Wind farms - ugly truths

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

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



.

I'm all for practical solutions that are sustainable economically and environmentally. But I'm getting tired of the hysteria and misinformation put out by vested interests in relation to energy matters. At the end of the day we will all die and the Sun will eventually consume the Earth and the rest of the Solar system. You would swear by some of the coverge on these matters by the Pollyanna self serving elements that are behind the likes of the wind/solar industry that next week we should all be looking at jacking in the job, leaving the wife and going out on a high of hookers and coke:rolleyes:. What annoys me the most about this is that other much more pressing matters like plastic contamination of soils/water, overfishing, food waste, unsustaineable population growth etc. don't get a fraction of the coverge compared to the media circus around this issue.

Birdnuts

fclauson wrote: »

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

I've no problem with folks spending their own money like that on micro/domestic renewables and energy efficiency technologies and I would like to see energy levies going into the latter particularly, instead of being handed to wind farm developers and the like. Especially if it allows folks to achieve near independence from the big power companies and energy developers that have ruthlessly exploited Irish energy consumers over the last 20 years while the likes of government quangos such as the CER consistently fails to protect the interests of ordinary energy users. Indeed Colm McCarthy had another excellent piece in this weeks Farmers journal about the crazy expansion in energy generation in recent years at national grid level, especially wind, costing consumers dearly and making no economic sense whatsoever given current and predicted demand profiles

But getting back to what the chief blowhard at Eirgrid said, sadly his actual suggestion was far from such commonsense. For example - given what we already know about the output profile of wind farms across the country, it is totally impractical to expect people to use basic appliances vital for everyday life, only when the wind regime across the country provides the required output. Take most of this October and early Nov for example. For days on end wind was contributing a tiny % of daily energy demand to the system. Expecting families, the elderly etc. not to use appliances for basic everyday needs over such long time periods is simply not practical and given that such a regime will enormously jack up the price of power over these prolonged periods, then it is a certain recipe for increased energy poverty and other problems.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As I posted earlier

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 ?



.

I suggest you address your concerns to the heads of Japans biggest industries. They are the ones that have been pushing the government to get its act together on the subject and this is what they are responding too. Clearly they don't have much faith wind/solar to do the job so are looking to the government to get their act together when it comes to restoring conventional plant outputs

signinlate

Electricity price are falling

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/electricity-and-gas-prices-to-fall-for-some-households-1.2446226

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

I have addressed that blog post several times, as have other posters. You keep throwing up the same links over and over again without paying the slightest bit of attention to what anyone says in response. Maybe instead of repeatedly throwing up links, you could actually make specific points with reference to said links and formulate a coherent argument?

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

It’s relatively easy to calculate the return on investment of wind and solar, as has been demonstrated several times on this thread.

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

Energy demand fell over the last few years mainly due to a global recession.

Birdnuts wrote: »

But getting back to what the chief blowhard at Eirgrid said, sadly his actual suggestion was far from such commonsense. For example - given what we already know about the output profile of wind farms across the country, it is totally impractical to expect people to use basic appliances vital for everyday life, only when the wind regime across the country provides the required output.

It is not “vital for everyday life” that dishwashers, washing machines and the like be run at specific times.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Take most of this October and early Nov for example. For days on end wind was contributing a tiny % of daily energy demand to the system. Expecting families, the elderly etc. not to use appliances for basic everyday needs over such long time periods is simply not practical…

Well of course it isn’t, which is probably why nobody has suggested that anyone has to go without using appliances for days on end.

I don’t see why demand-side management is such a ridiculous idea anyway? In Texas, some utilities companies are offering essentially free electricity at night:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/business/energy-environment/a-texas-utility-offers-a-nighttime-special-free-electricity.html?_r=0

OssianSmyth

signinlate wrote: »

Electricity price are falling

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/electricity-and-gas-prices-to-fall-for-some-households-1.2446226

A new report published on Thursday shows that fossil fuel use is also falling. Energy emissions are falling while GDP is rising.



http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland/Energy-in-Ireland-1990-2014.pdf

Birdnuts

signinlate wrote: »

Electricity price are falling

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/electricity-and-gas-prices-to-fall-for-some-households-1.2446226

Wow - a whole 2%!! Over the past 2-3 years oil/gas prices have fallen 30% +. As I stated earlier the likes of the CER and SEI have failed the energy consumer in this country badly. And that quote from Alex White is beyond laughable given this governments failing energy policies

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

I have addressed that blog post several times, as have other posters. You keep
throwing up the same links over and over again without paying the slightest bit
of attention to what anyone says in response. Maybe instead of repeatedly
throwing up links, you could actually make specific points with reference to
said links and formulate a coherent argument?

You certainly have not!!! And that accusation is a bit rich coming from someone who's main contribution to this thread is repeating the same tired "wind is cheap" line

It is not “vital for everyday life” that dishwashers, washing machines and the
like be run at specific times.
.

I see - so you can go without using cookers, heaters, toasters,TV's and fridges etc. for days on end:rolleyes:

Energy demand fell over the last few years mainly due to a global recession

Again your statements on such matters do not reflect the reality of declining per capita energy demand in many Western countries

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30518649.

Birdnuts

OssianSmyth wrote: »

A new report published on Thursday shows that fossil fuel use is also falling. Energy emissions are falling while GDP is rising.



http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland/Energy-in-Ireland-1990-2014.pdf

What your point?? Energy efficiency technology has reduced per capita energy consumption in many countries - even those with strongly growing economies. Claiming that the likes of wind energy is behind such things is simplistic and inaccurate

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30518649


.

Capt'n Midnight

OssianSmyth wrote:

Wind does increase the capital cost of power generation but it reduces the future running costs by cutting fossil fuel imports.

Birdnuts wrote: »

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

Please learn to verb.

A reasonable person might think it's a bit rich asking for examples of where something has happened in the future.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suggest you address your concerns to the heads of Japans biggest industries. They are the ones that have been pushing the government to get its act together on the subject and this is what they are responding too. Clearly they don't have much faith wind/solar to do the job so are looking to the government to get their act together when it comes to restoring conventional plant outputs

Japanese industrialists are the guys who are happy to kill off whales in at unsustainable rate. They are the ones who built nuclear reactors on fault lines and with sea walls below historical flooding levels. These are the guys who spent $20Bn on a breed reactor program that was only connected to the grid for an hour. Look at the conditions of the workers on the Fukushima cleanup.

Again I'll try to explain that 6.6GWe of wind can't replace 46GWe of nuclear.

Forget it there's no point. You are trying to set up a strawman argument that wind sucks because a watt of wind didn't replace seven watts of nuclear, and expect to be taken seriously ??


I'll try saying this a different way. Both nuclear and wind are capital intensive. (Though of course wind is getting cheaper and has a shorter payback time and fewer hidden capital costs.)

Both Nuclear and Wind rely on gas to load balance. Nuclear relies on it for daily and yearly peak demand. Wind relies on gas to take up the slack predicted days in advance.

So it's more difficult to invest in wind when you have all your capital tied up in nuclear. And as nuclear can't load balance worth a damn it doesn't mix as well with wind as gas or even coal.

Really it's just a case of gas being cheap and quick. And adage of not trusting old people "because they don't have to worry about the future". Business leaders close to their pensions aren't necessarily the best people to trust to protect the future.

robp

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Japanese industrialists are the guys who are happy to kill off whales in at unsustainable rate. They are the ones who built nuclear reactors on fault lines and with sea walls below historical flooding levels. These are the guys who spent $20Bn on a breed reactor oprogram that was only connected to the grid for an hour. Look at the conditions of the workers on the Fukushima cleanup.

It is more than a little ridiculous to try discredit Japanese energy policy by pointing to the Japanese marine harvest and whaling.

Capt'n Midnight

robp wrote: »

It is more than a little ridiculous to try discredit Japanese energy policy by pointing to the Japanese marine harvest and whaling.

And what exactly do you think would happen if you left Japanese energy policy to the self interests of the Keiretsu ?

robp

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And what exactly do you think would happen if you left Japanese energy policy to the self interests of the Keiretsu ?

What might or might not happen has little to do with their marine harvest.
Markets work. In fact they don't just work they are the only show in town. All means of energy generation are dependent on private capital, from large corporations to small co-operatives but I am digressing.

Macha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

Birdnuts wrote: »

You certainly have not!!! And that accusation is a bit rich coming from someone who's main contribution to this thread is repeating the same tired "wind is cheap" line

[mod] Once again, let's try to keep our attacks on posts, not posters. [/mod]

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

You certainly have not!!!

Yes, I have. I have also asked you several times now what specific point you are trying to make by continuously referencing this blog post? Have you even read it? It states that an SEAI report contains flaws. What report doesn’t contain flaws? Is that a good reason to dismiss the report out of hand? Of course not.

Birdnuts wrote: »

And that accusation is a bit rich coming from someone who's main contribution to this thread is repeating the same tired "wind is cheap" line

Not so long ago, I was being accused of arguing that “wind is free”.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I see - so you can go without using cookers, heaters, toasters,TV's and fridges etc. for days on end:rolleyes:

No.

Which is precisely what I said in my last post.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Again your statements on such matters do not reflect the reality of declining per capita energy demand in many Western countries

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30518649.

There’s plenty of evidence that the recession played a role in reducing energy consumption – for example:

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the United States decreased by ~11% between 2007 and 2013, from 6,023 to 5,377 Mt. This decline has been widely attributed to a shift from the use of coal to natural gas in US electricity production. However, the factors driving the decline have not been quantitatively evaluated; the role of natural gas in the decline therefore remains speculative. Here we analyse the factors affecting US emissions from 1997 to 2013. Before 2007, rising emissions were primarily driven by economic growth. After 2007, decreasing emissions were largely a result of economic recession with changes in fuel mix (for example, substitution of natural gas for coal) playing a comparatively minor role.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150721/ncomms8714/full/ncomms8714.html

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wow - a whole 2%!! Over the past 2-3 years oil/gas prices have fallen 30% +. As I stated earlier the likes of the CER and SEI have failed the energy consumer in this country badly. And that quote from Alex White is beyond laughable given this governments failing energy policies

Wholesale energy prices actually have fallen more in line with the gas price. It just hasn't been passed on to consumers by suppliers - which makes the minister's comment pretty much on the ball.

ted1

L wrote: »

Wholesale energy prices actually have fallen more in line with the gas price. It just hasn't been passed on to consumers by suppliers - which makes the minister's comment pretty much on the ball.

Any savings are bring wiped out by a poor performing euro

Capt'n Midnight

robp wrote: »

What might or might not happen has little to do with their marine harvest.

Of course not. But it's the same mentality. Focusing on short term returns doesn't always bode well for the future.

Markets work. In fact they don't just work they are the only show in town. All means of energy generation are dependent on private capital, from large corporations to small co-operatives but I am digressing.

We haven't had a fully open market here all that long. Before April 2011 Electric Ireland weren't allowed to set their own prices for all customers.

We've seen examples of what happens when a market is abused such as Enron. And of course the hidden subsides and guarantees for nuclear distort the market.

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

Wholesale energy prices actually have fallen more in line with the gas price. It just hasn't been passed on to consumers by suppliers - which makes the minister's comment pretty much on the ball.

?? So the minster and his quangos like the SEI and CER have failed to protect the consumer. Kinda the point I was making in relation to our energy policies.

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, I have. I have also asked you several times now what specific point you are trying to make by continuously referencing this blog post? Have you even read it? It states that an SEAI report contains flaws. What report doesn’t contain flaws? .html

You have continuously failed to address any of the flaws outlined - since it does not fit into your simplistic narrative on the subject

PS: Pretty devastating critique of Europes energy policies in a special climate change edition of this weeks Economist. Germany comes in for special mention and given that the current government here wants to inflict a similar folly on us, it makes for sobering and alarming reading. Its behind a paywall atm but I hope to throw up a few links ASAP over the coming week.

Macha

If this the same Economist that came out against nuclear three years ago on the grounds of safety and cost?

http://www.economist.com/node/21549936

L

ted1 wrote: »

Any savings are bring wiped out by a poor performing euro

Gas prices are still 10-15% cheaper than last year when adjusted for the weaker euro.

Birdnuts wrote: »

?? So the minster and his quangos like the SEI and CER have failed to protect the consumer. Kinda the point I was making in relation to our energy policies.

Unless you want the minister or CER to mandate customers being forced to switch to the cheapest energy supplier, there's not much more they can do other than point out the price differences between suppliers.

There's a spread of 4c per KWh between the cheapest and most expensive electricity providers in Ireland - and consumers are still mostly with the more expensive supplier.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

You have continuously failed to address any of the flaws outlined...

Well, the onus isn't really on me to do so, seeing as how I didn't author the report. However, I don’t remember claiming that any report was flawless – that would obviously be a completely unreasonable claim.

Getting back to the point at hand, I have produced numerous pieces of evidence showing that significant savings have been made in fossil fuel consumption through wind-based electricity generation. You have dismissed pretty much all of that evidence, seemingly on the back of single, anonymous, badly-referenced blog post, in which no estimate of total savings is given.

So, maybe instead of throwing up yet another isolated link, you might formulate a coherent argument, preferably with some hard figures?

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

If this the same Economist that came out against nuclear three years ago on the grounds of safety and cost?

http://www.economist.com/node/21549936

I never mentioned nuclear, but in response to your red herring, In the current article they highlight how nuclear has a clear role to play in a number of countries. Indeed in just the past year China,India,Argentina, Egypt,Saudi UAE etc. have all signed up to develope new nuclear power stations.

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

Gas prices are still 10-15% cheaper than last year when adjusted for the weaker euro.



Unless you want the minister or CER to mandate customers being forced to switch to the cheapest energy supplier, there's not much more they can do other than point out the price differences between suppliers.

.

The CER consistently cleared price increases over the past 15 years at the expense of the consumer so as to indulge the current flawed energy policies. And they are still failing in their mandate to protect the consumer

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, the onus isn't really on me to do so, seeing as how I didn't author the report. However, I don’t remember claiming that any report was flawless – that would obviously be a completely unreasonable claim.

Getting back to the point at hand, I have produced numerous pieces of evidence showing that significant savings have been made in fossil fuel consumption through wind-based electricity generation. You have dismissed pretty much all of that evidence, seemingly on the back of single, anonymous, badly-referenced blog post, in which no estimate of total savings is given.

So, maybe instead of throwing up yet another isolated link, you might formulate a coherent argument, preferably with some hard figures?

Bunkum - you won't address the issues raised at it undermines your empty claims on the subject. Then you have the cheek to hurl petty insults at posters like me that point out the obvious flaws in your "wind is cheap" etc. arguments that anyone can see are utterly baseless. I have posted numerous factual links on the subject across this thread backing up all my arguments on this matter. Indeed the Economist really nailed it this week in their analysis of EU energy polcies and the German model that the likes of yourself want to inflict on Ireland etc.

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678955-renewable-power-good-more-renewable-power-not-always-better-when-wind-blows


"The biggest single cause of the fossil-fuel boom is China, which is examined in the next article. But rich Western countries are more culpable than they think. They have transformed their rural landscapes with wind farms and pushed up electricity prices for consumers, yet have managed to drive surprisingly little carbon out of the energy system. The record would look even worse if Western countries had not simultaneously exported much of their heavy industry, and thus much of their pollution, to China and other emerging countries. "

ie. More or less the points I have been making in this thread and I've seen little or nothing from the wind lobby to dispute these findings

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Macha wrote: »

If this the same Economist that came out against nuclear three years ago on the grounds of safety and cost?

http://www.economist.com/node/21549936

I never mentioned nuclear, but in response to your red herring, In the current article they highlight how nuclear has a clear role to play in a number of countries. Indeed in just the past year China,India,Argentina, Egypt,Saudi UAE etc. have all signed up to develope new nuclear power stations.

Exactly. It's a schizophrenic publication written by non-experts that contradicts itself regularly.

Eugene Norman

Birdnuts wrote: »

Bunkum - you won't address the issues raised at it undermines your empty claims on the subject. Then you have the cheek to hurl petty insults at posters like me that point out the obvious flaws in your "wind is cheap" etc. arguments that anyone can see are utterly baseless. I have posted numerous factual links on the subject across this thread backing up all my arguments on this matter. Indeed the Economist really nailed it this week in their analysis of EU energy polcies and the German model that the likes of yourself want to inflict on Ireland etc.

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678955-renewable-power-good-more-renewable-power-not-always-better-when-wind-blows


"The biggest single cause of the fossil-fuel boom is China, which is examined in the next article. But rich Western countries are more culpable than they think. They have transformed their rural landscapes with wind farms and pushed up electricity prices for consumers, yet have managed to drive surprisingly little carbon out of the energy system. The record would look even worse if Western countries had not simultaneously exported much of their heavy industry, and thus much of their pollution, to China and other emerging countries. "

ie. More or less the points I have been making in this thread and I've seen little or nothing from the wind lobby to dispute these findings

Funny enough that report says the problem with wind and solar is that they are effectively free ( and of course intermittent). And in Germany that means that the next cheapest energy source – coal – is the next most competitive. The solution is better carbon pricing.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

The CER consistently cleared price increases over the past 15 years at the expense of the consumer so as to indulge the current flawed energy policies. And they are still failing in their mandate to protect the consumer

Retail electricity is a deregulated market (with CER as market monitor) since 2011 - so no they didn't.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Bunkum - you won't address the issues raised at it undermines your empty claims on the subject.

But you’re not raising any specific issues? You just keep posting the same links over and over without actually discussing them. I have neither the time nor motivation to trawl through blog posts that you link to and critique them. It's up to you to draw attention to the relevant points.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Then you have the cheek to hurl petty insults at posters like me that point out the obvious flaws in your "wind is cheap" etc. arguments that anyone can see are utterly baseless.

Baseless if you ignore all the facts and figures said arguments are based on, sure.

And once again, posting a link does not constitute “pointing out flaws”.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I have posted numerous factual links on the subject across this thread backing up all my arguments on this matter.

No, you have posted numerous links in place of an argument on the matter.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Indeed the Economist really nailed it this week in their analysis of EU energy polcies and the German model that the likes of yourself want to inflict on Ireland etc.

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678955-renewable-power-good-more-renewable-power-not-always-better-when-wind-blows

…

ie. More or less the points I have been making in this thread and I've seen little or nothing from the wind lobby to dispute these findings

Yes, it is pretty much in line with your argument alright. It’s also a great big contradiction, which you’ve clearly missed – the argument that renewables are simultaneously too cheap (distorting wholesale markets) and too expensive (pushing up retail prices). It doesn’t make any sense.

The problem is very obviously not renewables. The problem is the market.

Eugene Norman

The economist article was cant from start to finish. The economist gives the impression of neutral type dispassionate bloodless prose but it's just ideology. They used to deny climate change in fact, as an editorial position.

Birdnuts

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Funny enough that report says the problem with wind and solar is that they are effectively free ( and of course intermittent). And in Germany that means that the next cheapest energy source – coal – is the next most competitive. The solution is better carbon pricing.

That will simply make energy even more expensive and send even more emmissions abroad via continued loss of heavy industry. Not to mention increasing energy poverty among the most vulnerable groups in society

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

Retail electricity is a deregulated market (with CER as market monitor) since 2011 - so no they didn't.

The CER was founded in 1999 has been overseeing the energy markets in this country to varying degrees since then. The facts are that in this time the price of energy in this country has gone from below the EU averge to now the third highest in the block. Claiming they have no role in this state of affairs is not credible. In any case even since 2011 they have failed miserably to protect the consumer, especially in recent years when the price of oil and gas have dropped by 30% +

Birdnuts

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The economist article was cant from start to finish. The economist gives the impression of neutral type dispassionate bloodless prose but it's just ideology. They used to deny climate change in fact, as an editorial position.

Numerous energy analysts have pointed out the major flaws in the EU's energy policies. Are they part of this "conspiracy" too??:rolleyes:

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

But you’re not raising any specific issues? You just keep posting the same links
over and over without actually discussing them. I have neither the time nor
motivation to trawl through blog posts that you link to and critique them. It's
up to you to draw attention to the relevant points.
Baseless if you ignore
all the facts and figures said arguments are based on, sure.

And once
again, posting a link does not constitute “pointing out flaws”.
No, you have
posted numerous links in place of an argument on the matter

I'm challenging you flawed mantra on the subject of costs and emission savings when it comes to wind. Clearly you are not prepared to address these issues and instead dress up this failure in waffle that others can judge for themselves.

Yes, it is pretty much in line with your argument alright. It’s also a great big
contradiction, which you’ve clearly missed – the argument that renewables are
simultaneously too cheap (distorting wholesale markets) and too expensive
(pushing up retail prices). It doesn’t make any sense.

The problem is
very obviously not renewables. The problem is the market.

I've highlighted your problem right there. You clearly don't get what is involved in energy pricing on modern grids like Germany that are heavily dependent on coal,interconnectors etc, despite a massive investment in wind/solar. You clearly don't understand the issues around the costings on such grids in relation to baseload, spinning reserves, extra network costs, green subsidies etc. which makes the prices of retail power in these grids so expensive. These issues have been well highlighted in this thread by me and others but you clearly don't understand the issue or are simply not interested in such facts as they don't support your flawed views on the subject. Its sad really.


PS: Instead of attacking posters that seek to give the full facts on such matters I suggest you explore this in depth study on the costing of various power sources on an existing grid

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf

.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

written by non-experts that contradicts itself regularly.

They published a devastating critique recently of the UK's spend on solar/wind on the basis of direct quotes from Cambridge Professor David McKay who was the UK's Chief Government Scientific Advisor in the Dept for Energy and Climate Change. Do you consider this man a "non-expert"??

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

They published a devastating critique recently of the UK's spend on solar/wind on the basis of direct quotes from Cambridge Professor David McKay who was the UK's Chief Government Scientific Advisor in the Dept for Energy and Climate Change. Do you consider this man a "non-expert"??

If you want to quoteanybody, then quote them. But just because a group or author has quoted somebody with some credibility does not give the quoter that same credibility.

Much like your linking to articles and not engaging with the issues.

OssianSmyth

Birdnuts wrote: »

They published a devastating critique recently of the UK's spend on solar/wind on the basis of direct quotes from Cambridge Professor David McKay who was the UK's Chief Government Scientific Advisor in the Dept for Energy and Climate Change. Do you consider this man a "non-expert"??

David MacKay wrote a book on the challenges of transitioning the UK to 100% renewables. It has been very well received and he kindly decided to publish it for free on the internet. You can read it here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

David MacKay wrote:

While my book is technology-neutral, the truth is that personally I am pro-wind! I think wind farms are brilliant, and I'd be very happy be within eye-shot of one almost anywhere in the ordinary countryside.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

That will simply make energy even more expensive…

Not necessarily. It’s possible to alter the dynamics of the market without changing average wholesale cost.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'm challenging you flawed mantra on the subject of costs and emission savings when it comes to wind. Clearly you are not prepared to address these issues…

Once again, you are not highlighting any specific issues.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I've highlighted your problem right there.

No, you’ve just dismissed my critique of the article you linked to. Rather than discuss the point I made, you’ve just rejected it out of hand on the basis that, apparently, I just don’t understand - the last refuge of the weak argument.

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: Instead of attacking posters that seek to give the full facts on such matters I suggest you explore this in depth study on the costing of various power sources on an existing grid

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf

Yet another link.

It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to have the time to read a 41-page report before continuing the discussion - care to draw our attention to some specific points contained therein?

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

The CER was founded in 1999 has been overseeing the energy markets in this country to varying degrees since then. The facts are that in this time the price of energy in this country has gone from below the EU averge to now the third highest in the block. Claiming they have no role in this state of affairs is not credible. In any case even since 2011 they have failed miserably to protect the consumer, especially in recent years when the price of oil and gas have dropped by 30% +

I'm pointing out that your comment about the CER is factually incorrect. Their role as market monitor doesn't involve controlling prices (just ensuring they're fairly set).

As for the rest, energy prices are cyclical due to investment. We had higher wholesale electricity prices than the UK in the 80s (due primarily to needing to pay off bulding Moneypoint), we had lower in the 90s (due to big plant being paid off/little new investment), then higher again due to (a lot of) new investment. Now we're roughly on parity with the UK despite lacking their interconnection into mainland Europe.

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its sad really.

[mod]Stop with the condescending language. It's entirely unnecessary[/mod]

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'm challenging you flawed mantra on the subject of costs and emission savings when it comes to wind. Clearly you are not prepared to address these issues and instead dress up this failure in waffle that others can judge for themselves.

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: Instead of attacking posters that seek to give the full facts on such matters I suggest you explore this in depth study on the costing of various power sources on an existing grid

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf

[mod] I'd like to draw your attention to this part of the charter, particularly the section in bold.

Topics should be relevant to Sustainability and Environmental Issues and posts should not be (for example) verbatim quotes from an article or isolated links (to videos, for example) without comment from the poster. Offer your own opinion on the subject so far as is possible. If a link to a video or article is being posted as a response to another post or to make a specific point, then please state clearly what that point is.

In other words, engage in a point-by-point debate. Don't just throw up random links with a suggestion that other posters read them to find out the points you're trying to make. It's lazy and poor debating. [/mod]

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

If you want to quoteanybody, then quote them. But just because a group or author has quoted somebody with some credibility does not give the quoter that same credibility.

Much like your linking to articles and not engaging with the issues.

I've linked to a number quotations from David Mackay a number of times, including his own twitter account. If you can't be ar$ed paying attention to these posts then please don't make lazy and inaccurate comments as to my debating style. Below are a number of examples of my posts/links covering David Mackays analysis of wind/solar costs etc. on the UK grid

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97784900&postcount=1087

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21677663-some-cuts-green-power-subsidies-are-sensible-mixed-messages-risk-deterring-much-needed


from the last link

"Nor did boosts to renewables offer good value. Their power was too intermittent, says David MacKay, a Cambridge professor who served as the DECC’s chief scientific adviser in 2010-14. Although the cost of photovoltaic cells has plummeted in recent years, sunny days are infrequent in Britain; nor does the wind reliably blow. Onshore wind turbines produce energy less than 27% of the time, and large solar projects just 11% of the time, relative to their maximum potential. Green subsidies, funded by a levy on consumers’ energy bills, were originally forecast to reach £7.6 billion a year by 2020; before the recent cuts they were heading for £9.1 billion"

Birdnuts

I'm pointing out that your comment about the CER is factually incorrect. Their
role as market monitor doesn't involve controlling prices (just ensuring they're
fairly set

Do or do they not ok price increases?? I'd also like to know your definition of a regulator??

As for the rest, energy prices are cyclical due to investment. We had higher
wholesale electricity prices than the UK in the 80s (due primarily to needing to
pay off bulding Moneypoint), we had lower in the 90s (due to big plant being
paid off/little new investment), then higher again due to (a lot of) new
investment. Now we're roughly on parity with the UK despite lacking their
interconnection into mainland Europe.

[/QUOTE]

Exactly - constructing excess wind capacity that makes little environmental or economic sense

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

[mod]
In other words, engage in a point-by-point debate. Don't just throw up random links with a suggestion that other posters read them to find out the points you're trying to make. It's lazy and poor debating. [/mod]

Are there rules here about impartial modding?? I suggest you re-read that post and you will find I listed the points that your side-kick has consistently refused to address and then provided a link which expanded on those points. Or are you seriously saying I have to cut,copy and paste entire PDF documents for posters that are too lazy to click on a link????

Birdnuts

.

Once again, you are not highlighting any specific issues.
No, you’ve
just dismissed my critique of the article you linked to. Rather than
discuss the point I made, you’ve just rejected it out of hand on the basis that,
apparently, I just don’t understand - the last refuge of the weak argument.

Yet another link.

What critique?? - you just recycle the same baseless dirge no matter what facts are placed in front of you. To quote Joe Higgin when he talked about a former discredited Taoseach "debating with him was like trying to play handball against a hay stack"

It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to have the time to read a 41-page report

Don't bother so - sad you can't be ar$ed to even read the conclusions in it but I should be used to your style of posting here by now

Birdnuts

OssianSmyth wrote: »

David MacKay wrote a book on the challenges of transitioning the UK to 100% renewables. It has been very well received and he kindly decided to publish it for free on the internet. You can read it here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

I suggest you keep up with his most recent musings on the subject. That book was published way back in 2008, before he took up his post with the DECC, where he appears to have changed his opinions radically on the subject of wind power on the UK grid as my linked posts on the matter show.

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

I've linked to a number quotations from David Mackay a number of times, including his own twitter account. If you can't be ar$ed paying attention to these posts then please don't make lazy and inaccurate comments as to my debating style. Below are a number of examples of my posts/links covering David Mackays analysis of wind/solar costs etc. on the UK grid

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97784900&postcount=1087

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21677663-some-cuts-green-power-subsidies-are-sensible-mixed-messages-risk-deterring-much-needed


from the last link

"Nor did boosts to renewables offer good value. Their power was too intermittent, says David MacKay, a Cambridge professor who served as the DECC’s chief scientific adviser in 2010-14. Although the cost of photovoltaic cells has plummeted in recent years, sunny days are infrequent in Britain; nor does the wind reliably blow. Onshore wind turbines produce energy less than 27% of the time, and large solar projects just 11% of the time, relative to their maximum potential. Green subsidies, funded by a levy on consumers’ energy bills, were originally forecast to reach £7.6 billion a year by 2020; before the recent cuts they were heading for £9.1 billion"

That's a quote from the Economist, not from MacKay.

Do you have many or any direct quotes from him with full context to show his full position in more recent times?

Nothing what the Economist paraphrases above conterdicts his overall support for wind turbines.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

What critique?? - you just recycle the same baseless dirge no matter what facts are placed in front of you.

I made specific reference to the article you linked to. Here, it is stated that renewables are pushing up prices for consumers:

But rich Western countries are more culpable than they think. They have transformed their rural landscapes with wind farms and pushed up electricity prices for consumers…

But later in the article, it is claimed that the problem with renewables is that the energy they produce is too cheap:

The problem lies with the effect of renewables on energy markets. Because their power is free at the margin, green-power producers offer it for next to nothing in wholesale markets (they will go on to make money from subsidies, known as feed-in tariffs). Nuclear power stations also enter low bids. The next-lowest bids tend to come from power stations burning lignite coal—a cheap but especially dirty fuel. They are followed by the power stations burning hard coal, then the gas-fired power stations. The energy companies start by accepting the lowest bids. When they have filled the day’s requirements, they pay all successful bidders the highest price required to clear the market.

The obvious conclusion here is that there is a problem with the market.

Discuss.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Don't bother so - sad you can't be ar$ed to even read the conclusions in it but I should be used to your style of posting here by now

You’ve read it in detail, have you? Why not provide us with a synopsis?

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suggest you keep up with his most recent musings on the subject. That book was published way back in 2008, before he took up his post with the DECC, where he appears to have changed his opinions radically on the subject of wind power on the UK grid as my linked posts on the matter show.

David MacKay is still a very outspoken proponent of renewables. For example, here is a "map of the world" he has produced, last updated in June 2013, showing countries' power consumptions, population densities, and areas and comparing power consumptions per unit area with the power production per unit area of various renewables.