Flood protection vs Electricity Export

Blahblah2012 · 12-02-2014 12:28am #1

We can afford €3.5 billion to set up ESB and Eirgrid to make a killing on the export of power.

We can't afford to protect our cities and towns from flooding.

Brian Hayes on primetime last night whinging about the difficulty in coming up with the €1.6 billion(nice guess) that would be needed to provide flood protection for the citizens of this country.

It just goes to show what the priorities of these so called politicians are.

The same politicians and councillors that zoned flood plains for development with plenty of brown envelopes lurking around.
The same envelopes that are lurking around now with grid west etc and wind turbines....all of which we need :rolleyes:

Politics at its best?

Scofflaw · 12-02-2014 3:59pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Does anyone use politics cafe?

Yes, but there's an art to writing an OP that people will be interested in responding to. Yours is too light on facts and doesn't really have anything to discuss in it - what does "politics at its best?" actually mean, for example? And why have you picked these two things to compare and contrast?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blahblah2012 · 12-02-2014 8:54pm

We can afford to build wind farms "for our power supply needs" and yet we can't afford flood protection to save our homes and possibly our lives.

Cookie_Monster · 13-02-2014 12:06am

Power is paid for by users, nothing stopping people for paying for flood defences too.

Blahblah2012 · 13-02-2014 12:47am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Power is paid for by users, nothing stopping people for paying for flood defences too.

Well there's a small issue of money. And as I've said..the state considers this new eirgrid/esb project to be more important than flood protection.

riffmongous · 13-02-2014 1:10am

I was at a seminar recently on a new optimisation method being used in the Netherlands to decide where and how much flood defence to build, but they also explained the old method which is what most countries still use I think. Basically every area is given an economic value to represent the cost of the damage, you assess the likelihood of flooding and the type of flooding in that area (usually done using hydrological models and experience) and then you build the defenses to limit the probability of a flood occurring there to a certain statistical level, usually referred to as a 1 in X flood, so for important areas it should be limited to at least a 1 in 100 year flood (of course 1 in 100 doesn't literally mean it will only happen once in 100 years..it's a probability).I think that is similar to the system used in Ireland. So it's a mix of hydology and economics, with a lot coming down to politics for the final decisions though.

There really should be a investigation into who authorised houses to be built in areas that had a high probability of flooding alright, the cost to the state from these sort of decisions is enormous

Blahblah2012 · 13-02-2014 1:24am

riffmongous wrote: »

There really should be a investigation into who authorised houses to be built in areas that had a high probability of flooding alright, the cost to the state from these sort of decisions is enormous

From what I can see the state isn't forking very much out at all.
Fg/ff/lb county councillors sanctioned it if I'm not mistaken. Some current Dail members as well.

nesf · 13-02-2014 5:38am

They spent quite a lot in Cork city, the new drainage system they put in almost a decade ago markedly reduced the amount of small scale flooding in the city centre. 14 years ago I remember walking through 2-3 inches of water on the way to UCC several times each winter. You still can't get around the fact the city is built on what used to be marshland and has a river running through it and is facing into a bay though. Absolutely floodproofing Cork city would be extremely, extremely expensive. I'm not even sure it'd be practical because if you stop the water in one place it has to go somewhere else and if the river's flowing out and a storm is pushing it back in it's going to have to spill over somewhere (we already use the Lee fields for this) and there's some important infrastructure just upstream of the city (remember the big flood a few years back knocking out the pumping station for the city centre and Northside for quite a bit, that place was under rather a lot of water, moving it elsewhere would be rather expensive).

The biggest problem is a political rather than engineering one. You would have to spend a massive amount of money that only directly benefits a relatively small number of people (the vast majority of Cork city never floods because, well, most housing wasn't build on the floodplains, it's mostly a city centre problem) and the pay-off is long term. This sounds exactly the opposite to what politicians like to back.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 13-02-2014 2:33pm

Money should only be spent on flood protection measures where it makes clear economic sense to do so.
The idea that every habitation in the country should be flood protected by the government is arrant nonsense.

djpbarry · 13-02-2014 5:21pm

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Money should only be spent on flood protection measures where it makes clear economic sense to do so.
The idea that every habitation in the country should be flood protected by the government is arrant nonsense.

