New Government Report spells disaster for on-shore Wind Energy

Paul Thomas Rowland

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This is not true. The belmullet synoptic station data shows an average fall in observed wind speed at 10m over the years 2000-2010 vs the previous decade.

The decade considered in the new wind atlas is 2000-2009 as you know well. In a stoke of genius you included 2010, well known as a bad wind year in Ireland, because it gets you closer to the result you want. That is bias. You refuse to publish your calculations for Belmullet because you say, you need a license from the Government which as everyone knows is nonsense. Put up or shut up.

The Dublin Airport figures from Met Eireann show that the 2000-2009 period was easily the best on record, 66 years of wind measurements but you did not like those numbers either because they dont suit your agenda.

What about the Valencia and Newport measurements from Met Eireann? No radical changes there but you will ignore any data that spoils your theory.

Folks, remember the Government wants you to believe that 150m tall turbines at Oweninny will produce 10% less electricity on a unit basis than the measured production from dozens of 50m tall turbines in the North over 1998 - 2004. Developers want tall turbines because there is a lot more energy higher up. The Government claim is obviously rubbish and the scientific data from Met Eireann proves that, even if some like oppenheimer1 want to believe it and are prepared to pick and choose which scientific data to consider to justify their claims.

oppenheimer1

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

The decade considered in the new wind atlas is 2000-2009 as you know well. In a stoke of genius you included 2010, well known as a bad wind year in Ireland, because it gets you closer to the result you want. That is bias. You refuse to publish your calculations for Belmullet because you say, you need a license from the Government which as everyone knows is nonsense. Put up or shut up.

The Dublin Airport figures from Met Eireann show that the 2000-2009 period was easily the best on record, 66 years of wind measurements but you did not like those numbers either because they dont suit your agenda.

What about the Valencia and Newport measurements from Met Eireann? No radical changes there but you will ignore any data that spoils your theory.

Folks, remember the Government wants you to believe that 150m tall turbines at Oweninny will produce 10% less electricity on a unit basis than the measured production from dozens of 50m tall turbines in the North over 1998 - 2004. Developers want tall turbines because there is a lot more energy higher up. The Government claim is obviously rubbish and the scientific data from Met Eireann proves that, even if some like oppenheimer1 want to believe it and are prepared to pick and choose which scientific data to consider to justify their claims.

The belmullet synoptic station wind data has been published by another poster earlier in this thread. You'll see the average 2000-2009 is lower than the earlier decade.

Fabo

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

The decade considered in the new wind atlas is 2000-2009 as you know well. In a stoke of genius you included 2010, well known as a bad wind year in Ireland, because it gets you closer to the result you want. That is bias. You refuse to publish your calculations for Belmullet because you say, you need a license from the Government which as everyone knows is nonsense. Put up or shut up.

The Dublin Airport figures from Met Eireann show that the 2000-2009 period was easily the best on record, 66 years of wind measurements but you did not like those numbers either because they dont suit your agenda.

What about the Valencia and Newport measurements from Met Eireann? No radical changes there but you will ignore any data that spoils your theory.

Folks, remember the Government wants you to believe that 150m tall turbines at Oweninny will produce 10% less electricity on a unit basis than the measured production from dozens of 50m tall turbines in the North over 1998 - 2004. Developers want tall turbines because there is a lot more energy higher up. The Government claim is obviously rubbish and the scientific data from Met Eireann proves that, even if some like oppenheimer1 want to believe it and are prepared to pick and choose which scientific data to consider to justify their claims.

Im not convinced that you get any better wind power the higher up you go.

Also, there is evidence from Denmark that these larger turbines have a shorter lifespan, some been decommissioned in less than 10 years due to bearing faults

Dermot McDonnell

Fabo wrote: »

Im not convinced that you get any better wind power the higher up you go.

A quick look at the Met Eireann website provides this evidence from their Upper Air Unit based at Valentia that wind speeds rise with height. Power goes as the wind speed cubed.



Air Density is a proxy for height. Note the mean yearly values track each other beautifully. This effect improves as you get closer to ground as air density increases and friction forces come into play. I will have a look in their publications for more data when I get a chance.

Also, there is evidence from Denmark that these larger turbines have a shorter lifespan, some been decommissioned in less than 10 years due to bearing faults

Manufacturers offer maintenance agreements for at least 15 years. Given the total scale here, 160 huge turbines, I am sure they will be competing for the business.

For reference, I include the wind rose from webpage.

Birdnuts

Theres an interesting little sub-plot to all these shenanigans. In their recent submission to the governments green paper on energy the ESB pointed out that Irelands current energy capacity(especcially with regards to wind) is way beyond what will be needed for amany years if not decades to come. This has been picked up in the media in recent times with great analysis on the subject by Colm McCarthy in particular. This didn't really matter for many of the big players as they had an eye on wind energy exports to the UK which they assumed would allow them to tap the fat subsidies availiable over there. However the breakdown of talks last year on this matter between the Irish and UK governments and the fact that the latter is already over stretched financially on the commitments it has given to its own home grown on and off shore industries suddenly makes the entire picture alot less rosy for the big Irish players in the semi states and elsewhere.
All this means that the Irish subisidy cake may very well be the only show in town. The obvious problem here is that the irish market is alot smaller and even with this very pro-wind energy government committing enormous amounts of support to wind energy via our pockets to support direct subsidies as well as wind related pylon infrastruture, it may well hit the profit expectations of the big players. What does all this mean you may wonder?? Well we've already seen the ESB cut support for small scale domestic wind turbine operators who wanted to sell surplus wind generated energy into the Irish grid. It would be very usefull in this scenario if the big players in the wind industry could get rid of the small operators who install the more modest wind farms of say 10 or less industrial turbines, leaving the big boys to dine on the subsidy pie alone. And don't underestimate the will of the bigger operators to take down their smaller rivals. A few years ago there was a case in North Mayo involving a small developer who wanted to install some turbines on land that happened to be nearly surrounded by land owned by one of the semi-states now involved in the same business. They got planning but couldn't develope the site without getting an access route through a small sliver of semi-state owned land. The semi-state refused them the use of this access point(an existing forestry road) which was only going to be used during the construction phase. The case was reported in the Phoenix magazine and I will try to get a link for it when I get more time(assuming its not behind a pay wall).

Oldenboard

Meanwhile Germany’s installed onshore wind capacity grew by 4,385.9 MW net in 2014, a record for the country, and reached a total of 38,115.7 MW, wind energy consulting firm Deutsche Windguard calculated. See goo.gl/DPNWZW

LiamMayo

Professor david connolly an expert in renewable energy from aabourg uni in denmark gave a seminar in nuig last october. he said "Today, a wind turbine in Ireland can produce electricity at a cheaper price than any other form of electricity‐only production. This is due to recent improvements in wind turbine technology and the excellent wind resource that exists in Ireland." dconnolly dot net

Fabo

LiamMayo wrote: »

Professor david connolly an expert in renewable energy from aabourg uni in denmark gave a seminar in nuig last october. he said "Today, a wind turbine in Ireland can produce electricity at a cheaper price than any other form of electricity‐only production. This is due to recent improvements in wind turbine technology and the excellent wind resource that exists in Ireland." dconnolly dot net

connolly is a joke, dont think anyone takes him seriously

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

connolly is a joke, dont think anyone takes him seriously

Um...he's a peer reviewed academic with a PhD in energy modelling and currently an associate professor at a respected university in Denmark. He was invited by the Irish Dept of Energy to engage in the Green Paper on Energy process and has done work in the past for the European Commission. There are probably many other things he's been involved in.

So I think there are quite a few people who take him seriously but you might want to actually challenge what he says, rather than randomly dismissing him for no particular reason.

Birdnuts

LiamMayo wrote: »

Professor david connolly an expert in renewable energy from aabourg uni in denmark gave a seminar in nuig last october. he said "Today, a wind turbine in Ireland can produce electricity at a cheaper price than any other form of electricity‐only production. This is due to recent improvements in wind turbine technology and the excellent wind resource that exists in Ireland." dconnolly dot net

Then why has the cost of power in Ireland gone from below the EU averge to the 4th most expensive since we went down the wind energy route??. As for Germany and Denmark - they are hardly examples of the success of wind energy eitheir given their position as second and first most expensive unit domestic rates of electricity in the EU. Their recent record on emmission reductions also leave alot to be desired

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Um...he's a peer reviewed academic with a PhD in energy modelling and currently an associate professor at a respected university in Denmark. He was invited by the Irish Dept of Energy to engage in the Green Paper on Energy process and has done work in the past for the European Commission. There are probably many other things he's been involved in.

So I think there are quite a few people who take him seriously but you might want to actually challenge what he says, rather than randomly dismissing him for no particular reason.

Maybe cos His "findings" are not backed up by the realites on the ground

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

As for Danish academia and wind power

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/danish-professor-sacked-for-highlighting-dangers-of-wind-turbine-noise/

Macha

You're going to have to do a bit better than linking to an Economist article. Which of his findings exactly does it refute and in what way? And the other link is from a climate denying website? Charming. All still a lot of vague and spurious claims. Throw some mud and it will stick, eh?

Why don't you go through one of his papers and explain exactly where he get it wrong, rather than just throwing up random, dubious links with zero explanation as to the point you're trying to make?

As to the points you make in your previous post, you've raised them in the forum I moderate and they have been refuted. Yet you continue to repeat them. But we'll try again. Recent research by the European Commission found that Ireland had one of the most cost-effective renewables subsidy schemes, adding only 1% to consumer bills. What is the increasing factor of energy prices? Taxes and levies.

Not sure what you mean about Denmark and Germany's recent performance on carbon emissions. Germany's emissions went down in 2014, thanks to the growth in renewables http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/01/germanys-carbon-emissions-fall-renewable-energy-takes-lead/ They also made an annoucement in December that they will shut down 22 coal plants by 2020: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/analysis-germany-climate-action-plan-to-save-emissions-reduction-goal/

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

You're going to have to do a bit better than linking to an Economist article. Which of his findings exactly does it refute and in what way? And the other link is from a climate denying website? Charming.

All still a lot of vague and spurious claims. Throw some mud and it will stick, eh?

Why don't you go through one of his papers and explain exactly where he get it wrong, rather than just throwing up random, dubious links with zero explanation as to the point you're trying to make?

Its an MIT study that refutes the spin put out by vested interests that wind energy is "free" or even anyways cost effective in a modern economy

I'm also highlighting how academic voices that question wind energy get treated in Denmark - a country that apologists for wind energy like yourself love referring to as some sort of success story on the matter when clearly by any measure they aren't.

PS: Do you concur with the new SEI wind Atlas?? It kinda blows a hole in the good professors musings on the subject doesn't it!!

[MOD]We can do without the 'apologists' epithets, or other such generalisations, thanks.[/MOD]

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

As to the points you make in your previous post, you've raised them in the forum I moderate and they have been refuted. Yet you continue to repeat them. But we'll try again. Recent research by the European Commission found that Ireland had one of the most cost-effective renewables subsidy schemes, adding only 1% to consumer bills. What is the increasing factor of energy prices? Taxes and levies.

Not sure what you mean about Denmark and Germany's recent performance on carbon emissions. Germany's emissions went down in 2014, thanks to the growth in renewables http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/01/germanys-carbon-emissions-fall-renewable-energy-takes-lead/ They also made an annoucement in December that they will shut down 22 coal plants by 2020: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/analysis-germany-climate-action-plan-to-save-emissions-reduction-goal/

I see you edited you post. Its the EU that is pushing these failed energy policies that see the cost of power across the EU now far in excess of its nearest rivals like the US. The PSO levy you refer to does not cover the cost of wind related pylon infrastucture or the cost of back up. Which is why Irelands power prices are not falling on the back of collapsing oil and gas prices.

