Forget Property prices - the real elephant in the room is Energy

[sunrock]

[. However approximately half the world's population live in emerging nations such as China and India and they are desperate to enjoy the polluting, hedonistic lifestyles we have taken for granted for so many years. What are you going to say to them to persuade them to achieve their desires in a more environmentally-friendly manner?[/quote]

If you don t stop your polluting,hedonistic lifestyles that we in the west have taken for granted ,
then we are left with no option but to nuke you back to the environmentally friendly stone age,
with radiation as central heating!

 

[Marie]

Aeroplane's emissions are a bit mis-leading. I remember seeing an advert by Ford in an US airport saying that a jumbo got 5mpg where as their SUV got 23mpg.

Bit misleading as an aeroplane carries far more people than an SUV so is more fuel effecient in transporting people.

However the problem with aeroplanes is that they thier emissions at such an altitude that they compound the green house effect.

Today's Irish Times reports that:-

The Government has given "green" tax breaks of more than €3.5 million to the drivers of luxury high performance cars and SUVs this year, it has emerged.

These expensive vehicles produce MORE harmful emissions than standard but are rebated as they have "hyrid" (part-electricity-powered) engines). The gubbernent uses 5 as Cabinet State cars. Not surprisingly the Green lobby flag this up as part of the muddled thinking and hypocricy on the energy issue. "The green VRT rebate is given to cars which are electric, part-electric or run on biofuel, regardless of their levels of emissions".
(snip) "The Lexus RX 400h attracts a VRT rebate of €11,662 because it has a hybrid engine. A further 60 of the Lexus GS 450h, a luxury hybrid saloon, have also been sold, according to the figures.
Each of these attract a VRT rebate of €13,568 , and are being used as State cars by the Minister for the Environment Dick Roche, the Minister for Sport John O'Donoghue, and the Attorney General Rory Brady."

Not an appropriate role-model for ordinary bods earnestly recycling their glass, paper and cans and maximising insulation on their homes!

 

[Marie]

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.

Secondly what's wrong with wanting to produce cheaper fuel. I'm of the opinion the sooner we use all the oil the better, then and only then will be the real incentive to work on real alternatives be there.

Dave - the point I was making is that the costs of pollutant radioactive substances is not factored in, nor is the cost to the environment in enduring damage (have a peep at "Planet Earth" Sunday evening 9.00pm BBC1, for example, to see the effects). There is more to "cost" than the production and distribution figures. The "cost" MUST include the cost of neutralising waste of all kinds. It's that element which is absent from most thinking and debate on energy and pollution...........which are probably, as the original poster suggests, the real issue in our world today.

As an aside - now that "pulling out" of Iraq has been mentioned, now that Rumsfeld has been sacrificed, I expect President G.W.Bush or his successor begin to engage seriously with this issue. They have failed to acquire another energy-source; America will (hopefully? probably?) begin to turn itself around in terms of energy-profligacy.

 

[Superman]

As an aside - now that "pulling out" of Iraq has been mentioned, now that Rumsfeld has been sacrificed, I expect President G.W.Bush or his successor begin to engage seriously with this issue. They have failed to acquire another energy-source; America will (hopefully? probably?) begin to turn itself around in terms of energy-profligacy.

Pulling out does not include pulling out of the oil fields. There are permanent American military bases already established in Iraq.

 

[sunrock]

Conserving energy in IRELAND is all about reducing our imports of oil and gas _i e. to reduce our import bill.
As irelands emissions from burning fossil fuels is neglible compared to worlds output,we might as well use what we want, while the supplies of fossil fuels last.
There will be no problem switching to alternatives ,when the day of serious shortages arrives.
At the moment , oil and gas can t be beaten for availability and price and ease of usage.
As the americans drive their suvs , i wouldn t ask anybody to turn down their heating or lights below their comfort level.
WHY should i? So the drivers of s.u.v.s can get another few months driving as oil runs out.
People have forgotten that cheap oil etc has vastly improved peoples quality of life.
Apart from cheap transport,food and medicene,heating of homes in winter prevents discomfort and death of large numbers of especially elderly people.
As fossil fuels run out and become increasingly expenpensive,people will turn to whatever soucre they can get their hands on, including trees coal turf etc
Nuclear? everyone will be lobbying their tds to build one in their locality.
And finally to b+b.
Bikes and blankets of course.

 

[Marie]

Perhaps that sentiment could be incised in large script on the outer walls of the IRISH nuclear power-plant........"Shure yez'll manage somehow!"

I am not interested in debate at that level so this will be my last posting here. There are already comprehensive threads on recycling and optimal use of different kinds of energy (threads begun on AAM in the Ez-Board days) which can be found by using the search engine.

The OP and many others are becoming conscious of these issues and feel an urgency about addressing them. Others - like your good self and the government - acknowledge there is a problem to which a range of solutions exist with which you are neither involved nor responsible. The logic of this is that it is up to 'them' (others) to solve. Impasse.

 

[MadPad]

Forget Property prices - the real elephant in the room is Energy

or rarher the lack of alternative energy...

Agree 100%

 

[rabbit]

I think the day will definitely come when as a country we regret scattering so many houses around the country outside of the main urban centres where people work / go to college / hospital etc. The distances people commute by car is crazy, not just in Dublin but in rural counties where people left major towns to live in rural tax incentive areas....eg Dromahair Co. Leitrim has been promoted by auctioneers as a suburb of Sligo. Leitrim is of course tax incentive, just like certain villages like Tubbercurry, Collooney etc.

 

[futisle]

Are there not real economic consequences down the line if we don't do something about our energy supplies? Because we import over 90% of our energy needs, we are very open to the instability of world energy markets. When oil and gas get scarce, will it be just a question of copying what some other forward thinking country, say Sweden for example has done or will it be too late. As someone here already said energy prices are relatively cheap at the moment, but we still have one of the highest elecdtricity prices in europe. If the fuel to make electricity gets more expensive where will out electricity prices go? Since we are also highly dependent on foregin investment, where will the incentive be for companies to invest in Ireland if both our wage rates and our energy prices are so much higher than other countries? Why won't they relocate to, I don't Venezuela (maybe there's a better ecample), which can provide them with cheap energy? If this happens we won't have to worry about commuting long distances cause there won't be much work around to get to

 

[pat127]

Are there not real economic consequences down the line if we don't do something about our energy supplies? Because we import over 90% of our energy needs, we are very open to the instability of world energy markets. When oil and gas get scarce, will it be just a question of copying what some other forward thinking country, say Sweden for example has done or will it be too late.

You hit the nail right on the head there Futisle. We've lost the run of ourselves entirely in this country IMO. A few good decisions as to how we should attract industry into the country (which worked beyond our wildest expectations) and we think we manage our own affairs. Almost total dependency on imported gas (from Russia at that) - even if this fiasco on the West coast gets sorted-out that gas will reduce our dependency on imports to about 50% and for only 10 years. No coal of any real commercial value, almost-depleted supplies of turf etc. On the same general topic, we cannot defend ourselves and of course we remain significantly dependent on our paymasters in Europe.

As to copying Sweden or some other such advanced country where I presume you mean that they can use their forests, we have totally ignored our need to grow trees to the extent required and the lead-time is far too long for it to be of any practical use. (There is not and there will not be any alternative to importing wood pellets for example). As for Biomass - I read somewhere that we'd need 10 times the land we have available to become anything like independent. It doesn't leave us with many alternatives I think. Nuclear? Not that we couldn't do it I suppose but the NIMBYs will fight it to the bitter end or to the point where it'll be too late to play catch-up.

An unpleasant prospect! I'm beginning to think that Sunrock may have a point. 'Smoke 'em while you've got 'em' and to heck with the consequences. After that - surely someone somewhere will want our little green resourceless island? Our beloved leader said recently that we'll soon reach our pre-Famine population levels. Looks like poor Paddy will be hitting the emigration trail again. It's not as if we don't have plenty of practice at it but don't throw out the oul 'pick and shovel yet.

Who started this thread anyway? It's getting me totally depressed. I think I'll jump into the 4WD and nip down to the boozer for a couple of scoops.

 

[Superman]

It's getting me totally depressed. I think I'll jump into the 4WD and nip down to the boozer for a couple of scoops.

For the true Irish experience - don't forget to drive home afterwards.

 

[PMU]

Electricity - and fuels generally - are too cheap!!

