Green party - Imposing their morals on us?

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

OK first thing. There is no such thing as peak oil. The stuff just isn't running out. The current price hike is due to market speculation. That's all.

That's simply untrue, Peak oil is when producion at a particular oilfield (or all oilfields) reaches it's maxumum output. The oilfields of Southern USA peaked in the middle of the 20th century, North sea Peaked in the late 1990's, the date of global peak oil is uncertain.
Oil if a finite resource it is NOT being produced, just extracted and will eventually run out if exploration & extraction continues at current rates, as things stand current consumption of oil is rising faster than extraction. Soon comsumption will increase to the point where extraction will be unable to sustain it, then there will be shortages. When will that happen? 5 years, 20 years, who knows.

edit: one of many peak oil related charts out there

fits

If we dont build nuclear ourselves, we'll only end up buying it in from abroad. I'm very much in favour of building a nuclear plant in Ireland. Being anti-nuclear and anti-incineration is not 'green' as far as I'm concerned, and thats what really annoys me about the Green Party... They seem to jump on every lefty bandwagon going, without any real thought going in.

nesf

Yeah, like the hunting ban.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

Not on anything but a complimentary basis over the short term though, ie by 2020. To dismiss nuclear because it won't be ready by then is disingenuous.

We are investing in wind power etc (though I agree there isn't enough investment) but this automatic dismissal of nuclear is pointless.

Hang on. That isn't fair to label my argument as an 'auntomatic dismissal', suggesting I haven't thought it through. I have, and I don't want nuclear.

Here's another reason. Uranium is not scarce, but it is a heavy metal. Therefore most of it is not on the earth's surface but deep down - basic physics. In order to get to this uranium, we will need to dig down and that is not environmentally friendly. And what do you do with the nuclear waste, my friend? There is no eco-friendly solution.

We need to build wind and wave power like the clappers and start reconfiguring our network to facilitate it. Ah but sure that would require a paradigm shift and we know Bertie is sitting too comfortably as is.

Up -another one. You can't use nuclear in our transport sector, which is the fastest growing sector in terms of carbon emissions in Ireland.

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

Hang on. That isn't fair to label my argument as an 'auntomatic dismissal', suggesting I haven't thought it through. I have, and I don't want nuclear.

The automatic dismissal point was more a reference to an attitude in the green movement in general, rather than your posts specifically.

taconnol wrote: »

Here's another reason. Uranium is not scarce, but it is a heavy metal. Therefore most of it is not on the earth's surface but deep down - basic physics. In order to get to this uranium, we will need to dig down and that is not environmentally friendly. And what do you do with the nuclear waste, my friend? There is no eco-friendly solution.

Mining it isn't very nice, I'll agree and nuclear waste is tricky (but in my opinion infintely more desirable than the "spew into the atmosphere" option that is fossil fuels). But our intial concern needs to be reducing CO2 emissions, not necessarily looking for an eco-friendly solution in the broader sense. Nuclear waste is very nasty stuff precisely because of its concentrated nature, but that is a hidden benefit if you can figure out a place to put it. There are options there but a lot of them aren't very nice.

taconnol wrote: »

We need to build wind and wave power like the clappers and start reconfiguring our network to facilitate it. Ah but sure that would require a paradigm shift and we know Bertie is sitting too comfortably as is.

It needs more than a reconfiguration tbh. You're talking about shifting from a system of a handful of major sources to one where there are a very large number of sources, many of them unpredictable in their output. Overcoming the transmission problems etc associated with this aren't trivial and aren't something that could be rolled out quickly and easily. One of the main benefits of nuclear is that they are easy to slot into an existing infrastructure.

fits

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, like the hunting ban.

Do you know what though... Ireland is badly in need of some new animal welfare legislation, which is more than the result of some emotional reaction to the sight of a few people galloping around on horseback. The fecking state of animal welfare in Ireland is an absolute disgrace! Our current laws date back to 1911 (I think), back when the Brits were in charge. Theres absolutely no framework to ensure animals are well cared for here. 16,000 dogs were killed in government funded pounds last year. I'd say ten times that number were thrown into rivers, shot, abandoned, or exported out of the country to find homes elsewhere (or to be used for hunting in spain and hanged at the end of the season in the case of a lot of greyhounds).

