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

14724734754774781119

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭ps200306


    What other non-intermittent source of energy will we be using in 2050?

    Post edited by ps200306 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,063 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    again, off shore wind is more than capable of providing us with most of our energy needs, thankfully its rapidly beginning to take shape now, but this will take time....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The poster claimed that we were using less gas deu to renewables.

    The facts show that to be incorrect and we have been using more year on year. In 2021 there was a slight decrease of 3.75% compared to the previous year, but there was a corresponding increase of a 14% increase in the use of coal and 7.5% in the use of oil.

    Are you now questioning SEAI figures or do you now not regard coal and oil as fossil fuels.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I never said we would be 100% relying on wind. Here's Wind Energy Ireland's own document from March 2021. According to this wind is meant to contribute 77 terawatt hours out of a total of 120 TWH generated. Thats not a healthy distribution in my view. So i'll ask again, whats the plan in the scenario of prolonged calm weather, especially in winter if its cold?

    Ireland 2050.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,270 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Dredging of rivers doesn't prevent extreme flooding. There simply isn't enough space in the river channel to contain the water, and it can even make the flooding worse as the faster flowing rivers would wash away banks and flood defenses downstream.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,070 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    Realistically how many years will it take until 80% plus is produced by renewables?

    Or what are the targets?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Sigh. How often do you have to be shown this before it registers.

    A Ireland Thinks survey October 2021 of 5,000 panelists found that 43% were in favor of nuclear with 43% not in favor.

    You may also wish to ignore as well, that the highest percentage of those in favor at 60% were the 18 -24 age group. The same group that the Green Party gained the highest percentage of their vote from in GE 2020.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,633 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Dredging does not make floodwaters faster, unless by dredging you mean removing meanders, which is a totally different concept.

    Extreme flooding events have been exacerbated in a number of areas by drainage channels in high boglands, near windfarms and sitka plantations. Areas where rainwater would previously pool are now fast flowing channels, which all adds up downstream.

    Poor farming practices in relation to drainage are the #1 cause of severe flooding events however, not climate change. Farmers digging clear drainage ditches to have rainwater drain as fast as possible is the biggest problem - ditches should instead have weirs or leaky dams & lots of vegetation to slow down floodwaters and to trap as much silt from entering the river as possible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    So we keep hearing, but when repeatedly asked how much capacity will be required and at what cost greens have no answer.

    Wind, no matter if onshore or offshore is intermittent and unreliable. As a business plan it`s not something anyone in their right mind would hand over a blank cheque for based on nothing other than the hope it works. Especially when we have seen numerous occasions in the past year just how undependable onshore has been providing 6% or less of our needs for extended periods from over 75% capacity



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,069 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    According to the Climate action plan it will be 80% renewable by 2030, so 8 years. According to wiki we were 40% renewable in 2020 so we should be 48% in 2022 at least



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Show the graph for oil and coal usage in power generation over the same period as your gas graph.

    Saying that we increased by x % in a single year is meaningless



  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The target is to have 80% renewable energy by 2030.100% by 2050



  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And yet the fact remains that there is no chance of nuke plants being built here



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Anticyclonic conditions are often noted by the lack of wind. The temperature isn't a determining factor for such conditions to exist.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,134 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Don’t mind him.

    He gets upset when posters pick holes in his green dream.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,134 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    On a windy day- yes.

    In prolonged high pressure systems it won’t.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,270 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The whole point of dredging is that it clears obstacles and improves river flow as well as increasing the capacity of the channel by making it deeper and sometimes a little bit wider.

    This means that during an extreme rainfall event, dredging can cause faster river flow which can exacerbate flooding downstream as it allows more water to arrive over a shorter length of time. This can see the rivers bursting their banks and washing away levees and flood protections downstream

    Simply put, it's not as easy as just performing maintenance on the river network. If there is extreme rainfall, the flooding will be more extreme. Whatever you do to prevent flooding in one area, can just move that flood to a different weak point in the river.