Marie: On electricity edo’s original point was “Electricity and Gas prices will increasing by 20-30% in the coming months “. I pointed out that in Ireland market rigging, ESB monopoly and lack of competition at the consumer level are probably the reasons for increased prices. Electricity prices in Ireland aren’t ‘too cheap’; they are more expensive than they otherwise need be.

Blaming China, blaming Brazil for cutting down the Amazonian forests for a ludicrous short-term dollars profit, blaming anyone and everyone else, is not an option.

I’m not blaming China; they’ve massive coal reserves and it makes sense for them to develop them to fuel their economy and raise their standards of living. But with China pumping out all that CO2 it’s been estimated that even if the UK shut up shop and totally stopped producing carbon emissions that CO2 emissions from China would negate it in two years.

If nuclear energy is so clean, safe, effecient, cheap then build a nuclear power-plant in Dublin city centre (Liberty Hall is up for sale I believe?) where the population can contemplate their decision and achievement.

There’s one on the Wyfla peninsular in Wales beside Holyhead, which is not that far away. It might as well be in the city centre.

We need also to adopt a culture where individuals take responsibility for their own 'carbon footprint'.

We do this in effect by taxing petrol, gas and home heating oil, which are the main discretionary uses of carbon by consumers. But climate taxes just don’t work. When you pay road tax you may not like paying it but you get roads; when you pay waste charges you may not like paying it but you get your bins collected; income tax gives you infrastructure, police security, etc., and PRSI gives you health and pension services. You may not like paying these taxes but you do get something in return. But introduce ‘climate taxes’ and what do you get? You get toss all as you don’t get a better climate, it’ll still rain tomorrow; and it doesn’t matter which government you vote in. They can’t spend the carbon tax money in different ways that will change the climate no more than King Canute could stop the tide coming in. Climate taxes are pointless, unproductive and just further distort prices; which leads to poor decision making and poor investment decisions.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[pat127]

For the true Irish experience - don't forget to drive home afterwards.

That wouldn't be a responsible thing to do, now would it? No, Mrs Pat will pick me up in her 4WD.

Anyway, enough of the levity. In all this intense debate, no one has mentioned water which is becoming a very scarce resource altogether. That's a reference which usually triggers a smart remark so I'll get my retaliation in first. Even in our rain-soaked land, we have, or are rapidly developing, supply problems. Elsewhere, the situation is dire. Changing climatic conditions are making matters extremely difficult for people in various parts of the world, people in many cases who already have major problems getting water for their animals, their crops and themselves. Future wars, it's said, will take place because of water shortages.

So what's that got to do with us? Conflicts elsewhere always have a knock-on effect. Relief funds are required for starters. Secondly the uncertainty factor can have a negative impact on stock-markets world-wide.

Coming right back to one of edo's original questions...my advise is that if you have any money left over after buying the oil-company stocks, invest in (a) armaments, and (b) desalination technology.

 

[EvilDoctorK]

However approximately half the world's population live in emerging nations such as China and India and they are desperate to enjoy the polluting, hedonistic lifestyles we have taken for granted for so many years. What are you going to say to them to persuade them to achieve their desires in a more environmentally-friendly manner?

I'm a believer in how technology can transform a lot of the debates that we're having at the moment - I'm reminded of reading something quite a while ago (in a book published maybe 30 years ago) which stated that it would never be possible for everyone in China to have a telephone as there simply wasn't enough copper in the world ... seems kinda ridiculous now doesn't it

Also re: increased energy usage in emerging economies ... it's a question worth asking (or at least having a debate over) as to what the trade off is between emissions increases and economic growth .. Sometimes the debate seems a little simplistic as it's assumed that all emissions are bad ... but what if allowing those emissions lifts x million people out of abject poverty for example ??

Of course climate change is a problem but so is global income distribution - Rich first world economies have been allowed to industrialise which as brought huge prosperity to those economies - why shouldn't the rest of the world have that chance too ?? Is a 1 degree rise in temperature worth doubling the income of 500m people ?? ... Interesting questions that I don't know the answer to but I think are worth asking more than they seem to be asked at the moment.

I think a lot of the peak oil stuff is a bit simplistic as well .. there's no shortage of oil - there may be a shortage of oil that can be extracted at a reasonable price in politically stable locations for sure .. but higher prices will bring forth more supply (e.g. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4649580.stm ) and will encourage alternative energy sources - that's the market working as it should.

 

[darex]

I think a lot of the peak oil stuff is a bit simplistic as well .. there's no shortage of oil - there may be a shortage of oil that can be extracted at a reasonable price in politically stable locations for sure .. but higher prices will bring forth more supply (e.g. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4649580.stm ) and will encourage alternative energy sources - that's the market working as it should.

This article doesn't mention that converting the oil sands into something useful takes huge quanties of energy. Currently natural gas is used but natural gas on the North American continent is in short supply so it is probably more efficient to use it directly and even if not it will run out long before the Alberta oil can make much of an impact on peak oil scenarios. The only practical way that Alberta oil will make any significant difference to peak oil is to build nuclear power stations in Alberta to provide the power to extract the oil - and then that brings up the issue of limited supplies of uranium.

 

[darex]

I have to say the quality of debate on this thread hasn't been great (with a few honourable exceptions). This reflects the staggering lack of knowledge in Irish society in general on energy issues both in government and the media and the general populace.

The only person in this country who seems to have a clue on these issues is David McWilliams and even some of what he says is questionable.

If anyone really wants to understand the magnitude of what we are facing read the Hirsch report that was produced for the US government in 2005:
[broken link removed]

I would agree with the OP that energy issues are of much greater significance to the Irish economy than property prices except in the very short term.

 

[soma]

I have to say the quality of debate on this thread hasn't been great (with a few honourable exceptions). This reflects the staggering lack of knowledge in Irish society in general on energy issues both in government and the media and the general populace.

I'd have to agree.

I'm very much a newbie to the world of Peak Oil Theory and I can completely understand why general society is unaware, disbelieving or dis-interested in the theory. I'm a fairly open-minded individual and I've read the peak oil arguments and find them compelling. But at the moment, my brain cannot accept or even truly grasp what life would be like if P.O. advocates are correct. It actually feels somewhat akin to thinking "we're all gonna die some day, so why are we even bothering?".

I was really pleased to find but subsequently v disappointed to see that discussion is next to non-existant on the forum.

 

[annR]

I agree about the lack of knowledge. As a country, Ireland is only just catching on to recycling which is a pretty basic concept. Many people aren't ready to think about energy itself and all the implications. Indeed any existing debate was probably only 'sparked' because of the increasing prices.
One aspect is that it is a very complex issue and there might not be that many people around who are informed enough to really discuss it properly. Many environmental problems are like this in my opinion.

 

[EvilDoctorK]

This article doesn't mention that converting the oil sands into something useful takes huge quanties of energy. Currently natural gas is used but natural gas on the North American continent is in short supply so it is probably more efficient to use it directly and even if not it will run out long before the Alberta oil can make much of an impact on peak oil scenarios. The only practical way that Alberta oil will make any significant difference to peak oil is to build nuclear power stations in Alberta to provide the power to extract the oil - and then that brings up the issue of limited supplies of uranium.

Yes - but even at that it's still a huge net gain in energy .. and it should soon (if not already) be possible to get the energy to extract the oil from the bitumen which is a by product of the oil extraction process.

Loads more here for those interested - http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/energy/Ene.../EMAOilSandsOpportunities2015Canada2006_e.pdf

Obviously producing oil in the deserts of Saudi Arabia is much cheaper and will remain so for the foreseeable future (The do have reserves of 70yrs production at current rates) ... but the basic point that higher oil prices will call forth more supply remains I think valid I think. Quite an interesting take on it here - http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2006/0724/042.html

As the Saudi Oil Minister once said - the stone age didn't end because we the world ran out of stone .....

 

[darex]

Obviously producing oil in the deserts of Saudi Arabia is much cheaper and will remain so for the foreseeable future (The do have reserves of 70yrs production at current rates) ... but the basic point that higher oil prices will call forth more supply remains I think valid I think. Quite an interesting take on it here - http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2006/0724/042.html

Actually the supply of oil is avery insensitive to price because the main factor determining supply is geology. This is nicely illustrated by the article above. In spite of the gazillions of wells drilled in the US production has fallen steadily since the early 1970's. The price has fluctuated greatly over that period and yet production has barely budged from its long term downward trend during that 30 year period - and that is in spite of all the dramatic improvements in technology over those 30 years