how they could have saved another 350 million easily

ei.sdraob

I noticed this article here, while I dont often agree with Tol (the mad haired guy we see every so often on rte)

I think there needs to be a discussion on this

The capital allowance for energy efficiency equipment for firms has been extended too, at an estimated cost of 6 mln euro.

I would not have introduced those measures (+36 mln). I would have cut the subsidies for green energy (+170 mln). I would have removed the exemption of coal and peat from the carbon tax (+150 mln). 350 mln euro is not a lot, but every little helps.

Basically 350 million saved by dropping subsidies to coal, turf and windmil

Next time you hear someone say "children will go hungry and cold because of this budget" in this forum (as if things where that bad in 2007 :rolleyes:), point them over to this thread

Why are we subsidising this (actually i am against all subsidies, all they do is distort the market and cause **** down road as we have seen with housing) while on the other hand taking money out of school building for example or giving less to charities who directly deal with the hungry and cold.

what yee think?

why is the state subsidising semi states (who earn plenty due to their position in market) and Greens vanity projects? the money IMHO should be spend on better infrastructure which will last us in the longterm, not making the semi-states and private companies rich.

As you all know i am very pro-market but i stand by my beliefs that subsidising anything is bad idea in long term.

wmpdd3

Excuse my lack of knowledge,but coal and turf are subsidised and have carbon tax? They shouldn't be subsidised as its money going around in circles.

ei.sdraob

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Excuse my lack of knowledge,but coal and turf are subsidised and have carbon tax? They shouldn't be subsidised as its money going around in circles.

yeh the PSO levy (see your ESB bill) partly subsidises turf

go figure

Stark

Turf harvesting, that most environmentally friendly activity.

Scofflaw

Coal and turf shouldn't be subsidised, since neither are renewable resources. Cutting subsidies for renewables, on the other hand, is in the long term a stupid idea, particularly right now. Times of high unemployment have at least one advantage - the labour pool for innovation is high.

If anything, the use of existing turf stocks for energy production should be banned - if the government is serious about 'energy security', then using up one of our few domestic energy sources at a time when there are other options is particularly daft.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Coal and turf shouldn't be subsidised, since neither are renewable resources. Cutting subsidies for renewables, on the other hand, is in the long term a stupid idea, particularly right now. Times of high unemployment have at least one advantage - the labour pool for innovation is high.

If anything, the use of existing turf stocks for energy production should be banned - if the government is serious about 'energy security', then using up one of our few domestic energy sources at a time when there are other options is particularly daft.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If green technologies are so innovative and are such great return on investment

then why the hell do they need subsidies?


all we are doing is subsidising wind generator producers/car manufacturers abroad

we keep hearing how Irish IT companies will provide all the "smart" stuff for the Green sector, yet as you know yourself its impossible to get a grants/support for IT startup here (likes of EI wouldn't touch you with a stick), so its a waste/mis-allocation of money at a time when we dont have any

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If green technologies are so innovative and are such great return on investment

then why the hell do they need subsidies?


all we are doing is subsidising wind generator producers/car manufacturers abroad

we keep hearing how Irish IT companies will provide all the "smart" stuff for the Green sector, yet as you know yourself its impossible to get a grants/support for IT startup here (likes of EI wouldn't touch you with a stick), so its a waste/mis-allocation of money at a time when we dont have any

That isn't, I have to say, the angle I approach them from. I'd be looking at them from the perspective of a long lead time needed to generate any significant renewables capacity in a country that depends 85% on imported oil and gas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pete_Cavan

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If green technologies are so innovative and are such great return on investment

then why the hell do they need subsidies?

That is part of the point I was about to make after reading the PO. Going back to Richard Tol, I heard him on RTE recently talking about how it is dangerous for the government to be promoting sustainable energy production. His point was that if we throw up wind farms all over the country this technology will be surpassed in the not too distant future and we will be left with a several hundred million euro bill for something that does not produce a whole lot of energy (wind turbines are off limited use but every political party in this country seems to think they will allow us to export billions of euros worth of electricity to Europe every year, well they wont).

Im not going to get into the efficiency of wind farms and the energy producing potential versus the initial cost, but Tol's point was that we should privatise the energy production sector in this country and allow private companys to develop new technologies here. For wind farms to be effective they will have to become a lot more efficient and cheaper to install so there is no point in just going with the present techology because it will some become obsolete. Private companies would ensure the most efficient system is used and continuously upgrade their systems in order to stay ahead of the competition.

IMO the government should sell off all semi-states that produce energy but retain the national grid (and hydro power plants because these are very important to prevent flooding). This would allow genuine competition in the sector (instead of the current situation where ESB prices are kept artificially high to encourage people to switch to Board Gais or Airtricity to give the illusion of competition). The IDA could get in on this deal to encourage the private companies to set up R&D facilities here. Im sure there are many energy production companies from around the world that would love to avail of our low corpo tax rate and well educated work force. We would all win because these companies would employ thousands of us, our electricity bills would reduce and our tax money would no longer be wasted on these rotten semi-state companies.

I also agree with Tol that we should scrap the whole electric car idea and instead focus on producing bio-fuels.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

That isn't, I have to say, the angle I approach them from. I'd be looking at them from the perspective of a long lead time needed to generate any significant renewables capacity in a country that depends 85% on imported oil and gas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah yes I see, using imported steel and generators made up of rare earth metals all constructed abroad

in order to become more indpendent from imports we erm.. import more


so let me see, our peak demand yesterday was 4500MW, to replace lets say 4000MW of this with wind we would need

2000 * 2MW wind generators :rolleyes:

but wait wind doesn't blow all time (and yes there are times when whole of the island is calm) lets take optimistic availability of 30%

now we need 2000*3 = 6000 fairly large generators installed close to coast (where theres more wind) and/or on mountaintops inland, preferably spread out in order to make, tho most of these will have to be concentrated in west and south of the country


according to OSI we have 1900 miles of coast line, lets cut that in half for west and south, we endup with lets say 1000 miles, so now we need to carpet our scenic coasts with a huge windmill every 300 yards or so :rolleyes:

but wait there's more, all of these would need connections and new pylons costing billions to the grid to construct



i am sorry if i dont share in your green dream :P

from an engineering point of view a more sensible and cheaper option would be to build a nuke plant at Moneypoint, by time its build in 10 years (thanks to NIMBYs and Greens) it could step in and replace Moneypoints 1000MW and replace it with lets say 2000MW of reliable base load power
that way we are half way there to cutting our generation related CO2, dont need build new pylons and dont need to build so many windmills, a few kilograms of uranium would keep this running

or even better move to thorium, of which we have deposits here in Ireland, the Indians are now building a few, as added bonus it barely generates any waste and cant be enriched into weapons grade stuff

ei.sdraob

also....

this 350 million is in reality much larger

the energy market (which is actually great idea that got hijacked by the Greens) now gives priority to "green" electricity first, not the cheapest

all of the people and businesses are indirectly subsidising these private companies and now have the highest electricity price in europe which directly leads to higher prices and loss of competitiveness


worrying about peak oil and global warming now for Ireland and wasting so much money directly and indirectly,
is like a cancer victim (Irish state) who is undergoing chemotherapy (IMF/EU) worrying about dying of heart attack (peak oil) in 20 years time, when this patient has only a 50% chance of surviving next 3 years (50% chance of default for the State)

what i am trying to say, considering that the country is broke we should stop all subsidies since we dont have the money, if the green economy is such a great idea then they can raise money on the markets themselves, the State borrowing money at high interest to subsidise this lot is obscene

PeakOutput

im fine with a nucelar solution but your rubbishing of wind energy is just wrong. offshore and near shore wind farms are a possibility in this country aswell as onshore

firstly it is very profitable, it is efficient and we have more then enough wind in this country to power alot of energy needs. if you coupled wind wave and solar we could provide all of our energy needs.

the nearshore windfarm that just started producing in the uk has 100 turbines and can power 200,000 homes a year

your argument that we are using imports to get rid of imports is nonsensical, we would be using once off imports(importing the materials building setting up etc) to stop the need for continuous imports of oil and coal.

the main problem with all of these technologies is planning permission but that is still going to be easier to get then pp for a nuclear plant

edit; i kind of agree with you about the subsidies for certain things but thats because i think the country needs to just go and build these things immediately ourselves, compulsory purchase orders for land get it all over with in one fell swoop and be set up for the next 100 years of energy production domestically

ei.sdraob

PeakOutput wrote: »

im fine with a nucelar solution but your rubbishing of wind energy is just wrong. offshore and near shore wind farms are a possibility in this country aswell as onshore

firstly it is very profitable, it is efficient and we have more then enough wind in this country to power alot of energy needs. if you coupled wind wave and solar we could provide all of our energy needs.

the nearshore windfarm that just started producing in the uk has 100 turbines and can power 200,000 homes a year

your argument that we are using imports to get rid of imports is nonsensical, we would be using once off imports(importing the materials building setting up etc) to stop the need for continuous imports of oil and coal.

the main problem with all of these technologies is planning permission but that is still going to be easier to get then pp for a nuclear plant

edit; i kind of agree with you about the subsidies for certain things but thats because i think the country needs to just go and build these things immediately ourselves, compulsory purchase orders for land get it all over with in one fell swoop and be set up for the next 100 years of energy production domestically

offshore is much more expensive to install and maintain, anyways

if they (wind generation) are so profitable then why the hell are all the people and businesses in this country have to subsidise them to such an extent?
its a very simple question, the answers we get are all fluff along these lines:

* we need energy independence; as i pointed out we don't produce these things here and it will cost us our countryside, which the very same Greens seem to make so much noise about protecting from motorways, houses and incinerators. maybe we should put all these windmills in D4, theres certainly enough hot air coming out from the Greens to drive them

* omg ponies the world is going to run out of oil and the climate will change; as i pointed out if these are of such importance then there are cheaper and more effective ways of helping the planet, thats of course putting aside the fact that the country is broke on every level



i find this obsession with windmills very interesting its as if the Green movement got hijacked by the windmill industry and now the greens have become yet another lobby group, who refuse to look at all the options and are costing this country and its people alot of money

people are getting all worked up about few million bankers bonuses (which they should as incompetence should never be rewarded!) when they are being robbed blind by these companies who are sucking of the state tit

remember only a few years ago we were told "sure we build it they come" and you can never have enough homes/offices/shops, we are now fully blowing a new bubble except this time its green coloured. madness.

Padkir

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it will cost us our countryside

Can I ask what do people have against the look of windmills? Provided they're not too close to houses obviously? I personally think they are really cool looking and wouldn't mind in the slightest if there were a few within a few hundred yards of my house. I've heard some people complaining that they make a noise, but as long as they were far enough away that I could lie perfectly silent in bed at night and not hear them, I'd be happy enough to have a load of them.

There are plenty of areas, particularly in the West, where it would be possible to put a load of these, one example is, if you're driving from Castlebar to Belmullet/Bangor, for about half an hour of just open flat land where it's always a bit windy, the 10/20 miles before where the old incinerator, (I think it was an incinerator) was. Why is this not peppered in wind turbines, it's not as if a huge expanse of bushes and ****ty grass which is no good for agriculture is good to look at?

ei.sdraob

Padkir wrote: »

Can I ask what do people have against the look of windmills? Provided they're not too close to houses obviously? I personally think they are really cool looking and wouldn't mind in the slightest if there were a few within a few hundred yards of my house. I've heard some people complaining that they make a noise, but as long as they were far enough away that I could lie perfectly silent in bed at night and not hear them, I'd be happy enough to have a load of them.

There are plenty of areas, particularly in the West, where it would be possible to put a load of these, one example is, if you're driving from Castlebar to Belmullet/Bangor, for about half an hour of just open flat land where it's always a bit windy, the 10/20 miles before where the old incinerator, (I think it was an incinerator) was. Why is this not peppered in wind turbines, it's not as if a huge expanse of bushes and ****ty grass which is no good for agriculture is good to look at?

I have no issues with their look (tho certain part of Donegal do look **** now), but i do have issues with hypocrites

the Greens are mostly Dublin based middle class ponchos who think its not ok to build homes and roads in the country, yet at the same time want to cover the countryside in giant generators and pylons to connect these (of course people dont like living next to pylons as current protests in NE show)

I bet Gormley would **** a brick if a few of these where to be build in his constituency lowering the value of his constituents homes :rolleyes: we seen how he performed with the incinerator which was a good idea.

I worked out back of the envelope numbers we would need literary thousands of these things in the country and we still wont have energy independence when the wind stops blowing, building inter-connectors is one solution but they waste alot of energy in transit and we endup back at square one dependant on English/French nuclear power when the wind doesn't blow here.



this whole pampering and subsidising to the wind industry is madness, we replaced one industry (construction) with another (wind) and I am afraid like ghost estates that now cover the country it will all end in tears

if wind is such a great source of energy then it should compete and grow without subsidies, otherwise we endup in a situation where we have an industry that is unable to operate without state support, we already have the banks dragging the country down, we dont need more, thank you very much

PeakOutput

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if they (wind generation) are so profitable then why the hell are all the people and businesses in this country have to subsidise them to such an extent?
its a very simple question, the answers we get are all fluff along these lines:

*

its a very simple answer aswell, start up costs are high, im trying to rememebr exactly but my friend in the industry said something like 4million per turbine i think to build and get up and running but then you can make half a million a year profit per turbine. rough figures obviously

PeakOutput

ei.sdraob wrote: »

offshore is much more expensive to install and maintain, anyways

if they (wind generation) are so profitable then why the hell are all the people and businesses in this country have to subsidise them to such an extent?
its a very simple question, the answers we get are all fluff along these lines:

* we need energy independence; as i pointed out we don't produce these things here and it will cost us our countryside, which the very same Greens seem to make so much noise about protecting from motorways, houses and incinerators. maybe we should put all these windmills in D4, theres certainly enough hot air coming out from the Greens to drive them

* omg ponies the world is going to run out of oil and the climate will change; as i pointed out if these are of such importance then there are cheaper and more effective ways of helping the planet, thats of course putting aside the fact that the country is broke on every level



i find this obsession with windmills very interesting its as if the Green movement got hijacked by the windmill industry and now the greens have become yet another lobby group, who refuse to look at all the options and are costing this country and its people alot of money

people are getting all worked up about few million bankers bonuses (which they should as incompetence should never be rewarded!) when they are being robbed blind by these companies who are sucking of the state tit

remember only a few years ago we were told "sure we build it they come" and you can never have enough homes/offices/shops, we are now fully blowing a new bubble except this time its green coloured. madness.

most of your argument is anti greens not anti renewable energy. i couldnt care less about the green agenda as it is portrayed now in this country and i never mentioned oil running out or climate change

it makes sense to me that if we can reduce imports we should. renewable energy is a way to do that so i support it and dont think the goverment is doing anywhere near enough to make this happen

as far as losing our countryside, wind isnt the only option its just one part of the solution solar and wave energy should be part of it too. for where there are turbines i think they look fine and actually add to the geography imo

PeakOutput

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I worked out back of the envelope numbers we would need literary thousands of these things in the country and we still wont have energy independence when the wind stops blowing, building inter-connectors is one solution but they waste alot of energy in transit and we endup back at square one dependant on English/French nuclear power when the wind doesn't blow here.

we have enough renewable resources to fully power our country 100% of the time, you focus on wind only when it is not the only avenue being looked at

this whole pampering and subsidising to the wind industry is madness, we replaced one industry (construction) with another (wind)

now your just making things up

ei.sdraob

PeakOutput wrote: »

its a very simple answer aswell, start up costs are high, im trying to rememebr exactly but my friend in the industry said something like 4million per turbine i think to build and get up and running but then you can make half a million a year profit per turbine. rough figures obviously

Congratulations you just contradicted yourself with your claim earlier in thread that wind power is profitable and highlighted my point:

Wind power is not profitable without state subsidies and high costs from consumers

We are not given a choice, not only do we directly subsidise the wind industry to the tune of few hundred million, we (all people and business in this country) also indirectly subsides them via a rigged electricity marketplace which gives priority to green electricity no matter the cost

Why the hell are we subsidising this industry which can not survive without state support due to the high capital costs? Why are we not given an option for example if you are a Greenie then sign-up to Airtricity and support green power, if you are a business then you might want to signup to someone with lower costs and reliability and so on


People have a problem with the banking industry getting so much corporate welfare and bailouts, and they used to have a problem with the construction sector sharing the tent with FF and now have left the country with so much ****.
Yet you fail to realise that we are now repeating the very same mistakes that have led this country to where it is


the high electricity price due to green subsidies is directly stifling economic growth at a time when we need growth, the same way as subsidies of the construction sector suffocated home grown businesses and led to a spectacular bust

we are making a new green bubble, sorry for pointing out the elephant in the room

PeakOutput

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Congratulations you just contradicted yourself with your claim earlier in thread that wind power is profitable and highlighted my point:

congratulations no i didnt

a high start up cost making it hard for start ups to get into the field does not mean the model isnt profitable it just means its hard to get into and out of reach of alot of people unless they have large amounts of investment.

investment is hard to get because of the problems with planning permission

hence subsidies

Padkir

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I have no issues with their look (tho certain part of Donegal do look **** now), but i do have issues with hypocrites

the Greens are mostly Dublin based middle class ponchos who think its not ok to build homes and roads in the country, yet at the same time want to cover the countryside in giant generators and pylons to connect these (of course people dont like living next to pylons as current protests in NE show)

I bet Gormley would **** a brick if a few of these where to be build in his constituency lowering the value of his constituents homes :rolleyes: we seen how he performed with the incinerator which was a good idea.

I worked out back of the envelope numbers we would need literary thousands of these things in the country and we still wont have energy independence when the wind stops blowing, building inter-connectors is one solution but they waste alot of energy in transit and we endup back at square one dependant on English/French nuclear power when the wind doesn't blow here.



this whole pampering and subsidising to the wind industry is madness, we replaced one industry (construction) with another (wind) and I am afraid like ghost estates that now cover the country it will all end in tears

if wind is such a great source of energy then it should compete and grow without subsidies, otherwise we endup in a situation where we have an industry that is unable to operate without state support, we already have the banks dragging the country down, we dont need more, thank you very much

Yes but unlike construction, energy will always be needed. Always. No exceptions.

And I do think the Greens are a shower of pr1cks and Gormley should be shot, but wind energy is a very viable sector. We're not saying connect the grid only to wind energy because that would be ridiculous. Have the others on back-up for those still summer days. It would still be worth it if we could power the country for a few months on whats blowin in from over the Atlantic!

Padkir

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Congratulations you just contradicted yourself with your claim earlier in thread that wind power is profitable and highlighted my point:

Wind power is not profitable without state subsidies and high costs from consumers

We are not given a choice, not only do we directly subsidise the wind industry to the tune of few hundred million, we (all people and business in this country) also indirectly subsides them via a rigged electricity marketplace which gives priority to green electricity no matter the cost

Why the hell are we subsidising this industry which can not survive without state support due to the high capital costs? Why are we not given an option for example if you are a Greenie then sign-up to Airtricity and support green power, if you are a business then you might want to signup to someone with lower costs and reliability and so on


People have a problem with the banking industry getting so much corporate welfare and bailouts, and they used to have a problem with the construction sector sharing the tent with FF and now have left the country with so much ****.
Yet you fail to realise that we are now repeating the very same mistakes that have led this country to where it is


the high electricity price due to green subsidies is directly stifling economic growth at a time when we need growth, the same way as subsidies of the construction sector suffocated home grown businesses and led to a spectacular bust

we are making a new green bubble, sorry for pointing out the elephant in the room

You are very short-sighted. PeakOutput is definitely correct. It's not as if the wind turbines just have a life-span of a few years. I'd love to know how long they would last actually, but my bet is that it's plenty long enough to save the country more than a couple of million EACH in the long-run.

We need jobs now, so why don't we create jobs my making and installing something which will lead to making huge savings in the future. It's not exactly PHD level economics.

ei.sdraob

Padkir wrote: »

You are very short-sighted. PeakOutput is definitely correct. It's not as if the wind turbines just have a life-span of a few years. I'd love to know how long they would last actually, but my bet is that it's plenty long enough to save the country more than a couple of million EACH in the long-run.

We need jobs now, so why don't we create jobs my making and installing something which will lead to making huge savings in the future. It's not exactly PHD level economics.

1. we do not make windmills

2. installing them is a once of job creation, just like building homes, look where that ended up


if windmills are profitable over their lifetime (and they probably are in the right location) then why the hell are we paying so dearly for them

energy independence is a noble goal
but are after handing over what remained of the independence/sovereignty of the country due to its its mismanagement
don't you think its a bit pointless considering we are not run from Dublin anymore? how would you feel if the IMF realize that these subsidies are a waste and are stunting growth and tell us to stop them??


