"Green" policies are destroying this country

The whole "buy a new EV instead of driving what you have" boils my piss. Firstly, buying a new car cost serious cash these days and it makes no sense for a huge amount of people to change from a functioning car (whatever type it is) to a new EV.

Secondly, the EV being cheaper to run is also horseshit as the upfront cost in many cases is much higher. I'd a look on Volkswagon there and the cheapest Golf is from €32,595 while the cheapest equivalent EV, the ID.3 is from €42,965. That's over 10k in the difference. I'll be told now the tax is cheaper, but by ~€100 a year. A long time to make that up. Running costs will of course be less, how long will it take to make up ~10k in the difference?

Yes, was amazed to fiscover that the new 3008 will start at 40k for ICE and 50k for the BEV, in France, more subsidies will be needed, but 50k for a 3008 (even 40k) is insane

The quickest way to fix the rental market would be to start with reducing demand. Net migration into Ireland is heaping pressure on the availability and cost of housing and thus rents, not to mention increased pressure on education, healthcare and welfare provisions.

Thats long before the environmental costs of migration into Ireland = more cars, increased traffic, more C02 emissions, more electricity generation, more pollution as sewerage systems are not able to cope, more demand on water services, increased tonnage going to landfill, increased demand for food, increased air travel as many new arrivals jet home to visit friends and family... and so on.

It bewilders me how any genuine greenie can champion open borders but yet castigate the natives for having the audacity to hit out to Spain for a week to escape a crappy wet Irish Summer.

Just came across another country as deluded as Ireland. Australia's plans for net zero by 2050 don't stack up. They have something like 55 GW of generating capacity right now. They plan to build 60 GW of utility solar, and 60 GW of rooftop solar. They'll generate hydrogen for storage and build a new pumped hydro facility called Snowy 2.0. Then, incredibly, they're going to have 45 GW of residential Tesla Powerwalls and EV batteries hooked up to the grid in a V2G system.

A recent review of their plans noted that they had forgotten to cost the huge amount of new transmission that they're going to need. People are enthusiastically installing rooftop solar, but the return on investment is reducing as the utilities have to charge more for power to service customers who only use electricity at peak times, and get feed-in tariffs for producing lots of solar power when it's not needed. Nobody is sure if the V2G will work so that people's car batteries are charged when they need them, but are still available to buffer the grid at peak times.

Sounds like another case of pure hopium.

I wonder where they are going to get all minerals needed for that solar and battery storage. Probably opening couple hundred more mines in some countries out of sight. Sure, as long as they stay somewhere in Africa we are golden and can congratulate ourselves for our valiant efforts in saving the planet for future generations. Someone think about the children!

Meanwhile, constantly leaking carcinogenic harmfull lubrication oils from all those beautifull windmills are blowing across our land and seas. But hey, as long as useless eaters cant see it they should shut up and enjoy daily dose of micro cancer particles spray.

On your regular tirades against nuclear, you never say whether you think the problems with this power source are inherent in the design? Certainly nuclear has been beset by long delays and high costs. But you never seem to have any interest in whether these issues can be fixed. Most nuclear advocates believe the solutions are design standardisation and regulatory streamlining.

Given that renewables can't work, do you have any other low-carbon alternatives?

There you go again getting all angry like

I had thought of responding to some of the assumptions/assertions in his biased post (capt midnight) but there are some clear red flags so i didnt bother.

Using the word Hydrogen is one of them. It is futile to argue w a person who ignores the full picture and is on the road of 'technology will solve the problems' concerning green tech while AT THE SAME TIME playing down tech advances on anything to do with oil and nuclear and ignoring the role of politics.

It is clear he wants to play the role of witness for the prosecution in an imaginary court without a judge. Well, the witnesses in the other side are piling up over time. You can only spread mis- and disinformation for so long.

We have seen it on Covid18 measures. We are seeing it in regards to Ukraine and w the climate debate.

Reality hurts..

Is this the start of the dip in EV sales as the incentives are being phased out?

I see VW are now offering 0% finance on their EV range in an effort to boost sales

There is absolutely nothing to suggest there is any guarantee renewables can do so either. Thus, under your criteria, renewables are a non-runner also.

I have made my choices and am happy Im doing my best in the context of available and affordable choices and my many competing priorities. IMO this pulpit banging and preaching fire and brimestone to those who dont strictly adhere to a prescribed doctrine does more harm than good unless youre going to take the ultimate big stick approach and ban everything you don't like. Likelihood of success?

This is a very crude calculation TBH. Just getting the CO2 emissions from directly burning the fuel in the car, is only some of the CO2 it takes to explore, extract, refine and transport the fuel for each car.

You can add an additional 30% to the CO2 emissions for every litre of fuel burnt during the lifetime of the vehicle for the extraction and processing of the fuel before it gets to the car.

https://innovationorigins.com/en/producing-gasoline-and-diesel-emits-more-co2-than-we-thought/

And that doesn't include the more esoteric emissions, like the wars that are fought to secure oil supplies releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 in the process, or the methane that leaks from old oil and gas wells for centuries after the wells are shut down because they're no longer profitable.

Again, it is all down to how many miles a car is driven. With ICE cars, the more miles the car is driven, the more emissions it will emit, so it is better to get the high milage users off ICE and onto BEVs as the first priority. With BEVs, most of the emissions are in the manufacturing and recycling phase, so it is better for low milage ICE owners to keep their ICE cars for longer, and allow the new BEVs to be driven by high milage users in the initial ramping up phase, with older less efficient ICE cars aging out as the BEV used market begins to mature, so that ultimaely, all vehicles will be zero emissions vehicles powered off fully renewable energy grids.

This is why higher Fuel costs are the best way to migrate from ICE to BEV. It incentivises those who drive the most, to migrate first. They'll save a fortune in fuel and then they'll upgrade their vehicles as technology improves leaving those cars available to the used BEV market where they can replace old retiring ICE vehicles.

Thats a false dichotomy

Most people are not in the market for a new car

That's the same now as it has always been. When people are buying a new car, the choice is between a new BEV, or a new ICE car.

While the BEV may cost more upfront the cost of ownership is so much lower, that for anyone more than, say, 20k KMs per year, they'll save way more in running costs than they save in the lower upfront price for the ICE car.

Now that there is finally some competition in the BEV market, the prices of new BEVs are coming down rapidly, and there are now perfectly good BEV options at reasonable price points with good range for any segment in the new car market.

If you're not in the New car market, the Used car market is starting to see value too, with BEVs with usable range for most people now starting to breach the 10k price point for 6/7 year old cars

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=642922087964148&set=a.421401013449591

Absolutely, agree with most of what you said. It is a very crude (oil) level calculation but just wanted to get the idea across that there will be cases where people replace an ice car with a Bev due to running costs and taxes, when it is not the best thing from an emissions perspective. We need to make sure we don't ramp up taxes so quickly that we indirectly force cars off the road before they come close to the breakeven point.

There is practically nobody in this country who does not feel housing is a huge issue in Ireland.

Blaming immigration is just the lazy way of looking at the problem

Having read your post i feel we could go back and forth quite a few times. I give you points for coming up with some advantages for certain energy sources and disadvantages of others. But the bottom line for many green technologies remains a: that they actually do what they claim, b: are not based on some future use or technology that hasnt been proven yet, c: are both efficient AND make economic sense, d: are better than current energy sources, e: do not require a tripling, quadrupling of existing infra structure, f: can be applied at scale, g: do not totally depend on global supply chain flows and good economic prospects and finance.

Ive probably left out a few. Some of these issues are shared with current technologies. There is no simple solution. But there ARE trade offs, costs and benefits. The way i see it: green tech will need to overcome most of the issues i highlighted above. In all likelyhood new green energy tech will continue to grow and develop. It can't currently or by 2050 replace the existing infrastructure. It will by default be an addition and not a replacement and most of it will focus on electricity. The real transition will happen much later and only when technologies are ready to be commonly applicable which is not the near future.

Now, the elephant in the room is the issue of Climate change. If you think it warrants excessive alarm and that Co2 emission reduction is the key and that hydro carbons should be stopped asap you would want to make a rapid transition. However, in trying to force the issue the backlash will be so great that a proper transition is actually delayed. That is both the irony AND the tragedy. Goodwill is lost, suspicion enhanced. In general the Greens do not want to face this reality. They are so rigid and brittle they have become vulnerable when hitting a reality wall. They keep insisting on having the only (simplistic) answers to the complexity of what we are dealing with that they are increasingly becoming a laughing stock with all the doom and gloom, armageddon end of the world stuff.

Anyway, i really did not want to write this post. And maybe i shouldnt have bothered..

Edit: to add and finish w my own standpoint: anything related to climate is complex and the interaction of the variables is highly uncertain. The more you know the more uncertain it becomes. There is little evidence to support a sense of alarm as far as i can see and i think i see further than most. The science is by no means settled.

My estimate is that in 2030 the current climate alarm will have died down, that the climate is more or less the same w no increase in storms, droughts, fires etc.

I could of course be wrong. The alarmists just do not have the data to back them up. I take some comfort in that..

Interesting thread on nuclear