What would you like Minister Gormley to do?

randomname2005

JohnGormley wrote:

Minister for the Environment John Gormley said: "The scientific debate is over, the evidence is incontrovertible,"

He vowed to introduce several initiatives before the end of the year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as other strategies to stem global warming.

Climate change was the main reason his Green Party entered the coalition government in May, he added.

Ok, so Minister Gormley said he would like to introduce initiatives to curb climate change. Now, I see 'initiaves' as being either encouragements for 'good' or penalties for doing 'bad' what would the three things would you like to see him do?

Me? I would like to see
1) exponential tax rates for cars based not on engine size, but emissions.
2) Introduction and enforcement of builders to build energy efficient houses without raising costs significantly.
3) Taxing houses that are unoccupied for the majority of the year. We have over 200,000 unoccupied houses in the country, they would have generated huge amounts of unnecessary emissions during construction

R

Keeks

Questions are more politically motivated than relating to Green issues....moved

Jackie laughlin

Initiate policy to reduce air travel.

Lennoxschips

Not rubber stamping unnecessary motorways through areas of cultural heritage would be a start...

Mick86

randomname2005 wrote:

...Me? I would like to see
1) exponential tax rates for cars based not on engine size, but emissions.
2) Introduction and enforcement of builders to build energy efficient houses without raising costs significantly.
3) Taxing houses that are unoccupied for the majority of the year. We have over 200,000 unoccupied houses in the country, they would have generated huge amounts of unnecessary emissions during construction

So basically you want to tax Global warming out of existence.:rolleyes:

CerebralCortex

Maybe to focus his attention away from global warming and put more effort into energy and transportation.

maniac101

I'd like to see him (and his government) seize the opportunities that global warming presents for Ireland. The government should form policies that encourage greater investment in the research and development of indigenous renewable technologies. So many billions will be spent on imported renewable technology over the coming years as a result of our Kyoto Protocol commitments, but very few jobs are being created. We should develop our own renewable energy solutions instead of just buying stuff from Denmark and Austria.

Oldtree

While he has no powers with regard to planning applications or enforcement issues, he has the power to issue directions within both county development and local area plans. I believe that he should use his power to reighn in the county councils flouting of both their disregard for irish, eu law and their own development plans. 46% of Mayo COCO's decisions that were appealed to an bord pleanala in 2005 were overturned, reasons like not following development plans featured highly.

Also discreationary plans by cocos need to be further defined and regulated as words like 'may' are being used as a reason to do nothing by council officals. also Councils need to be somehow held accountable for their actions.

He could do a lot of house clearing with this approach. he has already had an impact where areas which have been zoned for industry are no longer.

Jackie laughlin

C.Cortex,
Mr. Gormley's problem is that he pays too little attention to global warming other than mentioning it occasionally.



There is no handy, neo-liberal, market-based solution to the problem. There will be business opportunities arising from state intervention to reduce the use of carbon but other businesses will be damaged. Sorry, but this is the real world and policy will not suit everyone. Mr. Gormley either doesn't yet see this or he does but wants to avoid the consequent trouble it will cause him.

BendiBus

Raise building standards regarding energy efficiency as high as is practicable.

Ditto for planning law (to encourage density, proximity to public transport etc.). Basically a proper land use policy.

Introduce measures (I'm happy to hear other posters ideas as to what particular measures!) to develop an indigeneous "new energy" industrial sector.

is_that_so

• Address the national waste policy and that means everything, including incineration
• Provide massively increased funding for alternative energy
• Look at developing a long term energy policy, which may mean getting nuclear-generated electricity
• Force more organisations and companies into waste compliance
• Privatise/Split the ESB (wishful thinking and assuming that it actually comes under his remit)
• Come up with genuinely achievable methods of getting us to reduce our emissions.
• Finally , keep his nose out of things that have nothing to do with him and get on with his own job(Shannon)

Liam Byrne

is_that_so wrote:

