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
15965975996016021067

Comments

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


    Repeal the legislation.

    We determine our own laws as a sovereign state.

    If that pisses off the Germans, even better.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Where is your list of Finnish interconnection? The short list you posted here appears far from comprehensive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    hopefully they’ll be shown the door also.

    legislation can be changed with a flick of pen when needs be.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Sure it can, but it won't be because it makes no sense to do so and there is no support to do so



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Oh well I guess we’ll teach those targets by destroying our jobs, lives, environment & enslave our great grandkids kids to debt.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The data doesn't concur with you on the jobs front

    Lives, no idea what thats supposed to cover. We're a pretty cheerful bunch all the same so things must not be that bad. If you want to expand on what you mean here by all do so

    Environment, yeah that one you'll have to explain to me. How do we destroy the environment by reducing air pollution, adding more forests, cleaning our waterways etc? Granted we have a lot to do to improve things yet as its early days for a lot of the programs, but you'll have to square the circle for me on how doing those things will destroy the environment

    Debt, yeah that crash in '08 really knackered us but we've been doing ok since then but covid did plonk another few billion on to it but it wasn't as bad as it might have been. Outside of that I don't see any issue beyond typical govt borrowing, unless you have something that says otherwise




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




  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Haha! You have completely misread the details on reference [1]! The AC links are specified in kV, not kW and you have first added kV to kV and then added that to MW specification for the DC interconnectors. Adding up line voltages is bad enough (anyone who has wired anything knows this isn’t how it works) but adding kilowatts to kilovolts is just funny.

    That twin interconnection to Sweden can and does run at at least 1.5 GW and would probably run higher for short periods of time if needed. There are also other long standing interconnectors (maybe 1300 MW import) which were factored into the design for the nuclear units.

    Understandably you didn’t know any of this because it isn’t specifically mentioned in Wikipedia.

    EDIT: corrected kW to MW.

    Post edited by antoinolachtnai on


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai



    Show us your workings based on this page so.

    You forgot to link to the page about non-Nordic electricity interconnection.

    EDIT: ah, quoted post deleted, the penny must be slowly dropping, at last.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Yes, the targets should be relaxed instead of the constant drive to accelerate them. We are NOT ready to reduce our fossil fuel usage to the degree they require YET. That time will come but bankrupting the country or the EU to achieve a lofty goal while China brings on more coal fired plants, that will pump out as much CO2 as the EU currently does, it bloody daft.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    This is why the European Commission is proposing the Border Carbon Adjustment Mechanism. No doubt you are opposed to that too.

    how long should we give ourselves to get to net zero? 2120?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    That is literally what happened in Finland. They did that. The price was fixed at €3.2 billion and completion was scheduled for 2009.

    Actual construction on Olkiluoto 3 started in 2005. Costs quadrupled and it was only recently completed but it's been offline since October 19th after less than one month at full power, because nuclear isn't anywhere near as dependable as we're let on to believe.

    Also Finland granted a permit for the Hanhikivi plant on 21 April 2010. Because that's how long nuclear takes nowadays. Unsurprisingly that plant was cancelled this summer.

    So over the last 12 years Finland has averaged two weeks power from each of the two new nuclear power plants it tried to build. That is the reality of Finland going nuclear instead of investing more in renewables.


    Two reactors are Russian built so fuel supplies, parts and support may become a problem and the other two reactors in are over 40 years old. So yeah no risks there ?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes, the targets should be relaxed instead of the constant drive to accelerate them. We are NOT ready to reduce our fossil fuel usage to the degree they require YET.

    You do realise that it is that attitude that has resulted in us having to complete a mountain of actions in a shorter time period than was necessary.

    This has been talked about for the last few decades with barely any actions being done. Now the climate has started to shift the politicians have gotten a rude awakening and are now backed into a corner of having to do 60 years worth of actions in 30. That is even too slow and those actions are not sufficient IMHO.

    BTW, if you think its bad now, wait until after 2025 as they've back-loaded a heap of emission reduction targets. In addition, any targets we miss during the current carbon budget cycle also get ADDED ONTO the latter budgets, so where we had a planned reduction of 30% by 2025 and and additional 35% from 2026-2030, if we only achieve 15% in the period up to 2025, then the target for 2026-2030 becomes 50% as the missed 15% gets tacked on to the existing target. Note, those %'s are off the top of my head, I don't recall the exact figures

    It should also be noted that the budget for 2021-2025 only got agreed a few months ago so we essentially lost 1.5 years to wrangling instead of getting on with it.

    Edit: Here's the carbon budget figures I was referring to, where the back loading (and extra pain) is in the 2026-2030 period. As it stands right now, we haven't a snowballs chance of meeting the 2021-2025 target so the 2026-2030 target is likely to be -10% per annum

    • 2021-2025: 295 Mt CO2 eq. an average of -4.8% per annum for the first budget period
    • 2026-2030: 200 Mt CO2 eq. an average of -8.3% per annum for the second budget period
    • 2031-2035: 151 Mt CO2 eq. an average of -3.5% per annum for the third provisional budget




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    We started breeding plutonium on an industrial scale in 1944 it needs a LOT of reprocessing.

    You can see many of the attempts at breeding here https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx And it's still only used as a way to extend uranium rather than breed a surplus for new reactors.


    You can extract gold from seawater. It's just not viable.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Here in the EU we have workers rights and minimum wages, environmental laws and legal challenges.

    Otherwise the UK who can't wait to throw £20Bn at Sizewell-C would be buying from them wouldn't they ?

    Or maybe since the UK has 70 years experience in nuclear power and is part of Five Eyes the premier information gathering alliance on the planet they know something about the Koreans reactor actual costs that you don't.



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


    If Finland has only averaged two weeks power from nuclear over the past 12 years how come 33% of their electricity was from nuclear in 2021 ?

    As far as I recall the Hanhikivi plant was cancelled this Summer because Finland scrapped a contract for Russia`s state owned Rosatom to build that plant. Not that it has put Finland off the idea of building more nuclear power plants. In October Fortum, Finland`s utility company said it will begin two year feasibility study to build two new nuclear power plants.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Yay, more tariffs is exactly what we need. Handy when the EU has farmed out much of the heavy industry to other countries.

    Personally, I think we'll get there long before 2120. Honestly, looking at current technology and where they are in development, RICE running on H2, large scale H2 production and storage, SMRs (hopefully), carbon capture on cars, tidal (although I have my doubts on this one), we should start to see step changes in technology in the early 2030's.

    I don't think we should stop moving towards reducing emissions but it needs to be a workable solution that is cheap, reliable, and cleaner. Until we have the tech to replace fossil fuels at their current prices, outside the EU as we seem determined to self destruct before we ever get there, it's not workable. Our entire civilisation is built on cheap reliable energy, anything that doesn't tick all those boxes isn't going to work.

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    So what happens if those targets are not met, which they won't?

    If the EU go all in with this and start slapping massive fines on countries who are already paying massive energy bills due to the commissions incompetence, then expect a mass exodus of counties from the union.

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



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


    Net-Zero, a total B$ term for allow the ultra-rich to pollute away.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So what happens if those targets are not met, which they won't?

    As I said, they get tacked onto the targets for the next period

    If the EU go all in with this and start slapping massive fines on countries who are already paying massive energy bills due to the commissions incompetence, then expect a mass exodus of counties from the union.

    As most countries have brought forward their renewable energy plans by many years as a result of Putins war, IMHO you're more likely to see energy bills coming down as time goes on, rather than up



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


    We get to net zero, a tiny tiny decrease in global emissions and flush our economy down the sink in the process, while the worlds top 5 emitters are emitting 60% of the planet`s CO2 with China, the top emitter supplying us with the tech to pull the chain using coal to do it.

    You care to explain the rational behind that ?




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Read it again "So over the last 12 years Finland has averaged two weeks power from each of the two new nuclear power plants it tried to build. That is the reality of Finland going nuclear instead of investing more in renewables."

    It should have been way over 50% of their electricity for the last 12 years. So that's a massive failure to deliver. 1.6GW of replacement power needed.

    They issued a permit and 12 years later tore it up. Two more years on a new feasibility study. Renewables would likely have built, paid for themselves and been at market rate by now. Instead they'll now need a different 1.6GW of replacement power until a new plant is fully operational.


    If nuclear power can't deliver baseload when you need it what use is it ?



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


    IMHO you're more likely to see energy bills coming down as time goes on, rather than up

    Absolute tosh. Renewables cannot provide energy reliably and they'll never provide cheap energy.



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


    I didn`t miss that.


    I thought seeing as you failed to mention that they were getting 33% of their electricity from nuclear, I would do so to give your post context.


    It doesn`t seem to bother the Finn`s anywhere near as much as it seems to bother you. They seem quite happy with nuclear, and why would they not. They are getting one third of their electricity from nuclear and are looking to build two more plants.


    Unlike Finland if only Germany had not been so dumb as to closing down their nuclear plants and pressurise others through the E.U. to do the same, both they and the rest of Europe would be in a much better place this Winter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    I would be delighted if energy bills were to come down. However, all experience to date suggests the complete opposite will happen for some time to come. We have to spend an extraordinary amount of money on the grid to even get to point where we can conceivably connect all these onshore and offshore plants.

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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    But apparently we’re going to set an example and everyone else is going to copy us

    or something…..



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


    The can on green targets will be kicked all the way down the yellow brick road and never met. None of these fantasy targets will ever be met, sure Germany is burning more coal than it did in the last 10 years so please explain how the largest economy in Europe has brought forward it's renewable plans because of Putin's war when the opposite is true and please don't drop a hundred links to some green German wet dream 10 years away.


    Alexander Bethe, chairman of the Board of the Berlin-based Association of Coal Importers, is sure of that: "This winter, we will certainly import over 30 million tonnes (33 million US tons) of hard coal to keep our power stations in operation. That would be 11% up on 2021."



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    My big concern is that ourselves and the EU will become a case study in how not to do it.

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



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


    It wasn`t renewables that brought down the price of gas. It was LNG, and had the rest of Europe followed the Irish Green Party policy on storage and LNG, prices would still be rising.

    Countries can bring forward all the renewable plans they want, with the Marginal Pricing Policy it is not going to reduce bills by a cent.



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


    Every time I hear that, in my minds eye I see a large number of Chinese rolling around the floor pissing themselves laughing.



Advertisement