Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

"Green" policies are destroying this country

1112311241126112811291132

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    Great plenty of room out of bay with higher efficiency that doesn’t involve building anywhere on land on this country, tho would get great wind up them mountains looking over Dublin too I bet

    Also Dublin City is 117 square kilometres so plenty of room for rooftop solar right over it removing need to destroy communities and arable land, near demand and already one of the sunniest parts of the country



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,878 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    All areas of the country will have a part to play in providing renewable energy, it will never just be Dublin.

    There is no reason rural Ireland should be exempt and any infrastructure is far less impactful from a human pov there due to the low populations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    By building wind and solar near and in Dublin you get better efficiency in wind and solar, can hook into existing infrastructure AND demand and no need to take out good land out food production and destroy tourism industry

    It’s fascinating how some support green policies as long as those policies are inflicted on anyone but themselves even going ahead and make arguments that undermine themselves



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,878 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Dublin is Ireland's largest tourism hub.

    Energy can be fed into the grid from rural areas, it does not need to be generated in urban areas in order to provide for urban areas.

    The nimby example you make reflects your own attitude perfectly.

    Wind farms anywhere, as long as they arent in my own rural backyard.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    It’s also the largest demand and industrial area, I’m sure tourists to a city full of junkies injecting themselves openly on streets would look past giant wind generators and solar panels on rooftops and still enjoy an overpriced pint in the temple bar right?

    As for rest of your post energy does not magically transport over the air and requires even more land and more eyesores to be constructed to connect generators far from where the majority of the demand lies.

    But sure if you can think these things are an eyesore and hurt Dublin tourism then ask the nice lads from France to come and build a 4-5 reactors in Dublin port, you will get clean green cheap energy right next to the main demand center, plenty of land in Dublin port and I hear as long as land owners don’t object then can build anything one wants

    Edit. Typos

    Post edited by bored65 on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,146 ✭✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld


    I am wondering ... how do we have renewable clean healthy soil, air, water, nature, ... without green policies ? 🤔



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,599 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    There are, but have you seen how much a fixed offshore wind farm costs now never mind a floating one ?

    In the last two years the cost has risen by at least 70%. A few years ago based on U.K. costs it was £3.47 billion per gigawatt of installed capacity. Now it`s £5.9 billion (€6.78 billion) and the current plan here is for 37 gigawatts of offshore installed capacity, plus hydrogen generation where that 37 gigawatts would cost €6.78 x 37 = €251 billion for just the fixed turbine element alone before the addition of the cost of hydrogen production, storage, distribution etc. and it would still leave us short of our projected demand for 2025.

    For a country of 5 million, it`s madness that would leave us by a country mile with the most expensive electricity on the planet and our economy in ruins. It is not going to happen because the country would be bankrupt anyway attempting to finance that spend, although a few massive fortunes of state finances will have been flushed down the toilet in the interim. How much will depend on how long we carry on with this insane policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,878 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    All fair points.

    I dont believe Dublin Array has passed approval from ACP yet, either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,348 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    How much will depend on how long we carry on with this insane policy.

    I haven't been paying close attention to this thread, so forgive me if you've answered this question already.

    What alternative policy would you propose for securing long term (30-50 years) energy supply for the country?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,040 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    While those figures are quite high, no doubt, the alternative is spending similar money on fossil fuel power plants and then subsequently spending huge amounts of money on the fuel for this electricity generation. Remembering that if we let climate change get much worse there won't be anybody or any economy left



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭MightyMunster


    I presume you have the same complaints about fields of rapeseed blighting the landscape, around half of which is used for far far less efficient energy production than solar which can power a car 70-100 times as far for the same land use.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    Do the seeds for this plant come as result of pollution of environment in China (out of sight out of mind right??) with whom we share same planet {global climate change right?} and their use of slave labour?

    There are “green” policies and then there are “let’s outsource pollution elsewhere, and pretend we are green” policies {and let’s dump the problem on them culchies and not build near the main consumption center} which results in exponentially more environmental destruction both direct and indirect



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,332 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    From a Teagasc report I seen late last year, the majority of OSR is exported for use in the food chain. There was a concerted effort over a decade ago to get a biofuel industry going here but it failed due to lack of investment. There are some processors on the island which produce native rapeseed oil.

    What data have you showing "around half" is used in energy production?

    Post edited by roosterman71 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    That brings up another point

    If a field of <insert crop> fails one just replows and replants something else, something that a good farmer be doing as part of crop rotation anyways

    If the foreign investors whom are pushing these installations goes bankrupt you endup with fields full of unrecyclable glass/plastic and aluminium/steel and power lines and container sized batteries that can leak or go on fire ,

    Aka an industrial wasteland and that contract you signed giving away rights to your land for decades gets sold onto vulture finds



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭MightyMunster


    Isn't Meath the biggest solar producer in Ireland. Most of it close to Dublin and it's many data centers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,332 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Meath is in the bottom tier of counties for renewable power generation. Along with Kildare and Wicklow, the 3 counties surrounding Dublin

    image.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,599 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Those figures are not just quite high. They are a insane proposal for a country with a population of 5 million

    This present plan of 37GW offshore plus hydrogen at present would cost very little south of €300 billion. That would result in a strike price of at least three times the present wholesale price of electricity when we are now regularly in the top three in the E.U. with the most expensive electricity. That the other two are Germany and Denmark should show anybody that wishes to see it just how expensive "cheap"wind power is.

    That €300 billion is the proposed spend over the next 24 years. Over €12 billion a year each year. The cost of 5 -6 children hospitals each of those years on offshore wind that has increased in cost by 70% in the last two years alone.

    And it`s not as if that proposed plan will even meet our demand needs for 2050. We would still be burning the same volume of fossil fuels we are burning today, where thanks to a Green Party plan where we ill only reach a 23% reduction in emissions as opposed to the 51% we were signed up to, from 2030 we will be paying up to €28 billion a year in penalties. With electricity generation making up ~25% of those emissions that brings the spend at just today`s costs to €19 billion. For perspective at least 8 children hospitals annually.

    It`s a plan that is complete unsustainable insanity where no more good money should be thrown after bad to achieve nothing other than bankrupting the state and everyone in it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭MightyMunster


    That includes wind.

    Solar it's Wexford, Dublin and Meath



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    I am a bit puzzled as to why that poster chose to raise the point of bio crops used for energy

    After all that’s yet another one of them highly questionable green policies that makes little sense yet was rammed down everyone throats and now biomass accounts for 16% of EUs “green renewable” energy as opposed to 11% for green and clean nuclear

    when landing into Dublin there’s a fairly large eysore taking up what must be hundreds of acres of some of the best land in the state for a measly 10% per year capacity factor, maybe that’s what gave him misleading impression, I was specifically talking about solar on roofs within Dublin urban area and wind on them mountaintops to south and out in the bay where a good chunk of population can see green policies in action instead of the usual “out of sight out of mind” greenwashing we are used to



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,599 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Dublin has 17.5 hours of darkness during Winter so Meath has much the same.

    Solar capacity factor for Ireland is dismal. 11% over the year but falling to 5% or less during the Winter when demand is highest. Even today in the middle of February it was providing nothing at peak morning demand and was only supplying 294 of the 5,964 demand at midday.

    Solar also generates DC electricity which requires inverters to convert it to AC which we use and those inverters are now generally accepted as the cause of the April 2025 blackout that left the whole of the Iberian peninsula in darkness. Solar is not the answer to our problems.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,332 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    But isn't the discussion around renewables being close to the place where the power is needed. Why would solar in isolation be discussed? While I agree on the principle of having the generation near the consumer to reduce losses, it annoys me no end to see vast tracts of some of Irelands finest land covered in the panels.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/land-of-conquest-solar-rush-po-valley/.

    A long read, but an insight into what Italy are doing to restrict solar panels on productive farmland



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭MightyMunster


    No the discussion was about solar, if it's more profitable for the farmer to produce solar energy than calories what's the issue. Just a different form of energy production. One that makes more money, less Carbon emissions, less damaging to the local environment and wildlife. Seems like a win win win all round.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,599 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    We need to look at an alternative policy because the current proposed policy is not only working, it never will.

    We were sleep walked into the present policy by the Green Party and media either to lazy or influenced by too many good lunches paid for by parties with financial interest. RTE`s environmental correspondent George Lee has no qualification in the field of environment. He got the job as he was staff and there was a vacancy. He is by qualification an economist who just spouts releases from the wind industry and I have yet to hear him even make an attempt to any effort at putting a figure to what spouts.

    The Green Party sold this policy on there being this Klondike of "free" wind energy off our Western seaboard that would be harvested by floating wind farms with a high capacity factor which would not just provide all our requirements, but result in the State making massive profits exporting the excess via interconnectors. As anybody on the West coast could have told anyone interested, it was a fantasy as has been shown by the Sceirde Rocks €1.5 billion fixed turbine contract fiasco. Eventually in reply to another politician Eamon was forced to admit the technology required was not even invented for floating wind turbines in those conditions and would not be for decades if ever. The massive profits from exports via those interconnectors ? If anybody that believes at this stage that the interconnector to France, plus another being proposed from the same country will be doing anything other than exporting nuclear generated power to Ireland, I have a nice second hand bridge I can let them have cheap. The same goes for those other proposed interconnectors from the U.K.

    2023 net imports of electricity via interconnectors was 9.5% of our demand. 2024 13.9%. First half of 2025 17.1%. We are importing electricity from the U.K. - themselves net importers who are getting cheesed off with the one sided arrangement - to keep our emissions levels down as the provider has to eat the emissions not the receiver. The only way we are still getting away with it is probably because the U.K. is claiming it is being generated by nuclear, or that other E.U. sham of wood burning being carbon neutral via their Drax wood burning plant. A sham that we are also getting involved in thanks to greens with a wood burning plant in Offaly and another due to reopen in Mayo previously shut because it was not financially viable with the wood coming from half way around the world before being transported half way around the country for both plants.

    As to where we are now. We are following a 37GW offshore plus hydrogen plan that would still see us burning the same volume of fossil fuels in 2025 as we are now that would cost nothing much short of €300 billion at today`s costs that would treble the wholesale price of electricity. We got signed up on the back of this 37GW plan that was supposed to have us carbon neutral by 2050 that could not get us even close to to the 51% reductions in emissions for 2023 where the best estimates - if everything came in line by then, Sceirde Rocks included, - is 23%. That failure will see us paying annual fines until 2050 and well beyond.

    At present we are not even running to stand still on emissions and are still being treated like mushrooms. The powers that be heralded 2024 as a great year for reduction of emission from generation where it dropped by 8.3%. What they failed to add is that 13.9% of our electricity was imported.

    So what is my proposal for a 30 -50 year supply that would have us energy secure, other than nuclear, that we are already using as long as somebody else is doing the heavy lifting, that is financially much more viable when you consider it`s operational life span and capacity factor, I do not see any alternative. If anyone else does then be my guest. But if it is going to be battery storage, pumped storage, electricity storage via gas, carbon capture or anything else, then they are going to have to make a case based on financial viability and not just a nuclear is bad and green is good generalizsation. Not doing so would just be a waste of everyone`s time and effort.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 490 ✭✭bluedex


    Great post.

    I've never seen that level of analysis from the hysterical Green scaremongers. Looking at you George Lee.

    It seems the basis of their argument is: if we don't totally bankrupt ourselves, or go back to living in caves, humankind will be extinct within a few generations.

    Christ almighty!

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,332 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Well it's obviously more profitable. The land lease prices are off the scale. What happens if or when the leasee goes bust or shuts up shop is as yet unknown but I believe the taxpayers are on the hook for the costs to revert the land back. There's also tax implications for the landowner around tax, land use and designation



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,408 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    Good analysis. The one thing you missed is that those interconnectors to the UK aren't even properly used. There's plenty of days where Greenlink is full import and Ewic, sitting beside Dublin is doing nothing. Then it appears that the GI4 CCGT isn't at full output so I suspect that Greenlink is prioritised on the network, likely at our cost for dispatch balancing. If some of the flows were on Ewic instead, we'd have better access to the newest large CCGT on the system (GI4).

    Despite not fully using the interconnectors we have, for some reason, the government and regulators want to build another to GB. They are willing to hand billions to another merchant interconnector to do so, rather than reoptimise what's already there. The fact that GB are hung up on getting another interconnector to Ireland should be a warning sign. They view us as a dumping ground for their excess wind. They're wind is cheaper than ours to produce so we end up importing. But given that we also end up curtailing our wind to accommodate imports, we have to pay our wind compensation for not being used!

    Imagine a world of paying double for a service, once to the cheap foreign provider and once to the expensive local source (despite them not doing anything). You wouldn't do it for a Doctor, lawyer or accountant but somehow it's OK to do it for wind (and RTE television, but that's a whole other thread)?

    Save boards.ie by subscribing: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    Ah that’s what RTE called “wasted wind” this morning

    While reporting on more prime agricultural land being converted to an industrial zone to hold Chinese coal power manufactured batteries, notice how this is surrounded by good land and not placed on a bog in background



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,332 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    To be fair, there's a lot of bog around that area, a lot of it covered in turbines now too. The Mount LUcas windfarm is not a bad spot to go for a walk or cycle around the paths. Not too far away one of the biggest industries for emissions (cement production) is greenwashing away hoovering up land around their operation and getting grants to install renewables to aid their green image



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 927 ✭✭✭bored65


    That’s another thing that needs to be highlighted all these solar farms are not being placed on bog lands as those are protected, in this case the wind farm is on the bog but the storage industrial area is not

    Above article from George Lee just highlights that we are taking up what used to be agricultural land, converting it into an industrial estate with fields full of containers that can leak into water table or go on fire {and manufactured using coal and slave labour in China of course} all to store a few hours of tiny amounts of energy more than doubling the cost of wind and solar

    How this got past zoning and planning system is a mystery



Advertisement
Advertisement