[Dinneen, 1927]
bean, … a woman, a wife; …
beanaim, I cut, etc.; … I strike; … See bainim and cf. buainim.
[Ó Donáill, 1977]
bainim, I dig out.
beann, f. (gs. binne, npl.~a, gpl. ~). 1. Horn, antler. 2. Drinking-horn. 3. ~ buabhaill, bugle-horn. 4. Prong. [Ó Donáill]
beann, f. (gs. binne). Regard; dependence. [Ó Donáill]
beann. 1. gpl. of binn. 2. f = binn.
binn, f. (gs. ~e, npl. beanna, gpl. beann). 1. Peak. 2. Gable. 3. Cliff. 4. Corner; edge, margin. 5. (Of garment) Lap. 6. ~ sleáin, wind, flange, of turf-spade. ~ siosúir, blade of scissors. 7. Side, portion. 8. = beann.
binn, a1. 1. (Of sound) Sweet, melodious.
binn, f = beann.
[Dinneen]
beann, gs. beinne, binne, beanna; ds. beinn, binn; pl. beanna; f old neut., a point, a peak; a mountain peak; a headland; a cliff; a pinnacle; a crest; a top; tip, peak or skirt of a garment; b. a gúna ar bhaitheas a cinn, her dress drawn over her head; a lap; im’ bheinn, on my lap; a corner; ceithre beanna an tighe, the four corners of the house; a gable, al. a spire, a steeple; ní saor go binn, the test of a mason is the gable; clár binne, bargeboard; a mast-peak, a wing, a branch, an arm, a bracket; gach b. de’n chrann, every arm of the tree; b. croise, arm of cross; b. dá chabhlach, a wing of his fleet; b. chluig, clock hand; a prong; píce dhá mb. (trí mb.), a two- (three-) pronged fork; a goblet, a horn, fig. a long ear; péire beann, a pair of long ears; b. buabhaill (al. buadhalach), a bugle-horn; beanna chinn, his horns (of jealousy, poet.); a couplet, a stanza; leath-bheann, a line; the full complement of cattle to stock a farm, agistment; bárr binne, a privileged beast over and above the agistment, fig. bí b. b. ar Éirinn sinne, we are not privleged persons in Ireland; báirr-bh., excess stock; care, regard, respect; ní’l aon bh. agam ort, I care not about, ignore, disklke or am independent of you; is suarach mo bhinn ort, I care little about you, I am not dependent at all on you; is mise beag-bheann ort, id.; common in place names; B. Gulban, Bengulbin; Beanna Beola, the Twelve Pins; B. Éadair, Howth; al. binn, beinn, béinn (cliff, Antr.); Corrán Béinne, Horn Head.
beannach, beannaighe, a., horned, forked; cornered; gabled; peaked (as mountains); an t-Oileán Trí-Bheanach = Trinacria (Sicily); skipping, prancing, nimble; capall b., a prancing horse; standing out to the vision, distinct; fiadh b., a deer, a stag; tigheanna b. buacach, a gay flounting lord (Car.).
beannacht, … a blessing; …
beann mhear, f., henbane; …
beannóg, -óige, -óga, f., a coif, a cap, a corner of a woman’s cloak; al. beannán.
beannóg, -óige, -a, f., a step, a bounce; …
May 31, 2018
Bean/Beann/Binn/Beannacht
May 1, 2018
Renewable energy undermine
Jeff Rice @EvolvingCaveman asked on Twitter: Hi @windwatchorg, Haven't you guys got anything better to do than try to undermine clean, green #RenewableEnergy? Enlighten us - what would you like to see make up our energy mix? Expensive nuclear? #ClimateChange causing #FossilFuels? @GeorgeMonbiot
National Wind Watch @windwatchorg answered:
The unfortunate fact is that renewable energy does not meaningfully replace fossil and nuclear fuels.
And such diffuse (low-density) sources as wind and solar require massive plants to capture even enough to make selling virtue-signaling green tags profitable.
That means wind and solar on an industrial scale necessarily have adverse effects of their own, particularly as they need huge tracts of previously undeveloped rural and wild land, including mountain ridge lines.
And being intermittent and, in the case of wind, highly variable, they still require backup, which is forced to run much less efficiently (ie, with more carbon emissions) than it could without having to contend with wind's erratic generation.
So for such utter lack of actual benefit coupled with substantial harm, no, we do not support wind and work to protect the environment from its depredations.
We advocate conservation, which reduces fossil and nuclear fuel use much more than wind and solar do.
Jeff Rice replied: I notice that you haven't answered my question...
National Wind Watch answered: That's a separate issue from National Wind Watch's mission to educate people about wind's shortcomings and harm. We do not take a position for any over any other except to note that wind is not a solution.
Jeff Rice: Campaign organisations have long recognised the need to promote solutions to the problems they campaign against. Your anti #WindPower campaign lacks substance and comes across as NIMBYism. It also looks like you are apologists for the #FossilFuels industry. #NIMBY
National Wind Watch:
That is of course a risk we take. On the other hand, there are plenty of groups already proposing solutions, and those who question wind power represent people of very different views, from off-grid deep green to pronuclear free marketers.
Our role is to provide a resource for all of them on the issue of industrial-scale wind power. If people see that as being apologists for fossil fuels or giving comfort to climate skeptics or NIMBYism, that is a failure of imagination on their part.
It is a failure of environmentalists, driven by the "need to promote solutions", that they have forgot their role is to challenge and question solutions, especially those promoted by government and industry and banking in collusion.
Jeff Rice: Various forms of #RenewableEnergy are the solution! Although, do you think that we don't need to tackle #ClimateChange or air pollution? And as for renewables being supported by the establishment - what utter nonsense. Governments are very much wedded to #FossilsFuels!
National Wind Watch:
Wind and solar would be great if their benefits far outweighed their harm, but, as already noted, on a large scale their harm far outweighs their benefits, because they do very little to alleviate carbon emissions, pollution or fossil fuel dependency.
As to government support for wind, it is hardly a secret that subsidies, regulatory favoritism and special market structures are necessary for wind development.
Jeff Rice: Why do you think wind and solar DON'T reduce carbon emissions? A gross inaccuracy on your part.
National Wind Watch: How much have carbon emissions decreased with the massive industrialization of rural and wild places with wind turbines around the world since the 1990s? It's madness to continue.
Jeff Rice: Why you are wrong: It's a myth that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions
National Wind Watch: Goodall and Lynas point to a passing reduction of electricity generation from CCGT plants, not to any actual reduction of fuel use or carbon emissions.
National Wind Watch @windwatchorg answered:
The unfortunate fact is that renewable energy does not meaningfully replace fossil and nuclear fuels.
And such diffuse (low-density) sources as wind and solar require massive plants to capture even enough to make selling virtue-signaling green tags profitable.
That means wind and solar on an industrial scale necessarily have adverse effects of their own, particularly as they need huge tracts of previously undeveloped rural and wild land, including mountain ridge lines.
And being intermittent and, in the case of wind, highly variable, they still require backup, which is forced to run much less efficiently (ie, with more carbon emissions) than it could without having to contend with wind's erratic generation.
So for such utter lack of actual benefit coupled with substantial harm, no, we do not support wind and work to protect the environment from its depredations.
We advocate conservation, which reduces fossil and nuclear fuel use much more than wind and solar do.
Jeff Rice replied: I notice that you haven't answered my question...
National Wind Watch answered: That's a separate issue from National Wind Watch's mission to educate people about wind's shortcomings and harm. We do not take a position for any over any other except to note that wind is not a solution.
Jeff Rice: Campaign organisations have long recognised the need to promote solutions to the problems they campaign against. Your anti #WindPower campaign lacks substance and comes across as NIMBYism. It also looks like you are apologists for the #FossilFuels industry. #NIMBY
National Wind Watch:
That is of course a risk we take. On the other hand, there are plenty of groups already proposing solutions, and those who question wind power represent people of very different views, from off-grid deep green to pronuclear free marketers.
Our role is to provide a resource for all of them on the issue of industrial-scale wind power. If people see that as being apologists for fossil fuels or giving comfort to climate skeptics or NIMBYism, that is a failure of imagination on their part.
It is a failure of environmentalists, driven by the "need to promote solutions", that they have forgot their role is to challenge and question solutions, especially those promoted by government and industry and banking in collusion.
Jeff Rice: Various forms of #RenewableEnergy are the solution! Although, do you think that we don't need to tackle #ClimateChange or air pollution? And as for renewables being supported by the establishment - what utter nonsense. Governments are very much wedded to #FossilsFuels!
National Wind Watch:
Wind and solar would be great if their benefits far outweighed their harm, but, as already noted, on a large scale their harm far outweighs their benefits, because they do very little to alleviate carbon emissions, pollution or fossil fuel dependency.
As to government support for wind, it is hardly a secret that subsidies, regulatory favoritism and special market structures are necessary for wind development.
Jeff Rice: Why do you think wind and solar DON'T reduce carbon emissions? A gross inaccuracy on your part.
National Wind Watch: How much have carbon emissions decreased with the massive industrialization of rural and wild places with wind turbines around the world since the 1990s? It's madness to continue.
Jeff Rice: Why you are wrong: It's a myth that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions
National Wind Watch: Goodall and Lynas point to a passing reduction of electricity generation from CCGT plants, not to any actual reduction of fuel use or carbon emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)