One in 10 cars to be electric by 2020

[danthefan]

“It will help us reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, improve energy security and lower our transport emissions.”

I cant see how, most of our power stations which generate electricity are coal, gas and turf fired. Effectively what you would be doing is transferring emissions from the exhaust pipe to the power station chimney. Also more generation capacity will be required if a sizable shift were to occur.

We're talking about using renewable energy to provide the power, rather than the coal, peat and gas-fired power stations you mention. Hence, there would actually be a massive reduction in emissions. Furthermore, it'll make small scale local renewables much more economically feasible.

I'm all for it, but I still fail to see how this will have any serious impact unless we speed up the ending of our reliance on fossil fuel energy generation in this country. A lot of people will also need to change their mindset in regards to objecting to wind farms and the like, what would they prefer in their back yard a wind turbine, a fossil fuel fired plant or god forbid a nuclear plant. Out of interest, what is the split in percentage terms between fossil fuel generation and generation by renewable means in this country.

There are also government targets set to have a certain % (30 I think) of our power generated by renewable resources by 2020 so electric cars is consistent with that. Neither target will be met however.


Edit - Nuclear has been ruled out in Ireland for the forseeable future, it's not even being considered.

BB,


As someone who seems to be weel up on these issues, what are the carbon emission implications of an en masse and high speed move to renewables over the next few years?


I've been reading arguments that the up front manufacturing intensity required to get us up to speed might tip us over the edge and that drastic cuts in consumption will be needed to get us through the transition without a massive spike in emissions.


Any views?

short answer is that i don't know. I've heard those arguments as well but haven't seen anything too convincing. Have you any links to what you've read? I'd be amazed if the manufacturing intensity required to switch to renewables would cause a massive spike in carbon emissions. But even if it does, it may be a spike we can live with??

Monbiot mentioned this woman, Sharon Astyk, in his last article and she's blogged a reply here:


http://sharonastyk.com/


She is set on the notion (and I think it's a valid one) that seeking an alternative source for our current energy needs is ultimately a wild goose chase and that radical reductions in use are inevitable.

those are two very interesting articles. I would tend to go along with the doomsday scenarios set out by both writers, mainly because when i studied this stuff in college, many of the professors and guest lecturers would privately say that the world is basically f**ked, that there will be widespread upheaval due to climate change in the coming century, that the world's population will dwindle as famine, disease and political flux caused by climate change take it's toll. Very few would say this stuff publicly because they'd be laughed out of it, and in any case it was best to leave the stark warnings to a single trusted body in the IPCC. One guy who has spoken out is James Lovelock, possibly the worlds most eminent environmental scientist. He reckons that it is possible that the worlds population might fall to 20% of what it is currently by 2100AD.

Going back to your point, i don't see any justification in her (or Monbiot's) article for Sharon Astyk's claim that investing massively in green technology will push us over a tipping point. Chances are we are over the tipping point already and are into some form of damage limitation phase. That would provide a justification for the massive, speedy and radical switch to green technologies that Monbiot proposes, imo.

[Balla Boy]

I'd tend to agree, BB. I also think that there's an economic question at the core of Astyk's case that doesn't seem to be answered. How are economies experiencing the sort of transition she's talking about supposed to fund the transition to green energy?


While she argues that we should be better positioned to do it in a depression, I sense a strong hint at central planning in her parallels with war time economies.


That's a very hard sell.

I'd tend to agree, BB. I also think that there's an economic question at the core of Astyk's case that doesn't seem to be answered. How are economies experiencing the sort of transition she's talking about supposed to fund the transition to green energy?


While she argues that we should be better positioned to do it in a depression, I sense a strong hint at central planning in her parallels with war time economies.
That's a very hard sell.

indeed. I think the war analogy is over-played. After all, back then the crisis was so terrifying and so imminent that people were very happy to do what they could to prevent it. With climate change, it'll be our grand-kids who suffer. And they are a long way from being born. And anyway, they mightn't suffer at all, technology will take care of this whole problem. There's a huge amount of denial of the problem, but there is also a huge amount of downright not thinking it'll happen to me about it. That wasn't the case when Hitler was marching across Europe.

