This type of scenario is addressed by the expert group's high-range population growth scenario, which is based on average net migration of 30,000 people per annum into Ireland, every year to 2040 and beyond.
The housing minister stated last week that net migration into Ireland will be 30,000 per annum. This will require up to 35,000 houses to be built every year to keep up with demand.
Even though the number of houses built last year was greater that in any other year this decade, we think a reasonable target is 25,000 this year, 30,000 next year and 35,000 the following year.
It seems to be stating the obvious to say that this will have a knock on effect on emissions for Ireland but neither the media or the government in Ireland have recognized this.
Net migration of 30,000 per year till 2040 means an additional 600,000 people, the population of Cork, that will enter Ireland. The 2040 plan has very optimistic targets for emissions without any account taken of the main objective of the plan - mass immigration.
an aggregate reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of at least 80% (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050 across the electricity generation, built environment and transport sectors. In parallel, an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, including forestry, which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production.
ReplyDeleteAnd if one thought that was bad the energy demand/carbon emissions of just one typical sized 30-35 megawatt Big Corporate Data Hall is also equivalent to in and around the residential electricity demand of Cork City.
'There are 46 data centres in Ireland, with the largest cluster southwest of Dublin, where Amazon and Microsoft among others have set up their facilities. Data centres accounted for an estimated 5.5 per cent of the State’s power requirements at 1.56 TWh in 2017, assuming a power utilisation factor of 42.5 per cent across the industry. Their full capacity in the first quarter of 2018 was 480 MW, with that figure set to grow to over 1200 MW by 2024.'
http://www.datacentreandinfrastructure.ie/
Also Electrical Vehicles (EV's) are powered predominantly from fossil fuel generated electricity so whilst there may be zero emissions coming out of the tailpipe there sure are related carbon emissions coming out of some power plant somewhere.
The general rule of thumb is that it takes 2.7 units of fossil fuel to generate one unit of electricity at the plug. Any improvements in energy efficiency of the power plants have been lost due to intermittent renewable energy in the energy mix.
So I think we can safely say that it still takes 2.7 units of fossil fuel to generate one unit of electricity at the plug.
Using Battery Storage to power EV's only compounds matters as almost 50% of the energy is lost in the conversion from electricity to chemical storage and back again to electricity.
So if EV's use power from the national grid for battery storage for the later charging of the EV then depending on the energy mix of the electricity it is likely in Ireland to require almost double the amount of fossil fuels required to generate the same amount of electricity if battery storage is used to charge EV batteries.
DeleteTherefore using battery storage to charge EV's will actually result in an almost doubling of the carbon emissions compared to charging directly from the plug.
There are currently 38 'known' proposed Industrial Lithium Ion Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS's) (called by a myriad of other names by the developers) in the Republic of Ireland so far totalling around 3500 megawatts of the biggest and biggest concentration of Lithium Ion Batteries in the world.
Most of us have been led to believe that they will be storing renewable energy however most of them
are being proposed to provide grid frequency control services. It is a highly experimental attempt to balance the once stable 50Hz grid frequency that has been destabilised by too much intermittent renewable energy in the energy mix.
Most of these BESS's will be charged via the national grid and therefore from predominantly fossil fuel generated electricity.
The BESS's also require electricity for their Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Cooling (HVAC) Systems etc.
Based on the revenue paid for a 100MW BESS in South Australia if this were to be applied to all of the proposed BESS's in Ireland it would amount to €1.8 Billion or the cost of the proposed new National Children's Hospital every single year!!!
If one were to take 270 units of primary energy (80% fossil fuel and 20% wind energy) then that primary energy is reduced to 106 units by the time it reaches the electricity power lines. A further 6 units is lost in transmission leaving only 100 units reaching the point of consumption.
However if one routes that same 100 units of energy through the big storage batteries or BESS's then only 53 units reaches the final point of consumption.
So the increase in the number of EV's and the installation of BESS's will only cause both electricity demand and carbon emissions in Ireland to soar!
