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
16146156176196201067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭KildareP


    100%. There is a supply chain crunch coming on offshore installation.

    Turbine manufacturers are claiming they are losing money on each sale, so prices will have to go up.

    There aren't close to enough production plants, survey vessels, installation vessels or experienced crew to come close to meeting global 2030 targets, so simple supply and demand will see prices rise in an effective bidding war to whoever will pay the highest bid price.

    Prices are most certainly not on the downward trend.



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


    The price of copper has doubled in the past 12 months leading to a 60% to 100% price increase in things like transformers and generators. This is probably where those manufacturers have lost so much money in the past year. Considering how much copper is actually in a wind turbine there is no way their costs have come down since Hornsea, not a single chance that happened.

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



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


    Possibly but if we want some sort of gas storage- which personally I think is a good idea- we should rebuild that infrastructure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Ok, so you have 2 plants with stated output of 250-300% of demand.

    You cant have 1 plant as that would be foolish.

    Each plant has to at least be 125% of demand for future growth.

    Now you have to build both of these at pretty much the same time otherwise you are not covered, which means that you also have to build their replacements at the same time, so now a country of our size has 4 nuclear plants on the go...seems legit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭KildareP


    Why do you keep turning this into an exclusive all or nothing?

    You use your 2 nuclear plants as baseload, alongside a sensible amount of wind, solar and interconnection. Not in place of.

    Just like we don't have two Moneypoints, Tarberts or Huntstowns and we've never had a total lights out scenario.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    That doesnt change the maths though, if you need 2 of them then you will have to have 3-4 of them on the go when it comes time to replace them, which wont be anywhere near 60 years as it never has.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭KildareP


    When the time comes to replace them, yes. Which in all likelihood, is going to be a lot further away than the current offshore wind plan.

    And unlike the offshore wind equivalent, there's every chance those plants will have directly produced over double the amount of electricity in that time.



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


    so now a country of our size has 4 nuclear plants on the go...seems legit.

    Now do Finland.



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


    There isn't enough copper (or money) on the planet to run the world on renewables. Irish Greens and their acolytes are myopically focused on a single-country endeavour which will save 0.0°C of warming. Ask them why they are doing it -- they can't answer. Ask them what it will cost -- they can't answer. On their own figures the cost of Irish offshore wind is untenable, and the reality is almost certainly much worse as inflation increases the cost of risk capital.

    The entire European Union is suffering from the same myopia. According to one mining expert who has attended European Commission meetings they are a bunch of delusionals with no concept of how the materials for renewables are sourced. Copper mines nowadays have to pulverise millions of tonnes of rocks down to 10 micron powders. The crushers are powered by gas-fired plants generating hundreds of megawatts. The ore is carried by diesel megatrucks that have to operate 24/7 and can't possibly run on electricity.

    Mining has already expanded to use 10% of the world's energy. Powering the world on renewables would need five times the world's entire reserves of copper. Offshore wind turbines need 10 to 15 times the copper per megawatt of a fossil fuel or nuclear plant. The recyclability of both wind turbines and solar panels makes a joke of a "circular economy". When you rule out the options that can't work -- or make the problems even worse -- it's time to revisit your basic premises.

    More info on "Mining our way to net zero" at Decouple podcast...




  • Registered Users Posts: 29,387 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    money isnt truly a problem, we know how to simply make virtually infinite amount of that, its others resources and minerals is the problem, and nuclear is the only real alternative after that....



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


    You can print all the money you like but your are going to devalue your currency against other currencies. The ECB is not going to do that. The Germans alone would go ballistic due to past experiences, and as the vast majority of green tech is produced outside of the E.U. prices for that tech would rocket.

    The days of cheap money are gone and at the end of the day the piper has to be paid.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,387 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    oh ffs, the world needs to grow up in regards money creation, again, money is created day in and day out in financial institutions across the planet, with most being created in private sector institutions, i.e. banks, in the form of credit, currencies have not being devalued since the evolution of these methods, only that we have decided the best use of these methods of money creation is to use them to simply inflate the value of assets such as property, when what we should be doing with this newly created money is in the use of creating new assets such as new energy networks!

    yes, we re more than likely moving out of the era of cheap money, i.e. lower rates, but we still need to keep creating money, in both the public and private domains, in order to provide us with our most ctitical needs, slow down or reduce this process, and we re fcuked! have a guess whats currently happening in regards money creation, and ask yourself why things are already getting very shaky!



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


    Did you miss the banking crisis and who actually paid the price for that ?

    The amount of borrowed capital poured into a limited period investment for a product determines the price of that product. If we ended up with a spend of up to €200Bn on electricity based on a period of 27 years then electricity prices will rise.

    When you get a bill that you are unable to pay and a threat of your electricity being cut off if you do not, try going into one of those institutions and tell them to just print off some more paper and send it on your behalf, or even print some of your own, and see how you get on.

