Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
15125135155175181062

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,018 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The UN chief pulling no punches in the lead up to COP27

    BBC News - COP27: Prioritise climate or face catastrophe - UN chief




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    Chicken Little only wants 100 Billion for the regimes installed in Developing Countries. That'll be the mother of all slush funds.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    What law will they be enforcing on this matter ? UN cant even handle russia.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,966 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    "Mr Guterres said that current global problems such as inflation, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the high prices of energy and food were distracting governments.


    "Bring back climate change to the centre of the international debate," he urged."

    Listen plebs, don't be worrying about putting food on the table of keeping warm this winter. Make climate change great again.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Total mis-information. Electricity prices will never come down to affordable levels, no matter how many twirly swirly blades they float off Rockall.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    As I pointed out many weeks ago, he gets off on posting links to things he thinks will wind people up. A schadenfreude vampire, not unlike the Colin, the energy vampire in What We Do in the Shadows, but devoid of any humour.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    To me it seems more like an algorithm picking up any green policy and then posting it up with little context except.




  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    Good point about lithium ion. And in the graph there is no place for future nuclear or fossil fuels. All these solar panels, windmills and batteries will of course appear out of clean air. See, carbon free! And please dont look at the materials, where and how they are made (hint:fossil fuelled). Export our problems is what we have done in the last 30 years and patted ourselves on the back about so called renewables. Fossil fuels are renewables as well, just like nuclear power. Energy is never wasted but transferred, remember! The higher up the ladder the lower the entropy. From high to low entropic natural energy sources: wind, solar, wood, coal, oil, gas, nuclear (im leaving out manufactured sources like hydrogen). To think the highest entropy energy can replace the lowest in the shortest period of time is and always will be madness.

    By using nuclear power you illiminate most of the uncertainties the others bring. And it remains of course the most efficient and cleanest. Ireland could decide to wait until bigger countries will turn nuclear and we can hook up. France needs more modern nukes as does the UK. Let's stay friendly with both our nearby neighbours..



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭ps200306


    I'm calling BS on this. Show me the detailed costings. Prices at recent wind power auctions are nothing like the level that could bring consumer costs down to pre-pandemic levels. And that's for onshore wind. Here's an alternative view from an executive in the Irish energy sector:

    At the recent Oireachtas hearing Eamon Ryan tried to conflate the war in Ukraine with the capacity issues that our electricity system is facing. If the gas was free, we would still not be able to keep the lights on into the medium term such is the atrocious lack of planning and all wind strategy that government have adopted over the last 2 decades. The bad news is the government are doubling down on the demonstrable failures of energy policy for the next decade and beyond.And what sort of costs am I talking about? To little fanfare the IMF announced last year that for Ireland to get to 2030 Climate Action Bill targets it would cost €20 billion per annum (about €10,000 per household not including recent inflation). A recent report in the UK put the cost closer to £500,000 per household to get to net zero by 2050 which is close to double the Irish figure when annualised. Sure people care about climate action, but do they care that much? If you ask a random sample of people from the “squeezed middle” I suspect the answer would be no.

    Our current strategy is moving headlong from a fuel intensive electricity supply to material intensive one as we continue to be hypnotised by wind and solar and very short duration battery storage. To give a real world example the energy intensity of nuclear vs wind is almost a trillion fold when you take power generated per kg of material needed in totality. Like it or not wind farms are material hungry between the steel, concrete and new wires needed for a pitiful return in megawatt terms and at that only at times when there is the wind blowing. If we are to fully electrify our transport and heat infrastructure, we will effectively have to double the size of our grid at high and low voltages. Whatever about the societal impact of more wires the cost of it is eye watering when you consider the 1000s of kms of cabling and new substations and transformers needed. Back of the envelope calculations put the figure somewhere approaching €100 billion for electricity upgrades alone.

    More here:




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,373 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    saw that continental gas prices halved since early this year. bet electricity prices don't come down at the same rate



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    An anonymous source from Gript..... do you honestly put ANY value in that, seriously? lol



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,076 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Possibly but I strongly suspect that if you examine the FULL carbon cost of your home heating energy needs, then factor in the cost of the environmental destruction involved in creating & delivering them to you - that you won't come out feeling very smug. There's no free lunch here.

    I'm fed up being lectured by Greens and people who promote the green tech agenda...... who then insist on swanning around unnecessarily on cheap air flights to Europe for their weekend jollys. There's a fierce amount of hypocrisy about.



  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    Well, we need to keep gas prices high using carbon taxes to keep green tech competitive. We just ignore the fossil fuel element involved in and related to green energy because, you know, it is the Devil. So we wont talk about it, the state will cover the costs, ie the citizens and nobody looks at trade offs. Deal!?



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,018 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    You're trying to dismiss the source to stop people from reading it.

    Regrettably for you, the content makes eminent sense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    No free lunch. Consider the total cost of a standard bag of coal. It is double now because at every level barriers have been put up. Production, transportation costs plus carbon tax. Do the sums. And now it is banned. With no alternative. Only a matter of time before 'smokeless' coal and dry wood will be banned as well. Keep oil and gas prices artificially high (my kerosine tank is full. I paid 2x the price compared to january) and keep pushing lossy wind power. One positive thing here. It just might push everybody towards nuclear energy earlier. Even Homer Simpson eventually gets tired hitting his head against the wall. Watch this space..

    Edit: i DO believe coal is a very dirty energy source. Better with oil and better still with gas and nuclear is off the charts.

    Guess how many 'sustainable' forests you need to fuel the country instead of using fossil fuels? Oh wait, not our problem. We just export that issue as usual..



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,076 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    You have a point, there's a lot of anti competitive taxation measures. I'd like to see the full whack of carbon taxes levied on electricity production, both from fossil fuel and renewable sources. Everything has a carbon footprint and other environmental costs and green tech is just as guilty.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I wouldn't know, I don't expend any time on Gript "articles" especially the ones with "anonymous sources"



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,211 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    The UN are like a broken record. How many times have they predicted catastrophe now? Seems like we get these dire warnings every couple of months. They are like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody is listening.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,076 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    They have salaries to pay as do many universities and think tanks employing 'experts' on climate change. Have to keep churning the news so as to keep the funds flowing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    The problem is that there are too MANY people listening to them. I read it as: prioritise climate action plans AND face catastrophy.

    They can clearly see that their plan isnt working. That is of course because it can't. Maybe, just maybe take a closer look at the plan? Well, they have and decided that the plan is to go faster and harder. They only forgot to add ' towards the precipice'.

    Ah, it'll be grand in the end. We have to get mother Earth in balance again. Sure, it'll cost millions of lives and destroys the world economy and civilisation but hey, a small price to pay to get to Utopia. Lots of space without all those poor people in the way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭ps200306



    An anonymous source from Gript..... do you honestly put ANY value in that, seriously? lol


    I wouldn't know, I don't expend any time on Gript "articles" especially the ones with "anonymous sources"


    Is this you by any chance? ...


    So it's ok for you to post a completely unsubstantiated claim that offshore wind is going to reduce Ireland's electricity bills to pre-pandemic levels, contradicting all the evidence, but you can't be bothered to at least Google the main claims in that Gript article? Such as this:

    And what sort of costs am I talking about? To little fanfare the IMF announced last year that for Ireland to get to 2030 Climate Action Bill targets it would cost €20 billion per annum (about €10,000 per household not including recent inflation).

    Does the Irish Times plagiarise Gript for its reporting? ...


    Here's current Irish expenditure:


    You don't think an additional expenditure equal to the entire health budget will impact the economy? And that's not counting the drag of increased energy prices. There are also very good reasons to think that it is a serious underestimate (e.g. capital cost of wind power up 30% in the past two years, general incompetence such as the additional wasted expenditure from chasing infeasible technology options, and so on).

    It's pointless trying to have this discussion with people who have stopped up their ears. There is no costed plan for the Greens' mad agenda. They will drive us to ruin and still leave us with no reliable power and no options. It's time for them to put up or shut up. WHERE IS THE COSTED PLAN?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So it's ok for you to post a completely unsubstantiated claim

    I posted the actual report and the authors of said report are identifiable

    Disagree with it if you want, but I hid nothing, unlike gript



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭ps200306


    The gript claim is easily cross-checkable. It took me five seconds to Google the same IMF reference in the Irish Times. What do I Google to substantiate the claims in your report? Should I query the fact that their predicted winter energy prices are less than half the strike price for onshore wind from this year's RESS auction? Should I worry about their prediction of CCGT capacity reaching a peak in 2023 given the recent cancellation of projects? Should I be concerned that Eamon Ryan can't even get a zebra crossing hooked up to the grid, let alone an offshore wind farm? What about the $180 billion that the IMF says we need to spend just to the end of this decade (to save half of 0.1% of global emissions)?

    This is just hand-wavey nonsense. Anyone can write a report saying that we can reach energy nirvana for thruppence ha'penny and still have money left over for unicorn farms. WHERE IS THE COSTED PLAN?



  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    I was watching the BBC after i wrote that post. A woman from Climate something reiterated what i said. Dont trust any institution that has the word 'climate' in it. Paid biased greenies.

    .https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63407459

    some lines taken from that:

    Only a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies can save us from accelerating climate disaster," she said.

    We've got to take climate change with us wherever we go," said Ms Anderson.

    "Into the classrooms, into the boardrooms, into the voting booth, over the dinner table. We cannot let go of climate change."

    It is, in all aspects a mind virus..



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The Germans were building pebble bed reactors from the 1960's to the 1980's with the AVR and THTR-300. They sold the tech to China who took 15 years to develop the HTR-PM which is slated for use in remote areas. Not for use on the grid. Remote areas. In. China. Not fully developed yet so it will be a while before we know if they have solved the problems that caused the Germans to abandon the technology. Zero chance they'll be exporting them soon at competitive energy prices.

    Rolls Royce are also in the modular reactor game. They have been building ones for British nuclear subs for ages. But , if they get seed capital, and a firm order for 16 reactors at average cost of £2bn they'll produce 7GW by 2040 or something (dates and prices are both incrementing upwards)

    Everyone else in the SMR business has GCI models and very little real world experience. Fishing for grants and investors money.

    The list of commercial companies that built power plants and then left the nuclear power business or went bankrupt or were nationalised because they were going bankrupt is longer than the ones left.



  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    Im afraid you dont get it. Wind is FREE and CLEAN and makes you feel good. The turbines grow like magic mushrooms naturally out of the ground and even at sea. I should write a children's book, really..



  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    The question you haven't answered is: why?

    I will give you one: for these kinds of developments you need both long term commitment and certainty in return of investment. They are linked. Countries could not provide the certainty.. Everybody got off nuclear after the 1970s because the hippy generation finally got a hold on the media. Then Chernobyl locked it tight, except for nuclear submarines regarded essential for defense..Just imagine how much CO2 released in the air we couldve prevented in the last 40 years!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Everybody got off nuclear after the 1970s because the hippy generation finally got a hold on the media.

    Are you sure the 3 mile Island incident in 1979 didn't have anything to do with or will you be sticking with the conspiracy theory angle?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    nah from the 60s onwards CND putting the wind up people in relation to Nuclear. Yes the bombs were bad but that then put the general public off



Advertisement