Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Climate Change Bill
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Who is “they”? Climate scientists?
What scientists are being told to “shut up” exactly?
Still waiting for answers to these questions by the way.
First of all, and with all due respect I am not at your beck and call.:)
2nd somebody else already answered one of your questions
Hint: look for the phrase: “Yeah took me 2 seconds” up thread.
3rd, I already stated that I won’t discuss smoking (a health issue) on the climate thread.
It’s a big board; I am certain you can find a smoking thread and someone to talk about it.
As to your question of “ They”
The political climate lobby.
"What scientists are being told to “shut up” exactly?"
It's in my post you quoted from
By claiming the debate is over
Come on, why do want to talk in circles for?
0 -
Would you go leaving all your doors open and lights on?
Could you provide a cost-benefit analysis showing that investment in nuclear would have been more cost-effective for Ireland in the long run versus wind?
If a cost-benefit analysis is really of interest to you, you can Google that yourself, consult several sources, fact check it and draw your own conclusions.
If ei.sdraob would take the trouble and do this for you, chances are you wouldn’t believe him anyway since this wouldn’t be YOUR leg work.
Just a friendly suggestion. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Could you provide a cost-benefit analysis showing that investment in nuclear would have been more cost-effective for Ireland in the long run versus wind?
let me see we need 4000-6000MW on average day
4 of these 3rd gen 1100MW reactors would cost 6 billion euro, can use 3 and leave one for redundancy/maintenance lets say thats 3300MW, thats most of our base demand covered with one single plant, if the plant is build next to Moneypoint or in Gormleys constituency (those pesky Dubliners use most of the energy
) next to the bay, then as added bonus you save large chunk of the 10 billion Eirgrid are planning to spend on connecting wind stations in the back arses of nowhere, transmission losses are usually 20-30% of generation so having it close makes sense.
It doesnt take much then to run these once they are build, the main cost are security and training, the fuel itself is cheap and only a tiny fraction of the costs.
Considering most of the country is already living very close to several plants and are regularly using imported UK nuke power...
All of these are back of envelope calculations, if planning starts now could have one in 10 years with all the NIMBYs, just in time for Moneypoints retirement
there you have it a system with a price that we know upfront.
Anyways nuclear might not even need to be an option, in last few years there has been a gas extraction revolution and gas is cheap, very cheap
I am approaching the subject as an engineer looking at the wider picture and trying not to get caught up in a hype of an industry which would not be profitable without all the subsidies (subsidising the construction industry worked out great for country didnt it, you think people would have learned a lesson), most people approach windpower as idealists0 -
-
-
-
The economy and the environment are not at opposite ends of a pendulum with priority swinging between them. The economy (and society for that matter) exists within the environment and if we don't have a healthy environment, we won't have a healthy economy or society.
We share the same planet as China (ironically now the largest windmill manufacturer) and US, us cutting emissions makes **** all of a difference when China puts up a new coal plant every week
While yes the environment and long term thinking is important we dont have the luxury now. And in all honesty if carbon reduction was really that important we could run the whole country of nuclear power producing no C02 in decade (could be faster but NIMBYs and Greens...) instead of wasting billions on wind, producing **** all power when it doesnt blow and still having to rely on fossil fuels 10 years from now
0 -
The comparisons with China are a convenient fallacy. The environment doesn't do accounting and doesn't care whether the cuts come from here or anywhere else. Yes, China needs to cut its emissions but that doesn't remove our obligations to cut our emissions. When considered on a per capita basis, our emissions are far higher and therefore in relation to our size, we are contributing more. Moreover, any chance of getting developing countries like China to limit emissions will come off the back of developed countries showing willing in terms of cutting their own emissions and providing assistance to developing countries. We also have EU targets that we must hit or fines will be incurred. Let's also not forget how much of our own emissions are outsourced to countries like China in terms of imported goods.We share the same planet as China (ironically now the largest windmill manufacturer) and US, us cutting emissions makes **** all of a difference when China puts up a new coal plant every week
It's always easy to argue that the environment is a "long-term" issue and we don't have the luxury. Indeed, I remember hearing these arguments right through the Celtic Tiger when we had buckets of money lying around.While yes the environment and long term thinking is important we dont have the luxury now. And in all honesty if carbon reduction was really that important we could run the whole country of nuclear power producing no C02 in decade (could be faster but NIMBYs and Greens...) instead of wasting billions on wind, producing **** all power when it doesnt blow and still having to rely on fossil fuels 10 years from now
The longer you put it off, the bigger the job will be. The Stern report and IPCC reports clearly state that it is more expensive to do nothing and deal with the costs of climate change than it is to avoid climate change. I agree that nuclear will be part of the solution but I'm not sure why you pin it on the Greens - there has never been the remotest possibility of nuclear in this country due to general public opposition and there are issues with integrating nuclear into our grid.
Please try to stay honest - your comments on wind are quite disingenuous. Oh and have you seen the prices of nuclear plants lately?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement