A warning about Renewable Energy

antoobrien

djpbarry wrote: »

How much did you pay for this turf that you cut?

That's weak - especially if you own the land you're cutting the turf on.

The same argument can be made wrt any forestry, private of public.

OssianSmyth

Non-renewable turf burning is heavily subsidised in Ireland in two ways:

Turf burning power stations are subsidised by the PSO levy on electricity bills up to about €80m/year. This is twice the subsidy paid to wind farms yet generates less electricity.

Peat briquettes and coal for domestic use are subsidised by exemption from carbon excise duties.

When comparing electricity prices across countries, it makes sense to consider taxes.

Domestic electricity costs more in Ireland than in Germany or Denmark when you look at pre-tax prices. The Germans and Danes choose to add high taxes on top of the wholesale generation costs. (See Eurostat table nrg_pc_204)

Germany is now exporting more electricity than ever before despite warning of power shortages. The Germans have invested heavily in solar and wind even though they have less wind resources than us and less sunshine than southern Europe.

Ireland's energy future is now looking bright. By 2020, as much as 80% of our electricity needs will be either domestically supplied or hedged by onshore wind. In addition we are well placed to benefit from any progress in marine energy technologies.

djpbarry

antoobrien wrote: »

That's weak - especially if you own the land you're cutting the turf on.

Not really - in order for energy to be freely available to a subset of the population, the rest of the population (not to mention future generations) have to pay extra for their energy.

antoobrien wrote: »

The same argument can be made wrt any forestry, private of public.

Not exactly - trees can be replanted.

antoobrien

djpbarry wrote: »

Not really - in order for energy to be freely available to a subset of the population, the rest of the population (not to mention future generations) have to pay extra for their energy.

Ownign land is not a subsidy - neither is owning an oil well or coal mine.

djpbarry wrote: »

Not exactly - trees can be replanted.

Actually yes exactly, there are subsidies for planting trees, I've never heard of a subsidy for cutting turf, in fact they're paying big owners in certain bogs not to cut turf (not for emissions but for biodiversity)

antoobrien

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Turf burning power stations are subsidised by the PSO levy on electricity bills up to about €80m/year.

And how does that apply to me buying ans saving 30 yards of my neighbours bog?

Answer:

it doesn't

Farmer Pudsey

Yes germany is exporting energy this is due to the fact that it has not yest closed all it nuclear power stations, however the price of there electricity is skyrocketing due to this as i understand. They are also finding an issue with storing there renewables wheather it is solar or wind.

Like I have posted earlier in this thread I see no plan in place at present to put in place an economicl power storage systen in any country. Most that are being investigted have large losses (hydro about 20%) or are not very green ( car battery solution) and even if implemented now would be 10-20 years before they are even put in place.

It is necessary that we look at all viable solutions and investigate which is the msot suitable for Ireland. The truth is that solar and wind are not steady forms of electricity generation and as we have not factored in a storage solution there true cost may never be economical.

OssianSmyth

German domestic electricity prices have risen more slowly than the European average over the past 5 yrs. See Eurostat: http://bit.ly/UGnJPU

Storage is expensive and limited. We use Turlough Hill which can store 1.8GWhr.

Instead of storage, we can balance our power and demand needs against the much larger UK grid. Interconnectors to Northern Ireland route through to Scotland and the new interconnector joins directly to Wales. Eirgrid is looking at interconnection to France, while private companies are looking at 5GW of new interconnection to the UK.

Our surplus wind power will be exported to countries struggling to meet their binding renewable commitments. Purchasing countries will have to pay refit tariffs for this power,while Ireland may choose to levy a royalty on wind generated electricity.

A broader plan by the EU is to construct an offshore grid linking all the countries around the North Sea and the Irish Sea with a subsea HVDC grid linking up offshore wind farms and multiple national grids.

http://www.offshoregrid.eu/

Farmer Pudsey

OssianSmyth wrote: »

German domestic electricity prices have risen more slowly than the European average over the past 5 yrs. See Eurostat: http://bit.ly/UGnJPU

Storage is expensive and limited. We use Turlough Hill which can store 1.8GWhr.

Instead of storage, we can balance our power and demand needs against the much larger UK grid. Interconnectors to Northern Ireland route through to Scotland and the new interconnector joins directly to Wales. Eirgrid is looking at interconnection to France, while private companies are looking at 5GW of new interconnection to the UK.

Our surplus wind power will be exported to countries struggling to meet their binding renewable commitments. Purchasing countries will have to pay refit tariffs for this power,while Ireland may choose to levy a royalty on wind generated electricity.

A broader plan by the EU is to construct an offshore grid linking all the countries around the North Sea and the Irish Sea with a subsea HVDC grid linking up offshore wind farms and multiple national grids.

http://www.offshoregrid.eu/ [/QUOTE]

This will only take some of the surplas, taking a three hour time lag and that is from Poland to Ireland this still leaves a large off peak demand, also wind is intermittant and like solar gives us large surplases or shortages as well as we having a max and min demand period's, even if we managed to level the max demand period accross Europe ( giving it a 5 hour window morning and evening) we would still be left with large time windows where wind was surplas.

robp

antoobrien wrote: »

And how does that apply to me buying ans saving 30 yards of my neighbours bog?

Answer:

it doesn't

Small scale turf cutting isn't subsided unless agricultural fuel is used but there is an environmental cost which wood fuel doesn't have. In that sense we are subsiding its environmental cost in a way.

amacca

antoobrien wrote: »

Just like the view that was "destroyed" by the 4 turbine windfarm in Indreabhan that would ruin the "visual amenity" of the area - a windfarm that can only be seen from a certain narrow corridor on the road!

There's an awful lot of hot air being talked about "visual amenitiy" - almost exclusively by non-locals who want their holiday area to remain quaint and rustic and to hell with what the people that actually live there think or want!

beg to differ - I live in an area being proposed for windfarm development and although I would initially have shared your view having seen the turbines in arigna/leitrim and their positioning etc and thought sure whats the problem?........speaking as a local I'm now firmly anti wind turbine and not entirely from a nimby viewpoint after a little extra research - a lot of things dont add up/should be very undesirable for people living in the area with those turbines

1) In order to produce the kinds of target wattage the govt/energy companies need to fill the quota, most new turbines will be bigger than the ones most people are now used to seeing around the country (very significantly bigger - they will be towering structures dominating the landscape)

2)the planning laws as they stand allow for them to be placed way too close to dwellings Imo

3)the constant whine/hum (especially when the blades are rotated facing a house) do cause more than just a minor annoyance for people...not just problems sleeping, although that imo should be enough (I value a good nights sleep) - and this hum/whine is audible and a problem from many kms away

4)the shadow flicker is unsightly - but that one is just my personal opinion I suppose

5)farmers say that livestock just do not seem to thrive as well in adjoining land - have not seen research but theres quite a lot of eyewitness/anecdotal stuff out there for it to be just mere disgruntled whining

6)even houses many kilometres away become hard to sell once they are visible as prospective buyers simply dont want to live near these things

7)local roads will be in very poor condition considering the amount of traffic they will bear during the construction period (obscene amounts of cement/ trucks carrying bases sections etc etc)

8)the things do not even appear to be that efficient when you consider what goes into them

9) the wind energy companies are playing dirty in my book - (swearing landowners to secrecy in pre contracts/labyrinthine contracts which allow for not actually putting a turbine up on your property but using your land as a buffer zone - so you get shafted by the turbines going up beside you but none of the payout) + those not participating have no way of finding out whats in the pipeline for their area ahead of planning being sought (which will seemingly be expedited as this turbine development is classified as a project of common interest) - this is one of the reasons I would be very wary of the windfarm propaganda - if they have nothing to hide why are they behaving this way

10)the uk are not building anymore inland, you have to ask yourself why, surely its not just the landed aristocracy wishing to preserve their vast country estates?

Macha

amacca wrote: »

8)the things do not even appear to be that efficient when you consider what goes into them

Considering they will produce electricity for 30+ years once the initial construction and installation is completed, I find this claim more than a little puzzling.

amacca wrote: »

10)the uk are not building anymore inland, you have to ask yourself why, surely its not just the landed aristocracy wishing to preserve their vast country estates?

Yes, that pretty much is it. Plus a Tory government in power that's ideologically opposed to wind farms. The total mess they're making of their energy policy is a direct result of differences in attitude between the Lib Dems and Tories. They're not calling it an 'energyshambles' for nothing:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/another-energy-shambles-coalition

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

Plus a Tory government in power that's ideologically opposed to wind farms.

Maybe it's because with the U.K. entering an age of austerity, they're not too enamoured with the massive subsidies required for these things when they can't even be depended on. Actually I take that back - they can be depended on to produce nothing when power is needed the most, during winter anti-cyclones.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

...they can be depended on to produce nothing when power is needed the most, during winter anti-cyclones.

Shocking revelation: wind turbines need wind to produce electricity.

robp

Macha wrote: »

Considering they will produce electricity for 30+ years once the initial construction and installation is completed, I find this claim more than a little puzzling.


Yes, that pretty much is it. Plus a Tory government in power that's ideologically opposed to wind farms. The total mess they're making of their energy policy is a direct result of differences in attitude between the Lib Dems and Tories. They're not calling it an 'energyshambles' for nothing:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/another-energy-shambles-coalition

The landed aristocracy idea is very hard to swallow. Tory resistance against windfarms is a lot more plausible based on their more conservative approach to governance.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

Maybe it's because with the U.K. entering an age of austerity, they're not too enamoured with the massive subsidies required for these things when they can't even be depended on. Actually I take that back - they can be depended on to produce nothing when power is needed the most, during winter anti-cyclones.

