What are your essential Irish Infrastructure projects, in order of need?

trellheim wrote: »

Right .... you seriously believe we can meet our electricity demand from irish renewables ... we might get to 40% by 2020 if we're lucky and most of that is unpredictable Wind

Strip imported gas and coal out - 60%

Peat is not a sensible renewable - thats another 10% gone

Current stats has Wind at 19%

For national infrastructure 2xNuclears sensible option.

Unless you have some magic economics that says we dont have to import 60% of our power

Nuclear would still be imported unless you are getting us to have our own Selafield reprocessing plant.

Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build, to run, and to decommission. They are extremely expensive beyond belief if they explode have a small incident. The downside of such an incident is that an area the size of Munster becomes wasteland, and uninhabitable.

Why do they build the Nuclear power station in very remote places if they are so safe?

Because they are not safe!

Replace current toll on M50 with flat toll on entry at any point. It would discourage the smaller trips eg Ballymun to Finglas. Remove Ballymount Junction..

LeinsterDub

trellheim wrote: »

Right .... you seriously believe we can meet our electricity demand from irish renewables ... we might get to 40% by 2020 if we're lucky and most of that is unpredictable Wind

No way we get planning an build nuclear in 3 years. More likely you're looking at 2040\50 by that stage you're looking at 80% from renewalable

El Tarangu

Sam Russell wrote: »

Nuclear would still be imported unless you are getting us to have our own Selafield reprocessing plant.

Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build, to run, and to decommission. They are extremely expensive beyond belief if they explode have a small incident. The downside of such an incident is that an area the size of Munster becomes wasteland, and uninhabitable.

Why do they build the Nuclear power station in very remote places if they are so safe?
Because they are not safe!

Nuclear energy has fewer deaths per TWh than any other energy source.

Renewable energy sources (except for hydroelectric) are unreliable, and have to be backed 100% by a more reliable energy source (fossil fuels, or nuclear). Rather than spending billions duplicating infrastructure that only works a portion of the time, the govt should just build a nuclear power plant.

Stephen15

jd wrote: »

Replace current toll on M50 with flat toll on entry at any point. It would discourage the smaller trips eg Ballymun to Finglas. Remove Ballymount Junction..

I would support the idea of scrapping the toll altogether. Most cities dont have tolls on their ringroads

El Tarangu

Stephen15 wrote: »

I would support the idea of scrapping the toll altogether. Most cities dont have tolls on their ringroads

That would probably have the effect of making traffic worse, rather than better.

Stephen15

El Tarangu wrote: »

That would probably have the effect of making traffic worse, rather than better.

Yes but then everyone will use the m50 and not try to avoid the toll clogging up roads which weren't designed to take such high volumes of traffic.

No way we get planning an build nuclear in 3 years. More likely you're looking at 2040\50 by that stage you're looking at 80% from renewalable

Using what magic do you plan to cover our electricity needs between now and a really unlikely goal ? I'm all in favour of renewables but actual sources are required that actually guarantees electricity when the wind does not blow.

Stephen15 wrote:

I would support the idea of scrapping the toll altogether. Most cities dont have tolls on their ringroads

The problem is it is not being used as a ring road any more, more as a distributor road. A flat toll would encourage people to use local roads for local trips, rather than junction hops on the auxiliary Lane etc.

Stephen15

jd wrote: »

The problem is it is not being used as a ring road any more, more as a distributor road. A flat toll would encourage people to use local roads for local trips, rather than junction hops on the auxiliary Lane etc.

Then maybe the problem is that there is too many entrances and exits. Most of the local trips are being outside peak times so they're not really causing that much traffic congestion.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Yes but then everyone will use the m50 and not try to avoid the toll clogging up roads which weren't designed to take such high volumes of traffic.

The M50 also wasn't designed to take the level of traffic its getting.

There needs to be additional Liffey crossings in the vicinity of the Westlink. It's a disgrace that there isn't, all it's doing is forcing local traffic onto the M50.

There already is a decent distributor road between Tallaght and Lucan, the R136. Extend it to Blanchardstown to begin with.

El Tarangu wrote: »

Nuclear energy has fewer deaths per TWh than any other energy source.

Renewable energy sources (except for hydroelectric) are unreliable, and have to be backed 100% by a more reliable energy source (fossil fuels, or nuclear). Rather than spending billions duplicating infrastructure that only works a portion of the time, the govt should just build a nuclear power plant.

Have you included the accidents in Japan, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Windscale (renamed Sellafield to try to forget about it)?

The cost of fixing Chernobyl is still racking up. They have just built a giant sarcophagus to entomb it, and had to put robots inside to try to clean it up, as the building will not last as long as the radioactive material inside.

Nuclear reactors are too large for Ireland - one is too big for us, and we would have to redo the grid to cope with one massive generator, because it will not be built on Bull Island, probable Bere Island, or even far out into the Atlantic Ocean.

I think it would be one infrastructure project that the parish pump guys will run a mile from.

France has 58 reactors . Somehow they manage to soldier on , in fact welcoming new reactors

We have massive generator areas at Aghada and Moneypoint

You are confusing requirements with politics, and in fact should have a read up on it .

how many people died in three mile island : 0 . Was there aftereffects - maybe - but go look at ( just for a single example ) Tennessee Valley Authority coal plant pollution - its an easy Google for a reason why Nuclear is a far safer option

We tried before ( Carnsore ) and the amount of crusties that came out of the woodwork ....

Its like all the difficult questions "we'll get what we need from the brits" " Electricity ( is it nuclear ? no of course not fk sake look at the colour of it ... )

As to your last point though I agree - Irish politicians = "never be in the same room as a decision" but this is , though, by definitions, one's crayon thread - its an opinion piece !

Deedsie wrote: »

This is not an attack on the M20... just an alternative suggestion of how ?1billion infrastructure spending could be used in Munster.

I personally think that the ?1billion they are going to spend on the M20 could be better spent building a new Cork - Limerick rail line and upgrading the Nenagh line as the main Limerick - Dublin line.

The alternative to the M20 proposal could be done by upgrading the existing road with bypasses of Charleville, Buttevant, Mallow, and a motorway between Mallow & the Cork North Ring which would also have to be built of course. Also future proof the alignment so the M20 could be built one day when absolutely required.

Instead of just a vastly superior M20 motorway connection, the Munster region could have a safe and vastly improved N20, a proper Cork - Limerick rail line, a proper ring road around Cork & a motorway as far as Mallow, a much improved direct Limerick - Dublin rail connection improving connection between limerick and satellite towns for rail commuters.

We have to reduce our transport carbon emissions by 2025 or we will be fined ?75 million per year by the EU.

Is there any merit to the above suggestion?

I believe going forward these is a case for both.

1. Build the M20. No questions asked. There is a proven case for it.
2. Do the required feasibility studies on a direct rail link from Limerick to Charleville and see from there. If there is a future case, identify a suitable corridor and protect it. If there is a current case, railway order time.

It's very difficult to justify the spending on the Ballybrophy line given current usage figures. It's a miracle its survived to this day, and probably would've been shut in the last few years bar Kelly's intervention. The amount of investment required to bring it up to a certain standard, which still would likely have low ridership for the investment put in, would probably better be invested in other areas.

In saying a direct Cork-Limerick rail link, it has to be a new, high speed alignment. No using bits of the old direct alignment, in the same way that Ennis-Athenry was done. That's a waste of time.

Most of the rail priorities are in the GDA. Yet for a while there the main political focus was on Athenry-Collooney. Classic Ireland.

Peregrine

I get a headache just thinking about the Western Railway Corridor.

Deedsie wrote: »

I meant a proper rail line connecting Limerick and Cork. Hardly the same thing?

I think the last line of my post is what he was referring to.

There has been little talk of a Cork-Limerick rail line, whilst there has been a lot more talk about the line up the west.

Peregrine

Deedsie wrote: »

I meant a proper rail line connecting Limerick and Cork. Hardly the same thing?

marno21 wrote: »

I think the last line of my post is what he was referring to.

There has been little talk of a Cork-Limerick rail line, whilst there has been a lot more talk about the line up the west.

Aye. Cork-Limerick via Charleville might actually make some sense and therefore wasn't included in WRC. WRC is all about throwing money into trying to get twelve people between massive urban centres such as Claremorris and Colloney.

Cork-Limerick has been massively neglected. Both rail and road. The M20 needs to be built ASAP and they could look into the feasibility of a Limerick-Charleville line.

