Thanks Thanks:  18
Likes Likes:  22
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Retired Military IrishDigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Australian Bushfires - ADF Support


  2. Thanks Shaqra, Rocinante, Burt thanked for this post
  3. #2
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just terrible what's happening in Oz, like a terrible vision of an apocalypse.....and sadly I think a portent of the future in a lot more places.
    Last edited by Rocinante; 10th January 2020 at 14:23.

  4. #3
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    California was not far off last year.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  5. #4
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    535
    Post Thanks / Like
    One thing you won't hear in the news is that the usual effect of the bushfires have been magnified by the Greenie-orchestrated obstruction of preventative backburning during the cool season.
    Backburning is an effective method of hazard reduction and has been in use since long before records began - it is now prohibited in many places. Try to figure that one out.

    Also largely ignored is that roughly 85% of bushfires are caused by sickos with matches. This is the percentage of fires for which either someone is charged, or which are classified as 'suspicious' for one reason or another but no detection is made.

    None of the above fits in with the relentless narrative that 'climate change' is responsible for the current state of affairs, so you won't see anything about it in the Irish Times et al.
    Last edited by FCA Trooper; 11th January 2020 at 13:57.

  6. Likes sofa liked this post
    Dislikes na grohmiti, Buck disliked this post
  7. #5
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FCA Trooper View Post
    One thing you won't hear in the news is that the usual effect of the bushfires have been magnified by the Greenie-orchestrated obstruction of preventative backburning during the cool season.
    Backburning is an effective method of hazard reduction and has been in use since long before records began - it is now prohibited in many places. Try to figure that one out.

    Also largely ignored is that roughly 85% of bushfires are caused by sickos with matches. This is the percentage of fires for which either someone is charged, or which are classified as 'suspicious' for one reason or another but no detection is made.

    None of the above fits in with the relentless narrative that 'climate change' is responsible for the current state of affairs, so you won't see anything about it in the Irish Times et al.
    Probably because what you state above, has been reputed as absolute bollox?
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51020384
    Does controlled burning work?
    Done properly, it can help limit the spread of fires and make it easier to put them out.
    But Swansea University professor Stefan Doerr, an expert in wildfires, believes the practice is less effective than it used to be because of the more extreme weather Australia has started to experience.
    "It can make a difference for a few years, but I'm doubtful it would make a difference in the current extreme drought conditions," he said.
    How much controlled burning has there been?
    Australian firefighters have a long history of carrying out this type of burning to reduce fire risk. "They are some of the most experienced and well-trained in the world," says Prof Doerr.
    Burning to prevent fires is regulated and carried out by state agencies like the relevant fire service, park authority or environment body.
    In areas of special environmental value or near heritage sites, national level permission is needed, according to the Department of the Environment and Energy.
    An analysis by ABC News shows that while some controlled burning targets in Queensland and New South Wales have been met, others have not because the weather conditions were not right.
    The NSW Rural Fire Service report for 2018-19 reveals that although they exceeded targets for reducing fire hazards in parks and forested areas, they fell short of their targets for local government land, privately-owned land and other areas.

    Getty

    Prolonged drought conditions adversely affected the ability to complete hazard reduction work.

    Rural Fire Service
    New South Wales
    Controlled burning can only be done in cooler, damper weather with low wind speeds, to avoid the fire getting out of control.
    In 2015, a fire that was started by the Victoria state authorities to burn off hazardous undergrowth ran out of control, destroying four homes and more than 3,000 hectares of farmland and forest.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50400851
    How many fires are started deliberately?
    Two of the most recent studies say there are between 52,000 and 54,000 bushfires in Australia every year.
    Dr Paul Read, co-director of Australia's National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson, puts the figure higher, at "62,000 and increasing".
    Of those, 13% are started deliberately, and 37% are suspicious. That means 31,000 Australian bushfires are either arson, or suspected arson, every year.
    That figure does not include recklessness or accidents. So a bushfire caused by a barbecue, or a spark from a chainsaw, would be classed as "accidental".
    In short, up to 85 bushfires begin every day because someone leaves their house and decides to start one.
    Go sell your fake news bullshit somewhere else. People are dying here, it's no time for some right wing conspiracy theory nonsense.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. Thanks Buck, EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes Buck, Tempest, EUFighter liked this post
  9. #6
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    535
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you don't mind me saying so, in our numerous interactions to date I've noticed that you seem to become pretty angry when people say things you disagree with. While I appreciate that you probably feel strongly about certain things, there's no need to be a dick about it.

