Energy Security

[St Disibod]

(Whoever thought that the motto "Never let a WingNut Lie go unchallenged" would be appropriate to a thread like this?)

Not a very catchy motto. Regardless, I think I'll tighten the wing nuts a wee bit more.

The effectiveness of wind power is questionable. It only remains economically competitive with nuclear or fossil fuels if, in Great Britain anyhow, it remains limited to 20% of their power supply. The necessity for back up stations, it does not blow all the time, still leaves a substantial dependency on fossil or nuclear energy sources. It makes no sense to go around building windmills if ultimately you're going to have to build nuclear stations to back them up. Better to save the initial investment and pump it into hopitals or schools surely.

Nuclear power is relatively safe- when you take account of the cumulative number of deaths from mines, smoke pollution, gas explosions and dam bursts. Also, it is far more efficient than before. Reactors can now remain in operation 90% of the time, instead of the 60% they were stuck at in the mid-1980s. The down side is very costly, yes; but we're running out of time and we're not developing options.

I think there is a lot of room for bio-fuels in running our cars- but it does not appear to be realistic for our national grid. Improved heat insulation in homes, wood pellet stoves and solar or bio-mass heating are all good ideas- but they still fail to supplement the national grid with enough savings.

I'm not convinced yet that Ireland should go nuclear, but I would like to hear a debate without passions supplementing substance. I agree with you SPN that much of the pro-nuclear lobby seem to feeding off a corporate line; but many of them are basing their position on hard science also. It is important to engange those arguments instead of rubbishing them, or rather in your own words adopting "a patronising attitude to anyone putting forward a different reality".

[Zhirkov]

The bottom line is that we have no right to bequeath to future generations the job of taking care of today's pollution.
It's mind boggling that it is even considered
If we can't get enough energy from alternative sources then we'll have to use less.
Ruling out nuclear at an early stage might focus minds and resources on developing other energy options

[rockofcashel]

"Sinn Fein/IRA are cause of world energy crisis, threathens the state" (Next Sundays Indo front page)

Ok sorry about that.

Actually, as well as discussing the crisis we do face, would people like to discuss the possibilities of a completely changed world if we cannot find a solution to the carbon based energy crisis.

Will the world become a smaller place, due to hugely increased cost of air or sea travel, or will travel become nuclear (can it?)

Will we see a huge reduction in cars, lessening peoples independence to travel ?

etc etc etc

(or should we just start a new thread, talking about the future, kind of Tommorow's World like ?)

[St Disibod]

Will the world become a smaller place, due to hugely increased cost of air or sea travel, or will travel become nuclear (can it?)

Have you never seen the film:

Plans have been unveiled to the press for the journey of the first nuclear powered bus in history. It will travel from New York to Denver non-stop, but even before it's set off, there are problems. The oil industry, concerned about loss of earnings, have set up a saboteur to halt the bus in its tracks, and the laboratory is blown up in a suspicious explosion, injuring the two drivers. The designer, Kitty Baxter (Stockard Channing), reluctantly asks an old flame, Dan Torrance (Joseph Bologna), if he will pilot the bus, but Torrance has been disgraced by a incident in his past - can he pull himself together and drive the bus to success?

[SPN]

(Whoever thought that the motto "Never let a WingNut Lie go unchallenged" would be appropriate to a thread like this?)

Not a very catchy motto. Regardless, I think I'll tighten the wing nuts a wee bit more.

Who cares about catchy, the important thing is to challenge their lies head on, and show them up for the charlatans they are.

The effectiveness of wind power is questionable.

Wind blows, electricity comes out the pipe on the back. What do you question?

It only remains economically competitive with nuclear or fossil fuels if, in Great Britain anyhow, it remains limited to 20% of their power supply.

That is a lie!

The necessity for back up stations, it does not blow all the time, still leaves a substantial dependency on fossil or nuclear energy sources.

That is a lie.

It makes no sense to go around building windmills if ultimately you're going to have to build nuclear stations to back them up. Better to save the initial investment and pump it into hopitals or schools surely.

That is BS

Nuclear power is relatively safe- when you take account of the cumulative number of deaths from mines, smoke pollution, gas explosions and dam bursts.

That is BS

Also, it is far more efficient than before. Reactors can now remain in operation 90% of the time, instead of the 60% they were stuck at in the mid-1980s.

Irrelevant.

The down side is very costly, yes; but we're running out of time and we're not developing options.

That is a lie.

I think there is a lot of room for bio-fuels in running our cars- but it does not appear to be realistic for our national grid.

That is a lie, actually, two lies.

Improved heat insulation in homes, wood pellet stoves and solar or bio-mass heating are all good ideas- but they still fail to supplement the national grid with enough savings.

That is a lie

I'm not convinced yet that Ireland should go nuclear, but I would like to hear a debate without passions supplementing substance. I agree with you SPN that much of the pro-nuclear lobby seem to feeding off a corporate line; but many of them are basing their position on hard science also.

Is that three lies, or four?

It is important to engange those arguments instead of rubbishing them, or rather in your own words adopting "a patronising attitude to anyone putting forward a different reality".

I'm not rubbishing your arguments, I am pointing out your barefaced lies.

[St Disibod]

Well we only have to look at the "Conservatives'" propensity to create alternate realities when the actual reality of the situation doesn't suit their agenda ......

If "Conservatives", "Right Wingers" or "WingNuts" were able to make their arguments without resorting to lies, then maybe we would take them seriously. It is when they start telling lies - start having to tell lies - that I get seriously p!ssed with them.