[rathbaner]

There are a few new technologies just breaking now




A
nuclear reactor that can meet the energy needs of developing countries
without the risk that they will use the by-products to make weapons is
being developed by the US Department of Energy. The
aim is to create a sealed reactor that can be delivered to a site, left
to generate power for up to 30 years, and retrieved when its fuel is
spent.
link here


Then there's hydrogen on demand - a modification to diesel engines which provides hydrogen from water using the car battery to split the water molecule in H2 and O
to mix with the diesel in a more efficient and lower emission fuel mix. Link here

I think we're in for a rocky ride - and this recession is the beginning of it. But with a bit of luck and courage we'll make it.

But we badly need more journalist who are informed. Anyone see Prime Time last night? A f**king witch doctor was on to deny climate change and then Hooke on Newstalk tonight to Gormley: "Don't you think with this recession that climate change is going go on the back burner?"

Jesus wept.

[themick171]

All the problems to nuclear will be supplanted by the practicalities of diminishing energy reserves, blackout etc. When these things hit
people then we will see how the NIMBYs react. I personally believe
that for certain projects of major strategic importance for Ireland, we
should have a body that can bypass all public objections. I know I
am going to get pilloried for this, but the general public is essentially
stupid and sometimes needs to be lead by the nose and not by the
hand with certain things.
The problem with many Irish people is they see the negative before
they see the positive. We can do these things we just have to do
them.

As for population growth for the future I personally see global population decline but I think it will happen predominantly in those
areas of the world where population growth is highest, namely the
Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa. This is probably a good
thing as humanities population has increased about 6 fold since 1800.
Population biology tells us that eventually external factors such as
competition for resources, disease and natural disasters will limit
human population.

Beir Bua the people you spoke to were definitely of the Malthusian persuasion, a fairly controversial viewpoint even in biology.
Population dynamics would suggest tho' that many people, probaly in
Asia and Africa will die from starvation. Although this theory is
predicated on the notion that we don't produce enough food, which if
I remember isn't true. Its just that a lot of the food production
doesn't go to those who need it.

Doesn't James Lovelock strongly believe in nuclear power. I am sure
I heard him say that.

[Balla Boy]

I think he does, themick.


But the objections aren't moral or political any more, they're practical - if not widely acknowledged.


A board director of BNFL told me first hand about two years ago that the experience and expertise no longer exists to develop large scale nuclear generation.


They just don't have enough qualified scientists and engineers. No one has viewed nuclear science as a career for knocking on thirty years, and he bemoned the fact that all the senior scientists at BNFL are of his generation- the one that joined in the 60's when nuclear power was still the bright tomorrow.


The organisation I work for also did the head hunting for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Having worked on that for months, I could tell you first hand that every reasonably able bodied individual in the sector is either working in France, involved in a developmental project elsewhere (such as the massively over time and budget effort in Finland) or is engaged in the decommissioning of the last generation of nuclear power stations.


The manpower and expertise simply isn't there on a global level to switch back from what has largely been an R&D driven sector for twenty years to full on industrial production levels. Even the pro-nuclear lobby are giving a 20-25 year timetable to bring the reactors on line.

[themick171]

Ok then Balla Boy. But why not begin that task soon. I have heard of
smaller scale Nuclear reactors with less problems. I see rathbaner
has linked it.
We have oil/coal etc. to late that long and we begin the other
projects. France and I think Finland are expanding there nuclear
facilities, and I heard Britain are seriously considering re-opening
that concept, albeit the results won't materialise for years.

Surely inaction is not excuse for action.

And I know this is long been talked about but eventually fusion will
be become viable. That should solve the energy problems with the
major advantages of fusion over fission.

[John_C]

They just don't have enough qualified scientists and engineers.

