"Green" policies are destroying this country

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900238#Comment_121900238

The same Eddie O'Connor who was head of state owned Bord na Mona and jumped ship to make a few quid with whatever shiny new thing was on the horizon (more than once)? That Eddie O'Connor?

Whats with this rewriting history to make him out to be some sort of God? He never had an original thought in his head (that's pretty clear from his "dangerous visionary' book and any public speeches he gave, but he was a master of spin and lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and having enough money in his pockets (from his original state sponsored positions) to be able to fund a punt on the renewables lottery. Asking for contestable works and Onshore wind was already well established in Denmark, Britain and the US long before Eddie stole their ideas and claimed them to be "innovation". If he was such a saint, why did he sell everything to the first good offer he got instead of "doing the right (green) thing"?

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900312#Comment_121900312

The begrudgery of the Irish people still amazes me.

The company he created, Mainstream, is excellent and implemented some of the biggest projects across the World. Some below.

Maybe the old saying should come into people head's the odd time "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all"

https://www.mainstreamrp.com/markets-projects/

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900325#Comment_121900325

Did you know him personally? Just because his companies did well, doesn't mean he's the second coming of Jesus, Mohammad or Osiris. Though that didn't stop Whinge Energy Ireland from literally building an altar to him at their most recent conference. There's plenty of us who knew Eddie and knew exactly what he was (and what he wasn't), but you can worship who you like.

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900374#Comment_121900374

Yeah of course you knew him 😂

It's typical good old Irish begrudgery. Name a successful business person in Ireland who doesn't get the same reaction.

His company had more vision and knowledge on renewal 15 years ago than a single person on this thread today.

Also, what is this about "doesn't mean he's the second coming of Jesus, Mohammad or Osiris" and "but you can worship who you like"? Just because I said his company was excellent.

Oh yeah, it been in the right place at the right time is why businessmen are successful.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900409#Comment_121900409

I can produce photos standing beside him at various awards but I'm not about to reveal who I am on here. Unlike Eddie, I actually earned my PhD through research and development, not being awarded an honorary one for copying and pasting.

You are correct though - he knew a lot about "renewal". Once he was on the brink of being found out, he'd be gone to start again elsewhere. But I suppose to his credit, he did admit that he did a lot more damage to the environment in his early career than he could ever repair later. I guess that's a "renewal" too.

Unsurprisingly, you've skipped over the other posts about costs. Your hero would be proud.

machiavellianme

You "Pulled me up" with some sort of amazing "gotcha" because I've spoken to someone multiple times at meetings, events, conferences etc but since I don't know their innermost thoughts, I can't possibly know them? This is a small island and it's an even smaller industry. Everyone knows everyone. You're right that I am envious of him. I'd love to have been 10 years older and able to finance the projects he took on for my own profits. But the real begrudgery I'm sensing here is your own because you never got to meet him.

Look at Bord na Mona today and how it has abandoned its remit for bogs and instead has its finger in every green pie going over the last decade or so. Had Eddie been half the dangerous visionary he claimed to be, he'd have stayed and implemented that rather than jump ship twice to line his own pockets. That way, the state would have benefited and we'd all be on the way to a greener, lower cost electricity utopia with dividends paid back to the state and not Eddie's estate.

Sadly, we're facing into a world of even higher electricity bills while the green merchants make good.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900152#Comment_121900152

So much of the warnings in that article have been mentioned on this very thread and have been waved away by posters as not true. A few personal highlights:

The total projected costs of expanding offshore wind to 37GW is €131bn

People were scoffing here when Eamon Ryan estimated at 100bn. It was dismissed left right and centre by posters.

Putting in this infrastructure is very expensive, while maintaining it will also be very costly. It would cost around €1.2bn to support 1GW on the grid, and for 37GW of new capacity, the cost is estimated to be €44bn – just for supporting grid infrastructure.

We were told not so long ago on here that the offshore turbines would need no maintenance and have no associated costs. Those posts were €44bn out and that doesn't even include the turbines themselves!

France is moving towards nuclear energy which is cheaper than the renewable energy Ireland has on offer.

So our main export destination won't be arsed because they themselves can generate and sell power cheaper than we ever could. Plus we'd need to 20x the interconnector capacity just to get it to them. Don't forget of course that nuclear is more expensive than wind - or we're told it is anyway. The French seem to think otherwise

the need to have a booming green hydrogen market in Ireland.

