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
15465475495515521067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Like many when the first of these windfarms were being constructed I never gave them much thought. I mean who would have a problem with clean cheap energy. As this construction moved to an industrial scale I became curious as to who was paying for it and how much was it costing. The answer was, "Don`t worry about it, investors are paying." With our recent experiences of investors in our housing stock that answer gave me a wet feeling running down my back as if someone was pissing down the back of my neck.

    When it became obvious that the onshore wind will be our salvation and eliminate the need for fossil fuels line was fantasy because of the undependable nature of wind, it was back to the magicians hat and out pops offshore. No capacity required, no timeline and even more smoke and mirrors on cost. When the very obvious hole in that was pointed out by many that when the wind does not blow, then it just does not blow, the answer was offshore wind has a much much greater rolling capacity than onshore, plus another visit to the hat where out pops hydrogen. No data on offshore rolling capacity or the costs for hydrogen generation or storage or no great evidence if it would really work in practice. Basically not much more then a condescending "Have faith my child".

    Next up on the fantasy merry-go-round is the ESB plan on how all this will be cobbled together. Still no costs or even timeline, but thanks to our near neighbours who have at least carried out some work in those areas and unlike here are willing to show what that data is, it was finally possible to put some meat on the bones of the ESB plan. The offshore rolling capacity being much much greater than onshore was another myth, but not one that was unknown here to some apparently, or at least not to anyone in authority who actually asked, unless the ESB plucked 30 Gigawatts offshore being required out of thin air. The construction costs for offshore alone based on the U.K. best case scenario show how financially insane this whole proposed clusterfcuk is. It may take that a while to filter through to the ordinary Joe and Josephine Soap who will be paying for it all due to the green fanboy attitude of our mainstream media, but it is not going to stay hidden and is the first toll of a death knell for this madness.

    On your mention of the BBC, for years I was a fan of the BBC for its coverage of news finding it trustworthy and unbiased, but like our own RTE no longer as it became more evident for both that government pipers were now calling the tunes. Any U.K. mainline media news coverage I have followed since has been from Channel 4, but from the latest attempt by the U.K. government to nationalise a profit making enterprise it does not appear if my doubts on the BBC were down to paranoia. It seems the U.K. government, very much like our own, feels that news coverage is best served by adding pipers or indeed fiddle players.



  • Registered Users Posts: 392 ✭✭pjordan


    Couple of thoughts here.

    I opted to vote green for most of the past 20 years, but the preachy idealism completely removed from realism of the current Greens in Govt, especially from Eamon Ryan, has meant that I most probably won't vote for them in the next elections, especially since many of their clothes have, by necessity been stolen by all the other parties, who are all compelled to engage in a bit of green washing for populist appeal now.

    Secondly, I read one account this week of the the Egypt COP and the organisational deficencies plaguing it, amongst which one example was very illustrative. I pictured this collection of smug, self-satisfied environmentalists suffering from long haul jet lag, after having arrived into the desert heat from all points of the globe and immediately heading for the swimming pool or the shade of the air conditioned pavilions (because they are worth it!) and the fact that very few of them will acknowledge this week that air conditioning is a huge contributor to greenhouse gases.

    Instead, the main preoccupation of many of them was the shortage of drinking water and (oh the horror!) some of them had to resort to the risk of actually drinking tap water. So much for a bit of empathy or solidarity for the huge swathes of the world's population whose access to potable water is hugely impacted by global warming and destructive mining practices, ensuring that they can drive their EV's and stay in touch on social media via their mobile devices.

    Then another thought struck me this week, during a SEAI presentation on community energy, where the speaker spoke about the huge barriers to roll out of EV's in Ireland, including prohibitive pricing and availability. A simple solution would be to abolish the VAT on EV's imports from the UK to increase vehicle imports (Of only EV's) to the levels that regular ICE vehicle imports were just prior to Brexit (about 40% of all cars being registered per annum). Of course the SIMI would protest widely about such a proposal but the reality is that they are currently overwhelmed with demand and are no where able to meet that demand. I fired off a letter to Minister Ryans dept but of course got a buck passing rteply to say that that is a matter for Paschal's dept who no doubt will be able to give me a litany of reason why it is not possible, especially since it might risk upsetting Paschal's colleagues in the Eurogroup.

    But then again considering the pathetic state of our Electricty supply (and the facilitated price gouging by our suppliers) can we really accomodate a few hundred thousand new EV's on our roads in the next decade?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    We should be encouraging less car purchases, not more, and instead getting people to transition to more sustainable modes of transport.

    Also, re: your vat proposal, that is 100% under the remit of the Dept of Finance so it makes sense that you would be referred to them.

    The 2023 Climate Action Plan is due to be released shortly so no doubt there'll be some EV stuff in there (charging infrastructure etc) but my guess is the EV grants will start to be paired back or tightened up within the next 2-3 years. Especially for vehicle sizes as the push to limit SUV's grows louder by the day, so you might still get the hefty grant but the selection it would apply to might be limited in terms of weight /size



  • Registered Users Posts: 392 ✭✭pjordan


    Agreed, we should be transitioning to more sustainable forms of transport but the general mindset of officialdom in Ireland is about 10 years behind on that.

    A case in point, the N84 approach road and overbridge of the €220m N5 Castlebar/ Westport ring road project is built on a design and planning process from 6+ years ago and I was told that it was impossible to adapt that to accomodate cycle paths or footpaths so a brand new infrastrucre due for completion in Spring of next year has a dedicated pavement solely for motor vehicles along which I have to compete on my commute to work on by bike to work bicycle and alongside it are two vast swathes of grass planted green margins purchased through CPO for the project.

    Also good luck trying to preach the gospel of sustainable transport to rural dweller heavily dependent on two cars in a household and with no access to any decent public transport or a car pooling incentive or the farmer dependent on his Tractor/SUV for work on his farm, or all of us dependent on the predominantly diesel fuelled logistics distribution system for access to FMCG's.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Agreed, we should be transitioning to more sustainable forms of transport but the general mindset of officialdom in Ireland is about 10 years behind on that.

    Aye but this is changing. The 1.5 billion euro over 5 years towards walking & cycling as well as the ramp up in staffing for active travel roles will pay dividends for decades to come.

    But we're starting from a very bad position so it will take decades unfortunately

    A case in point, the N84 approach road and overbridge of the €220m N5 Castlebar/ Westport ring road project is built on a design and planning process from 6+ years ago and I was told that it was impossible to adapt that to accomodate cycle paths or footpaths so a brand new infrastrucre due for completion in Spring of next year has a dedicated pavement solely for motor vehicles along which I have to compete on my commute to work on by bike to work bicycle and alongside it are two vast swathes of grass planted green margins purchased through CPO for the project.

    Yeah that's crap but a symptom of the system. Some Coco's are starting to shift the priorities though, DLR is setting awesome standards and the rewriting or DMUR's and other legislation will see the crap system being changed from within.

    Also good luck trying to preach the gospel of sustainable transport to rural dweller heavily dependent on two cars in a household and with no access to any decent public transport or a car pooling incentive or the farmer dependent on his Tractor/SUV for work on his farm, or all of us dependent on the predominantly diesel fuelled logistics distribution system for access to FMCG's.

    Again a symptom of past planning mistakes and poor systems.

    Only way around it is the likes of P&R's on outskirts, rural bus schemes (LocalLink) and trying to dissuade further rural housing by planning restrictions



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


    but my guess is the EV grants will start to be paired back or tightened up within the next 2-3 years.

    No doubt they will be tightened up - the vast majority of those who purchased EVs are wealthy (likely GP voters too) and have got their grants, so no more grants to go round anymore for the poorer working class people.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Don't forget, new ICE car sales will be banned from 2030 onwards here too

    I know we're bringing in low emission zones but by 2040 we likely won't need them as there'll be damn all of the national fleet still emitting by that stage.

    That's before you take account of the fact that most manufacturers have stopped development on new ICE engines with only stuff that is in the pipeline being finished out. What's there now is as good as its going to get. Most have switched their development to EV.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭the kelt


    You have to remember though rural Ireland in the eyes of the greens is something to be attacked and decimated if at all possible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Your post so you should be able to answer this.

    Do those projected percentages take into account the burning of wood pellets, or is that being ignored to green-wash and massage the figures ?

    2021 within the E.U. 24.5 million tons of wood pellets were burned for electricity production. An 18% increase from the previous year. From the link you previously provided the 7 million tons burned by Drax results 107 tonnes of CO2 emissions That means that for last year the E.U. CO2 emissions from wood pellets was 375 million tonnes.

    During the same period Ireland emissions of CO2 according to Statistica was 34.8 million tonnes. That means that our CO2 emissions make up just over 9% of the CO2 emissions produced by burning wood pellets. In other words it would take 11 Ireland`s to equal the CO2 emissions of the E.U. emissions from burning wood pellets.





  • Registered Users Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭paddyisreal


    I think a lot of our green friends were never in central Europe where pellets stoves are everywhere also I would love to know when the EU are going to stop the alpine regions from burning wood considering they want us to stop turf. I was in the French Alps this summer and every single chalet was drying wood outside for the winter.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Do those projected percentages take into account the burning of wood pellets

    I haven't dug into the details yet, may do later if I get a chance

    Also, is Drax in an EU country?

    Edit: Had a few mins so had a quick read up on the 57%. Turns out the increase is coming from the LULUCF sector so primarily in the form of carbon sinks.

    I'm sure there may be something about pellets somewhere, but I haven't come across it. All I can say is it doesn't appear to fall under this latest announcement.

    You're welcome to have a look yourself though, you might find something before I do

    Btw, that graph is awesome. We look really close to getting back to 1990 levels and look well positioned to keep the reductions going

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭monseiur


    Philip Boucher Hayes had an interesting report on RTE's Drivetime yesterday evening concerning the announcement by Leo Varadkar back in 2018 that all gas & oil exploration off the coasts of Ireland was to be banned permanently with immediate effect. It seems that a international consortium were within a few short months of announcing a multi billion investment in a certain gas field off the west coast. This particular enormous gas field has the capacity to ensure that Ireland would be energy independent for the next 50+ years with spare capacity to export. But the permanent banning by the deluded Varadkar striving to be best boy in the class and to appease the greens, not here in Ireland, but in Europe and elsewhere means that we're sitting on a goldmine but not allowed to ''mine'' it while we spend millions, perhaps billions importing gas and related fuel annually with it's related carbon footprint. We're also facing the real possibility of power cuts in the coming years. I guess we get the politicians we deserve.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This particular enormous gas field has the capacity to ensure that Ireland would be energy independent for the next 50+ years with spare capacity to export.

    Someone's telling porkies, no such resource exists. If it did, it would be bigger than the Kinsale field. The discovered gas resources are getting smaller, not bigger.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    The energy policy being pursued on the back of the green agenda being pursued across the EU (not just the green party) will see continued price rises and a shortage of affordable energy, irrespective of the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Nobody has agreed the path forward, and the state of play on this thread is arguing the costs (and lack thereof) of a viable alternative.

    One side argues nuclear for electricity generation, the other argues the costs are prohibitive and implementation timelines are too long.

    Another argues that we should double down on offshore wind turbines, solar and batteries and inter-connectors to France and Britain. The counter argument is the capacity factor is low, unreliable and batteries are insufficient to handle wind droughts or peak load and neither are the investors biting.

    Another argues that we must not close the base load-generation (Moneypoint & Tarbert) and will need to adopt supercritical coal generation to make up for the shortage of gas due to the decline of Corrib, the prohibition of LNG storage, the lack of gas storage in this country and dependency on the pipeline from Britain. The counter argument to that revolves around green mandates and fines from the EU (Brussels)

    The hopium argument is based around converting pure water to hydrogen using the excess power from wind turbines dotted along the coast.

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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Pretty short, concise but accurate assessment given that it could apply to whatever argument you choose in this thread.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭monseiur


    Conservative estimates are that untapped hydrocarbon resources off the west coast are on par with the North Sea and Norway



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Even the anti-green folks support this argument

    International aviation, shipping, and fossil fuel firms should cough up funds towards so-called "loss and damage" and "climate finance" efforts to protect countries most vulnerable to climate change, according to Environment and Transport Minister Eamon Ryan.

    Aviation and shipping are glaring omissions from Ireland's carbon budgets, which allocate emissions ceilings to the likes of motorists, households, farmers, businesses, and industry in five-year cycles.

    Emissions in aviation were estimated to be about 2.5% globally in the years before the pandemic struck, while shipping accounts for nearly 3%.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    It won’t bother me if aviation want to contribute to the fund or whatever price increases tickets might go up. I will still be flying 4 times a year transatlantic until i’m either too old to fly or I permanently move to the USA. If the greens **** up this country it will be the latter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Who are you kidding? That taxation falls on us just like carbon tax does. For instance did you know the bulk of the worlds bicycles are made by contract manufacturers in Taiwan and China? Bicycles only exist because of the industrial revolution, the materials they use steel, aluminum, carbon fiber, rubber, leather, plastic and other materials are all produced using fossil fuels. Nor do cyclists wear all natural materials, much of that clothing comes from abroad. All you are doing is driving up the cost of living and pulling more people into the low income quartile. The point is everything we do in modern society depends on complex distribution chains that in some form or other must use fossil fuels. Your guy intends to break that, if he gets his way, many of us must flee this island or starve.

    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: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Yes. Taxes will continue increasing til everyone gives up work.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That taxation falls on us just like carbon tax does.

    I have no problem with that. Air travel has had it too good for too long. 10eur flights, did you honestly expect that to continue in the face of the emissions coming from the sector?

    For instance did you know the bulk of the worlds bicycles are made by contract manufacturers in Taiwan and China?

    Ok, but so is most stuff. Not sure what your point is but I'd love to see the data on the number of bikes manufactured by country. Can you drop a link or provide details on the source for that info?

    Bicycles only exist because of the industrial revolution

    So does most stuff

    the materials they use steel, aluminum, carbon fiber, rubber, leather, plastic and other materials are all produced using fossil fuels.

    For now

    Nor do cyclists wear all natural materials

    Is there a requirement for motorists to wear oil based clothing?

    much of that clothing comes from abroad.

    So does most stuff

    All you are doing is driving up the cost of living and pulling more people into the low income quartile. 

    Please outline the evidence that carbon taxes on flights would do this.

    The point is everything we do in modern society depends on complex distribution chains that in some form or other must use fossil fuels.

    There's very little that can't be replaced.

    Besides, the objective is not to eliminate fossil fuel usage, but to get to net-zero or lower so that the emissions that are being created are being offset by removal of emissions.

    Your guy intends to break that, if he gets his way, many of us must flee this island or starve.

    My guy? No idea what that means.

    As evidenced nicely by the graph by charlie earlier, we're almost back to 1990 levels of emissions while the economy has grown, employment has increased, population has grown etc etc. No need to be so doom and gloom



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,609 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    That £92,50 is in 2012 values. Here's the Bank Of England's calculator https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator to get the current value. It's nearly £120/€140 now and inflation is hitting 10%

    I usually use XE.com for exchange rates, 3.2GW is 3,200 MW and there's 24 hours in a day , 365.25 days a year and the contract is for 35 years.

    Multiply it out and you get £122Bn if you use a 90% capacity factor. Higher capacity factor will increase it by a few % while the £3 discount will reduce by a few %.



    And that has nothing to do with it being 10 years late. Even it was economic it would still be too late to do anything for our 2030 emission targets so what's the point.


    Also re your Hornsea-1 price of €83 Bn , it's come down a lot in a short time.

    Hornsea-1 had a strike price of 140.00£/MWh (2012) now 164.96£/MWh

    Hornsea-2 had a strike price of £57.50/MHw €63.31/MHw

    Hornsea-3 strike price is £37.35 (2012)



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,609 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Germany ones ?

    You can see where 3 plants shut down at the start of the year. You'll also see where the 3 remaining plants have been up and down rather than providing stable baseload like biomass does.

    Biomass, same scale. And Germany uses fuel crops and bio-methane rather than stripping US forests like Drax does.


    How about explaining why Japan has 80% of it's reactors offline for the last 11 years ?

    Or why Finland had half of it's nuclear output offline because of construction delays for even longer ?

    Or why the US hasn't completed a nuclear plant in the last 30 years except for ones started in the 1970'S ?

    France is only getting 50% of it's installed nuclear, the UK has shut 6 reactors early and will be shutting down another 4 within 18 months. Both had realistic replacement programs that have withered back to a single plant each that way over budget and late.

    Nuclear isn't reliable enough to use as baseload. And it's too inflexible to use for anything else.



    I can see no evidence of nuclear tech improving. Lots of pretty CGI but no hardware, no results. If you know of any real tech please let us know.

    It's all been done before. Every time time there's an energy crisis and there's a short term spike in fossil fuel prices they dust down the plans and try and sell the snake oil again. And then cheap gas comes along and plans get shelved or cancelled.

    SMR's have been in use since the 1950's. EPRs were supposed to be 15% more fuel efficient, but they cost 4 times more than originally advertised. Temperatures haven't gone up much so thermal efficiency hasn't changed in the way old coal has given way to fluidised bed plant in Europe that gets nearly twice as much electricity out of the same amount of coal.



    BTW poor places tend to have a lot of all year round sunshine and solar costs a tiny fraction of nuclear and can be rolled out way sooner.



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


    Another tax great. It's not like their going to absorb the cost and not pass it on. Deluded.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Did anyone claim they would?

    Airlines pass every single cost and more, on to passengers.

    Why would you think this will be any different? Strange



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


    So we agree it's just another tax for no reason at all. people will fly order stuff online shipping will still be shipped just at a higher cost.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    We agree its a carbon tax designed to discourage consumption of fossil fuels by increasing the cost of it..... i.e. the same as every other carbon tax



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




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭opinionated3




Advertisement