    Free money does not exist. It never will. The end user will pay at the end of the day, or similar to the banking guarantee when it comes to state contracts, everybody pays.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    You mean Finland the country that consumes 3 times the energy of Ireland, sure, lets do Finland next.

    Bonus points if anyone can figure out why a country such a Finland would need more energy than Ireland.



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


    I was using "money" in the sense of value, wealth, and prosperity. That is not something you can create by virtual means. Otherwise I have a handwritten trillion Altairian dollar note that I'd like to exchange for your euros. The only way of creating actual wealth is by exploiting natural resources with the addition of human labour. You have everything from tulip mania to property bubbles to cryptocurrencies to show you what happens when goods are misvalued or capital misallocated.



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


    Why not.

    Household electricity charges first half of 2022.

    Finland €0.1945 per KWh. Ireland,€0.2741, Denmark €0.4549, Germany €0.3279.

    Almost 50% cheaper than Ireland and Denmark are almost two and a half times more expensive than Finland.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Does that not just illustrate the benefit of removing fossil fuels from a grid though? You lessen the impact of the volatile fossil fuel markets on electricity prices the more of it you get out of the system

    Nuclear accounts for 33.58% of generation while renewables account for 51.19% with fossil fuels coming in at 15.22%

    Looks like they are well on their way to zero fossil fuels

    With the growth of renewables accounting for the largest shift

    The same graph for nuclear

    and the same for gas.

    Regardless of renewable vs nuclear, it seem pretty obvious the benefit of removing a buttload of fossil fuels from the grid has on prices for the consumer



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I realize I should have included your list of countries in full to show a proper comparison, see below with Ireland, Denmark, Germany & Finland




  • Registered Users Posts: 140 ✭✭The Real President Trump




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


    Denmark, which uses marginally more fossil fuels than Finland has way more expensive electricity than Finland and even Ireland who uses the most fossil fuels in that basket of countries.

    Whatever point you were trying to make above about taking fossil fuels out of the mix, has clearly backfired @[Deleted User]



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Emissions at the point of energy generation are literally all the greens care about. It’s the ultimate in dodgy accounting and yet is driving the entire strategy



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭KildareP


    Yes, Finland who are absolutely trouncing everyone when it comes to heatpump retrofits, in a slightly colder climate, I do wonder why their daily electricity demand profile is 6GW-12GW versus our own 3GW-7GW where we're primarily gas, oil or solid fuel heating? (By the way, that's a difference of only twofold, not threefold, in raw generation capacity terms)

    After all, our plans for 1m EV's, 600k heatpumps, 100k estimated fully electric new homes, 70 datacentres who are growing energy demand by the year plus 30+ in the pipeline over the next decade, DART+, are all just going to be nominal increases on our grid demand, right?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭KildareP


    The devil, as they say, is always in the detail.

    Their renewable growth looks commendable.

    Except, renewables in Finland include biomass - a hell of a lot of it, as it happens. And boy do they have a huge forestry industry to feed it.

    Fossil free it may be, CO2 free it is absolutely not!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't know if I'd call 15% versus 25% "marginally more"

    Thats 10% additional electricity thats knackered by the effect gas has on marginal pricing

    But it looks like there's move to pull gas out of the marginal pricing mix so I guess we'll have to see how things balance once thats done



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


    You will see a tone of windfarms go bang They will not accept a huge price drop for electricity they will think of the shareholders first. So Governments may need to nationalise them.



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


    But it looks like there's move to pull gas out of the marginal pricing mix so I guess we'll have to see how things balance once thats done

    I smell B$ off this - Putin is in Ukraine almost a year now and there's been SFA from the EU "Green new deal" crowd to ease the financial burden on citizens by removing gas from the marginal pricing model. Shower of useless C U Next Tuesdays that they are.

    Alot of Europe is in a freeze right now and nothing is being done to tackle the high costs of electricity at source. I'd wager it's because the wind energy industry would fall flat on it's face if the prices they are getting on the back of gas were cut.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Their energy consumption per capita is roughly 3 times ours, or at least it was very recently, I cant imagine its changed much in a year or 2.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Do you think 50% cheaper explains 300% consumption?

    and in any case, the point was that Finland, in energy terms, is not the same size as Ireland, its 3 times bigger.



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




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    lol nope

    Due to marginal pricing they are paid the rate of the most expensive supplier, in this case gas. This has meant they are making bonkers profits because once a windfarm is up and running, there's bugger all costs.

    AFAIK the EU are addressing this through a number of proposals

    • remove gas from marginal pricing
    • windfall tax on fossil fuel companies
    • a kinda supplemental levy or tax on excess profits for non-gas suppliers
    • and so on

    No idea whats been chosen or if they are yet to chose, but thats some of the proposals

    An article on the topic from a while back




Advertisement