That's strange as they're on the cusp of offering a staggering strike price for nuclear, which far outstrips any such subsidies to renewables. They're also considering underwriting the cost of construction of nuclear plants. A bonkers idea.

Capt'n Midnight

The thorium cycle was first publicly announced in 1946
India has recently completed a new deal with Canada for more uranium and South Korea for nuclear technology (the Canadian CANDU reactors would probably be more suitable for thorium)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/india-canada-conclude-talks-to-allow-uranium-sales-harper-says.html

Car batteries are a very expensive way of storing power.
Peak usage time is just when people have driven home too...
Batteries may age prematurely if drained too fast (heat) or irreversible reactions (some technology have limited charge/discharge cycles)
Each cycle on an €8,000 battery that has a life of 1,000 cycles could cost €8.


The key to renewables is matching supply and demand.
Given that the UK are a nett importer of electricity exporting it would appear to be a better choice than trying to store the stuff.

Farmer Pudsey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The thorium cycle was first publicly announced in 1946
India has recently completed a new deal with Canada for more uranium and South Korea for nuclear technology (the Canadian CANDU reactors would probably be more suitable for thorium)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/india-canada-conclude-talks-to-allow-uranium-sales-harper-says.html

Car batteries are a very expensive way of storing power.
Peak usage time is just when people have driven home too...
Batteries may age prematurely if drained too fast (heat) or irreversible reactions (some technology have limited charge/discharge cycles)
Each cycle on an €8,000 battery that has a life of 1,000 cycles could cost €8.


The key to renewables is matching supply and demand.
Given that the UK are a nett importer of electricity exporting it would appear to be a better choice than trying to store the stuff.

I agree with you regarding battery's. The problem with exporting excess to GB is they like us want a dependable supply not just the excess when we have it

Capt'n Midnight

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I agree with you regarding battery's. The problem with exporting excess to GB is they like us want a dependable supply not just the excess when we have it

again the problem is supply/demand matching.

Real time power in Scandinavia - exports to Netherlands and Germany
http://www.statnett.no/en/The-power-system/Production-and-consumption/State-of-the-Nordic-Power-System-Map/
total hydro today 20 562 MW - that's way above any "Spirit of Ireland" proposals and over four times our record peak demand

UK are importing power from the Netherlands and France
France and Germany are swapping power too.

UK is not a separate entity, if you want pumped storage then Norway/Sweden are probably the places to do it.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Car batteries are a very expensive way of storing power.
Peak usage time is just when people have driven home too...
Batteries may age prematurely if drained too fast (heat) or irreversible reactions (some technology have limited charge/discharge cycles)
Each cycle on an €8,000 battery that has a life of 1,000 cycles could cost €8.

The car batteries have very advanced cell monitoring or what is known as a BMS, it will never allow a battery to over charge or discharge. Or charge or discharge if it becomes too hot.

Remember a car battery may have 1000 cycles at complete 100% charge and discharge cycles but could have 5000-10,000 cycles at shallower cycles, meaning your car that gets 80 miles at 100% cycles will have a 80,000 life, but you will never see 100% cycles just as you don't use all of your petrol or diesel so that 80K miles could turn to 250K Miles.

In regard to using the car battery for storage, you would have the option to allow or not the function and you would control how much would be taken from you vehicles battery and when.

If work places installed cheap 3kw chargers, that would be plenty for cars to charge during the working day for longer range commuters, and while hooked up to the grid they can charge from excess wind and drive on it during the day and use the rest if not needed at the peak period when everyone comes home for dinner.

Once the batteries are spent the ESB would buy from the garages or whomever, and this would mean your new battery is far less expensive. Remember Lithium batteries can hold a 75% renaming capacity for several years of shallow cycles.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

The car batteries have very advanced cell monitoring or what is known as a BMS, it will never allow a battery to over charge or discharge. Or charge or discharge if it becomes too hot.

Laptop batteries have had them for years and they still caught fire.

In regard to using the car battery for storage, you would have the option to allow or not the function and you would control how much would be taken from you vehicles battery and when.

Ah, I think you see the problem.

Work out the value of the electricity remaining in a car just home from rush hour it's not a lot.

Once the batteries are spent the ESB would buy from the garages or whomever, and this would mean your new battery is far less expensive. Remember Lithium batteries can hold a 75% renaming capacity for several years of shallow cycles.

again I refer you to peoples experience of laptop batteries, 75% after several years is what's promised but rarely delivered.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Laptop batteries have had them for years and they still caught fire.

I've never had a laptop battery catch fire, nor do I know of anyone it happened to, Yes it has happened but it's rare. Probably as rare as a petrol tank catching fire in a crash these days.

My old dell laptop battery after 6 years still has 75% capacity remaining.

Electric vehicles use a different and much safer chemistry than the Lithium Cobalt used in laptop batteries. And do not catch fire, it isn't possible, worst case is they would smoke a lot in the event of a severe impact. The Nissan Leaf's battery has reported to not catch fire in the event of severe collision. E'V's in general today Probably a lot less likely to catch fire over a petrol, or even a Diesel.

Lithium cobalt used in laptop batteries provides one of the highest energy densities but have a poor life compared to E.V batteries. And also provides poor power density because of their much higher internal resistance or (IR). E.V batteries today are capable of terrific acceleration and the Leaf being a good example and the Americans describe it as having the acceleration of a V6, though I can't confirm. The Renault Zoe won't have as good acceleration but that is because it's not intended to be anything other than a normal car, but it will still have far better acceleration that a typical useless European 1.0-1.4L petrol.

Also the Electronic cell protection or BMS for laptop batteries and phone batteries etc, allow the cells to charge to 100% and discharge 100% allowing maximum runtime while on battery, reducing cycle life considerably, Electric vehicle batteries do not allow this. And use a far different chemistry.

In actual fact one of the electric bicycle batteries a (LiFeP04) battery I sold to a friend still has 100% capacity of 20ah after 2.5 years and he should easily get 10 years out of it. But they don't have the energy density needed for E.V use.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ah, I think you see the problem.

Work out the value of the electricity remaining in a car just home from rush hour it's not a lot.

No I don't see a problem because if e.v's are able to use more renewable energy in the first place then that is energy well spent.

And besides think of all the cars, vans etc in Dublin alone that travel 30 miles a day or less that will still have plenty of remaining capacity after the day and can allow 5-6 kw/hrs per day into the grid.

They get charged cheaper night tariff and export it at the same price or maybe more. it would cost nothing.

Even the long distance commuter like me, if I drive to Dublin and can charge on surplus wind energy and use that to drive home, I still think that's excellent.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

again I refer you to peoples experience of laptop batteries, 75% after several years is what's promised but rarely delivered.

That's because as I said earlier, laptop batteries, mobile batteries etc are designed to give maximum run time and they are designed to last only the life of the device usually 2-3 years and they use a far different chemistry to the Leaf and much different again the Renault Zoe who will use a different chemistry again, even better than the Leaf.

The Leaf in the U.S in temperate climates of the northern states is reported to have no noticeable capacity loss after nearly 50,000 miles. On the mynissanleaf forum. I must see if I can dig it up.

bbsrs

amacca wrote: »

beg to differ - I live in an area being proposed for windfarm development and although I would initially have shared your view having seen the turbines in arigna/leitrim and their positioning etc and thought sure whats the problem?........speaking as a local I'm now firmly anti wind turbine and not entirely from a nimby viewpoint after a little extra research - a lot of things dont add up/should be very undesirable for people living in the area with those turbines

1) In order to produce the kinds of target wattage the govt/energy companies need to fill the quota, most new turbines will be bigger than the ones most people are now used to seeing around the country (very significantly bigger - they will be towering structures dominating the landscape)

2)the planning laws as they stand allow for them to be placed way too close to dwellings Imo

3)the constant whine/hum (especially when the blades are rotated facing a house) do cause more than just a minor annoyance for people...not just problems sleeping, although that imo should be enough (I value a good nights sleep) - and this hum/whine is audible and a problem from many kms away

4)the shadow flicker is unsightly - but that one is just my personal opinion I suppose

5)farmers say that livestock just do not seem to thrive as well in adjoining land - have not seen research but theres quite a lot of eyewitness/anecdotal stuff out there for it to be just mere disgruntled whining

6)even houses many kilometres away become hard to sell once they are visible as prospective buyers simply dont want to live near these things

7)local roads will be in very poor condition considering the amount of traffic they will bear during the construction period (obscene amounts of cement/ trucks carrying bases sections etc etc)

8)the things do not even appear to be that efficient when you consider what goes into them

9) the wind energy companies are playing dirty in my book - (swearing landowners to secrecy in pre contracts/labyrinthine contracts which allow for not actually putting a turbine up on your property but using your land as a buffer zone - so you get shafted by the turbines going up beside you but none of the payout) + those not participating have no way of finding out whats in the pipeline for their area ahead of planning being sought (which will seemingly be expedited as this turbine development is classified as a project of common interest) - this is one of the reasons I would be very wary of the windfarm propaganda - if they have nothing to hide why are they behaving this way

10)the uk are not building anymore inland, you have to ask yourself why, surely its not just the landed aristocracy wishing to preserve their vast country estates?

