"Green" policies are destroying this country

Nuclear produces 99% of our electricity??

Because Wind produced 34% in 2022, and similar numbers above 30% in 2021 and 2020 also.

In the context of a report analysing 2022, introduction of Nuclear to the discussion is whataboutery..

The way you phrase it is like the wind industry have been shutting doen Nuclear development on its own. To me it looks like Nuclear has been politically dead (rightly or wrongly) for about 30 years at least. The wind industry only came into being in any real way in Ireland about 25 years ago.

He got Solar installation grant,(for all houses built before 2021,no BER requirement)) right now I can get cavity wall insulation grant and attic insulation grant even though my house is currently B2(BER done sept 21) the only requirement is that I get another BER after works are completed.Like I said they are massaging the figures.

So someone posted a link to a newspaper article. I responded to it and said it was inaccurate. You chirped up to tell me it didn't say what I said it said. I referred you to the exact quote. Now you're telling me you never read the article in the first place. Maybe less of the wild goose chases in future?

We do'nt know if they included solar in their 27k figure, but we now know that they included small things like attic insulation unless you actually believe that they retrofitted 27k houses last year as per Eamon Ryans description of a retrofit in October 22.You can wriggle all you want but it does not alter the fact that I can currently get a cavity wall and attic insulation grant even though I am in a B2 house and I will be included in the 2023 stats, laughable.😂

Who's "we"? I responded to only one article -- the one posted. Here it is to refresh your memory:

Nope. I explicitly mentioned consumers in the only comment I made on it before you jumped in. Here's that post to refresh your memory:

Yes, but Baringa have given us nothing to compare it to. (I'd also point out that they assumed all non-renewable power was from gas when, in fact, a third of it is from oil and coal). It's been the worst year ever for gas prices, yet for much of the year the gas price was barely above the REFIT strike price for wind power (and is currently well below it). Would be nice to see all the previous years when we were getting gouged for wind power compared to gas prices. And the alleged savings in August were less than half those in March, even though the gas price was 50% higher in August ... a good demonstration that wind power doesn't save anything unless the wind is blowing. In fact, the variation in these "savings" bears little resemblance to the variation in gas prices at all:

Now this is interesting.

What waste does it produce? There must be some downside to it?

Standard dacor answer.

It's a sales pitch for now. They can run on a mix but to go full hydrogen they'll need a retrofit kit installed once they are fully developed. All the big manufacturers of generators are pushing this now. It's a solid idea and one we should be doing more of IMO. Especially upgrading the fuel oil and coal plants.

That press release didn`t happen to mention by any chance that when it came to that 34%, as far as the consumer was concerned that 34% might as well have been from gas as from wind, as under the marginal pricing policy those wind generators were paid the same wholesale price per unit supplied as gas ?

Careful now. You will get lumped in with the "deplorables".

Elites in Davos strategize on how to fight ‘right-wing' groups: ‘Hit back’

Yes, you should check the funding of climate NGOs, As well as taxpayers, much of it comes from about a dozen billionaires, the type that use those private planes seen in Davos. One of the big ones to watch is European Climate Foundation, it's a bundling organisation and it distributes funds to Irish NGOs. In addition, considering the money some NGOs get gifted by the government courtesy of the Irish taxpayer can they really be considered non-government? Another is Grantham foundation, it's behind the funding of people pushing weather attribution studies, you know the headlines by now "it's fierce mild, must be climate change". There is the The Children’s Investment Management Fund, nothing nefarious about that you might say, until you realise it's found by billionaire Christopher Hohn, who once employed present day British prime minister Rishi Sunak and also provided funds to Extinction rebellion, how about the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, Lots of money floating around, the NGOs are picking up the notes falling from the billionaires tables.

What else is notable in that article above is the theme among the media presstitutes of "how can we be of service (to you billionaires)", that line I highlighted "needs to be couched in the right way", openly admitting they intend to help billionaires deny poor people the use of energy to carry on basics like cooking. A public relations campaign started in the last few weeks in the USA, telling Americans that gas stoves are bad for them.

This "research" is little more than flimsy propaganda and do note it was peer reviewed!. If you dig into how the research was conducted, where it was published, and how the media’s fear machine was kicked into overdrive. It's yet another example of all that is wrong with the modern academia-media-government complex, a behemoth where actual science is rarely practiced but the word itself is cynically abused in the name of politics. Strange this would pop up considering the gas supply problems and costs in Europe.

Irish media are not too far behind with fear mongering: Are gas cookers causing health problems? (RTE)

Have we moved on from "all lies" (not true) to wind only saves us money when the wind blows (absolutely true)?

What could Baringa compare it to, as discussed previously, when discussing realised savings, the baseline by definition is fictional.

The information re cost of wind is publicly available already. The CRU calculate the (additional) cost of wind in their annual calculation of the PSO

:

So you can see the cost of renewables in each year, and in it's highest year, it was ~€300m, and at this point Onshore wind accounts for most of the Renewable figure. The negative figure in 22/23 is only part of the savings too, as the PSO only accounts for negative payments on RESS CfD contracts, not REFIT ones (because they don't exist). So even if you half Baringa's number to 1 billion, wind power pays 3 or 4 years of the worst PSO back in one year like the last. And if you take Baringa's number, that obviously doubles.

Can you explain what you mean by "gas price was barely above REFIT strike price"? Is that gas price for generation (kWhe) or gas supply (kWg)? and I'm not sure what REFIT strike price means? Wind assets bid in to the SEM at prices less than REFIT (i.e. they bid at their marginal rate), and then got topped up to REFIT by the PSO (if necessary). So assuming you meant gas generation price, it's relation to €80/Mwh has no impact on the System Marginal Price.

Finally, the assumption re gas is valid for 2 reasons. 1) Coal will rarely set the SMP, coal plants are slow response to will buildout the baseload, and tend to bid in on the basis of being cheaper per unit due to economies of scale. 2) Most of our peaker plants are gas, and peakers are the marginal price setters the majority of the time.

Granted, they probably could have accounted for some oil generation in there, rather than 100% gas. But oil prices have also been high in the last year so the directionality of the story would be similar I imagine.

I think you are conflating humans prospering with the planet prospering. Cancer & Leprosy also prosper.

In nature, species that damage the environment die out, however humans have the ability to continue on regardless, up to a point.