They live in an alternate reality to the rest of us, they know they live in an alternate reality, but they have no shame when it comes to making sh!t up to justify the unjustifiable.

They are five, they have been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar - and it is always someone elses fault!

SPN then gave out about commentators who "adopted a patronising attitude to anyone putting forward a different reality."

SPN then posted the post above this one.

I doubt there is much use in debating anything with SPN.

[SPN]

Well we only have to look at the "Conservatives'" propensity to create alternate realities when the actual reality of the situation doesn't suit their agenda ......

If "Conservatives", "Right Wingers" or "WingNuts" were able to make their arguments without resorting to lies, then maybe we would take them seriously. It is when they start telling lies - start having to tell lies - that I get seriously p!ssed with them.

They live in an alternate reality to the rest of us, they know they live in an alternate reality, but they have no shame when it comes to making sh!t up to justify the unjustifiable.

They are five, they have been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar - and it is always someone elses fault!

SPN then gave out about commentators who "adopted a patronising attitude to anyone putting forward a different reality."

SPN then posted the post above this one.

I doubt there is much use in debating anything with SPN.

You aren't going to get a debate if all you can do is tell barefaced lies. You don't seriously expect me to indulge in a charade whereby I waste time and effort rebutting your obvious falsehoods do you?

If you want a debate, lets have a debate.

If you want to confuse and distract, prepare to be called on it.

:!:

[St Disibod]

The effectiveness of wind power is questionable.

Wind blows, electricity comes out the pipe on the back. What do you question?

Are you capable of taking account of a whole post- or does your brain only work on one sentence at a time? Though that in itself would appear to be over-stretching it.

It only remains economically competitive with nuclear or fossil fuels if, in Great Britain anyhow, it remains limited to 20% of their power supply.

That is a lie!

The most optimistic reports about wind power in Britain that hold water cap the allotment at 20% because otherwise you have to overlap the renewable power supply with conventional stations- what they call "spilling" electricity. You can't just turn a power station on and off with the flick of a switch- excess electricity is waste. This is inefficient, rather pointless and horrendously expensive- to the tune of about twice the (p/kWh) of nuclear.

The necessity for back up stations, it does not blow all the time, still leaves a substantial dependency on fossil or nuclear energy sources.

That is a lie.

No, really SPN, the wind does not blow all the time. You can get a second opinion on this by asking a class of junior infants.

It makes no sense to go around building windmills if ultimately you're going to have to build nuclear stations to back them up. Better to save the initial investment and pump it into hospitals or schools surely.

That is BS

Have you considered a career in debating?

Nuclear power is relatively safe- when you take account of the cumulative number of deaths from mines, smoke pollution, gas explosions and dam bursts.

That is BS

Do the maths. Count up nuclear reactor related deaths, and then all the others. Again, the junior infants will be able to help.

Also, it is far more efficient than before. Reactors can now remain in operation 90% of the time, instead of the 60% they were stuck at in the mid-1980s.

Irrelevant.

If the efficiency of wind power was improved by 50% would you regard that as irrelevant to this debate (though I really am stretching the definition of debate here).

As for the rest: blah, blah, blah.

[SPN]

Whether you are a knave or a fool is immaterial, it remains the case that the information you have posted is factually incorrect.

The effectiveness of wind is NOT questionable. I have used wind energy in my business for more than three years and it is consistently cheaper than the ESB.

The other claims you make are equally stupid/misinformed.

Probably the best example of this is your misrepresenting the results of the UKERC report.

The report finds that:

-Renewable energy, such as wind power, leads to a direct reduction in CO2 emissions
-The output of fossil fuel plant will need to be adjusted more often to cope with fluctuations in wind output, but any losses this causes are small compared to overall savings in emissions
-100% ‘back up’ for individual renewable sources is unnecessary; extra capacity will be needed to keep supplies secure, but will be modest and a small part of the total cost of renewables. It is possible to work out what is needed and plan accordingly
-None of the 200+ studies UKERC reviewed suggested that the introduction of significant levels of intermittent renewable energy would lead to reduced reliability
-If wind power were to supply 20% of Britain’s electricity, intermittency costs would be 0.5 - 0.8p per kilowatt an hour (p/kWh) of wind output. This would be added to wind generating costs of 3 - 5p p/kWh. By comparison, costs of gas fired power stations are around 3p p/kWh
-The impact on electricity consumers would be around 0.1p p/kWh. Domestic electricity tariffs are typically 10 - 16p p/kWh. Intermittency therefore would account for around 1% of electricity costs
-Costs of intermittency at current levels is much smaller, but will rise if use of renewables expands
-Wide geographical dispersion and a diversity of renewable sources will keep costs down

An increase of 0.1p when the price of electricity is already 16p is hardly "inefficient, rather pointless and horrendously expensive" by any stretch of the imagination. It is less than 1%. I would have thought the Renewable Obligation would have more than offset this.

The other factor you fail to mention is that the report is based on a business-as-usual scenario, as opposed to a scenario where optimisation of RE capacity was prioritised - and the report clearly states this limitation.

If you have any factual points you wish to debate or discuss, I look forward to reading them

If you just intend to continue peddling barefaced lies and misrepresentations, then the responses you receive will be commensurate.

[cyberianpan]

Whether you are a knave or a fool is immaterial, it remains the case that the information you have posted is factually incorrect.

The effectiveness of wind is NOT questionable. I have used wind energy in my business for more than three years and it is consistently cheaper than the ESB.

Do you pay VAT & PSL on wind electricity ? What is the capital cost set up like vs earnings ? Are there grants available for set up ?

CyP