"Green" policies are destroying this country
Comments
-
hahaha Can I steal "Personal Archivist" 😀
5 -
https://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/east_anglia_one.aspx
A significant problem with the energy debate is that most of the metrics that are used predate renewables and are completely fallacious when applied to them, which seems to be why you get rubbish from the lying eco mad BBC and Boris about offshore wind being cheap.
The stupid metrics they use to reach this conclusion are the cost of the energy when the system is producing energy, which doesn't take into account the cost of supplying alternatively sourced energy when the wind isn't blowing.
As the US DOE puts it, if your capacity factor is 50%, you need to double the cost when comparing with an energy source that has a capacity factor of 100%. This is not done by the biased BBC and the green movement and boosters of renewables. The dishonesty is staggering.
US nuclear has a capacity factor of about 92.4% while in South Korea it's just over 96%, so splitting the difference - lets say our nuclear target is 94%. The best Scottish offshore wind has a capacity factor of 47% - leaving aside one tiny floating OSW farm - so if you need energy 100% of the time, which we do, then you need to double the cost of the offshore wind, the cost of the energy generated the other 47% of the time to match nuclear’s 94%
If you were to do that with gas, which they say is 9 times the cost...
But sticking to nuclear. So to compare the cost of OSW with nuclear you need to more than double the cost of OSW, because if you were hoping to just double the size of your OSW farm and store half the energy, you are seriously out of luck, because storing and releasing energy has inefficiencies, so you need even more than 2 times your offshore wind installation. With hydrogen having an efficiency of 35%, you are going to need about 2.7 times as much OSW and then add the cost of your electrolyser - which needs pure clean water and needs to run 24/7 so even that needs an outside power source a lot of the time - and the cost of the refrigeration plant and compressors and maintenance due to embrittlement, the cost of your salt cavern 2-4km down, and so on. We don't have a costing for doing all this at grid scale and the current total global annual production of electrolysers is a tiny 1-2 GW, so first build your electrolyser factories - lots of them.
The storage isn't going to be cheap and you need to add the cost to your 2.7 times OSW, let's underestimate at an even 3 times OSW
The UAE Barakeh nuclear power plant cost $4.54 Billion per GW with a Korean capacity factor of 96%. East Anglia One wind farm in the UK cost $3.27 Billion per GW with a capacity factor of 47%, so times 3, gives you $9.81 Billion per GW, but then there's the little matter of OSW having about a third the lifespan of a modern nuclear plants 60 years, so your cheap offshore wind ends up costing you somewhere around $26.5 billion per GW over 60 years vs $4.54 plus a bit for fuel and maintenance.
9 -
On the contrary, "the crew" will read it, analyse it, and call it out for the rancid shite that it is. By the way, when did you start treating the disgraced ex-prime minister of the UK as an energy expert? The article that you and BoJo both read was written on 26th August. If that was supposed to be "news" about the latest UK auction round it was surprisingly tardy as the results had been published more than seven weeks earlier. No, that item was written because 26th August was the day of a singular gas price spike that would allow the "nine times cheaper" stat to be applied if you squinted and only looked at certain categories of the auctioned power. The price of power from gas is not set by a single one day spike on the spot market so this is misleading nonsense.
However, fair play to "Big Wind", even if you compare gas prices to (certain categories of) wind on the date of the auction results the wind power is three times cheaper. The thing is, gas prices won't stay at those elevated levels forever, whereas prices for wind are locked in. And they are still a multiple of wholesale electricity prices from just a couple of years ago.
The other huge fly in the ointment in terms of relevance to the Irish situation is that OUR PRICES FOR WIND ARE NOTHING LIKE THAT. In fact, if I was writing a headline for our local situation it would be: "Bloodsucking Irish wind companies charging more than twice as much as UK". RESS 2 in June resulted in almost 100 EUR/MWh average for Irish onshore wind (116 EUR average for community projects). The UK auction in July was ten times larger, and onshore wind came in at 35 to 43 GBP (with a few outliers above 70 GBP), and solar at 46 GBP. (Word of caution for people trumpeting our Atlantic coastal prospects: floating offshore wind is still multiple times more expensive; the UK auction also had a paltry few MW of tidal stream energy which was so expensive as to look like a joke).
Anyone care to explain why the exact same technology in Ireland costs nearly two and half times as much as the UK and is still at economy-wrecking levels? Answers on a postcard to Eamon Ryan constituency office, 16-17 Suffolk St, Dublin, D02 AT85.
7 -
One of China's biggest EV makers goes bust ... government subsidies and malinvestment incentivised makers to produce cars that were immediately scrapped! (Sounds very Green, huh?)
2 -
nor environmentally friendly. the blades have to be buried, nevermind the amount of steel and concrete etc
3 -
Advertisement
-
where does the nuclear waste go? out of sight out of mind?
0 -
Any news on the Shannon LNG terminal, decision was due 9th September.
I see the Dutch have taken the proper hands on approach, no form filling or onshore sites to build and can bring LNG tankers in on demand to unload...
2 -
It is literally impossible to keep up with the Gish galloping from climate change alarmists. I suspect that is all part of the plan. For example:
Akrasia:
There is no upside [to fracking] other than maintaining the status quo, which the green movement do not want to maintain as doing so will drive us to extinction. On the other hand, moving to solar/storage/wind etc may have downsides, but the long term benefit is that humans and many animal species don't go extinct within a few generations.
Me:
There is no IPCC science or any credible source who claims that humans are going extinct because of climate change. That is the big fat lie used to justify Green lunacy -- "do what we say or everyone dies". It's worse than screaming "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is a murderously irresponsible falsehood, on a par with Lysenkoism and Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Akrasia:
There was a new report released in Science a few days ago. We have already likely crossed some tipping points, if we exceed 1.5c, we will likely cross more tipping points, if we exceed 4c, even more tipping points are breached. Some of these are positive feedback which mean when the tipping point is breached, they increase emissions of GHGs 'naturally' meaning Humans have to reduce our emissions by even more to compensate.
Talk about moving the goalposts! So, not heading for extinction then, glad you agree. And thanks for the new report. Only problem is it's paywalled, and I don't accept news media summaries as they are almost without exception wrong, misleading, or lying. However, I can read enough of the article summary in Science to see that it's fear-mongering mumbo jumbo.
It's mostly a modeling exercise led by a career alarmist who has built his reputation on tipping points and has been rolling out the same stuff since the 2000s. Johan Rockström is tipping point "royalty" with a dazzling array of credentials and the maker of slick videos like this one:
The problem is he is all doom but short on actual workable solutions, and is opposed to nuclear:
Akrasia:
The IPCC has been very conservative about their conclusions on these positive feedbacks. Even still the IPCC have released statements saying that the future of human civilisation is indeed at risk from climate change. “The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future”
There is no evidence the IPCC is "conservative". If you mean they avoid going beyond what the evidence is telling us, that is not conservative, it is acting responsibly. However, I have strong doubts that the IPCC is acting responsibly. It's reports sound increasingly like woke propaganda. And yes, I do try to actually read the reports (and not just Guardian headlines) but the volume of material is quite literally impossible to keep up with.
Your quote at the end is from the co-chair of IPCC Working Group II. If I want to read their input to AR6 (and they are just one of the three working groups) it is a 3,068 page document (The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report) not including the 85 page technical summary and 40 page summary for policy makers. The policy summary contains gems like this:
This report recognises the value of diverse forms of knowledge such as scientific, as well as Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge in understanding and evaluating climate adaptation processes and actions to reduce risks from human-induced climate change. AR6 highlights adaptation solutions which are effective, feasible, and conform to principles of justice. The term climate justice, while used in different ways in different contexts by different communities, generally includes three principles: distributive justice which refers to the allocation of burdens and benefits among individuals, nations and generations; procedural justice which refers to who decides and participates in decision-making; and recognition which entails basic respect and robust engagement with and fair consideration of diverse cultures and perspectives.
Who knew that the IPCC now recognises not just scientific knowledge but "diverse forms" such as "Indigenous knowledge"? In the technical summary there are more gems:
"Cryosphere changes have impacted cultural uses of water among vulnerable mountain and Arctic communities and Indigenous Peoples (high confidence), who have long experienced historical, socioeconomic and political marginalisation (medium to high confidence)."
Seriously, what has that got to do with science? I want to read about global trends in important indicators. Unfortunately even at the summary level this paper is a litany of anecdotes. So if I read that "climate change has already impacted human health through decreasing urban air quality from wildfires", does that mean it happened once or there is a clearly established trend? My own reading elsewhere tells me there are no significant trends in many indicators that alarmists say are part of the "existential threat", including wildfires. The IPCC report isn't enlightening me much.
The detailed report is even worse. There is no way of assimilating this level of detail, produced by a veritable global industry of academics. The problem is you then have to trust the summaries which increasingly look like they are written by a cohort of social justice warriors. If I cherry pick items from the detailed report I get things like this (on page 2068 !!!) from the section on Small Island Developing States (much beloved of alarmists who never miss an opportunity to paint a picture of drowning islanders):
Even where settlement locations and livelihoods remain secure, an increase in health diseases, decrease in the availability of potable water and increasing exposure to extreme events may reduce habitability (Section 15.3.4.9.2; Campbell and Warrick, 2014; Storlazzi et al., 2018). For example, the Fijian coastal community of Vunidogoloa made the decision to relocate in response to regular inundation during high tides. Raising houses on stilts and constructing a seawall failed to prevent regular flood damage to buildings and the entire community eventually relocated as a ‘last resort’ adaptation measure to a site within customary land.
Was this an entire city dislocated by climate change? Uh no, when you delve into it, it was a tiny poor rural hamlet of 26 tin-roof shacks who moved a few clicks up the road to a much nicer place. They moved closer to schools and amenities, got one house per family (instead of three or four families to one shack) and more productive land. If you Google them you'll find lots of people feting them as poor unfortunates who are among the first victims of sea level rise. But even the following down-at-mouth video finds it hard not to show them as vastly happier and better off. Oh yeah, and the relocating and rebuilding cost per household was less than one of Eamon Ryan's heat pumps -- a clear win for adaptation over mitigation.
Anyway, I'm going to wind up being as tedious as an IPCC report. My main point is ... where do I find solid quantitative information about the problems climate change is going to cause? Because I want to weigh it up against the costs that Green policies are already causing. You can only ignore that question by being an out-and-out doom monger, whereby all awkward question are rendered moot by the fact that inaction leads to extinction. Once you realise that's not true, this becomes a balance sheet exercise. How much are we planning to spend? What do we get for it? How do we know when the job is done?
11 -
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560964/#Comment_119560964
0 -
Going good. I send the below clips as regularly as I can also just to show how stupid and out of touch the green leader is.
The pandemic was on us, back when it was u know and serious…….this lad was on about painting walls and salads.
The below was a vote on low paid jobs and employment. Not important to our eamon
6 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe you should stop argueing with the illiterate. The discrepency between the full IPCC report and the summary has been highlighted by many, including Steve Koonin and are freely available. People like Bjorn Lomborg have done the sums that even include trying to get to zero Co2 emissions by 2050 by any means necessary. It cant be done, no matter how much money you throw at it. Well, i should say it CAN be done but then between 600 million and 1 billion people will die because of the green measures. I do get the feeling a nr of Greens actually think that would be a good thing, you know, the population bomb myth. And it's of course the poor people in far away countries that will die not them. All this to save the planet. Lomborg also calculates the best way to reduce Co2 emissions and has done the sums proper with the help of many scientists including economists. All this is of course ignored by the Greens. It doesnt suit their agenda. The publications who have taken mr Koonin up have called 'unsettled' misleading, ignoring the fact that he actually uses the data from the big IPCC report to make his argument which highlights the discrepency between the full report and the summary which you yourself have spotted but again, gets no attention. The accusation is that Koonin gets the science wrong and the consensus amongst climate scientists (the infamous 97%) is real something that already has been debunked in 2014 by examining the 97% and asks the obvious question: 97% of what? Well, turns out it is (i believe) 97% of the 7% who already believe in the climate catastrophy. Talking about cooking the books! Never mind, nothing seems to stop this runaway train but reality. It is starting to bite. But of course this is all on Putin, a very handy scapegoat for an underlying energy crisis playing out all over the world..
7 -
You accused me of being a scaremonger who goes way above what the IPCC say is going to happen
I quoted from an IPCC press release that said we have a rapidly closing window to act to ensure we have a liveable climate for future generations
I then referenced a brand new study which talked about all of the tipping points we are about to cross, which make the IPCC projections for future warming far too conservative
So in summary, The IPCC DO think we are heading for an existential crisis, and that's true even as the IPCC are being too conservative about how much warming we are at risk of causing.
The IPCC are regularly criticised by climate scientists for under representing the risk of these tipping points causing abrupt accelerations in climate change
There is uncertainty about where these tipping points are, so it would be prudent to err on the side of caution because the consequences of exceeding those points are existential
0 -
Thank you for confirming what is clear for all to see. A continued blind- and deafness to arguments. The IPCC political wing in form of the 40 page summary is using targeted ammo to push politicians to keep on hammering the panic button. Then even worse bad faith scientists complain that even THAT is not enough. Reminds me of Lenin warning his red storm troopers getting soft in the 1920s and to double down on ruthlessness. Then he put Stalin in front. *note: and the West actually helped Lenin getting back to Russia and supported him with recources.It also reminds me of the worse eugenic type scientists from around the same time who were widely supported in both the US and EU. The level of certainty all these type of 'scientists' display is revolting. They dont even spot their bias. It has absolutely zero to do with the scientific method. It is propaganda of the worst kind. And everybody seems to be infected. The 30.000 scientists who signed the petition against this madness are totally ignored by the media who continue to push the 'consensus' fallacy. Mr Akrasia is a simpleton and a henchman who wouldve done great in Germany and the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. A bureaucratic wet dream of compulsion..
3 -
Yeah yeah. All science is a conspiracy I get it. In the real world a new zink air battery technology is about to be commercialised in the US
highly scalable, non toxic and made from abundant elements. Technology like this, and many others will help speed up the transition from fossil fuels.
1 -
Yeah lets not worry about the mining part of it. I'm sure the local aquatic life love a bit of zinc in the groundwater.
0 -
In the real world, the greens are wasting time in Co.Clare, they are on their last legs, O'Reilley will will not get a sniff of a seat in Galway, she has burned her bridges with the electorate there with her stance on the by pass and cycle lanes.They should do the decent thing and resign from government,
https://www.thejournal.ie/green-party-think-in-5862396-Sep2022/
1 -
The green obsession is with a singular goal, reduce carbon emissions. They don't care about the environmental damage to get to that point. They don't care about the enormous pollution and environmental damage from mining materials for batteries or destroying our landscape with vast numbers of wind turbines.
7 -
Well, ive come to the conclusion that the level of stupidity displayed by certain frequent green leaning posters here is leading to higher levels of irritation in me than im willing to accept. From a discussion about the drawbacks of pushing the green agenda beyond its usefulness it is now become a platform for the green to flaunt their ignorance just like they do everywhere they go. Limitless propaganda by the limited science they are willing to accept in their war.
To end: no mr Akrasia, not "all science is a conspiracy". I love science. Science is the scientific method by which the conclusion will never be 100%, is open to debate using real facts and established methods, where nobody is entirely right or wrong but open ended. Where, in time, shifts in perception will arise and proponents in the form of a certain theory will be put to the test and scrutinized and should be willing to admit their mistakes or in any case their limitations. It never reaches a consensus as such. The door is never closed, not even on the theories of Darwin on any other theory, the Big bang, quantum mechanics, Einstein, Niels Bohr etc. It only leads to one sentence: the evidence SEEMS to suggest that..no certainty needed, open ended. That is the beauty of science. Not a propaganda tool to push an ideology based on an assumed and certain apocalypse. Then it becomes religious, dogmatic, closed, static, hard, aggressive and war like mentality. People will die.
The IPCC scientists have done great work but it is run by a religious sect that thinks the end is nigh unless we redeem ourselves. Now, because the Apocalypse is near. It has been able to push the propaganda beyond the evidence and has infiltrated every important sector of society by making an emotional appeal of redemption and claims (wrongly of course) that humans have the dial of the thermostat firmly in hand. It overstates human control and only concentrates on assumed human sin. That is why it is (at the moment) succesful and appealing. But it wont last. A: because it wont lead to the desired results and B: reality will open people's eyes to the inevitable which definitely wont be the Green dream for the next 28 (to 2050) and might lead to SOME success within 78 years (end of the century) but will be based on adaptation, like everything else.
With that said i will happily leave this platform now..🙂
8 -
Do'nt go, the MO of the green posters here is to stifle debate by incessant prevarication, denial, and fanaticism that beggars belief, they have infested other threads and managed to derail them,they need to be called out on their BS.
7 -
Another miserable failure from the Greens. they can't even do the simple things right,the bill on the abolition of planning permission for solar panels is also taking an age.
3 -
Advertisement
-
Indeed, the parents of Galway are screaming for her blood because of her support in getting safe infrastructure for their kids to be able to travel to and from school without getting squashed by cars.
Screaming they are
0 -
The only one screaming is you,you've infested the Galway traffic thread for a long time,the parents of Galway you refer to are a very small vocal minority (the emptiest vessels make the most noise)that most ignore.Galway needs a comprehensive solution to its traffic problems not ill conceived projects like the salthill cycleway which was rightfully shot down.
4 -
The roads in Galway are at capacity for car traffic. Any solution to increase capacity will see the de-prioritisation of the car. This is happening with the bus connects projects. Granted nowhere near enough but its a start and there'll be more to follow in years to come. Watch this space, as they say
0 -
I will welcome it if it caters for all road users,and is not just appeasing the green zealots.I an horrified to see that "the Bus connects" is taking a front garden from a an elderly resident and making that residents life unbearable, not exactly a green solution but we should all know by now that the GP only look out for their own.
4 -
After Ryan`s latest attempt to influence their decision ABP have again kicked the can down the road.
Not that I overly blame them in this instance. If it was me I would do the same on the basis, "You lot created the problem, and now you want us to sort it out in the middle of a gas crisis. Feck off and sort it yourselves."
1 -
We would just have to get the French to do it for us.
0 -
I wouldn't get the French to do anything nuclear at the moment. They gave Australia the run-around on their submarine contract, and even after taking 3 years and hundreds of millions, they hadn't welded two pieces of steel together, and screamed like little girls when they were given the boot for taking the piss. They seem to be bailing out of doing Hinkley in the UK and they absolutely have their hands full with maintainance in France and new build projects their. They are very capable when they want to be, but that isn't right now.
A UK think tank came to the right conclusion, and that's to get the South Koreans to build them. They recently built the Barakeh NPP in the UAE using a tried and tested design they have lots of experience with in SK and which are very reliable.
3 -
The bill to properly legislate for escooters and ebikes has been put on the back burner by the Greens. Seemingly easy wins get kicked down the road while they talk about fantasy projects like grid level battery storage etc. Absolutely useless shower.
7 -
Slightly OT: My son drew my attention to something I found really weird and unlikely, but Japan apparently has an incredibly light handed planning system to the point it almost doesn't have one. The result is they don't have a housing problem. An online acquantance of his, moved back to Japan from the UK. She wanted somewhere to live so her father gave her a plot of land, she looked up the Toyota factory built modular house website, picked a design and what modules and features she wanted, and a month or two later she had a brand new walk in house that comes with a 60 year guarantee. The actual on-site construction time was about 2 days, most of the time was waiting for the factory to get to her order. Planning - what's that? I'm building a house on this bit of land and the engineer says it won't fall down. Ok, thanks for letting us know
ABP and AT should be disolved and they should start from scratch by lifting a system from a competently run country that doesn't have a housing or infrastructure problem.
4 -
Advertisement
-
Which department has responsibility for streamlining or resourcing ABP- or is it it’s own entity that hires people as it sees fit?
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