On the other hand people may just become poorer per capita , reducing emissions.
ReplyDeleteIrish net electricity output has reached a record Jan low.
There was 500,000 ~ people less living in Ireland back in 2007 .
www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=MSM01&PLanguage=0
Home generators are flying off the shelves. A local man here bought 8 Honda Diesel generators rated 10 kw in England and imported them in February they are all gone at a substantial profit. I use a petrol 2 kw generator on the farm and it does the job, A few batteries and an inverter and I could do without the mains power completely. I can see diesel generators being used for expensive peak demand supply and reverting back to the mains for off peak power for refrigerating. In Ireland some people will do anything to escape energy tyranny, except of vote against it.
DeletePeople can be made poorer and emissions reduced by rationing fuel and electricity. This was done during world war 2.
DeleteAll these projections are based on the continuation of Leprechaun Economics.In relationship to real world economics these plans will go up in a puff of smoke. What happened to the GNI Figure. Which makes the Irish economy one-third smaller than the GDP measure. Many economists think that even this is too high.So the real GDP could be much as 50% of the leprechaun figure. The last time I checked leprechauns were fictional.So it is about time the governing elite made contact with the real world. Just observe the amount of unto 20 year old cars still on the road
ReplyDeleteA new populist, Eurosceptic party has achieved the remarkable feat of going from zero seats to becoming the largest single party in the Dutch Senate in a single election, as a young politician likened to a “Dutch Donald Trump” beat seasoned professionals in Wednesday’s poll.
ReplyDeleteThierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy party, which has gained attention for its Euroscepticism, campaigned against open borders politics and against what he calls “climate-change hysteria,” winning 86 seats across the Dutch regions. The victory put his party ahead of even the ruling mainstream conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which achieved 80 seats.
It should be obvious (to climate alarmists believers and opponents alike) that the emissions and renewables policies were introduced in the absence if a political mandate from voters or legally the required assessment. Governments took a chance that the promises glory of green initiatives would be delivered over time so as be accepted politically. Those of us who can count always knew it could not deliver comfort but would deliver poverty and environmental damage.
The plan was to roll climate into Marxism globalism. The entire establishment went for it. Now that renewables have failed and the real intentions on Migration are realized, voters are reacting to end it. The Dutch election result is evidence of that happening.
The US socialist Democratic parties Green New Deal was put to a vote yesterday in the US Senate which has 100 votes. Here is the report from Breitbart New.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate voted down on Tuesday S.J. Res. 8, the Green New Deal Resolution, 0-57, with all Republicans, three Democrats, and one Independent voting against it.
Forty-three Democrats voted “present” and three Democrats — Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and Doug Jones (D-AL) — voted against the resolution. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) also voted with Republicans against the measure.
Many Democrats — including Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), who sponsored the resolution in the Senate — called the vote a “sham” because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called for it without scheduling any hearings.
“[Climate change] is the national security, economic, health care and moral issue of our time,” Markey said at a press conference at the Capitol ahead of the vote. “We must act now.”
“Republicans and President Trump may choose to be in denial about the consequences of climate change,” Markey said. “But to ordinary people, climate change is not politics. It is life and death.”
“It is not a resolution,” Markey said. “It is a revolution.”
But even if Democrats voted “present,” McConnell said Tuesday’s vote put them on the record in favor of the radical resolution, which calls for the transformation of the American economy and infrastructure, including ending air travel and retrofitting every building in America.
“I ask again if you believe the Green New Deal is the prescription for America, why would you not want to have a vote?” McConnell told reporters ahead of the vote.
Presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) was also at the press conference with Markey and climate change activists.
“We don’t know if we can get to net-zero carbon emissions in 10 years, but why not try?” Gillibrand said.
The Green New Deal was introduced last month in the House by Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
My post immediately above reveals the fatal flaw at the heart of the green agenda. The key words are "but why not try". So the craving is to do something irrespective of what is done, how ridiculous it is from an engineering standpoint. Experiment and see what happens, no assessment whatsoever.
ReplyDelete