Its very hard to know who is being the most energy efficient , in many decisions one makes.
Buy a new car that used a lot of energy in manufacture, or keep the old one though less fuel efficient, is just one example.
I applaud people who try to conserve energy, but it is difficult to see what difference its going to make in the grand scheme of things, when the majority of people and countries are using energy as if they don t care.
And how many people are using aeroplanes, using vast amount of fuel?
A lot of this conservation is cosmetic.
Agreeds, sorry my real point is that people have these things and they make out that they are environmentally friendly when they aren't necessarily.
Is that conjecture really a valid reason to continue driving the less efficient car? What's the solution then? For them to find a less energy intensive way of manufacturing cars?
I am of course aware that my heat pump uses electricity supplied by the ESB. There's nothing I can do about that really - personal wind turbines don't cut it in terms of cost or efficiency.
I would be shocked, however, if the amount of electricity used by the heat pump is in any way equivalent in terms of fossil fuel consumption to a coal fire with the same heat output.
AnnR,
Should we all just run out and buy new cars every year because the motor dealers' association tells us it is environmentally friendly? Or should we make up our own minds?
Not a coal fire but yes a gas boiler. The net effect is you burn the same amount of gas, and the cost of the energy is the same. So to anyone thinking of installing a ground source heat system, save your pocket and put in a gas boiler instead.
The latter of course but as Conor pointed out we don't have that info. We can only act on what we know about.
The problem is that most of this stuff is so complicated you'd need to be a full time analyst to figure it out .
I don't disagree with you on the running costs but I don't understand why you don't just buy the coal and have a coal fire to heat your house. Surely that's much better for the environment than letting the ESB burn the fossil fuel to give you the electricity to run your heat pump. I'd be shocked if it was more efficient. Fair enough if it's 'clean' electricity, but otherwise while economical it's not necessarily good for the environment.
Never disputed the cheapness, just said I wasn't so sure that people who are doing all this stuff to their houses are necessarily helping the environment in a measurable way!However I think the geothermal system would probably be much cheaper over the long term because you would be buying your coal in bags from a shop which is very expensive with all the middle men, whereas the ESB buy their coal in bulk by the shipload which is way cheaper
Don't forget that much of the cynicism and apathy directed towards the so-called Green movement in Ireland is well justified. Take for example the often bizarre pronouncements from the likes of Adi Roche and Patricia McKenna, and the hypocrisy exhibited by "Chemical" Ciaran Cuffe, Joe "Waste Charges" Higgins and others. Not to mention the loonies who inhabit indymedia, Shell to Sea etc...
Electricity in Ireland is expensive because the regulator rigs the market in favour of the ESB. It’s a monopoly supplier to the consumer. Electricity is cheaper everywhere else. We’re just being ripped off.
(snip) The Chinese intend to open 544 new coal-burning stations over the next 25 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm. (snip) Nuclear is clearly the best, clean, cheap when up and running, no C02, etc. but it is expensive to develop nuclear plants. The real risk for investors here is that the Saudis may cut the price of oil to say 5 USD a barrel thus rendering void any investment in nuclear power. So, unless the state provides guarantees I can’t see such investment in nuclear power by the private sector. (Although the UK appears to be making all the right noises in this area, e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8164-2351724.html)
What sources, if any, can you cite for this claim?
achievement.
Essentially we have to (now, and irrespective of the toothless parallysis of the Kyoto process) put in place stringent and enforced laws to achieve carbon-neutral buildings both domestic and commercial. We need also to adopt a culture where individuals take responsibility for their own 'carbon footprint'.
How exactly are they too cheap. They can't be too cheap they are what they are. Everyone knows that oil and gas are finite resources. The market has priced this fact in. The can't be too cheap.Electricity - and fuels generally - are too cheap!! If they were more expensive the response to statistics on finite resources and the damage they cause would be for more parsimonious and responsible use. Nota Bene that the general debate here so far has been "how can we produce more fuel and keep it cheap" NOT "How do we learn to use less more effectively?"