Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Labour & IFA fight the carbon tax

2

Comments

  • #52
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You know, the Fianna Fáil PR gurus deserve some kind of medal, because they have an amazing ability to deflect a huge amount of public anger and resentment away from FF and toward their coalition partners; first the PD’s and now the Greens.

    Don't worry, Fianna Fail are going to get it in the neck as well come election time. They'll be going out purely based on the absolute mess they've turned this country in to.

    The Greens on the other hand, are off spouting crap about water charges, saving the environment, carbon taxes etc. I do not care a single bit for any of the items on their political agenda, they are completely disconnected from my needs as a voter. I don't care what happens to the world when I'm no longer here.

    My immediate priorites are my lack of employment, barely enough income each week to pay bills etc, and what is looking like a few hard years ahead in the search for a career. My vote will go to a party that looks like it might address the real problems facing my life, not to a party interested in taking my money to offset an idea which is deeply flawed, both scientifically and factually.


  • #53
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ... I was thinking about this a bit, the Green movement is very similar to a religious movement, and that scares the **** out of me.

    Is is really scary to have a political movement where the members actually believe in something?

    Okay, it might be said that some of our other parties also believe in something, but the thing in which they believe is often no more than getting elected.
    We are only few pages into the thread and we already had words like "behaviour modification"
    ...

    What's wrong with the idea of behaviour modification? A ban on smoky fuels is behaviour modification; imposing high excise duties on alcohol is behaviour modification; banning smoking in workplaces is behaviour modification; tax-driven development is behaviour modification. It's the sort of thing governments do.

    [I am not a Green Party member or supporter, but neither do I hate them.]


  • #54
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Well in all honesty now

    the Greens dug their own grave

    They had the chance to bring down the government and have an election, instead they helped signed away billions over to the banks.
    You know if that money was actually invested in an infrastructure such and inter-connectors and even (gasp) windmills, it still be a better use than what was done
    If you read this post, you'll see that NAMA is not the biggest problem with Ireland's economy - it's our budget deficit:

    http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/04/13/irish-people-no-better-off-now-than-during-black-death-and-other-stories/
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    We are only few pages into the thread and we already had words like "behaviour modification"
    Every government's policies aim at some sort of behaviour modification.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * Why ignore pragmatic engineering solutions to many of the problems available today like nuclear power? Especially if these can be used as bridging measure until a renewable grid is in place, instead of continuing to burn mountains of coal??
    Nuclear has a number of issues in Ireland - commercially available nuclear plants are too big for the Irish grid. Also, they do not ramp up and down as is required to fit in with renewables.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * Why ban scientific research? What if this research like GM algae can be used to extract fuel out of carbon in air? a streak common to all fundamentalists may i add :(
    GM research is not banned. The cultivation of GM crops are. The vast majority of plants pollinate via wind or animals. Hence it is incredible difficult to contain the cross-pollination of GM crops.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * Why the constant scaremongering? the old "you will burn in hell" Catholic mantra replaced by "you will burn by Global Warming" carry on
    As has already been suggested, if you have an issues with AGW, you're welcome to debate it in the Sustainability Forum.


  • #55
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #56
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    They are definitely part of the solution but you fail to comprehend the seriousness of the situation if you think business as usual is an option. It would appear that you really need to read up on the science. There are certain services provided to us by nature for which there are no technical alternatives. Fish stocks are running out - what machine are you going to build to deal with that? The ground waters in Ireland, of which 60% are seriously polluted according to latest EPA report, provide us with fresh drinking water. We need serious investment to turn this situation around.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    Many greens who have drunk the anti-growth Kool-Aid believe that we have no choice but to return to some prelapsarian era of simple, low-imprint living, à la Avatar before the exploitative humans arrived. They wish to foist that lifestyle on everyone through progressive regulation of everything not deemed "green."
    *sigh* there's just no need to take that tone - it's so condescending and does not foster any type of debate. Who is they they they? We're talking about Green Party initiatives. It's just so lazy to use the lunatic fringe of any movement to attach it
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I don't know whether you're genuinely unaware of what work has been done or just not bothered to find out but the above shows a significant lack of awareness of what has been going on in government over the last three years.


  • #57
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Is is really scary to have a political movement where the members actually believe in something?

    Okay, it might be said that some of our other parties also believe in something, but the thing in which they believe is often no more than getting elected.



    What's wrong with the idea of behaviour modification? A ban on smoky fuels is behaviour modification; imposing high excise duties on alcohol is behaviour modification; banning smoking in workplaces is behaviour modification; tax-driven development is behaviour modification. It's the sort of thing governments do.

    [I am not a Green Party member or supporter, but neither do I hate them.]

    Yes it is. When you have a politcal party who believe in something that a majority of the country doesn't even care about, and its in a position to even start taking money out of your pocket towards its beliefs (plastic bag taxes, fuel increases, carbon taxes, water charges), then its very scary.

    The Green party are going to be a costly burden to the taxpayer if allowed to remain in office, mark my words. It will be a lot more eco friendly on our wallets once they've been wiped out.


  • #58
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    DarkJager wrote: »
    Yes it is. When you have a politcal party who believe in something that a majority of the country doesn't even care about, and its in a position to even start taking money out of your pocket towards its beliefs (plastic bag taxes, fuel increases, carbon taxes, water charges), then its very scary.
    Where is your evidence that the majority of Irish people do not care about the environment? It's in a position to implement these policies because it is part of a democratically elected coalition.

    And you fail to understand that these things are either paid for out of the central exchequer or they are paid for by those who use/create the pollution. The belief that there's some sort of free lunch here is a major barrier to understanding the situation.
    DarkJager wrote: »
    The Green party are going to be a costly burden to the taxpayer if allowed to remain in office, mark my words. It will be a lot more eco friendly on our wallets once they've been wiped out.
    This shows such a staggering lack of understanding of how much we depend on the quality of our environment. We are in the situation we are in because of a major lack of investment in our water infrastructure and other planning procedures. I'd like to see a business or home to try and function without access to clean drinking water.


  • #59
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Is is really scary to have a political movement where the members actually believe in something?

    Im just perplexed how some of it has taken on religious like qualities

    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    What's wrong with the idea of behaviour modification? A ban on smoky fuels is behaviour modification; imposing high excise duties on alcohol is behaviour modification; banning smoking in workplaces is behaviour modification; tax-driven development is behaviour modification. It's the sort of thing governments do.

    not much wrong with it in moderation as per your examples, or for example smoking ban in pubs
    my problem is where is the line drawn, where do the Greens stop? who gets to decide on what is correct behaviour??
    "behaviour modification" taken to its extreme sounds downright totalitarian
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    [I am not a Green Party member or supporter, but neither do I hate them.]
    I don't hate them, I supported them in locals before, I just don't like some aspects of the Greens and their approach which I think are dangerous.

    taconnol wrote: »
    If you read this post, you'll see that NAMA is not the biggest problem with Ireland's economy - it's our budget deficit:
    I see what you are trying to do there
    deflect from the pile of **** by pointing to a much larger pile of manure.
    Anyways its to late to reverse NAMA now, but I will not forgive the Greens for not having the balls to cause an election.
    And yes I agree that the deficit is a bigger problem, I don't see the Greens doing anything to address it.

    taconnol wrote: »
    Every government's policies aim at some sort of behaviour modification.
    And once again, where do you stop then?

    taconnol wrote: »
    Nuclear has a number of issues in Ireland - commercially available nuclear plants are too big for the Irish grid. Also, they do not ramp up and down as is required to fit in with renewables.
    bull manure

    * There are 300MW reactors available now.
    * Moneypoint (where i had the pleasure of working for short period, and visting on occasions) has 3x330MW, and is already connected to the Grid at the strongest point, the plant can produce 20-25% of our peak requirement
    * Why not replace Moneypoint with Nuke plant of similar size, or slightly larger? lets say 4x300MW
    * I invite every Environmentalist to travel to Moneypoint and observe the mountain of coal that this plant requires to burn in order to work, and the huge ships pulling in, this plant and others like it will have to continue to work for decades to come while yee build up the renewable system (thats assuming no more money is pissed away!)
    taconnol wrote: »
    GM research is not banned. The cultivation of GM crops are. The vast majority of plants pollinate via wind or animals. Hence it is incredible difficult to contain the cross-pollination of GM crops. .

    Why dont you let the scientists/researchers do their job? and decide whats safe or not??

    Should you also ban air-travel for Environmentalists and Climate Researchers because it harms the climate?


  • #60
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    And once again, where do you stop then?
    I don't know - who is 'you'? I know what I would like to see happen but that probably differs from what the Green Party would like.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * There are 300MW reactors available now.
    If you don't believe me, you might believe EirGrid
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * Why not replace Moneypoint with Nuke plant of similar size, or slightly larger? lets say 4x300MW
    Ugh because coal plants and nuclear plants have different generational profiles and cannot neatly be replaced like that. Seriously - anyone with a basic understanding of the different generation options would know that.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * I invite every Environmentalist to travel to Moneypoint and observe the mountain of coal that this plant requires to burn in order to work, and the huge ships pulling in, this plant and others like it will have to continue to work for decades to come while yee build up the renewable system (thats assuming no more money is pissed away!)
    That is incorrect. CPP is not the only baseload technology available to us. Moreover there are other technologies, such as smart grids, demand levelling and interconnection.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Why dont you let the scientists/researchers do their job? and decide whats safe or not??
    The issues surrounding cross-pollination of GM is well recognised around scientists/researchers. As I already said, GM research is not banned.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Should you also ban air-travel for Environmentalists and Climate Researchers because it harms the climate?
    The level of debate on here is so dismal sometimes.


