The Healy Raes

TaurenDruid

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You just don't understand all the facts are there for you, you don't consider the wider implications of an urban lifestyle.

There is a huge infrastructure in cities that rural people rarely use, just going out and buying a pair of shoes emits more carbon than me burning peat for a few weeks. Go and have a look at the data its there for all.

"The truth is out there! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!" is what this sounds like!

"20 bags of peat can't melt steel beams!" (which is true).

SlowBlowin

TaurenDruid wrote: »

"The truth is out there! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!" is what this sounds like!

"20 bags of peat can't melt steel beams!" (which is true).

Again utter rubbish, I have a full career in science industry, go and check my post history arguing with people on the conspiracy thread, people who ignore established facts like you.

All you can do is call people names as you did when the MHR speech was first discussed. Why not answer the questions about his speech, I guess its because you find it too difficult.

Again if you want to discuss the video feel free to debate (in an intelligent manner).

TaurenDruid

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Again utter rubbish, I have a full career in science industry, go and check my post history arguing with people on the conspiracy thread, people who ignore established facts like you.

All you can do is call people names as you did when the MHR speech was first discussed. Why not answer the questions about his speech, I guess its because you find it too difficult.

Again if you want to discuss the video feel free to debate (in an intelligent manner).

I've already discussed his video, maybe you missed it.

And what's this nonsense about "just going out and buying a pair of shoes emits more carbon than me burning peat for a few weeks". Do you go barefoot yourself, like?

Rows Grower

mr potato head wrote: »

It's a challange, the only way to replace a carry home fuel like turf and not just create another problem is to use an existing waste source of some kind. Wood bricks from an existing waste stream rather than timber cut for that purpose could be one option, but do we have enough and how much energy to process it?

Just because it's a difficult challenge, doesn't mean it can be ignored and we can carry on regardless. I would put the challenge ahead is of the same magnitude as the original electrification of the country.



Where did you get that number? I spent far less than that on a deep retrofit going from E3 > A1 on a 1960s build. I now spend about €1000-1200 all in on light, heat and charging a car. Once I'm finished saving for it I'll add solar to the system and that will drop again.

The big difference is the comfort of the home, before the retrofit we would have evenings under blankets and a feeling of pouring money down the drain to keep the house comfortable.



Are we not? even if climate change wasn't real, which it sounds like you are suggesting?
Oil prices are only going one way, failure to act is only going to drive people at risk further into energy poverty. Retrofits and renewables are a way of reducing long-term energy poverty in low-income households.

We just need to agree on a way to support the transition, then we will have fewer people living in sub-standard housing and more control over our energy independence as a country.
0% VAT on building supplies for retrofit, 0% government loans for work. Maybe approach retrofits like council housing and cover the work with a buyback clause on the % invested (We bailed out the banks, this is a chance to bail out the people). I can keep thinking and am open to discussion, but make no mistake, this is going to be a multigenerational transition!

No, we're not.

I have no idea how you can surmise that I think climate change is not real but it really doesn't bother me what you or any other stranger on the internet thinks or surmise's.

Have a look at oil prices over the last 18 months and please tell me which way they are going in the future so I can adjust my shares portfolio accordingly.

SlowBlowin

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I've already discussed his video, maybe you missed it.

And what's this nonsense about "just going out and buying a pair of shoes emits more carbon than me burning peat for a few weeks". Do you go barefoot yourself, like?

You have not answered the question.

The shoes ? Yes like your 160 euro Jeans. Google it, educate yourself outside school.

Water John

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You just don't understand all the facts are there for you, you don't consider the wider implications of an urban lifestyle.

There is a huge infrastructure in cities that rural people rarely use, just going out and buying a pair of shoes emits more carbon than me burning peat for a few weeks. Go and have a look at the data its there for all.

I asked a question of the thread, did you not see it ?

I live in the countryside and drive an EV, so going to town for a pair of shoes isn't an issue. again, we're naming the wrong problem. Yes, housing urban and rural needs upgrading, both insulation and sealing. This dramatically lowers the environmental impact. The energy needed then to heat the house is quite small.

Rows Grower

Water John wrote: »

I live in the countryside and drive an EV, so going to town for a pair of shoes isn't an issue. again, we're naming the wrong problem. Yes, housing urban and rural needs upgrading, both insulation and sealing. This dramatically lowers the environmental impact. The energy needed then to heat the house is quite small.

Where are you getting this notion that rural houses need upgrading of insulation and sealing?

I live in a rural area, I can look outside my front door and literally not see another house for miles. If the youngfella ran down the hall he'd probably heat the house for a day or two.

Not everyone outside the city is living in a draughty cold house with a sheepdog sleeping in the bed to keep them warm.

SlowBlowin

Water John wrote: »

I live in the countryside and drive an EV, so going to town for a pair of shoes isn't an issue. again, we're naming the wrong problem. Yes, housing urban and rural needs upgrading, both insulation and sealing. This dramatically lowers the environmental impact. The energy needed then to heat the house is quite small.

Yes an insulation initiative would produce immediate savings in CO2 - far more sensible than a peat ban without an alternative fuel. Looking at the figures it seems such an obvious first step.

I mentioned the shoes as some people dont grasp the CO2 impact of a consumer lifestyle. A pair of shoes is costed at 70 Kg of CO2. The poster believes that a rural existence is more damaging than an urban existence, but I dont think he is including the CO2 impact building and running the city.

Water John

We set out a clear, open plan to reducing emissions. No green washing accepted.
Having it fair is the best way to get the maximum number of people willing to buy into it.
There is no discussion however on the need to lower emissions, that needs to be, a given.

mgn

Water John wrote: »

We set out a clear, open plan to reducing emissions. No green washing accepted.
Having it fair is the best way to get the maximum number of people willing to buy into it.
There is no discussion however on the need to lower emissions, that needs to be, a given.

Who exactly is this we?

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You just don't understand all the facts are there for you, you don't consider the wider implications of an urban lifestyle.

There is a huge infrastructure in cities that rural people rarely use, just going out and buying a pair of shoes emits more carbon than me burning peat for a few weeks. Go and have a look at the data its there for all.

I asked a question of the thread, did you not see it ?

An apartment dweller in a city walks to the shoe shop, buys shoes and walks home. (Also lives close to a cobbler so the shoes last longer)

A rural dweller drives to the shoe shop or indeed the same shoe shop as above in the city... or gets it delivered by a van.

Which do you think is better for the environment?

Sharpyshoot

The shoe shop van has a battery engine sure.

John_Rambo

Sharpyshoot wrote: »

The shoe shop van has a battery engine sure.

Very rare for rural goods transportation, there is electric delivery in the cites (of course!), but unfortunately, due to the scattered nature of Irish one off housing a diesel van is the only option.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

An apartment dweller in a city walks to the shoe shop, buys shoes and walks home. (Also lives close to a cobbler so the shoes last longer)

A rural dweller drives to the shoe shop or indeed the same shoe shop as above in the city... or gets it delivered by a van.

Which do you think is better for the environment?

You just dont get it...

Try this - infrastructure costs CO2 to build and operate. Do urban dwellers use more infrastructure that rural dweller ? More takeaways, more restaurants, more cinema, streetlights, concrete, aircons, slow moving traffic etc etc etc..

Citroen2cv

John_Rambo wrote: »

there is electric delivery in the cites (of course!).

To sit in traffic for long periods.

John_Rambo

Citroen2cv wrote: »

To sit in traffic for long periods not emitting fumes, the electric cargo bikes use bus lanes and sail through traffic

Fixed that for you.

SlowBlowin

You mock MHR for saying the peat ban was ill thought out, yet not one of will answer the question I posted earlier, speaks volumes.

mr potato head

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I mentioned the shoes as some people dont grasp the CO2 impact of a consumer lifestyle. A pair of shoes is costed at 70 Kg of CO2. The poster believes that a rural existence is more damaging than an urban existence, but I dont think he is including the CO2 impact building and running the city.

I think a fair number of people living in the country are just as likely to have a consumer lifestyle as urban dwellers, you don't have to go far to see big houses and big cars in any rural setting in Ireland. I spend a lot of time in Cavan and the Midlands and there's plenty of big houses and very wasteful activity.
Likewise, there are plenty of "ordinary people" as DHR describes them in urban areas, we aren't all wealthy.

There's also woefully inefficient housing stock in every county in the country, rural and urban. Carbon taxation on heating oil will hit those in energy poverty as much as a peat ban will hit many rural communities.

To get back to the original point, I believe we agree that we need solutions. The Rural Independent TDs have offered some amendments, which is great, but we need more ideas from them rather than stonewalling, caricature soundbites and shouting.

When a professor states this about the further expansion of agrifood sector proposed by the dept of agriculture and the paltry cuts to emissions promised for the sector, it doesn't leave me with the same impression that the HRs were under:

“If agriculture is offering 10 per cent, that leaves all other sectors having to reduce their emissions by 70 per cent to reach this legally-binding target...Who do they expect to take up the slack? Is it the car driver or urban dweller that will be expected to shoulder reductions of up to 70 per cent through increased taxation to meet the national carbon budget? If not, is the sector proposing to ignore carrying its fair share?”

he also said:

hard-working farmers of Ireland were once again being led into a policy cul de sac.

“Having invested heavily in equipment and facilities to accommodate powerful food industry strategies, they run the risk of carrying unproductive high debt and even having stranded assets in the years ahead. The farmers of Ireland deserve much better.”

Further expansion of agrifood sector backed despite climate change challenges - Irish Times Apr 2021

Sharpyshoot

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You mock MHR for saying the peat ban was ill thought out, yet not one of will answer the question I posted earlier, speaks volumes.

What is the question? Apologies but not in the humour to read back pages of posts.

SlowBlowin

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116991790&postcount=1791

Edit: Do supporters of the peat ban believe carry home fuels should be allowed for the 100,000 homes that are heated this way, and if yes what fuel. If no what do they do instead ?

TaurenDruid

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Yes an insulation initiative would produce immediate savings in CO2 - far more sensible than a peat ban without an alternative fuel. Looking at the figures it seems such an obvious first step.

I mentioned the shoes as some people dont grasp the CO2 impact of a consumer lifestyle. A pair of shoes is costed at 70 Kg of CO2. The poster believes that a rural existence is more damaging than an urban existence, but I dont think he is including the CO2 impact building and running the city.

Wasn't it you who told us three of four days ago you were going to collate all the figures and prove which was more harmful?

(Seriously, don't bother, because it's a pointless exercise. As already pointed out.)

I really don't know where you're going with the shoes thing. 70kg to produce a pair and get them to market? Ok, sure, sounds about right. But you wear footwear whether you're in the city or in the country, so what point is it you're trying to make?

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You just dont get it...

Try this - infrastructure costs CO2 to build and operate. Do urban dwellers use more infrastructure that rural dweller ? More takeaways, more restaurants, more cinema, streetlights, concrete, aircons, slow moving traffic etc etc etc..

Urban dwellers use existing infrastructure. Even new builds are a couple of metres next to electricity, sewerage, wifi etc... Car dependent rural living is bad for the environment, more miles traveled in cars, impossible to serve with public transport, small journeys are in cars, not on foot and take Galway for example, rural people driving in to the city to use the offices, cinemas, restaurants etc... Very bad. We need people to start populating the dying rural towns and villages and support local.

magicbastarder

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I mentioned the shoes as some people dont grasp the CO2 impact of a consumer lifestyle. A pair of shoes is costed at 70 Kg of CO2. The poster believes that a rural existence is more damaging than an urban existence, but I dont think he is including the CO2 impact building and running the city.

am confused. do rural people not wear shoes?
you're comparing the CO2 footprint of manufacturing shoes to the peat you burn to heat your house. to call this apples and oranges is an understatement.

SlowBlowin

magicbastarder wrote: »

am confused. do rural people not wear shoes?
you're comparing the CO2 footprint of manufacturing shoes to the peat you burn to heat your house. to call this apples and oranges is an understatement.

It was to demonstrate that all activity/infrastructure has a co2 footprint, use less infrastructure lower carbon footprint.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

Urban dwellers use existing infrastructure.

It were built initially, and cities are constantly being maintained, rebuilt and evolving.

mgn

What about the Green Party's policy on no limit on asylum seekers let into the country, the building of new receptions centres and own door accommodation after being in the country only a few weeks, I suppose these cost nothing in Co2 emissions and then you have people crying about a postman delivering a few letters around the country in a diesel van,

People would want to wake to f*ck up to what their agendas are.

