Walk slowly in the opposite direction......they will catch up

dh1985

Say my name wrote: »

Why add a carbon tax on milk or steak?

Microsoft this week paid over $500,000 to an Australian cattle station in exchange to use their carbon credit of 40,000 tons of sequestered carbon.

In this country non farmers beliger farmers for carbon usage on faulty accounting figures that will continue to be used for years while ignoring soil sequestration through grazing. Farmers never got a fair deal in the first place.

The rest of the world gets on with their business looks at the science, looks at the carbon, looks to see how it can be improved on, educates those who can make a change.
What happens here?
Cows bad. Beef bad. Farmers bad.
All the while they're booking their holidays to Cairo or Abu Dhabi.

New Zealand proclaims they're the most carbon neutral dairy farmers in the world and the Irish non farmers here attack them for it.
Same in Europe. Ireland and Austria are the most carbon neutral in milk production and they are castigated for it.
You can't win with the Irish.
Unfortunately it's the Irish non farmers are among the highest carbon users in the world and I say non farmers as farming is THE ONLY industry in the world that can sequester carbon with the bonus of providing sustenance for the human race.

Not going to get into the metrics on carbon counting or the specifics of soil sequestration with you say my name as I dont have the knowledge on it but would the same hectare of ground not sequester the same amount of carbon stocked at 2cows/ha as 4cows/ha. And cut back on the bags of CAN. I am a farmer myself incase you think I am one fo the irish non farmers as per your post above and maybe I am playing devils advocate here but I personally think farmers have their heads in the sand if they think agriculture will get a free pass with regards climate change policy

Siamsa Sessions

Whatever the social or environmental costs, successive Irish Governments have rarely acted against private enterprise.

Banking crisis
Housing/homeless crisis
Public health crisis
Beef tribunal and Larry
Apple tax bill
Etc

To address the above would impact private business in Government eyes. You could argue the toss for and against these cases but the common factor is the Irish Government (whether it’s FG or FF led) either supports private enterprises or acts only when it is forced to.

This is a bad thing or a good thing, depending on which side you were born on. But it’s hard to see the Government reducing dairy production unless it is forced to by the EU. And even then, it’ll fight it to the last.

Bass Reeves

Grueller wrote: »

Dont misunderstand the concept. By having a parlour on an out block it is also part of your milking platform. A milking platform is ground cows can graze while in milk.

Yes you can do that but you will be milking on both platforms at the same time if you are stocked above the rate per landbank.

richie123

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Whatever the social or environmental costs, successive Irish Governments have rarely acted against private enterprise.

Banking crisis
Housing/homeless crisis
Public health crisis
Beef tribunal and Larry
Apple tax bill
Etc

To address the above would impact private business in Government eyes. You could argue the toss for and against these cases but the common factor is the Irish Government (whether it’s FG or FF led) either supports private enterprises or acts only when it is forced to.

This is a bad thing or a good thing, depending on which side you were born on. But it’s hard to see the Government reducing dairy production unless it is forced to by the EU. And even then, it’ll fight it to the last.

Don't underestimate greta thunberg and her followers.
They're hell bent on reducing emissions and that unfortunately includes livestock reduction.
The eu will bring it in its only a matter of time.
When this pandemic is over the narrative will quickly revert back to climate action

Say my name

dh1985 wrote: »

Not going to get into the metrics on carbon counting or the specifics of soil sequestration with you say my name as I dont have the knowledge on it but would the same hectare of ground not sequester the same amount of carbon stocked at 2cows/ha as 4cows/ha. And cut back on the bags of CAN. I am a farmer myself incase you think I am one fo the irish non farmers as per your post above and maybe I am playing devils advocate here but I personally think farmers have their heads in the sand if they think agriculture will get a free pass with regards climate change policy

The 4cows/ha believe it or not would sequester more carbon.
By all virtue of their sh1t. The more sh1t on the ground the more carbon rich food that's feeding the soil and carbon in the soil.
But it's all dependent.
It's all dependent how much fossil fuel is used to produce that cows food and fossil fuel used in that cows lifecycle to produce milk or beef.
Same goes for all the other farming sectors. But if you till the soil you release the carbon again. Yet nobody outside of farming sees an issue with tilling. It's cows they hear as bad.

