Green Energy Investing

Geothermal energy scheme runs into trouble… Causes earthquakes!

The requirement to have a board agremont certified septic tax and a maintenance contract means that it is already taxed.

I believe that groundwater taxation runs into trouble as landowners can claim that since their soakage increases ground-water availability, the state would have to compensate them for allowing others to use it. A bit of a minefield, so best to just leave it alone!

Private biomass - he’s having a laugh.

Anyway, another reason to go off-grid - when the IMF comes to town, the ESB workers won’t be happy at being sold off to someone who is going to slash their pay.

Can anyone give me an aproximate cost on how much a unit of electricty would cost using the following process.

Wind energy is used to power electrolisis and the hydrogen released is captured.

The hydrogen is burned in a gas turbine at a power station.

The hydrogen can also be used as a transportation fuel. Perhaps using fuel cells if they can be mass-produced cheaply enough.

Advantages: Carbon neutral, Eliminates problems associated with wind energy such as “dirty” power and intermittant supply. The hydorgen can be piped, stockpiled and transported.

Disadvantages: The power is generated twice (this can’t be efficient).

I am just looking to compare cost per unit with fossil fuels.

Please exclude distortions like taxes on fossil fuels or subsidies on wind power.

I know it is pie in the sky but if it was even two or three times as expensive then there is a chance it can be made viable. It has to be better than importing it all from the Russians and the arabs.

As fossil fuel prices rise the cost of this plan should remain static except for any inflation in the price of wind or gas turbines.

Scottish power are building a station that will burn Hydrogen in a gas turbine by the way.

And the Germans have been piping hydrogen around the rhur for years for chemical factories. They have about 300km of pipeline I believe.

This system might make a small windy country like ireland energy independent. Wouldn’t work in many other places though.

Whatever about transportation (LNG process would have its costs), it would seem a possibility for grid power generation?

As far as I know there are proposals to tap into the massive hydroelectric potential along the length of southern Chile using Hydrogen conversion. Basically, there is massive hydro potential with the rivers flowing down off the Andes, but no population to use the energy. The plan is to convert the electricity (+ salt water) to hydrogen and then ship it to wherever it is to be consumed. There would be safety/security concerns with such shipments but I doubt it they outweigh the environmental damage that a sunken oil tanker can do.

My own view is that energy needs to be produced locally for it to be cost effective. The efficiency losses that are suffered in the transmission/transport of energy are very significant.

Here’s a hydro/hydrogen scheme being planned in the US as part of the ‘Hydrogen Highway’. How it doesn’t make more sense to just use the electricity locally, I don’t know.

Interesting, checked the numbers. A generous household water use by a family of four is 400m3/year. Assuming 50% runoff and an annual rainfall of 1.5m/year that equates to an area of approx 500m2. A tiny area, about 1/10th of an acre.

If you are a landowner and are not spreading slurry etc, you are contributing vastly more to the clean goundwater resource than you are taking out.

Not sure that will count for anything when they come around to stick a meter on your private water system.


Hydrogen might be clean; but everything else about it is horrendously expensive.

Ultimately you run into the simple facts that its (a) the smallest atom & leaks continuously, & (b) its incredibly reactive.

We’ve a long running dispute in Mayo over a simple Natural Gas pipeline. Sorry, but the idea that the ‘simple, wholesome, country folk’ of Ireland will accept the large-scale storage of Hydrogen is laughable.

Nonsense, Hydrogen is perfectly safe.

hydrogen is no more dangerous than petrol or natural gas. Its probably ever safer. … drogen.htm

The Hindenberg fire was not caused by hydrogen. When the hydrogen did ignite the energy was released upwards and away from the parrangers. Most of those who die jumped from the airship.

Sorry but that’s rubbish. The simple physics of Hydrogen make it considerably more hazardous than Petrol or NG as a fuel.

In Ireland on most days you can drop a lit match onto a pool of petrol & the petrol will not catch fire. Now try the same trick with Hydrogen.

Natural Gas has been been distributed for years thru ancient rusty pipes without too many issues with leaks, Why ? Because the gas molecule is massive compared to H2. Industrial piping of H2 has to be done using double pipes with a Nitrogen flow in the outer leaf to exhaust any leaks.

All of this is even before you look at what king of conditions are necessary to store Hydrogen. H2 has a very, very low energy density. So you need a lot of it to get the same energy as the petrol its replacing. So to do that you have to pressurize the containers to >100 BAR. At that point it doesn’t matter if you’re storing Air or Hydrogen, you have a large bomb on your hands.

If you want a less rose-tinted view of Hydrogen safety try looking at the web pages of people in Industry who’ve been using it for decades.

Industry Safety Incidents

This topic was done to death in the 1970’s during the Oil crisis. Google Hydrogen Economy for why it still is a piss poor solution to energy production.

Yes , yes & its not the fall that kills you; its the sudden stop at the end. Would these people have jumped out of the aircraft if it hadn’t been on fire ?

Here’s a link to a heap of info on EEStor, including a description of their patents. (Hat tip to Probe on

Great Thread, first time I have seen it…

It has potential. :angry:

[ + Bacteria + Sunlight = Butanol**2* * (Bacteria engineered to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel -- ScienceDaily)

Statoil develop a 2.3MW floating Wind Turbine.

The UK encourages small scale energy production. The tariff rates are designed to give a 5-8% return on initial investment.


When is this going to happen here. Ever?

I’m not sure if it’s necessary. If small/micro generators were paid the consumer rate then that would go a long way towards encouraging alternative energy. Instead, you get paid that much for the first 3000 KWhrs and then only half for anything else.

Domestic CHP (combined heat and power) units will be interesting, though.

Link to Worcester-Bosch.

Stirling Engines Rock!