That's hardly a good reason, any big change in industry is going to involve retraining people. There are'nt thousands of engineers with experience in electric car grids sitting around either.

[Balla Boy]

We can move on renewables now though. The shift to nuclear means another twenty years of CO2 heavy generation that we can't afford, as well as enormously carbon-heavy frontloading in expanding our mineral extraction and engaging in large scale construction.


It may be an answer to "how do we replace fossil fuels". But the question behind that question, "how do we generate energy in a more sustainable way in the short to medium term" it doesn't really address.


It's an alternativeenergy source - but it doesn't give us what we need from an alternativeenergy source.


I harp on about this, but the whole question of supply is the wrong question.


There's some handy info on energy efficiency here:


http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solutions/energy-effici ency


Biased source, admittedly, but most of it drawn from UK govt estimates.A couple ofquotes put the whole question of supply side management into perspective I think:


"The way we use energy is shockingly wasteful. Every year, we throw away more than eight times the amount of energy supplied by all of the UK's nuclear power stations combined.


Through our inefficient use of energy (gas guzzling vehicles, badly insulated buildings, poorly designed appliances etc) we needlessly throw away almost a third of the energy we use (source)."


"Meanwhile, old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs waste as much as 95 per cent of the energy they use. If all retailers in the UK only stocked energy efficient light bulbs, we could save over five million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year. That's the equivalent of the output of two nuclear power stations, or more than the CO2 emissions of the 26 lowest emitting countries"


The "source" link points to the Cabinet Office website, but the docs have moved. Trying to track them down.

This looks promising.....Tesla Roadster [img]smileys/biggrin.gif[/img]





The Tesla Roadster is a fully electric sports car. It is the first car produced by electric car firm Tesla Motors.


The car can travel 244miles (393km) on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0–60mph (0–97km/h) in 3.9 seconds.
The Roadster's efficiency, as of September 2008<sup ="plainlinks asof-tag update" style="display: n&#111;ne;">[update]</sup>, is reported as equivalent to 120miles per US gallon (51km/l/140mpg_-imp).

[Balla Boy]

They just don't have enough qualified scientists and engineers.

That's hardly a good reason, any big change in industry is going to involve retraining people. There are'nt thousands of engineers with experience in electric car grids sitting around either.

But there's lots of cross transferable knowledge.


You're going to have to start with undergraduate physics students, then wait for them to do Masters and Phds. BNFL started the Dalton Institute at Manchester because making up and funding research projects for people to work on was the only way of generating some qualified nuclear physicists.


I know it sounds dramatic, but I believe the guy who told me it can't be done in a practical timeframe. He wasn't a greenpeace activist - he was one of the top scientists in the Nuclear industry in the UK.

[Loop]

I can't argue with the stats BB but the question is ... what motivation is there for people to be more fuel efficient? For example, what motivation is there for me to improve the insulation in my home or to buy low energy light bulbs instead of standard type?


When it comes down to it, people are generally unthinking and uncaring in regards to things like this. It's only when energy becomesmarkedly moreexpensive (... as over the last year)and it begins to hitpeople in the pocket, that theybegin to changetheir views and you get a change in behaviour. Changing societal attitudes is no easier a task, in my view, thanis investing heavily in nuclear power. If you rely onthe fact that people are selfish and unthinkingyou won't be far off reality.

[neiljung]

They just don't have enough qualified scientists and engineers.

That's hardly a good reason, any big change in industry is going to involve retraining people. There are'nt thousands of engineers with experience in electric car grids sitting around either.

But there's lots of cross transferable knowledge.


You're going to have to start with undergraduate physics students, then wait for them to do Masters and Phds. BNFL started the Dalton Institute at Manchester because making up and funding research projects for people to work on was the only way of generating some qualified nuclear physicists.


I know it sounds dramatic, but I believe the guy who told me it can't be done in a practical timeframe. He wasn't a greenpeace activist - he was one of the top scientists in the Nuclear industry in the UK.

