Wind farms - ugly truths

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Care to dispute any of the facts in the links below??

http://www.tumbit.com/news/articles/8642-spain-announces-details-of-green-energy-subsidy-cuts.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579361103986679382

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2013/10/25/renewables_costing_germany__denmark_billions_107305.html


http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh

http://theenergycollective.com/maxluke/274041/trash-trees-and-taxes

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/338781/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-germanys-economy

[mod]Right, now you're really starting to annoy me. Either debate properly, making arguments and backing them up as you go along, or stop posting. Posting a ton of links that you expect other posters to read through is not proper debating. [/mod]

fclauson

Looking at the numbers

so

1. we see 7% increase in C02 when generating via fossil fuel
2. a 15% improvement in intensity due to renewables

we see a saving in CO2

As fossil-fuel generators can take several hours to warm up and come on-line, the system operator must decide in advance, with the aid of forecasts of wind output and electricity demand, what units are required to meet net load.

So forecasting of wind is critical

A saving of €297M in fuel costs but no clear cost to achieving this.
Winds portion was €177 + €11 = €188M

We know from earlier posts its around €1M to €1.5M per Wind Mw and with a fleet of 1642Mw of wind = €1642M to €2493M to install and at 3% to maintain gives €39M to €74M gives a very very rough (not interest costs, no inflation, no infrastructure) between 12 and 22 years to pay for themselves (just in fuel).

Have I summed this up right?

ted1

We know for a fact that wind does not lower energy prices
http://www.seai.ie/News_Events/Press_Releases/2011/Wind_generation_not_increasing_wholesale_electricity_prices.html

http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Energy_Modelling_Group/Energy_Modelling_Group_Publications/Impact_of_Wind_Generation_on_Wholesale_Electricity_Costs_in_2011.pdf

So CO2 "might" be the only benefit, it certainly doesn't add to out energy security.

fclauson

Agree Ted1 - all information points towards all this spend for a fairly small C02 saving

This comes back to the NREP argument - no true costing was done. For example as I posted earlier the big spike in demand is lunch time and evening time - there is then a blip around 11pm when night storage comes on line.

If we spent more of our time trying to smooth that or if we paid that 1.6Billion into retrofit and charged house owners over the 15 to 20 year pay back a charge for energy saved (e.g. pay as you save type model) would we be in a better C02 position than what wind farms produce.

Add to that the MASSIVE social and community impacts wind farms have then perhaps we have made the wrong choice chasing wind as a the answer to energy demand

So back to my opening post after 305 comments - is this the UGLY TRUTH ABOUT WIND FARMS ?

BrenCooney

With regard to Birdnuts post 287, renewables is much much, more than simple initial costs. This is also about literally saving our planet. If it wasn't why would we do it? Also your mixing up total co2 which includes transport, etc) against the co2 from electrical generation. Wind reduced co2 from electrical generation, fact!!
With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

Old diesel

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to Birdnuts post 287, renewables is much much, more than simple initial costs. This is also about literally saving our planet. If it wasn't why would we do it? Also your mixing up total co2 which includes transport, etc) against the co2 from electrical generation. Wind reduced co2 from electrical generation, fact!!
With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

How do you mean economic ownership - you mean community wind farms

If so - theres a big difference between communities developing a windfarm - or working in PARTNERSHIP with a developer to develop a windfarm.

And the normal Irish model where a community has wind turbines forced on them - with no though whatsoever given to their community.

Their community - in the 2nd scenario is just seen as a place to put turbines - and the windfarms planned accordingly

I mean imagine if you planned for communities in the way this town is doing

http://neilstonwindfarm.org/regen.html

That's the problem here in Ireland - the only plan is - get turbines in - that's very NEGATIVE planning in my view and not conducive to having community support.

Planning for positive community futures on the other hand is

Greensleeves

Macha wrote: »

Yes, they're all across Europe!

And there are anti-wind groups opposing them all accross Europe.

What's different about Ireland? We have lots of people who in recent years have moved to live in the countryside but their livelihoods aren't actually connected to the countryside. They moved for the 'view' and will oppose anything that they perceive as negatively impacting on that view.

Evidence? I know quite a few people who are actively opposing wind farms in Ireland who have lived all their lives in the affected area.

Capt'n Midnight

That wind farms cost money is hardly news.

When it's said without explaining that ALL forms of electricity generators also cost money it's kinda cheating.


Biomass would be one solution as it's dispatchable and relatively CO2 neutral.

If you believed the anti-wind spin you could replace intermediate wind farms with biomass farms. Except that wind farms don't block other types of farming, so you could have both on the same site. Yes I'd like to see more native forestry but that would destroy people's line of sight and block views and only the landowner would get paid, the neighbours wouldn't :eek:


Onshore wind has a long way to go.

But if someone figures out a cheaper way to build pontoons / artificial islands / monopiles / power transmission to reduce the cost of offshore relative to onshore then it would be easier to develop all the East Coast sites.

Bio fuels are a completely different story since they rely so heavily on fossil fuel inputs.

Greensleeves

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

It isn't always the case. Wind turbine hosts in the USA have filed a lawsuit against the wind farm developers arguing the companies built wind turbines on their properties that created “nuisances.”

http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_8d68bfaa-886e-11e3-8dc2-001a4bcf6878.html

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

Looking at the numbers

....
So forecasting of wind is critical

A saving of €297M in fuel costs but no clear cost to achieving this.
Winds portion was €177 + €11 = €188M

We know from earlier posts its around €1M to €1.5M per Wind Mw and with a fleet of 1642Mw of wind = €1642M to €2493M to install and at 3% to maintain gives €39M to €74M gives a very very rough (not interest costs, no inflation, no infrastructure) between 12 and 22 years to pay for themselves (just in fuel).

Have I summed this up right?

Forecasting is critical , there's a graph in the report about how accurate the forecast is 24 hours out. Bearing in mind that some fossil fuel generators get paid a premium price to provide spinning reserve to meet 75% of any short fall within 15 seconds and 100% within one minute, 24 hours notice is way loads. Also every decade weather forecasting improves by about 24 hours , massive computing power has uses.


Read your post again.
You are saying that wind can pay for itself within as little as 12 years, based ONLY on fuel savings.

Like any other generator they also get paid for the electricity they supply. So the pay back time is obviously shorter. And of course if the price of fuel goes up the pay back time reduces.

Interesting since that's less than the time it would take to construct a new nuclear power plant in Western Europe.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Isn't this all about significantly lowering Irelands emissions and cheaper electricity - wind has failed badly on both counts as it has across the EU. SEAI used a particular dispatch model in this analysis that does not cover all the CO2 emissions from a wind based system. Saying wind powered a certain number of homes is also ridiculous given the fact that for extended periods of time wind was contributing figures below 1% of its installed capacity.

I agree that the SEAI document isn't great. But at least it gives numbers. And those numbers are similar to the UK ones which I'd consider more rigorous.

Mentioning that wind gives low power on occasions is like pointing out that we have less hydro in drier months or trying to explain why cyclists can't freewheel while peddling to the top of a hill.

Weather forecasts and the spinning reserve that's needed to backup fossil fuel and transformer outages covers this.

While wind won't blow on demand, the 24hr forecasts are as accurate as for fossil fuel when take into account unplanned outages. UK figures show that each MW / MWh of Wind uses about the same MW / MWh of reserve that fossil fuel and nuclear use.


Nuclear in the US is a joke, AFAIK for commercial reasons they don't have to announce all "planned outages" in advance for competition reasons. It's another invisible subsidy they get.

fclauson

BrenCooney wrote: »

With regard to Birdnuts post 287, renewables is much much, more than simple initial costs. This is also about literally saving our planet. If it wasn't why would we do it? Also your mixing up total co2 which includes transport, etc) against the co2 from electrical generation. Wind reduced co2 from electrical generation, fact!!

agree that its fact - but if I was spending x Billion on saving C02 is building a wind farm the right way of doing it or are there better ways (e.g. retrofit and insulate or move the cooking spike away from 6pm each evening)

With regard to communities, if the turbines are such an impact on people, how is it always the case that once they have a economic ownership in them the problems always "disappear"?

If you had invested what some of these owners had invested you could never complain about them - but I know a number of families (in your own county) who "if we only knew before we started" would not have started. They are now lumbered with a 20 year loan plus a change of use on their land to commercial (which knackers inheritance tax planning) and a droning/wack thump noise which they were told would never be heard.

fclauson

I wanted to pick up on the energy usage in a separate post on building control (slightly off topic - but stick with me)

Read http://passivehouseplus.ie/news/government/two-thirds-of-new-homes-fail-energy-efficiency-rules.html

Less than a third of new Irish homes meet energy efficiency and carbon emissions regulations, according to new figures. The number of new homes meeting the rules has also declined dramatically since 2005, according to data released by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

If we had built buildings to the regs then this would have had a massive impact on the use of energy and more importantly on fuel and C02

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

I wanted to pick up on the energy usage in a separate post on building control (slightly off topic - but stick with me)

Read http://passivehouseplus.ie/news/government/two-thirds-of-new-homes-fail-energy-efficiency-rules.html

Less than a third of new Irish homes meet energy efficiency and carbon emissions regulations, according to new figures. The number of new homes meeting the rules has also declined dramatically since 2005, according to data released by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

If we had built buildings to the regs then this would have had a massive impact on the use of energy and more importantly on fuel and C02

Ah, this thread is wandering all around the place anyway.

This is really insane. As much as I defend renewables, it's bonkers to build more than we need. We need to maximise efficiency, especially in the housing sector, to make sure we don't 'overengineer' our energy supply system i.e.., build too much of everything (power lines, wind turbines, storage, etc).

There should be serious fines for not meeting any part of the building regs, including part L.

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

Ah, this thread is wandering all around the place anyway.

This is really insane. As much as I defend renewables, it's bonkers to build more than we need. We need to maximise efficiency, especially in the housing sector, to make sure we don't 'overengineer' our energy supply system i.e.., build too much of everything (power lines, wind turbines, storage, etc).

There should be serious fines for not meeting any part of the building regs, including part L.

thanks - my thread - thanks for permitting a little wander but its all in the same cause.

My house failed to pass Part L/BER rating when initially built - madness - its a Passive House & uses circa €400 per annum heating and hot water of electric and sits at 21C all year round - why the method of calculation of need and usage was all wrong and screws up on low energy homes.

