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

Pylons

1…4445474950…53

Comments

  • #1382
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Not correct

    First Ireland was required to submit a NREAP to the European Commission under EU Directive 2009/28/EC

    Second Ireland had initial had set 40% as its RES-E target but was told by the EU that it could achieve 42.5% based off the input from the TSO (EirGrid.)

    EirGrid’s demand projections where used as a basis for assessing the future grid infrastructure expansions and assessments of the generation adequacy of the system.

    It is a complex area so I'm happy to clear up any misunderstandings.

    From the Independent last month:

    Failure to transpose EU energy rules could cost Ireland €25,000 daily

    IRELAND faces being fined more than €25,000 a day for failing to enact EU legislation on renewable energy.

    The European Commission is referring Ireland to the Court of Justice for failing to fully transpose the Renewable Energy Directive, which requires EU member states to produce 20pc of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

    The move should prove deeply embarrassing to the Government as it has been warned twice about its failure to comply with EU law, first in January 2011 and again in June 2012.

    The referral also comes despite the country being well-placed to reach our target. Last month, more than 24pc of our daily energy requirements were met from wind power.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/failure-to-transpose-eu-energy-rules-could-cost-ireland-25000-daily-29943954.html


  • #1383
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Not correct

    First Ireland was required to submit a NREAP to the European Commission under EU Directive 2009/28/EC

    Second Ireland had initial had set 40% as its RES-E target but was told by the EU that it could achieve 42.5% based off the input from the TSO (EirGrid.)

    EirGrid’s demand projections where used as a basis for assessing the future grid infrastructure expansions and assessments of the generation adequacy of the system.

    It is a complex area so I'm happy to clear up any misunderstandings.

    It's all there
    http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Statisticrs_FAQ/Energy_Targets_FAQ/

    Don't see any 42.2% though! it's 40 as far as I can see, I would hazard a guess that the more ambitious target is voluntary.


  • #1384
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Greensleeves wrote: »
    From the Independent last month:

    Failure to transpose EU energy rules could cost Ireland €25,000 daily

    IRELAND faces being fined more than €25,000 a day for failing to enact EU legislation on renewable energy.

    The European Commission is referring Ireland to the Court of Justice for failing to fully transpose the Renewable Energy Directive, which requires EU member states to produce 20pc of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

    The move should prove deeply embarrassing to the Government as it has been warned twice about its failure to comply with EU law, first in January 2011 and again in June 2012.

    The referral also comes despite the country being well-placed to reach our target. Last month, more than 24pc of our daily energy requirements were met from wind power.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/failure-to-transpose-eu-energy-rules-could-cost-ireland-25000-daily-29943954.html


    That 20% is for EU overall. It includes electricity, heating and transport.

    The basis for EU Directive 2009/28/EC under which Ireland was legally required to meat 16% of its energy by 2020 and submit a NREAP. Your link also shows the cost if Ireland fails to meet its 2020 target.
    Greensleeves wrote: »
    Here is a good summary of the state of play in Europe at the moment:

    http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1230549/analysis-nuclear-scores-renewables-ec-proposals

    This has nothing to do with the 2020 targets, also it puts Ireland in a spot of bother seen as Nuclear generation is illegal here.


  • #1385
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Jester252 wrote: »
    That 20% is for EU overall. It includes electricity, heating and transport.

    The basis for EU Directive 2009/28/EC under which Ireland was legally required to meat 16% of its energy by 2020 and submit a NREAP. Your link also shows the cost if Ireland fails to

    But whatever happened to the announcement that all individual country targets were scrapped except for 40% CO2 reduction by 2030 ?
    As said many times here, plenty options to reduce CO2 without plopping too many turbines for the size of the country. http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/european-commission-scraps-renewable-energy-targets-1.1664136
    Link to the announcement as a reminder


  • #1386
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    It's all there
    http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Statisticrs_FAQ/Energy_Targets_FAQ/

    Don't see any 42.2% though! it's 40 as far as I can see, I would hazard a guess that the more ambitious target is voluntary.

    Its not all there, it's a broken F.A.Q link.

    Now its all here

    The NREAP for Ireland.

    I suggest you pay attention to

    3.2 Sectoral targets and trajectories
    Table 3: National 2020 target and estimated trajectory of energy from renewable sources in heating and cooling, electricity and transport
    Page 11.

