Spirit of Ireland - A bright spark in today's economic gloom?

luohaoran

mgmt wrote: »

Jesus, you were the one going on about basic economics. We cannot produce everything ourselves. We buy fuel off the Saudis and the Russians, but then use this raw material to produce goods that people want to buy. That is a net trade surplus.

Well yes, I am going on about basic economics. Because you guys obviously need some education on the subject.
But I can only repeat the same basic points a certain number of times before accepting that you aren't willing to understand the principle.

So I attempted to change tack and show you how flawed your arguments are by posing a simple question, which ought to form a basis to any strategy on energy supply. And much to my surprise ,.... you don't know the answer.

luohaoran

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. we replace Saudi's and Russian's with Chinese manufactured turbines, and China is already limiting the rare earth exports that are needed in construction of magnets for these and electric cars and other "green" technologies which we dont manufacture here :rolleyes:

2. petrol right now costs ~50c/litre in US (that includes small taxes) it costs €1.45/litre here, as you can see its not the Saudi's that are ripping the people and business of this country off but the government

3. the oil producers would be stupid to try to raise prices since it would hit them harder and as happened in 2008 sow the ground for plenty of alternatives such as gas to liquids

1. Yes, we are all well aware of the limited rare earth elements. Very surprised to hear you list it as a potential problem though. It looks like you are suggesting there is a problem with tapping other nations limited resources to satisfy our energy needs. :eek:
Of course, I'm sure you also know that the problem is that China has cornered the market of production of rare earth elements "at the current prices paid for these elements" There are sufficient supplies in the US and elsewhere though. According to your camp we only need to rely on wind until about 2050 when fusion might take over, or perhaps a little earlier if Bill Gates' ideas turn out to be fruitfull, so I wouldn't worry too much on this score. Also by then the cost of wind energy will be fully depreciated , and anything produced will , indeed be free.

2. Here is a great example of how little you understand about basic economics.
Collecting taxes may feel like a rip off, but alas, it has to happen. You should redirect your anger at how the the public services are executed (excuse the pun) and making government more efficient. Perhaps you'd prefer to increase income tax instead, or corporation tax. I myself think its one of the few policies the government has just right. To ween us away from the false economy of importing fuel.

3. I'm not sure why you are making this random point. Or how you intended it to count towards your argument.
You have two different groups of oil producers these days OPEC and non-OPEC, and they don't seem to cooperate much, which is good news for all energy importers. You couldn't argue they have a good history of looking out for us though.
Russia is the big player in Gas, and has been making inroads into having a monopoly. They too have a long history of taking great care of their customers.
You guys, seem keen to play directly into their hands.
Thanks, but no thanks!
Our current governments policy is the right one. And thankfully the chances of that changing in the near future seems small.

Sponge Bob

luohaoran wrote: »

Of course, I'm sure you also know that the problem is that China has cornered the market of production of rare earth elements "at the current prices paid for these elements" There are sufficient supplies in the US and elsewhere though.

True, there are lots of rare earths outside China and if the Chinese tear the arse out of pricing they will inevitably come onstream, particularly in the US and Canada.

Our current governments policy is the right one. And thankfully the chances of that changing in the near future seems small.

No it isn't, we should look at another coal baseload plant to replace Moneypoint if we are not going nuclear. Most gas we import comes form Norway not Russia too.

Sponge Bob

Oh! Just in ...relevant because these are used a lot in wind generation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12088195

China has said it will cut exports of rare earth minerals by 10% in 2011.
World manufacturers are heavily reliant on China for these minerals, which are essential for making many electronic goods, such as TVs and PC monitors.
China has 97% of the world's known supply of the goods. The US mined none last year.


