Gormley's Climate Change Bill

goat2

flutered wrote: »

they are so thick that they cannot be thought.

they can shove their climate change bill where the sun dont shine, i am only worried about leccy bills and oil bills,

Macha

goat2 wrote: »

they can shove their climate change bill where the sun dont shine, i am only worried about leccy bills and oil bills,

And the long term implications of electricity and oil bills don't seem relevant to the climate change bill...?

ei.sdraob

Macha wrote: »

And the long term implications of electricity and oil bills don't seem relevant to the climate change bill...?

We are already paying way over odds for electricity already thanks to subsidies and state involvement in energy markets

and are paying about 2.5x more for petrol and diesel thanks to taxes

but yeh, carry on

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We are already paying way over odds for electricity already thanks to subsidies and state involvement in energy markets

and are paying about 2.5x more for petrol and diesel thanks to taxes

but yeh, carry on

Actually we're not. From SEAI's latest report:

BUSINESS CUSTOMERS
• The ex-VAT price for electricity for medium to large business consumers in Ireland was below the EU average during the first half of 2010. For these consumers the average price was also below the UK equivalent.
• Following price decreases ranging from 3% to 29% across all sizes of business consumers in the first half of 2010, 56% of electricity sold to Ireland’s business customers was priced below the EU average.
• Ranking EU electricity prices from highest to lowest, Ireland was in the middle (15th out of 27) for medium business consumers and in the lowest (least expensive) third for the largest business consumers.
• Smaller business electricity consumers’ prices fell in the first half of 2010, moving closer to the EU average but remaining above the EU average in some size categories.
• After falling by 34% in the previous 18 months, gas prices to medium business consumers rose by 7.1% in the first half of 2010. However, Irish prices for such consumers were 7% below the EU average.
• For smaller business users, gas prices fell by between 13% and 19% in the first half of 2010, and were 11% to 18% below the EU average.
• The majority of EU states had higher prices than Ireland for all business gas users

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
• For residential electricity consumers in the consumption size band that represents more than half the market, overall price fell by 12% in the period June 2009 to June 2010.
• For this consumption group, the Irish price was equal to the EU average in the first half of 2010.
• For smaller electricity consumers (30% of the market), prices were 7.6% above the EU average, down from 13% above in the previous semester, and Ireland now ranks 9th in price out of 24 EU states.
• Gas prices to residential customers in Ireland fell by almost 10% in the first half of 2010. Irish prices were below the EU average in all size categories.
• If absolute price is adjusted to purchasing power parity (PPP) to allow for relative costs of living, typical residential electricity price in Ireland was 14% below the EU average. In the same terms typical gas price was 26% below the EU average

As you can see there are many categories where Irish energy prices are clearly below the EU average. There are still a few where we are above the EU average but to claim that we are paying "way over the odds" is simply incorrect.

And if you want to talk about subsidies, why not also mention the much larger subsidies that are granted to fossil fuels in this country?

Amhran Nua

Macha wrote: »

And if you want to talk about subsidies, why not also mention the much larger subsidies that are granted to fossil fuels in this country?

Ah now lets not let facts get in the way of received dogma.

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah now lets not let facts get in the way of received dogma.

In case you havent noticed i have a problem with all subsidies not just green ones, and then there are indirect subsidies such as having to buy wind power no matter the cost, that doesn't create a competitive and cheap market. One wrong does not excuse another.

Most of the price drops in the last year was due to falling gas prices, of course moving away from gas will lead to an increase in prices. Denmark who we want to emulate already have the highest electricity costs even after taxes.

He/she still didn't address the 95 cent difference per liter we pay more for petrol and diesel than over in US

sligopark

ei.sdraob wrote: »

He/she still didn't address the 95 cent difference per liter we pay more for petrol and diesel than over in US

they have oil resources

oops so have we

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

In case you havent noticed i have a problem with all subsidies not just green ones, and then there are indirect subsidies such as having to buy wind power no matter the cost, that doesn't create a competitive and cheap market.

And what do people in cars do? Buy petrol and diesel Last time I checked there are about 2 models of electric cars on the Irish market.

There are numerous indirect subsidies for fossil fuels as well. A comprehensive, if somewhat outdated report on the subject:

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/fossilfuels.pdf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Most of the price drops in the last year was due to falling gas prices, of course moving away from gas will lead to an increase in prices. Denmark who we want to emulate already have the highest electricity costs even after taxes.

Can you provide evidence of this, into the future? say 10 years? I can tell you what wind prices will be in 10 years but you'd be able to do what no one else can if you can forecast gas prices 10 years from now.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

He/she still didn't address the 95 cent difference per liter we pay more for petrol and diesel than over in US

That has very, very little to do with the climate bill. A carbon tax on petrol and diesel already exists and is a very small % of the overall price. If you have an issue with tax on petrol and diesel, you should be complaining far more about the other taxes, not carbon tax.

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

In case you havent noticed i have a problem

Indeed, perhaps select a different philosophy to address the issue?

sligopark

Macha wrote: »

A carbon tax on petrol and diesel already exists and is a very small % of the overall price. If you have an issue with tax on petrol and diesel, you should be complaining far more about the other taxes, not carbon tax.

Have to agree - look at the prices on the forecourt in the UK and in Germany

ei.sdraob

Macha wrote: »

Can you provide evidence of this, into the future? say 10 years? I can tell you what wind prices will be in 10 years but you'd be able to do what no one else can if you can forecast gas prices 10 years from now..

Can you provide any evidence that the 1500MW of installed wind (the low hanging fruit) has led to any reduction in electricity prices, shouldnt be so hard if did...

sligopark wrote: »

they have oil resources

they barely tax fuels and import alot more than they produce .we have taxes on taxes. over there they realize that businesses need to get goods to shops and consumers need to get to these goods and services cheaply, hence creating jobs

Macha wrote: »

That has very, very little to do with the climate bill. A carbon tax on petrol and diesel already exists and is a very small % of the overall price. If you have an issue with tax on petrol and diesel, you should be complaining far more about the other taxes, not carbon tax.

I was talking about all the taxes on fuels including carbon tax, and the taxes on top of other taxes,
if the world oil prices go to 250$ and we remove all petrol taxes the net result would be the same at pumps here
petrol is expensive not because its running out but because most of the price we pay are taxes to the state (who dont spend it on infrastructure)

Macha wrote: »

And what do people in cars do? Buy petrol and diesel Last time I checked there are about 2 models of electric cars on the Irish market.

Wake me up when i can go to Dublin and back to Galway without recharging for the better part of the day or dont have to spend a small fortune to replace the battery pack in a few years, oh and these cars are still expensive even after subsidies

sligopark

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they barely tax fuels and import alot more than they produce .we have taxes on taxes. over there they realize that businesses need to get goods to shops and consumers need to get to these goods and services cheaply, hence creating jobs

exactly and you'll find taxing the agri-food sector and killing off the last off the job potential with this ridiculous climate change bill might be the last straw for FF TDs now more afraid of facing their constituents on the door step, street and /or mart, than facing up to mr potato head and chief whip Pat 'No Shame' Carey...

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence that the 1500MW of installed wind (the low hanging fruit) has led to any reduction in electricity prices, shouldnt be so hard if did...

I'm not sure why you expect me to do the honour of answering your question when you're not interested in answering mine.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that introducing wind into the national grid does indeed lower electricity prices. The work of Shimon Awerbuch on portfolio theory details how:

http://www.awerbuch.com/

There is also other obvious economic advantages, apart from simplistically looking at electricity prices, such as stable energy prices and a reduction in the €6 bilion we pay every year for imported energy. There is more, of course.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I was talking about all the taxes on fuels including carbon tax, and the taxes on top of other taxes,
if the world oil prices go to 250$ and we remove all petrol taxes the net result would be the same at pumps here
petrol is expensive not because its running out but because most of the price we pay are taxes to the state (who dont spend it on infrastructure)

Is that factoring or not factoring in the €550 billion per annum spent on fossil fuel subsidies, as according to the International Energy Agency?

