"Green" policies are destroying this country

In which case, 'We' can afford to send that energy to hydrogen production for extremely low cost rather than simply letting the energy go to waste, and the offshore wind producers can continue to operate profitably, and the overall grid gets the energy we need, and the stability and security we need, and ireland gets an industry and can become a net energy exporter instead of spending many billions a year importing fossil fuels.....

You're concern trolling about round trip efficiencies, and 'us' paying for energy that isn't directly used in the moment it is generated, meanwhile, fossil fuel companies are being paid trillions a year in subsidies, whole flaring off billions of BTUs of energy or just venting raw methane into the atmosphere every minute of every day.... We all pay for those things too, through energy prices, and more alarmingly, through irreversible environmental harm and the destruction of habitats, land and infrastructure caused by climate change.

How much do you think Peaker plants get paid for the energy they produce? How much do you think they're paid when they're on standby not producing any power (capacity payments)

Plants bid for 'capacity units' so even if they never produce a single watt of energy, they are paid that agreed price just to be on standby in case they're needed

The system is complex, has many many moving parts, redundancies, backups, price mechanisms etc

When we transition to renewables, it's not just adding new generators, it's replacing the old inefficient, expensive dirty technologies, with modern, cleaner and more sustainable ones. All you and your ilk are doing, is looking at the additional costs for renewable infrastructure, but ignoring the savings from being able to retire old inefficient infrastructure.

We're moving to a supply driven grid with storage creating a dynamic energy market, from a demand based grid, where we have to pay half of our infrastructure to not produce any energy for more than half the time because we cannot be caught short for the few hours a day several times a week, at certain times of the year when the peak demand occurs.

My starting point is that I agree with the plan to replace our grid with renewables as soon as possible and I trust the grid operators and the experts to come up with a workable stable and affordable strategy to achieve this goal.

I don't need to provide 'my calculations' not least because I have already given my calculations, (10 cent is the total cost for all of upgrades to our energy system) and they are just as useful and thought out as the 'calculations' provided by others on this thread.

Time for a link dump (who remembers when we used to get those, great times)

First up, the Germans. They are removing EV subsidies. VW though have decided to step in and cover the shortfall

Speaking of VW, and other EVs, there's been a price drop for new cars with the resultant drop in second hand value. Some aren't happy

Audi are scaling back on their EV rollout. This is an article on the UK market really

And finally, who remembers our Green Party toying with the idea of reintroducing wolves into Ireland? Well, the EU have no come out and said you can shoot them

Your posts have descended to the level of nothing more than you running around in an ever decreasing cirdle attempting to distract from the realities of an offshore plan you favor attempting to distract from how ruinous financially it would be if implimented.

That offshore plan of wind + hydrogen is for half the electricity generated going towards consumers, the other half to hydrogen production. Not only have to failed to acknowledged that, but you will not even admit that nobody is going to paying for all that generation other than the consummer, plus all the hydrogen add-ons and the generation even when we do not need or us it. As a poster said earlier "it`s your pig from your farm".

I have not "multiplied numbers together and announced that this was a costing". I have show verifiable costing for offshore wind from our next door neighbours for fixed turbines before the present 40% - 70% increase in cost there, without even including the extra cost of the 28% of floating platforms this plan entails and without any of the hyrdogen capital costs that show how economically insane this plan for 30 GW offshore would be let alone the 70 GW that would be required for Eirgrids`s estimation of our needs.

Neither have "I multiplied numbers together and announced that this was a costing". I gave you the strike price for Codling Wind Farm of €90 where under the plan you favor 50% of their generation would go to consummers with the other 50% to hydrogen. Nobody but the consumer is going to be paying for a combined strike price of €180. A strike price that, even before all the hydrogen paraphernalia is included, is 30% higher than the U.K. cfd price of "the dreadful deal behind the worlds most expensive power plant". Again, your pig, your farm.

Your reply to any and all of this? Nothing other than hand waving and "show me dtailed modelling" while point blank refusing to do the same while having the audacity to attempt to dimiss verifiable facts and figures with nothing other than bluster.

If you do not believe that 50% offshore wind in this plan is not for hydrolysis then you have never even bothered to read listen to or read the plan, or you do not know what the rational is.

What is sad to see is people similar to the Brexit debate proposing a plan where the run away from actual verifiable costs with nothing to show themselves other than a "Trust me sure it will be grand"

Who has decided nuclear is out, you on your belief it would fry our grid ?

If anything nuclear generated electricity is the only back up plan there is, or perhaps it`s just more head in the sand ignoring that we have a 500 MW interconnector to the U.K. that we are told will become 1,700 MW by 2027 and a 700 MW one under construction between here and France along with another planned. Far as I recall a total of 3,200 MW.

Are we going to have somebody in the U.K. and France sifting through that generation to ensure there is none of that nasty nuclear that would fry our grid.

What are you going on about? No one except you is talking about frying grids.

the advice from the International Atomic Energy Agency on maximum unit sizes is quite definitive however, and I really think it is the last word on the subject.

50 percent of wind generated going to electrolysis does not mean twice as much wind capacity is required.

You want actual verifiable costs? I thought you wanted back-of-the-envelope figures.

They've completely missed a trick, no mention of culling the herd. In fact it proposes to "encourage genetic improvement in the bovine herd". That'll take some mental gymnastics for a few folks 🤯

No, I gave you actual verifiable costs. You have not even made an attempt on a back-of-the-envelope basis while ignoring what you have been shown and looking for more detailed modeling.

You either still do not have a clue as to what the 50% for hydrogen plan is or the rational behind it. Either that or you do and you know that as far as the strike price goes it doubles for the consumer and would just like that to be ignored as that alone put the strike price 30% higher than Hinkley. Not that it matters how much consumers use, they would be still on the hook for all these offshore companies can generate under this plan plus all the hydrogen palaver.

No idea what you are now on about on the IAEA. I do know that Finland`s total generation capacity is 19.7 GW of which 42% is nuclear and Eirgrid is predicting our needs to rise to 14 GW between now and 2050. I also know that our interconnector capabilities are supposed to rise to be able to handle 3.2 GW and if we ever need it, that 3.2 GW has a very high probability of it being nuclear.

Has the IAEA a problem with that, with Finland`s 42% from nuclear or France`s 70% that they are planning to add to. Or indeed Swedens 30% that they are also going to increase.

Says the poster who clearly never bothered read the Capacity market packs but yet insists over and over again that they're an expert on them. Even when shown that they were wrong and some windfarm somewhere is indeed in receipt of such payments, they couldn't be bothered to acknowledge it.

The only clear way for us wingnuts to be enlightened is for you to explain (from 1st principles) what it is that you are actually proposing (techno-economics and all) rather than continually deriding everyone else's attempts. It's only fair - after all, that's what you're demanding of poor Charlie per your last sentence.

You sent me 3 rather rambling missives earlier that I was going to reply to individually until I saw this posting of yours to @machiavellianme and realised that I would be just wasting my time. Something that will be understood by anyone who has been dragged into discussion with doctrine apostles.

At least with most of them they can point to a divinity or a prophet who has slipped this mortal coil, whereas yours have not yet done so even though there are quite a few examples of them having displayed feet of clay.

So you wouldn’t be willing to accept the IAEA’s findings? I realise the thread has the benefit of the advice of someone who says they have a college degree. Why pay attention to the pompously named ‘International Atomic Energy Agency’?

Ultimately that’s what this thread is about. Do we depend on expertise of recognized authorities for our future or do we just base public policy on hot takes from slivers of information.

As opposed to your argument of "the world is burning and we can't stop it, there's no viable solution but we'll put all our eggs in one basket of unknown cost and we should spend on it regardless but at the end of it all, we don't know if it will even matter anyway". Talk about fear, uncertainty and doubt!

Let's not forget that the green industry has also spent an awful lot of money making sure no one realises that they stand to make a shed load of money off the back of this endless transition. In the end, we get a poorer service for more money. In the past, reliable generation met demand, now you want demand to meet unreliable generation and pay more for the privilege?

And as usual, not a single word given to the massive cost of not transitioning away from "climate change™".

Is that an honest attempt to paraphrase my position?