Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

1189190191193195

Comments



  • Not sure how you came to this conclusion. Nowhere in any of my posts above did I advocate for not closing such a loophole. 

    Really? Because that’s exactly how this came across;

    “So in short we're going to legislate in reaction to this, but it won't actually solve anything.”

    What exactly were you implying then? As I can see no other way of reading other than you describing the legislation as pointless. Open to correction of course.

    Kinda is. If legislation, according to the NZ PM, would not have prevented this attack then its not good legilsation. Dealing with those in a more severe manner AFTER the fact is a bonus, but any legislation should include more thorough details on how to prevent such attacks. You don't announce before legislation is passed that it won't work.

    It isn’t actually. Nothing kinda about it.

    No single piece of legislation prevents every possible scenario. That’s pretty basic. That’s why there are dozens of rules of the road for example.

    Also, in your first post you said the NZ PM admitted it wouldn’t prevent other similar attacks. Future. Not that it wouldn’t have prevented this one. You’ve moved the goal posts quite a bit there.

    If they could have deported this fake refugee it would have of course prevented this incident. A bit silly to claim otherwise. The future acts it would fail to prevent would be carried out by others not in that refugee position.

    I never called it kneejerk. You seem to be attributing words/statements not made by me, to me.

    Never said you called it kneejerk. That was my own choice of words. Wasn’t trying to imply it was yours. Commonly used to describe reactionary laws. You implied it was pointless and described it “in reaction to”. That falls within kneejerk for me, but really getting into semantics on one.

    Apologies for the delayed response. Really finding the new site awful.

    Post edited by Mellor on




  • Mellor - As I can see no other way of reading other than you describing the legislation as pointless. Open to correction of course

    I'm not the one that said it was "pointless", you used that word. She [Arden] said it would not prevent similar attacks.

    Mellor - No single piece of legislation prevents every possible scenario.

    Never said it would, could or did. I said "kinda is", IOW to some extent it should.

    Mellor - Also, in your first post you said the NZ PM admitted it wouldn’t prevent other similar attacks. Future. Not that it wouldn’t have prevented this one. You’ve moved the goal posts quite a bit there.

    Why do you always accuse me of something instead of asking? Weird that. I'm only repeating what she [Arden] said. I cannot move the goalposts on a narrative she created.

    Mellor - If they could have deported this fake refugee it would have of course prevented this incident. A bit silly to claim otherwise. The future acts it would fail to prevent would be carried out by others not in that refugee position.

    Once AGAIN. I did not make the claim it would not prevent this attack, SHE [ARDEN] DID.

    Mellor - Never said you called it kneejerk.

    You seemed to, as though you confused otmmyboy2's response with mine. Not important I suppose.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • Hi ya.

    Welcome to the Irish shooting world

    I think you are on a bit of a wild goose chase. This "1906 prototype Luger carbine" is a myth !

    Going by the best Luger heads in the US and Germany no such animal ever existed or was ever conceived by Georg Luger in that timeframe. The "Luger Carbine " was already there in 1901, and was a special order presentation grade firearm from the factory.

    It is from a misconstrued posting from way back when in the 00's on a webpage based here in Ireland or the UK, based off an article from a German gun magazine, on the Luger pistols and their Irish connection, from keepsakes being used in the war of independence to them being used as second issue sidearms to the Irish army officer corps in ww2, or as we call it "the emergency" that has spread into something wonderful and unique across the internet.

    What itis an Artillery model Luger carbine, that has a select fire conversion done to it. Possibly by the same gunsmith Hyram Lebman from Texas that made John Dillengers select-fire 1911 A1 back in the 1920s. He was famous for converting post ww1 guns for customers, well pre the NFA act[That's BTW my speculation and research on this ] How it got to Ireland or who owned it or its history is utterly unknown. It's not on display either far as I know.

    Basically, it's an Arty Luger, with the complete kit, snail drum mag in 9mm, shoulder board, leatherworks and a vertical folding wooden foregrip reminiscent of one found on the Serbu 12 ga shot pistols. The full auto is done by a vertical plate being pushed down on the Lugers exposed outside sear bar

    Still have the mag article somewhere, I'll email you a copy of it if you want to PM me an email.

    Hope this helps

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"





  • Newstalk will be discussing whether gun laws are too lenient in this country. On the Pat Kenny show this morning.





  • Starting now.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.



  • Advertisement


  • Woman, Mother of someone that was a victim of gun crime, said that gun licensing is very strict and very stringent but more needs done like a re-statement of the legislation. Not sure how a restatement of the legislation would stop criminals.


    Dan Curly from NARGC on now.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • Christy Galligan, retired Garda. Starts with the usual "they're lethal weapons" rethoric and continues to use it throughout. Goes on to detail the 9 page FCA1 application.


    Using completely outdated data saying over quarter million firearms licensed and it could be more since he retired. Then the reporter cites gunpolicy and the bastardised 150,000 illegal gun number, AGAIN.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • Here it comes.

    The retired Garda saying once you get your license anything can happen between then and renewal and how Gardaí are not psychologist.

    The idea of mental checks before licensing was raised by a couple of Doctors some years back (2012 I believe) and it was dismissed even by his own piers as unworkable and still not helping to prevent the unpredictable.

    Its over now.


    It was a short segment. Good to hear someone from the shooting side actual talk (although none of it was live) but I still don't understand why the shooting groups here are not more protective. By that I mean we get lumped in with criminals and that lie of a number about illegal guns so why not hit back saying we are not criminals, have no connection to criminality and attacks on gun owners is a result of the impotence of the Government and its bodies to adequately deal with gun violence.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • We were talking about electric cars (some 2+ years ago) and the Governments' plan to reduce petrol/Diesel by 2030 and eliminate them by, iirc, 2040. In the discussion I wondered/asked about the lost revenue from fuel sales, road tax, etc. from Petrol/Diesel vehicles and said that a time will come when electric cars will start to become popular enough that revenue will drop and the exemptions given, and taxes lost would be recouped in other ways.

    The Irish Times this morning have reported that based on figures they have seen for the upcoming budget that the VRT exemption on electric cars will be reduced resulting in the price of electric cars rising by over (avg) €4,000+.

    The motoring industry is worth over €5,000,000,000 per annum to the Irish exchequer. Other than a rise in cost to buy I wonder how long it'll be before other charges, designed to offset the loss in revenue form Petrol/Diesel vehicles, will be brought in. As electric vehicle are road tax free, as its based on emissions, will they introduce a road "usage" tax?

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • Beats me how they intend to power all this, solar panels and windmills on every hill and rooftop and a literal barrier of these expensive bird mincers around our coast still won't cut it. Denmark has given up on these in the seas around their coast. Germany is by far the most advanced in Europe on alt energy, cant even on the most prime optimal days produce 50% of its daily power demand. In fact in reality despite all the propaganda surrounding it. It is an economic and energy policy disaster over there. They still have to fire up three coal-fired 1960s era plants to cover demand, since Merkel shut down 3 perfectly safe nuke plants with exemplary safety records post-Fukishma

    Good job we are building that interconnector to France, who produce over 60+% of their power by nuke! Power can flow both ways down a line, if you think Eamo Ryan and his stories about Ireland becoming a green energy source supplying power to the EU is the reason for this interconnector...I have a nice, very tall monument in O Connell St Dublin for sale.

    PS its 2030 that they want to ban the import of all new petrol and diesel-engined cars and SUVs into Ireland. So if you want that H1 Hummer for the deer stalking or that Bugatti Veryon, you got 9 years...

    Just to belabour the point of Govt bans of things like internal combustion engines and semi-auto rifles post-2015. Strange that they could give everyone this timely decade long warning of a plan that affects 99.9% of us But couldn't say when they propose to deprive40 plus people of their property without recompense?

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Advertisement


  • On energy generation – I think they should build a nuclear powered generator, which should keep the greens happy.

    Then again, …………. On second thoughts, forget that idea, the government cannot safety protect the national IT infrastructure as it is.





  • Then again, …………. On second thoughts, forget that idea, the government cannot safety protect the national IT infrastructure as it is.


    Be the Simpsons Springfield nuclear power plant in real life,and probably the most expensive, least productive and overtime delivered nuke plant ever built going by all our other big projects in this country.The thoughts of the backhanders and brown paper envelopes on a project like this,and the ghastly thought of a few loads of pyrite cement being dumped into something critical like a containment vessel wall, is too horrible to contemplate...Best leave that to the grownups in the EU to supply us with the nuke leccky😮

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"





  • Again you’re focusing on the semantics and not the point. You implied it was pointless, whether you used the word or not is irrelevant. I’m entitled to paraphrase or summarise a post. It was clear that was the implication.

    “Never said it would, could or did. I said "kinda is", IOW to some extent it should”

    Completely incorrect. Many laws are independent. eg speed limits exists for safety, drink driving limit exists for safety. There’s no implication that one prevents the other.

    Why do you always accuse me of something instead of asking? Weird that. I'm only repeating what she [Arden] said. I cannot move the goalposts on a narrative she created

    She said it would not prevent similar attacks in the future. You repeated this in first post.

    Then you change this to it wouldn’t have prevented this attack. Which is not the same thing, and not what she said. So no, you where just repeating, you were twisting the narrative yet again. And hilariously trying to deny it.

    it’s really simple. If he was deported, this would not have happened. Period. Bizarre you would argue that. But powers to deport extremist refugees doesn’t mean it would some some other extremist doing the same.

    The reason she was criticised for reaction and closing he loophole is there there are possibly no or few other people in the position he was in, so right now there is little protection gained by the move. That may be true, but it’s really no reason not to close the loophole.

    kinda baffled that anyone who argue otherwise and be in favour of rights for terrorists.





  • It’s counterintuitive but powering all these electric cars doesn’t add anything to demand. Cars are charged at night when demand is low.

    It’s the data centres or any big power draws during the day that require more power stations.





  • But what happens then at night when X tens of thousands go and plug in at night when there is "low demand"? The load on the grid is increased again,even more so with all the other "low nite demand" things kick in.IE nite storage heaters,etc. Add to the fact not everyone has a high output charger system like what's at a garage forecourt, which requires 3phase power, which is no way cheap in any shape or form.You can be awhile trying to charge these off 220v domestic like 6plus hours. This is still early stages technology,of a technological cul de sac,but until Hydrogen comes along,its what we will be stuck with.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"





  • Mellor - Again you’re focusing on the semantics and not the point.

    Eh, nope. Over a week since me last reply and you are once again trying to argue a point I never made.

    Mellor - You implied it was pointless,

    Nope again. You inferred such, and you used the word pointless, not I.

    Mellor - whether you used the word or not is irrelevant.

    Its very relevant because, wait for it, I DIDN'T USE THE WORD.

    Mellor - I’m entitled to paraphrase or summarise a post. It was clear that was the implication.

    Again, nope. Its clear that was your implication. You're desparately trying to apportion the use of this word to me when you used it, she said it, and this is all down to your inferrence. I mean seriously, I never said it, you and Arden did so why am I having to "defend" the use of something I never said on the basis thatt you want to push the narrative its "mine"?

    Mellor - Completely incorrect. Many laws are independent. eg speed limits exists for safety, drink driving limit exists for safety. There’s no implication that one prevents the other.

    You realise they're all under the one road traffic act?

    Mellor - Then you change this to it wouldn’t have prevented this attack. Which is not the same thing, and not what she said. So no, you where just repeating, you were twisting the narrative yet again. And hilariously trying to deny it.

    You keep accusing me of twisting the narrative, seemingly forcing me to defend a position I have not taken, in the hopes of deflecting from your complete bastardisation of the article, my replies, and your injection of your own narrative into what was said to the point you're making up stuff I said, claiming I said it, then when its shown I did not, you desparately try to claim I "meant it"! That is hilarious.

    Mellor - it’s really simple. If he was deported, this would not have happened. Period.

    The problem here is you are so focused on the export of islamic terroroists you're missing the point. If she bans all islamic terrorists how will that prevent knife attacks such as this? Are islamic terrorists the only ones to carry out such attacks? You're so laser focused on the person that committed the attack that youre pigeon holing all future attacks into that category and assumign future attacks will would only be carried out by such people.