The world economy spends more than $550bn in energy subsidies a year, about 75 per cent more than previously thought, according to the first exhaustive study of the financial assistance devoted to oil, natural gas and coal consumption.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Wake me up when i can go to Dublin and back to Galway without recharging for the better part of the day or dont have to spend a small fortune to replace the battery pack in a few years, oh and these cars are still expensive even after subsidies

Are you familiar with the history of the first internal combustion engines?

goat2

if the greens were worried about our carbon footprint, they would make recycling cheaper, they would make it more enticing for us to have the solar panels on our roofs to supply us with hot water for washing and such like, things i would like to have, but since i am out of work due to them and their cohorts, i cannot afford these things, and please dont speak of grants, as it still way over the odds, i know more people like me who would like to have these things but cannot afford, carbon tax on cars, i drive a 1.1 car so i am not one of those who are polluting athmosphere, they are doing nothing for us only charging more money, looking for more from people who are broke,
i cannot stand them,

sligopark

goat2 wrote: »

if the greens were worried about our carbon footprint, they would make recycling cheaper,

doesn't our recycling go to china?

Nolanger

goat2 wrote: »

if the greens were worried about our carbon footprint, they would make recycling cheaper, they would make it more enticing for us to have the solar panels on our roofs to supply us with hot water for washing

and ban human cremations!

ART6

goat2 wrote: »

if the greens were worried about our carbon footprint, they would make recycling cheaper/QUOTE]

How do you make recycling cheaper? If you and his uncle separate paper and packaging and food waste in your bins then someone has to collect it. Then someone has to sort it in a depot into what might be recyclable and what is not. The recyclables the have to be taken to someone who wants them, and for Ireland that is overseas, so we need to pay the ferry and shipping operators out of the "income" from the recyclables.

The food wastes are another matter. There is no export market for them and "composting" schemes has become the flavour of the month. There exist two issues: The "compost" half the time does not meet the EU Animal Byproducts Directive and is illegal, and the volumes of "compost" produced can vastly outweigh the demand for such products in a region. The result is that those "composts" get landfilled with the excuse that the expiration rate from the wastes means that they don't fall into the trap of the EU demand to eliminate organic wastes from landfill.

The reality is that the politician's simplistic view of recycling with political image in mind simply adds cost for no obvious environmental benefit.

ei.sdraob

Ah the saga continues, this article should be of interest, some highlights below

RichardTol wrote:

The Sunday Business Post yesterday published an op-ed by me. It’s a shortened and updated version of last week’s blog, and it sketches emission reduction options in transport:

“There is already a carbon tax on fuel, while motor tax and vehicle registration tax favour low emission cars. There are strict European rules about the fuel efficiency of new cars. Fuels are blended with biofuels. Public transport is subsidised. If the economy returns to modest growth and policies continue as they are, but the carbon tax rises, then emissions from transport in 2020 would be roughly the same as they are today. (Transport emissions doubled between 1990 and 2000, and another 20 per cent was added between 2000 and 2010.) According to the climate bill, however, transport emissions should fall by 20 per cent.

How can this be achieved? If we ignore all the evidence that biofuels are bad for the environment and bad for poor people, and we increase the mandatory blend from 3 per cent to 10 per cent (in energy terms), emissions fall by 7 per cent. If 10 per cent of cars were all-electric, emissions would fall by 2 per cent. (This is small because electric vehicles appeal primarily to urban households with two cars.) Some 60 per cent of commutes by car are less than 10 km long. If half cycled to work instead, emissions would fall by 7 per cent. If the sale of two-litre cars is banned from 2012, emissions would fall by 2 per cent.

These four measures together reduce emissions by 18 per cent. Even this is not enough to meet the new targets.”

The SBP dropped a paragraph: “The climate bill would also establish a National Climate Change Expert Advisory Body, which would oversee the measures to reduce emissions taken by the various departments. This is welcome in principle. Like monetary policy, climate policy is best removed from day-to-day politics. The Expert Body would be like the Central Bank. Unfortunately, the Expert Body as foreseen in the climate bill is different. Any civil servant can be declared an expert, but others are excluded. Experts can be removed at will by the minister. And the government can block any publication by the Expert Body. The Expert Body would not have the required expertise or independence to do its job.”

The same edition carried another article on the climate bill, which cites the IFA and Teagasc. The IFA’s 4 billion euro is an estimate of the loss of export revenue; the cost would of course be much lower. It’s not clear where the number comes from. A 40% reduction in the herd size is probably much more than is needed to meet the 2020 target (although it is hard to imagine that the herd size would not be cut). I could not find a source for that number.

The IFA used to be firmly opposed to climate policy. Over the last couple of years, their position has become milder as they realised that climate policy would bring new opportunities (carbon storage, bioenergy). In fact, Irish dairy is among the most climate-friendly in Europe, so EU policy might improve our competitive advantage. The publication of the climate bill seems to have reversed a positive trend.

So yeh

1. a shiny new useless quango :rolleyes: as per Ops concerns
2. how in hell will the transport targets be met?
3. destruction of the agriculture export sector :rolleyes:

This is just mad, plain mad

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ah the saga continues, below

More like the Richard Tol love-in continues

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. a shiny new useless quango :rolleyes: as per Ops concerns
2. how in hell will the transport targets be met?
3. destruction of the agriculture export sector :rolleyes:

This is just mad, plain mad

1. The quango is far from useless and is clearly vital to the workings of a national climate change strategy
2 & 3: There are no sector specific targets within the legislation. Historically, agriculture has always been excluded from mitigation plans and are likely to be handled with kid gloves for the forseeable future. As such the IFA statements (that you kindly put in bold and increased to font size 7) are little more than scaremongering.

ei.sdraob

Macha wrote: »

More like the Richard Tol love-in continues

The guy raises interesting points and you cant accuse him of not being "Green"

Macha wrote: »

1. The quango is far from useless and is clearly vital to the workings of a national climate change strategy

Considering that the minister can block any publication, remove and appoint any member, and not being independent

... yes it will endup being useless

Macha wrote: »

2 & 3: There are no sector specific targets within the legislation. Historically, agriculture has always been excluded from mitigation plans and are likely to be handled with kid gloves for the forseeable future.
The figure came from Teagasc...

IBEC also released a report linked to earlier showing 400 million a year losses to the economy

We are yet to see an impact assessment from the Greens, just more babbling

Macha wrote: »

are little more than scaremongering.

Sure don't the Greens excel at scaremongering? Sealevel rising, climate havoc, dead polar bears ... ... Jesus wept

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The guy raises interesting points and you cant accuse him of not being "Green"

What is "Green" and what's it got to do with this?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Considering that the minister can block any publication, remove and appoint any member, and not being independent

... yes it will endup being useless

I agree with you there completely.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

IBEC also released a report linked to earlier showing 400 million a year losses to the economy

We are yet to see an impact assessment from the Greens, just more babbling

And does it have any merit? Does anyone remember the Stern Report and the economic analysis it presented? Here's the executive summary:

The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs
The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times. What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years. On the other hand what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.

No-one can predict the consequences of climate change with complete certainty; but we now know enough to understand the risks. Mitigation - taking strong action to reduce emissions - must be viewed as an investment, a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future. If these investments are made wisely, the costs will be manageable, and there will be a wide range of opportunities for growth and development along the way. For this to work well, policy must promote sound market signals, overcome market failures and have equity and risk mitigation at its core. That essentially is the conceptual framework of this Review.

The Review considers the economic costs of the impacts of climate change, and the costs and benefits of action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause it, in three different ways:

• Using disaggregated techniques, in other words considering the physical
impacts of climate change on the economy, on human life and on the
environment, and examining the resource costs of different technologies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
• Using economic models, including integrated assessment models that
estimate the economic impacts of climate change, and macro-economic
models that represent the costs and effects of the transition to low-carbon
energy systems for the economy as a whole;
• Using comparisons of the current level and future trajectories of the ‘social cost of carbon’ (the cost of impacts associated with an additional unit of greenhouse gas emissions) with the marginal abatement cost (the costs associated with incremental reductions in units of emissions).
From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the
costs.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Sure don't the Greens excel at scaremongering? Sealevel rising, climate havoc, dead polar bears ... ... Jesus wept

I think that's called "the scientific consensus".

micro_dot

No matter who's in power, there will be some form of carbon tax, just because it's another form of revenue. One way or the other, I don't see the future being cheaper, as we are addicted to oil. To me, the Western recovery seems based on adjusting to new and higher, international, oil prices. Like the way American cars got skinny recently. It's all going to hurt the economy, as we are addicted to oil like crack, and Bush thought at least once about invading Niger.

