Eddie Hobbs: "We are now at Peak Oil"

[expat girl]

Anyone seen the recent New Scientist article on commercial exploitation of methane clathrates?? the Koreans and Japanese are planning projects from the sea bed by 2014-6. Bad for global warming though....

[dunk]

Howya Eanna, good luck with transition town youghal...

We are busy here in Barcelona with our Transition HUB group.

For anyone interested in facing up to the reality of peak oil, the transition movment is perhaps best way to act local to global problem...



Best is to watch this interview with founder Rob Hopkins after he left kinsale to venture to Totnes to set up transition town totnes:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQF09NG00V8&hl=es]YouTube - TRANSITION TOWNS: An Interview with Rob Hopkins[/ame]

You can read the Transition handbook online, which is both a truly amazing resource as well as an example of using new communication tools and spaces to the max; free, viewable by all, editable by all too... And if your in Ireland best way to find out whats going on is to hunt around on the Irish Transition NING site

And lastly ill leave you with the link to what i see as the definitive vid (so far) on transition movement: From oil dependancy to local resiliance



The Powerdown Show - Transition Towns and Energy Descent

Good luck to those already a few steps down their transition pathway...

[Kensington]

fiannafailure,

Well, you must be a very intelligent and knowledeable man. It's a pity you didn't debate the British, Finish, Romanian, French etc. Governemnts on the matter.


I am honest about the price. It is expensive but is cheaper and far more secure than offshore wind and pumped-storage. So, you are against any Governemnt intvestment in energy? i am not. A Nuclear plant here would have to be a turn-key project and state owned.

I will be honest, but i hope the anti-nuke crowd will also.

Why do they lie by saying that our grid is too small to accomadate a nuclear power plant?

Why do they lie by saying that an efficent nuclear plant must be 1000 MW?

Why do they lie by saying that nuclear fuel is nearly running out?

Why do they lie about the effects of Sellafield on irish health?

Why do they lie and ignore the inherent limitations of wind power, as it now stands?

Why do they lie about the succes of Danish wind power in providing the countries electricity supply?

Why do they say that we must reduce fossil fuel emissions immediately, but then support a policy that will ensure the opposite?

SPN,

Great reply.

Dunk,

The transition towm movement is truly fantastic. It is undoubtedy the furture and i'm glad to see it gaining momentum.

[fiannafailure]

fiannafailure,

Well, you must be a very intelligent and knowledeable man. It's a pity you didn't debate the British, Finish, Romanian, French etc. Governemnts on the matter.

Despite the apparent arrogance of my statement I have never lost a debate on the nuclear issue, and do you know why, I can debate down to the smallest detail, the technical operation of a nuke, the economic model of a nuke, and the societal cost of a nuke, and all of the above knowledge informs me that nuclear power is the most efficient, in a technical sense, type of generation known to man, the only idealogical objection I have to nuclear fission is that it refuses to deal with the waste issue in the present and flippantly pass the buck to their grandchildren, it could be dealt with now but those methods are expensive and therefore are in effect a subsidy.

I am honest about the price. It is expensive but is cheaper and far more secure than offshore wind and pumped-storage. So, you are against any Governemnt intvestment in energy? i am not. A Nuclear plant here would have to be a turn-key project and state owned.

The only reasons that S of I believe that their project should be in the private sector are

No 1 to sidestep the EU public tender rules and ensure that the economic benefits stay in Ireland to the greatest extent

No 2 there is a short window of opportunity to do the S of I project in the most cost effective way, it could not be done for 11 billion if we were not in a recession and because we are in a recession the benefits to the country are magnified.

I will be honest, but i hope the anti-nuke crowd will also.

Why do they lie by saying that our grid is too small to accomadate a nuclear power plant?

Why do they lie by saying that an efficent nuclear plant must be 1000 MW?

Why do they lie by saying that nuclear fuel is nearly running out?

Possibly they have not done their research

Why do they lie about the effects of Sellafield on irish health?

It is possible to be pro nuke and still believe that and Sellafield are their own worst enemy in that regard

Why do they lie and ignore the inherent limitations of wind power, as it now stands?

They may not have done their research

Why do they lie about the succes of Danish wind power in providing the countries electricity supply?

They do not understand that the Danish wind power industry was set up with export as the raison d'etre not domestic supply

Why do they say that we must reduce fossil fuel emissions immediately, but then support a policy that will ensure the opposite?

I honestly have not a clue what you mean by that

So while I do yet have the benefit of time travel to debate with the governments of France, Britain etc at the appropriate time I am here now.
I am not pro or anti nuclear, but I will scream blue murder if I see blatant attempts to undermine reasonable debate by quoting incorrect figures or facts, for example the myth that nukes can produce power for 4c a unit when what is really meant is 4c a unit now and another 4c a unit come decommisioning time. Quote the real cost and you gain a supporter.

[fiannafailure]

Anyone seen the recent New Scientist article on commercial exploitation of methane clathrates?? the Koreans and Japanese are planning projects from the sea bed by 2014-6. Bad for global warming though....

There are many exciting new tech's on the horizon, and there are many ways to skin the cat of CO2 emission or remission

[Kensington]

I am sure you are knowledgeable on the subject. I have got a bit rusty on the subject. I have, however, spoken to alot of people who are at the top of their fields in the energy sector.

11 billion is a hell of a lot of money. Is it really possible to source that much in the private sector over the next 10 to 15 years? I doubt it very much.

If it was agreed tomorrow to go ahead with itm how long would it take for it to supply 50% of our electricity needs?