  • #62
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I call it genuine frustration at debating with someone who quite clearly has not read up on the area. I was not being nasty - I really don't understand why you take that point of view as a little basic research would reveal the flaws in that stance.


  • #63
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    taconnol wrote: »
    Where is your evidence that the majority of Irish people do not care about the environment? It's in a position to implement these policies because it is part of a democratically elected coalition.

    Voted in by people who are now kicking themselves they ever put a tick beside a Green election candidate. Show me one person who thinks the idea of inflating petrol prices, adding carbon taxes (read stealth tax), adding 100s of euros a year to people expenses for water all in the name of trying to prevent something which has no solid scientific proof and for which no-one alive today will even be around to be affected by if it does happen, is a good one.
    That person doesn't represent the general public.Most likely he/she

    a) has too much free time to worry about trees and no understanding of the real world

    or

    b) a tree hugger


    The Greens vision of the world is that we should all be living in caves, with no lights or anything that might cause "carbon" (or that we can get entertainment from), all driving around in crappy little plastic cars which need to be charged up every half hour and can't top 60kph. Every day, we'll all emerge from our darkened carbon neutral hovels, linking hands with each other and dancing around the fields, smiling at the sun and singing with the birds.

    If thats an idealogy you follow, by all means vote them back in.


  • #64
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    DarkJager wrote: »
    Voted in by people who are now kicking themselves they ever put a tick beside a Green election candidate. Show me one person who thinks the idea of inflating petrol prices, adding carbon taxes (read stealth tax), adding 100s of euros a year to people expenses for water all in the name of trying to prevent something which has no solid scientific proof and for which no-one alive today will even be around to be affected by if it does happen, is a good one.
    Actually Green Party support is remaining constant at around 5 % of the electorate. And are you seriously saying that there is no solid scientific proof for climate change and Ireland's water pollution and supply problems? If you want to argue that you don't care about future generations that's a completely separate argument.
    DarkJager wrote: »
    a) has too much free time to worry about trees and no understanding of the real world
    On that point, are you aware of what recent monetary valuation has been put on nature's resources and services?
    DarkJager wrote: »
    b) a tree hugger
    What does that even mean? It's just a cliched insult for someone who cares about the environment.


  • #65
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    taconnol wrote: »
    I don't know - who is 'you'? I know what I would like to see happen but that probably differs from what the Green Party would like.
    .

    Yee environmentalists

    taconnol wrote: »
    If you don't believe me, you might believe EirGrid

    Eirgrid are a state controlled entity, no bias there no?

    taconnol wrote: »
    Ugh because coal plants and nuclear plants have different generational profiles and cannot neatly be replaced like that. Seriously - anyone with a basic understanding of the different generation options would know that.

    Erm yes they can at any time in Moneypoint one of the generators would be down
    Your concern is that nuclear generators are too "large" (which is amusing considering if its too large we can sell the extra energy and/or lower the prices to boost demand)
    I pointed out that you can have Nuclear reactors of same size as current ones in Moneypoint, then you put in N+1 for redundancy in case of maintenance. For that matter there are modular reactors nowadays starting from few MW and up, which are close systems requiring little maintenances

    An no need to talk down at me, You are the one looking more uninformed here,
    this is exactly what Im taking about, the Greens putting on blinkers and not willing to discuss all options available, sometimes even putting arguments against which dont do their own arguments any favours

    taconnol wrote: »
    That is incorrect. CPP is not the only baseload technology available to us

    Please name the other base-load technologies available to us

    taconnol wrote: »
    such as smart grids
    Where is this smart grid you speak of? Like the whole "smart" economy hot air i would like you to point out where it is

    taconnol wrote: »
    demand levelling and interconnection.
    What inter-connector exactly? there is one "expected" online in few years (a very expensive 500MW) and its not particularly large (less 10% our peak demand)
    And then there's northern Ireland

    taconnol wrote: »
    The issues surrounding cross-pollination of GM is well recognised around scientists/researchers. As I already said, GM research is not banned.
    If they "recognise" the dangers let them deal with it themselves, theres no need for any bans from the top down.

    taconnol wrote: »
    The level of debate on here is so dismal sometimes.
    Speak for yourself

    You are so blinded by your ideology that you are not willing to discuss any alternative options that might not fit in the Green Bible


  • #66
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Yee environmentalists
    That is far too broad a spectrum to narrow down.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Eirgrid are a state controlled entity, no bias there no?
    Can you point out where they are wrong in their logic?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Erm yes they can at any time in Moneypoint one of the generators would be down
    Your concern is that nuclear generators are too "large" (which is amusing considering if its too large we can sell the extra energy and/or lower the prices to boost demand)
    I pointed out that you can have Nuclear reactors of same size as current ones in Moneypoint, then you put in N+1 for redundancy in case of maintenance. For that matter there are modular reactors nowadays starting from few MW and up, which are close systems requiring little mainteances
    You still haven't addressed the issue of how nuclear fits into Ireland's energy grid, ie how it interacts with the other types of generation.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Please name the other base-load technologies available to us
    CCGT is the most preferable due its strong performance in dispatchability. Pumped storage exists in small quantities and can be improved.

