Letters to the Editor: Floating wind energy is the future for Ireland
'[W]e can build an offshore wind energy industry which will decarbonise our economy, protect consumers from volatile fossil fuel prices, and revitalise coastal communities.' Picture: Ben Birchall/PA
Floating wind power is Ireland’s long-term energy future. The bulk of the at least 37 GW of electricity to come from offshore windfarms by 2050 will be from floating projects. They will be the cornerstone of Irish energy independence.
Costs for floating wind energy are falling and, as shown in recent French auction results, are far lower than the figures contained in the unpublished analysis referred in your edition of June 7 which appears unsupported by evidence. It is time for Ireland to build on this momentum.
Right now, the Government’s priority, rightly, is to ensure the six proposed projects on the east and west coast get through the planning system and to identify new sites on the south coast.
These fixed-bottom projects will help to achieve our 2030 targets and provide a clean, secure, source of power to Irish families. They are also essential to building a supply-chain and investor confidence in Ireland for floating offshore wind. But if Ireland is to be a leader in floating wind energy, we must take the next steps.
Once the new sites on the south coast are confirmed by the Oireachtas, hopefully before the summer recess, we need to move quickly to identify sites for floating wind energy off our western and southern coasts.
Industry is ready to work with the Government to make this happen, to bring international expertise in floating wind energy to bear on the challenges of developing renewable energy off Ireland’s Atlantic coast.
Working together, we can build an offshore wind energy industry which will decarbonise our economy, protect consumers from volatile fossil fuel prices, and revitalise coastal communities.
The world’s two highest courts have been endeavouring to uphold the rule of international law in the Middle East and elsewhere. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided on January 26 that Israel has a case to answer on a charge of genocide, and followed this up on May 24 by ordering Israel to halt its attack on Rafah. Israel has continued to bomb Gaza, killing hundreds of civilians in the meantime.
In the latest incident on June 6, an Israeli army spokesperson said it had conducted a precision intelligence-based strike targeting Hamas armed groups on the al-Sardi UNRWA-run school in central Gaza. Forty people, including 14 children and nine women, are reported to have been killed and many more seriously injured.
On May 20, the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defence minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders.
On May 31, leaders of the US Senate and House of Representatives invited Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress.
Ireland, like all states that have ratified the ICJ and the ICC, is bound to assist and comply with the rulings of both of these courts, including arresting any persons for whom the ICC may have issued arrest warrants, if they pass through Irish territory.
We urgently need to protect our coastal waters and the living things that share our seas.
We have seen the decline of fish in Bantry Bay, increased warming of the seas, pollution caused by human activity, and the dwindling numbers of seabirds and marine mammals that live here.
I refer to an article in today’s, June 8, 2024, Irish Examiner, about the Department of Defence’s costing and reasons for disposal of three naval vessels. Their research pitches the weight of the two smaller vessels at 650 tonnes each and the helicopter ship at 900 tonnes.
I sailed on the LÉ Eithne and regarded her tonnage as 1,710 tonnes standard and 1,920 tonnes full load. I accept the smaller vessels at about 700 tonnes.
Selling Eithne’s 57mm Bofors, and not regarding it and its systems as elements for future defence within the PDF, or not considering that a unique ship like Eithne might be refurbished as an aviation training vessel and continued in service, seems typical of decisions diminishing defence capability.
The impending MRV will have a flight deck and not having a training facility in-house is short-sighted.
I wish to reply to the letter on June 4 and omissions on a heritage sign, related to its readers.
On further research, I was aghast to read that it was commissioned and co-ordinated by the DCC Heritage office and conducted by two academics. They have access to a lot more historical resources than the regular people, like myself or the letter writer!
Killester, being a country area at that time, there was no mention of the women working on the farm and opposed to its closure to make way for this proposed development of houses.
There is no reference made to the monument to Micheál de Neadh, in a confirmed Republican area.
Will schools and the public be obliged to accept the incomplete overview/heritage of this area into the future?
In agreeing categorically with the writer of the letter, will the newly elected Dublin City councillors be invited to amend the many omissions on this ‘heritage sign’?
After all, public money was availed of, in Killester Green!
Finally, did the British Legion have a role in the anglicised and revisionist version of this signage?
While RTÉ’s Prime Time Investigates (June 6) highlights serious failings in the regulation of the charity sector, it also provides an opportunity to question the State’s relationship with — and dependency upon — charities to provide a value-for-money set of solutions.
In Ireland we have over 11,500 registered Irish charities, with the general operating model being that of a church establishment; a dedicated congregation seeking to alleviate a social ill.
However, the nature of such organisations is a mix of only preaching to the converted, a dependence on voluntary contributions and volunteer labour.
From a short-term political perspective, such organisations automatically provide a quick-fix comfort that ‘at least something is being done’, which absolves both the State and society of any notions of willful inaction. A problem hidden in plain sight.
However, when measured against private sector for performance efficiency and value for investment (both Government grants and public donations), the picture is less clear. Most charities that receive State funding are granted on a year-by-year basis, with the previous year’s sum being the primary allocation factor; a poor replacement for an agreed programme which could resolve the origin of a problem rather than cleaning up the mess and keeping both the streets and the political agenda clean.
In cases where charities are partly funded by State grants, this funding is commonly as low as 5% to 20%, with the remainder made up by donations. Such a structure frequently produces operational disasters where a high percentage of volunteer hours is required to raise finance rather than focus on the problem at hand.
Furthermore, many charities compete against each other to secure scarce public donations, rather than co-operating to produce logical long-term solutions. In such an exhausted and dysfunctional culture, best practice innovations or entrepreneurial and technical solutions which could impact a social problem are summarily dismissed or silenced.
Perhaps the greatest evil of the State’s relationship with charities is that so many organisations have become dependent on both the funding and perceived status that Government grants provide, that they are unable to call out Government policies which contribute to society’s ills; examples are abound in every area, from animal welfare to housing.
While brave whistleblowers and expert contributors to the Prime Time Investigates programme highlight the need for legislation to reform the Office of the Charity Regulator, perhaps the time has arrived to stop everything and rethink the present charity model; a move towards financing rather than funding, long-term problem-solving rather than short-term begging, backed by direct industrial responsibility rather than non-profit unaccountability, would be steps, not just in the right direction, but also to impede an endless inefficient waste of resources.
