Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Peat as an Energy Source

  • 18-08-2009 12:37PM
    #1
    maniac101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    just trying to read about shannonbridge why the hell did they decided to build a _new_ peat power plant in 2004???
    The motivation for burning raised bogs in the midlands was originally to provide jobs in areas with few job opportunities. There are no plans to significantly reduce the amount of peat burnt in power stations. Instead, there are proposals to make Shannonbridge and other power stations appear more enviromentally sustainable by co-firing biomass with peat. Peat doesn't provide a significant amount of our electricity and could have been displaced by a cleaner fossil fuel or by renewables. However the building of new peat-burning plants like Shannonbridge in recent years, has set back by decades any chance of achieving that.
    the gov pays no attention to law, politicians and gardai are endemically corrupt
    Although this comment might seem over the top, it could be argued that there's an element of truth to part of it. Minister Gormley's failure to protect Irelands bogs is in breach of articles 2 and 4 of the EU Habitats Directive. For example, a 10-year derogation allowing turfcutting in certain protected raised bogs lapsed this year. Bowing to pressure, the minister decided to ignore this and allow cutting to continue for the time being. Instead of applying the directive, he opted to appoint a "working group" to examine the issue, (doubtless, a tactic learnt from his FF colleagues).

    Personally I would be in favour of non-violent direct action if it would help highlight the need to protect our bogs and to move away from the practice of burning CO2-intensive peat. Unfortunately, it's usually the "action" bit (crusties lying under trains) that gets the media attention and that forms public opinion, and not the underlying issue.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I'm slightly appalled that I agree with the crusties on the matter of peat bog conservation.


  • #3
    Shades799
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 215 ✭✭Shades799


    As a local of the area and one of the many people to have family members working in BnM and the ESB I have one question.

    What do you expect us to do?

    What jobs are there for us in the area that are not created, if not directly, in-directly, by the two main industries in our area.

    The ESB and BnM have been fantastic contributors to the local economy of the mid-lands. Children have been fed, clothed and educated on the wages of employees of these two companies.

    Shop keepers, hair dressers, butchers, mechanics all of these people are living off people that earn their money from BnM and the ESB. Not only that but sports teams, charities and local events can all rely on BnM and the ESB to sponsor them (to a more than fair degree). Not only that but they are sponsoring initiatives to improve the local economy in industries completely unrelated to their own. Grants to local enterprise groups have already been given which have allowed business parks to spring up all over the midlands area.

    So what would you have us do? Make refugees out of all of us. Drive us out of our homes and local area because of an ideal that you have?

    I anticipate a response regarding "green" businesses. I agree with this and so do BnM and the ESB, that is why they are investing millions, even in the current climate, into research and development into these areas. I am sorry if this is taking too long for you but progress has a habit of taking it's time.

    I initially started out this post as wanting to discuss the arguments calmly but I must say it’s been hard to keep my cool. The thoughts of a couple of hundred people coming into my home and telling me that we shouldn’t be doing this and shouldn’t be doing that gets me really angry, especially when, after it’s all said and done, they’ll go back to their homes and live their lives the way they want to live it.


  • #4
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Did this slice of peat fall off the end of the bog? :confused:


  • #5
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Posts moved from this thread.


  • #6
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Shades799 wrote: »
    I initially started out this post as wanting to discuss the arguments calmly but I must say it’s been hard to keep my cool. The thoughts of a couple of hundred people coming into my home and telling me that we shouldn’t be doing this and shouldn’t be doing that gets me really angry, especially when, after it’s all said and done, they’ll go back to their homes and live their lives the way they want to live it.
    Well that's not quite true. The heritage of the peat bogs don't just belong to you, they belong to every Irish person and are in fact considered to be of importance on a European level (only Germany has similar amounts of bog as we do).

    Moreover, the effects of climate change will impact on everyone in Ireland so you can't argue that it's nothing to do with anyone else. And what about the carbon credits we'll have to pay for our carbon emissions? They come out of the central Exchequer - ie every taxpayer in Ireland pays it.

