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
15875885905925931067

Comments

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    "Finland is a country of similar size to Ireland that" is without 50% of it's nuclear power for the 12th year in a row.

    Nuclear power might be an option if you have other low carbon generators during the build phase. It's not an option if you don't as it won't arrive in time to meet any emissions targets.


    On Sept 30th this year Olkiluoto 3 reached full power for the first time. On 28 October it had to be shut down. electricity production will continue on 11 December 2022 at the earliest, and as such regular electricity production starts at the end of January 2023 at the earliest.

    Construction started in 2005 for 2010 and we've yet to have a full months output. Similar cost overruns and delays at the builds in UK, US and France all countries with way more experience and more clout with the suppliers than we have.



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


    Your worries about 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 degrees of an increase are founded in visions of the apocalypse generated by click bait headlines propped up by computer models with no demonstrated prediction skill.

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



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    If you take into account the Exports too you likely find that the 75% limit on the amount of electricity going through the grid is equivalent to 83% of domestic demand.

    Or you could look at the SNSP for the last week here https://smartgriddashboard.com/#all/snsp [spoiler alert - it didn't go to 83%]

    When the grid can take 95% SNSP and we've the new interconnectors up and running we will be able to import/export up to 2.2GW as new wind and solar come online.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That's not an answer to the question that I asked



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    People jetting off to Qatar to watch a few games of soccer? If you're serious at all about reducing the carbon footprint, big sacrifices and changes are needed. And applies to all.



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


    You really have the most terrible memory.

    There you go yet again, totally forgetting the part of the green agenda that many here are most worried about and that no green can even give as much as a vague attempt to answer. The cost and how viable is that cost for a population of 5 million ?

    We hear a lot of this emotional blackmail chant from greens "Whose`s going to think of the childer and grandchilder" so how much is this going to cost those childer and grandchilder. Mind you, if this continues there will be no economy left for them to be able to pay for anything anyway



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    You did'nt read any it did you,if anything the articles you linked to confirm the high costs and difficulties with retrofitting ,the IEA report is just a synopsis of the current international market conditions for heat pumps, the standout section below is the piece from the Examiner which is pertinent to Ireland.

    "However, as in the case of retrofitting homes, the upfront cost of installing the pumps has been flagged as a barrier to many Irish homeowners wishing to upgrade their systems, even with grant aid available.

    The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) advises that a large number of households will also need to retrofit their home — wall/roof insulation, windows, doors — to ensure the home is heat-pump ready before installation.

    For an average Irish home, an air source heat pump may cost €12,000 to €18,000, according to Bord Gáis Energy guidance."( a gas/oil boiler is c.3k)"

    I will translate that for you since you dont seem to have a grasp of construction costs and methods, there are c.600k houses that require a full deep retrofit with insulation, door/windows, heating system, rewiring and other remedial work, as I have told you before those kind of works will add c.80k to a retrofit of your typical semi, you keep ignoring the reality of the situation, the figures for retrofits have been a disaster and that will continue in the foreseeable future.

    Also from the examiner

    "According to market and consumer data analyst firm Statista, from 2013 to 2020, the number of heat pumps in operation in Ireland increased by approximately 49,300. At the end of the last decade, there were 55,870 heat pumps.

    The current Climate Action Plan, due to be updated by the end of the year, outlines plans for 600,000 heat pumps in Irish homes by 2030, with 400,000 in existing homes. Almost all new-build homes in recent years installed heat pumps as their heating system"

    The figures above show the madness from the GP, only new homes are getting heat pumps because they have the necessary insulation installed at the construction stage, very few existing houses can get heat pumps unless they can afford the 100k+ cost.,

    Why dont the greenies give us all 100k for the work, I'd take it.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    I still think there’s a lot to be said for burning wood and timber in most of Ireland.



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


    The values you picked are not your own, they are thresholds used in computer modelling. If you want to use computer modelling to simulate an alternate reality then stick to Grand Theft Auto. As a basis of economic planning and policy over the long term this activity is a waste of compute cycles and energy, the output merely reflects the bias in the assumptions people made when designing the programs and has a predictive value of precisely zero i.e. useless.

    When people using computer models can't answer the question with any degree of certainty or accuracy, why would you expect that I provide you an answer to hypothetical temperature values?

    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: 1,327 ✭✭✭paddyisreal




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Not hypothetical anymore.

    Oh well, I guess I'll go with the IPCC reports on the analysis of the likely outcomes at those temperature points so



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Coolcormack1979


    And a good dry sod of turf.god I love the smell of a turf fire



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    can't bate a big lump of cast iron the kitchen heating the place 😀



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    So when companies (including oil and gas) bid on renewables they are vultures out to make a profit, and when they make billions of profit on oil and gas they are poor unfortunate price takers and its not their fault. Your logic is funny.

