Campaigners warn against calls for Moneypoint conversion to biomass

by AndyG Sun Apr 09, 2017 17:54

How about instead of converting moneypoint to biomass which we still have to buy, we instead convert it into an incinerator and get paid by other countries that still do landfill to take the waste off their hands in addition to the profit gained by generating electricity.
Assuming it's incinerated properly, there should be only mineral ash(no toxic organics) remaining, which could then be disposed of safely in the deep ocean, possibly through a pipe that descends from the ship through the thermocline,. thus eliminating any significant biological uptake.
Of course another major energy source Ireland would do well to consider is nuclear,.. especially passive safe Molten Salt Fast Reactors when the become available,.. as they hold the very real possibility of generating ultra cheap energy, cleanly and safely.

by lefty Mon Apr 10, 2017 16:22

Ruining the clean air and leaving a legacy of respiratory problems for growing Irish children with an incinerator or advocating nuclear power after the calamity that was Fukushima made parts of Japan uninhabitable. Is there any environmentally destructive short term highly profitable for a few, highly stupid idea you won't back Andy? Whatever the "industry" are paying you, it is not enough!

We are merely stewards of the environment for future generations. It belongs to and is shared by everyone. We should not listen to people who wish sell it out for a quick buck for a few well placed individual investors and those whose palms will be greased in the process

by AndyG Sat Apr 15, 2017 15:12

To clear things up, regarding my suggestion to convert Moneypoint, as well as the Peat burning power stations fro that matter to incinerators,.. I was assuming this would only be a short term solution,... and ONLY if these power stations can be made to burn municipal waste at least as cleanly as their original fuels.
As for your anti-nuclear hysteria,. this is completely irrational in the context of the current energy supply,.. firstly because modern nuclear is still by far and away the safest energy source relative to energy produced,.. and secondly because I would actually advocate the use of passive safe Molten Salt Fast Reactors,.. which are intrinsically safe as well as eliminating the long term waste issue,.. unlike the thermal spectrum Pressurized Water Reactors currently used to produce nuclear energy.