I think we underestimate how far understanding of science and engineering has developed in the past 40 odd years. Globally there are far more engineering and science students than ever before and the speed of development has increased massively. Look at the private companies successfully putting people into space with relatively few people and little cash behind them. Compare this to 50 years back when only the world's two largest economies needed billions and tens of thousands of people to do the same thing.

Or take a comp sci. student who today could probably write from the scratch the code behind the world's best assembler/OS/browser from 20 years back. Considering the advances in manufacturing/materials science/IT etc. etc. it should be possible to produce a 1960's standard reactor for a fraction of the original cost with far far fewer people needed. Obviously the added requirements for a current generation raise the bar an awful lot but it's still a lot less heavy on resources.

[Balla Boy]

They just don't have enough qualified scientists and engineers.

That's hardly a good reason, any big change in industry is going to involve retraining people. There are'nt thousands of engineers with experience in electric car grids sitting around either.

But there's lots of cross transferable knowledge.


You're going to have to start with undergraduate physics students, then wait for them to do Masters and Phds. BNFL started the Dalton Institute at Manchester because making up and funding research projects for people to work on was the only way of generating some qualified nuclear physicists.


I know it sounds dramatic, but I believe the guy who told me it can't be done in a practical timeframe. He wasn't a greenpeace activist - he was one of the top scientists in the Nuclear industry in the UK.

I think we underestimate how far understanding of science and engineering has developed in the past 40 odd years. Globally there are far more engineering and science students than ever before and the speed of development has increased massively. Look at the private companies successfully putting people into space with relatively few people and little cash behind them. Compare this to 50 years back when only the world's two largest economies needed billions and tens of thousands of people to do the same thing.

Or take a comp sci. student who today could probably write from the scratch the code behind the world's best assembler/OS/browser from 20 years back. Considering the advances in manufacturing/materials science/IT etc. etc. it should be possible to produce a 1960's standard reactor for a fraction of the original cost with far far fewer people needed. Obviously the added requirements for a current generation raise the bar an awful lot but it's still a lot less heavy on resources.

But it isn't - the plans and costings are being prepared and it ain't cheap. Obviously there's a "standing on shoulders" thing, but if we could lash these things up then the British govt would be doing it now. The decommissioning of the existing power stations is the most expensive civil engineering project ever undertaken in the UK, apparently.


Loop - I think there's two routes. Firstly, you make clear to people how much money they can spend. Secondly, you give govt subsidy - the UK govt reckons it can create 10,000 jobs through govt funded cavity insulation roll out over the next few years. While people may moan about tax payers money, it will be tax payers money that will be building the power stations as well.


Secondly, you take out the banning stick. Why are we still allowing the sale of incandescent light bulbs when we have better technology? Ban them. Why are we allowing builders to build projects with piss poor insulation, rather than insisting that every new development has solar panels and wind turbines on the roof and ground heating technology underneath it?


The answer (in case the question isn't loaded enough) is that industry lobbies are resisting govt regulation and various govts are in thrall to it.


The VC of a major university who sits on a Dept of Transport policy group here has pushed the notion that the only way of effectively lowering emmissions is through punitive regulation.


Her view is that a balanced of govt subsidy for innovation coupled with harsh regulation will create the ideal environment for technological development by ensuring theemergence of clear medium term need - effectively creating a market for these technologies before the market might naturally emerge.


I think she's right- we have to force the curve, not just be responsive.

[fitzy73]

Secondly, you take out the banning stick. Why are we still allowing the
sale of incandescent light bulbs when we have better technology? Ban
them

Not wishing to distract from a very informative thread, but AFAIK they are banned in Ireland.

[Loop]

The VC of a major university who sits on a Dept of Transport policy group here has pushed the notion that the only way of effectively lowering emmissions is through punitive regulation.

I would agree with the above. As stated, I don't believe that you can rely on people's altruism or 'better nature' to force the change.


The issues I guess would be (a) to find a government that was politically brave enough to do it and (b) doing it in such a way that the particular country wasn't competitively disadvantaged verus it's peers.


Perhaps opinion will move enough to facilitate (a) and perhaps technologies will develop enough to facilitate (b).


However, for the moment, I would have to say that I'm pessimistic.

[99_oK?]

One in 10 cars to be electric in 11 years......?


Yeah... [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img] [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]





Have heard it all now. Harney put a shackle round the ankles of the ESB a few years back, we may not be able to make toast in 10 years time unless her edicts are changed.....


As for the economics - maybe if oil is at $500 dollars a barrel (at current rates).


What are the other 90% going to do? Hopefully I'll still have the oil-burner (old chip oil isn't too bad actually...)


Buy a donkey I'd say, at least it'll eat the garbage we won't be able to dispose of.

[Magsy]

<cite style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is
a link to Eirgrid's strategy for the future of Irish energy. I was just
at a lecture about the report given by Engineers Ireland. (The project Manager who headed up the report gave the lecture and the president of Eirgrid gave his opinion too)



http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal...cements/EirGri d%20GRID25<wbr>.pdf



Also, there's a link to a lecture on electric/hybrid cars here, again from Engineers Ireland

https://engineersireland.webex.com/e...ntcenter/recor ding/recordAction.do?siteurl=engineersireland&amp;theAc tion= archive

The lecture on smart metres is quite relevant as well.

(I've no idea why this is in italic and I can't change it)



</cite>

[neiljung]

<cite style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is
a link to Eirgrid's strategy for the future of Irish energy. I was just
at a lecture about the report given by Engineers Ireland. (The project Manager who headed up the report gave the lecture and the president of Eirgrid gave his opinion too)



http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal...cements/EirGri d%20GRID25<wbr>.pdf



Also, there's a link to a lecture on electric/hybrid cars here, again from Engineers Ireland

https://engineersireland.webex.com/e...ntcenter/recor ding/recordAction.do?siteurl=engineersireland&amp;theAc tion= archive

The lecture on smart metres is quite relevant as well.

(I've no idea why this is in italic and I can't change it)



</cite>

Can't say you stuck out in the crowd Magsy!!

But then you prob didn't arrive late either.[img]smileys/redface.gif[/img]

Usual self serving twaddle from Grid, especially the head guy.

The presenter really knew his stuff in fairness, sounds like he'll be a loss when he retires.

[sewa]

Will never happen but sure the Greens will be wiped out by the time it dosent happen so they can propose what they want.

[neiljung]

One in 10 cars to be electric in 11 years......?


Yeah... [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img] [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img] </font>





Have heard it all now. Harney put a shackle round the ankles of the ESB a few years back, we may not be able to make toast in 10 years time unless her edicts are changed.....

What did Harney ever do to the ESB?

[legomb]

Going electric at the moment makes no sense as we are exposing ourselves totallyto the ESB monopoly. They have doubled the price of electricity in two and a half years. They are the highest cost generators of electricityin Europe. They have no real committment to renewables, in fact they are the main reason that renewables are at such a low level in this country. Their generation is based on coal and gas. Their biggest station,Moneypoint in Clare produce 900 mw from coal with 1800mw of heat and pollution going up the chimney. They are the single biggest air polluters on our island.


Like everything else here the government is afraid to really tackle this monopoly. I would prefer to put myself at the mercy of the Arabs.


The real solution is for us to link ourselves by cable to France.They are the European experts innuclear. We should get our private sector to drive on with wind/wave etc and export our excess to France where they are crying out for rewnwable electricitywhile at the same time we should be importing cheap newclear when the wind stops blowing. The future is electrity from renewables combined withnuclear.


First we must sort out the ESB. Over to you Mr Cowan.........

