Energy Crisis - Part One Lessons from the Past

    During the 1970s, when the last serious energy crisis occurred, the Irish government and ESB, free from almost any ideological constraints, drew up plans for the single largest construction undertaking in the history of Ireland - Moneypoint coal power station.  It was a huge success and the power station is still managing to keep the lights on during the current energy crisis despite being a target for destruction by the ideologues that swarm Leinster House today. 

Ideologue - various definitions given :

 - an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

 - an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

 - an impractical idealist

 - An ideologue is someone who has very strong beliefs or opinions and stubbornly sticks to them no matter what. An ideologue will insist they're right even when evidence suggests they might be wrong.

The roots of the modern ideological movement began back then in the anti- nuclear movement. It could be argued that man has a natural aversion to nuclear power arising from fear of the unknown. It is of course still a relatively modern technology. But man has no natural aversion to coal. Indeed, the inhabitants of Ireland have been burning coal for thousands of years. In the 1770s, an ancient coal mine was discovered in Antrim. The antique mining tools found there disintegrated as soon as they were touched.  It is only very recently in human history and after years of relentless propaganda that man has decided he wants to turn his back on coal even though it is proving more difficult than he first thought. 

It is not so much misinformation that is causing an unnatural fear of coal, but lack of balance and maturity in the judgement of those at the driving seat of the new ideology. For example, eating your lunch carries with it the risk of choking, but we all accept that risk for the benefits associated with satisfying your hunger. However, if we were to just focus on the negatives and ignore any positives, then the risk of choking is no longer acceptable and therefore eating must be outlawed as an antiquated pastime no longer acceptable in a modern progressive society. Afterall, choking is one of the leading causes of unintentional deaths every year.  

So this is the big difference between the 1970s and the 2020s - for ideological reasons we can't build another Moneypoint power station. Nuclear was ruled out then and is still ruled out now. Let's add coal to the black list.  What can go wrong ?

This leaves us with gas power. But surely it would be foolish to build more gas power stations when high gas prices and the uncertainty of gas supply are the root causes of the current energy crisis ?   For the ideologues who become increasingly divorced from reality, this is not a problem. Gas is good, at least for now (except of course if it's LNG / Liquified Gas that can be shipped in in an emergency situation where the UK can't supply piped gas), coal is bad goes the diktat and the economists and media pundits, one after the other, fall in line. But for the gas generators contracted to build the new power stations, reality is not something they can ignore, and they are pulling out of the Irish market, one after the other. 

Since energy production is a long term enterprise (Moneypoint wasnt up and running until the mid-1980s) and involves engineering expertise, Governments can't magic power plants out of thin air after a crisis emerges. The sensible reaction to the 1970s crisis paved the way for a stable energy sector which enabled the economic growth of the 1990s and 2000s. But did this cheap reliable electricity that we all took for granted back then create a false sense of security? You flick the switch and the lights automatically come on. The switch from one form of power generation with chimneys and stacks and emissions could seamlessly be made to another with turning blades and no emissions. You flick the switch and the lights automatically come on or will they ? 

  

Fuel Consumption 2012 to 2018 - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

In the course of the transition we will gradually reduce our dependence on the fossil fuels – coal, peat, oil and gas – that currently dominate our energy mix - Alex White, Energy Minister, White Paper, 2015

Despite massive efforts to reduce carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependence by successive Irish governments, the efforts have largely proven a failure, as fossil fuel consumption rose by 15% between 2012 and 2018. The government placed an overemphasis on wind energy as the solution, which doubled in capacity during that time to 3,600MW. Demand may also have increased, which in of itself is a failure to reduce consumption habits, and an over emphasis on the generating of electricity. Demand could have been tackled through retrofitting, promotion campaigns aimed at reducing consumption, moving away from the GDP standard, encouraging saving rather than spending (central bank have been doing the opposite), and preventing population growth by curbing immigration.

The main driver of the increase was petroleum products, including natural gas (used in power stations), which has risen by about 20%.

Natural Gas increased by 20%

In 2012, gas generated half of our electricity, as it did again in 2018, but this time with a significantly higher gas consumption. When your car comes off the motorway and goes into ‘stop start’ urban driving it burns more fuel, just like power plants forced into such operation, as intermittent wind energy pours on and off the grid.   

In their favor, coal and peat decreased by 23% and 8% respectively. The reduction in these, contrary to the common held belief, was due to several factors  - an increase in gas, oil, renewables and electricity imports from the UK (the East West Interconnector began operation in late 2012).  The US achieved a 27% reduction in CO₂ emissions during the period 2008 to 2017 by simply switching from coal to gas. So too emissions savings in Ireland arise from switching from coal to gas, a lower emitting fuel,  and importing electricity from the UK, where the resulting emissions are counted, and after that, renewables make up the rest of the savings.  

Peat decreased by 8%

For gasoil and diesel we can see that not only has dependence on transport risen, but  oil used in power generation has also, quite remarkably, increased. Much of this increase is due to an oil powered station in Kerry (Tarbert) which ran more in the grid, presumably because of the closures at Moneypoint. There are also more demand side units, which comprise of diesel generators.

We can also see that we are more addicted to air travel than ever, as jet kerosene consumption doubles. How could a virus pandemic ever be prevented from reaching our shores ?

So we have to ask the question, why are we still consuming high amounts of fossil fuels, after installing so many wind turbines ?  Media reports that show that a high percentage of our electricity came from wind fail to mention what we actually saved as a result. If I cycle from Dublin to Galway, but a car follows me all the way, what have I actually saved ? It is obvious now that they are not a long term solution to reducing dependence on fossil fuels. 

In 2020, there is still, regrettably, peat being used in electricity production, although there is an issue about the impact on employment in the midlands region that has still not being resolved. The renewables industry, as we now know, is not a big employer. 

The Energy Bubble

Generating Capacity for the Republic of Ireland, we have over twice as much as we need

The above graph shows how an energy bubble has been created in the past decade. Whereas in 2006, at the height of the building boom, we only needed enough generating capacity to cover 1.3 times the peak demand, we now have 2.4 times the capacity required. Peak demand levels in 2019 are the same as 2006 levels. All this capacity has to be paid for either through the market or from subsidies that are added on to energy bills. New fossil fuel plant are also in the pipeline.

The Cost 

The EU publishes an energy price report every two years. The last year available of full data is 2016; which shows a circa €490 billion bill for energy sources, €212 billion being imported fossil fuels, plus an additional tax squeeze of €280 billion, of which €76 billion in subsidies is for the renewable sector equating to €208 million per day or €150 from each citizen.

€48 billion was paid directly to wind and solar generators on top of the market price for generating 13% of EU’s electricity mix. 

The market price plus tax paid to gas and solid fuel generators, for generating 41% of the EU's electricity mix, were also €48 billion. 

Turkeys would not vote for Christmas if they were able to educate themselves.

Coal mining in Ancient Ireland

While there is much archaeological evidence about the mining of metal and the use of charcoal in ancient Ireland, there is little or no mention of pit coal in Irish history, that is, coal mined from the earth. However, two different references, from the 1800s, mention a discovery made in 1770 that suggests the ancient Irish were experts at coal mining. The mine was located at Ballycastle in Co.Antrim.

It was found to be an extensive mine, wrought by a set of people at least as expert in the business as the present generation. Some remains of the tools, and even of the baskets used in the works, were discovered, but in such a decayed state, that on being touched, they immediately crumbled to pieces. From the remains that were found, there is reason to believe that the people who wrought these colleries anciently, were acquainted with the use of iron, some small pieces of which were found; it appeared as if some of their instruments had been thinly shod with that metal.

This colliery must have been worked at a very remote period -- at all events, more than one thousand years since, and this argues for the civilization of the inhabitants of Ireland at a period long antecedent to that at which it is generally considered the arts and sciences were first introduced here (From the Irish Fireside, 1883).