    You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Where did I say oil companies were "unfortunate". All companies are out to make a buck. In a functional economy they are forced to take the bad times with the good, like when Exxon lost $2 billion in 2020. I presume in your cockeyed version of reality they engineered a collapse in oil prices to make themselves lose a fortune?

    I do not blame anyone for jumping on the renewables gravy train. They'd be crazy not to. All investors carefully track the difference between risk funds and the risk free return. The latter is normally the rate that governments pay to borrow and that has been near zero or even negative for over a decade. Imagine finding an investment that is practically zero risk, with public guarantees on returns, and that has returned 200% over ten years. (And that was before profits soared by 500% in the last two years). Imagine further that the public will love you for taking this money and hail you as saviours. You'd have to be stark raving nuts not to take the opportunity.

    The mug in this game is Joe Public. Governments have doled out public money to company's that wouldn't last a millisecond if the market was a level playing field. Cheerleaders like you welcome this pi$$ing away of taxpayers' money on Green vanity projects as a great thing. Politicians lap it up because they get greenie bonus points from a public scared witless about the prophesied Armageddon. They've been able to rely on nobody connecting the dots between the profligate waste and a deteriorating standard of living.

    Now the wheels are about to come off the trolley because the avalanche of cheap money is coming to an end and the input costs on renewables projects are starting to soar. We're about to find out exactly how cheap this "cheapest form of energy" really is, especially as we take on the cost of compensating for its unreliability. Amazingly, nobody has thought of making the renewables providers pay this cost to level the playing field. No, wait actually, the author of the UK government's 2017 energy review did ... and was promptly ignored. The kleptocracy that has been engineered by big corporates with goverment support is just too valuable to both of them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,577 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl




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


    LOl. The key performance indicators ?

    You really do post the most inane rubbish. Our national debt is €250 Bn, Add the cost of the E,S.B. offshore green plan alone to that and tell me, how do the KPI`s look now ?



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


    No problem. I respect anyone`s opinion as long as they are prepared to discuss it truthfully and logically.

    Unfortunately even to scratch the surface with some Irish Greens Party supporters logic for them is an undiscovered world where economics is ignored in favour of ideology.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,577 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Still think that in 70 years time the issues with maintenance costs for nuclear plants will far outstrip those of wind energy, never mind the toxic waste building up for generations to come.

    Thing is, I am not a Green party supporter, says she running quickly out the thread! 😁

    And in fairness I don't know enough about it to give more than a personal opinion tbh.



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


    I don`t know if you meant it as such, but that is one of the funniest replies I have read in all my time on this forum🤣🤣.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What's the details for this plan you speak of? Do you have something that you can link that shows it, the costs you mention and how these costs will be added to the national debt?

    I'd be eager to have a look



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


    Once you build a nuclear plant the maintenance costs are relatively low, and with offshore turbines having to as well as being maintained, refitted/completely replaced up to three times the lifespan of a nuclear plant where there initial costs are anywhere between €83 - €120 Billion a nuclear plant would be multiples cheaper.

    The level of nuclear waste has decreased over the years with new reactors being developed, but far as I can see like pretty much everything in life we have a choice of two evils. Renewables are not even keeping pace with demand and emissions are rising from generation, so it`s continue as we are with rising levels or nuclear an emissions free source of generation.

    That would be the cost of E.S.B offshore plan for just the offshore part alone to provide 6.3 Gigawatts for domestic supply. Poland has just agreed terms on building their first nuclear plants. For 6.7 Gigawatts the U.S. Westinghouse bid was $31.3 Bn, France`s EDF bid for 6.6 Gigawatts was $33 Bn. and Korea`s KHNP for 8.4 Gigawatts was $26.7 Bn. Massive difference in the construction costs compared to any of the three bids. Poland went with the U.S. Westinghouse price.

    No need to be running away. You know as much about what this will cost as anybody at the minute. The little we do know is based on U.K. costs which they are more open about than here. When you see an E.S.B. plan that has not got a single cost too any aspect of it, it`s not difficult to get the feeling we are purposely being kept in the dark because the costs are so outrageous there would be blue murder if they were made known.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,069 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Not in the case of the coming Small Modular Reactors.

    A 500 MWe SMR will cost about 10% of that for a traditional nuclear fission site. Admittedly, a traditional site would produce about 3,300 MWe, but in terms of Ireland's future needs, that being a clean source to bridge production gaps in renewables, a small number of SMR sites would be ideal.



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


    The E.S.B. offshore plan you favour ?

    The details are all there, but rather strangely not a single costing for any part of it. It`s the plan you favour so isn`t it you who should be giving the details on the price ?


    I`d be very eager to have a look at them in total. Especially seeing as they would be State guaranteed, or do you believe these speculators would do it all for free ?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Can you link to this plan you keep mentioning? Hard to say much about it without more details



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭kabakuyu




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,568 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    I'm dying for a full week of snow here to see what those who put in €80k in insulation and heat pumps if they are happy with their investment that would have given them circa 20 years of pure comfort in fossil fuel heat at the touch of a button.



Advertisement