Yep, while I accept the science around climate change I dislike the was in which the discussion around the solution is polluted by ideology. I've no problem subsidising green energy, I'm just not sure we are doing it right.It's the same for other countries but they have decided not to go with ridiculously high wind energy rates. We have made it too attractive for wind energy companies to profiteer but have loaded all the costs of the associated infrastructure onto the consumer via standing charges and high unit rates. Much more of the costs need to be borne by the wind energy companies themselves, they are the ones that are reaping the windfall energy prices without bearing any of the realistic costs associated with the grid and producing electricity when no wind is blowing.
There's that ideology again.Eamon Ryan ruled out windfall taxes on energy companies because they would hit the wind energy providers the most .
No, that's not true. Maintaining an electricity grid is expensive.As for the scattered nature of our population those costs have already been borne as that infrastructure is long in place just like the gas piplelines.
Yes, that's a separate issue.The scattered windfarms needing to be connected by high voltage lines to the grid is a separate issue and a separate cost and has nothing to do with where people live as they are separate lines.
The issue is energy loss through the transmission grid when the generation points are dispersed and the population is far way from the generation points and is also dispersed. 8% to 15% of all the power we generate is lost between step up and step down transformers, transmission lines and distribution lines.Because we have decided to go all in with wind rather than conventional power stations like nuclear means we have to install many more high voltage lines to connect all these windfarms and now solar to the grid. The consumer is paying for all this much more than on the continent