Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

100 % of Energy From Wind, Water, and Solar

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The scenario occurs to the extent that Poyry write, "The creation of an offshore 'super grid' and a major upgrade of energy interconnections are not the silver bullet solutions to Europe's energy needs, an independent study published by Pöyry has found. The report has found that the introduction of improved connectivity would only partially alleviate the volatility of increased renewable energy generation."
    Yes, I read that. However, you’ll notice that this point has not been substantiated with anything quantitative. Unless of course there’s something elsewhere in the report that you’d like to draw my attention to? I don’t have the time to read the whole thing.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    That's fine but it wasn't.
    Right – that leaves me no closer to understanding what your point was?


  • Options
    #63
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes, I read that. However, you’ll notice that this point has not been substantiated with anything quantitative. Unless of course there’s something elsewhere in the report that you’d like to draw my attention to? I don’t have the time to read the whole thing.

    I do not have access to the detailed research behind the public report. The public report does not quantify the results of it's findings although it does quantify its methods, "Although there is no guarantee that the same weather patterns will reoccur, by taking seven years’ data (and over 100 million demand, wind and solar records) we are able to evaluate the interaction of differing weather systems and capture accurately the correlation of wind, solar and demand patterns as they were."
    And they repeatedly assert in different ways that, "It is the strong conclusion of this study that in Northern Europe the overall output of the renewable generation will be highly variable, and will not average out because of weather and geography."
    The message I think is clear - interconnectors in Europe will not redress the issue of volatility; neither will they minimise it, they will 'partially alleviate' it.

    If you have information to the contrary and / or research showing that a worldwide grid would work, I would be interested to see it.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Right – that leaves me no closer to understanding what your point was?
    My point was simply that there were political considerations; it wasn't that this is any better or worse than our current situation. Of course it would be good if it was better but it's not. CM makes a valid point along these lines in his reference to the Sahara - maybe more moral than political.

    You didn't have time to read the reports behind your opening post and you don't have time to read the Poyry one - I cannot read for you.


  • Options
    #64
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I do not have access to the detailed research behind the public report.
    I didn’t expect that you would, but I’m inclined to treat unreferenced publications with scepticism.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    And they repeatedly assert in different ways that, "It is the strong conclusion of this study that in Northern Europe the overall output of the renewable generation will be highly variable, and will not average out because of weather and geography."
    Isn’t that stating the obvious?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The message I think is clear - interconnectors in Europe will not redress the issue of volatility; neither will they minimise it, they will 'partially alleviate' it.
    Without any figures to put on that, it’s essentially meaningless.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    My point was simply that there were political considerations...
    But again, this is acknowledged in the original article linked to in the OP. The authors are obviously presenting an idealised case in which the political will for such a project exists. That does not mean that political obstacles to such a project would not exist in practice – they obviously will.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    You didn't have time to read the reports behind your opening post...
    Nor did I expect anyone else to – I linked to them in the event that anyone was interested.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    ... and you don't have time to read the Poyry one - I cannot read for you.
    You cannot expect other posters to read everything and anything that you post – that’s totally unreasonable. Links to documents are supposed to support arguments, not act as arguments in themselves.


  • Options
    #65
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry
    I'm not sure what points you're trying to make with regard to the WSS vision.
    All I am doing, along with some others is trying to look at the feasibility and practicality of such a vision; it is a massive vision with some very obvious problems that would need to be resolved if it is to ever materialise.

    I believe the detailed work behind the Poyry study is available; it's just that I don't have access to it. There are other studies as described on this page that support the Poyry work, http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/227-new-study-confirms-ref-intermittency-studies


  • Options
    #66
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    EI_Flyboy wrote: »
    Household appliances are getting more power efficient all the time, LED lightbulbs will soon drop in price the way CFLs did, there are LCD TVs out there that use less than 100W.
    TV's are getting bigger, people are using more lights. Don't assume that any power will be saved on light emitting devices.

    Cheaper petrol means more car journeys sorta thing

    Heat can be saved with passive insulation etc.
    Servers and comms are moving from aircon to natural ventilation so expect some savings on that part (currently it emits more CO2 than air travel)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    There are other studies as described on this page that support the Poyry work, http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/227-new-study-confirms-ref-intermittency-studies
    HOW DO WE EXPLAIN CONCEPTS SUCH AS STORAGE OR INTERCONNECTION ?

    It's a serious question because some members of the general public are ignorant of the way renewables work (and I include those to whom the word ignorant can be used in it's second meaning)

    FIRST POINT STORAGE EXISTS TODAY
    http://www.claverton-energy.com/european-hydro-capacity-compared-to-the-demand-for-electricity.html
    Hydro Capacity in the EU-15 and Norway

    22 days the energy storage capacity of hydro across Western Europe, (the EU15 countries plus Norway and Iceland), expressed in terms of average daily electricity demand

    177 TWh the storage capacity, put another way.

    SECOND THERE ARE MORE INTERCONNECTORS ALL THE TIME
    http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=194930&title=Market+coupling+successful+for+NorNed
    The Dutch electricity transmission system operator (TSO) says that the NorNed cable that runs from Norway to the Netherlands was integrated into the coupling arrangement between the electricity markets of the Benelux countries, Germany, France and the Scandinavian countries on January 12th after a 24 hour delay.

    The 700MW cable runs for nearly 600km between Norway and the Netherlands. Market coupling of the cable is a major step forward in the creation of a single European electricity market, says TenneT, which is also planning for a partial coupling with the UK's electricity market in 2011 after the BritNed cable is commissioned.
    The 1GW BritNed interconnector is now live too. And our 500MW connection is due next year.

    THIRD WHILE RENEWABLES ARE ONLY RUN AT A FRACTION OF THEIR INSTALLED CAPACITY THE SAME IS TRUE OF FOSSIL FUEL TOO.
    Our minimum demand was 1786 MW, our dispatchable capacity is 6778 MW so our min demand is only 26% of installed capacity.

    Our electricity consumption is about 27TWhr per year which averages at about 3078MW which means the load factor is a tad over 45%.


    That 177 TWh I mentioned earlier is enough storage to power our country for the next six and a half years !


  • Options
    #68
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    djpbarry
    I'm not sure what points you're trying to make with regard to the WSS vision.
    I have responded to your posts point-by-point. If something isn’t clear, do specify.


  • Options
    #69
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    1)Storage exists today
    http://www.claverton-energy.com/european-hydro-capacity-compared-to-the-demand-for-electricity.html
    From your link above:
    "Under no circumstances would any operator allow these resource to fill long term unpredictable duration base load shortages, e.g. wind deficit...Their importance on peak demand management is vital. The recharge time for these resources compared to their discharge rates, i.e. stored volumes are days and weeks, months in summer."
    "... no one has ever suggested using this amount of hydro as a replacement for base load. It is merely a huge resource for storage which will cover as wind fluctuates, allowing existing, even base load stations, probably on warming, to be started in due time and without damage."
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    2) There are more interconnectors all the time
    Yes there are.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    3) While renewables are only run at a fraction of their installed capacity the same is true of fossil fuel
    Yes but fossil fuels can be run on demand at almost their peak capacity.


  • Options
    #70
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    From your link above:
    "Under no circumstances would any operator allow these resource to fill long term unpredictable duration base load shortages, e.g. wind deficit...Their importance on peak demand management is vital. The recharge time for these resources compared to their discharge rates, i.e. stored volumes are days and weeks, months in summer."
    "... no one has ever suggested using this amount of hydro as a replacement for base load. It is merely a huge resource for storage which will cover as wind fluctuates, allowing existing, even base load stations, probably on warming, to be started in due time and without damage."
    I'm not really sure what your point is here?


  • Options
    #71
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    TV's are getting bigger, people are using more lights. Don't assume that any power will be saved on light emitting devices.

    Cheaper petrol means more car journeys sorta thing

    Heat can be saved with passive insulation etc.
    Servers and comms are moving from aircon to natural ventilation so expect some savings on that part (currently it emits more CO2 than air travel)

    The WSS vision works on the theory that world wide energy demand will be reduced to 11.5 TWs by 2030.

    The US EIA estimates that the energy demand will rise to 16.9 TWs by 2030.

    So energy savings are key to the WSS vision as they account for roughly a third of the US EIA expected demand.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm not really sure what your point is here?

    That hydro storage is limited in its use as a cover for wind and wave fall offs.


  • Options
    #73
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The US EIA estimates that the energy demand will rise to 16.9 TWs by 2030.
    Do you have a source for that figure please?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    That hydro storage is limited in its use as a cover for wind and wave fall offs.
    Are you factoring pumped storage into that conclusion?


  • Options
    #74
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Do you have a source for that figure please?
    Are you factoring pumped storage into that conclusion?
    http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/jacobson-and-delucchi-half-baked-at.html
    http://www.centreflow.ca/2011/02/10/totally-renewable-–-and-renewed-–-by-2030/
    And somewhere in here - http://205.254.135.24/forecasts/ieo/

    Re pumped storage - yes - (it appears to be included in figures from CMs link - http://www.claverton-energy.com/european-hydro-capacity-compared-to-the-demand-for-electricity.html as per the comment - "Pumped storage is best dropped from these figures as they require recharging at night time through unused fossil baseload.")


    Why do you think the WSS author overstates the safety risks associated with nuclear?


  • Options
    #75
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/jacobson-and-delucchi-half-baked-at.html
    http://www.centreflow.ca/2011/02/10/totally-renewable-–-and-renewed-–-by-2030/
    And somewhere in here - http://205.254.135.24/forecasts/ieo/
    You think you could try and formulate a response rather than just posting a bunch of links?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    "Pumped storage is best dropped from these figures as they require recharging at night time through unused fossil baseload."
    But I’m talking about diverting excess power from, say, wind and/or solar to pumped storage?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Why do you think the WSS author overstates the safety risks associated with nuclear?
    Because I don’t consider nuclear to be unsafe.


  • Options
    #76
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You think you could try and formulate a response rather than just posting a bunch of links?
    You asked for a source for a figure, not an explanation of how it was derived.
    I've provided 3 sources. If you're challenging the figure then provide your challenge. You think you could try using google yourself or saying 'thank you'.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    But I’m talking about diverting excess power from, say, wind and/or solar to pumped storage?
    How does that change the fact that "Under no circumstances would any operator allow these resource to fill long term unpredictable duration base load shortages, e.g. wind deficit...Their importance on peak demand management is vital. The recharge time for these resources compared to their discharge rates, i.e. stored volumes are days and weeks, months in summer."
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Because I don’t consider nuclear to be unsafe.
    Fair enough, I thought it might be to do with Jacobson's own study that based its nuclear emission (CO2) totals on on the assumption that there would be a nuclear exchange (war) between nations every thirty years, and that the spread of nuclear power would be the cause of exchange.


  • Options
    #77
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The WSS vision works on the theory that world wide energy demand will be reduced to 11.5 TWs by 2030.

    The US EIA estimates that the energy demand will rise to 16.9 TWs by 2030.
    I see where the confusion has arisen – the above is not quite accurate. The authors are actually using the EIA figure as their reference point, but they are asserting that losses due to inefficiency would be substantially reduced in their WWS system. Not a totally unreasonable claim, as electric motors are much more efficient than combustion engines, for example. So, while production is reduced, end use is essentially the same.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    You asked for a source for a figure...
    And you threw three links at me, without telling me what they were for or where to find what I was looking for – that’s not exactly helpful.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The recharge time for these resources compared to their discharge rates, i.e. stored volumes are days and weeks, months in summer.
    Ignoring for a moment that this is just the opinion of some poster on a blog, how much pumped storage is currently used to “recharge” said resource? Not much, I’m guessing. Would pumped storage, powered by excess wind, not reduce the recharge time, in theory?


  • Options
    #78
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The authors are actually using the EIA figure as their reference point, but they are asserting that losses due to inefficiency would be substantially reduced in their WWS system.
    Yes, that is their assertion.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    And you threw three links at me, without telling me what they were for or where to find what I was looking for – that’s not exactly helpful.
    Well I was being helpful - it wasn't difficult to find the info you'd asked for (with the exception of the last link), go to the links and scroll down a little or better still, search for 16.9 or 11.5 or EIA etc. If having tried the basics, you couldn't find the info, a post such as 'I've done a quick search on the links and can't see the relevant info - any pointers please would be great' might have been appropriate.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Would pumped storage, powered by excess wind, not reduce the recharge time, in theory?
    The short answer is that it depends on whether the winds blowing.
    The not so short answer is:
    I don't see why because currently pumped storage is recharged regularily, overnight, when electricity demands is down and the prices are cheaper and its done by our coventional firm generators. Yes excess wind, if there is any, could do some pumping but I don't see that the result would necessarily be a reduced charge time (bear in mind there are no conventional generators in the WWS scenario); it could result in an increased charge time.
    Another consideration is that there may not be any "excess wind energy" for pumping as the excess is being exported half way across the world because they're trying to keep their lights on there.
    Another consideration is the possibilty of insufficient pumped storage capacity for the amount of "excess wind energy".


  • Options
    #79
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The short answer is that it depends on whether the winds blowing.
    On average, it will be.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    I don't see why because currently pumped storage is recharged regularily, overnight, when electricity demands is down and the prices are cheaper and its done by our coventional firm generators. Yes excess wind, if there is any, could do some pumping but I don't see that the result would necessarily be a reduced charge time (bear in mind there are no conventional generators in the WWS scenario); it could result in an increased charge time.
    Another consideration is that there may not be any "excess wind energy" for pumping as the excess is being exported half way across the world because they're trying to keep their lights on there.
    Wind speeds over an extended period of time are pretty predictable, so planning how much wind capacity is required to keep hydro reserves topped up should not be terribly difficult.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Another consideration is the possibilty of insufficient pumped storage capacity for the amount of "excess wind energy".
    So use it to electrolyse water and produce hydrogen.


  • Options
    #80
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    On average, it will be.
    Well that's just fine then.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Wind speeds over an extended period of time are pretty predictable, so planning how much wind capacity is required to keep hydro reserves topped up should not be terribly difficult.
    And no it shouldn't so this is just fine too.


    - providing the wind blows when we need to pump water back up our pumped storage systems- go on think about it
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So use it to electrolyse water and produce hydrogen.
    What and store it?


  • Options
    #81
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    And no it shouldn't so this is just fine too.

    - providing the wind blows when we need to pump water back up our pumped storage systems
    Hypothetical situation - if we know:
    • what the average monthly wind speed is at our various pumped storage sites (and lets throw in average hours of sunshine while we’re at it)
    • how much the measured wind speed is likely to deviate from that average on any given day
    • the average energy demand of the population throughout the year
    • the amount of storage necessary to ensure continuous supply in the worst case scenario of extended periods without sun/wind
    What else do we need to factor into consideration in order to avoid a blackout?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    What and store it?
    Sure. Why not?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    pljudge321
    Registered Users Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Hypothetical situation - if we know:
    • what the average monthly wind speed is at our various pumped storage sites (and lets throw in average hours of sunshine while we’re at it)
    • how much the measured wind speed is likely to deviate from that average on any given day
    • the average energy demand of the population throughout the year
    • the amount of storage necessary to ensure continuous supply in the worst case scenario of extended periods without sun/wind
    What else do we need to factor into consideration in order to avoid a blackout?
    Sure. Why not?

    Europe's annual electricity demand is about 3000 TWh, around 40 times the annual output of the Three Gorges Dam. This gives an average demand of around 350 GW with the peak demand probably being around twice this value, lets call it 700 GW. The Three Gorges Dam peak output is 22.5 GW meaning that to satisfy the peak demand purely from hydro stations we would need around 30 comparable stations in terms of potential power output plus around 20 more to meet future growth demand, the peak winter load, security of supply, reserve requirements etc.

    Where are we going to fit 50 of these?

    800px-ThreeGorgesDam-China2009.jpg

    Edit: Just did some quick sums. To provide adequate cover for just 1 week (which would be a really stupid idea to begin with) of a winter load (assuming 500 GW average demand which may be a bit zealous but thats how you design power systems) would require around 50,000 pumped storage stations the size of Turlough Hill, or 9000 stations the size of Dinorwig.


  • Options
    #83
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    djpbarry wrote: »
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power-for-the-world

    Doesn't really tell us anything we don't know already - lots of renewables and lots of interconnection over a wide area can provide a lot of energy. What may surprise some is the economics - the author claims that the planet can be powered exclusively by renewables, in the relatively near future, with virtually no change in energy prices relative to today. There are obviously obstacles to such a massive plan, such as the scarcity of certain elements required for turbines, for example, and I think the author overstates the safety risks associated with nuclear. The original papers (which I probably don't have the time to read myself) on which the article is based are available for download from Stanford's site if anyone's brave enough:

    http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

    You do realize they have to mine for all those materials right?


  • Options
    #84
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Where are we going to fit 50 of these?
    I did say it was a hypothetical situation, but thanks for at least coming up with some figures.
    pacquiao wrote: »
    You do realize they have to mine for all those materials right?
    Yep.


  • Options
    #85
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Europe's annual electricity demand is about 3000 TWh, around 40 times the annual output of the Three Gorges Dam. This gives an average demand of around 350 GW with the peak demand probably being around twice this value, lets call it 700 GW. The Three Gorges Dam peak output is 22.5 GW meaning that to satisfy the peak demand purely from hydro stations we would need around 30 comparable stations in terms of potential power output plus around 20 more to meet future growth demand, the peak winter load, security of supply, reserve requirements etc.

    Where are we going to fit 50 of these?

    800px-ThreeGorgesDam-China2009.jpg

    Edit: Just did some quick sums. To provide adequate cover for just 1 week (which would be a really stupid idea to begin with) of a winter load (assuming 500 GW average demand which may be a bit zealous but thats how you design power systems) would require around 50,000 pumped storage stations the size of Turlough Hill, or 9000 stations the size of Dinorwig.

    What would probably be equally interesting is to see how many wind turbines, going at full pelt, it would take to refill Turlough Hill. Then see how many it would take to refill the number of Turlough Hills Ireland would need to supply its needs. Then multiply that by, perhaps 0.25, to factor in the effect of having the wind blowing enough to turn a turbine.

    I've generally found that those who propose the sort of proposition that Ireland could be completely self sufficient in wind, water & solar just haven't thought it through, and when you start to ask questions (such as what do you do during the night when the wind isn't blowing, or during a dull rainy day when the wind isn't blowing, they become reluctant to consider the flaws in their proposal which, if enacted, would result in large swathes of the country suffering regular power cuts.


  • Options
    #86
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    easychair wrote: »
    What would probably be equally interesting is to see how many wind turbines, going at full pelt, it would take to refill Turlough Hill.
    Based on a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation and assuming the plant is generating at maximum capacity, about 50 of these operating at full whack will fill Turlough Hill’s upper reservoir faster than it is being drained.
    easychair wrote: »
    Then see how many it would take to refill the number of Turlough Hills Ireland would need to supply its needs.
    Twenty-one Turlough Hills would provide about 6GW of generating capacity. So, if we assume a load factor of 33%, we’d need about 3,200 of the above turbines.
    easychair wrote: »
    I've generally found that those who propose the sort of proposition that Ireland could be completely self sufficient in wind, water & solar just haven't thought it through...
    Who is suggesting that Ireland be self-sufficient?


  • Options
    #87
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Incidentally, this very subject is being discussed in the Camden Court Hotel in Dublin tomorrow evening:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/announcement.php?f=109


  • Options
    #88
    pljudge321
    Registered Users Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Incidentally, this very subject is being discussed in the Camden Court Hotel in Dublin tomorrow evening:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/announcement.php?f=109

    How was the talk? I planned to go but ended up not being able.


  • Options
    #89
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    How was the talk? I planned to go but ended up not being able.
    I wasn't there myself - I live in London!


  • Options
    #90
    pljudge321
    Registered Users Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I wasn't there myself - I live in London!

    Pity, Mark is an excellent speaker.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Pity, Mark is an excellent speaker.
    I know - he was one of my lecturers when I did my degree.


Advertisement