Personally I don't think farmers have their heads in the sand. Well not the ones I know. I believe lots of non farmers do though. They want to ride agriculture in this country like an ass while not acknowledging that emissions in agriculture have decreased. And still won't acknowledge that agriculture is not the yoke around their neck on carbon emissions like they claim here but any country in the world give their left teeth to have their largest industry as agriculture as they know, I'll say it again the only industry that can be not neutral but negative.

We are in a blessed position as a country in the world.
We'll finally catch up. Then we'll make progress.

Bass Reeves

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Whatever the social or environmental costs, successive Irish Governments have rarely acted against private enterprise.

Banking crisis
Housing/homeless crisis
Public health crisis
Beef tribunal and Larry
Apple tax bill
Etc

To address the above would impact private business in Government eyes. You could argue the toss for and against these cases but the common factor is the Irish Government (whether it’s FG or FF led) either supports private enterprises or acts only when it is forced to.

This is a bad thing or a good thing, depending on which side you were born on. But it’s hard to see the Government reducing dairy production unless it is forced to by the EU. And even then, it’ll fight it to the last.

The government id caught in different ways. Yes if it had the choice it would let it rip. However we have to get our emissions down. Now Ireland may be able to prove that grazing cattle are lower carbon and that our hedgerows sequester carbon. However any reset will only happen in 5-10years time. In the meantime it must work with the present carbon ratings. Lads have short memories in the late noughies the then Government was going to sell agri down the drain to allow building development to continue. The downturn after that actually reduced limits so it only started to become an issue in the last 2-3 years.

From a green house gas perceptive we cannot continue with dairy expansion. The minister says as much in this . He is constantly on about a stable herd. How do you put a stable herd in place.
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/minister-on-dairy-expansion-ag-climatise-based-on-premise-of-stable-herd/

The only way you put a stable herd in place is by stocking limits unless you bring back milk quota's. However that would stop all new entrants.

green daries

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well they've kicked off big time near my parents place in North Kildare with a massive upgrade of the Osberstown treatment plant that serves a big chunk of that region. ATM they seem to be prioritizing plants discharging to freshwater as that appears to be were pollution problems are most severe/urgent according to the latest EPA report.

It took nearly a decade to build the last treatment plant in galway city 😳 it was obsolete capacity wise in the first year of construction
That's from the engineers who were overseeing it

Mad_maxx

fossil fuels will be the big enemy in the next decade and anything ran on diesel will get it in the neck , while the global food production sector is strong at the moment , the energy sector is on its ar5e , this sector is by far the biggest contributor to climate change , not cows

maybe farmers need to be more concerned about a massive hike in diesel levies than anything else , thats something the government can sell as most people now are open to the idea of electric cars etc , obviously no electric tractor option ( yet ) but will joe tax payer care about opposition to tractor diesel getting hit ?

been reading some articles from the UK about farmers who built new sheds with solar panels on the roof , do the government grant aid that kind of building?

Reggie.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

fossil fuels will be the big enemy in the next decade and anything ran on diesel will get it in the neck

maybe farmers need to be more concerned about a massive hike in diesel levies than anything else , thats something the government can sell as most people now are open to the idea of electric cars etc , obviously no electric tractor option ( yet ) but will joe tax payer care about opposition to tractor diesel getting hit ?

been reading some articles from the UK about farmers who built new sheds with solar panels on the roof

Serious area on a shed roof. How to get the heat to a house the is the question. Insulation is only so good

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

The 4cows/ha believe it or not would sequester more carbon.
By all virtue of their sh1t. The more sh1t on the ground the more carbon rich food that's feeding the soil and carbon in the soil.
But it's all dependent.
It's all dependent how much fossil fuel is used to produce that cows food and fossil fuel used in that cows lifecycle to produce milk or beef.
Same goes for all the other farming sectors. But if you till the soil you release the carbon again. Yet nobody outside of farming sees an issue with tilling. It's cows they hear as bad.

Personally I don't think farmers have their heads in the sand. Well not the ones I know. I believe lots of non farmers do though. They want to ride agriculture in this country like an ass while not acknowledging that emissions in agriculture have decreased. And still won't acknowledge that agriculture is not the yoke around their neck on carbon emissions like they claim here but any country in the world give their left teeth to have their largest industry as agriculture as they know, I'll say it again the only industry that can be not neutral but negative.

We are in a blessed position as a country in the world.
We'll finally catch up. Then we'll make progress.

Whats point in decreasing all these emissions,if they are poisioning every river in the country either though



Land is saturated around here and lads are throwing out slurry last fortnight,as they havnt enough storage/capacity with all the rain aswell,thats only going one place

I could see lads being required to increase slurry storage to having capacity for 9 months per cow,

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whats point in decreasing all these emissions,if they are poisioning every river in the country either though



Land is saturated around here and lads are throwing out slurry last fortnight,as they havnt enough storage/capacity with all the rain aswell,thats only going one place

I could see lads being required to increase slurry storage to having capacity for 9 months per cow,

Its methane emissions that's the problem.
Cattle produce a huge amount of it and its 20 times more harmful than carbon emissions.
Livestock reduction in numbers is coming whether we like it or not.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Its methane emissions that's the problem.
Cattle produce a huge amount of it and its 20 times more harmful than carbon emissions.
Livestock reduction in numbers is coming whether we like it or not.

these methane emissions is greatest load of sh1te i ever heard,lads thinking few cows in ireland are resoonsible for warming the plannet are engaging in a weird form of diverion argueing,obv its heavy industry is multiple more responsible



I feel the greens,have really lost the plot on this,i remember growing up,they argueing on water quality etc,highly reasonable and attainable objectives (it pisses me off lads spreading slurry before rain and on saturated land and the excessive spreading of fertilizer)


....reducing irish herd,talking about cows/grass haveing carbon sequence is utterly delusional ,when wuhan has a higher carbon footprint than the entire island and china has zero commitment to reducing its output

charolais0153

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whats point in decreasing all these emissions,if they are poisioning every river in the country either though



Land is saturated around here and lads are throwing out slurry last fortnight,as they havnt enough storage/capacity with all the rain aswell,thats only going one place

I could see lads being required to increase slurry storage to having capacity for 9 months per cow,

Was at a pig farm a month ago and he had over 30 weeks storage

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

these methane emissions is greatest load of sh1te i ever heard,lads thinking few cows in ireland are resoonsible for warming the plannet are engaging in a weird form of diverion argueing,obv its heavy industry is multiple more responsible



I feel the greens,have really lost the plot on this,i remember growing up,they argueing on water quality etc,highly reasonable and attainable objectives (it pisses me off lads spreading slurry before rain and on saturated land and the excessive spreading of fertilizer)


....reducing irish herd,talking about cows/grass haveing carbon sequence is utterly delusional ,when wuhan has a higher carbon footprint than the entire island and china has zero commitment to reducing its output

Agree with you to a certain extent re pollution and emissions in far flung places.
But methane is the big problem with cows its a highy potent gas. As well as nitrates and water quality.
I'm just stating whats likely to happen here in the next few years.
Remember we're the good boys in the class.
Bolsanaro will help us out though,when we've our emissions s target met and the national herd well cut back.
Out of sight and out of mind.

Tonynewholland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

these methane emissions is greatest load of sh1te i ever heard,lads thinking few cows in ireland are resoonsible for warming the plannet are engaging in a weird form of diverion argueing,obv its heavy industry is multiple more responsible



I feel the greens,have really lost the plot on this,i remember growing up,they argueing on water quality etc,highly reasonable and attainable objectives (it pisses me off lads spreading slurry before rain and on saturated land and the excessive spreading of fertilizer)


....reducing irish herd,talking about cows/grass haveing carbon sequence is utterly delusional ,when wuhan has a higher carbon footprint than the entire island and china has zero commitment to reducing its output

The greens changed their minds on halving the national herd when it came to it. Ireland is way to reliant on international companies I can’t see the government shutting down an industry that keeps rural Ireland ticking over. It would be like shooting yourself in both feet

Say my name

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Land is saturated around here and lads are throwing out slurry last fortnight,as they havnt enough storage/capacity with all the rain aswell,thats only going one place

I could see lads being required to increase slurry storage to having capacity for 9 months per cow,

You'd want storage from October to March by right.
I wouldn't make it mandatory yet but if I was in power or advisory like teagasc I would be making sounds about it that's it's in everyone's best interest to make best use of that manure and save on chemical fertilizer.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/slurry-and-manure-management/how-slurry-inoculants-helped-halve-farmer-fertiliser-use

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Agree with you to a certain extent re pollution and emissions in far flung places.
But methane is the big problem with cows its a highy potent gas. As well as nitrates and water quality.
I'm just stating whats likely to happen here in the next few years.
Remember we're the good boys in the class.
Bolsanaro will help us out though,when we've our emissions s target met and the national herd well cut back.
Out of sight and out of mind.

