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
16966976997017021067

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Coal in China is 100% a problem, don't think you'll find anyone that will say otherwise



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


    The irony of the add under your post dacor is delicious.

    LOOK TO CANADA FOR ENERGY SECURITY AND CLIMATE ACTION.

    What is it that Canada are peddling- LNG- which your dear leader has pretty much outright banned.



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


    Is that so? Well I've been working in the medical device industry for 10 years and it is creating chaos with product design, quality, regulatory and clinical approval.

    But I'm glad to hear you already have it sorted out. Send me on your details and we will hire you in as a consultant.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well I've been working in the medical device industry for 10 years and it is creating chaos with product design, quality, regulatory and clinical approval.

    The medical device industry is well used to material changes. The validation, testing and redesign processes, clinical trial scopes and the regulatory requirements to allow such changes onto the markets are well established in all areas.

    All agencies, notified bodies and manufacturers have been through it many times.

    Over the last decade such changes have been required for drug constituents, resins, etc. Hell many change materials to reduce costs all the time and in the case of PTFE the reason it was used as it was the cheapest option. All that will happen is they will move to the next cheapest that meets the requirements for the particular class of device

    Nothing new.



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


    in the case of PTFE the reason it was used as it was the cheapest option.

    This is absolutely not true.

    Scary how convincing someone can be who hasn't a clue what they are talking about. More or less the biggest downside to the internet in general.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'll guess we'll wait and see if the alternatives that are switched to are more or less expensive

    Hint: they'll be more expensive

    The caveat being it will depend on the class and function of device, for example, there won't be a class III device on the market that will end up with a cheaper alternative to PTFE. If it was an option it would have been done already. Class I & II, maybe.

    Class I are already likely using the cheapest option and class II would depend on the clinical requirement e.g. arterial tortuosity where lubricity is more important

    My experience is in class III, maybe yours is class I/II hence the different viewpoints



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


    I am class III and PTFE has played a critical role in all the devices I've worked on from components and coatings dedicated to lowering friction, lowering bioburden to packaging materials where long term stability and non-stick materials are essential. The news has created turmoil in the company and I can see many critical devices being end-of-lifed as they won't be economically feasible to be kept on the market. PTFE isn't even environmentally unfriendly either, the flourocarbons are locked in a solid, it's not like the wastage is floating up and having it's way with the ozone layer... Remember the ozone layer and that big hole they kept banging on about? How come nobody talks about that any more? You would swear it was all a giant fish story 🙄 Not like this climate emergency though, this time it means business...

    No more than the drone pirates, it is clear that the climate alarmists just want to see the world burn. The irony...



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


    At some point the "green" solution will be cheaper, like energy and pretty much anything else you can think of becoming massively more expensive once the greens get hold of it, but today is not that day.

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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I've seen products go end-of-life for a lot less. If its viable, they'll be updated, if not 🤷‍♂️

    As I said, material changes are not unusual, so it shouldn't be "chaos"



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


    There is another aspect you overlook, substituting oil and gas extraction with mining for the materials needed to make solar panels, wind turbines and batteries has other consequences like radioactive waste.

    According to an article published by the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, “Every ton of rare earth produced, generates approximately 8.5 kilograms (18.7 lbs) of fluorine and 13 kilograms (28.7 lbs) of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater, and about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water).” Furthermore, according to statistics conducted within Baotou, where China’s primary rare earth production occurs, “all the rare earth enterprises in the Baotou region produce approximately ten million tons of all varieties of wastewater every year” and most of that waste water is “discharged without being effectively treated, which not only contaminates potable water for daily living, but also contaminates the surrounding water environment and irrigated farmlands.”


    The disposal of tailings also contributes to the problem. Tailings are the ground up materials left behind once the rare earth has been extracted. Often, these tailings contain thorium, which is radioactive. Generally, tailings are placed into a large land impoundment and stored. In the U.S. strict controls are put into place and permits are required to store tailings. According to Wang Caifeng, China’s Deputy Director-General of the Materials Department of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, producing one ton of rare earth elements creates 2,000 tons of mine tailings. Wang said that China has sacrificed greatly in its extraction of rare earths. source (page 15-17)

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Schools across the country are to ramp up their emission reduction effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 51% in 2030 and improve energy efficiency in the overall school sector to 50% by 2030.




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The guidelines on formulating Climate Action Plans for local councils have been released.

    This will mean, within 12 months, all county councils will have their own, tailored, climate action plan and a list of actions, all aligned with the national documents




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Sceilg Mhichíl in Co Kerry has been selected as one of only ten sites globally, and as the only one in Europe, as a focus of a research project on climate change and its worsening effects on heritage.




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭prunudo


    The great thing about this thread, get to keep abreast of all things green without having to subscribe to the green party. Multiple link drops daily about the latest fluff pieces by our green overlords.



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


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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Lots of good suggestions from Friends of the Earth Ireland on how to improve the retrofitting and energy support schemes

    Among the suggestions:

    • Prioritise retrofitting support for the worst building/lowest incomes to reduce energy poverty
    • Prioritise all local council and housing authority homes to B2 standard by 2030
    • A minimum BER should be set for all rental properties to push landlords to make energy upgrades, particularly in the one-in-five rentals believed to have an F or G rating.

    All good stuff and makes sense

    The recent EU vote related to energy efficiency minimums for building should kick off the reprioritization once it becomes law here

    A new package of regulations approved by EU politicians yesterday could force a rethink of that approach. They have to be approved by member states before becoming law, but if passed, they would place more emphasis on upgrading the least efficient buildings.

    They would require all buildings to have a minimum rating of E by 2030 and D by 2033, with a long-term goal of renovating all to zero-emission standard by 2050.

    One unfortunate thing about the recent EU vote was the amendment forced by lobbyists to create certain exemptions for gas



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The lobbyists for polluters are once again looking to water down EU legislation, this time in relation to the ban for ICE vehicles




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


    Those pesky lobbyists huh. Mind lobbyists were grand when they managed to have renewables remain linked to gas prices in the latest brainwave from Europe. In fact, Eamonn and his croonies should be reported to the advertising commissioner for repeatedly lying about renewables being cheap because they aren't.

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭opinionated3


    Nothing in that for middle earners who have mortgages and car loans etc. Waste of time yet again from the green fantasists..



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You should have a read

    Q&A on the revision of the EU's internal electricity market design

    3. Are you decoupling electricity prices from gas with this revision? 

    The more we support the deployment of renewable energy sources and non-fossil fuel flexibility solutions such as demand response and storage, the less our electricity systems will depend on fossil fuel generation, and the lower electricity prices will be. Until these solutions are more widespread, we need to structure consumer contracts in a way that reduces their volatility, and decouples citizens' energy bills from the prices in short-term wholesale markets. The reform thus ensures that all citizens have the right to choose long-term fixed-price contracts. This will, in practice, reduce their exposure to any price surge, like the fluctuating bills of the past 18 months.


    Overall, the idea of decoupling consumer electricity bills from the price of gas has been one of the most important drivers for the policy proposals in this reform. While the proposed measures do not affect the price formation in the short-term markets, the reform changes the way infra-marginal generators are remunerated. In other words, even though the generators will continue to be active on the short term market, the volatile short term market price will no longer determine their revenues. Revenues will instead be more shaped by long-term contracts, such as power purchase agreements and so-called two-way contracts for difference, depending on whether the installation was privately or publicly funded. Power purchase agreements will contribute to put the electricity costs of companies and industrial players on a more stable and crisis-proof footing. At same the time, the pay-out that is generated by CfDs when market prices become high will have to be used by Member States to directly lower the electricity bills of all electricity customers (including companies and industry). These solutions will also provide consumers with direct access to the benefits of affordable electricity supply, while ensuring financial resources and predictability to facilitate the deployment of renewable and low carbon energy that will decrease the role of gas in setting the power price.


    Under the proposed reform, smaller consumers will also be able to make their bills less dependent on gas prices thanks to a better access to low-cost renewables through energy sharing arrangements. Energy sharing provides the opportunity to a wider group of consumers to access self-generated renewable energy, whether shared by an individual prosumer with other consumers, or shared between two or more consumers that co-own, lease or rent an off-site generation facility.

    Would I liked to have seen gas decoupled, absolutely. The impact of its volatility on the electricity market has been absurd.

    Any move that removes or mitigates against fossil fuel price volatility is welcome though.

    At the end of the day, the sooner we transition away to 100% renewables, the sooner we end up with stable pricing



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    On the 3 bullet points

    • Prioritising the worst buildings makes sense
    • Makes sense but is probably covered by previous point
    • Haha, no way. The cost of that would just mean that property either being sold or not available for rent. Retrofitting these is cost prohibitive and mandating it would drive rents up (plus leave someone homeless while work is happening), drive value down as a buyer would need to spend big money to retrofit.

    I think I said this before but my parents went looking at the grants and to get their home to B2. Quotation was 70k min. Both are on pensions so it's not viable. They'll continue to heat their house with turf/timber. They'd get another 50+ years of heating for the same money as the retrofit!

    The EU law is the first step to fining/penalising people who can't afford to upgrade their house.

    Post edited by roosterman71 on


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


    That’s bullshit.

    We won’t get cheaper electricity prices even with 100% renewables as we won’t own the generators- private industry who answer to shareholders will own a large portion- so please stop with your outright lies!

    Again the reason gas prices are high are down to speculators perceiving a shortage of gas or for other reasons which has drive up the price.

    This process started in 2020 way before The Russian invasion so don’t play that card.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Did you mean to quote me because your post does not appear to have any relation to the content of my post which you quoted



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


    You posted an article that mentioned cheaper electricity due to renewables.

    I am clarifying that that is not the case.

    What don’t you understand? 🧐



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I posted a press release from the EU commission related to price stability on electricity markets and the work they are doing to reduce the impact fossil fuel price volatility. This was in response to that very topic raised by another poster.

    If you have an issue with the content of the press release you might want to take that up with the EU commission. You can see contact info at the bottom of the page

    Let me know how you get on, all the best either way



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


    Nope I will take it up with the poster who is spreading misinformation.

    The article clearly states:

    The more we support the deployment of renewable energy sources and non-fossil fuel flexibility solutions such as demand response and storage, the less our electricity systems will depend on fossil fuel generation, and the lower electricity prices will be.”

    As far as I can see, Renewables will not lower the price of electricity.

    You posted the article and it is stating something that won’t happen therefore you need to be called out on this.

    Are you trying to say that renewables will lower the cost of electricity dacor?



  • Registered Users Posts: 680 ✭✭✭US3


    This thread title is so misleading. It's basically a green party press release thread with one poster dumping thousands of links



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


    Not even sure that account knows what they’re posting half the time.

    Some posts are full of misleading information.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nope I will take it up with the poster who is spreading misinformation.

    What misinformation?



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


    The greens have notoriously been anti their own party. Eamon Ryan would take anyone just to inflate his numbers. Try watching this without getting a red face:


    You know it's going to be scientific when it comes from "Friends of the Earth" 🙄



Advertisement