As is the idea that any reasonable expenditure on flood defences would be 100% effective against the kind of weather we're experiencing at the moment.

riffmongous · 13-02-2014 5:44pm

But if the council allows people to build there is it not agreeing that the land is suitable within a certain level of risk and hence is liable for the flood protection of buildings constructed there?

nesf · 13-02-2014 5:52pm

riffmongous wrote: »

But if the council allows people to build there is it not agreeing that the land is suitable within a certain level of risk and hence is liable for the flood protection of buildings constructed there?

I doubt it. Once you choose to build on a floodplain unless you had some authority telling you it was no longer a floodplain I'm not sure you've a defense.

riffmongous · 13-02-2014 6:10pm

nesf wrote: »

I doubt it. Once you choose to build on a floodplain unless you had some authority telling you it was no longer a floodplain I'm not sure you've a defense.

But the council is responsible for zoning the flood plain no?

nesf · 13-02-2014 6:13pm

riffmongous wrote: »

But the council is responsible for zoning the flood plain no?

Maybe, maybe not. In a perfect world they'd be paying for flood damages out of pocket but that doesn't happen.

Godge · 13-02-2014 6:50pm

riffmongous wrote: »

But the council is responsible for zoning the flood plain no?

But they don't own the land. The landowner does.

Scofflaw · 13-02-2014 7:11pm

riffmongous wrote: »

But if the council allows people to build there is it not agreeing that the land is suitable within a certain level of risk and hence is liable for the flood protection of buildings constructed there?

Within the certain level of risk, I would say so. However, if the Council has basically said you're OK within the parameters of a 100-year event, and you get a 250-year event, or the parameters of a 100-year event change, then I don't think the Council has any liability.

There's an element of shared risk - the Council says it's somewhat safe, and the rest of the risk is something you take on by buying a house there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

riffmongous · 13-02-2014 7:15pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Within the certain level of risk, I would say so. However, if the Council has basically said you're OK within the parameters of a 100-year event, and you get a 250-year event, or the parameters of a 100-year event change, then I don't think the Council has any liability.

There's an element of shared risk - the Council says it's somewhat safe, and the rest of the risk is something you take on by buying a house there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, but also assuming the council did their job properly and analysed the event probability correctly I would say

Scofflaw · 13-02-2014 7:35pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Indeed, but also assuming the council did their job properly and analysed the event probability correctly I would say

Sure. Unfortunately, weather event probabilities are changing, generally for the worse. Land that was zoned as OK based on a 100-year flood event in, say, 1990, may not now be OK, because the 100-year event has become a 75 or 50-year or even 25-year event.

It's not realistic to expect councils to have correctly anticipated the effects of climate change at a local level. We don't have that degree of precision, and certainly didn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

riffmongous · 13-02-2014 9:56pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure. Unfortunately, weather event probabilities are changing, generally for the worse. Land that was zoned as OK based on a 100-year flood event in, say, 1990, may not now be OK, because the 100-year event has become a 75 or 50-year or even 25-year event.

That's a good point, but depends on if you can definitely ascribe Irelands recent (on a a scale of years) spate of floods to climate change and not due to other factors which the council could have control over, such as land use change (incidentally some of my colleagues work on a project to look at thishttp://www.hydro.tuwien.ac.at/forschung/erc-advanced-grant-2012-2017.html).

It's not realistic to expect councils to have correctly anticipated the effects of climate change at a local level. We don't have that degree of precision, and certainly didn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Correct, but that's not to saw that flood authorities are/were helpless, an alternative approach instead of using predictions is to look as scenarios, which can always be done and possibly give you a lot of information. Now I don't know how long this sort of approach has been used since I don't work on floods, but as a example, without relying on any predictions, if you used your hydrological model to see what the flooding would be like if you increased the amount of precipitation to simulate changes in precipitation events, you can see what areas could be in danger and then do a (political+economic) risk analysis based on the results.

Rightwing · 13-02-2014 10:01pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Indeed, but also assuming the council did their job properly and analysed the event probability correctly I would say

That would be a dangerous assumption

When people say we 'blew the boom', they are referring to, (or indeed should be referring to) expenditures such as not fixing leaking water pipes, building flood defenses etc

Scofflaw · 14-02-2014 12:25am

riffmongous wrote: »

That's a good point, but depends on if you can definitely ascribe Irelands recent (on a a scale of years) spate of floods to climate change and not due to other factors which the council could have control over, such as land use change (incidentally some of my colleagues work on a project to look at thishttp://www.hydro.tuwien.ac.at/forschung/erc-advanced-grant-2012-2017.html).

True - and climate change would actually be the hardest to prove. Tracking any given event to climate change is next to impossible even at a very global level, never mind on the scale of the Lee basin.

riffmongous wrote: »

Correct, but that's not to saw that flood authorities are/were helpless, an alternative approach instead of using predictions is to look as scenarios, which can always be done and possibly give you a lot of information. Now I don't know how long this sort of approach has been used since I don't work on floods, but as a example, without relying on any predictions, if you used your hydrological model to see what the flooding would be like if you increased the amount of precipitation to simulate changes in precipitation events, you can see what areas could be in danger and then do a (political+economic) risk analysis based on the results.

Sure. I covered such models and modelling in my MSc (and a while ago that is too). Even built some on Arc.

But almost certainly what you'd be plugging into the system there as the test case is the 100-year event, according to your current understanding of the basin dynamics. If the 100-year event is what's changing, then your risk analysis is faulty.

I know what you're saying - essentially, let's double (or whatever) the risk and see what we get - but you don't have any actual justification for those changes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

riffmongous · 14-02-2014 1:01am

Scofflaw wrote: »

But almost certainly what you'd be plugging into the system there as the test case is the 100-year event, according to your current understanding of the basin dynamics. If the 100-year event is what's changing, then your risk analysis is faulty.

I know what you're saying - essentially, let's double (or whatever) the risk and see what we get - but you don't have any actual justification for those changes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No justification maybe, but at least an idea of the possibilities. While you cant make predictions you can hopefully identify the most dangerous scenarios.

A lot of climate change papers are based around the scenario idea, you know the ones where they say 'with a doubling of co2 there would be a..' or similar.

Scofflaw · 14-02-2014 1:21am

riffmongous wrote: »

No justification maybe, but at least an idea of the possibilities. While you cant make predictions you can hopefully identify the most dangerous scenarios.

A lot of climate change papers are based around the scenario idea, you know the ones where they say 'with a doubling of co2 there would be a..' or similar.

Oh, I'm definitely not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that when you present your model of the Lee basin with a 100-year event based on the current 250-year event, it's not going to stand up if there's any political drive to zone the flood plain as OK for building.

And it's not going to be used to build flood defences either. If you're very lucky it might get taken on board as something for which space might be left for the creation of future flood defences in the current planning. But not if it's awkward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Victor · 14-02-2014 1:31am

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

We can afford €3.5 billion to set up ESB and Eirgrid to make a killing on the export of power.

Who is this "we"? ESB is borrowing money to built this infrastructure. The exchequer input is at most modest and most likely nil. In fact, ESB is paying dividends.

We can't afford to protect our cities and towns from flooding.

Then we better earn money by exporting things! Like electricity!

riffmongous · 14-02-2014 1:33am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh, I'm definitely not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that when you present your model of the Lee basin with a 100-year event based on the current 250-year event, it's not going to stand up if there's any political drive to zone the flood plain as OK for building.

And it's not going to be used to build flood defences either. If you're very lucky it might get taken on board as something for which space might be left for the creation of future flood defences in the current planning. But not if it's awkward.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's why you need a good economist on your side, to help turn your storage reservoir into a recreational lake and your dam into a hydroelectric plant

But yeah in most countries it simply wont get past the budget.

Are you familiar with Vienna actually? There is an island in the middle of the danube that is a park where they also hold some very large concerts each year, but its true purpose is to be flooded incase of a very large flood.

Scofflaw · 14-02-2014 1:47am

riffmongous wrote: »

That's why you need a good economist on your side, to help turn your storage reservoir into a recreational lake and your dam into a hydroelectric plant But yeah in most countries it simply wont get past the budget.

Are you familiar with Vienna actually? There is an island in the middle of the danube that is a park where they also hold some very large concerts each year, but its true purpose is to be flooded incase of a very large flood.

