"Green" policies are destroying this country

Another good example of how a negative report / headline can be spun into a positive pr. Spin over substance a hallmark of modern politics

For the EU to be more self sufficient and independent it should have started 40 years ago with increasing (instead of diminishing) nuclear power for electricity. If we want to maintain a modern, stripped down, less wasteful and simplified society we actually need all the oil and gas we can get, including fracking. Renewables can never replace hydro carbons unless you want to do away with both industry and large transportation (trucks, airplanes). It can add to the mix and increase its percentage depending on the country. You still need plastics for things like pharmaceutical products. And you need steel so coal (cokes), pig iron, iron ore etc. And cement. If you want to live without those products it means an economic collapse, deprivation and likely civil war. Plus other areas taking full advantage of our self inflicting wounds and suicide pact. But even if the whole world was on board of the Green Enterprice there are not enough trees to replace the stuff we make from hydro carbons. In fact, we were running out of trees prior to using coal.

All these things cannot be dismissed. Yet, the insistence on a rapid, green transition still seems to be prevalent in many established political parties, supra national institutions and the media. It is shameful and morally wrong.

Are you quoting the wrong post

I don't know the exact time, but a new more efficient car (EV) pays it's carbon down in less than a few years. Keeping old inefficient cars on the road really is the wrong thing to do if you are concerned about carbon emissions.

Because your back of the envelope guesstimate trump all the analysis done by those transnational bodies.

All those negatives you predict are going to happen if climate change isn't addressed. Collapse will be worse since all the temperate countries will be swamped by climate refugees from the countries hit by unsurvivable temps which can no longer support them. If we decide refugees cannot come here then progressively more resources will have to be diverted to repelling the waves of migrants placing us on a virtually perpetual war footing.

There are no easy solutions but ignoring the driving problem will lead us into a very deep hole.

How you extracted him saying the green transition was unfeasible from what he said is beyond me.

Not solving the underlying problem but treating the symptom is not a solution to our problems. The patient will still end up dead in this scenario.

Expanding nuclear to the fantasy level you suggest is just as unfeasible as you suggest renewables are.

You are incorrect, most of the emissions from a car is in the usage not the manufacture. That is why a 10 year old car with 20% lower efficiency will be worse on emissions overall than replacing it with any new vehicle.

Life time analysis is a complex thing to perform and easily skewed by the choices you make upfront. It is often used to deceive about the underlying reality of a situation by making unrealistic assumptions. You should always be wary of the source of any such analysis and compare different studies to get an idea of the truth.

I agree that things should be made to both last and to be repairable but sometime advances in technology make holding onto outmoded items the wrong choice. Take for example a modern digital amplifier with efficiency of over 90% and compare it to an old class B transistor amp with efficiency of around 50%. Computers are another example where old computers idled at 100 watts and new ones idlel at less than 10 watts.

The energy rating system is designed to drive such efficiencies.

Totally agree. What bothers me though is there are people out there who think these greenies are right & everyone else is wrong😱😳

The government are quids in when it comes to rising fuel prices. For every €10 extra to fill a tank they're getting an extra €1.87 vat

It's a lot like people bemoaning the high mortgage rates we have in Ireland while at the same time supporting legislation that makes it extremely difficult to have defaulting payers removed from a property. The cost of this policy is just borne by all the people who do pay their mortgage or rent on time and costs then 10's if not 100's of thousands more in repayments.

It's news to me. I am currently driving an almost 17 year old car. (My wife and I both work from home and don't do anywhere near enough miles per year to justify financing a new BEV, we got rid of our 2nd car a few years ago). We're looking at a used BEV but the price point is still a bit too high for something that fits our family (that's rapidly improving)

We're hoping to get at least one more year out of the car we have if it passes the NCT next year but it will definitely be our last Ice vehicle

Didn't 98% of them later pass a repeat inspection?

Does any house get built without any snag list?

All building work should be inspected

There isn't enough Uranium. And my infeasible comment was deliberately facetious.

It's not unfeasible to do something just because it's enormous in scale if it replaces something we're already doing that's on an even more enormous scale

The price point depends on the mileage the user is driving, and how fuel inefficient their ice car is.

If someone is driving a really inefficient gas guzzler 40k kms a year, then it's already cheaper to pay a loan and buy a BEV. You're still not gonna scrap that car if you can sell it to someone else for more than its scrap value

The same car might make sense to keep driving if you only do 5k kms per year.

Essentially, higher fuel prices are a really good way of organically replacing the oldest and most inefficient cars first. While people may scrap the car getting 30mpg and buy another Ice that does 50mpg until BEVs filter down the used market and become affordable enough to replace most Ice vehicles as they age out of the fleet.

I would agree with a lot of this