Nuclear power 'would cost too much' -- ESRI

Pete_Cavan

We have installed capacity for 1746.7MW of wind energy. Peak output from wind energy was 1,228MW. So, at a cost of €7-10 million for a 5MW wind farm, we have spent ~€3bn on wind turbines that have only ever operated at 70% capacity. Today wind only produced 30% of our energy at peak demand, yet today wind speeds were a lot higher than average, and at times last winter wind produced less than 2% of energy demanded. Wind energy can only ever be a supplementary source of energy, because it is intermittent in nature, yet we are prioritising it over a stable baseload supply. Of course, when the wind isnt blowing we will need to buy nuclear power through an interconnector with the UK. Moneypoint will be obsolete in the next 10-20 years it should be replaced with nuclear power (although not necessarily in that location). I dont see why this should be an issue considering Wylfa is only 60 miles from Dublin

ffitzer

dynamick wrote: »

What annoys you about the numbers?

The wind turbines will be scrap metal long before they've paid for themselves.

It does and it added three new gas power stations (Aghada, Whitegate & Edenderry) in the past year for a total capacity of about a gigawatt (the total quantity of installed wind power is less than 1.4 gigawatts)

That is very comforting to know. Thank you.

How are the figures nonsense? The EU target is not an aspiration but a legally binding obligation. If you read the directive (2009/28/EC) it specifies exactly how to measure the proportion of renewables used in electricity production, as you would expect to see in any legal document. For example, electricity gained from pumped hydro is not counted as contributing to the target if renewable energy was used to pump the water in the first place.

The "wind provides 14% of Gross Electricity Consumption" figure is nonsense to theextent that it tells us nothing about how much fossil fuel/GHG emissions are being saved by wind. The supposed benefits are a fraction of 14%.

The EU directive was obviously written by lawyers. Since it's a legally binding agreement the EU has made with itself it's about as binding as telling yourself "I'm never drinking again" when you wake up with a hangover.

dynamick

Chloe Pink wrote: »

GFC, Gross Final Consumption for renewables is reported as 3.9% in 2008 and "Provisional 2009 data puts the renewable energy contribution at 4.7%."

There are three targets for use of renewables in electricty, heating and transport. The combined Irish 2020 EU target is 16%. From your post you seem to have understood the difference between measuring inputs like TPER and outputs like final consumption. They are not equivalent or comparable.

ffitzer wrote: »

The wind turbines will be scrap metal long before they've paid for themselves.

And yet they are paid for by private companies with money raised from private banks and venture capitalists.

The "wind provides 14% of Gross Electricity Consumption" figure is nonsense to the extent that it tells us nothing about how much fossil fuel/GHG emissions are being saved by wind. The supposed benefits are a fraction of 14%.

I expect it is a large fraction. Fuel saved is one benefit of wind power. Emissions reduced is another. Reduced wholesale prices is a third. Hedge against future fossil fuel price rises is a fourth. Meeting binding legal obligation is a fifth.

The EU directive was obviously written by lawyers. Since it's a legally binding agreement the EU has made with itself it's about as binding as telling yourself "I'm never drinking again" when you wake up with a hangover.

Sure, if all parties back out of the agreement then it's off. Remember that we represent 1% of EU population and that we are entirely dependent on the EU for credit and trade and that we live in one of the windiest countries in Europe, so the prospect that Ireland will try to walk away from wind power is slim.

ffitzer

dynamick wrote: »

And yet they are paid for by private companies with money raised from private banks and venture capitalists.

If the wind turbines weren't being subsidised by taxpayers nobody would be investing in them.

I expect it is a large fraction.

Eirgrid's CO2 intensity figures - while noisy - strongly suggest it is a small fraction.

[...]Reduced wholesale prices[...]

Pardon me if I don't take Eirgrid's word for that.

Hedge against future fossil fuel price rises.

Shale gas has destroyed previous assumptions about natural gas prices. For wind to piggy-back on this bounty is obscene.

Sure, if all parties back out of the agreement then it's off. Remember that we represent 1% of EU population and that we are entirely dependent on the EU for credit and trade and that we live in one of the windiest countries in Europe, so the prospect that Ireland will try to walk away from wind power is slim.

A couple of minutes with a search engine will educate you that European governments are ditching renewable subsidies like they were fresh turds. I had the pleasure of visiting Hawaii - supposedly "one of the windiest" places on the planet. They have acres of rusted former wind turbines that never paid for themselves.

If the goal is energy security or CO2 emission reduction then spending another €10 billion on wind power is beyond stupid.

dynamick

ffitzer wrote: »

If the wind turbines weren't being subsidised by taxpayers nobody would be investing in them.

But the many previously cited reports that compare cost of power generation repeatedly tell us that wind can approximately hold its own in cost per mwh against other technologies, for a broad range of assumed conditions. Governments subsidise most power generation technologies in different ways. Wind is subsidised by PSO, by refit and by ACA but who do you think paid for moneypoint? And who pays to decommission nuclear power stations in the UK?

Eirgrid's CO2 intensity figures - while noisy - strongly suggest it is a small fraction.

You would need to look at co2 intensity and renewables usage over a year and compare with another year. Daily spike data doesn't make much sense.

Pardon me if I don't take Eirgrid's word for that.

Why not?

Shale gas has destroyed previous assumptions about natural gas prices. For wind to piggy-back on this bounty is obscene.

The futures market disagrees with you. Order gas today for delivery in 2018 and you have to pay a 40% premium on today's price. Is there any shale gas being produced in Europe? Remember that energy companies (including renewables) are always hyping their own prospects. Every time I open the paper there is some story about oil off Dalkey island or whatever.

A couple of minutes with a search engine will educate you that European governments are ditching renewable subsidies

Look where a couple of minutes with a search engine got Jim Corr. There are shills for every energy industry sector running think tanks to tell you that X energy is great while Y is rubbish. Europe has pointed its ship in the direction of renewables to a massive extent. Even if direct subsidies like PSO and refit were phased out, you'd likely see plenty of grid strengthening, additional interconnect, carbon taxes, congestion charges and rail electrification etc etc. There are many ways to skin a cat.

I had the pleasure of visiting Hawaii - supposedly "one of the windiest" places on the planet. They have acres of rusted former wind turbines that never paid for themselves.

Wind turbines depreciate over 20yrs (as do conventional power stations). Blades are made of fibre glass nowadays. Hawaii was an early adopter of wind and the cost of wind per MW has fallen greatly in the last 20 yrs.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

...
So nowhere near 12%. However I think this is because the 12% refers to electricity whereas the figures above refer to electricity, heating and transport combined.

Why does this need to be repeated?

djpbarry

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

We have installed capacity for 1746.7MW of wind energy. Peak output from wind energy was 1,228MW. So, at a cost of €7-10 million for a 5MW wind farm, we have spent ~€3bn on wind turbines that have only ever operated at 70% capacity.

If we say the turbines in question have a lifespan of 20 years (which is conservative) and, on average, generate 25% of installed capacity per annum, then a cost of €3 billion equates to less than €0.04 per kWh produced. I’d say that’s a pretty good investment, wouldn’t you?

djpbarry

ffitzer wrote: »

If the wind turbines weren't being subsidised by taxpayers nobody would be investing in them.

If taxpayers weren’t subsidising nuclear waste storage/treatment, nobody would be investing in nuclear power.

ffitzer wrote: »

Pardon me if I don't take Eirgrid's word for that.

Unless you provide good reason to doubt Eirgrid’s data, then for the purposes of this discussion, it will be taken as the gold standard.

Chloe Pink

dynamick wrote: »

The futures market disagrees with you. Order gas today for delivery in 2018 and you have to pay a 40% premium on today's price. Is there any shale gas being produced in Europe? Remember that energy companies (including renewables) are always hyping their own prospects. Every time I open the paper there is some story about oil off Dalkey island or whatever.

See the section on shale gas on page 13, Drivers of Change from John Fitz Gerald's review: http://www.esri.ie/publications/late...ex.xml?id=3252

"One very important area where technical developments are changing the external environment for energy policy is shale gas. The development of shale gas in the US is already having an impact by cutting the cost of natural gas there, but it is also having an effect on world markets."
"Nonetheless, recent research suggests that that it will be 2020 or later before shale gas supplies could become significant in Europe, directly affecting prices"

However this is sooner than any anticipated effect from electric cars (a bit further down the section on Drivers for Change):
"Another area where developments in technology hold out prospects of significant change in energy policy in Ireland is electric cars. However, as Hennessy and Tol (2010) have shown, it will be the decade after 2020 before the technical developments will begin to impact directly on energy demand. This is because the technology, while developing rapidly, still has a long way to go before it is economic."

dynamick wrote: »

Wind turbines depreciate over 20yrs (as do conventional power stations).

Yes but the lifespan of a conventional power station is two to three times that of a wind turbine.

Chloe Pink

dynamick wrote: »

I expect it is a large fraction. Fuel saved is one benefit of wind power. Emissions reduced is another. Reduced wholesale prices is a third. Hedge against future fossil fuel price rises is a fourth. Meeting binding legal obligation is a fifth.

And again from the John Fitz Gerald's report, page 17:
"Policy on Renewables and Energy Efficiency
The EU has a range of policies requiring both increased energy efficiency and increased deployment of renewable electricity. The logic behind these policies is not fully clear. While they could serve to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to enhance security of energy supply there is no guarantee that this will be the result. In addition, the environmental and security objectives could almost certainly be met at lower cost by having better targeted policies specifically designed to meet the environmental and security goals (Tol, 2011)."

Capt'n Midnight

ffitzer wrote: »

The wind turbines will be scrap metal long before they've paid for themselves.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Yes but the lifespan of a conventional power station is two to three times that of a wind turbine.

Links needed, and the longer life is only with refurbishing , bit like nuclear stations

article about wind turbine maintanance - the key point is that wind farms are getting more reliable as the more common faults are found and designed for, that the generators are similar to those used in gas trurbines (so plenty of support etc.)
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/337582/articles/power-engineering/volume-112/issue-8/features/keeping-wind-turbines-spinning.html

Life Expectancy

One critical difference between wind turbines and traditional power plant turbines has been longevity. Because the wind industry is generally less than 25 years old, turbine longevity remains a question that can only be answered as time passes.

Most steam generating plants were built with a projected life of 30 years, said Luck. Life extension programs mean that some of those plants are capable of operating far longer than that. Experience with wind turbines supports the idea that repowering can make economic sense well before the 20-year life expectancy is reached.

materials technology improvements will help blades too

dynamick

Chloe Pink wrote: »

See the section on shale gas on page 13, Drivers of Change from John Fitz Gerald's review: http://www.esri.ie/publications/late...ex.xml?id=3252

"One very important area where technical developments are changing the external environment for energy policy is shale gas. The development of shale gas in the US is already having an impact by cutting the cost of natural gas there, but it is also having an effect on world markets."
"Nonetheless, recent research suggests that that it will be 2020 or later before shale gas supplies could become significant in Europe, directly affecting prices"

There's a very balanced report on shale gas prospects for Europe from the OIES published late last year. http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/NG46.pdf
It predicts that shale gas will have a huge impact in Europe but there are great differences with the US and the author predicts that significant subsidies will be required if the market price of gas has fallen by 2020.

Gas is definitely the most popular of fossil fuels these days due to hopes for future increased supply, cleanliness, improvements in power station efficiency. For Ireland, its power production schedule means that it matches well with wind in a way that nuclear can't.

Yes but the lifespan of a conventional power station is two to three times that of a wind turbine.

lifespan and economic lifetime are two different things. A conventional power station fully depreciates in 20-25yrs at which stage it may be rebuilt on site.
See p51 of http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Low%20Carbon%20Generation%20Options%20for%20the%20All%20Island%20Market%20(2).pdf

dynamick

This report was written by Mott Macdonald for the UK government last year. It compares costs for different types of electricity generation technologies.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/projections/71-uk-electricity-generation-costs-update-.pdf

One theme throughout are the great uncertainties about future costs. Their fuel price estimates for gas in 2020 range from x to 3x for example.

easychair

I notice that the UK Committee on Climate Change said nuclear would be the most cost–effective way of providing low–carbon electricity into the 2020s, and called for about 14 new plants by the end of the next decade. That would mean extending plans to build 12 reactors on seven sites by 2025.




The committee also said the "very aggressive pace" of government plans to build offshore wind turbines over the next nine years should be "moderated" because of its expense.