Wind energy private corporations and government.

Seth Brundle

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So oil companies don't dictate the cost of your heating bill?

We as a state buy in natural resources is at present we are just subject to what other countries and corporations want to sell these resources to us at.

But as a state if we produce a resource we should be using that to our advantage not just to benefit a small few.

As you're currently discussing oil now, if it was that profitable, why aren't companies climbing over each other to explore off our coasts?

As for the state doing it to our advantage, do you think that we have the expertise to do it? Bear in mind the initial capital costs coupled with years of investigations, possibly all unsuccessful.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

To give an example there is still much discussions about the Corrib oil and gas off the cost of cork.

...and?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I posted some links at the beginning of this thread to some of the corruption around this back in the 80s.

You posted links to the likes of Shell To Sea.
I asked you for some impartial evidence based sources IIRC but did not receive anything.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I even posted a link to the estimate value of the oil and gas and how much of that Ireland will see.

But I will post this again

http://www.shelltosea.com/content/gas-oil-robbery

Do you really think this is completely impartial?
Where did the €420 billion figure come from? It's easy to claim stuff when you don't have to back it up!

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

lol....I mentioned my qualification because you said I "have no place debating the simplest of topics."

This topic is what we were taught in first and second year and are not advanced. Even a layman who bothered to research would be able to understand. The seai website is the best resource for energy information in Ireland but you just brushed it aside.



Gas is a relatively clean energy source. Coal and peat are bigger pollutants. Moneypoint, ESB owned, is a coal fired power station that generates about 900MB, about 25% of Ireland's electrical consumption. Not good. It will be decommissioned soon and replaced with a cleaner technology, possibly coal but with carbon capture storage.
Wind and solar are attractive options but are somewhat unreliable due to intermittent issues. Hopefully energy storage will be a solution.

And?
What has this got to do with anything I said?
I state we buy most of our energy needs in one form or another...

I brushed it aside as it has no baring on the comment you took issue with.

unseenfootage

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The energy from the turbines locally here are not even being sold back to Ireland it is being sold to the UK but that is another story.

Then we buy electricity from the UK... So it is debatable

Not true:

Wind Energy Statistics

Wind Energy is a growing sector in Ireland and Northern Ireland, creating jobs and benefiting communities. See below the latest facts and figures on the wind energy industry.
235 The number of Wind Farms on the island of Ireland.
201 The number of wind farms in the Republic of Ireland
3078MW Installed Wind Energy Capacity on the island of Ireland.
2,000,700 Homes Powered Equivalent on the island of Ireland.
2436MW Installed Capacity in the Republic of Ireland.
642MW Installed Capacity in Northern Ireland.
2132MW Republic of Ireland Wind Generation Record reached at approximately 22.00 on 28th January 2016.
583MW Northern Ireland Wind Generation Record reached at approximately 18.15 on 1st June 2015.
2683MW All Island Wind Generation Record reached at approximately 21.45 on 28th January 2016.
The above are based on latest information available from ESB Networks, Eirgrid & SONI.
24% Percentage of Ireland’s electricity demand met from wind in 2015 (EirGrid provisional).
3,164,984 Potential CO2 reductions (pa) in tonnes, from wind farms installed on the Island of Ireland.*
88.5MW Installed capacity of Ireland’s largest wind farm, Meentycat in Co. Donegal.
1992 Year Ireland’s first commercial wind farm was commissioned at Bellacorrick, Co Mayo.

http://www.iwea.com/windstatistics

ShowMeTheCash

kbannon wrote: »

As you're currently discussing oil now, if it was that profitable, why aren't companies climbing over each other to explore off our coasts?

As for the state doing it to our advantage, do you think that we have the expertise to do it? Bear in mind the initial capital costs coupled with years of investigations, possibly all unsuccessful.

I am only discussion oil as we are trying to compare the now and the past with the future or renewable energies.

I have heard this before about the expertise, Ireland does not have the expertise it is usually the oil companies that spin that talk to the government they are trying to exploit there is an interesting documentary made by and Irish film maker called Atlantic you should watch it some of the testimony of what has happened and happening over the Corrib oil and gas is shocking.

But look Norway "Did not have the expertise" either but stat oil has been a huge success for Norway.

kbannon wrote: »

Do you really think this is completely impartial?
Where did the €420 billion figure come from? It's easy to claim stuff when you don't have to back it up!

Perhaps, but only time will tell.

unseenfootage

I don't thing that nationalizing renewable energy is a good option. State players are not very reliable. In South Africa for example, the government owned Escom screwed up more than 10 years ago by not investing in the infrastructure which until then was world class. Over the years there have been continuous load shedding which has been disastrous on the economy.

Thankfully, Ireland has an electricity market with many players from generation to supply. This means that prices and services can be competitive.

Of course there will be some communities who are against renewable energy for various reasons. I personally feel that most of their reasons, aesthetics, noise, magnetic interference are either based on myths or are unreasonable. Ireland will be moving towards a smart grid in the next decade where any home would be able to generate their own electricity to consume themselves and perhaps even sell to the grid. I think we need to go full speed ahead. People who make unreasonable objections are only slowing things down. There are bigger fish to fry. Go and chase shell to sea or stop fracking in England, if you like. Why people would want to hinder renewable technology at the same time is beyond common sense.

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

Not true:

I will get back to you on this but how do you know it's not true?

unseenfootage wrote: »

http://www.iwea.com/windstatistics

You can count? You do know that 70% via gas is still higher than 24%?

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

I don't thing that nationalizing renewable energy is a good option. State players are not very reliable. In South Africa for example, the government owned Escom screwed up more than 10 years ago by not investing in the infrastructure which until then was world class. Over the years there have been continuous load shedding which has been disastrous on the economy.

Thankfully, Ireland has an electricity market with many players from generation to supply. This means that prices and services can be competitive.

Of course there will be some communities who are against renewable energy for various reasons. I personally feel that most of their reasons, aesthetics, noise, magnetic interference are either based on myths or are unreasonable. Ireland will be moving towards a smart grid in the next decade where any home would be able to generate their own electricity to consume themselves and perhaps even sell to the grid. I think we need to go full speed ahead. People who make unreasonable objections are only slowing things down. There are bigger fish to fry. Go and stop shell to sea or fracking in England. Why people would want to hinder renewable technology at the same time is beyond common sense.

Because Ireland does not have a history of letting developers screw things up for everyone.

I think this is what is wrong with this country, it's this idea that "Look we need to do this we need to do it now, anyone that stands in our way is just getting in the road of progress" blah blah Celtic Tiger times are good we cannot lose.

Then at some point in time we look back and say "Why in f##k did we allow this to happen.....

In terms of renewable energy and what we as a state should be aiming for I am probably in agreement with most people. But then manner in which we do it, and how the people of Ireland benefit from it how it is regulated are important questions.

But hey jump on the bandwagon I am sure nothing bad ever came from letting developers and private enterprise run the show!

unseenfootage

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I will get back to you on this but how do you know it's not true?





You can count? You do know that 70% via gas is still higher than 24%?

lol...you said that wind electricity is all sold to UK...

I posted data that shows wind electricity form Ireland of Ireland is consumed mostly on the island...

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

lol...you said that wind electricity is all sold to UK...

I posted data that shows wind electricity form Ireland of Ireland is consumed mostly on the island...

take a step back chill for a second.

"The energy from the turbines locally here are not even being sold back to Ireland it is being sold to the UK but that is another story."

Locally here I am talking about turbine they just installed in my area, the company operates in N.Ireland also which is the UK.

From the people locally I have been told that this particular turbines output is being used in the UK not Ireland.

ShowMeTheCash

I remember the government when allowing developers to build estates would stipulate that so many houses get allocated to social housing, the developer more or less had to sell these to the state at cost.

If a wind farm goes up in an area perhaps a % of the energy goes back into that area or community.

I think this would be a reasonable request.

unseenfootage

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

take a step back chill for a second.

"The energy from the turbines locally here are not even being sold back to Ireland it is being sold to the UK but that is another story."

Locally here I am talking about turbine they just installed in my area, the company operates in N.Ireland also which is the UK.

From the people locally I have been told that this particular turbines output is being used in the UK not Ireland.

What is the issue with NI or even rest of UK.
Ireland has special economic and travel status with UK. Interconnections are very useful to transmit electricity between countries and are used all over the world.

It would be foolish for the island of Ireland to not have a common grid/electricity market. Why is it an issue?

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

What is the issue with NI or even rest of UK.
Ireland has special economic and travel status with UK. Interconnections are very useful to transmit electricity between countries and are used all over the world.

It would be foolish for the island of Ireland to not have a common grid/electricity market. Why is it an issue?

Please try and follow, I said that some of the electricity is sold to the the UK, the ESB in turn buys in electricity some of which is from the UK. So indirectly the state could be buying electricity from private companies in Ireland.

It was not arguing against or for just making an observation to the point that was made that private corporations here in Ireland do not sell it back to the state.

Seth Brundle

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I remember the government when allowing developers to build estates would stipulate that so many houses get allocated to social housing, the developer more or less had to sell these to the state at cost.

The government abdicated their responsibility for social housing leaving it to private developers to either provide a portion of developed properties or a monetary alternative for this.
This was a massive failure on the part of national government for which we continue to pay the price.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If a wind farm goes up in an area perhaps a % of the energy goes back into that area or community.

I think this would be a reasonable request.

I don't.
Why should the local community get free electricity purely because it's produced there?
On that basis, there should be free milk, bread, meat and other foods, childcare, internet and so on.
Jut because something is produced locally does not mean that the locals are entitled to free samples.
If this were to come to fruition, the end result would also mean higher prices for non-local customers to cover the costs of the freebies.

unseenfootage

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Please try and follow, I said that some of the electricity is sold to the the UK, the ESB in turn buys in electricity some of which is from the UK. So indirectly the state could be buying electricity from private companies in Ireland.

