GREENPEACE Talk: Ireland, Facebook and the energy [r]evolution

Stleger

GREENPEACE Talk: Ireland, Facebook and the energy [r]evolution

Monday 11 April · 19:00 - 20:30

JM Synge Theatre, Arts Building, Trinity College Dublin
Dublin.

SPEAKERS

---

Tzeporah Berman, Greenpeace International's Climate and Energy Campaign Co-Director. Facilitated by Duncan Stewart (Eco Eye)

PLUS... Special guest speakers from Microsoft and Cisco.

THE ENERGY REVOLUTION STARTS HERE

---

Greenpeace International's Climate and Energy Campaign Co-Director, Tzeporah Berman, will speak in Trinity College Dublin on April 11 about Ireland, Facebook, and the environmental NGO's plan for how the world needs to generate clean, safe energy and use it efficiently to save the future.

See event page here: http://on.fb.me/i81k52

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk3yBpV8Pac

edwinkane

Stleger wrote: »

---

Greenpeace International's Climate and Energy Campaign Co-Director, Tzeporah Berman, will speak in Trinity College Dublin on April 11 about Ireland, Facebook, and the environmental NGO's plan for how the world needs to generate clean, safe energy and use it efficiently to save the future.

While no sane person can argue that the world needs clean safe energy, to which I'd add the word "reliable". Of course, for example, wind energy is safe and clean, but not reliable, alas.

Macha

edwinkane wrote: »

While no sane person can argue that the world needs clean safe energy, to which I'd add the word "reliable". Of course, for example, wind energy is safe and clean, but not reliable, alas.

There are degrees of reliability in everything. The variability of wind, when integrated into a properly designed grid system is not a reliability issue.

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

There are degrees of reliability in everything. The variability of wind, when integrated into a properly designed grid system is not a reliability issue.

I assume by "properly designed grid system" you mean some other technology to provide back up when the wind isn't blowing. The problem with other technologies is that they can't just be turned on instantly at the appropriate moment, and then turned off again at another appropriate moment, to ensure a continuous supply. For example, oil, nuclear, gas and turf need time to go from zero supply to reliable supply. What we do in the interim is a problem.

The idea of wind power, or wave power, or tidal power, is wonderful. Unfortunately they aren't reliable, and the job of any electricity supplier is to provide continuous supply, not intermittent supply.

Macha

Well actually CCGT is pretty good at ramping up and down as back up to renewables. Biogas is a dispatchable renewable.

A combination of some back up, storage and interconnection should bring us far. The All-Island Grid Study showed we could incorporate 40% renewables in the Irish grid. And that's before we even look at the issue of demand management.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

The idea of wind power, or wave power, or tidal power, is wonderful. Unfortunately they aren't reliable...

Define "reliable".

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

Well actually CCGT is pretty good at ramping up and down as back up to renewables. Biogas is a dispatchable renewable.

A combination of some back up, storage and interconnection should bring us far. The All-Island Grid Study showed we could incorporate 40% renewables in the Irish grid. And that's before we even look at the issue of demand management.

No question technologies like CCGT are a step in the right direction, and the time lag from zero to a reliable supply improved. The problem is not as acute with CCGT, but it's still a problem.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Define "reliable".

In the context of electricity generation however, I would define reliable as the exact opposite of what happened over Christmas 2010 (massive surge in demand due to an emergency of extremely cold weather, wind turbines producing next to nothing because there was no wind, no solar heat and any pumped hydro pools might have frozen. Occurring as it did during the Christmas travel season, it would not have helped if we had a large fleet of electric cars, even those "smart" type proposals, as many people likely took to the roads at the time. Other proposals for "demand management" such as variable pricing depending on supply and demand and the availability of renewables wouldn't have been much use either, and the end result would have been lots of people with €1,000+ electric bills.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

In the context of electricity generation however, I would define reliable as the exact opposite of what happened over Christmas 2010 (massive surge in demand due to an emergency of extremely cold weather, wind turbines producing next to nothing because there was no wind, no solar heat and any pumped hydro pools might have frozen.

Ok - but Ireland has other power stations?

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok - but Ireland has other power stations?

Yes, we have other power stations - but they were all needed as our demand peaked and renewables collapsed, both unavoidably.

That means the renewables fail my definition of reliable.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, we have other power stations - but they were all needed as our demand peaked and renewables collapsed, both unavoidably.

That means the renewables fail my definition of reliable.

Ok, but your definition of reliable, in this context, is flawed - at the present time, renewables are intended to compliment thermal/nuclear, not replace them.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, but your definition of reliable, in this context, is flawed - at the present time, renewables are intended to compliment thermal/nuclear, not replace them.

Accepted. Just so long as we are clear that windmills are not THE solution, and that a binary choice between thermal and nuclear still needs to be made.

edwinkane

SeanW wrote: »

Accepted. Just so long as we are clear that windmills are not THE solution, and that a binary choice between thermal and nuclear still needs to be made.

I think thats a good point, as I come across many who think if only we had enough windmills, then we could close down our oil fired power stations. Reliability is key, and windmills are not reliable.

Macha

edwinkane wrote: »

I think thats a good point, as I come across many who think if only we had enough windmills, then we could close down our oil fired power stations. Reliability is key, and windmills are not reliable.

Reliability is not the most important isse. there are three key goals in any energy policy:
- competitiveness / cost
- security of supply
- environmental impact.

Reliability is important insofar as it can impact on security of supply but there are other factors in security of supply other than reliability of a particular form of generation. But even with that, you have to look at the aggregate of reliability of renewables together not just one renewable generation technology. I have never heard a single person argue for 100% wind power. I honestly can't understand why it keeps being brought up.

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

Reliability is not the most important isse. there are three key goals in any energy policy:
- competitiveness / cost
- security of supply
- environmental impact.


.

Reliability may not be the most important issue to you, but it doesn't matter how cheap it is if it's not reliable. I'll bet if most folks power went off, they wouldn't be too concerned whether they were paying 10c/unit or 12c/unit, as they would be more concerned that their freezer full of food is not ruined, and hoping their work in progress on their pc hasn't been lost when the power suddenly went off due to its unreliability.

If industry has an unreliable energy source, the cost to industry is likely to be much higher than if they had access to a more expensive but reliable power source.

Macha

It's not a question of saying X is more important than reliability. They're all important.

And I think posters are picking up on reliability because they think it's a good one to bash renewables with.

edwinkane

I have no idea what other posters are picking up on and can only speak for myself.

No one indicated your criteria are not all important, they are, but it must be pointed out that other issues, cost for example, become a non issue when the supply is unreliable. As you said previously "Reliability is not the most important isse" (sic), then I can't agree as an energy supply has to be reliable or it is next to useless, both domestically and for industry.

Macha

edwinkane wrote: »

I have no idea what other posters are picking up on and can only speak for myself.

No one indicated your criteria are not all important, they are, but it must be pointed out that other issues, cost for example, become a non issue when the supply is unreliable. As you said previously "Reliability is not the most important isse" (sic), then I can't agree as an energy supply has to be reliable or it is next to useless, both domestically and for industry.

First I would point out that picking up on other people's spelling errors is not appreciated in this or any other forum.

I'll say it again, they're all important and I could equally argue that there's no point having a low-carbon reliable energy supply if nobody can afford it - that too would be next to useless. Similarly, there's no point in having reliable, cheap energy that is carbon intensive - that too is next to useless.

This debate is pointless as we will have to compromise to some extent between all three objectives. Trying to say that one is more important than the other completely misses the complexity of the issue.

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

First I would point out that picking up on other people's spelling errors is not appreciated in this or any other forum.

.

I'd agree, although why thats relevant or why you are discussing what is relevant on other forums is a mystery.

Macha wrote: »

I'll say it again, they're all important and I could equally argue that there's no point having a low-carbon reliable energy supply if nobody can afford it - that too would be next to useless. Similarly, there's no point in having reliable, cheap energy that is carbon intensive - that too is next to useless.

Sure, if no one can afford it you are right. But there are not just two options, there is a middle ground where its more expensive, but reliable.

Having run a factory where we had 50 employees, if the power source was not reliable, we'd end up having to pay our employees while the power was off. Believe me, I'd rather have a reliable source of power at a higher cost than an unreliable one at a lower cost, as an unreliable supply will end up costing much more in lost production and wages being paid for lost production alone.

China has been opening one new coal powered power station a day, or so we were told. I don;t think they'd agree that there is no point in having thsie power from carbon intensive coal, and certainly their new coal powered power stations seem far from useless.

The point is that the "renewals" are usually unreliable, and an unreliable power source is damaging for the economy and the country.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

I'd agree, although why thats relevant or why you are discussing what is relevant on other forums is a mystery.

Less of the smart-arse remarks please.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

The point is that the "renewals" are usually unreliable, and an unreliable power source is damaging for the economy and the country.

And yet "unreliable" wind power is Europe's fastest growing energy source and has been identified by China as a key component for future economic growth.