    Also

    2. Expected Final Energy Consumption 2010-2020 Page 8.


  • Advertisement
  • #1387
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    But whatever happened to the announcement that all individual country targets were scrapped except for 40% CO2 reduction by 2030 ?
    As said many times here, plenty options to reduce CO2 without plopping too many turbines for the size of the country. http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/european-commission-scraps-renewable-energy-targets-1.1664136
    Link to the announcement as a reminder


    First sentence
    The European Commission today unveiled a new climate change package, which removes the obligation on member states to reach specific renewable energy targets by 2030.

    Please read more than the headline


  • #1388
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Jester252 wrote: »
    First sentence

    Please read more than the headline
    Multitasking here, but that quote tells me targets are scrapped :confused:

    While current EU legislation legislates for a 20 per cent binding renewable target across the EU by 2020, with specific targets for member states, the new package withdraws obligatory targets on how much energy countries should derive from renewable sources. Instead, a binding renewable target of 27 per cent has been proposed for the EU as a whole, but no specific targets for member states. The target for a reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 has been set at 40 per cent.

    Your link confirms the niggling thought at the back of my mind : the 40% from renewables for electricity has been set by the government! not the EU. The EU requires a plan, and an overall target.

    As I said not 100% focused here, will read the official plan and corresponding EU publications updates when able.


  • #1389
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Multitasking here, but that quote tells me targets are scrapped :confused:

    The 2020 targets are still part of the EU Commission climate section, that has been updated to include the new 2030 framework.

    http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/causes/index_en.htm

    I just think the mistake comes from a badly written article.

    Your link confirms the niggling thought at the back of my mind : the 40% from renewables for electricity has been set by the government! not the EU. The EU requires a plan, and an overall target.

    As I said not 100% focused here, will read the official plan and corresponding EU publications updates when able.

    When the NREAP was send to the ECC it had include the 40% electrictiy target set by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. However due to a demand projections from Eirgird the value was updated by the ECC.

    At the end of the day we have to reach those targets or face finds much more than €25,000 a day


  • #1390
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Jester252 wrote: »
    The 2020 targets are still part of the EU Commission climate section, that has been updated to include the new 2030 framework.

    http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/causes/index_en.htm

    I just think the mistake comes from a badly written article.




    When the NREAP was send to the ECC it had include the 40% electrictiy target set by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. However due to a demand projections from Eirgird the value was updated by the ECC.

    At the end of the day we have to reach those targets or face finds much more than €25,000 a day

    So these targets have indeed been set by our government.

    I work in an environment where we have to design our own policies and set targets in a similar fashion.

    Presumably so, the government would have had the option to achieve overall targets with a different scenario, and there may even now be the option to review our own policy and amend it, ensuring overall targets are still achieved. The dept of CENR did not have to set the bar at 40%, it could have balanced overall efficiency with CO2 reductions, setting the electricity targets lower.

    Have a bit more peace now, going to check links, thks.


  • #1391
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Hmmm... Interesting links. There is a press release from 20/02/14, so just 3 days ago, indicating that Ireland is referred to court for non compliance with internal electricity market rules. We could be fined more than 20k daily for non compliance, particularly re unbundling rules.
    Can't do quotes right now, apologies     :



    Internal energy market: Commission refers Ireland to Court for failing to transpose EU rules

    The European Commission is referring Ireland to the Court of Justice of the EU for failing to fully transpose the EU internal energy market rules. To date, Ireland has only partially transposed the Electricity Directive (2009/72/EC). The aim of the Directive is to ensure that electricity is generated, transported and sold in competitive markets which create a level-playing field for all market players. Open and competitive markets will provide citizens and businesses with secure and sustainable energy supplies at lowest possible cost. The Electricity Directive should have been transposed by the Member States by 3 March Internal energy market: Commission refers Ireland to Court for failing to transpose EU rules

    The European Commission is referring Ireland to the Court of Justice of the EU for failing to fully transpose the EU internal energy market rules. To date, Ireland has only partially transposed the Electricity Directive (2009/72/EC). The aim of the Directive is to ensure that electricity is generated, transported and sold in competitive markets which create a level-playing field for all market players. Open and competitive markets will provide citizens and businesses with secure and sustainable energy supplies at lowest possible cost. The Electricity Directive should have been transposed by the Member States by 3 March 2011.

    "The Internal market is vital to tackle Europe's energy and climate challenges and to ensure affordable and secure energy supplies to households and businesses. Delays in implementation of the EU internal energy market rules have negative effects on all market participants and are therefore not acceptable," said Günther Oettinger, the EU Energy Commissioner.
    The
    Commission proposes a daily penalty of €20358. The penalty proposed takes into account the duration and the gravity of the infringement. In the case of an affirmative judgement of the Court, the daily penalty is to be paid from the date of the judgment to the transposition date.

    Ireland has already adopted a considerable amount of legislation required by the Electricity Directive. However, some provisions still remain to be transposed into national law. In particular, these provisions relate to the rules on the unbundling of transmission system operators and transmission systems. Unbundling is the separation of energy production and supply activities from the operation of the energy transmission networks. These rules are meant to ensure that companies involved in both the generation of electricity as well as in the operation of the transmission networks cannot abuse their privileged position to prevent the access of competitors to the network.



    "The Internal market is vital to tackle Europe's energy and climate challenges and to ensure affordable and secure energy supplies to households and businesses. Delays in implementation of the EU internal energy market rules have negative effects on all market participants and are therefore not acceptable," said Günther Oettinger, the EU Energy Commissioner.

    The Commission proposes a daily penalty of €20358. The penalty proposed takes into account the duration and the gravity of the infringement. In the case of an affirmative judgement of the Court, the daily penalty is to be paid from the date of the judgment to the transposition date.

    Ireland has already adopted a considerable amount of legislation required by the Electricity Directive. However, some provisions still remain to be transposed into national law. In particular, these provisions relate to the rules on the unbundling of transmission system operators and transmission systems. Unbundling is the separation of energy production and supply activities from the operation of the energy transmission networks. These rules are meant to ensure that companies involved in both the generation of electricity as well as in the operation of the transmission networks cannot abuse their privileged position to prevent the access of competitors to the network.

    Edit : also found from press releases there that the 25k fines bandied about ATM really have more to do with transport targets, biofuels sustainability, and a bit on grid, than with wind or renewables in electricity production. Will quote tomorrow if needed, all to be found in Press Releases.

    Also the new 2030 targets will indeed release us from 2020 targets as far as I understand, meaning the States will, as I was suggesting above, be able to re-balance their priorities to achieve an overall target. Overall impression is that just like Ireland, States jumped head first into one aspect or another, and neglected CO2 reductions side, and biofuels and other means of achieving efficiency,so EU attempting to redress that. (That's in questions about 2030 targets 1)

    Great news.

    This new proposal to be considered Spring meeting 20-21 march so we'll know more then.


  • Advertisement
  • #1392
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    So these targets have indeed been set by our government.

    I work in an environment where we have to design our own policies and set targets in a similar fashion.

    Presumably so, the government would have had the option to achieve overall targets with a different scenario, and there may even now be the option to review our own policy and amend it, ensuring overall targets are still achieved. The dept of CENR did not have to set the bar at 40%, it could have balanced overall efficiency with CO2 reductions, setting the electricity targets lower.

    Have a bit more peace now, going to check links, thks.

    The 40% was set by the government, however after the Eirgirds report the EC up the 40% to 42.5% as it deemed Ireland can achieve this.

    The EC posed the 42.5%


  • #1393
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Edit : also found from press releases there that the 25k fines bandied about ATM really have more to do with transport targets, biofuels sustainability, and a bit on grid, than with wind or renewables in electricity production. Will quote tomorrow if needed, all to be found in Press Releases.

    Also the new 2030 targets will indeed release us from 2020 targets as far as I understand, meaning the States will, as I was suggesting above, be able to re-balance their priorities to achieve an overall target. Overall impression is that just like Ireland, States jumped head first into one aspect or another, and neglected CO2 reductions side, and biofuels and other means of achieving efficiency,so EU attempting to redress that. (That's in questions about 2030 targets 1)

    Great news.

    This new proposal to be considered Spring meeting 20-21 march so we'll know more then.

    From reading A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 which is the policy that they will review at the meeting
    It doesn't seem that the 2030 targets will replace the 2020 targets. Espically give this quote from the policy
    the 2030 policy framework should be based on full implementation of the 20/20/20 targets and the following


  • #1394
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Jester252 wrote: »
    From reading A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 which is the policy that they will review at the meeting
    It doesn't seem that the 2030 targets will replace the 2020 targets. Espically give this quote from the policy
    Not clear

    Quote :
    Why is only a renewable energy target at EU level, rather than individual targets for Member States, proposed? Does this mean a change in EU policy toward Renewable Energy?

    Renewable energy will continue to play a fundamental role in the transition towards a more competitive, secure and sustainable system: the Commission considers that the EU should set a European target for the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption of at least 27%.

    Experience with the current 2020 framework nonetheless indicates the way to proceed: renewable energy policies are key to reduce the EU's trade deficit in energy commodities, EU exposure to supply disruption and to volatile fossil fuel prices – but they require market integration, high levels of investment, cost-efficiency and undistorted competition.

    The sustainable development of renewable energy to the full benefit of EU citizens entails a rigorous enforcement of competition and state aid rules, as well as a fundamental transformation of the EU energy infrastructure. This includes more cross-border interconnections, storage potential and smart grids to manage demand in order to ensure a secure electricity supplies in a system with higher shares of intermittent renewable energy sources.

    Unlike in the current framework the EU target for the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU would not be translated into national targets via EU legislation. This leaves greater flexibility for Member States and gives them the possibility to take advantage of the most cost-effective means of achieving a more sustainable, secure and competitive energy system. This increased flexibility will be combined with a strong European governance framework meant to ensure overall can onsistency with European targets and coherence with the wider principles of European energy policy.


  • #1395
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Not clear

    Quote :
    Why is only a renewable energy target at EU level, rather than individual targets for Member States, proposed? Does this mean a change in EU policy toward Renewable Energy?

    Renewable energy will continue to play a fundamental role in the transition towards a more competitive, secure and sustainable system: the Commission considers that the EU should set a European target for the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption of at least 27%.

    Experience with the current 2020 framework nonetheless indicates the way to proceed: renewable energy policies are key to reduce the EU's trade deficit in energy commodities, EU exposure to supply disruption and to volatile fossil fuel prices – but they require market integration, high levels of investment, cost-efficiency and undistorted competition.

    The sustainable development of renewable energy to the full benefit of EU citizens entails a rigorous enforcement of competition and state aid rules, as well as a fundamental transformation of the EU energy infrastructure. This includes more cross-border interconnections, storage potential and smart grids to manage demand in order to ensure a secure electricity supplies in a system with higher shares of intermittent renewable energy sources.

    Unlike in the current framework the EU target for the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU would not be translated into national targets via EU legislation. This leaves greater flexibility for Member States and gives them the possibility to take advantage of the most cost-effective means of achieving a more sustainable, secure and competitive energy system. This increased flexibility will be combined with a strong European governance framework meant to ensure overall can onsistency with European targets and coherence with the wider principles of European energy policy.

    The next line in the document
    The Commission does not think it appropriate to establish new targets for renewable energy or the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels used in the transport sector or any other sub-sector after 2020
    Commission has already indicated, for example, that food-based biofuels should not receive public support after 2020
    A range of alternative renewable fuels and a mix of targeted policy measures building on the Transport White Paper are needed to address the challenges of the transport sector in a 2030 perspective and beyond. The focus of policy development should be on improving the efficiency of the transport system, further development and deployment of electric vehicles, second and third generation biofuels and other alternative, sustainable fuels as part of a more holistic and integrated approach. This is in line with the alternative fuels strategy and should be considered in future reviews and revisions of the relevant legislation for the period after 2020.

    This proposal only deals with 2030 targets we still have to achieve the 2020 targets or face fines, like we already are.

    Also the only mention of 2020 targets in the document
    The EU is now well on track to meet the 2020 targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction and renewable energy and significant improvements have been made in the intensity of energy use thanks to more efficient buildings, products, industrial processes and vehicles

    The only mention of the word revised.
    This approach means that the Directive on renewable energy sources will need to be substantially revised for the period after 2020 to give the EU the means of ensuring that the 2030 EU level target is met.


  • #1396
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    We are threatened with fines from the EU for not transposing parts of the directive into law but what sanctions do we face it we miss our targets for 2020?


