Wind farms - ugly truths

Markcheese

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ireland uses 5 billion cubic meters of gas a year. At 11KWh/m3
Up to 5% of this could be hydrogen.

So our gas network could accommodate 2.75TWhr of surplus energy annually. Actually it would be a lot more than that due to conversion inefficiencies.

Having too much wind energy isn't really an issue provided there's some joined up thinking about it. We can already export over interconnectors. Other time insensitive uses could be found, we can already use pumped storage as a sink.

The global market for sodium hypochlorite is about two billion tonnes.
Or to put it another way, electricity + salty water = bleach.
It's another way to use surplus electricity.

Having extra lines means there is more redundancy on the network since there'd be more way to route power around a problem. Also means industry could setup in more places. And since the ESB runs fibre along pylons the all important connectivity is there too.

Around 5 % of our gas system could be hydrogen- but of course we'd have to build a hydrogen plant (another capital cost) and the conversion rate from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is pretty poor so the wind power in is gonna have to be pretty much free - also to get any use from the hydrogen plant in summer (low gas useage times) you'll probably need a gas storage facility - another cost - that's not saying it wouldn't or couldn't be a worth while venture -
Are interconnectors all that great? Say we have a very wind orientated system (subsidised by the state) - then there's an energy crisis (say Europe wide) - so our subsidised wind electricity gets very expensive or exported (via our state paid Interconnecters) because it's a cross European market -

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ve produced some figures showing the estimated €4 billion spent on wind is a reasonably good investment, on the basis of power generated and emissions reduction.

You argument that wind can deliver at around €34 does not stand up when you have to factor in back up plant

also these figures did not include grid interconnects/pylons etc

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

You argument that wind can deliver at around €34 does not stand up when you have to factor in back up plant

also these figures did not include grid interconnects/pylons etc

The backup plant already exists so ZERO capital cost.

The backup plant has to run anyway to cover the largest thermal generator. So pretty close to ZERO extra fossil fuel burnt.*


*Actual measured figure is 0.081% of fossil fuel saved.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/10091645/The-badger-cull-is-no-black-and-white-issue.html

Now the National Grid has studied what actually happens in practice, with explosive, if surprising, results. Between April 2011 and September 2012 – its head of energy strategy, Richard Smith, told the Hay Festival – wind produced some 23,700 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power. Only 22GWh of power from fossil fuels was needed to fill the gaps when the wind didn’t blow. That’s less than a thousandth of the turbines’ output – and, as it happens, less than a tenth of what was needed to back up conventional power stations.

It proved to be much the same with emissions. Wind saved nearly 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over that 18 months; standby burning of fossil fuels only reduced this by 8,800 tonnes, or 0.081 per cent.

Not surprisingly, given these figures, no new fossil‑fuel power station has been built to provide back‑up for wind farms, and none is in prospect.

see also http://www.gizmag.com/uk-national-grid-wind-data/28046/

Markcheese

Yes the back up plant already exists - so zero additional capital for our backup -
It's not all paid for though - and even when it is paid there'll still be significant maintenance/upgrade costs,plus return on investment (and profit) all to be returned from far lower electrical production -

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Is there something specific in that blog post you’d like to draw people’s attention to? Because it seems to be critiquing a specific SEAI report, which, as far as I am aware, nobody on this thread previously mentioned?

Ergo, you seem to be countering an argument that nobody has made?

You obviously didn't bother reading the link. The SEAI are trying to justify wind energy on the same basis as yourself by pushing a certain "study" on the matter. The link I posted outlines many of the major flaws in that study and in turn your analysis.

fclauson

Back up plant is not zero costs

Much of the Irish plant is undergoing a regeneration/replacement program - and this fair its been doing sterling work for years. That is a cost.

What is the additional cost (back to my very first post) is wind.

We can pay for the replacement of existing plant but we know have to in addition pay for the deployment of wind and its infrastructure.

And we are paying for that at a rate of €80/Mw while non wind plant gets market rate. That model is unjust, and skewed towards a car crash of expensive electricity for the consumer (we have seen the consumer price charts across europe) and in reality delivers comparatively small CO2 benefit. (the previously http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf report)

This has never been cost justified - there is a recent letter (reference by one of the wind groups on facebook) from the DCENR which when under AIE was asked for the cost justification for wind responded "we are working on it"

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m thinking more of the vast, man-made, agricultural landscape than one-off houses.
Just to clarify – you’re linking to an article to argue that, sometimes, wind produces too much energy?

Which is nicer to look at, a field with a few cows in it, or a mountaintop that's been carpet-bombed with ugly bird chomping, bat killing monstrosities 3 times the size of the Dublin Spire?

As for the article - I think I've mentioned this before - Germany destabilises not only its own grid, but the grids of its Eastern neighbors by dumping unplanned and unusable surplusses on them. The whole idea of Germany co-operating with its neighbors, as the Captain suggested, is a little bit bizarre and cannot be taken seriously. If France is able to profitably use what the Polish and Czechs literally consider to be a threat to national security, they must have some advantage the Poles and Czechs do not. Like that hydroelectricity he keeps rabbiting on about.

It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that Kiribati is one of the poorest countries in the world, while Denmark is one of the wealthiest?

No. It has to do with the fact that Kiribati is a tiny island chain stretching for hundreds of miles on small little islands each with only a few hundred or thousand people on them. On some islands they're probably using glorified diesel generators. Fuel must be shipped in small amounts over very long distances to a disparate array of very small settlements. This is not efficient and we do not expect Kiribatian energy prices to be reasonable. Neither do we expect it for other places like Niue, the Solomon Islands and other places in the Top 10 for expensive electricity, places so small and remote most people would never have heard of them.

None of this should apply anywhere in Europe though, with larger, centralised markets, pipelines and other things, it should be a lot cheaper. But it's not, and when it's more expensive to buy a kwh of power in Kiribati than Denmark, it makes sense to ask why this should be so. There is of course, only one reason - Green policy.

djpbarry wrote: »

Dude, you’re the one in denial. You’ve already linked to those graphs. Look at the graph in that second link: 0.02 cents per kWh per KW per capita. That’s tiny.

Are we reading the same graph? It adds up, the graph clearly demonstrates a link between installed renewables and power costs. France, Finland, Hungary the US etc have little renewables so its costs are low (All between 10 and 20 cents a kwh). Denmark and Germany have lots of renewables so its costs are extremely high (Around 30 cents a kwh).

Wind does nothing to reduce Ireland’s dependency on imported power? Well, that’s just simply not true, is it?

If, as I content, the use of windmills limits the selection of other fuel types to gas and oil (because coal and nuclear are not flexible enough) then windmills not only fail to reduce dependency on imported fossil fuels, but they aggravate them severely by limiting other options including domestic supplies of coal, peat and uranium.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The backup plant already exists so ZERO capital cost.

What happens when the existing backup plant becomes life expired? What happens when the current generation of backup plant is gone but people need lots of juice and there's no wind? Your own bizarre post actually confirms my worst fears:

Not surprisingly, given these figures, no new fossil‑fuel power station has been built to provide back‑up for wind farms, and none is in prospect.

Emphasis mine.
So because the electricity markets have been so fouled up by renewables and green policy, there are no plans to replace life-expired fossil fuel gas plants (which are required because wind is not reliable). You couldn't make this stuff up.

Again, to reiterate. Say we continue down the current course of massively subsidising these Green monstrosities, and as the existing power plants age, there is nothing to replace them. Then you have an Xmas 2010 scenario where lots of people lose their central heating and throw on everything electric to stay alive, but there's no wind or sun. Assume also that there are electric cars in this glorious future of yours, and because it's Christmas Eve, everyone that isn't huddling under a blanket to stay alive is using their electric cars to go somewhere.

Seems like we would have a spot of difficulty ...

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Yes the back up plant already exists - so zero additional capital for our backup -
It's not all paid for though - and even when it is paid there'll still be significant maintenance/upgrade costs,plus return on investment (and profit) all to be returned from far lower electrical production -

We get more energy from renewables than from the 2 million tonnes of coal burnt annually in Moneypoint.

In Ireland very roughly minimum demand on summer nights is 2GW. Add 1GW for day, add 1GW for winter, add both for winter days. Add another 2GW as we've roughly 6GW installed capacity. Gas is expensive so it's only used when needed and so, shock and horror, most gas plant spends most of it's time idle or idling at low power.

Now are you seriously suggesting that the extra O&M on gas plant which is already used on demand outweighs the fuel cost of Moneypoint ?

BTW check how much of our gas plant was installed or upgraded since we've been using wind. It's not like the fossil fuel operators were blindsided by renewables.

fclauson

Money point conversion arguments

Markcheese

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We get more energy from renewables than from the 2 million tonnes of coal burnt annually in Moneypoint.

In Ireland very roughly minimum demand on summer nights is 2GW. Add 1GW for day, add 1GW for winter, add both for winter days. Add another 2GW as we've roughly 6GW installed capacity. Gas is expensive so it's only used when needed and so, shock and horror, most gas plant spends most of it's time idle or idling at low power.

Now are you seriously suggesting that the extra O&M on gas plant which is already used on demand outweighs the fuel cost of Moneypoint ?

BTW check how much of our gas plant was installed or upgraded since we've been using wind. It's not like the fossil fuel operators were blindsided by renewables.

I don't doubt any of that, but was saying that the existing thermal stations are not zero cost - everything costs -

Markcheese

fclauson wrote: »

Money point conversion arguments

Great - and ??
If it's a good idea hopefully ESB will invest in it -
Doesn't affect the wind industry / or justification much though -
On a side note- if bio-mass is half as energy dense as coal - could a converted moneypoint produce the same amount of power as it does from coal -

fclauson

Markcheese wrote: »

Great - and ??
If it's a good idea hopefully ESB will invest in it -

its not on their road map

Doesn't affect the wind industry / or justification much though

yes it does because in one move you reach or come near to 2020 targets

On a side note- if bio-mass is half as energy dense as coal - could a converted moneypoint produce the same amount of power as it does from coal -

You have to burn twice as much but burns quicker than coal - so when correctly converted it will produce a similar amount

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

You obviously didn't bother reading the link. The SEAI are trying to justify wind energy on the same basis as yourself by pushing a certain "study" on the matter. The link I posted outlines many of the major flaws in that study and in turn your analysis.

Perhaps you could make specific reference to an aspect of my “analysis” you deem flawed, together with a specific explanation of why you deem it so?

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

You argument that wind can deliver at around €34 does not stand up when you have to factor in back up plant

also these figures did not include grid interconnects/pylons etc

You’re the one who produced the estimated total cost of €4 billion. You’re now saying there are additional costs? Fine, let’s see them, but as has already been pointed out, the argument that “back-up” represents an additional cost is daft.

fclauson wrote: »

Back up plant is not zero costs

Much of the Irish plant is undergoing a regeneration/replacement program - and this fair its been doing sterling work for years. That is a cost.

But it’s not an additional cost – those plants would have to be maintained/replaced with or without wind.

fclauson wrote: »

We can pay for the replacement of existing plant but we know have to in addition pay for the deployment of wind and its infrastructure.

You're now saying that the additional cost of wind is the cost of wind?

Eh...

fclauson wrote: »

And we are paying for that at a rate of €80/Mw while non wind plant gets market rate. That model is unjust, and skewed towards a car crash of expensive electricity for the consumer (we have seen the consumer price charts across europe) and in reality delivers comparatively small CO2 benefit. (the previously http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf report)

Small compared to what?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Which is nicer to look at, a field with a few cows in it, or a mountaintop that's been carpet-bombed with ugly bird chomping, bat killing monstrosities 3 times the size of the Dublin Spire?

Nobody could accuse you of lacking objectivity, could they?

SeanW wrote: »

As for the article - I think I've mentioned this before - Germany destabilises not only its own grid, but the grids of its Eastern neighbors by dumping unplanned and unusable surplusses on them. The whole idea of Germany co-operating with its neighbors, as the Captain suggested, is a little bit bizarre and cannot be taken seriously. If France is able to profitably use what the Polish and Czechs literally consider to be a threat to national security, they must have some advantage the Poles and Czechs do not.

France exports electricity: look at the brilliant nuclear power!

Germany exports electricity: bloody wind power destablisiing grids!!!

SeanW wrote: »

None of this should apply anywhere in Europe though, with larger, centralised markets, pipelines and other things, it should be a lot cheaper. But it's not, and when it's more expensive to buy a kwh of power in Kiribati than Denmark, it makes sense to ask why this should be so. There is of course, only one reason - Green policy.

It does make sense to ask the question, but there’s no point asking any questions if you’ve already decided you’ve got all the answers.

SeanW wrote: »

Are we reading the same graph? It adds up, the graph clearly demonstrates a link between installed renewables and power costs.

It demonstrates a link, but not a very solid one – Germany and Denmark are very clearly outliers.

Regardless, as I stated previously, an increased cost of 0.02 c/kWh per kW of wind capacity per capita is tiny and it’s totally at odds with the repeated claims that wind power is massively expensive.

SeanW wrote: »

So because the electricity markets have been so fouled up by renewables and green policy, there are no plans to replace life-expired fossil fuel gas plants (which are required because wind is not reliable). You couldn't make this stuff up.

Indeed, you could not. You’re arguing that renewables are massively expensive, while simultaneously arguing that they’re “fouling up” electricity markets by providing power at extremely low wholesale cost, underming investor confidence in conventional thermal generation.

SeanW wrote: »

Say we continue down the current course of massively subsidising these Green monstrosities…

I’m sure you’re only too aware that subsidies are being phased out – that’s the whole point.

bk

Actually when you look at what the ESB are doing it is quite shocking.

The amount of coal and peat burned over the last 4 years as stayed steady, while the amount of Natural Gas used has been reduced significantly (55% in 2011 down to 48% in 2013)!

In other words the ESB continues to burn dirty but cheap coal and peat, in favour of much cleaner, but slightly more expensive natural gas!!!!

All the while we pay extra to subsidise unreliable wind!!

We could close all the remaining dirty oil and peat powered stations by simply increasing gas back to the 2011 levels without the need of building any new gas plants.

And then we could switch moneypoint to Biomass, doubling are usage of renewals almost overnight, easily reaching our 2020 goal of 40% renewables and potentially creating many local jobs supplying biomass to the plant right here in Ireland (increased forestry, growing willow on bogs, etc.).

bk

Actually I had missed this article, which says Bord Na Mona plans to do exactly the above by 2030, going 100% Biomass in it plants using willow grown on their land and other sources:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bord-na-mna-going-green-with-peat-harvesting-to-end-by-2030-31585603.html

That is great to hear, but 2030 is far too late, should be done by 2020.

That then just leaves the ESB's money spinner and apply named Moneypoint.

fclauson

bk wrote: »

Actually when you look at what the ESB are doing it is quite shocking.

The amount of coal and peat burned over the last 4 years as stayed steady, while the amount of Natural Gas used has been reduced significantly (55% in 2011 down to 48% in 2013)!

In other words the ESB continues to burn dirty but cheap coal and peat, in favour of much cleaner, but slightly more expensive natural gas!!!!

All the while we pay extra to subsidise unreliable wind!!

We could close all the remaining dirty oil and peat powered stations by simply increasing gas back to the 2011 levels without the need of building any new gas plants.

And then we could switch moneypoint to Biomass, doubling are usage of renewals almost overnight, easily reaching our 2020 goal of 40% renewables and potentially creating many local jobs supplying biomass to the plant right here in Ireland (increased forestry, growing willow on bogs, etc.).

Read my post http://joewheatley.net/how-much-co2-does-wind-power-save/

Gas is the flexible resource which can be brought on quickly but coal/peat due to ramp time is the main-stay

what he observed is that wind displaces the least polluting generators and leaves the worst on the grid (which goes to show a previous argument I had around wind not being as beneficial as many believed)

djpbarry

bk wrote: »

All the while we pay extra to subsidise unreliable wind!!

Subsidies/levies are not just for wind.

bk

djpbarry wrote: »

Subsidies/levies are not just for wind.

Yes, a lot of the subsidies go to peat, which given how dirty and non-renewable it is, is simply madness!

Markcheese

"In other words the ESB continues to burn dirty but cheap coal and peat, in favour of much cleaner, but slightly more expensive natural gas!!!!"


Is peat cheap ? I thought most of the pso levy went towards that !! -

fclauson

It does - it subsidies it back towards something which is affordable

this is the problem coal and peat are cheaper than gas - they have lengthy ramp times and hence reduces the benefit of wind - especially as wind is variable

If the wind is forecast to drop and then increase it may be more economic for ESB to keep the big burners burning than ramp down ramp up using gas to cover

Markcheese

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-34531680

I'd love the Esb to build something like this instead of converting money point - ain't gonna happen either though -

Capt'n Midnight

[from the coal thread]

Gas plants have shorter lives than most other generators and most of the costs are for fuel so it's not like gas requires the same sort of long term investment that nuclear, hydro, tidal or pumped storage do. While wind isn't cheap to build , it is very cheap to refurbish compared to most other generators other than hydro, and there is a good market for second hand turbines abroad. Most of the economics for wind are based on a 20 year life when it could easily be doubled.

Refurbishing for nuclear in a lot of cases means fixing design or construction flaws and/or updating to current safety standards rather than just replacing parts at their service interval. Overruns in time and cost are frequent as is finding out the reactor was in a worse state than had been anticipated.

Projects I'd like to see
NI building that CAES plant in the salt mines.
Tidal turbines in NI.
Welsh tidal lagoon.
Scotland Norway interconnector.

Energy to gas.

BTW
Latest solar news is that they've made rectennas. So possibly at some distant stage in the future 40% conversion efficiency. you see that's the thing with renewables , unlike nuclear there many potentially game changing technologies that have been proven in the lab.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/materials/optical-rectenna-could-doube-solar-cell-efficiency

“We could ultimately make solar cells that are twice as efficient at a cost that is ten times lower, and that is to me an opportunity to change the world in a very big way,” said Cola. “As a robust, high-temperature detector, these rectennas could be a completely disruptive technology if we can get to one percent efficiency. If we can get to higher efficiencies, we could apply it to energy conversion technologies and solar energy capture.”

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

I don't doubt any of that, but was saying that the existing thermal stations are not zero cost - everything costs -

Yeah but the thermal plant O&M costs are far lower than their fuel costs would otherwise be.

It's comparing the O&M costs of intermittently used gas plants to the O&M costs of less intermittently used gas plants. The only difference is the degree of intermittancy and the fossil fuel equivalent of two million tonnes of coal. Like I posted the fuel savings from wind are such that only 0.081% of wind power was needed to back it up.

Wear and tear on gas plants is highest on startup and when on heavy load. Idling at low power isn't that big a deal 'cept of course for the fuel costs.
BTW for pumped storage spinning the turbines in air uses about 1% full load, but allows you to respond in seconds. Similarity you could go to CAES solutions which means turbines could load balance as load or generation as needed.

Yes gas looses a fair bit of the peaking premiums but corporate welfare isn't high on my spending priorities.

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Gas is the flexible resource which can be brought on quickly but coal/peat due to ramp time is the main-stay

what he observed is that wind displaces the least polluting generators and leaves the worst on the grid (which goes to show a previous argument I had around wind not being as beneficial as many believed)

gas is displaced because it's the quickest to ramp down and the most expensive.

If our grid was based purely on carbon emissions we wouldn't even be using coal.

Fabo

Markcheese wrote: »

"In other words the ESB continues to burn dirty but cheap coal and peat, in favour of much cleaner, but slightly more expensive natural gas!!!!"


Is peat cheap ? I thought most of the pso levy went towards that !! -

not any more it doesnt

We can see that for the first time renewables, mostly wind, has overtaken peat and is now the largest recipient of the PSO Levy - 57% of the levy is going to renewables for the year 2015/16.


http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/06/pso-levy-wind-energy-prevents-consumers.html

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yeah but the thermal plant O&M costs are far lower than their fuel costs would otherwise be.

It's comparing the O&M costs of intermittently used gas plants to the O&M costs of less intermittently used gas plants. The only difference is the degree of intermittancy and the fossil fuel equivalent of two million tonnes of coal. Like I posted the fuel savings from wind are such that only 0.081% of wind power was needed to back it up.

Wear and tear on gas plants is highest on startup and when on heavy load. Idling at low power isn't that big a deal 'cept of course for the fuel costs.
BTW for pumped storage spinning the turbines in air uses about 1% full load, but allows you to respond in seconds. Similarity you could go to CAES solutions which means turbines could load balance as load or generation as needed.

Yes gas looses a fair bit of the peaking premiums but corporate welfare isn't high on my spending priorities.

The above was not written by a qualified engineer folks, HEALTH WARNING.

Gas turbines are designed to run on full or close to full load. They are then at their most efficient. Continuing cycling and ramping increases inefficiency.

This rapid increase in renewables in recent years in Germany has put operational demands on existing gas and coal power plants, which are simply not technically designed for it. The plants must be more frequently switched on and off in order to be able to compensate for the fluctuations, which are associated with electrical inputs from sun, wind and water. The degree of load change is partly more than 200 times higher than that permissible for the power station. As a result the danger of lasting damage to the power plants grows – along with increasing risks to the security of electrical supply.



http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/10/news-from-germany-and-uk.html

its basic common sense, driving on a motorway is more fuel efficient than driving through a city

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

[from the coal thread]

Gas plants have shorter lives than most other generators and most of the costs are for fuel so it's not like gas requires the same sort of long term investment that nuclear, hydro, tidal or pumped storage do. While wind isn't cheap to build , it is very cheap to refurbish compared to most other generators other than hydro, and there is a good market for second hand turbines abroad. Most of the economics for wind are based on a 20 year life when it could easily be doubled.

Refurbishing for nuclear in a lot of cases means fixing design or construction flaws and/or updating to current safety standards rather than just replacing parts at their service interval. Overruns in time and cost are frequent as is finding out the reactor was in a worse state than had been anticipated.

Projects I'd like to see
NI building that CAES plant in the salt mines.
Tidal turbines in NI.
Welsh tidal lagoon.
Scotland Norway interconnector.

Energy to gas.

BTW
Latest solar news is that they've made rectennas. So possibly at some distant stage in the future 40% conversion efficiency. you see that's the thing with renewables , unlike nuclear there many potentially game changing technologies that have been proven in the lab.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/materials/optical-rectenna-could-doube-solar-cell-efficiency

there are nuclear plants in France going for 40 years !

what utter propaganda there is on boards.ie

fclauson

really good article on how wind is of little use to the grid planning process

https://www.masterresource.org/false-claims/the-limitations-of-electricity-from-wind-energy-understanding-key-terms/?utm_content=buffer60bcf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

really good article on how wind is of little use to the grid planning process

https://www.masterresource.org/false-claims/the-limitations-of-electricity-from-wind-energy-understanding-key-terms/?utm_content=buffer60bcf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

It's not really good.

It's just the old mantra of wind is bad because you can't turn anytime you like and so you have to rely on dispatchable power.

It completely misses the bleedin' obvious point that if you have dispatchable power you can plan to turn it on whenever the five day ahead weather forecast says there's not much wind ahead. In fact because of the need for reserve you can turn it on once you get a few seconds warning. And it would be a very small wind farm that takes only a few seconds for a weather front to cross it , nevermind multiple farms across the island.



It's like me saying I could save petrol by cycling to work on dry days and you saying that I should drive every single day in case of rain. Instead of listening to you I'll just look at the weather forecast and cycle in on good days.


Now the thing is if I get caught in the rain I can always hail a taxi. So I won't ever get wet. And there will always be a taxi,in seconds, because we have a surplus of dispatchable generators and spinning reserve.

Mountainsandh

But if I understand correctly the taxi has to be kept running while you're cycling in case you need it ?

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not really good.

It's just the old mantra of wind is bad because you can't turn anytime you like and so you have to rely on dispatchable power.

It completely misses the bleedin' obvious point that if you have dispatchable power you can plan to turn it on whenever the five day ahead weather forecast says there's not much wind ahead. In fact because of the need for reserve you can turn it on once you get a few seconds warning. And it would be a very small wind farm that takes only a few seconds for a weather front to cross it , nevermind multiple farms across the island.



It's like me saying I could save petrol by cycling to work on dry days and you saying that I should drive every single day in case of rain. Instead of listening to you I'll just look at the weather forecast and cycle in on good days.


Now the thing is if I get caught in the rain I can always hail a taxi. So I won't ever get wet. And there will always be a taxi,in seconds, because we have a surplus of dispatchable generators and spinning reserve.

Maybe your missing the obvious "bleedin" point that on top of spells like the current one where wind has contributed very little to the power system for weeks now, there is also the issue of extreme variablilty accross even a windy day with peaks and troughts at various intervals across every individual wind farm at different unpredictable times which adds further complexity to managing the grid. Even the most accurate and detailed wind forecasts cannot predict such a huge range of variability in such time and space. Our topograhy and geographical positioning means wind across this island is often of a gusty nature and is rarely steady,unlike the type of onshore wind seen in other parts of Europe such as near the straits of Gibraltor etc. . This has obvious conquences for the operation of moneypoint, peat-fired power stations etc. that will always be the spine of our grid system compared to the unreliable outputs of wind farms. The link to the analysis I posted earlier from Irishenergy blog of actual costs and emmission outputs on such a system highlights the dubious economics, outputs etc. of wind farms on the Irish grid.

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not really good.

It's just the old mantra of wind is bad because you can't turn anytime you like and so you have to rely on dispatchable power.

It completely misses the bleedin' obvious point that if you have dispatchable power you can plan to turn it on whenever the five day ahead weather forecast says there's not much wind ahead. In fact because of the need for reserve you can turn it on once you get a few seconds warning. And it would be a very small wind farm that takes only a few seconds for a weather front to cross it , nevermind multiple farms across the island.


It's like me saying I could save petrol by cycling to work on dry days and you saying that I should drive every single day in case of rain. Instead of listening to you I'll just look at the weather forecast and cycle in on good days.


Now the thing is if I get caught in the rain I can always hail a taxi. So I won't ever get wet. And there will always be a taxi,in seconds, because we have a surplus of dispatchable generators and spinning reserve.

Not really
its more like owning a car and a bike when I really just need one form of transport.

When I ride the bike I get €80 but if I take the car is just €35ish

if I listen to the forecast and its a better day then I have to take the bike out of the car and cycle it (leaving the car to spin down). If its a worst day than I have take the taxi you mentioned (despite the fact I already own a car and bike) because I need something with an engine already running

the wind forecast can be up to 30% wrong (http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All_Island_Wind_Forecast_Accuracy_Report_October_2013.pdf)

so I know need a bike, a taxi and a car
when in the good old days I just needed one

if my main aim is to reduce CO2 then there are better ways than wind farms
if my main aim is to reduce fuel imports then wind is not good - most wind farms are owned outside of Ireland (i.e. we export the cash to buy wind)

Back to my original post - you need all of this backup to cover a very variable resource and you have unclear aims - is it fuel savings or CO2 savings

I sit firmly on the fence on the climate change issue and what affects it

take a look at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-15391515#output_1

I am number 3,244,152,380 where as today you would be 7,305,248,331

that growth just must have an effect how the world ecological systems operates regardless of CO2

Markcheese

Of the 7 billion 3 hundred thousand odd on the planet now - how many have our (western) energy useage- how many are aspiring to it - what will the worlds energ/electricity requirements be in 20 years time ?
There isn't enough room for it all to be biomass- I dunno if anybody (bar the Aussies :-) ) want that much coal to be burnt - there's only so much gas to go around -
So to keep the motoring/ cycling analogy going :
If you have a car but a limited amount of petrol - then use the bike when you can - as the petrol becomes more limited in the future you'll need to plan on more bike journeys -

signinlate

fclauson wrote: »

so I know need a bike, a taxi and a car
when in the good old days I just needed one

2

Did you not need backup in the "Good old days"?

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's like me saying I could save petrol by cycling to work on dry days and you saying that I should drive every single day in case of rain. Instead of listening to you I'll just look at the weather forecast and cycle in on good days.


Now the thing is if I get caught in the rain I can always hail a taxi. So I won't ever get wet. And there will always be a taxi,in seconds, because we have a surplus of dispatchable generators and spinning reserve.

Your anaolgy misses some key points:

1. The "bicycle" in your anaolgy has to be subsidised out the wazoozoo, because it's so expensive it wouldn't work without them. It also has to be parked 300 metres above a scenic mountaintop along with hundreds of others, each on a massive plinth set in tons of concrete, and each kill huge amounts of bats and birds because it's just so awful, and over time begins to attract massive NIMBY opposition for those reasons.
2. You do not save any need for road space for cars, because when it's predicted to rain, everyone's going to get in their car anyway, so all the roads and motorways have to be built for that eventuality. No money saved there.
3. The same is true of your car - the main costs of a car are road tax and insurance, VRT, NCT Testing fees, VAT and levies on all of the above. Most of this is fixed costs, leaving the car in driveway won't save you anything on those. Only fuel and some wear and tear can be saved.
4. The same is true of the taxi only it's much worse: In order for there to be a taxi driver waiting for you when it starts to rain unexpectedly, the taxi driver must be earning enough money to remain in the taxi business, that means he must either be subsidised, or must make so muuch during the unplanned rains ... that your fare very high to keep him in the market when most of his time is idle, if the "stuck in an unexpected rainstorm" crowd is his only market. That would also be a peak demand period anyway so you would have difficulty getting a taxi in the firstplace because everyone else would have the same idea. The taxi driver would also have to carry your bicycle (windmills etc are a drain on the grid when they're stopped).

To continue your analogy, consider if the government planned a massive investment in railway infrastructure and trains back in the 1970s (including Metro and Dart in Dublin, trams in Cork, Galway and Limerick, and high speed Intercity rail between the main cities. To that end, they intended to establish a train and tram factory in Carnsore Point along with the associated rail forging foundaries to supply a national railway programme.

Had it worked, the country would have imported dramatically less fossil fuels since the 1970s, and much less CO2 would have been emitted over the last 40 years.

But a bunch of well meaning but misguided individuals descended on the place and set up a protest camp, denouncing trains as evil and that bicycles were the greatest, end of. Tacitly, they also promote cars and motorways by the back door. The railway programme is cancelled and people spend the next 40+ years driving everywhere, importing massive amounts of fossil fuel and creating vast quantites of air pollution and CO2 emissions, all which were completely and utterly avoidable. The bicycles get a little bit more efficient over the following 40+ years but other than that, very little changes.

Capt'n Midnight

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But if I understand correctly the taxi has to be kept running while you're cycling in case you need it ?

Nope there aren't any extra taxi's driving around behind you.


Because here's the thing , the taxi's know about the rain too. So most of them won't even be waiting at the rank. They'll be back home. They'll be a few taxi's on cruising around like there always are and a few ticking over on at the rank and if it gets busy more taxi drivers will head into town to earn a crust. If there's a concert on then there'll be lots of taxi's because taxi drivers generally know which days are busy.

The nightlink and dublinbikes and deregulation have eaten into the taxi driver's profits. But there's still enough taxi's out there for everyone , even if all the bus companies went on strike and it was to wet and windy to cycle.



And again the actual measured figure from the UK national grid was that extra fuel used buy having taxi's on standby was 0.081% of the fuel savings.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Maybe your missing the obvious "bleedin" point that on top of spells like the current one where wind has contributed very little to the power system for weeks now, there is also the issue of extreme variablilty accross even a windy day with peaks and troughts at various intervals across every individual wind farm at different unpredictable times which adds further complexity to managing the grid. Even the most accurate and detailed wind forecasts cannot predict such a huge range of variability in such time and space.

Maybe you could explain why the operators of the national grid should be concerned about wind speed variability at the level of an individual wind farm?

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

if my main aim is to reduce CO2 then there are better ways than wind farms

I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve said this, but I’m still waiting for you to produce some figures to back it up.

fclauson wrote: »

I sit firmly on the fence on the climate change issue…

That doesn’t surprise me, given that you’ve dismissed virtually every single fact and figure produced on this thread that doesn’t support your argument, whilst producing scant evidence of your own.

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve said this, but I’m still waiting for you to produce some figures to back it up.
That doesn’t surprise me, given that you’ve dismissed virtually every single fact and figure produced on this thread that doesn’t support your argument, whilst producing scant evidence of your own.

There is no correlation between CO2 reductions and wind farm capacity, apart from Denmark which cant be compared with the Irish system

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could explain why the operators of the national grid should be concerned about wind speed variability at the level of an individual wind farm?

I would have thought that was pretty obvious given the unpredictable power surges and lulls caused by wind farms across the system and the need to balance energy production with energy demand on a grid for the purposes of stability and balance and the effective functioning of base load operators

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve said this, but I’m still waiting for you to produce some figures to back it up.
That doesn’t surprise me, given that you’ve dismissed virtually every single fact and figure produced on this thread that doesn’t support your argument, whilst producing scant evidence of your own.

That's a bit rich given your "wind power at any cost mantra" which fails badly on any measure of performane and your dismissal of proven emission reduction measures such as retrofit schemes, conversion of peat/coal plants to cleaner gas, sustaineable biomass etc.

http://www.ors.ie/moneypoint-could-meet-25-of-renewable-energy-goal-expert/

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527106/how-and-why-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-falling/

As Fclauson pointed out before, the Dept of Energy has so far failed/refused to do a CBA of wind power on the Irish Grid - I wonder why??

Birdnuts

Fabo wrote: »

There is no correlation between CO2 reductions and wind farm capacity, apart from Denmark which cant be compared with the Irish system

The performance of the Danes ultra expensive wind based system is mixed to say the least

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/climate-environment.vwj

"Denmark registered a 6.8 percent increase in CO2 emissions"

Typically CO2 emmissions on such systems rise sharply during periods of high demand such as cold winters

djpbarry

Fabo wrote: »

There is no correlation between CO2 reductions and wind farm capacity, apart from Denmark which cant be compared with the Irish system

That statement makes virtually no sense.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

I would have thought that was pretty obvious given the unpredictable power surges and lulls caused by wind farms across the system and the need to balance energy production with energy demand on a grid for the purposes of stability and balance and the effective functioning of base load operators

So what matters is system-wide variation, not variation on the level of an individual wind farm.

Birdnuts wrote: »

That's a bit rich given your "wind power at any cost mantra"…

Maybe you could point out where I have stated that wind generation should be pursued at any cost?

Birdnuts wrote: »

The performance of the Danes ultra expensive wind based system is mixed to say the least

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/climate-environment.vwj

"Denmark registered a 6.8 percent increase in CO2 emissions"

Maybe you should consider the long-term trend, rather than focussing on a single data point:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-2012/denmark.pdf

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you should consider the long-term trend, rather than focussing on a single data point:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-2012/denmark.pdf

CO2 emmissions have declined in general across the EU(and much of the Western world) in the last 25 year. Mainly due to the closing of old dirty factories and in other cases the movement of heavy industry outside the EU due to high energy prices and labour costs as in the case of the British steel industry. Energy efficiency technologies have also played a big role in this space across homes,transport and business. The point is that this has happened across the board and is in no way related to a country's level of installed wind capacity. That is why spikes in Denmarks and Germany's CO2 emissions in recent years make for an interesting discussion.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

CO2 emmissions have declined in general across the EU(and much of the Western world) in the last 25 year. Mainly due to the closing of old dirty factories and in other cases the movement of heavy industry outside the EU due to high energy prices and labour costs as in the case of the British steel industry. Energy efficiency technologies have also played a big role in this space across homes,transport and business. The point is that this has happened across the board and is in no way related to a country's level of installed wind capacity.

Bollocks.

This graph is taken from the document I linked to above – allow me to draw your attention to the dark blue line, representing emissions pertaining to energy supply:

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Bollocks.

This graph is taken from the document I linked to above – allow me to draw your attention to the dark blue line, representing emissions pertaining to energy supply:

Classy - Your graph actually shows energy emmissions little changed since 1990 so your initial arguement doesn't hold much water. I would be interested to know what caused the massive spike in energy emmissions in the mid-90's and then the sharp fall within 2-3 years, though it was around that time they built
interconnectors to Scandi hydro power etc. - and still depends heavily on this source alot of the time, which luckily for it are low CO2 energy sources. You graph also shows that general energy use has declined by nearly a third which was the point I was making in terms of energy saving technology.


Edit: Actually it appears the sharp drop in emmissions in the late 90's also conceded with the increased replacement of coal with natural gas in Denmarks energy supply. Something which has also helped other countries like the US sharply drop their CO2 emmissions in recent years as I showed earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Denmark#/media/File:Fossil_fuel_consumption_in_Denmark.svg


Also Denmarks "wind performance" depends heavily on its ability to dump excess wind generation on windy days onto neighbouring grids

http://euanmearns.com/wind-power-denmark-and-the-island-of-denmark/

"estimated that only about half of the wind power generated in Denmark between 2000 and 2007 was actually consumed in Denmark)."

also and most tellingly

"But the key to Denmark’s high level of wind penetration is its location on the Nordic Grid between its larger neighbors Norway, Sweden and Germany, who between them generated 26 times as much electricity as Denmark in 2013. This gives Denmark access to an additional 5,820MW of interconnector capacity that it makes full use of (Figure 2):

Which shines a totally different light on the Danish grid as one that is heavily dependent on its neighbours to keep the lights, despite spending vast amounts on wind power, which is reflected in the fact that it has the highest retail energy costs in the EU.

fclauson

Lets not forget we may have been knocked out of the rugby but in the electrical price league - still doing really really well

Its nonsense to say wind is cheap - its nonsense to say wind makes sense

wind is expensive to the end user (wholesale prices are meaningless in reality)

Its also worth reading http://www.cer.ie/docs/001034/CER15172%20Society%20of%20St.%20Vincent%20de%20Paul%20Response%20to%20CER15110.pdf

SVP are very concerned that Ireland is being pushed further and further into fuel poverty.