Another smaller account is given in the The Industrial Resources of Ireland printed in 1845:

It appears to have been the oldest worked colliery in Ireland, perhaps in the [British] empire, as during the year 1770 the miners broke into an old gallery, the walls of which were lined with stalactites, evidently of great age, and antique mining tools were found therein. The residents of the district had never heard of a tradition of the mine having been anciently worked, and the excavation must have been made at a very remote period indeed. 

 Unfortunately, there was no tradition of archaeology in Ireland at the time, so this invaluable discovery never made it into the archaeological literature (or museums).  While we know the ancient Irish were expert metalworkers, the discovery of the mine in 1770 suggests they were also experts at coal mining. Pit coal would have allowed them to work with much higher temperatures than with charcoal. 

This area of Antrim also had a history of salt production since at least the 16th century :

In 1669 the Hearth Money Rolls state: ‘Neare unto this point are two salt pans where salt is artificially made by the boyling of salt water with pit coale which coal pits are very near to the pans aforesaid and yield great profit to the possessour….’. 

 With six tonnes of fuel needed to produce one ton of salt through the evaporation method, the need for convenient and plentiful energy was paramount.

There was of course no better energy source than coal. It's very possible that coal was used in ancient times in the production of salt.   One has to wonder whether somebody during this period noticed the power of the steam that could be generated from coal and whether any attempt was made to harness this power. Perhaps, they thought of an easier way to move those large rocks.....

Colombian Mine Hypocrisy

The green movement in Ireland have in recent months drawn attention to human rights abuses in a Colombian coal mine where Ireland imports coal for Moneypoint power station. The matter has been raised in the Irish parliament (The Dail) and there are calls to shutdown Moneypoint before it's planned closure in 2025. As this blog has recently shown, this would lead to increased dependence on gas imports as our significant wind energy infrastructure is incapable of replacing Moneypoint.

While these issues are concerning, one has to ask the question as to why the human rights abuses and environmental damage taking place in China, where rare earths are processed for use in wind turbines and electric cars, is also not being highlighted in the Dail. 

The first picture is of the coal mine in Colombia. The second picture is of a radioactive acid lake in China beside a rare earth processing plant.  

Only Ten Percent of Wind Capacity can be Relied Upon Over Winter

Eirgrid, the grid operator, have assessed that only 10% of the entire wind generation fleet in Ireland can be relied upon during the high electricity demand winter period. Solar power fares even worse as zero solar capacity can be relied on as the dark cold evenings draw in.

Conventional gas and coal generators are considered to be around 90% reliable as they can be switched on and off when called upon, once sufficient notice has been given. However, wind is unreliable in nature and is therefore given a "capacity credit" to take account of this unreliability :

 Given the variable nature of wind power, the wind capacity credit expresses how much conventional power generation can be avoided or replaced by a certain level of wind power. 

Only 476MW out of a total of 4,617MW or about 10% can be relied upon in the event that a conventional generator fails :

When it comes to keeping the lights on there is no room for the hyperbole and feel good talk that permeates much of the debate around renewables in the media and in the chambers of the Irish parliament.

The spare generating capacity above electricity demand is called the capacity margin. It has halved from 3,199MW in 2016 to 1,793MW in 2018. Two gas powered generators have closed down in 2018 and Moneypoint coal power station has suffered an outage. 

Generators shut down	Output MW
Aghada AD1 (gas fired steam turbine)	258MW
Marina (open cycle gas turbine)	95MW
Moneypoint (coal)	855MW
	1,208MW

In recent days, it was gas power, the UK interconnector and "other" generators (presumably peat and oil) that ensured the lights stayed on in the absence of Moneypoint and the above units. Renewables (mostly wind energy) varied between 7% and 27% so could not be depended on. Back up power stations are still essential in a grid with large amounts of renewables.

You can also see the importance of the interconnector with the UK (EWIC). Can the UK guarantee they will have spare capacity to export electricity to Ireland ? The black line below shows the profile for coal power in the UK in recent days. As you can see, they too were having problems with their coal units.

Scotland too is in a precarious position and will likely be reliant on imports from the UK over the winter period :

At the time of writing the Torness 2 and Hunterston 3 and 4 reactors were down, leaving Scotland with only 612 MW of nuclear capacity and only 3,900 MW of dispatchable capacity to service over 4,000 MW of demand. However, all three reactors are scheduled to restart by mid-December, and any shortfalls that might occur in the meantime could probably be covered by imports from England [Euan Mearns]

If we get a very cold winter, and there are indications that a cold one is coming, the already strained grid could come under a lot of pressure as demand increases. Couple this with more generator outages, and we could be in for some big problems. This is where the demand side of the equation would become crucial - essentially disconnecting large energy users from the grid who would have to rely on their own generation i.e. diesel generators or combined heat and power. 

Essentially, a return to the pre grid times of the early 1900s, when there was a large and inefficient diesel generator in most big towns in Ireland. 

Blackouts Probably A Greater Threat to Northern Ireland Than Brexit

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is currently in the process of carrying out an inquiry into it's long neglected Electricity Sector. I have been highlighting the issues in the North since 2015. Things are now coming to a head. 

There is an interesting and worrying submission made by AES, the owners of Kilroot and Ballylumford coal powered stations.

      

• Since the publication of the provisional results on 20th December 2017, two key questions have been asked of UREGNI and SONI:

• Where will Northern Ireland get the equivalent energy when the Kilroot coal units and the Ballylumford B station unit close?
• What will the cost of this additional energy be, assuming it can be obtained when required?

• To date AES is not aware that these key questions have been answered, and is only aware that what has been stated publicly is that SONI believes that sufficient “capacity” has been procured in the T-1 process.

• Despite the unconsulted upon change in constraint rules, actual dispatch of Kilroot from 5 January to 10 February inclusive was such that when the Kilroot units have been available and the NI demand has gone above 1400 MW, at least one Kilroot unit has been on 96% of the time. In the context of the I-SEM go-live date on 23 May and the expected removal of Kilroot’s coal units due to the results of the T-1 capacity auction, AES would question the discrepancy in approach to load centre stability between Belfast and cities in the South. We would encourage the publication of the technical assessment carried out to determine that the Kilroot coal units are not required, so it could be compared to the October 2017 declaration of Kilroot’s criticality.

• Further in parallel with this publication, SONI and the UR should outline (i) details of the clear rationale for the change to their proposed operation regime, (ii) details of the risk assessment carried out to ensure they were not taking on any increased level of risk in how they operate the NI electricity system on behalf of Northern Ireland electricity consumers without such consumers being fully aware of, consulted with, and comfortable with, any potential additional risk.

There is a requirement for three power stations to be on load at all times in the region to keep the grid stable. Two of those are Kilroot and Ballylumford. If they close down, blackouts are a certainty for Northern Ireland. What will the cost be to the economy there as industry is forced to shut down or depend on their own off grid electricity sources ?

The media are focused completely on the impact of Brexit and the Irish border on the North's economy. But in the end, it may well turn out that political decisions made about their electricity sector will have the most adverse impact. Perhaps then, people will wish they discussed this issue a lot more.

The Impact of High Levels of Wind Energy on Conventional Plant

On Wednesday 25th January 2017 wind energy reached a new record of 2,400MW for the Republic of Ireland. This post will look at the impacts on some of the other generation sources.

CCGT ( Gas)

Only three out of eight CCGT ran during the day - two in Dublin (Poolbeg and Dublin Bay) and one in Cork (Whitegate). Presumably, the other 5 plants were paid capacity or constraint payments to shut down for the day.

Wind generation was unusually stable during the day and so Dublin Bay and Whitegate mostly followed demand while the output from Poolbeg had a flat profile. Dublin Bay ran the most efficiently. Whitegate's output hovered between 45% and 60% of it's maximum (or rated capacity otherwise known as load). Poolbeg, on the other hand, operated at about a quarter of it's rated capacity. Operating a CCGT at this level leads to higher specific emissions and fuel consumption, something like driving your car in second gear all the time. 