Shower of muppets have lost the run of themselves.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

It were built initially, and cities are constantly being maintained, rebuilt and evolving.

For thousands, and even millions of people. That's environmentally efficient. You're not getting it, I'll ask you again...

5000 people go home on electric trains in a city.
5000 people go home in single occupant diesel cars in rural areas.

Which do you think is worse for the environment?

SlowBlowin

As this thread is about MHR, in particular your dislike of his comments on the peat ban, anyone care to answer the posted question about carry home fuel and that this ban will not change any CO2 emissions for the better.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

As this thread is about MHR, in particular your dislike of his comments on the peat ban, anyone care to answer the posted question about carry home fuel and that this ban will not change any CO2 emissions for the better.

What did I say about his comments on the peat ban?

magicbastarder

anecdote warning. i'll compare my parents in law (rural location) with my own parents (suburban)
the road i grew up on has a house approx every 5m (houses take up roughly 10m, but there are houses on both sides of the road). the road my wife grew up on, for several km, has roughly one house every 400m at a guess.
if my father wants to pick up the paper, it's a 1km round trip, so he usually walks it. if my father in law wants to pick up the paper, it's an 8km round trip, i don't think he's walked that in 30 or 40 years.

provision of pretty much every single service to my parents is cheaper. electricity; post; phone/broadband; road infrastructure.
if they want to go into the city, they hop on the train (ten minute walk from the house).
my parents in law can do nothing without driving.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

For thousands, and even millions of people. That's environmentally efficient. You're not getting it, I'll ask you again...

5000 people go home on electric trains in a city.
5000 people go home in single occupant diesel cars in rural areas.

Which do you think is worse for the environment?

The 10,000 who cant get on the train and take the car anyway on a slow crawl to work. The 5000 on the train most likely have a car at home too with its huge CO2 manufacturing footprint..

You have to consider everything.

mgn

John_Rambo wrote: »

Urban dwellers use existing infrastructure. Even new builds are a couple of metres next to electricity, sewerage, wifi etc... Car dependent rural living is bad for the environment, more miles traveled in cars, impossible to serve with public transport, small journeys are in cars, not on foot and take Galway for example, rural people driving in to the city to use the offices, cinemas, restaurants etc... Very bad. We need people to start populating the dying rural towns and villages and support local.

Rural dwellers use existing infrastructure also, the road is already there, the ESB poles are there, the water main is there, or some group water scheme if not bore your own well.

So it doesn't make a bit of difference to add an another house on a road.

magicbastarder

so these new occupants of this new house don't actually leave the house once they move in?

mgn

SlowBlowin wrote: »

As this thread is about MHR, in particular your dislike of his comments on the peat ban, anyone care to answer the posted question about carry home fuel and that this ban will not change any CO2 emissions for the better.

Lets ban gas at the same time as peat seen that we are all in this together.

Let see how that goes down with the city dwellers.

SlowBlowin

magicbastarder wrote: »

anecdote warning. i'll compare my parents in law (rural location) with my own parents (suburban)
the road i grew up on has a house approx every 5m (houses take up roughly 10m, but there are houses on both sides of the road). the road my wife grew up on, for several km, has roughly one house every 400m at a guess.
if my father wants to pick up the paper, it's a 1km round trip, so he usually walks it. if my father in law wants to pick up the paper, it's an 8km round trip, i don't think he's walked that in 30 or 40 years.

provision of pretty much every single service to my parents is cheaper. electricity; post; phone/broadband; road infrastructure.
if they want to go into the city, they hop on the train (ten minute walk from the house).
my parents in law can do nothing without driving.

Be really interesting to know annual driven mileage for each (so I can work out how many pairs of shoes difference there is) ?

I wonder if the available infrastructure of the urban setting makes for more short trips ?

magicbastarder

what is it about shoes? this is just weird.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

The 10,000 who cant get on the train and take the car anyway on a slow crawl to work. The 5000 on the train most likely have a car at home too with its huge CO2 manufacturing footprint..

The answer is 5000 people using an electric train is infinitely more efficient and the people in the cars are causing much more damage. You're point about the other 10000 means we need more infrastructure in the cities.

mgn wrote: »

Rural dwellers use existing infrastructure also, the road is already there, the ESB poles are there, the water main is there, or some group water scheme if not bore your own well.

So it doesn't make a bit of difference to add an another house on a road.

The further away from other houses the more inefficient the hook ups are and the more machinery and new infrastructure is needed. Don't forget the rural dweller is going to be car dependent most likely for life.

SlowBlowin

mgn wrote: »

Lets ban gas at the same time as peat seen that we are all in this together.

Let see how that goes down with the city dwellers.

Yep 0.20 KgCO2 for gas 0.38 KgCO2 for peat, but then you have all the gas infrastructure too which makes a big CO2 contribution, much closer than most people think.

If the gas supply was stopped people would expect support and an alternative, but for the 100,000 homes burring peat, nothing. so everyone's buying imported coal. Top job of saving co2.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Yep 0.20 KgCO2 for gas 0.38 KgCO2 for peat, but then you have all the gas infrastructure too which makes a big CO2 contribution, much closer than most people think.

If the gas supply was stopped people would expect support and an alternative, but for the 100,000 homes burring peat, nothing. so everyone's buying imported coal. Top job of saving co2.

Peat is the most damaging fuel in terms of global warming; even worse than coal.
It has a lower calorific value than coal (generating less energy per tonne when it is burned) and yet it produces higher CO2 emissions per unit, so it is the least climate-efficient way to produce electricity or heat in Ireland bar none. Burning, draining, and degrading peat bogs emits significant amounts of CO2.

SlowBlowin

magicbastarder wrote: »

what is it about shoes? this is just weird.

Its the FFF system we rural people use.

furlong/firkin/fortnight Units

magicbastarder

the only good thing about burning peat is the smell.

mgn

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Yep 0.20 KgCO2 for gas 0.38 KgCO2 for peat, but then you have all the gas infrastructure too which makes a big CO2 contribution, much closer than most people think.

If the gas supply was stopped people would expect support and an alternative, but for the 100,000 homes burring peat, nothing. so everyone's buying imported coal. Top job of saving co2.

Its okay being an all out Green, as long as it doesn't affect them.

The wouldn't even pay for water the use, its a basic human right, bla bla bla.

If peat goes then so does gas, end of story.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

Peat is the most damaging fuel in terms of global warming; even worse than coal.
It has a lower calorific value than coal (generating less energy per tonne when it is burned) and yet it produces higher CO2 emissions per unit, so it is the least climate-efficient way to produce electricity or heat in Ireland bar none. Burning, draining, and degrading peat bogs emits significant amounts of CO2.

Yes and the figures I quoted reflect this as its per Kwh.

Good you are now talking about the peat ban, so what do you suggest the 100,000 homes do instead - currently no support and advice is being given ?

I know its a less than ideal fuel, so what carry home fuel would you suggest replaces it ? Imported coal or non sustainable wood or something else ?

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

Peat is the most damaging fuel in terms of global warming; even worse than coal.

But not worse than imported coal.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Yes and the figures I quoted reflect this as its per Kwh.

Except most of the peat heat goes up the chimney.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Good you are now talking about the peat ban, so what do you suggest the 100,000 homes do instead - currently no support and advice is being given ?

I know its a less than ideal fuel, so what carry home fuel would you suggest replaces it ? Imported coal or non sustainable wood or something else ?

Solar and wind farms fast tracked.

Sharpyshoot

magicbastarder wrote: »

the only good thing about burning peat is the smell.

Often smoked turf in rollies when down at cousins place as a young lad.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

Solar and wind farms fast tracked.

How the feck do you carry that home ?

So are you saying all carry home fuels show go now ?

I am off grid.

SlowBlowin

magicbastarder wrote: »

the only good thing about burning peat is the smell.

I find if you mix it with wood the smell is just perfect.

I find coal too industrial smelling.

SlowBlowin

Sharpyshoot wrote: »

Often smoked turf in rollies when down at cousins place as a young lad.

No way will the covid get you with those turf lungs...

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

How the feck do you carry that home ?

So are you saying all carry home fuels show go now ?

I am off grid.

I didn't say that. How are you off grid, do you have electricity?