Wind farms - ugly truths

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

Regarding the grid limitations - would this cause the VERY low figures some of use pointed out.

Clearly the grid is restrictive on days when wind is doing VERY well - in that you have situations where you can't use the full potential due to the wind.
/QUOTE]


Currently its not possible to run the grid on 40%+ wind.

when you have wind on the grid inherent problems such as Frequency control, transmission, etc are introduced.

there lots of peer reviewed paper out there if you want to have a read

Old diesel

ted1 wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

Regarding the grid limitations - would this cause the VERY low figures some of use pointed out.

Clearly the grid is restrictive on days when wind is doing VERY well - in that you have situations where you can't use the full potential due to the wind.
/QUOTE]


Currently its not possible to run the grid on 40%+ wind.

when you have wind on the grid inherent problems such as Frequency control, transmission, etc are introduced.

there lots of peer reviewed paper out there if you want to have a read

I know its not possible to run 40 percent on the grid at the moment - that's one of the key reasons we need the upgrade of the Grid so we can process more electricity through the system at any one time.

Unfortunately the nature of targets at EU level - is that you end up with short term solutions.

Mind you - that's partially due to Ireland been slow to move to meet targets (in general)

djpbarry

ted1 wrote: »

I think commercial ventures are the best way forward, research in academic institutes can be long and drawn out.

Based on your extensive experience of both?

djpbarry

Old diesel wrote: »

You shouldn't NEED to increase the installed capacity at all - unless there is a projected increase of demand - or theres a problem with back up.

Well, there is a projected increase in demand, but I take your point.

However, we’re in a situation where we need to get carbon emissions down. Fast. As such, we don’t have time to wait until plants reach the end of their lives before replacing them with alternative forms of generation.

The of course there’s the added bonus that increasing wind generation reduces fuel imports.

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

The question is why are we installing any back up when we add wind because surly its about reducing the need for fossile fuel plants not increasing them

But you haven’t shown that there has been a significant increase? And how about providing a link to the raw data you used to generate your plot?

djpbarry

AngryHippie wrote: »

Politically, the topic is a nightmare, particularly in Ireland, as your average teacher-turned TD has zero understanding of electricity networks and generation, and can only rely on the information fed to them by advisors, who being human, always have their own agenda.

That’s pretty much the case everywhere – it’s not something that’s unique to Ireland.

Old diesel

fclauson wrote: »

Generally well put - wind should be a good resource - but its being "rammed" into this country.

Comes back to the way I built my house - I never accepted "asha it'll do" - I want numbers, facts and figures to show me that its valid, the best approach given all possible approches, useful and required.

My problem with wind - is the fact that communities MUST fit around wind turbines - not the other way round.

The performance issue is annoying - but id learn to live with it if it weren't for the need to squeeze communities around wind farms (due to said performance issues requiring the installation of more turbines to do the work)

Old diesel

I accept though that yes - people must make sacrifices to ensure things like secure electricity supply.

But for many communities - the only plan for their future - seems to be - get wind turbines in to them.

Like the Midlands wind turbine project.

We need renewables (I think) - but we also need to look at how the operations of these renewables interact with everyday living.

id be confident that if people can see that they can still enjoy things like pleasant everyday living in pleasant home environments - it would be a lot easier to gain acceptance.

But with wind the performance issues STILL remain - imo - even if you got community acceptance.

But the whole thing requires a much wider debate from all sides - then simply threads on boards.ie, prime time specials on RTE with Miriam O Callaghan and countless newspaper articles

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on your extensive experience of both?

yes. I've worked in both. commercial ventures provided the best and quickest results

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

Like the Midlands wind turbine project.

That is a different scenario altogether, the midlands plan was a self contained development which was to interact directly with the UK grid using its own interconnectors and its own transmission network

Old diesel

ted1 wrote: »

That is a different scenario altogether, the midlands plan was a self contained development which was to interact directly with the UK grid using its own interconnectors and its own transmission network

Yes - your right.

I mention it though - to outline how in Ireland - the approach to planning wind farms - is that communities must squeeze in around the wind farms.

And that the approach is - you don't plan the future of communities as communities (at least that's how it seems to me)

You just plan their future in terms of been sites for wind turbines - and that's the beginning and end of planning the community future.

The Midlands plan - was all about turbines - there was no thinking (it seemed to me) about how do we plan a positive future for the ACTUAL communities - in terms of they been places that people live.

That's whats missing from our wind farm planning - how do we view communities - do we see them as just places to put wind farms - or in a more positive light as places where people live - and see the fact people live there as a positive thing - rather then an obstacle to wind development.

But that's moving away from the topic so apologies

djpbarry

ted1 wrote: »

commercial ventures provided the best and quickest results

That depends on how you define "best". Regardless, “best” and “quickest” are generally mutually exclusive.

Commercial ventures might be better at commercializing research, but commercial R&D often builds on basic research conducted in (usually) public institutions. As such, stating categorically that one is “better” than the other doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in my opinion.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

djpbarry

Old diesel wrote: »

The Midlands plan - was all about turbines - there was no thinking (it seemed to me) about how do we plan a positive future for the ACTUAL communities - in terms of they been places that people live.

Ironically, the whole plan was born out of the rabid NIMBYism that exists here in the UK – these are a common sight in small British towns:

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

No, but you can adapt to it.
I’ll take that as a ‘no’.
Ergo, they are obviously not “useless”.

so you accept they are non-dispatchable, thats a good first step. congrats.

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

How exactly is the pay back too complex to calculate?

Why do people find it so hard to accept that the costs associated with wind-generated electricity are relatively low? It’s been shown time and time again.
.

only a fool could believe this. capacity payments for starters........

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

How exactly is the pay back too complex to calculate?

Why do people find it so hard to accept that the costs associated with wind-generated electricity are relatively low? It’s been shown time and time again.
There is a whole host of research ongoing in Ireland on sustainable electricity generation. For example, have a look at the work being done at the Electricity Research Centre at UCD, specifically the work of Mark O’Malley.

When Mark O'Malley was requested to supply information held on the environment through AIE, he refused.

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

Wind generation requires two back-ups now?

Can we please put to bed this idea that wind farms require “back-up”, but no other form of power generation does, because it’s complete nonsense. What matters is that a system is flexible enough to meet varying demand, not what happens on the individual generator level.

So wind farms do require back - up, does that not destroy the whole point of them in the first place ?:D

total lunacy

Fabo

househero wrote: »

Slightly off topic brain fart....

Doesn't Germany manufacture these turbines

...who's pushing for EU countries to reduce carbon emissions while holding the solution?

well spotted my friend.

wind energy is big business

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, there is a projected increase in demand, but I take your point.

demand will only ever rise to 2006 levels, if even. In 2006, we had lower amounts of fossil fuel plant.

However, we’re in a situation where we need to get carbon emissions down. Fast.

due to the above, the opposite would be the case.

As such, we don’t have time to wait until plants reach the end of their lives before replacing them with alternative forms of generation.

haha...yes in Ireland, we stretch their lives out even longer eg Tarbert.

The of course there’s the added bonus that increasing wind generation reduces fuel imports.

once again, these savings are pointless when new fossil fuel plant are given connections to the grid.

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

Ironically, the whole plan was born out of the rabid NIMBYism that exists here in the UK – these are a common sight in small British towns:

UK consumers were quicker to spot the wind scam than their Irish counterparts. Due to slightly more independent media.

Fabo

djpbarry wrote: »

But you haven’t shown that there has been a significant increase? And how about providing a link to the raw data you used to generate your plot?

There is no official study done....you have to sit down with a pencil and calculator and work it out.

Before we do point you in the direction, do you consider yourself open-minded ? Have you changed your mind before on a subject, once presented with new evidence.

Old diesel

This popped up on twitter

https://twitter.com/readyforwinter/status/471662590779994113/photo/1

thought it was interesting in the context of the thread - as they are calling on people to cut electricity demand on calm days

Says it all really

djpbarry

Fabo wrote: »

only a fool could believe this. capacity payments for starters........

You know the cost of the wind turbine up front. You’ve got a pretty good idea what the maintenance cost will be and you can forecast over the long term how much power will be generated.

So, if we say a cost of about £1 million per MW for installation, add say 20% for maintenance over a lifetime of 20 years and assume a capacity factor of say 30%, that works out at less than £0.02 per kWh.

That’s pretty damn cheap.

Fabo wrote: »

When Mark O'Malley was requested to supply information held on the environment through AIE, he refused.

Care to elaborate?

Fabo wrote: »

So wind farms do require back – up…

Name a form of power generation that does not require “back-up”?

Fabo wrote: »

demand will only ever rise to 2006 levels…

Ever? Really? Demand will never exceed 2006 levels?

Fabo wrote: »

due to the above, the opposite would be the case.

That statement makes no sense.

Fabo wrote: »

once again, these savings are pointless when new fossil fuel plant are given connections to the grid.

They’re obviously not pointless – Ireland’s emissions from power generation are declining quite rapidly.

Fabo wrote: »

UK consumers were quicker to spot the wind scam than their Irish counterparts. Due to slightly more independent media.

Are these the “slightly more independent media”-educated UK consumers who aren’t entirely sure whether the UK is in the EU or not?

I'm not sure I'd be quite so quick to trust their judgement.

Fabo wrote: »

There is no official study done...

I didn’t ask for one – I just asked for the source of the raw data used to generate the plot.

djpbarry

Old diesel wrote: »

This popped up on twitter

https://twitter.com/readyforwinter/status/471662590779994113/photo/1

thought it was interesting in the context of the thread - as they are calling on people to cut electricity demand on calm days

Says it all really

It doesn’t say anything at all - it’s just some guy on Twitter?!? It’s not like it’s a government agency or something.

visual

househero wrote: »

Slightly off topic brain fart....

Doesn't Germany manufacture these turbines

...who's pushing for EU countries to reduce carbon emissions while holding the solution?

Germany was leading the windfarms roll out dispite it costing every user 229 euro more
but it was the realisation that there grid was unstable and having to ramp up fossil fuel stations to meet demain and avoid blackouts that has forced germany to stop it wind energy in its tracks.
The intention was lots of wind energy and decommissioning of nucular plants reduction in CO2 plus Siemens are big player in turbines was a nice sweetener.

There is a dirrect relationship between Germany windfarms and their increased Co2.
Decommissioning nuclear stations didn't help but wind power didn't provide expected capacity.

The problem with wind energy is a simple one it is the wrong technology to provide a constant predictable supply. .


carbon tax is made up TAX that Europe self imposed our EU rep seeking pat on the head put forward that ireland could achieve 40%

The cleanest energy is the one with a bad rap nuclear and the public won't consider nuclear untill they are sitting in the dark without heating

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

This popped up on twitter

https://twitter.com/readyforwinter/status/471662590779994113/photo/1

thought it was interesting in the context of the thread - as they are calling on people to cut electricity demand on calm days

Says it all really

Actually the night is the worse time for Co2 emissions. They should be looking for people to increase demand when the system load drops below 2 GW

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

You know the cost of the wind turbine up front. You’ve got a pretty good idea what the maintenance cost will be and you can forecast over the long term how much power will be generated.

So, if we say a cost of about £1 million per MW for installation, add say 20% for maintenance over a lifetime of 20 years and assume a capacity factor of say 30%, that works out at less than £0.02 per kWh.

That’s pretty damn cheap.

So I question your maths

Turbine costs €1.5M/MW (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/colm-mccarthy-case-for-wind-must-be-proven-on-costs-29798897.html)

Maintenance @ 2.5% (see references below)
Inflation @ 2%
Time frame 20 years

€1.5M invested - total maint €911K
@ 2000 peak output by 20 years -> 40Gw -> 6c per Kwh
@ 30% capacity output by 20 years -> 52.5 Gw -> 4.6c per Kwh

And this takes no account of Grid25 which is costing (I think) €5B needed to support wind or the backup generation capacity that has to be built to cover when its not running

It come back to my original point - wind is not as cheap as it might look

references for maintenance costs per annum of initial expense
bit of an old article by 3 to 5%
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1010136/breaking-down-cost-wind-turbine-maintenance

another article 1 to 2%
http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-turbines/om-turbines.php

EWEA guidance 2 to 3%
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/WETF/Facts_Volume_2.pdf

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

You know the cost of the wind turbine up front. You’ve got a pretty good idea what the maintenance cost will be and you can forecast over the long term how much power will be generated.

So, if we say a cost of about £1 million per MW for installation, add say 20% for maintenance over a lifetime of 20 years and assume a capacity factor of say 30%, that works out at less than £0.02 per kWh.

That’s pretty damn cheap.
.

Don't forgot the cost of providing spinning reserve, the CMP, the BNE cost to make up the shortfall. The added cost of transmission and distribution to the grid for maintaining a distributed grid.

All these costs are involved and can't be ignored.

fclauson

and for another graph - source eurostat - note that irish is the most expensive in europe (baring cyprus and malta) and this price has ramped since wind was introduced compared to many other economies

Click to inlarge image



Source data - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/graph.do?tab=graph&plugin=1&pcode=ten00114&language=en&toolbox=close

fclauson

just found this to add to the argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The UK chart is interesting and probably comparable to Ireland (given my last post)

Also this - appreciate its old - but I think the slide on page 8 says it all - that there is a significant add on cost to cover the cost of back up for wind
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/cost_of_generating_electricity.pdf