    It's a discussion board. The whole point of it for people to share different views. If you're going to give yourself high blood pressure every time someone's views don't correspond with yours, maybe you shouldn't be here.

    As for your scientist friend in Swansea, you can bet your bottom dollar that his research funding depends heavily upon him coming up with the 'correct' findings re. 'climate change'.
    There was a scientific professor at a University in Queensland who recently went against the grain by publishing findings which stated that the Great Barrier Reef was not under grave threat from climate change, and was actually regenerating in places at a rapid rate. This was completely contrary to what his colleagues were finding.
    Guess what happened to him? He was shown the door. He recently won a court case against the uni for wrongful dismissal. His name is Peter Ridd, look him up.

    When scientistsare getting sacked for not complying with received wisdom, it really makes you wonder. Or maybe it doesn't. In your case, it probably doesn't.

    They stopped using mercury barometers to take official temperature readings in Australia circa 1998, and switched over to electronic means. Simultaneously, they changed their methodology. Temperatures have been 'rising' ever since.

    I live in Australia. Last summer was the coolest in several years, there was barely a day when it went above the low thirties. This year is hotter, but not unusually so.
    I'll pay more attention to what I see and feel myself than what the media tells me I should be thinking.

  10. #7
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    Indeed, who needs facts when you have your opinions.
    I provided 2 sources to dispel your lies.
    The least, very least you could do is provide a source for your tale about the scientist who couldn't.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  11. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter liked this post
  12. #8
    Retired Military IrishDigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like
    Troops on their way to assist in the Bush Fire Operation via C17A Globemaster,

    https://i.postimg.cc/13Bxdwgg/C17A.jpg

    there will be no fighting over window seats on that baby.
    Last edited by IrishDigger; 12th January 2020 at 05:25.

  13. Thanks EUFighter, Burt thanked for this post
  14. #9
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    535
    Post Thanks / Like
    In antiquity, people used to explain extreme weather events by believing that they'd angered the gods and were being punished for it.
    As mankind progressed, such thinking went by the wayside.
    It has now returned, only in a different guise. We are blaming extreme weather events on our sins against the planet. It has become something akin to a cult. Personally, I think that people are trying to fill the void left by the decline of organised religion, but who knows.

    Captain Cook recorded massive bushfires in his diary as he sailed around the coast of Australia in the 1700s.
    There have been worse bushfires and worse and more prolonged droughts throughout the 19th and 20th centuries than the ones happening now.
    Climate change wasn't trending back then though, so people just put it down to the fact that such things, while tragic, go hand-in-hand with living in a hot and dry land.

    We now suddenly blaming events which have always happened on a gas which is, and always has been, emitted by every human being, animal, plant, tree and blade of grass.

    I wouldn't be too bothered if the consequences we're seeing weren't so serious.

    We've now reached a point where we have sixteen year old 'prophets' who can 'see' CO2 in the air being lauded at the United Nations and in the media.
    We have the bored, spoiled children of rich people disrupting entire cities by gluing themselves to pavements.
    We have naive young kids, with no experience of anything, working themselves into a state of distress because they think the world is about to end.
    We have governments hell bent on getting rid of reliable sources of power and replacing them with unreliable ones, with power shortages and suffering citizens the result.
    We have governments talking about banning the internal combustion engine.
    And to cap it all off, we have scientists, the people we've depended on since the dawn of mankind to be inquisitive and independent, being rewarded for coming up with the 'right' findings and punished for coming up with the 'wrong' ones.

    It's batshit.

  15. #10
    Commandant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FCA Trooper View Post

    Captain Cook recorded massive bushfires in his diary as he sailed around the coast of Australia in the 1700s.

    We now suddenly blaming events which have always happened on a gas which is, and always has been, emitted by every human being, animal, plant, tree and blade of grass.
    At the time of Captain Cook there was around 1 billion people on this planet, today we are over 7 billion. There were no internal combustion engines and the primary form of energy was wind. The bushfires he saw where new for a north European and must be taken in relation. No one is saying that a bushfire is new, it is the extent of the fires. The weather patterns have changed, where I live every winter there was a lot of snow, now the past few years less and less. This year so far none at all. In the area of Australia where I have relations they normally can depend on rain throughout the year, it hasn't rained for more than 6 months. The climate is changing and we are the ones driving that change. It is good always to question as the media does get things wrong, although not always intentionally. But the "fake" news you are spreading does not hold up.

    As for CO2, I think you will find that trees and grass are net consumers of this gas taking the C for building their structure while expelling the O2 for us to breath.

  16. Likes Buck liked this post
  17. #11
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Probably because what you state above, has been reputed as absolute bollox?
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51020384


    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50400851


    Go sell your fake news bullshit somewhere else. People are dying here, it's no time for some right wing conspiracy theory nonsense.
    Both of you guys should back the truck up on that one. The reality is somewhat different.

    The NSW Volunteer Fire Fighters Association do point the finger at firebugs being one of many factors. However the NSW Rural Fire Service states that actual Green Party opposition to backburning has not been a reality. What is not stated is that back burning is not the only way to reduce ground hazard fuel loads. Slash and remove of scrub undergrowth is one, particularly within fire breaks which are at times not sufficiently maintained. Sorry to say that some environmental groups get a bit antsy about scrub slash and removal and that is unfortunate, however some environmental groups don't (Not all environmental groups or environmentalists agree on everything contrary to popular media opinion) and there are some environmental groups who do oppose resource consents on all forest interventions including backburning (Likewise not all environmental groups or environmentalists are Green party members either again contrary to popular media opinion). The state governments cannot get a free pass as they have slashed ground hazard mitigation funding in recent years, but not the ground hazards sufficiently.

    Yes people (and animals) are dying but political agendas at both extremes of the climate debate are murking things up in the media. What has caused the devastation is multifactorial - the climate, the hot dry windy weather (which are two distinct things), lack of mitigation funding by the states, the reduced weather window to do backburns, the odd nutjob here and in some cases some environmental groups. However the sheer scale of country, three quarters of the EU is size, is that just a few thousand firefighters just cannot contain it.

    I am a member of a volunteer rural fire force unit in NZ though non operational. We have forest fires though luckily not on the scale and frequency of Australia. What I can say is that forest fire risk is three times more likely than 20 years ago according to Fire & Emergency NZ our governing body, and thats where the downstream risk in a climatic sense plays a role in that there is now a higher frequency of windier days during the hot and drier summer months - the worst combination possible. All it takes is a few hours direct sunlight on a coke can or glass bottle thrown out the car window into the bush or simply left behind by a hiker and 10 hectares can be alight within the hour as a recent callout our unit attended.

    By the way last weekend mid afternoon the sky was a bronze sepia like tone here in NZ 2500kms away from smoke blown across the Tasman Sea when it seemed the Australian fires were at its worst. Never had it like that before. That really bought home how bad it is.
    Last edited by Anzac; 12th January 2020 at 10:26.

  18. Thanks Flamingo, DeV, na grohmiti, EUFighter, Burt thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo, Rocinante, EUFighter, Buck liked this post
  19. #12
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Many people in Ireland seem to have been led to believe that the entire Australian landmass is on fire.
    It's why you have people using words like 'apocalypse' and positing that such events are going to be happening year-on-year from this point forward, due to human-driven climate change.

    Climate change is certainly real. The Earth's climate is constantly changing - it has been since day dot.
    We've had an Ice Age, a Little Ice Age, a Medieval Warm Period, a Roman Warm Period, and whatever the hell we're in the middle of at present. It is changing and will continue to do so, but the notion that we have any control over it is false.

    In the seventies, scientists came up with proof that global cooling was a thing, and that the planet was slowly freezing over. There was widespread concern in the scientific community, but the idea didn't gain as much traction with the general public because social media didn't exist.
    More recently, scientists have found proof that global warming is a thing, and due to the prevalence of social media, everyone is now losing their shit over it.
    Tragic events such as the Australian bushfires, the like of which have always happened from time to time, and always will happen from time to time, have been seized upon as evidence of it.

