"Green" policies are destroying this country

charlie14 · 08-08-2025 02:32PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123706399#Comment_123706399

If people know the price of this proposed 2050 37GW offshore wind/hydrogen plan that would still see us using the same volume of gas we are using now in 2050 …. which would result in us having to pay €8.4 Bn. in fines for 2050 alone on top of all the fines for similar annually from 2030 onwards …. then they are keeping very quite about it.

We do know that based on the U.K. and others that even if we got the strike price that Equinor walked away from in the U.K. that they deemed unfinancially viable, the strike price here for the consumer would be one third more expensive than the most expensive nuclear, Hinkley Point, that those opposed to nuclear could find. When hydrogen is included (U.K. strike price €246 per MWh) then cost to the consumer under this 37GW plan would be €446 per MWh compared to Hinkley`s €150 per MWh. Three times more expensive. So along with paying €8.4 Bn a year in fines, we would also have by a long stretch the most expensive electricity charges in the world.

So perhaps rather than making vague generalisations you could give us your cost of this wind plan that would not bankrupt the country ?

ps200306 · 17-08-2025 04:22AM

The second most cited climate paper of 2024 was Kotz et al. "The economic commitment of climate change", Nature 628, 551–557 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07219-0.

According to it, global GDP would take a massive hit of 19% by 2050 due to climate change.

the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a consortium of more than 100 central banks from around the world, adopted the study’s results into a new official NGFS "damage function” to project the future costs of climate change, and thus shape how governments and businesses think about and respond to climate change.

Turns out it was fatally flawed nonsense (and Nature knows it but hasn't yet retracted it) …

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/too-big-to-fail

Pa ElGrande · 17-08-2025 09:25AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123729352#Comment_123729352

"Nature" publication is part owned by German publishing group Axel Springer. They have retracted stuff before, I would guess this is probably due to the funding of PIK by the German government, no need to rock the gravy train.

The only damage caused by climate change is to science institutions and credibility of media networks that push a narrative supported by professional alarmists. There is a taxpayer funded gravy train behind this, it's not all surprising that the studies authors are Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) (I prefer to call them Potsdam Institute for Klimate alarm). PIK is where Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) catastrophism originated, its a common disaster trope carried by media outlets usually non-scientific terms like "tipping points" using computer models that have no skill and importantly no empirical evidence to support their claims, the only definable conclusion they reach is more money is needed for research.

Another common media narrative is weather catastrophism, Roger Pielke Jr. has written extensively about weather attribution studies which from the outset are deliberately intended for political and media purposes. This is even acknowledge in interviews by one of the key people behind this is Dr. Frederike Otto, she graduated from PIK and currently sits in the Grantham institute imperial college London.

Former German chancellor Angela Merkel in her rise to power, gained public attention during the 90s, in her role as Minister for the Environment and Nuclear Safety. She went on to become CDU leader. PIK was also formed in the 1990s by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and its funded by the German government (~€11 million per year). Schellnhuber is the key person behind the "consensus of scientific opinion" about climate change provided to then Pope Francis, this got incorporated in his encyclical Laudato si' in 2015. Representatives from the charity Trocaire often cite Laudato si' in their messaging to Catholic congregations when promoting climate change narrative.

Until the German government changes it's policy stance with regard to climate change, and clips the funding for its institutions, the weather catastrophism as climate change narrative will continue across the EU.

Pa ElGrande · 17-08-2025 02:34PM

There is another article I came across last week: A Massive Fraud Ring Is Publishing Thousands of Fake Studies and the Problem is Exploding. “These Networks Are Essentially Criminal Organizations”

Organized misconduct is rapidly poisoning the global scientific record.

One awful spring day in 2025, Luís Amaral sat at his desk at Northwestern University after he had just finished “probably the most depressing project I’ve been involved with.” He had reason to be disheartened. His new study reveals an uncomfortable truth: scientific fraud is no longer just the work of a few bad apples. It is organized to the point it’s become industrialized — and growing much faster than legitimate science.
What we are seeing is large networks of editors and authors cooperating to publish fraudulent research at scale. They are exploiting cracks in the system to launder reputations, secure funding, and climb academic ranks.

This is a topic that has been discussed previously on this thread, abuse of the system has been known about within academia for decades and has been covered by many others such as The rise and fall of peer review which gives background on how this got started. I don't know if this is going to get better sooner, on top of all that we must wade through AI slop in media and peer review, maybe it will end with AI generated papers being reviewed by AI reviewers and it will become a self reinforcing loop. Either way, the system loses credibility.

