Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

110691070107110721074

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    Politically speaking we have the concept of Citizen Assembly

    Perhaps an assembly could be convened and populated with Scientists and Engineers from across Irish industry and academia

    These lads and lassies can then discuss and put forward a few proposals (including concrete timelines and costs) for several scenarios:

    • do nothing scenario
    • offshore wind scenario, it be nice to get costs for this, and glaring holes raised in this thread addressed
    • Nuclear scenario
    • A mix of above
    • Something else, some blue sky thinking approach no one yet thought off

    Instead we just have vague and fluffy hand waving from Eamon Ryan and representatives of the wind lobby who are already raking in massive profits at expensive of Irish taxpayers who have the highest electricity costs in world



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,169 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    … when a political party is a minor party in a coalition government capable of collapsing that government if it so wishes, it`s role in decision making is often of a higher status than it`s electoral support would suggest.

    While government decisions are made at collective cabinet level, the proposals that reach cabinet level come from the various Ministers and Ministers of State who autonomously run their own fiefdoms within government. Of those we have Eamon Ryan Minister for Environment, Climate, Communications and Transport. Pippa Hackett Minister of State for Land Use and Biodiversity. Malcolm Noonan Minister of State for Heritage and Electoral Reform. Catherine Martin Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht and Media.

    Those aren`t positions in government that ere randomely allocated to the Irish Green Party. They are positions that were requirements for them agreeing to form government. When it comes to energy generation and land use in particular then I cannot see how the Greens can be given a pass with the blame going to FF & FG.

    If I blame FF & FG for anything it`s not staring the Irish Green Party down on their culling cattle nonsense which could have gone a long way in preventing this offshore wind plan becoming the fiasco it is now showing itself to be.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,169 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    If people are interested in the economics of zero emissions generation then they need to take a look at the present economics of renewables and nuclear.

    Our ORESS strike price for offshore, without all the hydrogen add-ons, is on a par with Hinkley C, the most expensive nuclear plant those opposed to nuclear can find. The recent re-negotiated strike prices for offshore wind alone by Orsted and Equinor in the U.S. are the same. And that is before taking into consideration the lifespan or capacity factor of both and the subsequent capital costs that will be required for wind during the lifespan of a nuclear plant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Almost all the reasons why the UK AGR program was a disaster are mega-project management screwups that could easily affect renewable projects, but that is too inconvenient for certain people.

    I doubt Ireland will change course until the energy mix is wind and blackouts.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,169 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Following the present plan unfortunately that is not just the most likely outcome, but one that will leaves us so financially indebted we will be unable to follow any other course.

    Others can look on that however they wish, but for me, with the refusal of the relevant minister to provide the cost of what is being proposed, and for greens who support it who run for cover everytime they are asked the same, that is the real agenda behind this proposal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭whatever.


    A 100 years ago there wasn't 8 billion people.

    When we left the planet there was circa 3 billion people, therefore your retort is entirely discredited.

    Population decline will raise everyone's living standards and more specifically the living standards in the countries of people of colour who are overpopulated and would have starved if Europe and North America had not intervened.

    Almost all Africans would starve if not for food imports (circa 90%), population needs to match resources to be sustainable, that's simply it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,642 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Starvation isn't down to food, but to corruption and bad actors creaming off the top.

    Population decline won't improve living standards as the aging population will struggle to fund a good living standard with less younger people to pick up the tabs via taxes.

    It's been shown on here already that "people of colour" aren't overpopulated



  • Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭whatever.


    90% of food needs to be imported. Corruption influences price and distribution but not the requirement.

    It's not about young or old people but all people.

    Less people requires less resources and thus less taxes. The taxes point is a misnomer used to defend population and immigration ponzi systems.

    People of colour countries are vastly overpopulated as they cannot support themselves. If they could there would be no need for UN programs to do such basics as feed children.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,642 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    We're a rich country, and import a lot of our food. Are we overpopulated? Or regulated and directed in such a way that food production isn't seen as a priority over other interests? How about the UK in a similar boat but import a higher %? If these countries you're railing against were (and they are) growing food, with good/better yields due to better education, who do you think benefits - the people or a few shady characters at the top of the social structure? It's nearly 40 years since Live Aid brought famines into focus - has the lives of millions improved to a necessary degree even with all the outside help and support? If not, why?

    None of this has anything to do with the green policies here



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭ps200306


    90% of food needs to be imported … People of colour countries are vastly overpopulated as they cannot support themselves. If they could there would be no need for UN programs to do such basics as feed children.

    "People of colour countries"? Jeebus!

    It would help if you tried to provide evidential support along with these claims. Sub-Saharan Africa is a net exporter of food, except for four countries (Nigeria, Somalia, DR Congo and Angola) which are either resource rich or recent conflict zones, or both. While SSA faces challenges, the picture is greatly improved since 2000.

    Overpopulation is simply not a factor in most African countries. Africa contains 60% of the world's not-yet-cultivated arable land. It could easily be self-sufficient in food unlike the UK (which imports 40% of its food) or Saudi Arabia (which imports 80%).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 92 ✭✭amykl_1987


    In a few years time we will miss climate targets and be on the hook for an 8 billion euro fine.

    Greens are a sham party.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    That tweet is something else

    Tho it shows the anti science and engineering Greens are already laying the groundwork to blame the missed targets on technology sector which pays an incredible amounts of money for worlds most expensive electricity AND **** ton in taxes for daft green schemes AND allows people to work from home



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    No data centres means no Big Tech. These are the sort who I can foresee protesting for the closure of Leixlip.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    Who needs tech when the aim is to use stone tools and live in caves, close to nature and all that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,613 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Population decline will raise everyone's living standards and more specifically the living standards in the countries of people of colour who are overpopulated and would have starved if Europe and North America had not intervened.

    Japan, "people of color" with a declining population. Recently Japan is in the news because of a Yen carry trade unwind. That countries debt does not concern many people in this part of the world, eventually their debt load will collapse, the contagion will likely spread to the EU, no magic money trick accounting will stave that off. Cyclical debt collapses are not unusual, the European nations debt collapse in the 1930s set off the great depression. The North Atlantic debt crisis of 2008 was papered over by the major central banks, we are coping with consequences such as high inflation and accommodation shortages and there are wars on the go that are causing economic destruction and displacing people.

    A declining population, can live off capital reserves built up in the past, this eventually gets consumed and requires fresh capital, you can't keep borrowing from the future, it eventually arrives and what remains of the younger working generation will no longer service the debt. Japan looks for technological solutions to caring for old people, who looks after the robots? these solutions require expensive maintenance and energy to power them.

    Human history is littered with the rise and fall of various civilizations, periods of decline often run for hundreds of years, human nature has not changed in millennia, using history as a guide, setbacks are a more likely outcome rather than a continuous rise in living standards.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    makes an interesting point that China etc can cause serious electric grid problems in countries like Ireland

    My own solar panels at home have a Chinese inverter and app where the data goes to China of production and is connected to the internet

    Yet another green policy time bomb waiting to explode



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    More concerned about how much of the economy is being given away.

    Remember back in 2010 with the likes of Chris Huhne (and I am pretty sure GPE&W before then) talked about the Green Economy, but that ship has long sailed and it has now all been gobbled up by China.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,169 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    With the irony of all ironies being that the Chinese have been using coal generated energy and slave labour to gobble it up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,166 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    That poster succumbed to propaganda about how cool we are and how we are constantly have to help those poor savages as they cant take care of themselves. To the point that poster think that solution to every problem will be to have less of savages around.

    They completely overlook fact that those countries were pillaged for centuries and any advance was and still is stifled and suppressed in order to keep the bounty coming. If they stop all exports or demand proper pay for them, the western economy and civilization would collapse pretty much overnight.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    It’s ok we don’t share the same planet as China so Global warming doesn’t apply to them /s 😃



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    "I'll have to consult with Minister Eamon Ryan" says forgettable FF/FG minister this evening when asked how we are going to tackle growing disinterest in unreliable electrified car industry. No doubt they'll come after ICE drivers and blast them into oblivion with new tax measures, that'll show them and their climate disaster skepticism!!

