"Green" policies are destroying this country

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.

No confusion over what you said on costings. You haven`t provided any no matter how many times you were asked. What you have done on costings is totallly ignore the cost of just the offshore element of a plan you favor and ignored a strike price that presently for the Codling Wind Farm leaves it 30% more expensive that the cfd for Hinkley. And that is without floating turbines and all the hydrogen add-ons.

Lets be honest, you are in now way confused with what the second paragraph said. You just want to ignore it as it shows the ludicrously insane economically ruinous cost of a plan you favor.

Are you the same poster who brought up this IAEA formula on here a few years ago ? If you are I seem to recall you would not or could not answer questions on that either.

Totally agree. Remember this is the same bunch who swore blind 14 years ago that diesel was the way forward, and introduced incentives to encourage the purchase of diesel cars - I was one of those gobshites who was hoodwinked. Now diesel is public enemy #1

Fourteen years from now I wouldn’t be surprised if an EV was a plague on the environment.

And remember this bunch of loonies are lead by a slumbering bloke who had no qualms doing a 14 hour round trip flying to cast a vote - granted another political party saw the folly and hypocrisy of Ryan’s jaunt & bailed him out.

Your entire argument boils down to 'it's hard so we shouldn't even try to do it'

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's not your fault you feel that way, the oil industry has spent an awful lot of money spreading that message.

You think 50% demand response is terrible, but are perfectly OK with 50% supply response. Take a step back and imagine we were Hong in the different direction, that we already had storage, and the plan was to get rid of all batteries and instead plan to have a grid set up to automatically scale up and down to precisely match the fluctuating demand of a national electricity grid in real time.

You'd think we would be absolutely insane to even consider doing that and waste all of the expensive generation capacity when we're not at peak demand....

And as usual, not a single word about the massive environmental cost of not transitioning away from climate change

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/21/solar-and-on-shore-wind-provide-cheapest-electricity-and-nuclear-most-expensive-csiro-analysis-shows

Are your responses honest attempts at providing a costing for it all?

Look, nobody dispute that Ryan and his disciples do have good imagination. But that is pretty much all there is. Pure fantasy to which nobody wants to even try to put some numbers to. That is because resulting number will be so ridiculous that there is hardly any country in the world who may even try to get close to what they claim we are going to build.

The only country which is proposing to build something similar is China which may be able to pull it due to cheap labor and materials which they themselves mine, smelt and use in construction. They propose to built 43Gw offshore plant.

We have nothing, zero, nada of minerals or materials needed for insane 37Gw offshore wet dream apart from some abundance of rocks for concrete all the rest will have to be imported. Not to mention one of the most expensive labor.

To get a bit of perspective to the cost involved we can go by numbers say for example from Korea where they plan to build Sinan offshore with 8,2Gw with estimated cost of 36 billion euro. Since our green pope dreamed 37Gw we can quite safely estimate that his wet dream may cost north of 4,5 x of Korean estimate - 162 billion. That is way conservative since we do have more expensive labor cost, zero steel foundries and I doubt that there is single part of that wind turbine produced in here with perhaps exception of some signs "beware of high voltage" or "slippery surface".

That number also do not include any cost which will be needed to completely upgrade our grid not to mention magical hydrogen production and storage plants, battery storage and god knows what else they will try to imagine into reality. Add in our tendency of extending deadlines and overrunning budgets when big construction projects are involved.

I would actually think that 200 billion which few posters mentioned is also very conservative amount. All this is just a bold dream and as someone once said "if you dream dream big", completely apply to our boss of all things green since he was caught quite a few times to take a healthy nap everywhere he can.

I would say that even though there is zero chance anything of this will ever come to existence the cost for this would run close to or over a half of a trillion euro. Dream big I would say. Don't know who is going to pay for it.

Oh, and I've already answered the 'question' about how much Hydrogen costs. It's about 20c per unit of electricity, (including capital costs)

That was based on info from IRENA and NREL

Even if the unit cost was double that. Given that the energy is intended as a backup, it would still be a reasonable cost per unit.