"Green" policies are destroying this country

What's funny is that you think they're gonna love the green alternative which is several times the historical price of gas.

Actually, the stability of fossil fuel prices is pretty remarkable outside of periods of war and pestilence:

What about wind power? ... hmm, seems to be heading the wrong direction, could be something to do with Green fixation on technologies that need unsustainable levels of energy commodities:

I think that report excludes a lot of countries. There's 27 in the EU, and only 20 mentioned in that report. Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta are all excluded. I don't think you can say anything about EU wide changes when 25% of the countries aren't included in the report! I'll go out on a limb here and declare shenanigans, especially since the authors of the report are firmly against coal

Where can I sign up for power that isn't using fossil fuels? Until that's a choice, the consumer can whistle all they like, they don't have a choice. Plus, I'd also wager that renewable companies will be equally as greedy and you'll pay for future "green" power based on the whim of the "green" company

Nothing "green agenda" about what they're saying.

I think for some people members of the green party are living under their beds alongside communists who've been there since the 80s, rent free.

Wonder who the bogeyman will be next for these people.

Interesting. Maybe you'd like to explain what you were trying to prove, then, when you breathlessly posted the famous "wind power nine times cheaper than gas" quote (N.B. for precisely one day, on August 26th, 2022). In fact I didn't compare the two above, and in previous posts I have always adjusted the MWh prices for the efficiency of CCGT so as not to unduly favour gas.

LOL. As the poster above said, if only all sources were so consistent. As you know, gas prices fluctuate with seasonal demand, availability, and secular changes in global demand such as the rise of China. Another recent major change is fungibility -- gas markets were highly regional based on pipeline infrastructure until the advent of large scale LNG transport which is less than a decade old.

And of course, all those variations are the prime reason for needing gas storage, something that Minister Ryan feigns complete ignorance of as it doesn't fit with the cult narrative. Countries can and do smooth out variations in gas price through hedging and storage. Try doing that for wind? The reason wind generation prices don't fluctuate is that when the wind doesn't blow you can't get it at any price.

Of course, we're gonna fix that by massively overbuilding wind, and electrolysing water for hydrogen ... all at a cost that must be a major cult secret as the Greens are very reluctant to share it. (On the other hand, it might just be ineptitude judging from the fact that cult leader Ryan has been sitting on the McCarthy energy security report for six months without releasing it. Could be just that his responsibility for ensuring emergency gas generation next winter is in a shambles).

Speaking of LNG imports, btw, reported in today's Biz Post:

Don’t apologise OP, excellent post and very valid pointers.

Name the countries please. Please don’t say Germany as I read the green support is haemorrhaging there

The BBC continues it's rampant climate activism. It seem they don't even bother with the truth anymore...

They have a nice little explainer video here about how the frequency of Atlantic storms has not increased but the number of the most intense storms has. Oddly, they have a graph to accompany the first stat, but not the second. And, awkwardly, their own source doesn't agree with them. You can see that here:

Here's what the NOAA concluded:

Of course, the NOAA has a lot more to say about the future projections from climate models, including a possible increase in storm intensity even while the frequency of storms decreases. In particular they project increased rainfall from tropical storms and, contrary to the popular image of storm destruction from high winds, it is rainfall that causes by far the most human casualties. I don't mean to downplay any of this -- it's a long paper that can't be summarised in a couple of paragraphs.

My point is merely to say that the BBC statement that SSTs have led to more intense Atlantic storms in recent years is not supported by the evidence. This clearly raises the ire of climate punters, activist scientists, and alarmists like UN Secretary General Guterres who says that millions of people worldwide are at imminent risk. Indeed, one recent peer-reviewed paper that committed the cardinal sin of saying that extreme events induced by climate change are not yet detectable suffered a retraction by the editors (Alimonti et al. 2022 "A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming" in SpringerNature). Here is their abstract:

A bunch of activist scientists and journalists managed to do a hatchet job on this paper. Having convinced the editors to send the article for further review, two rather vague criticisms resulted in the retraction. One of them was that the authors don't sufficiently define "climate crisis". It seems a bit churlish that, having invented the term to scare the bejesus out of the public, activist scientists would now complain that it's way too vague a term. The other criticism was even weirder:

Sure. The fact that there is no detectable trend in extreme events doesn't mean that they haven't increased. It also doesn't mean that they have. That's what science is supposed to be -- an impartial and rigorous analysis of the evidence, with no bitchin' and whinin' when the results don't match your desired outcome. If trends in extreme events are not detectable they are not detectable -- even if that means merely that they are not detectable yet.

This also begs another relevant question. If climate policy is able to affect the frequency of extreme events, when will we be able to detect that. The short answer is: not in your lifetime or the lifetimes of your children or grandchildren. This is all the more reason to be wary of nutjobs like the Greens who have an extremely narrow view of climate policy which includes a lot of pet concerns that are nothing to do with optimising our response to climate change. It is going to be an extremely long haul -- a century or more -- during which we'll need to rein in Green nihilists who would be only too happy to push us over a cliff.

Even if you do live in a city with a public transport (which do not operate between midnight till 7am) cycling is out of a question for most of the year anyway. I am about to finish my shift and the idea I do cycle home in pissing rain after night shift is well, on a par with window salad box diet....

Taking bycicle out when you feel like is very different from having to use it when you need to be somewhere.

These people are actually unbelievable. I can't believe what I'm reading.

Greens lash out at Electoral Commission as TDs remain defiant in constituency redraw | Independent.ie

...again, i appreciate such actions, but this absence has been evident for years/decades now, we re severely behind now, we now need radical action, whatever is proposed simply wont be enough...