Wind farms - ugly truths

djpbarry

Markcheese wrote: »

Of course solar (or wind) will be backed up by something else (and part of a mix) - but that's another significant capital cost

Except that those "back-ups" already exist - there is no additional cost.

Markcheese

djpbarry wrote: »

Except that those "back-ups" already exist - there is no additional cost.[/
Except for the renewables themselves- as you say the back ups exist and are currently being paid for -and will have to be paid for in the future-
If we were to add commercial solar that would be another layer of cost

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You don't need to drain the bogs. just plonk down the frames, run the cables and you are good to go.

even less damage than wind turbines since no plinths or access roads

and more importantly since the area would be economically productive there is more reason to leave it as is.

- you need access roads and plenty of drainage, plus hardstanding for substations etc. None of it compatible with maintaining a healthy bog that can fullfill its carbon storing abilities

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

Except that those "back-ups" already exist - there is no additional cost.

Err - no - what Ireland has is peat burning and coal burning back up - with limited gas

so they need up dating (€€€€) and then we need to pay for the wind farms on top

hence my original post - this does not come cheap and has never been cost justified

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You don't need to drain the bogs. just plonk down the frames, run the cables and you are good to go.

even less damage than wind turbines since no plinths or access roads

and more importantly since the area would be economically productive there is more reason to leave it as is.

But you will need to weed kill
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/07/weed-control-at-solar-installations-what-works-best.html

or put sheep or goats (who will eat the cables) or some other animals

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

Err - no - what Ireland has is peat burning and coal burning back up - with limited gas

so they need up dating (€€€€) and then we need to pay for the wind farms on top

Of course they'll need updating/replacement - everything does eventually. But they'll need updating with or without wind/solar/whatever, so your constant reference to the additional backup required by renewables is inaccurate.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course they'll need updating/replacement - everything does eventually. But they'll need updating with or without wind/solar/whatever, so your constant reference to the additional backup required by renewables is inaccurate.

Not so - of course plant needs replacing - and some of these have done magnificent service of 15 or 20 or 25 years (with maintenance) but what we are moving to is

a) expense on the installation of wind etc
b) the maintenance of wind
along with what we already knew that
c) maintenance of existing kit
d) renewal of existing kit

So my original point is that no infrastructure can be decommissioned without replacement is still true

With regard to wind needing extra backup - my post way back when is stil true

in a non wind grid you need
a) spinning reserve to cover the loss of the largest gen on the grid
in a wind world you need
a) as above
b) cover for the variability of wind - the prediction model is only a prediction - see http://www.eirgrid.com/media/AllIslandWindForecastAccuracyReportMay2013.pdf

with an 2 to 18% variability in accuracy the grid will have to maintain spinning reserve to cover that variability AT ALL TIMES

So yes - more spinning reserve required when there is wind on the grid as compared when there is none.

there is also the situation when the grid is at max demand (around 5Mw ish) and we hit a zero wind situation (think cold frosty calm winter's night at around 7pm) then as much back up as required as if there is no wind turbines installed at all will be required.

And there has been no cost justification for this as yet

Markcheese

fclauson wrote: »

Err - no - what Ireland has is peat burning and coal burning back up - with limited gas

so they need up dating (€€€€) and then we need to pay for the wind farms on top

hence my original post - this does not come cheap and has never been cost justified

Really - ? I though we had 1 coal plant(moneypoint ) as " base load "
2 or 3 small peat / biomass stations (which still take most of the levy on your bill not the wind ) ,a small bit of hydro
And gas- mainly Gas. Feic it there's 7 or 8 gas turbines within 2 miles of my house alone -
Oh and wind turbines -

Markcheese

Haven't got a link for newstalk this morning but a guy on just after 9 reckoning that next generation solar is going to be one of the catalysts for the next " industrial revoloutions" -graphene should allow the panel to use 80-100% of available light - cheaply -

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

in a non wind grid you need
a) spinning reserve to cover the loss of the largest gen on the grid
in a wind world you need
a) as above
b) cover for the variability of wind...

You're not making any sense.

Suppose there were no wind turbines in Ireland. Suppose there was, say, 7 GW of installed thermal generation capacity. Suppose then comes along and installs, say, 2 GW of wind capacity.

Explain to me why any additional "back-up" thermal capacity needs to be installed in that scenario?