  • #1397
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Greensleeves wrote: »
    We are threatened with fines from the EU for not transposing parts of the directive into law but what sanctions do we face it we miss our targets for 2020?

    I think what a lot of people are forgetting this is not just the EU saying lower carbon it's actually under EU/Ireland meeting agreements in the Kyoto Protocol. Like it or not we are part of the EU and as a member we will have to build some wind farms/biofuel lower agri emissions. There is no choice in the matter. Unless we all want to pay fines to the EU that will get bigger and bigger for not meeting CO2 Emissions. I think people are missing the elephant in the room they think we have a choice in building renewables, We don't Unless for example you want to stop all farming to meet the CO2 targets. I will stress again we have to do something that is legally binding or face increasing fines It is not a choice.


  • #1398
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I think what a lot of people are forgetting this is not just the EU saying lower carbon it's actually under the EU/Ireland meeting agreements in the Kyoto Protocol. Like it or not we are part of the EU and as a member we will have to build some wind farms/biofuel lower agri emissions. There is no choice in the matter. Unless we all want to pay fines to the EU that will get bigger and bigger for not meeting CO2 Emissions. I think people are missing the elephant in the room they think we have a choice in building renewables, We don't Unless for example you want to stop all farming to meet the CO2 targets. I will stress again we have to do something that is legally binding or face increasing fines It is not a choice.

    What are the fines?

    I'm not suggesting that we miss our targets I am asking what happens if we do. (There are choices in the matter - offshore wind vs onshore for example - and if we are serious about reducing our CO2 emissions we will have to look at the agriculture sector because it is a big contributor but that does not mean that we would have to stop all farming.)

    It is clear what the fines from the EU will be for failure to transpose the renewables directive into Irish law: what are the fines/sanctions for failure to meet the 2020 targets?


  • #1399
    Mullingar Sheila
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9 ✭Mullingar Sheila


    Hi All,
    Jester your figures are wrong, or else EirGrid is wrong, 16% and 40% figures are what they state, see here recently... http://www.eirgridprojects.com/media/Grid25%20Strategy%20Not%20Related%20To%20Private%20Renewable%20Export%20Projects.pdf

    Heroditas, insulate the country for free. Not 100% for free but essentially yes. you get in back in balance of payments, co2 savings etc, a win win you might say that will add jobs to the economy as well. Ongoing energy savings over the life of the house, if you use woodfibre-board type insulation you can use our housing supply as a long term carbon store.

    Regards to all.
    Sheila.


  • #1400
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Greensleeves wrote: »
    What are the fines?

    I'm not suggesting that we miss our targets I am asking what happens if we do. (There are choices in the matter - offshore wind vs onshore for example - and if we are serious about reducing our CO2 emissions we will have to look at the agriculture sector because it is a big contributor but that does not mean that we would have to stop all farming.)

    It is clear what the fines from the EU will be for failure to transpose the renewables directive into Irish law: what are the fines/sanctions for failure to meet the 2020 targets?

    http://www.thejournal.ie/shortfall-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-target-may-cost-ireland-e300m-818053-Mar2013/

    300m for starts paying for carbon credits according to that. And that's fines basically not purchasing infrastructure or building and so on. I think a lot of people have their head in the sand even if these set of lines get undergrounded you cant underground the renewables.


  • #1401
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/shortfall-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-target-may-cost-ireland-e300m-818053-Mar2013/

    300m for starts paying for carbon credits according to that. And that's fines basically not purchasing infrastructure or building and so on. I think a lot of people have their head in the sand even if these set of lines get undergrounded you cant underground the renewables.


    Article is out of date and leans heavily on speculation - in any case despite a heavy investment in wind Germany's emmissions are going up too which is part of the reason why the EU's approach to all this is up for renegotiation at a number of EU summit meetings this year. The UK and a number of Eastern European countries like Poland and Czechs want the likes of Nuclear and clean coal technology to be a much bigger part of the solution. Ireland should join this group instead of constantly giving into the wind lobby and secure a result that makes both economic and environmental sense. As I pointed out earlier heavy industry is packing up/scaling down in reponse to the increasing cost of energy across the EU so essentially Europe is "exporting" these issues abroad,along with jobs which makes no sense at all.

