"Green" policies are destroying this country

No the green gazette doesn't get past my spam filter. Maybe you didn't notice that the price of gas went negative last week as European gas reserves are full and there is literally nowhere for the Gas to go, LNG tankers floating from port to port looking to offload their cargo...

The EU will be grand this winter, and next winter and the winter after that.

There will be no blackouts

We will continue on our plan, build renewables, build interconnectors, build storage and moidern grid servicing. Phase out Fossil fuels.

First of all, none of this nonsense directly subsidising energy bills by paying energy companies to reduce our bills

They should be direct payments families/individuals so that we can spend it on either reducing energy use, or paying higher bills

We should also push ahead with the EU energy efficiency regulations, banning incandescent lightbulbs was a good thing. I bet there are thousands of people on here who complained about that policy who now have fully LED lit homes.

Set limits on energy efficiency and durability for all new builds, all appliances, all transport. Force industry to innovate, and then people will choose the best fit from the available options.

Onshore has risen here by 33% in just two years. The idea that offshore will decrease is just wishful thinking.

Hinkley C, which by population size is sufficient for our present needs, will be supplying electricity at 90%+ capacity for 60 years for a capital expenditure cost of around £30 Billion. During that time the E.S.B. offshore plan will have plowed through nothing much short of €160 Billion at today`s level by year 50, plus the unknown billions it will cost in capital expenditure for green hydrogen production and energy storage.

Talking about renewables at market prices in ten years time as some disparity that would close the massive gap between those costs is wishful thinking of the how long is a piece of string variety. If the £3 Billion clean up is a problem for you, then add it to the CapEx of Hinkley and you are still only looking at a maximum of £35 Billion for 60 years compared to an offshore CapEx during that period of at least €200 Billion. The price of offshore is just not economically viable

Your first premise fails. There is such a thing as free money. Banks create money out of thin air all of the time.

If the interest rate is lower than the inflation rate, then the ESB can borrow at better than free money rates to build infrastructure that they can the leverage to provide electricity in the long term

There has been a load of 'back of the envelope' calculations throwing out silly figures in this thread

If those calculations are debunked, funnily enough, the conclusions that arose from those inaccurate calculations never ever change

1. Ireland's 'peak' power demand is about 6-7GW based on current use
2. Ireland's off peak power demand is about 2GW based on current use
3. With renewables and storage, we won't need to worry about Peak power, we will be providing generation capacity for 'average' demand. Closer to 3GW than 7gw
4. With distributed generation and a capacity factor of 30%-60% for wind, and 30% for Solar, and interconnectors, and also pumped Hydro and some emergency reserves, we could service Ireland with between 10gw and 15Gw of renewables.
5. We can sell excess power during times of surplus wind and solar to offset the costs of storage
6. We can use the extra wind and solar to make Ammonia, which is a chemical used in fertilisers that already has a high market value, to offset the costs of the additional generation
7. By getting rid of the wasted spinning reserve plants we will save a lot of overheads on the grid
8. By having distributed storage and generation, our grid is much more resilient to local failures
9. By using Storage with multiple technologies, we can improve most of the grid servicing and frequency regulation costs that currently add to the price of electricity....

There are loads of other things we can add to that algorithm. All of which makes that 'back of the envelope' calculation less and less accurate

Well for a start banks do not just create money out of thin air, but even if they did, unfortunately the end consumer who will ultimately end up paying back the original loan plus interest, (in this case the businesses and households using electricity), cannot print their own pieces of paper as payment.

Is there a single green who has even the most basic grasp of economics!

My CapEx costs of just the offshore section on the E.S.B plan are not "back of the envelope". I have explained them here numerous times times and what they are based on, so really the only debunking your points are attempting to do is that of debunking the E.S.B. plan whose assertion is that we need 30 Gigawatts of offshore.

Egypt is not short of solar or desert and they are building their first nuclear power plant. Sweden, like ourselves not blessed with year round sun, are considering building at least 2 SMR`s. Germany who for years have been putting pressure on others in Europe to shut down their nuclear plants are now looking pretty idiotic even in the eyes of the green icon Greta on nuclear.

Greens have no problem buying green tech from China so why should we have a problem with them building a nuclear plant here, but even if we had then the South Koreans and even the Japanese seem to be pretty proficient.

Do we not presently have around 80% renewable nameplate capacity of our present needs, so why would we need more back up than that for nuclear ?

Not just simply walls of text, but walls of text unrelated to the question asked. So you yeah it appears either that or just a refusal to answer a question.

Now you are just being rather silly in your understanding, or rather lack of understanding in the viability of offshore costs, and are contradicting your own post of "Having viable options are a must, yes"

Just admit it, viable options are not a must for you. They are not even a consideration. For you, and in fairness you are not alone in that. For green supporters their is no consideration for anything that does not 100% agree with the ideology.yet ye wonder why ye are considered by many as a cult.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck.........etc

The British were a nuclear pioneer and their government saw civilian nuclear power as a way to diversify the country's energy mix. But a series of bad technical decisions took the industry down the wrong path. Things got nasty. In this video we are going to look at why nuclear power melted down - economically - in the United Kingdom. (27 minutes)

Technically they went for magnox and it did not work out.

So where is all this money going and why aren't we seeing results. It's still sh1t from what I can see around dublin, I wouldn't depend on it.

• Total energy consumption in Ireland is down over the end of the "Celtic tiger"
• The trend will continue downwards with price forcing down demand, with attendant effects on economic activity.
• By the end of this decade natural gas supply will be a significant problem in Ireland.
• By 2026, on the electricity front dispatchable power from Tarbert (460 MW, oil, 2023) and Moneypoint (915 MW, coal, 2025) will be gone.
• The plan is to increase the demand for electricity generation and consumption (notably transport and heating)

To balance available energy with consumption the pursuit of net zero in Ireland and elsewhere can only mean economic contraction.

Lol, you don't get economies of scale building nuclear power plants. Not in a country of our size. They're once off mega projects

Ireland has dozens of hospitals, yet the childrens hospital still has no name, no completion date, and went massively over budget

But a wind industry does generate economies of scale. Hundreds of Turbines, specialist installers, specialist equipment, specialist ports and workers with experience in installing and maintaining them all bring down the costs.