Wind - lets build lots of wind farms - it saves C02 output - and its more environmentally friendly - same madness we are addressing the problem from the wrong end. Have one coal fire power station producing 2000Kw into a highly managed low demand smart grid enabled grid or a mish mash of technology with varying degrees of benefit, value and capability into a highly unmanaged high demand dum grid.

Back to my OP - Wind investment contains ugly truths, does not make sense at the scale we are intending on doing it - the money would be better spent doing more sensible things.

The_Captain

.

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

thanks - my thread - thanks for permitting a little wander but its all in the same cause.

My house failed to pass Part L/BER rating when initially built - madness - its a Passive House & uses circa €400 per annum heating and hot water of electric and sits at 21C all year round - why the method of calculation of need and usage was all wrong and screws up on low energy homes.

Wind - lets build lots of wind farms - it saves C02 output - and its more environmentally friendly - same madness we are addressing the problem from the wrong end. Have one coal fire power station producing 2000Kw into a highly managed low demand smart grid enabled grid or a mish mash of technology with varying degrees of benefit, value and capability into a highly unmanaged high demand dum grid.

Back to my OP - Wind investment contains ugly truths, does not make sense at the scale we are intending on doing it - the money would be better spent doing more sensible things.

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

Is this one of the 'more sensible things' you're alluding to above? Having one single unit of supply on the grid is definitely not an option. That's not how electricity systems work. What happens when it trips off line or needs maintenance? Do people realise that fossil fuel plants also need back up? Has that been factored into calculations about reduced CO2 output comparisons?

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

Is this one of the 'more sensible things' you're alluding to above? Having one single unit of supply on the grid is definitely not an option. That's not how electricity systems work. What happens when it trips off line or needs maintenance? Do people realise that fossil fuel plants also need back up? Has that been factored into calculations about reduced CO2 output comparisons?

No sorry - this I probably got out of context a bit - typed too late at night

My point was a few (strategically placed) well managed plants - with a well managed grid makes more sense than a mish mash of different units which seems to be where we are headed.

Those plants can be powered by whatever you like (gas probably makes most sense)- but if your drop the overall grid demand to a point where there is little day/night or morning/evening variation then you are better placed to control it. Doing this levelling process will take investment and this seems a better investment than the wind farm at any cost route.

It comes back to what is the best value option for achieving what we are trying to achieve (lowering C02) and I say again - I do not think the current approach is driving value for the Irish electrical customer or for the ecologist who wants to save the environment.

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

No sorry - this I probably got out of context a bit - typed too late at night

My point was a few (strategically placed) well managed plants - with a well managed grid makes more sense than a mish mash of different units which seems to be where we are headed.

Those plants can be powered by whatever you like (gas probably makes most sense)- but if your drop the overall grid demand to a point where there is little day/night or morning/evening variation then you are better placed to control it. Doing this levelling process will take investment and this seems a better investment than the wind farm at any cost route.

It comes back to what is the best value option for achieving what we are trying to achieve (lowering C02) and I say again - I do not think the current approach is driving value for the Irish electrical customer or for the ecologist who wants to save the environment.

I'm afraid gas is also a no go after 2030 if we want to hit our climate targets. Despite what the industry claims, it isn't a low-carbon fuel, it's just a lower carbon fuel. In terms of lowering CO2, I've yet to see anyone propose anything better than renewables. As for cost - do people realise most of the PSO levy goes to peat and gas? Is that commonly understood?

I have to say, I think your idea of a few central plants really misses one the great benefits of renewables: distributed generation where individuals, coops etc can actually generate their own energy, not just be on the receiving end of a utility. I think decision makers need to realise the massive potential of solar PV in Ireland - not only is it getting cheaper all the time, it matches wind well, reduces the need for transmission grids (as it can often be used within the same distribution grid) and is genuinely accessible for many individuals.

I'm enjoying watching all the utilities across Europe sweat it out as they failed to anticipate the renewables revolution. I also look in disgust at some of the laws they get passed, eg in Spain, because they can't deal with it. I'm not about to support heading back to an energy system where I just sit at the end of a power line and pay my bill at the end of every month.

Old diesel

Macha wrote: »

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

Is this one of the 'more sensible things' you're alluding to above? Having one single unit of supply on the grid is definitely not an option. That's not how electricity systems work. What happens when it trips off line or needs maintenance? Do people realise that fossil fuel plants also need back up? Has that been factored into calculations about reduced CO2 output comparisons?

I think hes more argueing for a WELL designed low demand smart grid - and is suggesting that even if you had coal as part of this - its still better then a mishmash of different technologys - with poorly thought out wind.

This might be on the basis that with the poorly designed solution - your still end up possibly having to come back to fossils when wind isn't performing well.

But I may have picked up Francis wrong - and apologies if that's the case

Old diesel

Macha wrote: »

I'm afraid gas is also a no go after 2030 if we want to hit our climate targets. Despite what the industry claims, it isn't a low-carbon fuel, it's just a lower carbon fuel.

I have to say, I think your idea of a few central plants really misses one the great benefits of renewables: distributed generation where individuals, coops etc can actually generate their own energy, not just be on the receiving end of a utility. I think decision makers need to realise the massive potential of solar PV in Ireland - not only is it getting cheaper all the time, it matches wind well, reduces the need for transmission grids (as it can often be used within the same distribution grid) and is genuinely accessible for many individuals.

I'm enjoying watching all the utilities across Europe sweat it out as they failed to anticipate the renewables revolution. I also look in disgust at some of the laws they get passed, eg in Spain, because they can't deal with it. I'm not about to support heading back to an energy system where I just sit at the end of a power line and pay my bill at the end of every month.

But alas the irish model tends to be wind developers coming into communities - been able to put in turbines as if the community doesn't exist.

Such thinking hinders the potential of communities imo - wheras I would like to see communities drive forward

The sort of model you talk about - individuals producing their own energy - and co ops - could be a more positive model for Rural communities.

I previously linked to the Neilston community wind farm project in this thread - and I like the thinking behind that project - in that the wind farm is part of a WIDER initiative to actually create a BETTER future for the town of Neilston.

Now if from day 1 when we started planning wind farms - we had that sort of approach and community involvement in planning - then maybe communities might be far more receptive to having wind turbines - if they've been able to be involved in planning the turbines in a way that suits their communities.

Its not the turbines that are the big issue - but how we plan them - and dump them into communities*

*very strong term - but I can't see how else you could describe how turbines are "planned" in Irish rural communities

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Why are you supporting coal as an option? It's not - economically, environmentally or socially. Do you know what goes into coal mining? You'd choose to send men down coal mines rather than look at a wind turbine? Charming.

?

Theres a long list of environmental and human rights issues associated with wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation. The devastation caused by the mining of rare earth metals and graphite is only one part of this ugly story.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

I'm afraid gas is also a no go after 2030 if we want to hit our climate targets. Despite what the industry claims, it isn't a low-carbon fuel, it's just a lower carbon fuel. In terms of lowering CO2, I've yet to see anyone propose anything better than renewables. As for cost - do people realise most of the PSO levy goes to peat and gas? Is that commonly understood?

.

And yet the US is lowering its emission far quicker than the likes of the EU wind junkies on the back of gas. Despite what some in the EU would have us believe as outlined in the link below highlighting the flaws in a recent French analysis

http://theenergycollective.com/saeverley/353341/french-report-misstates-role-shale-gas-reducing-us-carbon-emissions

The renewable element of these climate targets is still up for debate in the EU given the poor performance of wind in lowering emmissions across the EU

http://www.energypost.eu/brussels-confines-climate-policy-emission-reduction-emission-trading/

"Significantly, it does not include post-2020 national renewable energy targets"

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

And yet the US is lowering its emission far quicker than the likes of the EU wind junkies on the back of gas. Despite what some in the EU would have us believe as outlined in the link below highlighting the flaws in a recent French analysis

http://theenergycollective.com/saeverley/353341/french-report-misstates-role-shale-gas-reducing-us-carbon-emissions

The renewable element of these climate targets is still up for debate in the EU given the poor performance of wind in lowering emmissions across the EU

http://www.energypost.eu/brussels-confines-climate-policy-emission-reduction-emission-trading/

"Significantly, it does not include post-2020 national renewable energy targets"

More nonsense - sorry there's just no other words for the contents of these posts. The shale gas 'revolution' is temporary for many, many reasons and has already started to fall away. Carbon emissions in the US rose last year as coal started to come back into the system:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/after-years-of-decline-u-s-carbon-emissions-rose-2-percent-in-2013/

By the way, your links don't actually back up what you claim they do. For example, what the second one has to do with the role of renewable energy in reducing historic carbon emissions in Europe, I don't know. The fact that the European Commission decided to propose only an EU-wide binging renewable energy target (capitulating to the UK and many utilities that failed to invest in renewables) doesn't really tell us how good renewables are at reducing carbon emissions. What that tells me is that utilities have woken up to the threat of renewables to their traditional business model and are fighting against them. As for the UK, they're so Eurosceptic they can't accept any policies 'imposed' by Brussels. By the way, the final decision on the targets will be in October this year - what you linked to is a report on the Commission's proposals.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres a long list of environmental and human rights issues associated with wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation. The devastation caused by the mining of rare earth metals and graphite is only one part of this ugly story.

Oh boy... more FUD

Straw clutching because none of those things are limited to wind. Also it's been a while since China had a monopoly on "rare" earths.

Also the way of policing these things is just insane. Something like 200,000 companies will have to verify the source of things like tantalum when the reality is that there are only about 14 refineries worldwide that are capable of handling it in volume and if you don't police them then there's no point.

If you want a human rights issue how about the deaths associated with the 2022 world cup in Qatar ?

Wind is reducing demand for fossil fuel here to 3/4 of what it used to be , which probably translates into less deaths in the mining and drilling industry.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wind is reducing demand for fossil fuel here to 3/4 of what it used to be , which probably translates into less deaths in the mining and drilling industry.

Not even the hot air/wind brigade at the SEAI are claiming that. I suppose your a fan of electric cars and their dirty batteries. Wind energy is the very definition of "Greenwash"

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

More nonsense - sorry there's just no other words for the contents of these posts. The shale gas 'revolution' is temporary for many, many reasons and has already started to fall away. Carbon emissions in the US rose last year as coal started to come back into the system:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/after-years-of-decline-u-s-carbon-emissions-rose-2-percent-in-2013/

By the way, your links don't actually back up what you claim they do. For example, what the second one has to do with the role of renewable energy in reducing historic carbon emissions in Europe, I don't know. The fact that the European Commission decided to propose only an EU-wide binging renewable energy target (capitulating to the UK and many utilities that failed to invest in renewables) doesn't really tell us how good renewables are at reducing carbon emissions. What that tells me is that utilities have woken up to the threat of renewables to their traditional business model and are fighting against them. As for the UK, they're so Eurosceptic they can't accept any policies 'imposed' by Brussels. By the way, the final decision on the targets will be in October this year - what you linked to is a report on the Commission's proposals.

This weeks Economist suggests otherwise in relation to gas. But sure self appointed online experts know better I suppose. Also the US is exporting more coal to Europe in recent years which says it all really

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/05/07/us_coal_shipement_to_europe_soar_107744.html

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Not even the hot air/wind brigade at the SEAI are claiming that. I suppose your a fan of electric cars and their dirty batteries. Wind energy is the very definition of "Greenwash"

So your problem with wind farms is that they don't replace petrol

And here's the thing , you know that we only use 3/4 of the fossil fuel we would otherwise use to generate electricity.

Capt'n Midnight

Insulation is a better investment than generation.

Here's the graph though, which shows that we use about 1 GW more electricity at peak in winter than summer



http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/weeklypeakdemand/

So insulation helps. But heating is not the main use of electricity , even in winter. And of course we get more wind in winter.


Arguing about investing in wind vs. insulation is a bit like

Jim Hacker: Even maths is politicised.
"If it costs £5 billion a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences
and £75 a year to feed a starving African child,
how many children could be saved from starvation
if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"

Sir Humphrey: That's easy. None. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons.[/]I

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

This weeks Economist suggests otherwise in relation to gas. But sure self appointed online experts know better I suppose. Also the US is exporting more coal to Europe in recent years which says it all really

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/05/07/us_coal_shipement_to_europe_soar_107744.html

[mod]Don't get personal - attack the post, not the poster. And by the way, I don't know why you're giving out about 'online experts' given that this is an internet forum.[/mod]

Where does the Economist suggest otherwise on gas and in relation to what element of what I wrote? That it isn't a low-carbon fuel? That isn't up for the Economist to decide - that's a fact.

Yes, the US has exported more coal to Europe in the last few years because they have an artificially inflated supply of natural gas in the US. If you don't believe anything else of the economics of US shale gas, at least accept that it is almost impossible to export the stuff (you need a Congressional permit) and this is keeping supply artificially high). As I already said, coal is already coming back into the US energy system but as soon as the US starts exporting natural gas outside NAFTA, coal is going to come flooding back in as natural gas supply drops and US wholesale natural gas prices react accordingly.

On top of that the EU ETS isn't delivering a carbon price high enough to keep that US coal out. If anything, this should lead you to the conclusion that carbon-price only policies aren't enough and we need specific policies to boost efficiency and renewables to change our energy system.

Greensleeves

Wind was blamed for pushing up the price of electricity in March and gas is being credited with reducing the price in April.

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/energy-price-ireland-wind-1402326-Apr2014/

http://www.thejournal.ie/gas-price-low-drives-down-electricity-costs-1507769-Jun2014/

Macha

Greensleeves wrote: »

Wind was blamed for pushing up the price of electricity in March and gas is being credited with reducing the price in April.

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/energy-price-ireland-wind-1402326-Apr2014/

http://www.thejournal.ie/gas-price-low-drives-down-electricity-costs-1507769-Jun2014/

This is getting completely ridiculous. Did anyone actually read the links?

No? Right, I'll highlight a relevant point that was very conveniently skipped over in the first link:

Lower wind speeds than expected combined with “forced outages” from efficient gas and cheap coal plant to drive the price of electricity up, Bord Gais said in its latest energy index.

Yes, that's right. It was the lack of wind in March that pushed up wholesale electricity prices.

And by the way, we're seeing very low gas prices because Europe has had an incredibly mild winter and we are heading into the months of lowest demand, i.e. summer. If you actually read the analysis, you realise just how horribly reliant we are on the UK gas market because that's basically all the analysis is about.

The quality of debating on this forum is hovering around pathetic.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Yes, that's right. It was the lack of wind in March that pushed up wholesale electricity prices.

.

The quality of debating on this forum is hovering around pathetic.

Really?? And then certain posters get hammered when they point out the unreliablilty of wind on a grid. It increasingly appears only pro-wind types are welcome on this forum. Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Really?? And then certain posters get hammered when they point out the unreliablilty of wind on a grid. It increasingly appears only pro-wind types are welcome on this forum. Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

If you feel the modding is biased, please feel free to take it up in the relevant manner. I'm talking about the quality of debating, which to be perfectly honest, I find depressing.

Let's just take your statement above.

Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

Does it do anything to contradict the point I made above that the story was entirely misrepresented and 'thanked' by three posters who clearly didn't read the link (or if they did, didn't care)? No. Does it show any acceptance or comprehension of the difference between wholesale electricity prices and retail electricity prices as already discussed at length in this very thread? No.

Is it just another unfounded, accusative statement alluding to something else that wind power must be to blame for despite it not actually making any practical sense to anyone who understands how power markets work? Yes. And I will explain it again here. Ireland's retail electricity prices are regulated. This means that retail electricity price bands are set by the Commission for Energy Regulation, not by the market. Therefore, the downward pressure that wind has on wholesale electricity prices isn't always passed onto the retail consumer in the form of lower retail electricity prices.

Moreover, the reality may actually be different from the Eurostat research you're referring to as it uses a number of assumptions, including using a default annual kWh for all households that's lower than Ireland's (we are less efficient than the European average), leading to an assumption that the unit price of electricity must be higher than it really is. More details here: http://www.bonkers.ie/blog/ireland-fourth-most-expensive-country-in-europe-for-electricity-prices-/

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Really?? And then certain posters get hammered when they point out the unreliablilty of wind on a grid. It increasingly appears only pro-wind types are welcome on this forum. Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

Could you please supply some numbers about winds "unreliability".

Unless you can then please just admit it's an illogical Mantra of FUD.

Just because it doesn't blow on demand doesn't mean it's unpredictable.

Base it on annual time there was a shortfall in the 24 hour prediction was more than the spinning reserve needed to support fossil fuel generation.

This is the MAXIMUM measure of unpredictability of wind.

Then take into account that even coal takes less than 24 hours to come on line and that predictions of less than 24 hours are more accurate. We've a somewhat flexible grid since fossil fuel generators and other large single points of failure like transformers have a more disturbing effect than a predicted weather front moving across the country over several hours gradually changing the output.

Then compare it to other generators IIRC the max is about 11% downtime.

fclauson

Last week the SEAI told us in their report that Renewables are delivering €260m energy savings , can someone explain why we need a massive 50% hike in the PSO levy that accordingly will raise €328m if we have already saved €260m - we would expect a reduction due to this "saving" and would also expect reduction due to the wholesale cost of electricity dropping 10% as per above article.


Someone is not telling us the clear facts and deliberately muddling the waters.

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

Last week the SEAI told us in their report that Renewables are delivering €260m energy savings , can someone explain why we need a massive 50% hike in the PSO levy that accordingly will raise €328m if we have already saved €260m - we would expect a reduction due to this "saving" and would also expect reduction due to the wholesale cost of electricity dropping 10% as per above article.


Someone is not telling us the clear facts and deliberately muddling the waters.

For a start, €240m of that money is going to peat and gas, not renewables.

The problem here, again, is that Irish retail electricity prices are regulated meaning that the savings are not being directly passed onto the consumer. The savings that SEAI measure are accurate so renewables are bringing a net benefit of €172m. There is another problem I have with the system. The PSO levy in Ireland is a flat rate on each energy bill that has no correlation with how much energy you use. By contrast, in Germany this levy is applied per kWh used, which means the more you use, the more you pay - much fairer.

Greensleeves

Macha wrote: »

And by the way, we're seeing very low gas prices because Europe has had an incredibly mild winter and we are heading into the months of lowest demand, i.e. summer. If you actually read the analysis, you realise just how horribly reliant we are on the UK gas market because that's basically all the analysis is about.

The quality of debating on this forum is hovering around pathetic.

Wind increases our reliance on gas. The IEA (International Energy Agency) highlighted this in their 2012 Energy Review of Ireland.

"Ireland is highly dependent on imported oil and gas. While the push to develop renewable energies is commendable, this will result in an increased reliance on natural gas, as gas-fired power plants will be required to provide flexibility in electricity supply when wind power is unavailable. With two-thirds of Ireland’s electricity already coming from gas-fired generation, this poses concerns with regard to gas security, particularly as 93% of its gas supplies come from a single transit point in Scotland. In order to meet Ireland’s ambitious renewable targets and improve the island’s level of energy security, the country must successfully develop a range of gas and electricity infrastructure projects and market solutions while continuing to integrate its energy markets with regional neighbours."

http://www.iea.org/countries/membercountries/ireland/

Greensleeves

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Could you please supply some numbers about winds "unreliability".

Unless you can then please just admit it's an illogical Mantra of FUD.

Just because it doesn't blow on demand doesn't mean it's unpredictable.

Base it on annual time there was a shortfall in the 24 hour prediction was more than the spinning reserve needed to support fossil fuel generation.

This is the MAXIMUM measure of unpredictability of wind.

Then take into account that even coal takes less than 24 hours to come on line and that predictions of less than 24 hours are more accurate. We've a somewhat flexible grid since fossil fuel generators and other large single points of failure like transformers have a more disturbing effect than a predicted weather front moving across the country over several hours gradually changing the output.

Then compare it to other generators IIRC the max is about 11% downtime.

We can just do what the National Grid in the UK is considering doing and pay customers to do without electricity when no wind is forecast.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10890695/Wind-farm-expansion-will-see-more-factories-paid-to-switch-off.html

Greensleeves

Macha wrote: »

For a start, €240m of that money is going to peat and gas, not renewables.

Is the Tynagh CCGT plant included in the PSO because it is a backup for wind?

Macha

Greensleeves wrote: »

Wind increases our reliance on gas. The IEA (International Energy Agency) highlighted this in their 2012 Energy Review of Ireland.

"Ireland is highly dependent on imported oil and gas. While the push to develop renewable energies is commendable, this will result in an increased reliance on natural gas, as gas-fired power plants will be required to provide flexibility in electricity supply when wind power is unavailable. With two-thirds of Ireland’s electricity already coming from gas-fired generation, this poses concerns with regard to gas security, particularly as 93% of its gas supplies come from a single transit point in Scotland. In order to meet Ireland’s ambitious renewable targets and improve the island’s level of energy security, the country must successfully develop a range of gas and electricity infrastructure projects and market solutions while continuing to integrate its energy markets with regional neighbours."

http://www.iea.org/countries/membercountries/ireland/

Jesus, this is bad even by IEA's conservative standards! With gas already providing 66% of our electricity back then it would be absolutely bonkers to think that more renewable electricity would actually cause an increase. And, uh, the facts show this was wrong. We have more renewables in our electricity system today and gas now generates 50% of our electricity.

Greensleeves wrote: »

Is the Tynagh CCGT plant included in the PSO because it is a backup for wind?

It's in but because there's more wind and it's running less (which totally contradicts the IEA point above, I have to say), therefore gaining less revenue from the market and has to be subsidised more, ie it was a contract for difference (CfD).

What a stupid contract for them to have signed - but then again, they were all signed in 2005 when we thought the Irish population was going to hit 6 million by the end of the year and projected electricity demand predicted a shortfall and we're left paying for them. So just to be 100% clear, these gas plant subsidies have nothing to do with backing up wind - they are about additional capacity we thought we need to build asap.

Here's the relevant part of the CER document:

Lower running of Tynagh, a 400 MW gas plant provided with a PSO for
security of supply reasons. In recent years the Tynagh plant has being
running less in the SEM due to a variety of factors, including more wind
generation being available to run instead. As a result, the plant receives lower
revenues from the SEM. Under the terms of its PSO, most of its allowed costs
are fixed, and so lower SEM running and revenue is largely being
compensated for by a higher PSO payment

Capt'n Midnight

Greensleeves wrote: »

Wind increases our reliance on gas.

More FUD

Almost all of our spinning reserve is Open Cycle Gas Turbines running at 2/3rd's of their full power. So can ramp up in seconds and more importantly can ramp back down again in seconds.

Even combined cycle gas can respond fairly quickly for load following, and demand varies faster than country wide fluctuations in wind


Again can you please supply some numbers for your preposterous claims.


Typically the increased O&M & fuel costs for spinning reserve needed for wind are only between 0.1 and 1% of the fuel costs saved by wind.


BTW Nuclear, and to a lesser extent Coal, increase reliance on gas, because it can't load follow and the capital cost means you can't invest in renewables like wind that have the proven ability to opportunistically replace gas.



In theory nameplate capacity of wind farms isn't that impressive.
In practice the limiting factor this winter was the limit of 50% asynchronous generators on the grid at any one time, based on that limit wind had a 50% capacity factor. Which is pretty impressive considering all the fuss people make about it.


There's a very simple rule in science. If your theory doesn't match the facts you have to get a new theory.

Capt'n Midnight

Greensleeves wrote: »

We can just do what the National Grid in the UK is considering doing and pay customers to do without electricity when no wind is forecast.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10890695/Wind-farm-expansion-will-see-more-factories-paid-to-switch-off.html

OMG :eek: !!!!

you've re-discovered load shedding


Before there were wind farms in the UK , I can remember big industrial customers in the North of England realising that they had a big contract for leccy at a fixed price and a manufacturing business that wasn't all that profitable. The marginal cost of providing them with power at peak times was more than they could profit by using that power. So it was cheaper to "pay" them not to use the amount of power they were contracted to use.

Also not providing the power meant less capital investment was needed so you don't have power stations that only run for a few minutes after Coronation Street ends.

ESB have a similar scheme too

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

Jesus, this is bad even by IEA's conservative standards! With gas already providing 66% of our electricity back then it would be absolutely bonkers to think that more renewable electricity would actually cause an increase. And, uh, the facts show this was wrong. We have more renewables in our electricity system today and gas now generates 50% of our electricity.

Are you saying gas generation capacity hasn't increased ?

Can you please clarify this point ?

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

More FUD

Almost all of our spinning reserve is Open Cycle Gas Turbines running at 2/3rd's of their full power. So can ramp up in seconds and more importantly can ramp back down again in seconds.

Tynagh is ccgt. In recent years, ccgt has been favoured.

Typically the increased O&M & fuel costs for spinning reserve needed for wind are only between 0.1 and 1% of the fuel costs saved by wind.

mmm...sounds tiny but 69 million euros for one plant suggests otherwise.

BTW Nuclear, and to a lesser extent Coal, increase reliance on gas, because it can't load follow and the capital cost means you can't invest in renewables like wind that have the proven ability to opportunistically replace gas.

Nuclear can displace gas plant as opposed to fiddling around with its output.

Its like saying using a car increases reliance on the horse and cart as you cant use the two together, unlike a bike which you can bring along in the horse and cart, and use it for part of the journey. So completely failing to see that one car can completely dispense with the need for the horse and cart altogether.

You need to think in terms of the big picture.

Energy is full of paradoxes, like Jevons, this is also another one. That's why ordinary people almost always get it wrong when commenting on it.

Capt'n Midnight

Fabo wrote: »

Tynagh is ccgt. In recent years, ccgt has been favoured.

Kinda obvious seeing as efficiency approaches 60% compared to maybe half that for previous generations of plant

mmm...sounds tiny but 69 million euros for one plant suggests otherwise.

Obviously you can't attribute the full O&M costs , just the extra that's needed. Like I keep saying most of the reserve is in case of fossil fuel generators going offline.

Nuclear can displace gas plant as opposed to fiddling around with its output.

Its like saying using a car increases reliance on the horse and cart as you cant use the two together, unlike a bike which you can bring along in the horse and cart, and use it for part of the journey. So completely failing to see that one car can completely dispense with the need for the horse and cart altogether.

You need to think in terms of the big picture.

Nuclear is like a car
If you have one you have to pay for tax and insurance whether you use it or not. The incremental cost of fuel maybe about the same as taking a bus. And you have to pay for the car in the first place, so you can't afford a decent bike with all the repayments.

Actually if you don't use your car regularly the cost per mile becomes very expensive because of those overheads. So economics says that you should use your car more often to minimise the cost per mile. ( because otherwise you could never justify getting a car ) If the car breaks down you can always take take bus , but it might be more expensive if you can't buy a commuter ticket if you've already filled the tank.

If the weather is OK you can cycle. You save money each time, and you can always hop on the bus if the weather forecast says it's going to be windy or rainy tomorrow. The question about whether commuter tickets are slightly cheaper than a leap card is resolved when you realise that you can usually cycle one day a week and possibly more as you get fitter.

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Kinda obvious seeing as efficiency approaches 60% compared to maybe half that for previous generations of plant




Obviously you can't attribute the full O&M costs , just the extra that's needed. Like I keep saying most of the reserve is in case of fossil fuel generators going offline.




Nuclear is like a car
If you have one you have to pay for tax and insurance whether you use it or not.

It would get priority dispatch because of low emissions.

The incremental cost of fuel maybe about the same as taking a bus.

this is akin to importing the nuclear from UK which we do. Either you burn fuel in your car or someone else burns it on your behalf in a bus.

And you have to pay for the car in the first place, so you can't afford a decent bike with all the repayments.

Wind = bike in this case. Fairly expensive bike.

Actually if you don't use your car regularly the cost per mile becomes very expensive because of those overheads. So economics says that you should use your car more often to minimise the cost per mile. ( because otherwise you could never justify getting a car ) If the car breaks down you can always take take bus , but it might be more expensive if you can't buy a commuter ticket if you've already filled the tank.

nuclear would get PD

If the weather is OK you can cycle. You save money each time, and you can always hop on the bus if the weather forecast says it's going to be windy or rainy tomorrow. The question about whether commuter tickets are slightly cheaper than a leap card is resolved when you realise that you can usually cycle one day a week and possibly more as you get fitter.

yes but here's the killer................

the BUS has to RUN regardless of what you do and what days you decide to cycle.

UK's nuclear plant has to run, regardless of whether Ireland wants the power or not. (this doesnt happen very often btw)

Capt'n Midnight

Fabo wrote: »

It would get priority dispatch because of low emissions.

Guess what ? wind is even lower.

this is akin to importing the nuclear from UK which we do. Either you burn fuel in your car or someone else burns it on your behalf in a bus.

Maybe I should have likened nuclear to a steam engine where it takes ages to increase the power because of the time it takes to heat the water, and firing up from cold takes hours. Steam engines don't have gearboxes, you can pretty much tell it's optimum speed from the size of the wheels.

nuclear would get PD

and that's why nuclear is a lock in technology , investing in it means you don't have cash to invest in renewables.

yes but here's the killer................

the BUS has to RUN regardless of what you do and what days you decide to cycle.

hmmm, should have said taxi.

UK's nuclear plant has to run, regardless of whether Ireland wants the power or not. (this doesnt happen very often btw)

But the UK will be paying twice the average wholesale rate for Hinckley C

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

Are you saying gas generation capacity hasn't increased ?

Can you please clarify this point ?

No, I'm not talking about capacity, which doesn't always follow the market, as we can see with silly Irish CfD contracts and gas plant operators begging for capacity payments across Europe.

I'm talking about how gas is performing in the market and its role in generating electricity. In just one year from 2011 to 2012, natural gas dropped from providing 55% of our electricity down to 49%.

And that is also a real drop in ktoe, not just a drop in percentage. In 2007, 2737 ktoe of natural gas was used to generate Ireland's electricity. In 2012, that number was down to 2269 ktoe.

Fabo

Obviously you can't attribute the full O&M costs , just the extra that's needed. Like I keep saying most of the reserve is in case of fossil fuel generators going offline.

thats a lot of maintenance costs for a plant that doesnt get on the grid too often. but then again as John Lynch, the CER official who wrote the PSO paper, stated in 2010:

As observed by [Denny 2009] the number of plant start-ups will increase dramatically as the level of wind penetration increases. This will significantly
increase operation and maintenance costs and reduce the operating lifetime of thermal plants, especially
of existing thermal plants which have not been designed to withstand thefatigue resulting from repetitive cycling