* we are having to borrow at high rate only to subsidies an industry which claims to be profitable on its own and claims to bring us jobs :rolleyes:
* all consumers (private and business) are paying more than they should be for electricity since the price is being artificially kept high in the process stunting growth

PeakOutput

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. we do not make windmills

2. installing them is a once of job creation, just like building homes, look where that ended up


if windmills are profitable over their lifetime (and they probably are in the right location) then why the hell are we paying so dearly for them

energy independence is a noble goal
but are after handing over what remained of the independence/sovereignty of the country due to its its mismanagement
don't you think its a bit pointless considering we are not run from Dublin anymore? how would you feel if the IMF realize that these subsidies are a waste and are stunting growth and tell us to stop them??


* we are having to borrow at high rate only to subsidies an industry which claims to be profitable on its own and claims to bring us jobs :rolleyes:
* all consumers (private and business) are paying more than they should be for electricity since the price is being artificially kept high in the process stunting growth

its either the right thing to do or its not

the imf, the ecb etc dont change that fact. it is either correct to subsidise these technologies to help the industry get off the ground or its not, a bail out of any form does not change that.

if you believe that this industry should not be subsidised in any way thats fine, but if you are basing that opinion on the fact that we need a bailout in our banking industry your stance is flawed immediately.

we can get rid of the subsidies but if we want to be energy independant then we are going to have to make it a hell of a lot easier for start ups to begin without subsidies or forget the start ups altogether and have it be state run and use all the powers of the state to create the necessary facilities

personally id rather the state runs them on a cost neutral basis so that energy prices really are low but i understand why the problems that comes with that sort of system in the real world as well

ei.sdraob

PeakOutput wrote: »

its either the right thing to do or its not

the imf, the ecb etc dont change that fact. it is either correct to subsidise these technologies to help the industry get off the ground or its not, a bail out of any form does not change that.

if you believe that this industry should not be subsidised in any way thats fine, but if you are basing that opinion on the fact that we need a bailout in our banking industry your stance is flawed immediately.

we can get rid of the subsidies but if we want to be energy independant then we are going to have to make it a hell of a lot easier for start ups to begin without subsidies or forget the start ups altogether and have it be state run and use all the powers of the state to create the necessary facilities

personally id rather the state runs them on a cost neutral basis so that energy prices really are low but i understand why the problems that comes with that sort of system in the real world as well

I believe that no industry should be subsidised
It is not the job of the government to subsidise the private sector, their job is to create laws, regulate and ensure there is a fair and open marketplace in place.
The country is now on its knees (ironically partly due to past subsidies of certain sectors), we are in no position to be subsidising anyone.
The government has shown time and time again that they are unable to pick winners, have no lessons been learned?

---

BTW i am not against wind power and care about the environment and have spent alot of money (with no subsidies) in own home on energy efficiency,
I am against the type of blinkered thinking that got us into the current situation
All we are doing is pushing the government into creating the next bubble, this time in the "green economy" (whatever that be!) only to cry "we weren't warned" when it blows up in our faces.
Wind power will be one of many elements of our future energy sources, this almost religious like lobbying by the Greens and waste of money at a time when we dont have any is very worrying.

ei.sdraob

Look

all I am trying to say is that we lost our Republic to a collection of lobby groups such as: construction companies/banks and unions
these groups have destroyed the economy
last thing we need is to replace them with yet another subsidised industry that is promising us the stars
if the state feels that it needs to help renewables then they should be doing things like streamlining planing and building up the grid infrastructure
not directly and indirectly subsidising them at the expense of every one else in the economy


if you are unable to see that what is happening here is analogous to what the construction industry has done over last 10 years, then I am sorry for you for not being to understand where these subsidies will lead, they used to say we can never have enough homes and their price will only ever go up

now we have another group telling us we can never have enough green energy and the price of the alternatives will ever go up :rolleyes:
dejavu :rolleyes: we dont need yet another small group of people hijacking the state for their own gain

Padkir

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Look

all I am trying to say is that we lost our Republic to a collection of lobby groups such as: construction companies/banks and unions
these groups have destroyed the economy
last thing we need is to replace them with yet another subsidised industry that is promising us the stars
if the state feels that it needs to help renewables then they should be doing things like streamlining planing and building up the grid infrastructure
not directly and indirectly subsidising them at the expense of every one else in the economy


if you are unable to see that what is happening here is analogous to what the construction industry has done over last 10 years, then I am sorry for you for not being to understand where these subsidies will lead, they used to say we can never have enough homes and their price will only ever go up

now we have another group telling us we can never have enough green energy and the price of the alternatives will ever go up :rolleyes:
dejavu :rolleyes: we dont need yet another small group of people hijacking the state for their own gain

Look, unless half the country suddenly leaves or else stops using energy, we'll continue to need just as much energy as we do now, so why not produce a portion of that ourselves? Save on imports in the future. It might cost us a bit now, but it will be of benefit in the future, you can't compare the construction of homes with the installation of wind turbines. Wind turbines will constantly be making themselves viable, by producing energy, whereas when houses are finished construction, that's it.

As regards jobs, are you telling me that no educated, talented Irish people could aid in the design, planning and installation of wind turbines. We got into thi mess because we thought constructionwould last forever. We're not looking for a replacement, we're looking for something to create jobs over the next few years until something different is needed. So why not make that something wind turbines, which will make/save money, whichever way you want to put it, in the future.

You also mentioned that installing them is a once off job creation, what about maintenance?

ei.sdraob

Padkir wrote: »

Look, unless half the country suddenly leaves or else stops using energy, we'll continue to need just as much energy as we do now, so why not produce a portion of that ourselves?

As I said self-sufficiency is a noble goal in any economy, but not when it comes at the expense of the rest of the economy, especially when this economy has to beg from the IMF

Padkir wrote: »

Save on imports in the future.

You are assuming that prices of coal/oil/gas in the future will go up, that is the same assumption made about houses before.
or that no other technologies might come along making wind moot (lets say fusion)

Padkir wrote: »

It might cost us a bit now, but it will be of benefit in the future

Using money now that was borrowed at ultra high rate to subsidise this industry will cost the future generations :mad:

Padkir wrote: »

you can't compare the construction of homes with the installation of wind turbines.

Yes you can, they are both products requiring construction know-how to construct and made out of wires, steel, cement etc
There is nothing special about windmills just as there is nothing special about houses. holding them up on a pedestal of quasi religious worship is silly.

Padkir wrote: »

Wind turbines will constantly be making themselves viable, by producing energy, whereas when houses are finished construction, that's it.

People live in homes making them "viable" :rolleyes:
Windmills don't last forever and depreciate just as homes do (something that was also forgotten during the bubble)

Padkir wrote: »

planning and installation of wind turbines.

Planning and installation is not exactly highly skilled jobs, how long do you keep putting up windmills like we put up houses to keep semi-skilled men employed?

Padkir wrote: »

We got into thi mess because we thought constructionwould last forever.

We will get into another mess if we think this industry alone will save us, subsidising it blindly is no different than subsidising construction via various tax schemes we had, it will lead to mis-allocation of resources and waste

Padkir wrote: »

we're looking for something to create jobs over the next few years until something different is needed

ah there was me thinking it was about "long term thinking" :rolleyes:

Padkir wrote: »

So why not make that something wind turbines, which will make/save money, whichever way you want to put it, in the future.

Did you check the interest rate the country has to borrow at recently? will wind turbines repay the economy at a higher interest rate than this in the time this debt has to be paid back, i dont think so

beggars cant be choosers, you keep missing the point of this thread

Padkir wrote: »

You also mentioned that installing them is a once off job creation, what about maintenance?

what about maintenance of houses? how many people are employed now maintaining all those ghost estates?


there is nothing radical about subsidising any sector, it is not "smart" as we are led to believe

BTW if you know your history you would know that "import substitution" and the will to become more "independent" has brought down many states before, biggest example being Argentina who at start of 20th century had larger economy than France only to end-up being a leper like us.

Padkir

ei.sdraob wrote: »

As I said self-sufficiency is a noble goal in any economy, but not when it comes at the expense of the rest of the economy, especially when this economy has to beg from the IMF

You are assuming that prices of coal/oil/gas in the future will go up, that is the same assumption made about houses before.
or that no other technologies might come along making wind moot (lets say fusion)

The price of coal/gas may or may not go up, but unless it drastically reduces in price, it will always be worth having a part of your energy coming from something renewable.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

There is nothing special about windmills just as there is nothing special about houses. holding them up on a pedestal of quasi religious worship is silly
People live in homes making them "viable" :rolleyes:
Windmills don't last forever and depreciate just as homes do (something that was also forgotten during the bubble).

Wind turbines MAKE money every minute of the day that it's blowing. Houses sitting there, by themselves, provide no monetary value.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Planning and installation is not exactly highly skilled jobs, how long do you keep putting up windmills like we put up houses to keep semi-skilled men employed?

Tell me where I said we should be putting them up at the rate we put up houses. That's ridiculous, it would be quite ironic to start putting up sustainable energy sources at an economically unsustainable level.:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ah there was me thinking it was about "long term thinking" :rolleyes:

If you were thinking long-term you would see that they, in addition to solar panels, water turbines, etc. will lead to huge savings in the long-term.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what about maintenance of houses? how many people are employed now maintaining all those ghost estates?

I don't know, how many are? You back that up. Because as far as I am aware, very few. There is a half-finished estate at the end of our road for the last 3 years, and the only people I have seen in there are young lads drinkin!:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob wrote: »

BTW if you know your history you would know that "import substitution" and the will to become more "independent" has brought down many states before, biggest example being Argentina who at start of 20th century had larger economy than France only to end-up being a leper like us.

I am not talking about trying to completely substitute imports, we will always be dependent on imports, but it would be nice to be able to cut back on the dependency a little. It's a vast resource, which Ireland has in abudance, why not exploit it?

ei.sdraob

You seem to be under the impression that I am against renewables

I am not, I am against wasting money we don't have and subsidising private companies

money which we dont have, money which we are borrowing at high interest and need to pay back, money that customers could be using to grow their own businesses


If the state wants to help the wind industry they can do so by:
* providing standardisation
* providing the infrastructure
* reducing/streamlining planning process

the main complaint of companies building wind-farms is planning and connectivity.


It is not the job of the state to subsidise any industry, as is very clearly illustrated by the position the country is in, that is bad idea.

Not only are they subsidising the industry but they also rigged the energy market making all customers (business and private) pay more whether they like it or not.


If wind energy is what its promised to be the the government should help using the methods I outlined above not by directly interfering in the market sowing seeds of another bubble and also hurting the rest of the economy.

I think its very obvious from our experiences with ESB that the state should never get involved in energy generation.

Padkir

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that I am against renewables

I am not, I am against wasting money we don't have and subsidising private companies

money which we dont have, money which we are borrowing at high interest and need to pay back, money that customers could be using to grow their own businesses


If the state wants to help the wind industry they can do so by:
* providing standardisation
* providing the infrastructure
* reducing/streamlining planning process

the main complaint of companies building wind-farms is planning and connectivity.


It is not the job of the state to subsidise any industry, as is very clearly illustrated by the position the country is in, that is bad idea.

Not only are they subsidising the industry but they also rigged the energy market making all customers (business and private) pay more whether they like it or not.


If wind energy is what its promised to be the the government should help using the methods I outlined above not by directly interfering in the market sowing seeds of another bubble and also hurting the rest of the economy.

I think its very obvious from our experiences with ESB that the state should never get involved in energy generation.

But it is a hugely costly activity, and there are few companies at the minute who are able to invest heavily enough in it to make it worthwhile. So if you want them, either subsidies need to be given, or else it must be completely state-funded, which is not the way to go!:rolleyes:

The problem is that if you want them, subsidies will have to be made. The question then is are they worth it? And I am suggesting that for the production of short-term jobs and the long-term benefits they provide, yes it's worth it.

Just look at it this way. For whatever amount the government backs the company to install them, how much will be saved by not having to pay welfare to the people, and subsequently the tax they will now pay on their income? I would suggest that this would drastically decrease the period over which you would start to see a return on the investment.

All of the opposition have criticised that the government haven't stimulated jobs, without giving any real alternatives or stimuli themselves. Yet here is a sector which can create jobs with a little investment, and you're shooting it down.

Scofflaw

All we are doing is pushing the government into creating the next bubble, this time in the "green economy" (whatever that be!) only to cry "we weren't warned" when it blows up in our faces.
Wind power will be one of many elements of our future energy sources, this almost religious like lobbying by the Greens and waste of money at a time when we dont have any is very worrying.

I have to say that a bubble in renewable energy capacity is not a bad thing. It's the fastest way to generate renewable energy capacity, and unlike a bubble in property, after it blows up you still have something useful - indeed, after the bubble blows up, you'll have cheaper energy, because the people buying the production capacity won't have had to actually invest in building it, and will instead only need to make a return on the knock-down price they bought for after the bubble blew.

Infrastructure bubbles aren't bad things in themselves, unlike asset bubbles. The railway bubble in the UK destroyed a lot of fortunes, but it also resulted in a lot of track and rolling stock.

But then I don't have an ideological bias against government investment in innovation - after all, I make my living out of the Internet. Markets only solve short-term distribution issues...they are not some kind of mechanism for long-term progress, indeed they often retard it. You really shouldn't let ideological fixations prevent you from thinking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

yosemite_sam

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I noticed this article here, while I dont often agree with Tol (the mad haired guy we see every so often on rte)

I think there needs to be a discussion on this



Basically 350 million saved by dropping subsidies to coal, turf and windmil

Next time you hear someone say "children will go hungry and cold because of this budget" in this forum (as if things where that bad in 2007 :rolleyes:), point them over to this thread

Why are we subsidising this (actually i am against all subsidies, all they do is distort the market and cause **** down road as we have seen with housing) while on the other hand taking money out of school building for example or giving less to charities who directly deal with the hungry and cold.

what yee think?

why is the state subsidising semi states (who earn plenty due to their position in market) and Greens vanity projects? the money IMHO should be spend on better infrastructure which will last us in the longterm, not making the semi-states and private companies rich.

As you all know i am very pro-market but i stand by my beliefs that subsidising anything is bad idea in long term.

Why wasn't a levy put on the oil and gas Shell are about to bring into County Mayo. No hungry children, no IMF it is you're money

Scofflaw

yosemite_sam wrote: »

Why wasn't a levy put on the oil and gas Shell are about to bring into County Mayo. No hungry children, no IMF it is you're money

Rubbish. Even at the highest prices Corrib was ever valued at (2007 peak gas prices), the gross worth of the gas in the field was only €14bn - not even enough to cover this year's deficit even if some magical gas pixie had transported the lot straight from the ground to a buyer. The net value at current gas prices, and after the costs of exploration, exploitation, extraction and processing are all taken on board, is probably about €4-5bn - about two and a half months of deficit - and it would still take a decade or so to pump all the gas out of the field anyway. As it is, tax take from Corrib is expected to be about €1.7bn.

The facts are available - please use them.

regards,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

@Scofflaw I cant believe that you are saying that there is no harm in overbuilding

houses/offices are also useful and are places where people live do business, now that our country is littered in empty building it must be hard to claim with a straight face that overbuilding in a bubble is "good"


over-investment in wind turbines is not good, just as over-investment in anything is not good, a bubble is a bubble whether its tulips, shares, houses or windmills

lets see:
* we could potentially destroy the countryside and especially seaboards and mountains, therefore directly impacting on the tourist industry
* it takes plenty of energy and CO2 to construct these things, i thought we want to reduce that no?
* we would become dependant on a source of energy which is not reliable, demolishing the energy independence argument, im sure it be nice to be independent when only the wind blows :rolleyes:


as I said the same arguments being made now by this industry have been used by the construction industry before

i dont know about you but we dont need yet another lobby group hijacking the states resources, if they want to build them fine i am not against that, what i am against is subsidising it



also please dont act as if there is no cost to this green pampering there are 2 costs:

direct - direct subsidies we give (3rd of billion)
indirect - the cost of every every single private and business customer paying more in electricity than they have to due to the way the single electricity market requires green energy to be bought no matter the price, this must be costing the economy billions, this rigged system is not designed to lower the cost of electricity but to rip of all electricity users in the country for the sake of a few


my own company has to send equipment to the continent and US, and therefore maintains jobs in datacenters there because electricity is a lager component of the running costs and its so much cheaper in these locations

god knows how many jobs we are loosing/ not being created due to this market distortition, which does not reward competitiveness but "greenness"


we are all paying dearly for the privilege of having the most expensive electricity in europe

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Markets only solve short-term distribution issues...they are not some kind of mechanism for long-term progress, indeed they often retard it. You really shouldn't let ideological fixations prevent you from thinking.

Ah yes so thats why West Germany had a much better economy and standard of living for its citizens as compared to East Germany where the market went out the window and replaced by centrally planned and controlled madness. Despite both having same people, culture and starting from square one.

It is not an ideology but learning from past mistakes.

The EU which me and you so often defend here is based on the principle of open markets and fair competition with free movement of goods, capital and people.

Yet you are defending a system here in Ireland which is unfair, leads to waste and kills competition
based on your own ideological following of the Green party


spot the "issue" in your reasoning

ZYX

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ah yes I see, using imported steel and generators made up of rare earth metals all constructed abroad

in order to become more indpendent from imports we erm.. import more


so let me see, our peak demand yesterday was 4500MW, to replace lets say 4000MW of this with wind we would need

2000 * 2MW wind generators :rolleyes:

but wait wind doesn't blow all time (and yes there are times when whole of the island is calm) lets take optimistic availability of 30%

now we need 2000*3 = 6000 fairly large generators installed close to coast (where theres more wind) and/or on mountaintops inland, preferably spread out in order to make, tho most of these will have to be concentrated in west and south of the country


according to OSI we have 1900 miles of coast line, lets cut that in half for west and south, we endup with lets say 1000 miles, so now we need to carpet our scenic coasts with a huge windmill every 300 yards or so :rolleyes:

but wait there's more, all of these would need connections and new pylons costing billions to the grid to construct



i am sorry if i dont share in your green dream :P

You are looking to have wind as the sole source of energy which sounds a bit optimistic. You need to add hydro electric and wave to the "green energy" needs. Als you have not considered that 31% of current (yearly use) electricity comes from wind already.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ah yes so thats why West Germany had a much better economy and standard of living for its citizens as compared to East Germany where the market went out the window and replaced by centrally planned and controlled madness. Despite both having same people, culture and starting from square one.

It is not an ideology but learning from past mistakes.

The EU which me and you so often defend here is based on the principle of open markets and fair competition with free movement of goods, capital and people.

Yet you are defending a system here in Ireland which is unfair, leads to waste and kills competition
based on your own ideological following of the Green party


spot the "issue" in your reasoning

More a case of "spot the straw man", I'm afraid. I said markets don't solve everything, and are liable to short-term incentives which are against the long-term good. You have, rather sadly, reacted by acting as if I'd said that we should abandon markets entirely - a reaction which, I fear, suggests blind market fundamentalism on your part.

Markets are the best known solution for efficient distribution - much as democracy is the best known solution for reflecting the wishes of a people. Neither are perfect, though, and thinking that they are takes rather more faith than thought.

You cannot assume that if renewables are the best available option in the long term the market will in the short term automatically favour them - and currently they are the best available option in the long term, and the markets do not favour them in the short term, because they are competing in a field with high barriers to entry and massive sunk costs. The gap can be closed by subsidies, or it can be left until the market favours renewables - at which point there will be virtually no chance of replacing fossil energy sources with sustainable ones without market intervention on a scale you've only seen in your nightmares.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

I am not straw-manning
lack of competition and centralised control are a recipe for disaster.
A fair and open and competitive market is what's responsible for the wealth enjoyed in EU today despite better part of the continent being obliterated not too long ago. Democracy alone is not the answer but complements competition, since that can be rather easily hijacked by lobby groups.
Our rigged energy market will not produce cheaper prices for the consumer, something that's badly damaging the economy. Its yet another stealth tax everyone pays in this country.

---

Your justification now for this subsidy is that we will run out of oil at some point of time.

The fact that in 2008 when the price of oil went to 150$ all sorts of companies sprung up in the green alternatives technologies only proves my point that the market can adapt and does adapt to needs. Whats more interesting is how most of these startups where in US where they had small renewal subsidises and despite the obscene coal industry support.

The world will adapt, putting all our bets into a single horse so early in race especially when the money we are betting is borrowed at high interest is silly

---

You are looking to have wind as the sole source of energy which sounds a bit optimistic. You need to add hydro electric and wave to the "green energy" needs. Als you have not considered that 31% of current (yearly use) electricity comes from wind already.

yes the low hanging fruit, the old 80:20 rule applies here too

the fact that at the time of this writing we are only making 250MW and using 4600MW
shows that the moment the wind stops blowing energy security goes out the window, were back to importing coal/oil/gas and nuclear from UK

As i said i have nothing against companies pursuing renewable, if there is a profit off they go.

I have a problem subsidising any industry, at best they its a waste at worst it ends up a disaster.

ZYX

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the fact that at the time of this writing we are only making 250MW and using 4600MW
shows that the moment the wind stops blowing energy security goes out the window, were back to importing coal/oil/gas and nuclear from UK

.

Only if you rule out all other forms of renewable which you seem intent on doing.

Padkir

ZYX wrote: »

Only if you rule out all other forms of renewable which you seem intent on doing.

And who is saying that we don't have other types on back-up. We're not going to just connect the National Grid to wind turbines, and hope it's always windy!

ei.sdraob

ZYX wrote: »

Only if you rule out all other forms of renewable which you seem intent on doing.

Such as what exactly?

* tidal despite me hearing about them in 2006 still at trial stages

* solar photovoltaic, in Ireland, really? probably the most expensive form of renewables using exotic materials despite them coming down in prices recently

* biofuels, how well will these work in a world where fuels and fertilizers are expensive

* hydro, we tapped the major irish river already

* hydrostorage, spirit of Ireland is still a pipedream with no facts or figures or studies being released just hot air


what am I missing?

ei.sdraob

Padkir wrote: »

And who is saying that we don't have other types on back-up. We're not going to just connect the National Grid to wind turbines, and hope it's always windy!

Coal/Oil turbines take days to warm up, they dont come on at flick of a switch
Gas is faster but very expensive to keep on backup and constantly switching on/off damages expensive turbines
you effectively have to keep 1MW gas reserve for every 1MW wind, very expensive


as i said your whole "energy independence" argument goes out the window on a calm day

Pete_Cavan

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say that a bubble in renewable energy capacity is not a bad thing. It's the fastest way to generate renewable energy capacity, and unlike a bubble in property, after it blows up you still have something useful - indeed, after the bubble blows up, you'll have cheaper energy, because the people buying the production capacity won't have had to actually invest in building it, and will instead only need to make a return on the knock-down price they bought for after the bubble blew.

The current bubble in renewable energy focuses on using the wind to generate electricity. The problem with throwing up wind turbines all over the country is that the technology is not very advanced and will need to become a lot more efficient. Even then it will need to be supplemented with other methods of generating electricity (and the Spirit of Ireland thing wont cut it). When the bubble bursts we will be left with many wind farms that are outdated and we will have to pay again to upgrade them. We should be looking to improve technologies and develop new ones instead of just jumping on the bandwagon and believing the propaganda that we will be exporting all the electricity these wind farms produce to Europe.

Scofflaw wrote: »

But then I don't have an ideological bias against government investment in innovation - after all, I make my living out of the Internet. Markets only solve short-term distribution issues...they are not some kind of mechanism for long-term progress, indeed they often retard it. You really shouldn't let ideological fixations prevent you from thinking.

I have an ideological bias against government investment in innovation - after all, look at the state of our road/public transport/water/broadband infrastructure.

Markets will not look at short term solutions because those trying to sell goods and services within the market will have to take a long-term view in order to stay ahead of the competition. I fully agree with ei.sdraob that government intervention distorts markets and where is this more true than in electricity production in this country. ESB prices are kept artificially high to encourage people to switch to Bord Gais or Airtricity to give the illusion of competition. Basically ESB customers are being over-charged and the taxpayer is subsidising the cost of electricity from Bord Gais in order to break up ESBs monopoly but there are no advantages to removing this monopoly because any savings in the cost of electricity are canceled out by the subsidies you are paying for through taxes. At least in an open market competition forces producers to become efficient because the only way they will gain customers is by reducing their prices.

The only reason the state should provides services is because nobody else will provide them/ provide them cheaply/ can afford the start up costs. This is not true of the electricity production market if the state retains the national grid. State-guaranteed monopoly-status means that the consumer's interests do not count. These companies have NO incentive to improve the quality of their services or reduce their prices because no matter how annoyed the consumer gets with them there's no escape from them. They can't seek refuge from appalling service or high prices by choosing another company. I say let the people decide, in the spirit of democracy, who will supply their electricity.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I am not straw-manning
lack of competition and centralised control are a recipe for disaster.
A fair and open and competitive market is what's responsible for the wealth enjoyed in EU today despite better part of the continent being obliterated not too long ago. Democracy alone is not the answer but complements competition, since that can be rather easily hijacked by lobby groups.
Our rigged energy market will not produce cheaper prices for the consumer, something that's badly damaging the economy. Its yet another stealth tax everyone pays in this country.

I'm very sorry, but you are indeed straw manning, since "lack of competition and centralised control" aren't the only alternatives to a completely free market without any subsidies. Whether your use of that straw man is knowing or the result of a doctrinal belief that any market interference is equivalent to state planned economies, it's a downright daft position. Get over the markets, they're just a mechanism - useful, and often the best tool for the job, but nothing more than that.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Your justification now for this subsidy is that we will run out of oil at some point of time.

That's we're at peak oil production about now, and facing into a future - a short to medium term future - of declining supplies.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The fact that in 2008 when the price of oil went to 150$ all sorts of companies sprung up in the green alternatives technologies only proves my point that the market can adapt and does adapt to needs. Whats more interesting is how most of these startups where in US where they had small renewal subsidises and despite the obscene coal industry support.

Of course the market will adapt over time, but the question is whether it will adapt in time. Frankly, that's extremely unlikely, because the response of governments will be to subsidise in various ways the existing infrastructure for as long as possible.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The world will adapt, putting all our bets into a single horse so early in race especially when the money we are betting is borrowed at high interest is silly

But we're not putting all our bets into a single horse, because the subsidies aren't only for one type of renewable.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes the low hanging fruit, the old 80:20 rule applies here too

the fact that at the time of this writing we are only making 250MW and using 4600MW
shows that the moment the wind stops blowing energy security goes out the window, were back to importing coal/oil/gas and nuclear from UK

As i said i have nothing against companies pursuing renewable, if there is a profit off they go.

Even with a subsidy, a company still pursues maximum profit - that means that they'll still pursue the most efficient generation even with the subsidy. That allows for more experimentation now, whereas the rapid rise and fall of oil prices means that there's no consistent business case for even developing renewables.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I have a problem subsidising any industry, at best they its a waste at worst it ends up a disaster.

You need to read some history, since subsidies and trade barriers play an awfully large role in developing industries, and believing that there have only been failures in this regard utterly fails to match historical facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The current bubble in renewable energy focuses on using the wind to generate electricity. The problem with throwing up wind turbines all over the country is that the technology is not very advanced and will need to become a lot more efficient. Even then it will need to be supplemented with other methods of generating electricity (and the Spirit of Ireland thing wont cut it). When the bubble bursts we will be left with many wind farms that are outdated and we will have to pay again to upgrade them. We should be looking to improve technologies and develop new ones instead of just jumping on the bandwagon and believing the propaganda that we will be exporting all the electricity these wind farms produce to Europe.

In terms of a purely national strategy, there is a case to be made that we could do better by waiting for the technology to be developed further elsewhere and then importing it. On the other hand, we have also signed up to various international targets that involve a renewables strategy - the most obvious being cuts in greenhouse emissions.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I have an ideological bias against government investment in innovation - after all, look at the state of our road/public transport/water/broadband infrastructure.

Why, is it worse than before government investment? Recalling the Irish infrastructure of the Eighties, the answer has to be no.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Markets will not look at short term solutions because those trying to sell goods and services within the market will have to take a long-term view in order to stay ahead of the competition.

Not really. The majority of companies have about a two-year horizon, a few companies have a five-year horizon, and a very very small number might take a 10 or 20 year horizon into account. At that, the two-year horizon isn't something most companies actually see clearly or focus hard on - if one can meet one's year targets that's pretty good, and they are regularly met in ways that weren't predicted or planned for. Few companies innovate, fewer have an innovation culture.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I fully agree with ei.sdraob that government intervention distorts markets and where is this more true than in electricity production in this country. ESB prices are kept artificially high to encourage people to switch to Bord Gais or Airtricity to give the illusion of competition. Basically ESB customers are being over-charged and the taxpayer is subsidising the cost of electricity from Bord Gais in order to break up ESBs monopoly but there are no advantages to removing this monopoly because any savings in the cost of electricity are canceled out by the subsidies you are paying for through taxes. At least in an open market competition forces producers to become efficient because the only way they will gain customers is by reducing their prices.

The government is doing that because otherwise it would be impossible for any new market entrant to compete with the ESB. Markets left to themselves regularly tend to monopolies, particularly in areas with high entry barriers - heavy infrastructural requirements, or network effects. Those things don't simply work themselves out of the system by themselves - the natural state of a real market is rarely one of perfect competition.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The only reason the state should provides services is because nobody else will provide them/ provide them cheaply/ can afford the start up costs. This is not true of the electricity production market if the state retains the national grid. State-guaranteed monopoly-status means that the consumer's interests do not count. These companies have NO incentive to improve the quality of their services or reduce their prices because no matter how annoyed the consumer gets with them there's no escape from them. They can't seek refuge from appalling service or high prices by choosing another company. I say let the people decide, in the spirit of democracy, who will supply their electricity.

Then you'll have to suffer the artificially inflated prices of the ESB until market entrants have reached a sufficiently solid position not to simply be squeezed back out of the market. And unless you can rewrite the laws of physics, you'll have to put up with the fact that a single national grid is the only rational approach to providing electricity on a mass scale.

Without wishing to be rude to either yourself or ei.sdraob, it seems impossible to reconcile any real knowledge of how markets actually work - as a mechanism - with your doctrinal positions that the invisible hand will look after everything. Markets don't work like that in the real world, because they suffer from a variety of issues that work against perfect competition - high entry barriers, network effects, short-termism, perverse incentives, information asymetries, predatory pricing, the effects of physical constraints, cartelisation, and all the rest. These things can be ignored by an act of faith, but they don't therefore cease to exist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

There's going to be a PrimeTime soon enough on this topic apparently

ZYX

ei.sdraob wrote: »

There's going to be a PrimeTime soon enough on this topic apparently

Yes. The show is going to be about the fines/payments we will have to make for failing to meet our renewable targets. Basically we are not doing enough to encourage renewable energy sources. This is going to mean we have to borrow extra money.

ei.sdraob

ZYX wrote: »

Yes. The show is going to be about the fines/payments we will have to make for failing to meet our renewable targets. Basically we are not doing enough to encourage renewable energy sources. This is going to mean we have to borrow extra money.

Targets the worlds 2 major polluters (China and US) have not signed up to
making the whole exercise rather pointless considering we share the same planet. Now that IMF are in town we sort of have bigger priorities as I mentioned earlier in thread. Trying to clean the windows while the house is on fire, is what we are doing.

Targets that we could have met at much lower cost via nuclear as our neighbours are doing.

ZYX

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Targets the worlds 2 major polluters (China and US) have not signed up to
making the whole exercise rather pointless considering we share the same planet. Now that IMF are in town we sort of have bigger priorities as I mentioned earlier in thread. Trying to clean the windows while the house is on fire, is what we are doing.

Targets that we could have met at much lower cost via nuclear as our neighbours are doing.

That's grand then. So we just don't pay. Oh no wait a minute....

ei.sdraob

ZYX wrote: »

That's grand then. So we just don't pay. Oh no wait a minute....

Yes we don't pay, the country can't afford it.

Pete_Cavan

Scofflaw wrote: »

In terms of a purely national strategy, there is a case to be made that we could do better by waiting for the technology to be developed further elsewhere and then importing it. On the other hand, we have also signed up to various international targets that involve a renewables strategy - the most obvious being cuts in greenhouse emissions.

Why, is it worse than before government investment? Recalling the Irish infrastructure of the Eighties, the answer has to be no.

Not really. The majority of companies have about a two-year horizon, a few companies have a five-year horizon, and a very very small number might take a 10 or 20 year horizon into account. At that, the two-year horizon isn't something most companies actually see clearly or focus hard on - if one can meet one's year targets that's pretty good, and they are regularly met in ways that weren't predicted or planned for. Few companies innovate, fewer have an innovation culture.

The government is doing that because otherwise it would be impossible for any new market entrant to compete with the ESB. Markets left to themselves regularly tend to monopolies, particularly in areas with high entry barriers - heavy infrastructural requirements, or network effects. Those things don't simply work themselves out of the system by themselves - the natural state of a real market is rarely one of perfect competition.

Then you'll have to suffer the artificially inflated prices of the ESB until market entrants have reached a sufficiently solid position not to simply be squeezed back out of the market. And unless you can rewrite the laws of physics, you'll have to put up with the fact that a single national grid is the only rational approach to providing electricity on a mass scale.

Without wishing to be rude to either yourself or ei.sdraob, it seems impossible to reconcile any real knowledge of how markets actually work - as a mechanism - with your doctrinal positions that the invisible hand will look after everything. Markets don't work like that in the real world, because they suffer from a variety of issues that work against perfect competition - high entry barriers, network effects, short-termism, perverse incentives, information asymetries, predatory pricing, the effects of physical constraints, cartelisation, and all the rest. These things can be ignored by an act of faith, but they don't therefore cease to exist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The government would be able to create a perfectly competitive market in energy production if it were to sell off its assets to a number of private companies but retain the national grid . They simply sell off the assets to a number of private companies, commission the National Competitiveness Council to produce a report to determine how many of these companies we need to have competition but also economies of scale. The state could retain a number of assets and compete in the market if they wished. The Energy Regulator would regulate the market and prevent monopolies from developing. The private companies would have to pay towards the maintenance and upgrade of the grid, perhaps the amount they pay be based on their market share which would improve competition.

If all energy producers are selling there electricity through the one national grid then producers compete on price only because the product is exactly the same regardless of who produces it (your kettle will not refuse to work because it does not like one companies electricity). You will have no connection fees if you change your energy supplier because it still comes off the same grid, and all your electrical goods will continue to work the same as before so the only factors you will consider where choosing your supplier is price. All energy producers are therefore forced to produce electricity at the lowest possible price in order to gain customers.

Producers would take a long term view in terms of developing their infrastructure because it may take a number of years to construct or upgrade a power plant. Also the costs of doing so are extremely high such that it would not be possible to make such invests regularly so any investment made would be expected to last 50 years or more. This means there is an incentive for the company to utilise the most efficient technology possible because you cant trade in and replace in 10 years time. A carbon tax would incentivise the use of green technologies and encourage improving and developing new technology.