LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFrankly this makes the case for incineration for energy more compelling; every potential source of alternative energy should be availed of.
Frankly this makes the case for incineration for energy more compelling; every potential source of alternative energy should be availed of.
Eddie of Brendan Investments?
Eddie couldnt spot 'peak' property and now I take it he must be a geologist?
I will not argue against nuclear, but I actually know what I am talking about when I say, it is not as clear cut as you think, please do a little research before you make up your mind.Originally Posted by Kensington
And being reasonably well informed, I disagree that we have to go the nuke route, but it is an option, an expensive one, but an option.
Regards, Pat Gill
There's a whiff of opportunism about this alright. Coinciding as it does with the bank and property crisis fatigue that must be due to set in any day now.
Last edited by Wendy; 1st July 2009 at 09:29 PM.
I don't want to get into an argument about nuclear as it seems to be a closed issue in Ireland but what do you think should be done about Moneypoint. It seems to be the item that environmentalists want to ignore in the hope that something will turn up
eddie at work
I saw an interesting documentary recently about how Cuba adapted to the situation when it's oil supplies were curtailed to an enormous degree, almost overnight, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Alot to be learned from their experience.
Whether there is 50 years, 70 years or a hundred years left is a moot point. It is going to end and in the relatively near future. Those who think we can blissfully carry on forever the way we have been are truly deluded.
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
Wombat you certainly know how to ask a direct question, It will be next to impossible to close moneypoint within 10 years, it is the bedrock of our grid and if we want to replace it, we have got to get ourselves a real national energy policy that reflects real life. There are replacement tech's available and the S of I proposal in its entirety not bits and pieces allied to modern CCGT gas plants are the medium solution, but both require that national plan, no tax payers money, just the plan. And Quickly
Regards, Pat Gill
We'd actually have to build two Nukes, otherwise what would we do when one of them is down?
More importantly though, Nukes cost too much, take too long to build, wouldn't fit on our grid, are not commercially viable (would require massive taxpayer subsidies), and we would still be relying on foreign sources of Uranium (which will peak very quick if lots of new Nukes are built).
On the other hand, a network of biomass CHP plants would cost a fraction to build, would produce cheaper electricity, would build resilience into the grid, would benefit local economies by keeping the money in the economies, and require no subsidies.
Someone else mentioned incineration: After peak oil, the amount of plastics we can produce will diminish, so the waste stream will decline massively in terms of energy content. Then what?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Mark Twain
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoléon Bonaparte
The clowns running this country couldn't even see a property bubble that burst 2 years ago , peak oil and how we prepare for it is way beyond them.
NAMA............. the crowd that just keeps on giving
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote