"Green" policies are destroying this country

It's curious to see that Eirgrid and SONI have sneakily increased the minimum inertia on the system from 23GWs to 28GWs over the weekend.

I guess all that wind and solar, that provide precisely 0 inertia, needs even more gas turbines to support them now. That change basically undoes the work towards reducing the number of thermal generators required online. 7 probably becomes 9 now, even with the new synchronous condensers.

Nuclear would go a long way to solving the inertia issue while also reducing carbon. But hey ho, even more expensive electricity here we come!

1. China have populations of about a fifth of the worlds population and they emit about a fifth of world emissions. Significantly less per Capita than America while still producing vast amounts of the worlds industrial production. (8t pp compared with 14t in the US)
2. Their emissions have likely peaked and are declining in 2026
3. The impact of Chinese planning ahead and actually taking the green energy transition seriously is that in about 10 years, Global adoption of chinese renewable generation and storage technology and their electric vehicle technology will be offsetting more CO2 than they produce so China will be pretty much the only country in the world actually contributing to reducing global emissions while corrupt oil industry shills still try everything they can do to drag every last dollar from their oil investments
4. You should be asking why Europe and America have so little to show for our emissions compared with China instead of whining about the chinese

Grid scale batteries can provide the same stability for frequency regulation

Grid forming batteries already exist, are being used in Australia, Chinese Sodium Ion batteries are commercially available at half the price of current lithium based batteries and require none of the problematic raw materials like Lithium and Cobalt.

While Nuclear can provide inertia, its a very expensive way of doing it if you don't already have a nuclear industry and buy the time it would be built the costs of storage will be much lower than they are now

Thats a report from 2012 and the report was fundamentally flawed because the maths used to calculate the outputs contained methodological flaws

The statistical model conflates "wind farms getting older" with "the wind industry expanding into less windy sites over time." A wind farm built in 2002 sits on the windiest hilltop available in 1998. A wind farm built in 2010 sits on whatever site is left after a decade of development. When you compare the older one to the newer one, you're not measuring degradation — you're measuring site selection. David MacKay showed Hughes' model can't distinguish between these explanations.

Not particularly surprising when you consider the author works for a climate denial green washing front and is on the board of the GWPF

In the 13 years since this report weve seen capacity factors increasing and operational lifetimes of wind farms being extended in many instances

Thats not what energy independence is

(And there are 3 pipelines)

For context, rooftop solar alone could provide more power than we need if utilized. France are mandating that all carparks be covered with solar panels, 100s of square km of dolar, zero additional land use.

Offshore wind uses almost zero land, geothermal is becoming more commercially viable due to technology improvements, almost zero land...

Coastal and tidal flooding, lots of land directly inundated, often the best most fertile land and expensive coastal and riverbank property filled with expensive infrastructure and peoples homes

Solar farms are temporary structures that can be moved. Flooded land is lost forever, and cuts off a lot more land than just the parts that are under water or flooded regularly.

Flood defense are expensive to build and maintain and can only protect small areas of critical infrastructure