It was not arguing against or for just making an observation to the point that was made that private corporations here in Ireland do not sell it back to the state.

The grid system is very dynamic. During peak times , mornings - when people get ready for work and evenings when they cook, heat homes and bath etc. the demand for electricity goes up. Wholesale prices are very expensive with some operators having to switch on diesel generators(faster) to ramp up production.
The bottom line is price even if that means we import from mainland UK. This is actually a very positive situation - that electricity can be traded across borders. This is pretty normal in Europe.

Seth Brundle

Incidentally, you seem to have missed my earlier post and I wouldn't mind seeing your responses to it...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What I am saying is we need to be careful in how we allow these developers to operate, I do think there should be a cap on profits if they are selling it back to the state, you do not want to be in a situation where private enterprise have the state over a barrel with regards energy prices.

When you say that "we need to be careful in how we allow these developers to operate", in what way? What exactly are the risks and how should we be careful?
Are you referring to profits? Environmental reasons? Labour and unions?
Do you dislike the fact that XYZ company can make money from "our" wind and you think that they should not be able to?

What would a cap on profits achieve?
Why not have a cap on any profits made by the ESB? Sure as per your earlier link, they made after tax profits of €286 million in 2015 (and €215 million in 2014). Are those profits not excessive?

You seem to have this view that the private energy suppliers are going to rip off their customers.
If a company was very efficient in terms of costs, ethical from a labour and inputs perspective and also made massive profits yet still provided electricity cheaper than ESBI, would you be OK with this?

unseenfootage

kbannon wrote: »

The government abdicated their responsibility for social housing leaving it to private developers to either provide a portion of developed properties or a monetary alternative for this.
This was a massive failure on the part of national government for which we continue to pay the price.


I don't.
Why should the local community get free electricity purely because it's produced there?
On that basis, there should be free milk, bread, meat and other foods, childcare, internet and so on.
Jut because something is produced locally does not mean that the locals are entitled to free samples.
If this were to come to fruition, the end result would also mean higher prices for non-local customers to cover the costs of the freebies.

It would be great if these wind farms do some social responsibility for the local communities to foster improved relations. In south Africa the solar companies that are located near rural communities actually install free solar panels in the impoverished communities, provide training and jobs etc.

Not sure what wind farms could do here in Ireland. Free electricity is not practical and economical at all though. Maybe training, jobs and business opportunities?

Water John

Unseen, some wind farm developers do make a local community contribution annually.
Some do it quietly so that it is not misinterpreted by the anti lobby.

I have no problem if we set up a system that allows locals to buy into a minority interest in a RE project. Not free.

unseenfootage

Water John wrote: »

Unseen, some wind farm developers do make a local community contribution annually.
Some do it quietly so that it is not misinterpreted by the anti lobby.

Yeah. There needs to be more synergy.

A good example is the new Apple Data Center in Athenry that will use about 300MW (same as Dublin) to power up their servers.

Local community are objecting due to environmental concerns even though all the power will come from renewable.

Maybe what Apple could do is to recover the waste heat (hot water) and pump that to the community to use as district heating, lowering their energy bills in the process. Win Win situation for both parties.

djpbarry

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There is a right way to do something and a wrong way to do something then there is a whole lot of space in the middle.

Perhaps you could outline what, in your opinion, would be the right way to harness renewable energy in Ireland?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The debate is on renewable energy which in an emerging area so it is not a case of arguing why my idea is better than the current model.

Renewable energy is hardly an “emerging area”. The industry is a significant player in a number of energy markets, particularly Ireland’s.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am asking the question what should the future of energy look like for our state?

How about you tell us, then maybe we can discuss it?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My personal opinion with renewable energy is that people should be put before profit…

You’ve said that several times without really going into any detail about what it means with regard to energy generation?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am not saying private enterprises cannot operate but I feel there needs to be something and something more.... Government led, community led take you pick

Again, this is all terribly vague – what do you mean by “something more”?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Private owned wind farms that generate local energy is effectively paying a middle man.

But what if that middle man is doing a better job of providing electricity than the state would?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

From the people locally I have been told that this particular turbines output is being used in the UK not Ireland.

How so? Ireland and Northern Ireland are supplied by the same grid?

ancapailldorcha

ShowMeTheCash, please try and be more civil here. Thanks.

ShowMeTheCash

kbannon wrote: »

The government abdicated their responsibility for social housing leaving it to private developers to either provide a portion of developed properties or a monetary alternative for this.
This was a massive failure on the part of national government for which we continue to pay the price.


I don't.
Why should the local community get free electricity purely because it's produced there?
On that basis, there should be free milk, bread, meat and other foods, childcare, internet and so on.
Jut because something is produced locally does not mean that the locals are entitled to free samples.
If this were to come to fruition, the end result would also mean higher prices for non-local customers to cover the costs of the freebies.

