Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
16416426446466471067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    an infinite amount more than the nuclear that you and your sad buddies insist we need to rely on



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    If you take into account the benefits to society then in the US wind has a negative cost.


    Wind Energy Benefits Outweigh Costs ... Wind energy prices remain low, around $20/MWh in the interior “wind belt” of the country.


    The health and climate benefits of wind in 2020 were larger than its grid-system value, and the combination of all three far exceeds the current levelized cost of wind. Wind generation reduces power-sector emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. These reductions, in turn, provide public health and climate benefits that vary regionally, but together are economically valued at an average of $76/MWh-wind nationwide in 2020.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I linked to the IEA report.

    This is the actual plan

    You have nothing but fantasy.

    Nuclear is declining, Oil Gas and Coal are declining.

    Renewables are talking over



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Offsetting fossil fuels has the same impact whether it's onshore or offshore wind, or solar PV or geothermal etc...

    Those refineries are a nightmare for people who live near them



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    an infinite number is enough of a figure to prove my point.

    Dividing by zero tends to crash algorithms



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    you're outnumbered in a 1 to 1 debate

    Don't worry, by the morning your buddies will have flooded this thread with already disproven memes to make you feel better



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    At least you aren't asking for 30GW of floating offshore wind to be built tomorrow. It's 5-7GW by 2030


    Maritime Area Consents for Offshore Wind Energy projects were granted last week for, part of ORESS 1 which is 2.5GW

    • Oriel Wind Park
    • Arklow Bank II
    • Bray Bank
    • Kish Bank
    • North Irish Sea Array
    • Codling Wind Park (Codling I and Codling II)
    • Skerd Rocks


    Solar though should arrive earlier. We estimate that 640MW of utility scale solar is currently under construction or energising, 1,534MW is contracted to deliver by 2025, while a further 5,000MW worth of projects hold planning permission. The 2030 target is now 8GW



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    It's how much wind power costs when already have somewhere to stick a turbine. So you can see how little wind power would cost if we could get around NIMBYs.

    If you had cheap enough TWh storage then the increased capacity factor and reduction in calm days offshore might not be worth it.


    It's also the maximum cost of upgrading offshore wind mid life by reuse of just the existing platforms.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    2030 is the date for 80% generation of electricity from renewables. The emissions reduction target is 50%, leaving the much more difficult 50% to be done by 2050. However, I don't believe we have a hope of achieving the "easy" 50% by 2030. Wind power is too expensive, inflation and rising interest rates are going to cripple the viability of new wind projects, the EV and heat pump targets are a fantasy, there will be a popular backlash against the soaring cost of energy from vanity projects that will have absolutely zero impact on climate change.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    You may want to check your "facts" as we are already getting 50% of electricity from renewables some months.

    What is your solution to our actual 2030 electrical generation targets ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,419 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia




  • Registered Users Posts: 10,459 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    I know we don’t sell gas to the UK.

    Thanks for clarifying for that other poster that we have two not three pipelines that are collectively called Moffat and that they do follow roughly the same corridor.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,459 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    What’s the average electricity generation from renewables only- for the year- not just some months.

    How much generation did we require using oil coal or gas?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    You are being completely disingenuous by saying the entire wind infrastructure would need to be completely replaced every 30 years

    The Capital costs include purchasing of land, transmission lines, substations, access roads etc. These can be upgraded and maintained as part of the operating costs which are included in the LCOE

    Like a lot of your posts, you're simply making this up. Most wind farm land is leased, so capital costs do not include land purchases. The transmission lines etc. are effectively leased as well, as the generator pays Transmission Use of System Tariffs to Eirgrid. The wind farm operator also has to pay commercial rates. The costs at the end of the wind farm life (which may be as low as 20 years) depend on lots of factors. One poster on here keeps claiming that only rotor blades and some turbine components need to be replaced. That sort of approach is referred to as a lifetime extension (LTE) whereas wind farms eventually need "repowering", a more radical overhaul.

    Like all load-bearing structures, wind turbine foundations and towers have a limited life. You can't just stick new equipment on top of them. More to the point, don't you guys keep claiming that costs are dropping and efficiencies are increasing? There is rarely an economic case for just refurbishing 30 year old equipment when you could be squeezing greater returns out of the same land area. Especially since these older farms already occupy the windiest sites. And yet currently 90% of European wind farms reaching 20 years of age get LTEs, not repowering, suggesting the costs and other barriers are very considerable (source). Newer bigger turbines may no longer meet the permitting conditions of the original farm etc.

    Even the mouthpiece of Big Wind in Ireland only says that repowering is "potentially cheaper than new builds" (source):

    Potentially Cheaper than New Builds.

    Repowering can allow the reuse of existing infrastructure at a site. Road and grid connection infrastructure should already be in place, although they may need upgrading. With a streamlined permitting process, as called for in RED II, the cost of permits should also be cheaper. This should, under the right circumstances, make repowering cheaper than building a new WF, under the right circumstances.

    (That repeat of "under the right circumstances" in the last sentence sounds a little nervous, doncha think?) But then, that's the same organisation that said just two years ago Irish onshore wind could be produced for less than €40/MWh (source). It claimed that at an average of €60/MWh to 2030, the provision of wind energy would be cost neutral, and that each €10/MWh reduction would save the Irish consumer an additional €1.5 billion annually. Here we are two years later and onshore wind is coming in at €97/MWh.

    For those posters who continually banged on that "wind power is nine times cheaper than gas" (small print: on one project, in another country, during a one-day gas price spike on 26-Aug-2022) ... you presumably are taking note that the spot price for gas this week -- in the middle of an energy crisis, in winter -- is 30% cheaper than the last RESS auction for wind. Assuming those projects even get built, the costs to consumers are going to be horrendous as they are locked in until 2040.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Our generation and emissions targets are presumably time-averaged figures, not for "some months".

    My solution to our 2030 electrical generation targets would be to significantly overhaul our aging thermal generation, build LNG storage and regasification facilities, and to extract indigenous hydrocarbons. Yes, I realise that wouldn't meet our emissions reduction targets but I don't consider them important as they will have precisely zero impact on climate change -- the problem they are purported to be solving. They also come with an untenable cost and unsustainable resource requirements.

    I'd also immediately start a long term study into nuclear power and its accompanying regulatory framework. It is a wait-and-see approach. Nukes in Ireland are not a short term thing, but beyond the middle of the next decade we will see if small modular nukes bring the efficiencies and cost savings they promise. I would adopt the same wait-and-see for a hydrogen economy. For carbon-neutral hydrogen I'd expect HGTRs (high temperature gas reactors) to be the main source eventually.

    I would remain receptive to wind power, but only when it stops being an expensive boondoggle and a vehicle for sucking on the tit of the Irish state, like so many other enterprises that inflate the cost of living here. That said, we'll probably never get sense. Just like pre-2007 when we thought we were the cleverest little country in the world, making fortunes out of selling houses to each other before we realised we were being raped and pillaged, we'll be having tribunals of inquiry into how we agreed to batshit insane strike prices for wind power.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    How will replacing a MWh of gas produced electricity with a MWh of wind produced electricity not reduce carbon emissions?

    How is the state subsidizing wind at the moment? When the gas price is high there isn’t any subsidy.

    Forget about targets, what about money. Will the cost of buying emissions allowances for every MWh of energy we use not be very high? We could be looking at charges of €200+ per tonne by then.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,386 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    again debt isnt necessarily a bad thing, it just depends on what its being used for, a significant proportion of our national debts have been used to bail out pre existing asset markets, new debts in this case would be used in creating new assets, such as a new energy network, the debts themselves could potentially be paid in full within a few years of operations, and we d have new state assets in which the gains could be used to benefit all, so its a win win for all....



  • Registered Users Posts: 28 Postdriver


    one of the windmills off arklow got hit by lightning a couple of months ago and it burned for two day's completely destroying it. I was talking to a chap that works on the maintenance of them and asked him what will it cost to fix he said it won't be fixed only replaced along with the other 6 as their nearly 20 years old and wore out 63 more going out there soon to last what another 20 years? seems expensive electric to me.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,386 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    electrical infrastructure has never been cheap, even for a small country such as ours, multiples of billions is required in order to build what we need, but this new infrastructure then becomes new state assets, helping provide us with our energy needs, and helping us to become more energy independent, noting, our current inflationary pressures are largely due to our exposure to international energy markets, so becoming more energy independent may in fact protect us from such future events....



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    For the 12 month period January 2020 to December 2020, 49.2 per cent of total electricity consumption in Northern Ireland was generated from renewable sources located in Northern Ireland. And that's with no offshore wind and not counting interconnectors. So should be doable down here as well except for problems in getting planning permission down here.

    Then add offshore wind and solar and grid upgrades that will allow 20% more non-synchronous generation and the new interconnectors.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Thermal plant will be replaced in time. Newer gas turbines will be able to be modified to take hydrogen as an option. But it will be peaking plant and for grid stability rather than ye olde baseload.




    There was a long term practical study on nuclear power.

    In the last 30 years between them Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba , Czech Republic, Finland, France, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Mexico , the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the UK , the US and Ukraine have delivered one new reactor.

    It failed after less than 30 days on full load.

    Technically we could do better than all those countries combined and still fail to meet our 2050 targets.



    In real terms the cost of wind and solar are still falling. In 1966 the UK, US and Germany all had HGTRs running so don't expect a breakthrough anytime soon. (The Chinese are using German tech and it still took them 15 years to build one)



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    You missed this little point from your linked article:

    Reflecting the impacts of Covid-19, the five lowest monthly electricity consumption volumes on record were recorded between April and August 2020.

    It's easier to provide more renewable energy when you're covering five record low demand months within your cherry-picked twelve.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Don't forget that the Ireland 2040 Plan says we'll have an additional one million people living here too. These extra folks will require electricity to heat their homes (homes yet to be built) and fuel their EVs (yet to be produced).

    All these plans to increase electricity demand while lowering C02 output coupled with a rapidly expanding population is an impossible combination.

    The government are going to have to pony up alot of our tax monies to entice any corporation to take a bet on delivering all this.

    Expect more taxes.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    20GWh/24hours is an average of 0.833GW

    For commuting most people would only use a small % of the battery every day. So it doesn't need to be every day, unless you have plans for a long trip. Monday - Thursday nights you'd have 12 hours to charge 7pm-7am off peak, plus all weekend. Or when it's windy. Or from 2025 onwards when it's sunny. Or you could choose to not to wait until power is cheap.


    Nuclear power is not dispatchable. It's generally run flat out so you can't get more power if needed.

    Your choices of a country that will have more nuclear power soon are very limited. Especially if you want to live in a western democracy as even the ones building nuclear will mostly be shutting down more plants before any new ones come on line.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭ginger22


    You obviously do not live beside a wind farm. If you did you would change your tune about benefits to society.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    7pm to 7am off peak! LOLs!!!

    Switch to our best electricity and gas price plan | Electric Ireland

    The best you'll get is 2am to 4am.

    Again, another green folly as you'll be roasted on charges for cooking a dinner.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,668 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    I still can’t figure out how using millions of litres of fossil fuels like (diesel, coal, gas & oil)

    to build wind turbines or solar panels to save our environmental & energy needs is going to work.

    we have the bull by the udder.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,112 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Unlike all the countries you listed we have neither gas storage nor an arrangement with any other E.U. country on gas storage. Even if we had it would be on LNG storage which thanks to Ryan and his motley crew we do not have the facilities for either.


    The E.U. this month capped gas prices, something Norway had warned against 3 months ago without any consideration for Norway when deciding that. If the U.K did cut Norwegian gas supplies to here what has the Four Freedoms of the single market got to do with that, The U.K. has not been a member of the EEA for the past two years ?


    If you somehow believe that Norway would cut gas supplies to the U.K. based on the E.U. saying pretty please, especially after them capping gas prices then I`m afraid you would be sadly mistaken. If there was a trade war between Ireland and the U.K. the U.K. would not starve over night, whereas here those who are dependent on electricity for warmth and cooking would quickly freeze


    The present lifetime of offshore wind turbines is 27 years. The present lifetime of nuclear plants now under construction is 60 years. We can all play the game of lets suppose either would operate indefinitely. You posted a figure recently on a wind + hydrogen strike price based on unshown back of an envelope calculation which actually showed that nuclear, not only being a fraction of the construction costs, would also be cheaper.



Advertisement