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

You're not making any sense.

Suppose there were no wind turbines in Ireland. Suppose there was, say, 7 GW of installed thermal generation capacity. Suppose then comes along and installs, say, 2 GW of wind capacity.

Explain to me why any additional "back-up" thermal capacity needs to be installed in that scenario?

I suggest you look at what the output of wind farms was this month last year - struggled to mid single figures of % of installed capacity. And this pattern is typically repeated during times of peak demand such as cold,dark nights in winter. German emmissions follow a similar patterns with sharp spikes in colder winters when they depend on coal to keep the lights on and homes warm. Your logic appears to be wind power at any cost to the consumer,environement etc. with vested interests laughing all the way to the bank. If we simply replaced our peat/coal power generation with gas it would be much cheaper and more effective from an emmissions point of view(the sharp fall in US emmissions since 2005 being a prime example of that)

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

Haven't got a link for newstalk this morning but a guy on just after 9 reckoning that next generation solar is going to be one of the catalysts for the next " industrial revoloutions" -graphene should allow the panel to use 80-100% of available light - cheaply -

Fine and dandy but still doesn't overcome the problem of mis-matched supply and demand with Solar in this part of the world. Solar does make sense in places like California,Pakistan etc. due to their latitudes and energy demand profiles ie. big demand for air-con during the day. But as highlighted by this "summer" Ireland is the polar opposite in that respect

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suggest you look at what the output of wind farms was this month last year - struggled to mid single figures of % of installed capacity. And this pattern is typically repeated during times of peak demand such as cold,dark nights in winter. German emmissions follow a similar patterns with sharp spikes in colder winters when they depend on coal to keep the lights on and homes warm. Your logic appears to be wind power at any cost to the consumer,environement etc. with vested interests laughing all the way to the bank. If we simply replaced our peat/coal power generation with gas it would be much cheaper and more effective from an emmissions point of view(the sharp fall in US emmissions since 2005 being a prime example of that)

That’s a very long-winded way of not answering my question.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fine and dandy but still doesn't overcome the problem of mis-matched supply and demand with Solar in this part of the world. Solar does make sense in places like California,Pakistan etc. due to their latitudes and energy demand profiles ie. big demand for air-con during the day. But as highlighted by this "summer" Ireland is the polar opposite in that respect

Peak summer demand is of the order of 3.5 GW.

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Err - no - what Ireland has is peat burning and coal burning back up - with limited gas

At some stage you should look at real data.

And it's OK to change your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence.


Coal and peat are base load. While they can react to demand much faster than nuclear they just can't ramp up in seconds like gas or pumped storage that's spinning in air.

Fuel mix
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/all-islandwindandfuelmixreport/



Why are we still arguing about spinning reserve when wind reduces the amount needed ? Nuclear on the other hand requires the most seeing as how they are the largest generating units. Luckily in the UK all providers have to subsidise the amount nuclear needs.

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1192957/power-system-reserve---no-need-build-wind-back-up

Back-up is always provided for all power plants on a system, with or without wind
There is no need to build back-up for wind; existing power plants in any system provide the required back-up for all plants
Wind generation displaces fossil-fuel generation and some of those plants can be taken out of operation
As the penetration of wind increases in any power system, the volume of capacity that is operated at part load, ready to ramp up or down according to peaks in demand or unexpected generation shortfalls, increases slightly to maintain a consistent probability of security of supply
Since the volume of extra reserve when adding wind is modest so is the additional cost. Savings from wind replacing other generation are likely to more than cover that extra cost
The emissions saved by wind displacing fossil-fuel generation are far greater than any extra emissions from increased spinning reserve.

Ok that's the theory, the reality is

Three basic principles apply for establishing the plant margin required on a power system when wind is added. The British power system makes for a typical example of how this works. It is a large, integrated system with a mix of thermal generation provided by coal, nuclear and gas power plants, plus about 13% of renewables, about 1.4% of which is hydro.

First, an all-thermal electricity system with a peak demand of 50GW requires about 60GW of installed capacity to keep the lights on with a high degree of reliability whatever the variations in demand and supply. The extra 10GW is the plant margin.

Second, add 30GW of wind to that power system (displacing about 25% of the electricity generated annually by thermal plants) and the reliability of the system improves because the plant margin increases. There is no need to build any extra power plants. Wind power generation is available most of the year and the plant margin already in place is sufficient to maintain the system's high reliability, even on windless days.

Third, the 30GW wind power addition actually allows for about 3GW of the thermal plants to be taken out of the system, without reducing reliability. Moreover, with wind power feeding into the system, less fossil fuel is burned, saving emissions and extending the life of thermal power stations by postponing expenditure on replacement plants.

The same three principles apply to integration of any type of new capacity into a power system, including nuclear capacity, which provides about 20% of electricity in Britain. When half of Britain's nuclear capacity goes offline for long periods (as it did in winter 2008/09), the loss does not trigger a requirement for construction of more capacity to maintain a high probability of reliable supply. The overall plant margin for the entire system does the job.

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

in a non wind grid you need

Nothing extra.

Wind reduces the base load, we got 25% of our electricity from wind last winter.

Since you are making the remarkable claim you need to provide the remarkable evidence of how much extra spinning reserve we need when we use wind.

Remember the existing reserve has to provide for the largest single generator going off-line. That's about 6MW for a wind turbine vs. 330MW for fossil ( vs. 3,200 MW for Hinkley C for UK planning )

UK figures showed that wind used roughly the same amount of spinning reserve fuel as other generators of similar capacity.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

- you need access roads and plenty of drainage, plus hardstanding for substations etc. None of it compatible with maintaining a healthy bog that can fullfill its carbon storing abilities

I was referring to man transportable solar frames. (did you even read my post or link??) Access roads not needed.

Bottom line with some bogs, is use them or loose them. People are illegally destroying them.

Anyway you don't see that many tall plants or goats in the middle of a bog , and even then tall frames and armoured cables are fairly routine.



Better not install the panels at 45 degrees though as then the lesser spotted bog bat might not hear the echos and fly straight into them.

Markcheese

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I was referring to man transportable solar frames. (did you even read my post or link??) Access roads not needed.

Bottom line with some bogs, is use them or loose them. People are illegally destroying them.

Anyway you don't see that many tall plants or goats in the middle of a bog , and even then tall frames and armoured cables are fairly routine.



Better not install the panels at 45 degrees though as then the lesser spotted bog bat might not hear the echos and fly straight into them.

While it'd be technically doable - would it be practicable ?( know it's all slightly tongue in cheek ) - there'll be a lot of drained cut away bog when bord Na mona Mona are done - ( not long now) - so you can peg down your solar frames ( so they don't blow away - put up a few wind turbines (with those sonic yokes on the wing tips to keep bats away from the blades ) and start large scale emu farming all on the same ground- jaysus the midlands would never have been as productive - might even bring in a few tourist to see it all -

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suggest you look at what the output of wind farms was this month last year - struggled to mid single figures of % of installed capacity.

Yeah, nuclear does that a lot too. Design / contruction flaws or politics can take out entire fleets for extended periods.

This is why we have spare capacity

If we simply replaced our peat/coal power generation with gas it would be much cheaper and more effective from an emmissions point of view(the sharp fall in US emmissions since 2005 being a prime example of that)

A lot of the countries with nuclear also have a lot of coal. So nuclear is a way of reducing emissions of coal when it would be cheaper all round to just replace coal with gas, because nuclear is so expensive.

However, coal is cheaper than gas. And in most cases in Eu/US the coal plants already exist so zero capital cost. And so like in Germany they'll probably be used for the remainder of their economic lives. Which in the case of most German plants already have an end date.

China is building coal plants, but they are heavily involved in renewables too.

What is the future for Moneypoint seeing as how the ESB have such large renewable targets ?

I've already pointed out that peat stations are now using more biomass.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fine and dandy but still doesn't overcome the problem of mis-matched supply and demand with Solar in this part of the world. Solar does make sense in places like California,Pakistan etc. due to their latitudes and energy demand profiles ie. big demand for air-con during the day. But as highlighted by this "summer" Ireland is the polar opposite in that respect

Solar is pretty much free energy once you've paid off the capital costs. Low maintenance and all that, every unit generated represents some fossil fuel that didn't need to be imported.

It's pretty much the same as cycling to work during the summer. On rainy days you'd have to take the car (which still needs motor tax and servicing) but somehow you still save money on fuel.

Just a reminder, on a day with very little wind Germany load balanced solar through the eclipse. A change of 14GW or so.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-power-net-survives-solar-eclipse/a-18331190

"This is going to work," he said with satisfaction. In total, an amount of power equivalent to the output of ten nuclear power plants was coming onstream as the moon's disc gradually ended its occlusion of the sun's.

Italy dealt with Friday's solar eclipse; they disconnected 30 percent of solar capacity to reduce their network balancing problem.

And the capital costs of solar are still dropping.

fclauson

Markcheese wrote: »

Really - ? I though we had 1 coal plant(moneypoint ) as " base load "
2 or 3 small peat / biomass stations (which still take most of the levy on your bill not the wind ) ,a small bit of hydro
And gas- mainly Gas. Feic it there's 7 or 8 gas turbines within 2 miles of my house alone -
Oh and wind turbines -

don't understand your point

list of generators can be found here
http://www.eirgrid.com/customers/gridconnections/listofconnectedandcontractedgenerators/

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

You're not making any sense.

Suppose there were no wind turbines in Ireland. Suppose there was, say, 7 GW of installed thermal generation capacity. Suppose then comes along and installs, say, 2 GW of wind capacity.

Explain to me why any additional "back-up" thermal capacity needs to be installed in that scenario?

Me not make sense - heavens above !!

You are mixing installed vs dispatchable

Point 1 - If you have 7gw if installed + 2 Gw of wind - and a max demand of 5Gw - why are you wasting money installing wind and then pay that wind around €80/Mw (which has to be used first) when it can be achieved much cheaper through other means.

Point 2 - You need to install more flexible thermal (or storage) if you have wind and decommission existing plant - again more cost

you should also read http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/08/backup-reserve-levels-to-be-increased.html

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At some stage you should look at real data.

And it's OK to change your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence.

thank you

Coal and peat are base load. While they can react to demand much faster than nuclear they just can't ramp up in seconds like gas or pumped storage that's spinning in air.

Fuel mix
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/all-islandwindandfuelmixreport/

Why are we still arguing about spinning reserve when wind reduces the amount needed ? Nuclear on the other hand requires the most seeing as how they are the largest generating units. Luckily in the UK all providers have to subsidise the amount nuclear needs.

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1192957/power-system-reserve---no-need-build-wind-back-up

please stop dragging Nuclear into the argument - that was not mentioned in my original post

Ok that's the theory, the reality is

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nothing extra.

Wind reduces the base load, we got 25% of our electricity from wind last winter.

Wind cannot reduce "base load" - wind is not dispatchable

Since you are making the remarkable claim you need to provide the remarkable evidence of how much extra spinning reserve we need when we use wind.

Remember the existing reserve has to provide for the largest single generator going off-line. That's about 6MW for a wind turbine vs. 330MW for fossil ( vs. 3,200 MW for Hinkley C for UK planning )

when wind fails - a single turbine does not fail - it all fails (the good law does not blow in one place while not in another) - see the report for wind accuracy - http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All_Island_Wind_Forecast_Accuracy_Report_October_2013.pdf

UK figures showed that wind used roughly the same amount of spinning reserve fuel as other generators of similar capacity.

You keep quoting the UK - its a much more complex generation market than Ireland it does not have in excess of 50% of wind which could make its way on to the grid but which has to be limited to stop frequency fluctuations and cascading grid failure.

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

don't understand your point

list of generators can be found here
http://www.eirgrid.com/customers/gridconnections/listofconnectedandcontractedgenerators/

Total Installed TSO 7352.180MW

Peak demand was 5090 MW and that was back in the Winter of 2010 so there's a wee bit of reserve, not counting wind or other projects in the pipeline.


For all island stuff check here http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx
Divide the blue line price by 10 to see cents per unit.

or look at http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/market-pricing to compare market price to wind generation levels. Don't worry about the peak prices, they are for interconnects, gas and hydro, slow response base load like nuclear, coal and peat needn't apply.

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Divide the blue line price by 10 to see cents per unit.

Not so - does not include REFIT payment which is around €80 Kwh (I think)

So yet again we are seeing wind is more expensive than the open market for electricity

it was never cost justified

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

b) the CO2 saving is more marginal than most advocates would have you believe

Please give a figure for "marginal".

How marginal is it compared to the two million tonnes of coal Moneypoint goes through a year ?

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Solar is pretty much free energy once you've paid off the capital costs..

This is the same thing we hear about wind - yet retail power prices across Europe suggest otherwise. Good study on the subject below that covers all the issues

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please give a figure for "marginal".

How marginal is it compared to the two million tonnes of coal Moneypoint goes through a year ?

Coal can only be replaced by gas or some other base load fuel for obvious reasons. Coal undperpins the German power system despite the vast and expensive spend on solar/wind farms

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please give a figure for "marginal".

How marginal is it compared to the two million tonnes of coal Moneypoint goes through a year ?

So its like your taxes (especially in the day when there was multiple tax rates - 10%,20%,30%,40%)

You pay tax at your highest tax rate. (called you marginal tax rate)

Read any wind farm EIS an they will talk about how many g/Kw they will save for all of the energy they product - typical figures are 700 to 900 g/kwh - but Eirgrid tell us we are down around 500 - so as you add a new wind turbine the marginal rate you save is less and less but the argument used that we need more and more wind keeps coming

now look at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/Tables/t0305.pdf

Ireland has one of the most Co2 polluting systems in the world
BUT
and this is my argument on page 1 of this thread

Is wind the best way of resolving this ?

For example if you convert the whole country to be gas based we would today be producing less C02 than we are currently but we don;t we leave things like the Eden derry peat burning going on because we have to protect other political resources like peat cutters

As I keep saying - wind displaces no thermal plant - we are not building much storage capability of any significance and all we keep adding is costs costs costs

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Coal can only be replaced by gas or some other base load fuel for obvious reasons. Coal undperpins the German power system despite the vast and expensive spend on solar/wind farms

As you well know Germany hasn't approved new coal plants for years (2009 AFAIK) and is phasing out the existing ones starting with the less efficient ones.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-02/germany-to-close-coal-plants-in-effort-to-curb-pollution

The country’s lignite plants generated 25.4 percent of German power last year, second only to renewables with 26.2 percent, according to AG Energiebilanzen. Hard coal accounted for 18 percent.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As you well know Germany hasn't approved new coal plants for years (2009 AFAIK) and is phasing out the existing ones starting with the less efficient ones.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-02/germany-to-close-coal-plants-in-effort-to-curb-pollution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany-energy-mix.png

The reality is that despite the vast ongoing spend on wind and solar - Germany depends heavily on coal to keep the lights/heat on.In addition nuclear and gas all still provide more power than wind. Unless they switch more to gas or import more nuclear then these facts won't change.

PS:Coals share of generation rises too in averge to colder winters - 2014 was a very mild winter in Germany(and unusually windy!!). This pattern is very striking in the years 2009-13

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

For example if you convert the whole country to be gas based we would today be producing less C02 than we are currently but we don;t we leave things like the Eden derry peat burning going on because we have to protect other political resources like peat cutters

Yes peat is a political issue. And together with a few CHP plants gets more subsidies than all the renewables so it's hardly value for money either.

As I keep saying - wind displaces no thermal plant - we are not building much storage capability of any significance and all we keep adding is costs costs costs

Oh my gosh !

Who ever said that intermittent power sources would completely replace dispatchable ones. ? The name of the game is to reduce fossil fuel when renewables are available.

And besides the thermal plant already exists.

Having said that
And we have interconnectors
There are tidal and energy storage projects up north.
So yes more base load and dispatchable in the pipeline.
And there's smart meters and load shedding so a smarter grid can handle it better.

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

...
And there's smart meters and load shedding so a smarter grid can handle it better.

Now you are talking - load shedding / shifting is the cheapest form of "renewable" energy (or not used energy)

I have 4Kw of PV which I try and match up with running my HP, Dish & Cloths washer etc

I even claim for two Christmas days running my turkey cooked for nought

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

Point 1 - If you have 7gw if installed + 2 Gw of wind - and a max demand of 5Gw - why are you wasting money installing wind and then pay that wind around €80/Mw (which has to be used first) when it can be achieved much cheaper through other means.

Why are you plucking figures out of thin air to suit your argument?

fclauson wrote: »

Point 2 - You need to install more flexible thermal (or storage) if you have wind and decommission existing plant - again more cost

Who said anything about decommissioning? Again, you’re changing the scenario to suit your argument.