    Sorry to oblige but yes, green industry is the solution. Renewables and the rest of the cleantech industry will contribute to creating significant numbers of green jobs.

    As for the locally-sponsored initiatives, it's easy to give away wads of cash to local communities when you're a state monopoly that doesn't have to pay for the unbelieveable amount of pollution created by your business.

    I'm afraid there are other arguments to consider other than the local economic one.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    rayh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭rayh


    taconnol wrote: »
    Well that's not quite true. The heritage of the peat bogs don't just belong to you, they belong to every Irish person and are in fact considered to be of importance on a European level (only Germany has similar amounts of bog as we do).

    Let me put another view.

    About 17% of the landspace in Ireland is designated peatlands. 311,000 hectrares are Raised bog and 771,800 hectares as Blanket bogs and of these about 81,000 are classified as Industrial Energy.

    Against this background it would appear that the loss to our heritage can be attributed to most Irish persons.


  • #8
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    Shades799 wrote: »
    As a local of the area and one of the many people to have family members working in BnM and the ESB I have one question.

    What do you expect us to do?

    What jobs are there for us in the area that are not created, if not directly, in-directly, by the two main industries in our area.

    The ESB and BnM have been fantastic contributors to the local economy of the mid-lands. Children have been fed, clothed and educated on the wages of employees of these two companies.

    Shop keepers, hair dressers, butchers, mechanics all of these people are living off people that earn their money from BnM and the ESB. Not only that but sports teams, charities and local events can all rely on BnM and the ESB to sponsor them (to a more than fair degree). Not only that but they are sponsoring initiatives to improve the local economy in industries completely unrelated to their own. Grants to local enterprise groups have already been given which have allowed business parks to spring up all over the midlands area.

    So what would you have us do? Make refugees out of all of us. Drive us out of our homes and local area because of an ideal that you have?

    I anticipate a response regarding "green" businesses. I agree with this and so do BnM and the ESB, that is why they are investing millions, even in the current climate, into research and development into these areas. I am sorry if this is taking too long for you but progress has a habit of taking it's time.

    I initially started out this post as wanting to discuss the arguments calmly but I must say it’s been hard to keep my cool. The thoughts of a couple of hundred people coming into my home and telling me that we shouldn’t be doing this and shouldn’t be doing that gets me really angry, especially when, after it’s all said and done, they’ll go back to their homes and live their lives the way they want to live it.

    its over, change now


  • #9
    rayh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭rayh


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    its over, change now

    Sadly, it’s not over as this is not how things happen in this country, maybe a look back over this process can give some understanding of why.

    In your post and others previous posts, it is employed that both BnM and ESB are the main contributors to loss of our peat resources and its consequences.

    Peat has had many uses by our society and in particular as a source of heat energy. Its more recent industrial application can be traced back to the late 1940’s, where after the war it provided employment to supply Dublin with a heat energy fuel. The peat was transport to stockpile’s in the Phoenix Park and delivered the homes in Dublin. A human engineering project set up under the Dept. of Social Welfare at a time when carbon sinks and CO2 emissions were of little concern.

    A project which was subsequently developed to the commercial production of sod peat for both the domestic and electricity markets and in the early 1960’s the development of milled peat for both electricity and briquette markets.

    In this debate, it should be pointed out that the ESB never favoured the use of peat for electricity production and BnM have always supplied a self supporting demand lead service to the community through its sales of sod peat, briquette and moss peat products.

    In a previous post, Minister Gormley’s failure to protect Irelands bogs and its breach of articles 2 and 4 of the EU Habitats Directive was highlighted, but no reference was made to pressure groups, communities and politicians who see otherwise.

    Clearly, the conversion of peat at 37% efficiency to electric energy is unsustainable, but it appears to me that this is the expressed will of Irish society and not the blame of one or two bodies


  • #10
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    rayh wrote: »
    Let me put another view.

    About 17% of the landspace in Ireland is designated peatlands. 311,000 hectrares are Raised bog and 771,800 hectares as Blanket bogs and of these about 81,000 are classified as Industrial Energy.

    Against this background it would appear that the loss to our heritage can be attributed to most Irish persons.
    I'm sorry, I don't understand the part in bold.


  • #11
    rayh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭rayh


    taconnol wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I don't understand the part in bold.

    Taconnel – in this and other current threads, it appeared to me that contributors were attributing the loss of peatlands and its attendant issues to one or two semi state companies.

    In this post and a subsequent post I was merely highlighting that peatlands account for a significant portion of our land space (the highest in the world after Canada & Finland & over 50% of the EU resource of conservation-worthy oceanic raised bogs) and as such, have touched in some way a significant proportion of our population since man has started to use peat in its various forms.

    Further to this, the responsibility for the loss from our heritage extends to everybody from producer through to end user.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    mike65 wrote: »
    I'm slightly appalled that I agree with the crusties on the matter of peat bog conservation.
    Me too. Damn hippies.

    Peat burning is one of the dirtiest methods of electricity generation and the highest producer of C20 as a by-product, out-passing even coal and oil.

    I was listening to the PK show last week and they were interviewing one of the 'crusties' demonstrating. When PK brought up the subject of nuclear, said crusty said it was 'too dangerous'.

    I mean, what planet are these people on? Do they know the figures for the number of people who are killed in the production of fossil-fuels on an annual basis (well into 5-figures) vs. those killed in the production of nuclear power (zero)?


  • #13
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    rayh wrote: »
    Taconnel – in this and other current threads, it appeared to me that contributors were attributing the loss of peatlands and its attendant issues to one or two semi state companies.

    In this post and a subsequent post I was merely highlighting that peatlands account for a significant portion of our land space (the highest in the world after Canada & Finland & over 50% of the EU resource of conservation-worthy oceanic raised bogs) and as such, have touched in some way a significant proportion of our population since man has started to use peat in its various forms.

    Further to this, the responsibility for the loss from our heritage extends to everybody from producer through to end user.
    Ah OK, got you now.

    Sure, and I suppose you could argue that everyone who buys electricity from ESB is partly responsible as well.

    BTW, where did you get your stats from as according to the EPA, wetlands account for 17.1% of Irish land cover (http://epa.ie/whatwedo/assessment/land/) I'm not sure that all wetlands would be classified as bogs, particularly coastal wetlands..or would they?


  • #14
    rayh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭rayh


    taconnol wrote: »
    Ah OK, got you now.

    Sure, and I suppose you could argue that everyone who buys electricity from ESB is partly responsible as well.
    QUOTE]

    Yes and here is a typical series of actions. Farmer sells his bog to BnM. BnM harvest and sells its peat to ESB. ESB converts the peat to electricial energy and sells it to its customers.

    This simple chain of events has touched a large proportion of our population and you could argue that the farmer who sold his bog over half a century ago was responsible or the commercial processes within this chain of events. However, I take the view that the customer at the end of the chain is the main support and therefore the key to this process


  • #15
    Shades799
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 215 ✭✭Shades799


    taconnol wrote: »
    I'm afraid there are other arguments to consider other than the local economic one.

    That's a fair enough statement but it doesn't really address the point. We, in our area, need BnM and The ESB.

    Sure, it would probably be nicer if we could earn our money by growing flowers or whatever but we can't. It comes down to Maslow's hierarchy of needs and without BnM and The ESB we'd lose our base brick.

    Expecting us to push BnM or the ESB out of our area is like expecting Turkeys to vote for Christmas.


  • #16
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Shades799 wrote: »
    That's a fair enough statement but it doesn't really address the point. We, in our area, need BnM and The ESB.

    Sure, it would probably be nicer if we could earn our money by growing flowers or whatever but we can't. It comes down to Maslow's hierarchy of needs and without BnM and The ESB we'd lose our base brick.

    Expecting us to push BnM or the ESB out of our area is like expecting Turkeys to vote for Christmas.
    You don't need BnM and ESB, you need jobs. BnM and ESB are not the only choices. Or rather, peat is not the only choice of fuel for BnM and ESB.

    I'm sorry that the jobs in your area are so unsustainable and polluting and I certainly don't think the local economy should be left to its own devices if/when peat-based generation ceases. But that isn't an argument for continuing such a practice.

    It also isn't the binary choice you suggest of (a) ESB/BnaM or (b) "growing flowers or whatever", that you suggest.


  • #17
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 98,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Draining bogs causes a lot of greenhouse gas release over and above that released when used as a fuel later on.

    in Indonesia they destroy bogs/swamps to plant "renewable" palm oil but the initial release is about 100 years worth of saving from the palm oil



    Don't the Dutch government own the last bog of it's type down in Roundwood in Galway, says a lot for our conservation (and theirs )


  • #18
    rayh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭rayh


    maniac101 wrote: »
    The motivation for burning raised bogs in the midlands was originally to provide jobs in areas with few job opportunities. There are no plans to significantly reduce the amount of peat burnt in power stations. Instead, there are proposals to make Shannonbridge and other power stations appear more enviromentally sustainable by co-firing biomass with peat. Peat doesn't provide a significant amount of our electricity and could have been displaced by a cleaner fossil fuel or by renewables. However the building of new peat-burning plants like Shannonbridge in recent years, has set back by decades any chance of achieving that.

    Throughout this thread and others the concerns of converting peat to energy appear unanimous, however the approach and the identified causes may vary, but where do the supporters reside?


  • #19
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Shades799 wrote: »
    As a local of the area and one of the many people to have family members working in BnM and the ESB I have one question.

    What do you expect us to do?

    What jobs are there for us in the area that are not created, if not directly, in-directly, by the two main industries in our area.
    Hi I am one of the organisers of the Climate Camp that took place recently in Shannonbridge.

    Thanks for raising this - I think this is the most credible objection to our message but it is one that is of central concern to many activists. Nobody is saying that the bogs should be closed tomorrow without a care for the people who work there.

    The midlands deserve sustainable jobs. If you have a child going into primary school now, by the time he or she comes out of secondary, ESB and Bord na Mona will have little or no work for them. That's why the planning for long-term jobs needs to start now, so that the destruction of bogs as carbon sinks can stop as soon as possible.
    I initially started out this post as wanting to discuss the arguments calmly but I must say it’s been hard to keep my cool. The thoughts of a couple of hundred people coming into my home and telling me that we shouldn’t be doing this and shouldn’t be doing that gets me really angry, especially when, after it’s all said and done, they’ll go back to their homes and live their lives the way they want to live it.

    I don't know if you ever visited the camp but there were workshops about the future of jobs in the area. Admittedly, people at the camp can only go so far if they lack sufficient local knowledge and expertise for alternatives. It is in part up to you. Depending on how things pan out economy wise, "green energy" might well be the answer. Who knows maybe even agriculture could rebound as food imports crash. Frankly I doubt that there will be anything of the "silver bullet" nature that ESB and BnM provide; it is more likely to be a mix of income sources.

    People at the camp came from all over Ireland (not just Dublin as I expect many assume) and many of them are indeed also working in unsustainable jobs and struggling with how to make our lives work after that goes out the window.
    So what would you have us do? Make refugees out of all of us. Drive us out of our homes and local area because of an ideal that you have?
    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions isn't an ideal mate. I think that's where you're sorely mistaken. It's not about trees and polar bears. If it's not done then there is no point in making any further plans for the prosperity of this country.


  • #20
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    I was listening to the PK show last week and they were interviewing one of the 'crusties' demonstrating. When PK brought up the subject of nuclear, said crusty said it was 'too dangerous'.

    I know the lady who was interviewed by Kenny and she isn't a crusty. Nuclear was a red herring of the kind typically brought up by Pat.


  • #21
    maniac101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭maniac101


    rayh wrote: »
    In a previous post, Minister Gormley’s failure to protect Irelands bogs and its breach of articles 2 and 4 of the EU Habitats Directive was highlighted, but no reference was made to pressure groups, communities and politicians who see otherwise.
    Hi rayh, My comments above were taken from another thread for some reason, and as a result have lost their context somewhat. My point about the minister in the example given, was that by succumbing to presssure from minority interest groups and the few politicians that you mention, he has failed to uphold European environmental law, which was implemented for the good of all citizens. Therefore his action cannot be considered to reflect the "expressed will of Irish society" as you say. It doesn't represent the will of those who elected him either. My original post wasn't an attack on the minister but was meant to put into context someone else's comment about government ignoring the law.
    rayh wrote: »
    Yes and here is a typical series of actions. Farmer sells his bog to BnM. BnM harvest and sells its peat to ESB. ESB converts the peat to electricial energy and sells it to its customers.

    This simple chain of events has touched a large proportion of our population and you could argue that the farmer who sold his bog over half a century ago was responsible or the commercial processes within this chain of events. However, I take the view that the customer at the end of the chain is the main support and therefore the key to this process
    The wholesale burning of peat in power stations is driven by government policy, not by the customer at the end of the chain. ESB and BNM are simply implementing government policy, they're not just responding to customer requirements. As I said, the original policy was to support local economies and provide jobs. Today this would be considered protectionist and environmentally unsound. Therefore, the same policy has been reframed in more politically acceptable 21st century language. Peat burning stations are now needed, it's argued, to provide greater "security of supply" of energy and to reduce our dependence of imported fossil fuels. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
    rayh wrote: »
    Throughout this thread and others the concerns of converting peat to energy appear unanimous, however the approach and the identified causes may vary, but where do the supporters reside?
    The views of people posting here are not representative of the views of the wider public. Most people are not aware of the issue or, more likely, are not particularly concerned. People living in the vicinity of peat burning stations are generally in favour of them, for obvious reasons. What's not generally known is that Shannonbridge, for instance, will get a subsidy of €38 million from the state for the period 2009/2010. Subsidies are paid to peat burning stations because they're uneconomical to run and cannot compete with other stations in a deregulated electricity market. Perhaps if this was made more clear to the general populace, it would help form a clearer public opinion on burning peat for electricity.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    maniac101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭maniac101


    Húrin wrote: »
    I know the lady who was interviewed by Kenny and she isn't a crusty. Nuclear was a red herring of the kind typically brought up by Pat.
    Agreed. Nuclear as an alternative to imported fossil fuels is at least worthy of debate, but in a different forum. Discussing nuclear as an alternative to peat, which supplies just a couple of percent of our electricity needs, is just deliberately muddying the waters.


  • #23
    rayh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭rayh


    maniac101 wrote: »

    The views of people posting here are not representative of the views of the wider public. Most people are not aware of the issue or, more likely, are not particularly concerned. People living in the vicinity of peat burning stations are generally in favour of them, for obvious reasons. What's not generally known is that Shannonbridge, for instance, will get a subsidy of €38 million from the state for the period 2009/2010. Subsidies are paid to peat burning stations because they're uneconomical to run and cannot compete with other stations in a deregulated electricity market. Perhaps if this was made more clear to the general populace, it would help form a clearer public opinion on burning peat for electricity.

    Hi maniac101 – You have raised many issues, but let me firstly say that I in general agree with your concerns regarding the conversion of peat to electric energy, but we differ on interpretation of responsibility and if I appeared critical in any respect. This was not my intention.

    In my view we can divide these views into 3 groups (1) General Public – those who do not know, care or understand and that would appear to be vast majority of our population. (2) Moderate View – those who appear to have a wider view of consequences for both the environment and the community. (3) Extreme View – this group without a mandate from anybody and wish to impose their solution.

    This leads to the real question in this debate “Who is most effective in effecting change” and in your post you attribute control to “government policy”.

    Governments are elected by the people and this brings us back to the General Public.