Ah so you you don't want anyone getting a handout unless you are getting a hand out also?
The production of the above has no impact on you whatsoever the installation of a wind farm does devalue homes in an area.

But let's look at this rural communities do not have a lot of benefits to larger towns and cities so why is it I pay the same taxes?

The43 is no bin collection service in my area.
There is no mobile phone service in my area either or landline broadband. Our water comes from a group water scheme we all had to pay into.
I do not get a TV signal other than sky but still I have to pay my license to RTE
There no bus service in this area so I need two cars tax on my 2006 is over 900 euro.

The above just sounds completely selfish.

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

The grid system is very dynamic. During peak times , mornings - when people get ready for work and evenings when they cook, heat homes and bath etc. the demand for electricity goes up. Wholesale prices are very expensive with some operators having to switch on diesel generators(faster) to ramp up production.
The bottom line is price even if that means we import from mainland UK. This is actually a very positive situation - that electricity can be traded across borders. This is pretty normal in Europe.

I am not disputing any of this, most of our electricity is purchased from outside Ireland and even a small % that is generated here might end up elsewhere. You disputed this and are now explaining the why...

djpbarry

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But let's look at this rural communities do not have a lot of benefits to larger towns and cities so why is it I pay the same taxes?

Are you sure you pay the same taxes? For example, Dublin residents pay a lot more property tax than residents of Donegal do.

unseenfootage

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am not disputing any of this, most of our electricity is purchased from outside Ireland and even a small % that is generated here might end up elsewhere. You disputed this and are now explaining the why...

Most of our electricity is purchased from outside Ireland?
Where do you get this from?
Actually, the opposite is true.
Just moneypoint alone, which is a coal fired station has the capacity to generate up to 25% of Ireland's electricity requirements.
There are several gas fired stations, peat fired stations hydro and wind that make up most of the +- 4000 MW that Ireland uses daily. What is all that capacity there for if Ireland purchases most of its electricity from outside?
Total Capacity is more then 6000MW but not all is available at the same time due to maintenance etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

ShowMeTheCash

kbannon wrote: »

Incidentally, you seem to have missed my earlier post and I wouldn't mind seeing your responses to it...

Actually I did see it and meant to get round to it as they are valid questions.

kbannon wrote: »

When you say that "we need to be careful in how we allow these developers to operate", in what way? What exactly are the risks and how should we be careful?

I have already sited a report that outlines the level of cronyism and corruption with regards the over-ruling of planning applications.
So allowing developers to put up turbines and not adhering to strict guidelines is wrong.

kbannon wrote: »

Are you referring to profits? Environmental reasons? Labour and unions?
Do you dislike the fact that XYZ company can make money from "our" wind and you think that they should not be able to?

No, simply put its short sighted, people for the most part are selfish and because they are selfish they will ultimately pay more. This comes down to greed companies making huge profits on the back of a natural resource is greed, you might be ok with that, i'm not.

kbannon wrote: »

What would a cap on profits achieve?
Why not have a cap on any profits made by the ESB? Sure as per your earlier link, they made after tax profits of €286 million in 2015 (and €215 million in 2014). Are those profits not excessive?

Profits from ESB are paid back into the exchequer help pay for schools hospitals all the things that go hand in hand with a developed society.
A cap on profits or a state share ensures that no one corporation or person benefits excessively from a renewable natural resource, again this comes down to greed!

kbannon wrote: »

You seem to have this view that the private energy suppliers are going to rip off their customers.
If a company was very efficient in terms of costs, ethical from a labour and inputs perspective and also made massive profits yet still provided electricity cheaper than ESBI, would you be OK with this?

The math does not add up, if a company is making "massive profits" then they are ripping of their customers.

Energy is not like your Netflix bill it's not an indulgence it is a necessity like clean water making huge profits off the back of it is unethical. The one thing about the ESB profits I can at least live with the idea that money is being fed back into our society.

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

Most of our electricity is purchased from outside Ireland?
Where do you get this from?
Actually, the opposite is true.
Just moneypoint alone, which is a coal fired station has the capacity to generate up to 25% of Ireland's electricity requirements.
There are several gas fired stations, peat fired stations hydro and wind that make up most of the +- 4000 MW that Ireland uses daily. What is all that capacity there for if Ireland purchases most of its electricity from outside?
Total Capacity is more then 6000MW but not all is available at the same time due to maintenance etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

70% of our electricity is generate via gas we have literally went over this 3 times.
95% of our gas in imported so close to 70% of our generated electricity is generated from imported gas.

ShowMeTheCash

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you sure you pay the same taxes? For example, Dublin residents pay a lot more property tax than residents of Donegal do.

That is true they vary from county to county but does not include town dwelling vs rural.
I do not even need to compare myself to someone living in Dublin I can compare myself to someone living in Letterkenny in Donegal.

unseenfootage

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

70% of our electricity is generate via gas we have literally went over this 3 times.
95% of our gas in imported so close to 70% of our generated electricity is generated from imported gas.