( SB note, supplies = active mines = not the same as reserves)



Rare earth minerals have been a thorny trade topic for some time, and China has previously promised not to cut supplies drastically.
Rare earths are a collection of seventeen chemical elements in the periodic table: scandium, yttrium, and some fifteen lanthanides.
Shares in two Australian companies, which are planning to mine rare earths, jumped more than 10% on the news.
Australia's Lynas Corp , which owns the richest known deposit of rare earth outside China, rose 10.8% while its rival Arafura rose 11.1%.

ei.sdraob

luohaoran wrote: »

1. Yes, we are all well aware of the limited rare earth elements. Very surprised to hear you list it as a potential problem though. It looks like you are suggesting there is a problem with tapping other nations limited resources to satisfy our energy needs. :eek:
Of course, I'm sure you also know that the problem is that China has cornered the market of production of rare earth elements "at the current prices paid for these elements" There are sufficient supplies in the US and elsewhere though. According to your camp we only need to rely on wind until about 2050 when fusion might take over, or perhaps a little earlier if Bill Gates' ideas turn out to be fruitfull, so I wouldn't worry too much on this score. Also by then the cost of wind energy will be fully depreciated , and anything produced will , indeed be free.

2. Here is a great example of how little you understand about basic economics.
Collecting taxes may feel like a rip off, but alas, it has to happen. You should redirect your anger at how the the public services are executed (excuse the pun) and making government more efficient. Perhaps you'd prefer to increase income tax instead, or corporation tax. I myself think its one of the few policies the government has just right. To ween us away from the false economy of importing fuel.

3. I'm not sure why you are making this random point. Or how you intended it to count towards your argument.
You have two different groups of oil producers these days OPEC and non-OPEC, and they don't seem to cooperate much, which is good news for all energy importers. You couldn't argue they have a good history of looking out for us though.
Russia is the big player in Gas, and has been making inroads into having a monopoly. They too have a long history of taking great care of their customers.
You guys, seem keen to play directly into their hands.
Thanks, but no thanks!
Our current governments policy is the right one. And thankfully the chances of that changing in the near future seems small.

1. we dont need wind at all there is plenty of uranium and thorium in the world (and yes there is thorium deposits here in ireland) with breeder reactors there is literary thousands of years worth of stuff, dont worry the world wont come to an end in 2012 as the doom-mongering greens insist on, there are all sorts of nuclear variants, i am sure in a thousand years fusion would be cracked

2. low fuel taxes help maintain and create employment in countries like US, in case you havent noticed we are in the middle of a recession (still) and have alot of unemployed, lower fuel would help people shop cheaper and businesses cut one of the main costs

3. the biggest gas supplier now is US one of our biggest trading partners, in the last 2 years there has been a gas revolution, prices are thru the floor
we should take advantage of this cheap energy now instead of wasting money we dont have and are borrowing at high interest on ideologically driven dreams, oh and wind energy is neither free nor reliable, put your money where you mouth is and stick a turbine close to your home, see how often you be able to post here :rolleyes: wind does not bring energy independence so stop making that silly point, repeating it doesnt make it so

Sponge Bob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

we should take advantage of this cheap energy now instead of wasting money we dont have and are borrowing at high interest on ideologically driven dreams, oh and wind energy is neither free nor reliable

We are killing ourselves with this idiot wind policy. Spirt recognised that de-intermittencying wind was vital ....ie that wind AND storage TOGETHER were a much better idea than Wind and no storage. The cost to the end user of having 2 x generation networks with full N= redundancy for wind at all times is a crucifixion. The cost of gas fast spinup systems + wind is enormous, even a nuke would look cheaper.

For now we have no intelligent policy and are held hostage to whatever drivel passes for policy in Eamon Ryans department as well as the ministers mind ...a department that even on a good day destroys everything it touches be that Diigital TV policy or Broadband ( God help us there ) or the Energy mix.

Heroditas

luohaoran wrote: »

So can you tell me, how much that works out to be in terms of money we didn't take out of our economy to give to the Russians, and Saudi's?

1264MW of wind farms installed in this country and they meet 10% of our electrical energy demand.
Care to tell me how many more turbines need to be built to ensure we have complete energy independence? Not just electrical independence but complete energy independence, i.e. no more petrol, heating oil, gas etc imported to Ireland.
You mentioned "basic economics". Would you be so kind as to tell me how much all that is going to cost?

luohaoran

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We are killing ourselves with this idiot wind policy. Spirt recognised that de-intermittencying wind was vital ....ie that wind AND storage TOGETHER were a much better idea than Wind and no storage. The cost to the end user of having 2 x generation networks with full N= redundancy for wind at all times is a crucifixion. The cost of gas fast spinup systems + wind is enormous, even a nuke would look cheaper.

For now we have no intelligent policy and are held hostage to whatever drivel passes for policy in Eamon Ryans department as well as the ministers mind ...a department that even on a good day destroys everything it touches be that Diigital TV policy or Broadband ( God help us there ) or the Energy mix.

I agree, the SOI storage plan is critical to maximising the amount of wind energy we can produce. Ryan seems to have his hands tied either by virtue of his control over the semi state interests or perhaps due to SOI requesting cross party support and a general hands off approach from the politicians.
SOI seem intent on not letting the politicians screw up this idea, but I wonder if they can go the distance without political support. (Thinking grid connections, and probable planning issues)
Clearly we have a consensus that wind can't sensibly progress much further without a significant storage solution.

Not sure I'd agree with your view on the Green Party, though I would certainly agree they have a propensity to gifting rope to the press and public, re how they present their policies. They also seem a bit D4 centric which we all love to hate. What I like about them is they are the first we have seen of a proactive, idealistic party. They did well with changing the car tax system, this was way overdue. And the planning changes were also an improvement, albeit 15 years late.

luohaoran

Heroditas wrote: »

1264MW of wind farms installed in this country and they meet 10% of our electrical energy demand.
Care to tell me how many more turbines need to be built to ensure we have complete energy independence? Not just electrical independence but complete energy independence, i.e. no more petrol, heating oil, gas etc imported to Ireland.
You mentioned "basic economics". Would you be so kind as to tell me how much all that is going to cost?

No answer to my question then??

Neither I nor SOI are looking for complete energy independence.
We should be able to provide for all our energy needs from year to year, but that is never likely to mean there won't be periods where the inter-connectors will be filling our empty tank.
And I would anticipate a certain amount of gas would probably need to be on tap.
I've no problem with nuclear either, especially if the Welsh are willing to house it for us.
But we do do wind better than most places on this planet and that is always going to be our best option for the bulk of our power supply.

luohaoran

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. we dont need wind at all there is plenty of uranium and thorium in the world (and yes there is thorium deposits here in ireland) with breeder reactors there is literary thousands of years worth of stuff, dont worry the world wont come to an end in 2012 as the doom-mongering greens insist on, there are all sorts of nuclear variants, i am sure in a thousand years fusion would be cracked

2. low fuel taxes help maintain and create employment in countries like US, in case you havent noticed we are in the middle of a recession (still) and have alot of unemployed, lower fuel would help people shop cheaper and businesses cut one of the main costs

3. the biggest gas supplier now is US one of our biggest trading partners, in the last 2 years there has been a gas revolution, prices are thru the floor
we should take advantage of this cheap energy now instead of wasting money we dont have and are borrowing at high interest on ideologically driven dreams, oh and wind energy is neither free nor reliable, put your money where you mouth is and stick a turbine close to your home, see how often you be able to post here :rolleyes: wind does not bring energy independence so stop making that silly point, repeating it doesnt make it so

I'm sorry, but having read your post several times over, I can't seem to find a single point that I haven't already poopooed.

ei.sdraob

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We are killing ourselves with this idiot wind policy. Spirt recognised that de-intermittencying wind was vital ....ie that wind AND storage TOGETHER were a much better idea than Wind and no storage. The cost to the end user of having 2 x generation networks with full N= redundancy for wind at all times is a crucifixion. The cost of gas fast spinup systems + wind is enormous, even a nuke would look cheaper.

For now we have no intelligent policy and are held hostage to whatever drivel passes for policy in Eamon Ryans department as well as the ministers mind ...a department that even on a good day destroys everything it touches be that Diigital TV policy or Broadband ( God help us there ) or the Energy mix.

Yes SoI have recognised the importance of storage, and as I said earlier I would give this concept more thought if there was more info, but alas there isnt
I visited ESBs Turlough Hill before, its actually a very cool place and shows that we are capable of unique engineering projects, tho it did cost ALOT in its day, and the SoI concept is on an entirely different scale (several orders magnitude larger) and using salt water

until I see more info I would err on side of scepticism


BTW there was an interesting storage concept I seen being developed at MIT, big giant tank of molten salt acting as huge battery, theres already a solar plant in Spain using molten salt for generation at night, very interesting

but anyways all these problems should and will be solved by private companies, subsidies will and are creating distortions the money would be better spent on research in universities or not being taxed in first place, when the solar subsidies in Spain where withdrawn the market collapsed which shows it wasnt sustainable in the first place

luohaoran wrote: »

I'm sorry, but having read your post several times over, I can't seem to find a single point that I haven't already poopooed.

nope I "pooped" on you energy independence argument

you are forgetting these windmills are mostly owned by private companies, I will laugh if one day in 2020 once we have more of these and we build them more shiny inter-connectors they decide to sell the energy to the UK market instead of here (aint that SoIs plan anyways?) leaving this country in the dark, I suppose you would be calling for nationalisation of these then, dey tooook our wind

Heroditas

luohaoran wrote: »

Neither I nor SOI are looking for complete energy independence.
We should be able to provide for all our energy needs from year to year, but that is never likely to mean there won't be periods where the inter-connectors will be filling our empty tank.
And I would anticipate a certain amount of gas would probably need to be on tap.
I've no problem with nuclear either, especially if the Welsh are willing to house it for us.
But we do do wind better than most places on this planet and that is always going to be our best option for the bulk of our power supply.

Using what? Wind?
As I asked, care to tell me how much that will cost, even to provide the "bulk"?
It's an easy question to answer if you actually know what you're talking about instead of hiding behind the condescending economics argument.

Re. your question on energy costs, IIRC we spend about €6bn annually on imported energy

luohaoran

When you repeat the same critical point a number of times, in a number of increasingly simplified ways, its very hard to avoid sounding condescending. But what else can I do, its the most significant point, and it just does not seem to be getting across.

Its very obvious from both your last postings that neither of you ever bothered to actually read up on SOI's proposals. You continuously misrepresent them, which is a hideous way to behave on a thread with "Spirit of Ireland" in its title. The irony of that title reflected against your negative unfounded commentary is striking.

I've done all I can, you are accusing me of condescending now, which shows your reluctance in trying to understand my core point, so there is little point in me continuing.

Seasons greetings to you all.

ei.sdraob

SoIs proposals are just that

alot of marketing and hype and very little facts, often conflicting information posted here and there in media and on sites

but nothing concrete from SoI themselves


You might feel comfortable falling for more ideological bull**** that plays on notions such as nationalism and "independence", but a time when we handed over the countries independence to IMF/EU it matters jack

Aidan1

in the last 2 years there has been a gas revolution, prices are thru the floor

Fail.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/uk-wholesale-spot-gas-prices-jump-to-two-year-high-on-near-record-demand-112181654.html

ei.sdraob

Aidan1 wrote: »

Fail.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/uk-wholesale-spot-gas-prices-jump-to-two-year-high-on-near-record-demand-112181654.html

keyword: spot price... cold winter people use gas for heating too you know...

btw did you look at eirgrid wind generation for last cold month? you should...
guess whats powering your computer while you typed that post, yep mostly coal, turf, gas and oil

dozens billion spend and we cant even power a small town in winter :rolleyes: we already wasted enough to run whole country on nuclear several times over and no CO2 either helping the planet, but no 70 year old technology is not as sexy as spinning windmills destroying the countryside.

Aidan1

250MW is enough to power over 80,000 homes. That's a lot of gas not burned, even at a time of year when wind values are often low (ok, so January is worse).

And again, 'we' have spent very little. Private money built these wind farms, and they don't get paid when they don't generate. But when they do, 'we' don't have to import gas, at 35p or 70p a therm (have a look at the price trend for UK whole prices since August btw). Because of our dependence on gas, the proportionate impact of gas prices increases on our electricity system is huge, as we all found out in 2008.

Wind cannot solve our energy problems, but it has already made an important start in that it takes the edge off commodity peaks. Talk of exports, or hitting very high penetrations, are massively premature, but 14.1% of electricity in 2009 adds up to a lot of gas, oil, coal or peat not burned.


This is a good primer for those looking to at least partially understand the electricity system in Ireland.
http://eni.ucd.ie/ENI/ENI%20Response%20to%20IAE.pdf

Pete_Cavan

Aidan1 wrote: »

250MW is enough to power over 80,000 homes. That's a lot of gas not burned, even at a time of year when wind values are often low (ok, so January is worse).

We have capacity for 1379MW from wind and a 5MW wind farm would expect to cost in the region of €7-10 million and all the cost is upfront. So our current wind capacity cost us between €1.9 and €2.8billion. Today, wind only generated 1.35% of peak demand. The most energy wind farms have ever generated is 1196MW so that means we have spent between €256million and €366million on wind turbines that have not produced any energy at all. Of course those promoting SOI spread these costs over a long period of time, however, in this time new technologies generating energy on demand will have developed making SOI obsolete long before the costs are recovered.

Aidan1 wrote: »

And again, 'we' have spent very little. Private money built these wind farms, and they don't get paid when they don't generate. But when they do, 'we' don't have to import gas, at 35p or 70p a therm (have a look at the price trend for UK whole prices since August btw). Because of our dependence on gas, the proportionate impact of gas prices increases on our electricity system is huge, as we all found out in 2008.

The only reason private money is being spent on wind farms is because they are guaranteed excellent rates for whatever they produce for fifteen years. How is giving guaranteed prices to encourage people to build wind farms that would otherwise not be viable any different to the tax breaks on property that encouraged people to build houses in the middle of nowhere that otherwise not be viable? What happens when a more sustainable source of energy emerges in the next couple of decades (most likely some form of nuclear) and our wind farms become obsolete before the huge initial costs are recovered? The answer will probably be a NAMA for wind farms that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab for. The government should not be messing with what would otherwise be a perfectly competitive market because all producers would be offering the exact same product, electricity.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Wind cannot solve our energy problems, but it has already made an important start in that it takes the edge off commodity peaks. Talk of exports, or hitting very high penetrations, are massively premature, but 14.1% of electricity in 2009 adds up to a lot of gas, oil, coal or peat not burned.

That figure of 14.1% of electricity in 2009 is meaning less without seeing at what time the energy was generated. It is quite likely that a large proportion of that energy was generated at night when demand is low and baseload from thermal plants can cater for the demand. If that is the case then that energy was wasted. That is the problem with wind energy, we have absolutely no control over when we get it. There were days this month when wind produced less than 2% of the energy needed at peak demand. Even if the amount of energy generated from wind farms amounts to 14.1% of the energy used in that year, it does not mean a 14.1% reduction in the amount of gas, oil, coal or peat burned because if the wind energy is produced when demand is low it is likely something was being burned at that time anyway.

Aidan1

http://www.cer.ie/cerdocs/cer03024.pdf

That's worth a read too.

Pete, again, wind has priority dispatch, so if it runs, it sells. The electricity produced is not spilled. Similarly, the gas or other plants would have been throttled down, or off, not running flat out in idle. So there are real and measurable savings from wind gen.

And again, 'we' have built or spent feck all. The loans are held by private individuals, not the tax payer.

Also, just to note, the electricity produced from wind farms varies, with the total annual amount produced expressed as a percentage of the rated capacity (called the 'capacity factor'). In Ireland, the average site capacity factors sit at around 32%, falling slightly as less optimal sites are built. Sometimes farms produce nothing, sometimes they run at capacity, hence the difficulty with the figures.

ei.sdraob

Aidan1 wrote: »

Pete, again, wind has priority dispatch, so if it runs, it sells.

arghghghghghghgh

that a ****ing subsidy

god damn its so hard to discuss things with someone who is so blinkered by propaganda and not realise the significance of own posts

this priority of wind at all costs means thermal plants need to power down, this takes time (in case of turf, coal and oil alot of time) and is not good for the equipment (which costs alot to replace) and wastes energy


the market prioritises wind not the cheapest most competitive source, hence we endup with higher costs being borne by everyone

Aidan1

that a ****ing subsidy

Well spotted! I'm proud, clearly you have been paying attention.

It's also a legal requirement under 2009\28\EC, and applies across the EU. That isn't propaganda, its the law. Everywhere in Europe.

Also, the thermal plants are not turned off, they are ramped down, and all of the ones you mention can (and do) go to minimum stable generation relatively easily. The real thermal cycling issue arises when one has to be turned off entirely at short notice, particularly if it's Moneypoint. But the structure of the market actually helps in this case, given the way that generators bid into SEMO - it means that generators compete to generate, and shut off if they can't. So the Market does prioritise efficiency.

Peat has priority also btw, under the 1999 ER Act, and is only ramped down by the DSO if there are stability issues. Or if one of the plants are broken again.

Peat has priority also btw, and is

Pete_Cavan

Aidan1 wrote: »

And again, 'we' have built or spent feck all. The loans are held by private individuals, not the tax payer.

We may have pent feck all so far but we will be paying for these wind farms for many years to come through our electricity bills. It is generally excepted that wind energy expenditure on wind energy reduces the per unit cost of electricity but the standing charges go up such that the net effect is higher costs.

Also, you never addressed the other issue I raised; what happens when we realise we have to go nuclear (with advances in the technology it is quite likely this will happen it the next 20 years) and all the wind farms become obsolete after only repaying a fraction of their huge initial costs?

These private loans you speak of, are they similar to private loans property developers took out that the taxpayer was not liable for? Of course the government had to do something with the property loans because they fuelled the bubble with tax breaks, but Im sure you are going to tell me that the price guarantess for wind energy is a completely different situation.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Well spotted! I'm proud, clearly you have been paying attention.

It's also a legal requirement under 2009\28\EC, and applies across the EU. That isn't propaganda, its the law. Everywhere in Europe.

Also, the thermal plants are not turned off, they are ramped down, and all of the ones you mention can (and do) go to minimum stable generation relatively easily. The real thermal cycling issue arises when one has to be turned off entirely at short notice, particularly if it's Moneypoint. But the structure of the market actually helps in this case, given the way that generators bid into SEMO - it means that generators compete to generate, and shut off if they can't. So the Market does prioritise efficiency.

No it does not. REFIT gives renewables (in this country mainly wind) guaranteed price at favourable rates for any energy they produce. So even if the wind energy is produced at night when demand is low (and customer rates are low) the wind farm owner still gets paid and paid very well. Thermal plants work well because output can be adjusted in line with increasing or decreasing demand which is, for the most part, predictable. The thermal plants have to adjust their output according to the output being produced by the wind. Clearly the thermal plants are more efficient yet the market prioritises wind through the guaranteed price agreement.

And how can a market prioritise efficiency when it is run by a state sponsored cartel, is subjected to price fixing in order to give the illusion of competition and has been distorted by subsidies?

How can more efficient systems and new technologies be introduced to the market when the most inefficient systems is being is being incentivised through price guarantess?

rainbowdash

This to me is the solution, we can park 'em in ports around the country so they are in everybodys back yard, and send them back when we are finished with them, also there will be no cost overruns during construction or decommissioning costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

Dan Jaman

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but no 70 year old technology is not as sexy as spinning windmills destroying the countryside.

Ah, another flocking NIMBY is revealed, at last.

Dan Jaman

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

however, in this time new technologies generating energy on demand will have developed making SOI obsolete long before the costs are recovered.

LOL! And what new technologies would they be, then? Go on, the crystal ball is in your court.

Sponge Bob

rainbowdash wrote: »

This to me is the solution, we can park 'em in ports around the country so they are in everybodys back yard, and send them back when we are finished with them, also there will be no cost overruns during construction or decommissioning costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

They are too small and designed for really isolated ports along the Siberian coast, however were they 500MW units I could be persuaded to change my mind

ei.sdraob

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Ah, another flocking NIMBY is revealed, at last.

NIMBY? me :eek: lol how many NIMBYs do you know would be happy with a nuclear plant in their area :rolleyes:

Carpeting the countryside in windmills and pylons wont be exactly good for tourism either, instead for the 30 billion that will be spend on wind (not the wind industry, you me and everyone else will be paying for guaranteed private profits) we could have 1or 2 plants tucked away out of sight providing cheap and reliable power for the whole country, carbon free
and have 20 billion left over in change

No the Green Smart economy bull**** seems to have made people blind to basic maths and economics which would result in a real green and smart economy. There is nothing smart about borrowing money at a higher rate than the return from the spinny things


Oh and it makes you feel better I looked into putting one generator on my land on an hilltop location, For the life of me I could not get the numbers to addup, there is simply no ROI in the lifetime of the domestic generator.
You seem to think I have a problem with wind? I dont, My problem is wasting public money on an idealogically driven nonsense without considering all the options.

rainbowdash

Dan Jaman wrote: »

LOL! And what new technologies would they be, then? Go on, the crystal ball is in your court.

I would expect some kind of battery to be developed which will store the excess wind power, so instead of the spirit of Ireland lakes storing the energy "some kind of battery" will do the job.

The wind turbines might still be required to charge this battery so they wouldn't be wasted.

The trick is to develop the right kind of battery to store the wind power.

Pete_Cavan

Dan Jaman wrote: »

LOL! And what new technologies would they be, then? Go on, the crystal ball is in your court.

If I was able to answer fully that question I wouldnt tell you because I would be able to make billions with it.

What I can tell you for sure is that no new technologies will be developed in Ireland if we continue to pay inefficient energy producers excellent rates for whatever they produce, no matter how much it costs. There is no incentive to operate efficiently or develop more efficient practices, why would you when you can just throw up wind turbines and get a government guaranteed return for the next fifteen years for something that would otherwise not be viable? Does this situation remind anyone else of the tax breaks that articially prolonged the property bubble that cost the taxpayer billions and almost brough down the economy?

As I have said before, 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 . Because all the companies would be selling the exact same product, and using the same national grid they are competing on price alone which means they are forced to produce electricity at the lowest long term cost. If that was the situation I very much doubt anyone would build wind farms because the costs of them are so high that they would not be able to compete in such a market. We could actually combine the "green economy" and "smart economy" ideas by encouraging these private companies to locate R&D here and use this "highly educated workforce" we hear so much about to develop new technologies. Our government is not going to develop any new technologies so we may as well encourage private companies to employ us as they try to do so.

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. 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.

Idbatterim

the proposal sounds very good. Surely if we are importing billions worth of fossil fuels every year, we could generate a huge amount of construction and spin off activity and put an end to being at the mercy of fossil fuel prices. We all know which way they are going!