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

111431145114711481149

Comments

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


    Never say Never. Wylfa sat just 70 miles from Dublin for more than 50 years and will be nuclear powered again in the future.

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



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


    What do you mean why not? They will never build a nuclear plant in or near Dublin. Can it go beside you instead?

    I'm happy to have solar and wind near me and already do. Again, the question was to you, stop trying to pathetically spin away with another laughable argument, every single reply has been whataboutery and misnformation (or blaming dead fossil fuel miners for solar panels).



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


    I lived close to one for while no issues, great jobs for areas and cleaner than most of Dublin living next to a trash incinerator and and oil power plant whose stacks Dubliners are proud of

    Now let’s delve into the psychology of why you don’t want to live next to clean power and want to convert the countryside and food generating farms into industrial estates

    Funny how the greens are green as long as the problems are out of sight and out of mind

    Just like slavery and coal use in China for technology that given us dirtiest and most expensive electricity in Europe while becoming more reliant on gas producers



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


    You lived in a field beside a nuclear plant? Nuclear plants will always be situated outside of population centres, pushing nuclear means pushing for a plant in rural areas, likely on the coast. That's not psychology, that's just how a nuclear plant is planned and I thin Ireland should build them, but a first operating reactor, if we started today, would be at least a decade away, a decade where renewable install can be accelerated and use up a tiny % of the arable land for food we export out of the country.

    Do you want to repeat the arable land stats from the other thread? Or are you going to try and spread misinformation everywhere and hope not to be challenged?

    You're like a broken record with China, the solar panels they produce will be a net positive, thus we should continue to install them everywhere and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.



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


    France currently boasts a cumulative installed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity of 31.1 GW, having recently overtaken Italy to become the third-largest solar market in Europe. Finland has a smaller but rapidly expanding solar footprint, reaching over 1,000 MW of installed capacity with record deployments of large-scale industrial solar



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    As I’ve said previously, if solar is so good it’s a bloody disgrace that it’s not mandated that all the new house developments should have them installed as part of the build. Why are developers getting away with this no brainer?



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


    Because it’s cheaper to convert fields to industrial use than put on roofs and as can be seen our Green friends above only support “Green” when it’s in someone else’s backyard and not theirs

    I have no issues with rooftop solar, Dublin alone is 120 square kilometres

    Meanwhile the factory that exports aluminium to Russian war machine and burns 15% of the country’s gas and dumps 200,000 tons of toxic waste into Shannon every year on top of co2 emissions is now openly blackmailing the government

    Yet another green policy failure



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    I’d agree except that the Govt in its wisdom then turns around and pays grants (what is it now €2.5k?) to householders to retrofit solar panels on the same houses. Amazing what they can throw money at when they take the notion.

    I see farmers can get a grant of up to €60k to put solar panels on their sheds. Unlike poor old householders they can even get grants for batteries. Why are they treated differently? Given that they are businesses and can write off the cost, why does it take an approx 60% grant to make it commercially viable for solar panels to be installed if it’s a no brainer? I see recently that the poor farmers are looking for their scheme to be extended. More money for more jam



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


    Yep plenty of massive sheds around the place

    I see solar in France was mentioned above, what the poster also failed to mention is that France has strict laws and restrictions on solar being installed on agricultural land (which would make field installed solar in Ireland unviable) and instead like a few European countries been pushing for rooftops and car parks to be covered with a “roofs first” policy similar to Netherlands and Italy

    https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/09/france-issues-new-rules-for-agrivoltaics/



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


    These installed capacity factors for solar look great until you take peak under the bonnet at their capacity factors, their geographical locations and what they will generate and when.

    The capacity factor for Finland is 10% - 13%. Around the same as here and as useless as here in winter when like ourselves their grid demand is at it`s peak.

    For Northern France it is 10% - 12%. Again, during winter as useless as here and Finland. For Southern France it is 15% - 18% which is where their grid supplying solar farms are.

    For Northern Italy it is 13% - 15%. Again during winter same as here and equally as useless for grid supply. For Southern Italy and the islands it is 18% - 21%. Again where their grid supplying solar farms are located. There are also very strict laws in Italy as regards solar farms and agricultural land.

    We are not Southern France or Southern Italy. Same as we are not Spain or Morocco. On a like for like basic of comparisons we are Finland, Northern France and Northern Italy where solar is sound asleep during our peak demand in Winter for two of our three daily grid peak demand periods.



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


    Italy is an interesting one

    • they also banned solar on agricultural land as it had negative impacts on food production, tourism and made a lot of people very angry, no one wants to see a good chunk of their country converted to an industrial estate with nothing to show for it
    • They are massively reliant on French nuclear power
    • They import loads of gas and are not far behind us when it comes to expensive electricity prices and dirtiest co2 emissions
    • they are currently undoing their ban on nuclear power as Italy had a law similar to ours


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    As per always with the farmers, the big boys swallow it all. No such thing as income/expenditure thresholds unlike for the mere mortals



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


    Governments in the E.U. are getting it in the neck from industry and the zero emissions mandates.

    Renewable companies are holding governments as hostages due to those mandates dictating strike prices and terms and industries are seeing job losses due to companies moving to countries outside the E.U. that have cheaper energy charges.

    In terms of weather it could easily be looked at as the perfect storm. Which is ironic when you consider that renewables are weather dependent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Marcos


    As should be done here. Also Switzerland also installs solar in between railway tracks.

    When most of us say "social justice" we mean equality under the law opposition to prejudice, discrimination and equal opportunities for all. When Social Justice Activists say "social justice" they mean an emphasis on group identity over the rights of the individual, a rejection of social liberalism, and the assumption that unequal outcomes are always evidence of structural inequalities.

    Andrew Doyle, The New Puritans.



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




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,405 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Farmers do get grants, it's not guaranteed and is based on a ranking points system. They are limited to the size of the array based on their usage, and the battery is limited to half the size of the array. I heard only 10% of applications are accepted. I think the SEAI grants are much more successful, albeit for lower values. Every business is entitled to similar grants to install solar, not just farmers.

    I'd be of the opinion that the grants should be 100% for everyone. Whoever wants to put solar on roofs, it should be paid for by the government. Pussy footing around with grants and schemes and whatnot is not taking the bulls by the horns here. New builds are not entitled to grants for renewables.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    I don’t think it’s reasonable for the Govt to 100% fund the installation of large array solar panels, especially for profitable businesses, when these arrays are tax deductible and generate an income. No issues with the Govt socialising the cost if they also socialise the income. I doubt that proposal would get a lot of support even from among the greenest of the greens.

    I built a house 15 years ago and was required by building regs to self fund a minimum level of insulation/ building standards. Not only was no grants available but the stupid regs disincentivised the installation of a heat pump as it was considered less environmentally friendly that an oil boiler and wood burning stove owing to the dirty grid. This was even though a €5,000 grant as available to install one a year or 2 before I built. Talking about the Govt and its environmental experts not knowing its ass from its elbow.

    What I can’t understand is why the latest regs don’t mandate the installation of solar panels and indeed heat pumps for new builds given that thy are supposed to be such a no brainer. I can only think it’s because there’s so much money to be made by the renewables industry from retrofitting them a few years down the line. These days the renewables business is extremely profitable and needed to be milked for all its worth



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,011 ✭✭✭For Petes Sake


    With electricity prices going up again I'm wondering where our wonderful fuel protests saviours have gone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,405 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    New build regs now mandate tha you have a renewable tech in it. Be that panels, heat pump, etc. Therefore, since it's mandated, that's why there's no grant for new homes. No need fo a grant to encourage you to do it if they mandate that you do it!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    My point is that panels are cheap and should be mandated for all suitable new buildings. The biggest cost is installation which would be a lot simpler/cheaper if installed during the build process.

    I regularly drive past 4 new housing developments and not one roof had solar panels installed from build. After nearly a year for the oldest development approx 5% have retrofitted them. That’s a complete waste if they are the no brainer people claim. Another example of the Govt simultaneously speaking out both sides of it mouth.



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


    His point is that new houses already have fairly steep building requirements which have driven the costs for a brand new house in middle of nowhere estates to 600k+ it seems

    Having the owners add panels later suits the banks too, they can bypass the lending limits that manner you see 😉 by lending them with another loan at a higher rate too

    I shudder to think at how a young couple can even afford these homes these days



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    They prioritise furnishing, fancy kitchens. 60’’+ oled tv, nice landscaping etc instead. Many of the houses I’m referring to have have 2 nice new cars parked outside. What’s the payback on all that stuff? What have the banks to do with it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,405 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    I kind of agree. My solar was put on over 18 months as the house was being built. I can't say it was any cheaper than if it needed a retrofit as the supplier had to come on multiple occasions during the build to do little pieces of the work and then wait till the next part could be done. The system was ordered before the foundation was poured and before the prices exploded. Fair play to the company who did it who honoured the agreement even though the panels and electrical gear were only installed 3 years after the order was put in.

    That's a big generalisation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    Not if the argument, as articulated earlier, that you couldn’t ask new house owners who is prepared to pay €600k for a new house to stump up a few grand for pre installed solar panels which will return their investment cost in a few years and after that contribute towards the repayment of the mortgage.

    The housing developments I referred to earlier had a load of money spent on very expensive looking landscaping which I’m sure the house owners got for free! I’d prefer in a time of energy/climate crisis less salubrious landscaping and slightly greater emphasis on spend which might actually benefit the house owners directly. IMHO of course



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


    they can only lend out 3-4x salaries so that puts a cap on what people could borrow

    Hence making houses even more expensive means smaller pool of homes can be bought

    So having homeowners come back for more loans later suits the banks quite well and bypasses the limits which would apply if new homes become even more expensive



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    People make hard choices, or at least they had to in the past. This has got nothing to do with the banks. When I built my house I prioritised additional insulation, airtightness and gshp spend over external aesthetics. Waited over 5 years to get garden and driveway finished, again funded through savings. But it seems some want to prioritise aesthetics and ask the taxpayer to subvent more practical spend down the line.

    That’s fine by the way. Each to their own, but going on that people shouldnt be required to prioritise spend on solar panels or other initiatives that will actually save them money in the longer term over nice landscaping or other discretionary nice to have’s is a bit shallow, again all IMHO



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


    you are missing the point let’s make an example

    Young Couple on 100k combined, slotting figures into mortgages.ie to that’s 375k mortgage max

    Let’s say somehow miraculously there’s a new house in their area for 375k

    Now under your proposal with even stricter building requirements that house is 400k now putting it out of their reach instead of them buying it for 375k and returning to the bank for separate loan at later time for solar etc

    We are already at a sport where all these new requirements pushed new homes out of reach of people, yeh let’s make the situation even worse /s



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


    oh look the most expensive electricity in Europe is gonna get more expensive



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭creedp


    I think it’s you that’s missing the point. Basically you’re saying the cost of building a house, including all the spend on discretionary nice to have stuff is not negotiable but the cost of a few solar panels which will actually save the owners money in the medium term is the straw that breaks the camels back! BTW the old farmers haven’t done so bad out of the high cost of housing that you’re so worried about. Maybe if farmers or landowners in general tempered their demands for killer profits on selling development land then them poor stretched families might be able to afford their panels.

    You seem to be obsessed with pandering to the banks. That’s what got us into the shoite we found ourselves in the noughties.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,152 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Ya, I got panels a few months back and was pretty much a drop in the ocean in contrast to purchasing the house.



Advertisement
Advertisement