    Climate change is causing more intense rainfall to happen more often. The people of Puerto Rico will experience 12-16 inches of rainfall due to Hurricane Fiona overnight with some places getting up to 30 inches of rain.. Very few flood protection measures can withstand that level of deluge and they're generally too expensive for anywhere other protecting than the most densely populated urban areas

    For context with Puerto Rico suffering the consequences of climate change today, In 2004 15 Inches within 24 hours was considered a 1 in a hundred year flood - that 100 year event happened again in 2008, with a once in 500 year event being recorded with 22 inches of rainfall in a 24 hour timeframe. Irene dropped 22 inches of rain in 2011, and in 2017 Maria dropped almost 40 inches of rain and cost 90 billion in damage.

    In the space of 15 years we've seen multiple 1 in 500 year events affecting the same country. This is climate change.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,633 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Increasing depth or capacity of a river section does not cause the water to flow any faster than it would in a regular flood scenario. The only thing that does cause that is the removal of natural dams from debris, natural weirs from rocks, and river bends through deposited silt and other material.

    No local authority will remove either of the latter 3 things from a river when dredging. It is not done.

    As for 1 in x00 year events - given how relatively recent rainfall data is in many places, there is barely 100 years of data to go off of when making those kinds of predictions in the first place. And it all assumes a normal distribution for these events - climate is always changing and never constant, so the idea that any weather events would follow a normal distribution and can be predicted as a 1 in 100, 1 in 200, 1 in 500 year event is a fallacy!



  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wise words indeed. One of the biggest roadblocks to renewable energy development in the country, and other sectors, is the serious lack of resourcing in all areas related to planning.

    “We should not cut any corners, we just should move in a different way. This is a huge opportunity.” 

    He accepted that the planning laws and the planning system are there to protect communities and the environment, but he said the various planning agencies need to be resourced and staffed to be able to make planning decisions in a reasonable time.

    He said the State should be able to tell a company that they’ll have a decision on their application, including appeals, within two years.

    “That’s not taking away anybody’s rights, but that you’ll get a decision in that time - a yes or no - I’m not saying you should say yes, but just get the work done,” he said.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Why are you attempting to ignore the statistics (post #14542).

    The O P claimed we were reducing our use of gas due to renewables. The statistics show the opposite.

    We have been increasing our use of gas year on year since 2014.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    According to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) renewables made up 42% in 2020. For last year,2021, where I imagine there was more capacity added, renewables fell by 17% while demand rose by 4.3%.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,270 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    A 1 in a hundred year event is something that has a 1% chance of happening in any given year. The USGS have put a lot of work into calculating these probabilities. These are important to know so they can plan infrastructure.

    https://www.usgs.gov/publications/estimation-magnitude-and-frequency-floods-streams-puerto-rico-new-empirical-models

    The fact that multiple extremely rare events have happened in a short timeframe means that the distribution curve is shifting to the right. Previously rare events are now becoming normal, and the new 'extreme' is something that would have been almost impossible to occur in the previous climate before AGW

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I`ll put that in the same file as your last post that only 5 people in Ireland were interested in nuclear.

    The October 2021 Ireland Think survey of 5,000 citizens found that 43% were in favor.

    Figures really are not greens strong point. It`s as if all of them missed primary school the day "sums" were taught.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,270 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I said we have used less gas than we would have had to use because we have renewables covering some of the generation

    Gas is going up overall, but this is to cover the reduction in Coal and Oil generation. If renewables weren't there, either we'd need even more gas, or we'd need more coal and Oil generation as well as the gas.

    image.png

    Notice, renewables going up, Oil and Coal and Peat, going down, Gas relatively stable.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Its weird how you are resistant to post the oil and coal graphs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Will you stop with the nonsense.

    The use of coal and oil tripled last year with coal up 14% and oil 7.5%.

    If you do not believe that then go read the SEAI report for 2021.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,622 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Why do you somehow believe I should take the time and trouble because you refuse to accept statistics.

    The O.P. claimed we were using less gas because of renewables. The statistics show that as incorrect.

    I do not know what your fascination now is with coal and oil unless you also do not believe The SEAI statistics for last year as well ,where they state that the use of coal and gas generation tripled compared to the previous year ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,270 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    2020 was a freak of a year in case you've forgotten

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,069 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    So you're saying, on paper, we are off target?

    There was PP given a while ago for 3 offshore wind farms if memory serves, wonder what % that will add



Advertisement