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
16806816836856861067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I am not excusing child labour. I would support extremely strict rules to prevent child labour from being used on imported goods into the EU

    For everything, coffee, chocolate, cotton, clothes, tobacco and raw materials related to electronics and solar PV (and nuclear, and coal and gas powerstations etc etc etc



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The numbers are in, Wind & Solar produced the most electricity of any power source in 2022 in the EU

    They together provided a record one-fifth of the EU’s electricity in 2022 – a larger share than gas or nuclear, according to a report by the climate thinktank Ember.


    Record additions of new wind and solar in 2022 helped Europe survive a “triple crisis” created by restrictions on Russian gas supplies, a dip in hydro caused by drought and unexpected nuclear outages, the analysis says.


    Around 83% of the dip in hydro and nuclear power was met by wind and solar – and falling electricity demand. The rest was met by coal, which grew at a slower pace than some had expected amid a drop in fossil fuel supplies from Russia.


    Solar generation across the EU rose by a record 24% in 2022, helping to avoid €10bn in gas costs, according to the findings. Some 20 EU nations sourced a record share of their power from solar, including the Netherlands, Spain and Germany.


    Wind and solar growth is expected to continue this year, while hydro and nuclear generation is likely to recover. As a result, fossil fuel power generation could drop by an unprecedented 20% in 2023 – double the previous record observed in 2020, the analysis projects.

    The main report is linked below, it contains a lot more detailed analysis

    https://ember-climate.org/app/uploads/2023/01/Report-European-Electricity-Review-2023.pdf

    And the source for the report below


    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


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


    All those solar panels, batteries and wind turbines from China are produced using coal. More coal is burned in 2022/2023.

    Energy crisis fuels coal comeback in Germany

    Global coal consumption reached a record high of over 8 billion tonnes this year, with Germany one of the highest with a 19% rise, or 26 million tonnes, versus 2021, the IEA said.

    Instead of shutting down 1.6 GW of lignite-fired power plants by the end of 2022 as planned, the German government has issued a waiver to allow production until March 2024.

    Germany has created a “gas replacement reserve” with a total capacity of 11.6 GW. This includes 1.9 GW of lignite and 4.3 GW of hard coal power plants which are allowed to return to the market until 2024, the IEA report said.


    These countries signed the Paris "agreement", whereby they agreed to do nothing. i.e. they wrote their own text and the UN pretended to call it an agreement.

    2023: India to use emergency law to maximise coal power output -sources

    2023: China to accelerate approval of new coal projects to ensure energy supply

    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: 2,237 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    The smog from the turbo diesels that the greens told us to buy?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,237 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    How they were elected in the first place is beyond comprehension. Never underestimate the percentage of dopes in the electorate.

    No wonder there is so much resistance to having a basic aptitude test before being allowed to vote. And also no wonder green activists want the voting age dropped to 16



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,768 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    Chemical fertiliser is not used on organic farms.



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


    They got there via transfers, people were inclined to give a tick for the auld harmless greens😲 turns out they are the most dangerous of them all.They would love the lower voting age, they have managed to impregnate that cohort with their madness.



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


    Ah Akrasia ya went quiet for a while.

    Are ya still discounting Milankovich cycles as having anything to do with climate change or is it still 100% humans fault?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Nuclear isn't reliable.

    Of the nuclear plants that started construction in the USA in the last 30 years 50% were cancelled. Other projects didn't even make it that far.

    The other 50% are way over budget and years and years late.

    Works out at $20Bn per reactor, so far. Not cheap. And last time I checked zero power is the opposite of reliable.

    The situation is similar in the UK and France.


    If nuclear was reliable the UK should have had 6 new plants running by now. They have 0.


    Promoting nuclear is a way to keep fossil fuel sales going by diverting funds from renewables.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Given the choice between green hydrogen and nuclear waste.....seems pretty obvious which is going to be chosen by, well, pretty much everyone



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


    It has been explained in this thread, green hydrogen is a non runner. You can also jump to the summary in this video presentation in case you need a refresher. Perhaps you should look into pink hydrogen . . .


    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: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Ah

    1. I have other things to be doing than posting on here all the time
    2. I never said Milankovich cycles don't influence climate. In fact I said the opposite, Milankovich cycles have definitely been a part of pre-historic ice age/interglacial oscillations, but the Milankovich cycle absolutely does NOT explain the current warming we're observing

    If Milankovich cycles were the only driver of climate on earth, we would be in a cooling phase. (which would have started about 6000 years ago)

    Instead, we're warming

    https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

    Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Its a very boring video. But to spare people from having to watch it. The green movement are not proposing a hydrogen economy anymore. Electrification is where it's at.

    Hydrogen is being proposed for these use cases:

    1. To store excess energy generated by renewables when demand is lower than supply (stored as gas or ammonia)
    2. To sell that extra electricity in the form of H2 or Ammonia to places where there is a shortage of energy
    3. To provide long term backup for when renewables are insufficient to cover demand.
    4. To provide fuel for the small percentage of applications where power to weight ratio makes batteries impractical (until better technology is mature)
    5. To provide a clean source of Ammonia which is a hugely important industrial chemical that is mostly made through cracking methane, but can be produced from renewable energy when supply exceeds demand




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    France has not started and finished a new reactor in the last 30 years. Neither has the UK or the USA. Or Canada or anywhere in North or South America. Or Western Europe.

    There's no reliable easy to build Western designs any more because in part of the extra safety features, the Koreans and Russians cut corners on safety to cut prices. The Chinese, Indians and Japanese are focused on their domestic markets. The new startups are vapourware, many evaporated when Russian fuel was no longer an option.



    But if all developed countries had followed France then last year would have been an electricity disaster with a capacity factor of 52.9% and ageing plant with no replacements on the horizon. 2011 would have been a disaster for Japan with all power generation off-line etc. etc.


    Which is a moot point because if all developed countries had followed France then we would have run out of uranium in the mid 1990's.

    There's enough recoverable uranium to provide 90 years at 10% electrical production. At 100% production that's 9 years. That's not enough time to build the average nuclear plant these days. And it's certainly not long enough to develop breeders, something we've been trying to do on an industrial scale since 1944. Money wasn't an object, they literally threw 14,700 tons of silver at the problem. It's still a problem.


    There's also the problem that France was able to load balance with the neighbours which would be impossible if they all had nuclear too., how would you do backup, peaking and spinning reserve ? What about the systemic flaws in designs, construction or maintenance that have taken fleets of reactors offline at the same time.


    Or politics ? More than one country has voted to abandon working nuclear power.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,237 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    No it can't.

    You can reprocess fuel that had low U235 burn up levels and decent neutron capture by U238 which produces some plutonium and means it's worth separating those fissile elements from the waste that adsorbs neutrons. Reprocessing is not a trivial task and generates even more waste. It doesn't offer major advantages with the current cost of uranium so isn't used as much as people think.

    It's like raking coal ash to find partially burnt bits of coal and sending them back into the fire again. You don't get more than you started with.

    In theory if proper breeders existed you could use more than 0.5% of the fuel. But they don't. So you can't.


    For the same reasons, and physics (with differences in chemistry) , no one's gotten the thorium cycle working either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Point is that they go after beef first, pork and chicken will be next. Sheep will not survive long after.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Milankovich is human right? (green logic there for you)😜



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


    Well that’s a lie.

    You said humans were 100% culpable for climate change.



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


    Its a strange outlook on things alright.

    What gets me is the outright lying going on in this thread.

    Poster says humans are 100% responsible for climate change.

    Poster is shown scientific peer reviewed evidence that milankovich cycles contribute somewhat (no matter how small a percentage) to climate change.

    Poster denies ever saying humans are 100% responsible for climate change.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia




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


    I proposed that climate change is happening and along with human influence a cause that contributes would be the milankovich cycles.

    You then said anyone who says "climate change has always happened" is a climate change denier.

    So you are completely discounting the effect milankovitch cycles (MC) have on climate change and calling anyone that points out the effect MC have on climate change a climate denier.



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



    and that's probably less than 20% of the veg grown and they probably use bone meal or chicken sh1t and not slurry, dairy and beef farmers will tend to spread that on their own grass land to get a better silage yield to grow winter feed.



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


    Eamo wants to kill the poor auld deers(animal type) and goats, wonder how that will go down with the other greenies.


    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41051888.html



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


    Energy transition cannot be accelerated in the timescale the alarmists demand. The world needs more energy, not less. Closing existing sources with no substitute will bottleneck economies leading to chaos.

    TLDR:

    • Mining expansion required takes decades. Where is the extra copper coming from?
    • Ore grade from mines declines over time.
    • Energy required to extract material from mines increases.


    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: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo



    Shuire wasn't he going to give us wolves to eat the old deer and anything else they could get their paws on once the deer were gone.

    He is a grade A moron like the rest of them.

    Problem is they were let near power.

    And organic farms provides fook all of our food in the grand scheme of things.

    Of course it might for the well heeled greens but not for the rest of us.


    Looking at some of the posts on here, a lot of greens (the greenshitters - great description there by Kabakuyu 😉), are fond of throwing out stats about how well the EU is doing as regards generating power from solar and wind, not burning coal, etc.

    The only thing is they don't appear to notice how the use of coal has gone up exponentially in the likes of Asia to build the batteries, to build the wind turbines, to build the solar panels that the West is using.

    It is like how they want to destroy our agriculture, but yet they never acknowledge that the production we lose is going to have to be made up from somewhere else, somewhere that probably involves way less environmental controls.

    Thinking really doesn't appear to be there strong suit.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    No I'm jiust refusing to play along with your silly semantic games.

    'I don't deny climate change, the climate is always changing' It is literally the very first argument in the Skeptical science list of commonly used and fully debunked climate change denial arguments


    Climate change is an academic term that refers to the changes in global climates that are caused by the Global warming that we have observed in the 20th and 21st century.

    Climate Change Denier refers to someone who denies the conclusions of the science of climate change.

    And the milankovich cycles are real, but they are not causing the currently observed warming, if anything, they're putting a slight break on the warming human activities are causing.. introducing them into this argument is a complete red herring



Advertisement