    The reason I take issue with this is that it has consequences for people.
    In the past number of years, electricity prices have gone up and up due to a shift towards 'green' power. Which is all well and good if you're wealthy, but not so good if you're a business owner struggling with overheads, or an elderly person living on a pension.
    For Christ sake, they've been having brownouts and blackouts in Adelaide and Melbourne on 40 degree days, because the grids can't cope. How does that happen in a first world country with massive coal reserves? Bad energy policy, based on the notion that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

    We live in an era of unprecedented comfort and prosperity, largely due to the power provided by the burning of fossil fuels. We could end up pissing it away if we're not careful.

  20. #13
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FCA Trooper View Post
    In antiquity, people used to explain extreme weather events by believing that they'd angered the gods and were being punished for it.
    As mankind progressed, such thinking went by the wayside.
    It has now returned, only in a different guise. We are blaming extreme weather events on our sins against the planet. It has become something akin to a cult. Personally, I think that people are trying to fill the void left by the decline of organised religion, but who knows.

    Captain Cook recorded massive bushfires in his diary as he sailed around the coast of Australia in the 1700s.
    There have been worse bushfires and worse and more prolonged droughts throughout the 19th and 20th centuries than the ones happening now.
    Climate change wasn't trending back then though, so people just put it down to the fact that such things, while tragic, go hand-in-hand with living in a hot and dry land.

    We now suddenly blaming events which have always happened on a gas which is, and always has been, emitted by every human being, animal, plant, tree and blade of grass.

    I wouldn't be too bothered if the consequences we're seeing weren't so serious.

    We've now reached a point where we have sixteen year old 'prophets' who can 'see' CO2 in the air being lauded at the United Nations and in the media.
    We have the bored, spoiled children of rich people disrupting entire cities by gluing themselves to pavements.
    We have naive young kids, with no experience of anything, working themselves into a state of distress because they think the world is about to end.
    We have governments hell bent on getting rid of reliable sources of power and replacing them with unreliable ones, with power shortages and suffering citizens the result.
    We have governments talking about banning the internal combustion engine.
    And to cap it all off, we have scientists, the people we've depended on since the dawn of mankind to be inquisitive and independent, being rewarded for coming up with the 'right' findings and punished for coming up with the 'wrong' ones.

    It's batshit.
    Clue is in the evaluation of the Eucalyptus trees. they over millions of years have developed a ring at ground level that after another boring bush fire sprouts new branches.

  21. #14
    Retired Military IrishDigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

  22. Thanks Burt thanked for this post
  23. #15
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FCA Trooper View Post
    Many people in Ireland seem to have been led to believe that the entire Australian landmass is on fire.
    It's why you have people using words like 'apocalypse' and positing that such events are going to be happening year-on-year from this point forward, due to human-driven climate change.
    "Apocalypse" is probably a fair summarisation of what its like to live through an intense bushfire, though. But more generally, I suspect many in Ireland just don't understand how large Australia is, and hence how small an proportion of the country that has been burned. This should help: https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~...MTM5MTExMzg)Mw

  24. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  25. #16
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    Clue is in the evaluation of the Eucalyptus trees. they over millions of years have developed a ring at ground level that after another boring bush fire sprouts new branches.
    Australian native forests actually need periodic fire to prompt regeneration, and have evolved to regrow very quickly. But the scale and intensity of the recent fires is just so much more intense and large scale, that it' actually going to be destructive, particularly of wildlife.

  26. #17
    Lt Colonel Buck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Heart in Donegal
    Posts
    2,140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can I just counter your point about scientists - I personally know and stayed with (December just past) who works at the university of Sydney in marine biology on the barrier reef and her opinion is that if it isn't already beyond repair, it's going to be in that state in the next few years (especially certain parts of it). She did say that it's not so bad in other parts, but the warmer currents that are wrecking one part are moving towards the ok parts. This particular scientist has no motivation to just do what the university tells her and also wouldn't have told us how bad it is because her funding doesn't depend on us.

    Ultimately, what's the harm in reducing emissions and cutting back generally? If we're wrong about climate change then we have a better planet, if we're right and do nothing, then (at worst) it's curtains.
    I knew a simple soldier boy.....
    Who grinned at life in empty joy,
    Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
    And whistled early with the lark.

    In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
    With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
    He put a bullet through his brain.
    And no one spoke of him again.

    You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
    Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
    Sneak home and pray you'll never know
    The hell where youth and laughter go.

  27. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  28. #18
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    Can I just counter your point about scientists - I personally know and stayed with (December just past) who works at the university of Sydney in marine biology on the barrier reef and her opinion is that if it isn't already beyond repair, it's going to be in that state in the next few years (especially certain parts of it). She did say that it's not so bad in other parts, but the warmer currents that are wrecking one part are moving towards the ok parts. This particular scientist has no motivation to just do what the university tells her and also wouldn't have told us how bad it is because her funding doesn't depend on us.

    Ultimately, what's the harm in reducing emissions and cutting back generally? If we're wrong about climate change then we have a better planet, if we're right and do nothing, then (at worst) it's curtains.
    I know next to nothing about the Great Barrier Reef or the state it's in, and won't pretend to. And I'm not questioning your friend's integrity. I only know two things about it:
    Firstly, the one scientist whose findings re. the future of the GBR were optimisic, was booted out of his job after publishing those findings, and subsequently won in court.
    Secondly, in 2018 the then-Prime Minister of Australia bizarrely decided to fork over more than $400m of taxpayers' money to a small GBR charity with a staff of six, seemingly on a whim. The charity hadn't even asked for it. He was doing it to score points.

    Climate paranoia has become an industry, with endless opportunities for those savvy enough to exploit it.

    Al Gore has been riding the train for the best part of twenty years, despite prediction after dire prediction being proven false with the passage of time.

    Greta Thunberg is a worldwide celebrity at age seventeen.

    Pacific Island nations have managed to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from countries like Australia by claiming that pollution generated by rich nations is causing their islands to sink. Even though all parties concerned know that this is codswallop, political leaders feel they have to roll over for fear of a media backlash. The islanders know this, and they exploit it. Why wouldn't they?

    Universities and other institutes get research funding from governments to come up with the findings they're expected to, and the governments in turn get political capital out of it.
    It pays hefty salaries, it pays for equipment, it pays for orthopaedic leather chairs in offices, it pays for top-of-the-range coffee machines. It pays for first class plane tickets and swanky hotels when people attend conferences in foreign destinations.

    It sells news, and hence, advertising.

    Everybody is happy. All they need to do to keep that sweet gravy flowing is keep banging the drum. Bang it long and bang it loud.

    Peter Ridd posed a threat when he deviated from the pack, and that's why he got his P45. Attempts by the university to justify his sacking were piss-weak and didn't impress the court.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a clean environment. Trying to frighten the shit out of people by constantly telling them that the world is about to end is not the way to go about it, though.

    The whole charade is seriously affecting energy policy and will have negative consequences for economies and standards of living if it continues for much longer.

    You'll know all about it when you can't go down the road in your electric car, because the wind has died down and you can't start to recharge the battery until it picks up again.
    Last edited by FCA Trooper; 13th January 2020 at 18:54.

  29. #19
    Lt Colonel Buck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Heart in Donegal
    Posts
    2,140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can you give us any links to any of that? One scientist getting dismissed isn't proof that man-made climate change isn't real. If you're saying that scientists that say climate change is real are bought, what's the difference with this guy? Just because he's against the establishment doesn't make him right. His (wrongful) dismissal could have been totally unconnected to his research (which I am sure was in good faith), it could have been because he was nicking biscuits from the canteen or not paying his round for the office coffee machine or anything. And if he was dismissed because of his research, then that is obviously bullshit. It stifles discussion and works the crazies up.

    Regarding energy policy:

    1. There's absolutely nothing wrong with finding cleaner and less destructive energies. Should have been done ages ago.
    2. There is more than wind energy available, plus storage methods are improving all the time, so not implementing something because it's hard to do now is an absolute cop out.

    Is there proof that Pacific Island nations aren't sinking?

    It's not the fault of the charity that the PM gave them a grant to win votes. Politicians gonna politician.

