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

19569579599619621120

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Typical greens thinking. Dont understand problem no matter how many times it is explained to them. Like that demand must be met in that precise moment when it is needed and long term average is worth shaite since excess production cant be stored anyway. If demand is not met then it is blackout time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭ps200306



    If you want to class a government document as irrelevant that is your choice. Dont try to insult other when they propose it.

    No, it's not a choice. It's very simple logic: when we are discussing plans for 2050, a document about 2030 is irrelevant. Did you fail to notice your document -- which has 2030 stamped all over it -- is about 2030? If so, now is your opportunity to correct your mistake. If not, then clearly you are being obtuse and no further discussion is possible. Let me know which. Unlike some of the posters on the greenie side, I am actually willing and indeed anxious to engage.

    Do you have an equivalent to deny the finding?

    Yes, but ... all of the proposed routes to net zero by 2050 involve technology that does not yet exist. Therefore it would not make sense for there to be specific government policies nominating specific technologies. They are relying on other bodies to come up with suggestions. Eamon Ryan has clearly been pushing offshore wind and hydrogen, but that does not yet form official policy. ESB has produced an outline plan for that specific scenario -- there is an accompanying video which has been linked on this thread several times, I presume you are familiar with it.

    However, the most comprehensive assessment that I am aware of is the Eirgrid scenario planning document called: "Tomorrow's Energy Scenarios 2023". It contains four different scenarios of which renewables + hydrogen is just one (the "Gas Evolution" scenario). Go and view it here:

    Follow the link to the consultation portal and you can read or download the document there. Notwithstanding my extreme reservations about feasibility and cost, it is very well laid out and worth digesting in detail. I don't want to spam the thread by trying to summarise such a large (100+ pages) document here, but I will make some comments à propos the question of whether wind and solar constitute the only energy sources in the electricity generation mix by 2050.

    You will find that this is the case for the two scenarios that involve the vast amount of offshore wind favoured by Eamon Ryan. "Gas Evolution" does it through non-grid-connected hydrogen electrolysis, and "Offshore Opportunity" uses vast amounts (37GW) of grid-connected offshore with improbable levels of foreign interconnectivity (up to 17GW). Here are the proposed energy mixes for these two:

    "Gas Evolution":

    image.png

    "Offshore Opportunity":

    image.png

    So yes, in the preferred scenarios wind and solar are the only energy sources.

    Only the "Constrained Growth" scenario continues to have significant natural gas in the mix, and even that is with carbon capture and storage. This, by the way, is a scenario where the technologies don't work out and/or supply chains are crocked, and the economy has taken a nose dive. The "Self-Sustaining" scenario also contains some gas (including unabated gas), but only because it is offset by negative emissions BECCS (biomass with CCS). Biomass and biogases are not shown as part of the electricity generation mix because they are more suitable for use in other hard-to-decarbonise industrial processes.

    "Constrained Growth":

    image.png

    "Self-Sustaining":

    image.png

    If I was to summarise an objection to each scenario in one sentence:

    • "Gas Evolution" -- PEM electrolysis hopium
    • "Offshore Opportunity" -- savage grid hopium, both on the offshore wind and interconnector sides
    • "Self-Sustaining" -- negative emissions hopium
    • Constrained Growth" -- requires a crocked economy
    • All -- no costings whatsoever

    But there are plenty of other things to stand your hair on end. Read the document.

    Post edited by ps200306 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Seems that ESG which is just a virtue signalling grift hit the brick wall....

    Same goes for "greenwashing" (what a beautiful lovely term I bet a lot of zealots and believers will miss it).

    No matter how you slice the cake, green nirvana is what it is - pure fantasy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,255 ✭✭✭ginger22


    Perhaps you could let the rest of us know what the government plans are for secure generation going forward as you seem to have read the "document" setting out their plans.

    Would like to know if there will be a secure affordable supply before I invest in a generator.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭WishUWereHere


    What is it about green psychology that they all ( on here at least ) resort to being bombastic/arrogant shirking answers when challenged ( which might be too strong a word) & calling those on the other side of the fence names?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭m2_browning


    Top of the morning, checks how our 6.3GW of wind is doing (pitty there is no solar stats yet)

    IMG_4238.jpeg

    What’s this the estimates are wrong again? Oh no

    IMG_4239.jpeg




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,700 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    In fairness, they are wrong M2. They're overestimated by 300MW. That's basically another Moneypoint unit or all 4 Turlough Hill units required to make up the shortfall.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    “Green psychology” could you explain what this is? Thanks



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,255 ✭✭✭ginger22


    Of course the other trait the green warriors have is they tend to be selective regarding what questions they respond to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭m2_browning




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    What has that article got to do with policies in Ireland?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,700 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    About as much as your responses have to do with the questions posed to you.

    Are you saving them all up to provide a glut of high quality answers in some random future month?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    I answer the questions, you don't like the answer

    Now maybe you can explain what the article above has to do with policies in Ireland? would be very interested to hear. Thanks



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    The document is available for everyone to read. In terms of "affordable" wel every person has a different version of what affordable is supposed to be so I don't know how to answer that. But the grid itself will be a mix of generation and not just renewable as some constantly claim here.

    Whats a "green warriors"?

    Some many words fired out here I think we should get a couple of definitions of what they mean. Don't you?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,700 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    You answered nothing, skimmed past 10 hours of posts and picked some random tangent to ask another question of your own about green psychology. It was unrelated to the discussion around the underperformance of wind, once again. More posts followed and you decided to respond to something about the Sahara rather than the further failings of wind in Ireland.

    I don't like the answer because you don't answer the questions asked. It's not because I disagree with you. There's no content for which to disagree with in most of your responses. Folk here have been responding to your random assertions and correcting your many misunderstandings and you haven't had the decency to acknowledge or thank a single one. Instead it's another tangent, if you bother at all. Then you wonder why folk are fed up with your interactions.

    If I was more of a suspicious mind, I'd be wondering why you suddenly decided to register in the last two months, only to ignore almost all aspects of the discussion and chip in with random invalid arguments. Hopefully you aren't some sort of wind up merchant here to frustrate genuine posters and drive up hosting requirements at the much loved data centres?

    But in response to your latest question, I already answered it and you responded to that post. It isn’t difficult to comprehend: Absolutely nothing!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    So the article you linked has nothing to do with green policies in Ireland?

    I'm sure you are aware boards adhere to attack the post not the poster. Something which a few here seems to forget in the last few pages.

    FYI post count and longevity doesn't mean quality. That is abundantly clear on this thread



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,700 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    I didn't link to any article.

    Thats not the first or second time you have "mistakingly" claimed I linked or posted something that I didn't.

    Nor have I attacked any poster, I am criticising your lack of content and continued deflections in your posts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    My mistake on the link

    Not sure why you think you can discuss other posters? are you a mod?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭m2_browning


    Where do you think the materials for renewables like wind solar hydrogen and batteries in Ireland come from? Not Ireland

    Cobalt from child slave labour in Congo, Massive environmental pollution for rare earths in China, whole mountains removed for copper in Papua New Guinea, blood minerals from Africa and so on



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    Article is about Morocco, what has Morocco got to do with Congo/China/Papua New Guinea?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭m2_browning


    Greenwashed tech needs slave labour and mining of rare minerals that destroy the environment

    slow day?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,662 ✭✭✭ps200306


    The document is available for everyone to read ... But the grid itself will be a mix of generation and not just renewable as some constantly claim here.

    I simply can't be bothered trying to figure it out anymore. I've posted multiple times to say that document you are referring to is a 2030 plan, and the 2050 plan is indeed 100% renewables. I've given you all the relevant links. I can only assume you have me on ignore. I can't imagine anyone taking you seriously under the circumstances, but so be it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,770 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    In the case of that article, the implications are that some Moroccans think they can offset the cost of occupying the desert by covering the place with solar panels and exporting the intermittently generated power to Europe via Spain. It seems to me that setting up solar panels in a desert (dust storms) and in a contested territory would mean an infrastructure target for destruction considering the space taken up by solar panels, would probably tie up more men protecting them or paying not to have them destroyed. Not much to fight over in a desert with no oil or minerals.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭m2_browning


    I guess we haven’t learned from history about making Europe reliable on dodgy states outside Europe on energy



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,048 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    More a shot at common sense. EU institutions have said that the risks are minor. Removing it from use would devastate the tillage industry in particular and annual yields would be down something like 30% minimum to start with until things like blackgrass and other invasive crops got a foothold and then you are rightly banjaxed. To make up the shortfall of course we'd have to import the deficit, driving grain prices up for the poorer countries and all the issues that would cause. So many people don't have a the foggiest of the importance of that chemical to their food, and without a viable alternative the benefits far outweigh the risks.

    If the EU are mentioned, then we're involved. It's more relevant than many other links that get put here with the pro-Green slant from policies or court actions in China and California (they are 2 that spring to mind).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,255 ✭✭✭ginger22




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭m2_browning


    Checks what our 6.3GW of wind is doing (ha lol) on Eirgrid dashboard

    Checks Bloomberg

    —-

    Green stock selloff deepens as Tesla sentiment sours.

    The sell-off in green stocks is predicted to continue through 2024, marking a fourth consecutive year of losses, according to Bloomberg's Markets Live Pulse survey.

    Negative sentiment is expected to impact various green asset classes, with Tesla potentially losing its top 10 position in the S&P 500, as indicated by nearly two-thirds of respondents. The decline is attributed to high-interest rates, political backlash, and evolving regulations. 

    —-



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭SharkMX


    Visual Pollution is a thing too and I think windmills are the biggest eyesore on the landscape nowadays. Used to be pylons, but windmills are far more common now.

    I was in North Wales a few weeks ago and the horizon is disgusting with windmills.

    I was up in Ardgillan and Skerries at the weekend. Lovely place. Then I saw this is planned.

    image.png


    image.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,222 ✭✭✭prunudo


    How far out at sea are they located. I don't buy the projections they showed for the projects off the coast of Greystones. They'll be much more visually intrusive than we are lead to believe. But alas if you raise this, you're shot down. Admittedly though, much prefer them to be put out at sea than up on the hills.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭SharkMX


    These are 13km out I think. Its a bullsh1t image. The ones in Wales are further out and are disgusting. These images show a pale blue sky and very shiny white windmills. This is never the case. Look at these in Wales. Wales is totally ruined with them. Not just the coast. Hills, mountains, valleys - all disgustingly destroyed with windmills.


    image.png




Advertisement