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
16296306326346351067

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    its the kind of glib simplification of the whole greening process which I find so disingenuous. Switching the bus fleet to electric does not go zero emissions. But that is the definitive message. It goes ‘zero emissions at the point of use’ which is very different. What is actually does is push those emissions elsewhere in the energy supply chain, whether in electricity generation through fossil fuels, or emissions in the creation of the renewable technology, whether that is the creation and burning of substantially higher volumes of heavy distillate for the mining process, and everything else in the renewable hardware supply chain. I’ve been listening to some podcasts about mining and the energy demand in turning out the earths crust inside out is staggering. But that net number is not disclosed to us.

    Hopefully (and I genuinely hope) in the process of pushing these emissions elsewhere, they also fall on an overall basis, but that math (and associated cost:benefit) is very unclear. It is completely obscured by the “hey we’re great we’ve gone zero emissions” mantra.

    what i suspect we will find is that the western world will follow this zero emissions approach, throw around a lot of carbon credits and offsets to massage their domestic numbers, and then wonder why emissions on a global basis (and that is all that counts at the end of the day) are not falling despite huge cost to the consumer

    the oft quoted concept of a ‘just transition’ is utterly out of the window at this point



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    What point?

    The facts are 93% of the population didn't vote lettuce amd co.

    He had no mandate.



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


    conspiracy loons sprouting their great reset "told you so" malarkey.

    Without dragging the thread off topic, there is nothing CT about the Great Reset plans. The WEF (World Economic Forum) openly discuss these plans and ideas - do take the time to discover them for yourself: https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

    It's literally their pinned tweet on their account for over six years now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,459 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Is that not what the local propert tax is all about?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    But they have shut down our turf farming but bring in briquettes from Germany & elsewhere to fill the gap.

    common sense says Surely their is zero gain in carbon emissions achieved doing this & now 160 mill has to be found & spent to retain people.

    So What’s been achieved?? We have the turf in the ground but it’s better somehow to bring it on a truck, boat from miles away burning more fossil fuels?

    And to mine all that stuff using excavators & heavy plant that burn millions of litres of diesel every year.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Just imagine if we shoveled another fortune towards solar with an 11% capacity we might even give Eamon Ryan that one Summer day he recently mentioned where for all that day solar would provide our energy needs.

    Personally I can think of much better ways of spending yet another fortune than making Eamon Ryan happy for a day.



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


    the greens dont want the economy to collapse, like most if not all parties, they just dont have a clue what to truly do in regards environmental matters, and keeping our economies ticking over, this is global problem, and nobody really knows what to do about this conundrum



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,993 ✭✭✭spaceHopper



    90% of it is and so far I wouldn't trust the TFI to deliver something to the extent I'd allow them the make large changes to roads and streets.

    For example, on Bus Corridor 13 the first public consolation was an embarrassment for them, they hadn't even checked basic facts using Google street view or gone for drive along in. They said there was no on street parking in Shankill village when there is and it's very busy. They said the route was 13KM long when it's 13 miles so they can't even get the units wright.

    With something like the 145 and 46A they could have more going into town in the morning than going out and more going out of town in the evening. Make them a 145X or 46X that terminates at UCD on the return journey, then they can slip back to the depo. Part of the problem with congestion is that nobody wants to use the busses, fix that and some of congestion goes away.

    The approach Eamon Ryan is taking is that they will bully people out of their cars. That's not going to work. We are missing all our green targets, they keep setting new ones that are frankly unachievable so nobody has faith in them. For example

    "The plan includes a climate action roadmap for every sector of the economy consistent with the legally binding target of a 51% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Emissions from electricity, for instance, are to be cut by 75%; transport by 50%; residential buildings by 40%; and agriculture by 25%."

    There is no way it is possible to cut emissions from electricity by 75% by 2030. We would need x 10 times the grid scale storage we have now and x 10 the wind generation. Even if we tried to put solar on every roof, we don't have enough tradesmen to do it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    You're taking nonsense again. Every single party voted in favour of the Climate Action Bill last year which all this stuff is based on. But you keep on misunderstanding PR and hiding under the bed from the big bad bogeyman. 👍




  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    So you want homeowners propping up the demands of pedestrians?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    You are grasping . There wasn't any of this nonsense from the parties pre election except from the greens of course. And that's why 93% of the population didn't vote for them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,459 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    They already do?

    The local propert tax goes towards the council budget for services which includes footpaths, lighting, tree cutting etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    This is fking hilarious 🤣 So you're getting your knickers in a twist over the Greens following through on their promises but have no issues with the other parties presumably breaking promises over this "nonsense" 🤣

    Also do you think the entire population votes in elections? No wonder you're confused.

    Btw 75% of "the population", as you put it, didn't vote for SF last time out. So on that basis no party has a mandate to do anything in your loopy logic. Why don't you move to the UK or the US, as first-past-the-post voting seems more up your alley? 👍



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,199 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Targets on transport emissions can be met by a new tax on all car & vehicle owners living in designated urban areas, whether ICE or EV. No exceptions.

    Use this tax to provide cheaper/ free public transport in same areas and improve public transport options outside urban areas.



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


    The calculus isn't that difficult. Our economy, like every other western economy, is built on affordable, reliable energy. It really is that simple. If you make energy more expensive, you make the population poorer and drive industry/commerce out of the economy.

    There have been many many studies carried out by the UN, UNICEF, and lots of other reputable organizations have all clearly spelled out the importance of cheap reliable energy/fuels to bring people out of abject poverty. The less poor a country becomes, the more they are concerned about the environment and it becomes a positive feedback loop.

    Making energy as expensive as it is now in Ireland and the wider EU is a recipe for disaster. Nevermind about inflation or recession, the energy crisis is going to being the block down long before anything else unless action is take. Soon to reverse the suicide course we are currently on. I do fear that we may already be too late to undo the damage of the past number of years disastrous energy policies.

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    LPT goes into the general pot in each authority and is already used for services which also included cycle lanes, local roads upkeep and cleaning etc. But you only seem to be getting excited over cyclists for some reason. I wonder why?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Where I'm from this kind of dictatorship people who only a handful of people voted for don't get into power.

    The system in this country is broken. No wonder you were a walkover for the English, the EU and anyone else who tells you what to do.

    7% of the vote = setting policy for the country.

    The Kim dynasty. Xi Jinping. Vladimir Putin. Ireland



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's a good thing that we are transitioning to zero emissions power generation so



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Of course it's possible, just needs investment



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    You're from a dictatorship? Alrighty then 🤣

    Thanks for once again confirming you haven't a clue how our government works.

    You're making an absolute fool of yourself now comparing Ireland to North Korea but obviously you don't seem to have a problem with doing that.



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


    cost of renewables is tumbling, fossil fuels is done, we were warned decades ago about continuing its use, we largely ignored it, so here we are, in deep sh1t. we are where we are due to ignoring these realities, but our approaches to moving away from fossil fuels, in particular taxing and indebting the bollocks out of citizens, simply will not work, by continuing this approach, we ll just continue to p1ss everyone off, and completely fail to meet our environmental requirements, our political institutions have not yet accepted this reality....



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Free transport is pointless as it isn't up to scratch and couldn't cope with the increased demand. It would just make everyone's experience worse.



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


    disagree there, some examples around the world of it being a success, it may also lead to a significant increase in investment into public transport...



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,993 ✭✭✭spaceHopper



    It isn't possible, these things have a lead time, we have minimal grid scale storage at present, the ESB are only piloting it over the last few years. Storage sites would need planning, the site constructed the batteries ordered built, installed, commissioned and tested... These aren't packets of crisps that are sitting in warehouse somewhere. The construction of offshore wind and associated landfall would have an even longer lead time. 2030 targets are more like 2050



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


    But we are where we are because of policy decisions. Fossil fuels are still abundant. The EU hamstrung itself by cutting off one of it's largest gas suppliers and in the process achieved astronomical energy prices as a result.

    We could have significantly reduced our own emissions by transitioning to gas over a decade ago but instead went full bore into an energy source that is unreliable and non dispatchable. That's a recipe for disaster in a modern economy yet our policy makers are doubling down and looking to throw good money after bad to greatly increase wind and solar installations.

    You're absolutely correct though. This approach of taxing the living daylights out of everything in the hope we get to "cheap green energy" at some unknown stage in the future is getting very old very quickly and the pushback will start soon.

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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well yeah, these things take time.

    We're well on the way but naturally it takes time to get to 100%.

    We have a target of 80% renewable generation by 2030. The last 20% will be the hardest which is why the 100% target is for 2050

    Did you think this would happen overnight?



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


    80% renewables by 2030 just isn't going to happen. We would need almost 3x our current installed capacity to get to that target. The planning process alone means we haven't a hope to build that much in those timelines. That before we even think about grid upgrades to connect all these new renewable sources and get them to where the power is needed. Then we have the actual lead times for equipment. Finally, how does all this get paid for?

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Why even bother with elections when the guys who only get less than 7% end up in the position of power.

    Sounds like a charade



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Will we hit 80%, no idea, but I'm hopeful. We might miss it but we'll be well on the way regardless

    As regards cost, the companies involved haven't released that info so I couldn't tell you but you're welcome to fire off a few emails and ask but given that it's commercially sensitive info I don't expect you'll receive an answer.

    As for cost to the consumer, that's set by the various auctions which is public information which you can no doubt find yourself.



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


    Not only that, but the filthiest of fossil fuels running in extremely inefficient, aging plants.

    Moneypoint's coal and Tarbert's heavy fuel oil are the only things preventing a lights out most days when there isn't much wind.

    The more we continue down the electrification route, the harder it's going to be to switch these plants off, because our only firm plans around dispatchible generation currently is to have removed even more of it from the grid by 2030.

    We have nowhere near the capacity required to replace Moneypoint and Tarbert coming online in the form of new gas generation, the vast majority of what was awarded at the most recent auction has fallen through.

    7GW of offshore wind without Moneypoint and Tarbert would have left us cold and dark on a week last week. And that's if you assume the various industry contributors to the Hot Mess podcast that predicted we'll have exactly 0GW of offshore online by 2030 are very wrong.

    There is quite simply no grid scale storage available today, even to meet our relatively small grid, nor is there any indication that it's coming by 2030. The ESB's roadmap appears not to have even been costed, so it too is far from the breaking ground stage.

    Our grid demand is also rising all the time so we're not even standing still at the moment, we're falling further and further behind of where the plans are to be which means we have further and further catching up to do the longer we leave it.



Advertisement