    And then you have fossil fuels. I would say that oil and even coal are much more preferable to peat. I don't think Ireland could reach 100% renewables as a closed system but work is being done on modelling such a scenario in UL and of course the European interconnected grid, together with a single European electricity market is a forseeable possibility going towards 2050.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Where is this smart grid you speak of? Like the whole "smart" economy hot air i would like you to point out where it is
    It's a work in progress! You want me to pull one out of my hat? Of course it will require time and investment. The smart grid also involves demand management side solutions, such as smart metering. CoolPower is an Irish company involved in this area with very interesting technologies coming onstream.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    What inter-connector exactly? there is one coming online in few years and its not particularly large (less 10% our peak demand)
    Yes you're right. there are also plans for future HVDC interconnectors to France and the UK. These measures will of course take time and investment. By the way, are you aware of the standard lead-in time on a nuclear plant?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    If they "recognise" the dangers let them deal with it themselves, theres no need for any bans from the top down.
    Self-regulation in science? And as I've said about 3 times at this stage, GMO research isn't banned in Ireland!!


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    @taconnol and other GreensYellows


    your grinning hot air producing high priest Eamon Ryan on multiple occasions has dodged these questions:

    * When will we get the smart grid?
    * When will we get more inter-connectors?
    * How many more decades will we continue to burn coal, oil, gas and peat; while wind takes over?
    * Why cant we use nuclear as a bridging measure in order to produce enough base load for few decades giving us time to build up the grid and wind capacity and any storage?

    Please please give us a timeframe until we arrive at the Green utopia?


  • #68
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    taconnol wrote: »
    Actually Green Party support is remaining constant at around 5 % of the electorate. And are you seriously saying that there is no solid scientific proof for climate change and Ireland's water pollution and supply problems? If you want to argue that you don't care about future generations that's a completely separate argument.

    There is no proof of climate change. Who can say in 100% certainty this isn't a natural feature of this planet, occuring once every x number of thousand/million years? Why throw massive money at trying to prevent something nature will do if nature wants to do? I wouldn't trust any mouthpiece on climate change, regardless of the title in front of their name.The last "experts" fabricated their facts and figures to make it seem more dire than it was, so why should anyone pay attention to it? And no I don't waste my time caring about what will happen the world once its game over for me.

    What does that even mean? It's just a cliched insult for someone who cares about the environment.

    To put in the most literal sense, a tree hugger is someone who is so militant about the environment they are oblivious to reality and everything else around them (hugging and seeing nothing but the tree)


  • #69
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob, I just refuse to debate with someone who writes such disrespectful posts. No doubt you'll post some post in response to this but to be honest, I am incredibly disappointed in the need that some posters have on here to argue their points in such a vitriolic and contemptuous way. This is the level of debate I would expect on P.ie. A shame.

    Edit: Darkjaeger. For the gazillionth time, you are welcome to discuss the science of climate change in the Sustainability Forum.


  • #70
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    taconnol wrote: »
    Can you point out where they are wrong in their logic?

    Hmm i dont know, state agencies have a tendecy to try to hold on to their fiefdoms

    The IPCC recommends nuclear power, what do you have to say about that?

    taconnol wrote: »
    You still haven't addressed the issue of how nuclear fits into Ireland's energy grid, ie how it interacts with the other types of generation.
    You replace coal burning Moneypoint (~1000MW) with a Nukeplant (1000-1500MW) consisting of several reactors for maintenance,
    no need for new grid,
    provides reliable and cheap and clean base-load power for few decades while the Green companies built windmills and "smart" grid, spirit of ireland and all that

    taconnol wrote: »
    And then you have fossil fuels. I would say that oil and even coal are much more preferable to peat. I don't think Ireland could reach 100% renewables as a closed system but work is being done on modelling such a scenario in UL and of course the European interconnected grid, together with a single European electricity market is a forseeable possibility going towards 2050.

    WOW so we continue to burn CO2 producing fuels for another 50 years
    instead of replacing these with 1-2 (non CO2 producing) nuke plants and building up a wind powered grid at own leisure

    Yes i see how that makes environmental sense :rolleyes:

    taconnol wrote: »
    It's a work in progress! You want me to pull one out of my hat? Of course it will require time and investment. The smart grid also involves demand management side solutions, such as smart metering. CoolPower is an Irish company involved in this area with very interesting technologies coming onstream.

    How much time?
    taconnol wrote: »
    Yes you're right. there are also plans for future HVDC interconnectors to France and the UK. These measures will of course take time and investment. By the way, are you aware of the standard lead-in time on a nuclear plant?
    Yes I am aware of the lead time, most of it thanks to Green groups, and stringent bureaucracy and insurance money that needs to be raised
    10 years is still alot less than 50 odd years (10 is smaller number than 50) it will take to get to a stage where renewable's are a majority of our generation
    any more inter-connectors wont arrive on this side of 2020 anyways

    taconnol wrote: »
    Self-regulation in science? And as I've said about 3 times at this stage, GMO research isn't banned in Ireland!!
    Whats wrong with scientists regulating themselves? should Creationists also "regulate" research??


  • #71
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    taconnol wrote: »
    ei.sdraob, I just refuse to debate with someone who writes such disrespectful posts.

    If you read this thread
    it is you who started first down the path of disrespect against me, talking me down, waving of points when it suits instead of debating them
    how does it feel now to taste your own medicine?

    am I asking tough questions of you that you know deep down make sense but you refused to examine them due to own "beliefs" ?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    DarkJager wrote: »
    ... And no I don't waste my time caring about what will happen the world once its game over for me...

    Noted.

    It's my world, too. Please don't mess it up on me.


  • #73
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    taconnol wrote: »
    ei.sdraob, I just refuse to debate with someone who writes such disrespectful posts. No doubt you'll post some post in response to this but to be honest, I am incredibly disappointed in the need that some posters have on here to argue their points in such a vitriolic and contemptuous way. This is the level of debate I would expect on P.ie. A shame.

    Edit: Darkjaeger. For the gazillionth time, you are welcome to discuss the science of climate change in the Sustainability Forum.

    You asked me did I honestly believe there was no proof of it and I gave you an answer. I have no interest in discussing the science of it so I'm not sure what point you're making?
    P.Breathnach wrote:
    Noted.

    It's my world, too. Please don't mess it up on me.

    Noted. If you're still alive in a couple of hundred years, send me the bill for any damage I might have caused ;)


  • #74
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #75
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    * When will we get the smart grid?
    A smart grid is not a single deliverable but a set of improvements to the grid to allow for adaptive load devices, reselling of energy to the grid, interconnectors, links to areas where renewable are generated etc.

    A roadmap for smartening the grid with a 4bn investment programme was announced by Eirgrid in 2008.
    http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Grid%2025.pdf
    * When will we get more inter-connectors?
    The planning application for the North-South dual interconnector project was submitted last December. The East-West interconnector link to Wales is planning approved and due for completion in 2012. Significant grant aiding and EIB funding have been secured for this project.
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0304/electricity.html
    * How many more decades will we continue to burn coal, oil, gas and peat; while wind takes over?
    The target is for 40% of electricity supply to come from renewable sources by 2020. (I think we're at 12% now)
    * Why cant we use nuclear as a bridging measure in order to produce enough base load for few decades giving us time to build up the grid and wind capacity and any storage?
    There is significant support for nuclear among many greens as the 'least worst option' since James Lovelock started promoting this idea 6 years ago. I imagine that there would be a lot of public resistance to the idea. In any case we will be using a larger proportion of nuclear generated power as the new interconnectors go live. It is not clear that we are of sufficient size to warrant a nuclear power station.
    Please please give us a timeframe until we arrive at the Green utopia?
    Every era is a utopia compared to a few decades earlier.


  • #76
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Great, but that has already been done and the evidence comes down on the side of AGW. It's a scientific theory, not a maths theorum so you are not going to get 100%. The theory of gravity has never been 100% proved but using your logic we should spend an equal amount of time continuously discussing alternative theories. The debate is pretty much over in scientific circles but is being artificially perpetuated by the media. I'm still waiting for you to start the debate again in my forum ;)
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    This is not true at all. Your suggestions for how to resolve environmental issues do not work but you continue to believe in them because it's what suits your world view. I too would like to think leaving everything up to the individual and companies would resolve all environmental issues but the evidence does not support such a view.

    And the irony is that we're the ones accused of wishful thinking.


  • #77
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    dynamick wrote: »
    A smart grid is not a single deliverable but a set of improvements to the grid to allow for adaptive load devices, reselling of energy to the grid, interconnectors, links to areas where renewable are generated etc.

    once again

    when?


    dynamick wrote: »
    The planning application for the North-South dual interconnector project was submitted last December. The East-West interconnector link to Wales is planning approved and due for completion in 2012. Significant grant aiding and EIB funding have been secured for this project.
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0304/electricity.html

    which part of MORE inter-connectors do you not understand, the East-West due for completion in 2012 will only carry 500MW, we here in Ireland use quite a bit more than that

    So once again

    when will we get more Inter-connectors? this side of 2020??

    Eamon Ryan avoided this question on Frontline last night

    dynamick wrote: »
    The target is for 40% of electricity supply to come from renewable sources by 2020. (I think we're at 12% now)
    we are?

    God forbid we get a calm day before 2020 and not enough inter-connectors are in place


    dynamick wrote: »
    There is significant support for nuclear among many greens as the 'least worst option' since James Lovelock started promoting this idea 6 years ago. I imagine that there would be a lot of public resistance to the idea. In any case we will be using a larger proportion of nuclear generated power as the new interconnectors go live. It is not clear that we are of sufficient size to warrant a nuclear power station.

    There are smaller countries than us with oil reserves going nuclear.

    Yes we have sufficient size and can build 1 plant to replace the largest of our most polluting base load plants


  • #78
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    ...
    And yes I agree that the deficit is a bigger problem, I don't see the Greens doing anything to address it.
    ...

    Well they are coming up with fancy taxes i.e. carbon taxes, septic tank investigation charges, etc to help raise more revenue and reduce the deficit.
    All of these taxes are welcomed by the ff party as they get more revenue all the while they can claim it was the greens trying to save the planet.

    I think most right minded people, including farmers who are custodians of most of our coutnryside, would like to protect the environment for our childrens future.
    Of course there are the skangers who couldn't give a toss and there are also the farmers who couldn't give a cr** if the stream at the bottom of their land is polluted as long as they get rid of the slurry.

    I want a clean environment, I want a safe environment, I want public transport options, I want controls on planning, I want political parties that stand for something and have ethics.
    Will the green party give me any of the above ?
    Will they fu**.
    They will make noises, but that's about all.

    So far they have abandoned some of their core principles e.g Shannon military flights, Tara, Shell.
    They abandoned their stance on entering government with what they had termed an unethical party through some slight of hand by changing leaders.

    They stand for nothing as can be seen in their defense of john o'donoghue and willie o'dea.
    They defended o'dea by voting with the ff party in the vote of confidence.
    It was only afterwards through a slip by their UNELECTED chairman that thigns unravelled.

    The speech that eamon ryan made in the Dáil that day should be shown the night before the next election to remind his constituents what a spineless cretin he really is.

    Nice to see he was back to his sanctimonious best last night on Frontline, where yet again he would not contenance the use of nuclear power, but bleats on as usual about fact it can be windy on west coast and we are beside the Atlantic.
    At least we know he did geography in school.

    The greens have backed the worse, the most inept, the most wasteful government that this country has seen and they have readily come out to defend it.

    They agreed to NAMA and the bank recapitalisations (which will sink this country for generations) in return for a few trinket measures that they reckon will help save the planet.
    The last time someone was so easily bought was when the Dutch bought Manhattan island.

    This tax on fuel is just the latest in ill thought out ideas coming from them.
    This will bring in new tax, but it ain't going to save the planet and will just add to hardship of many at a time when money is in short supply.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #79
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    jmayo wrote: »
    would like to protect the environment for our childrens future.

    the children dont have much of a future now beside paying back debt :(


  • #80
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #81
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I could just easily argue that irrational, conspiratorial thinking has taken hold of the ‘anti-AGW’ camp. However, I am not inclined to lump individuals into particular ‘sides’.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Hey, you’re the one who brought Al Gore into the discussion.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Individuals are not referred to as conspiracy theorists for having an objective view of the subject. Individuals are likened to as conspiracy theorists when they produce hyperbole along the lines of...
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    “Marxist environmentalists” pose about as much threat to our way of life as any other lunatic fringe. So we can choose to live in fear, or we can recognise that they represent a very small minority (and that’s not likely to change any time soon). Unless of course “Marxist” is a label applied to anyone who happens to be less economically liberal than yourself?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    once again

    when?
    Come now – that’s like asking “when will Dublin have an integrated transport system?”. There is no definite answer. Both are works in progress that will continue indefinitely.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    dynamick wrote: »
    The target is for 40% of electricity supply to come from renewable sources by 2020. (I think we're at 12% now)
    we are?
    Yep:
    Eirgrid wrote:
    As of August 2009 approximately 12% of Ireland's electricity is produced from renewable sources (wind 10%, hydro 2%).


  • #83
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jmayo wrote: »
    I want a clean environment, I want a safe environment, I want public transport options, I want controls on planning, I want political parties that stand for something and have ethics.
    Will the green party give me any of the above ?
    Will they fu**.
    They will make noises, but that's about all.
    So The Greens have done absolutely nothing to address the issues you’ve listed? Nothing at all?
    jmayo wrote: »
    They agreed to NAMA and the bank recapitalisations (which will sink this country for generations)....
    As opposed to allowing the banks to fail, which would sink this country for generations.


  • #84
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    jmayo wrote: »
    SFA. :rolleyes:



    So then it is fair enough to add on even more ?
    Jaysus how deluded are some people that they think we will help our economy by slapping on even more taxes on people and industries.



    In case you hadn't noticed most of our indigenous exports come from that sector. :rolleyes:

    Let me guess you don't like farmers and you happen to have lived all your life in a town/city and wouldn't know one end of a cow from a gp spokesman.

    Here to satisfy the green numpties and their supporters around here perhaps we should get rid of all cattle who create green house gases and then we can really see how much more our exports drop. :rolleyes:



    So it is tough shi** to farmers who are affectively operating on incomes from the 80s and to the old who don't happen to live in duncan stewart designed homes.

    The level of arrogance and sheer bloody minded stupidy exhibited by the green party and their die hard supporters is mind boggling.

    No wonder the greens can't get elected in rural constituencies.
    mary white will be lucky not to end up shoved head first in a slurry pit somewhere in Carlow at the next election.

    On the contrary, in slightly different circumstances i would have grown uo on a a farm or even been a farmer myself but usually farms are passed on to the first son.
    I have spent quite a lot of time working on farms during the summer hols and have seen most areas of farm work from growing/ picking crops, working with cattle up to and including a little work in slaughter houses - I do know what goes into sasuages and blackpuddings !
    I am not especially a fan of adding on taxes, but do advocate equality in taxes - why should agriculture have so much in subsidies ? The exports you refer to are, many of them are quite heavily subsidised, so the real value of them to the economy is not always clear.
    We are heartily tired of the poor mouth from so many sectors including agriculture - I can remember moaning and groaning every decade from the sixties from the agricultural lobby.


  • #85
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    So you’d be opposed to littering laws, for example?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Is that not painfully obvious? People do stupid things all the time. Why? Laziness for the most part. If people consistently made ‘environmentally responsible choices’, then pollution wouldn’t exist, would it? Or at least, it would not be a terribly serious problem.


  • #86
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Come now – that’s like asking “when will Dublin have an integrated transport system?”. There is no definite answer. Both are works in progress that will continue indefinitely.

    indefinitely :eek:

    there's a where good reason for me asking such as simple question

    when?

    A point that you and others have failed to grasp so I will have to spell it out


    Moneypoint which currently produces 20-25% of our electricity (and were talking about reliable base load power here) will be closing by 2020
    The national grid backbone and best cables now run directly from Moneypoint
    If the planning starts now by the time this closes it can be replaced by a similar sized nuclear plant with no costly grid work required

    So you are replacing a huge polluting plant with clean & reliable energy source circa 2020 and have it run for 40+ years

    Hence the reason for me constantly asking the question when?
    * When will we have a "smart grid"?
    * When will we have more inter-connectors?
    * When will 80%+ be generated reliably from renewables like wind?

    The question is vitally important to this country and its economy and to the environment, yet you and the Greens continually dodge it :(

    Now assuming that the answer to above questions is 2030-2040

    If you go with the nuclear option, you have a reliable and clean source and breathing room while you build up the renewable infrastructure

    Or the alternative (the plan Greens are going for) is to continue burning dirty CO2 producing coal (and lets not forget that a coal plant releases more radioactive material than nuke plants) which doesnt help the environment any bit

    If the Greens were in any ways serious about climate change and cutting out the largest source of Irelands emissions, they would be up in arms about the likes of Moneypoint still working


    Nuclear power is not the end as yee think

    Its a stepping stone that buys us time to build up proper infrastructure, while not polluting any more

    Im dismayed that the Greens are so blinkered that they fail to grasp such a simple concept! Once again I would invite anyone who cares about the environment to drive down there and take a long look at the mountains of coal being burned


  • #87
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Which is better and cleanest option/path for the environment and the country?



    Option A (current "plan"):

    2020: 25% renewable, 75% gas/coal/oil/turf
    2030: 45% renewable, 55% gas/coal/oil/turf
    2040: 70% renewable, 30% gas/coal/oil/turf
    2050: 90% renewable, 10% gas/coal/oil/turf


    Option B:

    2020: 25% renewable, 25% nuclear, 50% gas/coal/oil/turf
    2030: 45% renewable, 25% nuclear, 30% gas/coal/oil/turf
    2040: 70% renewable, 25% nuclear, 5% gas/coal/oil/turf
    2050: 90% renewable, 25% nuclear > exporting the difference abroad for $$$
    2060: 100% renewable, nuclear plant retired, unlike option A the country didnt release alot of CO2! and made a profit


  • #88
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #89
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Please ! Littering is very clarly an issue affecting public property !


  • #90
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    anymore wrote: »
    Please ! Littering is very clarly an issue affecting public property !

    Some people do not believe in the idea of public property.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #92
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    indefinitely :eek:

    there's a where good reason for me asking such as simple question

    when?

    A point that you and others have failed to grasp so I will have to spell it out
    Oh I grasped your point just fine, thank you very much.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Nuclear power is not the end as yee think
    Who is “yee”? When did I say nuclear was “the end”? When did I even express any opposition to the concept of nuclear power?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Its a stepping stone that buys us time to build up proper infrastructure, while not polluting any more
    No pollution whatsoever? Really?


  • #93
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Nope, I read it. I agree with the general sentiment, but there’s no way it’s going to solve all our problems.

    The ‘free market’ simply cannot take care of everything, because it relies on (most) people making the correct, informed decision all (or most of) the time. Unfortunately, as I’ve already stated, quite a lot of people make pretty stupid decisions quite a lot of the time, but I’d put that down to laziness (lack of research, for example) rather than stupidity. Increased exposure to science education might help to address that somewhat, but I don’t think it’s going to drastically alter our society.


  • #94
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Oh I grasped your point just fine, thank you very much.
    Who is “yee”? When did I say nuclear was “the end”? When did I even express any opposition to the concept of nuclear power?
    No pollution whatsoever? Really?

    As opposed to continuing to burn coal, oil, gas and turf

    then yes its a much more environmentally cleaner option

    The only CO2 emissions occur during the building of the plant, mind you windmills dont grow on trees either and require alot of resources and energy too build a process which releases CO2 as well



    I notice how you avoided this post


  • #95
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Increased exposure to science education might help to address that somewhat, but I don’t think it’s going to drastically alter our society.

    Really?

    Increased education and knowledge of science is exactly what sets us apart from stone age man and has drastically altered our societies and world

    I like how Greens cling on to science when it suits them (Climate change arguments) but choose to go dumb when it doesn't (overwhelming evidence than modern technology, never mind any future research and developments, can be used to address most of our problems)


  • #96
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Every state is paternalistic to a degree. The level of involvement of the Green Party is not a significant leap to what has gone before. But why is this not a rationale for intervention, when the vast majority of people have clearly demonstrated that they are not capable of factoring in the environmental impacts of their long-term behaviours?

    To take an extract from Lovins' publication on Natural Capitalism, here are just a few of the assumptions in a free market:
    THE FREE MARKET AND OTHER FANTASIES
    Remember the little section toward the beginning of your first-year economics textbook where the authors listed the assumptions on which the theory of a perfect free market depends? Even as abstract theories go, those conditions are pretty unreasonable. The main ones are:

    All participants have perfect information about the future.
    There is perfect competition.
    Prices are absolutely accurate and up-to-date.
    Price signals completely reflect every cost to society: There are no externalities.
    There is no monopoly (sole seller).
    There is no monopsony (sole buyer).
    No individual transaction can move the market, affecting wider price patterns.
    No resource is unemployed or underemployed.
    There's absolutely nothing that can't be readily bought and sold (no unmarketed assets) not even, as science-fiction author Robert Heinlein put it, "a Senator's robes with the Senator inside."
    Any deal can be done without "friction" (no transaction costs).
    All deals are instantaneous (no transaction lags).
    No subsidies or other distortions exist.
    No barriers to market entry or exit exist.
    There is no regulation.
    There is no taxation (or if there is, it does not distort resource allocations in any way).
    All investments are completely divisible and fungible, they can be traded and exchanged in sufficiently uniform and standardized chunks.
    At the appropriate risk-adjusted interest rate, unlimited capital is available to everyone.
    Everyone is motivated solely by maximizing personal "utility," often measured by wealth or income.

    http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid69.php
    donegalfella wrote: »
    Education doesn't have transformative potential? Are you really sure about that? The Green Party clearly believes that education in Irish is enormously important for the future of our country—but they don't have any clearly stated policy on science education. I find that extremely odd.
    Are people in Ireland less educated than those in Sweden, or Denmark? Is there some magical technology in Denmark that the rest of the world doesn't know about that causes their society to be far more sustainable than ours?

    No. They recognise forms of capital other than manufacturing, human and financial and factor that capital, ie capital in the form of services provided by nature into their decision-making processes. We do not and therefore have ended up with our disastrous environmental record.


  • #98
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #99
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    That's not what I said and it wasn't an excuse.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    We're not talking about green parties worldwide - we're talking about the Irish Green Party.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Oh. I see.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I note you didn't actually answer the question.

    Also, I'm not dismissive of education - but I don't think it's going to solve the sustainability challenge. And you've made it quite clear that you think the whole thing can be resolved by voluntarism but you haven't provided any evidence that it can. And to correct you again, I'm not dismissive of voluntary actions but I recognise their limitations. Take the '10:10' initiative: how much has it actually achieved?

    Stop with the "ideological authoritarianism" nonsense. This seems to be your typical MO: exaggerate what another poster says and then attack that position. It's downright lazy and dishonest debating and to be honest, I expect more from you.


  • #100
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #101
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Eh no I haven't - I've argued that the price of carbon needs to be internalised so that a market signal is created.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes, I know you don't believe in big state and I don't particularly like the idea of people having to be guided or even forced to act sustainably but I don't see letting this planet go down the tubes as an option, no matter what.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Again, stop lumping the Irish Green Party in with every other Green Party. I don't support that idea and neither does the Irish Green Party.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement