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

Poster King

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that wind farm proposal. Delighted to see it. The Island I am referring to is Croaghnakeela (or Deer Island as some call it).

raymann

is there any progress with spirit of ireland? is this looking likely to happen?

Fabo

its very funny reading these comments. how ordinary people can be spoofed by a complete waffler like pat gill who could hardly answer any of the questions without stuttering and waffling (reminiscent of a certain taoiseach who also bluffed the irish peasants)

the wind mill boom is like watching ghost estates part 2. they are a very old technology which never took off, if they did we would never have built power stations in the first place. just hilarious comments here, keep them coming.

pljudge321

Fabo wrote: »

its very funny reading these comments. how ordinary people can be spoofed by a complete waffler like pat gill who could hardly answer any of the questions without stuttering and waffling (reminiscent of a certain taoiseach who also bluffed the irish peasants)

the wind mill boom is like watching ghost estates part 2. they are a very old technology which never took off, if they did we would never have built power stations in the first place. just hilarious comments here, keep them coming.

While I agree with the sentiments about Pat Gill and his dream of a wasting a few billion euro, claiming wind technology is an old technology and that if they did we would never have built power stations in the first place shows that you have no real idea of how power systems work.

Fabo

ah and why do i not have a clue how power systems work ? are you saying its impossible to build a grid with just windmills feeding into it ? please expand on this point, if they are producing so much energy then surely we can power ourselves 100% from them ?

pljudge321

Fabo wrote: »

ah and why do i not have a clue how power systems work ? are you saying its impossible to build a grid with just windmills feeding into it ? please expand on this point, if they are producing so much energy then surely we can power ourselves 100% from them ?

Fabo wrote: »

ah and why do i not have a clue how power systems work ? are you saying its impossible to build a grid with just windmills feeding into it ? please expand on this point, if they are producing so much energy then surely we can power ourselves 100% from them ?

Right, giving a proper answer to this would take a couple of pages so I'll give a very condensed answer. I'll address the two main points (which are related)

Firstly - In a power system the instantaneous power generated must equal the instantaneous power consumed. This raises a problem because wind is a variable (not intermittent, anyone that uses that word to describe it deserves a slap) resource. You cant dispatch it and when its blowing its blowing and if there isn't enough blowing you have to get the energy somewhere.

Secondly - Any imbalance between generation and demand causes the frequency to either rise or fall as well as affecting voltage levels. If the frequency drops by around 2.5 Hz its likely you will get system collapse as all the large power transformers, transmission lines, etc will move beyond their rating. All generators will start tripping out as well as otherwise they would get damaged by the torsional affect of slowing down to far/fast.

The inertial energy stored in the large rotating synchronous generators help smooth out small changes in the generation - demand balance as well as slowing the rate of fall in frequency in case of a large disturbance. If the frequency drops these synchronous machines slow down along with the grid frequency. Because they have slowed down some of their inertial energy is lost, theres only one place for this energy to go and its into the grid. This helps meet the imbalance between generation and demand until the governors of the generating stations increase their power output to bring the system back into equilibrium.

Wind power does not have this inertial response (or at least anywhere near the same kind, there are some fancy ways you can add a simulated effect) so any sudden large imbalance will cause the frequency to drop at a very fast rate causing the system to collapse.

For this reason we currently limit the instantaneous wind penetration to around 50% of the demand because we need a certain level of synchronous generation on the grid to provide the inertia needed to maintain the stability.

Note I've mostly talked about an imbalance where there is more demand than generation causing the frequency to drop. The opposite can happen but it is less common.


If you want to know more this would be a good place to start.

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/FacilitationRenewablesFinalStudyReport.pdf

Fabo

Thanks for your very informative post Mr Judge.

So are you saying that allowing wind to run alongside coventional generation, say gas turbines, leads to inefficiencies in the system and can even cause the system to collapse ?

Surely, when the wind is blowing strongly, the turbines are producing a lot of power, and therefore displacing gas in the system. This means we can rely less on gas to power our electricity ?

pljudge321

Fabo wrote: »

Thanks for your very informative post Mr Judge.

So are you saying that allowing wind to run alongside coventional generation, say gas turbines, leads to inefficiencies in the system and can even cause the system to collapse ?

Surely, when the wind is blowing strongly, the turbines are producing a lot of power, and therefore displacing gas in the system. This means we can rely less on gas to power our electricity ?

If you allowed wind to dispace too much conventional generation you could move into a scenario where a disturbance could cause system collapse. Power systems are operated so as to be N-1 secure i.e. any one disturbance cannot cause the system to move into an unstable operating condition. Look at Figures 1 & 3 in the Eirgrid report, they show the allowable operational ranges based on the grid in 2020. We are heading towards allowing 70% instantaneous penetration while remaining stable. This will make us pretty much the world leaders in wind.

Wind does cause other generators to have to run below their most fuel efficient outputs, as well as causing them to cycle which can cause mechanical strains which could reduce their lifetimes. The net fuel and CO2 saving with wind cancel more than compensate the decreased efficiency though. Placing a cost on the additional stress it causes is much harder to quantify, we wont really know until data becomes O&M costs for numerous plants over the next 20 years become available. Even then its doubtful that it would be released as its commercially sensitive.

Gas should stay just as reliable, unless the supply gets cut off. In addition some gas plants (OCGT peaking plants) can rapidly increase their power outputs to make up for any sudden slack off in wind. Such plants might only run for a couple of 100 hours a year though and need to be paid for. Wind presents a lovely series of economic and engineering challenges, most of which goes over the general populaces head, on the balance I'd still be very much an advocate for it, just not hair brained schemes like SOI.

Dan Jaman

Ah, I see the NIMBYs have changed their tactics and tried to bring in some technical idiots.

Fabo

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Ah, I see the NIMBYs have changed their tactics and tried to bring in some technical idiots.

Many apologies for allowing the conversation to get "technical". Maybe you can put us on ignore and carry on with your nice and simple everybodys happy think positive wind chat.

Fabo

In addition some gas plants (OCGT peaking plants) can rapidly increase their power outputs to make up for any sudden slack off in wind.

so does this have any impact on the burning of gas than it normally would have if there was no wind

The net fuel and CO2 saving

how does this arise ?

btw, i dont know mr.judge, he seems pro-wind but anti - SOI. he seems to have similar info to the info I have.

pljudge321

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Ah, I see the NIMBYs have changed their tactics and tried to bring in some technical idiots.

Ah an insult, good use of your argumentative skills. If something doesn't make either engineering or economic sense there is no point in building it. We could do a hell of a lot better pumping that money into better wind forecasting research and a HVDC link to mainland europe.

Also I live on the east coast so whether SOI is built or not (it won't) will make no difference to me. Hell I'd probably make some money out of it.

pljudge321

Fabo wrote: »

so does this have any impact on the burning of gas than it normally would have if there was no wind

The thermal efficiency of these plants is far less than a baseload Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plant, around 30% compared to 55%. In addition ramping up your output takes a lot of energy as well before you get to the operating point. So yes the efficiency is decreased, but the overall amount burned is reduced.

The net fuel and CO2 saving comes from the fact that we are burning less fuel when the wind is blowing. You can look at the CO2 intensity of the system on the eirgrid as well as the level of wind generation.

Fabo wrote: »

btw, i dont know mr.judge, he seems pro-wind but anti - SOI. he seems to have similar info to the info I have.

Most electrical engineers I know are.

Dan Jaman

pljudge321 wrote: »

Ah an insult, good use of your argumentative skills.

Oh dear; damned with faint put-down.
Trouble with so many paper engineers these days is they really resent not having thought of something and proceed to pick holes in it every chance they get.
That wouldn't be you, would it? I sincerely hope not.

pljudge321

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Oh dear; damned with faint put-down.
Trouble with so many paper engineers these days is they really resent not having thought of something and proceed to pick holes in it every chance they get.
That wouldn't be you, would it? I sincerely hope not.

The SOI is hardly an innovative or original idea. If the economics work out its will get built, if not it wont.

Also you don't need to pick holes in the idea, they are pretty glaring.

rainbowdash

Fabo wrote: »

its very funny reading these comments. how ordinary people can be spoofed by a complete waffler like pat gill who could hardly answer any of the questions without stuttering and waffling (reminiscent of a certain taoiseach who also bluffed the irish peasants)

the wind mill boom is like watching ghost estates part 2. they are a very old technology which never took off, if they did we would never have built power stations in the first place. just hilarious comments here, keep them coming.

Well said, peoples are so gullible in this country, remember Steorn and all the publicity they got even making it to primetime, where is the free energy machine thingy now?

Most of the population of this country are idiots, no sooner had they ditched FF at a general election and they all run around campaigning for Clowens bagman to be president, fortunately Sinn Fein knee capped him just in time.

Fabo

where is the free energy machine thingy now?

it has big turbines on the top of it. the steorn lads have realised there's more easy money in windmills to be got from the taxpayers

valamhic

pljudge321 wrote: »

Right, giving a proper answer to this would take a couple of pages so I'll give a very condensed answer. I'll address the two main points (which are related)

Firstly - In a power system the instantaneous power generated must equal the instantaneous power consumed. This raises a problem because wind is a variable (not intermittent, anyone that uses that word to describe it deserves a slap) resource. You cant dispatch it and when its blowing its blowing and if there isn't enough blowing you have to get the energy somewhere.

Secondly - Any imbalance between generation and demand causes the frequency to either rise or fall as well as affecting voltage levels. If the frequency drops by around 2.5 Hz its likely you will get system collapse as all the large power transformers, transmission lines, etc will move beyond their rating. All generators will start tripping out as well as otherwise they would get damaged by the torsional affect of slowing down to far/fast.

The inertial energy stored in the large rotating synchronous generators help smooth out small changes in the generation - demand balance as well as slowing the rate of fall in frequency in case of a large disturbance. If the frequency drops these synchronous machines slow down along with the grid frequency. Because they have slowed down some of their inertial energy is lost, theres only one place for this energy to go and its into the grid. This helps meet the imbalance between generation and demand until the governors of the generating stations increase their power output to bring the system back into equilibrium.

Wind power does not have this inertial response (or at least anywhere near the same kind, there are some fancy ways you can add a simulated effect) so any sudden large imbalance will cause the frequency to drop at a very fast rate causing the system to collapse.

For this reason we currently limit the instantaneous wind penetration to around 50% of the demand because we need a certain level of synchronous generation on the grid to provide the inertia needed to maintain the stability.

Note I've mostly talked about an imbalance where there is more demand than generation causing the frequency to drop. The opposite can happen but it is less common.


If you want to know more this would be a good place to start.

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/FacilitationRenewablesFinalStudyReport.pdf

Judge is more or less right in this account except in one important area and word used. That word is "Resource". He says wind is a resource for producing electrical energy for incorporation on the grid. Wind is a resource for powering yachts/sailing ships and it can be a resource to provide heat if separately wired independently of the grid and for flying kites. It is not (and can never be) a resource when it is connected to the mains electricity grid. That is why it is a failure all over the world. We hear about Ireland's wind resource, but its not a resource at all. On the grid it is a cockoo. Consumers are forced and tricked into thinking its a resource. Google "Spain cuts subsidies to renewables, Minister Soris on TV". They thought it was a resource, but they are still using the same conventional power as before and the bill has run up to 24 billion. Mr Soris said he regretted pulling the subsidies, but continuing them would drive them into a bailout. Then he recommended that the rest of Europe continue with wind mills and to catch up with Spains level of renewables. (after him cutting subsidies). Now lets look at the word "renewable"

valamhic

For any form of power to turn a generator, it has to do just that. It has to do it in a way that it provides "credit capacity". CC (the amount of other plant that can be shut down and replaced by the one being measured without endangering supply) (firm capacity in the US).

No piece of plant has 100% credit capacity because it will need to be turned off for servicing now and again, but some heavy coal and oil plant has very high CC up to 95%. A small petrol generator you hire out has a CC of only about 2%. Wind has no co-relation between demand and supply, it cannot be scheduled in advance like conventional plant, turbines draw electrical power from the grid (given free) 24/7 while producing energy @ only 24% of their rater capacity. In high winds, there is the danger of having to shut them down to prevent damage. While there will be days when conventional plant can be turned off (East wind are consistent but scarce). Even when producing energy, the erratic (sawtooth) nature or hourly input and the swings between 50 mw and 1200 mw over a few hours, mean that thermal coal and gas plant is forced to cycle up to 300 times per day when is is designed to cycle 3 times per day. This is hard on such plant, but it causes huge losses through heat dissipation. Staff at the dispatch centres cannot risk shutting down plant which may take 9 hours to re-start, so its left running hot to be available when wind dies down. The result is the several studies and practical experience tells us that a system with no wind would be very nearly as efficient in saving fuel as a system with wind. The Bentek studies say that with coal conventional plant, wind results in extra sulfur dioxide and Nito Oxide emissions and little saving in co2 emissions. Wind has little or no CC. My studies suggest that with gas plant, there is a saving of about 2 - 4 % but that the power being imported from the grid may be as high as 4%. If this is the case, Ireland's wind farms could be net consumers of power. It boils down to 1 thing, a society like ours need power, not energy. Wind has energy, but it cannot be converted to power. So the word renewable is followed by an "unwritten word" energy. But what we want is "renewable power" hydro is an example of renewable power, wind on the gird is not. You might as well have - renewable wellingtons - renewable Easter eggs? - renewable cups - renewable underpants - its all the same. We need renewable power and that is a very scarce commodity. What we can do is pretend wind is renewable power and pay for the privilege.

Dan Jaman

And?
So what's missing in this scenario?

Pumped storage - that's what makes wind work.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to someone who is out to do nothing but wield a hatchet on the idea. Jeez, it's like arguing with retards.

Heroditas

Dan Jaman wrote: »

And?
So what's missing in this scenario?

Pumped storage - that's what makes wind work.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to someone who is out to do nothing but wield a hatchet on the idea. Jeez, it's like arguing with retards.

If SoI is such a no-brainer, why aren't all the energy companies like BGÉ, ESB, Viridian etc all crawling over it or doing something similar?

valamhic

Dan Jaman wrote: »

And?
So what's missing in this scenario?

Pumped storage - that's what makes wind work.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to someone who is out to do nothing but wield a hatchet on the idea. Jeez, it's like arguing with retards.

Pumped storage is not hydro power. It is a net consumer of electricity. It is only deployed as a small part of traditional generating system usually all owned by one company. It has not been used in any country where wind is mature technology such as Denmark, Germany of Spain and is not under consideration in Scotland where massive wind expansion is planned. Poyry the Welsh consultancy are not enthusiastic. It can provide two functions 1) to collect surplus night generation power and store it until peak demand at evening on a daily basis or 2) to be used as a permanent store or emergency situations such as a break downs of transmission lines or sudden unexpected peak in demand . It cannot be used for purposes 1) and 2) only 1) or 2).
There seems no large scale plans anywhere in Europe to use PS exclusively for making wind more viable. Spirit of Ireland have ideas but there is no detail about water capacity of head height. The suggestion from Spirit of Ireland is not a true wind PS system. Its a PS system in which the water is pumped up the hill by the standard electricity grid using conventional plant to do the pumping. They then attempt to claim that if there are wind farms on the system, these can be counted as firm @ feed in capacity. But the contribution to adequacy of wind energy is its credit capacity and this is tiny. A true wind PS system would run empty a time = to the wind dying down + capacity of the PS x its supply to demand and it would remain empty until the next windy period. Calm periods in Ireland can last up to 2 months and more. Any advantage from a true wind PS facility would only happen when the wind generation was capable of filling the top store at equal or greater than PS output. As the wind could be used directly at these times, the contribution is small over a long period of say a year. The interest and principle on such a facility would always be greater than the market price of power and it would therefore be a very expensive subsidized load on taxpayers and consumers. I other words it is an unaffordable novelty.
Moreover, there is actually no need for PS at all, a little such as Turlough Hill does no harm and maybe a little good, But it is now only topical because governments are slowly but surely coming to realise that they are getting nothing in return for investment in wind and PS is proposed to stave off the tough questions. A few open cycle gas turbines can do the same job at a fraction of the cost and when you count the carbon cost of building the pumped storage facility, gas is the more environmental friendly option. In Ireland we are seeing a gross inflation of the number of concerns feeding from the trough of our ESB bills and this is not sustainable in the long term

rainbowdash

Dan Jaman wrote: »

And?
So what's missing in this scenario?

Pumped storage - that's what makes wind work.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to someone who is out to do nothing but wield a hatchet on the idea. Jeez, it's like arguing with retards.

No need to call people retards. There is nothing new in the concept being proposed, if it was viable everybody from Oil companies to power generation companies would be all over it investing and developing it all over the world.

There is a sea water pumpe storage system functioning in Japan for years, why did they not build any more of them if its so smart?

Its an alternative energy concept which may perform some function, but there are plenty of other ideas out there, like use wind power to compress air into empty oil and gas fields deep under ground, then use the compressed air energy to drive turbines and create steady power.

All nice ideas, along with others like wave generation, tide generation etc. but the problem is they will all mean more expensive energy for us all.

patgill

rainbowdash wrote: »

No need to call people retards. There is nothing new in the concept being proposed, if it was viable everybody from Oil companies to power generation companies would be all over it investing and developing it all over the world.

There is a sea water pumpe storage system functioning in Japan for years, why did they not build any more of them if its so smart?

Its an alternative energy concept which may perform some function, but there are plenty of other ideas out there, like use wind power to compress air into empty oil and gas fields deep under ground, then use the compressed air energy to drive turbines and create steady power.

All nice ideas, along with others like wave generation, tide generation etc. but the problem is they will all mean more expensive energy for us all.

Did somebody mention Japan ?

Japan has over 15 GW of pumped hydro capacity and every watt of capacity is being squeezed out of it at the moment simply to keep the lights on.

NPower described one particular Irish glacial valley as God's gift to Ireland.

If its such a good idea why are more companies not interested ?

Every engineering, geologic and environmental company who have looked at the S of I project agrees that our west coast glacial valleys are both superbly suited for pumped hydro and unique to Ireland and Peru.

The energy regulator is in possesion of over 4GW of expressed interest in building pumped hydro in Ireland, almost all of the sea water variety.

one measure of the extent of utilization of pumped storage capacity is the percentage of the total electric capacity that is provided by pumped storage. Austria stands out as the country having the highest percentage of pumped storage capacity on its electric system. Pumped storage provides approximately 17 percentof Austria’s total generation capacity. Austria is followed by Switzerland, Spain, Italy and Japan, all with pumped storage capacities of approximately ten percent of their generating capacity. The USA lags well behind with only 2.5 percent of its generation capacity being provided by pumped storage. Japan is far ahead of all other countries in the advancementof pumped storage technology and its utilization. Some pumped storage projects in Japan are operated nearly 24 hours each day. The use of variable speed units in Japan provides load ramping capability in the pumping mode and contributes to the versatility and effective use of pumped storage

http://www.scribd.com/six11/d/25835943-Pumped-Storage-Hydroelectricity

pljudge321

valamhic wrote: »

Judge is more or less right in this account except in one important area and word used. That word is "Resource". He says wind is a resource for producing electrical energy for incorporation on the grid. Wind is a resource for powering yachts/sailing ships and it can be a resource to provide heat if separately wired independently of the grid and for flying kites. It is not (and can never be) a resource when it is connected to the mains electricity grid. That is why it is a failure all over the world. We hear about Ireland's wind resource, but its not a resource at all. On the grid it is a cockoo. Consumers are forced and tricked into thinking its a resource. Google "Spain cuts subsidies to renewables, Minister Soris on TV". They thought it was a resource, but they are still using the same conventional power as before and the bill has run up to 24 billion. Mr Soris said he regretted pulling the subsidies, but continuing them would drive them into a bailout. Then he recommended that the rest of Europe continue with wind mills and to catch up with Spains level of renewables. (after him cutting subsidies). Now lets look at the word "renewable"

Right your spouting pure nonsense on this point, 15% of our electricity generated last year came from wind. In 8 years time we will be up to around 40%. You can argue the economic benefits of doing this but you can't argue the cold hard numbers.

valamhic wrote: »

For any form of power to turn a generator, it has to do just that...

Wind has a capacity credit of around 0.3. This value goes down as overall wind penetration goes up, but again arguing that it has no capacity credit at all is ludicrous. Also cite your studies if your able.

Dan Jaman wrote: »

And?
So what's missing in this scenario?

Pumped storage - that's what makes wind work.
I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to someone who is out to do nothing but wield a hatchet on the idea. Jeez, it's like arguing with retards.

Explain how pumped storage "makes wind work". Its working fine by itself as is.

valamhic wrote: »

Pumped storage is not hydro power. It is a net consumer of electricity. ..

Pump back hydro dams are both. Most of the new pumped hydro schemes involve retro fitting existing hydro dams. Also nearly every pumped storage facility provides both those facilities.

Heroditas wrote: »

If SoI is such a no-brainer, why aren't all the energy companies like BGÉ, ESB, Viridian etc all crawling over it or doing something similar?

Hats off for the most succinct argument against the viability of this scheme.

pljudge321

patgill wrote: »

Did somebody mention Japan ?

Japan has over 15 GW of pumped hydro capacity and every watt of capacity is being squeezed out of it at the moment simply to keep the lights on.

NPower described one particular Irish glacial valley as God's gift to Ireland.

If its such a good idea why are more companies not interested ?

Every engineering, geologic and environmental company who have looked at the S of I project agrees that our west coast glacial valleys are both superbly suited for pumped hydro and unique to Ireland and Peru.

The energy regulator is in possesion of over 4GW of expressed interest in building pumped hydro in Ireland, almost all of the sea water variety.

Japan has loads of pumped hydro because they have loads of nuclear plants. And a significant amount of that pumped hydro is of the pump back dam variety which makes the capital expenditure more justifiable.

Look at the graph on page 7 http://hmrc.ucc.ie/econdocs/Pdf/12-Deane.pdf. Notice how closely correlated the level of installed nuclear is against the level of installed PH. Also notice how it levels off once the 90's start. That's when highly efficient flexible gas plants started being built everywhere. These plants eliminated the need for expensive oil fired peaking plants. This removed the massive price differential between the base load and the peak load which made PH economically viable.

Capt'n Midnight

patgill wrote: »

The energy regulator is in possesion of over 4GW of expressed interest in building pumped hydro in Ireland, almost all of the sea water variety.

compare that to expressed interest in wind power

patgill

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

compare that to expressed interest in wind power

How long is a piece of string, we could also compare it to expressed interest in OCGT, CCGT or CHP, unfortunately nuclear is presently of the table in Ireland.

Similar situation worldwide.

patgill

pljudge321 wrote: »

Japan has loads of pumped hydro because they have loads of nuclear plants. And a significant amount of that pumped hydro is of the pump back dam variety which makes the capital expenditure more justifiable.

Look at the graph on page 7 http://hmrc.ucc.ie/econdocs/Pdf/12-Deane.pdf. Notice how closely correlated the level of installed nuclear is against the level of installed PH. Also notice how it levels off once the 90's start. That's when highly efficient flexible gas plants started being built everywhere. These plants eliminated the need for expensive oil fired peaking plants. This removed the massive price differential between the base load and the peak load which made PH economically viable.

I think I might enjoy this conversation.

Have you noticed how the cost of gas has moved over the last decade.

Talk later.

luohaoran

@ Pat

Pat since you are back on here, perhaps you can answer my earlier question.

What is the current licensing arrangement for owners of windfarms, be they Irish citizens, or foreign companies, running them.
In other words , how much of the energy generated from Irish wind, returns to the Irish tax payer?

Maybe you could compare it to the Shell/Rossport arrangement?

I am very much in the SoI camp, my #1 point in favour, is keeping our money circulating in the Irish economy, but I am concerned that joint ventures with multinationals may have a significant cost in terms of money leaving the country. Whether its avoidable or not is a separate argument, but I'd like to know the liability.