Been a while since I've been bothered to listen to the methane side of things, afaicr methane lasts for ten years, then transforms into carbon dioxide. Yes, methane is more damaging, but it's on a cycle cow-methane-co2, so it's not accumulating itself. The co2 can be dealt with by what I'm constantly banging on about management. It's, pardon the pun, bull**** policy to blame the animal, it's the management of animals that's at fault. That, to be honest, is peoples fault. Where's the bunker?

Fossil fuels are new carbon, they've been locked away for however many years but man has decided with the help of technology (beware solutions involving technology) to extract this new carbon, burn it and add it to the atmosphere or **** around with it and create problems like artificial fertiliser or other crap causing pollution issues in water.

Change mindset and the change in management will follow of it's own accord.

Tonynewholland

Say my name wrote: »

You'd want storage from October to March by right.
I wouldn't make it mandatory yet but if I was in power or advisory like teagasc I would be making sounds about it that's it's in everyone's best interest to make best use of that manure and save on chemical fertilizer.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/slurry-and-manure-management/how-slurry-inoculants-helped-halve-farmer-fertiliser-use

I agree about the storage. In around 2006 you could write off 50% of the cost of building new slurry storage in one year it was a great way of putting tanks in place on farms.

yosemitesam1

Deleted User wrote: »

Been a while since I've been bothered to listen to the methane side of things, afaicr methane lasts for ten years, then transforms into carbon dioxide. Yes, methane is more damaging, but it's on a cycle cow-methane-co2, so it's not accumulating itself. The co2 can be dealt with by what I'm constantly banging on about management. It's, pardon the pun, bull**** policy to blame the animal, it's the management of animals that's at fault. That, to be honest, is peoples fault. Where's the bunker?

Fossil fuels are new carbon, they've been locked away for however many years but man has decided with the help of technology (beware solutions involving technology) to extract this new carbon, burn it and add it to the atmosphere or **** around with it and create problems like artificial fertiliser or other crap causing pollution issues in water.

Change mindset and the change in management will follow of it's own accord.

The problem is that it's in big business's interest to demonize agriculture. Food companies make much better profits on plant food and then you have data centres, throwaway tech/fashion and any number of other sectors looking for distraction from their own terrible records

yosemitesam1

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The problem is that it's in big business's interest to demonize agriculture. Food companies make much better profits on plant food and then you have data centres, throwaway tech/fashion and any number of other sectors looking for distraction from their own terrible records

Yes sure they do, but that doesn't solve agriculture's own issues, merely deflects from them. Either those issues get addressed by farmers for farmers, or farmers allow the space for other lobby groups to influence legislation.

The latter seems to be the strategy.

vincenzolorenzo

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well they've kicked off big time near my parents place in North Kildare with a massive upgrade of the Osberstown treatment plant that serves a big chunk of that region. ATM they seem to be prioritizing plants discharging to freshwater as that appears to be were pollution problems are most severe/urgent according to the latest EPA report.

That's the second biggest plant in the country though. Its the huge number of very small treatment plants that are really way behind. IW will get them sorted, but 5 years does sound very optimistic

vincenzolorenzo

Reggie. wrote: »

Serious area on a shed roof. How to get the heat to a house the is the question. Insulation is only so good

They'd be PV panels on the roof, so generating electricity rather than hot water. The technology is simple and proven to work in an Irish climate. The downside with farming is that the load profile is not a good match for generation profile, particularly on dairy farms. Max generation at midday, and very little (relative) in morning or evening. So you're looking at battery storage instead, which adds €€€'s to the cost

Say my name

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

They'd be PV panels on the roof, so generating electricity rather than hot water. The technology is simple and proven to work in an Irish climate. The downside with farming is that the load profile is not a good match for generation profile, particularly on dairy farms. Max generation at midday, and very little (relative) in morning or evening. So you're looking at battery storage instead, which adds €€€'s to the cost

There's a dairy manager on a farm near to me that made the claim that their electricity needs are being met by renewables. Now they have a wind turbine and solar but I thought that was an interesting statement.
Don't know any more than that but the family on the farm would be whizzes on renewables.
The manager is not half bad either on sustainable practices either.

atlantic mist

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

yosemitesam1

atlantic mist wrote: »

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

In order to meet the renewable targets more metal has to be mined over the next 30 years than the total mined to date if I remember that right and something like every 50-100k electric cars on our roads needs the equivalent of a medium sized power station built

Say my name

atlantic mist wrote: »

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

Swapping steel with steel maybe.
Internal combustion engines are not made of thin air either. And you need oil for lubrication for the pistons then as well as the fuel.
Concrete pads for turbines will be used again and again.
Just design the technology that it can be recycled again and again.

