Wind farms - ugly truths

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

Subsidy junkies? Are we pretending that wind receives substantially more subsidies than other forms of electricity generation?

what other subsidies ?

I dont want opinions, I want EU State Aid numbers.

Many thanks in advance

Fabo

Grudaire wrote: »

I would agree that there are many things that need to be carefully managed when it comes to electricity supply..

The article linked however does not fit into a 'based on data' argument..

All the data is not provided. In fact the authorities are doing their best not to provide the data. The other side have access to all the data and choose to use whatever parts thats fits in with their goal of robbing people

So again, all this is bull

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It depends.

But you also have to factor in the costs associated with the climate stuff we've signed up to.



One thing that should be allowed perhaps is that CCGT should be allowed to open open cycle as required.

.

Sorry, but the climate stuff is full of contradictions exactly like the one here above.

My blood pressure goes up everytime I visit this place

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

what other subsidies ?

I dont want opinions, I want EU State Aid numbers.

Many thanks in advance

The European Commission recently commissioned (ahem) a report on this. I can't tell you how much political wrangling went into it but the nuclear figures are a joke (ie the state-subsidised liability is so low it's considered negligible??):

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/studies/doc/20141013_subsidies_costs_eu_energy.pdf

Also, the report leaves out the entire transport sector and the presentation is a master-class in cherry picking but overall, the conclusion is that fossil fuels receive slightly more subsidies than renewables across Europe.

Grudaire

Fabo wrote: »

All the data is not provided. In fact the authorities are doing their best not to provide the data. The other side have access to all the data and choose to use whatever parts thats fits in with their goal of robbing people

So again, all this is bull

The official reports don't agree with your opinion... so they must be wrong?

Surely that argument belongs in the conspiracy theory forum!

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

The European Commission recently commissioned (ahem) a report on this. I can't tell you how much political wrangling went into it but the nuclear figures are a joke (ie the state-subsidised liability is so low it's considered negligible??):

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/studies/doc/20141013_subsidies_costs_eu_energy.pdf

Also, the report leaves out the entire transport sector and the presentation is a master-class in cherry picking but overall, the conclusion is that fossil fuels receive slightly more subsidies than renewable across Europe.

Thanks - chart on page X seems to be the summary - interesting to see the variation in prices between technically feasible loads and realized loads - basically plant not being run flat out is more expensive (and there for probably more inefficient)

Any one know where there is a C02/GW table - and if there is anywhere a chart which shows C02 (including embedded C02) / GW table. i.e. there are many arguments around the amount of C02 which goes into deploying a wind turbine (cables, steel, magnets, concrete etc etc) but I have seen no hard maths as to what this is exactly.

Fabo

Grudaire wrote: »

The official reports don't agree with your opinion... so they must be wrong?

Surely that argument belongs in the conspiracy theory forum!

yes the official reports that said there would be a soft landing in 2007, so yes of course must not question official reports.

you got me there buddy

that patrick nyberg was some ejit

Fabo

Imported fuel dependency went up according to SEAI today

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Interesting blog on why wind is INCREASING C02 in certain circumstances

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/11/dublin-electricity-generation-analysis_27.html

This one is from people selling Diesel
http://www.wartsila.com/en/power-plants/learning-center/overview/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-part-load-efficiency


Diesel vs open cycle gas vs gas with waste heat used for steam turbine

Unlike gas turbines, Wärtsilä engine power plants have near full range capability of emissions-compliant turndown. As load is decreased, individual engines within the generating set are shut down to reduce output. The engines that remain operating can generate at full load, retaining high efficiency of the generating set. Flexicycle power plant efficiency is above 48 percent all the way down to 23 percent of full load (69 MW). Beyond the minimum load for the Flexicycle steam turbine, the engines will operate in simple cycle mode. Thus, the output of a 300 MW Flexicycle plant can be turned down to only 18 MW. As a result, Flexicycle power plants provide a much wider range of output flexibility than gas turbines without the constraints of turndown limitations or efficiency impacts.

Just in case anyone is confused. When we have wind supplying 50% of the power on the grid it means that gas turbines may run less efficiently, it depends on how many are on and their rating of course, the efficiency drop is completely overshadowed by the energy from wind.

fclauson

Does this bit of marketing blurb seems to position that their gen sets really do scale up and down - and I assume being diesel they will take a very short time to come on line
I knew of one at a data center which was on line with in 45 seconds of the go command

Also I note that at sub 50% it seems to allude to the destruction of a gas turbine engine due to emissions - not sure what they mean.

djpbarry

Fabo wrote: »

what other subsidies ?

You’re kidding, right? Subsidies for renewable power, globally, are dwarfed by fossil fuel subsidies:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re kidding, right? Subsidies for renewable power, globally, are dwarfed by fossil fuel subsidies:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377

Give me the EU State Aid number , not a left wing green BBC article.

I repeat, A State Aid Number

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This one is from people selling Diesel
http://www.wartsila.com/en/power-plants/learning-center/overview/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-part-load-efficiency


Diesel vs open cycle gas vs gas with waste heat used for steam turbine




Just in case anyone is confused. When we have wind supplying 50% of the power on the grid it means that gas turbines may run less efficiently, it depends on how many are on and their rating of course, the efficiency drop is completely overshadowed by the energy from wind.

irrelevant to poolbeg which is the subject of that blog

Grudaire

Fabo wrote: »

Give me the EU State Aid number , not a left wing green BBC article.

I repeat, A State Aid Number

The figures provided don't agree with me, so I demand different figures... Really this argument again?

I did a quick Google, and this article seems to say that there may be forces trying to hide said figures...
http://www.euractiv.com/energy/oettinger-scared-fossil-fuel-sub-analysis-531291

Fabo

Grudaire wrote: »

The figures provided don't agree with me, so I demand different figures... Really this argument again?

I did a quick Google, and this article seems to say that there may be forces trying to hide said figures...
http://www.euractiv.com/energy/oettinger-scared-fossil-fuel-sub-analysis-531291

there are subsidies that all generators get e.g. tax reliefs, grants etc but wind is the only one that gets a guaranteed price + 15% kicker. Everyone else gets the market rate.

If coal got this, then it would have to be signed off by EU State Aid Dept otherwise would breach competition laws. So maybe I am unaware of one for fossil fuel, if so, please enlighten me.

This is not a request for "different figures" . This is how it works. EU have to sign off on it. The govt had to await EU clearance for the last REFIT introduced.

So there is a paper trail and a final EU State Aid Number.

We can all live in fairy land and invent evil enemies to suit our opinions but it doesnt advance things. Dont blame me for how the system works and that
it is different to your view of reality.

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

Give me the EU State Aid number , not a left wing green BBC article.

I repeat, A State Aid Number

If your spent less time dismissing other people's attempts to answer your question and more time reading the links provided, you might learn something.

The BBC is most definitely not left wing and green. They've just decided to leave the UK Green Party out of leaders debates in the run up to the UK General election next year.

I'll say it again, go and read the sources of links already provided. The BBC article is reporting an International Energy Agency study. You didn't even bother responding to the one I posted. And by the way, EU state aid numbers aren't everything. There are thresholds under which member states only have to notify DG COMP of the scheme and concrete numbers don't exist.

djpbarry

Fabo wrote: »

Give me the EU State Aid number , not a left wing green BBC article.

You asked for figures and they’ve been provided.

How about you produce something to show that wind (or renewables in general) receive vastly more subsidies than other forms of electricity generation.

Fabo wrote: »

there are subsidies that all generators get e.g. tax reliefs, grants etc but wind is the only one that gets a guaranteed price + 15% kicker. Everyone else gets the market rate.

What difference does it make whether a subsidy takes the form of a physical grant, a tax break or a guaranteed price per kWh? At the end of the day, they’re all subsidies. Now, you’re trying to claim that wind receives vastly more subsidies than other generators – it’s up to you to provide some figures to back up that claim.

