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

1114111421144114611471149

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,495 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    they add proportional more RES.

    You really haven’t got a clue.

    9% RES in 2020 to 33% in 2026…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    Is that why we have the most expensive electricity in world that is 20x more polluting than France?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You're the fool here unfortunately, all this effort and you spreading misinformation about dead chinese coal miners because you don't like the look of solar panels in someone else's field.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    they are dead precisely because they have to dig up coal to manufacture panels sold worldwide, along with third of a million premature deaths per year in China alone as per Chinese own research, this “greenwashing” policy is responsible for their deaths



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,495 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    you are jumping from china burning coal to why we have the dearest electricity prices.

    Deregulation is one of the reasons. And the market is one of the main reasons.


    we are an expensive economy. We are also an island nation with relative low population density over a big enough land mass. We have no AC interconnections we rely on fuel import, these all contribute to high prices. We



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    Why do we need to import so much if it wasn’t to burn gas most the time your wind and solar is doing f all



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Here is the report: lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025.pdf
    The claims you reference are on page 8.

    This is about levelised cost of electricity (LCOE), a metric relevant to producers profitability not costs to consumers. It is widely quoted by wind and solar developers in the media to spread the lie that imply they are cheaper. It does not discuss the full system cost of electricity (what we pay), every grid operator trying to build a reliable power system around them still requires additional costs, technologies, and compensation schemes to ensure the grid is balanced.

    Here is a discussion about the report by Canadians, starts 5 minutes in with background on Lazard advisors. Intro to LCOE starts at 8 minutes. The issue is that LCOE numbers are gamed, Lazard are not responsible for how their report is used by the industry.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Derugulation, or as the E.U. termed it when making it mandatory "liberalising" was intended to take the pricing of electricity away from monopolies and the markets would reduce the cost to consumers. This was morphed into a green agenda by some in the E.U., Germany most notably, with the marginal pricing policy and legislation on emissions and fines for not meeting emissions targets.

    "Liberalization" was thrown out with the bath water and what it was meant to achieve was turned on its head by a handful of renewable companies who are now the monopoly using those E.U. targets and fines to blackmail governments into granting them the strike prices and whatever else they want.

    You have only to look at the U.K., Denmark - and not that I have any sympathy for them reaping what they sowed - Germany to see that being recently borne out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    They are dead because a coal mine collapsed.

    Luckily we have stopped burning coal at moneypoint, our last major coal power plant, and have moved to cleaner alternatives.

    There is 0 to show that solar panels caused their deaths. Luckily with more renewables, the need for more coal will be diminished.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    They were in the coal mine digging up coal for the craick of it /s

    Nothing to do with China building a moneypoint (0.9GW) or larger sized coal plant every week ( they built 78GW in 2025 alone) /s



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 4,724 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    On China. They are world leaders in electric cars. 40% of cars sold there are electric. China also builds solar farms throughout Africa. So it's also about regional influence. The US, by eschewing renewables, is leaving an open goal for China to expand it's influence.

    If the EUs big economies don't make a similar shift, we will either be reliant on China for energy, or have to rely on fossil fuels from hostile, unstable or unreliable states, with the roller coaster of the oil price which we know in part is being manipulated by insider trading in the US. Demand for oil will continue to set the Middle East on fire, and drag the US and possibly UK into wars in the Middle East.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    The US under Trump is a failing state no doubt, the peace of 💩 has been a disaster in every area he tweets about

    It still doesn’t make China Green, especially if those EVs are made using coal

    Here if you squint really really hard you would see how much of Chinas energy use is “green”

    IMG_6954.jpeg

    Them 78 GW of extra coal plants China built in 2025 will emit additional 450-500 megatons of co2 per year compared to Irelands energy sector emitting 7 megatons per year mostly due to all that gas needed to backup unreliable wind and solar

    And that’s why they have guys climbing into coal mines while their marketing people try to paint their country as “Green” on social media when China is anything but



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,079 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The goalposts never stop moving. It was all about lithium and Cobalt a year ago, then we removed cobalt and are moving towards lithium free batteries and suddenly we're running out of silver…

    Ban billionaires



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    All this “green” equipment requires materials right across the periodic table

    Them panels don’t grow in fields in China on tea bushes tended to by happy and singing Chinese peasants or whatever daft vision the Greens have these days

    They are a result of industrial processes that use fossil fuels (and miners) from mining to dirty refining to manufacturing using coal energy



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,495 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Without RES they would be building 3 times as many. So by your logic Solar saved 255 lives. they would also be burning 50% more coal and oil..

    you do realise that China builds far more than just solar panels…..

    <snip>

    Poster warned

    No direct insults to other posters. Stick to arguing the points or my shiny new Ban Hammer will get some use.

    -Mod

    Post edited by Rawr on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    They were digging up fossil fuels.

    Are you saying we should stop using fossil fuels?

    (Moving beyond using the miners death for misinformation and just being completely wrong all the time because you don't like the look of solar panels).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    Yes we should stop using fossil fuels instead of becoming more dependent on them

    Or calling products that used fossil fuels (and slaves) in their manufacture as “green” or praising authoritarian countries who despite their social media greenwashing of themselves are anything but green in reality



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,495 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    what product doesn't us fossil fuel?

    Solar panels generate far more green electricity in their life. than are used to manufacture them. so yes they earn the green creditentials



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    There credential are that for grid supply during our times of greatest demand they are suppling nothing for two of the three daily peak demands.

    All the countries that burn wood for energy in the E.U. will avoid having to pay emissions fines and everyone else will have to buy credits from them. So how does the credentials of wood burning stack up ?

    If they do, then should we not be importing all the wood we would need from half way around the world to fulfill our demand needs and save the planet as well as ensuring we would not be liable for fines ?

    Heck, we would even probably be quids in being able to sell credits if we could see through the smoke long enough to fill out the invoice



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Stopping use of fossil fuels means shifting to renewables.

    Solar panels will earn multiples of their environmental cost back over their lifetime, eventually becoming neutral as the renewable infrastructure is built out.

    There is no greenwashing, just your total obtuse misunderstanding of renewables.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    oh I understand quite well what greenwashing is and how completely pointless shifting of co2 production from us to China is, considering we share the same planet

    And i also see how vocal the “environmentalists” are in condemning a 70 year old co2 free science and technology in favour of things that make us more reliant on gas as backup most of the time wind and sun do f all

    Anyways most expensive electricity in Europe (and probably world) is about get more expensive



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    No, you don't seem to understand (or are unwilling to understand due to you not liking how they look) or you would see how countries are transitioning to renewables but that existing fossil based architecture will need to keep growing while that ramps up. Even the countries that already have nuclear (including China) are ramping up rapidly on renewables like wind and solar.

    Solar panels are still green and a net benefit, no amount of whataboutery changes that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    And you keep ignoring the fact that with 10% capacity factor the same panel would be relying on burning even more fuels most of the time it’s producing f all as backup

    And that’s why at the time of this post France is generating 20x less co2 than us for every kWh, with us being second dirtiest in Europe right behind Poland



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Again, whataboutery, renewables are a net positive. They also need base load as backup (ideally nuclear, batteries or stored energy like hydro, either locally or via interconnector) but you are just arguing for more renewables like solar and wind, not less, to make up for the deficits.

    If you really understood this, you'd be looking for more fields to be turned into solar farms, not less, but you don't and it's getting silly on your behalf.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    or we can go nuclear and not import panels made using coal and slave labour that require us to continue burning gas

    … like France, Finland etc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Whataboutery, again, you're still failing to get it. Nuclear plant construction also involves massive amounts of carbon and would also take at least a decade.

    We can install wind and solar today and have power from it tomorrow offsetting the decade it would take to build a nuclear plant (which again, uses up lots of energy and carbon during construction). We will get nuclear through interconnectors with a small possibility of Ireland building one (or multiple SMR) but that will be in addition to large amounts of solar, wind and batteries.

    Incidentally, are you happy with the field beside you hosting a nuclear plant instead of a solar farm?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    We have 9GW of wind and solar on this all island grid with max demand of about 5.5

    And majority of the time we have to burn gas to back them up

    You don’t understand that building even more of something that produces **** all still results in **** all and reliance on gas

    And that’s why we are the most expensive in Europe and one of the dirtiest and will remain there

    You can put a nuclear plant on a 50 hectare plot in Dublin docks next to main population demand centre and not use up a good % of the arable land on industrial estates that still require expensive gas



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,071 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    So much whataboutery and avoidance. Again, there will never be a nuclear plant near Dublin, the question was if you wanted one beside you and if not, why not.

    Your arable land % argument was already shot to pieces and laughed at on another thread.

    As we roll out more renewables, our % on fossil will be reduced and only used as backup and eventually replaced by electricity from interconnectors, batteries or stored like Hydro (which can also come through interconnectors).

    Nowhere have you made an effective argument for renewable reduction, everything you have come up with points to more of them being needed and more installed into the land available in the countryside (showcasing your NIMBY'ism constantly).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭bored65


    why not? Sounds like you want green power but don’t want to live near it

    As for rest of your post we built almost twice more renewables than the grid needs in GWh and what is the result? Most expensive in Europe and one of the dirtiest



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,647 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    So you're saying that nuclear construction can be a carbon sink? Awesome! Let's bury it in the blocks and win on both fronts.

    It's weird that you've don't think installing renewables burns huge amounts of carbon though? Have you seen how much diesel a ship gets through in a day at sea while installing the jackets, platforms, cables, turbines etc? That's before we think of the noise pollution to marine life.

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



Advertisement
Advertisement