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
16976987007027031067

Comments

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


    That doesn't address my point at all. They are not decoupled and there's no plan to do this. The majority of that press release is fluff but to fully understand the reason behind the refusal to decouple is here

    "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."

    So there you have it, they need to keep costs high to continue to fund all this "cheap" renewable electricity.

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



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


    That renewables= lower prices than what we had around 2020.



  • Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭NattyO


    Is the poster that dumps all the Green Party stuff in this thread still going to do it now that they would appear to be "moving on" from their current position, or is this a hobby/obsession for them?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,848 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    He's not that Green Party spokesman. Whatever you say about the Green Party, they're very good at pushing spin and turning those wavering to their point of view, whereas the obsessive here seems to go out of his way to alienate people, thereby turning people against the green agenda and the cycling agenda. The only option is to ignore.



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


    Can you not just look at what you posted lol!!!!!

    It clearly states that in the post from a couple of hours ago that your account posted.



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


    Actually just to stop your endless cycle of questions and sidestepping here’s what you posted.

    Point 3 after the question, seventh line down is where your argument falls apart.



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


    The very link they provided shows exactly why renewables can't lead to cheaper electricity prices. They need renewables coupled to gas to they can keep pulling in big profits to fund yetore renewable projects. It's the perfect scam when you think about it. Ramp up renewables and blame gas for the ever increasing prices while at the same time claim you need renewables linked to gas so you can install more renewables. It's bloody brilliant when you think about it.

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



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


    The bot operator got careless again, must have been a traumatic day in the Green party.

    If you follow the link you have to view the source HTML


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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    As I said, if you have an issue with the EU commission press release, take it up with them.



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


    Do you believe the statement made in the article you posted, regarding renewables leading to cheaper electricity prices is correct dacor?

    I look forward to your answer.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.

    Seems like a smart plan to me.



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


    What storage are we talking about here? Nothing on the market today is capable of providing the power required to back up wind for prolonged spells with no wind blowing.

    Demand response is an interesting one. A fancy term for shutting off customers. Sure, they've started with larger customers already with backup generation but how long until it's rolling shutdowns like South Africa for the general population?

    And neither have led to this cheap electricity nirvana we've been promised for years.

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



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


    We can still use 20% of emissions until 2030. And we'd have to anyway as we only have enough renewables at present to provide a third of annual demand. We'll be using less fuel rather than reducing the installed dispatchable capacity.

    Here's the operational constraints. Jump to page 12 to see which units we need to have on all the time for grid stability. https://www.sem-o.com/documents/general-publications/Wk11_2023_Weekly_Operational_Constraints_Update.pdf When the grid can take more the 75% non-synch generation and/or has synchronous compensators we'll need to use those generators less often.

    Turlough Hill can be used for demand response when it's pumping the water back up. Can free up 300MW very quickly. Data centres are also overspecing their UPS systems so they can reduce grid demand that way, for a price. They aren't cutting off customers willy-nilly.



    A large part of the rolling shut downs in SA are down to corruption at all levels supplying coal to the plants. Not so much of a problem here.




    If all else fails we can store hydrogen in salt domes or gas fields. Now that GW hydrolyser factories are springing up all over.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Unexpected result in the Dutch Senate elections, the Farmer-Citizen Movement has unexpectedly topped an exit poll

    As I've said numerous times on here, you can shout people down when they raise concerns about hair brained "Green" policies, but try to implement them in a country with elections and you will see a response from the electorate. It is 1 person 1 vote after all and reducing the quality of life or interrupting people's livelihoods or excessively taxing people in the name of virtue signalling will elicit a response.

    I should add I am massively in favour of policies that actually address the issues around climate change and environmental destruction, ones that have clear benefits and will make a difference. "Policies" that have no real effect (such as 90% of the rubbish from Green Parties around the world) which just end up offshoring emissions, or taxing the less well off, are a different story.



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


    I sometimes wonder if you or the other cultists ever stop to think why they call it "climate action" when it will have no effect on climate?



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


    Once again the retrofitting supports are focused on those greenies with plenty of money in leafy south Dublin or those on social welfare. The working middle income family with most outgoings and who get the least from the state and least able to afford this, get a firm two fingers from the greens. Sounds about right.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hence the suggestions for improvement, especially in targeting the supports as mentioned in the post you quoted



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


    I just don't see how we get to the targets set out in the new EU proposal without either massive government or private debt. Expecting families to shell out 70k plus for a deep retrofit, even with these mythical zero interest loans isn't going to happen. I'm going to make a prediction here that a new "tax" will be placed on homes that don't meet the minimum requirements. They'll look to financially penalize people for not having a spare 70k lying around to spend on retrofitting. As the old Green mantra says "This is the way".

