"Green" policies are destroying this country

Why would China be building nuclear if it’s so terrible?

Why is France an irradiated nuclear wasteland and not the most tourist visited country in world with cheaper and cleaner electricity than us??

Why has backward Canada just broken ground in SMRs??

If you think that's bad you should check out how much oil gets burned to generate electricity in a power plant. Not to mention the amount of rare earth metals, concrete and copper wiring that go into a fossil fuel power plant before even thinking about the emissions that result in climate change and health problems

One power plant on a 50 hectare site for a whole country instead of thousands of installations taking a good percentage of the land in the state

5000MW worth of wind turbines spends more oil for lubricants in a year than equal sized reactor spends on uranium in same time frame which produces electricity 95% of time instead of 30 and lasts 3x longer

strawman much? I don’t see anyone pushing for oil burning plants

Would it not be more beneficial to use the oil to lubricate wind turbines than to burn it off to make an infinitesimally small amount of electricity though? Because without the wind turbines that's where the oil will go

Same with China's recent major rollout of solar farms, 1GW installed last year alone. It's because solar is now cheaper to use than fossil fuel power plants. As you correctly say it's all to do with the economy

You keep creating a strawman, no one is talking about burning oil, it’s needed to make all that Chinese tat with coal in China

Soeaking of burning oil our national policy was to replace perfectly fine boilers at Moneypoint that had months of coal as backup with oil boilers that has days of backup

Yet another failed “green” policy that engineering bodies been printing out lately (links few pages back) as completely stupid

2025 China generated 58% of it`s electricity from fossil fuels, 55% of it from coal with a further 40% of their coal burned to provide the high temperatures required for steel and cement production and district heating. For 2025 their added solar generated 2%. Your going to be waiting a long time to see solar replacing coal in China.

China will do what China has always done.

Use the cheapest source available to give them a competitive edge and boost their economy, and with the increases in both gas and LNG from Russia as well as their own production of gas set to go from their current 262 bcm to 650 bcm by 2040, - practically all from fracking and methane based extraction - China would not appear to have your belief that solar will be cheaper and are keeping their options very much open without much regard for the emissions from coal or fracking and methane extractions of gas.

China uses 400bcm of natural gas per year currently.

That is growing and is expected to peak at around 600cm in 2040, at which point it could start to decline.

600bcm is roughly about what Europe used in 2020 so it's not an insanely high figure.

It's also convenient that you are ignoring the fact that China makes nearly everything we use so 'their' pollution is really our pollution exported.

By 2040 China is projected to generate 6-7 times more electricity from solar than natural gas. But sure, keep pretending like solar is some sort of scam that only a few green idiots are investing in when in fact most of the world is heavily investing in it.

It`s kind of convenient for green to ignore that by using cheap coal China has priced everybody else out of the market for the green tech they produce. As I`ve said, when it comes to priorities for China nothing comes close to protecting and expanding their economy.

The E.U. consumed ~90 bcm generating 16.7% of its electricity last year. If the E.U. used 540 bcm of gas it would have generated 100% of its requirements, so in perspective that 650 bcm for China is an insanely high figure. So if they are increasing their gas use to 650 bcm what are the planning on using it for rather than electricity. Not that it matters much as whatever they use it for, it`s not going to decrease emissions.

Ireland is a pretty crappy location for grid utility solar with a capacity factor of 5% or less during winter when our demand is highest, and even on a daily basic during winter when it`s providing nothing for two of the three high demand daily times.

In other news, offshore wind has lost it`s shine in Germany anyway it seems. I`m just seeing reports coming up that BP and TotalEnergies are pulling out of the 7.5 GW offshore awarded in 2023.

Germany last year also didn`t get a single bid for their 6 - 10 GW offshore offering.

No surprise that you do not care about Denmark`s electricity grid flow as it blew your 80% + claim of their grid being renewables out of the water.

If you are going to quote me then do it without putting words in my mouth.I didn`t say Denmark was backtracking on renewables pursuing nuclear instead.

I pointed out that Denmark said that their could not be a 100% renewable grid and that something else was needed, as to why they are now looking into nuclear, and with Norway now pulling the plug and Sweden looking likely to do similar, they would not have a zero emissions baseload source.

Batteries as grid provider it seem are the latest shiny object greens are now running too. The cost is beyond laughable and the cost of the extra capacity require with renewables to use batteries as a baseload are even more beyond laughable. But then those that support these ideas are very much like you when it came to Denmark`s grid flow electricity and their supposedly 80% + renewables grid. You don`t care about the cost either. It`s following the doctrine to the letter that matters.

Culling our cattle numbers and cutting our exports will not alter emissions globally by one iota as others are not just more than happy to take up the slack, they are increasing their herd number to fulfill rising global demand. All culling number would achieve is lowering our exports and trade balance.

China are in no mood to discuss tariffs and the last thing the E.U. needs right now is a trade war with China.

What China intends doing with that massive level of gas remains to be seen, but from what I understand, China last year had an exceptionally high addition of solar that covered 2% of their demand. To remove coal from the generating mix it would take ~30 years more of the same.

I don`t see where the E.U. is saying that gas can be used for anything if we are all supposed to have zero emissions by 2050 ?

As always, at the end of the day China will go with the least expensive, and with the embargoes on Russian oil and gas they are getting it at their terms price-wise.

And yet China is building more nuclear than the rest of the world combined and researching new reactors such as thorium of which there is millions of years worth

While destroying “Green” industries in places like Europe while Green watermelons cheer them on using coal and slave labour to accomplish it

You have swallowed wholesale Chinese marketing and propaganda ironically enough in the process ensuring gas is burned well into the next century in this country

Thanks for proving yet again that greens in Ireland don’t actually give two 💩 about co2 or climate change

Co2 emissions per capita

co emissions

In a few weeks (while they build a new coal plant every week) they increase their Co2 by more than all of ours in a year

But hey you just continue to keep shooting your self in foot with terrible examples that expose the moral and factual bankruptcy of the green agenda