"Green" policies are destroying this country

Electricity generation using diffuse and unreliable sources is easy when you engage in magic thinking. Here is something something else, this is what happens to electricity demand and wind solar generation when the dunkelflaute sets in across Western and central Europe, happens every Winter sometimes lasting for 2 weeks and it's bitterly cold. It does not matter how many solar panels or wind turbines installed, they don't work under those conditions.

Wind turbine generation in this country can and does occasionally turn negative. This is why a backup system is needed, the capacity factor for solar in Ireland is ~10%, Wind capacity factor over a years ~30% and it varies massively across seasons and day to day. This is why your electricity bill will never be cheap, the more unreliable generation that is put on the grid the more complex and expensive it becomes to operate and manage.

Hence the need for greater interconnectness in the EU. Also the existing French Nuclear generation may be useful.

That's for simple wind turbines themselves. What about the array cables?

What about the grid infrastructure? Near shore requires an offshore platform, transformers, AC cables, reactive power compensation, as well as boats to do marine surveys and maintenance. You won't get much of the 37GW within the near shore distances (10GW max) so it's further out you'll need to go and then you are into the world of HVDC. Basically, you need a Celtic Interconnector (€1.6Bn) for every 700MW. Your costs won't be long adding up!

Perhaps but much improvement is needed anyway. What is the alternative?

I have shown the figures from sites you may not believe but I don't accept the 200Bn figure. You must remember that even if the costs are large it will still be spent over many years and will pay back. Even China is going with wind generation.

Why wouldn't te EU help? They have in the past and they would be looking for carbon free energy too. Anyway the project is going ahead and there must be economies of scale eventually. What is the alternative to burn fossil fuels ad infinitum?

What is the alternative? You cannot decouple from fossil fuels without dramatic falls in your standard of living, anyone insisting otherwise is laying the groundwork for a year zero dictatorship, whether they realise it, year zero is the logical outcome of "climate justice", an authoritarian system that imposes equality on the masses by restricting their access to energy.

The future will be fossil fuels + whatever else is viable, transitions will happen over a hundred years. If you are interested take the time to read this from Vaclav Smil. I'm only half way through it at present, he goes through the numbers.

• Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050 - Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome

This is nutty.

This scheme will cost a fortune. The only tangible benefit? We'll have a few new species of bird 😂

Very few, if any, of previous "nature" related schemes on a wide scale have worked in this country. This will be no different. But, same as other schemes, the landowner will carry the blame. Good news is that many wind farms built on peatlands will now be under water, buildings on flood plains will be tore down to reverse the damage done to date

Good point on flooding peatlands that are homes to wind farms. Do that and leave them there would be inviting another Ballybofey and Derrybrien.

I`m not that familiar with those previous nature related schemes, but the old REPS schemes did at least appear to me to have done some good, but this new ACRES seems to be a total mess with the Department all over the place and unless a farmer has fairly substantial acreage the cost of becoming involved compared to what he or she would get from it after all the hassle would not be worth their while.

To me this deal in the twilight days between two E.U. parliaments is very shoody and doesn`t say a lot for the E.U. as regards democracy. Especially when you read that "It had been expected one or two member states might be convinced to change positions, but could publicly not do so until after the European elections earlier this month".

No naming of those countries in that article, so it makes me wonder who are these countries that changed their stance because their E.U. election showed a greater support for a green agenda than was there before that election.

delighted useless f##&er

I've a wind farm on peatland. I'm looking forward to claiming whatever compensation there is for closing the drains. Should be a good laugh!

REPs was good, ACRES a shambles. The project in the Burren was excellent, but the dept. decided it wasn't and now that too is a shambles. There's been many others that have shown little to any improvements as per their goals, apart from devaluing land areas and causing issues for people living there (such as planning rejections for home upgrades, etc). Not to mention the farmer community who are obliged to improve infrastructure but are prevented from doing so, thus making them non compliant in multiple schemes now.

The deal done yesterday was a joke. To me it stinks of the old parliament ramming it through. It should have been left to the new parliament to progress. It wouldn't have even passed if the Austrian minister hadn't gone on a solo run in opposition to the federalised regions of Austria and her coalition partners in government.

if you're a green voter he hasn't been useless at all though, did what he said he'd do, something very rare in politics.

All that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to build wind power. What about the benefits and the massive savings in oil/gas burned over say 20 years? Another point the anti-wind people like you convieniently forget is the massive carbon penalties we will be forces to pay up to 8 billion a year simple maths would show costs over 100 Billions, a long way to pay for whatever it costs. Add to that the cost pf oil/gas we are talking about a saving of tens of billions more!

It really makes sense overall. Not even counting the environmental benefits.

I think this thread shows there is no clear answer, yet. However at our current rate of oil consumption alone we will spend about 85 Bn over the next 20 years! Unless it is replaced.

Based on 145,000 barrels of oil a day as per net figures, a big if it stays that way, likely to go up if nothing is done..

Based on 80 dollars a barrel, a big if.. probably rise over 20 years.

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/ireland/oil-consumption