    So when she says future legislation will not prevent similar attacks (simialr meaning the same as this one) she means the ability to deport someone "immediately" will not stop some nutter (already a citizen, not know to police, etc) form carrying out an attack of this nature. The hilarious part is you don't see this and are only focused on single person in the context of a single event.

    Mellor - Bizarre you would argue that.

    Not sure if you're having trouble ith English, not reading my replies, or simply ignoring the multiple times I've said it but I DIDN'T SAY IT, SHE DID.

    Mellor - But powers to deport extremist refugees doesn’t mean it would some some other extremist doing the same.

    Stop the bus, he finally gets it. So like SHE SAID, you're saying that if such deportation laws were in effect at the time of this attack and it was some other nutter the new legislation would not prevent it? Weird.

    Mellor - The reason she was criticised for reaction and closing he loophole is there there are possibly no or few other people in the position he was in, so right now there is little protection gained by the move.

    So what SHE SAID, and what I'm repeated (of what SHE SAID) is correct? Then what has this last three weeks of crap been about. Why it takes you a week or more at a time to try and twist, and bastardise what was said and invent stuff that was not said in a bid to "win" an argument that is not exist is beyond me.

    Mellor - That may be true, but it’s really no reason not to close the loophole.

    Nobody argued it was. You made that assumption, accused me of it, I told you, you were inferring something that was not implied, and you still ran with it. HEre we are three weeks later still arguing the same redundant point.

    Mellor - kinda baffled that anyone who argue otherwise and be in favour of rights for terrorists.

    Once AGAIN, nobody did. This "snuck" is not working so perhaps move onto another.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • Mellor - It’s counterintuitive but powering all these electric cars doesn’t add anything to demand. Cars are charged at night when demand is low.

    Sorry, what! Powering electric vehicles doesn't add any demand to the grid?

    Whether they're powered at night or during the day they will create a "demand". Otherwise they would not recharge. You either mean they would not increase daytime demand or that they would increase demand during an off-peak period which would not add an additional demand to the grid during peak hours, but they most certainly would create a demand regardless.

    Studies from America have shown that if charging was done during "off-peak" hours (in other words managed correctly) and allowing for a service level of over a million EVs it would increase demand by 5-10%, but that would lead to a 25-30% increase on demand on the grid.

    A European study has said if electric vehicle continue to "grow" in popularity that by 2050 34% of all electricity demand will be for the electric vehicle market/consumption. Such an increase will represent a 10% gorwth in demand if optimized charging times are adhered to but this percentage could grow if optimized charging times are not adhered to.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • lmfao, so poster can’t summarise pound made my others. Nice try, but no.

    and no trying to drag posts out, I’m just not around as much to reply. I think I’m obliged to dance to anyone schedules.


    yea, they are under the traffic act, but deal with separate elements. just like separate laws terrorism or immigration acts deal with different things.

    So when she says future legislation will not prevent similar attacks (simialr meaning the same as this one) she means the ability to deport someone "immediately" will not stop some nutter (already a citizen, not know to police, etc) form carrying out an attack of this nature.

    Which is what I referred to above. It would stop not some citizen extremist. That’s what Arden admitted.

    Now look at your claim, you Cass, not the PM.

     would not have prevented this attack then its not good legilsation

    This attack. Not a future attack. Not the same thing. And you had the heck to question my grasp of English. Sigh.

    Of course it won’t stop every knife attack. What a ridiculous benchmark to set.

    Now you claiming you were implying it’s a pointless law. Ok, sure ;)

    Simple question:

    Should the loophole that allow this guy remain be closed, or is it a waste of time/pointless/(or what ever word you want).





  • Obviously charging at night will increase the load on the grid at night. But that doesn’t create a demand for additional power stations, wind farms, etc - because the night load is well with capacity. It’s called off peak for a reason. That was your question, how do they power it. The power is already there.

    Yes they don’t add any power demand if charged at night. You are confusing power and energy.

    Obviously they are taking energy from the grid, that must come from somewhere. But that doesn’t mean an increase power demand. As I said, it’s counterintuitive. It’s not uncommon for people to know realise that.





  • Obviously charging at night will increase the load on the grid at night. But that doesn’t create a demand for additional power stations, wind farms, etc - because the night load is well with capacity. It’s called off peak for a reason. That was your question, how do they power it. The power is already there.

    Is there that much capacity ...ESB doesn't seem to think so. If it is this bad without the demand of X thousands of future electric vehicles plugging into the system. Better hurry up and get that French interconnector done lads....

    Cant wait to see how you'll be charging anything with solar if it is at night,or how this place will work when we get,quite often windstill foggy days in Ireland during the winter months.


    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Advertisement


  • Mellor - lmfao, so poster can’t summarise pound made my others. Nice try, but no.

    Unintelligible.

    Mellor - and no trying to drag posts out, I’m just not around as much to reply.

    You've replied to others threads over the past week(s). So you're around.

    Mellor - yea, they are under the traffic act

    Thank you.

    Mellor - but deal with separate elements. just like separate laws terrorism or immigration acts deal with different things

    You're confusing yourself now as well as contradicting yourself. "Elements", "laws", "things". ?????

    Mellor - It would stop not some citizen extremist. That’s what Arden admitted.........

    ................This attack. Not a future attack. Not the same thing

    As you said above:

    Mellor - Again you’re focusing on the semantics and not the point.

    Good advice, for yourself.

    Mellor - Now you claiming you were implying it’s a pointless law. Ok, sure ;)

    Nope, once again you're inferring something not there and claiming I said something I never did. You said pointless. Yyou're the only one to say it. I never said it, and you even said as much above when you said it was implied, which I corrected you on by saying that was your inference, not my implication.

    Mellor - Should the loophole that allow this guy remain be closed, or is it a waste of time/pointless/(or what ever word you want)

    I never said pointless, you did. So its not what I want its what you want. I also never said it was a "waste of time". That is you paraphrasing again. My intial post simply re-iterated Arden's comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • Mellor - Yes they don’t add any power demand if charged at night. You are confusing power and energy.

    By all means, enlighten me.

    Mellor - Obviously they are taking energy from the grid, that must come from somewhere. But that doesn’t mean an increase power demand. As I said, it’s counterintuitive. It’s not uncommon for people to know realise that.

    Obviously I'll have to wait for your explanation above so my thoughts may change based on your reply. However I'll go this route.

    I'm going to use the word Electricity. Instead of "confusing" things with words like energy, power, etc. Its [electricity] generated in plants and imported from abroad. EVs run on electricity. The current "demand" (by demand I mean the required amount of electricity) to keeps the lights on in all homes, businesses, street lights, basically anything that uses electricity as well as charge the current level of EVs is "X" percent. With the addition of over a million EVs (estimated) by 2030 and the abolition of petrol and Diesel sales this number may increase dramatically after 2030, are you saying that the demand (by demand I mean the required amount of electricity) to do all the above (to keeps the "lights on" in all homes, businesses, street lights, basically anything that uses electricity as well as charge the current level of EVs) will not rise above "X" percent?

    The articles/studies I referenced above say the opposite. Its why I ask.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • Yes, I’m around, but not around as much. Sorry if I’m not meeting your expected schedule.

    Cass, It’s not something that’s a big deal, I just thought it was an odd rant. There don’t seem to be any logic to it.


    Do you think it was a pointless law?

    Or do you think it was necessary to close the loophole?





  • There’s plenty of capacity at night. The real-time output, as well as daily max-min graphs is published. Night usage dropped to well under 50%. The maths involved is pretty basic. Easy to worked out how many cars this could support.

    That article doesn’t mention electric cars. It does however mention data centres, which I mentioned above as being the issue. Data centres are on 24/7, so they do create a demand on power capacity. More data centres will need more power. They are the issue, not cars charged at night.





  • By all means, enlighten me.

    it’s explained above I’m my previous two posts. Let me know if you still don’t understand and I’ll go run it.

    I'm going to use the word Electricity. Instead of "confusing" things with words like energy, power, etc.

    If power and energy are confusing it perhaps explains why you aren’t understanding. The difference between the two is key here.

    Its [electricity] generated in plants and imported from abroad

    It’s exported as well as imported. Overall we produce more than we use, so we’re a net exporter. We have the capacity to produce far more too if there was a country that needed it.

    Very important for the future. But not related to what I’m saying about power.

    The current "demand" (by demand I mean the required amount of electricity) to keeps the lights on in all homes, businesses, street lights, basically anything that uses electricity as well as charge the current level of EVs is "X" percent.

    You are still mixing up two terms. Total electricity used is electrical energy. Electricity required to “keep the lights on” is electrical power.

    Grizzly and I were talking about electrical power. ie Power stations required to provided electricity.

    EV will use more electricity, that’s obvious. (People’s electricity bills increase).

    I’m pointing out that cars are charged at night so they won’t require more power, which was the question, and is much less obvious. As evident by the fact you are doubting it so much.





  • Mellor - Cass, It’s not something that’s a big deal, Sorry if I’m not meeting your expected schedule

    No need for apologies, I just thought it was odd you replied to others threads but not this one. Its not a schedule btw its the time frame bewteen posts. Makes it hard to keep track, but you're right its not a big deal and frankly I'm long past the point of caring or being interested in the topic.

    Mellor - You are still mixing up two terms. Total electricity used is electrical energy. Electricity required to “keep the lights on” is electrical power.

    I think I understand it now, so thanks for that.

    Mellor - I’m pointing out that cars are charged at night so they won’t require more power, which was the question, and is much less obvious. As evident by the fact you are doubting it so much.

    I'm not doubting it, I'm simply not educated enough on the subject. To me I only think of it in terms of electricity. For example you said we're a net exporter, yet we continue to import. Why is that? I understand that a net exporter is someone who exports more than they import, but to me this seems redundant. If we can export more than we import then why do we import either at all or to the extent we do? Could we simply stop exporting, reduce or eliminate import and be more self reliant and would this not bring down prices?

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • The reason most countries have both imports and exports of electricity is usually because of supply at certain times.


    Particularly countries with "green" energy sources, like wind and solar especially, need to import power when the wind is flat and its cloudy.

    My guess is that is at least part of the case for us.


    From what I've read self reliance wouldn't make much difference to electricity prices here, but lessening our reliance on fuels we import(oil, gas, even peat now) would bring down costs some.

    But whether those savings would make it to the consumer, Ireland being what it is, is doubtful.


    Even tax wise, for a change, non vehicle fuel wise we aren't terrible here. Prices would drop ~20% if there were no tax on it, but by comparison to a lot of eu countries that isn't terrible.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban





  • otmmyboy2 - Particularly countries with "green" energy sources, like wind and solar especially, need to import power when the wind is flat and its cloudy

    Right. So I'm assuming this is a seasonal issue rather than daily weekly. IOW the Government don't "run down the shops on a Sunday morning" to get more electricity. They commit to importing/buying it from abroad during say Winter when wind/soalr may be down.

    Is this the reason we import nuclear power from France. IOW its not a green source (in the traditional way we might think of green energy) and is more relaible so we use it "top up" during Winter and then during summer we have abundant green energy we can export and these exports outweigh what we bring in?

    If so then, barring the obvious ban on nuclear plants, would it not make sense to invest what we pay for in imports into a plant of our own and eliminate the need to import at all?

    Post edited by Cass on

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.





  • It was the Green party that, if I'm remembering correctly, were strongly opposed to nuclear power and put the initial ban on building such a plant. So what is their concerns? Its a clean, zero emission, power source so other than all the uusal naff about the Irish Government messing it up, the Simpsons paradoies, what is their actual concern? Or are there other issues, political and financial, from keeping imports rather than building our own?

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG", at the bottom of each post & let a Moderator deal with it.



  • Advertisement


  • Lobby groups for wind energy continually spun the lie that more wind energy would make power cheaper and secure supply - the past year has seen those chucks come back to roost(same for the UK,Germany etc.)



Advertisement