Pylons

Capt'n Midnight · 24-01-2014 09:15PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

40% reduction in CO2 emissions, not proportion of energy from renewables.
More ways to reduce CO2 at source ?

The best way would be to retro fit insulation into buildings.

But you have to remember that electricity usage is growing.

And if we aren't getting electricity from wind where do you propose to get from ??
It can't be hydro because that's tiny
It can't be nuclear because that going to provide zero extra watts for years and years, instead it will create more CO2 with the concrete and mining and all
it can't be solar or wave power because they haven't reached grid parity here yet.

At what societal and environmental cost ?

Ask the Portuguese ?

Seriously what you are saying is that you feel that people near existing power stations should put up with measurable pollution so you don't to worry about unproven effects.

The electricity has to come from (and go) somewhere.

Heroditas · 24-01-2014 09:27PM

The policy shift towards a "simple" CO2 cut is positive.
The previous direction of 20/20/20, i.e. 20% renewable generation, 20% CO2 cut, 20% energy efficiency measures, while on the surface looked good! contradicted itself on several counts.
The reason they went 20/20/20 was they felt an overall cut in CO2 was too difficult, hence the eventual mush-mash of policies.
A prime example of how frustrating this was in the biomass area. Ireland is on track for the renewable and CO2 cuts but is a long way off the energy efficiency part of it (then again, so is most of the EU). As a result, if a company decided to stick in a biomass CHP system, they may slash their emissions but it could not count towards the energy efficiency target because the overall efficiency may not be as good as a natural gas powered CHP and there might not be an efficiency gain.
Yet the whole premise of these 2020 targets is to reduce CO2 yet when someone actually cuts CO2 they may not be able to report it because it falls into the wrong bucket.
Silly stuff and unfortunately symptomatic of a lot of policies that appear from the Commission.

Mountainsandh · 24-01-2014 11:21PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The best way would be to retro fit insulation into buildings.

But you have to remember that electricity usage is growing.

And if we aren't getting electricity from wind where do you propose to get from ??
It can't be hydro because that's tiny
It can't be nuclear because that going to provide zero extra watts for years and years, instead it will create more CO2 with the concrete and mining and all
it can't be solar or wave power because they haven't reached grid parity here yet.

Ask the Portuguese ?

Seriously what you are saying is that you feel that people near existing power stations should put up with measurable pollution so you don't to worry about unproven effects.

The electricity has to come from (and go) somewhere.

I was reading some French documents online on some energy site which said that the planning laws have now been relaxed in France to allow commercial buildings to install renewable energy equipment on their roofs/ceilings, I think there is even an incentive in the form of extra floor surface allowances if you do avail of your roof space for energy production. Wind, solar, I'm sure there are numerous options to help a company reduce their energy bill, and their footprint.

CM I have said it before in the pylons thread, I think there is sufficient brain power and work force (engineers...) in Ireland to come up with plenty of clever, feasible ideas to reduce CO2 like that, little by little, and possibly come up with new renewable energy projects.
Biomass seems very suited to Ireland, remember the old bog in Canada that has turned into a moss producing plant ?

You seem very well versed on the flaws and qualities of existing options, but very reluctant to give new ones a chance.

If the pylons project was downscaled for now (to a more palatable scale for everyone, but enough to cater for extra energy on an Irish scale) possibly some funding might make its way to engineers and researchers to come up with something.

If the grid is upgraded (again to a reasonable level), then it might also allow private people to sell energy to Eirgrid ?

To me a lot of 13m private turbines, or solar panels, or geothermal installations would be a lot more acceptable than massive windfarms, and as regards the grid, wouldn't lots of little inputs be easier to accommodate than one massive source of input ?

People would be not only reducing their own Carbon footprint but also adding to the global Irish energy network.

As I said it is being done in France, and the last time I was there I was told of a man who, between a pellet stove and solar panels, was providing for himself and also selling I think around 2000 euros worth of energy (per year) to the French grid. (I am aware pellets stoves have been a big flop here, but the French find plenty of pellets to buy so they're still going there).

Instead of drastic, big solutions, how about smaller but numerous measures ? Of course, there's no money making in it for big entities, but it would certainly boost the private renewable energy sector jobs.

Mountainsandh · 24-01-2014 11:34PM

Heroditas wrote: »

Yet the whole premise of these 2020 targets is to reduce CO2 yet when someone actually cuts CO2 they may not be able to report it because it falls into the wrong bucket.
Silly stuff and unfortunately symptomatic of a lot of policies that appear from the Commission.

So are you saying there should be pressure put on the Commission to amend policies/EU regulations ?

And then there would be lots more ways to achieve lower CO2 emissions ?

Sounds great, and possible. After all the EU has just amended policies and plans.

How come the French seem encouraged to reduce their footprint by the relaxing of planning laws then ? They would be working under the same policies ?

Going to try find that article again (about planning laws amendments). edit : found it see below

This is a link to the renewable energy, environment and ecology ministerial section website. It lists the government's incentives to encourage companies (and private individuals but doesn't give much detail on that here) to reduce their footprint, and produce renewable energy for themselves. (lots of tax cuts and allowances, and referring to the relaxed planning laws I'm on about)
http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Energies-renouvelables,3733-.html

Levée des obstacles réglementaires au développement des énergies renouvelables :

- Modification de la réglementation relative au permis de construire : il ne pourra plus s’opposer à l’installation de systèmes de production d’énergie renouvelable sur des bâtiments (sauf dans les périmètres nécessitant une protection – comme par exemple les zones situées près des monuments historiques – et les zones définies par le conseil municipal après avis des « Architectes des Bâtiments de France »).

- Un dépassement (30%) des règles relatives à la densité d’occupation des sols, à l’emprise au sol, au gabarit et à la hauteur, sera autorisé pour les constructions comportant de tels équipements.

This says : the government/planning authorities will not be able to oppose the installation of renewable energy production systems on buildings (except in protected sites, like historical sites, and other protected sites). Also, 30% extra floor occupation density rules on surface, height, and witdth for constructions with this type of equipment. (not great translation, in short, more space available to build).

Mountainsandh · 25-01-2014 12:07AM

Don't want to be OT, this is related to topic insofar as reducing CO2 and producing renewables on a smaller scale would imo help reduce the scale of Gridlink project needed.

Apologies it's in French, but here is a great idea : methane production (poor concentration i think he says), dung + rabbit droppings + supermarket unused fruit and veg, feeding into diesel type engine, producing enough energy for 60/70 households (30kw/hr), that the farmer sells back to EDF. He also benefits from the heat produced by engine, it heats his rabbit hangar, the cows one, and 2 private houses, and hot water.
http://dai.ly/xsuwe4

The left overs from methane production are left to dry, then used as fertilizer for grazing fields, corn, and other cultures.

He would like to use unused gaz, that would mean purifying it, to power his 2 cars, but that's not possible yet.

His advice to farmers would be to have one methanizer for 2 or 3 farms if they feel they can't afford the investment, but go for it because it has such potential, nothing gets wasted.

Heroditas · 25-01-2014 12:13AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

So are you saying there should be pressure put on the Commission to amend policies/EU regulations ?

And then there would be lots more ways to achieve lower CO2 emissions ?

Sounds great, and possible. After all the EU has just amended policies and plans.

A lot of what has been directed up to now has been the handiwork of Claude Turmes, an extremely zealous member of the Greens and quite an unpleasant individual who heckles, shouts at and insults people who don't agree with him.

Mountainsandh · 25-01-2014 12:22AM

It seems silly that the entire country be restricted by one single individual though.

Maybe if the inconsistencies and the consequences on people and companies were exposed like what you are doing here, more pressure might be possible to turn things around.

Heroditas · 25-01-2014 12:26AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It seems silly that the entire country be restricted by one single individual though.

Maybe if the inconsistencies and the consequences on people and companies were exposed like what you are doing here, more pressure might be possible to turn things around.

Unfortunately that's the way politics can sometimes work. It's not always the most capable people who dictate policy.
Bit of a mess but hey, that's democracy.
The vast majority of people are working towards the common good and want the same thing. It's just the road that differs for a lot of them. That may sound like a load of stupid cliches but it's certainly how I see it.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-01-2014 12:59AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

To me a lot of 13m private turbines, or solar panels, or geothermal installations would be a lot more acceptable than massive windfarms, and as regards the grid, wouldn't lots of little inputs be easier to accommodate than one massive source of input ?

You are probably talking 1Kw for a 13m turbine

There are 12,228 households in Leitrim

Let's force every household in Leitrim , rural and urban to have such a turbine.

Being close to the ground and with trees and houses nearby in a lot of cases there will be less time with winds above minimum speed as well as slower winds. You would also need to install 12 thousand sets of electronics. You'd loose a fair bit of power on the local low voltage cables.

All that and you'd wouldn't even match the output of TWO large wind turbines (6MW)

It's like Mao and the village iron foundries. Yes you can produce iron, but it's a very expensive, labour consuming way to do it and the iron isn't even worth as much.

There are 1.65m households in the state and our peak windpower was 1769 MW And most of those are urban and a lot of the urban ones are in apartments.

Micro power is handy for the individual but it can only be ecomomic because the individual if paying multiples of the wholesale price.

Mountainsandh · 25-01-2014 02:39AM

I am not talking about forcing anyone to get anything, and of course the scenario would only suit a limited number of households.
With incentives as there have been before I believe (and there currently are in France), people might consider more options than just solar panels, and with greater demand, prices might go down accordingly. There is a farmer in Dungarvan who has a small turbine, I wonder how that's working out for him, I bet he would sell surplus if he could, it's practically always active.

Remember I am not talking about a one fell swoop solution, rather a great number of small solutions.

Have you checked out the video on methane powered engine ? This is posted online by the environment Ministerial Cabinet (France).

Greensleeves · 25-01-2014 03:35PM

During a Dáil debate last Thursday Anne Ferris (Labour TD, Wicklow) raised the EirGrid pylons issue. Her whole contribution is worth reading; here is part of it...

"Before Christmas I made a personal submission to Mr. Fintan Slye, the current CEO of EirGrid. Among other matters I requested the most up-to-date analysis EirGrid has of the technical need for the Grid Link portion of the €3.2 billion Grid25 project. I asked if he could show me the calculations behind the recommendations to build Grid Link. I got a surprisingly swift reply enclosing a link to a 400-odd page report called the Ten Year Transmission Forecast Statement 2013. It is about the same thickness as an old telephone directory and, to be frank, just about as interesting to read. Perhaps Mr. Slye thought I would not read it. In fact, the EirGrid report just confirmed what I already knew. The reason for the proposal to spend €3.2 billion of taxpayers' money to double the capacity of the national grid is to support a massive increase in renewable energy, mainly from wind power. Only a fraction of the wind energy generated would have anything to do with keeping on the lights in the State. EirGrid wants to double the capacity of the national grid mainly for the purpose of facilitating the export of wind energy abroad.

The wind energy for export strategy that has such a significant influence on EirGrid's €3.2 billion plans was conceived during the reign of its previous CEO, Mr. Dermot Byrne, who departed the company in September 2012. Barely a year after he retired from the position of EirGrid CEO, Mr. Byrne was appointed to the board of Element Power Ireland, one of the companies that has plans to carpet large swathes of the Irish countryside with wind turbines for export. It is time we had a second opinion."

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2014-01-23a.124

Heroditas · 25-01-2014 04:26PM

That's her opinion, not a statement of fact by Eirgrid, AFAIK

darkpagandeath · 25-01-2014 04:37PM

Heroditas wrote: »

That's her opinion, not a statement of fact by Eirgrid, AFAIK

I think that's the crux of the issue though it's everyone's opinion on this issue with very little facts just a lot of emotive nonsense on the news in the papers and so on.

darkpagandeath · 25-01-2014 05:00PM

I just had a thought cant believe it's not been brought up yet .... If EMF is so dangerous Why use MRI machines in hospitals ? Surely they would have encountered problems by now.

Mountainsandh · 25-01-2014 06:55PM

Do you mean there are no precautions around MRI equipment ? Never had an MRI. I would hazard a guess too that the length of time exposed in an MRI is limited, as opposed to being exposed for prolongued periods in your home. Would you have your home kitted out as an MRI scan environment ?

I think that's the crux of the issue though it's everyone's opinion on this
issue with very little facts just a lot of emotive nonsense on the news in the
papers and so on.

That's true, now ask yourself the reason why ?

I have the answer, so if you don't mind I'll just say it outright :
we don't know, because Eirgrid are not telling us.

We need the facts from Eirgrid.
How much of this is for export needs ?
How much is for Irish needs ?

How many pylons for Ireland, what kV lines ?
What kV lines for export ?

This is what most community response organizations are blue in the face asking, it's really not complicated.

Then we could make up our minds, and be less emotive about it.

Blahblah2012 · 25-01-2014 07:16PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Do you mean there are no precautions around MRI equipment ? Never had an MRI. I would hazard a guess too that the length of time exposed in an MRI is limited, as opposed to being exposed for prolongued periods in your home. Would you have your home kitted out as an MRI scan environment ?

That's true, now ask yourself the reason why ?

I have the answer, so if you don't mind I'll just say it outright :
we don't know, because Eirgrid are not telling us.

We need the facts from Eirgrid.
How much of this is for export needs ?
How much is for Irish needs ?

How many pylons for Ireland, what kV lines ?
What kV lines for export ?

This is what most community response organizations are blue in the face asking, it's really not complicated.

Then we could make up our minds, and be less emotive about it.

In fact the €3.2 billion should be invested in upping the grants for renewable energy generation(harvesting) in the home and making it affordable for people. Group or individual schemes. Creating the power where it's needed.

darkpagandeath · 25-01-2014 07:31PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Do you mean there are no precautions around MRI equipment ? Never had an MRI. I would hazard a guess too that the length of time exposed in an MRI is limited, as opposed to being exposed for prolongued periods in your home. Would you have your home kitted out as an MRI scan environment ?

That's true, now ask yourself the reason why ?

I have the answer, so if you don't mind I'll just say it outright :
we don't know, because Eirgrid are not telling us.

We need the facts from Eirgrid.
How much of this is for export needs ?
How much is for Irish needs ?

How many pylons for Ireland, what kV lines ?
What kV lines for export ?

This is what most community response organizations are blue in the face asking, it's really not complicated.

Then we could make up our minds, and be less emotive about it.

I would hazard a guess and say EMF that can penetrate the tissue of the body is worse than EMF off a pylon if it was any issue at all. And they would stop using MRI equipment if it was bad.. but that's just me.

Mountainsandh · 25-01-2014 07:39PM

XRays are very dangerous, yet in a controlled hospital situation they are still administered.

Again, duration of exposure is the key I suppose.

darkpagandeath · 25-01-2014 08:12PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

XRays are very dangerous, yet in a controlled hospital situation they are still administered.

Again, duration of exposure is the key I suppose.

X-rays have been proven to be extremely harmful

EMF cant even claim any links to any illness... I think your missing the point and scaremongering. As I said if there was medical evidence that EMF is harmful we would know it by now and hospitals would have picked up on it. And shield their MRI operators just like they do with X-rays machines

Mountainsandh · 25-01-2014 09:08PM

As I said I've never had an MRI, therefore cannot tell if they're shielded, have you had one ?

As for scaremongering, I haven't brought this up, I am reacting to a comment you made.

I'm on the fence over effects of EMF, have a hunch it couldn't be good to be exposed for prolongued duration, especially from the higher voltage lines, but not panicking over it either provided an ample distance from habitation is respected.

I'm not about to enter into a debate about this side of things, I have made my points repeatedly and they're not about health considerations, despite of course the reservations above.

I still wouldn't have my home kitted out with MRI equipment for an experiment.

Zen65 · 25-01-2014 09:40PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I just had a thought cant believe it's not been brought up yet .... If EMF is so dangerous Why use MRI machines in hospitals ? Surely they would have encountered problems by now.

Good thinking, but that's not the most illuminating question to ask.

How about this: "If Low Frequency EMF was dangerous to humans, then why do we live in houses and work in offices which have electric wiring in them?"

Over 99% of all the 50Hz EMF you will experience in your life is the result of domestic & office voltage wiring. Even if you live near a 220kV line, the amount that line contributes to the EMF in your house is insignificant.

joela · 26-01-2014 12:02AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

40% reduction in CO2 emissions, not proportion of energy from renewables.
More ways to reduce CO2 at source ?

At what societal and environmental cost ?

Welcome to Ireland !

But you're not concerned about evironmental impacts, you only care about the err landscape & humans right?

Mountainsandh · 26-01-2014 12:13AM

I wasn't aware environmental meant exclusively ecological...

I don't think pylons have an impact on ecology, flora and fauna.

To say that I don't care about the environment is wrong, but then again in your own little vendetta against me you are surmising a lot of things joela.

4thHorseman · 26-01-2014 09:35AM

With regards to house devaluation

According to a 2012 American Appraisal Institute study visible overhead transmission lines can reduce residential property values by between 20 and 50%.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546042/Proof-wind-turbines-thousands-home-value-homes-1-2-miles-wind-farms-slashed-11-cent-study-finds.html

Greensleeves · 26-01-2014 11:48AM

joela wrote: »

But you're not concerned about evironmental impacts, you only care about the err landscape & humans right?

I am concerned about all the impacts. It would be wasteful of both money and the earth's resources to build unnecessary infrastructure.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-01-2014 03:07PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I just had a thought cant believe it's not been brought up yet .... If EMF is so dangerous Why use MRI machines in hospitals ? Surely they would have encountered problems by now.

As others have pointed out the X-rays are dangerous. In the USA people are routinely given CAT scan's because they are billable in case there are other problems.

Unless there is a specific reason to give a CAT scan the risks outweigh the benefits.

But X-rays have been proven to be dangerous for ages. It's like super concentrated sunlight. Sunlight is also very dangerous, if you overdose on it.

The main danger from MRI machines is from flying metal objects when they turn on the magnets. I know someone who has a magnet in his finger. He can pickup on magnetic and some electrical fields. MRI is very much in the Do Not Want category for him.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-01-2014 03:29PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

In fact the €3.2 billion should be invested in upping the grants for renewable energy generation(harvesting) in the home and making it affordable for people. Group or individual schemes. Creating the power where it's needed.

Oh boy.

Lets try this again. Insulation reduces power demand so is a no-brainer. A one off payment and no running costs.

Solar water heating you'd want to check the payback time and treat it as being seasonal.

Energy harvesting at home is only viable because the retail price is a lot more than the wholesale price. If your demand is low enough then you can even budget for storage instead of paying the standing charge. The economics of micro generation are very different to grid connected stuff.

In time as solar panels drop in price and more importantly the control electronics drop in price they will become more attractive. I could see a time in the not too distant future where roof tile with build in panels become common. Mainly because the additional cost for a new building is marginal.

Just in case you missed my previous post.
Imagine how many NIMBY's there'd be if you tried to stick a wind turbine on every house, imagine how much it would cost.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You are probably talking 1Kw for a 13m turbine

There are 12,228 households in Leitrim

Let's force every household in Leitrim , rural and urban to have such a turbine.

Being close to the ground and with trees and houses nearby in a lot of cases there will be less time with winds above minimum speed as well as slower winds. You would also need to install 12 thousand sets of electronics. You'd loose a fair bit of power on the local low voltage cables.

All that and you'd wouldn't even match the output of TWO large wind turbines (6MW)

Yes in theory it would be nice if power was produced locally, but the reality is if you throw some numbers at it , it doesn't make sense.

Does anyone have any stats on how much power all of the domestic wind turbines in the country produce or the cost per KW / KWh ?

tl;dr version
A grid means you can produce power at a fraction of the cost of local generation which benefits everyone. Local generation is capital intensive and benefits the individual because of subsidies from everyone.

Blahblah2012 · 26-01-2014 04:04PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh boy.

Lets try this again. Insulation reduces power demand so is a no-brainer. A one off payment and no running costs.

Yes? Did I question this?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Solar water heating you'd want to check the payback time and treat it as being seasonal.

I'd treat it as being a way of reducing costs.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Energy harvesting at home is only viable because the retail price is a lot more than the wholesale price.

Domestic Energy harvesting would be far more significant if that €3.2 billion was invested in it instead of making money for electricity companies that are looking to export it..FOR THEIR OWN GAIN!!

As I have said before..this project has very little to do with the needs of the nation and more to do with the profits of a company!!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just in case you missed my previous post.
Imagine how many NIMBY's there'd be if you tried to stick a wind turbine on every house

I also mentioned group schemes. People aren't against things that are of benefit to themselves..unlike the wind farms and new grid for supplying Britain.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

imagine how much it would cost.

€3.2 billion would help it along nicely!!!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes in theory it would be nice if power was produced locally, but the reality is if you throw some numbers at it , it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to power companies alright...sure it would cost them billions in revenue..you couldn't have that now could you?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A grid means you can produce power at a fraction of the cost of local generation

Minus transmission and distribution costs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Local generation is capital intensive and benefits the individual because of subsidies from everyone.

How much revenue will the people of this country receive from selling power to the British?

Capt'n Midnight · 26-01-2014 05:19PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

How much revenue will the people of this country receive from selling power to the British?

"Carthago delenda est"

Cato the elder

He used to say it at the end of every speech regardless of the topic.

If you keep saying that Grid 25 is solely for the purpose of UK companies carpetbagging our wind after we've paid for the upgrade then either

- people will start to believe you

- or they will look at the facts and decide for themselves

- other NIMBY's have gone on about foreigners setting up wind farms here with their own grid , the amount of FUD at times seems to be a case of flinging mud and harping on about anything that looks like sticking.

I will say it again. Micro-generation is very expensive for what you get as there are no economies of scale. Most urban dwellers don't have anyway near the options but they still have to subsidise it. Again it's capital intensive so most rural dwellers don't have the options either.

In a lot of cases micro-generation is a subsidy for the rich. Grid enabled wind power (24% last month at a time of peak yearly demand) benefits everyone.

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

I've asked how much power existing schemes provide.
I've shown that depending on the assumptions you make that an entire county of household wind turbines would only match two in a wind farm, and that today's peak wind would match the nameplate capacity of a turbine on every household.

Blahblah2012 · 26-01-2014 06:03PM

Quote: Blahblah2012
How much revenue will the people of this country receive from selling power to the British?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"Carthago delenda est"

Cato the elder

He used to say it at the end of every speech regardless of the topic.

Sweet fûck all. And you answer me with bollôxology!!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you keep saying that Grid 25 is solely for the purpose of UK companies carpetbagging our wind after we've paid for the upgrade then

That is its main purpose.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

- people will start to believe you

- or they will look at the facts and decide for themselves

If they accept the rubbish of spoof merchants like yourself..then at least I tried.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I will say it again. Micro-generation is very expensive

€3.2 billion on a grid and wind farms for the British isn't cheap!!!
Is that part repayment of the £7 billion they lent us for the bailout?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In a lot of cases micro-generation is a subsidy for the rich.

With a €3.2 billion investment in it..it would benefit ALL.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I've shown that depending on the assumptions you make that an entire county of household wind turbines would only match two in a wind farm

have you?

Pylons

Comments