• Address the national waste policy and that means everything, including incineration
• Provide massively increased funding for alternative energy
• Look at developing a long term energy policy, which may mean getting nuclear-generated electricity
• Force more organisations and companies into waste compliance
• Privatise/Split the ESB (wishful thinking and assuming that it actually comes under his remit)
• Come up with genuinely achievable methods of getting us to reduce our emissions.
• Finally , keep his nose out of things that have nothing to do with him and get on with his own job(Shannon)

That looks like my list.....I would also have included the following 2:

• Ensure public transport around the country is available, reliable and cost-effective - trains between all cities, and up and down the west coast; Dart and Luas style systems for the major cities;
• Ensure that people paying for waste disposal have recycling facilities INCLUDED in the cost - not €1.50 extra per bag or whatever

The problem is that there's a mentality of "pay more for waste disposal" - which pisses people off because it's just a veiled excuse for taxing us even more - the approach should be "pay less for being green, and the ONLY example that we've seen of that is the VRT reduction on green cars, which is pathetic considering that both VRT and the "luxury" VAT rate on cars are a disgrace.

The fact that FF are in the pockets of developers and landowners and we end up with huge sprawling suburbs from which people have no option but to commute and sit in traffic doesn't help either.....ridiculous house prices are preventing people from living near work, and the only people gaining are the banks and developers

nesf

I'd like to see pay by weight refuse charges come in across the country combined with free dry recycling bins being provided for households. Put people in a position where they are being charged for not recycling and they'll happily recycle away for you.

It's not very aspirational but it would at least work.


Convincing or backing the DCC in bringing in some kind of water charge + credit system would be a good thing too.

djmc

Put tax on fuel not on engine size so people pay for how much they drive
instead of paying eg 1500 euro for a 3 litre car or jeep that they drive 20 miles a week in

Demonique

1) A fuel tax rather than a tax based on engine size, the more fuel your car uses the more tax you pay
2) Congestion charge in Dublin to encourage people to leave their cars at home. Traffic in London fell by 1/3 due to their congestion charge. The money generated by the congestion charge could be used to
3) Improve public transport in Dublin. More buses would be good and the older style buses should be phased out in favour of buses with wheelchair access
4) More allotments in cities to enable people who don't have their own gardens to grow their own food
5) A grant available to people who want to install solar panels/mini wind turbines on their homes

Jackie laughlin

Look, I drive as little as possible, I use bio-diesel when I can get it, I use public transport, I compost, the house is insulated like you wouldn't believe etc. etc. However, the problem is global warming. Am I really alone here in this thread in thinking that Irish air travel must be capped and then reduced? For the love of God, in my town there are four estate agents selling overseas holiday homes! Mind you, if global warming continues those homes will be in a uselessly hot climate. The problem is that the Green Party is stuck with outdated thinking and has been overtaken by populism.

A ban on GM for no reason. A refusal to countenance nuclear. A crippling tax on incineration. Deckchairs - Titanic! Fiddling - Rome burning!

the_syco

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Look, I drive as little as possible, I use bio-diesel

We make so little of the stuff, most of it just comes from Brazil.

=-=

Oh, and build nuclear reactors. Waaay less emissions than the pesky fossil fuels.

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The problem is that the Green Party is stuck with outdated thinking and has been overtaken by populism.

Actually they seem to be rife with current thinking...ie take the percs in place of opposition to the status quo
This is the main reason they are a joke here and in the US.

A ban on GM for no reason.

reason #1 it is quite clear by now that GM crops cannot be contained
reason #2 GM companies create nifty little things like "limiter" seeds
reason #3 no it is not being used to "feed the world"

3 of many

A refusal to countenance nuclear.

Speaking of outdated.

A crippling tax on incineration.

Gotta pay to pollute. Sounds reasonable to me.

edanto

the_syco wrote:

Oh, and build nuclear reactors. Waaay less emissions than the pesky fossil fuels.

OT, but interesting nonetheless - according to Robert Newman in the History of Oil - the nuclear cycle, from mining to decommissioning, produces 75% as much CO2 as fossil fuel stations making the same power. (at around 37 mins if you're in a rush)

I would like Gormley to engage on a campaign of travelling around the country to areas for potential windfarms and trying to get the locals on side, to get them to accept them. I would rather see a hundred turbines out my windows than the two chimneys below. Potentially, we could use hydrogen fuel cells to store the energy generated by wind - but I don't know the efficiency of that system.

REducing co2 isn't just about transport or energy either, there may be way to reduce our consumption of goods. In the states, something like 95% or more of all consumer goods end up in landfill within 6 months. It would be good to know what our statistics are and what we could do about it.

Rail transport should be improved all over the country, following the good work of the last government.

Same for recycling initiatives, the last government did well, but there are still huge areas of the country where it's impractical to recycle and we need some bright ideas.

Jackie laughlin

I think the comment about Mercs and perks is pure cynicism. That certainly is not the problem with Greens in govt.

I've debated the GM question here before. Apart from the perennial problem about exploitation which applies to most capitalist enterprise, there is no problem with GM and our national ban will damage our standing in the world of science.

Similarly, I've debated nuclear. The Green position is closed: a discussion followed by a ban.

Now they want to put a prohibitive tax on incineration, either knowing nothing about modern incinerators or pretending to know nothing of modern incinerators to placate traditional luddite supporters.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that for environmental reasons, Greens in govt. are a very bad development.

Lennoxschips

ireland needs to become less of a car dependent society. the trouble is the greens are in government with the develepors' party, who have spent the last 10 years turning ireland into the most car dependent country in europe. fianna fail ministers would sooner cut off their arms than make develepors adhere to strict planning.

dragonkin

I think the amount of plastic packaging needs to be vastly reduced and preferably a tax similar to the plastic bag tax needs to be introduced for all consumable items.

This would have the following advantages:

• Vastly reduce the amount of waste produced and help aleviate waste disposal problems.
• Force companies to use other alternative packaging that is bidegradable (possibly new Irish based companies could provide this)
• Eliminate usless packaging muffins, bananas, plastic trays etc.

jawlie

It's such a sterile debate about what we should do to prevent global warming.

If we assume, for the purposed of debate, that we can not only influence global warming, but actually stop it, and further assume that its a good thing to stop it (a question which is rarely asked), everyone comes up with their own pet theory of how to stop it. Maybe its all the fault of SUV's, or the Airline Industry, or 'big' business, or whatever else is the current fashionable thing.

None of which really matters when you realise that China, alone, is opening another hundred coal fired, dirty, large, power stations this year and all are pumping out zillions of tons of CO2.

Couple that with the fact that the human population has increased three times since 1920, from 2 billion to 6 billion, and is scheduled to increase to 9 billion by 2050. And all those extra 3 billion will want central heating, light, deep freezers, bigger and better motor cars, foreign holidays and a roast on Sunday and hamburgers for the barbecue a couple of times a week. They wil all go away on holidays and forget to turn off the central heating, or the immersion, and leave lights on when they go out and do all the wasteful things we all do nowadays.

Did you know that cattle account for over 30% of greenhouse gases, which is over 15 times more than the whole of the airline industry. Every year. The simple solution is to slaughter the whole cattle population, have the worlds biggest ever bbq, and then all become vegatarian.

Of course, that doesn't fit well with the crypto socialist agenda of the doom sayers who want to use "Climate Change" as the excuse to make us all feel guilty about having foreign holidays, and motor cars, and warm houses, and all the other things which make modern life so much more tolerable that it was even a few short years ago. Yes, we are back into an age of the the new puritans where everything enjoyable is bad.

Jackie laughlin

Here we go again! We're too small to have an effect. Grand, let's do nothing.

CerebralCortex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

C.Cortex,
Mr. Gormley's problem is that he pays too little attention to global warming other than mentioning it occasionally...

Reason I said that is because I don't think humans are entirely responsible for climate change.

Húrin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Initiate policy to reduce air travel.

I agree. Scrap the expansion of Dublin airport. Not only will it lead to more flying, but it's also stupidly expensive.

Aviation is the most subsidised form of travel. Change that. End kerosene's tax-free status. Subsidise the ferry to Britain instead, make it appealing. So many flights at Dublin airport are to Britain, which is very unecessary. If there were less of those, the human traffic would be at manageable levels.

jawlie wrote:

Of course, that doesn't fit well with the crypto socialist agenda of the doom sayers who want to use "Climate Change" as the excuse to make us all feel guilty about having foreign holidays, and motor cars, and warm houses, and all the other things which make modern life so much more tolerable that it was even a few short years ago.

why are you such a conspiracy theorist? Why would anyone want to make you feel guilty about taking foreign holidays and indulging in materialism while the world goes up in flames and the majority starves (other than Christian activists like me).

Jackie laughlin

I'm very openly a socialist and I enjoy the good life. I want to extend the good life to all of my fellow citizens. Global warming will end this life for all of us but it doesn't have to be like this. Taking action now may save us and none of the actions spoken about will leave anyone cold and miserable!

djpbarry

jawlie wrote:

If we assume, for the purposed of debate, that we can not only influence global warming, but actually stop it, and further assume that its a good thing to stop it (a question which is rarely asked)

I would say that, based on the weight of evidence, those are pretty good “assumptions”.

jawlie wrote:

everyone comes up with their own pet theory of how to stop it. Maybe its all the fault of SUV's, or the Airline Industry, or 'big' business, or whatever else is the current fashionable thing.

I think it’s fair to say that there are several contributing factors.

jawlie wrote:

Did you know that cattle account for over 30% of greenhouse gases, which is over 15 times more than the whole of the airline industry

The bulk of these greenhouse gases are methane and nitrous oxides, both of which spend a relatively short time in the atmosphere compared to CO2. Besides, do you propose we slaughter ALL animals that expel greenhouse gasses?

jawlie wrote:

Of course, that doesn't fit well with the crypto socialist agenda of the doom sayers who want to use "Climate Change" as the excuse to make us all feel guilty about having foreign holidays, and motor cars, and warm houses, and all the other things which make modern life so much more tolerable that it was even a few short years ago. Yes, we are back into an age of the the new puritans where everything enjoyable is bad.

I’m so tired of this argument – why is it that people cannot see this as a great opportunity, for this country in particular? There is huge potential for Ireland to become a world leader in developing “clean” technologies, which would not only benefit our economy, but all civilization. No one is saying we should abandon our entire way of life and go back to living in caves. It may be difficult for some people to make big changes in their lifestyle to reduce their energy consumption, but it’s very easy to try . Besides, what harm can it possibly do you?

A couple of other points:

• Nuclear is not the way forward, for two reasons. First of all, uranium is finite – what happens when this fuel is depleted? Secondly, what of the hazardous waste products?
• Why are people so quick to jump on the anti-GM bandwagon? Were it not for GM, type II diabetes would be a fatal condition as we would not have the means to produce enough insulin to treat diabetics.

Jackie laughlin

Two quick points:

Nuclear is an option, part of a strategy.

The Green Party ban on GM in Ireland was just daft.

djpbarry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Nuclear is an option, part of a strategy.

What sort of strategy?

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote:

I would say that, based on the weight of evidence, those are pretty good “assumptions”.

I'm not convinced it's safe to assume we can reverse global warming.

djpbarry wrote:

The bulk of these greenhouse gases are methane and nitrous oxides, both of which spend a relatively short time in the atmosphere compared to CO2.

Do they? Where do they go? Genuine question.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm not convinced it's safe to assume we can reverse global warming.

What I’m saying is that I think it is safe to say, based on the huge body of evidence, that human behaviour is a factor in global warming.

oscarBravo wrote:

Do they? Where do they go? Genuine question.

Methane is oxidised in the upper atmosphere, producing water vapour and methyl groups. The influence of nitrous oxide on global warming is substantially less than CO2, although concentrations are increasing.

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

What I’m saying is that I think it is safe to say, based on the huge body of evidence, that human behaviour is a factor in global warming.

How much of a factor is human behaviour is responsible for global warming.

