Nimbyism: Windfarm off South County Dublin

Yellow_Fern

Why not learn from France? Differences between the French route versus the German route are really extraordinary when measure per capita. France has been beating us in carbon emission since 1966! 1966 when were basketcase. Nuclear isnt cheap to build but its really cheap to maintain.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/france?country=FRA~DEU~IRL

Rigor Mortis

French energy policy is to gradually reduce their use of nuclear power. The aim being to reduce it by half in the next 15 years, switching to renewables including offshore

completedit

They look amazing. The natural world is amazing but sometimes I feel as if we feel we can't appreciate the marvels of man-made inventions. There is a beauty in their sheer might and power. Let's get them up.

completedit

completedit wrote: »

They look amazing. The natural world is amazing but sometimes I feel as if we feel we can't appreciate the marvels of man-made inventions. There is a beauty in their sheer might and power. Let's get them up.

Quite soothing to sit and watch I find.

Yellow_Fern

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

French energy policy is to gradually reduce their use of nuclear power. The aim being to reduce it by half in the next 15 years, switching to renewables including offshore

Their subject under the same anti nuclear hysteria as everywhere else. Parties like the National Front led by Le Pen oppose Nuclear. The anti nuclear movement has cost the lives of millions since the 1960s through air pollution, unnecessary abortions and other factors.

Just want to make a correction, I said France has been beating us in carbon emission since 1966! Actually its only since 1989. However since 1966 we have been worse on per capita carbon emissions growth.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

you think the Kish is the only sandbank?

They are dotted all over the west of Ireland. We have the view and sound. Count yourself lucky that you won't hear them or see them on the vast majority of days.

Birdnuts

bob mcbob wrote: »

Ok so your solution (for the "human element") is to replace all carbon generating power sources with nuclear. Engage in large scale insulation to reduce the amount of energy needed. Unfortunately protection of current carbon storing habitats only ensures that the current carbon load does not increase.

Do you really see these as feasible options because I am not sure anyone else would.

Oh you have me wrong I believe that large scale climate change can happen naturally. For example the Comet which hit the earth 65million years ago was fully natural and resulted in an extinction event. Much closer in time was the last ice age which ended 12000 years ago also resulted in large scale extinctions.

Just because it happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen in the future, does not mean we can abdicate responsibility for our actions today.

So your solution is to kill the planet in order to save it??:rolleyes:

I would also suggest you read up on the difference between natural extinction rates and human induced extinctions.

Birdnuts

completedit wrote: »

They look amazing. The natural world is amazing but sometimes I feel as if we feel we can't appreciate the marvels of man-made inventions. There is a beauty in their sheer might and power. Let's get them up.

Theres plenty down the country without throwing more up in sensitive locations - in the likes of Donegal and West Cork its now impossible to get a decent view from anywhere without them being in your eyeline.

Kingp35

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres plenty down the country without throwing more up in sensitive locations - in the likes of Donegal and West Cork its now impossible to get a decent view from anywhere without them being in your eyeline.

Ah poor you, it's a tough life you live :rolleyes:

lemonTrees

Birdnuts wrote: »

Theres plenty down the country without throwing more up in sensitive locations - in the likes of Donegal and West Cork its now impossible to get a decent view from anywhere without them being in your eyeline.

They are monstrous looking yokes alright. Wouldn't want one in my back yard.

Markcheese

lemonTrees wrote: »

They are monstrous looking yokes alright. Wouldn't want one in my back yard.

Don't put one in your backyard so ...

loyatemu

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Nuclear isnt cheap to build but its really cheap to maintain.

as was discussed in the Energy Infrastructure thread, a nuclear plant literally needs a team of nuclear technicians to keep running, and extensive security arrangements and emergency systems, as well as the long term cost of disposing of the waste. Is it really cheap?

bob mcbob

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Does anyone have an idea of the maximum depth of water for wind turbines?
I presume they have to go on a bank as opposed to deep water. A quick google lists the following banks in the Irish Sea. i didnt realise there were so many..


Bennet, Burford, Kish, Frazer, Bray, Codling, India, Arklow, Seven Fathom Bank, Glassgorman, Rusk, Blackwater/Moneyweights, Lucifer, Long and Holdens Banks

and this windfarm planned for Dundalk which i hadnt heard about..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_Wind_Farm

They are starting to experiment with floating wind farms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine

bob mcbob

loyatemu wrote: »

as was discussed in the Energy Infrastructure thread, a nuclear plant literally needs a team of nuclear technicians to keep running, and extensive security arrangements and emergency systems, as well as the long term cost of disposing of the waste. Is it really cheap?

Yes according to the latest surveys offshore wind will soon become the cheapest energy source.

So for those people worried about their energy bills - offshore wind is the answer

https://theenergyst.com/uk-offshore-wind-becomes-cheaper-than-nuclear-and-gas/

Rigor Mortis

bob mcbob wrote: »

They are starting to experiment with floating wind farms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine

FLoating wind farms at scale are a good way off. They present a great opportunity for Ireland, particularly given our huge marine space to the south and west. They are not going to deliver in the next ten years though.

Birdnuts

loyatemu wrote: »

as was discussed in the Energy Infrastructure thread, a nuclear plant literally needs a team of nuclear technicians to keep running, and extensive security arrangements and emergency systems, as well as the long term cost of disposing of the waste. Is it really cheap?

The waste issue is becoming less and less of an issue thanx to reprocessing and newer tech like thorium. The new fusion reactor being built with French and German tech in the south of France will be a big game changer on all the levels you mention. India and China have major plans in that regard too - windmills are not going to keep the lights on for them I can tell you!!

Birdnuts

bob mcbob wrote: »

Yes according to the latest surveys offshore wind will soon become the cheapest energy source.

So for those people worried about their energy bills - offshore wind is the answer

https://theenergyst.com/uk-offshore-wind-becomes-cheaper-than-nuclear-and-gas/

They have been pedalling that BS for years with regards to wind energy - yet the countries with the biggest wind penetration in the EU all have the highest energy costs!! The people who come up with such headlines have no idea about how a national grid actually works ie. wind power needs constant back as a non-disbatcheable,dispersed energy source and requires a much bigger and more complicated grid architecture in terms of extra pylons, substantions etc. - the cheerleaders of wind developers never acknowledge such realities


https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/


Hard to beleive that Irelands power costs were actually below the EU averge 20 years ago before subs for wind power were brought in - its clear to see who has been benefitting from this massive transfer of wealth ever since!!

Birdnuts

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

FLoating wind farms at scale are a good way off. They present a great opportunity for Ireland, particularly given our huge marine space to the south and west. They are not going to deliver in the next ten years though.

Their one advantage is that they can be moved to deeper waters and away from important shallow water feeding grounds for fish and seabirds.

Markcheese

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

FLoating wind farms at scale are a good way off. They present a great opportunity for Ireland, particularly given our huge marine space to the south and west. They are not going to deliver in the next ten years though.

In terms of the scale of the projects being proposed 10 years isn't a million miles off ...
When you consider how large the areas that are being proposed ,to site turbines in .. it's a huge deal ,
And if it's done cleverly , they could restrict the size of fishing boats in turbine areas , and restrict trawling ,allowing for marine regeneration ,

Rigor Mortis

I;m not arguing against floating. But i've been hearing people arguing for wave and tidal for over a decade and they are still way off in terms of deployment. The future potential of floating offshore is not an argument against the immediate potential of fixed arrays.

Yellow_Fern

loyatemu wrote: »

as was discussed in the Energy Infrastructure thread, a nuclear plant literally needs a team of nuclear technicians to keep running, and extensive security arrangements and emergency systems, as well as the long term cost of disposing of the waste. Is it really cheap?

I will check out those subs. Sounds interesting. Id stress that he idea that nuclear power stations are vulnerable to terrorist attacks is far fetched. How do terrorists break inl, take a crane and move a 100 ton canister of nuclear fuel without being caught? A lad with an automatic rifle in any city is more dangerous.

screamer

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I will check out those subs. Sounds interesting. Id stress that he idea that nuclear power stations are vulnerable to terrorist attacks is far fetched. How do terrorists break inl, take a crane and move a 100 ton canister of nuclear fuel without being caught? A lad with an automatic rifle in any city is more dangerous.

Twin towers weren’t vulnerable either, till they were obliterated by crazies in planes.... I don’t think nuclear is viable for us here on a cost benefit basis. Although, as we are becoming the data centre of Europe, we need to get our asses in gear to find alternatives to fossil fuelled power

Birdnuts

screamer wrote: »

Twin towers weren’t vulnerable either, till they were obliterated by crazies in planes.... I don’t think nuclear is viable for us here on a cost benefit basis. Although, as we are becoming the data centre of Europe, we need to get our asses in gear to find alternatives to fossil fuelled power

Not really relevant to modern nuclear tech, besides your argument would suggest we should shut down the likes of Dublin Airport as someone could hijack a plane and fly it into the city centre.....where does such hysteria end I wonder:rolleyes:


We are already importing nuclear via interconnectors and that will grow even more when that new interconnector to France is built via Cork harbour. As for Data centres, it makes no sense to indulge them at the expense of other energy users or the Irish environment. Unless your deluded enough to think wind energy is a reliable source of power for them??

bob mcbob

Birdnuts wrote: »

They have been pedalling that BS for years with regards to wind energy - yet the countries with the biggest wind penetration in the EU all have the highest energy costs!! The people who come up with such headlines have no idea about how a national grid actually works ie. wind power needs constant back as a non-disbatcheable,dispersed energy source and requires a much bigger and more complicated grid architecture in terms of extra pylons, substantions etc. - the cheerleaders of wind developers never acknowledge such realities


https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/


Hard to beleive that Irelands power costs were actually below the EU averge 20 years ago before subs for wind power were brought in - its clear to see who has been benefitting from this massive transfer of wealth ever since!!

Oh really.

Here are some actual electricity costs for 2025 (Hinkley B is the new nuclear power station currently being constructed)

Last week, prices for new wind power delivered by 2025 were set at prices as low as £40 per megawatt hour. By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49823305

vincenzolorenzo

Birdnuts wrote: »

They have been pedalling that BS for years with regards to wind energy - yet the countries with the biggest wind penetration in the EU all have the highest energy costs!! The people who come up with such headlines have no idea about how a national grid actually works ie. wind power needs constant back as a non-disbatcheable,dispersed energy source and requires a much bigger and more complicated grid architecture in terms of extra pylons, substantions etc. - the cheerleaders of wind developers never acknowledge such realities


https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/


Hard to beleive that Irelands power costs were actually below the EU averge 20 years ago before subs for wind power were brought in - its clear to see who has been benefitting from this massive transfer of wealth ever since!!

Its not really hard to believe really though. The cheapest way to produce electricity is by coal, if we only had coal stations and forget about environment/CO2/air pollution etc etc our electricity would be cheap as chips.

Unfortunately thats not the world we live in. Integrating wind and other renewable into the grid makes it much more complicated, no doubt about it, and complexity brings cost. Decarbonising elec generation has been the main driver for a long time now so cleaner technologies are subsidised through PSO. Its the same argument as subsidies for farmers. Cheap food has been the basis of food policy for decades so the taxpayer subsidises farmers for below cost production.

I had a look at an old ESB annual report https://esbarchives.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/esb-annual-reports_1979-1980.pdf
Average wholesale price throughout the 70s was equivalent to €100-130 /MWh when corrected for inflation. The average in 2019 costs across all forms of generation was approx. €45/MWh. While we are higher than other EU countries, electricity is a fraction of what it used to be years ago

ted1

bob mcbob wrote: »

Oh really.

Here are some actual electricity costs for 2025 (Hinkley B is the new nuclear power station currently being constructed)

Last week, prices for new wind power delivered by 2025 were set at prices as low as £40 per megawatt hour. By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49823305

Not comparable, you need to factor in the BESS/ hydrogen/ thermal plant needed to back up the wind for when the wind doesn’t blow.

Does the Hinckley include the cost of waste processing?

Birdnuts

bob mcbob wrote: »

Oh really.

Here are some actual electricity costs for 2025 (Hinkley B is the new nuclear power station currently being constructed)

Last week, prices for new wind power delivered by 2025 were set at prices as low as £40 per megawatt hour. By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49823305

As others have pointed out your figures for wind are flawed as it none dispatchable - doesn't include wind related grid costs eitheir

Birdnuts

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

Its not really hard to believe really though. The cheapest way to produce electricity is by coal, if we only had coal stations and forget about environment/CO2/air pollution etc etc our electricity would be cheap as chips.

Unfortunately thats not the world we live in. Integrating wind and other renewable into the grid makes it much more complicated, no doubt about it, and complexity brings cost. Decarbonising elec generation has been the main driver for a long time now so cleaner technologies are subsidised through PSO. Its the same argument as subsidies for farmers. Cheap food has been the basis of food policy for decades so the taxpayer subsidises farmers for below cost production.

I had a look at an old ESB annual report https://esbarchives.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/esb-annual-reports_1979-1980.pdf
Average wholesale price throughout the 70s was equivalent to €100-130 /MWh when corrected for inflation. The average in 2019 costs across all forms of generation was approx. €45/MWh. While we are higher than other EU countries, electricity is a fraction of what it used to be years ago

I suggest you look at energy costs in France which is 70% nuclear and has the lowest emissions of any grid in the EU on a per capita basis - throwing good money after bad at wind developers will fail to deliver anything other than fat profits for the likes of foreign vulture funds at the expense of the Irish environment and energy user.

Markcheese

ted1 wrote: »

Not comparable, you need to factor in the BESS/ hydrogen/ thermal plant needed to back up the wind for when the wind doesn’t blow.

Does the Hinckley include the cost of waste processing?

Not as far as I know , nor does it include the eventual decommissioning of the site ...
But I could be way off on that ..

Markcheese

Birdnuts wrote: »

As others have pointed out your figures for wind are flawed as it none dispatchable - doesn't include wind related grid costs eitheir

I don't think any grid costs or back up / spinning reserve are included with hinkly c or sizewell either ,

There is the advantage that both of those are at sites of current reactors ...
But a big source of power needs a huge amount of dispatchable reserve , no matter the source ,
With nuclear it's likely to another reactor .