As regards Denmark, well they do not have a choice either way. They have to import and export. If Denmark demonstrates anything, it shows that a nation cannot depend on wind energy for energy security. If Ireland did go all out on wind, we would still be heavily dependent on fossil fuels and/or electricity imports anyway.

The Green movement better do their research quickly it seems.

I honestly have not a clue what you mean by that

Ok, Oil will peak in a few years. We need to reduce CO2 emmissions now. We are probably too late as it is.

Nuclear power is a safe, cheap and ready alternative. I have doubts about your plan. You want 11 billion Euro. Seeing as its never been tried before, it could cost alot more and there will, undoubtedly, be unforseen problems.

If we went with it, i am pretty sure what would happen. It would proceed in a piece-meal manner. It is unproven. There will be cost over-runs. Deadlines will be missed. Companies will back out or go bust. It could be 30/40 years before anything comes out of it. That is too late.

If we decide to go Nuclear, it would be cheaper (alot cheaper than 11 billion). We could get Westinghouse or AECL to build a turn-key project. It could take a decade to build, but then its done, we will know the cost, who is paying for it, and when it will be completed.

I forget exactly the cost differential, but i am sure that it would be cheaper than an offshore wind/pumped-storage system. Also, one has to take into accout the start-ups, ramping-duty and reduced operating capacity of the thermal plants on the system. Will the pumped storage eliminate that?

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...lectricity.pdf

I do wish you well but, we do not have time to experiment at this stage.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=Kensington;1833311]I am sure you are knowledgeable on the subject. I have got a bit rusty on the subject. I have, however, spoken to alot of people who are at the top of their fields in the energy sector.

11 billion is a hell of a lot of money. Is it really possible to source that much in the private sector over the next 10 to 15 years? I doubt it very much.

Yes but in 2 years not 15

If it was agreed tomorrow to go ahead with itm how long would it take for it to supply 50% of our electricity needs?

5 years from the turning of the first sod

As regards Denmark, well they do not have a choice either way. They have to import and export. If Denmark demonstrates anything, it shows that a nation cannot depend on wind energy for energy security. If Ireland did go all out on wind, we would still be heavily dependent on fossil fuels and/or electricity imports anyway.

Denmark employs 35,000 in their very successful energy export business

The Green movement better do their research quickly it seems.

Everyone better do their research

Ok, Oil will peak in a few years. We need to reduce CO2 emmissions now. We are probably too late as it is.

BS

Nuclear power is a safe, cheap and ready alternative. I have doubts about your plan. You want 11 billion Euro. Seeing as its never been tried before, it could cost alot more and there will, undoubtedly, be unforseen problems.

Research my good man, the individual parts of the plan have all been done before

If we went with it, i am pretty sure what would happen. It would proceed in a piece-meal manner. It is unproven. There will be cost over-runs. Deadlines will be missed. Companies will back out or go bust. It could be 30/40 years before anything comes out of it. That is too late.

If phase one is not complete in 5 years from today, it will mean that Ireland is an incompetent in the engineering world and believe me we are not.

If we decide to go Nuclear, it would be cheaper (alot cheaper than 11 billion). We could get Westinghouse or AECL to build a turn-key project. It could take a decade to build, but then its done, we will know the cost, who is paying for it, and when it will be completed.

As I keep trying to tell you I am not the person you have to convince, its the tax payers not S of I

I forget exactly the cost differential, but i am sure that it would be cheaper than an offshore wind/pumped-storage system. Also, one has to take into accout the start-ups, ramping-duty and reduced operating capacity of the thermal plants on the system. Will the pumped storage eliminate that?

A hydro turbine can be at full power in seconds

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...lectricity.pdf

Read them

I do wish you well but, we do not have time to experiment at this stage

.

Luckily the experiments been done elsewhere, all we need is to be able to read the reports

[amblincork]

There are many exciting new tech's on the horizon, and there are many ways to skin the cat of CO2 emission or remission

That is the very point I have been repeatedly making to you !
Yet you will not allow that new developments will also apply to energy industries you do not approve of ?

It is quite possible that the energy decay of existing nuclear waste may some day be harnessed to provide energy !

[fiannafailure]

That is the very point I have been repeatedly making to you !
Yet you will not allow that new developments will also apply to energy industries you do not approve of ?

It is quite possible that the energy decay of existing nuclear waste may some day be harnessed to provide energy !

And I would be willing to work just as hard for them, just show me a project not an idea, and I approve of a lot of things I don't actively promote, There are only 24hrs in the day and you have to make choices.
I publicly state that S of I policy is to promote all renewable energy types and help to present them to the grid in a usable form and as long as the real costs are described, not to oppose any older tech's

And in a personal capacity the chance of working in a meaningful way on a real project to deal with nuke waste now, rather than in a hundred years, would be very tempting.

[amblincork]

And I would be willing to work just as hard for them, just show me a project not an idea, and I approve of a lot of things I don't actively promote, There are only 24hrs in the day and you have to make choices.
I publicly state that S of I policy is to promote all renewable energy types and help to present them to the grid in a usable form and as long as the real costs are described, not to oppose any older tech's

And in a personal capacity the chance of working in a meaningful way on a real project to deal with nuke waste now, rather than in a hundred years, would be very tempting.

You were doing well until the last line. If you are just another 'sneerer', then I can see why there is so much antipathy to SofI even amongst envirinmentalists.

I suspect you only want the world to be saved if your preffered methods are used.