Look.

1) A small amount (probably less than 5%) of electricity is purchased and sold from and to the UK mainland via the interconnection transmission lines. This is proper electricity.
2) Ireland imports the bulk of its fossil fuels which are used to generate electricity.

It is misleading to now say, because of 2) that Ireland imports most of its electricity. It does not. It imports fossil fuels (primary energy) and then uses this to generate electricity!

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

Look.

1) A small amount (probably less than 5%) of electricity is purchased from the UK mainland via the interconnection transmission lines. This is proper electricity.
2) Ireland imports the bulk of its fossil fuels which are used to generate electricity.

It is misleading to now say, because of 2) that Ireland imports most of its electricity. It does not. It imports fossil fuels (primary energy) and then uses this to generate electricity!

Really I think it more misleading to try and state that Ireland generates 70% of its own electricity when the electricity is generated on the back of an imported fuel.

Without the fuel it cannot generate any!

But how many times have we went over this? I have repeatedly said that Ireland imports it's energy in one form or another.

So I will go back to my original statement I will even put in the (directly or indirectly)

"I am not disputing any of this, most of our electricity (directly or indirectly) is purchased from outside Ireland and even a small % that is generated here might end up elsewhere. You disputed this and are now explaining the why... "

Do you have a point?

unseenfootage

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Without the fuel it cannot generate any!

Wind, Hydro and Solar don't need any fuel.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Really I think it more misleading to try and state that Ireland generates 70% of its own electricity when the electricity is generated on the back of an imported fuel.

Could you please advise the SEAI, Energy companies and all the academic institutions in Ireland to fix their literature to accommodate your terminology rather than theirs. If you go to their websites you will see that the terminology is precisely how I am stating.

Anyway I see no point in discussing this particular issue with you since you refuse to budge. If you want to continue using energy and electricity in the manner that you do then I can't help you.

Seth Brundle

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Ah so you you don't want anyone getting a handout unless you are getting a hand out also?

I never said or even suggested that.
I questioned your logic.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The production of the above has no impact on you whatsoever the installation of a wind farm does devalue homes in an area.

Many things affect value both positively and negatively. Should all of these be set to pay or earn from their local communities?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But let's look at this rural communities do not have a lot of benefits to larger towns and cities so why is it I pay the same taxes?

The43 is no bin collection service in my area.
There is no mobile phone service in my area either or landline broadband. Our water comes from a group water scheme we all had to pay into.
I do not get a TV signal other than sky but still I have to pay my license to RTE
There no bus service in this area so I need two cars tax on my 2006 is over 900 euro.

The above just sounds completely selfish.

But your home was cheaper. Your property tax is cheaper.
If city life has so many positives then move house!

As for the motor tax, I pay over 1050 so your argument is moot!

Seth Brundle

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I have already sited a report that outlines the level of cronyism and corruption with regards the over-ruling of planning applications.
So allowing developers to put up turbines and not adhering to strict guidelines is wrong.

I've ignored your Shell To Sea reports because they are biased. I'd rather see independent reports.
As for developers allowed to put up turbines and not adhere the strict guidelines, name one site where this has occurred?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No, simply put its short sighted, people for the most part are selfish and because they are selfish they will ultimately pay more. This comes down to greed companies making huge profits on the back of a natural resource is greed, you might be ok with that, i'm not.

I'm failing to understand where your view is coming from.
Do you oppose companies making a profit or companies making a profit purely from natural resources?
How do you define "huge profits"?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Profits from ESB are paid back into the exchequer help pay for schools hospitals all the things that go hand in hand with a developed society.
A cap on profits or a state share ensures that no one corporation or person benefits excessively from a renewable natural resource, again this comes down to greed!

So it's OK for the ESB to effectively plunder local resources and sell them at x rate but if a private company were to do the same it's wrong?
As for a cap on profits, what kind of cap? What rate?
How would such a cap affect new entrants to the market?
What benefits other than additional taxation would be gained from such a cap (bearing in mind that it's likely all money would go to the exchequer rather than the local economy)?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The math does not add up, if a company is making "massive profits" then they are ripping of their customers.

Energy is not like your Netflix bill it's not an indulgence it is a necessity like clean water making huge profits off the back of it is unethical. The one thing about the ESB profits I can at least live with the idea that money is being fed back into our society.

Nonsense.
The company I work for (not energy related) is quite efficient and we've managed to keep our overheads down. We're not ripping off our customers but we are quite productive.

Water John

Kbannon we are back to that profit is a dirty word.

unseenfootage

Just ran a price comparison check .

Electric Ireland (ESB) - which is semi state owned, is €100 more expensive than energia, which is the cheapest. EI ranks about 5th.

Bear in mind that ESB is vertically integrated, they import their own primary energy (fossil fuels,) generate electricity, transmit(through state owned Eirgrid) and supplies to the customers.

State owned is not necessarily the cheapest or the best service.

It is quite often the contrary.