As for German emmissions - last winter was exceptionally mild and windy across Western Europe and this is reflected in a decrease in use of power for heating. The year before was a more "normal" winter and emmissions rose as they have been in the years leading up to that

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-germany-eu-worst-polluter-co2.html

In any case energy use per capita is declining in many Western countries thanks to more energy efficient technology which has proven to be far more effective in this area than expensive greenwash fads like wind power

http://www.aceee.org/blog/2014/02/us-electricity-use-declining-and-ener

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

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

I see you edited you post. Its the EU that is pushing these failed energy policies that see the cost of power across the EU now far in excess of its nearest rivals like the US. The PSO levy you refer to does not cover the cost of wind related pylon infrastucture or the cost of back up. Which is why Irelands power prices are not falling on the back of collapsing oil and gas prices.

Prove it. Show me stats and statistics not unreferenced claims. US power is cheap because of heavily subsidised shale gas. You know this from discussions in the Sustainability forum but you continue to repeat myths. I really can't understand why.

Birdnuts wrote: »

As for German emmissions - last winter was exceptionally mild and windy across Western Europe and this is reflected in a decrease in use of power for heating. The year before was a more "normal" winter and emmissions rose as they have been in the years leading up to that

Read the report: reduced demand was one factor but renewables replacing fossi fuels was a major factor. Stop ignoring facts.

Birdnuts wrote: »

In any case energy use per capita is declining in many Western countries thanks to more energy efficient technology which has proven to be far more effective in this area than expensive greenwash fads like wind power

http://www.aceee.org/blog/2014/02/us-electricity-use-declining-and-ener

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

Efficiency's great. But ignoring supply side carbon emissions is a nonsense.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Prove it. Show me stats and statistics not unreferenced claims.
.

http://www.cer.ie/customer-care/electricity/tariffs

As you can see the network costs of wind related pylon projects are not included. Neither is constraint payments to wind operators. Plus the PSO level is set to spiral in the coming years and we got a taste of that only recently

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/electricity-bills-to-rise-as-green-energy-levy-soars-by-50pc-30466081.html

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

is cheap because of heavily subsidised shale gas. You know this from discussions in the Sustainability forum but you continue to repeat myths. I really can't understand why.


Read the report: reduced demand was one factor but renewables replacing fossi fuels was a major factor. Stop ignoring facts.


Efficiency's great. But ignoring supply side carbon emissions is a nonsense.

The sustainability forum is a waste of time if you don't agree with the mods view of the world. Meanwhile in the real world Germany continues its coal binge

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26820405

and "green" energy subsidies are now costing a massive 24billion euros a year hitting business competivness

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

Only the weak Euro is saving some of Germanies competivness ATM

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

http://www.cer.ie/customer-care/electricity/tariffs

As you can see the network costs of wind related pylon projects are not included. Neither is constraint payments to wind operators. Plus the PSO level is set to spiral in the coming years and we got a taste of that only recently

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/electricity-bills-to-rise-as-green-energy-levy-soars-by-50pc-30466081.html

Um, are you aware of the fact that less than 1/3 of the PSO levy goes to renewables? Can you even say why the PSO levy is set to increase? Again, you've just linked to a page & stated a claim. What part of the website you linked to are you claiming backs up your point?

Are you able to express an argument that sets out your position and linking it directly to the evidence you provide?

fclauson

Macha wrote: »

Um, are you aware of the fact that less than 1/3 of the PSO levy goes to renewables? Can you even say why the PSO levy is set to increase? Again, you've just linked to a page & stated a claim. What part of the website you linked to are you claiming backs up your point?

Take a read of http://www.cer.ie/docs/000967/CER14125%20%20PSO%20Levy%202014-15%20Proposed%20Decision%20Paper.pdf
Page 4
Yes renewable takes up 27% of the PSO levy
but security of supply takes up a whopping 33%

So what is security of supply - this is the provision made to ensure we have enough electricity to meet peak demand - OR to cover when there is zero wind.
take a look at https://cawtdonegal.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/irish-wind-output-lows-of-2014/

without security of supply we would have had black outs a number of times last year because turbines are useless when the wind does not blow (I have a whole thread on that argument)

so to say less than 1/3 was spent on renewables hides the truth

I have no detailed research but my understanding is that if we replaced the peat stations with high efficient gas ones we would have a massive saving in C02 without scouring the landscapes with 80M+ monsters which typically only produce 28% approx of their plated capacity - and don't even get me started on the damage they do to peoples amenity e.g. a 12db increase over pre build background noise levels is thought to be "acceptable noise impact" on residents.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Um, are you aware of the fact that less than 1/3 of the PSO levy goes to renewables? Can you even say why the PSO levy is set to increase? Again, you've just linked to a page & stated a claim. What part of the website you linked to are you claiming backs up your point?

Are you able to express an argument that sets out your position and linking it directly to the evidence you provide?

#

Of course the PSO levy is set to increase. Government polices are pushing a massive increase in wind energy on to the system despite the likes of the ESB in their recent submission to the green paper on energy stating that there is more than enough wind on the system already and it makes no sense to keep building more with the states overall energy capacity already double peak demand. Instead of responding to my facts in an arrogant condescending tone, I suggest you read up on what is actually happening in the real world of the Irish electricity market.

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/irish-renewable-sector-questioned-by-esb-167903/

fclauson

another link on PSO increase

http://www.uswitch.ie/gas-electricity/news/2014/07/29/pso-levy-set-to-rise-by-over-50-percent-from-october-1st-2014/

and another

http://www.bonkers.ie/blog/gas-electricity/pso-levy-to-increase-by-over-50--from-october-1st/

The argument is used that in the long term as wind is "free" from fuel costs that we will benefit. But if the subsidies to wind farms are reduce/removed most will go bankrupt as their loans are based on a 10 to 15 year pay off against the current subsidy rate. If that disappears then the loans will go unpaid

google NAMA Colm McCarthy wind farms
to find his arguments on the topic

Paul Thomas Rowland

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: Do you concur with the new SEI wind Atlas?? It kinda blows a hole in the good professors musings on the subject doesn't it!!

Hands up anybody who has swallowed the new wind atlas and its predictions. Did you also swallow the Governments big lie:

The 150m tall turbines at Oweninny will produce 10% less electricity on a unit basis than the metered production from dozens of 50m tall turbines in the North over 1998 - 2004.

Swallowing that much Government bulldung may cause you to spontaneously barf the whole lot up. Keep a bucket handy. I bet Bord Pleanala are having trouble holding the whole lot down - especially given the evidence from the ESB chief scientist at the oral hearings

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

Um...he's a peer reviewed academic with a PhD in energy modelling and currently an associate professor at a respected university in Denmark. He was invited by the Irish Dept of Energy to engage in the Green Paper on Energy process and has done work in the past for the European Commission. There are probably many other things he's been involved in.

So I think there are quite a few people who take him seriously but you might want to actually challenge what he says, rather than randomly dismissing him for no particular reason.

I have personally challenged him with the hard questions - he could not answer

His "peers" obviously know nothing of power generation

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

You're going to have to do a bit better than linking to an Economist article. Which of his findings exactly does it refute and in what way? And the other link is from a climate denying website? Charming. All still a lot of vague and spurious claims. Throw some mud and it will stick, eh?

Why don't you go through one of his papers and explain exactly where he get it wrong, rather than just throwing up random, dubious links with zero explanation as to the point you're trying to make?

As to the points you make in your previous post, you've raised them in the forum I moderate and they have been refuted. Yet you continue to repeat them. But we'll try again. Recent research by the European Commission found that Ireland had one of the most cost-effective renewables subsidy schemes, adding only 1% to consumer bills. What is the increasing factor of energy prices? Taxes and levies.

Not sure what you mean about Denmark and Germany's recent performance on carbon emissions. Germany's emissions went down in 2014, thanks to the growth in renewables http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/01/germanys-carbon-emissions-fall-renewable-energy-takes-lead/ They also made an annoucement in December that they will shut down 22 coal plants by 2020: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/analysis-germany-climate-action-plan-to-save-emissions-reduction-goal/

lies .....lies ... and more lies......................................................

the article actually states :

But it's unlikely any power plants will actually close.

Fabo

fclauson wrote: »

another link on PSO increase

http://www.uswitch.ie/gas-electricity/news/2014/07/29/pso-levy-set-to-rise-by-over-50-percent-from-october-1st-2014/

and another

http://www.bonkers.ie/blog/gas-electricity/pso-levy-to-increase-by-over-50--from-october-1st/

The argument is used that in the long term as wind is "free" from fuel costs that we will benefit. But if the subsidies to wind farms are reduce/removed most will go bankrupt as their loans are based on a 10 to 15 year pay off against the current subsidy rate. If that disappears then the loans will go unpaid

google NAMA Colm McCarthy wind farms
to find his arguments on the topic

http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/01/pso-levy-set-to-soar-this-year.html

Macha

I couldn't have hoped for a more vague answer, Fabo. I thought we were trying to put forward credible arguments here and debate them? Most of what I'm seeing here is unfounded claims & a lot of people dying to say "I told you so".

Shame as there of is a decent debate to be had. For example, it is entirely silly to say renewables are free. It would be more accurate to say they don't have any fuel costs & are generally 90% capex, 10% opex. LCOE is one more useful way to compare costs.

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

lies .....lies ... and more lies......................................................

the article actually states :

Bravo for selective quoting-were really into silly territory here.

The next sentence says that what they may do instead is just all reduce their load hours. But that's speculation on behalf of the authors of that article. Either way, it doesn't matter really - both options result in a very large reduction in the volume of coal being burned in Germany, which is the point I was making.

fclauson

think we should pull this thread back to the wind atlas and why it may be full of errors

want to discuss wind energy in generally then my 41 page thread at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057212602&page=41 can be viewed

valamhic

Dermot McDonnell wrote: »

New Government Report spells disaster for on-shore Wind Energy

The new Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland Wind Atlas predicts 50% less available energy from on-shore wind.

Maps showing mean wind speed 100m a.g. (above ground) from the existing (left), and new (right), wind atlases.

SEAI have not published the new wind atlas on their website, however, it has been available on request to the cognoscenti. We can calculate the mean power loss for two locations for which there is specific public



Mean Wind Speeds for Oweninny from Existing Wind Atlas.

For Oweninny, the new atlas gives 7.7m/s mean wind speed at 100m a.g. The existing atlas gives a range, 9.5m/s to 9.75m/s, when you click on the existing Bellacorick wind farm icon at the heart of the site. As power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, we can calculate the mean power ratios:

(7.7 x 7.7 x 7.7)/(9.5 x 9.5 x 9.5) and (7.7 x 7.7 x 7.7)/(9.75 x 9.75 x 9.75) equals 0.53 and 0.49.

The fall in the mean available power at 100m a.g. is 47% to 51%. The Cluddaun figures are similar. From the maps you can see the vast bulk of the country, with few exceptions, has experienced a massive fall in available wind power. Indeed, there are areas where the decline in available wind power appears to be even greater than at Oweninny/Cluddaun in North Mayo. Unfortunately, data for specific locations is very sparse.

For all but a couple of wind farm developers, the new SEAI Wind Atlas in an unmitigated disaster as banks and investors will look very hard once again at prospective projects.

Here are the capacity factors published on page 40 of Eirgrid's Generation Adequacy Report 2010 – 2016. they are,

2002 = 34.1%,
2003 = 34.7%,
2004 = 33.4%,
2005 = 32.5%,
2006 = 31.4%,
2007 = 29.1%,
2008 = 31.7%.
Average = 32.41%. North South East and West.

Troen and Peterson 1991, European Wind Atlas shows wind speed values for these Islands have the following features:



All areas west and north of (includive) County Kerry, west Clare, West Galway, Most of Mayo, County Sligo, North Leitrim, all of Donegal and North Derry, all of Scotland and North England from a line north of hull have the best average wind speeds of 16.5mph.

Next best comprises the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK have 15.5(except a 40 mile radius of Kilkenny city and and a 60 miles radius of Coventry England) , the latter exception being the lowest values of 13.5mph.

I believed Eirgrid were overstating the capacity factors for the aforementioned years, so during 2008 and 2009 I carried out a study at a Kingscourt and a hill top on my farm and on the top of the near by Lough an Leagh mountain. I accept, I could not reach turbine hub height, but I added a guestimate to compensate. I used the Beauford scale, which got me values for the highest trees on the hill tops, about 25 meters. This got me up a bit higher. I used a feather cast between 2 markers and I used Met Eireann's 1971 to 2001 wind rose for the 30 year period, 10 meters above the ground (referred to as normalised wind speed) It turned out that my findings were so close to the Met Eireann values that I simply carried out a minor adjustment which gave the result.

The next thing I did was controversial. The average cut-in speed for a turbine given in the book, “The Wind Farm Scam” by Professor John Etherington is given @ 12.5mph and by professor David McKay @ 13.5 mph. I used 12.5mph being the most common cited. I claim that we cannot include any generation which does not exist. The next problem was that a turbine's output is not linear, it increases by the cube above cut-in speed.

Wind speed Percent occurrence Days per year Wind output
1) 0 – 12.5mph 71.4% 259 days per year No power at all.
2) 12.5 - 18 mph 21.9% 79 days Marginal Power
3)18 – 31 mph 6.6% 26 days Near full power
4) 31 + mph .1 % 1 Near Full power.

Total 100% 365 days

Speeds from cut-in to maximum speeds occurred 28.6% of the time, but this must be adjusted for the marginal power. Now I will be very generous. Allocate 75% for 2, 90% for 3 & 100% for 4. 79 days x .75 = 59.25, 26 x .9 = 23.4 and 1 = 83.65/365x 100 = 22.91%. I added a little to this to take account of the extra height of modern turbines and got a value of 24.1% capacity factor. I wrote to the CEO of Eirgrid and he wrote back to agree and the following year the factor was 23.5.

The Digest of UK Energy Supplies gave the factors as follows – page 29. (for some reason not allowed
to post links).

1998 to 2004.

Average value excluding Northern Ireland = 26.125%
Northern Ireland 30%,
UK average 27.22.

The Eirgrid factor for 2002 to 2004 is 34.06. It is possible DUKES relied on factor supplied from Eirgrid. Therefore Northern Ireland's figures are suspect.


Result:

My figures 24.1%

DUKES UK 27.22

DUKES UK (ex NI) 26.12

Eirgrid 02-04 34.06

Eirgrid 2014 28.7

There is no evidence that Irish wind speeds in the early naughties were any higher than later years (2010 and 2011 excluded). Based on Met Eireann's 30 rear record to 2001, a factor above 25% was unlikely and above 30% impossible. The factor for Scotland was 30% which has far higher wind speeds. So this begs the question. How was Ireland's factor so high? How could it be 34.7 in 2003 but 29% in Scotland?, and 33.4 in 2004 against 28% there. I believe it was never this high, which calls for a self-examination of the data and compilation of this factor.

Note: none of this accounts for the reduced factor of turbines due to age.

valamhic

I am a farmer, out and about all the time. I do not accept that Ireland has the best wind speeds in Europe. Troen & Peterson don't think so. All of Britain North of Hull has better wind speeds than most of Ireland. A 34% factor in a modelised senario would require that the wind would blow above 30 mph for 124 days per year. That is fantacy land. The output of a turbine is less than half at half the wind speed. (see val martin ireland you tube myth about wind energy), Calculating the output of a turbine. Output starts at 12.5mph and must be shut down for safety above 35 mph. Therefore 12.5 mph = 0 and 33 mph (maximum output) = 20.5. So its 0 mph to 20.5 mph. Half of this is 10.5 mph. (23 mph). So if output is 2 mw @ 33, its 1 mw at 23mph. Half of 10.5 = 5.25 (17.75mph) . So at 17.75 mph, output is only .5 mw. or a quarter of maximum. 17.5 mph is no mean wind to us, yet it is a quarter of full output. @ 17.5 giving a quarter of max, that wind speed would need to blow 496 days. (Hi: There are only 365 days in a year!

I cannot believe, that wih this limitation that a factor on 34.7 % was achieved in 2003. As for 2008, I was constantly monitoring and measuring the wind every day. I came up with a generous factor of 24.1%. This is the correct figure for 2008, not 31.7%. There was no major consistant wind that year and the East winds did not arrive in March and April that year.

Something is wrong, very wrong and when investors loose their shirts they may come after us, the taxpayer.