Pa ElGrande · 24-08-2025 08:55AM

Roger Pielke Jr. continues to pursue the weather attribution scam, this time focusing on the IPCC detection and attribution in AR7. They named the authors AR7 WGI, chapter 3. IPCC are jumping the shark, they know after multiple decades their scheme has been fading.

I see 2 names that immediately consign this reports credibility to the bin since their motives are known. Friederike Otto (Worldwide Weather Attribution) and Davide Faranda (Climameter). Essentially this junk science scam comes down to cherry picking weather events, washing statistics from said events through computer models using dodgy statistical analysis methods (lies, damn lies and statistics) then issuing press releases as soon as possible after the event before the story is flushed out of the media ecosystem, these reports are regurgitated by the environmental correspondents (e.g. RTE - George Lee in said media organizations. Unsurprisingly University of Maynooth climate research center output aligns with "The Science™", they too jumped on the weather attribution bandwagon. The climate alarmists just rubberstamp them with their pre-conceived notions, pretending their use of climate models makes it all sciency.

Securing climate justice in the courtroom

In 2015, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a mountain guide from the alpine town of Huaraz in Peru, sued German multinational energy giant RWE for its contribution to global warming, which threatened Lliuya’s home with flooding from a nearby glacial lake. The case had numerous setbacks over the ensuing decade, but the final blow came on 28 May. The court dismissed the latest appeal, saying the likelihood of a flooding event reaching Lliuya’s home and causing serious damage was too low to justify legal intervention.
<snip>
Noah Walker-Crawford, a social anthropologist at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, who was initially involved in the Lliuya v. RWE case, says that those involved never thought it would get as far as it did, especially on scientific grounds. “When we started the case, the science wasn’t that far along yet, so on attribution we only had broad insight,” he says.
<snip>
Climate models have improved with more data and more computing power, and the methods have also evolved over time. But Otto says the biggest advance that has happened during her career has been in policy, not technology.
When she started as a researcher, most climate-modelling centres made it difficult for external researchers to use their climate-model data. But that soon changed when climate models and data were made centrally available, and “you suddenly had all the climate models in the world at your disposal”, she says. “When we started, we used one or two models that we could get, but now we sometimes use up to 70 different models, and that makes a huge difference.” source

Pick your model, pick your climate, pick your result, all you need is a friendly court system to deliver the result you want. The climate activists have been working on judges in the background, providing seminars and training.

thatsdaft · 25-08-2025 05:37PM

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/25/rsted-shares-at-all-time-low-after-trump-halts-work-on-us-windfarm

well this article aged like fine milk

https://www.irishtimes.com/special-reports/2024/10/25/in-a-world-of-greenwashing-how-green-is-your-pension/

Feel sorry for people who don’t actively direct the pensions and for their pensions put into all sorts of questionable no return ESG/green pots by default in last few years by our main pension providers

Pa ElGrande · 29-08-2025 08:36AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123753303#Comment_123753303

Another domino falls. Climate finance was all the rage a few years ago, that tire continues to deflate: Net-Zero Banking Alliance halts activities as global banks exit membership | World News - Business Standard. The GFANZ initiative was fronted by Mark Carney (ex central banker and currently Canadian prime minister) back and announced in 2021 at the UN COP held in Scotland. AIB will need to update their slideware after September this year.

United Nations (UN) Net Zero Banking Alliance
Industry-led, UN-convened
AIB was the first Irish bank to join the UN Net Zero Banking Alliance which brings together over 160 firms to accelerate the transition to net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest. source

Government has sold their AIB shareholding and the Greens are no longer in power. What did AIB and others sign up to?

Transition the operational and attributable GHG emissions from their lending and investment portfolios to align with pathways to net-zero by 2050 or sooner.
Within 18 months of joining, set 2030 targets (or sooner) and a 2050 target, with intermediate targets to be set every 5 years from 2030 onwards. All targets will be regularly reviewed to ensure consistency with the latest science (as detailed in IPCC assessment reports).
Banks’ first 2030 targets will focus on priority sectors where the bank can have the most significant impact, ie. the most GHG-intensive sectors within their portfolios.
Within 36 months of joining, banks will set a further round of sector-level targets for all or a significant majority of specified carbon-intensive sectors, including: agriculture; aluminium; cement; coal; commercial and residential real estate; iron & steel; oil & gas; power generation; transport.
The commitment is designed to ensure that banks engage with their clients’ own transition and decarbonisation, promoting real economy transition rather than only financial sector withdrawal.
Annually publish absolute emissions and emissions intensity in line with best practice and within a year of setting targets, disclose progress against a board-level reviewed transition strategy setting out proposed actions and climate-related sectoral policies.
Take a robust approach to the role of offsets in transition plans. source

bluedex · 29-08-2025 08:43PM

Thanks for posting.

This is no surprise really. I've posted previously about investors moving away from ESG type products in increasingly large numbers, as they simply don't produce the required RoI.

It was always a marketing ploy to play to the "Green" agenda which was fashionable at the time.

Pa ElGrande · 04-09-2025 12:20AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123767219#Comment_123767219

It is not just investments, the "Green" agenda is one major element combined with others and chickens are now roosting primarily for EU nations. Both Britain and Germany are in major economic downturns. The bond crisis that I have long speculated may be in the offing, it looks ominously like the war machine (Rheinmetall) is also taking center stage.

When oil and gas companies decommission platforms and pipelines, they can claim about 25pc of the costs back from the Treasury. These costs were expected to be spread over decades but Labour’s windfall taxes and drilling bans mean companies are rushing to leave the North Sea – meaning accelerated demand for tax rebates, Mr Gilvary said. source

During the energy crisis (which started in 2021 many months before the war, due to poor "ruinables" output, a maintenance and development backlog in renewables and oil and gas due to covid lockdowns, and shutdowns of nuclear and coal power and the Groningen gas field) all the supply reductions resulted in substantial extra demand for LNG, forcing UK and EU states to bid for supply from across the globe, at great additional expense. Had they been able to avoid such imports through producing more gas and running coal fired power stations that hadn’t been blown up, our gas costs would have been much lower. Did governments really think that depriving oil companies of most of their profits would have no consequences? Most likely the oil companies are lobbying the UK government, they would also have to spend 3 times that decommissioning the infrastructure, much easier to cut and run, it the government reneges, they have an angle to walk away.

thatsdaft · 04-09-2025 09:26AM

Government past and current green policies are now top of agenda for many communities in east Galway in last few months where there has been series of meeting about:

gas/diesel peaker plants eg athenry
largest solar and battery facilities of 1000+ acres of prime farmland in the state
Several hundred Eiffel Tower sized onshore wind right across north east

basically likes of east Galway are expect to generate enough power for most of the country instead of building at existing industrial locations like now closed moneypoint

I fully expect these policies to be a major issue come next elections, the anger at some of these meeting where many of representatives attending is something else.

Anyone from these areas soon to be turned into industrial wastelands stumbling across this thread might want to read this thread and the daftness outlined from start

Red Silurian · 04-09-2025 10:02AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123784264#Comment_123784264

So much false here

Moneypoint isn't closed, it's been changed to oil from coal. Still not ideal but we now no longer rely on coal as a source of power so it's an improvement.

The height of the Eiffel tower is 330m, most of the wind farms in Ireland are 135m, less than half that height

The west is windier than the east so you could build wind farms in the east with half the power output but the return on the investment would be very low.

What's most strange is the many government TDs in the west opposing the very wind farms that they, as part of the government, are proposing to build. These TDs need to either get in line with their party policy or move to the opposition benches

thatsdaft · 04-09-2025 10:08AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123784387#Comment_123784387

The east is much much sunnier and less wetter than the west, also these are going in prime farmland as bogs are protected

And why build onshore at all when we were told that the “great” plan is for 37GW offshore wind mostly in the east where as it happens most of the demand also lies for some reason

As for moneypoint, it’s already an industrial area with largest main trunk power connection in state, can place peaker plants there (and build lng terminal nearby) or why not put them in Dublin port next to majority of demand

The government has a policy of dumping unreliable energy generation (which then requires peaker plants) onto communities out west because they know there be more objections in Dublin, hey why can’t they carpet bomb Dublin mountains with these wind generators (or turn all of Kildare into a solar and battery industrial estate), there’s an idea, so a third of the population can see them every day

Red Silurian · 04-09-2025 02:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123784398#Comment_123784398

The reason for most of the offshore going to the east is because of the larger population in the east but also because of the shallower and smoother waters off the east coast that makes the construction phase easier and therefore cheaper. The added complexities and cost is also why they won't go to the Dublin mountains. Generally speaking more wind = more wind power so you should put more wind farms where there is more wind.

With regards to wind being unreliable, not so true in this country where the wind blows strongly almost every single day and as long as you spread the plants around the country, which they do seem to be doing largely, you shouldn't come in to any reliability issues.

Moneypoint is already a power plant. Oil based so I'm not sure what your obsession with that is

charlie14 · 04-09-2025 02:26PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123784387#Comment_123784387

At this stage throwing more money at wind would be throwing good money after bad.

Presently we have onshore installed with a capacity of over 5GW. With it`s capacity factor that would supply 1.4 GW. Our projected demand by 2050 is 10X that. Even 10 times the number of onshore turbines we now have would not get you to 15GW as all the best wind sites are already in use so any others will have a lower capacity factor. But even outside of the fact that a grid will not function on renewables alone, you would still have the problem of wind being intermittent and unreliable.

We, as has the rest of Europe, seen extended periods where the wind capacity factor has dropped to 6% or less. It could be argued that building more onshore wind turbines would negate that, but that would require close to 50X times the number we presently have. If all of those turbines were 15MW capacity and all in prime wind capacity factor locations it would require over 35,000 of them. For perspective, countrywide one every 2.4 square kilometers.

The present offshore 50/50 wind/hydrogen 2050 plan is so financially impractically insane it is not even worth discussing.

thatsdaft · 04-09-2025 02:42PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123785181#Comment_123785181

There’s plenty of wind up the mountains (higher you go windier it gets) and the whole offshore thing ended up being a bullshit plan as was repeatedly pointed out on this thread with currently zero working turbines out at sea with only farm shut down

Green policies are being forced on small communities out west (as per your own map) to avoid backlash in the more populous constituencies, which is why all the politicians here have now realised the hole they are in.

Why not carpet bomb Co Dublin, Kildare etc in wind, batteries and solar industrial facilities? After all that’s where most of the demand lies, whats being proposed in East Galway alone is several times more than local demand

Regarding moneypoint, take a look at grid map, the largest power lines in state go there, that or Dublin are best place to place more peaker plants

Gas Plants that are only needed because renewables are so unreliable

https://www.eirgrid.ie/grid/how-grid-works/irelands-grid

Red Silurian · 04-09-2025 02:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123785283#Comment_123785283

Wrong again, the Arklow 25 MW bank has been functioning since 2003. If you read my previous comment you'd see why Dublin, Kildare and "up the mountains" isn't a great place for a wind farm. Moneypoint is already a power plant as mentioned

Then why don't the western politicians do something about it, they're a great bunch of lads for standing beside the local beef farmer for a photo op in the farmers journal saying how they oppose this wind farm. The problem is they go to the Dáil and rubber stamp the thing a week later

Keep up the rant though, maybe somebody will bite haha!

thatsdaft · 04-09-2025 02:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123785315#Comment_123785315

wrong again Arklow is currently shutdown and will be decommissioned, there is zero offshore electrons from this state at this time on the grid

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/wicklow/arklow-news/offshore-turbine-in-arklow-catches-fire-after-being-struck-by-lightning/42079425.html

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/wicklow/arklow-news/proposal-to-decommission-co-wicklow-wind-farm-have-been-filed/a1882667238.html

funny how you are all for renewables, as long as it’s In someone else’s backyard but your own

As for politicians in west they either deal with all this greenwashing nonsense or risk becoming unelectable, you should visit some of these meetings, hundreds of angry local people in each one. People ain’t stupid they can smell a rat and a crappy deal

charlie14 · 04-09-2025 03:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123785315#Comment_123785315

There was a lot of inane rubber stamping when the Green Party was the tail waging the dog here, as there was in the E.U., but those days are gone.

bluedex · 09-09-2025 10:17AM

'No evidence' Climate Action 100+ has impact on cutting emissions: academic

Research raises doubts about effectiveness of collaborative stewardship initiative

By Amie Keeley|9 September 2025

There is no evidence that the global investor-led engagement initiative Climate Action 100+ has helped cut greenhouse gas emissions among the world's largest polluters, according to academic research.

The voluntary climate alliance, which has over 600 members, was set up in 2017 with the goal of lobbying companies to disclose and reduce their carbon footprint through collective engagement efforts.

However, a research paper published by the London School of Economics suggests there is "no evidence that the coalition improved climate-related disclosure or reduced carbon emissions" among the 168 investee companies it targets.

Nikolaus Hastreiter, policy fellow at LSE and author of Can investor coalitions drive corporate climate action?, compared the emissions of the target companies with non-target companies that have large carbon footprints and operate in the same sectors.

He found that while collective engagement through Climate Action 100+ had led to more ambitious medium and long-term carbon emission reduction targets, "overall, the study raises doubts about the effectiveness of investor coalitions in driving corporate decarbonisation".

In an updated version of the paper published last month, Hastreiter also examined whether there is a correlation between the size of investors' holdings and engagement outcomes following feedback from Climate Action 100+ members in response to an initial paper published in November last year.

However, the new research found "no evidence that [...] scale [...] amplifies impact".

Hastreiter also poured cold water on claims that membership of Climate Action 100+ had "spillover effects" on other investee companies outside the target group that investors engage with, something that members had suggested his first report had failed to take into account.

He said the latest findings "challenge the common assumption that the collective scale of investor coalitions – often promoted through headline figures on membership and collective [assets under management] – plays a central role in driving real economy impact".

It is possible that the climate group "requires more time to exert a meaningful influence on corporate behaviour", Hastreiter wrote, but noted that his findings "reveal no systematic differences between Climate Action 100+ and non-Climate Action 100+ companies [...] and no evidence of spillovers into individual investor engagement".

"If Climate Action 100+ has influenced corporate behaviour more broadly, such effects are unlikely to have arisen primarily through its formal engagement activities," Hastreiter said.

The research, which covers data reported in 2022 to 2023, comes after many large US-based asset managers quit Climate Action 100+ last year amid political pressure to roll back climate commitments as well as concerns membership of the group conflicted with the firms' fiduciary duty to focus primarily on investment returns.

European institutional investors meanwhile have put asset managers on notice over their departures from voluntary climate initiatives over fears it could impact stewardship activity and pension funds' own net zero targets.

Hastreiter said future research could investigate a potential "reverse treatment effect" to assess whether a "smaller, but potentially more aligned coalition becomes more effective".

Climate Action 100+ said investors that were part of its initiative "work to encourage the world's largest corporate emitters to strengthen governance, improve climate risk disclosure, and align strategies with net zero, supporting long-term emissions reductions".

The group added that its 2024 benchmark findings, published after the period covered by the study, found that most investee companies had 2050 net zero targets that did not exist before Climate Action 100+ engagement.

"For the first time last year, most of these companies also reduced their emissions intensity over the past three years, demonstrating progress on near-term decarbonisation," the climate initiative said.

thatsdaft · 10-09-2025 09:08AM

Them bad policy chickens are coming home to roost as people in parallel thread realising now that it’s hitting their pockets more

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123801858#Comment_123801858

Ceepo · 10-09-2025 11:16AM

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2025/0909/1532540-wind-energy-ireland-report/

Sure if we didn't have wind it would have cost us a lot more apparently.

"Today's report also found that wind farms delivered big savings for consumers. On the days with the most wind power on the system, wholesale electricity prices more than halved compared to days when we were forced to rely on imported gas."

"Prices on days with the most wind power saw the average cost of a megawatt-hour of electricity fall to €67.31 per megawatt hour and more than double to €156.43 on days when we relied almost entirely on fossil fuels."

The report also states, that the average wholesale price of electricity in Ireland per megawatt-hour during August was €96.38, down 4% from €100.44 in the same month last year. And it would seem somewhat contradictory that wind energy is cheaper when the price fell when less energy was produced from wind. (I know there's other factors)

Noel Cunniffe, CEO of Wind Energy Ireland, "said that while there was a drop in electricity generation from wind in August compared to last year’s figure"

thatsdaft · 10-09-2025 11:23AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123802327#Comment_123802327

Second highest electricity prices in world behind the large island state of Bermuda

And they kept on rising as we built more unreliable energy generators that need gas backup most of the time

Daft stuff

That the answer is not to acknowledge the policy mistakes and the now clear results but double down on them is even dafter

Red Silurian · 10-09-2025 11:36AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123802327#Comment_123802327

Sure if we didn't have wind it would have cost us a lot more apparently.

No it wouldn't because we pay all providers the same rate. It means we could have 99% of our energy needs from wind, solar and hydro and 1% from gas but we would be paying the same amount as if it was 100% gas provided. This idea that 25% of our energy is nearly free doesn't trickle down to the end user because of this ridiculous situation that the govt refuses to change

I found an old newspaper article there the other day which was highlighting an issue about the nightsaver meters. Apparently the ESB used to add 1c on to the day rate of a night meter making it 10c during the day and 5c during the night as opposed to the 9c usual 24 hour rate

We had it so good but somebody decided to privatise our network. There's an open goal staring us in the face we need to re-nationalise the network if we are to ever see fair prices again

Pa ElGrande · 10-09-2025 11:39AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123798232#Comment_123798232

Companies have picked off any low hanging fruit ages ago as regards savings or efficiencies from various schemes, further pursuit becomes exponentially more expensive, in addition political winds have changed direction as regards more incentives underwritten by taxpayers. The only local "green jobs" that have been created are in the regulatory agencies, NGOs and various sustainability consultants, these roles have become expensive overhead and are being downsized across the private sector. On the flip side the former well paying jobs in heavy energy intensive industries have been migrating to China or South East Asia.

This is not just Ireland, in Australia BHP scraps renewable energy projects, casting doubt on emissions target

However, Mr Berridge said the costs of running a mine on renewable energy started to rise "exponentially" beyond a certain point as the need to compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar power mounted.

Nor is SAF getting off the ground anytime soon: The airline industry’s dirty secret: Clean jet fuel failures

Ceepo · 10-09-2025 12:01PM

We hear these type of statements constantly, that wind energy has reduced the cost of wholesale price.

"Today's report also found that wind farms delivered big savings for consumers. On the days with the most wind power on the system, wholesale electricity prices more than halved compared to days when we were forced to rely on imported gas."

"Prices on days with the most wind power saw the average cost of a megawatt-hour of electricity fall to €67.31 per megawatt hour and more than double to €156.43 on days when we relied almost entirely on fossil fuels."

Is this really the case.?.

Obviously there's a lot of complexity in the prices paid, such as needing gas back up.

Ceepo · 10-09-2025 01:01PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123802387#Comment_123802387

No it wouldn't because we pay all providers the same rate. It means we could have 99% of our energy needs from wind, solar and hydro and 1% from gas but we would be paying the same amount as if it was 100% gas provided. This idea that 25% of our energy is nearly free doesn't trickle down to the end user because of this ridiculous situation that the govt refuses to change.

I'm fully aware of that, thanks.

I suppose the point I was (badly) making, is very easy for renewable companies, government, or media to make these type statements that if we had more renewables we wouldn't have to depend on the big bad gasman and the price he charges.

This goes unchallenged for the most part.

I think unless there's a decoupling it will always be the same, which I don't see happening anytime soon

Pa ElGrande · 10-09-2025 01:07PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123802460#Comment_123802460

That's the monthly press release from lobby group "whinge (SIC) energy Ireland". It tells you nothing about how turbine operators are compensated, the additional support costs due to unreliable generation from wind & solar (batteries for short term balancing, synchronous condensers, capacity payments to reliable suppliers.) , or subsidies (RESS, ORESS), Unrealised available energy due to curtailment payments, windfall profits taxation, carbon taxation (pushes up the cost of gas) , inter-connector costs and market pricing, network maintenance and upgrades needed to support a growing population, more houses, and electrification of transport and heating by government policy. A few years ago a paper was published on Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity if you want to compare costs of wind and solar verses reliable sources.

It's a real, heads I win, tails you lose situation.

If market price < strike price → generator receives a top-up.
If market price > strike price → generator refunds the difference to consumer

Surprisingly gas prices have fallen but not electricity, What does tell you about real costs?

Energia customers facing price hike of up to 12% as business continues search for new owner

Company plans increase on charges imposed on companies by regulator to fund electricity network upgrades and expansion

Surprise move as Electric Ireland cuts gas prices, leaves electricity unchanged

Ceepo · 10-09-2025 04:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123802675#Comment_123802675

Why do you think that the media, government etc do not ask about the curtailment, synchro costs and never mention that fact that back up costs are an extra. I think they should also stated somewhere in the article that when curtailment happens, that you're still paying the wind supplier and for the gas generation, so effective paying twice. An argument I've heard about the upgrade cost, is sure we have to upgrade anyway. I'm pretty sure most people aren't aware of the extra cost that you outlined. Usually it a case of sure it's windy today , we should make the best of it.

Red Silurian · 10-09-2025 05:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123802653#Comment_123802653

Realistically we are going to be seeing the €250 energy credit disappear but also an increase of €200 being applied by operators. The reliance on energy credits is unsustainable, we all know that, we need more radical thinking

Ceepo · 10-09-2025 05:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123803585#Comment_123803585

Totally agree that the energy credit was unsustainable. I'm not seeing anything to suggest more radical thinking though. Eggs seems to be in the wind and to lesser extent solar basket

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Comments