• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

State pledge on 'green' electricity


Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,265
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
The Government is committed to producing 30 per cent of electricity by renewable energy by 2020, Minister for Marine and Natural Resources Noel Dempsey told the Dáil.

"Some think that this target is too conservative. Others argue about the significant technical and competitive cost challenges. I believe that we should set the bar high and back up realistic ambition with concrete measures." - Irish Times
 

hiker

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
1,961
David Cochrane said:
The Government is committed to producing 30 per cent of electricity by renewable energy by 2020, Minister for Marine and Natural Resources Noel Dempsey told the Dáil.

"Some think that this target is too conservative. Others argue about the significant technical and competitive cost challenges. I believe that we should set the bar high and back up realistic ambition with concrete measures." - Irish Times

Good news. Maybe its the businessman in me but I'm very fond of target driven agendas.

We have the percentage and we have the time scale.

Now lets just do it!.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,886
David Cochrane said:
The Government is committed to producing 30 per cent of electricity by renewable energy by 2020, Minister for Marine and Natural Resources Noel Dempsey told the Dáil.

"Some think that this target is too conservative. Others argue about the significant technical and competitive cost challenges. I believe that we should set the bar high and back up realistic ambition with concrete measures." - Irish Times
That target is technically feasible. The people arguing about the supposed technical and competitive cost challenges are trying to protect the status quo and are not prepared to weight the positive economic benefits of producing indigenous energy within the economy, the benefits of stable pricing, and the benefits of energy security.

These benefits are medium and long term benefits - but we live in a short term world.

I'm with Dempsey on this one - we should set the bar high, we should aim to achieve a critical mass of demonstration projects within a very short time span - there are a queue of people waiting for the go-ahead for big BioEnergy projects.

Other Countries are doing it!

It isn't difficult!
 

david

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2003
Messages
190
You have to be a subscriber to read the article.

Anyway, 30% not enough, it's not soon enough and it will create only extra, not alternative, energy. I'd like to know what sources are to be used for this renewable energy. I welcome any movement in the area of renewables and lessening foreign dependence, however.

Until global energy usage is curbed - that is, demand for fossil fuels is deliberately and actively suppressed - this sort of initiative simply means that the people using renewables allow others to squander even more carbon-derived electricity, even if it is in other countries.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
David Cochrane said:
The Government is committed to producing 30 per cent of electricity by renewable energy by 2020, Minister for Marine and Natural Resources Noel Dempsey told the Dáil.

"Some think that this target is too conservative. Others argue about the significant technical and competitive cost challenges. I believe that we should set the bar high and back up realistic ambition with concrete measures." - Irish Times
Does he mention how he intends to do this? Or is this another empty FF promise. I think we’ve learned over the last 9 nine years that things don’t just happen if you wish hard enough.

I can't read the article because you have to subscribe so don’t say it’s there.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15
An admirable intent, but not one that will work without targets or some leadership. Unfortunately this and the green paper has the whiff of another Dempsey has a great idea and gets shafted by his colleagues.

The responses to the green paper are going to be enlightening, to date nearly every group I have spoken to while researching it are slamming the governments lack of direction.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
A great idea let's hope it actually happens. Should go down well with would-be Green voters. The govt needs to woo them away with initiatives like this, and show who is the real "Green Party". :wink:
 

jady88

Active member
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
130
FutureTaoiseach said:
A great idea let's hope it actually happens. Should go down well with would-be Green voters. The govt needs to woo them away with initiatives like this, and show who is the real "Green Party". :wink:
I love the way you refer to the government as one party!?!? :lol:
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
jady88 said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
A great idea let's hope it actually happens. Should go down well with would-be Green voters. The govt needs to woo them away with initiatives like this, and show who is the real "Green Party". :wink:
I love the way you refer to the government as one party!?!? :lol:
I mean Noel Dempsey's party as he is the responsible minister in this case. Wasn't making the inference you suggest.
 

Jack_Flash

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
17
Myself, I'm of the opinion that we should aim for a higher target. Also, we should be aiming to minimise the energy use of households.

Something that might be beneficial to this initative would be some interim targets.
 

jady88

Active member
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
130
Jack_Flash said:
Myself, I'm of the opinion that we should aim for a higher target. Also, we should be aiming to minimise the energy use of households.

Something that might be beneficial to this initative would be some interim targets.
yeah sweden is going for oil independence. I know we are a good bit behind them but still if we aim high we will achieve it, we must.
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
David Cochrane said:
The Government is committed to producing 30 per cent of electricity by renewable energy by 2020, Minister for Marine and Natural Resources Noel Dempsey told the Dáil.

"Some think that this target is too conservative. Others argue about the significant technical and competitive cost challenges. I believe that we should set the bar high and back up realistic ambition with concrete measures." - Irish Times
I think this is the third time this Government has "announced", with great fanfare, a target and timescale for green energy. On the ground, nothing continues to happen.

The last time they said this was only about 6 months ago! Focus people!
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Sidewinder said:
David Cochrane said:
The Government is committed to producing 30 per cent of electricity by renewable energy by 2020, Minister for Marine and Natural Resources Noel Dempsey told the Dáil.

"Some think that this target is too conservative. Others argue about the significant technical and competitive cost challenges. I believe that we should set the bar high and back up realistic ambition with concrete measures." - Irish Times
I think this is the third time this Government has "announced", with great fanfare, a target and timescale for green energy. On the ground, nothing continues to happen.

The last time they said this was only about 6 months ago! Focus people!
If you have eyes you will notice the wind-farms springing up around this country like sheep.
 

varjak

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
4
This just isn't enough. This country has no true commitment to the environment. 30% in 14 more years isn't any great achievement. I don't care what the cost implications are, a great result than 30% must be achieved
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
I think we need to require all vehicles/petrol-pumps to be biofuel compatible. No point having biofuel-compatible vehicles without a ready supply of biofuel. I think they have this in Sweden.
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
As long as I never have to see one of the godawful windfarms blotting out landscape, then fine, but I still regret that the most obvious solution (nuclear) is not even being discussed.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
KeithM said:
As long as I never have to see one of the godawful windfarms blotting out landscape, then fine, but I still regret that the most obvious solution (nuclear) is not even being discussed.
Nuclear, no. It's:

A: Too expensive (€10 billion) to build.
B: Mining for uranium releases huge quantities of carbon-gas, defeating the purpose of reducing emissions.
C: Health-risks i.e. cancer.
D: Mass-evacuations in the event of a serious accident or terrorist attack. Millions had to be moved from Northern Ukraine/Southern Belarus after Chernobyl.
E: Huge economic damage. Perception matters as well as reality. Tourists and investment will steer clear of a contaminated country.
F: Public hugely opposed. Would be another Carnsore-style protest would make Rossport look like a picnic.

There.
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
FutureTaoiseach said:
Nuclear, no. It's:

A: Too expensive (€10 billion) to build.
B: Mining for uranium releases huge quantities of carbon-gas, defeating the purpose of reducing emissions.
C: Health-risks i.e. cancer.
D: Mass-evacuations in the event of a serious accident or terrorist attack. Millions had to be moved from Northern Ukraine/Southern Belarus after Chernobyl.
E: Huge economic damage. Perception matters as well as reality. Tourists and investment will steer clear of a contaminated country.
F: Public hugely opposed. Would be another Carnsore-style protest would make Rossport look like a picnic.

There.

And yet France has no problem, eco-friendly Nordic countries are off building new nuclear plants and the UK is likely to go back to nuclear (invalidating half those "reasons" in one fell swoop).
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
KeithM said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
Nuclear, no. It's:

A: Too expensive (€10 billion) to build.
B: Mining for uranium releases huge quantities of carbon-gas, defeating the purpose of reducing emissions.
C: Health-risks i.e. cancer.
D: Mass-evacuations in the event of a serious accident or terrorist attack. Millions had to be moved from Northern Ukraine/Southern Belarus after Chernobyl.
E: Huge economic damage. Perception matters as well as reality. Tourists and investment will steer clear of a contaminated country.
F: Public hugely opposed. Would be another Carnsore-style protest would make Rossport look like a picnic.

There.

And yet France has no problem, eco-friendly Nordic countries are off building new nuclear plants and the UK is likely to go back to nuclear (invalidating half those "reasons" in one fell swoop).
But France has a much tighter nuclear-safety regime than the UK's notoriously lax one. There was a serious (for the day) nuclear accident at Windscale (Sellafield's previous incarnation) in the 1950's and we were lucky the cloud was blown south but can we be so sure next time? Of course in those days the fallout wasn't going to be so large but the Sellafield is now responsible for 80% of the world's reprocessing of nuclear waste - besides there being a power-station there. The reality is that these sites are an obvious potential terrorist target and could kill millions and wreck our economy in the event of the fallout that would result. Even if the risk were small, an accident/terror attack on such a facility would have incalculable consequences relative to an attack/accident at say, a wind-farm or gas-fired power-station. Why have the huge risk? No to nuclear.
 

KeithM

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
93
FutureTaoiseach said:
But France has a much tighter nuclear-safety regime than the UK's notoriously lax one. There was a serious (for the day) nuclear accident at Windscale (Sellafield's previous incarnation) in the 1950's and we were lucky the cloud was blown south but can we be so sure next time? Of course in those days the fallout wasn't going to be so large but the Sellafield is now responsible for 80% of the world's reprocessing of nuclear waste - besides there being a power-station there. The reality is that these sites are an obvious potential terrorist target and could kill millions and wreck our economy in the event of the fallout that would result. Even if the risk were small, an accident/terror attack on such a facility would have incalculable consequences relative to an attack/accident at say, a wind-farm or gas-fired power-station. Why have the huge risk? No to nuclear.
If we are serious about not being under the thumb of the oil producing countries we need to diversify. Wind farms are just too ugly, and like wave power are expensive for the amount of power being generated. Nuclear is working well all over western and northern Europe. At the moment we are experiencing the (minimal) risks of nuclear and none of the benefits.
 
Top