Are you serious we are wasting loss of money on wave energy because the head of sfi owns the wave energy business. Putting solar panels on every home in Ireland would be the most efficient and effective way. Wave energy us crap and we are wasting millions on it.

Have a look http://oceanenergy.ie/about-us/ it’s not the worst technology in the world. http://www.thejournal.ie/wave-energy-ireland-1560158-Jul2014/ we need something new and using our waves would be something, as waves can be predicted.

One HumanBeing whilst I admire your enthusiasm I’m afraid that currently there is no efficient way of harnessing waves for electrical power without subsidies even greater than those required by Wind. Whilst we may be able to predict the occurrence of waves if we can’t efficiently harness them then …
Personal I think the best way forward is to reduce the requirement for electrical power. As the biggest requirement is around heat and light we can do this by using LED lighting and by using Solar Energy to reduce our heating deficit. Although it kills me that the Solar Power arena is being milked for profit, a requirement for all (new?? old??) houses to have solar panels installed for heating (space and water) would be a start!!

Because we have way too much generation capacity. That is why there is a bubble :

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/01/energy-bub.html

I think electric cars run from nuclear electricity would be infinitely cleaner than oil and coal powered electricity and fossil fueled powered vehicles. Of course nuclear energy needs tight regulation, independent from national politics. Irish governments don’t have a great track record in this regard.

…I certainly wouldn’t advocate building nuclear plants in earthquake zones

Despite the pollutant effect, reduced in 4th generation plants and risks, which can be engineered and designed against, nuclear produced energy from fission is the only reliable, consistent and practical method of meeting energy needs. I wish that was not the case but it is.

Wind, solar and tidal are niche producers. Although technological advances my render these more viable within the next 30 years or more, for now they are merely supplements.

We have an abundance of wave, wind and even solar (yes I know, bit of a shocker there) nuclear power is perfectly safe these days, but we simply don’t need it due to the problems with accidents.

If an accident happens at a nuke plant the problems are greater than of that happen at a windmill

@John R, nuclear is also a finite source. If we switch to nuclear for elec only, it will last approx 100 yrs, what then? We’ll need to find another source and we’re stuck with the waste. Also the cost to mine and energy required is substantial.

By windmill do you mean wind turbine? Wind mills give you flour , wind turbines convert energy

Wave energy technology is still in development phase. It’s a few years away yet.

Not true, uranium is abundant, some of the latest reactors can use uranium found in salt water that covers around 66% of the world surface.

Thorium is a better fuel than uranium

Our planet will survive regardless, it’s humans that will be screwed. Already climate change kills more people than terrorism why are more scarred of Isis?

Bad timing there John Quill given that France has just pulled the plug on there next generation nuclear solution as all current projects are years behind and about to fail!! Pity as I used to hold similar views!!

Nuclear is significantly more expensive than Irish onshore wind.
I’d agree that other countries (including GB) need to invest in nuclear.

Until there is a single commercial thorium power station, the cost of building/operating any such plant is unknown. A single Nuclear plant in Ireland would need to run 24/7 and would power the whole country. What that means is there is no incentive for non-nuclear renewables on a commercial scale to survive without even more subsidies. The UK has offered massive subsidies to build new Nuclear plants and to date just ONE is being considered even before the years of public hearings/objections and the first hole being dug. Thorium might be the answer but only in countries with massive power demands/deep-mines to store the waste unless we just decide to import all our power from UK/Europe.

Wind energy gives non dispatch power (i,e. unreliable), Nuclear is dispatchable.

So please stop comparing apples with oranges. You wouldnt compare a horse and cart with an Audi.

I do think that a thorium power station using enclosed sterling technology might be the future but it is just my view?
Ireland is sitting on vast amounts of uranium ore but can not export it due to signing the Zangger Committee, also known as the Nuclear Exporters Committee of 1970, I do not know how that will effect imports for nuclear reactors?
“(a) the definition of “equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material;” and (b) the conditions and procedures that would govern exports of such equipment or material in order to meet the obligations of Article III.2 on the basis of fair commercial competition.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zangger_Committee

The U.K. is getting China to build them, how much radiation has been dumped into the sea… So nuclear is not the way and yet most of France gets its power from nuclear and they seem not to make headlines about it like the U.K.?

Yes! Even with presently deployed technology.
But the USA had a vastly better version than even France’s Phenix, because it used metallic fuel.
In 1986, the Integral Fast Reactor’s second model EBR II proved by actual test that, when deprived of power to circulate its primary coolant, or the loss of the heat sink for that coolant, it shut itself down in five minutes and the liquid metal coolant pool continued to lose heat, by simple convection, to get rid of the essentially transient fission product radioactivity’s energy.
But with a stupidity and ignorance worthy of Germany’s ‘green’ party, the Clinton administration abandoned it in 1994.
Oops, I meant to mention that EBR II ran that test at the start of the month that the Chernobyl meltdown occirred.

Problems with accidents are in fact so rare that they make the news. I think the actual statistics on deaths from wind machines are already greater than actual recorded deaths from TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima. and the total energy produced by wind turbines, in response to demand, is and always will be zero. If you want to hang your clothes out to dry, you have to wait for the weather. If you want to cook a dinner with a wind powered microwave, how do you schedule oit?

Can always dig up rubbish dumps to turn that plastic into diesel lol.

But the water used for cooling the rods is slightly radioactive with plutonium and radioactive uranium dissolved in the water???

Jimbo, I believe the only belief stupider than wind turbines is carbon sequestration. Is that your point?
For others, the total mass of carbon dioxide to be sequestered for a gigawatt year of energy is millions of times as big as for the nuclear waste, even when it’s mostly wasted uranium that’s no worse than it was when it went into the reactor. AND, carbon dioxide is gaseous, and if you compress it and force it into the ground, it doesn’t decay at all, but just waits for a little bitty earthquake.

Ireland would prefer to pollute and pay the fine rather than consider the options. -The option we cannot talk about.

Good.
Refuse, or quit the EU that is against the only real cure — the one France developed so as not to have to buy German coal. Nuclear.

China has ordered a group of their scientists to come up with a commercial level breeder-from-thorium reactor in ten years. The USA haas already established that it is safe, that it works, and that Nixon didn’t like it because you cant make bombs with the fissile uranium it produces.
It doesn’t melt down either. The fuel for the LTFR is a solution of uranium and thorium fluorides in liquid alkali halides.

Are you near a waste transfer station ? If you are and can recycle your own stuff do it , its much cheaper in monetary terms , im lucky enough to have a bit of land so i have the space to be creative , composting takes the raw organic waste and the crows take cooked waste , we got rid of our bin 5 years ago its a pain at first but once you get going it pays off , not an ideal situation for urban areas with out a garden but if you have any bit of a garden you would be surprised how inventive you can be with compostables.

I am with panda I don’t pay by weight if i did they would get feck all off me I put the black bin out twice a year recycle everything else

Your Bin collector has to to pay for every ton of rubbish that goes to landfill. As you might have noticed not many new dumps are being built (or perhaps you would allow them to put one next to your home-if you do then please call your council immediately and think what respect your neighbours will have for you..). So cutting the tonnage is yes, a way of saving them money -its not greed-its simple economics. They still need to collect from you regularly unless you prefer monthly collections while the rubbish starts to smell…Charging by weight has been in some Cork areas for years and has resulted in waste being collected by 30-40%. And remember if your neighbours start burning rubbish-the lethal fumes/smoke will attach itself to your home/family lungs/wildlife. It will be like a free gift of cancer/illness/property value slump/stress/cleaning costs and the nice vista of black acrid clouds/soot….

How exactly is it going to be self efficient? What they said was they want it to be powered by 100% renewable sources so unless they build an unreal amount of wind turbines in East Galway they will just eat up power from existing renewable sources.

The 12 employees cycle electric bikes that are hooked up to a battery which runs the whole data centre

Apple has said it wants this power from 100% renewable sources. So there is a massive incentive for private investors/Electric utilities to build such a farm as it now has one guaranteed, stable, power hungry rich customer willing to sign a long-term contract. In the US, Apple built its own solar power plant for one such centre. Apple would probably even assist with a loan to such a provider as its a win-win for them.
Also data centres consume a fraction of the national power demand. They are also vastly more efficient in what they produce than the thousands of small server rooms that sit in most Irish Business data rooms. Even just moving your business’s servers to such centres would cut our emissions without any extra renewable power. The main impediment to that move is the Irish Governments abject failure to insure we have the broadband infrastructure to allow for that but then again- roads/funeral attendance gets your TD a vote and Paddy will end up paying for the Kyoto fines/emission trading purchases with extra taxes rather than any effort by our elected Gov.

Wind farms not produce constant power so are F@@k all use for data centres. It has been suggested that they are going to use bio power and feed it into the national gas system. They will match what they consume so they are 100% renewable

the truth on apple data centre

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/02/apple-data-centre-great-boost-for.html

Perhaps they’ll have vast amounts of battery storage.

Desmodromic wants to live in the dark ages with candles so please be our guest

The government is still not doing enough to help and encourage houses to be insulated properly and underground heat pumps to reduce energy costs.

Chris I agree but it’s because they don’t have the money.

They found money for water meters and If they get finedby the EU they will certainly have to find the money.

Chris, they increased the grants last week.

If the technology isn’t able to provide payback periods to meet the satisfaction of the end user , well then it needs not suitable

Good idea. The irish govt would rather a population cull rather than consider nuclear power.

Some plants, particularly fast growing ones, thrive in a CO2 rich environment at the expense of others. An understanding of plant ecology would tell you that it is quite ignorant to make such a sweeping statement.

I don’t agree with all the charges that governments impose in relation to carbon emissions, many of which impose an unfair burden on poorer members of society, but climate change is a very real threat to future generations of humans and to a great many species of of plants and animals, many of which have economic and social benefits to humanity.

Jimbo, please then explain what species and varieties of plants you are talking what amount of such fast growing will such plants be sufficient to sequester sufficient CO2 emissions to counteract global warming.

I’m heartened that NY implication you accept CO2 gasses as problematic. So, we are now discussing your plant ecology based solution to climbing CO2 levels.

I can quote you extensive sources on C02 by various plant forms but I’m fascinated to see how you explain how your fast growing plants will be adequate to mop up excessive emissions.

Not just for me, but there are so many scientists who will be thrilled to hear of your solution. Pray tell.

What are you talking about!? Way to jump to conclusions!

I didn’t say that fast growing plants will sufficiently sequester enough carbon to combat climate change. I said that some plants will thrive at the expense of others, this will upset the balance of many ecosystems and have devastating consequences for anything that lives in or relies on those ecosystems, including us.

If you want to convince people of the dangers of climate change, of which I am not one, then you shouldn’t resort to wild non sequiturs and sarcastic language like that. It is very off putting.

Jimbo, then why bring up the issue of fast growing plants at all. The fact is that it is condition of ambient temperature, rainfall levels, sunlight and soil nutrients which determine plant success in Ireland. Parasites, fungal disease and bacteria can also have an effect but in Ireland Co2 levels will not directly influence plant trends. Neither will any level of plantation be enough to achieve sufficient levels of sequestration.

It was you who depicted my comments as ‘ignorant” but I see that you dislike robust rebuttal. Fair enough.

Have you any scientific basis for positing plant life ecosystem devastation in Ireland as a consequence of higher C02 levels. If you have, I am genuinely interested because that should be a factor in our risk assessment of the likely future impact of global warming.

No, I called The Dude’s comment ignorant, your comment wasn’t even there when I started to type my original comment. And I wasn’t talking about ecosystems in Ireland specifically, I didn’t even mention Ireland in my posts. I was referring to global ecosystems in general.

I am not a climate change denier, I am on the same side as you. But you are essentially arguing with me over points that I didn’t make, imply or believe in. Seriously, go back and read what I wrote. The reaction you are having here is precisely the reason that a large number of people are skeptical. People do not like to be talked to as if they are children.

“I am not a climate change denier, I am on the same side as you.”

That statement betrays a lot. Science doesn’t have sides and scepticism is its canon.

Of course science in general doesn’t have sides, but there are sides on individual issues. At the broad scale in relation to climate change – those who believe in anthropologically caused climate change and those who don’t. I am in the former and that is the only point I was making with that sentence.

“those who believe in anthropologically caused ”

That sounds like a religious statement.

Most of (probably all) of the scientists that are labelled ‘deniers’ accept that climate changes and that humans have an impact on climate. Sceptics challenge the amount of effect and whether that is a problem or not.

I classify climate change deniers as those that deny that climate change is happening, not those that accept it is happening. Skepticism is to be applauded, it is the number one tool of any genuine scientist.

And who are these “deniers?”

Well you said above that there has been no significant global warming in the last 20 years. 2014 was 0.4C warmer than 1994. That is denial.

sorry, about 0.3C warmer.

The deniers are the persons featured in Merchants of Doubt, many of whom were previously employed by the Tobacco industry to call into doubt the case against tobacco. The Tea Party and oil magnates have a self interest in attempting to discredit global warming.

The problem in presenting the hypothesis of global warning is that it is a hypothesis. The probability of the hypothesis being proven correct is in the order of 95%, short of certainty and this is why the deniers find it so easy superficially to attach the hypothesis.

The factors involved are too complex and climate is too mulitvariant to deliver a 100% proof at this stage but, by the time we have the clear and incontrovertible empirical proof of the hypothesis, remediation measures will be too late. That’s the dilemma.

I consider the hypothesis of climate change driven by global warming, the consequence of anthropogenically caused factors, sufficiently credible to be assumed to be correct and to justify planning forward on the assumption that it is correct.

The alternative approach of waiting for the results will be too costly for later generations. It is time to act and all countries have their respective roles to play.

Even the alarmist scientist accept that there has been no significant warming for nearly 20 years. Judith Curry has been ostricised for suggesting that the alarmism might be wrong.

The climategate emails show that UEA scientists were concerned about the lack of warming.

“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing. ”

James Hansen et al.

Is Hansen a denier.

Several (alarmist) scientists have addressed the “hiatus” are they too “deniers?”

Merchants of Doubt is a polemic and needs to be treated as such.

The dude abides!!

@Jimbo – yes the classic invocation of the classic favourite label, ‘denier’ -used specifically to silence any opposition by those who disagree by attempting to equate them with ww2 holocaust deniers.

Also Jimbo, your use of the word ‘believe’ clearly puts on display the religious nature of those in the cult of climate change. Nobody denies the climate is changing. It has been doing so for the entire history of the planet. Us so called deniers oppose the dogmatic religious view that it is man caused and the plans that are being put in place to take everybody’s liberty as a solution to this fraud. programs under UN Agenda 21 are being implemented worldwide – the new communism – yet it’s people like you who are too lazy to go look on their websites where it is all there in black and white.

It’s people like you who are the true deniers, if there is such a thing. Look up agenda21 for dummies on you tube and you might learn something. It’s a short video.

Here it is.
http://youtu.be/AZzSEOgbAaA

The scientific consensus, almost but not quite unanimous, and at a 95% level of probability is that man made activities are causing increasing global warming and that such global warming will have a very harmful effect on climate. Read the 3rd, 4th and 5th Reports of the IPCC.

The mechanisms by which climate is changed are also well explained by science.

We have enough theory and indicative evidence to have a basis for taking remedial action. If we delay, future generations will pay dearly.

Here’s a better version
http://youtu.be/rIgHK5x-4fY

@Anthony – I’m sure you mean well but frankly I’m tired of hearing about this so called fraudulent consensus, as if science is determined by consensus. Regards.

I prefer that consensus to notions of Shadow governments and mad plans for extermination of most of humanity.

Sorry, I prefer to remain in the world of the rational.

The Assault on Reason may have some basis to it.

@Anthony – The so called consensus
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/2/

@Anthony – apologies that was page 2 of the article. here’s the beginning
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

or a short summation here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Sadly Human evolution needs oxygen and not a greater percentage of C02 in the air for life. We also need food/shelter and warmth for life and floods/damaging storms/drought/crop failure and resulting famines/death/disease are not a benefit from higher C02 in the atmosphere and oceans. Amazingly fines that penalise destructive human behaviour seems to work versus just a call to save their own lives and the future of the planet we sorta require.

there is nothing worse in this world than somebody who hasnt even checked the facts for themselves calling someone else a climate denier

See here for Irish climate change fiddling of temp data :

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/03/facts-or-fiction-is-green-movement.html

The difference between a skeptic and a denier is that the denier has a prior agenda.
If you deny something as well established as the existence of a gaseous greenhouse effect, that it is anthropogenic, and that it is harmful, then if you have no prior agenda you are a dupe of those who do, the fossil solar energy industry.

Vanuatu will look like a modestly disruptive event if anthropogenically causes global warming is not tackled. Ireland will be less damaged than most places but coastal cities will have to put in place massive flood defences by the second half of this century or else looking at relocation.

Anthony, how do explain that whilst CO2 has continued to rise there has been no significant warming for almost 20 years?

9 of the top 10 warmest years on record have happened since 2000, so that is not true F.man.

That’s like saying that the 10 darkest hours in the last 24 were from 10 pm last evening. It is meaningless.

How is it meaningless? There is an instrument record that goes back 150 years, and an ice-core record that goes back several hundred thousand. The latter of those is obviously not a 100% accurate record of temperature, but it does show past co2 levels that fit quite neatly with estimated temperature levels. co2 is now higher than it has ever been when ice existed in the parts of the planet where these ice cores have been taken.

So F. Man has gone from saying “there has been no significant rise” to “there has been a rise, but it means nowt”.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Yes it does make sense Noel.

“significant rise” is a scientific term that would indicate a trend.

You could say that 12 midnight is significantly darker that 12 noon but 1 am is not significantly darker that 12 midnight.

I disagree you competlely underestimate the speed and rate of clilmate change. It is happening right now at a massive rate in the Arctic with already methane gas being released. Climate scientists have underestimated the rate of climate change. In 2013, global carbon dioxide emissions were 61% higher than they were in 1990, hen humans first tackled climate change. Humanity has completely failed to tackle climate change. The deniers are jumping with joy as the planet sinks into a abyss of climatic disaster.

Average temperatures are increasing and will continue to increase as more and more CO2 emissions and releases occur.

Take a bell jar. Fill it with oxygen, nitrogen and traces gasses. Expose it to a Devine vale of solar radiant heat. Take a similar capacity jar. Fill it with CO2. Compare the 2. CO2 produces higher temperatures and retained temperatures than the oxygen and nitrogen filled bell glass/jar.

Now try methane! The results are even more extreme.

Some CO2 will be absorbed by plants but wide scale deforestation, increased areas of desert and other processes result in less C02 absorption. Release CO2 at increasing rates from carbon fules, add methane from vast herds of cattle and open up areas of tundra and bogs to release of methane in the earth and you aggravate the problem.

The earth is a complex and interdependent ecosystem. For sure we need CO2, but we don’t want too much.

There is no direct and linear relationship between increasing Co2 levels and higher atmospheric temperatures but there is such a relationship with the oceans which are, in a real sense, the engines of climate.

” I agree that warmer oceans are storing up increased heat energy and will fuel more and more extreme weather events. I worry that we may have even passed the tipping point. I add to this increasing sea levels due to ice melts, droughts, and challenges to fresh water supplies.”

This is a repeat of the alarmist porky that has been debunked by the IPCC as I have pointed out in another post.

Please quote the supposed IPCC reference. Please cite the most recent reference, if you can.

The IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4.

Which one. The first, second or third?

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

The same denier nut jobs will be the first to ask for Gov help when their home floods or food prices hike. Even when the destruction comes they will be shouting that its just a temporary weather pattern and if we all wait a few decades and ignore such global warming witchcraft it will all work out OK in the end. Who cares if vast parts of the poorer countries are wiped out due to climate change and if millions die, it won’t be one identifiable event -its just their bad luck. If they change their opinion then do they think its just a matter of turning off the light switch and btw they’ll still want that help at the expense of anyone else who suffers. The good news for them is it will just be their kids and grandkids who really suffer this ‘temporary’ change. I’m sure their kids will be nice enough to forgive this legacy to them…..