It would have been therefore preferable to have operated Whitegate on higher loads and take Poolbeg off the grid altogether. The requirement for two power stations to be on load at all times in the Dublin area probably lead to this less than ideal situation.

Coal 

Two out of the the three generators at Moneypoint operated for the day and like the CCGT mostly followed demand.   They operated at an average of 50% of maximum output with minimum output at 40%. A load of 40% capacity is likewise not exactly ideal in terms of efficiency. 


Peat

The three peat power stations are being run on baseload and as a result are not affected by high wind levels. The biomass component seemed to be out of action. The question arises as to why (like wind) peat still receives a subsidy if it is always allowed to operate in the electricity generation market (Though I think the peat subsidy is being phased out). 


OCGT (Gas)

Both open gas cycle units at Sealrock operated at close to full output for the day as like wind they have priority dispatch in the system.


Demand Side Units (DSU)

One relatively new problem for Eirgrid is that despite having all this additional generating capacity in place, matching supply with demand is not as straightforward as previously thanks to the presence of stochastic wind energy. Fast acting plant is one answer to this. Another solution is reducing demand during periods of high demand. Demand side units reduce the demand during peak times giving industrial users a choice to shut down production or use their own diesel generators. 

As more wind is added, more reliance will be placed on DSUs and ironically diesel generation. During this day, on average 18MW per hour of DSU was called on to help keep the lights on. Not a significant amount at this stage. But according to Eirgrid :

The capacity of Demand Side Units in Ireland has increased to 230 MW, and is set to increase further. 

East West Interconnector to UK (EWIC)

The UK interconnector played a crucial role on this day. For most of the time, Ireland sent across it's surplus wind but for an hour, between 6pm and 7pm, Irish generation was insufficient to meet the rise in demand as people arrived home from work and turned their kettles and cookers on. It's an unfortunate fact that you can't "switch the wind on". Also you can't simply switch a large power station like a CCGT on. 

The preferred solution by Eirgrid, presumably because it was cheaper than the other option discussed below, was to reverse the direction of electricity in the interconnector. However, the UK was strapped for generation at this time and (incredibly) France were reliant on UK imports. A precarious situation for the UK but 120MW of spare power for Ireland is not a significant amount for a system of their size.

There is still a shortfall of about 200MW at peak time (where blue line is higher than orange line in the second graph above) which I'm not sure how they made up. Possibly more hydro or DSU or some other peaking plant that I may have missed.

The other option available to Eirgrid would have been to simply increase output from Poolbeg as the demand began to rise. After all, it was being operated at well below optimum efficiency as discussed above.  This is presumably what would have happened if there was no interconnector. Usually the low cost of power purchased from UK would make importing a cheaper option but I can't imagine a grid with such a tight capacity margin as the UK's giving away low cost power during peak demand times. But I can only assume it was somehow cheaper in this case.


The power UK sent to Ireland was made up mainly of gas and coal generation with some nuclear and wind : 

The generation mix for the day is given below  :

An Interview with Peter Hitchens

There is currently much debate about Brexit in the Irish media, mostly from the Pro European Union side with scare stories about how Ireland's economy will fall off a precipice should Britain decide to exit the European Union on June 23rd.  The debate, this side of the water at any rate, seems to be devoid of any balance. 

Peter Hitchens is a columnist with the Mail on Sunday and has written several books including The Abolition of Britain and The War We Never Fought. He has kindly agreed to do an interview which includes discussion on Brexit, Energy and Climate and a host of other issues. Questions by Owen Martin.

Q:   I’m probably one of the few Irish people who voted Yes in the original Lisbon Treaty Referendum, but voted No in the second one. The Lisbon Treaty had reasonable stated aims :

•  It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

The problem was that the European Union simply did not honour its pledge. Going back to the early days of the European Union, was its original intention to be a force for good, e.g. to prevent wars etc  ?

