Energy infrastructure

20-02-2021 6:30pm

A nice analysis done on the topic of energy storage for renewables by Real Engineering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI

Yellow_Fern · 20-02-2021 7:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A nice analysis done on the topic of energy storage for renewables by Real Engineering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI

So unless I misheard we'd need over 30 Turlough Hills, or one the size of Lough Erne. Depressing

richie123 · 20-02-2021 8:56pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

So unless I misheard we'd need over 30 Turlough Hills, or one the size of Lough Erne. Depressing

The wind power production chart was interesting...very erratic.
Will more renewables help that situation.
Also the problem of turbines being shut down and wasting power is another big issue and its only going to get worse

celtic_oz · 21-02-2021 10:19am

Tony Seba thinks the cost of electricity will go to zero in the next 15 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds

tom1ie · 21-02-2021 11:24am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Energy independence isnt a good goal

?

Sam Russell · 21-02-2021 11:33am

celtic_oz wrote: »

Tony Seba thinks the cost of electricity will go to zero in the next 15 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds

They predicted that the cost of nuclear power in the 1950s would be cheap when they started the nuclear power stations - in fact electricity would be so cheap it wont be metered.

Didn't happen then - will it happen now? Well, the energy might be cheap to produce, but will it be given way? 90% of the cost of an iPhone is intellectual property.

On the other hand, currently telephone calls are 'free' or incredibly cheap thanks to the internet - that would have been thought impossible in the 1950s when it needed political pull to even get a phone line.

Predicting the future is an uncertain pastime and only for the brave.

Markcheese · 21-02-2021 12:20pm

I don't see why electricy would be free,
there's a fairly substantial cost to establishing renewables , and a very substantial cost to transmitting ,
I could see in an Irish context excess electricity (at off peak times ,with steady high wind speeds ) being free or near as damn it ...but a company may be slow to invest a large amount of capital just to take advantage of occasional or even irregular free power supply ...
( The exception could be batteries .... Domestic and business , especially if re-ox batteries become a thing , )

Markcheese · 21-02-2021 12:41pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

So unless I misheard we'd need over 30 Turlough Hills, or one the size of Lough Erne. Depressing

And for how long ? Was that 30 furlough hills per 24 hour period ?
It wouldn't be unlikely to have a calm fortnight ,so very little chance to replenish the upper reservoirs...

Sam Russell · 21-02-2021 12:54pm

Markcheese wrote: »

And for how long ? Was that 30 furlough hills per 24 hour period ?
It wouldn't be unlikely to have a calm fortnight ,so very little chance to replenish the upper reservoirs...

When Ardnacrusha was built, it was fantastic, 85 MW - filled a huge amount of our then electricity demand (close to 100%). Now it is hardly anything.

Yellow_Fern · 21-02-2021 1:42pm

tom1ie wrote: »

?

What matters is cheap energy and having a diversified supply. IMO it is hopeless for a small country like us to try to be independent. Supporting Irish jobs is bad idea if we overall pay more for energy.

Sam Russell wrote: »

They predicted that the cost of nuclear power in the 1950s would be cheap when they started the nuclear power stations - in fact electricity would be so cheap it wont be metered.

Didn't happen then - will it happen now? Well, the energy might be cheap to produce, but will it be given way? 90% of the cost of an iPhone is intellectual property.

On the other hand, currently telephone calls are 'free' or incredibly cheap thanks to the internet - that would have been thought impossible in the 1950s when it needed political pull to even get a phone line.

Predicting the future is an uncertain pastime and only for the brave.

Dead right. Very hard to predict. But I would say that nuclear is the least subsidized when you factor in the externalised costs of all sources of energy generation.

Apogee · 21-02-2021 1:55pm

Highlights again the need for better interconnector/grid infrastructure:

Irish Times wrote:

Wind Energy Ireland – formerly the Irish Wind Energy Association – says in its annual report that the industry supplied 36.3 per cent of the electricity used in the Republic, up from 32.5 per cent the previous year. The group says wind generated 10.73 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity in 2020. An average family home uses 4.6 MWh a year. Dr David Connolly, chief executive, Wind Energy Ireland, noted that the amount of “lost” wind power doubled last year to 1.4 million MWh.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/wind-generates-almost-40-of-electricity-used-in-republic-1.4488594

Cork solar farm due to kick off

Irish Independent wrote:

More than 150 containers are due to arrive in Cork from China over the coming weeks containing 120,000 solar panels that will be used in the development of eight of the proposed solar farms.

John Mullins, the former Bord Gáis chief executive who co- founded Amarenco, said he expected work to begin on the sites before the end of April.Six of those, including those in Mallow, Kanturk, Inniscarra, Whitechurch and two in Carrigaline are expected to be completed by August, with the remaining two in Cobh and Timoleague not becoming operational until 2022.

Each will incorporate 22,200 photovoltaic panels on ground mounted frames, two inverter/transformer stations, a delivery station and associated site works. Each will generate five mega-watts of green electricity, which will be fed back into the national grid.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/work-to-finally-start-on-cork-solar-farms-in-april-40103545.html

Capt'n Midnight · 21-02-2021 3:42pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

They predicted that the cost of nuclear power in the 1950s would be cheap when they started the nuclear power stations - in fact electricity would be so cheap it wont be metered.

Didn't happen then - will it happen now? Well, the energy might be cheap to produce, but will it be given way? 90% of the cost of an iPhone is intellectual property.

On the other hand, currently telephone calls are 'free' or incredibly cheap thanks to the internet - that would have been thought impossible in the 1950s when it needed political pull to even get a phone line.

Predicting the future is an uncertain pastime and only for the brave.

Can't remember if it was fusion energy or the breeder cycle that was supposed to be cheap. Academic really since neither have been delivered yet.

Power delivery has gotten a little cheaper since higher voltages and special aluminium - zirconium alloys allow higher temperatures. So you can transfer more power using the same amount of material. But it's incremental.

There is no comparison with voice. Phone calls originally needed a pair of copper wires. Then they developed phantom lines to nearly double the capacity, then they used filters to put multiple calls on the same copper pair. They they digitised the voice on to 64Kb channels to sweat the copper further. The most aggressive codecs that can compress this by a factor of 10 using sneaky tricks like ignoring silences.

While that might sound impressive the data record over a single 75Km commercial optical fibre is 40Tbs way more than enough for 4 billion voice calls at the same time.

Markcheese · 21-02-2021 3:44pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

When Ardnacrusha was built, it was fantastic, 85 MW - filled a huge amount of our then electricity demand (close to 100%). Now it is hardly anything.

I might not have said that very well .. Ardnacrusha can produce it's 85mw 24 / 7 ( well depending on the flow of the Shannon ) , whereas turlough hill pumped storage can run at full tilt for 5 or so hours before it's upper reservoirs needs to be replenished..
So 30 turlough hill size stations would replace wind on a calm day for approx 24 hours ..(? )
Which wouldn't do much good if you've 2 calm day in a row ,
But if you've old fossil fuel stations on various levels of standby , batteries to level out the peaks and pumped storage to give you time to bring the fossil fuel up to speed ,
As energy storage , and load shedding / shifting improves you'd be planning on using the existing fossil fuel less and less , but for the foreseeable future they would allow you to depend more on renewables ( wind )

Markcheese · 21-02-2021 4:00pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Dead right. Very hard to predict. But I would say that nuclear is the least subsidized when you factor in the externalised costs of all sources of energy generation.

I thought it was the opposite ... Once you've factored in state paid for research and development , and subsidising the fuel mining ,refining and most importantly ( for the french anyway ) the security ..
Oh and the subsidised financing , cos it crazy expensive otherwise ,as in edf building hinkly point c levels of expensive ,
And the spent fuel storage ,(hasn't really happened in many places ,)
Oh and the decommissioning ( but that's not really happening very quickly either ,) ,

Capt'n Midnight · 21-02-2021 4:21pm

Markcheese wrote: »

I might not have said that very well .. Ardnacrusha can produce it's 85mw 24 / 7 ( well depending on the flow of the Shannon ) , whereas turlough hill pumped storage can run at full tilt for 5 or so hours before it's upper reservoirs needs to be replenished..
So 30 turlough hill size stations would replace wind on a calm day for approx 24 hours ..(? )
Which wouldn't do much good if you've 2 calm day in a row ,
But if you've old fossil fuel stations on various levels of standby , batteries to level out the peaks and pumped storage to give you time to bring the fossil fuel up to speed ,
As energy storage , and load shedding / shifting improves you'd be planning on using the existing fossil fuel less and less , but for the foreseeable future they would allow you to depend more on renewables ( wind )

Ardnacrusha averages about half that 40MW depends on rainfall and when you open the valves, it used to power the country, now we need to add it's capacity every year during the good times.

It's not like we have lots of other large rivers that we can dam.

Turlough was built to support nuclear amongst other reasons like the ESB making decent money from consultancy.

antoinolachtnai · 21-02-2021 4:53pm

celtic_oz wrote: »

Tony Seba thinks the cost of electricity will go to zero in the next 15 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds

The marginal cost of energy will tend toward zero.

But that is not the same as electricity being free.

RandomViewer · 21-02-2021 7:08pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The marginal cost of energy will tend toward zero.

But that is not the same as electricity being free.

If anything the price will rise, actual cost of production may fall but there are a lot of wages to be covered,

antoinolachtnai · 21-02-2021 7:18pm

RandomViewer wrote: »

If anything the price will rise, actual cost of production may fall but there are a lot of wages to be covered,

It’s not really the ongoing wages. It’s that renewable energy infrastructure needs to be provided far in advance of the energy being consumed. It has to be paid for with borrowings and one way or another these borrowings have to be passed on to consumers over the term of the loan.

(Fossil fuel infrastructure is not the same.)

Yellow_Fern · 21-02-2021 7:37pm

Markcheese wrote: »

I thought it was the opposite ... Once you've factored in state paid for research and development , and subsidising the fuel mining ,refining and most importantly ( for the french anyway ) the security ..
Oh and the subsidised financing , cos it crazy expensive otherwise ,as in edf building hinkly point c levels of expensive ,
And the spent fuel storage ,(hasn't really happened in many places ,)
Oh and the decommissioning ( but that's not really happening very quickly either ,) ,

See figure 11 which shows nuclear gets the least aid. This is a study of global subsidies. It makes fossil fuels worse than they are which is misleading as most fossil fuel subsidies are to reduce the price to the consumer in very poor countries, while in rich countries renewables get far more subsidies at least before externalises are measured. Renewable subsidies tend to be aimed for the firms producing the energy. (see fig. 9). Would be great if these did the same analysis by country per megawatt.
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENA_Energy_subsidies_2020.pdf

gjim · 21-02-2021 8:47pm

RandomViewer wrote: »

If anything the price will rise, actual cost of production may fall but there are a lot of wages to be covered,

Why do you think that? Solar and wind require minimal staffing - a small fraction of the number of people required to run the likes of a peat burning power station for example. And that's without considering there's no work required to harvest, process or transport fuel.

Yellow_Fern · 21-02-2021 8:55pm

gjim wrote: »

Why do you think that? Solar and wind require minimal staffing - a small fraction of the number of people required to run the likes of a peat burning power station for example. And that's without considering there's no work required to harvest, process or transport fuel.

Yeah but you need absolutely loads of them. Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels. Impossible for it to have less staffing requirements than coal or gas. Peat is less clear to me

antoinolachtnai · 21-02-2021 8:58pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Yeah but you need absolutely loads of them. Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels. Impossible for it to have less staffing requirements than coal or gas. Peat is less clear to me

It takes a lot of people to manufacture and build wind farms. In that respect you may be correct. But once they are up they just don’t need that much work.

21-02-2021 9:22pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels.

Can you give it a rest with the power density nonsense. Literally nobody, anywhere, uses this as a measure when comparing power sources.

This has been pointed out to you several times on this thread already.

Yellow_Fern · 21-02-2021 9:38pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It takes a lot of people to manufacture and build wind farms. In that respect you may be correct. But once they are up they just don’t need that much work.

Well they say in the US wind generates about 8% of electricity? but has 100,000 jobs, but coal produces about 23% of electricity but employs 160,000. gas employs 398,000 but produces 38%. Bear in mind, their coal plants would be old and new fossil fuel plants would require much less workers.

Sources
Energy mix- https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Employment - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/25/climate/todays-energy-jobs-are-in-solar-not-coal.html?_r=0

antoinolachtnai · 21-02-2021 9:43pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Well they say in the US wind generates about 8% of electricity? but has 100,000 jobs, but coal produces about 23% of electricity but employs 160,000. gas employs 398,000 but produces 38%. Bear in mind, their coal plants would be old and new fossil fuel plants would require much less workers.

Sources
Energy mix- https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Employment - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/25/climate/todays-energy-jobs-are-in-solar-not-coal.html?_r=0

Is this not because a lot of wind farms are being built but very few coal plants are being built or upgraded?

gjim · 21-02-2021 10:17pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Yeah but you need absolutely loads of them. Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels. Impossible for it to have less staffing requirements than coal or gas. Peat is less clear to me

Ah will you stop with "power dense" stuff - even if it wasn't nonsense, it's completely irrelevant here.

A 150MW wind farm typically involves employing 3 to 7 people. A comparable solar farm even fewer - often they can go months without a single human stepping foot on the site.

A random selection for comparison: the recently closed Lough Ree employed 150 at it's height to produce 100MW of power and it was claimed directly supported hundreds more jobs to harvest, process and transport the peat.

There are just shy of 200 employed in the Moneypoint (950MW) plant without considering the work required for mining, processing and shipping the coal.

I've no idea how you've convinced yourself that this reality is "impossible". Even without looking up numbers, it's obvious from just looking at a picture of a wind or solar farm and then at a picture of a thermal electricity plant.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-02-2021 12:18am

One of the biggest subsidies for nuclear is the price paid for the energy.

As it can only supply baseload it should be the cheapest source.

But it isn't.

Banana Republic 1 · 22-02-2021 12:22am

Fossil fuel inc gets around 500billion dollars a year in subsidies.

1huge1 · 22-02-2021 10:49am

I am quite a fan of this youtube channel called "Real Engineering", I've no doubt some of you are familiar with it. An Irish channel by the way.

He goes into a significant amount of detail regarding Turlough Hill and outlines why Ireland has had such issues in constructing a second one (despite Turlough Hill opening back in the early 1970s.)

He states that one has been in planning for c. 10 years but has yet to start construction, does anyone know where on the island this is?

riddlinrussell · 22-02-2021 10:57am

It will be this one in the Silvermines probably: Silvermines Hydro

1huge1 · 22-02-2021 11:35am

riddlinrussell wrote: »

It will be this one in the Silvermines probably: Silvermines Hydro

That must be it, thank you

loyatemu · 22-02-2021 11:42am

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

There an anti-windfarm protest that keeps popping up on my FB feed regarding the proposed Kilranelagh farm in west Wicklow, as apparently there's a hillfort on the site. My impression is that there is a hill fort or stone circle or some other ancient monument on practically every hill in the country, which will pumped storage tricky to locate.

1huge1 · 22-02-2021 11:47am

Going by the video, the acttal number of possible locations is less than people may imagine, I maximum distance ratio of 1:10 is required between the upper and lower reservoir, i.e. the upper reservoir couldn't be more than 200m vertically higher and 2000m away horizontally.

I think he also refers to using a different type of liquid or even having the lower horizontally as the oceon (using sea water).

josip · 22-02-2021 12:26pm

1huge1 wrote: »

Going by the video, the acttal number of possible locations is less than people may imagine, I maximum distance ratio of 1:10 is required between the upper and lower reservoir, i.e. the upper reservoir couldn't be more than 200m vertically higher and 2000m away horizontally.

I think he also refers to using a different type of liquid or even having the lower horizontally as the oceon (using sea water).

You won't get 38 years (Turlough Hill) out of the pony motors if it's salt water going through them.

Wouldn't every hill in Ireland with a corrie lake fit the horizontal/vertical criteria?
Why is the rock type an issue? Wouldn't both reservoirs be lined?
The Comeraghs could store for the whole country...

Banana Republic 1 · 22-02-2021 2:02pm

loyatemu wrote: »

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

There an anti-windfarm protest that keeps popping up on my FB feed regarding the proposed Kilranelagh farm in west Wicklow, as apparently there's a hillfort on the site. My impression is that there is a hill fort or stone circle or some other ancient monument on practically every hill in the country, which will pumped storage tricky to locate.

Conveniently !

Banana Republic 1 · 22-02-2021 2:03pm

josip wrote: »

You won't get 38 years (Turlough Hill) out of the pony motors if it's salt water going through them.

Wouldn't every hill in Ireland with a corrie lake fit the horizontal/vertical criteria?
Why is the rock type an issue? Wouldn't both reservoirs be lined?
The Comeraghs could store for the whole country...

That’s the first thing that came to my mind really the salt water.

loyatemu · 22-02-2021 2:42pm

Back in the dim mists of time, Spirit of Ireland were proposing using seawater. Is anyone actually doing this?

1huge1 · 22-02-2021 3:38pm

loyatemu wrote: »

Back in the dim mists of time, Spirit of Ireland were proposing using seawater. Is anyone actually doing this?

The video I linked to a few posts up references one in Japan.

I believe this is it
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/17-18/cumbrae/Seawater%20pumped%20hydro.html#:~:text=Seawater%20pumped%2Dstorage%20hydro%20works%20similarly%20to%20traditional%20systems.&text=The%20main%20difference%20for%20seawater,to%20a%20land%20reservoir%20above.

Apogee · 23-02-2021 1:36pm

loyatemu wrote: »

Back in the dim mists of time, Spirit of Ireland were proposing using seawater. Is anyone actually doing this?

Norwegian energy giant spurned €1.5bn Irish pumped hydro power plan
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/norwegian-energy-giant-spurned-15bn-irish-pumped-hydro-power-plan-36925962.html

Indo wrote:

A spokesman for Statkraft said: "I can confirm that in the spring of 2013 we received information about the project and that we did some calculations around it."Based on an evaluation of a number of aspects, we didn't express further interest in investing in the project, but showed continued interest in the trading and market aspects of it." Oslo-based, Norwegian state-owned Statkraft has annual revenues of €5bn and is the Nordic region's second largest power firm.

josip · 23-02-2021 1:49pm

Apogee wrote: »

Norwegian energy giant spurned €1.5bn Irish pumped hydro power plan
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/norwegian-energy-giant-spurned-15bn-irish-pumped-hydro-power-plan-36925962.html

"..we didn't express further interest in investing in the project, but showed continued interest in the trading and market aspects of it"

https://translate.google.com/?sl=no&tl=en&op=translate

..didn't fancy ponying up any cash or getting our hands dirty, but wouldn't have minded creaming off a percentage all the same.

Markcheese · 23-02-2021 3:57pm

Has anyone tried tried doing the opposite approach ,
Building a lower freshwater reservoir in the sea , by daming an inlet or bay at the foot of a mountain or cliff , then pumping the water up the mountain to a vast upper freshwater reservoir ...
If there's a river flowing into either reservoir then you may get some extra power too ...

dubhthach · 23-02-2021 4:51pm

loyatemu wrote: »

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

There an anti-windfarm protest that keeps popping up on my FB feed regarding the proposed Kilranelagh farm in west Wicklow, as apparently there's a hillfort on the site. My impression is that there is a hill fort or stone circle or some other ancient monument on practically every hill in the country, which will pumped storage tricky to locate.

To be fair the Hillfort complex in Baltinglass area is fairly unique in an Irish context with at least 9 major forts. It's been termed the 'Hillfort Capital of Ireland' in various academic articles dating back as far as 1992.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-02-2021 9:02pm

loyatemu wrote: »

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

2.5 times the density means using salt or bentonite mud, and as mentioned above the turbines might not like it. So higher O&M costs. And more viscosity losses.

I'd rate it as snakeoil based on the square cube law. 2.5 times the volume is a little over a third more on all dimensions. You do save on the excavation costs. But you don't save all that much on the cost of lining the reservoirs compared to one filled with water because you have to make them just as thick because of the weight.

gjim · 23-02-2021 10:50pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The marginal cost of energy will tend toward zero.

But that is not the same as electricity being free.

I can hear the future anti-electricity charges campaign already. "But sure joe, electricity costs nuttin. It's an outrage we're being asked to pay for something they get free from the wind."

loyatemu · 24-02-2021 11:06am

gjim wrote: »

I can hear the future anti-electricity charges campaign already. "But sure joe, electricity costs nuttin. It's an outrage we're being asked to pay for something they get free from the wind."

"sure they don't make the gas Joe, it's just lying around under the ground"

Sam Russell · 24-02-2021 11:13am

loyatemu wrote: »

"sure they don't make the gas Joe, it's just lying around under the ground"

Well, not completely true.

There are people investing in digesters that convert animal waste and vegetation matter into bio-gas, that can be fed into the natural gas network.

I am sure you know about the cattle producing methane.

loyatemu · 24-02-2021 11:39am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, not completely true.

There are people investing in digesters that convert animal waste and vegetation matter into bio-gas, that can be fed into the natural gas network.

I am sure you know about the cattle producing methane.

it was a dumb joke...

Carawaystick · 28-02-2021 11:17am

Sam Russell wrote: »

They predicted that the cost of nuclear power in the 1950s would be cheap when they started the nuclear power stations - in fact electricity would be so cheap it wont be metered.

Didn't happen then - will it happen now? Well, the energy might be cheap to produce, but will it be given way?

It's 3c/kWhr in France for night rate, or the 2 hours at lunchtime in domestic houses, which is fairly cheap

Banana Republic 1 · 28-02-2021 10:22pm

This is an article from a local newspaper in my area, it’s hard to take these groups seriously.

https://avondhupress.ie/claim-that-wind-farm-will-end-equine-industry/

millb · 01-03-2021 1:11pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

This is an article from a local newspaper in my area, it’s hard to take these groups seriously.

https://avondhupress.ie/claim-that-wind-farm-will-end-equine-industry/

Interesting and one sided - but the horse industry is significant outside of Dublin. Re the local reporting: they need to be positive to off-shore Wind and speed-up landing the much needed Celtic Interconnector into that same E Cork / W Waterford area.

I guess pylons wouldn't spook horses. But NIBY works. That is our planning process and in fairness there is a good bit of WF curtailment so grid not performing...

And who benefits from the horse industry and how? $£ from TV, on-line gambling, arab-oil money, horse-meat all facilitated by power / technology / investment.

Energy infrastructure

Comments