SeanW

Deedsie wrote: »

This is not an attack on the M20... just an alternative suggestion of how ?1billion infrastructure spending could be used in Munster.

I personally think that the ?1billion they are going to spend on the M20 could be better spent building a new Cork - Limerick rail line and upgrading the Nenagh line as the main Limerick - Dublin line.

The alternative to the M20 proposal could be done by upgrading the existing road with bypasses of Charleville, Buttevant, Mallow, and a motorway between Mallow & the Cork North Ring which would also have to be built of course. Also future proof the alignment so the M20 could be built one day when absolutely required.

Instead of just a vastly superior M20 motorway connection, the Munster region could have a safe and vastly improved N20, a proper Cork - Limerick rail line, a proper ring road around Cork & a motorway as far as Mallow, a much improved direct Limerick - Dublin rail connection improving connection between limerick and satellite towns for rail commuters.

We have to reduce our transport carbon emissions by 2025 or we will be fined ?75 million per year by the EU.

Is there any merit to the above suggestion?

No. The M20 is justifiable today, many times over, having lived in Cork for a time, the Dunkettle Roundabout upgrade is also justifiable today, as are likely the M28 and upgrades of some kind to many of the roads leading from Cork into the regions (N22, N25, N71 and so on).

There are top 3 projects that are, to mind, justifiable yesterday and should have been done 10 years ago - Dart Underground, Metro North and the M20.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Nuclear would still be imported unless you are getting us to have our own Selafield reprocessing plant.

Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build, to run, and to decommission. They are extremely expensive beyond belief if they explode have a small incident. The downside of such an incident is that an area the size of Munster becomes wasteland, and uninhabitable.

Why do they build the Nuclear power station in very remote places if they are so safe?
Because they are not safe!

Sam Russell wrote: »

Have you included the accidents in Japan, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Windscale (renamed Sellafield to try to forget about it)?

The cost of fixing Chernobyl is still racking up. They have just built a giant sarcophagus to entomb it, and had to put robots inside to try to clean it up, as the building will not last as long as the radioactive material inside.

Nuclear reactors are too large for Ireland - one is too big for us, and we would have to redo the grid to cope with one massive generator, because it will not be built on Bull Island, probable Bere Island, or even far out into the Atlantic Ocean.

I think it would be one infrastructure project that the parish pump guys will run a mile from.

So much mis-information I don't know where to start. First of all, reading some of these posts about how renewables are the future make me want to find a polyester dancing suit, some ridiculous platform shoes, a record player and some BeeGees and Boney M records and re-decorate my bathroom in brown wallpaper. Why? Because all this talk about renewables being the future was all the rage starting in at least the 1970s and was a big talking point for the "Build Moneypoint and lets burn coal!" protests in Carnsore Point in that decade. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Solar in Ireland has one huge problem, one that will always be - Ireland's peak energy demand is in the winter. The lower the temperatures, the greater the demand. The second problem is electric cars, if there is a mass move away from petrol and diesel in cars, then people who have electric cars are going to want to be able to "fill them up" the same way as with petrol/diesel. i.e. anytime, anywhere. That means the total demand is going to increase, and very dramatically. There are not enough hilltops that can be carpet-bombed with these ugly, bird chomping, bat killing monstrosities referred to as "wind turbines" and there's no way that these will produce power when people need it (i.e. whether the wind is blowing or not) the cost of both building these things, building power lines out to them and backing them up with fossil fuels (which is the plan), is enough to:
1) Continue cook the planet with CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels won't be going anywhere.
2) Send entire species of bats and some birds to extinction (windmills are extremely harsh on avian wildlife)
3) Possibly cost enough financially to tear a nation asunder or at very least seriously damage its citizens quality of life.

As for uranium, there are 3 questions and you've managed to blur them in some weird way: 1) Where do you get it from? 2) how do you use it? 3) How much does it cost.
Uranium can be acquired from mines anywhere in the world, including Canada and Australia as Western type nations with large reserves, Russia has its sources in the 'stans. And there are some sources in Africa that may be available to either the African states themselves or to national importers as needed. As I will explain later, uranium could also come from seawater, which is accessible to almost all countries on Earth.
How do you use it? Most countries do not have reprocessing plants, notably the U.S. Only France and the UK use reprocessing ATM and some countries sub-contract their reprocessing to these. An Irish Sellafield would be both unnecessary and unjustifiable.
How much does it cost? Currently, uranium fuel prices account for about 5% of the cost of providing nuclear electricity. AKA f*** all. Seawater harvesting of uranium has improved to the point where is now an absolute cap of $300/kg on uranium fuel costs - and that cap is falling fast. See here.

As to your point about nuclear plants just unceremoniously exploding for no reason, this is a fantasy. The worst nuclear accidents in history have all had very clear causes and in many cases there were warnings well in advance of the danger.
The worst nuclear accident in history was without doubt the Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union. Yet if one looks at the causes of this, it becomes clear that it was more of a Soviet accident at a nuclear plant than a nuclear accident. Literally, the level of incompetence, secrecy and slavish devotion to "following orders at any cost" was absolutely mind boggling. Oh, and, most Soviet reactors were military reactors that provided plutonium for nuclear weapons and electricity as a byproduct.
Firstly the design of Chernobyl-4 was never used outside the Soviet Union based on the obvious flaws in the RBMK reactor type. There were also a load of smaller design faults that were kept under Soviet secrecy - even from the operators. The plant was put into service before it was ready and before a key safety test had been carried out. That "safety test" ended up being left to an incredibly arrogant supervisor and a team of barely qualified electrical engineers on the night of April 25th 1986. One of the newbies made a mistake reducing the power levels too much and the efforts of the team to rectify the errors turned the badly designed reactor into a simmering nuclear volcano. But between design faults, a lack of warning from various sensors, contradictory instructions in the operators manual and State secrecy regarding the problems, the team in the control room had literally no idea of the danger until it was too late. The RBMK reactor design also did not permit Western style double-containment systems, this contributed to the ecological damage. The Soviets also had no plan for a nuclear accident and contributed to the danger afterwards by failing to evacuate Pripyat and other local towns in good time, and also by allowing May Day rallies to go ahead as planned in Kyiv (Kiev), when people should have been advised to stay indoors. The exclusion zone is also not a "wasteland" true there is little human activity there but by some accounts wildlife is flourishing in the area.
Fukushima was similarly explained by bad design. The Japanese Pacific coast had dozens of reactors along it like Fukushina-Daiichi, but the others were built and run by companies other than TEPCO and they in turn had their plants protected by higher sea-walls, different placement of backup batteries, diesel generators and so on. TEPCO had ignored numerous warnings of danger including from General Electric who supplied them with the reactors in areas such as the placement of diesel generators close to ground level. The Japanese nuclear regulator also has questions to answer IMHO for why they allowed TEPCO to run a plant so poorly equipped/design vis-a-vis other companies.

As to your point about nuclear being too large for Ireland, there is some truth to that, but only some. In the immediate term, the best approach is to build more interconnection (including redundant inter-connectors) with the UK and encourage them to go nuclear more heavily and sell to us - they have large scale in their markets and so could try to do what France did in the in the 1970s and 1980s and go totally nuclear, using Gen II reactors if necessary. Leaving the EU as they are, they can rescind the EU renewables directives and use nuclear energy to meet their climate targets if they wish. During this time, Ireland should as I suggested previously, participate in the development and testing of small scale reactors such as Pebble Bed reactors. Of course, these arguments about scale will become much less valid if there is mass-electrification of the transportation system - our power requirements WILL increase very dramatically if this occurs.

Your complaint about "redoing the grid to accommodate a reactor in the Atlantic Ocean" firstly nuclear plants are always built on land, not at sea. Secondly, your point about redoing the grid is exactly what is required for renewables because the best sites for things like windmills are nowhere near the areas of peak demand. The big problem with wind mills in Ireland is getting grid connections because the wind mills are so remote (a.k.a previously unspoiled). Germany is prepared to spend ?1,000,000,000,000 (i.e. one trillion euro) on grid expansion and other ongoing subsidies to cover its insane wind programme. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Trillion-Euro_cost_of_German_energy_transition-2002137.html

SeanW wrote: »

So much mis-information I don't know where to start. First of all, reading some of these posts about how renewables are the future make me want to find a polyester dancing suit, some ridiculous platform shoes, a record player and some BeeGees and Boney M records and re-decorate my bathroom in brown wallpaper. Why? Because all this talk about renewables being the future was all the rage starting in at least the 1970s and was a big talking point for the "Build Moneypoint and lets burn coal!" protests in Carnsore Point in that decade. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Solar in Ireland has one huge problem, one that will always be - Ireland's peak energy demand is in the winter. The lower the temperatures, the greater the demand. The second problem is electric cars, if there is a mass move away from petrol and diesel in cars, then people who have electric cars are going to want to be able to "fill them up" the same way as with petrol/diesel. i.e. anytime, anywhere. That means the total demand is going to increase, and very dramatically. There are not enough hilltops that can be carpet-bombed with these ugly, bird chomping, bat killing monstrosities referred to as "wind turbines" and there's no way that these will produce power when people need it (i.e. whether the wind is blowing or not) the cost of both building these things, building power lines out to them and backing them up with fossil fuels (which is the plan), is enough to:
1) Continue cook the planet with CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels won't be going anywhere.
2) Send entire species of bats and some birds to extinction (windmills are extremely harsh on avian wildlife)
3) Possibly cost enough financially to tear a nation asunder or at very least seriously damage its citizens quality of life.

It is early days for renewables. Wind is not the only renewable, and it is not far from living memory when the first private ICE vehicles began travelling on our roads, and it is only a generation or so ago when the ordenary citizen could expect to own their own car (or two).

Biomass might be significant, as could wave energy and tide energy. We used to feed horses which provided much of our needs, and ships sailed by wind. We always burnt sods of turf and logs to heat our cabins.

As for uranium, there are 3 questions and you've managed to blur them in some weird way: 1) Where do you get it from? 2) how do you use it? 3) How much does it cost.

Uranium comes in two flavours - U235 and U238. They must be separated by physical methods (usually in a centrifuge) - not going to happen in Ireland so we will be buying it from abroad.

How much does it cost?

We will be charged whatever the market can charge, just like oil. It will be an international market over which we will have no control - just like oil.

As to your point about nuclear plants just unceremoniously exploding for no reason, this is a fantasy. The worst nuclear accidents in history have all had very clear causes and in many cases there were warnings well in advance of the danger.

Planes crash for a large number of reasons, and yet air transport is one of the safest ways of travelling. Problem is that when 300 people die in a single incident, it becomes hugely noteworthy and political. A nuclear accident is many many times more so - in every regard.

As to your point about nuclear being too large for Ireland, there is some truth to that, but only some.

It would take twenty years to design and build a suitable nuclear plant in Ireland, and look how hard it is to put up a few pylons to take electricity across this nation. I think it is politically impossible to see a nuclear power plant in Ireland within 50 years. Carnsore was proposed 50 years ago.

Your complaint about "redoing the grid to accommodate a reactor in the Atlantic Ocean" firstly nuclear plants are always built on land, not at sea.

That was o poke at our mealy mouthed parish pump politicians.

Secondly, your point about redoing the grid is exactly what is required for renewables because the best sites for things like windmills are nowhere near the areas of peak demand.

Again, look at the difficulty of putting up pylons.

LeinsterDub

trellheim wrote: »

Using what magic do you plan to cover our electricity needs between now and a really unlikely goal ? I'm all in favour of renewables but actual sources are required that actually guarantees electricity when the wind does not blow.

When the wind doesn't blow, the sun isn't shining and the waves aren't waving? Backed up with traditional generation and improvements in storage will be enough to guarantee supply

I'm extremely cynical of people's actual posts on power gen needs as very few have actually done any research

"Traditional Generation" - you mean natural gas and coal which is the current majority ? How is that proper national infrastructure that guarantees our energy supply - where on earth do you think that stuff comes from . We import 96% of natural gas needs and corrib wont even do half that before it starts to drop off

As for storage - magic beans again there - show me any type of large scale accumulator apart from pumped storage thats in service or fully funded - anything over 100 MWh in the tank will do nicely thanks as we'll need hundreds of them for irish winters.

the attitude here seems to be " I'll take the nuclear electricity from next door just don't tell me where it comes from "

And as for

It is early days for renewables. Wind is not the only renewable, and it is not far from living memory when the first private ICE vehicles began travelling on our roads, and it is only a generation or so ago when the ordenary citizen could expect to own their own car (or two).

Biomass might be significant, as could wave energy and tide energy. We used to feed horses which provided much of our needs, and ships sailed by wind. We always burnt sods of turf and logs to heat our cabins.

It is early days - true . We're unlikely to get to 40% before 2025 and EVEN THEN most of it (90+% ) will be Wind which is not a predictable curve and so we need a huge traditional capacity for cold still winter days -- i.e. most of the time

No - Wind isnt the only renewable - All our Hydros are only one or two %. Tidal is effectively fk-all

Peat is not a renewable, at least not a proper one

Biomass ? burn trees ? In Ireland we deforested most of the country - and I need on-Ireland resources, not imports

do the research lads its not as if its hard to find.

In order to make your figures work above
you prob need a breakthrough in tidal power generation AND a breakthrough in giant batteries. Who knows ? But you can't plan national infrastructure on that basis

LeinsterDub

trellheim wrote: »

In order to make your figures work above
you prob need a breakthrough in tidal power generation AND a breakthrough in giant batteries. Who knows ? But you can't plan national infrastructure on that basis

Or a million smaller batteries on wheels?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

When the wind doesn't blow, the sun isn't shining and the waves aren't waving? Backed up with traditional generation and improvements in storage will be enough to guarantee supply

Biomass - that is the answer there.

burn poo and trees ? Problem solved lets go home so , tea and biccies for all..

If we step away from magic beans for a moment into actuals , biomass gen is predicted to get to approx 4% by 2050 , its better than coal I'll give you that - for emissions - but its not solving the actual problem in the slightest -

which is why 2 nuke plants run by the french with an off-the-shelf design are prob the best answer out there...

the politics of this will mean it will likely not happen though

Regarding Cork-Limerick direct trains prob along a lot of the same line as the old one

Who would use it and in which direction ? Let's assume it could be set up as a 60 min journey at best end-to-end

would that take many cars off Dunkettle or the Limerick bypasses ?

trellheim wrote: »

Regarding Cork-Limerick direct trains prob along a lot of the same line as the old one

Who would use it and in which direction ? Let's assume it could be set up as a 60 min journey at best end-to-end

would that take many cars off Dunkettle or the Limerick bypasses ?

It wouldn't be about Dunkettle or the Limerick SRR. It'd be about facilitating growth for the cities and enabling rail commuting for towns along the route.

When you see some of the lines in operation in Ireland the notion of a Limerick-Cork rail link could be viable.

I'd question the ability of CIE to make it work tho and the previous line could very much be applied to a motorway link.

OK but assume its built and running - whos going to use it - commuters ? From where ? to where ?

Cork has a massive big hill with a tunnel , most of the jobs arent near the station and the stations a fair whack away from the mainstreet so you need a luas type dev , Limerick is better for this but again where are the jobs .

A spur from the Ennis line to UL just after the old canal might prove a huge generator though < 2km of track and lets face it limerick inner city around parnell st etc could do with the stimulus

Yourself isit

trellheim wrote: »

I'm extremely cynical of people's actual posts on power gen needs as very few have actually done any research

"Traditional Generation" - you mean natural gas and coal which is the current majority ? How is that proper national infrastructure that guarantees our energy supply - where on earth do you think that stuff comes from . We import 96% of natural gas needs and corrib wont even do half that before it starts to drop off

As for storage - magic beans again there - show me any type of large scale accumulator apart from pumped storage thats in service or fully funded - anything over 100 MWh in the tank will do nicely thanks as we'll need hundreds of them for irish winters.

the attitude here seems to be " I'll take the nuclear electricity from next door just don't tell me where it comes from "

And as for

It is early days - true . We're unlikely to get to 40% before 2025 and EVEN THEN most of it (90+% ) will be Wind which is not a predictable curve and so we need a huge traditional capacity for cold still winter days -- i.e. most of the time

No - Wind isnt the only renewable - All our Hydros are only one or two %. Tidal is effectively fk-all

Peat is not a renewable, at least not a proper one

Biomass ? burn trees ? In Ireland we deforested most of the country - and I need on-Ireland resources, not imports

do the research lads its not as if its hard to find.

In order to make your figures work above
you prob need a breakthrough in tidal power generation AND a breakthrough in giant batteries. Who knows ? But you can't plan national infrastructure on that basis

Most winter days are not cold and still, but windy and wet.