vote green

vaalea

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Voters is then too broad a term because those of us who didn't vote FF.

I mean how am I to blame that FF got in?

And I'm not scapegoating anyone; I'll judge The Green decisions and I'll similarly judge FF decisions.

the greens certainly are not to blame for FF votes... that's all I'm saying.. there is plenty of blame to go around.. just take a step back and look at the bigger picture and history rather than say the greens let everyone down blah blah

Liam Byrne

vaalea wrote: »

the greens certainly are not to blame for FF votes... that's all I'm saying.. there is plenty of blame to go around.. just take a step back and look at the bigger picture and history rather than say the greens let everyone down blah blah

It's pretty condescending of you to suggest that I need to "take a step back and look at the bigger picture".

That's precisely what I am doing.

If the result isn't to The Green's liking, then maybe they should have chosen and acted more carefully.

flutered

johno2 wrote: »

You're right about that, so obviously you have a good grasp of numbers. Why don't you do the math on taking the carbon tax applied to heating oil or gas (~4%) which gets allocated into grants for more efficient boilers. Upgrading a 10 year old boiler (65% efficient at best) and see how long it takes to amortise that against the grants they provided for new boilers (>90% efficient). I've already done it, and it varies slightly depending on usage and insulation levels, but for most houses it's somewhere in the ballpark of 4-5 years.

in the present financial climate how many of us can afford this, only the top elcons, all of the lower forms in the food chain can barley manage never mind a new car a new boiler or insulation, i have often wondered what form of relaxation technique do they use. i am in recipt of 193 euro per week pension, please explain how i can manage any of the above, if i could i should be the next minister for finance regardless of who is in power

Ghost Estate

johno2 wrote: »

So you expect me to believe that anyone in the country could install a boiler better than the guy you got. Come on seriously? It's strikes me as odd that if you know so much about boilers you still managed to hire a muppet that made a balls of your installation.

This was in the good old days. Didn't know much about it back then and this guy was supposed to have a good reputation

And that will save you money right? A core drill bit for drilling the holes will set you back about 60-90 euros. Thats before you rent a sds-max drill for the day at another 20 euro. Of course if you have your own truck full of polystyrene beads lying around that won't cost you anything. To be honest with you I've looked into the possibility of going into that business myself and the competition is so fierce and the prices are so low that I'd never make a profit on it. You said something earlier about lads rounding up to the nearest thousand. If that's you're experience you couldn't have shopped around at all.

If you're renting something as basic as a drill then you don't have much of a chance. Rounding up to the nearest thousand would be for solar water heating. They see the grant and say 'we`ll take that!'

The competition you're facing is likely from lads who were given the signal by their local TD to get their foot in the door before the barriers to entry in the form of regulation went up.

You brought up the solar panels first, I just replied to you. The grid tie inverter are a requirement because the Eiregrid has to shut down parts of the grid from time to time. They can't do that if people are pumping electricity into it from random houses all over the place. The grid tie inverter detects if the mains is gone dead and it stops feeding power into it. This is so the lads climbing the pylons don't get killed.


You seem to have some experience with this stuff, and it all seems to have gone wrong for you. I've heard similar stories from other people. Those inverters have potentiometers on them that can be adjusted to allow some variation in the incoming voltage and frequency. Adjusting them helps to fix the problem. BTW I know the break-even point on PV is very bad in this country. I advise people on what to buy and I've never advised anyone to get PV. If you sunk a load of money into a PV system you should have got some advice or done some spreadsheets first. Sorry about that, genuinely.

johno

I have never bought into this myself but anti-islanding protection is standard for all grid tie inverters. If you start messing with pots then your inverters don't comply to the standard anymore because as far as i know (tis been a while since I read them) the standard document specify a minimum and maximum cut-in voltage and its well above the 190 or so volts the mains goes down to over here quite regularly. by that logic I might as well get one from abroad, change settings and spew as much power into the grid as i can with it.

the ESB probably wouldn't like that idea so much or else they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of writing their own standards. and as soon as the standard is written , like happens all too often over here a lad springs up with his own company selling these at a fiercly uncompetitive price.

even though I could get a cheap PowerJack(tm) grid-tie from the backarse of Guangdong and get away with using it thats not what bothers me. its the mentality of "we`ll make life awkward for people through legislation and they can pay one of our boys to make it less awkward".

Ghost Estate

flutered wrote: »

johno2 wrote: »

Upgrading a 10 year old boiler (65% efficient at best) and see how long it takes to amortise that against the grants they provided for new boilers (>90% efficient). I've already done it, and it varies slightly depending on usage and insulation levels, but for most houses it's somewhere in the ballpark of 4-5 years.

boilers 10 years ago aren't as bad as they'd like to let on. there have been improvements in the efficiency of a lot of things but more often than not you're better off running an old boiler or fridge (if the gasket seals good!) or anything into the ground before you invest in something new. another 'green' scam to make you part with your money rather than save it. 20 and 30 year old goods and stuff that hasn't been serviced will be less efficient but most likely still not inefficient enough to throw out one that's still working

newtadis

il vote for the greens if they legalize green

Ghost Estate

newtadis wrote: »

il vote for the greens if they legalize green

If they ever do, they'll do it after doubling the tax on it.

cnocbui

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why don't you just leave them blank? Why give them any number?

