"Green" policies are destroying this country

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

And you've just gone straight back into the double standard outcome.

If 2050 rolls around and it has become clear renewables just can't power a grid exclusively, then what? Because that's a firm possibility since no-one has come even close to running a carbon free grid - in the absence of nuclear - for any length of time worth considering.

If reducing carbon emissions really is the aim you use every energy source you can to get you there.

... they will have cut vast amounts of emissions by 2050 even if they fall short - meanwhile nuclear has done zip to that point.

You either accept that emissions need to be reduced now and rapidly or you don't understand the urgency of climate change avoidance. Nuclear comes to late to reduce carbon emissions as it does nothing until the big switch is pulled in around two decades time.

You may be confused a little. I did not say anything like that and certainly not in a post you quoted. You may want to re read it again, think a little about what you are reading and then perhaps reply something more to the point.

Another one who cant put two and two together. My reply was directed on Australia amazing solar and battery storage plans. How did you manage to jump to laptops, boards and clothes is beyond my understanding. Your mind must be amazing place.

Trying to switch world from using fossil fuels to what you call green energy and put everyone in EV if quite far from "sustainability" for everyone who knows how things work.

Most of your comments are like that but we got used to it. I sometimes forget who am I talking to.

I do actually think he HAS a point pulling in laptops etc. And you could also make a wider remark about overall pollution of digital technology which would require even more energy for example data centres, AI. If you take that into account you need even more land/sea if you want to go green. I dont actually know what the greens exactly think about the digital world. Old fashioned environmental aware people used to be small scale, (almost) off grid energy ( small windmills and diesel generators), suspicious of large scale state compliance rules and the state in general. They were minimalists trying to survive independently, being nice to bees and and protecting whales etc.

It seems those kind of people have died out. The new ones are all about fascist style top down command and control. That needs control of the digital space ie surveillance ie Big Tech. They dont seem to realise they are supporting a polluting industry. Or maybe they do and just ignore it because they need it so it doesnt count.

It looks to me as the usual green solution of taking more money and then not providing a solution. Which seems the default green method of operating. Its always more money into the black hole with them.

lol, that's a good story RE the blind person. the no mow thing is a council initiative around different parts of the country, not exactly dictated to them by the green party. anyway insect populations are in a bad state in ireland, some of the work they've done where i live on roundabouts and verges has been really good, loads of wild flowers in spring and summer. you need to stop thinking that nature = eyesore.

Well actually, that is a good initiative.

Yes, we Greens love blind people being assaulted by branches that are our fault for being there in the first place. Shame she wasn't hit by a car when she fell out onto the road, in this story that actually happened and was the fault of the Green party.

Ah, so you condemn climate change deniers on something that may or may not be part of a natural cycle and is impossible to truly observe in human lifetimes but something unfortunate that was actually observed by myself (and at least one other boards.ie member) didn't happen because you didn't see it yourself? Stay classy.

I'm not imaginative enough to make up a story like that. I've never been much of a dreamer.

So based on your complete lack of concern, are we to assume that you are happy enough with the general disrepair and unkempt streets as a result of so-called wilding policies? Where do you draw the line on what's real and what's not? Are you OK with animal droppings fouling our streets too? I saw a poster showing sh1t on someone's wheel of their wheelchair once, am I to believe that didn't/couldn't happen and no other branch could ever collide with someone (sighted or otherwise) as they grow out of control, encroaching on public paths and roads?