We need energy independence again like Ardnacrusha gave us in the first place.
It's just on the micro farm level we're talking now instead of the national age of independence of years ago.

Siamsa Sessions

Saw this on Facebook and thought it relevant (if a bit too simplistic) for this discussion

Reggie.

Say my name wrote: »

Swapping steel with steel maybe.
Internal combustion engines are not made of thin air either. And you need oil for lubrication for the pistons then as well as the fuel.
Concrete pads for turbines will be used again and again.
Just design the technology that it can be recycled again and again.

We need energy independence again like Ardnacrusha gave us in the first place.
It's just on the micro farm level we're talking now instead of the national age of independence of years ago.

Isn't there an issue with the blades tho? They cant be recycled or reused. Have to be buried.

Most steel nowadays is recycled steel rather than smelted iron ore

enricoh

Say my name wrote: »

There's a dairy manager on a farm near to me that made the claim that their electricity needs are being met by renewables. Now they have a wind turbine and solar but I thought that was an interesting statement.
Don't know any more than that but the family on the farm would be whizzes on renewables.
The manager is not half bad either on sustainable practices either.

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Say my name

enricoh wrote: »

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Maybe it's changed but I think bps payments won't be paid on that land if it's under panels.
Mightnt make a difference to some but there's some who've known for years about getting in and have been snapping up leased land wherever they could to keep their payment.

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

Maybe it's changed but I think bps payments won't be paid on that land if it's under panels.
Mightnt make a difference to some but there's some who've known for years about getting in and have been snapping up leased land wherever they could to keep their payment.

Many getting €2,470/ha bps?

Say my name

Reggie. wrote: »

Isn't there an issue with the blades tho? They cant be recycled or reused. Have to be buried.

Most steel nowadays is recycled steel rather than smelted iron ore

Had to look it up.
They're even talking of turning them into biochar. God help us.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101

When some give out about different tree species being used on land in char. I wouldn't be using fiberglass as biochar.

Say my name

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many getting €2,470/ha bps?

No but there are those on 80k of a bps.
Even if they bale shyte and leave it on leased land as a hobby they'll still collect the 80k. It'd be chump change to some but it'd be their chump change that they wouldn't let go.

Bass Reeves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many getting €2,470/ha bps?

Highest rate now should be 700/HA. Payments are supposed to converge more before 2026. Lowest payment to be 75% of national average. Highest will be below 500 by then. As well greening is to be separated and you will have to fulfill actual criteria. Some talk that those in derogation will not get greening unless they carry out some serious environmental tasks

If I was getting €1k for solar panels I could graze graze underneath I wouldn't be worrying about BPS on those acres.

Hard Knocks

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I was getting €1k for solar panels I could graze graze underneath I wouldn't be worrying about BPS on those acres.

What sort of grass would there be on that plot in 5-10 years?
No topping, grass in constant shade

Hard Knocks

Hard Knocks wrote: »

What sort of grass would there be on that plot in 5-10 years?
No topping, grass in constant shade

I wouldn't be overly worried.

Dinzee Conlee

Hard Knocks wrote: »

What sort of grass would there be on that plot in 5-10 years?
No topping, grass in constant shade

Sure I suppose the same as under trees in a north facing field...

Am sure some grass species wouldn’t do great, but I imagine some would be grand...

Reggie.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wouldn't be overly worried.

After the 30 years just reseed

richie123

enricoh wrote: »

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Yes and as u go towards the south east it increases to 1100 and 1200.(greater solar gain)
Index linked..too.
The solar company actually pay u to graze sheep on it as it would cost them to keep down growth regardless.
Single payment could be leased out you'd get at least 50 % back.
On that issue there's talk that something similar to forestry where u can keep your entitlements is being considered.
Its an absolute no brainer for farmers bar your in dairy.

Nimbyism planning eco studies ..bureaucracy are the biggest problems.

patsy_mccabe

enricoh wrote: »

Talking to a lad at the weekend who just signed on the dotted line for solar panels on his farm. E1000 an acre for 30 years n he can keep sheep under them. 5 years of appeals etc but got there eventually.
He's a big advocate for solar panels now anyway!!

Is that index linked? 1000 euro won't be worth much in 30 years.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Yes and as u go towards the south east it increases to 1100 and 1200.(greater solar gain)
Index linked..too.
The solar company actually pay u to graze sheep on it as it would cost them to keep down growth regardless.
Single payment could be leased out you'd get at least 50 % back.
On that issue there's talk that something similar to forestry where u can keep your entitlements is being considered.
Its an absolute no brainer for farmers bar your in dairy.

Nimbyism planning eco studies ..bureaucracy are the biggest problems.

Keeping payments is already a thing in the Native Woodland Scheme.

TooOldBoots

Deleted User wrote: »

Keeping payments is already a thing in the Native Woodland Scheme.

Except your land becomes classed as forestry so it goes from the average value of 10k/acre down to as low as 1.5k/acre. Yeah great Scheme

TooOldBoots

TooOldBoots wrote: »

Except your land becomes classed as forestry so it goes from the average value of 10k/acre down to as low as 1.5k/acre. Yeah great Scheme

I never said it was a good scheme. If you look back over my posts you'll see I've warned people away from it. However, it is correct to say that keeping payments is a factor in that scheme.

Birdnuts

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Is that index linked? 1000 euro won't be worth much in 30 years.

Something in the Farming Indo last year about Tax implications too that took alot of the shine off the spin that these companies are currently putting out and who at the end of the day can offer what they want but will ultimately depend on the shape of the RESS and how/if it is rolled over. Its one of those situations to seriously look at the small print - preferably by a legal type you trust.

paddysdream

Birdnuts wrote: »

Something in the Farming Indo last year about Tax implications too that took alot of the shine off the spin that these companies are currently putting out and who at the end of the day can offer what they want but will ultimately depend on the shape of the RESS and how/if it is rolled over. Its one of those situations to seriously look at the small print - preferably by a legal type you trust.

Didn't read that but from memory one big problem could be the classification of the land in question when it comes to inheritance ie its treated as industrial assets rather than farmland.
Nice big cheque every year looks good until the Revenue want a big chunk of it before the next generation get their bite.

Think if I was getting 1k an acre wouldn't be overly concerned what grew under the solar panels.
Also imagine sheep might not be my preferred lifestyle choice if I could plant 40 or 50 acres of shiny mirrors here.

Thinking about it though its a once in a lifetime move.Thirty years is " a mighty long time" as the song says and sellers regret would be at the back of peoples mind.Its really tying up the ground for a generation so would feel it might be difficult enough to get ground ,attractive as it seems from the outside.

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never said it was a good scheme. If you look back over my posts you'll see I've warned people away from it. However, it is correct to say that keeping payments is a factor in that scheme.

Forestry is worse.payment per acre are far less and not index linked.
Once u plant ...your forced to rent that grand forever more.
I can be corrected on this but pv land qualifies for ag relief up in recent times.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Forestry is worse.payment per acre are far less and not index linked.
Once u plant ...your forced to rent that grand forever more.
I can be corrected on this but pv land qualifies for ag relief up in recent times.

Plant that ground i meant to say

bogman_bass

atlantic mist wrote: »

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

Coal fired plants don’t exactly grow on trees either.
It’s the lifetime impact you have to look at

K.G.

paddysdream wrote: »

Didn't read that but from memory one big problem could be the classification of the land in question when it comes to inheritance ie its treated as industrial assets rather than farmland.
Nice big cheque every year looks good until the Revenue want a big chunk of it before the next generation get their bite.

Think if I was getting 1k an acre wouldn't be overly concerned what grew under the solar panels.
Also imagine sheep might not be my preferred lifestyle choice if I could plant 40 or 50 acres of shiny mirrors here.

Thinking about it though its a once in a lifetime move.Thirty years is " a mighty long time" as the song says and sellers regret would be at the back of peoples mind.Its really tying up the ground for a generation so would feel it might be difficult enough to get ground ,attractive as it seems from the outside.

I wonder why these companies dont just buy the land if its these solar farms stack up over the lifetime of the lease.in wind farms they buy a good few sites but dosent seem to be the same in solar.