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Bsharp


    I'm in leafy South Dublin and none of my extended family or friends can afford retrofitting upgrades. Very few would wants to leverage mortgages/loans in an interest environment that's unknown: By age group:

    20-35 years can't afford a house

    35-45 years likely to have young kids in childcare and a big mortgage if they haven't moved out of the area due to affordability

    45-55 years a potential cohort for retrofitting if everything falls into place, but university fees for kids and one eye on pensions

    55-60 year, pensions and finalising mortgage payments is front row centre

    60+ years insufficient payback given life expectancy

    In conclusion, there's a small minority of a small minority who can retrofit.

    In carrot terms, it'll have to be close to zero interest loans with mortgage length paybacks to gain traction.

    In stick terms, we're heading for a government where the green agenda is out the window.

    Post edited by Bsharp on


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


    Very well said, i was going to type something similar but you've summed it up perfectly.

    70k deep retrofits, don't make me laugh, I couldn't even afford a 1/10th of that on a soft retrofit!

    Ecb raising rates again, energy bills doubled in a year, supposed to be adding more to pension year on year, price of everything going through the roof. Let me dip into my back pocket for 70k for something that makes little financial sense. I'll get a lot of gas bills for 70k and that will be spread over the next 30- 40 odd years.

    Oh and lets not forget, I'm supposed to 'upgrade' to an EV which will be 50k plus and not guaranteed to last beyond 5 years. The whole thing is a cod.

    A friend had to cut his tree's down, you know the ones that are a living carbon reducing machine, because his new neighbours in their a2 house complained their solar panels were being blocked.

    As I said the whole thing is a hypocritical cod, being driven by well off people who are buying into the nonsense.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It'll take time, absolutely, but we're already seeing a massive shift in terms of energy efficiency of homes over the last few years with the vast majority built since 2015 being A rated homes

    In terms of share, you're looking at 11% (117k) of the national housing stock already be A rated, and a further 14% (148k) being B rated so we're 25% of the way there in homes based on BER's performed. The caveat with those figures being they only apply where a BER has been performed so there are many older homes that are not captured in those numbers as no BER has been carried out to date.

    Will we hit the 500k target for retrofits? Personally I'm not sure, maybe, but a lot of things will have to go right and only a few things have to go wrong to slow down the completions e.g. inflationary pressures, lack of funding supports, lack of trained contractors etc

    That being said, it is 100% something we should aim for

    Link to CSO BER Stats



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


    The things that could go wrong, have gone wrong. They set up only 12 OSS outfits for the entire country and the price gouging is already off the charts with the quality of work being suspect at best.

    It was set up to fail for customers make money for a small cohort. This is the way.

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



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


    That's down to regulations. I know, I'm crippled trying to build a fecking place. The amount of extra stuff that has to go in to meet regulations is a total bucket of piss. It's easy to have majority of homes A rated if they are new builds and you have regulations around that. Of course that drives up the price (10k for a MVHR system or open windows - nah you gotta get the MVHR). Fancy a grant for some renewable tech like A2W or solar or something - hell no, we can't be granting new houses. All this drives the prices up. Much the same as every other green policy



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well it would be awful silly to be retrofitting and still allowing C, D, E, F, G rated homes to be built



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


    You said it's easily done because majority are A rated since 2015. That's new builds only, which have driven prices up to unattainable levels for so many.

    Retrofitting is a good idea, but it's not financially viable in most cases, even with grants. The cost will never be recovered from heating savings. Never. Unless there are near 100% grants for all, or a max the person would have to pay and the government picks up the tab for the remainder. That too of course will drive prices sky high as anywhere the government is footing a bill via direct payment or grants or tax breaks then the price goes up



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


    Perfectly put. I'm waiting for someone to come along to inform you that a deep retrofit is not necessary straight away, you can start small and find the remaining funds another time😁. The whole thing is a mess. Price gouging rife. The rich will do it no problems and the permanently unemployed will get it for free. And those of us who can't afford it will be punished for not going into debt to fulfill the green dream



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Its all a matter of perspective I guess. I liken it to the pyrite issue.

    You have some shouting for 100% redress and then some who think its ridiculous that taxes are being used to build new homes for people.

    You don't have to go a million miles to see that debate, several threads across multiple forums here arguing both points

    Damned if you do etc etc



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


    Totally unrelated. Pyrite was aa **** show from chancers who fecked off and left people in crumbling houses with no possibility for redress. Government must step in here. i'd be more in favour of funding that via the tax base than say propping up the remnants of Quinn, or insurance levies on all from PMPA/Setanta, etc.

    Retrofitting is put forward as optional, with some incentives that don't make it worthwhile, all the while it seems that ground is being set to have it mandatory (EU legislation you previously linked). Pyrite isn't optional.



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


    About two percent of the housing stock is replaced every year. Huge number of older houses will never be viable or sensible for refits. It is a vast waste of taxpayer money to try to do so, rather than just letting the housing stock be replaced over 60-70 years. Just another case of puritanical green authoritarian cultists spending public funds on things that will make no difference to the causes they claim to be interested in. These greens with their anti-human agenda are the biggest threat to civilisation as we know it. Looking forward to booting them out, though there isn't a position on the ballot paper low enough for them.



Advertisement