it needs to do to turn a profit and right now renewable energy is big business with massive profits from state guarantees a marginal pricing policy and a taxonomy policy. All the result of green policy. Big business cares no more for societal good from renewables than it does from fossil fuels and what we are seeing right now is green policy, especially in Ireland, facilitating that with the strong possibility of blackouts which are not for the good of society no matter how you wish to measure it.

Pa ElGrande post#12706 provided a link from Watt-Logic, an independent energy consulting service, on the situation in the U.K. as regards energy which is mirrored here in Ireland.

In that article it points out that renewable energy was supposed to give us low carbon, secure energy at an affordable price and here in Ireland it has failed on at least two of those three. The author 6 years ago was warning that U.K. energy security was slipping away year by year with conventional generation being replaced by intermittent renewables, without the bulk seasonal storage technologies needed to manage that intermittency being deployed. In other words what many here have pointed out, the cart before the horse approach.

In Ireland with the Green Party not only was energy security slipping away, we didn`t have much to begin with, and what little we had or still have, was either ripped away by Irish Green Party strong arm tactics of shutting down or degrading conventional plants, (with both Tarbert and Moneypoint penciled in for the same shortly), to ensure we had no options but to follow their ideology. And that ideology is what has us looking at possible blackouts. There is no getting away from that or that it is in any way good for society.

On the affordability, I don`t think there is much need to catalogue how that has worked out with us being the 4th. most expensive country in the E.U. for electricity for the second half of 2021. Germany was 2nd. and we are both among the highest in the E.U. for renewables. With the latest strike price for on-shore and solar we are also the same as the latest strike price for U.K. nuclear.

The concluding paragraph of that article as regards the U.K. is every bit as applicable for Ireland.

"Longer term, we need a return to energy realism. Not all generation is equally useful, and simply building ever more wind capacity will do nothing to address security of supply issues arising from low-wind weather conditions, particularly as electrification of heating and transportation will boost demand. These are painful lessons - it`s important we learn them"