GAS & OIL prices to increase by ~46%

Nukem

News from the 4th of July from www.cer.ie

http://www.cer.ie/CERDocs/news0606.pdf

Page 4 look at the expected increases proposed to CER. As you can guess as we depend on gas and oil a lot electricity will increase by the same amount shortly after.

Nukem

SeanW

Oil Prices Soar to above $75 a barrel.

Foxwood

Nukem wrote:

News from the 4th of July from www.cer.ie

http://www.cer.ie/CERDocs/news0606.pdf

Page 4 look at the expected increases proposed to CER. As you can guess as we depend on gas and oil a lot electricity will increase by the same amount shortly after.

Read it again. The 2006 tarriff was set at a tmie when it as not expected that oil would remain above $70/barrel. The 2007 tarriff will have to take into account not just the projected cost of fuel in 2007, but also the under-projection of fuel costs in 2006.

So the projected 46% increase in the 2007 tarriff isn't a projection of 46% increase on current $70+ oil prices.

It's still going to hurt though (and will be especially interesting in an election year! It's one factor that might make Bertie want to jump before the winter!)

Nukem

Yes all valid points but the message is we are pretty much goin to get ridden for the next few years. This was only a proposal and as you rightly pointed out not with the price of oil per barrel over $70. Bertie would do well to stage left

Kelter

also this is just the proposal which has been put to the CER, they need to deide what they will allow now.

stereo_steve

We really need to stat planning for our nuclear power station now....

SeanW

stereo_steve wrote:

We really need to stat planning for our nuclear power station now....

got it in one, Steve

Edit: The contents of this picture, were it located here, would supply ALL of Ireland's electricity 99% of the time, with power to spare, with no CO2, acid rain coumpound or toxic emissions, or pollution of any kind, and do so in a sustainable fashion.

Nukem

SeanW wrote:

this picture,

Pictures like that tend to scare people, with the large cooling towers "oh look at all the smog they are producing":rolleyes:

*pfft* only way we are goin to survive and doesnt the government realise that energy prices here could and do sometimes have major effects on industries. Cheaper the bills the more companies would want to start here.

mjffey

Never heard of nuclear waste then, he? Never heard of chernobyl, or are you so naive that you think that something like that can't happen here or in France?

Ever visited a nuclear plant and looked at all the safety things they have to put in place to make it as safe as possible, but still knowing that it's not optimum? When you're in the UK near the scotland border, you can visit one if you like. See if you still want nuclear power in you backgarden.

Nukem

mjffey wrote:

naive

I gather you have visited a nuclear power station then. No arguements that it is a risk but have you ever visited a power station in Ireland? Optimum is not a word i would use when relating the two.Now are you naive to think that what we have in place is efficent,safe and cost effective and a viable option for the future?

SeanW

mjffey wrote:

Never heard of nuclear waste then?

Manageable.

Never heard of chernobyl, or are you so naive that you think that something like that can't happen here or in France?

What went on the Soviet Union and what happens in France are two very completely different things. I've researched Chernobyl extensively, and I'm satisfied that it cannot happen again. The same being my only objection to Nuclear Power, I've changed my mind on it as a result. The Soviet Union itself was a disaster and Chernobyl was inevitable.

Below is a 17 point list of mistakes and misfortune that lead to the Chernobyl disaster ... I'm sure you'll agree little of this can happen in a competent Western.

1. The USSR was coming from behind in a race for Nuclear parity with the West
2. They cut many corners in design and safety
3. Their main reactor type was an unstable RBMK design
4. This particular plant was designed by a designer with no experience of nuclear power plants, but plenty of ego
5. The construction of the Chernobyl plant was plagued by problems especially with concrete and cement deliveries, in both quality and schedule.
6. The plant director was pressured by Soviet authorities to bring Reactor 4 online early.
7. There was only one nuclear engineer on the payroll, most of the rest of the staff were trained as electrical engineers only
8. The plant director scheduled the safety test to be run in the daytime of April 25th 1986, when there would be a full staff on standby, and Reactor 4 was due for an annual maintenance shutdown anyway
9. But a regional power station went down, and the Kiev grid controller demanded more output from Chernobyl.
10. Rather than being rescheduled, the test was left to the nightshift, a skeleton crew of mainly newly trained electrical engineers
11. The test called for the reduction of output to 20-30% but the operator in charge lowered too many control rods into the core, causing an almost total shutdown.
12. Several safety procedures were broken in an attempt to raise output levels. In addition to this, the reactor manuals and documentations had paragraphs crossed out. This caused confusion and the operator phoned an operator at Reactor 3 for advice, upon which they were told to follow the crossed out instructions as the changes had no official stamp.
13. With output levels too low, too many control rods out of the core, and safety systems, including the automatic shutdown switched off, the test is initiated. The staff has its orders ... and you DON'T disobey orders in the Soviet Union.
14. Within a minute, everything goes to hell, water - used for cooling and neutron absorbtion - evaporates and there are not enough control rods in the reactor to stop a runaway reaction. The "nuclear poison" Xeon gas, also becomes consumed by the runaway reaction, making control even more impossible. The reactor reaches 100 times normal output, overheats, goes into meltdown, and explodes.
15. There is only partial containment on the reactor building for the event of an accident. It is of course, breached by the explosion.
16. There are vast quantities of nuclear material on site, obviously far more than needed for a days power generation. 5-6% of this will be released over the coming 10 days.
17. There are no accident contingency plans, making a very bad situation much worse.

