We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
GREECE SAYS IT is not leaving the euro. Everyone else says Greece must default on its euro debt. Obviously both can’t happen and the stark contradiction is more than worrying for all of the eurozone countries, even more so for those, like Ireland, that are heavily indebted.
Will Greece default? I have always maintained that it will but the Greek government is doing its level best to suggest otherwise. This week, it insisted that the country would meet its latest fiscal targets “without delay, without exception and deviations” after European authorities said they would decide in October whether to let the country draw down more bailout cash.
The comments come amid mounting expectations that Greece will have to dramatically restructure its debt, after failing to live up to the commitments of its original bailout deal. European finance ministers have delayed a crucial €8bn bailout payment to see if the Greek government can possibly accelerate its privatisation programme and implement deeper spending cuts.
Greece is effectively out of money by mid-October so the bailout package – or more specifically the possibility of it not continuing – could set in motion a very serious set of consequences.
If Greece does default, grave problems will immediately start in Athens. The state will no longer be able to borrow euro and as it is already hardly able to extract enough euro from its own population, won’t be able to pay its bills. Almost immediately, many of the hundreds of thousands of civil servants will stop coming to work because they stop receiving pay cheques. The knock-on effect will be that many private businesses that depend on their patronage also cease to function and cease to pay their employees. Bank failures will follow and savings will vanish plunging the country into even deeper problems.
It’s not something you would wish on a eurozone partner
With little other option, people will have to sell the family silver. First to go will be the trappings of family wealth, cars, houses and their businesses. The vultures will circle and pick up what they can for a fraction of the going price. The government will go one stage further and look to sell what they can. Islands, beaches and historic sites will all be available in order to keep the country going and tide themselves over. Greece will then effectively become a nation owned and controlled by private equity and sister nation funds.
After a long period of time, the euro prices of a Greek vacation or a Greek factory or Greek-made goods will become attractive and euros will rush in from abroad. Jobs will start to rematerialise and the economy, after taking a sound beating, will begin to grow again. But this will take a very long time and will come at far more serious social cost as it will all be preceded by riots, political instability and mass privation.
Not something that you would wish on an enemy let alone a partner in the eurozone.
Ireland is sat on the sidelines, diligently going about its business, reaching its targets and staying onside whilst others like Greece stray offside. If Greece does default, serious questions will need to be addressed about the sustainability of the other bailout packages. As mercenary as it may seem, Ireland would then likely benefit from an adjustment to its own bailout package. The government is playing their cards very close to its chest and not laying down any cards until they see the situation evolve.
But are we being too narrow-minded in our thinking? Would the Eurozone survive? Were Greece to return to the drachma, a disorderly break-up of the euro would push the European Union to the brink of collapse. Even the stronger economies would falter, contracting by as much as 25 per cent in the aftermath.
There is no option but to continue the ‘wait-and-see’ approach
Countries outside of the Eurozone are finally waking up to the seriousness of the situation. Britain is said to be drawing up contingency plans for a catastrophic collapse of the euro. Experts fear that such an outcome will see their own economy plunge back into a recession that would
be ‘beyond comprehension’. Even the most die-hard pro-Europeans have reluctantly had to accept that the eurozone is in terminal trouble. Formal Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashdown, a long-time supporter of the single currency, when asked whether he thought the euro could survive, responded, “No I don’t”.
US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, who has already admitted that Washington was ‘behind the curve’ in tackling its own financial crises, has urged Europe to act decisively.
Ireland’s fate at the moment is clearly not its own. There is no option but to continue with the ‘wait-and-see’ approach that has served us reasonably well thus far, but the worry lines are set to deepen.
The situation is far from ideal but there is no other option but to see which way the European superpowers of France and Germany will direct the future of the Eurozone. Some suggest a ‘core euro’ will be the likely outcome. Ireland would likely play no part in that.
As the situation unfolds, it is essential that the government consider all potential outcomes and position themselves accordingly. If Greece is allowed to default, investors might naturally wonder which other countries might default.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Yet again another energy security article that doesn’t tackle the governments stance on energy generation. Baseline energy requirements cannot be met by wind/wave sources due to intermittency of generation. Batteries can help but even that doesn’t solve the issue. To remove/reduce carbon emitting fossil fuel sources by 2050 and be truly energy secure then we absolutely must start talking about the nuclear option.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Absolutely agreed nuclear needs sensible discussion and consideration, however don’t expect for one second that our politicians will educate themselves sufficiently to bring a palatable proposal to the people…
@Ruairi: unfortunately I agree with you. It’s bonkers that the people in charge of these decisions appear to be so uninformed!
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: They’re main worry is political currency and Nuclear energy cost alot of that. It’s as big a fight as they would have to make and I don’t think any of them have the appetite for it maybe the change in minds on climate change might send us down that road, but opposition or the not in my back yard lobby would be massive.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: I don’t want to pay for this. EDF Hinckley Point £92.50/MWh for 35 years with a guaranteed annual escalation rate. I’d rather pay the £39/MWh for the latest UK offshore wind tenders. That is subsidy free and below average wholesale market price. You would have to focus on renewables and energy efficiency first. You have to consider everything before nuclear. Even decommissioning data centres. On an associated note, you can’t insure a nuclear plant. The tax payer picks up the bill in the event of an accident. Although that’s probably the least of your concerns at that point.
@C: I understand your point re cost but Hinckley Point C is being created with future UK energy consumption in mind hence the price point. Ireland has a much much lower energy requirement in comparison and the type of reactor (modular SM) suitable for use in Ireland is of completely different design. The price point is comparably much lower than that you’ve quoted making it comparable with that of renewables. With regards to costing for renewables yes it is lower but it cannot by its very nature provide a constant reliable source of energy.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Biomethane plants can be built all around Ireland and can provide the renewable gas to back up electrical generation from wind. Another nice thing is that the renewable gas can be stored or used for thermal or transport when wind and solar is available. Win win
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: We need to go Nuclear and we will go Nuclear it is just a case of when.
Minister Bruton is from the “nuclear is explody stuff” generation as is Ryan and are clueless on SMRs & nuclear tech.
None of the politicians have the stomach for a political fight on this and would see no votes in it. They would see Nuclear as an issues hotter potato than Irish Water.
Furthermore the Tinfoil Brigade loons like G’OD would have a field day with invented nonsense and would be given equal access to media for “balance” as it would bw great clickbate.
So Ireland will continue to dig ourselves into a CO2 hole until the fines become intolerable.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Intermittency of generation doesn’t need to be an issue at all let alone a reason to write it off. Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen can be carried out during times of high production. Then the hydrogen can be used as an extremely clean fuel to generate power during low production periods, smoothing out supply. There are numerous other storage systems such as hydro gravity stores and of course batteries. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t meet all of our energy demands through renewables. Britain has 2000 offshore wind turbines, while Ireland has only 7. We’re way behind the curve.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Costs for nuclear rarely seem to include decommissioning, storage of radioactive waste and an estimate of insurance cost. The last one is unquantifiable as it is so large. What insurance company would insure or is capable of insuring an accident that left Dublin uninhabitable and destroyed Leinster’s food production for hundreds of years? Why should shareholders get a free pass on that cost? There are no easy answers to the energy question but no matter which way I look at this, nuclear is the technology of last resort.
@Paraic: you misunderstand me Paraic I’m not writing off renewables at all – I’m actually a big fan! However if the conversation is around energy security and given that energy demand will rise and the disparity between generation and demand will continue to increase we need to begin discussing additional options to fill the gap between renewables and fossil fuels. IMO nuclear is the only current technology that makes significant returns on investment where energy generation is concerned.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: and how much and where will we dump the nuclear waste? It would have to be built on high ground especially if we get flooded every winter. Good luck with planning permission. Unless it’s cold fusion nuclear at least that waste is only 150yrs toxic but we are not there yet with that are we? How are Japan coping with their nuclear disaster? Christ all the poop we produce both animal/human in this country we could turn it methane some of it still going into the sea untreated! I suppose it’s not as sexy as nuclear… There are negatives for even oil/gas but nuclear has more cons than pros. It needs uranium that is not infinite so that hoping from one sinking ship to another…..
@C: Now now don’t be talking sense to these people……all nuclear plants world wide should be decommissioned, natural disasters do happen and when they do if one of these plants is in the area well lets just say its game over…..nothing is worth that risk, its only a matter of time before we have another catastrophe at one of these plants around the world……I say no thanks!
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: “Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022″ Not for no reason are Germany and many other countries phasing out nuclear power generation. You can read all about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
@Paraic: thanks but I don’t need a link to Wikipedia to know about the industry I have experience in it. Yes Germany have said they’re closing down nuclear plants on the basis of the Fukushima accident. They’re also purchasing nuclear energy from the french to fill the gap between supply and demand! Make of that what you will.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor: Aaand France is running into major budget overruns with respect to it’s nuclear plants. In November 2018, President Macron announced the 50% nuclear power reduction target is being delayed to 2035, and would involve closing fourteen 900 MWe reactors. The two oldest reactors, units 1 and 2 at Fessenheim, will close in 2020. But then you knew that right?
@Paraic: I didn’t know that actually but I do know they’re preparing to build at least six more over the next two decades.
@C: You really show yourself up talking about Hinkley and the other old types. No one in their right minds is suggesting going that way. Modular molten salt types are the name of the game. If they got a tenth of what has been put into wind power over the past while, our climate problem would already be half solved. $2bn in the US , €2bn in Germany. Moltex are a good example but there are ten others worldwide, with China and India in the lead.
@Dr Alison O’ Connor:
The article is about a report that conclude our best options for obtaining carbon neutrality in terms of electricity generation.
I’m sure nuclear will be mentioned, and if not then they will have had to come up with a robust solution in its absence.
It sounds like the preffered solution will be a mixture of biogas, pumped storage (hydro), battery storage, interconnection and smart grid demand reduction.
@Nicholas Grubb: Neves mind those companies. There’s a guy called Zefram Cochrane who is developing an energy source that will solve all of our problems. Google him. He’s a genius. Light years ahead of everyone else.
Total madness here. This massive reliance on wind and even much worse solar, is a disaster in the making. What happens when the wind isn’t blowing.? Wind only works for 35% of the time, and that’s not all peak demand time. Let alone when we get a two or three week, winter blocking high. All been subsidy driven and who has been paying the subsidies. Us with the so called PSO. One third of which has been going for the also disastrous “jobs in the bogs” scheme. And who got the subsidies.? Not the ordinary citizen, but glossed up side shoots of the ESB, Coillte and Bord na Mona. Wonder who will pay the five million Euro fine re Derrybrien. The company or us.?
Coal burning for power in SE Asia is going exponential. Saudi Aramco tell us they will be pumping oil at the present rate for the next fifty years. Shut down our farming and bring the food from where they’ve cut down a rain forest instead.
There is only one way we will solve this climate problem. Find a source of electric energy on a scale and cost that keeps the fossil fuel in the ground. There is such a way, invented back in the early sixties and hastily suppressed by the fossil fuel lobby.
This should be super stimulated forward right now by a really hefty UN administered levy on aviation and bunker fuel of which worldwide we are using eleven million barrels a day.! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju59gcdmdvI&t=81s
@Nicholas Grubb: Lots of errors here. Wind will generate greater than 90% of the time with an annual load or capacity factor of 35%. Google the definitions. With regard to firm power. It’s the job of the National Grid to schedule power. They don’t permit renewable power on the grid without being able to support periods of low wind. Bogus arguments.
@C: in fairness, running all that reserve (mainly gas units) to support the wind is very expensive though
@Dow Dubrov: Redundancy in that sense is always costly but efficiencies will be found. I reckon the original argument is a bit reductive.
@Nicholas Grubb: Well I live in North Cork and the wind never stops blowing. We rarely use our garden furniture as its too breezy. We live near a wind farm but there should be far more of them. Yes it changed the look of the mountain but it’s an impact I can see rather than breathing the fumes from oil and solid fuels that I can’t see.
@C: Yes, I admit you are total right. We can do all that with LNG, which is the present plan. But that isn’t a fossil fuel is it.? Anyone who would like to see a very Alt view on all this, drop me a line to ndecg@yahoo.ie and I will send you a two pager that no one will publish.
@Dow Dubrov: Fair points but remember the grid operator and plant operators will rely on weather forecasting to schedule plants so conventional plants are run as efficiently as possible. It’s in their interest to minimise costs. Also, for reliability reasons, the grid has to be able to cope with the loss of the single largest generating plant and keep going without disruption. It has generating plant turned on and in reserve. Therefore a grid will have capacity for wind to a certain level without any changes to the grid or costs to us.
We import I think around 9 billion of oil, gas and coal each year ( when I last checked) wouldn’t it be great if the government would take 10% of this per year and developed biomethane plants. This can use all the animal, food, sludge wastes and a limited amount of energy crops to product storable energy (in the existing gas network). Then this energy can be used for electrical, thermal and transport. On top of this Co2 can be carpeted, reused or stored directly from biomethane plants.
@david hynes:see link for biomethane upgrading and co2 recovery from a plant in the isle of wight UK
https://youtu.be/zmXByBTdZEI
Will electricity bills begin to come down if the power is from a renewable source?
@Joseph Lyons: In theory yes it should, In reality though I’m willing to bet not so much.
how much carbon generated for the lorry loads of concrete for windmill bases
@ed w: The answer is lots but then every power plant needs lots of concrete. The point of the wind farm is you are not burning fuel for 25 or 30 years. (And free of cost adding to the nation’s energy security).
@ed w: including manufacture of the turbine and concrete wind works out about 11grammes CO2 per kwh, that compares with burning gas at 50 grm per kwh and 80 grm for coal. That doesn’t include the CO2 for extracting the fuels or building the power stations.
A fascinating presentation given by Cambridge Prof Michael Kelly, former chief scientific advisor to UK local government.
It demonstrates how different reality is to public perception.
Skip the intro,
@Seamus Hughes: I’ve seen something similar from a few years ago, it included things like having to blanket someone else’s desert with solar panels to meet energy demand. However his solution was simple cut energy demand.
He managed to cut his by nearly half with very little compromise
oooh a review cant wait
Is thorium the answer .Moneypoint is ideal for it
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say