PH: You need to read Christopher Booker and Richard North’s ‘The Great Deception’, and also Hugo Young’s ‘This Blessed Plot’, for a discussion of the origins of the EU. There is no doubt that these are *political* not economic, born out of a desire to create a supranational body which will, slice by slice and generally very quietly,  remove power from national governments. This Utopian project claims to intend to end war. All Utopian projects have such claims. But given that one of the world’s worst wars, the American Civil War, was fought to maintain a supranational government against secession, one has to doubt its validity.

Q:  The Remainers will say that UK has a seat at the table and should be influencing EU policy not pulling out. That with perseverance, you can bring the changes in the EU that are for the better of everyone ?

PH: I have never found this persuasive. Outsiders have plenty of influence on bodies, especially if they have something to give, and something to take away. The old Leninist ‘Who Whom?’ test suggests that a single member of the EU has very little influence. The defence of specific national interests is not allowed for in the QMV system, nor is it meant to be.

Q.     Is there a breaking point for the EU ? A lot of people thought the Greek and Irish crises would spell the end of the Euro and/or EU, and then similarly the refugee crisis but instead it’s 2016 and we are talking about EU expansion.

PH: I think this is a ‘Eurosceptic’ fantasy. The founders and maintainers of the EU have always had a burning political purpose and are prepared , quite properly, to make sacrifices for it.  The EU may well decide to create a ‘Core Europe’ whose members will proceed to a much more complete integration, while second-class members remain much as they are, but that is just a sensible adaptation.

Q.     One of the arguments in favour of the EU is that it helped Eastern European countries such as Poland escape Communism. I also heard the same argument made about Portugal [Note: the Portugal argument was made on BBC Newsnight this week].

PH: I know of no evidence that the EU played any significant part in either process. Portugal, of course,  was never a Communist country.

Q.     Is the rise of the far right and left around Europe a natural reaction to EU’s plans for ever closer union ?

PH: No, it is largely a response to mass immigration. Most people couldn’t care less about ever-closer union..

Q.     In Ireland, we have the whip system. Those who fundamentally disagree with their Party on issues are forced to either conform, run as independent or form a new Party. In the event the Remain side wins, do you foresee a breakaway group formed by Brexitiers from different parties ?

PH: I doubt it. Tories are absurdly loyal to their party, more loyal to it than they are to their country. Why change now?  

Q.     Despite installing hundreds of billions of Euros worth of renewable infrastructure, carbon emissions are rising throughout the EU and the EU is more dependent on fuel imports than it was in the 1980s. Electricity Prices are skyrocketing resulting in industry jumping ship to America and Asia. The recent finding by UNECE Compliance Committee that the EU failed to ensure proper public participation in Ireland’s energy plans has been largely ignored by the European Commission. They now have backtracked on biofuel targets.  It’s environmental policies has been a mess from start to finish, yet as Colm McCarthy has said, when faced with a problem, the modern political solution is to repeat the same mistake double-fold. Even if Britain does stay in, won’t resentment grow throughout Europe anyway ? And isn’t this how Empires throughout history (if we can class European Union as one) collapsed in the end, rather than through plebiscites ?

PH: Possibly. As I don’t take the man-made climate change case very seriously, or regard these policies as being effective in dealing with it even if it is a genuine threat, I don’t much care. Dogma of all kinds drives nations and crowds mad.

Q.     Norway supplies something like a third of EU gas imports and 11% of its oil imports. Norway and Iceland are the third and fourth largest exporter of fish to the EU. Switzerland are one of the top exporters of goods to the EU. All three countries are outside the EU. Obviously, EU needs these countries more than they need EU. But these countries have another thing in common, namely they all have some form of direct democracy (granted Norway’s is only advisory rather than legal). Do you see direct democracy as a better system than plain vanilla democracy we have in Britain and Ireland ?

PH: No

Q.     The British media, and indeed in Ireland, portray Ireland as net beneficiaries of the EU. However, if you do the sums, we received about €9 billion in terms of farm subsidies and road funding but an ex IMF official has stated that the ECB forced Ireland to pay €8 bn to unsecured bondholders which we did not have to pay.  If you throw in EU Directives like Renewable and Water Directives, that have pushed taxes up further, it’s hard to see how Ireland is economically better off inside the EU ?

PH: I do not know enough to comment on this. I had the impression that Ireland, like Poland now, had been an EU favourite (as a pro EU ‘Anglo-Saxon’ state)  and was rewarded with huge infrastructure grants . But I have never looked into it. What a pity so much of it was spent on hideous motorways, and so little on railways and trams.

Q.  If UK do leave the EU in June, do you have any faith in the current British democratic system in solving the problems that you highlight ?

PH: I have no faith in the existing political parties. I have given up any sort of active politics, since the absurd survival of the Tory Party in 2010 when it ought to have collapsed and split. I merely write the national obituary.

Q.  In the event of Brexit, how do you see Irish and British relations ? Will we see borders in Northern Ireland again ?

PH: I hate the word ‘Brexit’, which conjures up in my mind the picture of a disgusting laxative breakfast cereal. I do not think Britain can leave the EU.

Q.  Quite a lot of the arguments made against Brexit both in UK and (particularly) in Ireland refer to the short term negative economic impacts that would result. Is this type of thinking a symptom of the wider culture of today that puts short term gain ahead of long term interests ?

PH: Yes. I am amazed that the fundamental question of independence barely arises. The level of the debate is woeful and tedious, bald men arguing over possession of a comb.

Q.  This week, a small community in Donegal found their local environment, one of the most scenic places in the British Isles, altered forever by a large industrial windfarm. This is a place where one could not get planning permission for a garden shed let alone something of this size.  There seems to be a total disconnect between laws made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and the people that they eventually impact on.

PH: Indeed. This is what empires are like. It is a great paradox that the Irish struggle for freedom has ended with Ireland becoming a German province.  The only compensation for a nationalist is that England has become one too.

Q.  You are a vocal critic of the Tory Party in its current guise. One thing they have done though, which no other British Party apart from UKIP would have done is offered a referendum on EU Membership.

PH: This offer was not genuine, and made in the confident belief that the Tories would not win a majority in May 2015.

  

Q.  They have also abolished subsidies for wind energy which the SNP and Labour criticised them over. Are these signs that the Tories still have some capacity to reform in the future ?

PH: Not fundamentally, no.

Q.  Is part of the problem, especially in these times of social media and headline driven media, that a complex message is much harder to get across than a simpler one ? This would apply as much to Parties on the Left as on the Right ? 

PH: A complex message is almost impossible to get across. NB James Carville’s first rule of political survival ‘While you’re explaining, you’re losing’.

Q.  Is the climate change movement simply a new religion ?

PH: It is certainly a new public dogma, and it is a lot more risky to express doubts about it than it is to be a fashionable atheist. But as it does not require its devotees to improve their own selves, it is more of a cult than a religion.

Q.  When J.Corbyn took over as leader of Labour, his aims included renationalising railways and Royal Mail as well as setting up a National Investment Bank to revitalize British manufacturing. It could be argued that these are reasonably sound policies. However, European Competition law would likely not allow him to implement them. Mr Corbyn is now campaigning to remain in EU. Does this show lack of decisiveness on his part ?

PH: Alas, yes.

Q.  Mr Corbyn was once a defender of coal workers rights, but has now bought the Green Party / EU anti-coal climate change line.  Are the traditional Labour Party roots been torn apart and if so, can they ever achieve electoral success again ?

PH: I do not think it has anything to do with electoral success. A party genuinely committed to these aims which fought hard enough might win an election. But few have the nerve to take the risk. Real politics dies when a country is taken over by the EU. All parties are compelled to accept the EU position, or the media and the establishment culture shouts them down and declares that they are ‘extremist’. You know politics is dead when the media spend more time attacking the opposition than they do criticising the government.

Q.  The Greens get about 2-3% of the vote in both Britain and in Ireland but quite a lot of their policies get rammed through nonetheless. How can a minority movement with such little support wield such power ?

PH: Your guess is as good as mine. People want and need to believe in something. So they do.

Q.  I’m in my 30s and can just about remember as a child seeing “Made in England” on the back of spoons and knives. Now, steel factories are closing in Britain. Is it the death knell for British manufacturing ? What is the wider cultural impact from such closures ?

PH: They probably weren’t actually made in England, just finished there. Nicholas Comfort has written an interesting book on the death of British manufacturing industry, a 60-year process of bad luck, incompetence and bad decisions, finished off by the EU.

Q.  England is concerned understandably about the level of immigration into the country. But isn't a certain level of immigration required to maintain a growing economy ?

PH: No .We have a million young people doing precisely nothing, and abort 180,000 healthy babies every year.

Q.  Hillary Clinton, President Obama and Cameron were mainly responsible for the war in Libya which has created so much instability in the world. Yet all three are very popular with voters. Is the reason weak political opposition or just ineffective media ?

PH: Both, but add very poor levels of education, and the dreadful conformism which pervades a society in which TV is the main medium of instruction.

Q.  Are the modern economic ideals of continuous growth really realistic and/or sustainable ?

PH: I suspect not, but I have no expertise in the matter.

Q.  The polls are continuously being proven wrong- the British General Election and the rise of Trump for example. Credit Ratings Agencies have also proven to be completely wrong. Most, if not all, of the predictions made by “climate change experts” have failed to materialize. Are we living in a world where too much faith is placed in “experts” ?

PH: Undoubtedly

Q.  There is increasing discussion in Ireland about the growing rural/city divide, that people in towns and cities should not be subsidizing those who live in rural areas. But while taxpayers subsidize a lot of things they often don’t like, only certain things get singled out. The cost of prisons and foreign aid for example are not up for discussion. Why do you think this is ?

PH: Because such campaigns invariably have a sectional or political purpose, and seek to focus minds on the subject where they want to influence opinion. Huge amounts of money and time are spent on manipulating the public mind. It is one of the prices we pay for the absurd system of universal suffrage democracy. You have to get people to think they want the things they are going to get anyway.

Q.  You’ve written an excellent book “The Abolition of Liberty” which helps explain the rise of crime in the past century. There is also a problem with the massaging of official crime statistics, since proven to be the case here in Ireland too. Was crime more of an issue in elections in the past and why isn’t it an issue now ?

PH: I don’t believe it was. Almost nobody has read my book. If they did, the debate about crime and punishment in our societies would be wholly different, rather than the ignorant drivel we have now. I suspect most people have now got used to living in a more disorderly society than we had before, and one in which all freedom will have to be constrained to cope with this.

Q.  Quite a lot of Irish readers will probably wonder what the function of the Monarchy is in the 21st century although the visit by the Queen to Ireland in 2011 was warmly welcomed here (with few exceptions).  How do you see her role ?

PH: To occupy a space in  politics which politicians will otherwise seek, and should never have, that of respect and love. The constitutional monarchy is like the King on the chessboard, powerless, but also occupying space which no other can occupy. Nobody understands this any more, and the monarchy rests only on the personal popularity of Elizabeth II . I doubt it will long survive her.

Q.  Michael O’Leary (a fervent Remain campaigner) once said that the local newsagent would soon be a thing of the past and this was an example of sound free market economics winning out.  Would you agree ?

PH: Yes. This is why I do not support free market liberalism.

Q.  Would you say it’s harder growing up now than in the 1950s ?

PH: Undoubtedly. The children of today are far less safe, far less free, far less well-educated,  far less in touch with their roots and past, and presented with an economic and political landscape of terrifying uncertainty.

Q.  Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that “it has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity”. Do you see technology as a great enabler or is there a cultural / social cost to relying too much technology ?

PH: I think technology should be our servant, not our master. I wince to see the transformation of humans into zombies by mobile telephones.