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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Wind farms - ugly truths

1…34689…47

Comments

  • #152
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Little bit of Formula 1 tech to help with mini-dropouts :

    http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/interviews/from-race-to-renewables/1018035.article

    Instead of using solid magnets, the rotor is made with a layer of magnetically loaded composite (MLC) — essentially glass fibre containing crushed neodymium magnets. This has less conductivity and so reduces interaction with the stator’s changing magnetic field, therefore producing less heat


  • #153
    Fabo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    Thoughts given that ^ are now, as they were before.

    The fact of the matter is that wind is a renewable energy source, if somewhat sporadic. The infrastructure for some of it is already there.
    Is it a magic bullet....no
    Has anyone here suggested it is.....no
    Is it a viable resource that has a place in our network.....imo yes
    Will it need further network developments to fully utilize it's potential.....yes
    Is the same true of every other renewable energy source recognized at this stage...yes

    It doesn't really matter that you dislike the sensationalist way it is presented, in fact I feel as if you are putting it down in the exact same manner.
    It is a step away from the hydrocarbon solution, in the sense that it is converting an infinite free source of energy into electricity for our use. At present it is hampered by the way our grid operates, the way we use electricity and the infrastructure we have already created around the technology of the last millennium. All of these things have design lives, the challenge before us is to find alternatives, improvements and replacements within their practical lifetimes, and whether you like it or not, wind power will play a part in this.

    I understand your concerns about it's current efficiency and performance, particularly where spinning capacity has to be maintained, but this is a hangover from the inherited network, rather than a design flaw in a new network. The vision, design detail and technology for the network is still taking form, and agitating about the weaknesses of a resource merely makes you come across as negative.

    A building standard that required passive house certification for all one-off new builds would probably be a wiser step, but again the same problems with lobby groups and corporate interest will fly in the face of this long term investment, until the technology has been proven, perfected and made affordable. Its a part of a process, and getting riled up about the speed of the process doesn't speed it up.

    Those are my thoughts, They are not a criticism of any of the information you have put forward, as I honestly don't understand many of the figures that you have put forward. I just think that the ugly truths are actually about human behavior, political hubris, corporate greed and individual responsibility, rather than a windmill that does exactly what it was designed to do when you put it where you were meant to. Examine the wind farms from the bottom up, and they are doing exactly what it said on the tin.

    All well and good but if dispatchable plant is increasing as wind capacity increases then there is something very wrong. Anybody watching this should be shouting STOP right now.


  • #154
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Fabo wrote: »
    All well and good but if dispatchable plant is increasing as wind capacity increases then there is something very wrong. Anybody watching this should be shouting STOP right now.

    Not necessarily.

    If the increase in dispatchable plant is resulting in an increased scope to utilize renewable resources. Just because the plant is there, does not mean that it is spewing out emissions. The emissions associated with construction are fixed, once off, and are a necessary evil of the inherited grid. in just the same way that they have a lifetime associated.
    Anybody watching this should be asking WHY, certainly, and looking for alternatives, but if you do, and many people are, you won't be long about discovering that the alternatives are unproven and are a riskier prospect at this stage in the game. A hit is required on the short term cost and efficiency to drive the long term security of the system.

    People that are shouting STOP are not looking at the bigger picture of fossil fuel supply, its a volatile seasonal market, subject to forces way outside of local consumer control, and even less predictable than the weather. We need to endeavor to minimize this risk, and secure our sources of energy, it is that simple.
    If the dispatchable plant has to be built, so be it, if it has to be used so be it, but its downright wasteful not to harness a renewable resource if and when the wind blows, even if the CO2 savings are not vast in the short to medium term, the growth of the sector can only help to fund its research, development and efficiency in the long term.


  • #155
    Fabo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    Not necessarily.

    If the increase in dispatchable plant is resulting in an increased scope to utilize renewable resources. Just because the plant is there, does not mean that it is spewing out emissions. The emissions associated with construction are fixed, once off, and are a necessary evil of the inherited grid. in just the same way that they have a lifetime associated.
    Anybody watching this should be asking WHY, certainly, and looking for alternatives, but if you do, and many people are, you won't be long about discovering that the alternatives are unproven and are a riskier prospect at this stage in the game. A hit is required on the short term cost and efficiency to drive the long term security of the system.

    People that are shouting STOP are not looking at the bigger picture of fossil fuel supply, its a volatile seasonal market, subject to forces way outside of local consumer control, and even less predictable than the weather. We need to endeavor to minimize this risk, and secure our sources of energy, it is that simple.
    If the dispatchable plant has to be built, so be it, if it has to be used so be it, but its downright wasteful not to harness a renewable resource if and when the wind blows, even if the CO2 savings are not vast in the short to medium term, the growth of the sector can only help to fund its research, development and efficiency in the long term.

    So you admit that the 2000MW of wind we have now is useless. Its pretty expensive infrastructure to have around that provides no use.
    Just because the plant is there, does not mean that it is spewing out emissions.

    The idea that Eirgrid will accept a connection agreement for plant that will lie idle is a ridiculous claim.


  • #156
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Well the eirgrid twitter account that gives the stats is showing wind energy output at 8,30 am as 95 MW - and 132 MW at 9,30.

    I happened to notice at some point between 8,30 and 9 am that the wind turbines a few miles away that I can see - were spinning away.

    Which raises the question - what is the performance range of these turbines if theres enough wind to get them moving - and then as wind picks up more.

    Id love to see stats from individual turbines over time to see how they are actually performing - and whats actually feeding into the greed


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Fabo wrote: »
    So you admit that the 2000MW of wind we have now is useless. Its pretty expensive infrastructure to have around that provides no use.
    Nope.
    It is under-utilized, due to the limitations of the current system to benefit from its full output.
    It's far from useless.
    Fabo wrote: »
    The idea that Eirgrid will accept a connection agreement for plant that will lie idle is a ridiculous claim.
    Where did I claim that ?


  • #158
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fabo wrote: »
    All well and good but if dispatchable plant is increasing as wind capacity increases then there is something very wrong.
    And is it?
    Fabo wrote: »
    So you admit that the 2000MW of wind we have now is useless.
    For anything other than producing electricity, maybe.


  • #159
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Well the eirgrid twitter account that gives the stats is showing wind energy output at 8,30 am as 95 MW - and 132 MW at 9,30.
    I don't think we need to keep relaying a Twitter feed to this thread?

    The "wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind doesn't blow" argument (if it can be called that) has been done to death at this stage.


  • #160
    Fabo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    Nope.
    It is under-utilized, due to the limitations of the current system to benefit from its full output.
    It's far from useless.

    so you can alter the fact that the wind is variable by fixing the grid ?


    Where did I claim that ?[/QUOTE]

    Just because the plant is there, does not mean that it is spewing out emissions. from post at 11.32. thats what it implies.


  • #161
    Fabo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 225 ✭✭Fabo


    And is it
    why dont you do your own calculations and see ?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    And is it?
    For anything other than producing electricity, maybe.

    non-dispatchable electricity


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    Not necessarily.

    If the increase in dispatchable plant is resulting in an increased scope to utilize renewable resources. Just because the plant is there, does not mean that it is spewing out emissions. The emissions associated with construction are fixed, once off, and are a necessary evil of the inherited grid. in just the same way that they have a lifetime associated.
    Anybody watching this should be asking WHY, certainly, and looking for alternatives, but if you do, and many people are, you won't be long about discovering that the alternatives are unproven and are a riskier prospect at this stage in the game. A hit is required on the short term cost and efficiency to drive the long term security of the system.

    People that are shouting STOP are not looking at the bigger picture of fossil fuel supply, its a volatile seasonal market, subject to forces way outside of local consumer control, and even less predictable than the weather. We need to endeavor to minimize this risk, and secure our sources of energy, it is that simple.
    If the dispatchable plant has to be built, so be it, if it has to be used so be it, but its downright wasteful not to harness a renewable resource if and when the wind blows, even if the CO2 savings are not vast in the short to medium term, the growth of the sector can only help to fund its research, development and efficiency in the long term.

    Although I agree with some of your comments - we have to balance C02 vs Cost.

    If you are of the view C02 saving at any cost then we are on possible the right path.
    If you are on the cheapest option goes - then using wind is defiantly on the wrong path (given the assumption the pay back is too complex to calculate)

    If you are looking to balance the two then the head long rush to Wind without proper planning on the back end is madness. We have wind farms in constraint(stopped spinning) due to network limitations at one end of the scale and at the other earlier this week we go 3Mw/h (that's an output of about 0.15% of capacity) off all the turbines in Ireland.

    There is not a peer reviewed, proper validated, publically consulted return turn on investment (the lack of NREP argument) for what we are doing.

    Its a similar situation to a house builder saying "I've stuffed it with insulation so you should be ok" with out doing a proper set of calculations on what is required.

    You need to model, calculate, examine, validate, peer review, publically consult and then agree a plan.
    And Ireland has failed to do that

    The argument some way back around energy demand will go up or down - with the correct investment primary energy demand will fall (better insulation, better equipment etc etc ) and money invested in that approach would just seem a better way to go.

    Wind farms have as many technical as they do social problems and both of these will come back and haunt us if we get it wrong.


  • #163
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    fclauson wrote: »
    There is not a peer reviewed, proper validated, publically consulted return turn on investment (the lack of NREP argument) for what we are doing.

    Its a similar situation to a house builder saying "I've stuffed it with insulation so you should be ok" with out doing a proper set of calculations on what is required.

    You need to model, calculate, examine, validate, peer review, publically consult and then agree a plan.
    And Ireland has failed to do that

    Are Eirgrid not working on this?

    You seem to be assuming that work is not being done, even though there are several bodies working on the development of the energy infrastructure in Ireland.


  • #164
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Fabo wrote: »
    so you can alter the fact that the wind is variable by fixing the grid ?
    No, but you can adapt to it.
    Fabo wrote: »
    why dont you do your own calculations and see ?
    I’ll take that as a ‘no’.
    Fabo wrote: »
    non-dispatchable electricity
    Ergo, they are obviously not “useless”.


  • #165
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    If you are on the cheapest option goes - then using wind is defiantly on the wrong path (given the assumption the pay back is too complex to calculate)
    How exactly is the pay back too complex to calculate?

    Why do people find it so hard to accept that the costs associated with wind-generated electricity are relatively low? It’s been shown time and time again.
    fclauson wrote: »
    There is not a peer reviewed, proper validated, publically consulted return turn on investment (the lack of NREP argument) for what we are doing..
    There is a whole host of research ongoing in Ireland on sustainable electricity generation. For example, have a look at the work being done at the Electricity Research Centre at UCD, specifically the work of Mark O’Malley.


  • #166
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,451 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    djpbarry wrote: »
    There is a whole host of research ongoing in Ireland on sustainable electricity generation. For example, have a look at the work being done at the Electricity Research Centre at UCD, specifically the work of Mark O’Malley.

    I think commercial ventures are the best way forward, research in academic institutes can be long and drawn out.


  • #167
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don't think we need to keep relaying a Twitter feed to this thread?

    The "wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind doesn't blow" argument (if it can be called that) has been done to death at this stage.

    Well yes - but I had a follow on question too* - regarding how individual turbines perform - as during the specific period I mentioned in the post you quoted - I could clearly see turbines spinning.

    Presumably if the turbines spinning away - its not in constraint - or is it.

    Regarding the grid limitations - would this cause the VERY low figures some of use pointed out.

    Clearly the grid is restrictive on days when wind is doing VERY well - in that you have situations where you can't use the full potential due to the wind.

    So you might get situations where wind produced 1500 MW at a point of time - but could have done better if no limitations in Grid ability to take the power

    But not sure how that would cause very low outputs

    Of course if we had proper regional development - we might be able to use the power (of wind) locally to production - rather then shifting lots of the power up to Dublin where a lot of the demand is.

    Mind you that's a different topic entirely

    *hence quoting the twitter feed figures as they were relevant to the question - I thought :(


  • #168
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Grudaire wrote: »
    Are Eirgrid not working on this?

    You seem to be assuming that work is not being done, even though there are several bodies working on the development of the energy infrastructure in Ireland.

    You might wish that - but they are not - they purely will work on a model which will make money for Eirgrid
    djpbarry wrote: »
    How exactly is the pay back too complex to calculate?

    Why do people find it so hard to accept that the costs associated with wind-generated electricity are relatively low? It’s been shown time and time again.
    There is a whole host of research ongoing in Ireland on sustainable electricity generation. For example, have a look at the work being done at the Electricity Research Centre at UCD, specifically the work of Mark O’Malley.

    Djp - then please do one - Pat Swords did one (I posted it earlier) but it was refuted - Wind is not a low cost option because you need wind plus backup for the wind plus backup for the backup when the wind does not blow. So the ROI needs to show that the cost of building & maintaining the second backup will be covered (over time) by the saving in oil/gas needed to run it when the wind is blowing. This is the ROI which needs to be done and made transparent to all. And that time period needs to include the wear and tear on the wind turbines which will also need replacing in say 20 years or so

    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don't think we need to keep relaying a Twitter feed to this thread?

    The "wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind doesn't blow" argument (if it can be called that) has been done to death at this stage.
    Probably - but we don't have a conclusion that when it does not blow you need back up - that costs money and therefore wind is not cheap per say
    Old diesel wrote: »
    Well yes - but I had a follow on question too* - regarding how individual turbines perform - as during the specific period I mentioned in the post you quoted - I could clearly see turbines spinning.

    Presumably if the turbines spinning away - its not in constraint - or is it.
    check www.sem-o.com in a couple of days - you can work out excaclty how much power it was producing


  • #169
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    Djp - then please do one - Pat Swords did one (I posted it earlier) but it was refuted - Wind is not a low cost option because you need wind plus backup for the wind plus backup for the backup when the wind does not blow.
    Wind generation requires two back-ups now?

    Can we please put to bed this idea that wind farms require “back-up”, but no other form of power generation does, because it’s complete nonsense. What matters is that a system is flexible enough to meet varying demand, not what happens on the individual generator level.


  • #170
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Wind generation requires two back-ups now?

    Can we please put to bed this idea that wind farms require “back-up”, but no other form of power generation does, because it’s complete nonsense. What matters is that a system is flexible enough to meet varying demand, not what happens on the individual generator level.

    Yes the system needs to be flexible - but if your tied into (by targets) to achieving 40 percent of your electricity from wind - then you've lost flexibility - imo.

    Hence the need to address things by looking at and developing alternative options

    1) improve/develop the wind energy technology (the fact that everything must fit around wind - communities, grids, extra back up supplies tends to indicate issues - for me ;))

    2) Develop alternatives - certainly all alternatives have their flaws - but there is POTENTIAL merit in developing biomass and biogas - plus developing water based solutions.

    Would be easier to work with wind - imo - if it was only intended to deliver 20 percent of our electricity - but 40 percent is a lot more challenging to achieve

    In saying that (controversially) you can overcome some of that difficulty by upgrading the power network - which is (like them or hate them) pylons come in - so you can move much more electricity around the place in one go.


  • #171
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Wind generation requires two back-ups now?

    yes it does

    take yesterday in Ireland 3Mw produced from 2000mw installed base - so you need the
    a) the backup to cover the windfarms (standard practice to have dispatchable power to cover what is live)
    b) the backup to cover the backup when the windfarms are sitting idle

    Eirgrid do not rely on the interconnector as a backup (so it all has to be in country)

    Finally I think you are realising what the issue is.

    All power plants need a backup - but wind is special - (along with hydro and a few others) in that it needs a double backup to cover when its sitting idle.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    All power plants need a backup - but wind is special - (along with hydro and a few others) in that it needs a double backup to cover when its sitting idle.
    If this were true, then either Ireland would have significantly more installed capacity than it actually does, or there would be constant shortages of supply.

    But this isn’t the case, is it?


  • #173
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    If this were true, then either Ireland would have significantly more installed capacity than it actually does, or there would be constant shortages of supply.

    But this isn’t the case, is it?

    Bingo
    check http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90516911&postcount=75

    why is the total capacity installed in Ireland increasing including adding roughly match for match of fossil plant

    WIND


  • #174
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    Bingo
    check http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90516911&postcount=75

    why is the total capacity installed in Ireland increasing including adding roughly match for match of fossil plant

    WIND
    You said wind needs two backups. If that were true, the upward trend on your orange curve would be much larger.


  • #175
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You said wind needs two backups. If that were true, the upward trend on your orange curve would be much larger.

    I would say that the argument could be made along these lines

    You shouldn't NEED to increase the installed capacity at all - unless there is a projected increase of demand - or theres a problem with back up.

    Installed capacity NEEDS to increase with Wind because - you NEED back up for when Wind isn't available.

    With other power sources - YES you need back up for breakdowns/maintenance - but if you have various generators around the country - you may not need to have 2,000 MW of back up for every 2,000 MW of conventional power.

    You do (imo) for wind because there WILL be times when wind may produce close to 0

    Anyway folks - im off


  • #176
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You said wind needs two backups. If that were true, the upward trend on your orange curve would be much larger.

    The question is why are we installing any back up when we add wind because surly its about reducing the need for fossile fuel plants not increasing them


  • #177
    Old diesel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    fclauson wrote: »
    The question is why are we installing any back up when we add wind because surly its about reducing the need for fossile fuel plants not increasing them

    Exactly - introducing new capacity should enable other capacity to be shut down/decommissioned if demand is continuing to be stable.


  • #178
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    fclauson wrote: »
    The question is why are we installing any back up when we add wind because surly its about reducing the need for fossile fuel plants not increasing them

    Old diesel wrote: »
    Exactly - introducing new capacity should enable other capacity to be shut down/decommissioned if demand is continuing to be stable.

    It is not all about the plants. It is also about the fuels used.

    Short term, as I have pointed out before, yes there is a requirement to keep plants functional for the extra capacity. As storage methods and plants improve and develop to suit the haphazard supply of renewables (And I can assure you there are some very sharp pencils in Siemens and many other top drawer engineering companies working on it) eventually this will enable the decommissioning of the the older plants that have been refurbed or extended to provide the spare capacity. It isn't going to happen overnight, and in the meantime the slow part - the planning, design approval, public acceptance, construction of the turbines and associated infrastructure gets underway, so that when the efficiency end infrastructure has completed the same process, it is ready to bump in pretty short order.
    Honestly, I believe that to do it the other way around, and design the turbines and farms around our current network, capacities and consumption would be putting the cart before the horse in a major way, and the same discussion would be had from the other side of the fence years down the track - "why weren't the windfarms built years ago ?", "why doesn't the network have better capacity for storing peak generation power?"

    Politically, the topic is a nightmare, particularly in Ireland, as your average teacher-turned TD has zero understanding of electricity networks and generation, and can only rely on the information fed to them by advisors, who being human, always have their own agenda. On the other hand, if the management and decision making was handed over to a private entity, it would end up costing the state through the balls in consultancy fees. Its an obvious monkey on the back of public expenditure, and won't change any time soon.

    I think the positive message from the forum, is that there are people here asking these questions, and finding the information for themselves. The logical next step is to demand the forward planning documents which involve state funding and examine them with the same attention to detail, and demand answers from the Ministers concerned, who in turn will handball it to their advisors, who may or may not know the answer. If they don't then you have made something better.;)


  • #179
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    It is not all about the plants. It is also about the fuels used.

    Short term, as I have pointed out before, yes there is a requirement to keep plants functional for the extra capacity. As storage methods and plants improve and develop to suit the haphazard supply of renewables (And I can assure you there are some very sharp pencils in Siemens and many other top drawer engineering companies working on it) eventually this will enable the decommissioning of the the older plants that have been refurbed or extended to provide the spare capacity. It isn't going to happen overnight, and in the meantime the slow part - the planning, design approval, public acceptance, construction of the turbines and associated infrastructure gets underway, so that when the efficiency end infrastructure has completed the same process, it is ready to bump in pretty short order.
    Honestly, I believe that to do it the other way around, and design the turbines and farms around our current network, capacities and consumption would be putting the cart before the horse in a major way, and the same discussion would be had from the other side of the fence years down the track - "why weren't the windfarms built years ago ?", "why doesn't the network have better capacity for storing peak generation power?"

    Politically, the topic is a nightmare, particularly in Ireland, as your average teacher-turned TD has zero understanding of electricity networks and generation, and can only rely on the information fed to them by advisors, who being human, always have their own agenda. On the other hand, if the management and decision making was handed over to a private entity, it would end up costing the state through the balls in consultancy fees. Its an obvious monkey on the back of public expenditure, and won't change any time soon.

    I think the positive message from the forum, is that there are people here asking these questions, and finding the information for themselves. The logical next step is to demand the forward planning documents which involve state funding and examine them with the same attention to detail, and demand answers from the Ministers concerned, who in turn will handball it to their advisors, who may or may not know the answer. If they don't then you have made something better.;)

    Generally well put - wind should be a good resource - but its being "rammed" into this country.

    Comes back to the way I built my house - I never accepted "asha it'll do" - I want numbers, facts and figures to show me that its valid, the best approach given all possible approches, useful and required.


  • #180
    fclauson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    If we really want to save energy then we should stop people cooking their supper. Make them have bigger breakfasts instead

    Imagine if we gave every one a slow cooker which ran for 8 hrs up to 6pm each day

    supper.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    househero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭househero


    Slightly off topic brain fart....

    Doesn't Germany manufacture these turbines

    ...who's pushing for EU countries to reduce carbon emissions while holding the solution?


Advertisement