What would you like Minister Gormley to do?

djpbarry

maniac101 wrote:

In truth, wind turbines have considerable CO2 emissions associated with them, due to the additional low-efficiency peaking plant required to operate when the wind isn't blowing

This only occurs about 10% of the time – Ireland is actually one of the windiest countries in the world.

maniac101 wrote:

The real challenge for Ireland is our transport requirement. We have an excessive requirement for transport fuel built-in to our economy, due to the way we plan our towns and cities (and countryside).It'll take generations to change this. I suppose that brings it back into the remit of Gormley, which is what this thread was originally about.

Yes, absolutely, this is a major factor. As the figures from the DTO show (see above), people’s mindset has to be changed, along with significant improvements in planning legislation.

ninja900 wrote:

Can you show that "a domestic turbine is rotating about 90% of the time with power output ranging from about 3 to 6kW" is credible and under what circumstances?

Apologies – I meant in conjunction with a photo-voltaic solar panel.

ninja900 wrote:

Quite possibly, yes, at the very least we need a rational evaluation of the cost of massive renewable projects.

This is a contradiction in terms. Renewable projects are inherently local and small-scale, as opposed to the “massive” undertaking in converting to nuclear. It is highly unlikely that maintaining/upgrading our current grid system would be more expensive than the radical overhaul that would be necessary in switching to nuclear.

ninja900 wrote:

Usually when these sort of 'potential' figures are quoted they include tidal and wave, which are certainly not ready for prime time by any stretch of the imagination. They may never turn out to be practical on a commercial scale.

EDF’s La Rance Tidal Barrage, in operation since 1966:

http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/tidal1.htm

ninja900 wrote:

Solar panels or wind turbines don't exactly grow on trees either.

No, but steel and silicon are hardly in short supply.

ninja900 wrote:

Source please

Spot price for uranium is available here:

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

Capacity of ESB’s power stations:

http://www.esb.ie/main/about_esb/ataglance1.jsp

Approximate costs of processing are available here:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

Do the maths.

maniac101

djpbarry, I agree with you that nuclear power is unsuitable for Ireland at this stage. However, I think your blind faith in renewables and your lack of understanding of the technology and is undoing your argument a little!

djpbarry wrote:

This only occurs about 10% of the time – Ireland is actually one of the windiest countries in the world.

No, your 10% figure is frankly a complete fallacy. Yes, it's windy in Ireland, but the very best capacity factor that any onshore wind farm has recorded here is 36%, and that was in the windiest part of Donegal. This means that for every 1MW installed capacity you get an average just 360kW out over the whole year. Worse still, the output from that 1MW can fluctuate between 0MW and 1MW hourly. Now put that in the context of an expected 4500MW of installed wind capacity in 2020 and it's pretty clear that the CO2 emissions from required complementary peaking plant will be substantial, since we simply won't have sufficient storage capacity or the interconnections to cope with the fluctuations.

This is a contradiction in terms. Renewable projects are inherently local and small-scale, as opposed to the “massive” undertaking in converting to nuclear.

No. All of the main players in the renewables sector in Ireland are not interested in "small-scale" anything. Just look at the plans of companies like Bioverda, Airtricity and SWS. As mentioned above, 4500MW of wind is also not "small-scale". It's 4 times larger than any nuclear reactor that the BENE guys are proposing.

It is highly unlikely that maintaining/upgrading our current grid system would be more expensive than the radical overhaul that would be necessary in switching to nuclear.

Unfortunately, this is also not the case. Wind power in particular requires us to completely rebuild our network. This is because the windiest parts are the country are also the parts that have the poorest connections to the network. For wave power too, we would need to build an underwater network along the west coast of Ireland. That shouldn't deter us from pursuing it though.

Apologies – I meant in conjunction with a photo-voltaic solar panel.

To be honest, no self-respecting wind engineer would ever install wind turbine onto the wall of a house. It's extremely dangerous and the turbulences are too great. But there are enough cowboys out there who'll try it.

Anyway, none of this is relevant to Gormley's portfolio!

piraka

This only occurs about 10% of the time – Ireland is actually one of the windiest countries in the world.

The output from a wind farm is about 25-35% of the installed capacity. This output is intermittent.

Not sure what it would be for a domestic turbine in an urban environment. When I enquired off a dealer about the installation of a turbine in a urban environment he told me to forget it as it would not be a practical method of generating electricity.

No, but steel and silicon are hardly in short supply.

Silicon has the worst efficiency, while the best will cost you an arm and a leg !!

Wikipedia

Solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 42.8% with multiple-junction research lab cells.[6] Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14-16%. The highest efficiency cells have not always been the most economical — for example a 30% efficient multijunction cell based on exotic materials such as gallium arsenide or indium selenide and produced in low volume might well cost one hundred times as much as an 8% efficient amorphous silicon cell in mass production, while only delivering about four times the electrical power.

djpbarry

maniac101 wrote:

I think your blind faith in renewables and your lack of understanding of the technology and is undoing your argument a little!

Excuse me, but “blind faith” has nothing to do with it – I am currently researching a method of biogas production from waste products and I can tell you it is entirely feasible. There are biogas-powered trains in Sweden and biogas-powered buses in Switzerland. I believe this avenue of research to be particularly fruitful as it also helps tackle our waste problem.

maniac101 wrote:

No, your 10% figure is frankly a complete fallacy

You have totally misunderstood my statement. I was replying to your reference to occasions “when the wind isn't blowing”, which in this country, is about 10% of the time. I was not referring to diminished capacity.

Your figures appear to be accurate, but I still believe there is huge potential in wind power. The main problem, as you have pointed out, is intermittency. But, rather than being connected directly to the grid, wind farms could be used to charge fuel cells, effectively storing the energy produced.

maniac101 wrote:

Just look at the plans of companies like Bioverda, Airtricity and SWS. As mentioned above, 4500MW of wind is also not "small-scale".

Yes, but they’re not going to put all that capacity in one place! You can have a look at Airtricity’s network here:
http://www.airtricity.com/ireland/wind_farms/republic_of_ireland/operating/index.xml

maniac101 wrote:

Wind power in particular requires us to completely rebuild our network. This is because the windiest parts are the country are also the parts that have the poorest connections to the network.

Wind power requires an upgrading and extension of our network, which is badly needed anyway and is currently underway:
http://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/infrastructure/overview.jsp

This is very different to re-designing the network topographically, which is what would be required in the nuclear scenario.

maniac101 wrote:

no self-respecting wind engineer would ever install wind turbine onto the wall of a house. It's extremely dangerous and the turbulences are too great. But there are enough cowboys out there who'll try it.

I know of one such “cowboy” in Wimbledon, London. He has 2 small turbines fitted to his house (the only drawback being they have to be taken down if gale-force winds are forecast) that charge a battery-pack from which he powers his lights. Combined with the energy from a solar panel, his electricity bills are virtually zero for about 8 months of the year.

piraka wrote:

Silicon has the worst efficiency, while the best will cost you an arm and a leg !!

A PV System would generate approximately 750 kWh/year per kWp installed. So a basic 1 kWp system would generate around 750 kWh per year, and a 5kWp system will produce around 4500 kWh. The average household consumption is 3000 kWh per year. Thus, on average, a small 1kW system could supply nearly 50% of your electricity over the course of the year, depending on your consumption rates, though it may be possible to do more, by carefully controlling your energy use. It should also be pointed out that grants are available from SEI for installing solar panels.

maniac101

djpbarry wrote:

Your figures appear to be accurate, but I still believe there is huge potential in wind power. The main problem, as you have pointed out, is intermittency. But, rather than being connected directly to the grid, wind farms could be used to charge fuel cells, effectively storing the energy produced.

Would be nice. We're a long way off from that here. The 4500MW to be installed by 2020 will be producing exclusively electricity for the grid, in accordance with the gov's 2007 Energy White Paper.

This is very different to re-designing the network topographically, which is what would be required in the nuclear scenario.

I don't know what you're getting at here. A nuclear plant built beside an existing fossil fuel generation plant (e.g. moneypoint) would require no upgrade to the network whatsoever. You're unintentionally reinforcing the case for nuclear here.

I know of one such “cowboy” in Wimbledon, London. He has 2 small turbines fitted to his house (the only drawback being they have to be taken down if gale-force winds are forecast) that charge a battery-pack from which he powers his lights. Combined with the energy from a solar panel, his electricity bills are virtually zero for about 8 months of the year.

Hmmm.
No comment needed I think!

Excuse me, but “blind faith” has nothing to do with it – I am currently researching a method of biogas production from waste products and I can tell you it is entirely feasible. There are biogas-powered trains in Sweden and biogas-powered buses in Switzerland. I believe this avenue of research to be particularly fruitful as it also helps tackle our waste problem.

Yes it is feasible. (You're probably one of the UL lads!) Good luck with the research.

djpbarry

maniac101 wrote:

A nuclear plant built beside an existing fossil fuel generation plant (e.g. moneypoint) would require no upgrade to the network whatsoever.

Yes, of course, it all depends on where the plants are to be located. I was making the assumption that a new nuclear plant would be located on a green-field site somewhere.

maniac101 wrote:

Hmmm. No comment needed I think!

It's entirely feasible!! Granted, it's not for everyone, but don't knock it until you've seen it first-hand.

maniac101 wrote:

(You're probably one of the UL lads!) Good luck with the research.

DIT actually, but thanks anyway !

Jackie laughlin

"Wind farms could be used to charge fuel cells" Is this possible? What sort of cells would store such relatively large quantities of energy? Batteries?? Heat water? Pump water up a hill?

djpbarry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

"Wind farms could be used to charge fuel cells" Is this possible? What sort of cells would store such relatively large quantities of energy? Batteries?? Heat water? Pump water up a hill?

Yes, it is entirely possible. The idea of pumping water up a hill has been muted, but of course a reservoir would be required for this.

Another possibility would be to use the electricity generated from the wind turbines in the hydrolysis of water. The hydrogen produced could be stored and used to power hydrogen fuel cells (HFC's). A fuel cell powered boat has been developed in Leipzig, Germany. Toyota have developed a fuel cell powered car and HFC powered buses are currently in use in Perth, Australia.

Jackie laughlin

Excess power stored as potential energy in a raised resevoir of water has been in existence at the ESB's Turlough Hill in Co. Wicklow for decades.

Hydrogen storage, as you describe it, sounds pretty small scale and experimental at this stage. Is it any better than batteries yet?

djpbarry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Hydrogen storage, as you describe it, sounds pretty small scale and experimental at this stage. Is it any better than batteries yet?

Those were just a few examples. Fuel cells can be made to have efficiencies approaching 80%. They are also extremely reliable as they have no moving parts.

edanto

That's been an interesting tangent about the eletricity options and probably more relevant to Minister Ryan than Minister Gormley. So, I'll have to revise my earlier suggestion. Gormley should tell Ryan about this thread and invite us all into his just-opened dialogue process about future Irish energy policy.

As far as other environmental policies, I think Gormley should update us through the ministerial website with the options that he is considering (for example - the local government reforms, what's on the table?) and then let there be a public debate on the pros and cons before he decrees something instead of afterwards.

djpbarry

edanto wrote:

Gormley should tell Ryan about this thread and invite us all into his just-opened dialogue process about future Irish energy policy.

Thanks for the link edanto. That'll keep me busy for the weekend!

Jackie laughlin

DJP,
Thank you but are there fuel cells capable of handling large amounts of energy or is water still the only effective method?

djpbarry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

DJP,
Thank you but are there fuel cells capable of handling large amounts of energy or is water still the only effective method?

Theoretically, yes. To the best of my knowledge, there is a small 1MW fuel-cell power plant in use in California. They can also be used as stand-alone generators.

Blush_01

Back to GM for a second. I'm probably going to sound incredibly naive here, but is GM really so bad? Yes, I do understand that it can result in the manipulation of biological foodproducts with potentially uncontrollable results (if in the wrong hands) but at the same time, do you like broccoli? I do, and if someone hadn't decided to mate cabbage and cauliflower, effectively modifing their genetics to produce broccoli, which is now an independent and self-renewing (to an extent) foodstuff, where would we be without it's crunchy green-ness? Not all GM is bad.

edanto

I second that. There's great potential in GM for good, but it's really just a tool and the real issue is around how that technology can be protected by law and whether that is always just.

As far as the technology itself goes, well I understand that pretty well having worked in biotech previously and it was often misrepresented in the antiGM debate here. In fact, I later found out that some of the antiGM lobbyists didn't passionately believe in what they were saying at all, that they saw the debate as a good place to practice their debating skills. A small number of them!

But back to GM - one fact that struck me is how the technology was sometimes misrepresented. At one stage a kuffufle was made about how GM traits were promoted with a sequence of DNA knows as the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus. eeek sounds awful. Plenty of safe to eat plants already have the same sequence.

I think Gormley should engage on a process of consultation about the environment - what other way is there to learn about the job than to get out into the environment and talk to people! Farmers might say that they are concerned about potential legal liabilities they will have if a neighbours GMs seed comes in the wind, mothers might say they don't want to be feeding kids stuff unless they're confident about what's in it, Robert Newman might say that any technology that means we rely on the hydrocarbon industry less for food is a good thing. (who knows if GM food is that - just to get you thinking!)

Yeah I'd like it if Gormley went canvassing around the place, spent days out in the Environment that he's looking after, have press conferences in the Burren or a small village. Sure I can see most of SE Dublin from me gaff it'll be grand while he's away.

dodgyme

Ban SUVs in bigger towns and cities
Tax them so high that they have to apy well for their supposed status
Make public transport a priority and encourage people to use it.

Jackie laughlin

The Green position of a ban on GM ia a measure of their populism. This has been debated here before. GM has become the subject of a strange media-induced hysteria and the ban is following the mob.

Dodgy,
Why pick on SUVs? How would you feel about a huge tax on foreign holiday homes?

djpbarry

This may be of interest:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irish-company-joins-the-elite-few-generating-electricity-from-the-sea-1198405.html

great unwashed

wind turbines

wind turbines

and more wind turbines - in the sea, land, on mountains, whereever.

djpbarry

great unwashed wrote: »

wind turbines

wind turbines

and more wind turbines - in the sea, land, on mountains, whereever.

Wind alone, as has already been said numerous times, is not the answer. There is no quick-fix.

jawlie

great unwashed wrote: »

wind turbines

wind turbines

and more wind turbines - in the sea, land, on mountains, whereever.

How do I use my hairdryer when the wind doesn't blow?

edanto

google is your friend (or read back through the thread and see some of the options - like using a hydrogen system to store wind energy, or fussion reactors <ITER>, or wave power etc -

jawlie

edanto wrote: »

google is your friend (or read back through the thread and see some of the options - like using a hydrogen system to store wind energy, or fussion reactors <ITER>, or wave power etc -

I have read this thread and think it unlikely that your hydrogen system to store wind energy would be either (a) affordable or (b) suitable to power my average size house. The best we can expect in wildest Donegal seems to be the wind blowing on 35 days out of 100 ( I read that in this thread). I am not sure what efficiency I can expect for living in Urban Dublin, but will this hydrogen system be able to store sufficient electricity to power my immersion and electric cooker on the days the wind is not blowing?

What efficiency does teh hydrogen system have and how expensive and practical is it to store the electrictity needs for my house for 4 or 5 days which is what, in effect, we would need at a minimum?

What size turbine will I have to erect to power my house? Do I have to have planning permission? What are the dangers involved?

djpbarry

jawlie wrote: »

What efficiency does teh hydrogen system have and how expensive and practical is it to store the electrictity needs for my house for 4 or 5 days which is what, in effect, we would need at a minimum?

Why? Nobody is advocating that we produce 100% of our energy needs from wind.

jawlie

djpbarry wrote: »

Why? Nobody is advocating that we produce 100% of our energy needs from wind.

Thats true and I realise I misread the earlier post.

However, nobody seems to have come up with an answer to what happens when the wind does not blow. Currently, we have back up in the form of fossil fuel burning power stations as it is now possible to rely on wind power for a constant or regulated source of power.