The RBMK was only ever used in the Soviet Union.

See if you still want nuclear power in you backgarden.

Bring It On!!!

Why don't you do some unbiased research into the nearest alternative, Coal? Then come back and tell me which type of plant you'd want in your back garden?

silverharp

Also bear in mind that you can discuss whether nuclear is right or wrong for Ireland or right or wrong for other countries. I'm of the view that nuclear has less merits for Ireland than for other countries. France was alsolutely correct to follow it's strategy for example.

mjffey

What about combinations of wind/wave and solar energy. Hope that's green enough, and if everybody does his share in using less energy, then we'll all be better of.
Coal and peat is no option, but you can put a windfarm on my land.:D.
Our new house will have rainwater collection, even for drinkwater, solar heating and hopefulley we get permission for a few small windturbines. Main living areas will be southfacing and only few small windows north.
Nuclear is (just as inscinerators) for me, having lived near Kalkar in Germany, a no no.
But that is my humble opinion.

Nukem

mjffey wrote:

wind/wave and solar energy

Wind is the best option but not exploited enough. One offshore wind farm????
Takes 3 years for installation and planning and the government are slow to build more,dunno why. Wave, is a great option but not enough surveying has been done in Ireland to my knowledge so that would be a long term plan,and the technology is growing still. Solar isnt too viable here.

Incinerators are another thing peope here and go "ah ah no" they can run clean and be very efficent when combined with a proper recycling facility. Google Dutch incinerator and read on,same with most places on the continent.Call them Thermal Oxidisers as well people find nicer on the ear,weird that.

Either way we have f*ck all options when it comes to cheaper electricity,buying from Europe through the grid is just as costly,oil and gas prices are increasing. Coal power stations are cack and are money burners. Our infrastructure for renewables is too small. Other options need to be explored - leaving nuclear.

mjffey

I know Nukem that the irish government is slow. I'm Dutch and live here already for 4 years, but still not used to the slow developments. I know that Ireland is at the moment testing WaveBob at the Galway cost. Got an email from Mr. Roche himself. An off shore windfarm would be great, although people could oppose because of "spoiled view"or birds, although I think that it's not as bad as they think.

Solar is still possible but not on a commmercial base it think because of lack of sun, more for the privat market.
Did you know that Portugal is building the largest solar power plant in Europe. And they have already wave power (Developed by a Scottish Company).

About incinerators... We had one about 10km from were we lived (Near Arnhem), one of the most ultra modern plants, but they did a survey just before we left and more cancer then anywere else in the Netherlands. The cows grazing the fields were not for comsumption. The milk could not be used. The grass was poisened. So no incinerators please.
I'm more the re-use/reduse/recycle type. Think before you buy.

Ireland has still a long way to go. If ever they would look to the rest of Europe to say what the shoudn't do and learn, instead of inventing the wheel, or looking at America, a country I don't know how many the size of Ireland.;)

abetarrush

Oil is stupid

I'd love to get all the oil in a world, but it in a ginormous tank, throw all these corrupt oil barons gobsheens into it n light a match


They got above the law and killed the electric car

What next? They gonna destroy wind???

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Sleipnir

And how do we get electricity for these magic cars exactly?

Nukem

mjffey wrote:

About incinerators... We had one about 10km from were we lived (Near Arnhem), one of the most ultra modern plants, but they did a survey just before we left and more cancer then anywere else in the Netherlands. The cows grazing the fields were not for comsumption. The milk could not be used. The grass was poisened. So no incinerators please.
I'm more the re-use/reduse/recycle type. Think before you buy.

Jaysus thats unreal - how come all the reports are excellent and this and that - sun shines from it.....etc...... suppose better ask the people who have lived near one before planting one. Point taken.

SeanW

silverharp wrote:

I'm of the view that nuclear has less merits for Ireland than for other countries. France was alsolutely correct to follow it's strategy for example.

Just curious: how do you come to that conclusion?

mjffey

Nukem wrote:

Jaysus thats unreal - how come all the reports are excellent and this and that - sun shines from it.....etc...... .

Nukem,

People only let you know what they want you to know. Ever heard a car dealer tell you that his product is inferior:D