Alas, no. Familiar with a still-surprising-to-me number of cities, but not Vienna. In the heyday of my travelling there wasn't a lot of the East to go to, so Vienna tended not to form a useful point.

There are places, certainly, where flood planning, and planning more generally, are done well, but Ireland is not one of those places.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 10:34am

Victor wrote: »

Who is this "we"? EXB is borrowing money to built this infrastructure.

EXB? I hope you aren't that naive to believe that it won't be passed on to the taxpayer.

Victor wrote: »

The exchequer input is at most modest and most likely nil. In fact, ESB is paying dividends.

Please share where you are getting this information from?

Victor wrote: »

Then we better earn money by exporting things! Like electricity!

Well we are already up to our necks(and more) paying off existing debt because of hair brained con men in our financial sector and government.

Victor · 14-02-2014 2:45pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

EXB?

I hope you aren't that naive to believe that it won't be passed on to the taxpayer.

Please share where you are getting this information from.

Please share where you are getting this information from?

Isn't this really your job, seeing are you are proposing that there are issues? Meanwhile: http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir070214-1.pdf

IRIS OIFIGI&#218 wrote: »

Note 2 Non-Tax Revenue 2013 2014
€000 €000

Dividends E.S.B. 0 152,855

Well we are already up to our necks(and more) paying off existing debt because of hair brained con men in our financial sector and government.

Isn't this what is known as a "straw man"?

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 4:07pm

Victor wrote: »

Meanwhile: http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir070214-1.pdf

Only took a quick glance but is this a straw link? It's empty as backup to your argument

The buck always stops with the Irish taxpayer.

Victor · 14-02-2014 4:23pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Only took a quick glance but is this a straw link? It's empty as backup to your argument

How is the ESB paying a €152,855,000 dividend last month a straw man in the argument over which way money is flowing?

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 4:36pm

Victor wrote: »

How is the ESSB paying a €152,855,000 dividend last month a straw man in the argument over which way money is flowing?

The ESSB? To be honest I couldn't find that..but then again I'm using a phone today to try and look over 22 pages or so.

Your previous post said 152,855.
Now it's €152million. Which is it?

To be fair it doesn't deflect away from the policy of investing in a grossly over scaled network that will profit a few...when investment is needed in more serious and urgent matters like flood protection.
Even the drainage systems on our roads need a lot of work to improve road safety in bad weather.

spank_inferno · 14-02-2014 6:16pm

ESB paid the gov a €152 million dividend.

Besides, what has Dept of environment & local gov expenditure got to with ESB & Eirgrid??

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 6:28pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

ESB paid the gov a €152 million dividend.

Another mention of this "€152 million" here.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Exchequer%20Returns%20end%20January%202014%20information%20note_0.pdf

spank_inferno wrote: »

Besides, what has Dept of environment & local gov expenditure got to with ESB & Eirgrid??

They have funding in common. That comes from taxpayers/bill payers.

spank_inferno · 14-02-2014 6:42pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Another mention of this "€152 million" here.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Exchequer%20Returns%20end%20January%202014%20information%20note_0.pdf

They have funding in common. That comes from taxpayers/bill payers.

This makes no sense.

Is me paying Energia €100 per month taking money from flood relief funding..... No, of course not.

Change "Energia" to "ESB" and the answer is still the same.

Your logic of 'taxpayers also pay electricity bills' couldn't hold less water

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 7:03pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

Is me paying Energia €100 per month taking money from flood relief funding..... No, of course not.

That's not what I was saying. Although nice twist :rolleyes:

spank_inferno wrote: »

Your logic of 'taxpayers also pay electricity bills' couldn't hold less water

My logic is that taxpayers and bill payers pay for this new grid and the rest.

spank_inferno · 14-02-2014 7:08pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

That's not what I was saying. Although nice twist :rolleyes:

My logic is that taxpayers and bill payers pay for this new grid and the rest.

You still haven't demonstrated how, me paying a utility provider money each month for leccy takes money away from another entity paying for flood defences?

When you have done that, please demonstrate how paying €40 per month to Eircom for my DSL hampers HSE funding.

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 7:20pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

You still haven't demonstrated how, me paying a utility provider money each month for leccy takes money away from another entity paying for flood defences?