[Magsy]

Going electric at the moment makes no sense as we are exposing ourselves totallyto the ESB monopoly. They have doubled the price of electricity in two and a half years. They are the highest cost generators of electricityin Europe. They have no real committment to renewables, in fact they are the main reason that renewables are at such a low level in this country. Their generation is based on coal and gas. Their biggest station,Moneypoint in Clare produce 900 mw from coal with 1800mw of heat and pollution going up the chimney. They are the single biggest air polluters on our island.


Like everything else here the government is afraid to really tackle this monopoly. I would prefer to put myself at the mercy of the Arabs.


The real solution is for us to link ourselves by cable to France.They are the European experts innuclear. We should get our private sector to drive on with wind/wave etc and export our excess to France where they are crying out for rewnwable electricitywhile at the same time we should be importing cheap newclear when the wind stops blowing. The future is electrity from renewables combined withnuclear.


First we must sort out the ESB. Over to you Mr Cowan.........

Upgrading the grid is a huge issue. There will have to be 1000km of cables laid to power the island and to transfer electricity from the remote places that produce the elecricity to the urban areas.

It's way too complicated an issue or any of the politicians to figure out and Eamon Ryan showed his ignorance of power supply a few months ago by questioning why we can't aim for100% renewables. Even the 40% by 2020 that has been targetted (it's been upped from 33% that was quoted in the white paper) is ambitious.

Interconnector to France is in the pipeline. Work has already started on it. The problem with importing nuclear from France is that they will use all their nuclear as their base load and won't be selling on any of it because economically it's so cheap. We're already exporting to UK during windy days.

Last week Ireland passed the 1000MW renewable mark (We're at 1002). The government wants to be at 5500MW by 2020.

[neiljung]

Going electric at the moment makes no sense as we are exposing ourselves totallyto the ESB monopoly. Well former monopoly, ESB's share of generation in the market has dropped to 42% and will fall further with the closure of chunks of Pollbeg and Marina in the next 2 years. </span></span>They have doubled the price of electricity in two and a half years. Again, elec prices did drop by 10% last year, whatever about inherent high costs within the company all rises in the past 2 years are almost totally attributable to changes in fuel prices. They were also approved by the independent CER. </span>They are the highest cost generators of electricityin Europe. They have no real committment to renewables, in fact they are the main reason that renewables are at such a low level in this country.Certainly used to be the case, has chagned radically though since the summer with the new renewables, renewables and more renewables strategy.</span> Their generation is based on coal and gas. Their biggest station,Moneypoint in Clare produce 900 mw from coal with 1800mw of heat and pollution going up the chimney. They are the single biggest air polluters on our island.


Like everything else here the government is afraid to really tackle this monopoly. I would prefer to put myself at the mercy of the Arabs.


The real solution is for us to link ourselves by cable to France.They are the European experts innuclear. We should get our private sector to drive on with wind/wave etc and export our excess to France where they are crying out for rewnwable electricity not really they have some of the cheapest electrity in Europe, it's 80% nuclear so no emissions and all the locals seem quite happy with it.</span>while at the same time we should be importing cheap newclear when the wind stops blowing. The future is electrity from renewables combined withnuclear.


First we must sort out the ESB. Over to you Mr Cowan.........

This looks promising.....Tesla Roadster [img]smileys/biggrin.gif[/img]





The Tesla Roadster is a fully electric sports car. It is the first car produced by electric car firm Tesla Motors.


The car can travel 244miles (393km) on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0–60mph (0–97km/h) in 3.9 seconds.
The Roadster's efficiency, as of September 2008<sup style="display: n&#111;ne;">[update]</sup>, is reported as equivalent to 120miles per US gallon (51km/l/140mpg_-imp).

well whatever about the car that bears his name, I reckon if Nikola Tesla were around he'd have us out of this fix in no time. Then again he got us into it by inventing electricity (or at least the way to generate it!) in the first place.

[neiljung]

It's way too complicated an issue or any of the politicians to figure out and Eamon Ryan showed his ignorance of power supply a few months ago by questioning why we can't aim for100% renewables.

Not sure if that is totally accurate, I'm open to correction though and I'm sure the ghost of OD would pounce on such an opportunity to have a dig at the lads he put into office.

It's way too complicated an issue or any of the politicians to figure out and Eamon Ryan showed his ignorance of power supply a few months ago by questioning why we can't aim for100% renewables.

Not sure if that is totally accurate, I'm open to correction though and I'm sure the ghost of OD would pounce on such an opportunity to have a dig at the lads he put into office.

i'm not sure what Eamon Ryan said, but in theory you could have Ireland powered 100% with renewables. It would depend on the amount of RE generation capacity you had and also the diversity in the both generation and demand. If you are talking about a 50 - 100 year plan, then this kind of ambition is not a bad starting point.

[99_oK?]

.....


What did Harney ever do to the ESB? Wrong question... What did she do to our country...?

Only a few things....


1. She stopped them trading abroad (since rescinded...)


2. She has prevented the most efficient electric generator/supplier from tendering for contracts in this country.


I'm surprised you don't know we operate in a system which stopped them from doing their job. Harney preaches 'open markets', but she's somewhere between Stalin and Mugabe in the detail. She gets a loony notion (to you or me*..) in her head an then bans anyone else from doing the job.


She has pevented any competition in the Electric Generating sector in this country. What else do you expect from someone who couldn't pass repeat economics in UCD...?


* She reckons the ESB are behind the times...; ESB is one of the top Elec generators in the world; Ouside of Sweden they're also one of the top distributors...


Harney may be able to sit in a chair and get her hair washed, but she knows sweet FA about the electrical genaration or distribution arenas. She can bluster though. And we know the response needed there.....!


She is the sad past.. She has cost us all billions (&amp; lives).....


Time to move on....

[neiljung]

.....


What did Harney ever do to the ESB? Wrong question... What did she do to our country...?

Well she has never been in charge of the dept. of public enterprise/dcmnr/dcenr so I was wondering how she had such influence.


Only a few things....


1. She stopped them trading abroad (since rescinded...)ESB , to the best of my knowlegde, were never stopped from trading abroad (there has been an internatinal element in operation continuously since 1973) but were stopped by the government about 7 or 8 years back from spending a few billion on buying the Polish electircity network. Mary O'Rourke would have been in charge at the time though and the government's thinking was that they couldn't justify spending that much abroad when €5billion + needed to be spent at home to prevent the lights going out. Can't really see how you're dragging Harney into it but then she does appear to be everyone's favourite punch bag lately.


2. She has prevented the most efficient electric generator/supplier from tendering for contracts in this country. Efficency, unless your using FÁS for comparison, isn't a word I'd be using too often in this case. Regardless, it is EU laws on opening electricity markets to competition that was the primary driver behind limiting the ESB's share of the generation market, thus allowing a competitive environment to emerge.


I'm surprised you don't know we operate in a system which stopped them from doing their job. Harney preaches 'open markets', but she's somewhere between Stalin and Mugabe in the detail. She gets a loony notion (to you or me*..) in her head an then bans anyone else from doing the job.


She has pevented any competition in the Electric Generating sector in this country.AsI said previously ESB's share of the generation market is 42% and dropping,(down from 99% 10 years ago). So whoever, in your mind,was trying to prevent competition obviously wasn't toosuccessful.What else do you expect from someone who couldn't pass repeat economics in UCD...?


* She reckons the ESB are behind the times...; ESB is one of the top Elec generators in the world; Ouside of Sweden they're also one of the top distributors... Top in what way?


Top for costs? Wellyes, but for anything else I don't know dunno what you're referring to.


Harney may be able to sit in a chair and get her hair washed, but she knows sweet FA about the electrical genaration or distribution arenas.Based on your statements above that wouldgive her aquality identical to your own, people in glass houses andall that; She can bluster though. And we know the response needed there.....!


She is the sad past.. She has cost us all billions (&amp; lives).....


Time to move on....