(I believe theres something in the pipeline, and will be interested to see how much intelligence was involved in its creation.)

dragonkin

taconnol wrote: »

OK first thing. There is no such thing as peak oil. The stuff just isn't running out. The current price hike is due to market speculation. That's all.

This is a typical "hide under the coats and hope it's all right" response.
Oil is a finite resource it will run out eventually and already is in decline in many places the only question is when.

The problem is not so much running out but shifting from a period when oil production can be increased to one when oil production is declining. This has very serious economic repercussions for all countries as infinite growth is a core principal and this simply cannot be achieved under those conditions unless alternative energy sources can be found and consumption reduced.

This is an interesting picture showing how difficult it is to replace oil with alternative energy. (A cubic mile is approx total oil usage in the world per year)

Macha

dragonkin wrote: »

This is a typical "hide under the coats and hope it's all right" response.
Oil is a finite resource it will run out eventually and already is in decline in many places the only question is when.

The problem is not so much running out but shifting from a period when oil production can be increased to one when oil production is declining. This has very serious economic repercussions for all countries as infinite growth is a core principal and this simply cannot be achieved under those conditions unless alternative energy sources can be found and consumption reduced.

This is an interesting picture showing how difficult it is to replace oil with alternative energy. (A cubic mile is approx total oil usage in the world per year)

Hold your horses mate. I'm not saying we shouldn't move over to renewables. I'm saying that oil isn't running out. I didn't say this was a good thing. I wish oil were running out. But it isn't

Alternative energy souces do exist!! For example the technology to run cars on 100% hydrogen fuel cells is there. THe problem? It costs 2 and a 1/2 times what oil costs. ANd that's with a 63% tax on petrol.

Our man in Havana

Is the UK bringing in a similar ban? If they are not, I can see bulb smuggling as a new past time in border areas.

Blitzkrieger

Conar wrote: »

Will the changes cause a negative impact on your life?

Yes. I honestly believe it's going to have little impact on global warming and a significant impact on my pocket.

Conar wrote: »

Yes but the potential consequences of inaction compared to those of action are vast.

Action would be brilliant. The bottom line is nothing is going to have a significant impact on the damage we do to the environment. The world's population is going to continue to grow and we're going to continue to consume more resources. Ecological harmony is NOT going to happen. Real action would me more than tax this, reduce that. Who believes that's going to happen?

nobodythere

We can't just keep finding new ways to destroy the earth and feed our insatiable appietite for energy.

Things weren't always this way... in fact it's only since the industrial revolution really, the last 200 years, a click of the fingers in terms of how long our species has been around.

All I can say is read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

Calibos

fits wrote: »

If we dont build nuclear ourselves, we'll only end up buying it in from abroad. I'm very much in favour of building a nuclear plant in Ireland. Being anti-nuclear and anti-incineration is not 'green' as far as I'm concerned, and thats what really annoys me about the Green Party... They seem to jump on every lefty bandwagon going, without any real thought going in.

Couldn't agree more.

Re. CFL's and PC's

Do I feel bad about using incandescants and 3 Pc's and 5 Xboxes all pumping out hot air??

Eh No!

Why?

All the electricity that is not used by the device for its intended purpose is Wasted as heat. It doesn't disappear into the ether. It heats the room. That means my central heating doesn't have to be turned up as high.

Whats the difference between heating my room with light bulbs and Pc's or with my central heating you ask?

If I use my central heating I am directly burning gas, in other peoples cases Oil. Not much room in a consumer boiler for CO2 scrubbers etc Whereas turning my boilker down and using the heat from the bulbs and PC's mean I am using electricity from the grid which is also probably generated by oil and gas or coal. Again whats the difference? A powerplant has the space and economies of scale to fit scrubbers and catylysts etc to remove the pollutants where it is not economical for my little consumer boiler to do the same.

Its not my fault the retarded greens are pushing CFL's on us instead of CO2 scrubbers on the ESB. Or go nuclear obviously.

This is why I have changed my mind on hydrogen fuel cell cars. You might still be burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity to split water into Hydrogen but you can fit a damn sight more efficient scrubber/catylitic convertor on a power station that in a car exhaust. Or once again even better generate the electricity with nuclear. Even the founder of greenpeace says 'Go Nuclear'!!

Same retarded green soundbite crap about biofuels. Yeah thats right, before you have developed more efficient crop variants that actually provide more energy than takes to grow them and thus have a negative net CO2 balance, sure go ahead, slash and burn more forests to grow the inefficient biofuel crops thus releasing more CO2 to add to the already negative balance, sure go ahead incentivise poor third world farmers to stop growing food crops and start growing inedible fuel crops heightening the risk of famine. Sure let them risk starvation so you dopy greens can think you are doing something good for the environment when you are actually having a net negative impact on CO2.

astrofool

Calibos wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

Re. CFL's and PC's

Do I feel bad about using incandescants and 3 Pc's and 5 Xboxes all pumping out hot air??

Eh No!

Why?

All the electricity that is not used by the device for its intended purpose is Wasted as heat. It doesn't disappear into the ether. It heats the room. That means my central heating doesn't have to be turned up as high.

Whats the difference between heating my room with light bulbs and Pc's or with my central heating you ask?

If I use my central heating I am directly burning gas, in other peoples cases Oil. Not much room in a consumer boiler for CO2 scrubbers etc Whereas turning my boilker down and using the heat from the bulbs and PC's mean I am using electricity from the grid which is also probably generated by oil and gas or coal. Again whats the difference? A powerplant has the space and economies of scale to fit scrubbers and catylysts etc to remove the pollutants where it is not economical for my little consumer boiler to do the same.

Its not my fault the retarded greens are pushing CFL's on us instead of CO2 scrubbers on the ESB. Or go nuclear obviously.

This is why I have changed my mind on hydrogen fuel cell cars. You might still be burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity to split water into Hydrogen but you can fit a damn sight more efficient scrubber/catylitic convertor on a power station that in a car exhaust. Or once again even better generate the electricity with nuclear. Even the founder of greenpeace says 'Go Nuclear'!!

Same retarded green soundbite crap about biofuels. Yeah thats right, before you have developed more efficient crop variants that actually provide more energy than takes to grow them and thus have a negative net CO2 balance, sure go ahead, slash and burn more forests to grow the inefficient biofuel crops thus releasing more CO2 to add to the already negative balance, sure go ahead incentivise poor third world farmers to stop growing food crops and start growing inedible fuel crops heightening the risk of famine. Sure let them risk starvation so you dopy greens can think you are doing something good for the environment when you are actually having a net negative impact on CO2.

1) Heat is not always good, particularly on a hot day in the middle of summer

2) PC's and bulbs are not very efficient ways of creating heat, PC's in that a large cooling system is used to cool the system down in the first place and bulbs because they create a lot of un-needed light (if you're using them for heat). They will also heat the air at the top of the room when it's the ground level that needs it.

3) Bio-Fuels have to be replenished and come generally from crops, not tree's (due to the difficulty in breaking down a tree's cellular structure), the idea being that the carbon being used, has been taken from the atmosphere directly. By burning oil, we are taking carbon that has been stored in the earth, inert for a very long time and putting it back in the atmosphere.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ciaran500

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But its far more inefficient to generate heat using electricity compared to oil or gas.

dragonkin

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but light bulbs are extremly inefficient heaters. They are not designed as heaters how many radiators have you seen on the roof or where the heat is concentrated in such a small area?

Also light bulbs are resistance heaters like most other electric heaters, resistance resistance heating is inefficient compared to oil or gas burners particularily so in the case of light bulbs due to their unsuitable design.

His point was people are slashing down the rainforest to grow biofuel crops which hardly makes sense. Environmentalist George Monbiot goes into great detail on it here - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/

I agree biofuel crops in these areas is a terrible mistake not to mention they have a very low ERORI. They are only viable as the current price of biofuels crops is so low this will quickly change as oil price increases due of the low EROEI.