Wind farms - ugly truths

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

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.

so you're saying that most of the new gas plant built in last 7-8 years is lying idle ?

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

so you're saying that most of the new gas plant built in last 7-8 years is lying idle ?

I'm not sure how you're reading that out of what I wrote. But a lot of existing gas plants are suffering from low capacity factors in Ireland and across Europe.

I'm sure the exact numbers on capacity factors are out there somewhere.

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

I'm not sure how you're reading that out of what I wrote. But a lot of existing gas plants are suffering from low capacity factors in Ireland and across Europe.

I'm sure the exact numbers on capacity factors are out there somewhere.

Strange then that Eirgrid keep accepting connections for new ones then isnt it ?

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

Strange then that Eirgrid keep accepting connections for new ones then isnt it ?

I think I've made my point clear about gas being gradually replaced by renewables in our electricity system and backed it up with evidence.

You keep asking questions about capacity. If you have a point, why don't you make it?

Greensleeves

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

ESB have a similar scheme too

I didn't know that the ESB pay customers to not use electricity. I did an internet search but can't find any information; do you have a link?

It is a very good idea IMO.

Capt'n Midnight

Greensleeves wrote: »

I didn't know that the ESB pay customers to not use electricity. I did an internet search but can't find any information; do you have a link?

It is a very good idea IMO.

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/ancillaryservicesothersystemcharges/demandsidemanagementdsm/demandsideunits/

see top of page 63

Activation Energy - 12 MW
DAE Virtual Power - 29MW

Capt'n Midnight

Fabo wrote: »

so you're saying that most of the new gas plant built in last 7-8 years is lying idle ?

this time of year minimum demand drops to 2GW at night, if we get a windy night half of that could come from wind.

We'd only need 1GW of dispatchable generation out of an 7.4GW installed capacity , so yeah most of the gas plant would be idle. But that's the whole point of gas, it can follow demand.

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

I'm not sure how you're reading that out of what I wrote. But a lot of existing gas plants are suffering from low capacity factors in Ireland and across Europe.

I'm sure the exact numbers on capacity factors are out there somewhere.

Well, you can only get data in Ireland on grid accepted power so you cant see the whole picture as its "confidential" so no, we dont know what the true capacity factors are.

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

this time of year minimum demand drops to 2GW at night, if we get a windy night half of that could come from wind.

We'd only need 1GW of dispatchable generation out of an 7.4GW installed capacity , so yeah most of the gas plant would be idle. But that's the whole point of gas, it can follow demand.

sorry but if it lies idle it goes out of business

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

sorry but if it lies idle it goes out of business

Or it gets a payment under the PSO levy

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

Well, you can only get data in Ireland on grid accepted power so you cant see the whole picture as its "confidential" so no, we dont know what the true capacity factors are.

At the very least you can work out the average capacity factor across the fleet over one year by taking the GWh generated and dividing it by the GW of capacity. Simples.

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

Or it gets a payment under the PSO levy

yes and also capacity payments to maintain reserve

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

At the very least you can work out the average capacity factor across the fleet over one year by taking the GWh generated and dividing it by the GW of capacity. Simples.

data available only for power taken by SEMO so wouldnt be true capacity factor

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

yes and also capacity payments to maintain reserve

Any details on that?

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

data available only for power taken by SEMO so wouldnt be true capacity factor

Meaning? I'm only interested in generation that they're paid for.

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

Any details on that?

its difficult to get data on reserve generation as its considered confidential. capacity payments get be got from SEMO from each generator.

the general idea of capacity payments is to prevent thermal plants from going bust. its another cost of wind.

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

its difficult to get data on reserve generation as its considered confidential. capacity payments get be got from SEMO from each generator.

Well, unless you have some figures, I'm at a loss to know how expensive it is. On capacity payments from the SEMO, I have to admit I had no idea the regime of capacity payments in Ireland was so extreme - it's unbelievable! €576 million for one year! Why did no one post that CER public consultation on here and jump up and down about it? The PSO levy in comparison is proposed at €327.7 million, and most of that also goes to fossil fuel plants.

So just to take a step back, renewables gets €87.8m in subsidies in one year under the PSO levy, and if I'm not mistaken around €30m through this SEMO capacity payment system totalling €118m. Meanwhile fossil fuel plants get €222.6m via the PSO levy and a whopping €546m through this SEMO capcity payment system totally €768m! I don't know if I have the figures right on the SEMO capacity payment system but wow wow wow. And we're worried about renewables subsidies??! That means real Irish electricity prices are even higher than we thought - the whole system is subsidised to the hilt and there's hardly any efficient wholesale trading going on!

Fabo wrote: »

the general idea of capacity payments is to prevent thermal plants from going bust. its another cost of wind.

I'm very, very glad you said that because it is absolutely right that capacity payments are really about preventing thermal plants going bust. Because European utilities who are asking for them, still won't say that. They say it's about security of supply - these are not subsidies, it's simply paying their plants for the service they provide ie having adequate generation capacity on the grid.

However, it's got nothing to do with wind. What are they really about? Companies that made investments that the energy-only market is no longer providing a return on. In the past, if you ran a gas plant and the price of gas went up, you'd just pass that cost along to the wholesale market by bidding in higher. Now with a higher share of technologies that have low marginal costs bidding in, gas plants aren't always in a position to do that, ie the price is often too low, or their electricity simply isn't required.

It's also pretty clear that the Irish capacity payments under the PSO levy have nothing to do with wind. The Irish government made that clear under its application to the European Commission for state aid authorisation.

Finally, on a more general level, Europe is an electricity market with overcapacity. Spain, Italy and Germany are three markets with serious overcapacity - yet these three countries have, or are in the process of introducing capacity payments to ensure generation adequacy?

Come off it - these guys are all about the market-led approach until it doesn't work for them anymore - they're perfectly happy to shout about 'market-distorting renewables subsidies' until they lose their voices and now they're asking for their own subsidies. More fool our regulators and governments for falling for it.

fclauson

Macha - can I commend your succinct wrapping up of the situation - and hence my OP.

Wind might save C02 but its expensive, variable, not reliable, community damaging, environmentally damaging (digging up bogs etc)

Imagine spending €1B on retrofit of properties - the C02 payback would be significant but the quality of life would be MASSIVE

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

Macha - can I commend your succinct wrapping up of the situation - and hence my OP.

Wind might save C02 but its expensive, variable, not reliable, community damaging, environmentally damaging (digging up bogs etc)

Imagine spending €1B on retrofit of properties - the C02 payback would be significant but the quality of life would be MASSIVE

Hang on, that's not what I said at all.

I'm talking about Irish energy market where almost 7 TIMES as many public subsidies go to fossil fuels for reasons that are because the government blatantly made an utter balls of a policy (PSO levy) or for some reason I can't even understand (SEMO capacity payments). And while renewable subsidies are actually achieving something, ie cutting wholesale electricity prices, reducing Ireland's massive fossil fuel import bill, helping cut technology costs and reducing carbon emissions, I don't see exactly what the fossil fuel subsidies are achieving at all and with the PSO levy, it's clear the government is simply fulfilling contracts it never should have signed in the first place. Are these subsidies helping cut Ireland's fossil fuel imports? Nope, if anything they encourage us to keep the status quo. Are they helping cut carbon emissions? No. Are fossil fuels getting cheaper? Nope.

What you've done above is repeat some claims against wind that you've been repeating all along, that we've been debating in this thread, but that you nor anyone else has presented strong evidence to support. Take the very first one - wind is expensive - did you even READ the fossil fuel subsidy figures in my previous post? Please go back and do so. Blaming this on wind would make me laugh if it wasn't so sadly and intellectually depressing.

And yes, efficiency first but efficiency alone is an idiotic position for anyone to hold and anyone I know who works in sustainable energy policy would be laughed off the stage for trying to present such a position.

fclauson

ahh - but the reason Fossil gets a subsidy is because we need it for energy security for when the wind does not blow. (item 4 of my first post)

We have to subsidies the fossil plants because we need them - but they are not making money when they are not selling electricity so we pay them anyway.

fclauson

lots of other discussion going on in this thread too http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057193026&page=5

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

ahh - but the reason Fossil gets a subsidy is because we need it for energy security for when the wind does not blow. (item 4 of my first post)

We have a balancing market and reserve generation for that. So no, for the umpteenth time, these subsidies is not about renewables. Point me to the official explanation for why they are, and explain to me the service they provide beyond the balancing market and reserve generation payments.

fclauson wrote: »

We have to subsidies the fossil plants because we need them - but they are not making money when they are not selling electricity so we pay them anyway.

Utter nonsense. Why do we need fossil fuel plants? Because you can't let go of the outdated concept of baseload? What people need to understand is that we can't keep fossil fuel plants - they emit too much carbon, keep Ireland too reliant on imported fossil fuels and keep us stuck on the large utility energy market. They are the dinosaurs of the energy world.

Old diesel

Macha wrote: »

We have a balancing market and reserve generation for that. So no, for the umpteenth time, these subsidies is not about renewables. Point me to the official explanation for why they are, and explain to me the service they provide beyond the balancing market and reserve generation payments.


Utter nonsense. Why do we need fossil fuel plants? Because you can't let go of the outdated concept of baseload? What people need to understand is that we can't keep fossil fuel plants - they emit too much carbon, keep Ireland too reliant on imported fossil fuels and keep us stuck on the large utility energy market. They are the dinosaurs of the energy world.

Heres the thing - IF we had superior renewables technology - or indeed better energy technology generally - we would not NEED to keep fossil fuel plants.

If we don't have BACK UP plants - whether that's fossil fuels or otherwise - how do we ensure electricity supply on the days when wind isn't doing well.

Its time we accepted wind has its flaws - and rather then rushing around trying to change EVERYTHING - even interfering in community living and putting industries at risk - to accommodate wind.

We need instead to start working to continuously improve the technology on offer - and minimise the amount of turbines we need - and the length of time we need to rely on CURRENT wind technology.

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

We have a balancing market and reserve generation for that. So no, for the umpteenth time, these subsidies is not about renewables. Point me to the official explanation for why they are, and explain to me the service they provide beyond the balancing market and reserve generation payments.

http://www.dalkia.ie/media/energy_bulletins/vpp-DemandSideUnit.htm

The TSOs have a statutory obligation to ensure Security of Supply, i.e. that the lights stay on.

The traditional approach of ensuring they meet this obligation is by maintaining sufficient reserve generation called operating reserve. This operating reserve is made up of flexible generation that can be called upon at short notice to meet any sudden loss of generation capacity. As the amount of renewable generation increases, the TSOs will need to keep higher levels of operating reserve available.

Utter nonsense. Why do we need fossil fuel plants? Because you can't let go of the outdated concept of baseload? What people need to understand is that we can't keep fossil fuel plants - they emit too much carbon, keep Ireland too reliant on imported fossil fuels and keep us stuck on the large utility energy market. They are the dinosaurs of the energy world.

this is the single most delusional post I have yet seen on this subject..Im sorry. Tynagh gas plant was offline for 83% of the time last year and it still cant be shut down and is paid 130m to keep going as reserve. Wind farms are dinosaurs, much older than coal plants. They are wholly inadequate at replacing fossil fuel plant, thats the whole problem. Not one plant has been shutdown anywhere in the world due to a wind farm. Baseload plants have increased by 20% since 2006 in Ireland. If wind hasnt worked up until now, when will it work ? At 4000Mw ? At 6000 MW ? At 10000 MW ?

if you really believe what you wrote then hook yourself up direct to a wind turbine. show the way and quit using fossil fuels if they are so bad.

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

We have a balancing market and reserve generation for that. So no, for the umpteenth time, these subsidies is not about renewables. Point me to the official explanation for why they are, and explain to me the service they provide beyond the balancing market and reserve generation payments.

my understanding is that prior to attaching lots of variable supply generators to the grid then it operated in a fairly structured way - you could predict the load and provide the generation and the backup accordingly.

Add the variable generation with a legal mandate (its in the law) that renewable has to be used first then the only way you can tempt or keep fissile fuels entering the market is to make it attractive (i.e. they can make money at it)

So these payments are not about renewable - but about security of supply etc - but they we get into a situation where we have to pay capacity payments (because they are not earning via selling electricity) because we have wind

On the other side we pay wind when we hit constraint because the grid is only capable of accepting a certain quality of it due to load balancing and all sorts.

Turning to the NREP - this was never done properly - and if it had been and the right brain power attached to it so of these shortfalls in the structure & payments would have been uncovered and appropriate counter measures put in place. It was not - it was pushed through with no consultation (the whole Pat Swords argument) and we are where we are now

Utter nonsense. Why do we need fossil fuel plants? Because you can't let go of the outdated concept of baseload? What people need to understand is that we can't keep fossil fuel plants - they emit too much carbon, keep Ireland too reliant on imported fossil fuels and keep us stuck on the large utility energy market. They are the dinosaurs of the energy world.

Why do we need fossil - because about two weeks ago across the whole of fleet of some 1800 wind turbines we produce 3Mw in a 30 min period.

Turning off the whole country for 30 mins is impractical, pumped water is expensive and long term, dams - we have a few but nowhere near enough, batteries are in the infancy, interconnectors are useful - but there was a period last year where the western Europe had a high over it and there was very little wind anywhere this side of the Arden so they would only be shipping fossil/nuclear around the place.

I agree - we need to move away from Fossil (well that's a whole other argument we could get into but won't here) - and the best way would be to level the usage - see my post back http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90582061&postcount=180

Old diesel

And yes I fully understand the concept of importing and exporting wind energy - but the issue is that EVERYTHING has to fit in around wind energy.

That suggests its flawed to me - and more evidence of wind energys flaws - is that you don't design a wind energy project to fit around a community - instead - the community must fit around wind energy.

I mean under the stalled Midlands project - the future of a WHOLE region is intended to be shaped by one thing - WIND TURBINES.

Theres no thought about planning a positive future for that Regions communities or for the people that live there - that's because one the flaws of wind energy (lots of machines needed) means that you can't do that - or its far too hard for Govt to do it.

All this for a technology that doesn't work all the time - thus needing full back up.

Wind turbines DO have a place in our electricity mix - but not at a full 40 percent of our electricity supply - and only when well planned in a community friendly way.

And if you consider that community friendly planning is too problematical due to not been able to then put up enough turbines - well lets call a spade a spade - because that's yet another flaw of wind energy right there

Macha

Old diesel wrote: »

Heres the thing - IF we had superior renewables technology - or indeed better energy technology generally - we would not NEED to keep fossil fuel plants.

If we don't have BACK UP plants - whether that's fossil fuels or otherwise - how do we ensure electricity supply on the days when wind isn't doing well.

Its time we accepted wind has its flaws - and rather then rushing around trying to change EVERYTHING - even interfering in community living and putting industries at risk - to accommodate wind.

We need instead to start working to continuously improve the technology on offer - and minimise the amount of turbines we need - and the length of time we need to rely on CURRENT wind technology.

I agree that it's something that will have to happen gradually and I agree that it's not being done properly in Ireland but the wholescale rejection of renewables by some posters on this forum is an overreaction to the situation. Moreover, wind is not the only renewable technology - people seem to use the two terms interchangeably on this forum.

Fabo wrote: »

http://www.dalkia.ie/media/energy_bulletins/vpp-DemandSideUnit.htm

The TSOs have a statutory obligation to ensure Security of Supply, i.e. that the lights stay on.

The traditional approach of ensuring they meet this obligation is by maintaining sufficient reserve generation called operating reserve. This operating reserve is made up of flexible generation that can be called upon at short notice to meet any sudden loss of generation capacity. As the amount of renewable generation increases, the TSOs will need to keep higher levels of operating reserve available.

Yes I know the TSOs have an obligation of security of supply. We all know that. Tell me how much we need and how much it costs, otherwise you're just talking nonsense. I'm getting bored of providing figures and references while everyone else just talks in general terms.

Fabo wrote: »

this is the single most delusional post I have yet seen on this subject..Im sorry. Tynagh gas plant was offline for 83% of the time last year and it still cant be shut down and is paid 130m to keep going as reserve. Wind farms are dinosaurs, much older than coal plants. They are wholly inadequate at replacing fossil fuel plant, thats the whole problem.

Have you read a SINGLE post of mine about Tyndall? Go back and read them now. It is NOT getting subsidies to back up wind. I have clarified on this very thread and you continue to ignore facts.

Fabo wrote: »

Not one plant has been shutdown anywhere in the world due to a wind farm.

Source and explain why.

Fabo wrote: »

Baseload plants have increased by 20% since 2006 in Ireland. If wind hasnt worked up until now, when will it work ? At 4000Mw ? At 6000 MW ? At 10000 MW ?

Source and explain why they've increased and what it has to do with renewables

Fabo wrote: »

if you really believe what you wrote then hook yourself up direct to a wind turbine. show the way and quit using fossil fuels if they are so bad.

Don't write such stupid comments.

Fabo

India worried about running out of coal despite $6 billion invested in renewables last year - why dont they just shut down the coal plants as Macha said ????

Power outage looms large across India as coal stocks dry up in plants

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/black-out-looms-large-across-india-as-coal-stocks-dry-up-in-plants/1/366604.html

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

my understanding is that prior to attaching lots of variable supply generators to the grid then it operated in a fairly structured way - you could predict the load and provide the generation and the backup accordingly.

Add the variable generation with a legal mandate (its in the law) that renewable has to be used first then the only way you can tempt or keep fissile fuels entering the market is to make it attractive (i.e. they can make money at it)

So these payments are not about renewable - but about security of supply etc - but they we get into a situation where we have to pay capacity payments (because they are not earning via selling electricity) because we have wind

That's nice but I asked for the official explanation. And I will add that wind also gets some of these payments, which doesn't fit your story.

fclauson wrote: »

Why do we need fossil - because about two weeks ago across the whole of fleet of some 1800 wind turbines we produce 3Mw in a 30 min period.

Turning off the whole country for 30 mins is impractical, pumped water is expensive and long term, dams - we have a few but nowhere near enough, batteries are in the infancy, interconnectors are useful - but there was a period last year where the western Europe had a high over it and there was very little wind anywhere this side of the Arden so they would only be shipping fossil/nuclear around the place.

I agree - we need to move away from Fossil (well that's a whole other argument we could get into but won't here) - and the best way would be to level the usage - see my post back http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90582061&postcount=180

Wind is not the only source of renewables. It's the only one Ireland is investing in but more interconnection, storage, a suite of technologies and DSM work well together.

Like I said, I agree on efficiency measures but ignoring supply issues isn't an option.

Old diesel

I suppose what would be needed for wind to be a long term solution is the following

Actually setting standards for wind projects - to ensure that residents can be assured that they can continue to enjoy pleasant living in their homes - and communities - and that when we assure residents they won't have issues - that in actual fact - there aren't unacceptable issues - or if they are - they are fixed - or compensation paid.

Looking to push the standards of technology - so that we can achieve superior performance from turbines - these may be small but over an entire inventory of turbines - it could make a difference.

Work to develop turbine technology so that the wind turbines can better fit into community and home living of people living in the area turbines are located.

Design future energy projects - wind or other energy options - so that they fit in with the needs of people - not have the people and industries and whole country - be forced to squeeze themselves around the flaws of energy solutions.

Especially seeing as we live in an era of innovation, overcoming challenges etc.

If you ran a normal business in the way wind energy works - it wouldn't last due to expecting customers to fit in with what the business wants - rather then have the business improve its product offering to meet customer requirements

Jim Martin

An Pord Pleanala have ignored their Inspector & given the green light to build turbines on a foraging area of Hen Harriers.

Under international legislation, the Hen Harrier is a protected species but not, seemingly, its foraging area! How ludicrous is that?

Old diesel

Jim Martin wrote: »

An Pord Pleanala have ignored their Inspector & given the green light to build turbines on a foraging area of Hen Harriers.

Under international legislation, the Hen Harrier is a protected species but not, seemingly, its foraging area! How ludicrous is that?

That's the Co Clare decision??? from 6th of June???

If so - my interpretation is that the hen harrier - while very important wasn't her only concern either.

She had about 5 different reasons for recommending refusal

But regardless - what is of real concern is that ABPs only comment on her points seemed to be - "we note the inspectors points - but the board disagrees etc.

I know this is off topic - but is the inspector the only person from ABP that visits the site for these hearings??? - its just im wondering had the people who ignored the inspectors viewpoint - had actually visited the site - would they have ended up siding with the inspector.

Such an approach by ABPs to their own inspectors report is worrying and does not help us address the challenges posed by energy policy imo

Old diesel

In any case - if it could be shown that the turbines at that location could cause any harm to the hen harrier - then it could run into difficulty at EU level - if the Hen harrier is protected under EU law*.

That's because EU law overrides EU law - so if the development leads to a breach of EU law then - even if its completely legal under Irish law - its hard to see it not been illegal

*Not sure how or if its protected under EU law

Greensleeves

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/ancillaryservicesothersystemcharges/demandsidemanagementdsm/demandsideunits/

see top of page 63

Activation Energy - 12 MW
DAE Virtual Power - 29MW

Is there any way of knowing how much diesel generation was used to deliver the demand reduction in a given year as opposed to plant shutdown?

Greensleeves

Old diesel wrote: »

I mean under the stalled Midlands project - the future of a WHOLE region is intended to be shaped by one thing - WIND TURBINES.

Since the announcement about the stalled Midlands project Element Power lodged an application with An Bord Pleanala for a "Proposed Wind Farm consisting of up to 50 Turbines to be located in County Meath". Presumably they are going to use their land options to connect to the Irish grid now that the export project is off the cards.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/PC0178.htm

Old diesel

Greensleeves wrote: »

Since the announcement about the stalled Midlands project Element Power lodged an application with An Bord Pleanala for a "Proposed Wind Farm consisting of up to 50 Turbines to be located in County Meath". Presumably they are going to use their land options to connect to the Irish grid now that the export project is off the cards.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/PC0178.htm

It aint good - but its a massive improvement on 2,500 turbines.

The question is - do the people living in that area of Co Meath even know this project is planned - I presume that they don't since they don't even give locations for this proposed wind farm.

The question is though - if they decide to use their land options - the question is still unanswered - how many turbines does Ireland actually need - the fact this question doesn't seem to be answered anywhere isn't helpful to the debate imo.

If we have 1800* turbines in the system now up and running - you might assume that at 20 percent electricity from wind at moment (as far as I know) - in theory - another 1800 should bring us to 40 percent - and quite possibly with pylons (another controversial area) and related upgrades - we shouldn't need the full extra 1800 turbines to hit 40 percent.

Reason been that the idea of pylons I understand is the ability to move much more electricity around in one go - so we should be able to make more use of wind power - thus which should mean we need less then 1800 turbines to double the output

*1800 was mentioned earlier

Macha

Greensleeves wrote: »

Since the announcement about the stalled Midlands project Element Power lodged an application with An Bord Pleanala for a "Proposed Wind Farm consisting of up to 50 Turbines to be located in County Meath". Presumably they are going to use their land options to connect to the Irish grid now that the export project is off the cards.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/PC0178.htm

That sounds like a much more reasonable plan. For a while there it was like the housing bubble all over again - developers snatching up land options, building land banks and appearing on TV talking about outlandish numbers of jobs, benefits etc.

fclauson

he all we should be out doors rather than bashing these forums

My 4kwp system at just before the solar noon today

Greensleeves

fclauson wrote: »

he all we should be out doors rather than bashing these forums

So true! A nice cool beer beckons.

Old diesel

Macha wrote: »

That sounds like a much more reasonable plan. For a while there it was like the housing bubble all over again - developers snatching up land options, building land banks and appearing on TV talking about outlandish numbers of jobs, benefits etc.

definitely a much more reasonable plan - but the issue seems to be now - no one knows anything about it.

It seems to have sprang out of the blue - the application doesn't even have a location on it - it is however a pre consultation

So again Wind developers failing to consult properly with communities - which is worrying regardless of what side of the wind debate you sit on

Capt'n Midnight

Old diesel wrote: »

We need instead to start working to continuously improve the technology on offer - and minimise the amount of turbines we need - and the length of time we need to rely on CURRENT wind technology.

You keep going on about "improving the technology"

the lift to drag ratio of the rotors is in the order of 120:1 so the losses are already less than 1%

the generators would be typically 97% efficient

So even if you could halve the losses , and that's not likely because of diminishing returns, it would only get you 2% more power, the same as making the blades 1% longer

Old diesel

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You keep going on about "improving the technology"

the lift to drag ratio of the rotors is in the order of 120:1 so the losses are already less than 1%

the generators would be typically 97% efficient

So even if you could halve the losses , and that's not likely because of diminishing returns, it would only get you 2% more power, the same as making the blades 1% longer

Im talking about having the turbines been able to make power for longer periods by working to improve performance at lower wind speeds - or to put it another way - improve their consistency of performance.

That won't happen in the near future - but it DEFINITELY won't happen if key decision makers keep insisting that wind is awesome.

Im thinking of things like - looking at the capacity factor over the 12 months - and looking to improve that in small steps.

Half the battle imo - is accepting as a starting point - that for 40 percent of our electricity supply - wind is flawed.

If we accept that - we have 2 choices - work to improve wind - or develop the alternative options further - so we can diversify the mix.

Personally - I think that energy solutions should fit around the community living - not community living squeeze around the flaws of the energy solution - as is expected with wind.

But we can agree to disagree on that one

Capt'n Midnight

Fabo wrote: »

India worried about running out of coal despite $6 billion invested in renewables last year - why dont they just shut down the coal plants as Macha said ????

$6Bn isn't much per capita. and a lot of the spend on renewables in India is to replace diesel generators rather than support the main grid.

Old diesel

@ capt'n midnight

Had another look at the post you quoted - and actually what I was more referring to in that was renewables technology in general not just wind.

the major part of the solution - I think - is to develop other renewables technology more - so you have a more diverse mix - to overcome winds flaws.

Improving wind technology could deliver results - but at the moment - I don't think we can expect massive changes in the short term - but again - I feel Winds flaws need to be acknowledged if we are to improve renewables technology generally

Capt'n Midnight

Old diesel wrote: »

@ capt'n midnight

Had another look at the post you quoted - and actually what I was more referring to in that was renewables technology in general not just wind.

the major part of the solution - I think - is to develop other renewables technology more - so you have a more diverse mix - to overcome winds flaws.

Improving wind technology could deliver results - but at the moment - I don't think we can expect massive changes in the short term - but again - I feel Winds flaws need to be acknowledged if we are to improve renewables technology generally

Wind has the wonderful attraction that it is a prove, cheap, mature power source.

Solar is catching up, but here it will pretty much be just for nice sunny days. Make no mistake the price will continue to fall so it's a great power source if your grid can cherry pick. The technology for solar will improve for years to come. At some point in the future the cost will drop such that integrating solar in new builds will be a no-brainer. Vertical panels do better here because we are more than 45 degrees north, it's possible to make panels that use UV and IR light , so you could use them as windows.

We just don't have the weather to use concentrated solar. So no preheating steam for power stations, or 45% solar efficient panels.


Osmotic power didn't work out


Tidal is predictable but not dispatchable http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/tablet/business/400m-tidal-wave-scheme-could-power-one-in-10-homes-in-northern-ireland-30343453.html 100MW soon *crosses fingers* and hopefully the earlier plans of 300MW will happen



Wave power has the little problem of making a affordable platform that can survive the worst storms.


Geothermal is too deep here.


If we could just figure out a way to use the latent heat in the humidity...

Old diesel

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wind has the wonderful attraction that it is a prove, cheap, mature power source.

Solar is catching up, but here it will pretty much be just for nice sunny days. Make no mistake the price will continue to fall so it's a great power source if your grid can cherry pick. The technology for solar will improve for years to come. At some point in the future the cost will drop such that integrating solar in new builds will be a no-brainer. Vertical panels do better here because we are more than 45 degrees north, it's possible to make panels that use UV and IR light , so you could use them as windows.

We just don't have the weather to use concentrated solar. So no preheating steam for power stations, or 45% solar efficient panels.


Osmotic power didn't work out


Tidal is predictable but not dispatchable http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/tablet/business/400m-tidal-wave-scheme-could-power-one-in-10-homes-in-northern-ireland-30343453.html 100MW soon *crosses fingers* and hopefully the earlier plans of 300MW will happen



Wave power has the little problem of making a affordable platform that can survive the worst storms.


Geothermal is too deep here.


If we could just figure out a way to use the latent heat in the humidity...

Unfortunately the nature of wind power - imo - is that it cannot be tolerated as a full and final solution to our renewable needs here in Ireland.

It may be the solution NOW - but if its still the solution in 20 years time - we will have failed miserably as a country imo - in energy terms at least.

It just fails on so many terms

1) community planning - Jan O Sullivans thinking on setback distances for places like Westmeath - is to squeeze as many turbines as possible. Which sums up for me just how bad wind energy planning is (maybe it has to be that way - which is thus a big flaw for wind energy)

Communities are no longer seen as places to treasure or embrace by planners and Govt - they are just places to put turbines in.

This is negative planning imo - yes it may be needed in the eyes of some - but that doesn't mean I have to like it - and it certainly doesn't mean I can't want to see improved solutions in the coming years.

2) Performance - Eirgrid produce stats on a twitter account - mentioned in the page or 3 on this tread - keep an eye on it if your on twitter - the stats speak for themselves.

3) Developing BETTER renewable solutions - long term - would reduce the need to use fossils long term - you need to fire up the fossils on days when wind doesn't perform.

4) Jeopardising industries that deliver real jobs - so we can fit in wind turbines isn't good imo.

Old diesel

Btw - my comments on the jobs/industries is just my opinion - the horse industry DID raise concerns in relation to the Midlands wind turbines.

While it may be argued that its for the Horse industry to PROVE the issue - my take on it is that owners/breeders and trainers - have the option of simply pulling the horses out of Ireland - that's a very easy thing for them to do.

All they need is to not like turbines been near their horses - they don't have to prove why.

On the Tourism side - if turbines are put all over the place and not planned well - then it makes the place less attractive to visit - just my opinion

Jim Martin

Old diesel wrote: »

In any case - if it could be shown that the turbines at that location could cause any harm to the hen harrier - then it could run into difficulty at EU level - if the Hen harrier is protected under EU law*.

That's because EU law overrides EU law - so if the development leads to a breach of EU law then - even if its completely legal under Irish law - its hard to see it not been illegal

*Not sure how or if its protected under EU law

As I understand it, it's protected under international law, which presumably overrides EU & Irish law!

Greensleeves

Old diesel wrote: »

1) community planning - Jan O Sullivans thinking on setback distances for places like Westmeath - is to squeeze as many turbines as possible. Which sums up for me just how bad wind energy planning is (maybe it has to be that way - which is thus a big flaw for wind energy)

There simply isn't enough room in Ireland to have adequate setback distances (say 750m to 1km) for very big turbines. I think that the Danish setback is 4x the height which would be approx. 750m for the 185m turbines suggested for the midlands. IIRC the 4x rule in Denmark is absolute with acoustic tests determining if a greater setback is required.

Element Power address the setback problem on the Greenwire website:
http://greenwire.ie/faqs/16

This map from AIRO demonstrates how the available land shrinks as you increase the setback distance:
http://www.airo.ie/news/airo-mapping-asking-questions-new-wind-turbines-bill-0

Old diesel

Greensleeves wrote: »

There simply isn't enough room in Ireland to have adequate setback distances (say 750m to 1km) for very big turbines. I think that the Danish setback is 4x the height which would be approx. 750m for the 185m turbines suggested for the midlands. IIRC the 4x rule in Denmark is absolute with acoustic tests determining if a greater setback is required.

Element Power address the setback problem on the Greenwire website:
http://greenwire.ie/faqs/16

This map from AIRO demonstrates how the available land shrinks as you increase the setback distance:
http://www.airo.ie/news/airo-mapping-asking-questions-new-wind-turbines-bill-0

Indeed - that's why I class community planning as an area where wind energy fails - it is the case that to do the work you need lots of machines around the place - which all need space.

The result - your only thinking at official level in terms of communities - is how many turbines you can squeeze in.

The flaws of the technology are such that we can't seem to be able to design the technology around pleasant community living instead the community must be squashed around the turbines.

This is something that imo - needs to be factored in when looking at the extra costs of going off shore or investing in the long term development of superior/improved renewables - would the extra costs of going off shore or driving technology be worth it - if

1) helps ensure a better future for MORE communities

2) helps enable industries like tourism and the horse industry to thrive and continue in Rural areas.

3) facilitates the continuation of rural communities - as thriving communities not just a place to put wind farms.

4) and this is most important - allowing pleasant living in homes.

The 2 of the things I mention are merely nice things to have - but the other 2 items pleasant living in homes and not jeopardising existing GOOD industries - that's all I want to aim for in terms of standards of planning in terms of wind energy.

But if it can't even allow that - then its clear we need to go back to the drawing board long term.

I have very little desire for energy solutions that jeopardise the future of communities because their flaws don't allow us to plan them in a community friendly way. Or in a way that doesn't kill off or damage good industries

I find it hard to accept the idea that waving good bye to good long term jobs in tourism* and in the horse industry in favour of winds SHORT TERM jobs and community intrusion is the way forward.

At the very least we should look at Denmarks experience in this area and learn from them - what have they got right - what mistakes have they made - etc.

*We all know that hospitality and catering doesn't always pay as well as it should or treat its staff as well as it should - but I think that in the context of planning a long term sustainable tourist industry - this could and should be addressed