Must be OCD.

Cork24

YEA I VOTE for the GREENS if i want my Car TAX House Carbon TAX going though the Roof,

your Green Party.. Jump Ship when the Ship was going down Remember you were in Power when this Crap hit.. Remember how Ireland was in an all time low and all you Green Dupes wanted was a ban on Hunting ? you saw a ban on Hunting more of a need for the public eye then what the banks were doing? Carbon Global Warming Crap is us were the problem, running our cars.. when your TD cycled to work on the First day then after all getting drivers to get you to work. I think Flights around the Country and to other Countries take up more of this Carbon...


& if your SO SO SO GREEN WHY THE F***K are people who are looking to build WIND POWER more then 18 months to get a letter saying NO>> when in America just takes 2 weeks not evening..

70's germany had their Autobahnen, only 2 months Ago we Finally got a CORK TO DUBLIN MAIN ROAD...

AS one old SAYING.... FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU FOOL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME>>> I'M NO FOOL>>>>& NO VOTE FOR GREENS>>>

erictheviking1

vaalea wrote: »

vote green. people love to vote for the same old parties thinking they are going to get a CHANGE?! A real message to politicians is kicking old parties to the curb and seeing if a different party can breathe some fresh air into politics.

a vote for green IS a vote for the economy if any of you have been reading up on the economics of climate change and green collar jobs. Green Party is not just about environment, it is about sustainability in all areas, and that means long term employment prospects, not short sighted quick fixes.. and it means working for priceless equality and quality of life rather than quick big $$.

Why do so many people overlook the greens?

Vote Green? My Arse! They are a shower of out of touch nimby hippies who have made the average families life in this country so much harder.
It now costs me more to get to work to earn enough money to pay even more taxes. The Greens underestimate how much the average working man now despises them.

alphabeat

the greens turned out to be self serving vermin, and will treated as such in the election .

you keep banging on about carbon , when it is a fact that man made climate change is a fairy story conjured up to grab more tax money

similar to religion creating a 'god' to make money.

if you are that stupid to believe is such things then maybe you should stick to your green vote.

puffdragon

You know something, Im a SF voter but if Fianna Fail had listened more to the greens while they were in power instead of totaly bullying them every time they opened their mouths then some of their better policies would have made a real difference for the good in this country!!

Fianna Fail have a lot to answer for as far as I'm concerned, In recent times they have rounded on poor Gerry (without much luck I might add) and now in the last few days Fianna Fail are trying to drive a wedge between Labour and Fine Gael , with a bunch of low-lifes like Fianna Fail around im not surprised the greens havent fared well!!

Mr.Micro

[QUOTE=puffdragon;70754
Fianna Fail are trying to drive a wedge between Labour and Fine Gael , with a bunch of low-lifes like Fianna Fail around im not surprised the greens havent fared well!![/QUOTE]


Labour done a lot of the damage to itself. Gilmore agreeing to a one off debate with the king spoofer Martin and he took on a cap in hands deferential mode;allowing martin to interrupt constantly and duly lost the debate.

This week going after FG to the delight of FF but to the cost of Labour. the voters do not want the 2 parties needed to replace FF fighting, much to the delight of smirking Martin at the 5 way debate....again to Labour's cost.

If Labour are to save anything it needs to stop the fighting with FG and turn it on FF and the Greens full force.

Paparazzo

vaalea wrote: »

Over the lifetime of a wind turbine, it will generate 17-39 times the amount of energy as was used to build it. Nuclear power plants produce only about 16 times the energy used to build them.
Dangerous, expensive- cost overruns and other expenses often paid by taxpayers and what are the employment requirements of each? and requiring non-renewable material creating non-recyclable material... etc
Then there is this http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/

You forgot to mention that wind power costs the customer 2-3 times the amount than nuclear to the customer at the end.


The greens will be remembered for bringing in a load of new useless taxes, banning lightbulbs and stag hunting. Imagine banning stag hunting when there's only one hunt in the country and they don't even kill the stag? The country was going down the shítter and they were worried about 1 stag a year getting frightened. They're an absolute joke of a party and I will look forward to see them fade into nothing.

puffdragon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Labour done a lot of the damage to itself. Gilmore agreeing to a one off debate with the king spoofer Martin and he took on a cap in hands deferential mode;allowing martin to interrupt constantly and duly lost the debate.

This week going after FG to the delight of FF but to the cost of Labour. the voters do not want the 2 parties needed to replace FF fighting, much to the delight of smirking Martin at the 5 way debate....again to Labour's cost.

If Labour are to save anything it needs to stop the fighting with FG and turn it on FF and the Greens full force.

I agree wholeheartedly, in the face of a back door uprising from scheema fail it would be better if the other parties were to turn together and destroy them once and for all , Fianna Fails gutter tactics are only hurting the country and its common people who they obviously care little about.

johno2

Ghost Estate wrote: »

boilers 10 years ago aren't as bad as they'd like to let on. there have been improvements in the efficiency of a lot of things but more often than not you're better off running an old boiler or fridge (if the gasket seals good!) or anything into the ground before you invest in something new. another 'green' scam to make you part with your money rather than save it. 20 and 30 year old goods and stuff that hasn't been serviced will be less efficient but most likely still not inefficient enough to throw out one that's still working

Incorrect I'm afraid. The average annual oil/gas bill for a household with an old (>10 year old boiler) is over €1000. Replacing it with a 90% boiler drops that bill by 27%-28%. There is an extensive database of boilers and their efficiency rating at sedbuk.com. All boilers are independently tested under laboratory conditions to see how much water they can boil using a fixed amount of fuel. The Irish HARP database is derived from the same laboratory tests but has nothing to do with the Irish Green Party.

Carry on believing your own conspiracy theories if you wish to. I've tried to change the minds of diehard believers before and discovered it's a waste of my time. I'm only posting this to offer a counterpoint to anyone who is considering believing what you posted above. I have 2 motivations for offering this counterpoint, 1 is to stop the foolish notion that new technology is pretty much the same as old technology with a shinier paint job on it and secondly to help reduce Ireland's dependence on fossil fuels. If you don't believe me, try putting your face in front of the exhaust stream from your old boiler for a couple of minutes. I guarantee it'll scald you if you try it. That's heat that you could be keeping in your house if you had a condensing boiler. The exhaust from a newer boiler is not that different from a warm humid breeze.

johno

taintabird

vaalea wrote: »

How is that not a business write-off then? - a business expense that is added to the tab of the service as a cost to provide?

All well and fine but it ultimately puts up the cost of the service to the consumer, everything depends on transport from the clothed on your back food you eat and everything else you can think of depends on transport. If you depend on your private car to get to work how is that a business expense, in short put up the price of fuel and you put up the price of every thing

vaalea

Paparazzo wrote: »

You forgot to mention that wind power costs the customer 2-3 times the amount than nuclear to the customer at the end.


The greens will be remembered for bringing in a load of new useless taxes, banning lightbulbs and stag hunting. Imagine banning stag hunting when there's only one hunt in the country and they don't even kill the stag? The country was going down the shítter and they were worried about 1 stag a year getting frightened. They're an absolute joke of a party and I will look forward to see them fade into nothing.

reference please... all I hear about is all the debt that nuclear racks up.

they didn't ban lightbulbs. sheesh.

there is only one hunt in the country is there? only 1 stag a year? maybe do some more research on that!

It sounds like you are over-reacting to incorrect information.

ei.sdraob

vaalea wrote: »

reference please... all I hear about is all the debt that nuclear racks up.

they didn't ban lightbulbs. sheesh.

there is only one hunt in the country is there? only 1 stag a year? maybe do some more research on that!

It sounds like you are over-reacting to incorrect information.

from another thread

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Full details of the 2010 Powering the Nation update can be downloaded here (PDF, 258Kb).
The following illustrations are also available:
Range of costs - all technologies (PDF, 67Kb).
Cost breakdowns - all technologies (PDF, 66Kb).

wind + gas/oil backup (for the 80% of time when wind is generating nothing) is very expensive...

vaalea

taintabird wrote: »

If you depend on your private car to get to work how is that a business expense, in short put up the price of fuel and you put up the price of every thing

Supply and demand also affect fuel prices, and there will be no control of that, which is why it is imperative now to have people start changing their habits and invest in alternative modes of transportation and rethink decisions on where to live, etc.

The tax now is nothing compared to inevitable rise in prices.

yeahme

Kevin Myers: Wind power will return us to the early Middle Ages
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-wind-power-will-return-us-to-the-early-middle-ages-2317876.html


as much as i dont like the guy and especially the fox news/irish independent paper, This article should open your green tinged glasses a bit more.

Remember a lot of these "Green thinking" scientists have to make their money somewhere, but when they retire they seem to change their tune.

And by tune I mean they can afford then to say what they actually THINK and not what they are paid to say.

taintabird

Cork24 wrote: »

YEA I VOTE for the GREENS if i want my Car TAX House Carbon TAX going though the Roof,

your Green Party.. Jump Ship when the Ship was going down Remember you were in Power when this Crap hit.. Remember how Ireland was in an all time low and all you Green Dupes wanted was a ban on Hunting ? you saw a ban on Hunting more of a need for the public eye then what the banks were doing? Carbon Global Warming Crap is us were the problem, running our cars.. when your TD cycled to work on the First day then after all getting drivers to get you to work. I think Flights around the Country and to other Countries take up more of this Carbon...


& if your SO SO SO GREEN WHY THE F***K are people who are looking to build WIND POWER more then 18 months to get a letter saying NO>> when in America just takes 2 weeks not evening..

70's germany had their Autobahnen, only 2 months Ago we Finally got a CORK TO DUBLIN MAIN ROAD...

AS one old SAYING.... FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU FOOL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME>>> I'M NO FOOL>>>>& NO VOTE FOR GREENS>>>

+1 enough said

taintabird

vaalea wrote: »

Supply and demand also affect fuel prices, and there will be no control of that, which is why it is imperative now to have people start changing their habits and invest in alternative modes of transportation and rethink decisions on where to live, etc.

The tax now is nothing compared to inevitable rise in prices.

Roughly 72 cents per litre of diesel goes to the government and that is in our control, what your suggesting is fine but do you want to go back to the stone age ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

yeahme

True Bear,

which is why a lot of villages in the uk have the name vine in it to commerate (Spelling) the fact that they were actually going grapes and producing wine in the area/region.
But dont tell that to the greens because it blows their whole argument of global warming out of the water.
Dont get me wrong Im all for green EFFICIENT energy but I dont like biased one sided opinions from people who ram it down your throat and expect you not to question their authority? on the matter.

vaalea

ei.sdraob wrote: »

from another thread





wind + gas/oil backup (for the 80% of time when wind is generating nothing) is very expensive...

that information is not very clear to me.. the benefits. nuclear needs fuel and decommissioning(which means what exactly) and is just too freaky. If BP leaks oil allover the ocean, what prevents a nuclear disaster.... and especially if war.

nice to choose gas/oil backup... why not biomass backup? and companies are coming up with different ways to store and/or use excess energy during high wind periods.

vaalea

yeahme wrote: »

True Bear,

which is why a lot of villages in the uk have the name vine in it to commerate (Spelling) the fact that they were actually going grapes and producing wine in the area/region.
But dont tell that to the greens because it blows their whole argument of global warming out of the water.
Dont get me wrong Im all for green EFFICIENT energy but I dont like biased one sided opinions from people who ram it down your throat and expect you not to question their authority? on the matter.

today they grow grapes/make wine in canadian climate ... so what.

global warming or climate change?

why is there all this accusation that environmentalists are out to make big $$ and no one stops to wonder who is funding the climate skeptics?! http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics

Charles and David Koch are worth a reported $21.5 billion each, thanks to their stakes in Koch Industries, their privately owned oil, chemical and consumer products company.
In an expansion of their political footprint, the billionaire Koch brothers plan to contribute and steer a total of $88 million to conservative causes during the 2012 election cycle, according to sources, funding a new voter micro-targeting initiative, grassroots organizing efforts and television advertising campaigns.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/11-1

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/01/greenpeace-claims-koch-industries-secretly-funded-climate-skeptic-groups/
The report, “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine” (PDF), alleges that Koch Industries, headed by brothers David and Charles Koch, gave nearly $50 million between 1997 to 2008 to front groups that deny climate change.
The Guardian reports that the Kansas-based conglomerate with annual sales of $100 billion is dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, and owns refineries in the U.S. and in Holland. It also has held leases on the tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada, and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.

johno2

ei.sdraob wrote: »

from another thread





wind + gas/oil backup (for the 80% of time when wind is generating nothing) is very expensive...

I can't understand what point you think you are making here. You have linked in a very impressive looking graph which has OCGT technologies circled. To my knowledge nobody in Europe is building those anymore because CCGT is much more efficient.

You have also linked to a webpage from Eirgrid which is currently showing that we are producing 1000 MW of electricity from wind turbines. Is that the best argument you can come up with to show that wind power is ineffective?

We will continue to have fossil backed wind power until we are generating enough wind power to justify the huge civil engineering works required to store our excess wind power. That will require large reservoirs which we're not going to build right now because we'd have to run fossil power stations to pump water into them.

In the meantime, our windfarms are saving us the equivalent of 100,000 liters of oil per hour (at the time of posting, it varies obviously)

johno

johno2

vaalea wrote: »

why is there all this accusation that environmentalists are out to make big $$ and no one stops to wonder who is funding the climate skeptics?!

Mostly I think it's just trolling, even though there are a few people capable of debating logically. I reply anyway because some people might browse through this thread and just see the trolls and assume they are right because they are noisy and numerous.

johno

yeahme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow



Right im off for now but will leave you with this. The exended version is a lot better by the way. But I think he gets his point across fairly well.

barclay2

johno2 wrote: »

I can't understand what point you think you are making here. You have linked in a very impressive looking graph which has OCGT technologies circled. To my knowledge nobody in Europe is building those anymore because CCGT is much more efficient.

You have also linked to a webpage from Eirgrid which is currently showing that we are producing 1000 MW of electricity from wind turbines. Is that the best argument you can come up with to show that wind power is ineffective?

We will continue to have fossil backed wind power until we are generating enough wind power to justify the huge civil engineering works required to store our excess wind power. That will require large reservoirs which we're not going to build right now because we'd have to run fossil power stations to pump water into them.

In the meantime, our windfarms are saving us the equivalent of 100,000 liters of oil per hour (at the time of posting, it varies obviously)

johno

Just on the issue of renewables, storing capacity and baseload generation. We currently need a back-up supply of energy to allow for unanticipated spikes in demand, and renewables cannot provide this back up reserve because the amount of power they provide fluctuates. For that reason, we can't rely on renewables alone. This might well change in the future. Specifically, in the future, power providers will be in a position to control demand in a way that they can't at present.

Advances in communications technology will allow the electricity grid to "talk" to our buildings and alter how much energy is used within them throughout the day. One simple example:in your house, you could have a setting on your washing machine where it automatically turns on after a certain amount of excess energy becomes available on the grid, and temporarily turns off if there's a spike in demand elsewhere, such as during ad breaks on tv when everyone boils the kettle. Little adjustments like that would help flatten out overall energy demand and make it steadier and less volatile. This would reduce how much baseload reserve we require, meaning less need for fossil fuels. It will also lessen the need for storing the power we get from renewables. And it will be cheaper for everyone, since people could program devices to use energy only when there is an excess supply of energy and a resulting fall in its price.

Policy areas such as this, where communications technology and energy policy converge, is one area where Eamonn Ryan has sounded very capable any time I hear him talk about it.

alphabeat

why do you keep banging on about 'climate skeptics and ' climate deniers '

we have climate - it is controlled by the biggest object in the solar system

- the SUN .

and climate changes - again because of the sun

calling someone a denier or a skeptic because they believe that the biggest object in the solar system ( big hint there = 'solar' ) affects climate and not a few hairless apes with cars

is the raving of a lunatics lost cause.


this country needs a stable financially competent , forward thinking government - not a bunch of sandle wearing idiots and a book of climate fairy storys.

Spudmonkey

telekon wrote: »

Maybe if we vote them back in they can triple the carbon tax rate. Yay! :rolleyes:


Some of us depend on transport for their work. Disaster of a tax.

€1.44 at the moment!! Jesus, like.


Thanks a million ye cretins. :mad:

TBH, the carbon tax is a very small part of the taxes added to fuel.

johno2

alphabeat wrote: »

why do you keep banging on about 'climate skeptics and ' climate deniers '

we have climate - it is controlled by the biggest object in the solar system

- the SUN .

and climate changes - again because of the sun

calling someone a denier or a skeptic because they believe that the biggest object in the solar system ( big hint there = 'solar' ) affects climate and not a few hairless apes with cars

is the raving of a lunatics lost cause.


this country needs a stable financially competent , forward thinking government - not a bunch of sandle wearing idiots and a book of climate fairy storys.

Ok, the Earth and the Moon are the same distance from the Sun (on average, it varies between 99.75% and 100.25%). So if your hypothesis is correct, the Earth and the Moon should have the same climate.

johno

johno2

barclay2 wrote: »

Just on the issue of renewables, storing capacity and baseload generation. We currently need a back-up supply of energy to allow for unanticipated spikes in demand, and renewables cannot provide this back up reserve because the amount of power they provide fluctuates.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but hydro is a perfect candidate for handling peak load. In fact Ardnacrusha is a key part of handling our current peak loads. These days the water is only released during demand spikes.

Just on the point of smart energy use, refrigeration (especially industrial scale) is a juicy low hanging fruit for this application. Washing machines and similar examples are also a good idea, but I can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth I'll hear in the future from anti-green people who can't handle some occasional inconvenience in their lives.

johno

barclay2

alphabeat wrote: »

why do you keep banging on about 'climate skeptics and ' climate deniers '

we have climate - it is controlled by the biggest object in the solar system

- the SUN .

and climate changes - again because of the sun

calling someone a denier or a skeptic because they believe that the biggest object in the solar system ( big hint there = 'solar' ) affects climate and not a few hairless apes with cars

is the raving of a lunatics lost cause.


this country needs a stable financially competent , forward thinking government - not a bunch of sandle wearing idiots and a book of climate fairy storys.

A few questions.
Is there some reason that you think climate cannot be affected by both the sun AND what happens here on the planet?
Who has been going around saying that the Sun is not the most important of the various things that affect the planet's climate? I'm not aware of any environmentalist or scientist who has.
What are the flaws in the scientific models that tell us we're having a powerful effect on the planet's climate? As someone who clealy disagrees with what those models tell us i'm guessing you have some examples to offer.

johno2 wrote: »

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but hydro is a perfect candidate for handling peak load. In fact Ardnacrusha is a key part of handling our current peak loads. These days the water is only released during demand spikes.

Just on the point of smart energy use, refrigeration (especially industrial scale) is a juicy low hanging fruit for this application. Washing machines and similar examples are also a good idea, but I can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth I'll hear in the future from anti-green people who can't handle some occasional inconvenience in their lives.

johno

Do you know if hydro alone can handle that peak load? Would we have to expand our use of hydro or are we already using all the available sites for it? Expanding use of hydro would of course have some negative environmental consequences too, i'd want to be sure that it's worth it.

Refrigeration is another very good example, there a lot of good ones actually. I've no doubt there'd be gnashing of teeth etc, but my hope and my guess are that it would get a lot of support in the end because of one simple fact - it would be cheaper. If smart technology could be applied in a way that helps us use household appliances when there is excess energy on the grid, that energy will be cheaper and consumers should save money. This is one example of what I think is an under appreciated fact - that smart environmental policy is usually smart economic policy in the long run.

johno2

barclay2 wrote: »

Do you know if hydro alone can handle that peak load? Would we have to expand our use of hydro or are we already using all the available sites for it? Expanding use of hydro would of course have some negative environmental consequences too, i'd want to be sure that it's worth it.

Spirit of Ireland.

Lots of info there. I don't have time to post my thoughts right now.

johno

ei.sdraob

vaalea wrote: »

that information is not very clear to me.. the benefits. nuclear needs fuel and decommissioning(which means what exactly) and is just too freaky. If BP leaks oil allover the ocean, what prevents a nuclear disaster.... and especially if war.

what?

vaalea wrote: »

nice to choose gas/oil backup... why not biomass backup? and companies are coming up with different ways to store and/or use excess energy during high wind periods.

because all of those options you mentioned are very very expensive, gas/oil can be switched on relatively quickly

here is a very detailed document from our own eirgrid with figures and costs

johno2

ei.sdraob wrote: »

here is a very detailed document from our own eirgrid with figures and costs

That's a pretty interesting document and I'm surprised at some of the numbers in it. Biomass is very competitive with oil and gas on a small scale such as in domestic boilers. I can't see why it wouldn't scale up on a curve very similar to something like coal or peat.

johno

taintabird

vaalea wrote: »

No amount of "this is good for the short-term" helps people and businesses who will be in the future not be able to pay their bill even by 10 cent. 'this is good for the short-term' gave you celtic tiger and people had no problems paying their bills then?!
sustainable growth will help now, but it won't help everyone- not those who are reluctant to give up bad habits... it wouldn't prop up consumerism and people will have to accept changes in business... not keep things the way they were and still expect to pay the bills when there are no more customers for what they offer.... just like there is a time when SUV factories needed to change or die. Detroit has died because they were not future-forward thinking, but is now being rebuilt with new-urbanism and community gardens etc, and becoming a model for the world rather than simply example of ruin. Same goes for irish business... and govt policies can aid change and sustainable growth in struggling business.

What's your suggestion ? fact people have mortgages fact they need to pay for them fact people need to eat
fact it isn't possible for every one to live five minutes from work or relocate. The greens don't seem to have any ides how difficult it is for a large number of people struggling to mack ends meet in this country at the moment. They were instigators of a lot of extra expense on people and I hope it wont be forgotten on election day

johno2

taintabird wrote: »

What's your suggestion ? fact people have mortgages fact they need to pay for them fact people need to eat
fact it isn't possible for every one to live five minutes from work or relocate. The greens don't seem to have any ides how difficult it is for a large number of people struggling to mack ends meet in this country at the moment. They were instigators of a lot of extra expense on people and I hope it wont be forgotten on election day

Despite what you'd like to believe, the people with the expensive mortgages are precisely the people that caused this economic problem. They fueled the bubble. I was sent mortgage application forms that I never asked for by 2 different banks, one which I didn't even have an account with. I knew I couldn't afford the repayments so I used the forms to light the fire.
Fact! People were greedy. Fact! They bragged to each other about how well their property portfolios were doing. (I overheard young 20-somethings doing this) Fact! Other people are not responsible for the dilemma your choices put you in. Fact! We can pull out of this, and avoid a repeat performance if we stop denying the real reasons behind it. Fact! You're looking for a scapegoat so you don't have to look inwards and acknowledge that you played a part in this mess. Fact! The Green Party policies require an upfront cost to implement them, but they will pay for themselves in the long run and continue to benefit everyone after they have been paid off.

johno

taintabird

johno2 wrote: »

Despite what you'd like to believe, the people with the expensive mortgages are precisely the people that caused this economic problem. They fueled the bubble. I was sent mortgage application forms that I never asked for by 2 different banks, one which I didn't even have an account with. I knew I couldn't afford the repayments so I used the forms to light the fire.
Fact! People were greedy. Fact! They bragged to each other about how well their property portfolios were doing. (I overheard young 20-somethings doing this) Fact! Other people are not responsible for the dilemma your choices put you in. Fact! We can pull out of this, and avoid a repeat performance if we stop denying the real reasons behind it. Fact! You're looking for a scapegoat so you don't have to look inwards and acknowledge that you played a part in this mess. Fact! The Green Party policies require an upfront cost to implement them, but they will pay for themselves in the long run and continue to benefit everyone after they have been paid off.

johno

For your information I dont have a huge mortgage or a massive portfolio of houses and wants one of the "greedy" people as you put it , I am self employed and anything i have I worked for . Germany had a green government for a while and they put the country on its knees and its only in the last couple of years starting to recover, a lot of industry closed up or relocated because of stringent rules and regulations and a lot of employment was lost. Should we go down the same road save the world is all well and fine but for gods sake save the country first don't put your foot on its neck and push it under. When I left school in the eighties out of 35 in my class only about 6 stayed in the country the rest were scattered to the four corners of the world and here we are 30 years later back to where we started and I am sorry to say I don't believe the tree hungers party are the ones to get us out of this mess after all your party members spent the last number of years in government and presided over the whole sorry saga of the banks and nama , but thats just my opnion

vaalea

I don't really feel like debating nuclear vs wind.. wind is growing and whatever the downsides are there are other emerging/improving technologies to compliment... and even wind techology has been improving a lot.

The Mad Hatter

yeahme wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow



Right im off for now but will leave you with this. The exended version is a lot better by the way. But I think he gets his point across fairly well.

You're right, we should all stop listening to the scientists and take the word of the comedian.

As to whether I'll vote Green, they're pretty much the only party taking environmental issues seriously, but I'm beginning to lose hope that politics - particularly the politics of small countries - can make any real difference. With the amount of spin put out there by fake-science organisations set up by big polluters, it's little wonder the science is doubted by less informed people, but that does cause significant problems for any government trying to legislate for environmental causes. I'm glad the Green Party got a chance to do that here, but the global impact of their work will be small. It won't make any great difference until China and the US get their act together.

To be honest, though, I've all but given up on voting on environmental issues. If I lived in a larger country that had more impact, then maybe, but here it seems almost pointless, so on an issue like this we must necessarily be a country that hops on the bandwagon rather than the country that gets it rolling. I've also abandoned the notion of voting economically. The suggestion of renegotiating the IMF deal doesn't seem feasible to me: even if it were to take place, it would be a token gesture and wouldn't make any real difference.

So that means I'll pretty much only be voting on social issues, which at least makes my job easy.

Tarobot

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You're right, we should all stop listening to the scientists and take the word of the comedian.

As to whether I'll vote Green, they're pretty much the only party taking environmental issues seriously, but I'm beginning to lose hope that politics - particularly the politics of small countries - can make any real difference. With the amount of spin put out there by fake-science organisations set up by big polluters, it's little wonder the science is doubted by less informed people, but that does cause significant problems for any government trying to legislate for environmental causes. I'm glad the Green Party got a chance to do that here, but the global impact of their work will be small. It won't make any great difference until China and the US get their act together.

To be honest, though, I've all but given up on voting on environmental issues. If I lived in a larger country that had more impact, then maybe, but here it seems almost pointless, so on an issue like this we must necessarily be a country that hops on the bandwagon rather than the country that gets it rolling. I've also abandoned the notion of voting economically. The suggestion of renegotiating the IMF deal doesn't seem feasible to me: even if it were to take place, it would be a token gesture and wouldn't make any real difference.

So that means I'll pretty much only be voting on social issues, which at least makes my job easy.

I wouldn't give up just because we're a small country for a few reasons:

1. when counted per person, we pollute more than the citizens of any other EU country.
2. Sure China is important but China also has a population of a billion and a lot of their emissions are created in manufacturing goods for Western markets, including Ireland
3. It's important that we have the moral ground to stand on when asking developing countries to cut their emissions
4. It's important that we can demonstrate that it's possible to be developed and have a low carbon economy
5. Every little helps!
6. There is going to be a lot of money made out of low carbon technologies and resource efficiency. Let's capture a slice of that market for ourselves and create some jobs. Already SEAI supported 5,000 jobs last year with the retrofitting schemes that also helped reduce household bills and improve comfort. I call that a win-win-win scenario.

barclay2

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You're right, we should all stop listening to the scientists and take the word of the comedian.

As to whether I'll vote Green, they're pretty much the only party taking environmental issues seriously, but I'm beginning to lose hope that politics - particularly the politics of small countries - can make any real difference. With the amount of spin put out there by fake-science organisations set up by big polluters, it's little wonder the science is doubted by less informed people, but that does cause significant problems for any government trying to legislate for environmental causes. I'm glad the Green Party got a chance to do that here, but the global impact of their work will be small. It won't make any great difference until China and the US get their act together.

To be honest, though, I've all but given up on voting on environmental issues. If I lived in a larger country that had more impact, then maybe, but here it seems almost pointless, so on an issue like this we must necessarily be a country that hops on the bandwagon rather than the country that gets it rolling. I've also abandoned the notion of voting economically. The suggestion of renegotiating the IMF deal doesn't seem feasible to me: even if it were to take place, it would be a token gesture and wouldn't make any real difference.

So that means I'll pretty much only be voting on social issues, which at least makes my job easy.

You sound like someone who probably has some similar views to myself on certain things but I'd like to respectfully take issue with a couple of things.