Even Denmark turned against onshore wind farms 2 years ago and they were the shining light in green energy .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

Capt'n Midnight

bbsrs wrote: »

Even Denmark turned against onshore wind farms 2 years ago and they were the shining light in green energy .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/how-wind-energy-is-transforming-denmark-into-a-modern-marvel-a-849227-2.html

The original proponents of wind power may no longer be able to raise the large amounts of capital required, and the large wind farms receive their money from international investment funds, but local communities are also investing. They contribute 20 percent of the investments made, as prescribed by law. Offshore wind farms, such as Denmark's largest off the island of Anholt in waterway between Denmark and Sweden, receive their money from retirement funds. "It's a great feeling to see the turbines spinning and know that they're securing my pension," Stiesdal says.

Offshore wind is more expensive than onshore wind.
Not exactly news.
And only really an issue if there aren't onshore sites.

Farmer Pudsey

Battery's are only a short term storage solution. That is if all car were electric and had batteries this would only solve the peak/off peak issue. The export/import of electricity will only partially the peak/off peak demand. from poland to Irealand is a three hour difference even is you allow for an hour difference peak in countries this is a four -five hour time slot by twice a day. We will still be left with 12 hours off peak of which the electricity is no use.

The bigger issue is storage for when there is no wind. This can happen during the summer when we get high pressure over the country and also in winter which is a bigger issue as during the winter this is linked to cold weather, We would probally need a 7 day reserve.

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

That's strange as they're on the cusp of offering a staggering strike price for nuclear, which far outstrips any such subsidies to renewables. They're also considering underwriting the cost of construction of nuclear plants. A bonkers idea.

I would be very surprised if the U.K. both subsidised the construction and guaranteed a high feed in tarriff for nuclear plants.

But even if they were, it would be no less bonkers than this idea that we're all going to be burned to a crisp if we don't:

• Tax and regulate the hell out of motorists
• Regulate our businesses into the ground and impose high energy costs on them.
• Send whats left of our industrial base off to the Far East.
• Subsidise unreliable 'renewables' to the teeth.
• Ban lightbulbs ... etc.

What's even more bonkers than any of that is that all citizens of the E.U. have handed down to them from on-high in Brussels, a demand that every country use 20% renewable power by 2020.


Yet to do even a part of that, the U.K. would have to wallpaper an are the size of Wales with wind turbines.

What's even more "bonkers" is that despite Greece being not far from collapsing as a democratic state, with its economy in tatters, its government broke and Golden Dawn running around unchecked, the Eurocrats have still found time to give the Greeks hassle over not transposing the Renewables Directive into their law.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Yet to do even a part of that, the U.K. would have to wallpaper an are the size of Wales with wind turbines.

The UK are a net importer of power so they don't need to build windmills in Wales.

300MW tidal plant ear marked for Northern Ireland

Offshore wind is expensive , but if the costs can be reduced then the Dogger bank is huge.

Severn Barrage and other schemes on West coast could also provide large amounts of power.

Lots of renewables from ourselves and Norway.

At present wind is the most attractive renewable. ( Most of the low hanging hydro was harnessed yonks ago ) At some point there will be diminishing returns at which stage storage / interconnectivity / other renewables to complement wind will become more attractive.

Roll the clock back a few hundred years and there were thousands of windmills across Holland / North Germany

cast_iron

Deleted User wrote: »

If work places installed cheap 3kw chargers, that would be plenty for cars to charge during the working day for longer range commuters, and while hooked up to the grid they can charge from excess wind and drive on it during the day and use the rest if not needed at the peak period when everyone comes home for dinner.

What defines excess wind? So will these chargers only work when excess wind is blowing? How can this "excess power" be used for charging car batteries only?

OssianSmyth

SeanW wrote: »

...all citizens of the E.U. have handed down to them from on-high in Brussels, a demand that every country use 20% renewable power by 2020...

The European parliament that approved the renewables directive, is directly elected by the citizens. The target is for 20% overall in the EU but individual countries have targets ranging from 10% to 49%. Ireland's target is 16%.

Yet to do even a part of that, the U.K. would have to wallpaper an are the size of Wales with wind turbines.

Onshore wind is limited in the UK by available land compared to population. Instead they will switch to offshore wind, solar water, biogas, biomass, biofuel and electric cars, geothermal, wave and tidal. The renewables directive also permits the UK to meet its binding targets by importing renewable energy from another state in surplus (that's us).

Here's the predicted breakdown for renewable energy in the UK in 2020
Energy source |TWH
Onshore wind |24-32
Offshore wind |33-58
Biomass electricity |32-50
Marine |1
Biomass heat (non-domestic) |36-50
Air-source and Ground-source heat pumps (nondomestic) |16-22
Renewable transport |48
Others (including hydro, geothermal, solar and domestic heat) |14
Estimated 15% target |234

Source: DECC

Farmer Pudsey

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Battery's are only a short term storage solution. That is if all car were electric and had batteries this would only solve the peak/off peak issue. The export/import of electricity will only partially the peak/off peak demand. from poland to Irealand is a three hour difference even is you allow for an hour difference peak in countries this is a four -five hour time slot by twice a day. We will still be left with 12 hours off peak of which the electricity is no use.

The bigger issue is storage for when there is no wind. This can happen during the summer when we get high pressure over the country and also in winter which is a bigger issue as during the winter this is linked to cold weather, We would probally need a 7 day reserve.

Well of course Batteries won't solve all of the problems but the more cars can drive around on wind energy the better, personally I'd rather not have wind turbines installed at all, but obviously the green minded people think that C02 is the greatest threat to mankind and as long as the powers that be continue to believe it, then the Green madness will never end and the greedy investors in wind energy will continue to benefit on your tax money!

This is why you shouldn't have all your eggs in one basket, and that very point of high pressure systems usually bring lots of sunshine and the few cold winters we had people realised that a hybrid system of wind and solar was the best solution.

A 5kw/P solar system even in Ireland in winter can provide a significant amount of our energy needs, switch to an E.V and most if not all your transport needs can be met through solar, and before people say winter in Ireland and solar is useless, this isn't so and a lot of kw/hrs can still be produced and this would be balanced out over the very long summer daylight hours.

unfortunately the governments don't see transport and home heating as part of out total energy needs which if calculated would probably add up to being much more than our electricity needs. Bringing me back to the point that everything can be done through electricity, using L.F.T.R or most things. Heating and maybe HGV use through hydrogen which needs lots of electricity to make.

I'm sure the airlines, hauliers etc would give anything for a much cheaper source of fuel, not to mention me for my weekly commute, which can be done through electricity.

It's mad to think that the world is going crazy drilling in ever more risky places for oil and gas when the solution is staring us in the face. Crazy world!

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

What defines excess wind? So will these chargers only work when excess wind is blowing? How can this "excess power" be used for charging car batteries only?

Wind turbines that would otherwise be turned off when not needed can be left on to charge all those e.v batteries, that's what is called excess, when supply exceeds demand.

You can in theory in the future if the e.s.b get the smart grid running charge your car on cheap night electricity and sell it during the day, or charge from your own renewable energy source for free and sell it to them whenever you want as much as you want.

You can sell electricity to the grid already with your renewable system.

cast_iron

Deleted User wrote: »

Wind turbines that would otherwise be turned off when not needed can be left on to charge all those e.v batteries, that's what is called excess, when supply exceeds demand.

Eirgrid won't allow any more than 50% of demand come from wind currently, simply because any more than that could lead to unexpected problems that they don't fully understand. We will never get to a stage where we are generating more electricity from wind than there is demand on the entire system. It is simply uneconomical.

You can in theory in the future if the e.s.b get the smart grid running charge your car on cheap night electricity and sell it during the day, or charge from your own renewable energy source for free and sell it to them whenever you want as much as you want.

No issues there really. But earlier, it was suggested that companies setup up charge points to be running during the day while people are at work. The suggestion implied that more power would be needed earlier in the day to charge the batteries which could be released later in the day. Unless the battery efficiency was very high, it would seem to be a bit of a waste to have those chargers running during the day at normal rates just to help peak demand for an hour or so in the evening.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

No issues there really. But earlier, it was suggested that companies setup up charge points to be running during the day while people are at work. The suggestion implied that more power would be needed earlier in the day to charge the batteries which could be released later in the day. Unless the battery efficiency was very high, it would seem to be a bit of a waste to have those chargers running during the day at normal rates just to help peak demand for an hour or so in the evening.

Swings and roundabouts, sure charging batteries can't be 100% efficient, I think it's far better to use the renewable energy when there to charge electric cars, vans etc than to just have the turbines turned off, and even if you can't have the charge left to send to the grid when you get home driving on the wind energy is hardly a bad idea if the turbines are there anyway.

Most city or short distance commuters can still send to the grid when they get home as they would still have plenty of kw/hrs and the car will still be fully charged in the morning, (though I don't condone unnecessarily charging to 100% any e.v, the 100% that you see it as being anyway )

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.plugincars.com/replacing-ev-batteries-your-costs-will-vary-122261.html

Nissan just opined that its LEAF battery pack will have 80 percent charge left after five years, and 70 percent after 10 years. That’s fine, but when does the pack become a boat anchor? To be fair, these packs will probably never get thrown unceremoniously into a landfill. The lithium in them can be reused, and as John O’Dell writes at Edmunds.com, EV batteries are 70 to 100 percent recyclable, and companies such as Umicore and Toxco are already gearing up to handle the recovery of their valuable metals. The catch is that lithium isn’t very valuable now, about $30 per pound, but that should change as volumes increase and demand for it grows.

Nissan Leaf has a 24Kwh battery

http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx - real electricity prices.
Peak price for a unit was 15c (base price is about 5c)

So a full discharge would represent €3.60 worth of electricity.
You won't get a full discharge because , the battery isn't full after the drive home and a full discharge shortens battery life.

So perhaps we are talking about €1.50 worth of electricity tops.
And that is at today's prices , as more interconnectors come on line and more cars compete for storage I wouldn't expect this to go up much.


What would make more economic sense is to steal electricity at work and run your house off it when you get home and save on the standing charge.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.plugincars.com/replacing-ev-batteries-your-costs-will-vary-122261.html

Nissan Leaf has a 24Kwh battery

http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx - real electricity prices.
Peak price for a unit was 15c (base price is about 5c)

So a full discharge would represent €3.60 worth of electricity.
You won't get a full discharge because , the battery isn't full after the drive home and a full discharge shortens battery life.

So perhaps we are talking about €1.50 worth of electricity tops.
And that is at today's prices , as more interconnectors come on line and more cars compete for storage I wouldn't expect this to go up much.


What would make more economic sense is to steal electricity at work and run your house off it when you get home and save on the standing charge.

The Leaf uses around 20 kw/hrs of electricity, so in theory you are not 100% charging or discharging to get many more cycles.

And you charge on night electricity so 0.08 CENT x 20kw/hrs = 1.60 per charge.

But indeed you could steal leccy at work and send it to the grid, but work places won't install them without E.U directive.

cast_iron

Deleted User wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts, sure charging batteries can't be 100% efficient, I think it's far better to use the renewable energy when there to charge electric cars, vans etc than to just have the turbines turned off, and even if you can't have the charge left to send to the grid when you get home driving on the wind energy is hardly a bad idea if the turbines are there anyway.

For a start, "excess wind" doesn't occur as often as we might like.
Secondly, wind is not a cheap energy source, with off shore being considerably more expensive. So building loads of them might seem like a great idea, but in fact they add to electricity price. Look at the Danes, they have the most advanced wind generation setup in Europe, yet have the dearest electricity.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

For a start, "excess wind" doesn't occur as often as we might like.
Secondly, wind is not a cheap energy source, with off shore being considerably more expensive. So building loads of them might seem like a great idea, but in fact they add to electricity price. Look at the Danes, they have the most advanced wind generation setup in Europe, yet have the dearest electricity.

What have we been saying all along ? did you read the beginning of the thread ?

I agree but as long as wind turbines are they are there we should use them as efficiently as we can, Unfortunately the Green agenda isn't going to change for decades to come.

Farmer Pudsey

Every body forgets that the real off peak is from 10pm to about 8am. This is where storage is reall required to equalise the day long demand. Just moving some evening peak demand to day time is not adequate rather it is the equalisation over 24 hour period that is required. This is why wind derived energy is useless with out storage. Solar is equally an issue as it also requires storage and mass generation during the summer si not usable during the winter.
Eonomic costs of build for generation is not sustainable unless there is a storage system Such a system would require about a months storage for wind (there is a theory that seven days is allthat is required however I do not believe that with renewables that is adequate).

In reality the only feasible storage is a pumped hydro plant. If it was to store 1 months supply. I think that we use about 25 terra watts/day of which about 10% is wind at present. If we move to 25% wind/solar e will be using 7.5 terra watts/day and to make it effective we will need about 200 terra watts storage . Even 7 days storage will require 50 terra watts storage.

Capt'n Midnight

cast_iron wrote: »

Look at the Danes, they have the most advanced wind generation setup in Europe, yet have the dearest electricity.

Oh look at the Danes, they invented VRT on cars.

Price isn't what matters, cost of generation does.

Capt'n Midnight

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In reality the only feasible storage is a pumped hydro plant. If it was to store 1 months supply. I think that we use about 25 terra watts/day of which about 10% is wind at present. If we move to 25% wind/solar e will be using 7.5 terra watts/day and to make it effective we will need about 200 terra watts storage . Even 7 days storage will require 50 terra watts storage.

yawn

have a look at the link I posted about Scandinavia. Europe already has a lot of hydro and it's getting more interconnected all the time.

We don't need terra watts of storage, we need megawatts of interconnectors.

Farmer Pudsey

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

yawn

have a look at the link I posted about Scandinavia. Europe already has a lot of hydro and it's getting more interconnected all the time.

We don't need terra watts of storage, we need megawatts of interconnectors.

Interconnectors are not the solution....yawn.....just like wind energy....yawn.....

If you have high pressure over Ireland it is over most of Western Europe, no wind....yawn.............

Hydro systems in Scandinavia is the same as gas from Russia, maybe a bit more secure at present. In Scandnavia they have a total of 600 terra watt hydro storage I think this is equivlent to 3 months for Ireland and 9-10 days for great Britian.

The more i look at it the more I think that in reality the only feasible solution is a small nuclear plant on the East coast so that if there is anything that goes wrong the prevailing westerly winds will send the problems to Britian....:eek:

cast_iron

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Price isn't what matters, cost of generation does.

Perhaps. But my point was that where you find high amounts of renewable energy, it tends to coincide with high end user prices. Those subsidies have to be paid for somehow.

cast_iron

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The more i look at it the more I think that in reality the only feasible solution is a small nuclear plant on the East coast so that if there is anything that goes wrong the prevailing westerly winds will send the problems to Britian....:eek:

I don't see how that's feasible at all. Quite simply, our grid would struggle to take a 1Gw plant. It would be a base load that would constitute up 25-50% of our needs at different times. We are quite simply too small an market for a nuclear plant.

The reserve required for it would effectively more than double the price. And nuclear is the most expensive form of generation per kwh - even without the reserve.

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote: »

I don't see how that's feasible at all. Quite simply, our grid would struggle to take a 1Gw plant. It would be a base load that would constitute up 25-50% of our needs at different times. We are quite simply too small an market for a nuclear plant.

The reserve required for it would effectively more than double the price. And nuclear is the most expensive form of generation per kwh - even without the reserve.

That's why we need Thorium in L.F.T.R as you can design them as small as 1MW. Can even put them under ground. You don't need 1GW size, though replacing moneypoint would be a good idea!

OssianSmyth

cast_iron wrote: »

Look at the Danes, they have the most advanced wind generation setup in Europe, yet have the dearest electricity.

Danish electricity for domestic customers before taxes is cheaper than the European average at 13.14c/KWh. The Danes then choose to add huge consumption taxes on electricity use. This money goes to the central exchequer and is not a subsidy for wind power.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's why we need Thorium in L.F.T.R as you can design them as small as 1MW. Can even put them under ground. You don't need 1GW size, though replacing moneypoint would be a good idea!

Thorium LFTR is an experimental technology and has been since the 60s. It may work in future but it doesn't yet.

If you have high pressure over Ireland it is over most of Western Europe, no wind

The correlation between wind speeds at different locations decreases with increasing distance between the sites. This is measured in many papers such as http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf

Beyond 1,000km, correlation between sites is just 0.1

OssianSmyth

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Thorium LFTR is an experimental technology and has been since the 60s. It may work in future but it doesn't yet.

Ye don't say ? were you reading this thread from the start ?

By the way it worked in the U.S in the past, so I really wonder how experimental it actually is ?

Probably as experimental as they want us to believe it is !

Capt'n Midnight

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The more i look at it the more I think that in reality the only feasible solution is a small nuclear plant on the East coast so that if there is anything that goes wrong the prevailing westerly winds will send the problems to Britian....:eek:

Remember Chernobyl ?

That put paid to the myth of prevailing wind for anyone who wasn't living under a rock.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

That's why we need Thorium in L.F.T.R as you can design them as small as 1MW. Can even put them under ground. You don't need 1GW size, though replacing moneypoint would be a good idea!

LOL

Nuclear reactors are simple. You just put enough fissile material in one place and it'll soon be hot enough to boil water.

Doing it economically is the trick.

There is a reason most generation III reactors are ~ 1.5GW

You could put a reactor underground and bury it in situ. No one has done it so it mustn't be economic.

If you don't care about economics then geothermal is yer only man. No problems with radiation or uptime or looking for increasingly rare ores.

Tea drinker

murphaph wrote: »

Hmmm, think that horse has long since bolted with the Bungalow Blitz of the 70's and the McMansion fever of the naughties tbh. We've already destroyed most of our pristine views already.

Well we had 9 million living here before, the country was littered with houses, granted substantially smaller than todays.
One approach to this is no more construction without renewable sources built in, that would reduce the cost compared to retrofitting it, also economies of scale could have a positive effect. It's good that the Germans are building one of the largest solar farms in the world in North Africa, at least they get something for their 25% extra, compared to what paddy pants gets.

OssianSmyth

Tea drinker wrote: »

One approach to this is no more construction without renewable sources built in, that would reduce the cost compared to retrofitting it

It is already law that all new dwellings must have a minimum provision of renewable energy technology and must be reasonably well insulated. See Part L of the building regulations. http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad,27316,en.pdf

Unfortunately these rules did not apply during the building boom as successive environment ministers considered that they would be a burden for the building industry.

Capt'n Midnight

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Unfortunately these rules did not apply during the building boom as successive environment ministers considered that they would be a burden for the building industry.

What burden ?

It was only the most profitable time to sell houses. People were buying houses off the plans.

The only thing it might have affected was the obscene levels of profit some people were making from churning out sub-standard buildings