how they could have saved another 350 million easily

yosemite_sam · 11-12-2010 07:44PM

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 · 12-12-2010 05:34PM

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 · 13-12-2010 01:21PM

@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 · 13-12-2010 01:26PM

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 · 13-12-2010 03:13PM

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 · 13-12-2010 05:36PM

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 · 13-12-2010 06:07PM

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 · 13-12-2010 07:16PM

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 · 13-12-2010 07:19PM

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 · 13-12-2010 07:21PM

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 · 13-12-2010 07:32PM

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 · 13-12-2010 09:03PM

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 · 14-12-2010 01:12AM

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 · 14-12-2010 01:29AM

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 · 14-12-2010 07:42AM

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

ZYX · 14-12-2010 03:07PM

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 · 14-12-2010 03:20PM

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 · 14-12-2010 03:24PM

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 · 14-12-2010 03:26PM

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 · 14-12-2010 08:43PM

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.

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 11:21PM

Well there you go @ZYX it was after all about how foolish our one way bet on wind is

anyone who seen tonights PrimeTime might now appreciate that how the country is being taken for another costly ride brought to you by the people who allowed NAMA to go thru' (why of course their magic ball forecasts 10% property value rise from nov 09 :rolleyes: ) and supported FF at every single turn while they led us deeper into ****, with the full backing of the wind lobby who are laughing all the way to the bank with their guaranteed futures contracts

the debate at the end was interesting:

one one hand we hand an engineer with experience and facts and sensible/clearly articulated opinion
on the other hand we had a "greenie salesman" with a permanently tattooed cheesy smile trying to sell us some more of his bull****
how does he get away with lying on tv (again and again) about a "competitive market"? our energy market is not competitive but rigged to its very core to rip off the consumer

while before I had a strong doubt and suspicion that we are being taken for a ride, now i know that we are being taken for a ride for the sake of some authoritarian environmentalist wet dream
it was interesting to hear that Denmark at times exports electricity for free, despite being a leader in wind their energy prices are one of the highest in europe up there with us
was also interesting to hear about the revolution in gas, not even going into nuclear (plenty of thorium in Ireland btw), and not even discussing the potential of offshore methane deposits.

cue Scofflaw and his vision of the future littered with NAMA homes making a profit (yeh remember that debate? gone strangely quiet on that lately) surrounded by windmills spinning on a calm day.

zanardi · 15-12-2010 03:58AM

Quite a good argument for why wind energy subsidies work here:

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/07/25/all-power-to-the-wind-%E2%80%93-it-cuts-your-electricity-bills/

It explains how energy is priced, and that when wind is available it brings down the price.

Don't know why Eamon Ryan doesn't quote it, or is it too complex a point to make in a soundbite?

ei.sdraob · 15-12-2010 06:41PM

zanardi wrote: »

Quite a good argument for why wind energy subsidies work here:

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/07/25/all-power-to-the-wind-%E2%80%93-it-cuts-your-electricity-bills/

It explains how energy is priced, and that when wind is available it brings down the price.

Don't know why Eamon Ryan doesn't quote it, or is it too complex a point to make in a soundbite?

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/12/15/prime-time-on-the-cost-of-wind/

Eamon Ryan and Kieran O’Brien both cite an ESRI paper, but O’Brien does so accurately.

Minister Ryan argues that the price of electricity falls as more wind power is added. This is true. The price reflects the marginal cost of power generation, which is zero for wind. However, what matters is the total cost of power generation, which may well increase as more wind is added to the system. From the household perspective, the price of electricity goes down with more wind, but the standing charge goes up.

Minister Ryan again extols the virtues of import substitution, despite much evidence to the contrary.

if you believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Eamon Ryan then there's no point discussing much with you, the guys job is to smile and lie, whether its wind power our our broadband which is worse than likes of Mongolia

kaiser sauze · 15-12-2010 11:47PM

boards.ie, throughout this thread I have read as you ranted and distorted facts to suit your ideology, I'm not sure how I managed to read it all. I think the clearly laid out arguments against your stance is what allowed me to reach this point in the thread.

Now, I will ask you something: if this is a profitable from day one industry, as you stated several times, why don't you setup in it?

If you are not prepared to setup, and since you obviously know the facts better than I do, why don't you send me through the business plan you made, and rejected, and I will consider investing or, at the very least, becoming a equity partner in a venture.

I don't pass up gift horses, so I must assume it is lack of capital on your part that prevents you from getting involved in this "goldmine".

zanardi · 16-12-2010 12:08AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/12/15/prime-time-on-the-cost-of-wind/

if you believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Eamon Ryan then there's no point discussing much with you, the guys job is to smile and lie, whether its wind power our our broadband which is worse than likes of Mongolia

No problem, sorry if you thought I wanted to have a discussion with you.

ei.sdraob · 16-12-2010 10:10AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

boards.ie, throughout this thread I have read as you ranted and distorted facts to suit your ideology, I'm not sure how I managed to read it all. I think the clearly laid out arguments against your stance is what allowed me to reach this point in the thread.

Now, I will ask you something: if this is a profitable from day one industry, as you stated several times, why don't you setup in it?

If you are not prepared to setup, and since you obviously know the facts better than I do, why don't you send me through the business plan you made, and rejected, and I will consider investing or, at the very least, becoming a equity partner in a venture.

I don't pass up gift horses, so I must assume it is lack of capital on your part that prevents you from getting involved in this "goldmine".

I am not the one stating that this industry is "profitable" :rolleyes:
I am pointing out that without the heavy subsidies it would not be, but was told that it would still be profitable, which raises the obvious question of why the need to subsidise it?

As was pointed out by me and in the PrimeTime episode few days ago, it is only profitable because everyone in the country is being shafted. There was no cost/benefit analysis done and we are wasting billions on a one way bet blindly (yet again)

if you are happy paying exuberant electricity prices for the rest of your life and paying alot for anything you buy in shops and be ripped off, then good for you dont come here complaining about RipOff Ireland
what I detailed here is one of the reasons we are uncompetitive and expensive

An btw I do have a business but most of the hardware is sent/located in US/continent simply because electricity is so much cheaper there (among other reasons such as better service and networks). I am keeping people employed abroad in jobs that could be done in this country. This green scam does not create jobs it cost the country jobs and worse it makes it more expensive for everyone to live here.

Import substitution is a failed economic policy with a long list of catalogued failures with plenty of research/evidence in economic literature.

PeakOutput · 16-12-2010 12:34PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I am not the one stating that this industry is "profitable" :rolleyes:
I am pointing out that without the heavy subsidies it would not be, but was told that it would still be profitable, which raises the obvious question of why the need to subsidise it?

i explained that way back on page 2 i think its a pretty straightforward concept, what part of that do you not understand?

ei.sdraob · 16-12-2010 01:17PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

i explained that way back on page 2 i think its a pretty straightforward concept, what part of that do you not understand?

The concept is based on extrapolation of future events, a one way bet with all our money and our competitiveness, a gamble that ignores energy revolutions and technologies such as the recent gas extraction tech giving us few hundred years worth of gas supplies or new generation nuclear such as thorium of which we have supplies here in ireland

as has been clearly exposed on the PrimeTime programme there is no cost/benefit analysis done with respect to wind power, and the people who are paid 200,000+ to run our grid are unable to put a figure on how much it will cost us to meet the targets.

wind power will work because Eamon Ryan says it will :rolleyes: with nothing to back this waste of money up, just like NAMA :mad:

PeakOutput · 16-12-2010 01:29PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The concept is based on extrapolation of future events, a one way bet with all our money and our competitiveness

what are the subsidies by the way are they not just tax exemptions which means it isnt our money we just arent taking money off them? and i dont see how it is a bet, wind power is efficient and profitable and it will only get more efficient and more profitable

as has been clearly exposed on the PrimeTime programme there is no cost/benefit analysis done with respect to wind power, and the people who are paid 200,000+ to run our grid are unable to put a figure on how much it will cost us to meet the targets.

i didnt see prime time myself but just spoke to my mate who is in the industry and has no vested interests and he said he saw it and it was absolute crap, there is more then enough wind in ireland to make a serious contribution to the grid and make a profit. i didnt see it but i think ill take the opinion of someone in the private sector whos job it is to know these things

wind power will work because Eamon Ryan says it will :rolleyes: with nothing to back this waste of money up, just like NAMA :mad:

if you get your opinions from politicians thats your problem not all of us do however

wind power makes perfect sense in ireland, there is NO argument against it besides it making the country side ugly which is a subjective opinion

edit; im not familiar with the new gas tech but the new nuclear tech is 50 to 100 years in the future if its the one im thinking of. unless you want to volunteer ireland to be the alpha testers for a new type of nuclear power plant, if we had an island under our control far enough away from the coast id be all in favour of that. sticking it anywhere on the island of ireland, not so much

ei.sdraob · 16-12-2010 01:59PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

what are the subsidies by the way are they not just tax exemptions which means it isnt our money we just arent taking money off them? and i dont see how it is a bet, wind power is efficient and profitable and it will only get more efficient and more profitable

Beside the direct subsidies we see on our bills the market is structured in such a manner as to give priority to wind power, so when the wind blows it must be used no matter the cost, even if that means shutting down plants which is expensive

the market is rigged in such a manner as to not reward cheaper electricity production and does not encourage competition, this is a perverse subsidy

PeakOutput wrote: »

i didnt see prime time myself but just spoke to my mate who is in the industry and has no vested interests and he said he saw it and it was absolute crap, there is more then enough wind in ireland to make a serious contribution to the grid and make a profit. i didnt see it but i think ill take the opinion of someone in the private sector whos job it is to know these things

I worked in power generation myself, if there is plenty of profit to be made then why the hell is it being subsidised, arghghghghghgh you are just going around in circles now

PeakOutput wrote: »

if you get your opinions from politicians thats your problem not all of us do however

I am getting my opinion from past experience and economists and engineers
We had an engineer talking facts and figure and Eamon Ryan lying thru' his grinning gob.

PeakOutput wrote: »

wind power makes perfect sense in ireland, there is NO argument against it besides it making the country side ugly which is a subjective opinion

I guess you missed the part of having the most expensive electricity in europe which directly impacts on all consumers and businesses killing jobs and competitivness :rolleyes:
Denmark who are world leaders in wind and so often admired by the Greens still have very expensive electricity and often have to export the wind for free

PeakOutput wrote: »

edit; im not familiar with the new gas tech but the new nuclear tech is 50 to 100 years in the future if its the one im thinking of. unless you want to volunteer ireland to be the alpha testers for a new type of nuclear power plant, if we had an island under our control far enough away from the coast id be all in favour of that. sticking it anywhere on the island of ireland, not so much

3rd generation ~1000MW US designed reactors are being constructed rapidly in China
they are safer with passive core cooling system and less parts to break leading to more reliabilty and safety
thorium reactors are being constructed in India who have large reserves of it
pebble bed reactors which are incapable of melting down are 1960s technology

thats just nuclear, i would not advocate it until there is a cost/benefit analysis not just hand waving, not having to spend billions on the grid and using existing connections would be one huge benefit if the coal burning plant at moneypoint is replaced

I do not like how we are being taken for an expensive ride by ideologically driven sociopath's and industry lobby group without a clear analysis and examination of all alternatives.

how they could have saved another 350 million easily

Comments