Firstly, the general tenor of what you've said is that voting on environmental issues and voting on economic issues are two competing alternatives. This is false. Environmental problems routinely cost our economy huge amounts of money in the short term and the long term.

Some simple examples:
the huge cost we're all now paying for having had poor town and residential planning laws;

the huge amounts we lose trying to clean pollution out of our water supply;

the commercial (and personal) value of time that is lost due to traffic congestion;

the high per-person cost of services due to having a population that is not distributed across the country in a well-organized fashion;

the amount of money we would have saved if we had introduced stricter home energy efficiency requirements ten years ago.

Longer-term, think of the huge amounts of money we will lose in a warmer, fast-changing climate with a greater frequency of extreme weather events. I really could go on and on.

Our economy and our environment are not separate things. Acting as if they are has damaged both of them. And we will continue to damage both of them if we continue to act as if they're separate. Most parties in Ireland don't get this. The greens aren't perfect, but they do get this. That's the main reason that i'll probably vote for them.

Secondly, you said "If I lived in a larger country that had more impact, then maybe, but here it seems almost pointless". This is understandable and common, but ultimately i think it's the wrong approach, even on the biggest issue of climate change. I think the best way for us to have hope that big issues can be tackled is if we can look at ourselves and say that we are trying to play our part.

Here is why: our country is well-educated on environmental issues, we have a cross-party consensus on the reality of climate change, and we even have a system where a green party can get into government. If a country such as this cannot introduce smart climate change legislation, how can we expect any other country - of any size - to introduce it? If we don't do it, we can't expect other countries to do it, and we can't have hope that anyone else will. If we do it, we can have hope. If we do it well in a clever way, we can set an example.

The Mad Hatter

Thank you very much for the considered responses Tarobot and barclay2. I'm not going to reply point-by-point as I don't disagree on any particular points that you both have made.

For me it's really a case of prioritising, not between environmental issues and economic ones (as I don't think any party has any real means to lead us out of the economic mire we're in right now), but between environmental issues and social ones. I've also seen so much ineffectiveness and weak-handedness in climate legislation in particular internationally that I've become rather cynical about the whole process working politically.

I certainly understand the "lead by example" argument, and it's something that we've successfully done before on small but important matters (smoking in public areas and plastic bags). But I think serious climate legislation requires a much stronger push than these things because it's far more complex than simply banning something or taxing it, and would require a great deal more public support.

I will probably include a high preference (not first) for the Green candidate in my constituency (I quite like the suggestions of changes to the political system in their manifesto, if nothing else), but in my constituency in particular he doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in Hell, in the middle of Summer, on a particularly balmy day.

barclay2

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Thank you very much for the considered responses Tarobot and barclay2. I'm not going to reply point-by-point as I don't disagree on any particular points that you both have made.

For me it's really a case of prioritising, not between environmental issues and economic ones (as I don't think any party has any real means to lead us out of the economic mire we're in right now), but between environmental issues and social ones. I've also seen so much ineffectiveness and weak-handedness in climate legislation in particular internationally that I've become rather cynical about the whole process working politically.

I certainly understand the "lead by example" argument, and it's something that we've successfully done before on small but important matters (smoking in public areas and plastic bags). But I think serious climate legislation requires a much stronger push than these things because it's far more complex than simply banning something or taxing it, and would require a great deal more public support.

I will probably include a high preference (not first) for the Green candidate in my constituency (I quite like the suggestions of changes to the political system in their manifesto, if nothing else), but in my constituency in particular he doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in Hell, in the middle of Summer, on a particularly balmy day.

I would argue that environmental and social issues are not unconnected either, but i won't go on at length about it. Two quick examples:

quality public transport, an environmental/economic issue, is also a social issue. Car-dependent societies disadvantage those who can't afford a car.

town planning, an aspect of environmental/economic policy, is also an aspect of social policy - green areas and youth facilities facilitate social inclusion and can discourage anti-social behaviour.

Just on the issue of your local green candidate having a snowflake's chance in hell - don't let that stop you voting for him/her. If you agree with them more than other people, you should vote for them. If they do get very few other votes, then they'll be eliminated after the first count and your second preference will be redistributed to your next preferred candidate.

The Mad Hatter

barclay2 wrote: »

I would argue that environmental and social issues are not unconnected either, but i won't go on at length about it. Two quick examples:

quality public transport, an environmental/economic issue, is also a social issue. Car-dependent societies disadvantage those who can't afford a car.

town planning, an aspect of environmental/economic policy, is also an aspect of social policy - green areas and youth facilities facilitate social inclusion and can discourage anti-social behaviour.

I know - I had actually added a sentence to that effect, but deleted it for some reason

Just on the issue of your local green candidate having a snowflake's chance in hell - don't let that stop you voting for him/her. If you agree with them more than other people, you should vote for them. If they do get very few other votes, then they'll be eliminated after the first count and your second preference will be redistributed to your next preferred candidate.

That's the plan (though it's possible my order will be a bit different).

gsxr1

VOTE GREEN


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056185158

:rolleyes: