Wind farms - ugly truths

Birdnuts

OssianSmyth wrote: »

breakdown of Danish consumer electricity price

Denmark has high "green" energy taxes to support tax credits,incentives etc. aimed at the wind/solar industry ie. another type of support for the industry outside of direct tariffs, PSO levys' etc. This is a factor on many grids pushing so called "green" energy. Transmission costs are also higher in such grids for obvious reasons with sprawling wind farms often being remote from where the power demand actually is. Interesting discussion of these factors in the link below

http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/12/true-costs-of-wind-electricity/

a telling quote from no less than Warren Buffet on the matter

"I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit"

That tax credit alone was costing US taxpayers billions of dollars every year

OssianSmyth

Fossil fuel generation does not pay the cost of the pollution damage it causes to society (the social cost of carbon). The freedom to pollute at no cost (untaxed externalities) is a subsidy from the state. By analogy, if you could get free permits from the state to throw your waste on the street that would be a similar subsidy.

The US estimates this carbon subsidy at $40/tonne and uses this figure in cost benefit analysis where releasing more CO2 is part of the plan. The Stern review estimated $300/tonne while Richard Tol's estimate for ESRI was about $200/tonne. Whatever it is, it's not zero.

Power generation in Ireland is covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, whereby power plants need a permit for each tonne of CO2 emitted. However, most of these permits are allocated for free at the start of each year.

If fossil fuel generation stops being subsidised, there would be little need for price guarantees for wind. The current price guarantee for wind is a 15-year term in Ireland, after which it competes freely. Compare that with 45yr inflation guaranteed price offered to nuclear in the UK.

Onshore wind cannot be the answer alone for Ireland. We need a broad mix of clean energy sources from biogas to solar and tidal. We need more international interconnection and storage. We need to insulate our homes and make our transport more efficient and we need to reorder our electricity network to allow every home to generate its own power and sell the surplus back to the grid.

We will also need peaking plants powered by biomass or gas. The idea of baseload is coming to an end.

Birdnuts

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Fossil fuel generation does not pay the cost of the pollution damage it causes to society (the social cost of carbon). The freedom to pollute at no cost (untaxed externalities) is a subsidy from the state. By analogy, if you could get free permits from the state to throw your waste on the street that would be a similar subsidy.

The US estimates this carbon subsidy at $40/tonne and uses this figure in cost benefit analysis where releasing more CO2 is part of the plan. The Stern review estimated $300/tonne while Richard Tol's estimate for ESRI was about $200/tonne. Whatever it is, it's not zero.

Power generation in Ireland is covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, whereby power plants need a permit for each tonne of CO2 emitted. However, most of these permits are allocated for free at the start of each year.

If fossil fuel generation stops being subsidised, there would be little need for price guarantees for wind. The current price guarantee for wind is a 15-year term in Ireland, after which it competes freely. Compare that with 45yr inflation guaranteed price offered to nuclear in the UK.

Onshore wind cannot be the answer alone for Ireland. We need a broad mix of clean energy sources from biogas to solar and tidal. We need more international interconnection and storage. We need to insulate our homes and make our transport more efficient and we need to reorder our electricity network to allow every home to generate its own power and sell the surplus back to the grid.

We will also need peaking plants powered by biomass or gas. The idea of baseload is coming to an end.

So your arguement is tax fossil fuel to levels that make wind seem compeditive?? How does that work when reneweables like wind/solar can't provide baseload and need to be backed up by conventional plant?? Does you plan take account of energy poverty or the fact that it will simply mean many industries moving to economies with cheaper energy prices??. Would it not make more sense to invest in energy saving measure like retrofitting houseing stock instead of further handouts for wind energy speculators. Are you aware that fossil fuels are already heavily taxed in this and other Western countries?? eg. Most of the price of a litre of petrol in this country is made up of tax.

The problem with simplistic knee jerk energy policies is highligted in the piece below. Also highlights how many in the so-called "green" movement appear to think that forcing emmissions abroad is the same as "emmision reduction"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12009962/The-UKs-energy-policy-is-an-act-of-national-suicide.html





"She seems wholly oblivious to the fact that, with the approach of that Paris climate conference, both China and India have announced that, over the next 15 years, they plan to double and triple their CO2 emissions by building hundreds more coal-fired power stations. They each plan to add more CO2 every year than the mere 1.2 per cent of global man-made CO2 emitted by Britain."

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Energy poverty becoming a serious issue due to rising energy prices in California on the back of wind/solar

You keep shifting the goalposts.

You originally stated that retail energy prices are far lower in the US than in Europe, on the back of increased gas production. Now you’re saying energy poverty is becoming an issue in the US on the back of increased investment in renewables.

So which is it?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Are you aware that fossil fuels are already heavily taxed in this and other Western countries??

They’re also heavily subsidised.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

So your arguement is tax fossil fuel to levels that make wind seem compeditive??

Nope. The argument is to remove the hidden subsidies on fossil and nuclear so it's a level playing field.

Basics like exhaust scrubbing and covering the proven health costs of fossil fuel. It's making the polluters pay.

Fossil fuels are cheap at the moment, but their side effects aren't.


Fingers crossed for energy storage breakthroughs or improved energy to fuel or using mantle rocks to release hydrogen and adsorb carbon dioxide.

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

You keep shifting the goalposts.

You originally stated that retail energy prices are far lower in the US than in Europe, on the back of increased gas production. Now you’re saying energy poverty is becoming an issue in the US on the back of increased investment in renewables.

.

In general they are - My point was that states in the US that have added siginficant amounts of wind energy to their grid have seen costs rise sharply compared to states that haven't.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nope. The argument is to remove the hidden subsidies on fossil and nuclear so it's a level playing field.

.

Hidden subsidies?? As I stated earlier most of the cost of petrol/diesel in this country is now tax. Can you point out the "hidden subsidies" in any of that??

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

My point was that states in the US that have added siginficant amounts of wind energy to their grid have seen costs rise sharply compared to states that haven't.

Don't forget how the likes of Enron manipulated the market. Tricks like selling power back to the place they exported it from.

The nice thing about renewables is reasonably predictable fuel costs into the future and very few future costs for decommissioning or storage or clean up.



Meanwhile in Japan they are still arguing about a nuclear plant that only supplied power to the grid for one hour. I couldn't make it up. Overall project cost , including reprocessing , is about $20Bn
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/23/reference/fate-of-troubled-monju-reactor-hangs-in-the-balance/#.VlOsw-JDvDc


And just to remind everyone that nuclear just isn't reliable. It's really between fossil and renewables.
But it doesn't get that cold in Switzerland in winter does it ???
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/nuclear-power_radioactivity-measured-automatically-in-swiss-rivers/41783720

Four of the country’s five reactors are temporarily offline for different reasons. Since August 14 block 2 at the nuclear power plant Beznau in canton Aargau has been offline. It will be out of service for four months while maintenance is carried out.

Block 1 at the plant has been out of service since March due to irregularities in the pressure vessel. Weak spots were found in the 15cm steel covering of the vessel.

Nuclear power plants in Leibstadt and Mühleberg are also currently not producing any energy due to annual maintenance service.

Back in August they were all offline.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hidden subsidies?? As I stated earlier most of the cost of petrol/diesel in this country is now tax. Can you point out the "hidden subsidies" in any of that??

Our power stations run on petrol / diesel and pay retail cost ?



http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $548 billion in 2013, $25 billion down on the previous year, in part due to the drop in international energy prices, with subsidies to oil products representing over half of the total. Those subsidies were over four-times the value of subsidies to renewable energy and more than four times the amount invested globally in improving energy efficiency.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Don't forget how the likes of Enron manipulated the market. Tricks like selling power back to the place they exported it from.

The nice thing about renewables is reasonably predictable fuel costs into the future and very few future costs for decommissioning or storage or clean up.



Meanwhile in Japan they are still arguing about a nuclear plant that only supplied power to the grid for one hour. I couldn't make it up. Overall project cost , including reprocessing , is about $20Bn
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/23/reference/fate-of-troubled-monju-reactor-hangs-in-the-balance/#.VlOsw-JDvDc


And just to remind everyone that nuclear just isn't reliable. It's really between fossil and renewables.
But it doesn't get that cold in Switzerland in winter does it ???
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/nuclear-power_radioactivity-measured-automatically-in-swiss-rivers/41783720Back in August they were all offline.

Reneweables are predictably unreliable - how is that an asset on a grid??. At the end of the day you can't run a grid without baseload, as the UK found out recently when wind/solar was producing FA at a time of peak demand. It is indeed interesting how Japan is putting many of its nukes back online after a big push with regards wind/solar. Just goes to show that reality has to be faced, something which those who push wind/solar prefer to ignore, and on the evidence of certain contribitors here, not even discussed.

lalababa

If somebody wanted to put a wind turbine on my head i'd let them. They get energy from the wind and look beautiful even near the gap of dunloe .:P or glendalough. they are sustainable energy sources.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Our power stations run on petrol / diesel and pay retail cost ?



http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

You claimed that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised in this country. I pointed out this was not true and cited diesel/petrol as an example. Now your trying to muddy the waters. Can you list the subsidies that coal/oil/gas imports for energy generation get from the Irish state?? Also do you believe you can run a grid without baseload power as you seem to be suggesting in some of these posts??

PS: I suggest you look at the map in that link of yours. It shows fossil fuels do not get any subsidies in Ireland, the EU or North America. Only a shrinking number of oil producing states subsidise fossil fuels to any extent.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

In general they are - My point was that states in the US that have added siginficant amounts of wind energy to their grid have seen costs rise sharply compared to states that haven't.

Ignoring once more that retail costs are a poor indicator, you’re saying that states that have invested in new energy infrastructure have incurred costs associated with that new infrastructure?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hidden subsidies?? As I stated earlier most of the cost of petrol/diesel in this country is now tax. Can you point out the "hidden subsidies" in any of that??

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

Birdnuts wrote: »

Reneweables are predictably unreliable...

How can something be unreliable if it is predictable?

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Reneweables are predictably unreliable - how is that an asset on a grid??. At the end of the day you can't run a grid without baseload, as the UK found out recently when wind/solar was producing FA at a time of peak demand. It is indeed interesting how Japan is putting many of its nukes back online after a big push with regards wind/solar. Just goes to show that reality has to be faced, something which those who push wind/solar prefer to ignore, and on the evidence of certain contribitors here, not even discussed.

spin spin spin. of course Japan wants to the nukes on line. They have HUGE sunken costs in then.

And I can regularly post multiple nuclear outages to show that those white elephants are predictably unreliable in the sense that it could be working fine now and then an alarm goes off and then an inspection shows it will need to stay offline for days/months/years for repairs. With wind you've no such surprises.

You can run a grid without baseload. Our grid runs without baseload. The minimum number of generators needed during minimum demand when there is good wind is less than that needed anyway for grid stability.

Let me say that again. Grid Stability mean we need high inertia machines distributed around the country they more than cover the 1GW minimum demand. The other 6GW of dispatchable plant is only used to supply the demand that isn't being supplied by renewables. ( subject to the current operating limits of 55% from wind + interconnectors )

You keep saying wind is unpredictable. The forecast predicts wind for the next 400,000 seconds. If the wind drops unexpectedly then Primary Operating Reserve has to kick in within 5 seconds like it does for any other outage on the grid.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

You claimed that fossil fuels are heavily subsidised in this country. I pointed out this was not true and cited diesel/petrol as an example.

You could have pointed out the moon was made of cheese for all the relevance that retail excise duty has on power costs, especially since gas and coal are bought in advance on future contracts. The main reason electric cars are cheap to run is by avoiding that excise duty. When we get more renewables it'll be better though.

Now your trying to muddy the waters. Can you list the subsidies that coal/oil/gas imports for energy generation get from the Irish state?? Also do you believe you can run a grid without baseload power as you seem to be suggesting in some of these posts??

PS: I suggest you look at the map in that link of yours. It shows fossil fuels do not get any subsidies in Ireland, the EU or North America. Only a shrinking number of oil producing states subsidise fossil fuels to any extent.

cba posting up links to the subsidies for Peat or the CHP plants , which until recently were getting more dosh than wind even though they had a fraction of the generating capacity.

And hidden subsidies are by definition are hidden. Not paying for pollution etc. The entire fossil fuel industry is pretty much based on asset stripping the planet.

fclauson

Have we managed to make any inroads against my original post ?

fclauson wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Have we managed to make any inroads against my original post ?

Not really, because for you to concede any point would be against your religion despite the facts.



You completely ignore the two million tonnes of coal we'd have to import to replace the power we already get from renewables.

And then go on to argue that wind can't work ? :rolleyes:

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Ignoring once more that retail costs are a poor indicator, you’re saying that states that have invested in new energy infrastructure have incurred costs associated with that new infrastructure?



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

How can something be unreliable if it is predictable?

I see you used the IMF figure that puts a notional figure on the cost of Carbon that has no actual baring in reality. Very handy for making spurious arguments about subsidies. I guess it depends on ones definition of the word "subsidy". You argument is similar to the chap on here who recently said that the only way to make wind/solar seem like good value in this part of the world is to cripple fossil fuels with tax. So I take it your argument is that by not taxing fossil fuels to this extent this somehow amounts to a "subsidy".

As I pointed out to your sidekick earlier the IEA data shows fossil fuels do not get subsidies in this part of the world and such subsidies now only exist in a handful of producer countries. Have a look at the map in the link below

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/fossilfuelsubsidydatabase/


.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

spin spin spin. of course Japan wants to the nukes on line. They have HUGE sunken costs in then.

And I can regularly post multiple nuclear outages to show that those white elephants are predictably unreliable in the sense that it could be working fine now and then an alarm goes off and then an inspection shows it will need to stay offline for days/months/years for repairs. With wind you've no such surprises.

You can run a grid without baseload. Our grid runs without baseload. The minimum number of generators needed during minimum demand when there is good wind is less than that needed anyway for grid stability.

Let me say that again. Grid Stability mean we need high inertia machines distributed around the country they more than cover the 1GW minimum demand. The other 6GW of dispatchable plant is only used to supply the demand that isn't being supplied by renewables. ( subject to the current operating limits of 55% from wind + interconnectors )

You keep saying wind is unpredictable. The forecast predicts wind for the next 400,000 seconds. If the wind drops unexpectedly then Primary Operating Reserve has to kick in within 5 seconds like it does for any other outage on the grid.

Your utterly deluded. Both the UK and Germany depend heavily on baseload coal plants and Japan on nuclear. Thanx to the vast amount of money wasted on wind/solar many of these plants are now in a poor state of repair from lack of investment with predictable results as already discussed on here in relation to the power crunch seen on the UK grid only a few weeks ago when wind/solar was producing FA power for days on end during a period of high grid demand.And trying to equate wind energy as somehow being the equivalent as energy imports via interconnects is beyond laughable as the vast majority of the energy imported into the UK/Ireland this way is either nuclear or fossil fuel based.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You could have pointed out the moon was made of cheese for all the relevance that retail excise duty has on power costs, especially since gas and coal are bought in advance on future contracts. The main reason electric cars are cheap to run is by avoiding that excise duty. When we get more renewables it'll be better though.



cba posting up links to the subsidies for Peat or the CHP plants , which until recently were getting more dosh than wind even though they had a fraction of the generating capacity.

And hidden subsidies are by definition are hidden. Not paying for pollution etc. The entire fossil fuel industry is pretty much based on asset stripping the planet.

Is there a point to that waffle??

How about wind farm operators accounting for damage to peatlands or rare earth metal mining etc..?? It appears you have to be a blatant hypocrite to believe in wind. In any case wind does little to lessen reliance on fossil fuels as can be seen by such grids across Europe.

And as for you claim that conventional plants offer less capacity than wind. That just shows your you complete lack of understanding of the concept of wind energy on a grid in terms of installed capacity versus actual output. After 70 odd pages of discussion in this topic here that says a lot about the total denial of reality behind your arguments on the matter.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You completely ignore the two million tonnes of coal we'd have to import to replace the power we already get from renewables.

And then go on to argue that wind can't work ? :rolleyes:

Can you account for this notional "2 million tonnes", what time period we are talking about, and where the savings on such imports went??. I asked one of your sidekicks a similar question here about this and still haven't got an answer to it.

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your utterly deluded..... .

Birdnuts wrote: »

Is there a point to that waffle......

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you account for this notional ......

We are at 70 pages largely because some people can't/won't use Multi-Quote.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57847268

Regarding the OP, there has been little to contradict FClauson that I have seen, although some of the figures and extrapolations on both sides have been fanciful and/or abstract, even occasionally absurd.

An issue that is probably for another thread is whether our current Grid, distribution and supply models are actually sustainable in the face of the restrictions and demands that Climate Change is going to force on us.

In a true Leinster House fashion, the gubberment have made a hames of the whole thing, letting lobby groups run amok, building willy-nilly in order to secure the best potential sites for private companies while the overall needs of the Irish public get let blowing round like an empty crisp bag on the side of the road.

Regardless of the ugly truths, we are balls deep in it now, and exploring/exploiting smarter ways to use, distribute and store the peak energy benefits that our gusty Island provides would be a more productive use of time and resources than bickering over bats, base load and bog-lands at this juncture.

...IMO...:rolleyes:

fclauson

AngryHippie wrote: »

Regardless of the ugly truths, we are balls deep in it now, and exploring/exploiting smarter ways to use, distribute and store the peak energy benefits that our gusty Island provides would be a more productive use of time and resources than bickering over bats, base load and bog-lands at this juncture.

...IMO...:rolleyes:

well said - our building lost power from storm Barney - no power for 24hrs - other than the lack of water (we have our own well) & a concern over food in the freezer - due to the thermal mass of the building and a log fire (as much for light as comfort) it was fine - if we had a small battery system to provide light, a low voltage pump for water and, of course, a way of powering the internet modem - we could have happily run on reduced power for 24hrs - but 99% of builds in Ireland could not - and still the government think Passive House is not the way to go

OssianSmyth

I'm going to look at three ideas put forward by fclauson

That wind power adds to the cost of national infrastructure because we still need backup for when the wind blows.
Wind does increase the capital cost of power generation but it reduces the future running costs by cutting fossil fuel imports.

That electricity generated by a wind farm doesn't match 1:1 against emissions reduction because of having to constantly adjust power stations to match changing output
This is also true but the cycling of power stations takes away only 1% of the emissions savings by the wind farm.
The UK National Grid wrote a report on exactly this when asked what was the effect on emissions of cycoling power stations.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/NATIONAL_GRID.pdf

That we have to pay for wind when we don't need it though constraint payments.
Again this is true but the amount is not a great as you might think. In 2013, Eirgrid reported that it could not use about 3.5% of the power it bought from wind farms.
http://www.interconnector.ie/site-files/library/EirGrid/Annual_Wind_Constraint_and_Curtailment_Report_2013_Non_Technical_Summary.pdf

Against the downsides of wind, there are also downsides to fossil fuel power. Wind may be continuously variable with the weather, but then so is the price of oil and gas. Worse still, we may lose supply altogether if we cannot maintain peace in the middle east or good relations with Russia. Then there is the air pollution and the consequent premature deaths and finally the addition to global warming.

As fclauson knows, it's more cost effective to insulate homes than build a wind farm. However we still need clean sources of electrical power. In future, transport and home heating will rely far more on electricity so even if reduce our national energy demand, we may need to increase our electrical generation capacity.

Passive House will be mandatory for all new builds in my local authority (Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown) starting in 2016. I expect that the other Dublin local authorities will follow suit. Low carbon cement will be required for construction.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

I see you used the IMF figure that puts a notional figure on the cost of Carbon that has no actual baring in reality.

It also includes tax reliefs. For example, in the US:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_5572346.html

Birdnuts wrote: »

Thanx to the vast amount of money wasted on wind/solar many of these plants are now in a poor state of repair from lack of investment with predictable results as already discussed on here in relation to the power crunch seen on the UK grid only a few weeks ago when wind/solar was producing FA power for days on end during a period of high grid demand.

Why do you keep overlooking the fact that the UK is investing vast sums in nuclear?

Birdnuts wrote: »

In any case wind does little to lessen reliance on fossil fuels as can be seen by such grids across Europe.

It’s already been pointed out numerous times that wind significantly reduces fuel consumption, yet you keep denying that to be the case?

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your utterly deluded. Both the UK and Germany depend heavily on baseload coal plants and Japan on nuclear.

We all know that Japan had no nuclear power for years.

Birdnuts wrote: »

How about wind farm operators accounting for damage to peatlands or rare earth metal mining etc..??

Renewables are getting cheaper because of the learning curve, and that also means that environmental impacts are being lessened because of said learning curve.

And as for you claim that conventional plants offer less capacity than wind.

The oft quoted figure for wind is 30% of nameplate.

Back in 2013 The Single Electricity Market had 33TWh annual generation from 11 GW Registered Capacity. Which works out at an average of 34% and that includes the high uptimes of the high inertia generators used to provide frequency stability and the peat stations.

So it turns out that yeah wind almost certainly beats a lot of peaking plant in annual capacity factor.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you account for this notional "2 million tonnes", what time period we are talking about, and where the savings on such imports went??.

It's the annual amount of coal used by Moneypoint to supply less power than renewables currently supply.

Birdnuts

OssianSmyth wrote: »

I'm going to look at three ideas put forward by fclauson

That wind power adds to the cost of national infrastructure because we still need backup for when the wind blows.
Wind does increase the capital cost of power generation but it reduces the future running costs by cutting fossil fuel imports.

.

Can you give an example of where this has actually happened in a modern industrialized country??

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

It also includes tax reliefs. For example, in the US:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_5572346.html
?
It’s already been pointed out numerous times that wind significantly reduces fuel consumption, yet you keep denying that to be the case?

All companies pay less tax when their profits drop. If that's your definition of a "subsidy" then pretty much every company in the world gets "subsidies". The writer of that piece would want to learn some basic economics.


PS: I've asked several times now for the fan boys of wind developers to account for these so called "savings" on fuel consumption in terms of energy costs etc. in this country. I've yet to get any credible answer on the subject after nearly 80 pages.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

.

Back in 2013 The Single Electricity Market had 33TWh annual generation from 11 GW Registered Capacity. Which works out at an average of 34% and that includes the high uptimes of the high inertia generators used to provide frequency stability and the peat stations.

So it turns out that yeah wind almost certainly beats a lot of peaking plant in annual capacity factor.


It's the annual amount of coal used by Moneypoint to supply less power than renewables currently supply.

You remind me of the spin merchants from the IWEA who love putting up figures for windy nights on there social media pages followed by silence for weeks on end when the wind isn't playing ball:rolleyes:. The facts are that wind output varies enormously from year to year and is least reliable in cold years like 2010 when the actual output was a mere 23% of installed capacity and energy demand significantly higher compared to mild years. Same pattern across Europe when you look at grids like Germany who relie even more heavily on coal during cold winters. No wonder their emissions spike substantially during those years.

PS: Can you clarify your statement on Moneypoint?? It reads to me like your claiming since wind generates energy at certain times it is the exact equivalent of a reduction in coal usage. The fact that moneypoint is a standby baseload power source suggests that assumption is way off to say the least!!!

Birdnuts

http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/24/chinas-dirtiest-city-cant-clear-the-air?videoId=366435392&videoChannel=118169&channelName=Editors%27+Picks#MZM7BDgoDqtmGEPD.97

Getting back to the OP's - some more ugly truths

It sums up the "out of sight, out of mind" approach of those who pedal the green energy = wind myth

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you give an example of where this has actually happened in a modern industrialized country??

The clue is in the word future.

All companies pay less tax when their profits drop. If that's your definition of a "subsidy" then pretty much every company in the world gets "subsidies". The writer of that piece would want to learn some basic economics.

I think you need to look a little closer at that article, and the implications of it.
Grants, subsidies and incentives are still being given to construct, fuel, decommission and clean-up conventional thermal fossil fuel plants.
A tax break is an incentive, "subsidy" may be an inaccurate choice of words, but the effect is the same.
As long as this incentive exists, whether it is tax-break based, or direct subsidy based is irrelevant. Once it exists, it acts as a disincentive for renewable energy development. That is the point of the article. Have a read of "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein if you want a few really good chapters on how screwed up US Federal spending/funding/tax is in relation to the notional policy of renewable energy.

Either way, I still believe wind is part of the solution, as is solar, geothermal, tidal and biomass. None of them is a stand-alone solution due to the varying outputs. Together, there is no reason why a country the size of Ireland could not put together a renewable electrification plan than could use a combined approach and a smart grid to ensure energy security into the future. If only the Gubberment would actually step in and make it a high priority.

Sure Ireland has more pressing humanitarian issues like poverty, health & education, but as long as our energy supply is subject to the whims of Sheiks and Texan Oil barons, the best laid plans and budgets have the potential to end up on the scrap-heap. Spend the time and money to put a comprehensive 20 year plan in place, safeguard it from administration change and every future budget will benefit from the investment.

However as FClauson has already pointed out, a large part of the problem is our out-dated housing stock, which is dire need of upgrade, why not include this as part of the 20 year strategy ?

The electoral cycle has done a massive dis-service to the people of Ireland in this regard, with the continual changes in administrations completely failing to address the looming problems in favor of securing enough votes to keep leather under there arses. But I suppose that is far enough off topic for now.

PS: I've asked several times now for the fan boys of wind developers to account for these so called "savings" on fuel consumption in terms of energy costs etc. in this country. I've yet to get any credible answer on the subject after nearly 80 pages.

It is not all about current energy costs.
Every time you bring this point up you fail to acknowledge that there have been savings in inputs and correspondingly in CO2 outputs.
Fossil Fuels are a finite resource, by definition as supply diminishes, cost is going to go up:
Has that happened yet- occasionally.
Will this happen in the future - Definitely
Will this drive up costs - Definitely

You seem to be basing all of your points on the status quo being sustainable.
It most definitely isn't.

Also - Polite request for the sake of sanity, can you please use Multi-quote and post one response at a time ? It just seems like you are trying to carpet-bomb the thread with one-line responses that blithely ignore the true complexities of the points you are trying to respond to.
It makes for very hard work as the thread goes on.

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We all know that Japan had no nuclear power for years.

This may be wrong but Japan has nuclear


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

OssianSmyth

Here's some data to show how Ireland's power generation sectors has been decarbonising in the past 15 yrs.

2000
Electricity generation: 24 Terawatt-hours, power gen emissions: 16.24 Mt
Power generation carbon intensity: 676 Kt/TWh

2013
Electricity generation: 25.3 Terawatt-hours, power gen emissions: 11.32 Mt
Power generation carbon intensity: 447 Kt/TWh

Wind Power is at 20% now and the next 20% is mostly contracted, planning approved, finance in place. We need now to diversify into things like heat pumps and domestic solar.

Sources:
EPA, BP

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

The fact that moneypoint is a standby baseload power source suggests that assumption is way off to say the least!!!

So which is it , Standby or Baseload ?

They are very, very different.

And that after you've already had my opinion that it's actually a third option.

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

This may be wrong but Japan has nuclear

I said HAD you say has.

Please learn to verb

Please also accept that while Japan has some of it's nukes online now that for YEARS they had NO nuclear power. Thus proving that they didn't actually need to rely on the stuff.

Also my point on sunken costs still counts. Nuclear might be cheap to run (with Hollywood accounting) but the capital costs are Godzilla scale gynormous.

Jim Martin

fclauson wrote: »

Just noticed this from your 1st post - is this still the case? (Your house rating)

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

All companies pay less tax when their profits drop. If that's your definition of a "subsidy" then pretty much every company in the world gets "subsidies". The writer of that piece would want to learn some basic economics.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the term “tax break”.

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: I've asked several times now for the fan boys of wind developers to account for these so called "savings" on fuel consumption in terms of energy costs etc. in this country. I've yet to get any credible answer on the subject after nearly 80 pages.

Yes you have, on more than one occasion. Here’s another one that I have absolutely no doubt you will also dismiss:

A dispatch model is applied to ex-post data for the 2012 All Island system in Ireland. Renewable electricity accounted for 20.4% of total generation, 15.8% from wind. The results show renewable generation averted a 26% increase in fossil fuels (valued at €297 million) and avoided an 18% increase in CO2 emissions (2.85 MtCO2), as compared to the simulated 2012 system without renewable generation. Wind averted 20% increase in fossil fuel generation and a 14% increase in CO2 emissions (2.33 MtCO2). Each MWh of renewable electricity avoided on average 0.43 tCO2 with wind avoiding 0.46 tCO2/MWh. Additional renewable related balancing requirements had minor impacts on fossil fuel generation efficiency; CO2 production rates increased by <2%.

https://www.esri.ie/publications/fossil-fuel-and-co2-emissions-savings-on-a-high-renewable-electricity-system-a-single-year-case-study-for-ireland/

Birdnuts wrote: »

The facts are that wind output varies enormously from year to year and is least reliable in cold years like 2010 when the actual output was a mere 23% of installed capacity and energy demand significantly higher compared to mild years

Actually it was closer to 24% in 2010, but that was an exceptionally low year. The average from 2002 – 2013 was 31.3 ± 3% (source).

Birdnuts wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/11/24/chinas-dirtiest-city-cant-clear-the-air?videoId=366435392&videoChannel=118169&channelName=Editors%27+Picks#MZM7BDgoDqtmGEPD.97

Getting back to the OP's - some more ugly truths

Specifically?

Markcheese

Its not wrong , japan has had nuclear for decades...
But it all got switched off after fucashima.... only recently started some up again.
Had to turn them off again in a hurry.

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Its not wrong , japan has had nuclear for decades...
But it all got switched off after fucashima.... only recently started some up again.
Had to turn them off again in a hurry.

The fact still remains that they survived without them for years. And even now out of 50+ reactors only two are back on line.

Japan’s nuclear generating capacity factor in October was 2.7 percent, up from 2.2 percent in September. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/

Capacity (IEA figures) at end of 2012 was 295 GWe, this being 46 GWe nuclear, 45 GWe hydro, 36 GWe coal, 47 GWe gas, 41 GWe oil, 16 GWe oil or coal, 50.6 GWe autoproducers’ ‘combustible fuels’, 6.6 GWe solar, 2.5 GWe wind and 0.5 GWe geothermal.

fclauson

Jim Martin wrote: »

Just noticed this from your 1st post - is this still the case? (Your house rating)

off topic -
but think the "only" will soon have to be changed to the "first"
€150/annum heating bill

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

:

https://www.esri.ie/publications/fossil-fuel-and-co2-emissions-savings-on-a-high-renewable-electricity-system-a-single-year-case-study-for-ireland/
?

You keep recycling that flawed SEI dispatch model on which your link is based


http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2014/12/seais-quantifying-savings-from.html

You have constantly failed to address any of the points in the above link on the matter. And I'll ask again for the nth time - Where did these fossil fuel savings go when the retail price of power in this country continued to rise despite falling oil/gas prices during that period???????

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

The clue is in the word future.



I think you need to look a little closer at that article, and the implications of it.
Grants, subsidies and incentives are still being given to construct, fuel, decommission and clean-up conventional thermal fossil fuel plants.
A tax break is an incentive, "subsidy" may be an inaccurate choice of words, but the effect is the same.
As long as this incentive exists, whether it is tax-break based, or direct subsidy based is irrelevant. Once it exists, it acts as a disincentive for renewable energy development. That is the point of the article. Have a read of "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein if you want a few really good chapters on how screwed up US Federal spending/funding/tax is in relation to the notional policy of renewable energy.


Sure Ireland has more pressing humanitarian issues like poverty, health & education, but as long as our energy supply is subject to the whims of Sheiks and Texan Oil barons, the best laid plans and budgets have the potential to end up on the scrap-heap. Spend the time and money to put a comprehensive 20 year plan in place, safeguard it from administration change and every future budget will benefit from the investment.

However as FClauson has already pointed out, a large part of the problem is our out-dated housing stock, which is dire need of upgrade, why not include this as part of the 20 year strategy ?

The electoral cycle has done a massive dis-service to the people of Ireland in this regard, with the continual changes in administrations completely failing to address the looming problems in favor of securing enough votes to keep leather under there arses. But I suppose that is far enough off topic for now.



It is not all about current energy costs.
Every time you bring this point up you fail to acknowledge that there have been savings in inputs and correspondingly in CO2 outputs.
Fossil Fuels are a finite resource, by definition as supply diminishes, cost is going to go up:
Has that happened yet- occasionally.
Will this happen in the future - Definitely
Will this drive up costs - Definitely

You seem to be basing all of your points on the status quo being sustainable.
It most definitely isn't.

Also - Polite request for the sake of sanity, can you please use Multi-quote and post one response at a time ? It just seems like you are trying to carpet-bomb the thread with one-line responses that blithely ignore the true complexities of the points you are trying to respond to.
It makes for very hard work as the thread goes on.

Ah yes - sometime in the future. Convenient waffle from an industry that's squeals like a pig at any suggestion in cuts in subsidies etc. No doubt much of these same predictions are coming from the geniuses that predicted we would be paying $200 per barrell for oil by now. I suggest you do a bit of reading on the current projections for gas,oil prices globally and energy demand in many developed economies in the coming years. The Economist had a piece recently highlighting how modern economies are more about "peak demand" and not about "peak oil". Highlighting how per capita energy demand in many economies is now falling due to energy saving technology etc. while gas/oil recovery technologies open up vast new supplies as already discussed and highlighted in this thread. Its says a lot about the wind developer fan boys that all they have to offer is unsubstantiated hysteria on the matter

Also you lecture on tax breaks doesn't hold much water either in that you seem to be unaware that all businesses can right off the costs of R and A and other legitimate business expenses against tax. That goes for whether your an oil company, farmer, crèche operator etc. So lets not pretend otherwise

PS: I don't appreciate being lectured too about my posting style. Obviously you have a problem with posters that don't share your view of the world. I also suggest your read the rules on here regarding back-seat modding

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The fact still remains that they survived without them for years. And even now out of 50+ reactors only two are back on line.

Japan’s nuclear generating capacity factor in October was 2.7 percent, up from 2.2 percent in September. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/

Japan had to massively up its import of fossil fuels during that time as solar/wind typically failed to provide a cost effective or reliable energy source for their massive industrial base. No wonder their keen to get conventional power plants up and running again.

Birdnuts

I see Fintan Slye of Eirgrid wind waffle fame let slip yesterday in a puff piece on green energy in the Indo that they are now considering paying domestic consumers up to 100 euro a year to switch off appliances during low wind conditions etc.. This has 2 frightening implications 1) the price per unit of energy will go through the roof to pay for this on top of all the other wind related costs heaped on consumers in recent years and 2) suggests that the system will start suffering power crunches of the type seen in the UK only last month that prompted the minister there to announce a massive investment in conventional power generation and an end to wind/solar supports.

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Ah yes - sometime in the future.

Yes the future, as in we have already made a pigs ear of the present, and doing nothing about it will only serve to lock us into a similarly haphazard future

Birdnuts wrote: »

while gas/oil recovery technologies open up vast new supplies

I suppose you would support tar sands, permafrost drilling, LNG fracking a nd continuing to blast methane and CO2 into the atmosphere then......I think this is the fundamental point where our arguments will stem from.....

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: I don't appreciate being lectured too about my posting style. Obviously you have a problem with posters that don't share your view of the world. I also suggest your read the rules on here regarding back-seat modding

I wasn't modding, I had no comment about your content or tone, nor would I presume to lecture. I was merely pointing out that the thread was starting to resemble a Cambodian hillside where every time you graced us with your input you did so over a half a page of posts. I apologize if you don't appreciate it, I don't believe it reflects on my world views (aside from my admiration of efficient communication) nor was it a criticism of you or your posts. Hence it was posed as a polite request. Feel free to ignore the request, it wasn't meant to be taken personally.

Macha

[mod] Oi, get back on topic. No more talk of back seat modding. Criticism of posts (not posters) perfectly valid but please keep it focused on content rather than style [/mod]

fclauson

Birdnuts wrote: »

I see Fintan Slye of Eirgrid wind waffle fame let slip yesterday in a puff piece on green energy in the Indo that they are now considering paying domestic consumers up to 100 euro a year to switch off appliances during low wind conditions etc.. This has 2 frightening implications 1) the price per unit of energy will go through the roof to pay for this on top of all the other wind related costs heaped on consumers in recent years and 2) suggests that the system will start suffering power crunches of the type seen in the UK only last month that prompted the minister there to announce a massive investment in conventional power generation and an end to wind/solar supports.

This is actually a really good idea - if implemented correctly - there is a tender on http://www.etenders.gov.ie under ENQEIR506 - Residential Consumer Demand Response.

What is forgotten in this mad rush to build generation plant to reach some nebulous x% of energy from renewables is that if you drop demand you can reach that target a different way.

With my own home when I was getting it BER assessed I struggled to reach 4kw/sqm/year renewables requirement for a new build because the building demand is so low that this 4kw equates to some 25% of the building demand. When the requirement was written it was assumed it would amount to 5%. By dropping demand your percentages go up

Now the building is up and running I am actually creating some 35% to 40% from renewables with a combination of a HP (420% efficiency), PV (25% of demand) and being Passive Certified less than 9Kwh/sqm/annum heat demand

So in summary one facet of the 2020 target is not to build more plant but to drop demand

L

As fclauson said. Also, during most daily peaks, it'd be a net saving if you can shift enough demand around to avoid having to start up those peakers. Flattening out the daily demand makes a lot of sense.

Markcheese

Isnt that supposed to be the main reason for heading to smart meters ???

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Japan had to massively up its import of fossil fuels during that time as solar/wind typically failed to provide a cost effective or reliable energy source for their massive industrial base. No wonder their keen to get conventional power plants up and running again.

As I posted earlier

Capacity (IEA figures) at end of 2012 was 295 GWe, this being 46 GWe nuclear, 45 GWe hydro, 36 GWe coal, 47 GWe gas, 41 GWe oil, 16 GWe oil or coal, 50.6 GWe autoproducers’ ‘combustible fuels’, 6.6 GWe solar, 2.5 GWe wind and 0.5 GWe geothermal.

So perhaps you like to explain to everyone here how exactly anyone could expect to replace 46GWe with 6.6 GWe of solar and 2.5 GWe of wind , especially when claiming that Solar and Wind have very low capacity factors ?



The thing is that gas generators are cheap to buy and quick to install. Handy if you need to cover for a few years. Less problems with NIMBY's too.

Wind and solar , like nuclear have high upfront costs. So it's difficult to invest in both. This is one reason I'm anti-nuclear as it soaks up capital for decades in an era where renewables are getting cheaper year upon year.