Register to Comment
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
Like Tree27Likes
  1. #21
    kissmyaxe kissmyaxe is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    203

    Quote Originally Posted by Who is John Galt? View Post
    Not as much as a MW of power has been generated in the Republic from either wave or tidal.
    The universities and agencies set up to do so have proven themselves far more adept at mining for grants and subsidies than energy.
    Jesus, Planet Mechanics managed to cobble together a wave powered generator in Doolin from scrap, do these agencies just get the funding and no-one is responsible for checking progress and value for money?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,783

    I've been following this guy's website for some time now and find him a considerable contributor:
    An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy | Brave New Climate
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Odyessus Odyessus is offline

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    19,462

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackcal View Post
    Yes!

    But it is also used to bolster claims that renewables are lowering Irelands level of CO2 intensity per KWh of Electricity.

    Leaving aside any other arguments, it would hardly make sense for us to count the CO2 emitted by coal burning in Britain and already counted there. Why should it be counted twice just because electricity is exported?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    Jackcal Jackcal is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    563

    Quote Originally Posted by Odyessus View Post
    Leaving aside any other arguments, it would hardly make sense for us to count the CO2 emitted by coal burning in Britain and already counted there. Why should it be counted twice just because electricity is exported?
    We are spending billions to support Renewable Energy that impact on the efficiency of back up generation plant. The justification for this expenditure is that it is reducing our CO2 emissions per Kwh of electricity. We need to be aware of other factors that reduce the CO2 numbers such as carbon accounting rules so that we are not fooling ourselves. The whole reason to spend on wind power and grid upgrades was to reduce carbon output. Dashing for more coal generated electricity increases CO2 output.

    Is Carbon reduction just about an very expensive imaginary exercise?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    Fabo02 Fabo02 is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    964

    Quote Originally Posted by storybud1 View Post
    Alex White ? always brings a smile to my face, complete eejit messing around in things he has no idea about but talks like he knows something (ie - spinner over his shoulder)

    If we spent as much on government advisors? and spinners (bullsh1tters) as we do on tidal/wave energy research then we may be getting closer to helping ourselves.

    It just is amazing we have the Atlantic ocean pounding our shores every day (probably with the same energy as 1000 nukes) and causing erosion and we just look at it ?

    FFS, they must be a way to harness this massive source of free energy ?

    If it was me as Taoiseach I would offer a 100 mill to anyone that can come up with the idea to harness this power and also slow down erosion.
    the idea of using wave energy has been completely demolished.

    it has the same correlation as wind energy so of no use
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    20,931

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackcal View Post
    An abundant cheap source of permanently available electricity seems to be the Holy Grail for every modern Nation!

    Coal is one of the most intense emitters of CO2 producing almost 3 times more CO2 per Kwh compared to gas powered electricity generation.

    Ireland has a new source of carbon free electricity due to the ingenuity of our Civil Servants our Energy Minister and our EU Over Lords.

    Last year Ireland imported 7.6% of our electricity through Interconnectors from the UK and carbon counting rules apparently mean that we don't have to count the carbon emitted in generating this electricity 40% of which was derived from coal as part of our carbon reckoning.

    This means that our carbon intensity per Kwh fell substantially.

    How can the real value of cost of our renewable program be reckoned with such an unreal method of carbon accounting.
    If we are to build a European Supergrid of Interconnectors across Europe at huge expense will its operation be based on imaginary accounting methods in terms of carbon accounting?

    Are the Government fooling us or themselves?

    See the Irish Energy Blog's article "Lies, damned lies and Interconnectors"

    Irish Energy Blog: Lies, damned lies and Interconnectors
    This is but the tip of the iceberg.


    This has been going on for some time with energy intensive industries.

    Close down a (energy efficient) steel mill in the UK/Europe and open one (far less energy efficient) the Far East.

    European emissions go down, those in the Far East go up (but they aren't constrained by any stupid targets), meaning net global emissions go up and Western economies suffer.

    And the kicker is, taxpayers often fork out money to hep it happen!!! Just one example:

    Closed UK steel plant to get EU carbon permits: government | Reuters

    Stupid, stupid stupid.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    Fabo02 Fabo02 is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    964

    Quote Originally Posted by kissmyaxe View Post
    what ever happened to the salters duck (wave energy) approach which was being touted a decade ago. We seem to have fairly consistent activity here on the west coast so I'm wondering why it was never floated.
    same correlation as wind energy so of no value
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    valamhic valamhic is online now

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    10,514

    Quote Originally Posted by Odyessus View Post
    Leaving aside any other arguments, it would hardly make sense for us to count the CO2 emitted by coal burning in Britain and already counted there. Why should it be counted twice just because electricity is exported?
    It is a good point, but the reason given for the joy of wind energy is that it will save the planet. Calling imported coal power from Britain carbon free does not mitigate the fact that the emissions are in the air of the world. Had the midlands export programme gone ahead, they were to assign the savings to Britain. Moreover, Ireland counts Saudi Arabian oil burned her as being Irish and cattle
    emissions produced here and eaten in Saudi Arabia as being Irish. So the object is to check to see if it fits the green spin and go with that. There are no rules in this game except heads the green agenda wins and tails the green agenda wins and if you don;t like it you are labelled a denier
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    valamhic valamhic is online now

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    10,514

    Just on a point of information when it was pointed out that many of the schemes to make wind work were mad, I was called a curmudgeon. At the Energy 5 workshop hosted by DCENR recently, Marc O'Malley DCU engineer who claimed to have say in government policy ruled out pumped storage saying it would take 5,000 Turlough Hills to make an impact. So I was right. He also ruled our wave energy saying it is another form of wind energy, which I always said. He said wind works, that the 50% is a problem but Ireland punches above its weight in invention and he is confident if we go on building wind farms it will be solved.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    valamhic valamhic is online now

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    10,514

    Mr O'Maley agreed that electric cars merely transfer the co2 from the car exhaust to the power station chimney but they were more efficient and would save co2. When I pointed out that the net emissions of e cars are greater due to more energy conversions he did not debate further.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment