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
15155165185205211062

Comments

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


    Trains move the US grain crop and fertilisers used to grow it, which feed a significant number of people outside the US. They are very efficient at moving bulk cargos. 18 wheelers move everyhing else, including the food people buy in shops and live on and the clothes on their backs and the materials their houses are made of.

    Jesus.

    If countries were really serious about reducing energy consumption, they could start by mandating street lighting be turned off at 01:00 and commercial lighting at 22:00, like shop windows and advertising signs, and floodlights for yards where no one is working.

    I remember as a kid, I lived in a city where the street lights were turned off, and it was wonderful. You could see the stars as it was lovely and dark and so I got to see comet Kohoutek in it's blazing glory, just standing in the street in front of my house at 4am in the near pitch black.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,456 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I'm with you on lights for light pollution, for energy efficiency we've gotten much better. But we still have Vegas. Which, to their credit, they're aware of the image, and they work at it.

    Trains move the US grain crop and fertilisers used to grow it, which feed a significant number of people outside the US. They are very efficient at moving bulk cargos.

    This is the same kind of line to be had for china, they produce goods for a significant number of people outside the US (food too - $64Bn US in 2019 - https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/agrifood-exports-of-china.html). So I think it's a wash.

    The actual nugget to crack is not lighting but energy use on [indoor] climate control.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,504 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    The Greens are Uber WOKE so won’t criticise a non white - western nation like they happily do America



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,377 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Surely this is low hanging fruit.

    Why haven’t the GP made a big deal of getting street lights/ shop lights everywhere turned off at 1am or whenever?

    I wonder what the KWH saved would be, on a windless night it might mean a substantial saving of NG/coal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,377 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Seen this on another thread and thought it was quite interesting.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,569 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    There is a billionaires circuit. It's a calendar that the super wealthy follow each year where they meet and socialise with fellow super high wealth individuals.

    They spend their lives flying around the planet in private jets.

    These are some of the same people telling you and I that we must curtail our excesses in order to save the planet.


    https://www.afr.com/life-and-luxury/travel/inside-the-international-travel-circuit-of-the-new-superrich-20150621-ghte0w



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


    Ehm, no - thats a rather incorrect reading of it. 62% of all electricity produced in China is from coal burning. In the USA that figure is below 22%. You are conveniently forgetting here that there are 4.25 Chinese persons for every 1 USA citizen. You state that USA citizens consume 3X times more electricity per head, but their population is 4.25X times more.

    You also ignore the fact that Americans get more of their electricity from renewables than their Chinese counterparts. Alarmists were quick to point out earlier in this thread that the Chinese were generating so much of their electricity from renewables.

    This is why climate alarmists love the old "per capita" as it masks the overall volume produced by a given country - especially China whom foster a warm charm to alarmists because the government there command such a totalitarian rule.

    The fact of the matter remains, Almost 36% of electricity generated in the USA is from clean sources whereas in China that figure is just over 32%. Added to that that coal is far more dirty than gas my point stands that the Chinese are dirtier producers of electricity than the USA and the volume of emissions overall far exceeds the USA even when using the "per capita" smokescreen, pardon the pun.



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


    George monbiot: An evening with George Monbiot in Belgium – George will talk about his latest book, Regenesis ... 21st November 2022

    Düsseldorf, Germany

    Uppsala, Sweden

    Stockholm

    Amsterdam

    Thats just in one month. He has flown to conferences in NZ, more than once, not to mention appearances in NY.

    Elon Musk, he travels by private jet everywhere, toting up over 257,000 km in 2018 alone. I'm surprised he doesn't live in it - but you know, TESLA and american made solar panels actually made in China...

    AL Gore tore into people's domestic energy consumption, while living in a 20 bedroom mansion that consumed 20 times the electricity of an average home.

    Greta Thurnburg sailed to NY on a yacht, then two crew had to fly to NY to help sail it back. Yacht made of resins derived from oil of course. In another stunt sailing trip to Spain, there wasn't enough wind so two diesel engines did the job, creating more CO2 and NOX than a plane flight would have, again, the yacht was made of fibreglass.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Don`t be fooling yourself that China`s energy policy of building 43 new coal fired plants, or indeed 18 new blast furnaces all using coal as their energy source, is anything to do with providing electricity for shanty homes. Nor indeed is Japan`s new 1.07 Gigawatt coal-fired plant in Taketoyo with a further 7 either planned or under construction.

    Both China and Japan, along with India, (being 3 of the leading 5 global CO2 emitters), made it clear at COP26 it was for no other reason than to protect their economies, yet here we have a Green Party hell bent on doing the opposite and wrecking ours.

    The great white hope of greens here on achieving zero emissions is now offshore wind turbines. A recent presentation by the E.S.B. estimates that to do so would require offshore capacity of 30 Gigawatts. A report by BVG Associates for Catapult Offshore Renewable Energy (guidetoanoffshorewindfarm.com/wind-farm-costs) states the average U.K. CapEx alone for offshore at £2.37 Billion per Gigawatt. Based on U.K. costs for 30 Gigawatts that is a construction cost alone of €83 Billion. A sum that for just the turbines will have to be repeated at the most optimistic maximum every 27 years. That cost does not even take into account the associated cost of the hopium of hydrogen for such an intermittent and unreliable energy source as wind.

    With both the E.S.B. own offshore wind partner Uquinor and Shell no longer interested in offshore here, is it not well past time time for Irish greens to cop themselves on seeing such climate diverse countries as Sweden and Egypt going the nuclear route and recognise it as the only real economic alternative when it comes to zero emissions rather than their present pie in the sky uncosted ideology ?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Make sure you don't leave a lamp on over night.

    You are killing the planet



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,456 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    These percentages don’t matter. we can break down per kilowatt hour per capita.

    And per capita america burns more coal than China does. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    It’s a very correct reading of it unless you can refute the black and white math on it in my previous post?



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,456 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Given that yeah I think Ireland might not have the resources for a lot of renewable. I think the EU would be better off with a mega project (eg. Revisiting the Sahara plan with photovoltaics)



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,456 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Or nuclear then. If Ireland has to import energy anyway, make it good, dense energy.

    I don't see that Ireland has a self sufficiency option, it already imports a lot of oil and gas. The energy security so to speak is already gone.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,456 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    • "Ireland imports 97% of its natural gas consumption (149,524 MMcf in 2015).

    Ireland has proven reserves equivalent to 1.9 times its annual consumption. This means it has about 2 years of gas left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).

    https://www.worldometers.info/gas/ireland-natural-gas/

    I wouldn't underestimate how long a nuclear reactor takes to commission.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    All it would require is the stroke of a ministerial pen.

    Good to see that you accept that it is a shame that we are not presently actively pursuing it rather than the nonsensical ruinous green ideology though.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The offshore gas resources are not really commercially viable though. If they were they would have been tapped a long time ago.

    Even one of the largest, Barryroe, the company over it are only looking to extract the oil there and only have a passing interest in the gas as its borderline as to whether it could be profitable enough to justify it. Even the oil, they will extract to tankers to ship it away so they don't even have plans for it to make landfall here.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nah, I'm OK with the situation that keeps the issue of nuclear waste off our shores actually 👍



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    We have already thanks to Irish Green Party policy put all our eggs in the wind basket and seen how intermittent and unreliable it is, and are now seeing how economically unrealistic and ruinous the rest of that policy is for offshore without again doing the same and handing over all our energy dependency based on a half arsed E.U. proposal for an energy source that would not be even within the E.U.

    The E.U. have directives on member states having individual energy security, and the least I would expect from them after following Germany`s policy on Russian gas is that they have learned that relying on an energy source outside their own borders, especially in such a politically unstable area as the Sahara, is not a great idea.

    Even Egypt, where two thirds of the country is Sahara desert, is now building their first nuclear power plant. It`s long past time for Irish greens to give up their Don Quixote fixation with impractical windmills if zero omissions is really their aim rather than some weird cult like ideology and recognise that the only economically way of achieving it is nuclear.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The Irish Green policy on energy you are OK with has missed all it`s targets and is not economically practical. It`s past time you woke up and recognised that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,456 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    yaaaa...

    I think I'm happy to trade the expensive and careful processing of the waste for reversing the carbon/methane atmo problem. But it becomes a chronic vulnerability of the state - see Russia/Ukraine tensions around the nuclear plant there.

    What a state the world is in.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't know, it seems like a fools game to me to trade one non-renewable for another, especially when Russia is also one of the biggest suppliers of fuel rods and more especially when you consider the billions required just to deal with the waste, never mind the multi-decade construction time frame



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,456 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I think a wind plan would take just as much time, watt per watt.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Solution - Tax the sh1t out of billionaires and use that money to help transition to clean energy

    Win win

    The green movement is not 'Pro-billionaire'

    The Billionaires are the ones who have done the most to prevent real action on climate change.

    All those climate denial think tanks and media sources and 'foundations' like the GWPF are all funded out of the spare change down the back of a billionaires' couch



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    George Monbiot is a billionaire??

    George Monbiot doesn't fly on private jets. He sits on a plane that would be flying regardless of whether he was sitting on the seat or not. During Covid, the airlines flew Empty planes back and forth so that the owners of the Airports didn't penalise them by removing their slots.

    The whole system is ridiculous. It's not the greens who are at fault, it's the fact that for most politicians, sustainability is just a buzz word that they don't actually care about at all.

    Either Capitalism sorts itself out by preventing free riders from dumping billions of tonnes of pollution into the atmosphere, or the planet is fucked, Carbon taxes are the fee for emitting pollution into the air. we need them if we want to continue as a capitalist system. The alternatives are a non capitalist system, or no longer continuing



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Mega projects are are kind of the opposite of what we need. We need millions of micro projects.

    Make every home as energy efficient as possible, make every roof solar powered, make every car park a solar farm, store energy in every home and business and factory, store energy next to each wind farm...

    People say it's ridiculous, but it's what we already do. Every house produces it's own heat energy, with stoves, cookers, central heating etc. We just need to include generating power and storing it as part of the normal 'white goods' that every premises is expected to have. Instead of having a 1000 litre tank in the garden full of kerosene, we have the same space filled with energy storage batteries that can charge when there is surplus energy and discharge when electricity is scarce. Instead of burning oil or gas to heat inefficient houses, we insulate our homes and design all new homes to passive or near passive standard so that they take way less energy to keep warm in winter or cool down in summer.

    The houses built 50 years ago to antiquated energy standards will either be upgraded, or replaced.

    On top of this, we have utility scale energy generation and storage, these need to be distributed so that we have resilience. There can be some 'mega projects' such as offshore wind farms, artificial islands like what NL are planning, but these won't be the primary source of energy. That should be distributed as far as possible.

    Imagine if we had a 'mega project' in the Sahara, and Putin decided to bomb the interconnector. - Lights out Europe



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    For the year 1976 - 2016 of the 441 nuclear plants constructed during that time 374 were constructed in less than 10 years with the mean construction time being 7.5 years.

    Source : IAEA Pris database.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The costing for the Irish Green wet dream of offshore is simply economically unfeasible. Not only Shell but the E.S.B. offshore partner Uquinor have walked away from it,

    But even if it wasn`t, who do you think has been funding the wet dream of renewables up until now other than the billionaires that you want to tax the sh1t out off ?

    .



Advertisement