Methane is oxidised in the upper atmosphere, producing water vapour and methyl groups. The influence of nitrous oxide on global warming is substantially less than CO2, although concentrations are increasing.

Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It also acts as medium to effect climate change.

While NO2 does not directly influence warming, it can have dramatic indirect effects that can lead to substantial warming and climate change.

Peak oil just around just around the corner and the greens focusing on global warming.

Gormley should resign.

Elmo

I would like him to ask his Junior Partners in Government to Resign.

djpbarry

piraka wrote:

Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Yes, it is - no one is denying that. Were it not for cloud cover, the earth's surface temperature would swing from one extreme to the other (as it does in the Sahara for example). It is accepted that there is much we do not know about the influence of clouds on the climate. However, we do know that CO2 traps heat. So, it stands to reason that if we drastically increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see below), this will have an effect on our climate.

piraka wrote:

While NO2 does not directly influence warming, it can have dramatic indirect effects that can lead to substantial warming and climate change.

Not unless it's concentration is dramatically increased. I would be more concerned about the rapidly increasing CO2 concentration, which is forecast to approach near-toxic levels by the end of this century.

piraka wrote:

Peak oil just around just around the corner and the greens focusing on global warming.

I would say that the two problems go hand-in-hand. If we generate more of our energy from renewable sources in this country, we not only reduce our dependence on imported oil, we also reduce our carbon emissions - everybody wins .

Hotblack Desiato

Ah, the old trick of using a graph without a true origin, making any change look far more dramatic.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote:

I would be more concerned about the rapidly increasing CO2 concentration, which is forecast to approach near-toxic levels by the end of this century.

Waitasec. At the moment, carbon dioxide makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Toxic levels (as I understand it) start around 5%.

Are you forecasting a 125-fold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by the end of the century?

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

So, it stands to reason that if we drastically increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see below), this will have an effect on our climate.

How will CO2 affect our climate

Not unless it's concentration is dramatically increased

NO2 and N2O coupled with H2O are implicated in current climate change. These gases are increasing dramatically in the atmosphere.

djpbarry

ninja900 wrote:

Ah, the old trick of using a graph without a true origin, making any change look far more dramatic.

There’s no trick here; both axes are clearly labelled. Besides, I think a 20% increase in 45 years is “dramatic”.

oscarBravo wrote:

Waitasec. At the moment, carbon dioxide makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Toxic levels (as I understand it) start around 5%.

Are you forecasting a 125-fold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by the end of the century?

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 380ppm. Concentrations above 1,000ppm will cause discomfort for about 20% of people (think of conditions in a stuffy office). Now, according to the IPCC’s worst-case scenario, CO2 concentrations could increase to 970ppm by 2100 (in the “business as usual” scenario). Ok, maybe “near-toxic” was a bit of an over-statement, but the point is people will be able to “feel” the difference and this will cause health problems.

piraka wrote:

How will CO2 affect our climate

Impossible to predict with absolute certainty – it’s difficult enough to forecast next week’s weather! But, according to the IPCC:

• Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
• The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
• World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century and that:
• There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
• There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
• Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

piraka wrote:

NO2 and N2O coupled with H2O are implicated in current climate change. These gases are increasing dramatically in the atmosphere.

I have already agreed that nitrous oxide is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere and that, yes, it has been implicated in climate change and we should make an effort to reduce our emissions of it. But, it’s effect pales in comparison to that of CO2. As for H2O, I very much doubt it’s concentration is increasing “dramatically” – the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapour before it precipitates back to earth.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote:

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 380ppm. Concentrations above 1,000ppm will cause discomfort for about 20% of people (think of conditions in a stuffy office).

This looks suspiciously similar to something I found in Wikipedia. In context:

Wikipedia wrote:

Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself.

Note: this is talking about using carbon dioxide levels as a proxy for measuring indoor air conditions. It's not talking about atmospheric toxicity.

djpbarry wrote:

Ok, maybe “near-toxic” was a bit of an over-statement, but the point is people will be able to “feel” the difference and this will cause health problems.