However, it is expected that hydrogen in other European countries is likely to be cheaper than that in Ireland.

Ah hydrogen. The green fuel that our wind will produce. No mention of costs for this in the article at all, but they do say other countries could do it cheaper. No surprise there with us being stupid expensive for everything.

 other countries will help out with construction costs.

It is also unlikely that taxpayers in other countries would be willing to bear the costs of paying for another state’s renewable energy infrastructure.

Other EU member states may not be “willing” to make too many compromises.

We're playing the poor mouth card again. Despite the fact the countries in the EU are gunning to grab our tax, we're expecting those same countries to pony up to help pay for our power generation so we can sell them power for a price higher than they can get already. The article is right, there won't be many jumping at that opportunity

patnor1011

They have to keep going with their dream. If they abandon it, it would be obvious that it was not good idea at all and they will be ridiculed for it. So we have to put u with doubling in on the insanity all the while they will keep stating how we must do it because planet, children, legally binding or something like that...

PommieBast

@roosterman71

Don't forget of course that nuclear is more expensive than wind - or we're told it is anyway. The French seem to think otherwise

Remember reading somewhere that the up-front capital costs per GW of wind outstripped nuclear, but that was at least a decade ago and costs have come down since. Renewables are something like >95% up-front costs (nuclear is circa 60%) so the headache is how this is amortised into $/kWh. Customers will never see the zero marginal cost of a joule.

Consonata

Theres a whole thread dedicated to this already but it's never going to make sense for Ireland to go down the Nuclear route over something like Wind, Onshore or Off.

ginger22

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=732826232307066&set=a.421401013449591

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121904971#Comment_121904971

Probably out to sign a low carbon beef deal. Everyone knows that cattle reared on ex-rainforest are carbon neutral compared to our grass fed methane factories.

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121905865#Comment_121905865

Theyve magic stomachs those Brazilian cows. No methane what so ever. Who needs rainforests.

Carbon counting here is what matters.

It's a wonder they haven't fitted us all with an apparatus to count how much carbon dioxide we expel through breathing. Oh **** I might have let the cat out if the bag there.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121903970#Comment_121903970

That nuclear- a future for Ireland thread is a bit of a farce.

When strike prices for wind were low they were being compared to the most expensive nuclear power plant that some posters could fiind. When the cost of wind farms started going through the roof and the cost of Finland and the UAE`s recently completed nuclear plants became known, plus the price for building Poland`s first nuclear plants, threadbans were threatened for any poster comparing the two.

Four years ago the capital cost for 1 GW offshore in the U.K. was £2.37 Bn. (€2.77 Bn.). Source : Catapult Offshore Renewable Energy. That has now risen by at least 40% to €3.88 Bn. The weighted average for offshore worldwide in 2022 was $3.461 Bn ( €3.17 Bn) Source : Statista. With the increase in costs since 2022 the €3.88 Bn per GW based on the U.K. is most likely to low. Taiwan just signed an agreement for 1GW of offshore for $6.5 Bn (€5.96 Bn).

Ireland`s proposed 37 GW of offshore includes 26% of the total being from floating turbines which cost roughly 50% more than fixed turbines. Just taking the lowest cost of €3.88 Bn per GW, the capital cost alone for 37GW is €162 Bn ( €56 Bn for floating platform + €106 Bn for fixed). Throw in all the hydrogen capital costs that would also be required and the total capital cost alone would be in the area of €200 Bn.

But it would not end there. The lifespan of those turbines is one third of that of a nuclear power plant and have half the capacity factor. It`s a proposed plan that is economic suicide for a country with a population of 5 million. Something that those in favor of are well aware of when they run for cover any time they are asked to provide costs.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121908750#Comment_121908750

Given our closest analogue for Nuclear energy is the UK, where Hinckley C is costing 34bn for 3.4GW, in a country where they have built Nuclear in the past, and actually have Nuclear supply lines to bring those costs, Nuclear seems like an especially poor deal for Ireland. There's a reason why Taiwan is opting for offshore wind.

If we could do it, and do it cheaply I'd be all for it, however with the examples of how they do it in Anglo countries, Offshore and Onshore wind still seem to be better value for money for us.

Re: Lifespan, NPPs have a rated lifetime of 30 years, as do Offshore wind. Now of course most can be refurbished to last longer than that. I don't really know why that wouldn't be the case with Wind Turbines.

ginger22

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1646246575912834

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121908857#Comment_121908857

Hinkley Point C has two major problems. It essentially was bailing EDF out over its troubled EPR design, and it is the sort of mega-project that the UK is adept at screwing up. They've got the worst of all worlds building just the single plant.

SMRs might work for Ireland but unlike wind turbines they are far from the off-the-shelf stage, and the incumbants will bend over backwards to keep them off the market.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121910023#Comment_121910023

Yeah, Off the shelf seems better for the Irish use case rather than investing in the 10s of bn and political capital just to get to the point of agreeing to build a NPP. Until we see anglo countries with similar struggles to ourselves in the financing and planning departments, getting NPP through to completion, I'm very bearish on them.

Ireland has been building Wind for ages, and has gotten good at it. Seems better to stick to what we know and can do well at.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121908857#Comment_121908857

With Greta Thunberg believing Germany were loopy to shut down their remaining nuclear plants that were supplying 13.3% of their electricity in 2021, she must believe Taiwan is a complete basket case. 43% of their electricity is from coal, 39.5% from fossil fuels, nuclear 8.33% with just 1.4% from wind. They plan to shut down their remaining nuclear plants, (which at one stage provided 19% of their electricity), have mothballed a 93% completed nuclear power plant with a nameplate capacity of 2.7 GW costing $9.5 Bn. in favor of a 1 GW offshore wind farm costing $6.5 Bn that will provide less than 500 MW compared to a nuclear plant that would have provided 5X times that volume. Based on the Taiwan offshore cost, 37 GW here would equate to €220 Bn for the offshore capital costs of the turbines alone without the associated hydrogen costs. On what planet does that make economic sense ?

This idea that offshore wind turbines will operate for 30 years and then need nothing more than a lick of paint to do another 30 years in an environment that has made mush of anything we have ever placed in it is nonesense. Hywind offshore windfarm after just 6 years is being towed all the way to Norway this Summer because all the turbines require 3 - 4 months "heavy maintenance" that would be unsafe to carry out on site. If you are looking at value for money on refurbishing then nuclear is a much better deal than offshore wind. Pickerings nuclear power plant with a nameplate capacity of 2 GW is having it`s lifespan extended by 30 years for a cost of €1.4 Bn. For that price you would not get 300 MW of offshore with half the capacity factor.

I did mention that those that favor wind always quote the the most expensive nuclear they can find, yet cannot give the cost for the proposal they favor. The proposed 37 GW offshore plan is supposedly meant to ensure carbon zero electricity by 2050. Eirgrid are predicting our peak domestic demand by 2050 to be around 14 GW. The 37 GW proposal is based on 50% of the electricity for domestic and 59% for hydrogen production. With a capacity factor of 45% that 37 GW will provide 16.65 GW. 50% of that for domestic supply is 8,325 GW. Over 5 GW short of what Eirgrid are predicting will be required. So where is this 5 GW of carbon zero electricity going to come from ? If you are going to find it under the current proposal for offshore then 37GW is not going to get you there. It would require over 60 GW of offshore. The capital expenditure for offshore alone without the hydrogen add-ons would be €260 Bn. Over 50% of our present GDP. That is how insane this proposal is.

Rather for those that constantly referring to Hinkley while unable, or unwilling, to give a cost for their own favored proposal, perhaps they should take a look at recently completed nuclear power plants and accepted tenders to build others. Finland,`a country with the same population as Ireland, recently opened their Olkiluoto 3 plant which is providing the equivalent of 28% of our current needs for a spend of €11 Bn. The UAE 5.6 GW with a 92% capacity factor for $20 Bn (€18.4 Bn) and Poland have accepted a bid to provide 8.4 GW for $31.3 Bn.(€29.7 Bn) even though it was not the cheapest bid. KHUP would have provided the same for $26.7 Bn.(€24.6 Bn). Comparing any of those to the cost of this offshore wind proposal just further shows how insane it is.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121909443#Comment_121909443

The Irish Green Party are very slow learners.

Their excuse for promoting diesel was that they were fooled by car makers, yet here they are again promoting EV`s where from that link EV makers are similarly claiming very dodgy figures.

lumphammer2

Green policy is needed ....

Poorly thought out half baked green policy .... like we get from Eamonn Ryan etc .... is not needed and destroys other things while not solving anything ....

I feel half baked 'green' policies from govt are all too like the half baked Covid policy ... that lead us to be trapped in long lockdowns ...

And I would say most 'green' policies are excuses to raise taxes ... even though no politician is ever going to admit that !!

ginger22

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1318340809559143

ToweringPerformance

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121911162#Comment_121911162

EV sales have stalled worldwide and are even in decline in some region's. They work for a certain percentage of the population who do the school run and shopping trips etc.. but the convenience of an ICE car is still king in my eyes. I'm not saying they aren't part of the solution but until that range problem is addressed they will remain untenable for most.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912283#Comment_121912283

There isn't a range problem, only a perceived one.

ginger22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912881#Comment_121912881

When they are new there isn't, but god help the second owner.

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121911155#Comment_121911155

I mean. Given the 162 billion euro you quoted for establishing 37GW worth of wind energy, that gives us a figure of appox €4.37bn per GW.

Poland's most recent deal for Nuclear is 100bn PLN or €23.1bn for a 3.75GW NPP, which is approx €6.16bn per GW. Finlands most recent 1.6GW reactor ended up costing €8.5bn or roughly €5.31bn per GW. This is a country with an already robust history of building NPP, with established locations to store nuclear waste, as well as suppliers for fresh fuel rods and safe transport etc.

Even with all of that it is ranging from 25-50% more expensive per GW to build NPP. Sure you may say that in the gulf and in China they are building these for a fraction, but they are also building HSR and all types of infra cheaper than anywhere else with labour violations and all types of nasty stuff driving these efficiencies.

Again, find me an anglo country who has similar issues to us with regard to planning constrictions and financing, like what we are facing in the housing sector, whom is building Nuclear in a cost effective way. We aren't building Nuclear because of ideological reasons, we're not building it because financially it just doesn't make sense given the massive capital cost required to get to the point of building even the first reactor.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121913864#Comment_121913864

Except it would not.

162 Billion Euro is not going to give 37 GW of electricity from offshore wind. With a capacity factor of 45% it would give you 16.65 GW. So straight of the bat your figure of €4.73 Bn. per GW becomes €9.73 Bn. per GW. Over 50% more than your figures for Poland or Finland nuclear.

But it does not end there due to nuclear having twice the capacity factor of offshore turbines. Offshore wind turbines have a lifespan of 20 - 25 years, nuclear power plants 60 years. 2.5 -3 times a longer lifespan, so that €9.3 Bn per GW increases again. Now before you mention that the lifespan of turbines can be extended, the same is possible for nuclear plants. Pickerings 2 GW nuclear power plant is having its life extended by 30 years at a cost of €1.4 Bn. €700 M. per GW. Pennies compared to that €9.73 + Bn per GW.

But that is not even close the end of the financial cost for this proposed 37 GW plan. Of that 16.65 GW generated 50% is for domestic use and 50% for hydrogen production. For the consummer that efectively means the strike price doubles, as nobody else other than the consummer is going to be paying for the 50% going to hydrogen. The consummer will also have the dubious pleasure of having to pay for all the associated costs of that hydrogen production plus having to pay again for that hydrogen when it is used to generate electricity. And all that on top of Eamon Ryan guaranteeing these offshore compaies we, the consummers, will buy all they can provide even if we do not need or use it.

I have said it here before, if you do not have a costed plan, then you do not have a plan. You have a wish list. It never ceases to anaze me how those favoring this wish list cannot put a price on it when they put so much time and effort into costing any alternatives proposed. But again I suspect they are well aware of the costs involved, and ideological dogma for them trumps economics or even common sense every time.

halvis

I was estimating the cost of a windfarm development being considered in our area on the back of a fag packet. 30MW over 5x 180m tall turbines.

Given the cheapest rate for kwh unit is ~€0.27, this equates to 30000kwh x €0.27 = €8100 per hour at max output. Considering a capacity factor of 28%, it will be €2268 per hour.

So at 5 hours full output, that's probably one land owning farmer paid off for the year. I reckon the developer can have the whole farm paid off within 3.5 years.

Is this part of the reason for our high electricity rates and the deluge of planning requests for these things to be erected on the cheap before anyone cops on?

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121913552#Comment_121913552

Even a 50% degradation in range would still cover most peoples journeys. I'm talking a 200km range in this case. The downside is that the power to put in is more or less the same to get that as it was when it was new. And that is a major negative

bluedex

I see RTE News did another scare piece last night showing stock footage of fires burning everywhere like some version of hell.

Tiresome.