Dunno about Tol, didn't the ESRI not see a massive property bubble?

goat2

micro_dot wrote: »

No matter who's in power, there will be some form of carbon tax, just because it's another form of revenue. One way or the other, I don't see the future being cheaper, as we are addicted to oil. To me, the Western recovery seems based on adjusting to new and higher, international, oil prices. Like the way American cars got skinny recently. It's all going to hurt the economy, as we are addicted to oil like crack, and Bush thought at least once about invading Niger.

Dunno about Tol, didn't the ESRI not see a massive property bubble?

we live in a great place, it is the greens who are making ****e of the lot, they should be seeing to it that green energy is affordable to all, in that way there would be great job creation, i would love to be able to afford to install the solar water heaters, solar lights outside, as it is i changed all bulbs to those supposed to be long life but alot of the time are not and costing a bomb replacing, i use the composter which i do find brilliant, i will be installing one of those water tubs to collect water from downpipe that come from roof,

the green party have done nothing to help in any way, i just dispise them

ei.sdraob

Macha wrote: »

I think that's called "the scientific consensus".

I am sorry but seems you are not aware much of how science operates,
a good theory (which could have all the consensus at the time) could be replaced by a better theory (happened many times during 20th century, so called scientific revolutions such as Einsteins theories turning physics world in a new direction) which has predicts more precisely outcomes that can be observed, and against which one can make repeatable experiments, and most importantly when every other theory has shown to be less likely to be true.

The latest climate models (scientists have to use models, models which are far from modelling complex systems involved, since they don't have another earth to experiment on) predicted warm wet winters around this part of the world, instead we had yet another very cold snap
this means someone somewhere is back to tweaking their models, which is a good thing, and how science operates


Anyways I asked for a cost benefit analysis of implementing this Bill for Ireland in the case of Irish economy not yet another generic research on climate change like the report you linked to,
so far we have two reports which show that this Bill will cost the country alot of money and the data was collected and reported on by scientists,
if like the Stern Report says "the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs." then why is the green movement so against decades old technologies such as nuclear plants to help bring us into a carbon free future? the UK has a 30% target which we want to copy so not to look bad, but they also are using all technologies available to get there and more importantly are already on the way to meeting these targets.

God knows if we spend that 20 billion odd of research money that went into climate change research into fusion power we would have been sorted by now.
instead we follow yet another quasi religious ideology who try to wrap themselves in scientific banners, yet ignore the same scientists and engineers when they point that there is science and technologies (that might not be in fashion with ideologists) such genetic modification and nuclear power and geo-engineering which can help mankind address this problem

Macha

Two points:

1) As a scientist, I am aware of the scientific process and my comment in relation to the current scientific consensus is correct. You seem to be pinning your hopes on the future disproving of the current scientific consensus, which is akin to betting on the theory of gravity being refuted.

Did I claim that we know everything about climate change? No. Should that stop us from acting on the best available knowledge? No. If we didn't take that approach, we would never do anything.

2) In the tradition of your good self, I'll answer a question with a question: where is the economic analysis of the failure to implement this legislation?

More generally, please try to distinguish between various strands within the green movement. It's like talking about all Irish people thinking X or Y - a generalization so wide as to be quite useless.

RichardAnd

Macha wrote: »

Two points:

1) As a scientist, I am aware of the scientific process and my comment in relation to the current scientific consensus is correct. You seem to be pinning your hopes on the future disproving of the current scientific consensus, which is akin to betting on the theory of gravity being refuted.

Did I claim that we know everything about climate change? No. Should that stop us from acting on the best available knowledge? No. If we didn't take that approach, we would never do anything.

2) In the tradition of your good self, I'll answer a question with a question: where is the economic analysis of the failure to implement this legislation?

More generally, please try to distinguish between various strands within the green movement. It's like talking about all Irish people thinking X or Y - a generalization so wide as to be quite useless.

You're making another generalisation, the scientific consensus that you speak of. Many thousands of scientist do not buy into the climate change theory but, as their views would not allow carbon taxes to be levied on X, Y and Z, we tend not to hear from them

ei.sdraob

@Macha

1) That is not what I mean, just because there is "consensus" does not mean "shutup end of conversation do as we say", nowhere do these scientists say we need to reduce Y by X% and build Z windmills or whatever, thats a political course of action decided on by politicians (backed by industrial lobby seeking guaranteed profits).

As someone who holds both a Science degree and Engineering postrgrad degree, I strongly feel that the decision making on how to reduce (or for that matter replace) should be made by companies competing who employ scientists and more importantly engineers implementing/researching technologies based on said science, not politicians and definitely not economists who have such a dismal record at predicting anything :P
If the Green Party or any other party with "green" streaks wants to be more "green" for whatever reasons (be it scientific or political or beuracrats comparing their d*** sizes emission cut sizes :P) then they should be doing everything to facilitate companies (make it easier) solving these problems, for example by cutting taxes + redtape and more importantly building an infrastructure and even more importantly sorting out planning (alot of windfarms are bogged down for years in the planning system for example)

The only area of science which concerns itself with carbon taxes/trading are economists and I dont see a "consensus" between on this particular approach them since economists are firmly split among ideological lines themselves.




2a) this question should be answered by the people proposing the legislation or they should fund someone else to do the research, the Climate Change bill is being rushed for purely political reasons by the Greens
Please dont forget that the current government has rushed this country into other disastrous policy decisions such as Bank Guarantee, Nama and Croke Park, with such a track record one has to try to examine their new bright ideas!

2b) The green movement is firmly split into two now:
The airy hippy idealists with a Luddite streak
and
The realists who realise we need to embrace all technologies at our disposal and now is not the time to be picky
I recommend you watch this documentary and the follow on debate to see this split in action > http://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-the-green-movement-got-wrong

I care about the environment but not questioning the policies proposed and following them blindly is no different to following an organised religion, thats another thing that really ticks me off about the green movement, too much religious overtones with the whole "repent now or be damned" and Armageddon style imagery. Instead of trusting people they need to be led like sheep. Thats just wrong! I am afraid the Greens in Ireland have done alot of damage to their cause and worse made alot of people very sceptical.

Danno

How much power did the windfarms produce during December's cold weather? Hardly any, they were all frozen and could not turn! So when we have the greatest need for power to produce heating, these green machines let us down. An even more twisted reality of these green machines is when the wind blows strongest we are most likely not to reap the benifets because alot of power transmission lines will blow down in strong winds!

On a more serious note... It is amazing to hear about reports from a few years back claiming that snow was now a thing of the past... another great prediction gone wrong.
They also harp on about the melting arctic sea ice, but ignore the increasing Antarctic sea ice.

Fourteen All Time COLD records were broken in 2010 and another one tied... yet very little coverage about it. If these were all time hot records then we'd have it shoved down our throats along with more carbon tax.

1945 and 1949 were the warmest years of the 1900s in Ireland, yet one of the coldest winters (1947) occurred between them. This shows that the climate/weather is ever changing and will do so regardless of how much CO2 is in the air.

Further back in history there are records of settlement in Greenland a few years BEFORE industrialisation and CO2 emissions. Were horseback responsible for climate change then?

ei.sdraob

Danno wrote: »

How much power did the windfarms produce during December's cold weather?

I downloaded eirgrid data for december here
* The average generated at any time (I believe its in half hour intervals) is 294MW

The installed wind capacity at end of 2010 was ~1900MW

Thats 15% availability :eek:

For the billions sunk into this and subsidised by everyone in the economy, we cant even power a small town when we need it most :rolleyes:

MalteseBarry

I thought this thread was about the politics of Gormless's bill? This is teh last chance the greens will have here for the forseeable future, and no wonder they are trying to rush through as much as they can. Of course the bill is flawed and of course its based on nonsense. Which pretty accurately acts as a reminder that the greens, also, are flawed and based on nonsense.