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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/
vote green
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yeah, because these are so much better.
johno
wow time to add stupidity to my list now
all these new windfarms would required plenty of pylons (pic 1+2) building nuclear would require none, theres a dozen billion saved right there
as for pic 3+4 they have steam cooling towers, since when is steam bad for the environment?recedite wrote:Bearing in mind the Greens controlled the Environment and Energy ministries, not Finance, how much influence over the economy could people reasonably expect of them?
standing up to their so called "principles" of integrity and pulling the plug on FF early in the crisis and letting democracy take it course, instead they supported them for 2 painful years0 -
-
-
-
-
Your charge is misplaced, I am all for science and technology. It is the key to our future survival and well-being.
Yet most of the environmentalists oppose science and technologies which can help us all such as nuclear (removing carbon emissions fast) or gm (producing biocrops or modifying animals not to produce methane)
like i said hypocrites, and i stand by it
I spent a fortune on insulating and airtightning my home (and received no grants mind you) have solar water and just emptied my wood stove from last night, and yes a waste treatment plantAs for living in caves, although there is nothing wrong with it per se, my preference would be for an off-grid passivhaus with rainwater collection and solar/wind generation, wood-burning stove, compost toilet etc. It is very sad that during our famous construction boom/bubble most of the houses were built to such low standards and with an eye to profit over future living needs. For example, the price of oil is set to rise and rise, and nearly all the houses I see have oil-fired central heating as well as inadequate insulation, which seems short-sighted, to say the least.
and yes also have oil fired backup since despite all the taxes the greens brought alone it is still by far the cheapest way of heating home when the sun no shine (most of this winter)
so please dont generalize, I did all of this because it made financial sense to do it and a calculated payback not some hippy green idealismWe have been '20 years from commercial fusion' for several decades and it remains stubbornly just around the corner. I am not holding my breath. As for fission, you don't mention the massive cost and risk of dealing with the waste for thousands of years.
the main thing holding back fusion research has been funding, we now finally have 2 separate efforts underway and funding
need I remind you that the Greens have been complicit in pissing away billions of euro :rolleyes:Re. your claims about population growth, I do not know what planet you are living on if that is really what you think.
I live in the same planet as you, unlike the Greens i have a grasp of numbers and events changing the world
all of the countries as they get richer endup with birthrate dropping bellow replacement, the whole population of Europe is already shrinking, with government scrambling to "incentivize" people as the pensions and healthcare issues with older populations rears it head0 -
-
-
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »It is until we figure out what to do with the waste. The current solution - bury it underground and hope the next generation will figure it out - is a little too close for comfort to what's happened with coal and oil over the past 150 years.
The reason we have "waste" is political not engineering, The technology exists not to produce as much waste and avoid plutonium
Thorium reactors produce about 100gramms per year of a 1GW reactor
Normal Uranium reactors only use 2% of the energy in the uranium, using breeding and advanced reactors most of the waste can be reused over and over
finally there is plenty of valuable elements in the waste
once again the problems are political not engineering
but of course we can look at other countries such as Finland who have build a long term storage facility for 1.5billion and all of this was paid by a fund setup to collect money from nuclear plants they have with the costs build in
Arent the Scandinavian countries used all the time here as an example of how to do things right :rolleyes:It's a bit rich you calling me stupid when I have to explain so many elementary things to you. Those pics were a response to a poster who claimed that wind turbines are ugly. I have yet to hear anyone call pylons ugly. People would prefer to have pylons near their houses than to live without electricity. This was a post about VISUAL impact of turbines.
All of these new windfarms require plenty of new pylons to be build, often in remote and beautiful places to connect them this is costing the country billions, alternatively we could plop a nuclear plant close to population center and reduce transmission losses and use existing network, having 30% of your energy lost due to transmission losses only makes wind more wasteful.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
ei.sdraob you seem to be quite green yourself there old chap. So you are using these more energy efficient and some might say sustainable methods of enegry creation due to a view that it will yield a financial payback over time. Hmmmm, let me think....now that sounds like the type of hippyesque, idealistic policies of a particular Irish political party....which one could it be??
Like the post already said I did what I did since there is a calculated payback and return on investment within 10 years to me, not some green idealism. I probably spend more time calculating payback to me on improving my home than the Greens did on deciding to back NAMA/bailouts etc :rolleyes:
Embracing more efficient technologies with calculated payback is not being hypocritical its a form of investment.I normally stay out of debates on boards, I'm a long time user and have gone through a couple profiles over the past few years but as I said I rarely feel the need to post unless something really gets my back up. Your attitude in general has gotten my back up. You claim greens are hypocrites and that all their policies are hippy geen idealism yet you seem to embrace some of their ideas (hypocritical?).
refusing to acknowledge that technologies such as nuclear would help address carbon issues while backing unreliable and expensive wind is.I have never voted green, perhaps because I didnt really know what they are about, and I still would never like to see the green party in government on their own. Having said that I like the message of the greens that it can be more financially beneficial and sustainable to work with the resources we have (be it natural resources, human capital, financial or whatever) in a more efficient manner. You seem to agree based on the technology you have introduced into your home.
Where have I disagreed with that
The Greens could have pulled out at any moment causing an election, that is one powerful card they could have played politically. Maybe the greens should learn a little more about doing politics before asking to be re-elected.Sure some of policies that were put through during their term in government may have been irrelevant in the context of the crisis that was going on around them. This is partially because FF gave them scraps from the table to keep them happy and to stop them from collapsing the government.
All other parties as seen on yesterdays primetime support banning corporate donations. If you think they should be in opposition then thats another thread there. This current crop of Greens deserve to be wiped out.Look at some of the legislation they put forward which FF never tried to enact, such as the banning of corporate donations to political parties. The greens would be a good addition as a minor party in any government as they provide a voice of conscience and some new ideas. If your hatred is based solely on their term in power then it is misplaced, as johno has so eloquently pointed out to you again and again.Your point on nuclear energy is probably valid but dont balme the greens for us not having a nuclear programme. They may oppose it but I dont see other political parties pushing for nuclear energy. There is still a lot of fear (perhaps unfounded) surrounding nuclear waste amongst the Irish public. If an Irish government were to introduce a nuclear energy programme I would imagine there would be a large uproar from many in society and not only the greens.
What gets me most is their support and ties to the wind industry, which is very expensive and unreliable. Their refusal to examine all options is shortsighted as we will continue to burn fossil fuels for the next 3 decades at least with the current course. Instead of going for an option which could cut out most our emmisions in the the decade it would take to build a plant or two. The Greens pride themselves with long term thinking except in this case they are not.
The whole nuclear thing is seriously going offtopic, so Ill leave it there.
Like I said i gave the Greens a preference before and I am seriously pissed off about their record since. Everytime I see Eamon Ryan say the words smart and green I want to punch the imbecile.You seem to be using this thread as a place to vent some personal bias, perhaps a hippy had their evil way with you in the past and you see the green party as protecting the evil hippies much the way the catholic church did pedophile priests.
Anyway fire away with whatever rebuttal you see fit (or dont), Im not going to bother replying to it but I will read it with amusement.0 -
The reason we have "waste" is political not engineering, The technology exists not to produce as much waste and avoid plutonium
Thorium reactors produce about 100gramms per year of a 1GW reactor
Normal Uranium reactors only use 2% of the energy in the uranium, using breeding and advanced reactors most of the waste can be reused over and over
finally there is plenty of valuable elements in the waste
once again the problems are political not engineering
but of course we can look at other countries such as Finland who have build a long term storage facility for 1.5billion and all of this was paid by a fund setup to collect money from nuclear plants they have with the costs build in
Arent the Scandinavian countries used all the time here as an example of how to do things right :rolleyes:
Your condescension is noted with amusement, but I'm not opposed to nuclear energy. Long-term storage is not a solution, though, and you're saying "the technology exists not to produce as much waste", which isn't a solution either. Less waste is not the same as no waste, and nuclear waste is extremely dangerous, even in small quantities.
The video seems interesting, and I'll give it a look when I have a chance.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »The video seems interesting, and I'll give it a look when I have a chance.
You should, even with classic waste most of the most dangerous waste decays very rapidly within few years, whats left for the long term is plutonium
future generations would be thanking us for leaving them with refined plutonium mines
and a fuel source.
if only more people had basic understanding of physics and chemistry instead of falling for scaremongering, the world would be a much better place
to go back to my point about hypocrisy,
Ireland does and will continue to burn fossil fuels (wind only works 20% of time, 19% at any time last year) for a very long time. The likes of Moneypoint on Shannon produces plenty of radioactive materials and mercury which just goes up the chimney stack. Your typical coal plant produces plenty of nuclear waste which just goes straight into the air, i dont see anyone protesting, what you dont know doesn't hurt right?
read for yourselfOver the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.
Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.
In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.
At this moment of time 20% of the electrons which you used to type this message came from that radioactive plant down the Shannon which will continue to work for at least another 10 years.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE
Advertisement