Oh and by the way, the new nuclear plant at Hinckley Point here in the UK will receive a guaranteed price per kWh when it begins generating.

ted1

Fabo wrote: »

Imported fuel dependency went up according to SEAI today

Considering we are pulling in 400+MW for half the day on the EWIC are you surprised. It has also reduced the wholesale price by quite a bit

Old diesel

ted1 wrote: »

Considering we are pulling in 400+MW for half the day on the EWIC are you surprised. It has also reduced the wholesale price by quite a bit

The point I think Fabo may have being making is that youd expect wind to REDUCE the need to import fuel.

So its reasonable to wonder why we are increasing imports of fuel if we are adding more renewables to the system.

Im not saying wind is causing this - but its a valid point I think

Old diesel

ted1 wrote: »

Considering we are pulling in 400+MW for half the day on the EWIC are you surprised. It has also reduced the wholesale price by quite a bit

The point I think Fabo may have being making is that youd expect wind to REDUCE the need to import fuel.

So its reasonable to wonder why we are increasing imports of fuel if we are adding more renewables to the system.

Im not saying wind is causing this - but its a valid point I think

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh and by the way, the new nuclear plant at Hinckley Point here in the UK will receive a guaranteed price per kWh when it begins generating.

and that price is twice the market rate , index linked for ages

and it'll only provide baseload power because nukes have to be keep running most of the time at high power for technical reason and to break even on their huge construction costs

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

The point I think Fabo may have being making is that youd expect wind to REDUCE the need to import fuel.

So its reasonable to wonder why we are increasing imports of fuel if we are adding more renewables to the system.

Im not saying wind is causing this - but its a valid point I think

I havn't seen the figure, might it be a percentage or an actual figure. Remember 40% of fuel is used for transport

Capt'n Midnight

http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/

30% of power came from renewables this week , 20% this month

you can compare CO2 emissions vs. wind easily

Old diesel

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/

30% of power came from renewables this week , 20% this month

you can compare CO2 emissions vs. wind easily

And to be fair the dashboard figures do seem to show a reduction in C02 intensity per kwh when wind is on the system

From memory it was at 570/600 at around 200 MW of wind on the system.

And around 363 with 2,000 MW of wind production

I may be wrong with those as im working off memory

Capt'n Midnight

ted1 wrote: »

I havn't seen the figure, might it be a percentage or an actual figure. Remember 40% of fuel is used for transport

Lets not forget the fuel used for heating and for raw materials. Also there are the grey exports of vehicle fuel to the North due to excise differences and people on the border buying it on the best side.

Climate also matters. It's a lot warmer than some recent winters.

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

And to be fair the dashboard figures do seem to show a reduction in C02 intensity per kwh when wind is on the system

From memory it was at 570/600 at around 200 MW of wind on the system.

And around 363 with 2,000 MW of wind production

I may be wrong with those as im working off memory

There was a fair bit of curtailment during the week. The SNSP was hovering around 48% most of the week with wind output close to Max capacity. The peat plants were running. These are really the only stations that use domestic fuels.

I'm always amazed to see how much the price increase during peak hours. If we could sort that out price would drop big time

Birdnuts

ted1 wrote: »

There was a fair bit of curtailment during the week. The SNSP was hovering around 48% most of the week with wind output close to Max capacity. The peat plants were running. These are really the only stations that use domestic fuels.

I'm always amazed to see how much the price increase during peak hours. If we could sort that out price would drop big time

Since the governments brain fart on wind energy and general interference in the energy market in the last 15 years we have seen the retail cost of power in this country go from less than the EU average to the 4th most expensive. We now have an installed energy system that is double peak demand. And given the plans of Eirgrid,SEAI etc and the rest of the wind cheerleaders, this situation will continue to deteriate into the future.

Macha

Old diesel wrote: »

The point I think Fabo may have being making is that youd expect wind to REDUCE the need to import fuel.

So its reasonable to wonder why we are increasing imports of fuel if we are adding more renewables to the system.

Im not saying wind is causing this - but its a valid point I think

Renewables aren't the only factor. If domestic production of another fuel goes down or overall demand goes up, our import dependency will go up. You may not be blaming it on wind but I'll be waiting for someone else to shortly.

The SEAI report explains some related trends:

The decline of indigenous natural gas reserves at Kinsale is also indicated by the growth in imported natural gas in the latter part of the decade. Coal imports have remained stable over the period, reflecting the base load operation
of Moneypoint electricity generating plant. In 2013, oil, gas and coal accounted for 55%, 30% and 12% of net imports respectively.

Other contributions to the increased import dependency in 2013 were:

• Coal imports were up 11% to 1,485 ktoe
• Oil imports were up 4.1% to 6,761 ktoe
• Renewables imports were up 44% to 114 ktoe
• Electricity imports were up 413% to 182 ktoe.
Countering this was a 3.4% fall in natural gas imports to 3,717 ktoe.

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Since the governments brain fart on wind energy and general interference in the energy market in the last 15 years we have seen the retail cost of power in this country go from less than the EU average to the 4th most expensive. We now have an installed energy system that is double peak demand. And given the plans of Eirgrid,SEAI etc and the rest of the wind cheerleaders, this situation will continue to deteriate into the future.

Are you taking about costs or prices? You seem to be mixing then up.

By the way, funny line on government interference in market in the last 15 years. You might want to look up the history of EU energy market liberalisation, which started more or less 15 years ago.

fclauson

Did you note in the SEAI report that all power delivered via the interconnector comes CO2 free

http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland/Energy-in-Ireland-1990-2013-report.pdf

page 24

Imported electricity is also considered zero carbon from Ireland’s perspective under the Kyoto Protocol as emissions are counted in the jurisdiction in which they are emitted. This resulted in the carbon intensity of electricity dropping by 48% from 896 g CO2/kWh in 1990 to a new low of 469 g CO2/kWh in 2013

and do you notice that the IWIC http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/interconnection
runs at typical 200 to 500Mw import -

so that's 15% to 25% of Irelands average demand (2000->4000Mw) coming CO2 free by magic.

What's funny - is that some of this will be CO2 free as its from Nuclear (which typically cannot be ramped) but some of it will be from coal stations which hate to ramp

Although they are technically reporting the numbers correctly its this blurring of the detail which undermines the value of a report such as this.

Mountainsandh

Apologies if this has been posted previously as it's from 14/10/14, but I am discovering a report today from the Irish Academy of Engineering that I thought I would share here. I think it is relevant, and I will quote some snippets from the summary. (full report available on their website).

I think I have seen mentioned bias within this group before, but all I can see are members' previous occupations and not really anything current that could imbalance their views, please correct me if you think they have a current interest in producing a biased report.


Implications of continuing with existing Energy Policies
http://www.iae.ie/publications/publication/iae-bulletin-no-4-implications-of-continuing-with/

Continuing with the existing policy and related conditions is likely to have adverse economic
consequences.
Commitments entered into in 2007 relating to the amount of renewable generation on the
Republic’s electricity system are driving current policy. This could lead to the addition over the next
decade of more than 3,000MW of Windpower onto a system that has already excess capacity.

This approach is not economically viable in view of the following:-
...
o There is no demand or supply security requirement for new power plants over the next
decade.
o Irish energy prices are already high compared to the EU average.
o The 2007 targets reflected the apparent buoyancy of the economy at that time and are not
relevant in the present economic situation.
o Windpower and Solar are currently expensive forms of energy due to high capital costs and
intermittency. In particular it is an expensive way of avoiding CO2 emissions, costing in
excess of €75/tonne of CO2, as against a current market price of under €7.
o Existing windpower plants and new units under construction with other forms of renewables
are adequate to comply with the 2020 EU requirements for renewable energy in the
Republic (recent Academy reports contain proposals).

...
Making a fundamental change in Irish energy policy reflecting current
economic circumstances is a major issue.

Macha

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted previously as it's from 14/10/14, but I am discovering a report today from the Irish Academy of Engineering that I thought I would share here. I think it is relevant, and I will quote some snippets from the summary. (full report available on their website).

I think I have seen mentioned bias within this group before, but all I can see are members' previous occupations and not really anything current that could imbalance their views, please correct me if you think they have a current interest in producing a biased report.


Implications of continuing with existing Energy Policies
http://www.iae.ie/publications/publication/iae-bulletin-no-4-implications-of-continuing-with/

Look up who they are versus Irish Engineers

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

Look up who they are versus Irish Engineers

???

Capt'n Midnight

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted previously as it's from 14/10/14, but I am discovering a report today from the Irish Academy of Engineering that I thought I would share here. I think it is relevant, and I will quote some snippets from the summary.

Republic’s electricity system are driving current policy. This could lead to the addition over the next
decade of more than 3,000MW of Windpower onto a system that has already excess capacity.

Capacity is not the issue.

emissions and fuel cost are, otherwise we'd just use oil for the turbines and coal for the steam plant

a lot of the recently installed capacity has been commercial gas and it was never a secret that ESB/Airtricity etc were looking towards wind/interconnectors

the question is not why did we keep adding wind, it's knowing that wind was coming why did investors invest in gas too

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the question is not why did we keep adding wind, it's knowing that wind was coming why did investors invest in gas too

And how do you propose we power the country during extended periods of light winds?? - it was Eamonn Ryans brain fart that has led us up this dead end path of wind energy at any cost. We will allways need gas power stations as it is a reliable low CO2 energy source. The NCC are the latest body to question the states increasingly nonsensical energy policies

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/cantillon-ncc-becomes-a-force-in-wind-energy-debate-1.2024792

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

a lot of the recently installed capacity has been commercial gas and it was never a secret that ESB/Airtricity etc were looking towards wind/interconnectors

The ESB in their recent submission to the Dept of Energy Green paper have called for an end to supports for the likes of wind as there is more than enough on the system already.

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/irish-renewable-sector-questioned-by-esb-167903/

Mountainsandh

Macha wrote: »

Look up who they are versus Irish Engineers

It's a very cryptic reply.
It seems they are all highly qualified with a lot of experience ?






CM as they state the currently happening and established renewables as of October 2014 are meeting requirements for 2020.
Why over inflate capacity then, with all the financial, environmental, and societal costs associated ?

They do mention improving security re gas supply in another report. Their suggestions relate to establishing a stock to the amount of 20% of yearly gas needs iirr.

There are a number of other suggestions, such as district heating, etc...

Alternatives to more wind turbines. Fancy that ...
It's simple really, and still time to change policy. They're recommending it, and also mention a recent review by EU commissioner with similar warnings. Must find out more about that.

Macha

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's a very cryptic reply.
It seems they are all highly qualified with a lot of experience ?






CM as they state the currently happening and established renewables as of October 2014 are meeting requirements for 2020.
Why over inflate capacity then, with all the financial, environmental, and societal costs associated ?

They do mention improving security re gas supply in another report. Their suggestions relate to establishing a stock to the amount of 20% of yearly gas needs iirr.

There are a number of other suggestions, such as district heating, etc...

Alternatives to more wind turbines. Fancy that ...
It's simple really, and still time to change policy. They're recommending it, and also mention a recent review by EU commissioner with similar warnings. Must find out more about that.

No there is a big difference. Engineers Ireland has 24,000 members and represents the engineering profession in Ireland. All of its members have to engage in CPD to maintain membership and of course be working out available to work as an engineer.

The Irish Academy of Engineering has 145 members, most of whom are retired. They are the old guard. If you look up the two bodies' views on energy policy, they are quite different and the nature of the two organisations helps explain why.

I have no idea who is saying we have enough renewables to meet our 2020 target or on what basis because it's total nonsense. We are one of the countries considered at risk of not meeting our target.

Mountainsandh

That's more informative, thanks.
I'm trying to find clear estimates in the EU commissioner's reports here http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/events/2014_energy_efficiency_communication_en.htm

It's time consuming, and there are very few country specific estimates, but it's interesting enough.


What is very obvious is the contrast in policies and EU recommendations to what Ireland has been "doing" (as in : action) so far to achieve targets.

The EU commissioner makes it clear that a wide ranging set of measures will achieve targets (or close : within 1 or 2% estimate). Every report that I read has lengthy sections that I find myself scrolling through, simply because here in Ireland, as this thread illustrates, the overwhelming emphasis is on wind energy sorting out all problems.

This annex illustrates other measures taken by EU countries and their impact, it is a little glimpse that for once is nominal : http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/events/doc/2014_eec_ia_adopted_part3.pdf

Meeting the targets does not and should not, as advised by EU commissioner, rely on one aspect of energy production. It is a mistake.
The old engineers did not pick district heating, and other alternative measures out of a hat, these are EU commissioner recommendations to achieve targets.

I will spend more time reading this week-end (if I can squeeze it in !), and post here if I find nominal estimates of what countries will achieve targets to what extent.

Edit : it would be great to know whether there are non anecdotal, official Irish reports which state Ireland is not going to meet targets.

fclauson

The issue is Ireland never completed a proper NREP (National Renewable Energy Policy) - that's the whole Pat Swords vs EU Commission etc case

Ireland went wind wind wind wind with very little else.

For example Electric Ireland have just pulled their PV feed in tariff for new domestic entrants. There is next to zip support for anything renewable bar wind.

I believe (and the evidence is starting to show) a mass retrofit program is a better route cutting C02
a) it draws on skills in the work force (with some training) and employs people
b) cuts peoples heating bills - For ever
c) moves people out of fuel poverty (the PSO levy is moving people into fuel poverty !!)
d) is something you can do yourself or employ a professional

If back in 2004 or earlier the government had done a proper energy review and made the decisions to move to only permit Passive Houses or even highly insulated houses we would be in so much a better place across the country rather than now we have a pile of houses which are amazingly energy inefficient, wind farms going up which are highly inefficient (it costs them €70+ to save a ton of C02 rather than the market rate being around €7)
and we are failing to meet our C02 targets

So do we have enough wind - yes - because (and back to my very very first post) when the wind does not blow we need a backup.

In Oct here was a instance where the entire Irish wind fleet produced -3Mw (UK was also very low so don't come the interconnect at me)

We need to sit down and work out what needs doing and what is best for the Irish citizen

Old diesel

Great post Francis

Part of the difficulty with wind - isn't so much the turbines themselves - but the fact that we are planning energy on its own COMPLETELY separately from everything else.

Moving to the low carbon economy or decarbonising - isn't just about how many wind turbines we can fire up - but also how we will live in the future - how we live and how this is planned will hugely impact on our emissions.

For example - and being pro Agri this pains me - but if you reduced cattle numbers this would reduce emissions.

If you improved the energy efficiency of BOTH new and existing homes YOU REDUCE the amount of energy needed in that home - which is fantastic especially with heating.

Actually this applies to all buildings - not just homes.

Really we need to work towards getting to a point where energy planning AND how we live - plus industries for now and in the future - and so many aspects of our lives get planned together.

The other aspects that need looking at - include......

One off houses are blamed as a challenge to wind energy planning in Ireland - a fair point - however two things are being over looked

Firstly - where are the people in the one off houses going to live in the future - bearing in mind one off houses are seen as negative to the environment in general - not just wind energy planning in general.

Secondly - if the answer to where people will live is - "in their current one off homes" - how do you ensure the wind energy is going to be the trouble free neighbour that wind energy claims it will be. And if the answer is - we could move people out of their homes - where will they go - and how do we plan the new living solutions for what would be ex one off house residents.

Old diesel

I think we should look at our energy planning with a different mindset

Some possibilities going forward......

1) Residents feel negative about energy production solution in their area - I wonder should the aim be - to get to an operational scenario with projects where residents are VERY PLEASANTLY surprised with the end outcome - regardless of what that would be.

2) Wind energy says its solutions are problem free - others disagree - but regardless - my PERSONAL mindset if I were planning wind projects in a community - would be to ENSURE the wind energy solutions im planning are in fact trouble free for residents. This REALLY shouldn't be a problem if wind energy is as problem free as its supporters and promoters claim - for residents.

3) designing everyday living solutions that work for residents very well - but that these could be co designed with energy solutions - which may include wind - that deliver on the goals of renewable energy - and driving towards decarbonisation. In short plan BOTH living in the future - and energy together - don't just plan one and completely overlook the other.

finally - design the communities of the future - and the ENERGY SOLUTIONS of the future plan and design them together so they work great together - think of the people as being the wheels of a car that move the country forward - and the engine as being the renewable energy.

My thinking being - all the parts of a car are designed to work together - we need the same mindset planning Irelands future communities AND its energy production.

Im trying to be constructive here btw - so if im coming across as anti wind - I apologise - as while im not a lover of wind - I more intend the last post and this one to be constructive in moving forward

Jim Martin

This is the way to go!

http://www.leightonbuzzardonline.co.uk/news/business/business-news/leighton-s-big-battery-powered-up-by-energy-minister-1-6476130

Mountainsandh

Also underwater turbines may help.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/11/tech/innovation/scotland-underwater-turbines/

Capercaille

Birdnuts wrote: »

And how do you propose we power the country during extended periods of light winds?? - it was Eamonn Ryans brain fart that has led us up this dead end path of wind energy at any cost. We will allways need gas power stations as it is a reliable low CO2 energy source. The NCC are the latest body to question the states increasingly nonsensical energy policies

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/cantillon-ncc-becomes-a-force-in-wind-energy-debate-1.2024792

1/2 nuclear reactors and interconnector with UK.

Markcheese

Capercaille wrote: »

1/2 nuclear reactors and interconnector with UK.

Where are you putting the nuclear reactors ? Cos if there's community objections to windfarms, there'll be bedlam over nukes- I know there are plans for new safer mini nukes that you spread around the grid - that'll just ensure everyone's up in arms -

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Where are you putting the nuclear reactors ? Cos if there's community objections to windfarms, there'll be bedlam over nukes- I know there are plans for new safer mini nukes that you spread around the grid - that'll just ensure everyone's up in arms -

There are no real plans for new safer mini nukes.

Hundreds of safe mini nukes have been used by the Navies of US, UK and France since the 1950's.

They are a shining example of how nuclear power could be if you didn't have to worry about the cost.

However no one's commercialised the technology, and lots of commercial nukes haven't reached the safety levels of western naval reactors.


You could make the comparison with supersonic aircraft. The military has had them for ages, but they haven't exactly taken off for public transport.

Mountainsandh

The storm of objections has pretty much been ridden enough to ensure Ireland meets its targets.

It can be done, but for such a humongous step to be taken, information and communication need to be honest and comprehensive.
People are not idiots.

If there is a possibility that one nuclear station may make a massive difference to the lives of people in Ireland, and everyone is adequately informed, I think people will give it due consideration.

I hate the way it is always established as a given in Ireland that people are idiots who will reject any new proposition outright, or who will not have the capacity to understand a complex situation.

It happens in the medical system all the time, it happens in the case of abortion at the moment, gay marriage, you name it.
Fob off people with misinformation or lack of information, let a select few take decisions for them, much easier. It drives me mad.

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You could make the comparison with supersonic aircraft. The military has had them for ages, but they haven't exactly taken off for public transport.

Concord RIP
Every day for 30 years everyone in London would stop and look up twice a day at what is a marvel - noisy, smelly, grotesquely inefficient - but a thing of complete beauty.

Now back to the topic of the main thread.

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Concord RIP
Every day for 30 years everyone in London would stop and look up twice a day at what is a marvel - noisy, smelly, grotesquely inefficient - but a thing of complete beauty.

Between Concorde and Tu-144 there were less than 30 commercial supersonic transports.

There's over 8,000 737's and 6,000 Airbus 320's (318-321) and counting