    PS: If the EU and more particular our government are that concerned about emmissions then they would have banned the import of products like tropical timber, palm oil etc. all of which are driving mass deforestation across Africa and Asia, destroying carbon sinks,habitats,native culutures etc. and releasing vast amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Sadly this element is being ignored in favour of pandering to well connected lobby groups like the wind industry etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #1402
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Greensleeves wrote: »
    What are the fines?

    I'm not suggesting that we miss our targets I am asking what happens if we do. (There are choices in the matter - offshore wind vs onshore for example - and if we are serious about reducing our CO2 emissions we will have to look at the agriculture sector because it is a big contributor but that does not mean that we would have to stop all farming.)

    It is clear what the fines from the EU will be for failure to transpose the renewables directive into Irish law: what are the fines/sanctions for failure to meet the 2020 targets?

    The Commission will be examining progress towards the 2020 targets later this year and deciding upon the level of fines for non achievement of targets then


  • #1403
    Heroditas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »

    Heroditas, insulate the country for free. Not 100% for free but essentially yes. you get in back in balance of payments, co2 savings etc, a win win you might say that will add jobs to the economy as well. Ongoing energy savings over the life of the house, if you use woodfibre-board type insulation you can use our housing supply as a long term carbon store.

    Regards to all.
    Sheila.

    There's no such thing as "free". Somebody has to pay for it.
    Also, it's an extremely expensive form of job creation.

    It doesn't stack up in terms of the CO2 savings either, hence why that option is not being explored.

    Trust me, everything you have suggested has been examined in detail and dismissed as not a viable or cost-effective option.
    You're not blazing a trail here with innovative policy.


  • #1404
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Article is out of date and leans heavily on speculation - in any case despite a heavy investment in wind Germany's emmissions are going up too which is part of the reason why the EU's approach to all this is up for renegotiation at a number of EU summit meetings this year. The UK and a number of Eastern European countries like Poland and Czechs want the likes of Nuclear and clean coal technology to be a much bigger part of the solution. Ireland should join this group instead of constantly giving into the wind lobby and secure a result that makes both economic and environmental sense. As I pointed out earlier heavy industry is packing up/scaling down in reponse to the increasing cost of energy across the EU so essentially Europe is "exporting" these issues abroad,along with jobs which makes no sense at all.

    PS: If the EU and more particular our government are that concerned about emmissions then they would have banned the import of products like tropical timber, palm oil etc. all of which are driving mass deforestation across Africa and Asia, destroying carbon sinks,habitats,native culutures etc. and releasing vast amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Sadly this element is being ignored in favour of pandering to well connected lobby groups like the wind industry etc.

    Saying so does not make it true has the Kyoto agreement suddenly changed ? Nuclear is Illegal here when are people going to stop banging that drum. I’m getting bored of the lobby group comments too. If we had massive coal fields and they recommended clean coal as you say im guessing you would be against them to as they would be a lobby group. Wind is a massive resource here so why not use it. We can pretty cheaply meet targets that other countries are going to struggle with. I would love fusion power option but that's 10-20 years away they keep saying ... It’s been 10-20 years away since the late 80s.....


  • #1405
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Heroditas wrote: »
    There's no such thing as "free". Somebody has to pay for it.
    Also, it's an extremely expensive form of job creation.

    It doesn't stack up in terms of the CO2 savings either, hence why that option is not being explored.

    Trust me, everything you have suggested has been examined in detail and dismissed as not a viable or cost-effective option.
    You're not blazing a trail here with innovative policy.

    Dissmissed by who?? - sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black in terms of the cost of jobs in the wind industry!!:eek:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html


  • #1406
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Saying so does not make it true has the Kyoto agreement suddenly changed ? Nuclear is Illegal here when are people going to stop banging that drum. I’m getting bored of the lobby group comments too. If we had massive coal fields and they recommended clean coal as you say im guessing you would be against them to as they would be a lobby group. Wind is a massive resource here so why not use it. We can pretty cheaply meet targets that other countries are going to struggle with. I would love fusion power option but that's 10-20 years away they keep saying ... It’s been 10-20 years away since the late 80s.....

    If wind was the answer then the EU wouldn't be looking at this whole area again on the basis of rising EU emmissions and costs. If the government was serious about this issue then they would be looking to make nuclear legal like pretty much every other EU country where in any case Nuclear generated power is imported via existing interconnectors into nuclear free countries including windy Denmark - which highlights the nonsense of the "wind gives energy independence nonsense" spouted by the wind baggers.


  • #1407
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Mullingar Sheila wrote: »
    Hi All,
    Jester your figures are wrong, or else EirGrid is wrong, 16% and 40% figures are what they state, see here recently... http://www.eirgridprojects.com/media/Grid25%20Strategy%20Not%20Related%20To%20Private%20Renewable%20Export%20Projects.pdf

    Heroditas, insulate the country for free. Not 100% for free but essentially yes. you get in back in balance of payments, co2 savings etc, a win win you might say that will add jobs to the economy as well. Ongoing energy savings over the life of the house, if you use woodfibre-board type insulation you can use our housing supply as a long term carbon store.

    Regards to all.
    Sheila.

    Are you saying the NREAP is wrong? The document agreed to by Ireland and the EU? The document that we are legally bound to?

    Here is the link to the post when I provide actually legally binding document not a F.A.Q. I also make it super easy by giving the important section.

    42.5% is what we are legally required to achieve. Ireland had given itself 40% but due to a report by Eirgid the ECC decided that Ireland can achieve 42.5%


  • #1408
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    If wind was the answer then the EU wouldn't be looking at this whole area again on the basis of rising EU emmissions and costs. If the government was serious about this issue then they would be looking to make nuclear legal like pretty much every other EU country where in any case Nuclear generated power is imported via existing interconnectors into nuclear free countries including windy Denmark - which highlights the nonsense of the "wind gives energy independence nonsense" spouted by the wind baggers.

    First, wind does give us independence, when turbines are generating electricity we are not relining on imported electricity or oil.

    Second, The uproar to nuclear generation will outshine the uproar by the anti-wind. No government will push for nuclear generation.

    Third, how do you know the electricity imported into Denmark is nuclear electricity


  • #1409
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Heroditas wrote: »
    There's no such thing as "free". Somebody has to pay for it.
    Also, it's an extremely expensive form of job creation.

    It doesn't stack up in terms of the CO2 savings either, hence why that option is not being explored.

    Trust me, everything you have suggested has been examined in detail and dismissed as not a viable or cost-effective option.
    You're not blazing a trail here with innovative policy.

    Heroditas, again the dismissed or dismissive stance. There is no reason we should trust you, especially in light of the recommendations and suggestions in the EU directives and press releases there
    http://europa.eu/rapid/search-result.htm?query=51&locale=en
    The new 2030 guidelines show just that : to meet targets countries' knee jerk reaction has been to prioritise one or two measures, while the EU were expecting a more rounded approach. It's all over that website Jester linked to, please read a selection over there.
    Other options have to be made work. It's not about giving up on wind, it's about balancing the measures, and not having a disproportionate response. Mind you, the EU doesn't seem to care much for what I personally care about, but their approach is more balanced and so to some extent suits better IMO.


  • #1410
    Mullingar Sheila
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9 ✭Mullingar Sheila


    Hi Heroditias,
    I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, this is fine.
    "Also, it's an extremely expensive form of job creation." Not as expensive as wind, listen here...http://www.rte.ie/radio1/drivetime/
    "You're not blazing a trail here with innovative policy." No desire to, common sense is rarer than genius, the simple solutions usually are the best and don't require an army of 'geniuses' to work them out.

    Good Night,
    Sheila.


  • Advertisement
  • #1411
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Third, how do you know the electricity imported into Denmark is nuclear electricity

    More nuclear power flowing through Danish outlets

    Although Denmark does not operate a single atomic plant, 14 percent of DONG's energy supply comes from nuclear power

    An analysis of the national electricity distribution in the last three years shows an unexpected tendency at Denmark’s largest energy company, DONG.

    The amount of electricity generated from nuclear power has doubled between 2011 and 2012, even though Denmark does not operate a single nuclear plant.

    The analysis, made by Energinet.dk, showed that 14 percent of DONG's energy distribution came from nuclear plants in 2012, compared to seven percent in 2011and just one percent in 2010. Wind energy declined during the same period.

    Full story...

    http://cphpost.dk/news/more-nuclear-power-flowing-through-danish-outlets.6685.html


Advertisement