    Of course it's a big business, isn't that what capitalism loves? Or is it only ok when the new big business isn't something they're invested in?

    And ultimately it still comes back to:

    If we're wrong about climate change and we have a better planet because of changes we make now, how is that a bad thing?
    I knew a simple soldier boy.....
    Who grinned at life in empty joy,
    Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
    And whistled early with the lark.

    In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
    With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
    He put a bullet through his brain.
    And no one spoke of him again.

    You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
    Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
    Sneak home and pray you'll never know
    The hell where youth and laughter go.

  30. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  31. #20
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,412
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can't understand the resistance to investing in alternative energy sources. Particularly in this country as we have do not have any natural oil resources and limited Gas reserves. It makes good business sense if we can generate most our income within country from our own resources. We will be laughing if we can properly harness wave or tidel power. And, as a bonus it is less poluting than oil, gas or coal. I remember the state of the buildings in Dublin in the 80s and early nineties due to the affect of years of smokey coal and leaded petrol, the Bank of Ireland on College Green and Trinity College were black. That can't have been good for our lungs.

  32. Likes Buck, Flamingo, EUFighter, Truck Driver liked this post
  33. #21
    Lt Colonel Buck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Heart in Donegal
    Posts
    2,140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo20 View Post
    I can't understand the resistance to investing in alternative energy sources. Particularly in this country as we have do not have any natural oil resources and limited Gas reserves. It makes good business sense if we can generate most our income within country from our own resources. We will be laughing if we can properly harness wave or tidel power. And, as a bonus it is less poluting than oil, gas or coal. I remember the state of the buildings in Dublin in the 80s and early nineties due to the affect of years of smokey coal and leaded petrol, the Bank of Ireland on College Green and Trinity College were black. That can't have been good for our lungs.

    "Shur we're only a schmal country, what about India, what about China, what about the USA, what about me hole, etc"
    I knew a simple soldier boy.....
    Who grinned at life in empty joy,
    Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
    And whistled early with the lark.

    In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
    With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
    He put a bullet through his brain.
    And no one spoke of him again.

    You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
    Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
    Sneak home and pray you'll never know
    The hell where youth and laughter go.

  34. #22
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    From a geopolitical point of view, renewable energy could be a real game changer, and cause a real shift in the balance of power away from what, let’s be honest, are some pretty unsavoury regimes who have oil and gas reserves.

    Which is another good reason for pursuing them.

    Ireland could be a net beneficiary of development of renewables as (with the exception of Solar!) Ireland has lots of wind and tides available, and if they are the focus of development and investment by larger economies, it can only be to Ireland’s advantage. We can get the benefit without the costs.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  35. Likes Buck, na grohmiti liked this post
  36. #23
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is no shortage of wind here. Wave power is the next step. The technology is there, and irish engineers have been to the forefront. We could potentially lead this market if we get our act together. The interconnectors will pay us well in years to come.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  37. Likes DeV, Flamingo liked this post
  38. #24
    C/S
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    349
    Post Thanks / Like
    ..
    Last edited by Fantasia; 14th January 2020 at 22:46.

  39. #25
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    535
    Post Thanks / Like
    In response to Buck:

    Nothing I say proves anything. But it boils down to this:

    1. There is money and political capital in making the case in favour of human-driven climate change.

    2. There is no money and no political capital in making the case against. There is only ridicule, ostracization and unemployment.

    Ridd wasn't fired for stealing biccies from the canteen. He was fired, as Voltaire put it, 'pour encourager les autres'. He fell out of step, and he wasn't supposed to do that.

    Regarding clean energy, the problem with it is that it's not as reliable or as efficient at producing energy as fossil fuels. It's also a hell of a lot more expensive - the amount of power generated does not justify the cost.

    You can improve the technology, but you can't make the sun shine at will and you can't make the wind blow at will. Relying these things to keep the lights on is not a good idea.
    Tidal power I know nothing about, but it doesn't seem to be utilised much.

    If you want clean and efficient energy, nuclear is the way to go.
    There is a stigma attached to it because of Chernobyl, but comparing that to modern reactors is like comparing a 1960s Lada to a 2020 Range Rover.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •