New Government Report spells disaster for on-shore Wind Energy

Dermot McDonnell

From today's Indo

The ESB has the largest wind business....It is installing many more, including what will become the country's largest windfarm at Oweninny in Co Mayo, which will not be finished until 2017.

They seem to think Oweninny will be built.

Paul Thomas Rowland

Dermot McDonnell wrote: »

According to the SEAI website:

The Wind Atlas 2013 will be viewable on-line when software upgrades have been completed.

The Wind Atlas 2013 was working fine on the SEAI website when I last looked. Now they have pulled it for "software upgrades"? Yeah, right.

All King Enda's horses and all King Enda's men could'nt put their Wind Atlas together again.

Word around here is there will be no decision from Bord Pleanala on Oweninny/Cluddaun this side of the general election.

fclauson

that will make it run very close April 2017 which is when I think subsidies expire !!

Paul Thomas Rowland

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

The Wind Atlas 2013 was working fine on the SEAI website when I last looked. Now they have pulled it for "software upgrades"? Yeah, right.

All King Enda's horses and all King Enda's men could'nt put their Wind Atlas together again.

No sign of SEAI completing those "upgrades". The old wind atlas rules on their website. The upstart is no where to be seen.

I said it before, Dermot, you should report the matter to the guards - before an bord pleanala make a decision. You have lots of very good evidence.

Dermot McDonnell

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

... Dermot, you should report the matter to the guards - before an bord pleanala make a decision. You have lots of very good evidence.

On August 7th, 2013, six days after the ESB and BnM told several hundred local people, including myself, that they expected a 33% capacity factor at Oweninny, I made a complaint to Gardaí, that named individuals, employees of ESB and BnM, were engaged in deception as defined under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 Subsection (2):

For the purposes of this Act a person deceives if he or she—

(a) creates or reinforces a false impression, including a false impression as to law, value or intention or other state of mind,

(b) prevents another person from acquiring information which would affect that person's judgement of a transaction, or

(c) fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he or she stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship, and references to deception shall be construed accordingly.

Subsection (6) states:

(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

On October 18th, 2013, the local Garada Superintendent wrote to me stating he was "of the opinion that this is not a Garda matter".

LiamMayo

Dermot McDonnell wrote: »

On October 18th, 2013, the local Garada Superintendent wrote to me stating he was "of the opinion that this is not a Garda matter".

did the guards do anything?

realitykeeper

The Greens were hounded relentlessly by the Labour Party when they were in government with FF. Labour were particularly vehement that the Greens policy of encouraging wind power over fossil fuels was wrong and yet within a year of entering government the Labour Party had adopted a broadly similar policy to that of the Greens.

While in government for a few short years, the Green Party took much of the blame for more than a decade of FF mismanagement. This was fundamentally unfair, particularly when one considers that within the scope of their very limited ministerial responsibilities, the tiny Green Party performed to an exemplary standard. Indeed, few parties in the history of the state carried themselves as well as the Green Party did when it was in government.

At this juncture, I ought to say that I am not affiliated in any way with the Green Party or indeed to any member of the Green Party. I have voted for the Greens and will do so again. The only question I have not yet decided is whether to give them my first preference over Renua or vice versa.

djpbarry

Dermot McDonnell wrote: »

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

No it doesn't.

The report that you’ve linked to clearly states that the new atlas is based on average wind speeds during the 2000s, whereas the previous atlas was based on 1990s averages. The report also shows that the drop in average wind speed for Ireland from one decade to the next is only about 0.2 m/s. It’s reasonable to assume that in future decades, this average will increase again.

Paul Thomas Rowland

djpbarry wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Wrong. The OP showed mathematically in the first post of this thread that the mean power density at 100m above ground at Oweninny, Co Mayo, is down by 48%-51% in the new wind atlas as compared to the old wind atlas.

If you have any problems with those calculations, say so. If you have any evidence for your claims, out with it.

..The report also shows that the drop in average wind speed for Ireland from one decade to the next is only about 0.2 m/s...

Really, where did you get this gem? Why don't you take a look at the pretty pictures in the first post and explain the huge fall in predicted wind power across the country.

The New Wind Atlas has now vanished from the SEAI website and the old Wind Atlas has been reinstated. Enough said.

djpbarry

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Wrong. The OP showed mathematically in the first post of this thread that the mean power density at 100m above ground at Oweninny, Co Mayo, is down by 48%-51% in the new wind atlas as compared to the old wind atlas.

That’s called cherry-picking data. I’m fairly confident you could find places that show significant increases in average wind speed too. The point is that the average over the entire country has changed all that much.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Really, where did you get this gem?

In the report that the OP linked to – see Figure 35 on page 46.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Why don't you take a look at the pretty pictures in the first post and explain the huge fall in predicted wind power across the country.

The data is presented in a different manner – it says so in the figure legend (“NB on different projection grids”).

Paul Thomas Rowland

djpbarry wrote: »

..I’m fairly confident you could find places that show significant increases in average wind speed too.

Really, name one such place. I know of none in this country and I searched the new wind atlas. It was on the SEAI site for ages and worked just fine. I am sure I am not the only person who failed to find a single location where the wind energy increased nor has there been a single report in this thread of any such place.

The atmosphere is a fluid. You are welcome to believe an energy vortex opened above the 80sq.km of Oweninny and swallowed half the wind energy on that site which, coincidentally, is where the State proposes to build a massive 521MW wind farm with 160 huge turbines.

We know the ESB and BnM project management team for Oweninny met the contractors who made the 2013 Wind Atlas, the Minister told us that. In their meeting, they learned the mean wind speed predicted for 90m above ground at Oweninny, used it to calculate the 33% capacity factor contained in their planning application knowing full well that the new atlas would emerge in due course and provide an Bord Pleanala with verification of the 33% figure. I guess they did not know that their own wind data was given to the OP by Enda Kenny, he probably neglected to tell them that. Sadly for State those measurements completely contradict the 33% capacity factor as does a mountain of other independent high quality evidence.

Oweninny wind farm is a multi-billion euro fraud carefully planned and executed over a number of years.

The point is that the average over the entire country has changed all that much.

???

In the report that the OP linked to – see Figure 35 on page 46.

Lots of material linked by the OP, can you provide the link, please?

The data is presented in a different manner – it says so in the figure legend (“NB on different projection grids”).

And that makes what difference exactly? Both wind atlases provide wind speeds at various heights for any location you care to click on.

Paul Thomas Rowland

LiamMayo wrote: »

did the guards do anything?

I doubt it but I would really like to know. Dermot can you tell us, please, if Gardai carried out an investigation?

robp

What ever about windspeeds Oweninny farm shouldn't go ahead. The idea of building Ireland's largest and highest onshore wind farm in perhaps Ireland's only wilderness area is grossly repulsive. If are we serious about the Wild Atlantic Way and building a green image we must refrain from industrialising the last wild fragments of our island.

Paul Thomas Rowland

robp wrote: »

... we must refrain from industrialising the precious last wild fragments of our island.

I completely agree. I believe most of my neighbours would agree.

But we need to stop Institutionalised Crime dead in its tracks too. That is hugely important for our democracy, nobody wants to live in a kleptocracy. We are a few miles from the Corrib Gas refinery here and paid the price for that energy disaster - the same people, Dept of Energy, are responsible for Corrib and Oweninny.

Enough lies from the State.

djpbarry

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Really, name one such place.

I don’t have access to this new wind atlas, so how can I?

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Lots of material linked by the OP, can you provide the link, please?

There’s only one report linked to in the OP: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8w9evGfsK03LS1ra0Z3YTZnNmc/view?usp=sharing

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

And that makes what difference exactly?

The resolution is obviously different, which means values at specific points will be different.

Paul Thomas Rowland

The data is presented in a different manner – it says so in the figure legend (“NB on different projection grids”).

The resolution is obviously different, which means values at specific points will be different.

Projection refers to means of representing data in an image, such as the side by side maps from the contractors report posted by the OP. The wind atlases are databases, you can enter a grid reference for any location in the country, or click on a place in the GUI, and the atlases will provide wind speed information for that location. Anyone who had ever used either atlas would know this already. The wind speed information provided differs considerable between the two atlases. In the case of Oweninny, the 2013 atlas shows a loss in mean power density of ~50% at 100m above ground.

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t have access to this new wind atlas, so how can I?

You quoted in a previous post from the same SEAI web page that tells you the new wind atlas is available upon request. You are simply makes claims without making any effort to validate those claims. If you are upset that SEAI have removed the 2013 wind atlas from their website, take it up with SEAI - it is their responsibility. The State is trying to erase evidence of their fraud, not the people of North Mayo.

You completely ignore my main point:

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote:

We know the ESB and BnM project management team for Oweninny met the contractors who made the 2013 Wind Atlas, the Minister told us that. In their meeting, they learned the mean wind speed predicted for 90m above ground at Oweninny, used it to calculate the 33% capacity factor contained in their planning application knowing full well that the new atlas would emerge in due course and provide an Bord Pleanala with verification of the 33% figure. I guess they did not know that their own wind data was given to the OP by Enda Kenny, he probably neglected to tell them that. Sadly for State those measurements completely contradict the 33% capacity factor as does a mountain of other independent high quality evidence.

It is ESB and BnM that have been doing the "cherry-picking" of data from the new wind atlas for Oweninny, not the OP.

djpbarry

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Projection refers to means of representing data in an image...

Yes, I know that, thanks.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

You quoted in a previous post from the same SEAI web page that tells you the new wind atlas is available upon request. You are simply makes claims without making any effort to validate those claims.

But I have validated my claim - I made reference to a figure in the report the OP linked to which shows that average wind speeds in Ireland have barely changed from one decade to the next.

Paul Thomas Rowland

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, I know that, thanks.
But I have validated my claim - I made reference to a figure in the report the OP linked to which shows that average wind speeds in Ireland have barely changed from one decade to the next.

So you are then in complete agreement with my very first post in this thread?

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

This huge loss in wind power in Ireland has not been in the news, or scientific journals, because it has not happened. I don't believe a word of what's in the SEAI new wind atlas. The wind resource has not gone anywhere...

Dermot McDonnell

djpbarry wrote: »

... which shows that average wind speeds in Ireland have barely changed from one decade to the next.

Thank you for this.

You are quite right, the mean change in wind speed across the country was 0.2m/s according to the contractors, based on Met Eireann measurements. Yet mean wind speed 100m above ground at Oweninny shows a variation of 1.8m/s to 2.05m/s between the two SEAI wind atlases. You will appreciate Oweninny is the major concern for many of us.

Paul Thomas Rowland

Dermot McDonnell wrote: »

....Yet mean wind speed 100m above ground at Oweninny shows a variation of 1.8m/s to 2.05m/s between the two SEAI wind atlases. You will appreciate Oweninny is the major concern for many of us.

Seems King Enda succeeded where King Canute failed, having stilled the wind at Oweninny, a few miles from his home. He cunningly employed highly skilled Dept of Energy wizards and magicians. It is hoped their spells will remain effective for long enough to allow for the sale of Oweninny Power Limited at a pittance to good friends, a la Siteserv - a mere bauble by comparison to OPL.

Dermot McDonnell

Attached the legal submission made by the lawyers representing ESB and Bord na Móna at the Oral Hearing, the section on Community Gain may be of interest to some of you. Their community gain offer, €1,000/MW, is a small fraction of the £5,000/MW minumium required in the UK.

djpbarry

Dermot McDonnell wrote: »

You are quite right, the mean change in wind speed across the country was 0.2m/s according to the contractors, based on Met Eireann measurements. Yet mean wind speed 100m above ground at Oweninny shows a variation of 1.8m/s to 2.05m/s between the two SEAI wind atlases.

Which is just over 0.2 m/s - I'm not sure this is grounds for conspiracy hunting.

Paul Thomas Rowland

djpbarry wrote: »

Which is just over 0.2 m/s - I'm not sure this is grounds for conspiracy hunting.

Wrong again.

The wind speed variation at 100m a.g. at Oweninny is between 9 and over 10 times the national average of 0.2m/s. You would know that if you had bothered looking at the figures. I look forward to your explanation/interpretation for that fact, many many standard deviations away from the national average.

Dermot McDonnell wrote: »

..their community gain offer, €1,000/MW, is a small fraction of the £5,000/MW minumium required in the UK.

Thanks for the legal submission, interesting reading. The ESB, BnM and their puppet masters in Government, who are orchestrating the €10bn Oweninny Wind Farm Fraud, get everything and rural plebs like us get nothing. Their criminality, greed and sense of entitlement would shock if it were not for the fact that we have seen it all before in Ireland.

djpbarry

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Wrong again.

The wind speed variation at 100m a.g. at Oweninny is between 9 and over 10 times the national average of 0.2m/s. You would know that if you had bothered looking at the figures. I look forward to your explanation/interpretation for that fact, many many standard deviations away from the national average.

Sorry, I misread your post.

How do you know what the standard deviation associated with that mean value is?

Regardless, the report behind the new wind atlas states that the 90th percentile confidence interval for estimates is as high as 1.4 m/s.

Paul Thomas Rowland

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry, I misread your post.

It was not my post you misread, and in any case, the same data is in the very first post of this thread. You see what you want to see and ignore what you don't like.

Let's be clear, while a 2m/s wind speed is 10 times greater than a 0.2m/s wind speed, ie 1 order of magnitude, the difference in power - watts per unit area - is 10x10x10=1000 times, ie 3 orders of magnitude. So you really should pay attention to the figures.

How do you know what the standard deviation associated with that mean value is?

I don't but I do know it is way out, because both datasets are available from SEAI on request and a bunch of bright young people from N Mayo are doing the scientific work needed for a legal challenge. You are quite welcome to do that work yourself.

Regardless, the report behind the new wind atlas states that the 90th percentile confidence interval for estimates is as high as 1.4 m/s.

So what?

You arrived on this thread late in the day, after the Government removed it's new wind atlas, making accusations:

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s called cherry-picking data.

because the OP used the Oweninny figures to illustrate his objection to the new wind atlas. In your penultimate post, you had this to say:

djpbarry wrote: »

Which is just over 0.2 m/s - I'm not sure this is grounds for conspiracy hunting.

A 2m/s variation is an enormous chasm, where the mean is 0.2m/s.

You have never once referenced the BnM wind speed measurements for Oweninny and how they utterly contradict the new wind atlas as well as the production figures contained in the planning application. Nor have you commented on the extraordinary coincidence that the new wind atlas precisely predicts those production figures when all the other evidence points the other way.

It is not lost on anyone in North Mayo that 2011 saw the coronation of local boy, King Enda, beginning of preparations for a new SEAI wind atlas (What was wrong with the old one?), preparation by ESB and BnM for a new, more ambitious, planning application for Oweninny (they already had planning for 180 turbines) and the adoption of a new wind strategy by FG controlled Mayo County Council to facilitate the States ambitions.

Did King Enda and his cronies really think they would get away with stealing €10bn of our natural resources in North Mayo, a few miles from Shell?

djpbarry

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

I don't but I do know it is way out…

So you have no idea what the spread is about that mean value of 0.2 m/s? So you have no idea how many standard deviations away from the mean 2.0 m/s is.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

So what?

The mean wind speeds at a given site are estimated with a 90% confidence level of +/- 1.4 m/s.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

A 2m/s variation is an enormous chasm, where the mean is 0.2m/s.

No, it isn’t, as, based on the above confidence interval, the mean value can be taken to be 0.2 +/- 1.4 m/s. A value of 2.0 m/s is not far outside that interval and, therefore, not unreasonable.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

It is not lost on anyone in North Mayo that 2011 saw the coronation of local boy, King Enda, beginning of preparations for a new SEAI wind atlas (What was wrong with the old one?)…

The old one is old, presumably. Climate estimates are generally updated every ten years, based on the weather in the preceding decade.

Paul Thomas Rowland

djpbarry wrote: »

.. A value of 2.0 m/s is not far outside that interval ...

Not far outside that interval??? Their prediction, made with a 90% confidence level, is almost 50% off target???? Naturally, plus or minus 50% would suit you fine, just as it would suit ESB and BnM.

And, of course, you choose to totally ignore the most damning evidence, the wind speed measurements made at Oweninny by BnM over many many years.

"..the organisation has “the longest line of clean wind data of any company in the British Isles going back to 1990.” - Gabriel D’Arcy, ex-Managing Director of Bord na Móna.

Those on site measurements are in complete agreement with the old wind atlas and the IEC study of Bellacorick wind farm at Oweninny. Those same measurements completely contradict the 33% Capacity Factor in the planning application and the new wind atlas estimates for the site. When measurements contradict theory, theory yields.

You are welcome to ignore whatever scientific data that does not suit your agenda, I do not think the High Court will be so blind.

djpbarry

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Not far outside that interval???

That’s what I said: 2.0 is not a whole lot bigger than 1.4.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Their prediction…

It’s not a prediction, it’s an estimate.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

…made with a 90% confidence level, is almost 50% off target????

Where are you getting 50% from? And what do you mean by “off-target”?

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

You are welcome to ignore whatever scientific data that does not suit your agenda…

That’s a bit rich – you’re demonstrating a very obvious lack of understanding of the figures you’re quoting.

Paul Thomas Rowland

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s what I said: 2.0 is not a whole lot bigger than 1.4.

If 1.4m/s is their 90% confidence level, what's the 2.0m/s confidence level? 99% or 99.9%??

The old wind atlas is in very close agreement with the published wind measurements for Oweninny during the period 2000-2009 and with the IEC Study covering 1993-1996. The new wind atlas is not, it predicts that a wind farm would produce X, with 99% certainty, plus a whole lot more.

It’s not a prediction, it’s an estimate.

How subtle?

Where are you getting 50% from? And what do you mean by “off-target”?

2.0m/s is, as I wrote, is almost 50% higher than 1.4m/s, is it not? When the state publishes an estimate, with 90% confidence, I expect them to hit the barn door not miss it by a wide margin.

LiamMayo

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

If 1.4m/s is their 90% confidence level, what's the 2.0m/s confidence level? 99% or 99.9%??

..

2.0m/s is, as I wrote, is almost 50% higher than 1.4m/s, is it not? When the state publishes an estimate, with 90% confidence, I expect them to hit the barn door not miss it by a wide margin.

very good. even some of these experts must be starting to realise something is very very rotten in dept of energy. not that they will admit a thing. professional posters some of them.

Dermot, what did the guards do? nothing I suppose.