"Green" policies are destroying this country

While that's certainly interesting from a historical perspective, I think the good news here is that farmers are now less likely to be "encouraged" to destroy/rewet their own lands. How any idiots could consider such a proposed move as a positive is just incredible. Maybe some Green idiot in the Netherlands should propose dismantling their dykes. I'm sure their farmers wouldn't mind at all!

I wonder what hymn sheet the people who wrote those articles are signing from. You cannot run an energy system powered by random generated unicorn farts. They seem to knock LNG options based on costs and implementation, however, they provide no costing or feasibility for their "alternatives", thus showing they are not serious and merely virtue signalling. Since the only options on the table regarding energy security are how LNG can be implemented there is only going to be one outcome: LNG.

Rather than posting the view of green pet talking heads attempting to negate a report commissioned and paid for by Ryan`s department on energy security, why don`t you tell us how Ryan is implementing the findings of that report ?

Even though he commissioned and paid for the report, the fact that Cambridge Economic Associates (CEPA) still could not give him the answers he wished for should be telling even to you.

They did comply by avoiding dealing with the need for a land based LNG terminal to comply with his wish, but told him in no uncertain terms the only alternative was a floating LNG terminal. They also pointd out our complete and total lack of gas storage, that 5 day storage of secondary fuel was a bit of a farce and that he needed to run another connection cable to France too avail of more of their nuclear produced electricity even if the did ignore that when needed there would be a high probality of it not being available.

Rather than cluttering up the place with meaningless puff pieces, why don`t you make yourself useful and tell us what Ryan is doing to address the issue highlighted in that report he commissioned and paid for ?

My post had little or nothing to do with France or EDF, but seeing as you brought it up EDF buys 8 Billion cubic meters of LNG from the privately owned terminal at Dunkirk annually and France has approved a floating LNG facility for the port of Le Havre as well. So now that I have cleared that up for you, rather than yet again being caught with your trousers around your ankles attempting to deflect try answer what you were asked.

Ryan`s own commissioned and paid for report from CEPA has told him what the CRU, Eirgrid and posters here have been saying. For energy security we need a LNG terminal, a gas storage facility, and an increase in secondary fuel storage much greater than the present 5 days capability, so what is he doing about any of that. ?

When I asked him he said nothing, mainly because he has no answers on any challenge.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

I would expect a better more articulated response from my 5 year old.

Why do these energy experts sound like Green Party shills?

Eamon Ryan organised an opt out for us from last winter's EU gas saving measures because we weren't on the European gas network. But now we're catered for by European LNG? Funny that.

This one's a right headscratcher. We're talking about storage and regasification plants, not liquefaction. You sure this guy's an expert?

Identical language to what we've heard from Ryan. Why do these people think we haven't very carefully considered it? So far we've refused to build storage, develop our own resources, import LNG, or build adequate gas-powered generation. We need to choose from among those options as renewables are not up to the job at present. Stop treating us like morons, make a decision and move on.

What is this even supposed to mean? Does he not think we're going as fast as Eamon Ryan can manage already? It's about as helpful as "Just Stop Oil".

Here's another odd thing. The same "expert" wrote about the disastrous power outages in Texas (emphasis his):

Weird, huh?

In other words we keep increasing prices of electricity and gas so ordinary people will pay for it all. Sure, all recent increases were based on horrific predictions of blackouts and incoming stone age due to ukrainian situation yet prices of energy went back down to where it was before with the exception of the prices for consumers. For some reason we still pay at least 2x more than what we paid before.

This seems to be what "transitioning" means when you listen to the salad people. I wish they would keep "transitioning" alone and leave the rest of us alone.

It's scummy really, I have a buddy who had bought an older house(fully livable at time of purchase), looked into getting some ungraded to make it more energy efficient, air tight etc...he would have had to spend €70k minimum after the grand...and this was after spending €300k on the house

Reality doesn`t get much of a look in in your dream world does it.

Of the 5 "Shock Scenarios" 3 are for 30 day outages. While you are dreaming of another connection lead to France that would take as long to put in place as a land based LNG terminal to import nuclear energy, (that in all probability would not have anything flowing through it when needed),and hoping to get this supply from a country that purchases 8 billion cubic meters annually from a privately owned LNG terminal and have approved their own floating LNG terminal at Le Havre. The boys and girls in France would be on the floor with laughter when we turned up with the begging bowl because we have no LNG facilities. Meanwhile in the real world we would be sitting in the dark for a minimum of 30 days due to Irish Green Party ideology and Ryan`s ineptitude on gas storage, secondary fuel storage and LNG. I would not look at that as "we`ll be grand" and neither would anyone other that ideological lunatics.

CEPA were commissioned by Ryan to do this report on energy security. They made it clear that they were doing so with one arm tied behind their back due to Ryan`s edict on a land based LNG terminal, but in all fairness to them, and for the sake of their own credibility, pointed out that without adequate storage and LNG we do not have energy security. Why this is now coming as a surprise on LNG to green supporters is a strange one. It`s not as if it has not been pointed out by the CRU, Eirgrid and posters here on numerous occasions.

For an LNG terminal there are 3 options. The state goes with the floating terminal from this report which for Finland with the same population as Ireland and a much lower dependency on gas are paying €640 million on a ten year lease, allow Shannon LNG to build their own which they say they can do for the same cost, (they have recently received a state contract to provide 352 MW of gas fired electricity from the same site from 2026 - 2036), or the state builds its own and whenever we no longer require gas have the facility for other usage. Those are the options.

Argh come on, how could you have missed "the joke". You have even highlighted it in your post. "We find that the power sector can mitigate any shortage in gas supply through the use of secondary fuel by gas-fired power plants" Our secondary fuel storage is just 5 days supply and is sitting on an island off the south coast with no pipeline to the mainland. For mitigation that is up there with the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

You're the one who introduced the report to the discussion, and you've completely misrepresented their findings.

The main thing we need to do is accelerate our long term transition to renewables. The report looked at once in 20 years weather events and found we'd be grand using the interconnectors we have and our emergency response plan will be fine

They then looked at once in 20 year weather events combined with severe disruption to our interconnector and found that we'd be able to cope with those too.

Of all the mitigation plans for this low level of risk, most of them would not be deliverable by 2025, and would be less needed by 2030 because by then demand for gas will be lower as we will have more electricity interconnectors, and more offshore wind, solar and storage.

We should be increasing our investments in the national grid, to make it quicker and cheaper to connect renewable infrastructure and grid services to the grid. And we should be fast tracking the infrastructure needed to support floating offshore wind because that is the future for Ireland's energy independence

It's pretty calm in Ireland today, but 30km offshore, there's plenty of wind energy available.

For those of you interested, the conclusion to the above presentation is wind and solar net zero utopia can only deliver energy returned on energy invested of 2. That is the same as the Roman empire. We need an EROI of at least 5.