I'm saying that the government are willing to throw money into this new grid..but aren't willing to spend anywhere near enough money on flood protection and other vital services.

spank_inferno wrote: »

When you have done that, please demonstrate how paying €40 per month to Eircom for my DSL hampers HSE funding.

That's your own concoction. Nothing to do with my posts. Eircom is a private company. Not a semi state. So that example is useless.

Scofflaw · 14-02-2014 7:23pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

y logic is that taxpayers and bill payers pay for this new grid and the rest.

I think we could do at this stage with a little less heat and a little more light in this energetic discussion.

How much is being paid to ESB by the State?

How much is being paid by ESB to the State?

Those are two pertinent numbers, and I don't see that the discussion can be resolved without them. Once we have them, one can argue whether the balance is a good balance or not, but without them we're rather in the dark.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 7:26pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think we could do at this stage with a little less heat and a little more light in this energetic discussion.

How much is being paid to ESB by the State?

How much is being paid by ESB to the State?

Those are two pertinent numbers, and I don't see that the discussion can be resolved without them. Once we have them, one can argue whether the balance is a good balance or not, but without them we're rather in the dark.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd like those figures too so well said.

€3.5 billion is a figure for the grid though. Probably more if they get to roll it out.

spank_inferno · 14-02-2014 7:28pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I'm saying that the government are willing to throw money into this new grid..but aren't willing to spend anywhere near enough money on flood protection and other vital services

As previous posters have said.

The money ESB networks & Eirgrid pay for infrastructure with, did not come from the government.

It came from their respective customers.

Please demonstrate how the state pays for ESB networks & Eirgrid's capital budgets?

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 7:33pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

As previous posters have said.

The money ESB networks & Eirgrid pay for infrastructure with, did not come from the government.

Have you evidence of this? Esb is semi state so I doubt that there's no billpayer/tax payer money involved.

spank_inferno wrote: »

It came from their respective customers.

The billpayer or the British?

spank_inferno wrote: »

Please demonstrate how the state pays for ESB networks & Eirgrid's capital budgets?

As I said it's a semi state company and the taxpayer and the billpayer(through higher bills) pay towards these capital budgets.

spank_inferno · 14-02-2014 7:37pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I'd like those figures too so well said.

€3.5 billion is a figure for the grid though. Probably more if they get to roll it out.

Do you have a link or source showing that the State will be giving €3.5 billion to Eirgrid for their proposed transmission improvements?

I think that is what Scofflaw is alluding to.

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 7:40pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

Do you have a link or source showing that the State will be giving €3.5 billion to Eirgrid for their proposed transmission improvements?

I think that is what Scofflaw is alluding to.

Well whether they get a loan in the Irish peoples name or whether they take it directly out of our pockets over time..the project has to be paid for.

spank_inferno · 14-02-2014 7:43pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Well whether they get a loan in the Irish peoples name or whether they take it directly out of our pockets over time..the project has to be paid for.

Yup..... Your right.... A loan or taken over time from their customers.

Still waiting for you to show how the State is giving 3.5 billion to Eirgrid for this?

Scofflaw · 14-02-2014 7:45pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I'd like those figures too so well said.

€3.5 billion is a figure for the grid though. Probably more if they get to roll it out.

The ESB's Annual Report is here: http://www.esb.ie/main/about-esb/ESB_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2012.pdf?v=4

The structure of a semi-state company is that the company is majority owned by the State. As such, state subsidies would be illegal under EU competition law.

ESB receives no State subsidy - they pay the State a dividend, because they are profitable (and they also pay tax on their profits). Capital for projects like the grid is raised by issuing corporate bonds.

In other words, no money is going into the ESB from the State. No money is being diverted from flood works to the ESB. On the contrary, the ESB is contributing to the money available for flood works.

I don't think you have a case here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 9:31pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

The structure of a semi-state company is that the company is majority owned by the State. As such, state subsidies would be illegal under EU competition law.

Would that explain CIEs €321million subsidy in 2008?

Scofflaw wrote: »

ESB receives no State subsidy - they pay the State a dividend, because they are profitable (and they also pay tax on their profits). Capital for projects like the grid is raised by issuing corporate bonds.

Of course they're profitable. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the contrary, the ESB is contributing to the money available for flood works.

Bit of a sweetener?

You really need to remember that power companies like ESB write their own rules. They might occasionally get thorns in their sides...but that's about it.

I am of course hoping that on this occasion, with this new grid/windfarm project..that the people of this country see it for what it is(to supply the British with "green" power)and slow the whole process down to such an extent that it is no longer feasible.

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 9:35pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

Yup..... Your right.... A loan or taken over time from their customers.

It'll be taken alright. Mark my words on that.

spank_inferno wrote: »

Still waiting for you to show how the State is giving 3.5 billion to Eirgrid for this?

I saw Enda Kenny handing over the suitcase full of cash the other day.

Nah are you saying that not a cent of state funding will go into that?

Scofflaw · 14-02-2014 9:59pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Would that explain CIEs €321million subsidy in 2008?

That's a subsidy for running 'social' routes which wouldn't pay.

Of course they're profitable. :rolleyes:

Bit of a sweetener?

You really need to remember that power companies like ESB write their own rules. They might occasionally get thorns in their sides...but that's about it.

You understand that they're profitable, you can see that they don't get money from the State but instead give money to the State.

That's pretty much a wrap, unless you can show the ESB getting money from the State, which is the premise the thread is based on. All that's left, otherwise, would be pointless complaints about something that isn't happening - and this isn't Liveline.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 10:14pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a subsidy for running 'social' routes which wouldn't pay.

So you contradict yourself as you said subsidies were illegal under EU LAW. Hmmm.
Or the €600million it got under the national development plan?

Scofflaw wrote: »

You understand that they're profitable, you can see that they don't get money from the State but instead give money to the State.

Yeah I can see they give money. Sweetners too.

What I don't see is that they don't get money from the state or have bills signed off for them by the state in order to allow them do what they want.

You obviously know a lot better than I do!

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's pretty much a wrap, unless you can show the ESB getting money from the State, which is the premise the thread is based on. All that's left, otherwise, would be pointless complaints about something that isn't happening - and this isn't Liveline.

It certainly isn't liveline and I'm not on the inside of the state or the esb to be able to divulge that information.

If you think these people play by the rules in the land of corruption we live in...then there's no point in discussing it with you.

I am quite surprised to see you acting the smug mug with your liveline dig and a few other bits. Just goes to show

Scofflaw · 14-02-2014 10:41pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

So you contradict yourself as you said subsidies were illegal under EU LAW. Hmmm.
Or the €600million it got under the national development plan?

State aid is illegal, payments to run "social" services aren't.

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Yeah I can see they give money. Sweetners too.

What I don't see is that they don't get money from the state or have bills signed off for them by the state in order to allow them do what they want.

You obviously know a lot better than I do!

It certainly isn't liveline and I'm not on the inside of the state or the esb to be able to divulge that information.

I am quite surprised to see you acting the smug mug with your liveline dig and a few other bits. Just goes to show

All I did was searched for the ESB's annual report, which would show any money they got from the State. It doesn't show them getting any money from the State.

Anyone can do the same, anyone can check that what I'm saying is the case. And as I say, if the State aren't giving the ESB money, then I can't see how one can claim that the State is diverting money from flood protection to the ESB's grand scheme. ESB is, as far as can be seen, funding its capital projects by market borrowings.

When I say "this isn't Liveline", I mean quite simply that if there's no actual case here, there's no point to the thread. And there doesn't seem to be any case here, because the ESB doesn't seem to be receiving any money from the State.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blahblah2012 · 14-02-2014 11:27pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

State aid is illegal, payments to run "social" services aren't.

What a law abiding nation it is alright. We can't even deal with the corruption of the past. Never mind the current corruption.

As I said politicians sign bills for these projects.

Scofflaw wrote: »

All I did was searched for the ESB's annual report, which would show any money they got from the State. It doesn't show them getting any money from the State.

Who are these companies that are going to pay for it?

Scofflaw wrote: »

And as I say, if the State aren't giving the ESB money, then I can't see how one can claim that the State is diverting money from flood protection to the ESB's grand scheme.

The state has neglected flood defences and continues to do so aside from token gestures.

Scofflaw wrote: »

ESB is, as far as can be seen, funding its capital projects by market borrowings.

As far as can be seen..yeah. Hopefully we aren't as blind as we were before.

Flood protection vs Electricity Export

Comments