    With respect to your comment about the fuel subsidy. It should also be noted that these plants designed in Finland to burn peat and biomass, had to be reconfigured to a lower conversion performance and I now draw your attention to 3.10.2 of “Delivering a Sustainable Energy to Ireland” http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/54C78A1E-4E96-4E28-A77A-3226220DF2FC/27356/EnergyWhitePaper12March2007.pdf


  • #24
    anghealach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭anghealach


    DublinWriter wrote: »

    I mean, what planet are these people on? Do they know the figures for the number of people who are killed in the production of fossil-fuels on an annual basis (well into 5-figures) vs. those killed in the production of nuclear power (zero)?

    You are joking right?
    You don't seriously believe that the production of nuclear power has killed no-one? :confused:


  • #25
    johnathan woss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭johnathan woss


    anghealach wrote: »
    You are joking right?
    You don't seriously believe that the production of nuclear power has killed no-one? :confused:

    Why don't you tell us how many people it has killed ?

    And give some evidence to support your figure.


  • #26
    lostinsuperfunk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 767 ✭✭✭lostinsuperfunk


    Why don't you tell us how many people it has killed ?

    And give some evidence to support your figure.

    Well as Dublinwriter was the first to bring it up, maybe we should ask him/her for supporting evidence? anghealach only asked a question.

    I'd be very surprised if the annual average number of fatalities from nuclear power was zero. Perhaps the numbers are less than most people realise, but there have been major accidents in Chernobyl, Japan, the USA and the UK. And that's before we even start on uranium mining.

    Anyway, back on topic, I believe peat-fired electricity generation is incredibly stupid, but as we have foolishly established this industry in certain regions and allowed communities to become economically dependent on it, we now have a duty to provide a more sustainable replacement.


  • #27
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    rayh wrote: »
    This leads to the real question in this debate “Who is most effective in effecting change” and in your post you attribute control to “government policy”.

    Governments are elected by the people and this brings us back to the General Public.

    I think that anyone who advocates solving our problems by appealing to individuals to reduce their consumption is doomed to fail. They are waging a war against human nature that they can't win.


  • #28
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,425 ✭✭✭robtri


    johnathan woss wrote: »
    Why don't you tell us how many people it has killed ?

    And give some evidence to support your figure.

    According to reports by the International Commission for
    Radiological Protection (ICRP), work-related deaths in uranium
    mines are estimated at between 5, 500 deaths (for radiation
    workers
    20 mSv) per million workers a year.


  • #29
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 98,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    robtri wrote: »
    According to reports by the International Commission for
    Radiological Protection (ICRP), work-related deaths in uranium
    mines are estimated at between 5, 500 deaths (for radiation
    workers
    20 mSv) per million workers a year.
    you would also need stats for the mine workers , many in third world countries where health and safety regs aren't the same


  • #30
    anghealach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭anghealach


    Originally Posted by DublinWriter viewpost.gif

    I mean, what planet are these people on? Do they know the figures for the number of people who are killed in the production of fossil-fuels on an annual basis (well into 5-figures) vs. those killed in the production of nuclear power (zero)?

    Quote: anghealach

    You are joking right?
    You don't seriously believe that the production of nuclear power has killed no-one?
    johnathan woss wrote: »
    Why don't you tell us how many people it has killed ?

    And give some evidence to support your figure.

    I didn't see any supporting evidence being given by dublinwriter - is this a prerequisite for asking questions or giving comment now?

    As lostinsuperfunk put it so well there are plenty of nuclear reactor accidents recorded and we have no idea how many nuclear industry workers died from cancers not "connected" to their occupation.

    And, as lostinsuperfunk also said - back to thread- :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    rayh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭rayh


    What have we learned from this thread?

    1.That about a half dozen people out of a population of over 4 million has expressed some concern (mostly incognita - a notable feature of this forum & the subject of another thread) about the conversion of peat to energy. However beyond this point there was little consensus.

    2.That a battle weary group of campaigners have now decided to focus on a process which has been in operation for over 6 decades and has clearly indicated the end of resources within the next decade. This hints of a cynical claim for victory?

    3.That between 5, 500 deaths (for radiation workers @ 3 mSv) to 37, 500 deaths (for radiation workers @ 20 mSv) per million workers a year. This must be out of topic?

    Democracies should represent the majority?


Advertisement
Advertisement