    How pathetic FF/FG are for letting the greens clamp the balls of the country in the way that they did for the last 10 years. Shameful. FF/FG voters (of which there are many bizarrely) should be embarrassed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Ive been an engineer for 11 years. The do nothing option is just as likely to change (or stop changing) the climate as doing everything is. Honest to goodness, it takes some amount of arrogance by environmentalists and those who claim to be "doing their bit for the climate" that any action on their part is actually going to change the weather...

    With regard to the wind energy, we have literally destroyed thousands of acres of ecosystems putting those godawful things up. They make what was once pristine untouched nature look like an industrial wasteland. What's worse is we aren't even using the energy ourselves! We're sending it to the UK to appease the even larger green alarmist agenda over there. Then we get the tut tut from the highly dubious and questionable NGOs such as "Friends of the Earth" telling us how unsustainable it is to buy in unclean energy in the way that we do and how we should build even more windfarms to meet our demand!! Preposterous.

    Worst thing is not the conduct of government and environmentalists, it's us, the dumbasses, who are letting them get away with it!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Deutsche Welle is not the lunatic fringe, it's the German state-owned world broadcasting service. Interesting, then, when even they are putting out videos entitled "Europe's ludicrous hydrogen bet".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,613 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    DW like RTE & the BBC is in the thrall of eNGOs when it comes the environment. In that presentation they are promoting Greenpeace opinion which is that hydrogen economy is a ruse to keep fossil fuel energy companies in business. They are not necessarily wrong on that. "Green hydrogen" is an idea that has been floating around since the early part of the 20th century, even a pioneering 20th century German political party (sic) whose environmental policies have been widely adopted today, had it in their publications. Same limits recognized then as now. Economics aside like many programs promoting "green hydrogen", the DW presentation ignores one essential raw material: ultra pure water.


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Don't get me wrong — I'm not holding DW up as some bastion of energy pragmatism. Elsewhere on that Planet A series they are gungho for solar, wind and batteries. However, there is still a contrast with our own environment minister who seems to have swallowed the hydrogen hype, lock stock and barrel. Planet A also has an episode on cask storage and nuclear fuel reprocessing in France. It paints nuclear in an uncharacteristically good light for a German outfit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,642 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Anyone claiming grants for AD plants will be allowed export the gas. Whatever % is grant aided equates to the % of gas that must be used in the Irish market. Everything else can be exported. NI and the UK are the only markets available currently. AD operators can also avail of "green certificates" which can also be traded.

    This is starting to look dodgy as fudge now too



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,169 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    If it`s the same "guaranteed green certificates" that our "100 green energy" compamies were using suspposedly supplying Norwegain generated electricity then it`s dodgy already.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,169 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The 80% for export reminds me of a few years ago there was a government plan to build a massive fish farm off the coast of Galway. I asked a local elderly fisherman what he thought of the idea. His reply was "If it was any good it would not be left to us". He was proven correct with the whole idea being scrapped. If this idea was as lucrative as we are being told, then why would U.K. famers not be suppling their own market rather than importing from us ?

    To me it does look to perhaps be related to imports and exports, but for electricity rarher than methane. THe U.K recently took a look at our electricity generation plans and our imports and got a bit antsy at it being a one way street and likely to stay that way. This 80%, to me anyway is a bit like the old "live horse and you will get oats" in that if you keep supplying us with electricity one day we will send you methane.

    Any farmer considering getting involved in this latest would be well advised to take a look at the previously promised gold mine of growing willow where those that fell for it are now looking for government support to get shot of the willow they planted. If they are going to get involved in this latest then they would need the same deal as offshore wind farms. A fixed indexed linked price for all they can provide, even if it is neither needed or used, and an agrrement on them being allowed to use whatever volume of fertilisers that would provide the same yield of grass year on year.



Advertisement