"Green" policies are destroying this country

System curtailment. It happens regularly when the amount of asynchronous generation exceeds what is safe for the grid to accommodate. Currently the limit is 75%.

Its not quite as simple as made out here though. Had users been told to turn on their immersion (assuming they needed hot water), they'd have still been charged retail prices. More wind would have been accommodated but every 7.5MW of extra wind would also need 2.5MW of extra conventional plant. The next 1MW of conventional is typically more expensive than the last, so it would drive up the overall price in the balancing market (giving even more money to the wind farms along with every other generator). Unintended but costly consequences of what superficially looks like a great opportunity.

I suppose ya have accepted ya misread things. Good. Room to improve.

Agri is benefitting from some streams, but evidently, not enough,. If it's the biggest polluter, then it should be targeted more to do more. Wouldn't that be fair to say? Just transition, to me, seems like a joke for local authorities to do some training, go out count some wildlife, do a few surveys, etc. The link you provided lists all this and very little seems to be of substance. Last week I was at 3 different conferences related to climate work. All stated that local authorities need to do more. Just this morning I seen a council worker (or contractor) tip up the road on a quad spraying weeds along the side of the road and footpath. Isn't that bullshit? On Monday I was on Grafton street and watched 2 council workers (or contractors) blowing leaves along the street with petrol leaf blowers. The hilarious thing about that is they then went down Suffolk street past the head office of the Green party. If I was to cut something it would be surveys and rubbish like that and spend the money on things that may actually make a difference. I'd also get rid of the carbon tax as you've shown yourself, it is a tax not primarily used for it's intended purposes - reduce carbon and pollution. From the figures you showed €21m out of €70m is spent on a fuel allowance, which is then spent on fossil fuels. Is that what the carbon tax was intended for? There's only €3m for EV charging, yet EVs are being pushed as a saviour. The money is being pissed away and apart from a retrofitting programme which is now spiraling cost wise too that special loans have to be introduced.

No sector will improve without funding. The agri sector, for decades, have been following the science and doing what the department and Teagasc have being recommending. There was an about turn a few years ago and then everyone turned on agri for doing what they were told/asked/recommended. Agri don't "suck from the public purse". They are subsidised to produce cheap food with quality, though the payments have been decoupled for a long time now from food production and reward landowners instead. Any scheme that makes sense, and is viable is taken up with great gusto. Look at REPs which increased tree and hedge over across the country, and then was canned. Look at the money spent on LESS. You're knowledge of agriculture, how it works, the schemes and the work it's doing and has done isn't an area you understand. But I can help you :-)

Also, don't forget, out of all the sectors with climate plans, agriculture is the only one that has plans in place, plans in execution and has shown a reduction. Yet some eNGOs rank then lower than every other sector.

One more little titbit. I've been looking at houses that in 2006 were built on a field that floods regularly. The crash happened and the site was abandoned. Some houses were up but people with criminal tendancies wrecked them, pulling wires and copper and leaving those house built in bits. Some were even burnt down. In the last 12 months, the site has reopened and houses are being repaired and put on the market (cheapest is €299k). None of these have any renewable tech. No solar panels, no heat pumps - nothing. How can they do that? Well, technically they aren't "new" houses and aren't obliged to put some in. Oil burners and tanks in each tiny garden. New pipes and radiators inside. And they got SEAI grants to improve their BER because the original windows and doors were rubbish. But if you or anyone else wants to build they will be mandated to put at least one renewable source in, and no grants available for one or subsequent measures taken. System isn't fair is it?

WTF are ya on about? Childish shite now would be to start critiquing grammar. Is it incomprehensible? Do you not understand what's being written?

And I answered. I said just transition funding should be cut. Even gave reasons why. I'll just pick the line out for ya

I didn't say deprive them did I? Again, you read and register something different. I said it should be cut and not be wasting money on surveys and other such crap in local authorities. They aren't really impacted but the people employed by the likes of BnaM, and other industries serving them. They need to be helped no doubt but county councils don't need money to count barn owls. The whataboutery showed that LA authorities are spending money on things they don't need (spraying kerbside weeds in NOVEMBER (lunacy)) or blowing weeds around prior to a storm using petrol blowers. If they have money for that crap, they have money to count owls without dipping into the JT fund

There's a lot of reading there but my initial thoughts are that the 4 proposed focus areas aren't worth a damn if a global shock (war) broke out in the morning:

• 1. Reduced and Responsive Demand
• 2. A Renewables-Led System
• 3. More Resilient Systems
• 4. Robust Risk Governance

Energy security should ensure sufficient reliable indigenous production to meet our needs. Anything else is just lip service. Last time I checked, you can't spin a turbine using "robust risk governance". Basically it's a 76 page document that can be distilled to Item 1-> reduce demand (all the way to zero if necessary and wait for someone else to bail us out).

Ireland is never going to have nuclear power, not in our lifetime anyway. So not sure why all these threads get dragged down into this discussion because it is pointless. We have interconnects to UK and will have one soon to France and yes we will probably end up using nuclear power but we won't be building on on this island.

The plan is shared above and I don't see any huge change to this and I don't see any party in Ireland talking about nuclear.

First pass on this: gov.ie - Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 (www.gov.ie). It avoids quantifying the elephant in the room, unreliable generation and dances around the edges of the topic.

With a totally uncosted plan that would end up costing, (being generous), a minimum of €200 Billion for a population of 5 million with even more money being thrown at it every 20 -25 years, then despite all the greens efforts to kill such a conversation then it`s past time we did.

The greens would like to have people believe that there is no interest in nuclear here. The fact is that a Think Ireland poll over two years ago found that there was an even split, 43% in favor 43% oppposed, with the age group that the Green Party recieve the highest percentage of their vote from in the last GE, the 18 -24s, 60% were in favor.

Hysterical much .

There is a reason Nuclear is dying, and that is because it cannot get investors and it cannot compete on price. No amount of hysteria is going to get people to waste their money in it.

If feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here.

I'll leave it there