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
17117127147167171067

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Mayor Khan of London has found out what his citizens think of his proposal to hollow out that great global City and kill a huge swathe of commerce.

    Cleaner air kills commerce? 🤦‍♂️



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    You are talking about gas. I am talking about gas transit. Two different things. There may be a shortage of gas at certain times but there is an abundance of transit. The U.K. government doesn’t even own the GB transmission system. They have no right to put strictures on National Grid transporting gas to Ireland (unless they put the country on a war footing).

    anyway, good that you acknowledge that the only real reason for building an LNG terminal here is the extremely unlikely possibility that Britain might want to have an unwinnable trade war.



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


    The U.K. government doesn’t even own the GB transmission system. They have no right to put strictures on National Grid

    Are you mad? The swipe of a pen changes all that in a second. Like we here took over private hospitals not so long ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    What do you think happened there? That was a negotiated commercial contract. It was not ‘the stroke of a pen’. If the UK goes around commandeering private industry out of spite the London Stock Exchange won’t last long and government bonds will collapse. That’s apart from getting sanctioned.

    These are brexiteer fantasies. They bear no relation to real life.

    But if this really were a realistic possibility then yes, there would be a strong case for an FSRU (along with a couple of frigates and submarines to defend it).



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


    It's not beyond the realms of possiblity that the UK might be on a war footing if the Ukraine fiasco continues to escalate. They have boots on the ground there and if sensible heads don't prevail soon it could become a full blown war between the UK/EU/USA and Russia.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,062 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    No, but the absence of people and vehicles to transport it does, do keep up.

    Congratulations to Finland who have just this week commissioned Europe's largest pressurised water reactor and now produce over 30% of that nation's energy from a single atomic power site, insulating itself further from Russian interference in the cross border energy market.

    Also, the G7 has recommitted itself to divesting from fossil fuels, just without any deadline, so happy 2150 to everyone 😂



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


    Britain exports gas to Belgium and the Netherlands. Are you suggesting that one of those pipelines should be reversed so that German imported gas can be transited to Ireland ??? Why on Earth would you do that (and why would the parties currently using those pipelines agree to it)? You are going to have to build new infrastructure to support this. If you are going to contract out the importation of LNG to another country it would make much more sense to strike a deal with a UK company since there are already pipelines flowing the right direction.

    But you would still be reliant on new infrastructure. The only way to keep gas prices cheaper is with long term LNG contracts and adequate storage to even out seasonal demand. We maybe could contract with a company in the UK to do this, but why would we? You would be talking about a contract for LNG importation, regasification, storage and pipeline transit all operated by someone in a non-EU jurisdiction. And the carbon footprint would be worse than importing our own. What possible justification could there be for this?

    You'd have to be a Green ideological puritan who eschews all logic to insist that the mere existence of an LNG import terminal in our own country is a sin against the Earth regardless of whether it's the lesser of two evils. But then, if you were open to rational thinking you'd know that developing our own indigenous gas supplies would have the lowest carbon footprint of all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,120 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The reason for building an LNG facility here are the same reasons that the Chairperson of CRU gave. If you believe she is lying or misinformed then take it up with her. Personally I would be more inclined to believe her than some randomeer on the internet that believe a more secure supply of LNG is to buy our own tanker loads, send them to Germany for their LNG terminals to return them to their gaseous state and then pump it by pipeline over land and sea all the way to Moffat in Scotland to be then sent by pipeline to Ireland. Especially where Corrib is now supplying just 30% of our requirements and that percentage to drop to insignificance within the next 3 -4 years.

    Not only is the U.K. no longer a member of the E.U. and thus no longer part of the E.U. agreement on Security of Supply, it does not even have an agreement with Germany on reciplocal gas supply let alone an agreement to pump this gas of yours to Ireland. When this was pointed out to you, your solution then became shipping the gas from Germany in its reconstituted gaseous state to Ireland by tanker. A solution that would require 600 tankers for every LNG tanker sent to Germany terminals!

    Your other solution was reconstitued gas from U.K. LNG terminals pumped by pipeline here. Far as I recall I have asked you why would Germany or the U.K. supply us with LNG when there is no onus or compulsion on them to do so. Out of the goodness of their hearts ?

    Or why would this LNG be acceptable to the Irish Green Party, who have been the botleneck here as regards both a national and private LNG terminals supplying the same. Because like electrcity, these magical interconnectors somehow remove the nuclear generated electricity and the fracked LNG gas in thansit ?

    Edit :

    Btw perhaps you could concentrate on answering what you are asked rather than smart aleck comments. Nobody is going to have a trade war with the U.K. for telling us when we come cap in hand looking for LNG that they have none to spare, where we have not only refuse to build our own terminal, but didn`t even apply for available E.U. funding to do so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,120 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    You are in favor of a privately owned terminal in the U.K. storing LNG on our behalf until we require it, reconstituting it to its gaseous state only what our immediate needs would be as we have no gas storage facilities, and pumping it here via a Moffat pipeline in an around the house exercise.

    Where is that any different to a privately owned LNG terminal here doing the same ?

    If there is some logic in what you favor then I`m afraid I cannot see it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    @antoinolachtnai

    The UK and the EU will have acres of spare LNG capacity by winter 2026. The storage is all pretty well topped up. They will allow us to use their terminals just to keep it busy and profitable, if we can find gas and tankers. The idea that the UK is going to cut off Northern Ireland’s gas is pure paranoia.

    The UK has huge LNG import capacity, but its storage capacity is only about a week's worth.

    Of course the gas will flow but at what price? It will have to be significantly above what the UK domestic market will pay for the gas.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The logic is that you save the bill payers the cost of building and maintaining a plant they will hardly ever be used. (Hundreds of euros per bill payer.)

    Build some storage in Ireland, by all means.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Then they will have to export less gas to Belgium because Belgium has access to Northern European LNG. More gas will be available in Britain as a result. This gas is then available to export to Ireland.

    The continental, British and Irish markets are linked together. You don’t have to ship a molecule of gas all the way from North Germany to Ireland for Ireland to benefit both economically and from an energy security perspective from greater overall import capacity in Western Europe.



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


    Similar to the logic of building 30GWs of wind capacity?

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    If we had an LNG terminal and we got stuck do you think we would have automatic guaranteed access to tanker loads of gas? Unless we had a load of long term contracts we would be going cap in hand as you call it to get supplies.

    Irish gas shippers and consumers have the same access to buy resources like gas in the EU market as the Germans or Belgians have. That’s what the Single Market is. That’s the whole point of the European Union.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    You are once again doing the thing where you divert the discussion onto something completely unrelated.



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


    It's tangentially related. We are going to burden bill payers with ever increasing bills for something that won't be used all the time (or more than 30/35% of the time).

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Tangent is right. But if the saving on gas + emissions allowances is greater than the development cost then the consumer is ahead. With the current price of gas futures and emissions allowances that seems like a pretty good deal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Now we are talking about price rather than security of supply

    Irish retailers will buy the gas at the UK balancing point for the same price that British retailers and generators buy it and pay the freight to ship it to Moffat and across the interconnector? This is how it has worked for decades and will continue to work.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Should there be a short-fall (or even a little tight) then things get crazy one way or another. I just happen to think that price-gouging is much more likley than being shut off completely.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,120 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    March 2022 the E.U. and the U.S. reached an agreement that not only would the U.S. continuing to supply 15 Billion cubic meters of LNG annually, but additional supply of up to 50 Billion cubic meters per annum up until at least 2030.

    From a joint E.U. and U.S, statement 25 March 2022. "The European Commission will work with E.U Member States towards ensuring stable demand for additional U.S. LNG until at least 2030 of approximately 50 bcm/annum........." It goes on to mention price going forward and the E.U. financially aiding member States on LNG terminals and storage etc.

    Basically the same type of arrangement that the E.U. negotiated on behalf of its member states for Covid vaccines where each country was allocated a percentage of the total based on their population size. That entitled us to just over 1.1% of the total. If we were interested in being part of this arrangement, then I don`t see why we would not be entitled to at least the same percentage at the bulk price agreed by the E.U. as we are one of the highest gas dependency States in the E.U.By doing so there would be no need to go cap in hand begging anyone or having to go negotiating long term contracts for relatively small amounts of LNG that would see us at the end of a very long queue.

    But then we would need an LNG terminal to avail of that. Something the Irish Green Party is blocking. Not just for a nationally owned LNG terminal with no application for that E.U. aid to build one, but are also attempting to prevent private companies building LNG terminals as well.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,120 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Logic would be you not ignoring the post where I have already answered this (Post#22328) and answer the question on your logic of us buying LNG, having it shipped to a private LNG terminal in the U.K. stored there and only being reconstituted as and when we need it as we have no storage, pumped to Moffat, then pumped from Moffat to here, when a private LNG terminal here could do the same without all the going around the houses added expense ?

    Other than you believing, as the Irish Green Party apparently do that nuclear generated electricity comng via an interconnector makes it magically some other form other than nuclear generated, that similar happens with LNG once it is pumped through a pipeline then I cannot see any other explaination.



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


    You mean cold training of our people when they will not be able to afford heating in winter? Perhaps long distance walking and cycling to work because not everyone will be able to afford electric car?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    This is gibberish to be honest. it’s mostly stuff you made up. But to address your point:

    If an Irish shipper were to get a full tanker load they would take what they could use and pump the rest into the GB network to sell. They would then buy back as it was needed.

    An Irish shipper could also just buy a part of incoming shipments.

    All the above can be done without any capital expenditure.

    I am sorry if you think it is a bit complicated.

    An LNG terminal is an immense capital expenditure which has to be passed on to consumers, a few hundred euros per consumer. Are bills not high enough already.



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


    Consume and dont question.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,120 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I really wish you would at least make an attempt to answer what I asked you rather than attempting to deflect by rambling on about the capital cost of an LNG terminal.


    Especially now where your latest solution is some Irish individual (hustler?) leasing tankers, buying LNG, shipping it to a privately owned terminal in the U.K., having only what cuold be immediately used here returned to its gaseous form, pumped by pipeline to Scotland, from there via another pipeline pumped here to be then sold to whoever. And all this somehow without any capital expenditure by this individual.


    The question I asked, which you keep refusing to answer, is not complicated. What would make this reconstituted LNG acceptable to the Irish Green Party moreso than a similar privately owned terminal here, (which they are fighting hell for leather to prevent), doing the same ?


    Other than their apparent belief that similar to nuclear generated electricity coming through extension leads negating all the bits they do not like, that by pumping regasified LNG through pipelines will somehow do the same I really cannot see any.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No, but the absence of people and vehicles to transport it does, do keep up.

    Alrighty then, you should be able to back that up with evidence given the proposal is to expand the existing ULEZ. So you should be able to illustrate how the existing ULEZ has caused the issue you stated. I'm guessing all I'll get is deafening silence but hey I'm an optimist

    Congratulations to Finland who have just this week commissioned Europe's largest pressurised water reactor and now produce over 30% of that nation's energy from a single atomic power site, insulating itself further from Russian interference in the cross border energy market.

    Construction started in 2005, began commercial operation in 2023.

    Initial cost, 3 billion, final cost 11 billion



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    once again you are going off in all sorts of directions.

    Why are you endlessly harassing me with these bizarre questions about what the Green Party thinks? I can tell you are upset but would you mind stopping?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Looks like Derrinlough briquette factory will be shutting on Jun 1st this year, instead of some time in 2024

    Is that the last briquette factory? I think so



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭cute geoge


    sssssssssssure there is less emmisions importing briquetts from Latvia !

    It sure hell is some banana republic we live in



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I believe that was unprocessed peat, for horticulture but I'm open to correction

    In another note, peat compost is banned in the UK from 2024 and there are moves underway here to do the same

    If we do the same we won't need any peat imports which should address your concerns.

    Now, if you really are concerned about the emissions related to the shipment of peat, you will no doubt be very concerned with the fact that we export a bonkers amount of peat compared to import qty's


    Just imagine how much emissions could be saved if we stopped exporting it.

    It will also interest you to note that with the UK ban, there'll be massive emission savings as they were the largest market for those exports

    Plus there are always alternatives



Advertisement