ShowMeTheCash

unseenfootage wrote: »

Wind, Hydro and Solar don't need any fuel.

The 70% that runs on gas it needs fuel you are arguing over the 23% I am talking about the majority of of our energy needs.

unseenfootage wrote: »

Could you please advise the SEAI, Energy companies and all the academic institutions in Ireland to fix their literature to accommodate your terminology rather than theirs. If you go to their websites you will see that the terminology is precisely how I am stating.

This is idiotic your arguing literally over nothing over and over again, I say Ireland buys in most of its energy as 70% of the Ireland electricity is generated from gas which we import. You want to dispute that or maybe you don't you just keep banging on about the 23% and that the electicity in generated here albeit with an imported energy source.

unseenfootage wrote: »

Anyway I see no point in discussing this particular issue with you since you refuse to budge. If you want to continue using energy and electricity in the manner that you do then I can't help you.

Budge on what, I am stating facts you are arguing over semantics with no relevance what so ever.

ShowMeTheCash

kbannon wrote: »

I've ignored your Shell To Sea reports because they are biased. I'd rather see independent reports.
As for developers allowed to put up turbines and not adhere the strict guidelines, name one site where this has occurred?

I am not talking about the shell to sea report, I am talking about the report from the nation trust of Ireland but I see you have ignored that also.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/04/20120416StateoftheNation_PlanningSystem.pdf

But just to give some context:

"An Taisce's experience in taking appeals such as those described above is that the practice of ‘rate chasing’ and the lure of lucrative capital contribution levies together with low level cronyism and the promise of 'hundreds of jobs with no thought to employment displacement are powerful corrupting factors in determining planning applications which in many instances override proper planning considerations."

kbannon wrote: »

I'm failing to understand where your view is coming from.
Do you oppose companies making a profit or companies making a profit purely from natural resources?
How do you define "huge profits"?

This is more specific to natural resources and in particular renewable energy. I do not have an issue with profits or even huge profits as long as an enterprise is seeding a proportional amount of these profits back into that area from which the natural resource if being extracted.

kbannon wrote: »

So it's OK for the ESB to effectively plunder local resources and sell them at x rate but if a private company were to do the same it's wrong?

Are you suggesting if the ESB get away with it then it makes it right?
I am not saying the ESB has it right all I was saying is the ESB pumps profits back to the Irish exchequer.

kbannon wrote: »

As for a cap on profits, what kind of cap? What rate?
How would such a cap affect new entrants to the market?
What benefits other than additional taxation would be gained from such a cap (bearing in mind that it's likely all money would go to the exchequer rather than the local economy)?

You think a company owner making X profit on a company will pump that money back into the Irish economy? Why do you think that?

As for caps and rates this was merely a suggestion each development needs to be looked at carefully, my suggestion is that we need to look at this carefully, you appear opposed to that suggestion you want to do what you seem to do best, ignore it!

kbannon wrote: »

Nonsense.
The company I work for (not energy related) is quite efficient and we've managed to keep our overheads down. We're not ripping off our customers but we are quite productive.

Has anyone got super rich in your company?
Well I doubt you are making excessive profits!
And if they are it's usually not the work force but directors and investors.
But look I take on board what you are saying, that was perhaps an off the cuff comment, there are things people are willing to buy at excess and companies can do well from it, but there are areas that need to be regulated and ares of ethical importance, look at the banks, the bank where giving huge bonuses off the back of other peoples money then needed the government to bail them out when they screwed it all up. This was ethically wrong!

If you develop an app and sell it on the market at a euro and it sells 10 million times I have less of an issue here, you made something and sold it for a reasonably cheap price and turned a huge profit..... Well done you!

ShowMeTheCash

kbannon wrote: »

I never said or even suggested that.
I questioned your logic.

And think your comparison void or at very least not a fair comparison.

kbannon wrote: »

Many things affect value both positively and negatively. Should all of these be set to pay or earn from their local communities?
But your home was cheaper. Your property tax is cheaper.
If city life has so many positives then move house!

Again let me simplify this for you as you are probably looking at Donegal rural and Dublin inner city or some other City in ireland but that is not fair comparison.
Let's compare Donegal with Donegal.
Letterkenny large town.
Cost of my home vs cost of a home in the town, no different house in the country probably cost more to build as it would have been a single development vs a development project or estate.
The property tax will be the same as will all taxes in the county but rural people benefit less from inner city/town amenities.

Your comment about moving house is a non argument, my argument is not that the city is better the argument is that as someone from the country I will pay the same as someone else from a larger city or town within my own county but will not see the same kind of benefits.

So when I suggest that if a development is set up in the country that people from that area should benefit you argue against that stating why should they get a freebie as the rest of the country will ultimately be paying for it.
So it does not bother you that we benefit less from most things in a developed society but pay the same but object to something in our own area that could be beneficial to that area, would you not consider this self centered?

kbannon wrote: »

As for the motor tax, I pay over 1050 so your argument is moot!