I genuinely worry about the perceived need to use overstatements and out-of-context facts to make a point.

Something else I wonder about: we're told that global warming will cause the ice caps to melt, and sea levels to rise to an extent that will threaten coastal communities and island nations. Fair enough. But we're also hearing about the extent to which the ice caps have already melted - and, last I heard, the Maldives (and Dollymount) were still above sea level.

I just wonder, is all.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

Something else I wonder about: we're told that global warming will cause the ice caps to melt, and sea levels to rise to an extent that will threaten coastal communities and island nations. Fair enough. But we're also hearing about the extent to which the ice caps have already melted - and, last I heard, the Maldives (and Dollymount) were still above sea level.

I just wonder, is all.

Maybe we've read or told different things, but what you say isn't quite what I've read / been told.

On one hand, I've been told that a lot of sea ice has melted (and a small amount of landlocked ice). On the other hand, I've been told that should this pattern continue, then more and more landlocked ice will follow.

The sea-ice melting has had a small, but noticeable effect. This is what it should have - other than the density-difference between ice and cold water, the displacement is the same.

Land-locked ice, on the other hand, does not currently displace water. Should that start to melt in volume (which some models predict), then the game changes, and the sea-levels will rise accordingly.

Of course, we can take solace in the fact that its only some models, and that even they can't agree fully on the rate. Obviously this means that there's nothing to worry about and that its all just make-believe

edanto

One recent revision to the land-locked ice model involved taking into account the observation that slippage towards the sea is speeding up, apparently because of meltwater running through crevices in the glaciers which lubricates their passage.

If the Greens can influence policy - or at least get people discussing this in politics - that's a start.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote:

This looks suspiciously similar to something I found in Wikipedia.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for information on anything.

oscarBravo wrote:

I genuinely worry about the perceived need to use overstatements and out-of-context facts to make a point.

One small mis-use of a phrase does not negate the entire argument - I'm only human, I do make mistakes, but I am quite prepared to admit it when I do.

oscarBravo wrote:

we're told that global warming will cause the ice caps to melt, and sea levels to rise to an extent that will threaten coastal communities and island nations. Fair enough. But we're also hearing about the extent to which the ice caps have already melted - and, last I heard, the Maldives (and Dollymount) were still above sea level.

Well, a rise in sea levels has already been measured and there's still a hell of a lot more ice left on the planet. For example, if the whole of Greenland were to melt, it is estimated that oceans would rise by up to 7 metres.

cyclopath2001

randomname2005 wrote:

Ok, so Minister Gormley said he would like to introduce initiatives to curb climate change. Now, I see 'initiaves' as being either encouragements for 'good' or penalties for doing 'bad' what would the three things would you like to see him do?

1: Repeal the 1998 regulations passed by the PDs that make cycle tracks compulsory for cyclists and which at the same time legalised their use by motorists.

2: Make 2 metres the minimum width for a cycle track.

3: Prosecute local authorities who don't adhere to legal specifications when building cycle tracks.

4: Audit all cycle infrastructure spending to date and identify instances where facilities were built and subsequently removed to make more space for motorists. Fire those responsible.

Jackie laughlin

DjpBarry,
I've debated the nuclear issue on this site before. When I referred to a "stategy", I meant no more than that nuclear had a place among the complex of responses necessary to addressing man-made, global warming.

djpbarry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

When I referred to a "stategy", I meant no more than that nuclear had a place among the complex of responses necessary to addressing man-made, global warming.

Ok, fair enough. But personally, I don't think nuclear is the way forward for four reasons:

• Ireland's national grid is too small to warrant the construction of nuclear reactors here.
• The refinement of thorium and uranium is difficult and expensive, both environmentally and financially.
• There is a finite supply of nuclear fuel.
• If Ireland were to become dependent on nuclear energy, we would have to import all the necessary fuel, meaning we would still be relying on imports for the bulk of our energy.

I think that concentrating on the development of renewables in Ireland would be far more beneficial to our country in the long run.

Jackie laughlin

Does it have to be one or the other?

I'm interested in the argument that a grid designed for a large generator (in this case nuclear) is incompatible with distributed (perhaps small) producers. I can't find any info on this. Is it an insumountable problem?

The other points apply to fossil fuel too and they aren't relevant to reducing CO2 emissions.

djpbarry

The problem with going nuclear, from an Irish perspective, is, because we are a small population, it would encourage energy consumption. There’s no such thing as a “mini” nuclear reactor – the average nuclear power station produces 800 to 1100 megawatts. Most power stations in Ireland don’t produce anything near that, the exceptions being Moneypoint (915MW) and Poolbeg (1,020MW).

What would make more sense to me would be to gradually (or rapidly if possible!) reduce our energy consumption – this is not that difficult to achieve. For example, imagine every new home in the country was built with a solar panel and a wind turbine. Net energy consumption for such homes would be close to zero – they could even produce more energy than is needed, which could be fed back into the grid.

Jackie Laughlin wrote:

The other points apply to fossil fuel too and they aren't relevant to reducing CO2 emissions.

I’m not sure I understand this statement. Basically, what I’m saying is, is that if we go nuclear, we are effectively shifting our fuel dependency from one source to another, rather than making ourselves more self-sufficient by producing more of our own energy.

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

The problem with going nuclear, from an Irish perspective, is, because we are a small population, it would encourage energy consumption. There’s no such thing as a “mini” nuclear reactor – the average nuclear power station produces 800 to 1100 megawatts. Most power stations in Ireland don’t produce anything near that, the exceptions being Moneypoint (915MW) and Poolbeg (1,020MW).

Toshiba 10MW reactor
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/tech/review/2007/high2007/high2007pdf/0705.pdf

Installation in Alaska
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Alaska_10MW_07_04.pdf

djpbarry

Ok, small-scale reactors are in development.

But my arguments about fuel sources and environmental impact still stand.

Hotblack Desiato

djpbarry wrote:

There’s no such thing as a “mini” nuclear reactor – the average nuclear power station produces 800 to 1100 megawatts.

Wrong, as has already been pointed out.

Most power stations in don’t produce anything near that, the exceptions being Moneypoint (915MW) and Poolbeg (1,020MW).

The point is that the large stations like Moneypoint and Poolbeg are kept going 24/7 if possible, the smaller and less efficient stations are only switched in as needed.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to switch off Moneypoint and all of its filthy coal emissions? You simply cannot do that with wind, tidal or solar - only nuclear.

What would make more sense to me would be to gradually (or rapidly if possible!) reduce our energy consumption – this is not that difficult to achieve.

Yes it is when your population is growing strongly, as ours is.

For example, imagine every new home in the country was built with a solar panel and a wind turbine. Net energy consumption for such homes would be close to zero – they could even produce more energy than is needed, which could be fed back into the grid.

This is laughable. Domestic wind turbines are quite simply a joke and a scam, they are much too small, too low and too shielded by other buildings to do anything, unless you live in a one-off house on top of a hill and can get planning permission for a whopper.
Solar - whatever about water heating, for photo-voltaic in this country it's doubtful indeed whether you'd make back what you put in in manufacturing, transporting and installing these panels.

I’m not sure I understand this statement. Basically, what I’m saying is, is that if we go nuclear, we are effectively shifting our fuel dependency from one source to another

No, we're not. We're not going to get rid of gas-generated electricity, just use nuclear for a good chunk of the 24/7 base load, use gas in addition at peak demand, and get rid of coal altogether if possible as it's by far the worst fuel. If Vladimir Putin throws a wobbler again it would be nice if he only could knock out ~40% of our electricity rather than ~80%.
Uranium comes from places like Canada or Australia (or possibly Donegal) that we are on much more friendly terms with, you don't need much to fuel a reactor for years and keeping a strategic stockpile of years' worth of fuel right here in Ireland would be entirely feasible. Our national petroleum reserves are no more than about the 60 day mark I believe, at best, for gas it's probably only a couple of days.