It’s really simple. If you’ve got X GW of installed capacity, which comfortably meets peak demand, and you decide to install Y GW of wind capacity (Y < X), you don’t need to install any additional backup – it already exists.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

Why are you plucking figures out of thin air to suit your argument?

which bit of air would that be - the bit that delivers 0Mw when its not moving about or the bit when wind farms get paid to produce electricity when its not needed

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/energy/SiteCollectionDocuments/Renewable-Energy/Refit%20Reference%20Prices.pdf

wind farms get around €80 per Mw (which includes getting paid when they are available to produce but the electricity is not used - constraint payments)

Who said anything about decommissioning? Again, you’re changing the scenario to suit your argument.

Did you read my original opening post ? - Item 2

It’s really simple. If you’ve got X GW of installed capacity, which comfortably meets peak demand, and you decide to install Y GW of wind capacity (Y < X), you don’t need to install any additional backup – it already exists.

again - did you read my original post - no decommissioning only installations = cost to the consumer

I say again - is this the most cost effective method to reduce fuel dependency - no one has done (or have not published) the CBA

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

– it already exists.

Which begs the question - why are we creating an expensive and sprawling parralell grid based on reneweables that can't be relied apon during times of peak demand??? - especcially when it would make alot more sense economically and environmentally to instead invest money on energy saving measures like retro-fitting homes etc. and converting peat/coal plants to cleaner burning gas and possibly sustaineable biomass. This would have the added benefit of reigning in spirralling energy costs for consumers and businesses.

fclauson

So you have a car - all be it a bit old - but it works its maintained and over time as bits wear or as new better performing bits come on to the market they are replaced/added.

Then someone says - how about spending €4B on another car - now this new car is special - some days it will pull your old car (which will still have its engine running but don;t worry about that - its in case the new car fails) and some days your old car will have to pull the new one.

We will be able to predict when this happens - but only with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There will be some days your new car wants to pull you but you don't actually need to go anywhere but you will still be paying for its needs to pull you. Other days your new car will just be a dead weight behind your old car - worse than that you new car will be using some of the power of your old car just to be pulled about. It also cannot work in really bad weather it has to be shut down when this happens - again the old car will be dragging around the dead weight then too.

Your new car also has a couple of other odd features - its known to cause environmental noise impact which upsets its neighbours (almost regardless of the speed at which its going). Its can be seen from miles around - and ideally suited to the tops of some of the most stunning mountains/hill ranges in Ireland. It also requires many more cables to connect it - and track ways to drive up and look at it.

The only saving grace of you new car is that when it works your old car will use less fuel and generate less C02

Because we are bushed for time we have not looked at any other alternatives to doing this less fuel/less CO2 thing - we have also not carried any form of cost benefit analysis - or Strategic Environmental Assessments - nor do we want/expect/or demand that our planners when they write the planning conditions on how this new car should behave want them to actually implement those conditions or ensure they are followed

Can I interest you in such a proposition?

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

again - did you read my original post - no decommissioning only installations = cost to the consumer

New installations cost money? What a revelation.

Guess what – decommissioning costs money too.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Which begs the question - why are we creating an expensive and sprawling parralell grid based on reneweables that can't be relied apon during times of peak demand???

Because it cuts CO2 emissions (which people seem to have completely forgotten about and/or dismissed because it doesn’t suit their argument), reduces fossil fuel consumption and is pretty damn cheap to run, given that there are zero fuel costs.

Birdnuts wrote: »

- especcially when it would make alot more sense economically and environmentally to instead invest money on energy saving measures like retro-fitting homes etc. and converting peat/coal plants to cleaner burning gas and possibly sustaineable biomass.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we do all of those things?

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

Can I interest you in such a proposition?

Not really, because your analogy is flawed. But then, I think you know that.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

Guess what – decommissioning costs money too.

Especially Nuclear, with decommissioning costs that are only headed one way (in some cases exceeding original construction costs) and there's a shortage of long term repositories too.


Wind Farms can be refurbished

Although the typical price of replacement components (set of rotor blades, a gearbox and generator) is 15% - 20% of the price of a new turbine, a thorough check has to be made of the existing components to be sure that they are safe and suitable.

and then you are good to go for another 20 years.

Or you can sell them on to other markets, in poorer countries where people rely on diesel generators electricity costs are much higher. The trend is towards larger more efficient turbines so not as much of a resale market in OECD countries for utilities, but plenty of scope for local projects.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

New installations cost money? What a revelation.

Because it cuts CO2 emissions (which people seem to have completely forgotten about and/or dismissed because it doesn’t suit their argument), reduces fossil fuel consumption and is pretty damn cheap to run, given that there are zero fuel costs.

You have failed to cost justify (just like the irish Govt) that wind farms are the most economic way of creating C02 savings

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we do all of those things?

Cost

djpbarry wrote: »

Not really, because your analogy is flawed. But then, I think you know that.

Pray - tell me which bit does not make sense - because I don't know

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

....
then you are good to go for another 20 years.

You are obviously not an engineer - gear boxes are failing regularly

The massive charges Siemens incurred for inspecting and replacing main bearings in onshore wind turbines during its financial fourth quarter were due to an early degradation of the bearings in certain machines, Siemens Energy chief Lisa Davis said at a press conference.

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/11/16/faulty-turbines-sending-siemens-wind-power-division-broke-as-samsung-cuts-runs-from-europe/

These charges include: Costs for inspecting and replacing main bearings due to early degradation for a certain type of onshore wind turbine. These issues appear to be related to recent batches of bearings, and we are in close discussions with our supplier. And costs for blade repairs caused by harsh weather conditions, both offshore and onshore. This is a topic which we see across the industry and where we have already successfully implemented a design change for leading edge protection in our manufacturing facilities and will roll out a similar retrofit at affected
locations

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2014/corporate/2014-Q4/2014-Q4-speech.pdf

http://www.windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/515/are-transient-events-damaging-your-turbines-drivetrain

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/mechanical/understanding-root-causes-axial-cracking-wind-turbine-gearbox-bearings/

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

You have failed to cost justify (just like the irish Govt) that wind farms are the most economic way of creating C02 savings

I never said that they were?

fclauson wrote: »

Cost

Costs cannot be spread?

fclauson wrote: »

Pray - tell me which bit does not make sense - because I don't know
…
You are obviously not an engineer…

That’s a bit rich.

A much better analogy would be if you offered someone a solar-powered car. The decision on whether to invest would then obviously depend on the upfront cost of the solar car, fuel costs for their conventional car, maintenance costs for both, number of sunny days in the year, etc.

Markcheese

fclauson wrote: »

You have failed to cost justify (just like the irish Govt) that wind farms are the most economic way of creating C02 savings
Pray - tell me which bit does not make sense - because I don't know
You are obviously not an engineer - gear boxes are failing regularly
The massive charges Siemens incurred for inspecting and replacing main bearings in onshore wind turbines during its financial fourth quarter were due to an early degradation of the bearings in certain machines, Siemens Energy chief Lisa Davis said at a press conference.

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/11/16/faulty-turbines-sending-siemens-wind-power-division-broke-as-samsung-cuts-runs-from-europe/

These charges include: Costs for inspecting and replacing main bearings due to early degradation for a certain type of onshore wind turbine. These issues appear to be related to recent batches of bearings, and we are in close discussions with our supplier. And costs for blade repairs caused by harsh weather conditions, both offshore and onshore. This is a topic which we see across the industry and where we have already successfully implemented a design change for leading edge protection in our manufacturing facilities and will roll out a similar retrofit at affected
locations

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2014/corporate/2014-Q4/2014-Q4-speech.pdf

http://www.windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/515/are-transient-events-damaging-your-turbines-drivetrain

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/mechanical/understanding-root-causes-axial-cracking-wind-turbine-gearbox-bearings/

Of course products fail - happens in cars /trucks all the time - doesn't mean CARS ARE WRONG- bit of a daft argument really -
One of the most consistantly windy turbine sites in the country in dunmanway has been in operation for over 15 years - the owner of the site is planning (for now) on refurbing the turbines when they revert to his ownership in a few years - not because it breaks down all the time - because they work -
Even the article posted quoting Siemens talks about some models of gearbox not all of them -

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Because it cuts CO2 emissions (which people seem to have completely forgotten about and/or dismissed because it doesn’t suit their argument), reduces fossil fuel consumption and is pretty damn cheap to run, given that there are zero fuel costs.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we do all of those things?

Every one is for reducing energy consumption,emmissions and costs. The argument is whether current energy policies that prioritise the interests of the wind industry over every other method of achieving this is the best way forward. Plenty of evidence presented here and elsewhere suggests this policy is seriously flawed on all counts.

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

Of course products fail - happens in cars /trucks all the time - doesn't mean CARS ARE WRONG- bit of a daft argument really -
One of the most consistantly windy turbine sites in the country in dunmanway has been in operation for over 15 years - the owner of the site is planning (for now) on refurbing the turbines when they revert to his ownership in a few years - not because it breaks down all the time - because they work -
Even the article posted quoting Siemens talks about some models of gearbox not all of them -

Good for him - but you can easily point to many wind farms around the country with turbines that eitheir seem to be free wheeling due to their gears not being engaged(or similar faults) or not moving at all in steady winds. Plus in countries like Spain and the US whole hillsides are covered in rusting and abandoned wind turbines creating a serious blight on the landscape and issues with hazardious waste products leaking from their mechanisms

signinlate

A better analogy would be a sailing ship with an engine for when the wind is still.

Birdnuts

signinlate wrote: »

A better analogy would be a sailing ship with an engine for when the wind is still.

Power Grids are a bit more complicated than that and most conventional plant can't be turned on and off at the flick of a switch without significantly affecting their output in terms of both power and emmissions. A better analogy would be the output of a truck diesel engine in heavy city traffic compared to a steady crusing speed on a clear straight motorway.

fclauson

signinlate wrote: »

A better analogy would be a sailing ship with an engine for when the wind is still.

No its not

I have an engine which is doing a good job and now you want me to build a boat so that I can transport it about the place

WHY ??

signinlate

fclauson wrote: »

No its not

I have an engine which is doing a good job and now you want me to build a boat so that I can transport it about the place

WHY ??

Simples.
When the wind blows, the boat puts up its sails /grid draws power from wind farms.
When there's no wind both use fossil fuels to move/generate power.
Stop trying to overcomplicate things.

fclauson

So many of you just do not care about the cost or benefit of the wind program

Lets put some numbers of this - €4Billion spent building an infrastructure in addition to what we previously had. That is approximately €18,000 per residential home in Ireland

Something like 21% plus of homes in Ireland suffer fuel poverty (https://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/JACB201504/JACB201504.pdf)

And the PSO level for renewabels is €173.9M (which is more than Peat - and argument which is sometimes used ) http://www.cer.ie/docs/001034/CER15110%20PSO%20Levy%202015-16%20Proposed%20Decision%20Paper.pdf

So again I ask who can justify the wind program

If we took that €18K and insulated homes we would
a) remove fuel poverty
b) increase people's health (cold kills, damp creates unhealthy living conditions) (http://www.publichealth.ie/files/file/FuelPoverty_0.pdf)
c) radically reduce oil, gas and electrical usage
d) create lots of jobs

You have to remember my house uses just 200L of oil equivalent to stay warm - it will never in the 30 years I hope to live there be in fuel poverty - it never gets colder than 20C inside (or warmer than about 22C) its draft free, damp free, mould free

wind turbines do not make economic sense when you look at all the possible ways of spending €4B

fclauson

Markcheese wrote: »

Of course products fail - happens in cars /trucks all the time - doesn't mean CARS ARE WRONG- bit of a daft argument really -
One of the most consistantly windy turbine sites in the country in dunmanway has been in operation for over 15 years - the owner of the site is planning (for now) on refurbing the turbines when they revert to his ownership in a few years - not because it breaks down all the time - because they work -
Even the article posted quoting Siemens talks about some models of gearbox not all of them -

Who would not want to keep wind farms going if they had the finance to build one - at €80/Mwh guaranteed for 25 years (typical pay off time for a wind farm is around 7 years) its easy money paid for by the Irish consumer whom the Irish Government has no consideration for

Also "revert to his ownership" - most sites have a planning condition that site must be returned to original state once planning life has expired - out of interest which particular wind farm is this ?

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Who would not want to keep wind farms going if they had the finance to build one - at €80/Mwh guaranteed for 25 years

Nuclear is £92.5 guaranteed for 35 years, and that price is index linked too so it'll go up.