Spirit of Ireland - A bright spark in today's economic gloom?

mgmt

Aidan1 wrote: »

Neither the carbon tax or the carbon windfall levy have anything to do with REFIT.

Tell me how artificially raising the price of thermal power using carbon taxes does not artificially make wind more competitive???

luohaoran

To those of you worried about how much extra, electricity is costing due to the pursuit of wind energy:
You are right to target your frustration at your politicians and their policies.

Ask them to ring fence energy expenditure.

In 2009, we apparently produced 14% of our energy from wind. Its not unreasonably to conclude that that equates to a 14% saving on fuel imports.
Thats money that would have left the Irish exchequer and the Irish economy as a whole.

What have they done with that money?

Instead of keeping that money to reduce how much we need to borrow to keep the country going, they could have used it to reduce the price of electricity, across the board, by reducing the various taxes on energy.
That would make us more competitive etc. etc.

Of course, its six of one and half a dozen of the other.
But it would at least silence the wind nay-sayers.

I kid myself of course, you can't silence the anti wind lobby, their vested interests prevent them from seeing the blindingly obvious logic of producing our own energy instead of sending our money abroad. They will continue to bury themselves in counting the pennies while ignoring the pounds.

ei.sdraob

luohaoran wrote: »

In 2009, we apparently produced 14% of our energy from wind. Its not unreasonably to conclude that that equates to a 14% saving on fuel imports.
Thats money that would have left the Irish exchequer and the Irish economy as a whole..

Prove it, there is no data to backup the thesis that wind reduced electricity prices in such a small and isolated market, quite the opposite

I want to see a graph/data that shows that prices have fallen by an equal amount, stripping out the effects of gas prices plunging

If there was profit made it ended up in the profits of the wind operators and not passed onto consumers,

you still dont get it, the market is rigged, there is no ****ing incentive to reduce the price of electricity and competition to arise, instead we replaced an electricity monopoly with an electricity cartel

Aidan1

Tell me how artificially raising the price of thermal power using carbon taxes does not artificially make wind more competitive???

The carbon tax does not affect power gen, because power gen is in the ETS. The carbon levy does, because it involves clawing back some of the benefit that power gen gained from 'free allowances' of certs under the ETS.

Prove it, there is no data to backup the thesis that wind reduced electricity prices in such a small and isolated market, quite the opposite

Once more, and with feeling, wind reduced the price of electricity in 2008 from what it otherwise would have been. This is partly due to the fact that it displaced gas, and partly due to the fact that it held down the PSO, offsetting the costs associated with peat. It happened. It might not suit your thesis, but it happened.

ei.sdraob

Aidan1 wrote: »

Once more, and with feeling, wind reduced the price of electricity in 2008 from what it otherwise would have been. This is partly due to the fact that it displaced gas, and partly due to the fact that it held down the PSO, offsetting the costs associated with peat. It happened. It might not suit your thesis, but it happened.

sources/references? all we have is your word :rolleyes:

from the data I am looking at all the falls have been due to collapse in gas prices

which mind you was not allowed to be passed on fully to the consumers, in order to prop up wind generators :rolleyes:

mgmt

luohaoran wrote: »

To those of you worried about how much extra, electricity is costing due to the pursuit of wind energy:
You are right to target your frustration at your politicians and their policies.

Ask them to ring fence energy expenditure.

In 2009, we apparently produced 14% of our energy from wind. Its not unreasonably to conclude that that equates to a 14% saving on fuel imports.
Thats money that would have left the Irish exchequer and the Irish economy as a whole.

What have they done with that money?

Instead of keeping that money to reduce how much we need to borrow to keep the country going, they could have used it to reduce the price of electricity, across the board, by reducing the various taxes on energy.
That would make us more competitive etc. etc.

Of course, its six of one and half a dozen of the other.
But it would at least silence the wind nay-sayers.

I kid myself of course, you can't silence the anti wind lobby, their vested interests prevent them from seeing the blindingly obvious logic of producing our own energy instead of sending our money abroad. They will continue to bury themselves in counting the pennies while ignoring the pounds.

No, you are missing the point. North Korea has a policy of self sufficiency. How is that working out? We can get cheaper energy from abroad rather then produce it ourselves. We can then use that cheaper energy to produce goods and services that people want. If we continue down this road of wind power our goods and services will get too expensive and people will not buy it.

Price of electricity across europe:
http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/climate/37/Electricity-Prices-In-Europe-and-Ireland-for-domestic-and-industrial-consumers-Large-band.html

mgmt

Aidan1 wrote: »

The carbon tax does not affect power gen, because power gen is in the ETS. The carbon levy does, because it involves clawing back some of the benefit that power gen gained from 'free allowances' of certs under the ETS.

Semantics. Carbon tax/Carbon levy.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/carbon-levy-scam-takes-836416bn-from-homeowners-1490353.html

luohaoran

mgmt wrote: »

No, you are missing the point. North Korea has a policy of self sufficiency. How is that working out. We can get cheaper energy from abroad rather then produce it ourselves. We can then use that cheaper energy to produce goods and services and people want. If we continue down this road of wind power our goods and services will get too expensive and people will not buy it.

Price of electricity across europe:
http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/climate/37/Electricity-Prices-In-Europe-and-Ireland-for-domestic-and-industrial-consumers-Large-band.html

No, you are missing the point. You are totally ignoring the benefits of keeping the money in the country.
If we keep down this road the government will actually have some money in the coffers which they can use to lower electricity prices if they choose to.
Rather than continue to spend on imports which leaves us at the mercy of fossil fuel producing nations.

The current imbalances the government has built into the system that seem to annoy you so much are actually needed , to help us get back to producing our own energy, which in the medium and long term will pay us back hugely.

SOI correctly point out that to maximise this potential we need to add storage into the mix. And hydro-storage, in Ireland is the cheapest storage solution, since we have such great (almost ready made) locations that greatly reduce the cost of hydro development.

I know you'll always point to the cost per unit of electricity of each method of generation. Some will argue with you on that basis alone.
But to do so just adds false strength to your position, since you'd both be missing the big picture.

ei.sdraob

luohaoran wrote: »

No, you are missing the point. You are totally ignoring the benefits of keeping the money in the country..

1. take subsides from government which is using BORROWED money from IMF at 7%
2. make electricity more expensive (in order to subsidise wind) for everyone in this economy during the worst recession, by making wind power priority no matter the cost even if cheaper plant needs to be shutdown
3. import windmills made in china or denmark :rolleyes:
4. sit back and sell some hot air
5. profit


yes great business plan there :rolleyes:
the Irish people are being taken for another ****ing ride by yet another lobby group

luohaoran wrote: »

SOI correctly point out that to maximise this potential we need to add storage into the mix. And hydro-storage, in Ireland is the cheapest storage solution, since we have such great (almost ready made) locations that greatly reduce the cost of hydro development.
.

Yes great idea in theory, in reality we have no facts/details/information SOI but a sales pitch

mgmt

luohaoran wrote: »

No, you are missing the point. You are totally ignoring the benefits of keeping the money in the country.
If we keep down this road the government will actually have some money in the coffers which they can use to lower electricity prices if they choose to.
Rather than continue to spend on imports which leaves us at the mercy of fossil fuel producing nations.

I hear you. Isn't international trade terrible. :rolleyes:

luohaoran

mgmt wrote: »

I hear you. Isn't international trade terrible. :rolleyes:

I love international trade.
Unfortunately you need something to trade with.
We happen to be running a massive deficit.

The biggest single ticket item on there that shouldn't be on there is importing fuel.
We need to fix that and fix it in a hurry.

mgmt

luohaoran wrote: »

I love international trade.
Unfortunately you need something to trade with.
We happen to be running a massive deficit.

The biggest single ticket item on there that shouldn't be on there is importing fuel.
We need to fix that and fix it in a hurry.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/botrade.htm

The reason for the massive trade surplus is that we use raw materials (like energy) to produce goods and services that other countries want. If you get your way, electricity will go through the roof and it will cost too much to produce anything here.

luohaoran

mgmt wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/botrade.htm

The reason for the massive trade surplus is that we use raw materials (like energy) to produce goods and services that other countries want. If you get your way, electricity will go through the roof and it will cost too much to produce anything here.

Please see my previous post.
If I get my way, we'll be able to cut the price of electricity and be much more competitive.
Because we'll have stopped throwing our money away.

Pete_Cavan

Aidan1 wrote: »

Neither the carbon tax or the carbon windfall levy have anything to do with REFIT.

Pete, what do you have against nuclear?

And again, wind does not have a guaranteed return, just a guaranteed price. Very different. Also, our electricity prices have more to do with our huge dependence on gas (again, over 60%) along with stuff like Peat. Of the PSO, the 14.1% of generation from renewables cost around €44m. Peat, which is about 350MW, cost way more, and spends a lot of the time broken down or out of order. It does have a guaranteed rate of return btw, which is probably where you're getting confused.

I have nothing against nuclear, I dont know where you got that from. I have nothing against wind either per se. What I do have a problem with is the government offering people guaranteed prices for energy that are not indexed against Consumer Price Indexes and will be payable for a period of fifteen years. And yes this does guarantee a certain level of return because the wind will blow for considerable lengths of time every year. Unfortunately we do not know when it will blow and it is quite likely that much of it will be at night when demand is low and baseloads from thermal plants can cater for this demand meaning the wind energy is not needed yet the guys who own the wind farm still get paid at excellent rates.

Guaranteed prices distort a market and mean it cannot operate efficiently. You can be sure the property bubble here during the Celtic Tiger years will be used in economic texts books in years to come to demonstrate how government interference can artificially inflate a market and almost bring down a country. Yet we are now incentivising inefficient renewable technology. I have no problem with a private company developing a wind farm if they can produce a realistic business plan showing the venture to be viable and they can raise their own finance. Having hundreds of millions of euro of wind farms backed up government sponsored price guarantees is not a good idea.

The government would be able to create a perfectly competitive market in energy production if it were to sell off its assets to a number of private companies but retain the national grid. The state could retain a number of assets and compete in the market if they wished. The Energy Regulator would regulate the market and prevent monopolies from developing. As all the companies are selling the exact same product, they are competing on price alone which guarantees lowest prices for customers.

Capt'n Midnight

We don't know how much imported fuel will cost in the future but it's a fairly safe bet it won't be vastly cheaper than it is now. Imported wind won't go up in price as much.


We are too small to need more than one nuclear power station. Every two years the reactor will be offline for refueling. Nearly half of the nuclear power plants in the US have had a major unplanned outage. You can't rely on more than 80% of nuclear capacity.

Sponge Bob

Eirgrid have just published their ( recession adjusted) Generation Capacity Master Plan 2011 - 2020 . It is here

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/GCS%202011-2020%20as%20published%2022%20Dec.pdf

They have noticed the effects of the colder winter weather ( more faults and less wind)

Aidan1

I have nothing against nuclear, I dont know where you got that from. I have nothing against wind either per se. What I do have a problem with is the government offering people guaranteed prices for energy that are not indexed against Consumer Price Indexes and will be payable for a period of fifteen years.

If you have nothing against Nuclear, then why do you object to the Irish electricity system buying cheap baseload nuclear over the interconnecter(s), and selling back renewables at a higher price? It beats just buying gas from the UK system, which is what we do now (at prices set by the UK wholesale rate).

REFIT is indexed against the CPI - from your perspective, it would be better if it were not.

ei.sdraob

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Eirgrid have just published their ( recession adjusted) Generation Capacity Master Plan 2011 - 2020 . It is here

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/GCS%202011-2020%20as%20published%2022%20Dec.pdf

They have noticed the effects of the colder winter weather ( more faults and less wind)

I see nothing in there telling us how much all the new grid connections for wind farms in middle of nowhere will endup costing us in their "plan"

Pylons dont grow from the ground themselves last I checked and need expensive installation/maintenance

ei.sdraob

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We don't know how much imported fuel will cost in the future but it's a fairly safe bet it won't be vastly cheaper than it is now. Imported wind won't go up in price as much.


We are too small to need more than one nuclear power station. Every two years the reactor will be offline for refueling. Nearly half of the nuclear power plants in the US have had a major unplanned outage. You can't rely on more than 80% of nuclear capacity.

bull****

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
China is building 4 of these US designed 3rd generation reactors (with added safety and passive cooling system) 1100MW reactors for a tidy sum of ~6 billion euro (14 of these are planned for in US)
thats ~4400MW which is about how much we use for our base power you could keep 1 of the reactors down for maintenance and still have plenty to go around
Moneypoint has 3 turbines ~300MW, usually one is idling
And yes there are smaller reactors available all the way down to 20MW container sized ones
as added bonus you don't have to waste billions on the Grid as this could be build next to Moneypoint and use existing cabling. Or Gormley's constituency since most of the energy is used in Dublin


we already spend well over dozen billion on wind and cant reliable generate enough to even replace a Moneypoint sized plant


as I said no cost/benefit analysis done at all with regards to wind, just throwing good money after bad, hell even Eirgrid don't know how much it all endup costing which is scary.
And their graphs in above report are scary, they are just linearly extrapolating forwards, yeh that worked out great for the banks and people in the last bubble

Sponge Bob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as added bonus you don't have to waste billions on the Grid as this could be build next to Moneypoint and use existing cabling. Or Gormley's constituency since most of the energy is used in Dublin

I have long recommended building it in Wylfa and bringing the lekky in on a HVDC interconnector to Gormleys constituency.

The site is only 65 miles away from the demand points in Dunblin ,a lot less than half the distance of the 400Kva lines to Moneypoint and hence lower transmission losses.

ei.sdraob

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I have long recommended building it in Wylfa and bringing the lekky in on a HVDC interconnector to Gormleys constituency.

The site is only 65 miles away from the demand points in Dunblin ,a lot less than half the distance of the 400Kva lines to Moneypoint and hence lower transmission losses.

ESB Power Gen actually explored the idea was mentioned several times during my time there.
Anyways this Xmas while the turbines are frozen and feck all wind to go about, we are typing these messages in small part thanks to UK nuclear plants, I hope the irony doesn't get missed by our DonQuixotian windmill loving friends

Sponge Bob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ESB Power Gen actually explored the idea was mentioned several times during my time there.

They should look at it again, Wylfa was named as one of the 8 sites that the UK government feels are ideal for future Nuclear plants.

2 x 1000Mw units would be what I would consider, we need 1000Mw guaranteed seeing as Moneypoint will be life expired sometime between 2020 and 2030 and the other can go into the mid merit UK pool when not out for maintenance.

ei.sdraob

my time in there was limited but eyeopening, its a wonder we actually have enough power in the country and no brownouts
the main focus of work back then was the very expensive moneypoint refit project, but as mentioned i seen a project on predicting wind few days ahead in order to make "more efficient" (make own conclusions as to what that means) use of the rigged single market

overall all the people I met were extremely nice and friendly, but I did notice that the older engineers who were powering this country for decades where highly sceptical of wind, they build up a reputation of providing reliable energy for a long time and where very proud of their work and systems.

@spongebob I don't actually know the outcome of the Wales idea, i was at the bottom of the organisation during my time. I presume the meeting went something like this:
- engineer X: why not buy a nuke plant in UK and import the energy here? since nuclear doesnt produce CO2 and is reliable we would kick the wind generators ass and have reliable and predictable output we can sell to both markets
- manager Y: but the N word is dirty in Ireland
- engineer Z: but we already import nuclear from UK
- manager Y: yes but the N word is dirty in Ireland
- engineer X: Wales is closer than Clare, most of the population is living close to several nuke plants already
- manager Y: no it would damage our brand
- engineer X: feck it lets go cantine and get some of that nice subsidised food
- engineer Z: when is our next payday

---

to get back on subject I think this expensive one way bet on wind in a world with plentiful thorium and uranium supplies to last few thousand years (or more with reprocessing and breeding) is silly, especially with increased investment into fusion research in europe and US promising functional plants by 2030

Heroditas

luohaoran wrote: »

In 2009, we apparently produced 14% of our energy from wind. Its not unreasonably to conclude that that equates to a 14% saving on fuel imports.
Thats money that would have left the Irish exchequer and the Irish economy as a whole.

Sorry the figure wasn't that good.
Wind produced 10.5%, not 14%, of our electrical energy .... that in itself is only a small percentage of Ireland's total energy consumption.


LINK TO SEAI REPORT


Funny how we hear the cries for energy independence yet never the cry for food independence, car independence, TV independence etc.

ei.sdraob

Heroditas wrote: »

Funny how we hear the cries for energy independence yet never the cry for food independence, car independence, TV independence etc.

Why we need energy independence in order to lower prices in our Rip Off Republic

and we will do that by increasing prices for fuels and energy via taxation and cost manipulation

You couldn't make it up


Anyways import substitution is a failed economics policy, of course economics is not the strongpoint of the greens

lucernarian

So, what's the story with the Spirit of Ireland idea right now?

It seems the thread recently hasn't much to say about SoI directly!

Sponge Bob

I would say that the inevitable 'commercials' mean that they cannot comment openly any more. I do see a place for maybe 1000Mw of 'hydro balanced wind' , certainly as a peak ( 5-7pm) or high demand inc peak daytime (7am - 7pm Mon - Fri ) supplier.

I am sceptic about the concept as a base supplier, implying 24/7. Of our (very rough) 7000Mw of peak demand on the island around 3500mw base ...meaning it must be supplied no matter what. In times of exceptional cold such as the past month we have had very little wind. Extreme cold, co-inciding with winter and high pressure areas over Ireland, is generally windless too.

luohaoran

Heroditas wrote: »

Sorry the figure wasn't that good.
Wind produced 10.5%, not 14%, of our electrical energy .... that in itself is only a small percentage of Ireland's total energy consumption.


LINK TO SEAI REPORT


Funny how we hear the cries for energy independence yet never the cry for food independence, car independence, TV independence etc.

So can you tell me, how much that works out to be in terms of money we didn't take out of our economy to give to the Russians, and Saudi's?

mgmt

luohaoran wrote: »

So can you tell me, how much that works out to be in terms of money we didn't take out of our economy to give to the Russians, and Saudi's?

Jesus, you were the one going on about basic economics. We cannot produce everything ourselves. We buy fuel off the Saudis and the Russians, but then use this raw material to produce goods that people want to buy. That is a net trade surplus.

ei.sdraob

luohaoran wrote: »

So can you tell me, how much that works out to be in terms of money we didn't take out of our economy to give to the Russians, and Saudi's?

1. we replace Saudi's and Russian's with Chinese manufactured turbines, and China is already limiting the rare earth exports that are needed in construction of magnets for these and electric cars and other "green" technologies which we dont manufacture here :rolleyes:

2. petrol right now costs ~50c/litre in US (that includes small taxes) it costs €1.45/litre here, as you can see its not the Saudi's that are ripping the people and business of this country off but the government

3. the oil producers would be stupid to try to raise prices since it would hit them harder and as happened in 2008 sow the ground for plenty of alternatives such as gas to liquids