Spiritofireland.org - suggests energy independence in five years and much more

[joel]

Does not show.

Compared to you? Not that it make one bean of difference to someone who doesn''t think, but the bloody idea ALREADY WORKS! - its just a matter of up-scaling it.

[droghedasouth]

Its actually worse than that.

The wind power producers cannot guarantee power availability so the ESB has to maintain capacity to meet full demand (ie all plants on) and buy the wind power when available even if its when the demand is the lowest. So actual CO2 savings.................... 0.0000000000%

The only plants that can be switched on and off as demand fluctuate are gas turbine. of which we have 1 in Cork recently opened.

Its vapour, plenty of noise but no substance.

WRONG.

Thermal plants like Moneypoint have to be kept ticking over - not running all the time at full blast.

[Geckko]

WRONG.

Thermal plants like Moneypoint have to be kept ticking over - not running all the time at full blast.

They have to maintain operating temperature if they are able to provide generating capacity at short notice. The don't simply turn them up and turn them down.

The use of the phrase "ticking over" is misleading in that it implies a type of idle.

[droghedasouth]

just checked your wind map and it is 20 years old. Suspicious of a new company using 20 year old maps. Also it is not broken into months but is an overall picture of ireland. Looking out my window at the moment there isn`t a light breeze. I live in Cork.
my comment is based on an interveiw on the pat Kenny show about 2 years ago, What you must factor in is when the turbines are flying, against when they stand still.Its not far of been equal.

Your anecdotal evidence(looking out the window) trumps long term data !!.

I would be suspicious of using 20 year old data only becuase average wind speeds seem to be rising. But you micht be right, with moving tectonic plates Donegal may have slid completely off that 20 year old map.

[Geckko]

Compared to you? Not that it make one bean of difference to someone who doesn''t think, but the bloody idea ALREADY WORKS! - its just a matter of up-scaling it.

Hover cars work too. Just a case of scaling them up. But they would be ludicrously EXPENSIVE (I can shout too).

[myksav]

Originally Posted by myksav
So, what's your alternative? What we already have?
Tell you what, why not ban any and all new ideas, (even though this is actually an old idea that works)?

Should we wait until fuel prices rise above viability for power production and then think about replacing with other sources? And pay a hell of a lot more in capital costs?

Here's a parallel.
You have an unlimited local supply of food that is always fresh. You can eat what you want and not worry about spillage and waste. Any excess of what you consume can be exported.

You are dependant on outside supplies of food that has limits on availability. You can eat what you can get, after paying more for it. If supply drops or becomes too expensive, you have to eat less or possibly starve without rationing.

Which would you prefer?

Your parallel is nonsense.

It that all you have on that? Break it down to show any nonsense.

Even the proposal as it stands will not supply the full demands of the country. Did you actually read it ? It will supply the average demand, not the peaks. Sure we will generate extra power at off peaks times but off peak for us is also off peak for our neighbours who wont want it then anyway.

None is debating the fact that we need to do something but do we need to invest billions in an idea that will not work...

If that's what you want to do I can sell you magic beans that will grow an electricity plant. It gives out power through is leaves. just connect them to the grid. All it needs is water, sun and a little fertilizer. 1 billion each ?

You interested.

By your own logic you should buy 10..

If you read all of this thread, you would have seen that I state that the plan isn't big enough. That's its main flaw.

For one with electrical engineering knowledge, you're being exceptionally dense. It's a storage system. It uses off-peak surplus to fill "the battery" which can be used when demand exceeds supply above the norm. Peak times here and elsewhere are not relevant with stored energy systems.

You keep saying "will not work" but I haven't seen you explain clearly why you make that claim. Is it physically impossible?

When you wander off into fairytales about "magic beans", you show that you can't put forward a clear explanation of your position. Those percentages are not an explanation of why this system "will not work". That word "will" is a definitive which you cannot prove.

Though that mention of magic did give me a laugh when I recalled a quote "any technology sufficiently advanced will appear as magical".

[Geckko]

You have an unlimited local supply of food that is always fresh. You can eat what you want and not worry about spillage and waste. Any excess of what you consume can be exported.

Only 15% of the crops you plant actual turn into food. You get crop failure to the extent there is nothing produced and you need to find another source (even the excess you put away get used up). You have no plan B.

You are dependant on outside supplies of food that has limits on availability. You can eat what you can get, after paying more for it. If supply drops or becomes too expensive, you have to eat less or possibly starve without rationing.

You buy off whomever is producing and selling - a massive market - leaving you less exposed to any single narrow, less reliable source. Instead of spending 5 hours farming, you spend 1 hour working to earn enough money to pay for all the food you need and have the product of your remainging 4 hours to provide other things for yourself, plus save.


But your analogies ar aweful.

[myksav]

"Global warming, climate change, it's extra energy in the system. Extra warmth means more wind not less. It also means more damp as the sea water evaporates more"by Mysky

Its cold air that cause wind. Due to the fact its more dense.

Which funnily enough is an apt description of yourself and your refusal to let facts get in the way of green policy.

Max, it the air temperature was uniformly the same, there would be no wind. To generate a wind, there needs a temperature differential. Hot air is lighter than cold air, so rises. This is replaced with colder, heavier air, a circular pattern. More heat in the system, more circulation.

This is an energy problem and solution, not a "green" policy. It just happens to be "greener" in the long term than carbon based power systems.
If you think I'm a "greenie", look over the thread on nuclear power, where you will find that I have no real problems with nuclear power as long as the design is a good one. It's just not viable here in its present level of tech.

[myksav]

Hover cars work too. Just a case of scaling them up. But they would be ludicrously EXPENSIVE (I can shout too).

Strawman. They aren't workable due to safety problems. Ever try slamming on the brakes on a hovercraft? Ever pilot one on a sideways slope?

[myksav]

Only 15% of the crops you plant actual turn into food. You get crop failure to the extent there is nothing produced and you need to find another source (even the excess you put away get used up). You have no plan B.



You buy off whomever is producing and selling - a massive market - leaving you less exposed to any single narrow, less reliable source. Instead of spending 5 hours farming, you spend 1 hour working to earn enough money to pay for all the food you need and have the product of your remainging 4 hours to provide other things for yourself, plus save.


But your analogies ar aweful.

I see you never learned how to argue against a Jesuit. You missed the entire point.


By the way, I'm not a Jesuit. Just learned how to successfully argue against their points.