Myers: "Wind power will return us to the early Middle Ages"

LeinsterDub

mgmt wrote: »

What the "spirit of Ireland"???

http://sustainability.ie/pumpedstoragemyth.html

or not it would seem .

veritable

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Enron V ESB?
Fox V BBC?

I don't understand your point?

LeinsterDub

veritable wrote: »

I don't understand your point?

Never mind it's a different discussion.

veritable

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Never mind it's a different discussion.

I see what you're trying to compare. However poorly.

Fox is a economically viable business that runs on private money.
BBC is a business that survives because people who work in the UK have some of their money confiscated in the name of taxes to pay for it. The people who work do not have a choice in where this money goes nor do they have a say in how the BBC operates.

Enron is an example of a business that broke the law and went bust as a result.
ESB was created from tax payer's money. Taxpayers still pay money into this company. These taxpayers have no say in how the ESB is run or operated.

mgmt

veritable wrote: »

ESB was created from tax payer's money. Taxpayers still pay money into this company. These taxpayers have no say in how the ESB is run or operated.

and taxpayers are losing their ESB connections (900 a month) because the government are forcing surcharges to subsidise wind focking power.

oharach

veritable wrote: »

BBC is a business that survives because people who work in the UK have some of their money confiscated in the name of taxes to pay for it. The people who work do not have a choice in where this money goes nor do they have a say in how the BBC operates.

This is pretty judgmental language - are you opposed to publicly funded bodies entirely?

Is this ok?

The NHS is a business that survives because people who work in the UK have some of their money confiscated in the name of taxes to pay for it. The people who work do not have a choice in where this money goes nor do they have a say in how the NHS operates.

This?

Schools and universities are a business that survive because people who work in the UK have some of their money confiscated in the name of taxes to pay for them. The people who work do not have a choice in where this money goes nor do they have a say in how schools and universities operate.

Anyway, the BBC is not funded by 'people who work'=income taxes, it's a flat fee on anyone who chooses to own a television, and you can opt out of that if you really feel so aggrieved..

cnocbui

Nuclear power makes sense, wind power doesn't.

The contrast between the sheer emotional hysteria, mention of nuclear power has in this country, and the woolly headed wishful-thinking that attaches to wind power is just astonishing.

People are generally repulsed by the sensible proven technology while being strongly attracted to the one that is unreliable and illogical without the storage problem being solved.

There's an irony in there.

LeinsterDub

veritable wrote: »

I see what you're trying to compare. However poorly.

Fox is a economically viable business that runs on private money.
BBC is a business that survives because people who work in the UK have some of their money confiscated in the name of taxes to pay for it. The people who work do not have a choice in where this money goes nor do they have a say in how the BBC operates.

Enron is an example of a business that broke the law and went bust as a result.
ESB was created from tax payer's money. Taxpayers still pay money into this company. These taxpayers have no say in how the ESB is run or operated.

Back to my original point it's not black and white . You get some good companies and some terrible companies both public and private .

Zen65

veritable wrote: »

ESB was created from tax payer's money. Taxpayers still pay money into this company. These taxpayers have no say in how the ESB is run or operated.

Actually this is not correct. State Commercial companies such as EirGrid, ESB & BGE have never received equity from the government, they are simply owned by the state under licence. State commercial companies raise their own funds and yet pay dividends to the state. In reality, they have been a far better investment than the purchase of all those bank shares.

But back to Myer's argument about wind power. He states that wind generators are unpredictable, but this is not true. There are numerous methods of forecasting with fair accuracy the output from windfarms, which though only approximate, are good enough to plan the efficient operation of the grid.

The attached photo is from the EirGrid website for August 28th, but you will find many similar "good" forecasts.

We cannot rely entirely on any one method of electricity generation, whether that be gas, wind, hydro, nuclear or coal. Experience from world events tells you that a policy of enforced diversity is required for secure, reliable energy.

Cheers,

Z

kumate_champ07

wave energy is where its at. we are a country surrounded by an ocean with hundreds of miles of coastline. Ive heard theres some people working away at this idea quietly.

unit 1

Ok so it's Ireland and we want to build a nuclear power plant. So Anglo can finance it, Tom Parlon can build it, CRH can supply the concrete, Quinn can insure it, CIE can transport the raw materials and waste of course (by rail ), The ps unions can staff it (with Jack O Connor as shop steward), Bertie and Ivor can open it (twice), Michael O Leary can be headhunted to run it as MD, John Gormley can deal with the waste (in his incinerator), and Eamonn O Cuiv can locate it in a gaeltacht area to get the grants and make sure all the control manuals and buttons are in irish, and lastly Gaybo can look after safety. It's location of course will be kept secret to protect it from terrorist attack.

Question, would you buy a used nuclear power plant from any of the above?:D

mgmt

Zen65 wrote: »

But back to Myer's argument about wind power. He states that wind generators are unpredictable, but this is not true. There are numerous methods of forecasting with fair accuracy the output from windfarms, which though only approximate, are good enough to plan the efficient operation of the grid.

Huh, that is short term prediction. It takes days to shut down and restart power plants (and very expensive). What good is wind energy when you cannot rely on it? As I said before, wind power has never taken a fossil fuel or traditional power plant offline. Wind power is useless for baseload energy and equally useless for surge energy use. It is more expensive than any other form of energy and we have to subsidize its use through our electricity bills.

veritable

Zen65 wrote: »

Actually this is not correct. State Commercial companies such as EirGrid, ESB & BGE have never received equity from the government, they are simply owned by the state under licence. State commercial companies raise their own funds and yet pay dividends to the state. In reality, they have been a far better investment than the purchase of all those bank shares.

But back to Myer's argument about wind power. He states that wind generators are unpredictable, but this is not true. There are numerous methods of forecasting with fair accuracy the output from windfarms, which though only approximate, are good enough to plan the efficient operation of the grid.

The attached photo is from the EirGrid website for August 28th, but you will find many similar "good" forecasts.

We cannot rely entirely on any one method of electricity generation, whether that be gas, wind, hydro, nuclear or coal. Experience from world events tells you that a policy of enforced diversity is required for secure, reliable energy.

Cheers,

Z

Thanks for pointing that out to me about ESB. I just presumed they were companies like CIE, DUblin Bus, Iarn Eireann, etc - all costing the taxpayer 100s of millions annually.

veritable

unit 1 wrote: »

Ok so it's Ireland and we want to build a nuclear power plant. So Anglo can finance it, Tom Parlon can build it, CRH can supply the concrete, Quinn can insure it, CIE can transport the raw materials and waste of course (by rail ), The ps unions can staff it (with Jack O Connor as shop steward), Bertie and Ivor can open it (twice), Michael O Leary can be headhunted to run it as MD, John Gormley can deal with the waste (in his incinerator), and Eamonn O Cuiv can locate it in a gaeltacht area to get the grants and make sure all the control manuals and buttons are in irish, and lastly Gaybo can look after safety. It's location of course will be kept secret to protect it from terrorist attack.

Question, would you buy a used nuclear power plant from any of the above?:D

What's Michael o leary doing in the above list? he is a man who has an extensive track record of success

veritable

mgmt wrote: »

Huh, that is short term prediction. It takes days to shut down and restart power plants (and very expensive). What good is wind energy when you cannot rely on it? As I said before, wind power has never taken a fossil fuel or traditional power plant offline. Wind power is useless for baseload energy and equally useless for surge energy use. It is more expensive than any other form of energy and we have to subsidize its use through our electricity bills.

agree. if green energy was so reliable and good, then why does it require massive tax payer subsidies?

mgmt

Zen65 wrote: »

Actually this is not correct. State Commercial companies such as EirGrid, ESB & BGE have never received equity from the government, they are simply owned by the state under licence. State commercial companies raise their own funds and yet pay dividends to the state. In reality, they have been a far better investment than the purchase of all those bank shares.

It still takes up the public sector position on wages and benefits. The average salary being over 80,000euro. I wonder how much the state could have benefited if it was run efficiently...

And why does eiregrid see fit to advertise. It serves no purpose only to waste money as it does not serve the public.

veritable

mgmt wrote: »

It still takes up the public sector position on wages and benefits. The average salary being over 80,000euro. I wonder how much the state could have benefited if it was run efficiently...

And why does eiregrid see fit to advertise. It serves no purpose only to waste money as it does not serve the public.

don't mean to keep quoting you but well said again. it's not just the cash cost of the govt companies, it's the opportunity cost of what the taxpayer could have spent his money on if taxes weren't so high to pay for these bloated and inefficient companies.

unit 1

veritable wrote: »

What's Michael o leary doing in the above list? he is a man who has an extensive track record of success

He'd make sure the waste would all fit into overhead storage on his planes (after being weighed of course), and fly it to somewhere nobody can find.:D

Zen65

mgmt wrote: »

Huh, that is short term prediction. It takes days to shut down and restart power plants (and very expensive).

Ahh, not any more. Modern gas turbines are very quick to start up - even combined cycle units are much quicker than the old thermal boiler/steam turbine plants.


Z

Zen65

mgmt wrote: »

And why does eiregrid see fit to advertise. It serves no purpose only to waste money as it does not serve the public.

I don't understand this either, they don't compete for customers, so advertising is a bit redundant isn't it?

Z

mgmt

Zen65 wrote: »

Ahh, not any more. Modern gas turbines are very quick to start up - even combined cycle units are much quicker than the old thermal boiler/steam turbine plants.

They're only for peak demand only and only supply a couple hundred MW.

Zen65

veritable wrote: »

it's the opportunity cost of what the taxpayer could have spent his money on if taxes weren't so high to pay for these bloated and inefficient companies.

Well I agree that inefficiency in any company is bad, as ultimately customers pay for it. We don't know that these State Commercial companies are actually inefficient, and CER has repeatedly stated that the costs allowed to ESB & BGE is independent of their wage bills.

But I am struck by how people focus on public companies that pay good wages and call this "bad", whereas private companies that pay low wages to most of their staff, but millions to their CEO (and other senior execs) and then cost the taxpayers billions when their improper business conduct comes to light (the banks, building developers, etc) are seen as being "efficient private" business.

I've nothing against private nor public commercial companies. I believe a company that pays their staff well is good, those that pay low wages are less good. Ultimately, all workers are also the consumers, without which all businesses fail.

Z

Zen65

mgmt wrote: »

They're only for peak demand only and only supply a couple hundred MW.

Really?? Every new thermal generation plant built in Ireland in the past 10 years is a combined cycle gas turbine!! Both BGE and ESB built CCGT's in Cork Harbour last year that were over 400MW each. Both of the Veridian generators in Dublin are CCGT, and each is (I think) over 300MW.

Z

corktina

OisinT wrote: »

The visual damage argument is nonsensical IMO. I find them beautiful additions. IMO that argument was garbage in Medieval times as much as it is today.

yeah, if you are a tellytubbie....

the_syco

mgmt wrote: »

How exactly???

Maybe by putting the windmill things on the western edge of Ireland where there is actually usually lots of wind, and not somewhere inland where they look nice.

Still can't believe Scotland and France have move wave power generators than we do, and our entire west coast is next one big wavey area...

veritable

Zen65 wrote: »

Well I agree that inefficiency in any company is bad, as ultimately customers pay for it. We don't know that these State Commercial companies are actually inefficient, and CER has repeatedly stated that the costs allowed to ESB & BGE is independent of their wage bills.

But I am struck by how people focus on public companies that pay good wages and call this "bad", whereas private companies that pay low wages to most of their staff, but millions to their CEO (and other senior execs) and then cost the taxpayers billions when their improper business conduct comes to light (the banks, building developers, etc) are seen as being "efficient private" business.

I've nothing against private nor public commercial companies. I believe a company that pays their staff well is good, those that pay low wages are less good. Ultimately, all workers are also the consumers, without which all businesses fail.

Z

While i disagree with you on principle I think you have a very good way of arguing your point. I could learn to be more like you!

SeanW

cnocbui wrote: »

Nuclear power makes sense, wind power doesn't.

The contrast between the sheer emotional hysteria, mention of nuclear power has in this country, and the woolly headed wishful-thinking that attaches to wind power is just astonishing.

People are generally repulsed by the sensible proven technology while being strongly attracted to the one that is unreliable and illogical without the storage problem being solved.

I agree 100%. I used to be a major anti-nuke. That was until I learned some facts, almost by accident, about among other things the Chernobyl disaster.

Hint: just remeber that this accident arose almost entirely because of conditions exclusive to Soviet Union communism.

I've done the whole anti-nuke thing, believed all the scare stories and the silly urban legends. Been there, done that and bought the T-Shirt.

But there's nothing there. The case against nuclear is by and large, driven by fabrications and irrational hysteria.

mgmt wrote: »

Huh, that is short term prediction. It takes days to shut down and restart power plants (and very expensive). What good is wind energy when you cannot rely on it? As I said before, wind power has never taken a fossil fuel or traditional power plant offline. Wind power is useless for baseload energy and equally useless for surge energy use. It is more expensive than any other form of energy and we have to subsidize its use through our electricity bills.

And this is the other key point. Wind power is too unstable from an energy supply point of view - you cannot depend on wind power, full stop.

As to storage, Ireland's peak energy requirements in a mid-winter "electricity rush" are 4GW. So, to store enough electricity to fuel Ireland for one hour, you would need to store 4Gw/H, or 4,000Mw/H. The closest anyone has ever come to trying to provide something like that was the owners of the Sorne Hill Wind Farm in Donegal. They proposed to use a Vanadium Redux Battery (liquid electrolysis sort of gizmo) to store 12Mw/H.

That is, about 6 seconds of Irish peak demand, to be stored. It never happened. Why?

1. The company that makes the VRBs is bankrupt
2. The proposal would have demanded yet another Public Service Obligation levy on electricity bills.
3. Were it to have gone ahead, the Sorne Hill installation would have been the largest VRB in the world, with batteries normally storing amounts measurable in Kw/H.
4. It would have only provided six seconds of peak time energy demand - a proper solution, even worth paying a subsidy for, would provide many orders of magnitude more storage.

dowlingm

It's hard to see nuclear generation being economical in Ireland because not only would you have to build reactors from scratch but all the refuelling, waste handling and regulating apparatus that goes with them, not to mention the insane cost overruns which will be helped by NIMBYism that will make Corrib Gas look like a picnic - all for the sake of maybe two or three 700MW baseload units. Better to contract for n-power from the UK over the interconnectors (and build more of them) since the UK would be merely adding to their fleet.

Countries in Europe can deploy wind power effectively because they have neighbouring countries to import power from when wind is on the blink in their region. Ireland only has one option to import power from, so it must be able to store windpower to act as its own backup. I think pumped storage can have a place in that, just not as big a place as SoI think until the effect of dumping millions of gallons of seawater into a valley on the geology and groundwater systems is known and there is public buy-in for the loss of what are after all remote and therefore relatively unspoiled landscapes (because it's harder to build hundreds of box houses on a hillside).

amacachi

SeanW wrote: »

I've done the whole anti-nuke thing, believed all the scare stories and the silly urban legends. Been there, done that and bought the T-Shirt.

Huh? I thought the kind of people making those t-shirts would completely reject the whole idea of capitalism and prices.

GizAGoOfYerGee

I get the feeling that Myers is reading all of these posts and then trolling us with his articles.

What a cúnt.