"Green" policies are destroying this country

Well, conversion methods usually involve money and/or power to get the 'not so faithful' on board. That is an ancient tactic. Look at it as selling indulgences. And look what is waiting for you down the line! You're not going to hell for starters. Plus, grants and institutional backup, a growing market and lots of friends in high places. And then you go home and can tell your family and friends that you have done your bit to save the planet. Alround feel good factor. And if you are successful you might even get to be on TV! A highly attractive package if you ask me..

Indeed. And aluminum and steel factories are and will drastically cut production. People often forget that green tech heavily relies on a functioning supple chain which has been broken.

Anyway, first thing to do is NOT to panic. Im afraid this government will make the same ad hoc mistakes every other country seems to. We might have to wait until the next election to boot the Greens out. By that time every EU country will be in such a **** storm that reality hopefully forces the right policies to be implemented which must involve nuclear. If not the extremes will take over as history suggests. And that is the real nightmare scenario.

It seems the Swedes are waking up to reality at last. Is this the start of common sense at last. https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/outsiders/swedish-government-threw-out-the-mad-greenies/video/8102d0e1f563ef9f1e3d14d50fe48948?fbclid=IwAR3lOrVIreaaIw1gfAKOTg2uYTIYIKq3IMcXe5DgypFrQnCj9mytYJs1UZ4

Dat'll be the climate change. Don't bother drying off, the world is about to burst into flames any second now.

The Irish Academy of Engineering have today released their review of Government report on Security of Energy Supply of Ireland's Electricity and Natural Gas Systems.

It's only a few pages and well worth reading. It pulls no punches!

It goes on to say,

It's great to see such clarity emerging and with some luck the Minister "in charge" of the Energy portfolio at Government (God Help us all!), might actually start seeing reality. He's likely blinded by his arrogance though, and safe in his belief that the cargo bike grant will save us all!

http://iae.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Response-to-Energy-security-report.pdf

Not sure what you're talking about here. The energy security review (all three wasted years worth of it) has been published and released. It consisted of one year of the department sitting around scratching its hole (during which there was a change of government), six months going out to tender to find someone to write the report, nine to twelve months (exact time not revealed) producing the report, three to six months sitting on it before release. The next step is to produce a policy document for what we do going forward. That's going to take another six months (the same length of time that the 3 year report was originally supposed to take). Nothing happens fast in Irish government. Meanwhile, the Irish Academy of Engineering says the report isn't worth the paper it's printed on, says the review period is way too short, and that any policy recommendations made on the back of it will be based on a fundamentally flawed assessment.

Like most people on this thread have been saying all along, Eamon Ryan's ambitions for 2030 and beyond are based on pure hopium, unsupportable technology optimism, and -- even it were technologically feasible (which it isn't) -- is completely uncosted and almost certainly ruinous. I hope you've read every line of the IAE's response. Even within it's diplomatic use of language it's pretty clear anyone with a modicum of engineering knowledge realises that Ryan's plans are a gargantuan clusterfark.

http://iae.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Response-to-Energy-security-report.pdf

Here's an interesting graph from Pielke, showing how utterly unrealistic current Green policy approaches are to tackling climate change:

The idea behind this graph is to capture the relationship between global energy demand growth and fossil fuel usage. Nobody doubts that global energy use is going to increase -- all the IPCC SSP scenarios incorporate this, even the lowest energy SSP1 in which energy growth doesn't peak until 2070. If carbon targets are to be met, fossil fuel use must decrease, even while energy use increases.

So how are we doing? The graph takes each year of the past six decades and places it on two axes of energy consumption growth versus fossil fuel consumption growth. The first recent pandemic year was hailed for its lower usage of fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that overall energy use was down too. Those who pointed out that we needed to achieve the same annual reduction every year going forward tended to ignore that the year was economically crushing.

The bottom line is that when you graph energy growth versus fossil fuel growth, they march in lockstep. It's a straight line graph. The green quadrant marks the region where energy increases but fossil fuel use decreases. We've been inside it -- barely -- once in sixty years. That was during the first Arab oil embargo. We need to be way inside it to meet 2050 targets (the solid blue line) and even further inside it to meet 2030 targets (dashed blue line).

Clearly we are not within an asses roar of meeting targets, nor can current Green policies get us there. As we see on a smaller scale in Ireland, Greens focus on virtue signalling within the developed economies and do nothing to address the offshoring of dirty energy consumption to eastern Asia. Instead they end up with patently crazy greenwashing endeavours like shipping unsustainable wood pellets half way round the world to burn in a converted coal plant, or the latest lunacy (and quite likely corruption) with the Canadian-German hydrogen alliance. Personally, I hold the Green's responsible for a complete diversion away from meeting climate targets and for contributing to deaths in poorer countries.