Conventional electricity generation consumes huge volumes of water

probe

Whichever fuel is used, power generation plants can consume as much water as a large city. The low water consuming electricity generation technologies include wind, PV solar, wave and tidal. With climate change reducing rainfall in many parts of the world, it will become increasingly expensive/difficult/impossible to supply the large quantities of water required by gas, nuclear, oil, coal, and hydro generation systems.

Reason number 99 why Ireland should tool up to be a major green electricity exporter to the rest of Europe.

Netcast:

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pixelcorps.cachefly.net/twip/twip_056_aud.mp3

.probe

Consume?
Water doesnt disappear.
If the need for water is there it can be distilled.
It can also be sealed so that very little escapes - ever see those cactus plants in glass sealed glass cases.

bonkey

There is a distinction between requiring water and consuming it. This is particularly evidence from your example of hydro generfation being one of those generation technologies we need to move away from.

If Ireland doens't have the water to run its hydro stations, then power generation will be the least of our worries.

Similarly, all of the major thermal stations are located at the mouths of major rivers and/or on the coast. If they have a shortage of water to run through their systems, it would again be the least of our worries.

Such shortages, however, are of concern on larger landmasses. In the summer of 2003, France had to shut some nuclear plants, as the rivers used to supply cooling water didn't have sufficient flow and the cooling would have resulted in too great a temperature increase in the rivers.

probe

bonkey wrote: »

There is a distinction between requiring water and consuming it. This is particularly evidence from your example of hydro generfation being one of those generation technologies we need to move away from.

If Ireland doens't have the water to run its hydro stations, then power generation will be the least of our worries.

Similarly, all of the major thermal stations are located at the mouths of major rivers and/or on the coast. If they have a shortage of water to run through their systems, it would again be the least of our worries.

Such shortages, however, are of concern on larger landmasses. In the summer of 2003, France had to shut some nuclear plants, as the rivers used to supply cooling water didn't have sufficient flow and the cooling would have resulted in too great a temperature increase in the rivers.

Please read the last line of my post again!

"Reason number 99 why Ireland should tool up to be a major green electricity exporter to the rest of Europe."

Ireland does not have a problem with rainfall / water supply. If you listened to the netcast, Switzerland is the first country in the world to plan for the issue of climate change reducing rainfall levels. Hydro produces a large amount of CH's electricity at present as you know - if/when they get less rainfall there will be less electricity generated by these assets.

ChocolateSauce

Compared to the quantity of water found in nature, the amount used in power generation is inconsequential.

robtri

probe wrote: »

Whichever fuel is used, power generation plants can consume as much water as a large city. The low water consuming electricity generation technologies include wind, PV solar, wave and tidal. With climate change reducing rainfall in many parts of the world, it will become increasingly expensive/difficult/impossible to supply the large quantities of water required by gas, nuclear, oil, coal, and hydro generation systems.

Reason number 99 why Ireland should tool up to be a major green electricity exporter to the rest of Europe.

Netcast:

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pixelcorps.cachefly.net/twip/twip_056_aud.mp3

.probe

yeah but don't worry the melting polar caps will replace it...

probe

robtri wrote: »

yeah but don't worry the melting polar caps will replace it...

Polar ice melt is going to turn into salt water in the sea. It will do nothing to increase rainfall to feed rivers and aquifers in Europe, North America, Asia etc.

fits

probe wrote: »

Ireland does not have a problem with rainfall / water supply.

Hmm maybe not yet.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Compared to the quantity of water found in nature, the amount used in power generation is inconsequential.

How do you know that?

Anyway. Heres an interesting link.
Water footprint is the new carbon footprint innit

http://www.water-footprint.com/

ChocolateSauce

fits wrote: »

Hmm maybe not yet.

Yeah we do, too bloody much of it!

How do you know that?

Anyway. Heres an interesting link.
Water footprint is the new carbon footprint innit

http://www.water-footprint.com/

Well first you measure the average amount of water used in one power plant of a certain kind, the multiply it by all the numbers of its kind in the world, then do the same for every other kind. YOu then compare this number to the amount of water on earth (millions of cubic kilometers) and you have your answer. Besides, as was stated above, water isn't comsumed, just converted to steam, used to drive turbines and then released back into the atmosphere.

Coal, oil, nuclear, they all do the same thing: boil water to drive turbines.

probe

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Besides, as was stated above, water isn't comsumed, just converted to steam, used to drive turbines and then released back into the atmosphere.

Coal, oil, nuclear, they all do the same thing: boil water to drive turbines.

The fact that it is converted into steam is surely irrelevant? It is gone from your control once it evaporates. If you are running a thermal.* electricity generation station in for example Spain, and the local river dries up, it will shut itself down, unless you can "pipe" (as in install a tunnel with megawatt consuming electric pumps to move the water to your power station from the source).

The rivers don't have to dry up all year around for this to become a big problem - a few months of drought will do - even worse something longer term which lasts for a year or two in a region.

fits

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yeah we do, too bloody much of it!

So you think all this talk of piping water from the Shannon is just for a laugh then? In Ireland we have the situation where most of our population is concentrated where there is least water/rainfall. It is also predicted that this rainfall will decrease over the next 100 years impacting surface and ground water resources. All it needs is one very dry year, and we could possibly be in trouble. So any planning has to take account of these climate projections and water usage.

Well first you measure the average amount of water used in one power plant of a certain kind, the multiply it by all the numbers of its kind in the world, then do the same for every other kind. YOu then compare this number to the amount of water on earth (millions of cubic kilometers) and you have your answer. Besides, as was stated above, water isn't comsumed, just converted to steam, used to drive turbines and then released back into the atmosphere.

Coal, oil, nuclear, they all do the same thing: boil water to drive turbines.

I wish it were so easy.

ChocolateSauce

probe wrote: »

The fact that it is converted into steam is surely irrelevant? It is gone from your control once it evaporates. If you are running a thermal.* electricity generation station in for example Spain, and the local river dries up, it will shut itself down, unless you can "pipe" (as in install a tunnel with megawatt consuming electric pumps to move the water to your power station from the source).

The likihood of a source of water large enough to supply a powerplant drying up is slim, and I haven't heard of a ssingle case where it has happened, so that's really your answer. I note that in most places where there are serious droughts, there aren't powerplants.

So you think all this talk of piping water from the Shannon is just for a laugh then? In Ireland we have the situation where most of our population is concentrated where there is least water/rainfall. It is also predicted that this rainfall will decrease over the next 100 years impacting surface and ground water resources. All it needs is one very dry year, and we could possibly be in trouble. So any planning has to take account of these climate projections and water usage.

I think making a joke about Ireland's rain is a laugh, yes. I've lived in California during a year when it went 4 months with no rain and daily temperatures of over 40 degrees. California is one of the bread baskets of the world with a populations many times higher than us, and they managed. I've found that every time there is a sunny spell the Irish freak out and cry drought, but in reality there is no danger of a chronic water shortage.As for measuring the amount of water on earth (approx), it really is that easy:The water surface area is 361800000km sq. The average depth is 3.79 km, so you multiply one by the other to get a figure of 1.371222 billion cubic kilometres of water on earth.

fits

And about 95% of that water is saline. Not really suitable for use in power plants I'm afraid.

Noone is saying this is a problem right now, but its getting to the stage where it quite realistically could be a problem in Ireland in the future. And if that happens, a lot of people will be giving the scientists a bollocking for not doing more about it.

ChocolateSauce

fits wrote: »

And about 95% of that water is saline. Not really suitable for use in power plants I'm afraid.

Noone is saying this is a problem right now, but its getting to the stage where it quite realistically could be a problem in Ireland in the future. And if that happens, a lot of people will be giving the scientists a bollocking for not doing more about it.

Saline does present an obstacle, and fresh water is always preferred, but there is not reason sea water can't be used; we just need to outfit the plants properly.

probe

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The likihood of a source of water large enough to supply a powerplant drying up is slim

I have been watching big rivers in Spain for several years, and there are times when they totally dry up for months. This trend is set to continue and it is only a matter of time before water becomes a major issue in terms of energy supply. Barcelona had to build an emergency 550 km water pipe from near Alicante late last year to keep the water flowing in the taps. Barcelona is in Northern Spain, in the foothills of the Pyrenees where one would least expect water shortages.

http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/map.asp?id=19550

bonkey

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The likihood of a source of water large enough to supply a powerplant drying up is slim, and I haven't heard of a ssingle case where it has happened, so that's really your answer.

With conventional power, I'd agree.

With nuclear power....have a look at this.

Ever since the summer of 2003, there have been increasingly regular articles about the problems of supplying water to inland power stations, and how such problems are likely to become more and more common if the climate over mainland Europe progresses along the predicted lines.

pauln

Steam plants (A.K.A. thermal gas, oil, coal, nuclear etc.) have two seperate water systems.

1. The closed loop water/steam cycle which is the water converted to steam by burning the fuel and passed through the steam turbine. This water cannot be made up from sea water and is usually from the supply as the drinking water. The water is recycled through the system and requires contant topping up of around 5-10%.

2. The cooling water used to condense the steam back to water in cycle 1. This water is simply brought into the plant, passed over a heatexchanger where it heats up and passed back out to the source. This is most likely the water supply that is failing to meet the plants requirements and causing them to shutdown. If the plant is using riverwater as it's cooling source and there is a prolonged dry spell then the plant won't have enough water available to meet it's cooling needs and have to shutdown.

ChocolateSauce

bonkey wrote: »

With conventional power, I'd agree.

With nuclear power....have a look at this.

Ever since the summer of 2003, there have been increasingly regular articles about the problems of supplying water to inland power stations, and how such problems are likely to become more and more common if the climate over mainland Europe progresses along the predicted lines.

That link is typical anti-nuclear bull.

The extreme hot summer in Europe is restricting nuclear energy generation and showing up the limits of nuclear power, leading environmental activists and scientists say.

And not a mention of other types of power plants which also use water.

If there are water shortages, the problem is with water, not with nuclear. If the shortages are chronic, move the power plants or bring more water to them.

probe

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That link is typical anti-nuclear bull.



And not a mention of other types of power plants which also use water.

If there are water shortages, the problem is with water, not with nuclear. If the shortages are chronic, move the power plants or bring more water to them.

These plants cost about €4 billion each, and are in financial engineering terms are probably the most sunken asset one can think of. Short of moving Mount Everest. If you want to "move" a nuclear plant you have to decommission the plant on the old site, clean the place up, prepare a new site, move all the hardware, and rebuild it. It would probably cost €8 billion to do that. And you'd end up with old hardware, getting close to its use by date, on a new site, at massive cost. Assuming you can find a new site with a continuous water supply.

As for the "bringing more water" alternative you propose - where do you get that from? Taking Spain as the prime example of early desertification in Europe, it is also the most mountainous country. No province has spare water to send to another province. The pumping costs over high altitudes would involve incalculable amounts of energy. The alternative being to build massive tunnels, assuming you can get the water, and the energy to pump it.

This has nothing to do with being anti-nuclear. To one extent or another it affects all electricity generation technologies, aside from wind, wave, solar and tidal.

It is simply raising the broader issues of climate change. It also presents in SCREAMING CAPITAL LETTERS yet again the huge electric green energy export potential that Ireland has to the rest of Europe. Permanent recurring ad infinitum potential. A good stable business opportunity. Recession proof.

Bonkey and probe live in countries with nuclear power plants. While I can't speak for Bonkey if I was anti-nuclear for the sake of being anti-nuclear, I'd move my campsite to somewhere else.

pauln

They can always use air cooled condensers too which is the technology being used for the newest combined cycle gas turbine/steam turbine plants in Spain. Not as efficient but gets the job done.

probe

pauln wrote: »

They can always use air cooled condensers too which is the technology being used for the newest combined cycle gas turbine/steam turbine plants in Spain. Not as efficient but gets the job done.

1) A huge waste of energy that could be feeding a district heating/cooling system.

2) Probably not viable with nuclear.

3) Using gas to generate electricity is a massive waste of energy in terms of energy conversion efficiency. Gas should be used directly in gas cookers, gas central heating systems, and gas powered (preferably hybrid) vehicle transport.

pauln

probe wrote: »

1) A huge waste of energy that could be feeding a district heating/cooling system.

2) Probably not viable with nuclear.

3) Using gas to generate electricity is a massive waste of energy in terms of energy conversion efficiency. Gas should be used directly in gas cookers, gas central heating systems, and gas powered (preferably hybrid) vehicle transport.

1.) Not a huge waste of energy, only adds up to a few percent loss of plant efficiency and that would be nowhere near the energy required to run a district heating system. Also the places that use air cooled condensers aren't exactly the kinds of places that require district heating.

2.) For safety and technical reason it's not possible at the moment to air cool nuclear plants but the technology is being developed.

3.)You just stating the obvious there. Any conversion of a fuel to another form of energy involves losses and gas is the cleanest, most efficient fossil fuel you can use to generate electricity.

probe

pauln wrote: »

1.) Not a huge waste of energy, only adds up to a few percent loss of plant efficiency and that would be nowhere near the energy required to run a district heating system. Also the places that use air cooled condensers aren't exactly the kinds of places that require district heating.

Any thermal generating plant that doesn't make use of its "waste energy" in a district heating system or similar is by definition a waste of energy. People don't mind gas, oil or well run incineration plants close to urban areas where district heating is viable. They don't want nuclear or coal.

It is not dissimilar to the argument on using gas to generate electricity or use is directly to cook and heat.

Much of Denmark is heated by district heating systems. (A large proportion of Danish electricity comes from wind). The Danish economy has grown rapidly over the past 20 years providing one of the highest standards of living in Europe, with only a small increase in CO2 emissions.

The Danish economy is not dependent on foreign direct investment. It has an efficient agricultural industry, and zillions of innovative Danish owned companies like Bang & Olufsen, Vestas, and Aminex (www.amminex.net) working on safe, compact hydrogen storage for cars.

The Danish financial system is equally well engineered and designed for the long term. Unlike Anglo Saxon moronic states like the US, Great Britain and Ireland. In Denmark when a bank gives a 20 year mortgage loan for a property at a fixed rate, it is funded by a bond at a matching fixed interest rate and maturity. They have been doing this for 200 years.

Anyone who buys a house with a mortgage knows their repayment is fixed until the loan is fully paid off. Market interest rate movements are irrelevant to the home owner. Intelligent financial engineering, giving sustainability to the economy and society. And on the bond side, international investors love the Danish mortgage bonds because they offer a real AAA investment, unlike the fake AAA ratings issued by American and British rating agencies who should be put out of business being key facilitators of fraud on the global economy.

The Danish banks can't dump these bonds after issuing the mortgage. In Ireland and other English language speaking countries banks are taking in money on short term deposits and on the interbank market, and lending it for 20 to 30 years. Dumb. Stupid. Non sustainable. Like Ireland's reliance on imported gas, oil and coal for energy.

pauln

The "waste energy" you refer to is very low grade heat in that it is a large volume of fluid at only a few degrees above ambient temperature. It is very difficult if not impossible to get a heat exchanger to work effectively with such a low thermal difference and would probably require further energy addition in the form of pumps.

District heating is not realistically a viable alternative in a country like Ireland with very low seasonal heat demand and low population densities. It works well in Denmark because of the cold winters there. The plants in Denmark are combined heat and power or just heat plants and as such designed to provided heat instead of or addition to electricity. They still produce "waste heat" as you call it because there plants still require cooling.

I hate to burst your Danish bubble by quoting facts to you but renewable energy makes up little over 15% over Denmark's overall energy consumption. Coal oil and natural gas make up by far the majority of their energy usage including the main fuels used in their district heating systems.
If you're actually interested in accurate facts then there is good information over at http://www.ens.dk/sw16508.asp.

I agree Denmark have a admirable energy system and that Ireland's approach is short sighted and unsustainable but you have to be realistic and go by the facts of the matter.

probe

pauln wrote: »

The "waste energy" you refer to is very low grade heat in that it is a large volume of fluid at only a few degrees above ambient temperature. It is very difficult if not impossible to get a heat exchanger to work effectively with such a low thermal difference and would probably require further energy addition in the form of pumps.

District heating is not realistically a viable alternative in a country like Ireland with very low seasonal heat demand and low population densities. It works well in Denmark because of the cold winters there. The plants in Denmark are combined heat and power or just heat plants and as such designed to provided heat instead of or addition to electricity. They still produce "waste heat" as you call it because there plants still require cooling.

I hate to burst your Danish bubble by quoting facts to you but renewable energy makes up little over 15% over Denmark's overall energy consumption. Coal oil and natural gas make up by far the majority of their energy usage including the main fuels used in their district heating systems.
If you're actually interested in accurate facts then there is good information over at http://www.ens.dk/sw16508.asp.

I agree Denmark have a admirable energy system and that Ireland's approach is short sighted and unsustainable but you have to be realistic and go by the facts of the matter.

Communities along the Mediterranean have district heating and cooling from waste energy created by "waste energy" from power plants. Compared with Ireland one only needs to light a candle in a well insulated property near the Med to get enough heat on the coldest winter day.

I'm not suggesting that every one-off house in Connemara should be on a district heating system. I am suggesting that enough people live in large urban clusters in Ireland - many of which have built within the last 10 or 15 years on greenfield sites, and nothing has been done whatsoever to make use of district heating technologies.

Looking at the spreadsheet you link to, Danish adjusted energy consumption has increased by 7.4% between 1980 and 2007, while Danish GDP has grown by 78.4% over the same period. Danish energy CO2 intensity has fallen from 100 in 1990 to 59.7% in 2007.

While Denmark has a long way to go to catch up with Switzerland in terms of energy efficiency, Ireland is close to the USA when it comes to basket case incompetence in terms of energy efficiency and planning.

pauln

probe wrote: »

Communities along the Mediterranean have district heating and cooling from waste energy created by "waste energy" from power plants. Compared with Ireland one only needs to light a candle in a well insulated property near the Med to get enough heat on the coldest winter day.

I'm not suggesting that every one-off house in Connemara should be on a district heating system. I am suggesting that enough people live in large urban clusters in Ireland - many of which have built within the last 10 or 15 years on greenfield sites, and nothing has been done whatsoever to make use of district heating technologies.

Looking at the spreadsheet you link to, Danish adjusted energy consumption has increased by 7.4% between 1980 and 2007, while Danish GDP has grown by 78.4% over the same period. Danish energy CO2 intensity has fallen from 100 in 1990 to 59.7% in 2007.

While Denmark has a long way to go to catch up with Switzerland in terms of energy efficiency, Ireland is close to the USA when it comes to basket case incompetence in terms of energy efficiency and planning.

RE: Mediterranean district heating from waste heat can you link to some references to support your argument please?

The problem with district heating is not the actual quantity of heat required to heat properties it's that the infrastructure associated with it costs so much to install and maintain that you need a large market for the heat to make it financially viable.

All your saying with the GDP vs. CO2 figures is that the Danish energy sector is very efficient. I agree, they are among the best in Europe but it doesn't change the make-up of their energy sources.
Energy efficiency is a bigger issue then using renewable energy sources and fossil plants using up water. It has to do with a society and a countries willingness to invest in upgrading older inefficient technology.

P.S. What has all this got to do with where you started this thread about plants using water?

Capt'n Midnight

In other countries when water is scarce they use the water for irrigation instead of hydro-electric, simply a case of who pays most for the water behind the dam. And the price value of each can be seasonal.

Just because homes in Ireland don't pay for water doesn't mean that the ESB and local authorities don't realise it's value.


Re waste heat and district heating schemes. Fine if you have blocks of flats/apartments very close to the power station , like in Ballymun. A non-starter for almost everywhere else in the country.

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Re waste heat and district heating schemes. Fine if you have blocks of flats/apartments very close to the power station , like in Ballymun. A non-starter for almost everywhere else in the country.

It is down to intelligent planning to make the most of "waste heat" from power and incineration facilities. Well designed apartments, large enough to bring up families (150 M2+), with good public transport, shopping and other services in close proximity, a "cave" (underground storage for each unit), creches, schools, play areas, sports facilities, etc. The normal dense urban environment that one takes for granted in most continental countries. These developments are a natural environment for district heating systems. 60% of the space and water heating in Denmark comes from district heating systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

Planning has been appallingly mismanaged in Ireland for the past 50+ years. Corrupt developers, appalling standards of architecture (with the odd exception), minimal requirements for thermal insulation, third rate building components and materials, no public transport strategy to create a system that everybody opts to use as their default means of getting around etc etc.

There has been an enormous amount of house building over the past decade creating unsustainable communities who have to spend hours in cars every day to get to work, shop, care for the children etc....

I suspect that those of us who are around in 50 years time, will see a similar mess, multiplied by 10. Energy blackouts and energy poverty. A proliferation of dysfunctional households. One can see the results of bad planning today in certain areas of Irish cities in crime, unemployment, drug dealing etc. During the last decade, the seeds have been sewn for this to repeat itself on a much larger scale.

Capt'n Midnight

probe wrote:

I suspect that those of us who are around in 50 years time, will see a similar mess, multiplied by 10. Energy blackouts and energy poverty. A proliferation of dysfunctional households. One can see the results of bad planning today in certain areas of Irish cities in crime, unemployment, drug dealing etc. During the last decade, the seeds have been sewn for this to repeat itself on a much larger scale.

The only good news is that suburban houses will have plenty of room for solar panels and a small vegetable patch.

Solar because in Ireland wind turbines need planning permission unless you have lots of space.

Carawaystick

Catalunya is importing water from the Ebro
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:0x2rLwhLL8kJ:www.topnews.in/spain-approves-water-plan-drought-stricken-catalonia-236162+bringing+water+to+catalunya&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=safari

Gas power plants are some of the most efficient fossil fuel power generation plants, compared to oil, coal or peat.

Most apartments in Dublin not nly don't have centralised heating, they don't even have a gas supply, they are electric only, which is a moronic decision, explained only by the extra cost incurred by developers required to plumb a block of apartments for gas as opposed to just electricity.

Completely agree about Dublin needing large apartments to raise families. what has been built here are crap. However the govt has decided in it's wisdom that any home over 125 m^2 is "big" and extra taxes apply to it.

probe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The only good news is that suburban houses will have plenty of room for solar panels and a small vegetable patch.

A vegetable patch may be viable on those suburban houses that are built on more than 200 M2 of land anyway. Unfortunately many suburban and rural houses built in recent years on spec developments have far tighter land densities compared with older city houses!

Solar because in Ireland wind turbines need planning permission unless you have lots of space.

The author of "ten technologies to save the planet" said in his interview that there is sufficient solar radiation in many parts of the south west of the country to make PV solar viable there. Elsewhere, solar water heating will be the most viable option, unless the cost per kWh of PV solar capacity drops dramatically - which no doubt will happen in time.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055460996

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

The author of "ten technologies to save the planet" said in his interview that there is sufficient solar radiation in many parts of the south west of the country to make PV solar viable there.

Didn't he also say that global production of solar PV would be best deployed in the sunniest parts of the world? Why put a panel in Kerry if it will do more useful work in North Africa? The return on investment will be better there too.

Or was that another book?

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

Didn't he also say that global production of solar PV would be best deployed in the sunniest parts of the world? Why put a panel in Kerry if it will do more useful work in North Africa? The return on investment will be better there too.

Or was that another book?

He mentioned SW Ireland in relation to PV in his interview with Pat Kenny.

The return on investment (comparing SW Ireland with North Africa) in the context of Ireland being the end user of the energy depends on the output of PV cells located in Africa, compared with the output of PV cells located in SW Ireland, less the cost of the power transmission network and energy transmission loss between Ireland and North Africa.

I suspect that people using the latest PV kit in SW Ireland could get a significant portion of their domestic electricity requirement on windy and calm days. The problem the average householder considering the installation of PV cells will have is that there is no hard information on the topic from the government agency responsible. An agency based in SW Ireland! (sei.ie) All one needs is a simple table for starters based on test PV cell installations covering several brands.

For each product tested:

M2 of PV collector area
cost of installation
total electricity produced kWh over 1 year
cost of installation per M2 of PV area
cost per kWh delivered
name and contact info for supplier

One would then have a basis for deciding whether or not to install PV cells and how much it might cost. It would also be an incentive for Irish PV suppliers to scour the planet for the most efficient kit. Basic consumer information. Rather than good old rip-off Ireland of the "celtic tiger" era. Any supplier who wanted their product to be tested might be required to pay a fee. The same could/should apply to all other green energy kit which might be of interest to consumers. The operation could be self financing, and it would enhance the decision making process for the consumer. Reduce Ireland's energy imports, help make the country more sustainable and reduce the cost of running sei.ie.

http://www.sei.ie/Renewables/Solar_Energy/#SolarPhoto