Not moot you simply missed the point I was making, I am left with no option but to own two cars as there is no public transportation.

djpbarry

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not have an issue with profits or even huge profits as long as an enterprise is seeding a proportional amount of these profits back into that area from which the natural resource if being extracted.

Isn’t that achieved by, for example, paying salaries to their staff?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If you develop an app and sell it on the market at a euro and it sells 10 million times I have less of an issue here, you made something and sold it for a reasonably cheap price and turned a huge profit..... Well done you!

But if someone develops a really efficient wind turbine and sells cheap electricity, you have an issue with them making a profit?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Not moot you simply missed the point I was making, I am left with no option but to own two cars as there is no public transportation.

But that’s your choice – you chose to live in an isolated location.

What does this have to do with wind turbines anyway?

ShowMeTheCash

djpbarry wrote: »

Isn’t that achieved by, for example, paying salaries to their staff?

Again in general business terms yes there are lots of areas where this would be enough, but I feel there are areas within our society where ethically people should be put before profit and renewable energy is one of those places. So to simply state, well there the company pays taxes or it employ's X amount of people is not enough in my opinion.

djpbarry wrote: »

But if someone develops a really efficient wind turbine and sells cheap electricity, you have an issue with them making a profit?

Well for a start I would say very few of these developers are engineers who develop or manufacture the turbine technology, they are simply developers and investors who buy it with the aim to make a profit.

And again this is not really about profit its about private enterprise exploiting an area that should be protected.

Businesses exploit that is what they do, they exploit an area in the market to make money and in many cases there is nothing wrong with that, if people are happy with a product and there are no real ethical boundaries crosses for the most part most people are happy.

Take cigarettes, cigarettes are bad for you but we still sell them, at a point in time it was deemed unethical to advertise them on TV so it was banned.

Someone mention earlier that "profit is a bad word" but I find it funny when people try and say "hold on here, should we allow this" people react buy jumping to a polar opposite..... "What's wrong with you do you not like free markets do you not like profits people should be allowed to do what they want..."

djpbarry wrote: »

But that’s your choice – you chose to live in an isolated location.
What does this have to do with wind turbines anyway?

And poor people choose to be poor and sick people choose to be sick.. You have it all figured out.. why did I not think of this earlier I can just move!

But look it has nothing to do with wind turbines, it was an argument over the idea of turbine company paying something back to the communities where the turbines are erected. Another poster thought this to be unfair stating that if that was the case he should get free bread for living near a bakery and free milk and meat if he lived near a farm. But I think most people greedy, actually not even greedy I think people are happy knowing no one else benefits from something where it does not also benefit them..

When it comes to government money or council allocated money whether it be for roads, schools, public-transport, telecommunications or whatever, inner-cities and townlands get funding first, rural people see that money last. And look I totally understand why this is, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few....
But if a rural community that does not have broadband, does not have a mains water supply or sewage system, does not have organised sanitation (bin men), does not have an allocated bus route but to name just a few things that most people take for granted is now to become be a hub for the generation of electricity then I would think some of the above things need to be addressed, if not then I just see this as another developer/corporation coming exploring an area and f##king over the indigenous population.

We as a people are spineless and I include myself in this description before everyone jumps all over it, I look what has happened in this country over the last 20 years the corruption the squandering of money and resources and what it comes down to is everyone is only looking out for themselves, as long as it is not happening to me people simply do not give a sh1t....

But I am away off on another tangent , but in short nothing to do with turbines!

RickyOFlaherty

<snip>

Markcheese

I live in a village in the country, but we probably have more power generators nearby than almost anywhere else in the country, (esb, bord gais,and private)
Should there be a kickback to locals ??-
How much extra should go on the average irish esb - then theres how you whats local ? Within a km ? 2 km ? Downwind getsmore?
Should you pay more for coal than gas electricity...
What about other natural assets, harbours ? Bogs ?
A very slippery slope to go down !!

ShowMeTheCash

Markcheese wrote: »

I live in a village in the country, but we probably have more power generators nearby than almost anywhere else in the country, (esb, bord gais,and private)
Should there be a kickback to locals ??-
How much extra should go on the average irish esb - then theres how you whats local ? Within a km ? 2 km ? Downwind getsmore?
Should you pay more for coal than gas electricity...
What about other natural assets, harbours ? Bogs ?
A very slippery slope to go down !!

Kickbacks? I think you are twisting this, I am not suggesting people get money, I am suggesting if a company comes into an area to exploit it for financial again then they should add something to that community and not just take from it.

That could take the form of funding a project to see a bus route be added to an area or work to roads or any of the areas I mention in my previous post.
But even taking a step back from local funding I have no issue with a proportion of this going on national projects either does not necessarily need local.

Just some other points coal and gas are imported, almost all of 95% of gas and think 80% of coal so we all pay the same because we are buying it in we do not naturally produce it.

If they started pumping the gas out of the ground then yes I think a % belongs to the people of Ireland not a corporation... This I would argue even more so than say renewable energy as once this is spent it is spent.

What natural assets are you talking about?
Harbors? What do you mean could you give an example?
Bogs ? Again not sure what you mean? Bogs or commonage in many places is shared among people of an area, that is how it tends to work here anyways.

Personally I think you have this backwards, we have been on the slippery slope I think for too long!

Seth Brundle

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Personally I think you have this backwards, we have been on the slippery slope I think for too long!

I'm looking at it from a different perspective than you. I see it as a company takes a big investment risk in setting up a business here be it wind or whatever.
The sense of entitlement amongst so many irish people is coming through. Its almost like "it's ours and if you want some then give us something for nothing".
If you want to benefit from the investing in wind energy then you take the risk first!

Water John

Cash you have come a good distance from originally advocating public ownership because wind was a natural resource. Now you are saying the Wind developer give some thing to the community.
I agree with the latter, even agree further, with locals able to own a minority share for investment.

ShowMeTheCash

kbannon wrote: »

I'm looking at it from a different perspective than you. I see it as a company takes a big investment risk in setting up a business here be it wind or whatever.
The sense of entitlement amongst so many irish people is coming through. Its almost like "it's ours and if you want some then give us something for nothing".
If you want to benefit from the investing in wind energy then you take the risk first!

The above may appear plausible but I think the reality to be something very different.

We cannot all chase every possible project we do sometimes require people to operate with the sense of the social responsibility and not just the economical potential and when that does not work we need government to step in and put in boundaries in places where it makes sense to do so else we would just live in a dog eat dog world.

I think we have different takes on how we want to see our country run or perhaps the society in which we want to live.
I personally would consider myself a socialist it is my opinion we all have a social responsibility was well as an individual responsibility, you come across as having a more capitalist mentality.

And look, we all do pay, these companies do get funding they also get tax breaks, I see any company renewable energy companies get a break from corporation tax in one of the reports I read for the initial 8 years.

What I have seen was a project turned down due to the environmental impact it would have to an area, twice this was ruled only to then get over turned, once the developer got the planning accepted he then reapplied to have the Turbine increased in size and the blades increased which he also got.

How could an planning authority get it so wrong? I mean eventually buckling and saying yes to the two but then to say yes to the increased hight and the increased blade size I find bewildering.

To then take something from an area on top of this and give nothing back I would consider capitalism at it's finest!

ShowMeTheCash

Water John wrote: »

Cash you have come a good distance from originally advocating public ownership because wind was a natural resource. Now you are saying the Wind developer give some thing to the community.
I agree with the latter, even agree further, with locals able to own a minority share for investment.

Earlier was saying government input ideally our government would be a reliable source and I know this too is not really the case but I did say this was an idealistic idea.

My main is here is to look at all the facts best we can and look to something that is good not just for big corporations but for everyone. I do understand you cannot make everyone happy but that does not mean we should sit back and do nothing.

BoatMad

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The above may appear plausible but I think the reality to be something very different.

We cannot all chase every possible project we do sometimes require people to operate with the sense of the social responsibility and not just the economical potential and when that does not work we need government to step in and put in boundaries in places where it makes sense to do so else we would just live in a dog eat dog world.

I think we have different takes on how we want to see our country run or perhaps the society in which we want to live.
I personally would consider myself a socialist it is my opinion we all have a social responsibility was well as an individual responsibility, you come across as having a more capitalist mentality.

And look, we all do pay, these companies do get funding they also get tax breaks, I see any company renewable energy companies get a break from corporation tax in one of the reports I read for the initial 8 years.

What I have seen was a project turned down due to the environmental impact it would have to an area, twice this was ruled only to then get over turned, once the developer got the planning accepted he then reapplied to have the Turbine increased in size and the blades increased which he also got.

How could an planning authority get it so wrong? I mean eventually buckling and saying yes to the two but then to say yes to the increased hight and the increased blade size I find bewildering.

To then take something from an area on top of this and give nothing back I would consider capitalism at it's finest!

You're view point is perfectly correct for a communist , but completely wrong from a capitalist perspective. Thanks for the socialist perspective , we can move on now.

ShowMeTheCash

BoatMad wrote: »

You're view point is perfectly correct for a communist , but completely wrong from a capitalist perspective. Thanks for the socialist perspective , we can move on now.

You do not seem to know the difference between a communist and socialist but we can move on from this!

ShowMeTheCash

I know everyone has there point of view but here is a video that gives some perspective of people who are impacted and the companies involved.

Granted a lot of these are people from the UK and Europe but same information can be applied here.

ShowMeTheCash

Let me ask another question.

Currently there are restrictions on exporting power from wind farms.
But energy companies are pushing to get this changed so they can sell power to the UK and Europe.

Let's hypothetically say Ireland invests heavily and gives funding for companies to build wind farms up and down the country.
Then these companies decide to sell this energy to the UK and Europe as they can make more money exporting it.....

Anyone have any issues with this?