Energy infrastructure

Its meant to be part of EU nature restoration area and has already started to recover with return of peatland plant life and significant re-occupation of Red-Listed Bird species like Lapwing etc. which over time will lead to near full recovery as demonstrated on older cut-aways like the Boora and Ballydangan complex's that have been allowed to recover. It also regulary holds flood water from the Shannon and has slowed peat silt loss into to same. In any case this proposed windfarm significantly imposes on nearby large SAC's sites like the Shannon not to mention major flyways for migrating wildfowl. Gounging it out again to host a windfarm is madness!!

A public representative looking to do the State some service would roll back all the laws which the Greens primarily introduced as their pound of flesh for not collapsing governments, rules which made solar and wind the only game in town. A pragmatic statesman would think outside the box and do something radical like marketing Ireland as a pioneering economy receptive to carbon zero electricity through Nuclear or if they don't possess the political capital for that enter purchase agreements for nuclear electricity from plants to be built in Wales reming the financial risks associated with them. Blanketing Ireland in solar and wind turbines will not work and at some stage will undermine our food security.

From where I look you never were debating in good faith with anyone. You are an advocate for the destruction of Ireland's rural landscape. If you cared about the local environment rather than the nebulous idea of being an environmentalist you would be on my side of the argument and demand a total prohibition of Datacentre build out until such time as they can be run carbon neutral without destroying Ireland's habitat on land and offshore. This is a problem local to this small nation.

Maybe we can power them all with meat and bone meal incinerators. Maybe they were on the right path with whale oil. Totally carbon neutral. No nasty radioactivity. That was sarcasm. I consider endless wind farms a similar folly.

"will result in a yearly reduction of 41,647t of CO2"

Seems very sales pitchy. Can I ask how they come to this conclusion? Hard make sense of it at a time when economic policy is to drive on with LEUs, and capacity decisions being driven by peak winter demand.

The TSO's aren't switching off a CCGT saying "we have a 200 MW solar farm coming online, we don't need this". This complex will ultimately end up facilitating a new load rather than actual displacement of FFs.

Good point, have they proven that a larger amount of coal was not burned in China where there panels were build and transported from

I wasn’t the one who raised carbon footprints {a topic hilariously enough created by BP} and emissions and other highly questionable used figures higher up

The poster made claims and I have pointed out that at best they are highly misleading at worst the real world impact of these infrastructure projects is not a positive for the environment and climate but highly negative when you account for all externalities

Ain’t the purpose of renewables to address negative externalities of other power generation sources needed by an ever growing human populations?

What’s the purpose of thread about energy infrastructure when discussions of various negative aspects of this infrastructure is not permitted {and discussion of other green alternatives is suppressed}? Without discussion and examination it becomes nothing more than a propaganda outlet for energy companies who have taken the people of this country for an expensive ride while lying about environmental benefits and basic science, economics and engineering