The impact on the environment of investing and its ethics.

Presumably you only have to back up the amount of wind generation that is feeding the country’s demand, so the demand is the limiting factor. You only have to backup wind energy to the demand at that time. Installing x MW of wind energy ahead of demand increases should cause no new installation of fossil fuel plant.

You don’t have to back it up. You don’t backup generation capacity, you ensure provision of enough generation to meet the demand. It is not the responsibility of wind generators to ensure that sufficient fossil fuelled generators exist to meet demand. Surely, as experience and records of the use of wind generation in the Irish market increases, fossil fuelled generators will be able to work out how often they will operate and therefore how much they need to charge to make it worthwhile. The government regulator will need to price the power to attract the fossil fuelled generation and may even have to make it more attractive to ensure supply in the event of no wind generation at all.

As Bungaloid rightly points out this is a matter of policy which carries a cost that we will all pay for. Weighing the costs is next to impossible once carbon and climate change are thrown into the argument.

Dam based hydro stations such as the ESB run would be seriously limited in their ability to play backup to wind generation. It’s not a viable solution to pump water back up rivers. Rivers are drainage systems rather than storage systems. You’d be running to stand still! Risk of flooding should be considered. In any event, the use of the countrywide transmission system means that capacity in the immediate vicinity is not necessary, just capacity at some location. You’re right though, storage is key to facilitating intermittent forms of generation. But, there are efficiency losses in storing the energy and more again in releasing it and all of this should be weighed up.

I do like the analysis of peat bog located wind generation’s enviromental credits based on carbon saved versus carbon released, it avoids trying to put a price on carbon which is contentious. I thank both Bungaloid and Wii4miinow for bringing this into the open and debating it.

You do know what you are talking about wii. I’d say you are in the top 1% for bog knowledge, I am impressed.

However this is not a game. What is left of the western peat bogs are our amazon rainforest. Vandalising them is unpatriotic and should be criminalised not subsidised. Moreover, under kyoto protocol the potential bill to taxpayers for destroying them is huge. The Greens hope no one will notice or they can fudge the science. (They don’t believe in data or evidence anyway.)

What you say about drained peat bogs is only partly true. If they have been aggressively drained yes, they are probably dead. However if you are saying that any bog which has ever had some peat cut off it no longer sequesters and stores co2 that is rubbish. Many bogs that actively sequester co2 at 200kg/Ha/yr have been cut at some stage. Almost all peatland SACs (special areas of conservation) are in that category. They are not “virgin” bogs but the are “intact” and are protected as active bogs.

However most “intact” bogs have little or no protection whatsoever. As you know many are in the hands of coillte. Coillte are no longer allowed to plant them with trees, and are desperate to offload them to wind developers or stick turbines there themselves. And coillte are a state owned company.

You say there are two or three wind farms in kerry where, in your opinion, the wind farm was justified because the bog was already drained.
Well, in Galway, an entire fucking mountain was agressively drained so that a wind farm could be constructed. swap.org.uk/The%20Politics%2 … l%2006.pdf Monumental destruction like that is the norm. Most wind farms I have visited in clare galway and donegal are environmental disaster areas.

The point is that proper carbon accounting should be required. It not enough for someone to say “ah sure, go ahead, my grandad cut some peat off it, there’ll be no emissions”.A proper scientific assessment and carbon accounting is what is needed.

Government is aware of this anomaly and does nothing. Why? Because the science gets in the way of greenthink. In fact they want to scale up the number of turbines by a factor of 7 :open_mouth: for daft ideological reasons. Scientists are aware of it and say nothing. Why? Because first and foremost irish scientists are state employees with fat pensions and they don’t speak out about stuff.

Wii, I respect your knowledge and good intentions. But when the tourists have disappeared, fuck-all useful power is being generated, and taxpayer has to pay for improper co2 accounting under kyoto, you will see it my way.

If “its ethics” is taken to be the ethics of environmental damage, then, at the most fundamental level, I feel that if one is to believe what one sees as being non-ethical environmental damage, that most of this seems to be caused by humanity and human existence.

I’ll pick out a few typical examples that most people are familar with: pollution (smog, traffic, noise, water etc.), enviromental habitat destruction (e.g. Amazon Rainforrests, Irish Peat Intact Bogland, etc.), loss of species (e.g. extinction of the Dodo etc.).

Then it appears that with less humans that there would be correspondingly less damage done to the environment and so we result with a better enviroment.

So industries, that promote or bring about less human population, seem to be those which capture the essential foundation of being ethically environmentally friendly to invest in.

Looking at the original question in parts

I believe that companies that deliver the end result do exist, and come in many different forms and functions

as earlier explained, with less humans I think that we would have a better human environment. I reminded of how I heard about people sharing a toilet in a house that only has one toilet:-
One toilet for one person, no problem.
One toilet for two people, certain arrangments can be made.
One toilet for three persons, those arrangements can become difficult.
One toilet for four persons, those arrangments are difficult…

the items below are certainly debatable on this account but with the ethics of environmental preservation as a priority then I think that yes is the answer for most

if you are on the producing and consuming/using side then I think that you will benefit from the possibilities listed below. If you are on the receiving end, then maybe not, probably certainly not in some cases.

So as possibilities for some environtemally etchical investing (whatever about ethical considerations from other points of view) here are some to consider:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Durex_logo.png

or

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Hk_logo.PNG

or

education about the ongoing mal effects of continued human polution rise.