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

cnocbui

dowlingm wrote: »

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.

Any generation capacity has to be built from scratch. Given Ireland's relatively modest energy needs, you obviously don't develop the capability in-house and re-invent the wheel, you contract everything except day-to-day operation to a foreign entity with the requisite expertise and capability.

Get the French or Germans to build it, maintain it and take care of the fuel cycle. If you are going to do it you might as well go for 4 and have the majority of the country's energy needs taken care of and there should be some economy of scale advantages. Ardnacrusha wasn't exactly in-house.

The interconnector idea means you have no energy security and pricing is up to your supplier. We have seen what a wonderful model that is with the Russians regular winter shenanigans re the supply of gas to Europe.

As for nimby's, you legislate. What is so precious about Irish nimby's that makes them an insurmountable obstacle? French, German, English etc. anti-nuke nimbys can be overcome but the Irish variant can't?

Offer the nimby's electricity at 1/4 the cost of everyone else for 20 years if they don't make a fuss and see if the still object, and if they do, quadruple their electricity cost vs everyone else for the foreseeable future.

Wind power is not without nimby detractors anyway.

dowlingm

cnocbui wrote: »

Get the French or Germans to build it, maintain it and take care of the fuel cycle. If you are going to do it you might as well go for 4 and have the majority of the country's energy needs taken care of and there should be some economy of scale advantages. Ardnacrusha wasn't exactly in-house.

Okay...

cnocbui wrote: »

The interconnector idea means you have no energy security and pricing is up to your supplier.

Um - but what if the French stop supplying fuel rods? Short of digging up Croagh Patrick to get uranium, get into the enrichment business and the fuel rod manufacture business there is no energy security in going nuclear for Ireland.

The advantage the French have is that they got into nuclear before 3 Mile Island and it became a national prestige project. It's a lot harder to persuade a country who doesn't have it to get it.

The only nuclear technology I think might have direct application in Ireland is mini-nukes, but their best application is in the <100MW range where demand is sparse and transmission costly.

SeanW

dowlingm wrote: »

Um - but what if the French stop supplying fuel rods? Short of digging up Croagh Patrick to get uranium, get into the enrichment business and the fuel rod manufacture business there is no energy security in going nuclear for Ireland.

Two problems with this analysis:

1. 1 truckload of Uranium provides as much electricity as 26 trainloads of coal. Guess which is easier to hold a strategic reserve of if you want to do that? Hmm ...
2. Two Uranium mining/exploration companies thought Ireland had Uranium in Donegal, but that Green commie Eamon Ryan nixed their exploration license applications. "Starve the horse then kill it because it can't pull?"

The advantage the French have is that they got into nuclear before 3 Mile Island and it became a national prestige project. It's a lot harder to persuade a country who doesn't have it to get it.

I'll grant you this, getting Nuclear electricity in Ireland would be a Herculean task.

The only nuclear technology I think might have direct application in Ireland is mini-nukes, but their best application is in the <100MW range where demand is sparse and transmission costly.

For Ireland's small market size, mini-nukes would be perfect since they would allow more downtime of individual plants and less redundancy (i.e. less excess capacity being left online to cover a sudden failure of any individual plant.

What's more, microgeneration is cool, becuase - and this is according to Greenpeace mind you - 1/3 of power generated in any class of large power plant will be lost in large scale heat dissipation. Another 1/3 will be lost in long distance transmission.

A network of Mini-nukes generating energy close to where the demand is would therefore be very efficient, particularly in Ireland.

dubhthach

The original plan back in the late 60's/early 70's was to build 4 700MW plants at Carnsore. Does anyone have the stats regarding every power station/windfarm in Ireland max power generation? From doing a brief jot from figures on wiki I see the ESB have 3,501MW of installed plant (vast majority fossil fuel). There are several other independent stations though (hunstown, Dublin bay power etc.)

FreudianSlippers

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.

But wind is part of the solution in getting rid of fossil fuels for power. I highly doubt one source will be sufficient. Wind, solar, wave and nuclear fission are the way to go.

dowlingm

I think in Ireland's case biodigestion and waste gasification could play a huge role, both in municipal sewage, farm sewage, waste from dairy and meat plants, chemical waste and so on. If a biodigester was allowed to store gas while co-located with a windfarm it might be able to spin up and down a turbine using the same grid connection to keep total farm output within a narrower range.

lucernarian

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

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

What a cúnt.

I actually came here to make the same point. Perhaps without calling him that however:D

spacetweek

Myers' article was far more reasonable this time. There were only two things wrong with it: He chose a calm day deliberately just prove his point, but there are plenty of days where the power output is massive : read the first paragraph of the Wiki article. And secondly, green energy needs subsidy as it's an emerging technology. It keeps getting better with each passing year.

The rest of the article, though, was really spot on: the idea of digging up turf at all, much less to power a generation plant, is something from the 19th/early 20th century and has been superceded everywhere else. The turf burning plants need to be closed stat and industrial-scale turf cutting banned. Small scale cutting I would allow if it was me - but we're doing exactly the opposite.

And this faffing about over whether it's "ethical" or "moral" to import electricity from neighbouring countries that use nuclear power is thoroughly ridic. Whatever your view on nuclear (I'm in favour but I don't know anyone else who is), Myers is right - the electrons aren't stamped with their power plant of origin. It's a laughable objection.

I'll be glad when the interconnector to Wales is finished in 2012 and we can be shut of this nonsense. In the meantime, more wind turbines please and close the remaining turf burning plants.

SeanW

spacetweek wrote: »

Myers' article was far more reasonable this time. There were only two things wrong with it: He chose a calm day deliberately just prove his point, but there are plenty of days where the power output is massive : read the first paragraph of the Wiki article. And secondly, green energy needs subsidy as it's an emerging technology. It keeps getting better with each passing year.

The rest of the article, though, was really spot on: the idea of digging up turf at all, much less to power a generation plant, is something from the 19th/early 20th century and has been superceded everywhere else. The turf burning plants need to be closed stat and industrial-scale turf cutting banned. Small scale cutting I would allow if it was me - but we're doing exactly the opposite.

And this faffing about over whether it's "ethical" or "moral" to import electricity from neighbouring countries that use nuclear power is thoroughly ridic. Whatever your view on nuclear (I'm in favour but I don't know anyone else who is), Myers is right - the electrons aren't stamped with their power plant of origin. It's a laughable objection.

I'll be glad when the interconnector to Wales is finished in 2012 and we can be shut of this nonsense. In the meantime, more wind turbines please and close the remaining turf burning plants.

I agree with your post in its entirity with the exception of the first paragraph. The fact that there are some days when wind output is massive makes no difference - the fact that there is this uncontrollable variance means that wind power cannot be relied on. You could also be right in that wind power technology is improving year on year, but the aforementioned variance remains its central problem.

SeanW

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I actually came here to make the same point. Perhaps without calling him that however:D

Would you care to explain - i.e. by challenging specific material in the article - why you think K.M is "just trolling?" rather than just throwing insults?

lucernarian

SeanW wrote: »

Would you care to explain - i.e. by challenging specific material in the article - why you think K.M is "just trolling?" rather than just throwing insults?

I did and do not claim that Mr. Myers is just trolling. Perhaps you should read both posts again before you accuse me of insulting someone. For the record, I shall not explain something that I did not "think".

losthorizon

mgmt wrote: »

I was pointing out wind energy has not worked out well in Denmark where it produces Europes highest percentage. It also does not make financial sense either.

Look at todays wind power production. It is at a fraction of the theoretical maximum wind power installed (1731MW).

On this graph, whats been asked for is being met. Actually, between midnight and 06.45 there is more wind than forecast. You cant take one day and extrapolate for the year - thats crazy.

Anyone, with a passing interest in renewable energy knows that you dont throw all your eggs into the one basket. Its a mix of different renewables + things like more efficient transportation, insulation and building materials.

On the Days its not windy its more likely to be sunny so you use pv panels as well etc. There is a place for the old reliables (except I think Peat and maybe coal).

rameire

Eirgrid discusses wind power targets

The head of Eirgrid has said it is possible that 75% of electricity will be generated from wind in the future.

Chief executive Dermot Byrne said the Government target to produce 40% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 can be surpassed.

Mr Byrne was speaking today at an Oireachtas committee.

AdvertisementHe described the 75% figure as truly staggering, but he said it can be done.

He also said a milestone was reached last April when for a time 50% of electricity was being generated from wind power.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0915/eirgrid_energy.html

BANTER.

mgmt

Here's a simple equation:

More Wind Power = Higher Carbon Taxes to make it commercially viable against traditional power sources = Higher electricity prices = Higher costs to businesses = Companies leaving Ireland to find cheaper markets = Higher unemployment

amacachi

mgmt wrote: »

Here's a simple equation:

More Wind Power = Higher Carbon Taxes to make it commercially viable against traditional power sources = Higher electricity prices = Higher costs to businesses = Companies leaving Ireland to find cheaper markets = Higher unemployments

Economies of scale will cause the price to come down. There's been plenty of subsidies in the "traditional" methods of power generation in the past, on building the initial infrastructure etc., why shouldn't wind also get them? The carbon tax is a haze by the government looking for something to blame for tax increases. The amount of wind energy is already pretty damn high here which is good to see. Along with wave power we could get the vast majority of our electricity from renewables. The interconnecter to Britain should've been bigger IMO, on windy days we could sell power to them and perhaps even the continent and without wind we could rely on their nuclear when the winds don't blow, wind wave covering the baseline.

Jim Martin

The Mt. Callan application has now gone to appeal:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/237524.htm

spacetweek

mgmt wrote: »

Here's a simple equation:

More Wind Power = Higher Carbon Taxes to make it commercially viable against traditional power sources = Higher electricity prices = Higher costs to businesses = Companies leaving Ireland to find cheaper markets = Higher unemployment

Hold on - I don't get it - why would higher carbon taxes affect electricity produced from wind? Surely only fossil fuel electricity would be affected?

Also what about the increased prestige we'd benefit from as a result of being green? Companies care about that too.

FreudianSlippers

spacetweek wrote: »

Hold on - I don't get it - why would higher carbon taxes affect electricity produced from wind? Surely only fossil fuel electricity would be affected?

Also what about the increased prestige we'd benefit from as a result of being green? Companies care about that too.

Exactly:

More available and cheap wind power = more carbon tax on traditional methods = more businesses and people switching to wind = more competition = more wind generation = lower costs

mgmt

spacetweek wrote: »

Hold on - I don't get it - why would higher carbon taxes affect electricity produced from wind? Surely only fossil fuel electricity would be affected?

Also what about the increased prestige we'd benefit from as a result of being green? Companies care about that too.

A carbon tax is already on consumers electricity bills to susidise wind power. And guess what...900 homes are losing their electricity connection a month.

Wind power will never remove a single MW of fossil fuel electricity capacity from the grid even if we dramatically increase wind power capacity. It has never happened. Not even in Denmark (most expensive electricity in Europe). Why?? Because wind power is unpredictable and a country needs consistent electricity generation. Wind power is a total waste of your money.

Companies care about the bottom line. Not focking wind turbines.

mgmt

OisinT wrote: »

Exactly:

More available and cheap wind power = more carbon tax on traditional methods = more businesses and people switching to wind = more competition = more wind generation = lower costs

Throw a couple of brownouts and blackouts into that equation.

Aidan1

A carbon tax is already on consumers electricity bills to susidise wind power

No, there is not. The carbon tax only applies to the non-ETS sector. Electricity generators, being in the ETS, have to purchase carbon credits for all non renewable generation (or will, post 2012), and thus the price of carbon in the market has an effect on consumer prices that way, all over Europe. The more renewables you have on the system, the less you pay for carbon.

mgmt

Aidan1 wrote: »

No, there is not. The carbon tax only applies to the non-ETS sector. Electricity generators, being in the ETS, have to purchase carbon credits for all non renewable generation (or will, post 2012), and thus the price of carbon in the market has an effect on consumer prices that way, all over Europe. The more renewables you have on the system, the less you pay for carbon.

Ok, it took me all of 5 seconds to find this:

He [Simon Coveney] said the average electricity bill for families and businesses in 2008 had a 10% increase directly attributed to carbon charges, even though there is no added cost for electricity generators attached to carbon credits.

Households paid in excess of €220m extra last year for carbon charges on their electricity bills.

Mr Coveney said this is carbon tax by stealth.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0724/electricity.html

That was in 2008. I wonder how much extra we're paying now for BS carbon.

SeanW

OisinT wrote: »

Exactly:

More available and cheap wind power = more carbon tax on traditional methods = more businesses and people switching to wind = more competition = more wind generation = lower costs

The claim that we can rely on weather based renewables is a dangerous myth.

spacetweek

mgmt wrote: »

Ok, it took me all of 5 seconds to find this:



http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0724/electricity.html

That was in 2008. I wonder how much extra we're paying now for BS carbon.

The only way that makes sense is if only ESB customers get higher bills, but people with wind energy companies don't. I quite frankly don't believe the article; the bloke may have been misquoted.

mgmt

spacetweek wrote: »

The only way that makes sense is if only ESB customers get higher bills, but people with wind energy companies don't. I quite frankly don't believe the article; the bloke may have been misquoted.

Well he has the same figures on his personal website, and he is the fine gael spokesperson on energy.

http://www.simoncoveney.ie/press-releases/4-consumer-rip-off-carbon-windfall-tax-on-power-generators-needed.html

Wind power is expensive. That is why the esb prices and others are being made artificially high through taxation in order to make wind power seem competitive.

Aidan1

Deputy Coveney was the Energy spokesperson - he now handles Transport.

And I'm afraid you are completely misreading what the good Deputy has on his website - he is referring to the effect free carbon credits can have on the price of electricity for residential consumers, due to the manner in which generators are given free carbon credits (until end 2012, as referred to in my previous post). Again, and for reference, there is no carbon tax on electricty generation, because it is in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Carbon taxes, as set out in the 2010 Finance Act, only apply to the non ETS sector, so non renewable transport fuels, heating etc.

And for reference (and I suggest you read the recent CER paper on the PSO for a detailed account) - Wind has been entirely competitive with fossil generation for periods in the recent past when gas prices were high - in those cases, thanks to the design of REFIT, wind generation actually kept the price of electricty to consumers down. At the moment, while gas prices are (relatively) low, wind is a cost - that could change practically overnight.

mgmt

Aidan1 wrote: »

Deputy Coveney was the Energy spokesperson - he now handles Transport.

And I'm afraid you are completely misreading what the good Deputy has on his website - he is referring to the effect free carbon credits can have on the price of electricity for residential consumers, due to the manner in which generators are given free carbon credits (until end 2012, as referred to in my previous post). Again, and for reference, there is no carbon tax on electricty generation, because it is in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Carbon taxes, as set out in the 2010 Finance Act, only apply to the non ETS sector, so non renewable transport fuels, heating etc.

And for reference (and I suggest you read the recent CER paper on the PSO for a detailed account) - Wind has been entirely competitive with fossil generation for periods in the recent past when gas prices were high - in those cases, thanks to the design of REFIT, wind generation actually kept the price of electricty to consumers down. At the moment, while gas prices are (relatively) low, wind is a cost - that could change practically overnight.

Whatever, he was the energy spokesman at the time of writing that article. It dosn't matter what his job title is atm, it doesn't change those figures.

So, if oil goes back to $147, and remains there, wind power might become competitive???

Being forced to buy carbon credits is a tax.

Being forced to pay a PSO Levy to subsidize wind power on your ESB bill is a tax.

Electricity in Ireland is 24% above the EU average, why continue with this wind power folly?

Jim Martin

Jim Martin wrote: »

The Mt. Callan application has now gone to appeal:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/237524.htm

From another thread (Nature & Bird Watching - Hen Harrier):

The Mt. Callan application was sold as being a local community development but in the event was - only to certain individuals on whose land where the developers wanted to put their turbines. Other people directly affected by the development stood to lose a lot - in the form of landscape desecration, light & shadow flicker, noise, possible total loss of value of their property (one person has already lost a sale due to "planning blight", possible interference to water wells. Not to mention the disturbance to local biodiversity (hen harriers, red grouse, bats, botany etc.). Some of the this disturbance will be created during construction work, some longer term.



Oh, and I forgot to mention - the local community has been split right down the middle with those "for" and those "against", sometimes within the same family. I wouldn't wish this kind of nightmare on anyone! The amount of stress created is unbelievable. Will the developers compensate for this? I think not!

Heroditas

Aidan1 wrote: »

Wind has been entirely competitive with fossil generation for periods in the recent past when gas prices were high - in those cases, thanks to the design of REFIT, wind generation actually kept the price of electricty to consumers down.

I'm sorry but that is completely misleading.
A clearing price is used to determine energy prices in the SEM.
If the clearing price is less than the guaranteed price for renewables, the REFIT subsidy compensates the renewable generators.
If the clearing price is greater than the guaranteed REFIT subsidy, the renewable generators get the larger amount.

The way the market operates here, the wholesale price of electricity will not drop because it's linked to the most expensive generator that is called on at any given time.
If we had 99% wind generation and 1% gas generation and gas went to £1 a therm, then the cost of electricity would reflect this because the 99% wind generators would get paid the same amount as the gas generator.

spacetweek

Heroditas wrote: »

£1 a therm

We don't use either pounds or therms.