"Green" policies are destroying this country

Huh?

No, most will charge them at night, but:

• 1mn EV's will add about 1-1.5GW of additional demand to what was traditionally the overnight low of (currently) about 3GW which will bring us close to our present evening peak of about 5GW, assuming you average out everything in an ideal world scenario (i.e. the real world will be more difficult)
• 600k heatpumps will add up to another 1GW of power on top again which will be weather driven (i.e. the coldest weather often coincides with periods of calm, windless periods, when heating demand peaks and heat pumps tend to be at their least efficient)

And that's all based on our present day population and housing stock which needs to drastically increase in the years ahead.

And that's all before we even consider all these wonderful new opportunites the green promise us like producing hydrogen in vast quantities, being able to export green energy via interconnectors, and storing power at scale to cover extended periods where demand exceeds supply.

Yes but the climate will change anyway based on history.

I understand the idea of reducing pollution and the circle economy and trying to use renewable energy as much as possible.

However driving people into massive debt to reduce CO2 emissions is just crazy.

If the water is not available for cooling, as happened in France this year, then it doesn't matter how many nuclear reactors are there, the whole facility is compromised

But you did ignore almost my entire post. What do we do for the next 14-30 years while we wait for the plant to come online?

It's not at all weird how you Greenies love to sh1t on anyone who doesn't agree with you. Ideological rants are all you've got, and moral grandstanding about imagined uncompassionate anti-science opponents. You know nothing about me or my attitudes. Not that it's any of your business, but I have three science degrees to master's level (hard physical sciences, not nebulous humanities), and I work 100% for vulnerable people's charities for zero pay. Maybe that's why I understand the real-world impact on vulnerable people of Green policies. The people pushing those policies are mainly pampered suburbanites with an irrational fear that the world is about to burst into flames. They're led by dangerous goons like Eamon Ryan who -- literally yesterday -- trotted out the "world on fire" catchphrase in interview, and by old world socialists dressed in new green outfits like Guterres. If there was any common sense around these days they'd be done for false advertising.

When you say 'Most' of those islands were sinking on their own, do you have a number for this, eg, is that 50.01% of them? Is it 50.01% by population, or by number of islands, or by land area?. Do you have a source for this?

of the <50% of the islands that according to you, weren't doomed naturally, but are being swamped by rising oceans, what do you have to say to these people? Sorry, we couldn't be bothered to make changes necessary to stop the pollution we're emitting that's causing your entire civilisation to be washed away?

Well, apparently we're going to sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for Eamon Ryan's green hydrogen to come online. Though I suppose we won't be doing literally nothing -- we'll be actively sabotaging our remaining options for keeping the country running by banning LNG, refusing to develop our indigenous resources, and hypocritically depending on the UK and France to keep sending us their fracked gas and nuclear while also begging data centre operators to fire up their diesel-powered backups. And I guess we'll be killing off the surplus population by hypothermia, which will suit the Malthusian Green agenda to a tee.

for the record i think that was julius ceaser in carry on cleo 😁

When it happens over 1000's of years there is time to adapt to it and well, one species dies out or back and another does better. This is more like a climate car crash it will all happen quickly.

the big issue I have is that none of the solutions are real solutions. Wind turbines harm the envionrment in their creation, their blades have to be buried, electric cars and their batteries damage the environment in their creation, solar cells cant be disposed of properly etc etc. Governments arent giving us solutions - they're blagging us and creating industries rich people can get richer from.

Uniper was in trouble because it bought around half its gas from Russia and is now in trouble because of contracts it signed to supply gas at prices much lower than they can buy it now. It`s about contract commitments not LNG.

At least Germany are concerned enough to take action on their energy security unlike here, and they do not seem to share your worries on LNG. They are building two LNG terminals, have already leased 4 floating LNG terminal with a capacity of 5 million cubic meters a year, and are planning on leasing another capable of a further 5 million cubic meters per year on it`s own.

They had set aside 15 billion euro in credit lines according to Bloomberg, and now that the first 1.5 billion has been nearly exhausted, they have set aside a further 2.5 billion euro for LNG. Seems the Germans look on LNG as a good solution and I haven`t heard of any Germans on the streets protesting.

The Germans know the value of a strong economy. Shame some of our headcases didn`t learn that from them when they were wetting themselves over the agenda that Germany has since kicked into touch as soon as it was looking like effecting their economy

The inquiry was a whitewash in the Sir Humphrey sense. What ClimateGate did was expose academics pettiness, turf protection, manipulation, defiance of freedom of information, lost or destroyed data and attempts to blacklist critics or skeptics of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.

As the spiel from the renewables charlatans from the wind industry might say "beautiful plumage".

In the same Biz Post briefing, the IDA states the obvious: